Should there be Commonwealth intervention in Zimbabwe?

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

1.Should the nations that make up the Commonwealth intervene in the current situation in Zimbabwe?.

2. What form should any intervention take,

3. What country should lead it.

Any links to information would be appreciated.

[Roger Rabbit]

Anyone looking for any infomation on what the Commonwealth is should look here http://www.thecommonwealth.org

1)Yes

2)I can't see that the Commonwealth currently has the ability to take any form of co-ordinated military action against Mugabe.However i would very much like to see the Commonwealth work together in removing Mugabe through either political or military means. I don't believe any kind of economic sanctions will hurt Mugabe and would probably cause more suffering to the people of Zimbabwe.

3)Personally i would like the United Kingdom to lead as Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of the Commonwealth, but realistically speaking then it should be a collective effort with the country that is commiting the most resources/manpower should lead.

[ronin2172]

i agree with roger on all points...the situation in Zimbabwe is becoming intolerable..Mugabe needs to be removed...i guess the question on british involvement would be how much military forces can they send? They are already stretched thin, and if they cannot send a large number of troops maybe another commonwealth member could take more of a leading role, Canada, New Zealand, the Aussies perhaps?

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

In a perfect world everyone would drop everything to help, but alas this isnt the perfect world. Many of the Commonwealth countries are already engaged in military/peace keeping operations around the world. It would be nice to send soldiers to help out, unfortuneatly it doesnt look like it will happen. Best thing would be to have neighboring countries step up to the plate and turn the country in the right direction (I'm not holding my breath for this one)

[usa320]

I think the UN needs to take a close look at Africa as a whole. Its rampant with corruption, civil war, drugs, war crimes, smuggling of arms and other valuables, human rights abuses, poverty, disease, terrorism, ect.

I think the US should be willing to expand the efforts of JTFHOA and increase the number of troops and aid going to Africa.

I think we definately need to fix sudan and Somalia (everyone knew in 93 we would have to go back to fix what clinton lacked the balls to do). Liberia seems to be stable for the moment but could still use some more help. Terror networks seem to be expanding in Sudan, Somalia and Ethiopia, and there has been evidence emerging that links Liberia's Charles Taylor to an Al Qaeda money scheme. Perhaps part of the reason the US arranged for his exile...

[cut]

1.Should the nations that make up the Commonwealth intervene in the current situation in Zimbabwe?.

2. What form should any intervention take,

3. What country should lead it.

Any links to information would be appreciated.


1. I don't think the commonwealth has a right to intervene anywhere because african country especially can just say it is the action of the british empire, I think it would ahve to be an action of the UN

2. any form of intervention should be to decapitate the regime.. namely mugabe.. too long in power...power corrupts, his people are suffering they will understand. The only reason we havn't done anyhting about it yet is because of iraq in other words the presidential elction timetable. I think that Bush could have been voted in for a second term if he hadn't gto war with irak straight away and had dealt with zimbabwe instead... but he was determined to deal with iraq first... ok, but it won't get him re-elected

[b.scheller]

no, their is no need for the commonwealth to get involved. the commonwealth is no longer obliged to do anything militarily, the whole pact is mainly for economic trade and sporting events... :lol: Point and case is the Falklands, the rest of the commonwealth did not get involved; and thank God for that.

I am merely speaking from historical past, but joint-commonwealth operations do not usually go well. The British are very demanding of their commonwealth members, I rather not get involved in anything that might lead for the Canadians to be under foreign command.

anyway, i dont think the events of Somalia have to be repeated.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

b.scheller wrote,

Point and case is the Falklands, the rest of the commonwealth did not get involved; and thank God for that.


I'd check your facts on that statement if I were you.


I am merely speaking from historical past, but joint-commonwealth operations do not usually go well. The British are very demanding of their commonwealth members,

Do you have any facts to back those statements up?.

cut wrote,

1. I don't think the commonwealth has a right to intervene anywhere because african country especially can just say it is the action of the british empire, I think it would ahve to be an action of the UN

Except that the UN has a very poor track record when it comes to interventions.

roger rabbit wrote,

2)I can't see that the Commonwealth currently has the ability to take any form of co-ordinated military action against Mugabe.However i would very much like to see the Commonwealth work together in removing Mugabe through either political or military means. I don't believe any kind of economic sanctions will hurt Mugabe and would probably cause more suffering to the people of Zimbabwe.

I agree with you roger, sanctions would only hurt the population. I don't see that political means would have much effect either. I think regime change by military means is the only viable solution.

Can anyone think of a better course of action, other than doing nothing.

[cut]

cut wrote,

1. I don't think the commonwealth has a right to intervene anywhere because african country especially can just say it is the action of the british empire, I think it would ahve to be an action of the UN

Except that the UN has a very poor track record when it comes to interventions.

and a poor track record when it comes to peacekeeping too no doubt?

[b.scheller]

i have never fully studied the falkland war, but from what I know. The commonwealth forces other then the Falkland and the Brits were not involved. At least I have never heard of it, if I'm wrong please excuse me but my knowledge of the conflict is very limited to a book or two. If the commonwealth troops had been involved, I'd be glad to read about it.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

cut wrote,

and a poor track record when it comes to peacekeeping too no doubt?

Thats a little too simplistic. There are no UN peacekeepers per se. Individual countries deploy their armed forces to work under UN command but each countries training and doctrine is unique to that country. Each country has a specific set of rules that govern the operation of their units.
For instance the Canadian airborne company attached to the 1st Battalion, Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment in East Timor in 1999 was forbidden from having its sub-units patrol for more than eight hours at a time, ie they couldn't leave their FOB for more than eight hours. So the Canadians were given an AO in the East of Cova Lima district where they're 'style' would be more useful.
Different countries with different agendas. Also to 'keep the peace' there has to be peace. If not then your into peace making which the UN has never been fond of.

But to answer your statement, yes the UN does have a poor record in peace keeping. But not for want of effort on the part of the individual soldiers involved in general.

[Flagg]

I think South Africa should lead any Commonwealth effort towards effecting change in Rhodes.....errr Zimbabwe, with the UK, Aus, Canada, and NZ financing/supporting it as well as token bits and pieces(political credibility) from other African Commonwealth nations.

Not to get TOO politically correct, but a Black nation leading the effort, truly for the better good of Africa, would provide greater credibility and add to South Africa's status as being the only valid continental power in Africa...something Africa desperately needs.

I say put Mugabe on notice to retire and force direct humanitarian assistance on Zimbabwe in border regions....if he doesn't retire, when Mugabe's thugs attempt to undermine the effort.....use it as justification for his forcible removal.....all while covertly undermining his power base.

Africans do it(South Africans specifically, as they are the only African nation with the ability to effectively intervene), the first world Commonwealth pays for it, and supports it as covertly(out of the media spotlight) as possible.

THEN pay someone with a brain to write up an irrevocable bill of basic human rights & constitution, repeal all Mugabe implemented BS laws, revert to English Case Law, and implement a flat tax.......

and elect Flagg as el Presidente of New Phodesia...errr New Zimbabwe

[Flagg]

i have never fully studied the falkland war, but from what I know. The commonwealth forces other then the Falkland and the Brits were not involved. At least I have never heard of it, if I'm wrong please excuse me but my knowledge of the conflict is very limited to a book or two. If the commonwealth troops had been involved, I'd be glad to read about it.

One example of involvement, per se.

The UK was obviously in need of as many naval combat vessels as it could afford to surge into the South Atlantic....New Zealand provided at least one frigate to cover a peacetime patrol commitment, on behalf of the UK, allowing that combat vessel to deploy into the Falklands campaign.

I believe other Commonwealth and/or NATO allies provided similiar support...plus a Stinger and a heap of AIM9Ls

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Flagg wrote,

I think South Africa should lead any Commonwealth effort towards effecting change in Rhodes.....errr Zimbabwe, with the UK, Aus, Canada, and NZ financing/supporting it as well as token bits and pieces(political credibility) from other African Commonwealth nations.


Only problem with that is Mbeke happens to be Mugabe's biggest supporter and apoligist. Zambia, Mozambique, botswana and Namibia aren't that high on the integrity list either.

[scott]

I'm curious as to why the Commonwealth as opposed to any other IGO?

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

scott wrote,

I'm curious as to why the Commonwealth as opposed to any other IGO?

Why not?. Zimbabwe used to be a part of the commonwealth. A self governing british colony. Britain brokered the deal transforming Rhodesia into Zimbabwe and has spent approximately five hundred million pounds since to prop it up.
Britain and therefore arguably the Commonwealth have a responsibility to sort out the ever growing problem.

[LordHalbert]

I dont think Britain or any other former colonial powers have any responsibility to any African nation any more - perhaps 40 years ago but not now.

Any problems in Africa (and there seems to be many) should be sorted out in the UN.

[oldsoak]

i have never fully studied the falkland war, but from what I know. The commonwealth forces other then the Falkland and the Brits were not involved. At least I have never heard of it, if I'm wrong please excuse me but my knowledge of the conflict is very limited to a book or two. If the commonwealth troops had been involved, I'd be glad to read about it.

One example of involvement, per se.

The UK was obviously in need of as many naval combat vessels as it could afford to surge into the South Atlantic....New Zealand provided at least one frigate to cover a peacetime patrol commitment, on behalf of the UK, allowing that combat vessel to deploy into the Falklands campaign.

I believe other Commonwealth and/or NATO allies provided similiar support...plus a Stinger and a heap of AIM9Ls

Damn right they did - Kiwis and Aussies gave us help over and under the counter which was bloody sporting of them considering how successive British governments have treated them over the years.

[Flagg]

Only problem with that is Mbeke happens to be Mugabe's biggest supporter and apoligist. Zambia, Mozambique, botswana and Namibia aren't that high on the integrity list either.

Agreed.......I'd like to here Trident-za kick in with his .02c

If the locals/regionals are willing to do the deed....the wealthy Commonwealth nations should pay the bill.

True Democracy in Southern Africa(Angola/Zimbabwe/etc) will go a long way in helping Africa.....as well as the rest of the planet...cough.cough.oil.cough

but seriously...everyone wins, especially Africa..I'd throw in for that

[Flagg]

Why not?. Zimbabwe used to be a part of the commonwealth. A self governing british colony. Britain brokered the deal transforming Rhodesia into Zimbabwe and has spent approximately five hundred million pounds since to prop it up.
Britain and therefore arguably the Commonwealth have a responsibility to sort out the ever growing problem.

Agreed.......period


I dont think Britain or any other former colonial powers have any responsibility to any African nation any more - perhaps 40 years ago but not now.

Any problems in Africa (and there seems to be many) should be sorted out in the UN.

The Commonwealth....if utilized/organized/marketed/deployed appropriately could achieve more/easier than the UN....especially since the Commonwealth has such a wide(if not very strong) footprint in Africa.

Western mistakes helped create some of the problems Africa has faced in the last 40 years(arbitrary national borders contradicting tribal/cultural norms, etc.). Why not subsidise it's recovery(and support it covertly so the white man isn't seen as stealing the thunder)......by a disciplined African force(South Africans and token others, if they're willing).

50 Spartans could take Mugabe down(albeit with 1000's in logistical support afterwords) ....that's what's so frustrating

[Trident-za]

Only problem with that is Mbeke happens to be Mugabe's biggest supporter and apoligist. Zambia, Mozambique, botswana and Namibia aren't that high on the integrity list either.

Agreed.......I'd like to here Trident-za kick in with his .02c

If the locals/regionals are willing to do the deed....the wealthy Commonwealth nations should pay the bill.

True Democracy in Southern Africa(Angola/Zimbabwe/etc) will go a long way in helping Africa.....as well as the rest of the planet...cough.cough.oil.cough

but seriously...everyone wins, especially Africa..I'd throw in for that

At your command, Flagg :)

My .02c is that I agree with both you and Ngati Tumatuenga. Any intervention in Zimbabwe that ISN'T headed by an African country will cause so much trouble it wouldn't be worth it. And South Africa is the only real contender.....

Unfortunately, as Ngati says, the world's biggest Mugabe apologist is.... Mbeki. The one real problem with this ANC government is a tendency to take the "ostrich approach" to tricky situations. They pretend it's not happening, or isn't serious enough to require action. (this approach has, so far, been used on: Zimbabwe, AIDS, crime, corruption)

The likelihood of Mbeki agreeing to any intervention is Zimbabwe is zero.

I'm at work right now, so no time to give the matter much thought. Will post more later....

[mikec62001]

The US government did provide the Brits with marginal help during the conflict. At the time this was extremely classified. I rememebr they gave the brits access to US satellite reconnaissance and the US also sent Stinger missiles to the brits to air in the shooting down of Argentine military aircraft which were attacking ground forces and the British Naval Task Force. This is the only support I know of that us Brits received.

The island only had minimal British living on it...but you could make the case that if you have your own somewhere and that area is invaded...then you would probably want to do something about that. But the main reason was oil I think.

Some of you may have heard about this but if you haven't I hope you found it useful. I have no source (sorry)...but I am more than sure the US provided us Brits with some help.

[oldsoak]

1.Should the nations that make up the Commonwealth intervene in the current situation in Zimbabwe?.

2. What form should any intervention take,

3. What country should lead it.

Any links to information would be appreciated.

1. No, for 2 reasons one - it would re-inforce the argument of the commonwealth being and ex-colonials club whose real function is to keep the Brits/Whites exerting influence over ex colonies. ( OK, Ok, I'm being devils advocate here ) Two - it would raise questions about the purpose of the commonwealth and what powers it has - just might put the breeze up some of its members as well.

2. If your going to do it , it has to be political - military is out of the question.

3. An African or Asian commonwealth country - for PC reasons.

I agree the situation in Zimbabwe needs sorting, but I've got an awful feeling we're stuffed on this one.

[oldsoak]

The US government did provide the Brits with marginal help during the conflict. At the time this was extremely classified. I rememebr they gave the brits access to US satellite reconnaissance and the US also sent Stinger missiles to the brits to air in the shooting down of Argentine military aircraft which were attacking ground forces and the British Naval Task Force. This is the only support I know of that us Brits received.

The island only had minimal British living on it...but you could make the case that if you have your own somewhere and that area is invaded...then you would probably want to do something about that. But the main reason was oil I think.

Some of you may have heard about this but if you haven't I hope you found it useful. I have no source (sorry)...but I am more than sure the US provided us Brits with some help.

The use of facilities at Ascension Islands - fairly critical. Politically this was a must win war for the Brits. Oil was not a major consideration - twenty odd years on and no viable oil site as of yet.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Trident-ZA wrote,

My .02c is that I agree with both you and Ngati Tumatuenga. Any intervention in Zimbabwe that ISN'T headed by an African country will cause so much trouble it wouldn't be worth it. And South Africa is the only real contender.....

Unfortunately, as Ngati says, the world's biggest Mugabe apologist is.... Mbeki. The one real problem with this ANC government is a tendency to take the "ostrich approach" to tricky situations. They pretend it's not happening, or isn't serious enough to require action. (this approach has, so far, been used on: Zimbabwe, AIDS, crime, corruption)

The likelihood of Mbeki agreeing to any intervention is Zimbabwe is zero.

I'm at work right now, so no time to give the matter much thought. Will post more later....

Cheers mate. Its good to hear an opinion form someone close to the 'action' so to speak. Do you have a line on any objective infomation sources regarding the situation in Zimbabwe?.

Now if only I can get Csqnsas to chip in........

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

I guess a purely political solution won't work.


'Back Off Zim Polls'







Email This Page

Print This Page

Visit The Publisher's Site









The Herald (Harare)
June 25, 2004
Posted to the web June 25, 2004
Innocent Gore
Harare
ZIMBABWE will only allow developing and friendly countries to observe its elections and will not permit former colonial masters and imperialists to do so, President Mugabe said yesterday.
In a speech that drew roaring applause from delegates from the 79-member African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries at a summit of heads of state and government here, President Mugabe said Zimbabweans had to fight for their liberty and that he had to spend 11 years in prison fighting for freedom from colonial rule.


Britain would not give Zimbabweans freedom willingly and Zimbabweans had to wage an armed struggle in order to achieve independence, democracy and freedom, thanks to support from organisations such as the then Frontline States, Organisation of African Unit and other organisations and countries which provided political, moral and material support.
The President said it would, therefore, be folly for the country to now ask the former colonisers to come and observe its elections.
"And now you hear a voice in London, you hear a man, narrow-minded little (British Prime Minister Tony) Blair, saying there is no freedom in Zimbabwe. So, when we have this fight with the British, it's because they were our oppressors . . . we will not allow them to judge us. We ask our friends to judge us. When you hear that there is no rule of law in Zimbabwe on CNN, that is nonsense.
"Our neighbours know us. That is why we say our elections should be observed by people of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, the Third World. We will not allow the erstwhile imperialists to judge our elections," he said.
The President's comments come in the wake of an admission by Mr Blair that he is working with the opposition MDC and some people in South Africa and southern Africa to effect a change of government in Zimbabwe.
Mr Blair told the House of Commons last week that he had joined forces with the MDC on measures and sanctions to bring about regime change in Zimbabwe.
Election observers from the Commonwealth, mostly of British or Australian origin and some European countries which are anti-Zimbabwe and pro-MDC, criticised the 2002 presidential election, saying it was not free and fair.
But observers from the Third World, the Southern African Development Community and from countries such as Russia and China declared the polls free and fair and a true representation of the will of the Zimbabwean people.
Cde Mugabe said Mr Blair and United States President George W. Bush were like schoolyard bullies. He said the two had lied to the world "using language of mass deception" that ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
"Look at what's happening today. This I say: Can't we raise our voice even at the United Nations? Must these men be allowed to get away with horrific action? Daily, they are bombing women and children. Must we be quiet?" the President told the summit.
Cde Mugabe, who earlier on held talks with Cuban Vice-President Cde Carlos Lage Davila, criticised further sanctions being imposed on the Latin American country by the US.
He called on ACP countries to support Cuba, which was doing a lot for other Third World countries, such as providing them with medical doctors. More than 20 000 Cuban practitioners are working in most developing countries, with Zimbabwe having more than 200.
"Surely we must say something. Sometimes, because of poverty, we can't say things we believe in. We are afraid that if we say this we will be denied money," he said, adding that founding Ghanaian President Kwame Nkrumah repeatedly pointed out that one cannot sacrifice principle on the altar of expediency.
President Mugabe said while developing nations needed friends, those friends must recognise them as equal partners.
"This idea of lesser friends or friends of lesser dignity, that relationship is not what we seek. Our historical relations with the European Union must be on terms of recognising each other as equal friends and that way we go a long way. Let us move along the path we have charted with those who identify with us, those who are true friends with us. Let us march together in shaping our future."
Cde Mugabe said there was need for increased intra-ACP co-operation among Third World countries in their fight against poverty, hunger and disease.
Giving the example of Zambia which is rich in copper, President Mugabe expressed concern that some developing countries were sourcing supplies from far away yet their neighbours might be having the same resources.
But the President said co-operation among developing countries would only succeed in an environment where there is no conflict.
Zimbabwe, he said, had to send troops to Mozambique to help the government of that country create an environment of peace and prosperity in the 1980s.
In 1998, Zimbabwe, together with Angola and Namibia, had to deploy troops to the Democratic Republic of Congo to create peace and an environment conducive to economic development.
A Kenyan delegate spoke strongly in support of President Mugabe's views. He said the ACP grouping's relations with the EU was colonial and was hindering intra-ACP co-operation as every developing country would be focusing on trade with the EU instead of trade among developing countries.
He proposed an intra-ACP summit to discuss the unipolar world, saying failure to do so would result in developing countries debating in a world defined by Europe.
Relevant Links

Southern Africa
Zimbabwe



Quoting the legendary Bob Marley and black consciousness movement activist Marcus Garvey, a Jamaican delegate said Third World countries must emancipate themselves from mental slavery.
"None but ourselves can free our minds," he said.

[digrar]

Trident do you think Mbeki would act if the Commonwealth pushed hard enough?
IMO the situation really needs to be addressed. It's all well and good saying that the racist white countries in the Commonwealth are trying to bully the poor little black nation, but it's pretty clear that without it's white farmers the country is struggling to even feed itself.
Like anyone the farmers just want securitiy and the ability to profit from their success.
I don't think anyone in the commonwealth wants a puppet nation, one that can stand on it's own two legs would be fine.

[Trident-za]

Trident do you think Mbeki would act if the Commonwealth pushed hard enough?
IMO the situation really needs to be addressed. It's all well and good saying that the racist white countries in the Commonwealth are trying to bully the poor little black nation, but it's pretty clear that without it's white farmers the country is struggling to even feed itself.
Like anyone the farmers just want securitiy and the ability to profit from their success.
I don't think anyone in the commonwealth wants a puppet nation, one that can stand on it's own two legs would be fine.

No Digrar - I don't think Mbeki will budge. He has convinced himself that he is morally correct in his approach to Zimbabwe, and NOTHING will change his mind, for now. It would take Zimbabwe sliding into a Rwanda/Sudan/Sierra Leonne type situation before he will try something other than his "quite diplomacy".

For the record... as far as I can make out (not having sat down with the man to chat about it) his approach is infleunced by several factors:

1) Zimbabwe is a sovereign country, and Mbeki doesn't believe anyone has the right to directly intervene in that sovereignty
2) Mugabe was very helpful to the ANC during the apartheid era, and in some respects the support Mbeki is offering Mugabe is "payback"
3) Mbeki has this thing about African Renaissance. Understandable... but it has certain unrealistic elements. Any intervention from non-African groups kind of gives out the message that Africans always need western help to solve problems... Mbeki wants to avoid this.
4) Mbeki has also been very critical of the Commonwealth approach so far. For example, he was agressively opposed to kicking Zimbabwe out of the Commonwealth. His argument was that taking away all the political and economic benefits from a country in dire need of both was counterproductive for the people of Zimbabwe.

Im sure there is more, but you get the idea... as bad as Zimbabwe is, it will have to get a LOT worse before Mbeki agrees to any sort of western intervention.

[Trident-za]

Double post, sorry.

[Flagg]

I never considered the ANC "payback" perspective.....

Too bad that previous relationship can't be used to help shift Mugabe OUT as opposed to helping keep him IN.

Trident.....are any remote communities in South Africa facing copycat problems like in Zimbabwe?

And if so.....have regional/national authorities responded effectively?

Well...I usually don't wish harm on anyone....but hopefully Mugabe's advanced age catches up with him and his remaining days amongst the living are few.

All I know is, I'd be prepared to spend six months doing really "high-speed" stuff like digging thunder boxes all day long if it meant getting Mugabe out ;)

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

The South African angle.


South Africa's 'silent' diplomacy

By Carolyn Dempster
BBC, Harare


In the last of a series of articles on Zimbabwe, BBC News Online reports on the Zimbabwean view of relations with South Africa.

South Africa will "never" condemn Zimbabwe
South Africa's attempts to find a solution to the political and economic crisis in neighbouring Zimbabwe with "quiet diplomacy" is stoking the fury of ordinary Zimbabweans who cannot see any benefits of the intervention, and believe that President Thabo Mbeki has sold them out.

"President Mbeki is a collaborator with Robert Mugabe in the crimes perpetrated against the people of this country," explodes Job Sikhala, member of parliament for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change MDC, and a recent victim of torture by state police.

"What 'quietness' are they talking about? When we supported the African National Congress in their fight against apartheid, it wasn't 'quiet diplomacy'. And we are fighting a worse system than the apartheid regime," he says.

'Build bridges'

As the food shortages mount, and the queues grow longer, with the spectre of famine stalking the rural areas, Zimbabweans are getting angrier over what they perceive as South Africa's complicity with the ruling Zanu-PF government.

The South African Government has taken the lead role in trying to legitimise the Mugabe regime

Brian Raftopolous, political analyst

Earlier this week South Africa's Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlaminini Zuma said South Africa would "never" condemn its Zimbabwean counterpart.

"It is not going to happen as long as this government is in power," she told journalists.

Ms Dlamini Zuma said the South African Government's objective with its policy of quiet diplomacy was to create peace and to build bridges.

"We are not there to throw people over the precipice."

'Not black and white'

The visit to Zimbabwe of several high profile South African cabinet ministers, who have endorsed the Zimbabwe Government's chaotic land reform programme, has infuriated Zimbabweans.


Some want South Africa to stop fuel supplies to Zimbabwe

They suffer the daily exigencies of food and fuel shortages and a collapsing economy, and see no benefit from the quiet - some say "silent" - diplomacy the South Africans claim to be pursuing.

"The world must know this is not a black and white issue. It is an issue of the blacks in Zimbabwe suffering," says Harare mayor Elias Mudzuri.

"Mbeki is not addressing the Zimbabwean scenario correctly. His people are coming and ignoring us in the opposition, but we constitute almost 45% of parliament. They cannot sustain their colleagues (Zanu-PF) when the government is failing the people at the grassroots."

Western diplomats based in Harare reaffirm that South Africa's President Mbeki is the preferred conduit for any breakthrough in the political impasse, and that South Africa is now the interface between Zimbabwe and the international community.

'Not viable'

But political analyst Brian Raftopolous says a breakthrough could be a long time coming:

"I think the South African Government has taken the lead role in trying to legitimise the Mugabe regime.

"One thing is clear - they don't consider the opposition MDC a viable alternative. And the other is that they believe, for stability, the best thing they could have is a reformed Zanu-PF, especially a new leader who could control the army and therefore provide a way forward."

If he [Mbeki] wants to, he can force Zanu-PF to the negotiating table, the exit package, free and fair elections

Tony Hawkins, economist

Mr Mbeki has always favoured a path of quiet diplomacy for fear of alienating the Zanu-PF government and catapulting Zimbabwe into the kind of accelerated collapse which could have disastrous consequences for South Africa and the entire region.

Mr Raftopolous also believes that the South African Government has a domestic political constituency to appease.

South Africa faces many of the same features as Zimbabwe: rising land hunger, widespread poverty and a ruling party which until relatively recently was a liberation movement.

The process of legitimising Mr Mugabe on the international stage has already begun.

His presence at the Franco-African summit is a significant step towards this, says Mr Raftopolous, and the divisions within the Commonwealth over whether or not to extend Zimbabwe's suspension from the body is another.

Mr Raftopolous believes that relieving the international pressure on Mr Mugabe, coupled with the domestic pressures of imminent economic collapse could create the political space for some meaningful dialogue.

Secret talks

Even though the ruling Zanu-PF party has strengthened its hold through repressive legislation, there are some signs of internal dissent.

The head of the security forces, General Vitalis Zvinavashe, has publicly admitted that Zimbabwe is in crisis.


Many Zimbabweans do not know where their next meal will come from

And in spite of his denials to the party, General Zvinavashe was involved, together with the speaker of parliament Emmerson Mnangagwa, in overtures to the MDC to negotiate a political compact providing for an exit package for President Mugabe.

A reliable source close to those involved in the talks says senior Zanu-PF politicians are increasingly aware that there is a need to start planning for a political future after Mr Mugabe, but do not quite know how to achieve that end.

Recent unconfirmed reports in the South African media also claim that President Mbeki has held secret meetings with Zanu-PF moderates, among them the former Finance Minister Simba Makoni, who was ejected from his cabinet post for recommending a devaluation of the Zimbabwe dollar last year.

But the bitter view from Harare is that diplomacy is not producing the kind of results to halt the country's slide into ruin and despair.

"I think there's only really one player in all of this, and that's President Mbeki," says economist Tony Hawkins.

"If he wants to, he can force Zanu-PF to the negotiating table, the exit package, free and fair elections. It's just that he appears not to want to, or lacks the conviction that this is what he should do."


Well, if even half of that is true it looks like the Commonwealth would have huge difficulty in even getting a common consensus to act.

[Royal]

The US government did provide the Brits with marginal help during the conflict. At the time this was extremely classified. I rememebr they gave the brits access to US satellite reconnaissance and the US also sent Stinger missiles to the brits to air in the shooting down of Argentine military aircraft which were attacking ground forces and the British Naval Task Force. This is the only support I know of that us Brits received.

The island only had minimal British living on it...but you could make the case that if you have your own somewhere and that area is invaded...then you would probably want to do something about that. But the main reason was oil I think.

Some of you may have heard about this but if you haven't I hope you found it useful. I have no source (sorry)...but I am more than sure the US provided us Brits with some help.

The use of facilities at Ascension Islands - fairly critical. Politically this was a must win war for the Brits. Oil was not a major consideration - twenty odd years on and no viable oil site as of yet.

Off topic I know, but Wideawake (and the rest of Ascension) is UK sovereign territory, the US merely lease facilities and share the runway with the RAF (as at Diego Garcia) not the other way round. The US provided Stingers to the SAS in the early stages of the Falklands Campaign, they were used to shoot down one Puccara.

Back on topic.

I agree that the UK has a moral obligation to sort out the mess caused by the British brokered peace agreement that created Zimbabwe. I'm no expert on southern Africa, but I fear that Trident is right about Mbeke's habit of doing ostrich impressions.

Unfortunately a 'white' lead intervention is bound to lead to charges of imperialism. I seriously doubt that Blair et al have the balls to apply the necessary pressure to Mbeke to get the South Africans to lead (the only other African options, IMHO, are Kenya and Nigeria neither of which are exactly paragons on virtue, but at least both have reliable combat experienced troops).

All that leads me to the conclusion that the only option is some kind of covert action (probably civil rather than military) with a Commonwealth follow up force to stabilse the situation and provide security force training and supervise free and fair elections.

[GazB]

True Democracy in Southern Africa(Angola/Zimbabwe/etc) will go a long way in helping Africa.....as well as the rest of the planet...cough.cough.oil.cough

It is such a tragedy that such a nation could go from agricultural surplus and exports to deficit and imports so quickly.

I think we really need to ask the Zimbabwaens themselves what they want and what they will support. Sitting in a foreign country discussing how someone elses problems might be solved just seems wrong... whether it is done for the purist of reasons or the worst of reasons.

BTW regarding US support for Britain being low key... that is largely because the US had defence agreements with central and south american countries that should have required the US to help Argentina directly defend the Falklands. The US actions... or inaction led to many south and central american countries looking elsewhere for a reliable partner in defence... the CIA had just invested quite a bit of money in argentina apparantly and were not willing to jeopardise that by overtly supporting the UK, but Ronny and Maggie were rather too close as friends for him to do nothing.

[Flagg]

I think we really need to ask the Zimbabwaens themselves what they want and what they will support. Sitting in a foreign country discussing how someone elses problems might be solved just seems wrong... whether it is done for the purist of reasons or the worst of reasons.

I have spoken to a number of Zimbabwaens...seeking advice in regards to emigrating to New Zealand(some here, some just hoping to come here)...they're unanimous in the belief that Mugabe has destroyed the nation and must go.

Unfortunately, Zimbabwaens who support the removal of Mugabe or even the Opposition Party MDC are in danger of ZANU PF reprisals.

The MDC Party itself:

http://www.zimobserver.com/newsdetail.asp?article_id=326

And even just the nameless people like this guy:

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/shumba5.11197.html

I wonder what would happen if a media crew was even allowed to enter Harare to ask Zimbabwaens on the street what they REALLY want? Would ZANU PF thugs even allow it?

http://www.theindependent.co.zw/news/2004/June/Friday25/813.html


BTW regarding US support for Britain being low key... that is largely because the US had defence agreements with central and south american countries that should have required the US to help Argentina directly defend the Falklands. The US actions... or inaction led to many south and central american countries looking elsewhere for a reliable partner in defence... the CIA had just invested quite a bit of money in argentina apparantly and were not willing to jeopardise that by overtly supporting the UK, but Ronny and Maggie were rather too close as friends for him to do nothing.

Hahaha....if true....being chief of station Buenos Aires must have been interesting in the 1980's..almost as good as Joseph Heller's original Catch 22