Återstår att se om Mugabe vill sitta kvar som president eller om han faktiskt planerar att kliva av mot att få titeln "Landsfader" på livstid. Jag skulle tippa att han även vill ha total amnesti om han kliver av vilket jag dock inte tror att han gör. Jag tror att det är mer troligt att Zimbabwe får en premiärminister vid namn Morgan Tsvangirai. Ekot från Kenya blir allt mer tydligt. Om en koalitionsregering i Zimbabwe kan få mer gjort än den i Kenya återstår att se. Enligt tidiningen Daily Nation är Morgan Tsvangirai i alla fall optimistisk. Skulle vara intressant att veta vad han säger "off the record".

Läs även mer om detta i SVD.

This is down to cutbacks on paper following a number of sanctions on Mugabe's regime which have limited the supply of European banknotes.

At a time when Zimbabweans are limited to daily withdrawals of just $100bn from their bank accounts, to put into some perspective less than half the cost of a loaf of bread.

What strikes me is why South Africa and the rest of the international community are not even highlighting, let alone taking steps to stabilize a horrendous inflation rate and ruined economy.

It strikes me why Gordon Brown, who prides himself on his "economic competence" as a former Chancellor of Exchequer has not spoken on this issue. They want to stabilise the Middle East and give there citizens the best quality of life, but why not do more to aid Zimbabweans.

After all they are a major source of trade to major supermarket giants for the essentials we eat.

In the space of a few days one British pound is now equivalent to over 80 million Zimbabwean dollars.

It is quite staggering to believe that bundles of notes reminiscent of the German 1920's hyperinflation is necessary to buy below an adequate meal.

This is obviously easier said than done, but I think that Mbeki is in no means able to mediate or drive forward any type of power sharing deal. While he is unable to control the growing violence in his own country, he is too incompetent to influence the gradual exit of Mugabe and allow those who care to start pouring some food into the hungry bellies of the Zimbabweans, jobs to the jobless and homes to the homeless.

Zimbabwean people are facing dire situations on a daily basis and this now must be STOPPED.

We think our 3.3% inflation is bad, well go and live in Zimbabwe.

Senior negotiators from Zimbabwe's main opposition MDC and the ruling ZANU-PF party began talks on Thursday and a report indicated they were close to reaching a deal on forming a unity government.

The talks were under way on Thursday, President Thabo Mbeki's spokesman Mukoni Ratshitanga said. Senior Movement for Democratic Change officials and two Zimbabwean cabinet ministers were leading the rival negotiating teams meeting at an undisclosed venue around the South African capital Pretoria.

Preliminary talks began on Tuesday after Mbeki secured a framework deal between President Robert Mugabe and MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai on Monday for talks to end the deadlock over Mugabe's re-election on June 27 in a poll boycotted by the opposition because of violence.

Ratshitanga said even if negotiators missed a two-week deadline set under the framework agreement, it did not mean the end of talks.

"It does not mean if the talks are not done in two weeks, that the talks will collapse," he said.

The main aim of the Pretoria talks will be the creation of a government of national unity, but the two sides differ on who should lead it and how long it should stay in power.

South African financial daily Business Day reported on Thursday that the two sides are close to reaching a deal but still need to iron out the final details.

Business Day, citing sources in both parties and people familiar with the talks, said a final settlement can be reached soon as the parties had already agreed on many issues.

"They have agreed on most of the issues, except mainly the framework for a new government. The deal is basically done, but what remains are a few issues of detail, implementation and logistics," Business Day quoted a source as saying.

Zimbabwean political analyst Eldred Masunungure said a breakthrough in talks was possible as the rival parties had been talking under mediation led by South African President Thabo Mbeki since March last year.

"A breakthrough is a reasonable possibility, even in two weeks. This is essentially the second phase of the SADC-mediated process, the first phase having started in March 2007," Masunungure said...

Click for more

This follows a corrupted, horrific presidential election which saw at least 120 of its supporters killed, about 5,000 abducted and 200,000 forced from their homes since the first round of the elections A historical meeting between the two men in over a decade and a shaking of hands for all to see would have been some cause for optimism.

To some extent, I find now myself feeling relatively skeptical about the nature of these talks. South African President Thabo Mbeki may claim to be the mediator who is bringing about a change in Zimbabwe now, but where was he during the violence which marred the first and second round of elections.

Moreover, Robert Mugabe may have a feeling in the back of his mind that he may have to agree to disagree to please the international and African community, but he is still the man in charge as President.

I think that the winner here is Tsvangirai.

Not only has he stood in the face of adversity to change Zimbabwe and stood up to the bully that is Mugabe he could now be a Prime Minister in a power sharing government. Despite being head of state, Mugabe's powers of responsibility will be reduced.

Mugabe is 84 years of age, while his opposition number is 28 years his senior at 56.

I am sure that he has a few years left in him, but what many forget is that Mugabe will not be around forever.

This would surely pave the way for Tsvangirai to become President. How long would a power sharing government last?

If this power sharing agreement is created, this will mark a historic political achievement for not only Zimbabweans but Africans.

However, on the side bar of my computer I have a currency exchange rate which reads that 1 British pound is equivalent to over 60m Zimbabwean dollars. This is sharply rising at unbelievable rates on a daily basis.

If these two leaders are serious about this, then affordable food and drink and employment need to be given to the people.

If steps cannot be taken to solve this, then I am sorry to say that it is goodnight Zimbabwe.

The New York Times just posted a story with a picture on its website of the historic meeting of Zimbabwean "President" Robert Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai earlier today in that country's capital, Harare. It was the first face-to-face meeting between the two for almost decade when Mugabe was forced to meet with Tsvangirai, then at the head of the country's trade union movement.  And it represents somewhat of a climb-down for Mugabe and his junta who had vowed to govern forever (a la Ian Smith) and whose only response to Mr Tsvangirai and his supporters since they first beat Mr Mugabe and ZANU-PF in a referendum in 2000 has been violence, murder and intimidation and outright electoral fraud. The reporter describes Mr Mugabe as "striking more measured tones than his frequent firebrand rhetoric." The two men met to sign a "preliminary agreement laying out terms for negotiations to wrest their land out of political chaos," according to the New York Times. Of course, South African President Thabo Mbeki (and what's left of his supporters and defenders) will claim that his policy of "quiet diplomacy" worked. That is if you don't count the eight years of state violence on the part of Mr Mugabe's regime. On that last point, the reaction of the army and police (who both act like the private army of the ruling ZANU-PF party) will be interesting. Which is why I wondered about the policemen's side eye aimed at Tsvangirai (in the picture above).  There's also the question of violence and the issue of Mr Mugabe's legitimacy: After Mr Tsvangirai won a March 29 presidential election, the Zimbabwean government held back the result for a month, said the opposition had not won by a large enough margin and called a new election. Having terrorized the opposition supporters to the point where Mr Tsvangirai felt compelled to withdraw at the last minute, Mr Mugabe went ahead and ran against himself and declared himself President for another 5 year term.   As the BBC reports, today's agreement "...document does not address the central issue of Mr Mugabe's future or go into the details of a possible power-sharing arrangement."  The Guardian also provides a Q and A on the terms of the agreement.

But let's enjoy the moment.

WARM WELCOME: President Thabo Mbeki is welcomed by Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe upon his arrival in Harare.

(Tsvangirayi Mukwazhi, AP)

... Just a question ...

... do they?

PS my spell checker wants to change Thabo Mbeki to Taboo Meek

I hate fondues. I don't like most people enough to talk with them, never mind share a communal cooking pot. I watch them chewing all over the food and cringe. I hope that the oil is hot enough to vaporize any foreign bodies spread by their saliva or dead skin flakes or crusty pieces of bogies. I stop eating in favour of not throwing up.

Worse than this is the accompanying conversation. It's hard to take anyone seriously who forgets about their piece of steak and acts all surprised when it emerges, charred, a few minutes on. And inevitably, as always after a pint of wine, someone starts to reminisce on the so-called good old days; those days when women were still housewives and blacks still treated like dirt.

Discrimination is implicit in all such memories. No wonder white men in particular are prone to recalling those merry old times when the world was still sane and a penny could buy a car.

Anyway, what's a weekend without Thabo-bashing?

Thabo Mbeki has gotten his very own pep squad. The MDC have now agreed to enter into talks with Robert Mugabe and his pep squad, the Zanu-PF, probably figuring that this is about as good as it's gonna get for them. At least there's a chance that Thabo's pep squad will keep his questionable preference for Robert and Robert's illegal government in check.

I'm starting to think alcohol is inevitable.

President Robert Mugabe, as well as opposition leader would sign the deal, said Haile Menkerios, the UN's envoy to Zimbabwe. And in order to witness the accord, Thabo Mbeki, South Africa’s president, is to fly to Harare, Zimbabwe’s capital.

The two sides are locked in a dispute over presidential elections, as they both claim to have won.

The deal comes on the day that a new banknote is issued, for 100bn Zimbabwe dollars, which is the latest sign of the country's economic meltdown. It is not quite enough to buy a loaf of bread and is worth less than US$1.

Though the agreement was due to be signed last week, Mr Tsvangirai pulled out. In the initial presidential poll, the opposition leader won more votes, but election officials said there was no outright winner, and called for a run-off.

It was won by Mr Mugabe, but he was the only candidate, because Mr Tsvangirai withdrew. The government has been accused by the opposition leader of mounting a campaign of violence against his supporters.

"The signing will take place this afternoon", Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa told the AFP news agency.

Officials from the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) also said that they expect the agreement to be signed on Monday.

Power-sharing

But the opposition insists that the signing ceremony is not held at State House and should be low-key, says the BBC’s Jonah Fisher, in Johannesburg. It is due to be held in a five-star Harare hotel.

BBC’s correspondent adds that though some see a power-sharing arrangement as the only way out of Zimbabwe’s political and economical crisis, which is merely the starting point for substantive talks, the five-page agreement to be signed does not go into the details of such a possibility.

The central issue of Robert Mugabe’s future is not mentioned by the document.

He insists that he must be recognised as the country’s president, but the MDC refuses it, and accuses him of using violence to ensure his victory in the run-off.

The MDC wants some kind of "transitional authority" to organise new, internationally-monitored elections.

Although the deal is being seen as an important step forward, it is only the first step of a difficult process.

BBC’s correspondent adds that it was crucial in persuading the MDC to agree to talk that the South African mediation efforts were joined by the African Union (AU) and the United Nations.

Thabo Mbeki is accused by the MDC of being biased in favour of Mr Mugabe, and Mr Tsvangirai had asked for another envoy to replace him.

‘Democratise our society’

It was announced on Friday, that Mr Mbeki would be helped by a group of senior diplomats, drawn from the UN, AU and the Southern African Development Community (Sadc).

Mr Menkerios (photo, from un.org) was one of those. He said he believed the two men had agreed a draft memorandum of understanding, setting out the terms under which they could enter direct negotiations. He also said that both men would have to sign the document to "clear the way" for talks.

But several conditions still have to be met before the MDC starts substantive talks with Mr Mugabe.

The BBC was tolds by George Sibotshiwe, party spokesman, that future talks would remain conditional on a complete cessation of violence and the release of all political prisoners.

"We want a government that creates a platform for us to democratise our society, in order for us to have a genuinely free and fair election", he said.

Since the first round of the election, in a campaign of violence by pro-Mugabe militias and the army, at least a 120 of the MDC supporters have been killed, about 5 000 abducted and 200 000 forced from their homes, said the party.

But the charges have been denied by cabinet ministers and military officials.

Attempts to bring sanctions in against the Mugabe regime failed recently at the United Nations, with Russia and China using their Security Council vetoes, claiming the situation in Zimbabwe did not threaten international stability. South Africa also opposed the motion saying the sanctions would interfere with their attempts to bring about a national unity government. South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki also claimed the sanctions could provoke a civil war. Burkina Faso’s ambassador, Michel Kafando, who voted for the motion said, “As a means of exerting pressure, it could help”. Both Britain and the United States, who put forward the motion, were disappointed China followed Russia’s move to veto the sanctions, with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband saying “it will appear incomprehensible to the people of Zimbabwe”.

The sanctions proposed were not aimed at the people, but against Mugabe and 13 of his closest associates, freezing their assets and restricting their ability to travel abroad. An arms embargo was also to be put in place.

I’ve never been a fan of sanctions, as it does always seems to be the civilians who suffer, whilst the penalised country’s elite still retains their extravagances. This was particularly the case in Iraq during the 90's. Their effectiveness is also questionable. However the President of Liberia, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf believes sanctions “send a strong message about the disagreement against those things causing a country and its people to suffer”, namely the violence used by Mugabe to intimidate the opposition in order to stay in power. Johnson-Sirleaf, who is the first elected female president on the continent and a staunch critic of Mugabe says sanctions were effectively used against her own country to end a 14-year civil war that ended in 2003 and killed 250,000 people, and believed they are appropriate in this case as well. Isolating South Africa was also pivotal in bringing apartheid to an end.

Aside from the fact that the sanctions often punish civilians not the elite, and that often they are not at all effective, sanctions are also problematic as they are hard to implement. Because of the nature of the global economy, the entire world needs to be involved in order for the sanctions to be effective. Thomas Cargill, of the London-based think tank Chatham House, says, “The appetite for international sanctions has decreased massively in the last 10 or 15 years because it's seen as much more difficult to enforce”.

In many examples worldwide, Western countries have placed restrictions on a rogue states economy, only for China or Russia to fill the void. During the Cold War Russia kept Cuba from the worst effects of US sanctions. Additionally, multi-nationals can largely bypass such measures. In respect to Zimbabwe, despite many countries already having placed sanctions on the country, multi-national corporate giants still do business with the state, including Royal Dutch Shell, British American Tobacco, and the Anglo American Corporation, and are turning large profits despite the suffering of the people.

Even if sanctions can be implemented, involving the entire world’s countries and corporations, can we be confident that such a move would hurt Mugabe or just cause further pain for Zimbabwe’s suffering millions?

Part Five: Invasion: Time to send in the troops?

            In the hours before the African Union summit, on June 29^th in Sharm El Sheikh, Levy Mwanawasa, the serving president of Zambia was rushed to hospital following a stroke. He was later moved to a hospital in Paris to be observed by doctors there, following emergency surgery in Egypt. In recent months Mr. Mwanawasa has become one of Zimbabwe’s sharpest but regrettably few African critics. As chair of the regional development community SADC, he was in a unique position to bring considerable weight to the table in pushing for a democratic resolution to a crisis that many regional leaders seemed to have ignored. This is why his incapacitation all the more damaging to the few such as Jacob Zuma, F.W. de Klerk, Raila Odinga and Mompati Merafhe, who wish to displace Robert Mugabe and relieve the long suffering Zimbabwe. The individual circumstances of these regional statesmen mean that they cannot effect the change that Mr. Mwanawasa has the power to do.

            Jacob Zuma is the leader of the ruling ANC party in South Africa. He recently won the leadership contest against sitting president Thabo Mbeki and will contest the presidency for the ANC in the next election. However, in his current position Mr. Zuma has been frustrated in his calls for more urgent and tangible action over Zimbabwe by the foot-dragging of Mr. Mbeki. President Mbeki, who was given a mandate by SADC to mediate between President Mugabe’s Zanu-PF and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), has obstinately denied the failure of his ‘quiet diplomacy’, which in recent months has comprised a friendly and pandering attitude to Mr. Mugabe and has caused the MDC to “lose faith” in Mr. Mbeki’s impartiality and request a full time mediator. Mr. Mbeki, demonstrating his marginal attitude towards Zimbabwe claimed in march that there was “no crisis” in Zimbabwe. This dichotomy of attitudes between Mr. Mbeki and Mr. Zuma has presented the latter with a problem. Although Jacob Zuma is leader of the ANC, he is not leader of his country and consequently does not have the international influence of Mr. Mbeki. Mr. Mbeki is also freed from the ‘onus’ of having to answer to the electorate, being both constitutionally barred from a third term as president and beaten to the position of ANC leader by Mr. Zuma last year. Therefore he has seen fit to follow his own path, ignoring the opinion of the ANC and Mr. Zuma. Because of this situation Mr. Zuma is unable to pressure Mr. Mugabe and his statements on the Zimbabwean crisis such as “riding roughshod over democracy”, whilst prescient and welcomed by the international community are largely empty in Robert Mugabe’s eyes due to the support of President Mbeki.

            F.W. de Klerk, a former president of South Africa has suffered from a similar problem. Despite being a respected elder statesman at home and abroad for helping to end apartheid South Africa and in his involvement with politics in later years, he, at present, has no political office and is largely in retirement from public life. In an interview recently with the BBC Mr. de Klerk called for “change” both on South Africa’s policy towards Mr. Mugabe and “change from within Zanu-PF itself”. He suggested the most likely course to resolution would involve the “moderates” from the ruling party dislodging the old guard. He was also critical, yet cautiously so, of Thabo Mbeki’s “quiet diplomacy”. He felt that this had proved of no avail and tougher action was needed, although what this constituted remained unspecified. Ironically it appears that Mr. de Klerk believes that the time for negotiation has passed. Regardless of this, Mr. de Klerk’s lack of public office seriously debilitates his influence on events in Zimbabwe.

            Mr. Merafhe, Vice-President of Botswana has taken a particularly strong line against Zimbabwe, calling for Zimbabwe’s exclusion from both the AU and SADC. This again bucks the trend of silence from African leaders on the transgressions of their peers. It also reflects the position of Botswana’s government, which has publically criticised Mr. Mugabe’s election as of “doubtful” legitimacy. At the AU meeting in Sharm El Sheikh, Mr. Merafhe was perhaps the most strident and comprehensive critic of Mr. Mugabe’s return to power. However, the muted statement emerging from the meeting suggests that this was not enough to influence Mr. Mugabe’s stance. It is clear that Mr. Merafhe was representing a minority in that meeting.

            One who would have supported him and Botswana’s position is Mr. Odinga, Prime Minister of Kenya. Raila Odinga wants Zimbabwe to be suspended from the AU, a powerful message to send to Mr. Mugabe. This would be harmful simply due to its difference from the conventional reticence of African leaders from involving themselves in each others’ affairs. However, President Kibaki of Kenya had in January won an election by false means. Tactics such as vote rigging, ballot stuffing and widespread mob violence, traits of the Mugabe regime, were used in Kenya to secure a victory for Mr. Kibaki. The President of Kenya therefore would be loath to support any movement to dislodge a fellow false President. This has resulted in mixed messages emerging from Kenya, diluting the influence Mr. Odinga might have of effecting the Zimbabwe situation and in building an African consensus against Mr. Mugabe.

            It is clear that for those who had the opportunity to denounce Mr. Mugabe at the AU meeting in Egypt and try to reach a democratic resolution, they were too few and far between; Mr. Merafhe’s main obstacle. Some, such as Mr Odinga, lacked the necessary weight and authority, due to Kenya’s divided position. Had Mr. Mwanawasa been there, the story may have been different. Being the head of state for his country, not only could he determine its policy towards Zimbabwe as he had done, but he also would have had the authority conferred upon the highest statesmen. His contribution to the arguments of Mr. Merafhe and Mr. Odinga could have made a difference to the outcome of the toothless public statement produced by the AU, which called for Mr. Mbeki to continue his efforts.

       The real outcome reflects the deficit of principles in Africa’s politicians. That of 53 states, the statesmen of only a handful stood up to Mr. Mugabe. Furthermore, the absence of one made the difference between genuine diplomatic pressure and regional laissez-faire. Africa’s leaders truly are a gaggle of despots and dictators, with only a brave few attempting to atone for the continent’s surplus of sin.

 
I often disagree with Thomas Friedman, but his column in Wednesday's NYTimes is fantastic.  Using the Security Council vote on Zimbabwe as an example, he points out that a world with a weaker America may not be the place that many countries think it will be.

Polls tell us how China is now more popular in Asia than America and how few Europeans say they identify with the United States.  I am sure there is truth to these polls....  But America is not and never has been just about those things, which is why I also find some of these poll results self-indulgent, knee-jerk and borderline silly. Friday’s vote at the U.N. on Zimbabwe reminded me why.  Maybe Asians, Europeans, Latin Americans and Africans don’t like a world of too much American power — “Mr. Big” got a little too big for them.  But how would they like a world of too little American power?

Not very much, Friedman claims.  And I think he's right.  Afterall what are the alternative powers?

Russia, though nowhere near its USSR strength, is still the world's largest single nation geographically.  It has significant influence throughout the world: it has a large economy, large natural resource reserves, a permanent Security Council seat, and a massive military.

China is the worlds largest nation (population).  Though still run by the Communist Party, it is essentially a capitalist nation run by an authoritarian single party.  It's massive population, military, and economy give it major influence in world affairs.  China also has a permanent seat on the Security Council.  China's power is growing at a significant rate.

Both nations vetoed the U.S. resolution to impose sanctions against Zimbabwe.  The United States has been working to help the people of Zimbabwe after Robert Mugabe blatantly stole the most recent election.  The country is falling apart and desperately needs help.  China and Russia would rather protect Mugabe, and let him continue to destroy his country, than help the people of Zimbabwe.

There is also the issue of South Africa.  President Thabo Mbeki has strong influence in the region could likely help resolve the problem in Zimbabwe.  But he has steadfastly stood by Robert Mugabe.

If those are the countries that people around the world look up to and respect, they may want to consider what a world where Russia and China are dominant would look like.  As for me, I'm proud that my country is still leading the way for freedom and democracy.  We have little to no strategic or economic interests in Zimbabwe.  But we're trying to help, because all people deserve freedom.

Friedman sums up:

Which brings me back to America. Perfect we are not, but America still has some moral backbone. There are travesties we will not tolerate. The U.N. vote on Zimbabwe demonstrates that this is not true for these “popular” countries — called Russia or China or South Africa — that have no problem siding with a man who is pulverizing his own people.

So, yes, we’re not so popular in Europe and Asia anymore. I guess they would prefer a world in which America was weaker, where leaders with the values of Vladimir Putin and Thabo Mbeki had a greater say, and where the desperate voices for change in Zimbabwe would, well, just shut up.

It was announced that Zimbabwe’s inflation has risen to 2.2 million. It appears as though things are getting worse everyday. The U.S is still pushing to place sanctions on Zimbabwe despite blocks from Russia and China at the UN. I believe the sanctions will hurt the Zimbabwean people more than it will hurt Mugabe. He will still enjoy his luxuries.

It appears as though Mugabe is immune to the world’s criticism. They criticize him and he responds by calling them names and tell them “to go hang” what can we do with him? The only hope is he is growing old and his time will soon run out.  The most annoying issue in the whole Zimbabwe debacle is South African president Thabo Mbaeki. I do not see him doing much. He is always seen patting or hugging Mugabe. Isn’t South Africa meant to be a regional leader and do something? I believe South Africa gains from the demise of Zimbabwe. The more Zimbabwe crashes, the more the South African economy booms.

Definitely not an arthouse classic and unlikely to break box office records, THABO MBEKI AND THE WESTERN PRESSURE is still an excellent spoof flick that deals harshly with the shenanigans of international politics.

An African dictator, Mugabe, rigs his devastated country's elections in a hilariously thinly disguised attempt to keep his position as president. In the chaos that ensues, international powers call for extreme sanctions against the dictator-run country and its top officials in an attempt to stifle Mugabe.

Now we're introduced to Thabo Mbeki (best known for his part in The Scorpion King). He plays the precarious South African president who is bombarded with criticism after blocking the sanctions. As the situation escalates and violence threatens to erupt en masse, what will Thabo Mbeki do? Will his credibility and reputation survive? Or will he opt to run off into the sunset with Mugabe?

Mrs Zuma's rating out of five (one being atrocious and five delightfully wonderful): One and a half. The half is for Gordon Brown's hotness, phwoar baby.

Click here to read the Telegraph's report and here for the BBC's.

Really? Has anyone checked?

And I've been thinking. You know what has great gameshow potential? Guessing where President Thabo Mbeki is. Screw the national lottery.

So apparently the Mail&Guardian reckon Jacob and a cacophony of powerful people are plotting on how to make all this arms deal nonsense disappear. And of course everyone is “up in arms” [hurhurhur] about it. Drama queens. Like you wouldn't do the same if you could, I don't know why people are so judgmental.

And speaking of judge-mental [hurhurhur], the aforementioned conspirators for Jacob Zuma (hard to keep up isn't it) are apparently going to use the Judge John Hlope business to assfuck the prosecution. That's something to look forward to. Who knew the ANC was so thoroughly and delightfully gay?

Cos let's face it, the only difference between Morgan the ousted rightful leader of Zim and Morgan the Prime Minister is the title. Morgan'll still be hiding in embassies all day. Oh, I'm sorry, that's right: not hiding, seeking refuge.

Potato patato.

I feel sorry for Morgan, I really do. If they're not beating him up they're trying to appoint him as president. I'd rather take the beating than try and clean up the mess that is Zimbabwe. For enterprising minds the clever thing would be to altogether deny the existence of a country allegedly named “Zimbabwe”. Zimbabwe, what's that? Near South Africa you say? A country? Really? Are you sure? No, no, don't know of the place. We colonized it? No. No I'm quite sure we didn't. What about the blank spot on the map then, you ask? That's obviously just vicious African jungle, dear. Let's have some tea and watch East Enders.

This is an excellent tactic. Entire genocides have been successfully ignored in this way. It also works well on those annoying little humanitarian issues that surround the pursuit of power. Wars etc. You know, the usual.

Hey! I found someone I hate more than Robert. One of his spokespersons (I'm not sure what his official position within the dictatorship is but I suspect it has something to do with gravy and trains), so kaalkop ou met brilletjies. Every time I see that smug leer of his I want to stick a dildo down his throat and shout SLUT PUPPY!! <wistful sigh>

So, Thabo, what was that you were saying about a “Zimbabwe”? Oh, it's your pet marmoset you say? How lovely.

Dude goes down for more than the prosecuting authorities originally asked for!

The sentence is longer than expected. During the trial, José Olo Obano, Equatorial Guinea's attorney general, urged the court to sentence Mann to 31 years, eight months and three days. The death penalty was not permitted under the terms of Mann's extradition from Zimbabwe. It was suggested last month that Mann may be released before completing any sentence.

Others in the trial earned smaller sentences: Lebanese businessman Mohamed Salaam got 18 years, while four Equatorial Guineans (not considered worthy in the Western press of having their names published) have gone down for six years, another for one, with a sixth being acquitted.

Oh, and in addition to his thirty-four summers...

Mann was ordered to pay a fine and compensation to the Equatorial Guinea state totalling around $24m (£12.1m). Mangue said in the ruling that Mann failed to show "an attitude of regret", despite his apology before the court.

Stroll on Scratcher and Smelly!

Most countries have some sort of plan in place when it comes to the influenza. You may have heard of those, Thabo: they're called national strategies, and they're pretty awesome because when the shit hitteth the fan, as it will eventually, then you can safely scream and run for cover because people in power will have at least a vague idea of what to do. And they'll be getting on with what they're supposed to be getting on with, ie trying to prevent the death of millions, because they won't have to organize emergency conferences on whether or not the Avian Flu is behind this contagious illness that's mysteriously killing people by the dozens.

In hindsight, Thabo-dear, it might've been nice if we'd had one of those national strategies for HIV/Aids instead of an alcoholic slash pseudo-New Age herbal fundi Minister of Health and the popular but vague idea that HIV/Aids are somehow an evil conspiracy courtesy of the West. I'm sure the presidential contract says that somewhere. It might run something like “Don't let your citizens die off, who's going to vote you in for your second term?”

One of my favourite people is ook bietjie gatvol vir die ANC.

I've always liked Ms de Lille. I once saw her on a (long since defunct) late-night talkshow on one of the SABCs. The host produced a cardboard cutout of Tony Leon's face. Patricia told the cutout that he's like a dog yapping after a car. It was beautiful.

More recently she's had quite a bit to say about the ANC and their shenanigans with the courts et cetera. Predictably nothing pleasant: “For the past few weeks, Cosatu, the ANCYL and now the ANC itself have launched scathing attacks on the judiciary and our Chapter Nine institutions.” She also accused the ANC of putting their own interests ahead of democracy.

Mooi so Patty.

It would be cathartic to enter into a three-paragraph whinge about this monstrosity that is the mother of all conspiracy theories, but alas, it's irrelevant. If you haven't figured out that they are out to get you by now, bly dan maar eerder in jou grot my kind, the woes of this world are too heavy a burden for your innocent soul.

UK

Boris is coming under fire over Ray Lewis, his just-resigned deputy.

It’s really a key blow for him.

Hospital workers are being given stab-vests.

The government is asking supermarkets to stockpile food in case a petrol crisis causes a rush.

Senior CofE figures have met over the internal problems facing the organisation.

A 14-year old girl from Britain has won the junior title at Wimbledon.

Brown and King will decide how bad the UK economy gets.

Cameron needs to end his incoherence.

US

Obama has been rallying supporters in Missouri.

He wrote this week to clear up his position regarding FISA.

One of his surrogates, General Wesley Clark, is looking to put this week’s incident behind him but is not apologising.

Much is being written about Obama's move towards the centre.

Frank Rich argues that neither candidate has the longing for change portrayed by Wall-E.

The Democrats are attacking the GOP on Medicare cuts.

Is a war room actually a room?

Bill Clinton could save his legacy is he moves quickly.

Excellent article about the covert operations being undertaken by the Bush administration in Iran.

World

Iraqis have driven out Al-Qaeda from the Northern region of the country.

An ancient tomb has been discovered in Peru.

Thabo Mbeki has finally got off his arse has is talking to Mugabe and MDC reps.

Shell is preparing to quit the country.

Even if one could find a country prepared to invade Zimbabwe, such a war would probably cause Mugabe's bloodstained security forces (estimated to number 100,000) to butcher unarmed opposition politicians and their defenseless supporters and cause several million to flee to neighboring countries. It would also exacerbate the suspicions between countries in the north and those in the south, making it even more likely that developing countries will dig in their heels in support of human rights abusers in Zimbabwe and beyond.

The solution to restoring peace and stability in Zimbabwe lies with the world's leaders. Power calls on African, and global leaders, to stand up and vocally support Zimbabwe's first election winner Morgan Tsvangirai.

Those African and Western leaders who claim to be disgusted with Mugabe should announce that they bilaterally recognize the validity of the March 29 first-round election results, which showed the opposition winning 48% to 43% though the margin was almost surely larger.

Once Mugabe's friends are exposed and forced into the open (ie. Thabo Mbeki) then the world will be able to demand change and actively criticize all governments responsible for the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe's fate lies in allowing Morgan Tsvangirai to assume a role in shaping Zimbabwe's future as President.

Non-profit Avaaz has an online petition urging world leaders to not recognize Mugabe as the President of Zimbabwe. You can urge your nation's leader to denounce Mugabe here.

]]> http://thecynicaloptimist.wordpress.com/?p=96 Sat, 05 Jul 2008 19:10:06 +0000 thecynicaloptimist http://thecynicaloptimist.wordpress.com/?p=96 I've been reluctant to write any posts on Zimbabwe as there's not much that's left to be said. I feel, defeated. The elections were a global sham so no one can say that they didn't hear about what was happening. But despite the high level of awareness, in the days following President Mugabe's re-election into a sixth term, all I've read about are threats of increased sanctions, verbal criticism of the elections by a few and from the majority of the world's leaders there's been a complete indifference or feigned ignorance to what happened.

I read an excellent article that detailed the recent opening of the African Union in Egypt, and the author basically wrote that many African leaders are unable to say anything critical of Mugabe because of their own internal political problems. I can think of 5 nations out of the 53 or so on the continent of Africa that are in any position to be critical of the economic, political and social problems that are happening in Zimbabwe (ex. Botswana, and perhaps Cape Verde?).

That's not to say that any country, anywhere in the world, is perfect. But the countries on the continent of Africa are so far from trying to be stable and prosperous that it's sickening. The issue of African leadership is so grave. Africa is the poorest continent but also the most abundant in natural resources, the problem? Explicit corruption. Very few African leaders are truly willing to work for the benefit of their nation, versus the empowerment of their family or tribe.

Take as examples nations like South Africa, Kenya, or even Senegal which according to a recent New York Times article was one of West Africa's shining stars but many speculate that President Abdoulaye Wade is "grooming his son" Karim to be his successor. These nations were viewed as stable, prosperous, and democratic African nations. Poor leadership is cracking the foundation of these and many other African countries.

On the subject of the Zimbabwe election crisis, Rwandan President Paul Kagame had this to say:

We are not short of what people think about [the crisis in Zimbabwe]. What we are short of is people [to] actually resolve the problem[...]

The African Union was set-up so that African nations could discuss the many serious problems occouring on the continent and resolve them. It shouldn't be necessary for outside international mediators and election monitors to come into a sovereign nation and make sure that citizens are respected and safe. But it absolutely is. Kagame's quote should not be directed at diplomats, peace-makers or even idealists, but the leaders of Africa themselves. The 53 leaders comprising the AU can't adequately resolve the grave problems ie. human rights abuses that occur on the continent. 53 leaders are debating weather or not to condemn Zimbabwe's election. Kagame is very right, Africa is short on leaders.

Reviewed by Leon Muston, Arts Editor

IT'S great when a creative work like this can not only get across the senseless of the murder of a great South African leader, but can also make it entertaining for the audience.

This drama, which played to a sold out audience on its opening night yesterday, looks at the last 10 years of Steve Biko's life.

The opening and concluding scenes both show Biko's (Masoja Msiza) murder at the hands of security police officer Sergeant Hattingh (David Dukas) on September 12, 1977.

But then we go back to 1968, to see Biko's rise to importance as a student leader, at the point when he opted to break away from the multi-racial National Union of South African Students to form the all-black South African Students Organisation (SASO).

This scene not only shows Biko's skill as an orator, but also his sense of humour. And when the other activists leave the room, his softer side as well, as he tries to seduce fellow student Mamphela Ramphele (Boitumelo Mothabela).

His attempts fail dismally, particularly when he tries to use his political rhetoric as pick-up lines, telling her that her legs should be an open democracy, to which she replies by crossing her legs and says she prefers centralised power.

Biko's skill as a political leader is further demonstrated during a powerful and moving speech as he is elected president of SASO in 1968, and in the next scene when he enters into a debate with his lifelong friend Barney Pityana (Patrick Bokaba) in 1970.

But Biko isn't only portrayed in a positive light. Writer and director Martin Koboekae has chosen to portray him as a rounded human being with faults as well as good qualities, focusing on his excessive drinking and cheating on his wife.

He also allows the production to move beyond the historical to comment on the present, when Biko and Pityana debate what a post-apartheid South Africa would be like. Their comments on personality-driven power struggles within a ruling black elite appears a thinly-veiled attack on the current situation in the ANC between Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma.

After the brutal final scene in which a beaten and bloodied Biko breathes his final breathe, the audience rose as one to applaud a brilliant piece of theatre, which deserves more than its three day run at the Festival and to go on to tour South Africa and hopefully, internationally.

 You may remember the programmes we did: from Sandton, the Kaiser Chiefs, the Zim border, Ladysmith at a white-owned farm, and the excellent Zula Bar in Capetown.

We were in partnership with SAFM, as i said, and apart from their editors not answering e-mails, the negotiations before we got there were going well. We would do a week of two hour shows, the first hour to the rest of the world, the second hour to Africa, and more importantly, to the whole of South Africa on SAFM.

It was only when our team arrived in Jo'Burg that the problems began. Firstly, it had dawned on them the implications of our having editorial control. This was obviously a problem not only to them, but to the ANC, who clearly run the place. The BBC's Editorial Guidelines are clear on impartiality , fairness and balance so there should be no problem ? Wrong. 

One of our team had been in negotiations with Thabo Mbeki's people about his appearing on our "political" show in Sandton. Once it was apparent that we were in charge, that interview was dropped and indeed the ANC then pulled out all their guests. SAFM said, that being the case, they couldn't broadcast the programme.

I explained during some terse editorial conference calls, that in Britain, the ruling party would not be allowed to derail our programme by pulling out. We would, in journalistic parlance ,"empty chair" them - that is, put forward their position but explain why they weren't taking part. Every other shade of opinion would be represented in that room (having all been given the same notice to appear, and all been told who else had been invited) except the ANC.

SAFM weren't having that, so i explained we'd do the programme anyway and it was up to them whether they took it or not. In the end, hey presto, two senior ANC officials did take part, they both considered the programme to be responsibly handled , both shook my hand warmly afterwards and one of them specifically invited us back.  

After our show on the Monday, (on the Zim border at a truckstop) our SAFM co-presenter was, apparently, phoned several times by ANC officials to make sure he "corrected" things that were said on the programme. As you know, Thabo Mbeki's attitude towards Robert Mugabe is a sensitive issue (to say the least )- and clearly hearing on our programme Zimbabweans critical of the SA government was something the ANC thought police was a step too far.

On the Thursday we were in Ladysmith - at a white-owned farm going through the process of selling up to a collective of their (black) farm workers. The reason we were there was to discuss the issue of land reform - again, like almost everything in South Africa, a sensitive issue. Our SAFM team (with 2 excellent producers) had never been on a farm like it before. We did the programme in their front room (by candlelight for some of it owing to yet another power cut), with the owners and their friends at one end of the room, the workers at the other (we didn't sit them like it, they chose to sit like that). It was an atmospheric programme but our SAFM host didn't like what he was hearing. At the end of the first hour of the programme and just before the hour that was going to be heard across South Africa, he had a "migraine" and had to retire to his car where he was last seen on the phone. No prizes for guessing who he was talking to.

One more day to go and we're in Cape Town at the Zula Bar - looking at broadly, the future of the "rainbow nation". Again, i get a phone call asking me to attend a conference call to discuss the "editorial direction" of the programme. Again, i pointed out that the WHYS audience would decide what and how we talked about things, under the guidance of the BBC's rigorous editorial procedures.

 I then had to persuade our SAFM presenter to take part . He was upset that i , as the editor, was telling him what to do, which is sort of my job.

The programme went well and after the show, the SAFM host disappeared without saying goodbye, while the two producers (a joy to work with) surreptitiously and quietly said goodbye to all of us, thanked us, and talked about how much they'd enjoyed the experience, and had learnt a lot.

The programmes ended up being fair and balanced ; not one guest complained about misrepresentation or bias. On the contrary, similar to our ANC guests, they loved the experience and wanted us to come back again.

The frostiness of our "partners" contrasted spectacularly with the incredible and generous hospitality we received from the Kaiser Chiefs, the people at the truck stop , the farm and the bar who were ,to a man and woman, helpful and delighted to get a chance to tell their stories.

A WHYS team will be in South Africa the week after next and will of course do a professional, thorough, fair and balanced job but this time, we won't be working with the national broadcaster and i guess both sides will be happy about that....