 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
davyk
Joined: Jul 4, 2007
Posts: 497 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male & 28
Country: Zimbabwe
Province/State: Harare
City: Harare
|
Why Zimbabwe................?
June 26, 2008 - 10:08 AM
|
|
You know i have been following the events unfold in my motherland both on the ground and also on the media and comments of people here on TIG and elsewhere and i couldn't help but ask myself why so much interest about Zimbabwe?
Not many elections in Africa have been without incident.
The violence that gripped the Zambian election in 2006 is still very fresh, which forced banks and businesses in the capital to shut. "Levy has stolen victory, but this is just a temporary setback because we are going to fight on," said Zambia’s opposition leader Michael Sata then.
More than two thirds of Zambians live on less than $US1 ($1.35) to date.
Mwanawasa, who won office in 2001 with just 29 percent of the vote blocked discussion of constitution that would have required a presidential runoff if no candidate wins at least 51 percent of the vote — a provision that Zimbabwe adopted.
Mwanawasa went on to win with only 43 per cent of the vote.
In Kenya, there was more drama.
Forget about the 300 pre-election deaths from violence or the 2,500 after elections. Those who perpetrated that violence are likely to get an amnesty if the new Prime Minister Raila Odinga gets his way.
President Mwai Kibaki won his term amid allegations that the government stole the vote, sparking deadly riots that lit up many night skies as enraged youths torched homes called on Kibaki ‘to go’.
All live television broadcasts were suspended after results were announced and the slums, home to tens of thousands of opposition supporters, exploded fresh violence, killing, in a clear case of genocide, many Kenyans.
The country was turned into a war zone, yet today those perpetrators face an Odinga pardon.
In Nigeria horrific cases of violence were recorded prior to the elections.
Yet in all these elections the international condemnation was nowhere in magnitude compared to Zimbabwe and international and regional bodies remained quiet.
What exactly is it about Zimbabwe?
These regional and international bodies should start treating nations as equals. Some of the actions being taken on Zimbabwe today will only fan the violence rather than extinguish it.
Those who are advocating a postponement of Zimbabwe’s run-off election should start proposing solutions about what an interim government will look like.
And those who criticize should make sure their backyards are not tainted.
http://www.talkzimbabwe.com/news/117/ARTICLE/2783/2008-06-24.html
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
davyk
Joined: Jul 4, 2007
Posts: 497 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: Zimbabwe
Province/State: Harare
City: Harare
|
Re: Why Zimbabwe................?
June 26, 2008 - 10:34 AM
|
|
After the Nigerian election that brought the current president in power i rember the head of the EU observer mission saying "this was not the best of elections but what is now needed is to move forward"(these are not his exact words but he saidsomething to this effect)
This was after more than 300 people were confirmed dead due to political violence before the election day but what did we see the mess was sweept under the floor because the person who had won is pro West.
In Iraq people voted under gun point but what do we hear from the West-silence because a stooge of the west had won.
Bhutto was killed by Musharaff's men(though he denies it)Where on earth have you heard the opposition leader killed and there is no outcry i wonder what would have happened if Tsvangirai was to be killed here.
Thats duplicity i always talk about.The West have got double standards whenit comes to other leaders.
A leader is not a dictator if he dances to the tune of the West.In Nigeria who control the oil US companies though they are now runnning away.
The issue is be their stooge and you are never a dictator.
Thats double standards that i dont like.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Edgar Dearn Makona
Joined: Feb 27, 2007
Posts: 25 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 30
Country: Kenya
Province/State: Nairobi Area
City: Doonholm
|
Africa must take firm action against Mugabe
June 27, 2008 - 04:33 AM
|
|
Zimbabweans were to go to the polls on Friday in a presidential election run-off. But it looks like it will be a walkover for President Mugabe.
His challenger, Mr Morgan Tsvangirai, pulled out of the polls, citing the government-sponsored campaign of violence that has seen dozens of opposition supporters killed and tens of thousands forced to flee their homes. Mr Tsvangirai has himself been seeking refuge in the Dutch Embassy in Harare, citing fears for his life.
Kenya is among the growing number of countries in Africa that have abandoned the usual “see no evil” policies and has condemned President Mugabe’s violent campaign and the declaration that he would not hand power even if the people voted him out.
The Kenyan position, alongside many other countries, is that the elections must be called off until the conditions are ripe for a free and fair election.
Mr Mugabe has rejected all such appeals. He insists that the polls will take place as scheduled. The octogenarian president, who has ruled Zimbabwe since independence in 1980, has been dismissing pressure in increasingly strident and intemperate terms.
The kind of language he has been using indicates that Mr Mugabe is no longer amenable to reason.
Chances are that he will go ahead with the uncontested poll on Friday and claim an extension to his 28 years in power. Should that happen, the international community must move with firmness to rescue the people of Zimbabwe from more misery under Mr Mugabe’s tyranny.
Whatever measures are taken must be initiated and driven by African countries that must recognise that the crisis in Zimbabwe is a blot on the continent. To start with, Zimbabwe must be suspended from the African Union and all the regional bodies in which it is a member. African countries must also break diplomatic ties and recall their envoys from Harare.
They must also impose targeted sanctions by denying Mr Mugabe and his ministers entry into their territories. And if push comes to shove, then even military intervention under the auspices of the African Union must be considered.
That is probably the only language Mr Mugabe would understand.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
kaswii
Joined: Dec 1, 2006
Posts: 8 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Country: Kenya
Province/State: Nairobi Area
|
Re: Why Zimbabwe................?
June 27, 2008 - 05:26 AM
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I don't know why all the hype about zimbabwe..the guy has some good ideas..bad policies...he's one of the few courageous politicians we have...If only we could all support one another...he is to blame but the wesit has made life more diificult for him and the Zimbabweans as well...only option is surrender
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
davyk
Joined: Jul 4, 2007
Posts: 497 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: Zimbabwe
Province/State: Harare
City: Harare
|
Re: Why Zimbabwe................?
June 30, 2008 - 03:42 AM
|
|
dearn2002 wrote:
Kenya is among the growing number of countries in Africa that have abandoned the usual “see no evil” policies and has condemned President Mugabe’s violent campaign and the declaration that he would not hand power even if the people voted him out.
The Kenyan position, alongside many other countries, is that the elections must be called off until the conditions are ripe for a free and fair election.
That is probably the only language Mr Mugabe would understand.
This reminds me of Odinga a man who caused the death of more than 2000 innocent souls.Which is a worse scenario Kenya or Zimbabwe.
What sanctions were imposed on Kenya let alone Odinga or Kibaki?
Why Zimbabwe? I ask again.
Can we be sanctioned for following our constitution i thought respect of the constitution is a requisite of democracy.The runoff was overdue remember it was supposed to be held 21 days after the announcement of the results of the first election.Mugabe was accused of try to cling on to power and buying time when it was suggested that the election be held in August.
Even if the runoff was postponed who was supposed to lead the country in that period?There was goiong to be a constitutional gapI agree with Mugabe any negotiations are supposed to be started after the runoff and without outside interference.
I once asked for a model of free and fair elections or democracy and im yet to be given.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
davyk
Joined: Jul 4, 2007
Posts: 497 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: Zimbabwe
Province/State: Harare
City: Harare
|
Re: Why Zimbabwe................?
June 30, 2008 - 05:37 AM
|
|
sonique wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*I don't know why all the hype about zimbabwe..the guy has some good ideas..bad policies...he's one of the few courageous politicians we have...If only we could all support one another...he is to blame but the wesit has made life more diificult for him and the Zimbabweans as well...only option is surrender
Surrender is NOT and NEVER an option.You can not talk that language to a man who spent ELEVEN years in the prisions of a white man and a further FIFTEEN in bush fight colonialism.To a man who has been called every degaratory name you can think of.
The hype about Zimbabwe comes from the fact that Bush admitted because of “the unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States.” In January, at her Senate confirmation hearings to be secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice called Zimbabwe an “outpost of tyranny” along with six other nations (2005 washinton post)
Kenyan author Mukoma Wa Nguyi invites us to think of Zimbabwe “as Africa’s Cuba. Like Cuba, Zimbabwe is not a… military threat to the US and Britain. Like Cuba, in Latin America, Zimbabwe’s crime is leading by example to show that land can be redistributed - an independence with content. If Zimbabwe succeeds, it becomes an example to African people that indeed freedom and independence can have the content of national liberation. Like Cuba, Zimbabwe is to be isolated, and if possible, a new government that is friendly to the agenda of the West is to be installed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13657-2005Mar30.html
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:ylokbADn5GMJ:gowans.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/zimbabwe-at-war/+Zimbabwe+has+become+an+unusual+threat+to+America%27s+foreign+policy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=zw
NOW I KNOW WHY....its not about human rights,democracy,rule of law etc BUT interests of the West...
I NOW KNOW BETTER.........
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
davyk
Joined: Jul 4, 2007
Posts: 497 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: Zimbabwe
Province/State: Harare
City: Harare
|
Re: Why Zimbabwe................?
July 24, 2008 - 10:10 AM
|
|
The study carried out to evaluate the application of Article 96 has the potential to cause immense embarrassment for an EU that prides in its self-righteousness and that is why it has never been publicised as much as it should have been.
This is for the simple reason that the study says the EU has been hypocritical in its treatment of Zimbabwe, has used Article 96 two-facedly, admits sanctions damage the economy and were enacted to influence the 2002 presidential elections, and that the group is divided over Harare’s maltreatment.
So if sanctions were put in place to influence the 2002 presidential election, would it be wrong to surmise that this time they are being extended to influence the on-going dialogue between Zanu-PF and the two formations of the opposition MDC?
Page 50 of the report explicitly says Article 96 procedures against Zimbabwe only were initiated even though "the absolute level of freedom of participation was better in Zimbabwe than in an average ACP country".
It further says Zimbabwe’s human rights and governance record is better than that of most countries that are signatories to the agreement. So why then was Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe alone targeted?
http://www.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=1005&cat=13
This post was edited on: 2008-07-24 at 10:26 AM by: dkaiyo
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
davyk
Joined: Jul 4, 2007
Posts: 497 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: Zimbabwe
Province/State: Harare
City: Harare
|
Re: Why Zimbabwe................?
July 25, 2008 - 03:53 AM
|
|
A look into ZIDERA
ZIDERA effectively blocks, through the executive directors representing the US in international financial institutions, “support that is intended to promote Zimbabwe’s economic recovery and development, the stabilisation of the Zimbabwe dollar, and the viability of Zimbabwe’s democratic institutions”.
Should i say more or do people continue to heap all the blame on Mugabe?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
davyk
Joined: Jul 4, 2007
Posts: 497 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: Zimbabwe
Province/State: Harare
City: Harare
|
Re: Why Zimbabwe................?
July 30, 2008 - 04:20 AM
|
|
British, Americans hypocrites: Zuma
AFP.
ANC president Jacob Zuma has accused the British and Ame-ricans of being hypocrites who exaggerate the problems in Zimbabwe.
In a recent interview with Sunday Vision of Uganda, Zuma said there have been problems on the continent, but the West does not raise the alarm as it has done with regard to Zimbabwe.
He said millions of people died in Angola, Congo, Rwanda, Burundi and northern Uganda, but the West kept silent.
The British and the Americans were hypocrites who practise double standards because former Nigerian leader Olusegun Obasanjo, Kenyan president Mwai Kibaki and other African leaders assumed power following discredited elections, but nobody said there must be regime change, said Zuma.
"In Kenya, thousands of people died, more than those who have died in Zimbabwe, but nobody said Kibaki must go," Zuma was quoted as saying.
Zuma said in view of these scenarios "you cannot prescribe for the Zimbabweans and tell them who must be their president".
The ANC leader also made it clear that Zimbabwe’s land problem has its roots in the unfulfilled promises made by Britain — the former coloniser — at Lancaster House.
"There are specific agreements that were reached which were not honoured (by Britain) thereafter," he said. — AFP.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
Home
Community
