Enough of the quiet diplomacy on Zimbabwe

Posted By Carolyn O'Hara Thursday, June 12, 2008 - 11:22 AM Share


ALESSANDRO DI MEO/POOL/AFP/Getty Images

Incredibly, the situation is Zimbabwe grows ever more outrageous. There is simply no doubt that the runoff election on June 27 is going to be stolen by Mugabe's thugs. Opposition rallies have been banned. Aid organizations have been shuttered and diplomats detained. In a country on the brink of famine, authorities yesterday confiscated food aid earmarked for starving children and doled it out to Mugabe's supporters instead. Jails are being emptied to make room for opposition troublemakers -- anything to intimidate people away from polls (as if top generals weren't already doing a fine job of that). Abductions, beatings, and torture are commonplace since opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai bested President Mugabe at the polls in March.

But where are the outraged public statements? Hitchens is right: A denunciation from Mandela would boom in this enviroment, as would the pope's. (Good to see Desmond Tutu calling Mugabe's regime a "nightmare" yesterday.) South Africa's Mbeki has shown himself spineless in denouncing Mugabe's actions, and this recent statement by President Bush is simply not going to cut it. The polite applause Mugabe earned on his recent trip to Rome was just too much.

What's Bush got to lose? He should be out there every day condemning the brutalization of Zimbabwe's opposition and the inevitability that the country simply won't get anything approaching a free and fair election on June 27. What's preventing him -- or anyone else in a position of power -- from doing more than just throwing stern glances in Mugabe's direction?

EXPLORE:AFRICA, DIPLOMACY, ELECTIONS
 

DOR

10:54 AM ET

June 12, 2008

Comments by Bush...

would only give Mugabe more fodder for his campaign speeches. He's capitalized on every U.S. and UK statement against his administration as "white imperialist" interference and justification for his continued rule and protection of Zimbabwe. However, yes, more forceful statements from African leaders would have a much more significant impact. But can Zimbabwe cope with more instability? Institutions have been weakened, society is crumbling. Any major change (i.e. a Tsvangirai victory) could trigger a violent showdown. For the sake of peace, perhaps some sort of transitional period is necessary. However unpalatable, perhaps Mugabe needs to stay in power, while some of his henchman are nudged out and guaranteed safety and the presidency is stripped of some of its power, if only to prevent major bloodshed and an even larger exodus to surrounding countries already struggling with their own difficulties.

 

CINDY

11:16 PM ET

June 12, 2008

Mugabe must go, SADC must be the ones to make it happen...

This is such an obvious no brainer, with Mugabe there can be no transition. Every possible pressure must be put on S. Africa's Mbeki who is largely responsible for the impotence of the SADC here.

 

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.

Read More