Posted June 22, 200817 yr Zimbabwe opposition quits election Published: Sunday, 22 June 2008, 10:24AM Zimbabwean opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai has pulled out of a run-off election against President Robert Mugabe. Speaking after his opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) reported its rally had been broken up by pro-Mugabe youth militia, Mr Tsvangirai said a free and fair poll was impossible in the current climate of violence. He called on the United Nations and the African Union to intervene to stop "genocide" in the former British colony as Western governments condemned Mr Mugabe's "thugs". The MDC and Mr Tsvangirai, who beat President Mugabe in a March 29 vote but failed to win the absolute majority needed to avoid a second ballot, have repeatedly accused government security forces and militia of intimidation and strong-arm tactics to ensure a Mugabe victory in the June 27 poll. Mr Tsvangirai said: "We in the MDC have resolved that we will no longer participate in this violent, illegitimate sham of an election process. "We in the MDC cannot ask them (the voters) to cast their vote on June 27, when that vote could cost them their lives." Mr Tsvangirai, who himself had been detained by police five times while campaigning, said 86 MDC supporters had been killed and 200,000 displaced from their homes. The MDC earlier said that youths loyal to President Mugabe's Zanu-PF party attacked an MDC rally in Harare, beating journalists and forcing election observers to flee. "Thousands of Zanu-PF youth militia, armed with iron bars, sticks and other weapons, have attacked journalists and forced election observer teams to flee from the venue of the MDC scheduled rally. Police are firing tear gas," the MDC said in a statement. Foreign Secretary said in a statement: "We have reached an absolutely critical moment in the drive by the people of Zimbabwe to rid themselves of the tyrannical rule of Robert Mugabe. "He has made and his thugs have made an election impossible and so now we face a critical crisis of legitimacy because it's clear that the only people with any shred of legitimacy are the people who won the March 29 first round and that was the opposition." The White House said in a statement: "The government of Zimbabwe and its thugs must stop the violence now." © Independent Television News Limited 2008. All rights reserved.
June 22, 200817 yr Author What next for Zimbabwe now? Will things just go back to how they were before the election? :(
June 22, 200817 yr He would never be allowed to win anyway. Its an election in name only. There was never any chance Mugabe would relinquish power.
June 22, 200817 yr Not our problem really It is not up to us to be the worlds policeman, Mugabe is vile but it is up to Africa to deal with him not us
June 22, 200817 yr Not our problem really It is not up to us to be the worlds policeman, Mugabe is vile but it is up to Africa to deal with him not us sanctions....
June 22, 200817 yr He would never be allowed to win anyway. Its an election in name only. There was never any chance Mugabe would relinquish power. sadly thats true only yesterday mugabe declared "only god can remove me".... its at times like this that i wish there WAS a god!
June 22, 200817 yr sanctions.... They are already in existence, haven't made any difference when Mugabe has billions in overseas bank accounts while his people starve The only way to effecively get rid of Mugabe is a well trained and highly armed militia backed up by an African peace keeping force after Mugabe has been overthrown I would have no prob with Britain training and arming an opposition militia but I don't want to see British troops invade Zimbabwe or whatever
June 22, 200817 yr Not our problem really It is not up to us to be the worlds policeman, Mugabe is vile but it is up to Africa to deal with him not us I would agree in normal circumstances, but (a) Mugabe is carrying out massive human rights violations, and (b ) the Zimbabweans clearly want Mugabe gone. Therefore, I think it is the Wests duty to intervene, though obviously military intervention shouldnt be on the table. Edited June 22, 200817 yr by Danny
June 22, 200817 yr Not our problem really It is not up to us to be the worlds policeman It didn't stop us going into Iraq though did it? And as far as I can see Mugabe is far worse than Saddam Hussein. Norma I should add - I don't like posting in these political threads as I don't understand politics at all its just that Mugabe gets my goat! A truly vile and evil man. Edited June 22, 200817 yr by Norma_Snockers
June 22, 200817 yr I would agree in normal circumstances, but (a) Mugabe is carrying out massive human rights violations, and (b ) the Zimbabweans clearly want Mugabe gone. Therefore, I think it is the Wests duty to intervene, though obviously military intervention shouldnt be on the table. What do you suggest though can be done ? Sanctions against Mugabe won't work and are already in existence, he has syphoned billions out of the Zimbabwe economy into his own personal bank accounts so sanctions won't personally affect him so he will not care if his people starve I would personally start squeezing South Africa and Mbeki, Mbeki is Mugabe's big buddy in the region and one of those that is propping him up so maybe it is time we started using financial and economic pressure against South Africa until Mbeki withdraws support for Mugabe and forces him to go
June 22, 200817 yr It didn't stop us going into Iraq though did it? And as far as I can see Mugabe is far worse than Saddam Hussein. Norma I should add - I don't like posting in these political threads as I don't understand politics at all its just that Mugabe gets my goat! A truly vile and evil man. Mugabe is an evil and vile man but he is an African problem so any military action should be taken by an alliance of AFRICAN forces not us
June 22, 200817 yr Mugabe is an evil and vile man but he is an African problem so any military action should be taken by an alliance of AFRICAN forces not us craig.... the ONLY reason 'we' havnt gone in there is the fact that theres no bloody oil there...
June 22, 200817 yr Mugabe is an evil and vile man but he is an African problem so any military action should be taken by an alliance of AFRICAN forces not us But Sadam was an evil and vile man and a 'middle-eastern' problem so any such action should have been taken by a middle-eastern force ... not us. And Rob has hit the nail on the head. If there were oil there - 'we' would be in like a shot! Norma
June 23, 200817 yr craig.... the ONLY reason 'we' havnt gone in there is the fact that theres no bloody oil there... Pretty much in a nutshell... But it's more like the Americans aren't interested in going in there (because of no oil, and the fact that they've had their fingers burned in African conflicts before...)..... If the US was interested, then we would be as well...
June 24, 200817 yr Not our problem really It is not up to us to be the worlds policeman, Mugabe is vile but it is up to Africa to deal with him not us :lol: Britain considered Zimbabwe enough of a "problem" to occupy it for nearly 100 years up until the 1980s... Mugabe is a tyrant and a murderer but can Britain really disavow all blame for the situation?
June 24, 200817 yr :lol: Britain considered Zimbabwe enough of a "problem" to occupy it for nearly 100 years up until the 1980s... Mugabe is a tyrant and a murderer but can Britain really disavow all blame for the situation? id argue that rhodesia...sorry... zimbabwe, would have been better off if ian smith had stayed in power, the country would be much more prosperous and tens of thousands would still be alive let alone nearly everyone would be enjoying a better standard of living....
June 24, 200817 yr Rhodesia/Zimbabwe was known as the 'bread basket' of Africa wasn't it? Now Mugabe and his henchmen have managed to reduce it to a 'basket case'. There is no way the 'West' is going to intervene militarily. Not because of a 'lack of oil'. NATO went into Bosnia and then Kosovo. They didn't have oil. The British Army went into Sierra Leone as a peacekeeping force. It didn't have oil either. Military intervention by the West isn't an option because- - US/UK/NATO is already far too stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan - Russia and particularly China (a major Mugabe trading partner) would veto any proposed intervention at the UN Security Council - I think ex-colonial powers are very wary of intervening in former colonies. It probably wouldn't go down very well with the 'African Nation' as they call themselves. Mugabe is already seen as some kind of African folk hero for standing up to the nasty white man. The 'White Man' going back in to depose Mugabe would I fear make him even more of a hero. I really think the pressure has got to come from other African countries. And for the first time it seems the sands are maybe shifting. Military intervention by other African countries might be an option but whether they have the balls to invade is highly unlikely. It's not going to be a matter of simply removing Mugabe. He's the figurehead. Zanu-PF is more than Mugabe. Any 'coup' would need to take out the Army Generals& the rabble of 'veterans' who have benefited greatly from the land redistribution policies of recent years. I really think Mbeki and South Africa is the key here. Mbeki has been a great friend to Mugabe. Maybe it's time he changed allegiances? It would also be helpful to hear condemnation of Mugabe's regime from Nelson Mandela who is still such an influencial figure but who has been strangely quiet on the matter.
Create an account or sign in to comment