Salah satu Negara miskin di Afrika ini, berhasil tercatat sebagai Negara dengan hiperinflasi sepanjang sejarah dunia. Gila itu sih namanya. Belanja sayur aja musti juta-jutaan. Begitu juga dengan angka pengangguran, mencapai 80%. Membeli seikat sayur aja, 5 juta dolar Zimbabwe, emas 170juta dolar Zimbabwe, satu butir telur aja 6 juta dollar. Buat beli lemon aja mereka mikir belinya. Waduh, kebayang aja dengan anak-anak disana. Pasti orangtuanya mikir panjang kalau mau belanja, gimana ngga?

Sekian juta atau bahkan ratusan juta di mereka, itu setara hanya dengan puluhan ribu di Indonesia. Memprihatinkan. Dan baru kali ini aku tau, ada Negara yang mengeluarkan uang dengan pecahan ratusan juta dalam satu lembar. Aduh

Banyak orang menuding, penyebabnya adalah presiden Negara ini sendiri, Robert Gabriel Mugabe, atau yang lebih akrab disebut Robert Mugabe. Presiden yang sudah berkuasa lebih dari 20 tahun, tepatnya 21 tahun sejak 1987. Dia ini merupakan salah satu tokoh controversial saat ini. Gimana ngga, diawal menjabat sebagai presiden, gaji yang dia terima, kurang dari $i juta, tapi belakangan ini (tepatnya kapan aku kurang tau), dia menaikkan sendiri gajinya hingga 1000%. Bagaimana mungkin dia tega melakukan itu? Tidakkah dia melihat keadaan negaranya yang begitu miskin? Tidakkah dia prihatin dengan keadaan rakyatnya? Malah dengan pendapatan luar biasanya itu, dia membangun Mugabe’s Place, yang menelan biaya sampai sekitar 6 juta poundsterling. Rumah yang terdiri dari 3 tingkat, 25 kamar tidur beserta kamar mandi, serta ada spa pribadi. Wow. Dia ini memerangi homoseks, dalam salah satu pidatonya, dia mengatakan bahwa perilaku homoseks adalah penurunan derajat manusia. kalau babi dan anjing tidak melakukannya, kenapa manusia mau? (aku langsung berfikir, kawan ini belum pernah nonton Legally Blonde 2, yang anjingnya homo). Lagian kalau difikir-fikir, homo mah bukan kejahatan, kecuali macam si Ryan yang membunuh orang itu. Kalau homo kan, sakit aja dia sendiri tak dirugikannya negara ini sama masyarakat banyak. Sementara, kalau kelakuan si presiden ini, bisa dibilang sangat buruk. Bukan hanya dia, istrinya juga Imelda Marcos kedua kayaknya. Grace Marufu, ini adalah istri keduanya, setelah Sally Hafron istri pertama nya meninggal dunia karena penyakit yang kronis di tahun 1992. Lantas menikahlah dia dengan si Grace yang lebih muda 40 tahun darinya. Dan dia inilah si gila belanja yang bisa menginstruksikan pesawat dan seisinya untuk menunggu dia memuaskan hasrat belanjanya. Dia ini juga monster belanja, sanggup menghabiskan 7000 poundsterling, dalam hanya dua jam saja. Bah poang, ai akka aha do ituhori? Dan satu lagi, dia ini dulunya sekretaris si Mugabe ini. Sampai-sampai negara di Uni Eropa sana, melarang dia untuk berbelanja di negara mereka, karena tidak sesuai dengan tingkat kemiskinan di negaranya. Udah gitu, perangai ini dimiliki ibu negara lagi. Wah parah tuh.

Tragis, harga di negara ini bisa naik dua kali dalam sehari, atau bahkan berkali-kali dalam seminggu. Buset, tak terbayangkan kalau itu terjadi di negara ini. Keadaan sekarang aja udah membuat orang menjerit dimana –mana. Apakah tidak ada cara untuk menyelesaikan konflik berkepanjangan di negeri itu? Bagaimana dengan jalan mengganti aja tuh presidennya. Supaya era kedikatatorannya berakhir. Dan lagipula, masa sudah sampe 21 tahun dan sudah berusia 84 tahun, dia masih keukeuh untuk terus memimpin negeri itu. Kenapa dia ngga jadi dewan penasihat presiden aja nantinya. Eh, jangan jangan deh, tar dia malah kasi pendapat supaya presiden bunuh semua masyarakat, baik dengan cara yang dia lakukan sekarang, atau dengan cara lain. Tapi ini masih jauh dari harapan, karena tampaknya si Mugabe ini sudah sangat kesetanan, dia sanggup melakukan apa saja untuk tetap di posisinya sekarang ini. Terbukti pada pemilu terakhir, tahun 2000, dia sanggup melakukan pembantaian terhadap pendukung oposisinya. Awalnya, oposisinya Tsvangirai sudah menunjukkan tanda akan menang telak. Bagaimana tidak, tentu rakyat sudah tidak ingin lagi dipimpin oleh si Gabriel Mugabe, yang telah berubah menjadi Lucifer Mugabe itu. Tsvangirai, melakukan diskusi dengannya jauh sebelum hasil pemilu keluar, dan menawarkan kemungkinan untuk pensiun dini dari jabatannya saat itu. Boro-boro mikirin tawaran pensiun, dia malah makin bringas menebar teror di kalangan masyarakat. Dan pada saat pemilu berlangsung, bahkan banyak masyarakat yang memutuskan untuk tidak keluar rumah, karena takut dengan teror yang dilancarkan Mugabe.

Lama kelamaan negara ini nanti akan menganggap hiperinflasi itu sebagai hal yang biasa. Padahal, harusnya tidak begitu. Mungkin rakyat di negeri ini, kecuali yang pro dengan Mugabe, sudah lama tidak tau artinya sedih dan menangis yah.

Sepuluh tahun silam, dibawah kepemimpinan Mugabe, negara ini termasuk salah satu negara maju di Afrika, bahkan bisa menjadi salah satu negara tumpuan benua Afrika. Di negara ini, orang-orangnya terbiasa dengan tata krama dan sopan santun. Apalgi di ibukotanya, Harare. Dulu, setiap lampu merah, pengendara mobil akan berhenti dengan teratur. Dan walaupun tanpa aliran listrik sekarang, mereka masih terbiasa berjalan dengan teratur disana. Walaupun kepedihan dan penderitaan sudah menjadi makanan sehari-hari mereka, tampaknya mereka masih bisa teratur.

Semoga konflik berkepanjangan ini bisa segera berakhir. Kita juga tidak ingin berkembang menjadi konflik perang saudara, seperti yang pernah terjadi di Kongo.

On Monday, a deal agreeing to the negotiations has been signed by president Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvanigirai, opposition leader, paving the way for the talks. It was their first meeting in a decade.

The talks, which are slated to last two weeks, intended to end a crisis following disputed presidential polls.

For the talks to be concluded within that timeframe, progress will have to be swift, said the BBC's Jonah Fisher, in Johannesburg. He adds that the future of Mr Mugabe and the structure and composition of a new government are yet to be decided.

Mr Tsvangirai, leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), as well as Mr Mugabe's Zanu-PF party, claim to have won this year's elections.

Violence

Though the first round in March was won by Mr Tsvanigirai, official results gave him less than the 50% required for outright victory.

Then, in the second round Mr Mugabe claimed victory, after his rival pulled out, complaining of a campaign of violence against his supporters.

The office of Thabo Mbeki, South African president, who has been leading mediation over Zimbabwe, confirmed the start of the talks on Thursday.

There had been conflicting reports about when negotiations would start, and the deal bans parties from talking to the media.

The negotiators from Mr Mugabe's Zanu-PF party and the MDC travelled to South Africa on the same flight on Wednesday, reported Zimbabwe's state-owned Herald newspaper.

‘Green light’

Patrick Chinamasa, justice minister, and Nicholas Goche, public services minister, represent the Zanu-PF party, while the MDC has sent Secretary General Tendai Biti and Deputy Treasurer Elton Mangoma.

The Herald has been told by a Zanu-PF official that, at a meeting on Wednesday, the party’s politburo had been briefed on the negotiations.

"We gave Comrade Chinamasa and Comrade Goche the green light for them to go ahead with the negotiations within the parameters signed by the principals", said Ephraim Masawi, Zanu-PF deputy secretary for information and publicity.

At least 120 of its supporters have been killed, about 5,000 abducted and 200,000 forced from their homes since the first round of the elections, in a campaign of violence by pro-Mugabe militias and the army, said the MDC.

But the charges have been denied by cabinet ministers and military officials.

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.

Robert Mugabe's junta gets all the attention, but there's a host of other despots on the African continent escaping attention. Like king Mswati III, a virtual despot in Swaziland (covered in the new documentary "Without a King") or the oil-rich (that's them personally, their families and their aids, and not their people) Jose Eduardo dos Santos in Angola or Omar Bongo in Gabon. And there's Hosni Mubarak who has ruled Egypt for the last 27 years with the aid of the army and police. Its illegal to hold protests, publicly challenge his rule (unless you're a famous writer whose arrest will result in howls of protest in the "West." As for ordinary Egyptians, sorry). Mubarak gets by since he is a staunch ally of the US in the Middle East and North Africa.  But his repressive apparatus can't always keep up with technology or the guile of its youth -- really with blogs, Facebook and Youtube -- as this excellent documentary by Journeyman Pictures show.

Savour the pictures then scroll to the bottom of the page to see who owns this Work of Art.

This Mansion is in Harare and belongs to:
The President of Zimbabwe - Robert Mugabe -
while his people starve, and die because of no medical help....and we are asked to help his people over and over again...he and his family live like this.......his GREED kills his people.....

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.

•••••••

The rebirth of Africa means discarding foreign religions
by Sentletse Diakanyo
Mail & Guardian (South Africa), July 20, 2008

The traditional religions of most Africans altered significantly as a result of colonial rule. Colonial rulers interfered with the African way of worship. Where the modes of worship conflicted with those of the colonialists, restrictions were placed on religious practice. African cultures were seen as primitive and were gradually impoverished through neglect and suppression by colonial hooligans.

The rebirth of Africa has become even more urgent under growing recolonialisation of Africa under the false guise of globalisation. Africans need to reclaim their religion and culture, and discard many of those which were imposed on them, by embracing Afrocentricism as the essential element of the African renaissance as popularised by President Thabo Mbeki in recent times.

See the tremendous debate that follows beneath the article, almost every imaginable position is voiced, and few appear to be in favour of the argument above. The author of the piece is himself a Formula One race car driver, and that too became the subject of some comments.

•••••••

African traditions corrupted
by Keith Ross
IOL (South Africa), July 21, 2008

African traditions have been corrupted over many years by the influence of Western values, with its emphasis on materialism.

The corruption is particularly marked in the urban areas of South Africa, where there has also been a breakdown of the family as the vehicle of traditional values.

This was one of the conclusions drawn in SAfm Radio's After Eight Debate on the topic: "Are African cultures being corrupted?"

The debating panel felt traditional culture would have to be restored by a conscious and broad-based effort, through the family and all levels of education.

'To be poor in the world is to be the doormats of people'

"We should accept that the culture of any people is dynamic and we should not be afraid of its dynamism," said Dr Mongane Serote, executive chairperson of the Freedom Park Trust.

"But Africans as a whole on the continent went through what was almost like nuclear war on us in terms of ideas," he said.

•••••••

Mugabe, Britain and the abuses of anti-colonialism (version 1)
by Priyamvada Gopal
ZNet, June 29, 2008

Somehow, this version seems to have more balanced criticism of British political and media hypocrisy in their war against Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, than does the version (below) published by The Guardian in the UK. I wonder if that was the point in publishing "the longer version" at another source? Given that bias, underplayed by The Guardian, I am emphasizing the comments here that are critical of Britain's stance:

Were the BBC and Channel 4 to show as many close-ups of injured and dead Iraqis as they do of Mugabe's maimed victims, criticism of violence against innocents might be somewhat more evenly distributed than it currently is. The British government turns accusatory fingers in Zimbabwe's direction while Mugabe shouts back anti-colonial slogans. It is a perfect symbiosis, a mutually convenient embrace of denunciation, with each party laying claim to the higher moral ground. The only innocents, however, are ordinary Zimbabweans. ...

Britain's persistent refusal to acknowledge its own colonial legacies is contradictory. It reneged on its commitments to the land reform programme claiming, in Claire Short's words, that there were no ‘links to former colonial interests' while nevertheless concerning itself with the fate of the white farmers who represent these interests. Alongside an extremely selective use of human rights discourse, such contradictions mean that Mugabe's denunciations have some truth to them even if their main purpose is to detract from the ruling elite's own depravities. While Africa is ostensibly central to Britain's international development agenda, the emphasis has always been on the paternalism of aid rather than acknowledging and making reparations for the economic devastation wrought by colonialism. Rarely do condemnations of land seizure, violence and intimidation extend back to the time Matabeleland came under British rule. This too was accompanied by the seizure of vast swathes of fertile land by a handful of British farmers while large numbers of Ndebele and Shona people were killed or forced into labour. Brutal modern regimes in that part of the globe didn't begin with Mugabe.

•••••••

Mugabe has recolonised his people (version 2)
We should recognise that Zimbabwe was brutalised by colonisation. But Mugabe liberated his country only to install another tyranny

by Priyamvada Gopal
The Guardian (UK), Friday, June 27, 2008

Mugabe and fellow African liberationists should reacquaint themselves with the real meaning of anti-colonialism. Having resisted the anti-poor agendas of international monetary institutions and initiated necessary land reforms, Mugabe has also refused all responsibility for those many failures of his rule not reducible to the colonial past.

A party of freedom fighters has degenerated into thugs brandishing liberationist sticks to starve and brutalise an entire population. Real anti-colonialists like Gandhi and Fanon always insisted that freedom was not about replacing the white tyrant with the black one, whereas Mugabe has essentially recolonised his people. Indeed, the very techniques of suppression and intimidation deployed by the Zimbabwean leader, a knight of the British Empire until Wednesday, were taught him by the colonial masters he professes to despise. Quick to claim credit for spreading parliamentary democracy, Britain is less forthcoming about acknowledging the legacy of authoritarian rule also left behind by its empire.

I must say that I like Gopal's analytical approach, embracing both Fanon and Gandhi, and not aiming for "balance" as much as an anti-colonial perspective that is directed at both external and internal neo-colonialists. Because she is equally critical of Robert Mugabe and Gordon Brown, some might mistake that as a middling position, which in that very limited sense it is.

What I also appreciate about Gopal's approach is that she reminds us of the legacy of British authoritarian rule. One must recall in the Caribbean context how Britain's colonies were directly administered from Britain, hence their designation as Crown Colonies, without any effort, any pretense, to allow locals to practice democracy. Token opposition in local legislative assemblies was usually opposition for the sake of opposition, there was no need to be responsible to an electorate, and no role to be played in governance. The colonial governors themselves were not slow to exact merciless physical punishment against their non-white critics. From that, a rapid transition to "self-rule," with a colonial historical context and cultural repertoire of power exercised through beatings. Why massacres of political opponents are not the norm is incredible testimony to the power of the "formerly" colonized to escape the cultural bindings of the recent past.

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.

now, one genocidal maniac has been caught.  can we please get omar al-bashir and robert mugabe out of power and in a damn cell?!?!

In public international law, it says, a crime against humanity is an act of persecution or any large scale atrocities against a body of people, and is the highest level of criminal offense.

They go on to quote The Rome Statute Explanatory Memorandum, which says that crimes against humanity are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation and degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. However, murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion.

So why hasn't Robert Mugabe been charged? Probably because the decimation of your populace through starvation and illness is a drawn-out process. No mounds of carcasses to shock the Western world when CNN finally picks up on it, no horrible scenes of tanks rolling down cracked streets, or of people carving at other people with crude machetes. In fact, I'd say that the hunger crises throttling most of Africa firmly counts towards that whole “any large scale atrocities against a body of people” thing. But then what do I know. I don't get to wear a fancy Armani suit that could feed a dozen Aids orphans in Nigeria for two months, and goodness knows Hollywood Reporter is about to start.

And oh yes, we were still pretending that the Zimbabwe crises doesn't exist, weren't we Thabo?

PS: Beats me why we need a distinction between war crimes and crimes against humanity. They're identical. Murder, rape, torture – all those beautiful things that make the seven pm news – are the same things, war or no.

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.

Mugabe, in his thirst for power and control, is targeting trade unionists for arrest, harassment and the odd unexplainable disappearance. Whether you're a fan of trade unions or not, this is an unacceptable abuse of human rights!

Trade unionists in Zimbabwe are under constant threat of jail and/or death. Two trade unionists, Lovemore and Wellington, are on trial for simply being trade union leaders. They desperately need our help. Please support this global campaign and shame the Zimbabwean government.

Spread the word!

tapi walaupun kamu punya bermilyar-milyar dollar zimbabwe, tetap aja kamu ga bisa disebut bener-bener kaya, bayangin aja (katanya) harga sebungkus roti $80 milyar, dan sebotol Coca Cola 1 liter $ 160 milyar.

disana ada uang dengan nominal 100.000.000.000 dollar zimbabwe, wow sepertinya berhak masuk guinness book of record untuk kategori uang dengan nominal terbesar dan jumlah nol terbanyak!

negara zimbabwe (warna hijau) di benua afrika

bendera negara zimbabwe

Robert Mugabe, Presiden Zimbabwe, mungkin salah satu penyebab ekonomi zimbabwe terpuruk!

ternyata ada negara yang lebih parah dari indonesia ya!

Case in point: Thomas L. Friedman wrote in a recent Op-Ed that, "there was something truly filthy about Russia’s and China’s vetoes of the American-led U.N. Security Council effort to impose targeted sanctions on Robert Mugabe’s ruling clique in Zimbabwe."

OK so Robert Mugabe is a rich, power mad, murderous dictator whose insane policies have ruined many, many lives -- it's true. So why would Russia and China veto the UN Security Council measure to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe?  Is it because they're *evil* countries?

Or could these countries have, oh I don't know, some kind of financial interest in keeping Mugabe's regime in power?

China, for one, is beoming more and more intertwined with Africa due primarily to China's thirst for oil and valuble minerals.

As David Shinn and Joshua Eisenman have pointed out in a recent report surrounding US-China policy towards Africa,

"China’s reluctance to impose political conditions and its willingness to work with any African government have resulted in strong ties with Sudan and Zimbabwe, two countries considered pariahs in much of the west. China accepts African governments as they are and seems equally comfortable with an Islamist government in Sudan, a democracy in South Africa, and an autocracy in Equatorial Guinea. It also has a history of switching political loyalty with relative ease when there is regime change in an African country."

Even better: In 1965, post-colonial civil war broke out in what was then the newly independent state of Rhodesia. After more than a decade of fighting, Mugabe became commander in chief of the rebel "Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army" (ZANLA) which received funding directly from Beijing!

Remember when the US installed General Pinochet in Chile in 1972 to prevent Allende from nationalizing key Chilean industries? And then, even after decades of Pinochet's disastrous rule, the US refused to take any stance on the general's genocidal policies? There was something "truly filthy" about that too, no?

Whenever the US reveals its imperial aspirations, the liberal NYTimes will fob it off on excesses perpetrated at the hands of Bush...or whoever the scapegoat of choice happens to be. But whenever China or Russia do so, it's simply "shameful"

That is dumb.

Of course, I don't want to go out of my way to excoriate Friedman, because he's a smart guy. But this isn't worthy of his intelligence.

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.

WARM WELCOME: President Thabo Mbeki is welcomed by Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe upon his arrival in Harare.

(Tsvangirayi Mukwazhi, AP)

... Just a question ...

... do they?

PS my spell checker wants to change Thabo Mbeki to Taboo Meek

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.

Example:

[...] "An exhausted Dubya is now doing everything he once said he would not," writes Gordon G. Chang for Commentary Magazine's Contentious Blog blog burst titled Is the Bush Administration Crumbling?

The President, for example, is rewarding North Korea prior to surrender of its nuclear weapons. On Wednesday, the administration agreed to talk with Iran even though the Islamic Republic is continuing to enrich uranium and undoubtedly maintaining a covert bomb program. And on the same day, it was revealed that the Bush White House is undermining democratic Taiwan to please communist China by refusing to sell the former defensive weapons. Next month, the President will be joining the likes of Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe to honor Chinese autocrats at the opening ceremony of an event recently described as the “Totalitarian Olympics.”

Mr. Bush probably won’t have to sit next to Sudan’s Omar Bashir–seating is said to be alphabetical for attending heads of state–only because the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on Monday asked for an arrest warrant for the genocidal ruler.

The American leader who believes so much in freedom and democracy has done more than any autocrat to support the strengthening coalition of authoritarian states. Getting little in return, Bush is yielding on almost every request from Beijing and most of them from Moscow. In doing so, he is abandoning American allies and undermining critical American goals. By reversing course on major initiatives, he is eroding American credibility. Now, it seems every foreign policy of the Bush administration is, well, Kerryesque [...]

Also:

[...] "last week the Bush administration abruptly refined that position--as Barack Obama might put it," writes Stephen F. Hayes in a www.weeklystandard.com article titled 'Stunningly Shameful'; The Bush administration flip-flops on Iran

Without any indication that Iran was suspending its uranium enrichment program, the State Department announced that Burns would be heading to Switzerland for direct meetings with Iran's nuclear negotiators.

So what changed? Very little [...]

[...] It has been a dispiriting few weeks. Several conservative political appointees have said that they are embarrassed to be working in the Bush administration. One called the new policies "preemptive capitulation." Another suggested that whatever credit the Bush administration deserved for keeping Americans safe in the seven years after 9/11 would be offset by the blame the administration will have earned for emboldening America's enemies with its reflexive weakness. And a former adviser to Condoleezza Rice said: "This is stunningly shameful."

But, our diplomats were not finished. In his appearance on Capitol Hill, Burns was asked about reports that the United States is considering opening a U.S. interests section in Tehran. He declined to talk about internal State Department deliberations but reported that such a move--one that would bring the United States one step closer to the "more normal relationship" Condoleezza Rice promised back in January without any indication that Iran intends to stop or even slow its pursuit of nuclear weapons--is under active consideration.

The Iranians have certainly been paying attention to this kinder, gentler Bush administration and its sudden embrace of the thank-you-sir-may-I-have-another school of diplomacy.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei understands that aggressive rhetoric is effective. "The positions of the Islamic Republic and the red lines of the Iranian nation are very clear and if the parties of negotiation negotiate within this framework, the authorities will engage in dialogue. But the condition is that no one threatens the Iranian nation," he said last week, according to a translation published on NationalReviewOnline. "The Iranian nation will cut the hand which is raised against the dear Islamic Republic. .  .  . There are those who say that the American president would do something in his final months of presidency. .  .  . [T]he Iranian nation will punish him, even if he is out of office and no longer has any official responsibility" [...]

Question: Is it the Bush administration or the conservative movement as it is presently organized and constituted that has entered its sudden and accelerating late phase? Bush has passed into anti-Bush, a late phase marked by irony and negation according to the law of analogy, just as Christ passes into anti-Christ, church into anti-church, and just as the Clintons closed their own era by turning on their own party and its newly anointed, the very basis of their rule.

(In Eastern Rome's late phase---Byzantium historians call it, though the "Byzantines" never did---they called themselves Romans and properly so---the Emperor became the Sultan's vassal and cooperated, even collaborated, in the destruction of Christian cities and estates. Those whom the gods would destroy ... )

In any case conditions have become complex for the political and cultural right. The White House---the seat of the conservative movement's waning power---its last remaining center of influence having lost both houses of congress in 2006---has become a Bush family fuherbunker. The shocked and awed cabinet secretaries and political appointees of this broken administration are everywhere retreating on, or reversing themselves on, every principle they once held.

So, what is the sum of all this? Where do these paths lead? Is the party over?---by this we mean the GOP. Or is more than just the party over? Will anything rise up in its place? Our hopes too must rest on the person and presence of one Barack Obama. For the political right to persist in its present form Sen. Obama must somehow provoke enough resistance to organize a coalition coherent enough to defeat him at the polls in November---however narrowly or even on a split decision like 2000. Or once in office stay true to his promises and govern from the left flanked by Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi. The image of this alone could resuscitate the now shattered coalition of the political right. Well, one would hope.

How sad, however, that our destiny is no longer our own.

...The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand ...

Question: What will claw its way out of this tomb? An Osiris whole and new to announce a new era? Or a flesh eating zombie, a foul and dangerous caricature of its former self?

N.

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.

Spread the word!

THE FACT the International Criminal Court (ICC) has called for the arrest of Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese President, does not mean that he will find himself in the dock any time soon.

The case against Mr. al-Bashir whose government is accused of actively conniving with the thugs and rapists terrorising Darfur will now be examined for ‘legitimacy' by three judges whose trawl of the legal frameworks will take many months.

The very suggestion that serving an indictment against a serving head of state (for the first time) and how it should proceed has already provoked internal outrage amongst apologists for Bashir, and received external criticism from nations like China. The Chinese have been investing heavily and building huge commercial interests across Africa which has, undoubtedly, bought them considerable economic opportunities. China, like the United States and India, has chosen not to recognise the ICC, initially set-up in 2002 to pursue those individuals committing genocide or war crimes.

China, too, was among the saboteurs of the proposed UN resolution which attempted to apply sanctions to the manifestly corrupt and illegal Mugabe regime.

Both these African heads of government (Mugabe and Bashir) starkly illustrate the hypocrisy of the world community and its relative impotence and weakness in the face of visible evil. The mantra of choice for African despots is that the greatest threat to their populations is interference from former colonial powers from which independence was bravely won after decades of brutal exploitation. Conveniently omitted is that those decades of oppression and denial of democratic rights have been reciprocated by decades of indigenous corruption and violence, often found within many of the liberated countries.

The legacy of colonialism, from within African states, is undoubtedly seen as an accessory before the fact in the internecine strife and electoral malpractice which has become a feature of some African states. But, this cannot be used as an excuse or an alibi in denying an appetite for a just democracy. ‘African solutions for African problems' needs to be much more than a mere slogan; it requires a concerted commitment to calling evil acts for what they are. By doing so, Africa itself can take the lead by offering moral leadership rather than indulging, as it does, in a form of inverted racism.

Lauding Nelson Mandela, while protecting Mugabe and al-Bashir, tyrannical dictators, will do nothing for the future of the continent after South Africa's most respected leader dies. Ellen Sirleaf, the President of Liberia, in her keynote speech at Mr. Mandela's 90^th birthday celebrations said, "All Africans have a responsibility to speak out against injustice everywhere."

Africa's only female President openly condemned the sham election in Zimbabwe reminding the world that when Liberia held a similarly hijacked poll in 1985, and it was endorsed by African leaders, 30-years of civil war and devastation followed with thousands dead and many millions displaced.

Ellen Sirleaf's judgement could prove all too prescient and prophetic if crimes go unpunished, for the sake of ... "not to disturb a delicate peace process". But, what peace? Is that how the terrified, devastated families in Darfur interpret things?

There have of course been calls and a bid to have a government of "national unity" in Zimbabwe. How can any credible future be built incorporating the leadership of a tyrant whose regime so brutally and repressively won the day?

Whilst some African countries might well say that former colonial powers should limit their criticism of African problems, basic legality and morality cannot be the subject of a pick and mix process. Similarly, and in a similar vain, we can see the mess that follows when, for instance, umbrella political organisations choose to condemn only selected purveyors of violence in the Middle East.

Searching for peace in the world with so many flashpoints is a profound complexity. Conflicts which have been around for decades will not be resolved without negotiation and compromise. Compromise stops where there is any attempt in dismissing culpability for comprehensive criminality.

The victims of state-sponsored violence in both Sudan and Zimbabwe have been denied their voting rights, their personal security, and access to the most basic of life's necessities. Justice is now needed.

© Mark Dowe 2008: all rights protected

Robert Mugabe and the Iranian Regime - by Hassan Daioleslam - July 15, 2008

The recent parody of presidential election in Zimbabwe has caused disgust and disappointment in the world. Mugabe's fiasco has initiated the United Nations to intervene and condemn this sham.

If Mugabe had followed the Iranian regime's model of "democracy" not only his sham would have never been condemned by the UN, on the contrary, his regime could have been praised and respected.

The recipe is easy and simple. Instead of becoming a presidential candidate, Mugabe could seat himself as the life term Supreme Leader. He then has to install a Council of Guardians to choose a few suitable presidential candidates with a solid record of obedience. By doing so, there would be no risk that one of the candidates would take refuge in a foreign embassy. As "democratic" elections take place every few years, the lucky winners of these presidential games could take turn in morphing into a moderate, reformist, pragmatist, radical, or realist. The democracy kit is not complete yet. Mugabe should fill the parliaments with the same kind of friends (moderates, reformists …). At the end, the Supreme Leader should make it clear to everyone that even such friendly president and parliament would have no authority and if by accident or excess of confidence they overextend their responsibilities, the Council of Guardian will intervene and guarantee the safety of the Republic. This form of democracy is called  Velayat-e-Faghih.

Once this democratic package is ready, Mugabe could turn to the Mullahs' lobby in Washington and together with friendly Americans; they will sell the package as an example of good governance and citizens' respect, an indigenous democracy that is fit with all aspects of religion, theology, social, and cultural values. A model that many nations could eventually follow. If you think these comments are silly or exaggerated, let's have a look at some comments by the most respected Iran-experts:

Robin Wright: the senior journalist of Washington Post has been amazed by the impact of Iranian democracy around the world:

"The (2000 parliamentary) election may also have marked the onset of recovery — a revolution´s third and final phase".[2]

"Like the world around it, Iran is still undergoing a profound transformation… Gradually, the government of God is being forced to cede to secular statecraft -- and to empower Iranians. In the process, Iran has begun contributing to the spread of public empowerment around the world."[3]

Ambassador Robert H. Pelletreau: "There are many who find the Iranian electoral system imperfect, especially the vetting role of the Council of Guardians, but we should also recognize the elements of democracy which are present: choice among candidates, public debate over programs and positions, and the secret ballot. Americans should respect the results, whatever they are, and not rush to draw superficial conclusions". [1]

Suzanne Maloney (Brookings Institution): "Iran has been a functioning democracy - albeit very limited - since the revolution in 1979. There have been something along the lines of 21 national elections in 22 years, and they have taken place even at times of great tension." (Brookings Institution, June 11, 2001)

Graham Fuller: "In reality, Iran has a freer and more outspoken democratic parliament and press than most of the Arab countries. It has more women in parliament than does the United States." [There were 11 women deputies in Iran in 1998] Middle East Policy Council, October 1998

Ray Takeyh (senior expert at CFR): "Iran's Islamic polity largely reflects fundamental features of democracy: free elections, separation of powers, freedom of assembly and a vibrant press." (MEPC October 2000)

Suzanne Maloney: "The February elections (2000) provide powerful evidence that the system is evolving in an irreversibly democratic fashion." (Middle East Policy, June 2000)

A question remains unanswered. How is it that the Mugabe's election mockery is condemned as a sham and at the same time, the Mullahs' masquerade in Iran is sold as an example of democracy?

Many believe that the answer is OIL.