Enough of the quiet diplomacy on Zimbabwe

Thu, 06/12/2008 - 10:22am

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?

Carolyn O'Hara | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

Comments by Bush...

by DOR on Thu, 06/12/2008 - 9:54am

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.

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

by Cindy on Thu, 06/12/2008 - 10:16pm

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.

Unfortunately

by Lure D. Lou on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 7:53am

Bush has the credibilty of a warthog and I agree that it would fuel Mugabe's anti-colonialist paranoia. Better that Ban Ki-Moon, Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela speak out...and hopefully African leaders like Musaveni, Kagame and Sirleaf. What I don't understand is why they go through with the charade of having a Presidential election at all...they should just let the old goat stay in his stall and work at the grassroots level to effect change in the communities and districts....rattling the old fool's cage will only cause him to lash out but it won't change his orientation towards demagoguery.