The oft-cited polls by the "Mass Opinion Institute" are useless in my opinion given the source of the MPOI's funding.

Do you know why you want Mugabe out?

Do you know who should replace Mugabe as President? Do you care?

Will you think about Zimbabwe at all once Mugabe is deposed? Or will you be mollified once the US lifts sanctions and the mainstream press starts reporting that the economy is "recovering"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
Do you know who should replace Mugabe as President? Do you care?

---

MDC Leader Morgan Tsvangarai is promising to form a "national unity" government with members of Mugabe's ZANU-PF party and it sounds like
Makoni's camp may be receptive to some form of alliance.

This raises some interesting questions. If Mugabe is so unpopular (as the western media claims) why would Tsvangarai have to do this? When the people are ready to "throw the bum out" opposition leaders don't usually offer to work with the bum. I think the answer here is self-evident.

The other question is how the West would react if Tsvangarai's telling the truth and he really does invite key ZANU leaders into his coalition? The MDC platform is utterly vague on issues of reform and one can only assume that the US and UK expect privatization, de-regulation and a reversal of land seizures. But if it's clear that Tsvangarai won't do that - what will they do?

http://www.petertatchell.net/international/mugabe.htm

quote:

---

Lesbians and gays are "sexual perverts" who are "lower than dogs and pigs", according the President of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe. Arriving in Britain to attend this weekend's Commonwealth Conference, Mugabe has rejected calls for gay human rights. "We don't believe they (gays) have any rights at all", he said.

In 1995, Mugabe ordered the Zimbabwe International Book Fair to ban an exhibit by the civil rights group, Gays & Lesbians of Zimbabwe (GALZ). He followed this ban with warnings that homosexuals should leave the country "voluntarily" or face "dire consequences". Soon afterwards, Mugabe urged the public to track down and arrest lesbians and gays. Since these incitements, homosexuals have been beaten up, fire-bombed, arrested, interrogated and threatened with death. Most Zimbabwean churches are backing Mugabe's hate campaign.

The President's anti-gay crusade is seen by many as a diversionary tactic, designed to create a bogey that will deflect public attention from government corruption, economic mismanagement, faltering land reform, and human rights abuses. Ignoring these crises, Mugabe has focused on GALZ's campaign for homosexual equality. He says: "It cannot be right for human rights groups to dehumanise us to the status of beasts".

The homophobic turn taken by Mugabe and his ruling ZANU-PF party is surprising. During the 1970s, I campaigned in support of ZANU's War of Liberation to free Zimbabwe from white minority rule. I was openly gay. None of ZANU's representatives ever objected to my homosexuality. They were grateful for the help I gave them. Having gladly accepted assistance from gay people like myself in the past, it is hypocritical for Mugabe to now witch-hunt homosexuals.

The President justifies his intolerance with the claim that homosexuality is "un-African", describing it as "coming from so-called developed nations". But anthropologists say that same-sex behaviour existed in Zimbabwe long before the arrival of white settlers. What the colonists bought to Zimbabwe was homophobia, not homosexuality. It is Mugabe's anti-gay prejudice that is the "imported western disease".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wizard of Socialism:
Zim needs the same thing Cuba does - freedom from dictatorship. Once they get that, everything else will fall into place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:

Do you know why you want Mugabe out?

---

Why do you want him in?

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wizard of Socialism:
Zim needs the same thing Cuba does - freedom from dictatorship. Once they get that, everything else will fall into place.

---

This isn't to say Mugabe should be let off the hook, or welcomed as a hero, but that we might want to intelligently evaluate why we've all suddenly been swept up in an overwhelming desire to hate him and see him ousted with no idea (or at least none I've seen here) about what or who will replace him and what that means for the people who live in Africa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:

For that matter, Stockholm, do you have any idea whether the two other contenders for the Zimbabwean Presidency are any less homophobic? I certainly don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Centrist:

Why do you want him in?

He ain't no Nelson Mandela!

---

[ 28 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Centrist:

Why do you want him in?

He ain't no Nelson Mandela!

---

And after a decade of Mbeki's Thatcherite agenda, South Africa is worse off economically than they were during apartheid.

quote:

---

Mugabe is in this position primarily because he has turned Zimbabwe into one of the world's poorest countries--the result of his worsening political repression, frontal attack on the independence of the judiciary, confiscation of property, and evisceration of the once-thriving private sector. With health, education, and incomes in freefall

---

quote:

---

Mugabe has a long history of using violence to deal with his political opponents. In the 1980s, he ordered the massacre of 20,000 Matabeles who supported his rival, Joshua Nkomo.

---

http://www.zimdaily.com/news/127/ARTICLE/2458/2008-03-29.html

quote:

---

This raises some interesting questions. If Mugabe is so unpopular (as the western media claims) why would Tsvangarai have to do this?

When the people are ready to "throw the bum out" opposition leaders don't usually offer to work with the bum. I think the answer here is self-evident.

---

You have an excellent point Marcy.

I thought this was supposed to be an open community including people critiquing (or even insulting) babble.

If you want strawmen however, I suggest you look at this post:

quote:

---

Don't bother. Stockholm will give you endless lists of reasons why Mugabe is a "pig" - as long as he is on the Bush-Brown hit list, that is.

---

What does that even mean? There is nothign wrong with Mugabe and it's all an Anglo-American conspiracy to remove him?

That is
1.A post that defends Mugabe, backing up my original point
2.A strawman argument.

You are right though, in a forum dominated by the likes of Fidel, Unionist, Cueball and a few others, it is a good question to ask what the point is of even coming here. It certainly isn't for a rational discussion.

[ 29 March 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

I think you should really question the management you've provided here when you've let this forum become dominated by the likes of Cueball, Unionist and Fidel (all of whom, by the way, do nothing but insult people they disagree with), and if you can't handle criticism like that, I also think you should question yourself whether your really cut out for the job.

[ 29 March 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

What you're NOT allowed to do is to just post nasty blanket statements attacking the whole community. You're more than welcome to post on this site, argue with people, whatever. You're not welcome, however, to come in and piss all over the carpet.

I'm not trying to be a martyr or anything. I merely thought it made a lot more sense to post the criticism on the thread it actually applied to rather than posting it elsewhere.

[ 29 March 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

This raises some interesting questions. If Mugabe is so unpopular (as the western media claims) why would Tsvangarai have to do this?
When the people are ready to "throw the bum out" opposition leaders don't usually offer to work with the bum. I think the answer here is self-evident.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have an excellent point Marcy.

To put the same into the Canadian context, if Steven Harper and his Reformatories are soooo unpopular, why does the Liberal opposition leader agree to work with the bum?

---

Because there is no expectation of genuinely free elections, so this is the best the opposition can do. Comparing the situation in Zimbabwe to Canada does not really create an accurate analogy.

My guess would be though, that rather than work with Mugabe, some in the opposition would like to work with some members of Mugabe's party because there are people in it who would also like to see him gone, and suggesting a post Mugabe coalition in which members of his party still share in power might entice some of them.

That said, the opposition is divided and Mugabe does have support from some in his tribe as well as others he's bought off over the years (like the military). I don't think any credible observer there though believes he could win a genuinely fair election.

[ 29 March 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

So as not to contribute further to any thread drift on this, the only thing I will add to that is that, while people can agree or disagree with the actions of the Fed, there was nothing 'fraudulent' in what they did.

[ 29 March 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

(if he loses power, he and everyone he loves undoubtedly will get '5 in the noggin') something mr pig Regan and bush etc never had to fear.

---

1.To the degree that is true, that is something Mr Mugabe has brought on himself. However, generally the post power history of African dictators has been pretty good to the best of my knowledge. I'm sure there would be a number of countries around the world that would offer him sanctuary.

quote:

---

ferchrissake, should we not fix our own humpty dumpty before we demand Africa fix theirs (which we admit we were instrumental in creating)?!

---

I somewhat agree with that: this is something the people of Zimbabwe are mostly going to have to solve themselves. Still, I thought we on the left were supposed to be concerned with human rights of all people around the world, not just with those with poor humans rights records the United States happens to like (not that you yourself have made the rather ridiculous argument that if the U.S doesn't like them, they must be good, as others here seem to be arguing). I think we can at least offer them assistance such as making sure the world knows what is happening in Zimbabwe.

quote:

---

even you think the news of the Fed Reserve's actions probably has a larger meaning to healthy life then Bob Mugabe's harsh reaction to his situation (And the Fed Reserve is nothing but a cheap trickster, otherwise the 'economic mentdown' mentioned would get top billing in the news. You say the spending of $100 billion is 'not a fraud' but where did the money come from, and who the hell elected these people in 1st place? These are questions the ultra rightwingers at GCN (Genesis Comm. Network) are asking, and they don't know the answer because they're idiots, whereas WE have a fairly good understanding that while all the legal forms/hocuspocus are on file, it's plainly designed as a fraud, though never before has it been so blatant. The entire Apollo space program never cost $100 billion!! And in Apollo 12 men walked on the moon!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
So anyhow...I'm not sure what to think about this. Mugabe seems like a pretty awful leader. Does he have any redeeming qualities?

Not that I want some US puppet installed instead. It's up to the people of Zimbabwe to toss this guy, and no one else. Sure would be nice if the western world could take their fingers out of all the pies they're stuck in around the world.

---

The people of the world must resist any calls from Bush, Brown, Harper, and their ilk to in any way influence "regime change" in Zimbabwe or anywhere else.

They pick their "rogue of the month", and tell everyone to go out and hang him. That's what they did with Saddam Hussein. That's what they're doing with Ahmedinejad.

I'm not defending Mugabe as much as asking why he's suddenly become a target of universal attention - while an event like the Congo's Civil War (with over a million dead) hasn't penetrated the Western consciousness at all.

I think, one way or the other, he'll be gone soon. He's 84 years old. The real questions are whether Tsvanagarai or some other faction of ZANU will take control. And, depending on that, whether Zimbabwe will continue with some form of land reform and state control of industry or whether the farms will be handed back to whites and a program of mass privatization will take hold.

Tsvanagarai's an exceptionally weak leader and I think he'd fall to Western pressure pretty quickly - but in a coalition with some members of ZANU, who knows?

I posted something about the sanctions on this thread. Tawanda Hodona, a sharp critic of Mugabe, wrote about this recently:

quote:

---

Zimbabwe’s economic woes are the direct result of a concerted and systematic campaign to effect regime change through an economic implosion.

Zimbabwe has a critical shortage of foreign currency. However for the past four years or so, Zimbabwe has been unable to obtain finance or credit facilities from international lenders to inject into the economy. And this is a direct consequence of a sanctions regime imposed against the Zimbabwe by particularly the US, and the EU.

That Mugabe is an evil, brutal, dictator that needs to be removed from office is not in doubt. It is however immoral to cause the removal of Mugabe from office by precipitating the collapse of a developing, only recently independent, now famine-ravished African country through an economic sanctions regime.

The US introduced economic sanctions on Zimbabwe through the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, 2001. (ZIDERA) Through this enactment Zimbabwe’s access to finance and credit facilities was effectively incinerated.

ZIDERA empowers the US to use its voting rights and influence (as the main donor) in multilateral lending agencies, such as the IMF, World Bank, and the African Development Bank to veto any applications by Zimbabwe for finance, credit facilities, loan rescheduling, and international debt cancellation...

Simply put, owing to the size of the US vote and influence in these institutions, neither the IMF, World Bank nor the African Development Bank will lend to Zimbabwe, or offer it credit facilities. Therefore, needless to say, as a direct result of the US 2001 Act, Zimbabwe’s relationship with these multilateral lending agencies was immediately and severely affected.

In addition, Zimbabwe’s ability to reschedule its loan payments and to apply for debt cancellations in times of severe financial crisis was severely affected.

And once the IMF and World Bank stopped doing business with Zimbabwe, this had an immediate and adverse impact on Zimbabwe’s credit and investment rating. And with a drop in investment rating went the dream of low cost capital on the international markets.

ZIDERA was a masterstroke. At the stroke of a pen, Zimbabwe’s access to international credit markets was blocked. And relying purely on barter trade, and trade, mining, agricultural concessions, and on exports-generated foreign currency, Zimbabwe’s economy has been slowly but surely asphyxiated.

And the consequent foreign currency crisis has resulted in the continued devaluation of the domestic currency, rapid inflation, and all else that has manifested itself in the current Zimbabwe economic crisis.

---

quote:

---

I'm not defending Mugabe as much as asking why he's suddenly become a target of universal attention - while an event like the Congo's Civil War (with over a million dead) hasn't penetrated the Western consciousness at all.

---

1.There is an election going on in Zimbabwe, the media seems to mainly follow events.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
The real questions are whether Tsvanagarai or some other faction of ZANU will take control. And, depending on that, whether Zimbabwe will continue with some form of land reform and state control of industry or whether the farms will be handed back to whites and a program of mass privatization will take hold.

---

quote:

---

I'm not defending Mugabe as much as asking why he's suddenly become a target of universal attention

---

Maybe because they are having an "election" today. (though I'm sure Pig Mugabe's thugs will make sure to stuff the ballot boxes and beat to death anyone who opposes him).

quote:

---

Zimbabwe has a critical shortage of foreign currency. However for the past four years or so, Zimbabwe has been unable to obtain finance or credit facilities from international lenders to inject into the economy. And this is a direct consequence of a sanctions regime imposed against the Zimbabwe by particularly the US, and the EU.

---

quote:

---

Precisely. That's the question that the hate-Mugabe campaign wants left in the shade. I would add to your concerns, the related one of doors opening to foreign investment and domination

---

I realize these are two different people making these posts, but they seem to be both coming from the same perspective.

This is a complete contradiction. On the one hand, your saying 'it's the fault of the sanctions that the Zimbabwe economy has collapsed'.

On the other hand, you're saying "good on Zimbabwe for resisting opening itself up to foreign investment".

I realize the sanctions are somewhat broader than foreign investment, but not much, it's not like Zimbabwe had huge exports to the U.S or the E.U. So, I don't know what you're complaining about, you think there were foreigners who were lending money to Zimbabwe without expecting something in return prior to the sanctions? So, if you're being consistent you should be happy the U.S and the E.U put the sanctions on Zimbabwe as they've prevented the country from being "taken over by foreign interests." To use your words.

Of course, since your blaming the sanctions for destroying the economy, you're also saying that limiting foreign investment has negative consequences on an economy.

I suspect this concern over the sanctions is primarily a way to turn the discussion into one where the United States can be blamed for all the ills of Zimbabwe, rather than to engage in serious analysis of the problems of the country, or even to try and understand exactly what effects the sanctions have.

Just to reiterate: you cannot have it both ways, if you are pleased Zimbabwe has been opposed to foreign investment, you should have no problem whatsoever with the sanctions.

[ 29 March 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

The issue of Mugabe is an issue that must be left to the Zimbabwean people to sort out

---

Did I or anyone else here suggest an invasion of Zimbabwe? No. We are simply expressing an opinion about one of the world's worst despots. Just like people express opinions about the horrific governments of the Burma or Iran or Saudi Arabia or North Korea or China or Belarus and yes, the United States.

This is the same crap that comes up in another thread about the crimes against humanity that the Chinese government is perpetrating against Tibet. The moment anyone simply expresses a negative opinion of what the government of another country is doing - we get shouted down as if expressing a negative opinion of the government or China or Zimbabwe is synonymous with supporting an armed invasion of those countries.

quote:

---

And the consequent foreign currency crisis has resulted in the continued devaluation of the domestic currency, rapid inflation, and all else that has manifested itself in the current Zimbabwe economic crisis.

---

Mugabe OUT!

[edited to add: no Elyisium, that is not what we are suggesting happan in Zimbabwe. I really think the world has seen quite enough of this sort of thing, don't you?... oldgoat]

[ 29 March 2008: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:

1.There is an election going on in Zimbabwe, the media seems to mainly follow events.

2.That said, I'm not sure there has been more attention paid to Zimbabwe than the Congo.

---

The civil war in the Congo lasted years and left over a million dead - and still got way less coverage than the Zimbabwe elections. That's not really an apples-to-apples comparison, though. The tragedy in the Congo, is - by any objective measure - way more significant (in terms of death, human misery, political consequences) than the elections in Zimbabwe.

Let's do a straight-up comparison. Last year there was an election in Congo-Brazzaville. There were complaints of vote rigging and electoral chaos, opponents of the incumbent President were not allowed to stand for election.

If you can find me a single article about this election in any Canadian newspaper I'll pledge allegiance to George W Bush.

[ 29 March 2008: Message edited by: Mercy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:
The hyper inflation is due to the excessive printing of money ordered by Mugabe in order to pay his troops and other loyal supporters.

---

You mean like a succession of U.S. governments have done in order to fund wars of aggression around the world while funding an increasing number of NGO's with ties to the CIA through national endowment for democracy in countries like Zimbabwe?

quote:

---

There have been dozens of U.S. client states whose leaders could be described as brutal dictators over the years and who our news media neglect to mention rig elections, jail political, shutdown newspapers and wage proxy wars in nearby countries. And they never-ever raise suspicion or so much as a harsh word from the phony-baloney demockratizers.

---

So, in other words, you support democracy for U.S client states while you don't care about what goes on in states the U.S is opposed to.

In other words, to you, this is all about the United States.

quote:

---

The civil war in the Congo lasted years and left over a million dead - and still got way less coverage than the Zimbabwe elections.

---

It also got less coverage than the Spanish election last month! In fact it got less coverage than some mayoral elections in the US get!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:

In other words, to you, this is all about the United States.

---

That's right. It's about globalization and deregulation of a system that doesn't even work in the countries of origin let alone those countries in dire need of socialism. And it's why Bush and his NeoLiberalizing jackals are lower in American opinion polls than the doctor and madman were before his forced resignation in 1974 to avoid social unrest and what was perceived at the time as a possible civil in the U.S.S.A. then.

UN Sees More Hunger, Unrest Over Food Inflation

quote:

---

BRUSSELS - Record high food prices and resulting inflation are set to continue until at least 2010, fuelling a "new hunger" across the globe and anarchy on the streets of poorer nations, a top UN official said.

Josette Sheeran, executive director of the United Nations' World Food Programme, said the world's economy "has now entered a perfect storm for the world's hungry" caused by high oil and food prices and low food stocks. . .

FOOD GAP

Over 25,000 people die from hunger or a related illness every day across the world, with one child dying every five seconds.

---

quote:

---

Elysium, I don't ever ask for posters to be banned, but if you don't remove that photo soon, I will definitely ask for you to be banned.

---

[ 29 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
That's right, if Zimbabweans would just fall back into the clutches of their former brutal colonial masters and accept the NeoLiberal pill, everything would be as good as it is in South Afreeka after more than a decade of economic voodoo has transformed that country into a basket case with rising "GDP"

---

People are moving from Zimbabwe to South Africa, not the other way around. South Africa has big problems for sure - unemployment is at 23%, crime is insane and so on. That says a lot for how bad the situation in Zimbabwe is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:

People are moving from Zimbabwe to South Africa, not the other way around. South Africa has big problems for sure - unemployment is at 23%, crime is insane and so on.

---

Both countries saw bitter struggles and guerilla warfare against white colonial rule. In both countries the post-colonial government was dominated by the political wing of the insurgent forces (in South Africa's case the ANC in Zimbabwe ZANU-PF). In the immediate aftermath of liberation the new governments both moved to bring whites into the new governing coalition and took pains to show they could work with international capital. They moved slowly on issues of land reform and in both countries that began to lead to unrest and increased scrutiny on the ruling party.

Zimbabwe's achieved independence about ten years ahead of South Africa. So, we can see where things went from there. It will be interesting to see what happens next in South Africa.

What no one in the West wants to admit is that the South African "success story" is not working for millions of South Africans. The ANC had promised to redistribute 30% of the country's agricultural land from 60,000 white farmers. Since apartheid ended, approximately 2% has been transferred. Mostly, because, like ZANU-PF before them, the ANC is moving painfully slowly in order to ensure the support fo Western governments and capital markets. Meanwhile, the number of people living in poverty grows year after year. The number living on less than $1 a day rose from 1.9m in 1996 to 4.2m in 2005.

It's a ticking time bomb.

If the conclusion Westerners draw from the current events in Zimbabwe is that the country is poor today because they took the farms away from smart white people we're going to see these events replay in South Africa very soon.

On another note:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:
Just to reiterate: you cannot have it both ways, if you are pleased Zimbabwe has been opposed to foreign investment, you should have no problem whatsoever with the sanctions.

---

As a Canadian, I don't want to see hospitals privatized. That does not mean that I want to see Canada's foreign debt recalled. In fact, there's no equivalence at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
[QBcompared to a kleptocracy like Zimbabwe ruled by a fascist tin-pot dictator like Pig Mugabe.[/QB]

---

quote:

---

There's a (hugely self-evident)difference between saying a country should not privatize their publicly-owned assets and making it illegal to do business with them or deliberately denying them access to capital.

---

Actually there isn't because the only places in the west Zimbabwe could get money prior to the sanctions were the IMF and the World Bank, and those loans came with the sorts of demands that you or others here would oppose.

So, no, in fact there is no practical difference between the sanctions and 'foreign investment' that you say you oppose.

Zimbabwe also didn't do much trade with the countries that imposed the sanctions prior to their imposition, so, as I said earlier, that had a negligable effect.

[ 30 March 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

If you can find me a single article about this election in any Canadian newspaper I'll pledge allegiance to George W Bush.

---

Better get your passport ready.

From Globe and Mail Search archives:

1.UN faces ultimatum in Congolese election

Print Edition 23/11/06 Page A21

Congo President Joseph Kabila yesterday gave UN peacekeepers a 48-hour deadline to move an election rival's soldiers out of Kinshasa, or he will order the national army to do it, Congolese and UN officials said.

2.Fighting, fire greet Congo election hearing

On-line 21/11/06 07:34 AM

Court begins hearings over fraud allegations in country's presidential runoff election

3.Loser in Congo elections files court challenge

On-line 18/11/06 08:48 PM

Jean-Pierre Bemba's move indicates that he probably won't resort to violence

4.Loser of Congo elections rejects Kabila's win

Print Edition 17/11/06 Page A14

The loser in Congo's landmark presidential elections rejected President Joseph Kabila victory yesterday, saying he would use all legal means to challenge the outcome from the war-battered Central African nation's first multiparty vote in decades.

5.Kabila declared winner of Congo election
Michelle Faul

On-line 15/11/06 06:31 PM

Rival and ex-rebel leader, Jean-Pierre Bemba disputes results; his forces have fought police and troops loyal to Kabila

6.Loyalists of Congo's two presidential candidates clash

On-line 11/11/06 02:34 PM

Two civilians dead in fighting, UN peacekeepers said

7.Congolese go to polls amid minimal violence

Print Edition 30/10/06 Page A17

Millions of Congolese voted yesterday in a presidential election they desperately hope will end decades of war, pillage and kleptocracy and open a new chapter of reconstruction in the mineral-rich but destitute country.
Kabila poised to control Congo's new parliament

8.Print Edition 05/09/06 Page A12

President Joseph Kabila appears poised to win control of Congo's new parliament, according to preliminary election results, but he will still face a tough battle in next month's presidential runoff.

9.Congo's new clash

Print Edition 26/08/06 Page A16

By themselves, relatively free elections do not a democracy make. Not by a long shot. Consider the Democratic Republic of Congo.

10.UN calls for ceasefire in Congolese clashes

Print Edition 23/08/06 Page A10

The United Nations called for an immediate ceasefire between rival army supporters of Congo's two presidential candidates yesterday, and three days of deadly fighting ebbed as the European Union sent reinforcements to the restive country.

11.Congo president's election lead stays below majority needed to avoid runoff

On-line 21/08/06 05:27 PM

If none of the 33 candidates wins an outright majority, two front-runners will enter a second round of voting.

12.Congolese President fails to win a majority at polls

Print Edition 21/08/06 Page A11

President Joseph Kabila failed to win an outright majority in Congo's historic elections, setting up a runoff with a former rebel leader, election officials announced yesterday. Mr. Kabila won 45 per cent of the 16.9 million votes cast in the July 30 ballot, against Jean-Pierre Bemba's 20 per cent, electoral commission chairman Apollinaire Malu Malu said at a news conference. The other votes were shared by 31 other candidates. The announcement came hours after gunfire erupted outside Congo's election commission headquarters, killing at least one person. Witnesses said Mr. Kabila's personal security forces were battling Mr. Bemba's loyalists. AP

13.President's lead slipping in partial election results in Congo
ANJAN SUNDARAM

On-line 13/08/06 08:18 PM

Electoral officials said support for incumbent Joseph Kabila has slipped to just above 50 per cent

There are more too. Just go to the Globe and Mail website and type in "Congo elections" in the search box. You have to pay for the articles themselves though.

[ 30 March 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

Same reason Darfur gets more attention than the Congo, despite the far greater casualties in the latter.

Same reason certain countries and leaders get more attention on babble than others.

quote:

---

The reason Zimbabwe gets more attention than other crises is that it is on the hit list of Anglo-U.S. ambitions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

I guess then that Israel must also be on the "hit list" of Anglo-US ambitions. Why else would it get so much more attention than Chechnya or Tibet?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Or maybe there are actually things going on in the world that the CIA doesn't control - who'd a thunk it??

---

You're right, the CIA has been saying that for many years.

Actually, I don't think the CIA controls anything at all. That's why they spend all their time weeping and wailing about the world (e.g. Zimbabwe), while U.S. troops are hopelessly mired in wars that they are bound to lose, like all the other ones they have lost since WWII.

But there are plenty of concerned, compassionate people in the world who think that it is sad that a country once considered the "Breadbasket" of southern Africa now has 100,000% inflation, 80% unemployment, a 60% HIV infection rate, endless shortages of basic staples, widespread malnutrition, electricity that only works a few hours a collapsing infrastructure and a police state with government thugs walking the streets beating up anyone they choose to assualt etc...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Where is the press release from the CIA wailing about Zimbabwe? I haven't heard anything!

---

Oh give it a rest. Even my grandmother isn't as naive. Here is what Canadian Stephen Gowans said last year about the CIA's dirty bag of tricks and political interference in Zimbabwe:

Zimbabwe’s Lonely Fight for Justice

quote:

---

In Yugoslavia, the underground movement, known as Otpor, was established, funded, trained and organized by the US State Department, USAID, the US Congress-funded National Endowment for Democracy (which is said to do overtly what the CIA used to do covertly) and through various NGO’s like Freedom House, whose board of directors has included a rogues’ gallery of US ruling class activists: Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Otto Reich, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Steve Forbes.

Otpor has been the inspiration for similar groups elsewhere: Zubr in Belarus, Khmara in Georgia, Pora in the Ukraine. Otpor’s Zimbabwean progeny include Zvakwana, “an underground movement that aims to …. undermine” the Mugabe government and Sokwanele, whose “members specialize in anonymous acts of civil disobedience.” (6) Both groups receive generous financing from Western sources. (7) While the original, Otpor, was largely a youth-oriented anarchist-leaning movement, at least one member of Sokwanele is “A conservative white businessman expressing a passion for freedom, tradition, polite manners and the British Royals.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:

1.There is an election going on in Zimbabwe, the media seems to mainly follow events.

2.That said, I'm not sure there has been more attention paid to Zimbabwe than the Congo.

---

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/pr/release.cfm?id=2263

"Doctors Without Borders Releases Tenth Annual "Top Ten" Most Underreported Humanitarian Stories of 2007"

"The DRC [Congo] and Colombia, both wracked by ongoing civil conflict and massive internal displacement of civilians, have dominated the list over the past decade, each appearing a total of nine times."

See also 2006:
http://trulyequal.com/2007/01/11/top-10-most-underreported-humanitarian-stories-of-2006/

2004
"Democratic Republic of Congo: Ongoing decade-long war has cost an estimated 3 million lives."
http://www.allbusiness.com/medicine-health/diseases-disorders-infectious/7680266-1.html

Project Censored (2005-2006):
"FOR 30 years, Sonoma State University's Project Censored has released an annual list of the most important news stories not covered by the corporate media in the United States. Here again are the Top 10 news stories that didn't make much news."
http://www.metroactive.com/metro/11.08.06/censored-news-stories-0645.html

"High-Tech Genocide in Congo

The world's most neglected emergency, according to Jan Egeland, the U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator, is the ongoing tragedy in the Congo, where 6 million to 7 million have died since 1996 as a consequence of invasions and wars sponsored by Western powers trying to gain control of the region's mineral wealth.

[...]

Yet as mining in the Congo by Western companies proceeds at an unprecedented rate—some $6 million in raw cobalt alone exiting DRC daily—multinational mining companies rarely get mentioned in human-rights reports."

Always underreported.

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
Uh, if anybody is paying attention to the actual story anymore.

Opposition leads Mugabe

---

How can MDC claim victory at the same time they accuse Zanu-PF of rigging the election? If Zanu-PF has rigged the election and without any clear evidence they've done so, then Zanu-PF should win, yes?

quote:

---

[b]Part of the economic freefall is traced to Mugabe's land redistribution policies, including his controversial [b]seizure of commercially white-owned farms in 2000.]/b] Mugabe gave the land to black Zimbabweans who he said were cheated under colonialist rule, and white farmers who resisted were jailed.

In 2005, Mugabe launched Operation Clean Out the Trash, in which he razed slum areas across the country.

---

So, in the next few hours, the rural results will come in and they may give Mugabe a victory. If that happens his supporters will note that it was inevitable that Mugabe would need rural support to win and his detractors will inevitably claim that he won by cheating.

The latter will claim that delays in tabulation prove he was cheating. The former will note that tabulating rural results takes longer in any country.

Mugabe supporters will point to the positive report by regional observers. Detractors will point to the dissenting reports. Mugabe supporters will note that South Africa's Democratic Alliance is lead by this woman and has links to the old apartheid regime.

Western media will latch onto election observers like ZESN who declare the vote unfair. Mugabe supporters will note that the ZESN has their own agenda.

We'll see. Maybe something unexpected will happen.

[ 30 March 2008: Message edited by: Mercy ]

The election in the Democratic Republic of the Congo received a good deal of attention, as I showed above, as do most elections.

[ 30 March 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

One: (at the risk of getting dragged down in technical blah blah) I was comparing the elections in Congo-Brazzaville (0 coverage) with the coverage of Zimnbabwe (out the wazoo coverage). It was probably a bad example because the names of Congo-Brazzaville and the DR of Congo are so similar.

Two: thanks for conceding that Zimbabwe is getting a large amount of coverage compared to other African countries. At least we can move to a debate on why that's happened as opposed to whether it happened.

Three: I think it's happening because (as Chomsky's propaganda analysis illustrates) the western media become vigilant about reporting the failings of official US/UK "enemies". Mugabe is one of them. That doesn't mean he's a great guy or a hero. Just that we're all paying attention now because of that - not for other reasons.

It's actually very unusual for an election not to receive at least some coverage in the Globe and Mail. Maybe the legislature in the Republic of Congo has no power, like the old Soviet legislature in the Soviet Union, so the election wasn't taken seriously. Indeed, that would seem to be the case: The ruling Congolese Labour Party and parties and independent candidates allied with it won 125 seats, while two opposition parties won a combined 12 seats. (from Wiki)

It's not unusual for newspapers to ignore sham elections. The election in Zimbabwe could also turn out to be a sham, but the newspapers knew in advance that the Republic of Congo elections would be a sham, and at the very least, the major opposition candidates are running in Zimbabwe.

[ 30 March 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
The cold war is over and if the CIA were actually behind the conflict in Chechnya then why wouldn't they be pulling their "strings" to make sure that the western media that they supposedly control would give Chechnya saturation coverage while giving Israel a low profile.

---

EDITED to correct

[ 30 March 2008: Message edited by: Mercy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:
The election in the Democratic Republic of Congo was not ignored, as I showed above, it received a lot of attention. I don't know if it was rigged or not. I also don't know if the election in the Republic of Congo was rigged or not.

---

1.It's also an interesting question why Denis Sassou Nguesso has not made a lot of powerful enemies given that he is a Marxist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
As a total aside, why would anyone assume that it's in Israel's interests to have a low profile? Estimates are that America alone has provided some 84 trillion in subsidies to Israel. You think they could justify that without a public relations strategy?

---

That article states 84 billion.

On Papal Bull's other point: when Iraq was under sanctions it also saw life expectancy shrink dramatically. In 1996 (before sanctions but after 16 years of Mugabe in the top job) the life expectancy was 15 years higher.

quote:

---

Again, I'm not saying Mugabe's a hero but the narrative we're getting is simplistic.

---

Is it any more simplistic than the "if the U.S is opposed to it, they must have some redeeming points" that we seem to be getting from a number of the posters here? Or, if you don't think that's a fair characterization (and I do), then is it any more simplistic than the "Mugabe isn't the problem, the U.S (or U.S imperialism) (or Anglo American imperialism) is the problem"

[ 30 March 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
In 1990, there was a lot of attention paid to elections in Burma - elections that were promptly rigged and ignored by the ruling junta and their "Burmese Road to Socialism". I guess that must mean that Aung San Suu Kyi is also a CIA agent?

---

And sometimes there are countries which are neither socialist nor Warshington stoogeocracy. CNN made a blunder last year when they admitted during a news broadcast that NED was behind the protests in Burma.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:
Is it any more simplistic than the "if the U.S is opposed to it, they must have some redeeming points" that we seem to be getting from a number of the posters here? Or, if you don't think that's a fair characterization (and I do), then is it any more simplistic than the "Mugabe isn't the problem, the U.S (or U.S imperialism) (or Anglo American imperialism) is the problem"

---

I think, a lot like Michelle stated, that Mugabe doesn't offer much of a model but that the alternatives could be worse - particularly in the long term.

Perhaps as importantly, I'm concerned by how easily progressives buy into Condoleeza Rice's view that "Mugabe has to go" without considering what that means. Or, for that matter, who else is in the running or anything they stand for (as has been made clear here).

What's being demonized here isn't just land reform. The narrative we're being fed is that an African leader went crazy and started redistributing land. This, of course, was a disaster because everyone knows only whites can make things work. So now everyone's poor because of land reform and one crazy leader.

quote:

---

The narrative we're being fed is that an African leader went crazy and started redistributing land. This, of course, was a disaster because everyone knows only whites can make things work. So now everyone's poor because of land reform and one crazy leader.

That's a very dangerous wrong analysis.

---

Other than the stuff about "only whites can make things work" I don't see anything wrong with it.

The land was given to supporters of Mugabe who had no experience in running large farms and production fell off dramatically.

Those are just facts.

There is a right way to do land redistribution and giving it to cronies is not it.

I agree with you that just removing Mugabe doesn't solve all the problems, but he is a murderous thug and removing him is a start.

If you are saying something to the effect of nationalizing private industry (that will almost certainly end up in the hands of Mugabe's cronies) and giving farms to supporters of Mugabe is better in the long term than virtually any alternative short of civil war, I just disagree.

The reality is that it is the disastrous policies of Mugabe that has destroyed Zimbabwe and not the limited sanctions despite what Mugabe or the mindless "America is to blame for everything" loudmouths here tell you. (which is not to say that the sanctions didn't have some impact or that they're value can't be debated).

[ 30 March 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:

The land was given to supporters of Mugabe who had no experience in running large farms and production fell off dramatically.

Those are just facts.

---

I'm sure glad you didn't say the land was given exclusively to Mugabe's "black" friends. Because then we'd have something to chew the fat about.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
The reason Zimbabwe gets more attention than other crises is that it is on the hit list of Anglo-U.S. ambitions.

---

quote:

---

Mugabe doesn't offer much of a model but that the alternatives could be worse

---

Right now Zimbabwe "boasts" 100,000% inflation, 70% unemployment, two-thirds of the adult population infected with HIV, rampant corruption, rampant malnutrition, rampant crime, the lowest life expectancy of any country in the world, shortages of basic commodities and food riots and armed thugs walking the streets beating up opponents of the government.

What could be worse than that??? exterminating the entire population.

quote:

---

What's amazing is that Pig Mugabe gets even one single solitary vote other than his own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
What's amazing is that Pig Mugabe gets even one single solitary vote other than his own. Here in Canada we reduced the federal Tories to two seats out of 308 for far less!

---

[ 31 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Well, I suppose he probably bribes a few people in his home village - like Mobutu did.

---

Except that it was Patrice Lumumba who was assassinated when it appeared he was moving toward socialism. U.S. companies coveted Zaire's rich mineral deposits of diamonds, cobalt, and copper. So the CIA-Belgians replaced the democratically-elected Lumumba with the dictator Mobutu, who went on to amass a personal fortune of several billion dollars at the expense of social democracy for his countrymen. Mobutu was a recruit of the CIA's in their war against communism in Africa.

[ 31 March 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

If you want to make pathetic excuses for this poor excuse for a human being - go ahead.

quote:

---

Lesbians and gays are "sexual perverts" who are "lower than dogs and pigs", according the President of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe. Arriving in Britain to attend this weekend's Commonwealth Conference, Mugabe has rejected calls for gay human rights. "We don't believe they (gays) have any rights at all", he said.

In 1995, Mugabe ordered the Zimbabwe International Book Fair to ban an exhibit by the civil rights group, Gays & Lesbians of Zimbabwe (GALZ). He followed this ban with warnings that homosexuals should leave the country "voluntarily" or face "dire consequences". Soon afterwards, Mugabe urged the public to track down and arrest lesbians and gays. Since these incitements, homosexuals have been beaten up, fire-bombed, arrested, interrogated and threatened with death. Most Zimbabwean churches are backing Mugabe's hate campaign.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
BTW, are there many political elected leaders whom you casually call "Pig X.." or do your reserve this smear for Africans or those of the few countries that resist Western imperialism?

---

Correct.

Stockholm doesn't refer to "Nazi Tommy" just because Tommy wrote a thesis on how to "solve the problems of the Subnormal Family" by sterilizing mentally and physically disabled Canadians, and sending them to camps.

Stockholm reserves vicious abuse for those on the hit parade of Bush and Blair Brown and Harper and their ilk.

He keeps repeating those terms over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over until someone reacts.

Hint: Do not react.

[ 31 March 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Stockholm doesn't refer to "Nazi Tommy" just because Tommy wrote a thesis on how to "solve the problems of the Subnormal Family" by sterilizing mentally and physically disabled Canadians, and sending them to camps.

---

Haha! Wasn't that like 1932? The Nazis weren't even in power yet! And Tommy Douglas didn't get into office for another 16 years.

Shouldn't Mugabe have learned something about eugenics since then?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Correct.

Stockholm doesn't refer to "Nazi Tommy" just because Tommy wrote a thesis on how to "solve the problems of the Subnormal Family" by sterilizing mentally and physically disabled Canadians, and sending them to camps.

---

quote:

---

Yes, you keep harping on that: "I can't understand why anyone votes for him", "I can't understand..."? Why do you think this is anything but testimony to your cluelessness about Zimbabwean dynamics? BTW, are there many political elected leaders whom you casually call "Pig X.." or do your reserve this smear for Africans or those of the few countries that resist Western imperialism?

---

So, Mercy, you still want to maintain that my assertion that many of the posters here are mindlessly saying that Mugabe can't be all bad because, after all, the U.S opposes him, is simplistic? and that they are in fact really saying "we hate Mugabe but the opposition could be worse."