The line of thinking that Blacks ruin everything they rule is a convenient lie. How convenient to ignore that a Free global market is set-up and any country that does not fall in line many will impose sanctions and stop trade to punish the nation, then say it is that leaders fault.

People of European decent and opportunist people of color have been angry and systematically sanctioning this country. We know that some of European decent and African opportunist will stand against this country because it is the only leader (that I know of) that stood up against the past sins of Colonialism. This nation from what I know (which is not much on this subject and I could be wrong) did exactly what Israel did (again I could be wrong here, as I’m green here to) by taking land back that they believe is their inherent right (Encarta defines this as part of the very nature of something, and therefore permanently characteristic of it or necessarily involved in it) and giving it back to the so called original inhabitants.

This is why you see the passionate outcries under the guise of they care about the people.

Recently a woman called into C-SPAN and was weeping because this leader took land from the colonialist and gave it back to the original inhabitants. She said she could not understand how someone could do this. What was odd to me was she wept for the most recent inhabitants but had no remorse for those who were murdered, enslaved and made to serve these same people on the land they once owned and enjoyed. She and others appear to be people who pretends to have admirable principles, beliefs, or feelings but shows blatant disregard for how this nation got to where it is.

yes Mugabe has messed up. But it is a circular argument to state that the collapse of the Zim economy is solely owing to Mugabe. Any country, even the might USA can be brought down to its knees with the kind of snctions applied to Zim. The question is: do you switch off the electricity source to a hospital because you dont like its Board? and then argue that they mismanage the hospital when the babies start to die in the incubators?

One can say the West does precisely that because here they are dealing with an African country.

As to intervention, international laws apply to the sovereignty of Zim. It looks easier and neat to be baptised into George Bushes Iraq-style regime change. But the consequences would haunt South Africa for many years to come. This kind of political blackmail is horrible. using the hospital analogy, the moist human thing to do is to restore power and take it up with the Board.

Liberation can never be outsourced even if the MDC sees it as cheaper option. Our South African experience has taught us that. The winner takes all approach is nice to have but achieves little. It is very easy to move into Zim with ex-Rhodies and ex-Recce forces, and take over the country within hours. But the consequences of that action will deprive the people of Zim their independence.

The best option is legitimate negotiated settlements by parties to the dispute.

yes Mugabe has messed up. But it is a circular argument to state that the collapse of the Zim economy is solely owing to Mugabe. Any country, even the might USA can be brought down to its knees with the kind of snctions applied to Zim. The question is: do you switch off the electricity source to a hospital because you dont like its Board? and then argue that they mismanage the hospital when the babies start to die in the incubators?

One can say the West does precisely that because here they are dealing with an African country.

As to intervention, international laws apply to the sovereignty of Zim. It looks easier and neat to be baptised into George Bushes Iraq-style regime change. But the consequences would haunt South Africa for many years to come. This kind of political blackmail is horrible. using the hospital analogy, the moist human thing to do is to restore power and take it up with the Board.

Liberation can never be outsourced even if the MDC sees it as cheaper option. Our South African experience has taught us that. The winner takes all approach is ncie to have but never achieves little. It is very easy to move into Zim with ex-Rhodies and ex-Recce forces, and take over the country within hours. But the consequences of that action will deprive the people of Zim their independence.

The best option is legitimate negotiated settlements by parties to the dispute.

The only way Zimbabwe can be saved is if white people are placed in command again. Blacks have proven time and time again -- Zimbabwe, South Africa, every major city in America -- that they cannot lead, organize or maintain effectively. The worst mistakes they made were to defy white rulers who guided them and cared for them. Unfortunately, liberal PC morons can't understand this fact, and whites in Africa and America will continue to suffer.

George Manuelian
Atherton, CA

William,

please contact me. You still owe us R10 000 since last year July.

Volker

I have read with interest the comments made regarding Zimbabwe and wish to make a few comments:
1. Our president Mbeki is a spineless leader who does not have the guts to confront Robert Mugabe with what he is doing to this once prosperous country.
2. If our president condons what is happening in Zimbabwe, we as South African citizens must prepare ourselves for the worst, because we are then following in their footsteps. How long before we are exposed to the same tiranny tha in Zim.
3. South Africa was subjected to all forms of sanctions during the apartheid era, an era during which the opression was a fraction of what is currently experienced in Zimbabwe. Why then the soft approach from the international community towards Zimbabwe.To say that Robert Mugabe is an opressor is an understatement. The man in insane and inhumane

I hope to receive some reaction to my comments

COWARD?HA...:

I don't know about BERRY whom you accuse of being a couch potato who has no concept of what it is to take responsibility for one's own actions". But I assure you that this particular immigrant to Canada who doing everything to go back to Africa to resume his vocation to help African development, is very grateful to you for your determination to stop the US Government from throwing away hard-earned taxpayer money (and sacrificing poor youngsters' lives, don't forget)to, as you say "save the world".

This immigrant to Canada had, after consenting enormous sacrifices to self-finance my high-school educaton in my African country and following through with university studies in Economics up to the doctoral level in Canada in the 1970's, gone back to his country to help African development. Among the achievements I have witnessed are: the emergence of Botswana and Namibia from abject poverty to middle-income country status, with Mozambique, Angola, and Zambia following fast in their footsteps. With Zimbabwe, Namibia, Angola and Mozambique won their independence from colonial domination after I returned to Africa in 1975. The epic struggle for South Africa's liberation from the subhuman aparthied regime, followed by a smooth transition to a flourishing multicultural country playing a major role in the furtherance of global economic prosperity is also one experience that myself and my family have been proud to be associated with, in our own modest way.

So, yes, thank America for "saving the world", but could you do me two other favours? (1)-- leave Iraq as so as possible, whatever chaos you fear might follows withdrawl, the Iraqis will be best-placed to fix it; (2) don't let AIPAC lure you into invading Iran or try to establish permanent bases in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Thanks and God bless!

Berry,

You are silly. Can you just please state for the record that you believe that the US SHOULD be invading countries all over the world? Why don't you ask your beloved UN for help? The US is fully prepared to assist in Darfur, but guess what? China is blocking any action. France blocked action in Rawanda. As in Tibet, perhaps the US is not interested in going to war with a rising great power like China. One must pick their battles. We are currently mired in 2 wars at the moment... I am so tired of the "there's no oil there so the US won't do anything" excuse that people throw around. Can't you come up with anything original? You remind me of the American Liberal that wants me, who studied in school, worked hard to get were I am in life, to pay a larger portion of my income so some lazy bum that smoked pot all the way to his parents couch can have free health care. Why in God's name is it the US's responsibility to save the world? Actually, I think I can answer my own question: Becuase people like you have no concept of "taking responsibility for your own actions" and feel you are "owed" something by someone else...

Ah, but one is reminded of the parable about the mice, who decide to place a bell on the cat so they can be warned of danger...but the little mouse then asked: who will bell the cat?

Bush invaded Iraq because of nine years of breaking truce agreements, including not cooperating with inspections to verify his nerve gas was destroyed.

The entire world ignored Saddam gassing Kurds and invading Iran, but every death by Saudi suicide bombers in Iraq is blamed on Bush for wanting a "war for oil".

If the US intervenes militarily (which is the only way to make sure Mugabe is removed) it will be "no blood for Chrome". If the UK invades, it is "neocolonialism". The UN can't make war, merely sit peacekeepers between warring parties and sit back and watch as people get massacred in Rwanda and Srebreniza.

So who will bell the cat?

I would love to see Robert Mugabe over thrown and Zimbawe take a decisive set into the real world of independance and self rule. The Problem I am comfronted with is the fact that no other country has tried to help with the process. The United States has in the past and present tried to help many countries. We continue to give monetary and logistics help. I do not agree we should set in with military help in every instance. Military efforts are usually preseved the wrong way. My heart goes out to the good folks of Zimbawe.

The U.S. has invaded many countries; its intelligence services have overthrown countless foreign leaders; the Pentagon has provided weapons to many groups; and the U.S. Treasury has been financing wars all over the world. So, why on Earth is the U.S. so coward regarding Zimbabwe? And Darfur... and Burma... and Tibet... and....

Well, maybe because there's no oil over there. Or maybe because Mugabe has learned how to steal an election... from American newspapers.

The same goes for the mighty United Kingdom. Tony Blair was brave enough to fabricate countless lies in order to justify invading Iraq, but when it came to Mugabe...

I agree with every word by D Hodara 12.11pm
When I visited Rhodesia , as it was then, quite a few times on business about 40 yrs ago when it was a thriving, peaceful,(for all), land.
What has happened since Mugabe became their dictator
in effect if not in title, is truly horrific. Terrible for most of the black citizens leading to mass exodus and starvation.
What to do?
The potentates of the neighbouring countries are patently afraid of Mugabe, as are his mates in the Zimbabwe government. Even Mr Mbeki from the powerful southern borders who even said last week that there was no crisis in Zimbabwe, is a supporter of Mugabwe!! I am only sorry that Mr Mandela who is still around has not thought fit to comment on Mugabe's antics.
The West cannot interfere much, even if the plight of the Zimbabwean is dire. The African leaders have got to bite the bullet and support the opposition who patently have the support of the public at large.China is now a dominant power
of influence in Africa so let us see if they are prepared to save the skins of the desperate citizens from this tyrant and his henchmen.

NILEGIRL,

You ask why is Zimbabwe of interest to the West.

It's because Christian WASPish (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) civilzational values of compassion and sharing have so deeply molded the Western soul that they cannot resst the urge to export democracy to these poor Africans.

Your name forbids you from believing my argument? You are misguided. Look at Mr. Gumemde: he is South African and works for Africa Confidential, an intelligence service-affiliated publication.

Besides, ask my friend MIKE, even though in his own case, he is now off duty.

It's a brave new world, NILEGIRL, cast aside your skepticism and welcome the Western armies that bring civilization to us.

Why is Zimbabwe of interests to the West?

Former UK Foreign Secretary David Owens offers, in his forthcoming book , 'In Sickness and In Power: Illness in Heads of Government During the Last 100 Years ' a couple of insights into the source of the psychological pathology that drove Robert Mugabe to veer from a highly-commendable initial governance record as the first post-UDI Prime Minister of Zimbabwe to a bully who destroyed his country’s agricultural base and brought economic and social misery to his people. UDI refers to the Unilateral Declaration of Independence from Britain in 1965 by the racist former Prime Minister of Rhodesia, Ian Smith (as Zimbabwe was then called). At the time of UDI, the Zimbabwe African People’s Union of Joshua Nkomo had been engaged in the initial political struggle against Ian Smith’s illegal move to establish white supremacy in Rhodesia, and Robert Mugabe was a prominent activist in that struggle, but he soon broke off to launch his own more militant Zimbabwe African National Union.

Lord Owens relates how, in 1978, he had been involved in secret negotiations that would have seen the Ndebele Leader Joshua Nkomo chosen to be the interim Prime Minister to succeed the rebel and disgraced Ian Smith and preside over truly free, a-racist elections, but the news leaked out and, as an obdurate Jesuit-trained, fiery leader of the resistance fighters, Mugabe imposed himself as the only possible choice for the position of Prime Minister by virtue of his incontestable aura as the resistance fighter who launched a successful five-year (1975-80) liberation stryggle from exile in neighbouring Mozambique. (Lord Owens is conveniently silent on the insurrection from Nkomo’s Matabeleland, that was encouraged by dark forces in South Africa and the UK, but explicitly mentions the massacre of the Ndebele by Mugabe’s Shona tribesmen, a tragedy that arguably was scripted into the scenario by intransigence on all sides, mostly Ian Smith, a racist South African regime, and fatal indecision by the former British colonial power).

From 1980 when he became Prime Minister of Zimbabwe until 1992 when his first wife Sally died, Mugabe laid the foundations of his country’s industrialization and a sound education system that still is the envy of many other African countries. But, the years following that felicitous period for his family and the larger Zimbabwean family saw Mugabe becoming increasingly erratic in his judgement. He gradually destroyed all the monumental nation-building achievements that he had established and nurtured in the earlier years of his rule. Lord Owens ascribes the pathology to a tragic spiritual boomerang effect, well-known to psychiatrists who study post-trauma pathologies, that W.H. Auden captured in his famous phrase “…those to whom evil is done do evil in return …". We have seen the same pathology in Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge’s treatment of Cambodian peasants, in the Israeli worse-than-apartheid treatment (dixit Jimmy Carter) of the Palestinians, and, lately, of the Taliban’s treatment of women and of the legitimate pursuit of normal comfort by their compatriots.

In the case of Mugabe, the defining moment of the onset of that pathology, according to Lord Owens, was the refusal, by Ian Smith in April 1966 when Mugabe had been imprisoned for his resistance activities, to grant him a short, compassionate release from prison to be by the bedside of his beloved son who was dying of malarial encephalitis in Accra. That hatred would consume Mugabe’s, much like the refusal of Margaret Thatcher, later in the 1980’s, to make the necessary conciliatory gestures to avoided the Irish Republican Army’s Bobby Sands from pursuing unto its inexorable end his unlimited hunger strike would refuse to die in the hearts many liberals who resent the might-is-right wave of the neoconservatives.

The pussyfooting of successive British Labour and Conservative Governments towards Ian Smith’s UDI were aggravating causes. The racist white minority Government in South Africa that was then supporting Ian Smith also placed obstacles to a smooth political and economic transition. Later, similar reticence by post-apartheid South Africa, this time to arm-twisting Mugabe into reaching an accommodation for orderly land-reform, combined with British unconsidered highhandedness in insisting on the property rights of their ‘kith and kin’, led to an unnecessary prologation of Zimbabwe’s descent into anarchy.

The lessons of the past can help us resolve the impasse. The first step is to recognize that blame is shared. One possible solution can be ruled out immediately, however, accommodating SADC Heads of State want Tsivangrai to be. A Government of national unity with Mugabe still as President with Tsvangirai as Vice President won’t do, because the proven wiliness of Mugabe makes the instability of such a solution obvious to all. The delay in announcing the results of the Presidential election clearly shows that, even with some degree of manipulation, Mugabe has not won a majority; and the tactics surrounding the delay show that a run-off would only create further instability. That leaves us with the negotiation of an honourable exit for Mugabe and a few of the least demonstrably-guilty abusers of power in his entourage for the past decade. The SADC Summit meeting currently taking place will likely finalize the contours of such a solution around a core such as outlined above.

In response to Marks comment:

"I do find it ironic that for the high level of education in that country that no one seems to have had an agricultural degree to farm the extremely fertile land stolen without compensation. Now you expect the evil white man to return to clean up the mess of your own 'revolutionary leadership'"

1. Yes there is a high level of education in Zimbabwe, thats not the problem. The problem is Mugabe gave the land to his cronies. So we dont have control over the land, otherwise if we did, we would be doing something about it
2. Evil can be found in anyone, e.g. Mugabe. Mugabe was good in the beginning then the power got to his head.
3. Land reform was needed of course the way it was done was wrong, the farmers should have been compensated adn they would have, if the British did follow through with their promise which they gave after we recieved independence. So dont just blame Mugabe, he's not the only evil one.
4. We dont expect anyone to clean up our mess, he's not our mess, we are not accountable for his actions. We expect that people care enough about other people to want to help them in a time of need.
5. Intervention is necessary when people are being oppressed, killed, tortured and starved which is happening in Zimbabwe. When u have a dictator in power you are under his control. Dictators know how to control people, look at Hitler, Stalin etc. Would you tell people then that they should fix their own mess?

Don't expect us to come running to help out the tinpot Mugabe one more time. We've given that turkey billions of our taxpayer dollars to a dictator the likes of which we hunted for in every past war.

I do find it ironic that for the high level of education in that country that no one seems to have had an agricultural degree to farm the extremely fertile land stolen without compensation. Now you expect the evil white man to return to clean up the mess of your own 'revolutionary leadership'.

Zimbabwe needs to have a 2nd amendment like we do. The only way dictators like that even survive is because the people are disarmed. Every totalitarian state in history has made that the first order of business under the guise of 'public safety'. Firearms are a great deterrent to tribal machetes, and self-defense is a right given by God, not governments.

In my view, the reason the surrounding countries aren't taking an action, is because they are equally corrupt. Birds of a feather, if you will.

The decimation of the agricultural sector, mining, infrastructure all boils down to one word, greed. Rather than the government doing re-investment of even a minimal nature, it is blatantly apparent that the whole of the proceeds from the state resources (owned by the people) are lining the pockets from Mugabe down to the lowliest bureaucrat. With the attitude of 'I'll get mine today, forget about tomorrow' there will be no tomorrow. I feel sincerely for all that live there, for I understand it to be (was) a wonderful country.

MIKE,

Thanks for being off duty. We WILL take care of it ourselves.

Somebody settled in Canada who has his most-beloved child living in Zimbabwe right now, and who also feels that outside (meaning British, American, Chinese, Indian, Malay, Nigerian, Ghanaian, Algerian Egyptian, etc.) COLLABORATION with SADC, but by no meansINTERVENTION, would be helpful.

Thanks again.

It's refreshing to hear from an African who is willing to put aside all the fake "liberation brotherhood" that has actually enslaved the Zimbabweans, is the justification for doing nothing, and will confront the problem head-on.

If anyone thought that elections would be fair and Mugabe would graciously step aside, they were living in La-La Land. Despots do not step down. We shouldn't be surprised at the outcome of the elections. All the time between the election and the naming of the winners just gives the "authorities" time to cook the books. So to speak. I don't have a solution or a way out of the mess.

"International intervention in Zimbabwe, were it to occur, would not be an Iraq-like regime change. The Zimbabwean people are asking the world for help."

Yeah, the Iraqi people loved Saddam that's why he always got 99% of the vote ;)

Sorry, this policeman is off duty for now on. Take care of it yourself.

it's a brilliant question, one that involves political philosophy. but in so answering it, let me state that this blogger do so in light of the conditions prevailing in my own country, that what i might be prescribing here for zimbabwe under robert mugabe should be made applicable to other third world countries laboring under almost similar conditions.

theoretically, a nation should be able to chart its own destiny--or sort out its own mess--without outside interference. that is giving respect to the principle of "sovereignty" among independent nations.

BUT there's a caveat, however.

If a country's own government has turned into an "ogre" (read: fascist totalitarian, dictatorial, genocidal regime), then there's your basis for 'coming in,' that is to say, 'saving' an oppressed people from its own government, which has made its own country no longer a self-respecting member of interdepedent community of free, peaceful & democratic nations.

when to say that a govenment has turned fascist, dictatorial, genocidal, totalitarian--in short, undemocratic?

there's one, no, two hard-and-fast rules on this: when its people no longer are able to speak up freely, when doing so, for the critics, entails the risk of being "extra-judicially" killed or 'silently' if 'creatively' done in (as in a 'slow-mo' death via insecticide spraying by military/police scalawags, with permission from the government & its top guns in the military), then such government fails to satisfy the lincolnian concept of a democratic rule.

(see to what extent a fascist government can turn to just to stifle legitimate dissent? for instance, this post was included in the list just hours ago; now it's been deleted, obviously upon request by anonymous goebbels-like censors of the fascist ruling regime's top guns in my country--for fear of being exposed about their fascist ways in my country. this is the tragedy of peoples wanting to get rid of their dictatorial governments, that a simple request for deletion in an international fora such as this online venue is easily granted, thus stifling the voice of an oppressed people.)

two, if via the democratic process of elections and the resort to democratic institutions a country's populace are unable to boot out of power their abusive government, then ,clearly, it's time to "save" such people from such a pestilential government.

but since those "saviors" (mostly mature democracies, such as 1st world countries, the likes of the u.s., britain. etc.) might be accused of being "holier-than-thou" (this is where the 'cast-the-first- stone','sovereignty' 'what-if-the-shoe-is-on-the-other-foot,' 'messianic complex' counter-arguments come in, as earlier forwarded in above-cited blogs)--then, the mode of intervention should be done in a political fashion that is totally acceptable to the community of nations.

this blogger suggests that the united nations should assume a pivotal, paramount role, with a fiat so strong that the message comes unequivocally clear to zimbabwe's strongman robert mugabe: you've been in power for 28 long years, & your people are sending you tell-tale signals that they want a clean break from the past, as well as from your choking rule, so cut & cut cleanly.

failing the diplomatic suasion, the u.n. can try a different tack: democratic elections, one that's absolutely free from the riggings that mugabe has, obviously, been able to impose on his people, by manipulating--making a mockery of--the recent presidential elections in his country.

there is a solid precedent in this. remember the former little indonesian province whose people, just a few years back, decided they wanted to break free from the control of the indonesian government, to be an independent nation itself?

didn't the united nations manage the elections of its first set of rulers or elected government officials? the u.n. effort there was absolutely beyond reproach, such that the results were accepted by all in the world of nations, & y the indonesian government itself.

now, pray tell me what this southeast asian country.

likewise, the u.n. can reprise such a role in zimbabwe--or, for that matter, even in other third world countries whose governments are accused by their peoples of being "illegitimate," "dictatorial," enganged in geneocide or "extra-judicial killings" and utterly corrupt.

that is the way to do it that doesn't grate on the sensibilities of peoples in the community of nations.*

The text of Gumede's call for action contains a paragraph seriously damaging that purpose.

"Forget about the fact that Mugabe and his ruling Zanu-PF battered the opposition and .."

"starved them from outside funding during the campaign..."
[I wonder, whether "outside funding" is an acceptable way to promote one or the other candidate during elections in America?]

"... that they banned all independent media..."
[I support that criticism without any reservations. Independent media are an indispensible prerequisite for informed decisions of the people, they are an important expression of free speach.
Yet media subservient to a government are not unheard of. How independent are those media in America which are reprimanded for becoming docile lapdogs of the administration, for a "failure of the fourth estate"?]

... selected friendly election observers from China, Libya and Iran, and stacked the electoral commission with friends.
[This is an open insult to persons with unquestionable integrity.
I never read any report, not even a single anecdote, that ballot boxes were stuffed or the election was rigged under the eyes of the observers, or by actions or inactions of the electoral commission.
The current crisis is not derived from leaving the basis of impartiality by the electoral commision or the observers. Compare that to the crisis during evaluation of election results in Florida in 2000.
The problem in Zimbabwe is the suppression of voting results in the election for president. Neither outside observers nor the electoral commission have any part in that suppression.]

... Yet, they still lost the elections.
[The election it itself was a huge success for being open and peaceful. So it had been wiser not to criticise those who enabled and supervised those elections.
The insinuation that an impressive election victory of the previous opposition with regard to the seats in parliament was the result of "failure in vote rigging" is outrageous.]

The author really should know that nothing is damaging to a good cause as an incorrect statement.

Are you Mbeki turncoat? You censored my comment which was critical of your stupid president. You get what you deserve. No wonder Africa is a mess.

Mugabe must leave the scene for Zimbabwe to begin recovery, but it is very unlikely he can be removed by external forces. Who would do it? No Africans will abide a European invasion. South Africa, the only African power capable of deploying force, has demonstrated that it is unwilling to put even moderate pressure on Mugabe. There is no international consensus for removing bad governments, even if illegitimate, by force.

So... Now it's okay to invade a country? I am really confused. Saddam Hussein was a genocidal maniac. Robert Mugabe has not made blood flow in the streets. He has not used chemical weapons on his own citizens and on those of his neighbors. He has not unlawfully invaded other States. He has seized property from Whites and redistributed it to Blacks. He has destroyed his Nation's economy. But last time I checked, those are not grounds for a foriegn invasion into a sovereign State by UN standards. IF he does declare a run-off or outright claims victory, and IF he begins massacring his own people, THEN it will be time to discuss a regime change with the UN. Unfortuately, since the UN is so corrupt and ineffective, Zimbabwe is likely to become a failed State. The US tried to liberate one State because the UN failed to act and received world condemnation for it. SO... sorry if we don't come-a-rushing to help. Good luck in your civil-war-to-come. I truly hope the freedom loving people of Zimbabwe win the day. If that is not to be the case then I will mourn for you.

The first white soldier to put his feet onto Zimbabwean soil will split its people according two different or even more lines:

(1) Politicians in Zimbabwe who accept or even request such intervention will loose their credibility and most of the support they ever had - and be it that of a majority.
The last white citizens of Zimbabwe will be glad if they can get away with their bare lives.
Even worse: Should any ethnical group support such an intervention, the seeds of future internecine, fratricidal war will be spread all over a country having suffered more than enough already.

(2) Politicians opposing and/or fighting such an intervention will maintain credibility and garner support quickly - even if their support had been shrinking continuously in recent years.
The ranks of previous anticolonial fighters, who had been losing their hero-status for their support of Mugabe, --support with violence if they saw fit-- will swell into a huge force filled with young Zimbabweans.

The blow-back would be tremendous.
There would be only chance left for a peaceful transition: The current opposition must be on the forefront of strong resistance to such intervention.
I cannot conceive of anything more counterproductive than military intervention from the "West".
My (personal) conclusion: Do not even THINK about putting military pressure on the current regime!

Pressure by a blockade however may be efficient, if such embargo is highly selective: The flow of food, medicines and other goods needed for an improvement in the life of civilians (and of no use for suppressive forces) should be INCREASED TREMENDUSLY to guarantee friendly relations between Zimbabwe and her neighbors in the future.

Encouragement of talks between Zimbawean politicians and other leaders (church? trade unions?) on a non-violent transition, geographically located outside Zimbabwe (remember Afghan Leader meating --of all places!-- in Germany) probably will be accepted, as long as no participant would complain about too much arm-twisting by the host country.
Maybe an offer of hosting such negotiations in one of the countries who had sent election observers could cut the Gordean knot.

I desperately hope that the "West" finally gets the message that meddling makes the situation worse, much worse.

I equally pity the turn of events in zimbabwe but as an optimist,I believe a solution will be found.if no party won over fifty percent as independent civil organizations have reported, then i think Zimbabweans should go to the ballot box once again just, as their constitution states. opposition leaders should not change the rules after the game just because they led in the first round.I look forward to Mugabe's defeat but the defeat must be fair. I hope he will not resort to violence and intimidation and once defeated the way i think he will, he will retire.

I equally pity the turn of events in zimbabwe but as an optimist,I believe a solution will be found.if no party won over fifty percent as independent civil organizations have reported, then i think Zimbabweans should go to the ballot box once again just, as their constitution states. opposition leaders should not change the rules after the game just because they led in the first round.I look forward to Mugabe's defeat but the defeat must be fair. I hope he will not resort to violence and intimidation and once defeated the way i think he will, he will retire.

... and about time, too. The only problem now will be explaining to this current American administration exactly where Zimbabwe is and where to send the troops.

They're not exactly oil-rich, you know, so why would jr., Cheney and Conda-lap-dog even want to bother?

let guess who you want to come to your aid - THE WHITE MAN!
you allow white families who have been there for hundreds of years to be denied every right. if we did that in America there would be fighting in the streets but black Americans think that is ok.
so here is my answer - you claim africia is only for blacks and whites, even whites that have spent hundreds of years building your backward countries into modern success stories are denied equal rights. then you take away everything the working whites have and give it to lazy blacks that dont do anything to build on the white success sotry and then you want the white man to give you what you had and lost.
sorry blackie - its your problem now. handle it yourself.

Mbeki's position is clear and consistent to anyone who has taken the trouble to follow it. Mugabe has become a dictator who must be ousted by Zimbabweans themselves, without outside interference, preferably at the ballot box. Mbeki, as the MDC's Eddie Cross, newly elected as MP for Bulawayo South, has acknowledged, brokered ZANU concessions on the conduct of elections which made it difficult enough for Mugabe's thugs to cheat on election day that the people of Zimbabwe were finally able to make themselves heard. Predictably, Mugabe is trying to thwart the will of Zimbabweans ex post facto. Mbeki is perfectly well aware of that. Chess player that he is, he foresaw the move, and the ten next moves. Give him some credit, please. This is no fool. Fools didn't bring apartheid to a soft landing. If you have really paid attention with an open mind, there can be no question that Mbeki finds Mugabe's behaviour execrable. He yearns for the day when Africa and people of African descent everywhere will no longer have to suffer from the stereotypes that monsters like Mugabe engender and prolong. The practical question now is how to get Mugabe to submit to the democratically expressed will of the Zimbabwean people. If an offer of respectful amnesty will get the job done, so much the better. If a run-off if necessary, Mbeki has publicly warned Mugabe that any attempt to delay the vote would be illegal. The MDC is working hard to ensure that its supporters give Mugabe no excuse to exercise emergency powers. Mugabe and ZANU do not need harsh language from Mbeki to know their position is unsustainable. Their legions -- the army, police and the security services -- are becoming less and less reliable as the resources to keep them loyal in the midst of economic collapse erode their loyalty. What's essential is to paint them a picture of a viable and secure future when Mugabe is gone and ZANU no longer sole arbiter of whether they eat. We are in the end game here. Be a little patient. Let the people on the ground who know what they are doing bring this drama to a good and lasting close. Resist the temptation to second guess. And when the crisis is brought to a satisfactory conclusion, have the decency to give credit where credit is due.

How did the neighboring countries allow Zimbabwe to happen? The country will nee fifty years to recover the lost ground.

There has to be foreign intervention. Africans do not want outsiders in their problems. We can understand this. But there comes a time when even they must accept that it is in the interest of Africa and Zimbabwe to have the UN get involved. The life expectancy in the country is 35 and falling!

Mbeki has shown no willingness to do it. And if the U.S. pressures him into doing, it will only lend credence to the anti-imperialist narrative proposed by Mugabe and his Zanu-PF thugs. Other African leaders must draw the line in the sand, and say "no more." 80% unemployment, million percent inflation, corruption, crackdown, repression, and death. How much more does it take before Mbeki's conscience is tickled?

The only intervention that is needed is to arrange to provide all the white farmers with refugee status so they can come to the US. Then the farms can be burned to the ground, and then the idiot criminals who have no idea of what to do with the farms will botch up the whole thing causing a massive famine in which millions of Zimbawians will die the miserable death they deserve for electing Mugabe in the first place.

Mugabe needs to be addressed by senior leaders of southern Africa. Mbeki is not senior enough...Mandela is an equal in seniority and thus the ideal candidate. It is too bad Mandela did little to stem Mugabe during his years at the helm of South Africa. Mbeki is incapable and neutered by Zuma's election as head of ANC. It is a hard situation that we can all hope doesn't turn into something even worse.

We are like so many other Zimbabeans living in exile in the UK. The show now move to ZAMBIA over the weekend, in an effort to solve the impass with Mugabe& Zann.PF.
The hope if any, will be with SADAC members to try and convince an Insane tyrant, to except the will of Zims'people. There should be no oppstions for Mugabe, only the exite sign at the conference. He must at the very least be charged for his muderous crimes against the Zim poulation. We should also not forget his shefs who have stood at his side.

I think this is a great idea. The columnist should rally troups from the countries that actually live in and have interest in the region. good luck!

I agree. Now if Zimbabwe had oil, it would be a different story.
Many African leaders and the people still think of the leaders as Chiefs. You don't depose the Chief. On top of that in the modern world, many of these Chiefs are corrupt and so one Chief does not want to expose another in case he wants to do the same thing himself. Mbeki is also having to tread a fine line as he needs the votes of South African blacks to keep him in power. Many of them are open to their own land settlement plans.

Mugabe is a discrage to the African coummunity and the leadership of our African bodies, SADC and AU is no existent.

The silence from them is loud to us the people of Zimbabwe.

Mugabe will leave a legacy that of a killer, a cheat and a thief. No-one cares he fought for the liberation from Britain because we are since to realize it.

Sibotshiwe!!!!!!!

Agree with you on all your points, my question/comment is; how would Western Intervention begin with assistance to the people of Zimbabwe? This certainly is no Iraq, but how do you see [any] western powers getting involved? Do they march into the capital, invade the borders, or simply sit protesting quietly outside the country of Zimbabwe?
I believe the 1st solution lies in the hands of every Zimbabwean. One mass riot would be all it would take, there has to be this type of spark.
Then, the 2nd solution would present the Western Powers with a reason to [physically] get involved.
UNFORTUNATELY, I believe that there will have to be innocent blood spilled in order to get rid of this old dog, Mugabe.

In the late 1980's the then PM of South Africa, John Voster decided that Ian Smith should have a negotiated settlement to the Zimbabwean war of independence. Ian Smith refused.
South Africa, cut off all supplies to the then Rhodesia for a period of three weeks - no fuel, arms etc. Within a month Ian Smith capitulated and the London Talks began ending the war.

It is too bad that President Mbeki does not have the backbone of President Mandela who would have sorted the Zimbabwean situation out years ago.