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.

Na imagem é Thabo Mbeki quem diligentemente beija o rabo comunista de Robert Mugabe, mas poderia ser Morgan Tsvangirai o "premiado". Acontece que, um mísero dia depois do histórico acordo para o início de negociações entre a ZANU-PF e as duas correntes do MDC, o tiro de partida das ditas negociações deu-se... sem balas, isto é, não houve primeira reunião. Pois bem, a ZANU-PF teve a amabilidade de não comparecer.

Seria, há um mês, a crónica de um desfecho inesperado. Morgan Tsvangirai havia prometido aos zimbabueanos que - com mais ou menos violência perpetrada contra ele, os seus colegas do MDC e o povo - não desistiria da corrida para a Presidência. Mais: Sempre, até ontem, a sua retórica política excluía por completo qualquer tipo de aliança com o actual regime. Pois parece que, lá como cá, os políticos não são confiáveis e, pior, não se explicam ao povo quando retrocedem nos ditos.

Talvez Tsvangirai não tenha consciência do quão importantes foram as suas palavras para muitos concidadãos, que acorreram em massa aos locais onde discursou e preferiram a sede do MDC aos hospitais quando foram atacadas pelas milícias de Robert Mugabe. Depois de anos de exílio e esporádicos rallies pelo Zimbábue pregando a democracia e instilando uma severa crítica às políticas do Governo, depois de vários seus colegas de partido terem sido assassinados e ele próprio ter sido brutalmente espancado por duas vezes, talvez Tsvangirai tenha pensado que o 'demónio' iria eternizar-se no poder, passá-lo aos seus seguidores e impedir (como em Myanmar) a mudança.

Ou talvez Tsvangirai tenha um sentido de Estado de tal forma desenvolvido que coloque os interesses do Zimbábue defronte dos seus, chegando ao ponto de se aliar a quem o brutalizou. Mas não, isto é puro romance: Se o povo fosse o primeiro nos seus pensamentos, Tsvangirai teria prosseguido a luta e perdido a segunda volta das eleições, mas a Comunidade Internacional saberia que o líder do MDC tudo havia feito. Pelo contrário, Tsvangirai abandonou a corrida, refugiou-se na Embaixada da Holanda no Zimbábue e atacou Mugabe mediaticamente, a partir do ponto de imunidade. Ontem, assinou um memorando de entendimento com Mugabe, cumprimentou-o com um aperto de mão e até o tratou como «camarada».

Tsvangirai matou a ideia que a maioria dos zimbabueanos tinha dele: A de um homem recto, de ideias firmes, convicto e pronto a defender os seus ideais até ao final, incapaz sequer de iniciar negociações com alguém cujo prazo de validade político há muito expirou e que massacra os zimbabueanos para atingir fins pessoais. Se tivesse sido candidato até ao fim nas eleições Tsvangirai perderia, mas o tempo trataria de o apresentar na História do Zimbabué como uma referência para a luta contra a opressão e a defesa da liberdade. Assim o seu crédito político esvazia-se, para prejuízo do seu povo.

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.

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.

The world's greatest organization was founded in the aftermath of the Second World War in an attempt to not only ensure the post-war peace, but also to make sure that those persons who were "displaced" could be returned home. Therefore the permanent members of the security council, the most powerful body in the UN, are essentially represented by those who were victorious in the war and were responsible at that time for the day to day activities that involved international conflict resolutions. After reading this last sentence it is laughable to even comprehend that these same countries still have more or less the greatest amount of influence in today's highly technological globalized world, which cannot even come close to resembling the short post World War 2 period. This inept ability to come to an agreement not only represents this lack of reality by the security council but also demonstrates the change of the international arena since the creation of the UN.

However, the straw that broke the camel's back for me personally was the UN's failure in isolating and putting a stop to Robert Mugabe's reign of terror on his own people who ultimately forced the oppositional leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, to seek refuge in a Dutch embassy and concede the election out of the fear that more and more people would probably be killed. All efforts to impose economic sanctions on Zimbabwe failed after China, one of the members in the Security Council, vetoed, naturally due to its oil interests in the region. The outcome demonstrates that the UN does not have influence anywhere if a permanent member of the Security Council (only represented by 5 out of 192 States) disagree, the political instability that a uni-polar international arena has, and finally shows once again the mighty influence China has in the African region. But this is naturally not a surprise. It is always in a state's best interest to exercise whatever authority it has in whatever international institution it happens to have representation in. Therefore it is a joke that any reform within the UN will happen, as it must be accepted and approved by the Security Council, which would mean that these 5 states would lose their influence over international affairs.

Whether or not international politics is archaic and can only be ruled by a few powerful states, one thing is for certain that the old "western" powers are not the main players in the game anymore. With the rise of China, Brazil, and India it is ridiculous to think that such issues as climate change, the world economy, or even the food crisis could be solved, if not without their full participation. It seems that there is an old guard who woke up one day finding everyone wearing jeans, while they still want to stick with their dress pants and bowler hats. The world's problems can no longer be solved alone by Europe or the United States, other countries must be given the chance to play an effective role as well.

Naturally it is highly debatable on whether or not these countries would want to actively play a role, but one thing is for certain, that with today's international governance being restricted to the United Nations and other pointless G-8 summits they, as of yet, have not been given a proper chance. Regardless, with the United States being the number one superpower, having the highest developed military and economy that cannot be matched by any single country at its disposal, I think we can safely say today that a unilateral system of international politics could be more unstable than a bi-polar world as was demonstrated by the Cold War. Before, there were the so called "representative wars," whereas the United States or the Soviet Union would pump money into countries found in The Balkans, Africa, Asia and the Middle East to represent them in order to combat the other. Now, as the Soviet Union ceased to exist so did the US' and Russia's interest in these above mentioned regions, that ultimately produced many of these countries sliding into civil war, or attempts at mass genocide or ethnic cleansing against their respective minority groups.

Furthermore as is represented by the fact that 192 States are incompetent in working together, the only hope in stabilizing and maintaining international order would have to lie with the US. Unfortunately the US has exhausted its "international" confidence credit by invading Iraq and is now experiencing its own economic crisis where protectionism of its own resources and interests seem to be the main talk in domestic politics. If I were to pick one country, or perhaps "entity" in this sense, who could come close to challenging the United States it would probably be the European Union. Unfortunately after Ireland effectively killed the Treaty of Lisbon any hopes of aligning "European" foreign interests outside an economic sphere will be now impossible, as I have referenced in this post.

I am well aware that this is the same old song that has been sung and heard by many. But one thing that we can assert today, is that if there is to be an international solution to the world's problems, the UN either needs to be reformed, or something else must take its place. That would mean the loss of power by 5 countries and the gain of power by many. I suppose that would make me naive.

Zimbabwe's troubled central bank introduced $100 billion banknotes Saturday in a desperate bid to ease the recurrent cash shortages plaguing the inflation-ravaged economy.

The bills officially come into circulation Monday, although they were on the foreign currency dealers market Saturday.

As high as they are, though, the bills still aren't enough to buy a loaf of bread. They can buy only four oranges.

The new note is equal to just one U.S. dollar.

Once-prosperous Zimbabwe has seen an unprecedented economic meltdown since it gained independence in 1980, with the official inflation rate now at 2.2 million percent.

Robert Mugabe turned a relatively prosperous nation into an economic wasteland.

Following the first vote in March there was an air of excitement, as interested parties and onlookers envisaged the coming end of an era. Zimbabwe and the world waited in suspense for the results to come, expecting the worst, hoping for the best. Indications showed the MDC had fared well, and Mugabe’s Zanu-PF was looking at electoral defeat. As time dragged on, punters speculated the outcome and the likely consequences: Will Mugabe attempt to stuff the ballots in his favour, or will he negotiate a dignified exit? The MDC even engaged in dialogue with the military and some Zanu-PF members of parliament. The Zimbabwean electoral commission took an age to release results, first confirming MDC success in the parliamentary polls, before declaring that no candidate had reached the necessary majority of votes in the presidential election. In keeping with Zimbabwean Electoral Law, a run off vote would have to be taken, between Tsvangirai, who received 49 per cent of the votes, and Mugabe, who received only 41 per cent.

Accusations of vote rigging and political violence marred the legitimacy of the vote, casting doubt on the result. The MDC estimated an extra 3.5 million ballot papers had been printed. The lack of foreign observers and the ban on almost all foreign media ensured a blanket was placed over the country, and Mugabe could do as he please. Despite this, Tsvangirai still showed the lack of support there is within Zimbabwe for Mugabe, which must have demoralised the man. However, if anyone thought he would walk away lightly, they were wrong. Mugabe simply stepped up the ante, rallying against the West in speeches, continuing political attacks, arresting dissidents, and brutalising villages of MDC supporters. With the violence escalating, Tsvangirai made what must have been an incredibly difficult decision and withdrew from the runoff, effectively handing Mugabe the victory and with it the presidency.

"Conditions as of today do not permit the holding of a credible poll. We can't ask the people to cast their vote on June 27 when that vote will cost their lives. We will no longer participate in this violent sham of an election.” Tsvangirai, June 22.

Many have criticised Tsvangirai’s decision to withdrawal. Initially I too was disappointed, when I imagined victory to be almost a certainty for him, considering the first poll result. However it became evident that it was naïve to think Mugabe would just walk away, handing over his job without a fight. And with the increasing violence and political arrests, withdrawal was the only humane thing to do. As fellow journalism student James Murray rightly put it: “It is exactly this decision that contrasts him from despots such as Mugabe. His respect for humanity and human life distinguishes him from leaders for whom power is everything.” Instead of prolonging the violence and remaining in the race, Tsvangirai proved to the world just how brutal Mugabe was, and decided not to provoke a possible civil war.

Before the farcical presidential election runoff Tsvangirai had hoped to postpone the election until a later date, once political violence had ceased. With the conflict raging, fair and free elections cannot take place. Tsvangirai was right to pull out. Such polls can all too easily be undermined by vote rigging or intimidation. When the climate is safe for a fair election, with international observers and media presence, Mugabe is sure to come out second best at the ballot box.

Morgan is best not to hold his breath though.

Part Three: Diplomacy: Can’t we just talk about it?

Behind the scenes, whilst condemnations are conveyed, grand speeches made and newspaper columns are scribed, negotiations are taking place to try find a solution to the Zimbabwe problem. The international community, led mainly by Britain and the commonwealth, Europe and the United States, are attempting to pressure Mugabe’s regime into submission, and criticised China and Russia for not supporting moves against Mugabe. Within Africa, Botswana, Kenya and Zambia have been the most vocal against Mugabe, and are eager to get other African countries to oppose the regime more openly. The African Union, and in particular South Africa, are trying to negotiate with Mugabe and mediate between the two parties. These talks have not been without their critics. South Africa has been at the thick of both the diplomacy, and the criticism.

A few months back (when I started what was meant to be a small post on Zimbabwe’s elections in March!), there was a lot of criticism of South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki and elder statesman Nelsen Mandela for their lack of action against Mugabe. In what was perhaps the first article I had read which had anything nice to say about South Africa’s prime minister, the Herald’s Andrew Austin says we should not give up on his “quiet diplomacy”. Recognising the difficult situation Mbeki is in, Austin believes his tactics may pay dividends in the end. He argues Mbeki’s position as the assigned mediator between Mugabe and Tsvangirai is much more complex than most people first think, and does not believe accusations of inaction are fair. Mbeki does not have the respect of Mandela, and Mugabe will not like to be told what to do by a man who is far younger than him. Austin says those who know Mbeki claim he is “a skilled operator who can bring resolution to the most difficult situation”. Austin says people should not be surprised if something positive results from Mbeki’s mediation. He concludes:

“Mugabe is a bitter old man who wants to leave with his dignity intact and Mbeki might just be the one to allow this to happen.

Mbeki knows that to reach the settlement you want, you need to be open to compromise. The popular feeling is that the world should not negotiate with a monster like Mugabe. Well, what is the alternative? The United Nations is unlikely to send armed forces in to overthrow Mugabe.

The situation has gone beyond punishing Mugabe for his wrongdoing.

It is now all about saving Zimbabwe. Hindsight may well prove that Mbeki's way was the best way to achieve this.”

Perhaps Austin belief in Mbeki is not misplaced, as the MDC and Zanu-PF have engaged in talks, which is at least a start. However, there appear to be far too many obstacles in the way. Mugabe has asserted the precondition that no agreements can be made without the MDC accepting the validity of Mugabe’s success in the presidential election, which he won uncontested. This is surely unlikely to happen. Tsvangirai has also said that he is not going to enter into negotiations with Mugabe until the violence ceases and is frustrated with the mediation efforts led by Mbeki. He has even accused Mbeki of being biased towards Mugabe. Also, how much can Tsvangirai forgive, and how much power can Mugabe allow to slip from his grasp, in order for negotiations to be fruitful?

Austin is not the only one who argues the international community needs to be more patient with Mbeki’s quiet diplomacy, and African diplomatic efforts in general. South Africa’s Mail and Guardian has understandably covered the story extensively and the paper’s Binyavanga Wainaina says the international community’s rhetoric and sabre rattling has only encouraged Mugabe and given him justification for the claims that the world wants to interfer. Mugabe is considered by many Africans to be an anti-colonial hero, and pressure from the West reinforces this image of him. Wainaina believes Mugabe’s time is at an end, and he knows it:

“…the truth is that Mugabe's regime is on its last legs. The hysteria of his actions now, the escalating political violence and the general incoherence of things are more about his sticky end than any sort of meaningful triumph. He knows this and wants to go down grandly. We may not see the vengeance we want.”

I can’t help but think this is a little too optimistic. As the regime gets weaker, it will get more desperate. I think we are seeing the results of the increased desperation through increased violence. I fear that if he were to stand down, he would hand over the reins to one of his associates, who would perhaps employ the same tactics against the population, before ever conceding power to Tsvangirai.

My idea of a successful resolution through diplomacy involves Mugabe standing down, gracefully, and a South Africa style resolution taking place (truth and reconciliation for example) before new free and fair elections. However, as Austin says, compromises may have to be made, and lives of Zimbabweans must be placed before all other matters. For this reason African leaders are considering a power sharing arrangement, with Tsvangirai as prime minister, in charge of the nation's affairs, with Mugabe in a largely ceremonial role as president, with immunity from future prosecution.

The Mail and Guardian's Jason Moyo, Percy Zvomuya and Edith Kaseke argue without dialogue between the MDC and Zanu-PF neither party can govern effectively, as the MDC have a slight majority in parliament. However there are large problems with the idea of a unity government, as there are conflicts of interests involved and large policy differences between the two parties, particularly on foreign affairs and security.

“Critics of the proposed government of national unity question whether an opposition minister can be put in charge of the police or army, whose commanders have declared their allegiance to Mugabe and Zanu-PF.”

How would those who have spied or tortured Tsvangirai and his politicians go about working for these men in the future? Tsvangirai is concerned, after all, that the military appears to have effectively taken control of the country, and that Mugabe is now a “figure head” anyway. And Tsvangirai is not keen to enter into a unity government with Zanu-PF unless he himself is recognised as winner of the presidential election. So beyond the problem of actually getting both parties to talk, it is going to be incredibly difficult for them to come to any agreements about the future. Mbeki and his African partners have their hands full.

In the end, diplomacy remains the preferable option. As much as I don’t like the idea of a despot getting off without punishment, if the power sharing arrangement is the most effective way to help those suffering in Zimbabwe, it is probably the ideal option. Perhaps with a unity government in place Zimbabwe can move back towards stability and democracy, although I am not altogether sure.

Part Four: Sanctions: Can we starve this disease?

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?

Is it time to resort to military action? If it is apparent that diplomacy is doomed to fail and lives are being lost through politically and racially motivated attacks, how long can the international community insist dialogue while people are dying? Does it become morally necessary to overthrow the regime through force?

The case has been made by some. Citing humanitarian reasons, the head of Zimbabwe’s one million Catholics Pius Ncube said in 2007:

“I think it is justified for Britain to raid Zimbabwe and remove Mugabe.

“We should do it ourselves but there's too much fear. I'm ready to lead the people, guns blazing, but the people are not ready”.

The UK’s Liberal Democrat’s leader Nick Clegg has also said the international community has “ample justification to step in”, but that practical considerations made it impossible.

Mugabe has certainly used the threat of an invasion to boost his domestic popularity, for example accusing the US of planning an invasion in 2002 and claiming the country was ready for a UK invasion in 2007.

Prior to the Presidential runoff, and before Tsvangirai withdrew, Kenya’s Prime Minister Raila Odinga urged for UN peacekeeping forces to be deployed, to ensure violence subsides and free and fair elections could be held.

“My view is that the time has come for the international community to act on Zimbabwe in a way they acted in Bosnia,” he said. As of yet no such force has been deployed.

There is even speculation that Botswana may be mobilising its forces on the border with Zimbabwe, if Southern African attempts at diplomacy fail. However analysts think the country may not have adequate resources to act alone and would at least need South Africa’s assistance.

Any invasion into Zimbabwe, which as it stands is remote, would need to have broad international support, especially from around the African continent. It could also do with support from those within Zimbabwe who oppose Mugabe.

Conflict should always be the last option and all other methods must be exhausted before an invasion is even considered. I hope it does not come to this, but an invasion with African Union and UN support would be preferable to a civil war or any further escalation of political killings. Although I am loath to support any conflict occurring, for me to find any invasion palatable I must accept the motives. The aim to overthrow a malevolent regime must be supported by civilians of that country, and must be primarily for the benefit of the country, not those who invade. The Americans and their “coalition of the willing” invaded Iraq with the belief that Saddam had “weapons of mass destruction, links to al Qaeda and links to 9/11, all of which were found to be false. Only later did they claim humanitarian reasons for the invasion. Critics have always maintained the invasion was part of the Project for a New American Century, with resources (oil) and the strategic position of Iraq as the reasons for the war, accusations that have gained weight over time.

The most important thing to ensure, whether Mugabe is removed democratically, through diplomacy or through force, is that the regime who replaces him is a government for the people, not a western puppet regime. If it is not seen by Zimbabweans as a legitimate government, it risks being overthrown or there being a radical backlash. This has been seen time and time again, across the globe. The international community also cannot just leave the country to rot once he is deposed, the country is going to need assistance to rebuild its economy and infrastructure, after years of despotic rule.

The longer the situation remains as it is, or if it gets worse, the stronger the case for UN forces to be deployed will be.

Part Six: Alternative: Who is Morgan Tsvangirai

There is a consensus, at least in the West, that Mugabe is a pretty bad man, to apply a typical Kiwi understatement. But who is the man most would have replace him? Who is Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the MDC, who decimated Mugabe in the polls, all those weeks ago?

Born on March 10, 1952, in the Gutu area of what was then known as Southern Rhodesia, Morgan Richard Tsvangirai was the eldest of nine children and the son of a carpenter and bricklayer. He left school at an early age, finding employment in the Trojan Nickel Mine in Mashonaland Central. In 1980, aged 28, Tsvangirai joined the victorious Zanu-PF, and is reported as having been an ardent Mugabe supporter at the time. He rose quickly through the ranks, eventually becoming a senior official. He was influential in the country's union movements, particularly mining unions, and in 1989 he became Secretary-General of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions. Tsvangirai led the ZCTU in a split from its alliance with Zanu-PF, which deteriorated his relationship with the government. He has since been a victim of government abuse, including four assassination attempts, one of these involving CIO secret police (Central Intelligence Organisation) breaking into an apartment, and trying to throw him from the tenth floor, in 1997.

In 1999 he formed the Movement for Democratic Change in opposition to Mugabe’s Zanu-PF. In 2000 he was arrested and charged with treason, however the charge was eventually dismissed. In 2004 he was acquitted of treason, this time for an alleged plot to assassinate Mugabe prior to the 2002 presidential elections. He has been arrested on countless occasions, ironically once in 2001 under the Law and Order Maintenance Law, which was used by the colonial government to arrest freedom fighters.

The abuse lashed out to the opposition leader by the Zimbabwean government gained international attention when footage of a beaten Tsvangirai was smuggled out the country. Following his arrest on March 11 2007, he was heavily beaten and tortured by police, apparently passing out two or three times. The images of a bruised and bloodied Tsvangirai caused an international outcry. The cameraman who took the footage, Edward Chikombo, was found dead soon after.

In 2001 Morgan Tsvangirai was awarded the prestigious 2001 Solidar Silver Rose Award, which is awarded to those “Individuals and organisations whose outstanding work is fuelled by vision and tireless commitment and whose achievements have contributed greatly to the struggle for a just and civil society”.

But what kind of leader can we expect Tsvagirai to be? Recall that Mugabe started out a successful leader and a friend of the West, but has since ruled his nation to ruin. Could Tsvangirai do the same, or will he more in the Mandela mould, a unifier who can heal the wounds of the past? He has been accused of behaving like a dictator by close allies after a split in the party in 2005, so perhaps there is cause for concern there. Is this perhaps a sign how he may govern in the future?

The Telegraph’s David Blair questions whether the MDC can really run the country, considering the party’s leader cannot use a calculator. I assume the article to be a lame attempt at satire. Not too far dissimilar to Mugabe’s belief that he is an “ignoramus”, due to his humble background and lack of formal education. Many uneducated leaders have governed nations well, and educated leaders have lead their countries to ruin. Perhaps more seriously, John Makumbe, who is a political scientist at the University of Zimbabwe, questions his leadership abilities, in respect to his leaving the country when political violence stokes up.

“If he doesn't come back he will be demonstrating that he is fearful of Mugabe, therefore he is less of a leader than Mugabe and that will have very serious implications on his qualities as a leader.”

This opinion was backed by Bill Saidi, the deputy editor of the South African Sunday paper The Standard, who said the impression created by the self-imposed exile was that Tsvangirai was more concerned about his own safety than that of his supporters.

“If you are in a struggle . . . and if you are not in front to back your people, then you weaken the struggle,” said Saidi.

As admirable as it would be for Tsvangirai to remain in Zimbabwe to show his solidarity with his supporters, there is nothing to be achieved by being beaten up once again by Mugabe loyalists. The focus should not be on whether Tsvangirai stays put and toughs it out, but on the government who are using violence as a political tool. Nelson Chamisa, the chief spokesman for the MDC, replied to the objections of Tsvangirai’s absence saying questions should be asked of Mugabe and his regime rather than the opposition.
"The issue is about violence and the killing of people and the pressure should be put on the Zanu-PF regime to end the violence. The regime is on the rampage," said Chamisa.

Tsvangirai has taken enough beatings for his cause and it is remarkable that anyone would question his solidarity with the people.

Mugabe accuses Tsvangirai and the MDC of being puppets for the West. Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa says Tsvangirai is anti-Zimbabwean. The West, in particular the US and UK, certainly have a history of overthrowing or assisting the removal of popular leaders and installing tyrants who rule contrary to the desires of their people, rather for the benefit of their Western backers. I do not believe this to be the case here. We can be without any doubt that Mugabe is a tyrant himself, who we know to punish his own people especially dissidents. We have seen the injuries inflicted on Tsvangirai and others. Many of us have met and spoken to those who have fled the country, having lost their family's land. We know that Western media is not allowed in the country, and that their elections are conducted without adequate international observers. We know that Tsvangirai received a large proportion of the votes in the first Presidential election, despite evidence of vote rigging. His MDC party also fared very well. Tsvangirai is not a Western puppet, he may have Western support, but ultimately he is supported mainly by his people.

My only concern with Tsvangirai is whether he is capable of leading a country. But this concern is no different with any leader of the opposition with limited experience in power. This extends from John Key to Barack Obama. Most important is that these new leaders not divisive, particularly in countries like Zimbabwe were there has been conflict. He must be inclusive, and give no faction reason to feel aggrieved or marginalized, as this well only ensure conflict reignites. Tsvangirai appears to have these qualities, and if surrounded by intelligent and experienced colleagues, as well as backed by the African and wider international community, he should hopefully be very successful.

Can he lead Zimbabwe back from ruin? Not too sure. Should we support him against Mugabe? Definitely. He represents the resistance. He has the popular support. He should be given all the assistance necessary to repair Zimbabwe. Once Mugabe has been removed, of course.

MDC – Leader Profile

Wikipedia – Morgan Tsvangirai

Timesonline – Profile: Morgan Tsvangirai

Morgan Tsvangirai: “They brutalised my flesh but will never break my spirit”

24.com – Who’s Who: Morgan Tsvangirai

BBC News – Profile: Morgan Tsvangirai

            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.

Robert Mugabe

The British government is coming down on Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe and his ruthless regime. The Queen has stripped him of his honorary knighthood and the Zimbabwe cricket team will not be allowed to participate in Twenty20 World Cup.

Morgan Tsvangirai

Mugabe brought this on himself. It's one of the most talked about stories in the world. Yesterday, there were well over 10,000 Google News story links to that travesty of an election and the severe human rights abuses that accompanied it. To put that in perspective, when a story is really big in Google News, it might get 3,000 links.

Robert Mugabe

Based on all available data, Morgan Tsvangirai won the election. I'm sorry he withdrew from the race, but using Solomonic reasoning, clearly he is the one that cares about his nation, in giving up his rightful place in history, to stop a tyrant from killing his countrymen. Time for you to go into exile, Mr. Mugabe.

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe stripped of knighthood by the Queen

LONDON — The Queen has stripped Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe of his honorary knighthood.

The highly unusual move is meant to show Britain's displeasure over alleged human rights abuses by Mugabe's administration. The Queen acted Wednesday on the advice of British Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

http://canadianpress.google.com

Zimbabwe has cricket team cutoff from England

England has suspended all games with the Zimbabwean team and announced they will not play at the Twenty20 World Cup.

The move is in response to growing disquiet over the Zimbabwe Government's position on free and democratic elections, and allegations of mass genocide and human rights violations.

The English and Wales Cricket Board said that it was suspending all ties with Zimbabwe.

http://www.scopical.com.au

Gordon Brown calls on international effort to force Robert Mugabe from office

GORDON Brown yesterday called on the world to help drive Robert Mugabe out of office. And the Prime Minister blasted the "criminal cabal" keeping the Zimbabwean president in power through terror.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk

http://www.judiciaryreport.com

]]> http://tsfiles.wordpress.com/?p=905 Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:00:23 +0000 tsfiles http://tsfiles.wordpress.com/?p=905 The U.N. continues to prove that it has mastered failure in nearly anything it touches.

A measure to impose sanctions on Robert Mugabe's disaster zone, also known as Zimbabwe, has been rejected by these beacons of freedom: Russia, China, Libya, Vietnam, and South Africa.

Meanwhile, Zimbabwe remains paralyzed with stratospheric inflation and poverty, and Mr. Mugabe remains in power despite having stolen an election.

BBC: Zimbabwe sanctions vetoed at UN -- A draft resolution to impose sanctions on Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and a number of his key allies has been vetoed at the UN Security Council.

But the MDC leader, Morgan Tsvangirai (photo, from telegraph.co.uk), said the meeting has been attended by officials from his party so they can present conditions that would need to be, before negociations could begin.

"Over the past 10 days, I and my party have stated categorically that there are no negotiations between ourselves and Zanu-PF currently taking place ... This position has not changed", he said in a statement.

As the presidential run-off was marred by allegations of violence and vote-rigging, when the talks begun the UN Security Council is prepared to discuss possible sanctions against Zimbabwe.

A few days before the June 27 poll took place, Mr Tsvangirai pulled out of it, and Zimbabwe’s leader for 28 years, Robert Mugabe, claimed victory.

‘Return his passport’

Though there was little information about what was discussed and who took part, Al Jazeera's Kalay Maistry, reporting from Johannesburg, said that the MDC's number two could have left Zimbabwe, where he has been charged with treason, to go to the talks.

"We did see yesterday from Zimbabwe that the MDC's Tendai Biti has asked a court to return his passport so he could attend talks in South Africa - but there is still no indication that such high level of members of the various parties are meeting."

Sources said that Mugabe’s Zanu-PF will be represented by Patrick Chinamasa (photo, from bbc.co.uk), the justice minister, and Nicholas Goche, the labour minister.

Representatives of the breakaway opposition faction of Arthur Mutambara, who met Mugabe last Saturday, also reportedly attended the talks.

Meeting in Japan this week, G8 leaders called for a special envoy to assist in mediation efforts, and they also rejected the legitimacy of Mugabe’s government and threatened further sanctions against his regime.

The US made a draft resolution calling for a freeze on assets and a travel ban for Mugabe and 13 close associates, as well as an arms embargo.

It would also demand that the Harare government "begin without delay a substantive dialogue between the parties with the aim of arriving at a peaceful solution that reflects the will of the Zimbabwean people as expressed by the March 29 [first-round presidential] elections".

Further sanctions

Though he finished ahead of Mr Mugabe in that election, Morgan Tsvangirai did not secure enough votes to avoid the run-off.

The push for futher sanctions has been rejected by several African governments, including South Africa. They say it will only worsen the situation.

But on Thursday, Liberia said that sanctions would send Robert Mugabe a “strong message”.

"I think it [sanctions] is fine to bring about satisfactory resolution", said Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, the president.

Her statement came as she arrived in South Africa to deliver the Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture as part of events to mark the former South African president's 90th birthday.

Ms Johnson-Sirleaf also expressed support for moves to appoint a special envoy to assist in Zimbabwe mediation efforts.

After the election results were initially released weeks of violence ensued which shocked many around the world and left over a thousand Kenyans dead.  A power sharing deal was crafted with the help of Kofi Annan, and incumbent President Mwai Kibaki was declared president with Odinga assuming the role of Prime Minister.

It's no surprise then that Odinga recently voiced his opinion that Zimbabwean President Robert Mugagbe should step down and international peace keepers should be sent into the nation to ensure free and fair elections.  Odinga--a member of his nation's opposition party --knows far too well what Zimbabwe's Morgan Tsvangirai is experiencing at the moment.

The International Republican Institute initially didn't release the results of their exit poll findings because there were concerns about its validity, but yesterday, in Washington, DC, the authors presented their findings:

The pollsters contracted Strategic Research, a veteran Kenyan public-opinion firm, which surveyed voters in each of Kenya's eight provinces and in 179 out of 210 electoral constituencies. According to their projections, Odinga, who also led Kibaki in pre-election polls, should have received about 58,000 more votes than he was credited with. Kibaki should have received about 356,000 fewer votes.

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.