|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : Africa
Zimbabwe election: US and UK move to impose sanctions
By Ann Talbot
2 July 2008
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
Robert Mugabe was inaugurated for a sixth term as President
of Zimbabwe on Sunday, following an election campaign characterised
by government backed violence and intimidation.
Mugabe, standing for the ruling ZANU-PF, claimed to have received
more than 85 percent of the vote. But his only opponent, Morgan
Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), had withdrawn
from the campaign because of the level of violence and intimidation.
International observers condemned the elections. The current
atmosphere prevailing in the country did not give rise to the
conduct of free, fair and credible elections, said Marwick
Khumalo head of the Pan-African Parliament monitoring team.
Observers from Zimbabwes neighbours in the Southern African
Development Community (SADC) concurred. The elections,
the SADC observers concluded, did not represent the will
of the people of Zimbabwe.
The elections were worse than those we witnessed in Angola
in 1992, after decades of war, and are not credible, one
SADC observer said.
Zimbabwean observers called off their plans to monitor the
polls because it was too dangerous.
A government-sponsored campaign of beatings, kidnappings and
murders has left 104 people dead and 3,500 injured. Doctors who
have been treating the wounded say that this is just the tip of
the iceberg. What we are seeing is probably 10 percent of
what has actually happened, a doctor who wished to remain
anonymous told reporters. He said that the violence was the worst
the country has witnessed.
The injuries he had treated were more serious than those experienced
during the liberation war of the 1970s. This is much, much
more severe, the doctor said, We are not seeing simple
fractures, we are seeing bones smashed into 20 pieces. People
being forced to walk on burning coals, having scalding water poured
over them and their wounds poisoned.
Marwick Kumhalo said that monitors had evidence of violence
and intimidation all over the country in the run up to the election.
The turnout, he said, was low.
In Mashonaland the number of votes announced by the Zimbabwe
Electoral Commission (ZEC) exceeds the number of registered voters.
The ZEC claimed that the turn out was comparable to that in the
first round of the elections in March. But some polling stations
in Bulawayo reported that they did not receive a single voter.
In Harare, the capital, few voters were seen. Many registered
voters said that they did not intend to vote. There were a large
number of spoilt ballot papers. Some had obscene language directed
at Mugabe.
Turnout was very low in major urban areas. Voters in those
areas can expect retribution. Reprisals have already been reported
in the working class suburb of Chitungwiza outside Harare.
In the wake of the election the repression is continuing. Anyone
who does not have the red ink stained finger that shows they voted
is immediately at risk.
The ZEC has handed the details of polling patterns in each
electoral ward to the government. Security forces and government-backed
militias will be able to target voters in wards that did not endorse
Mugabe.
Leaked minutes from the Joint Operations Command (JOC), which
has been coordinating the coercion, indicate that the regime has
decided to wipe out the opposition MDC.
The UK based Independent has seen sworn affidavits from
reserve bank officials who transported money to regional organisers
to finance the campaign of violence against the opposition.
There are reports that re-education camps at which opposition
voters have been tortured are being re-supplied for a second phase
of the campaign. An opposition activist told reporters that local
businesses in Chinhoyi in Mashonaland West are being forced to
make contributions to fund the repression.
These camps are now regrouping. Theyre going to
unleash another terror campaign, he said.
Mugabe went almost directly from his inauguration to the African
Union (AU) summit in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt. The response of other
African leaders to his presence was muted. They are reluctant
to criticise a fellow African leader in public. Many of them have
records of repression as bad, or worse than Mugabes.
Other African leaders, such as the summits host Muhammad
Hosni Mubarak, are notoriously corrupt. Mubarak is accused of
rigging the 2005 election. These were the first multi-party elections
to take place since he came to power in 1981. He has maintained
a state of emergency rule for the last 25 years.
Mubarak and his fellow African leaders have no more desire
to allow democratic rights to their people than Mugabe. All the
African rulers at the Sharm el Sheikh summit have for the most
part enriched a tiny elite at the expense of the majority of the
population.
But these regimes value their relationship with the United
States and are coming under intense pressure to isolate and condemn
Mugabe.
Egyptian prisons, for example, have proved invaluable in providing
a secret base for the torture of US detainees in the so-called
war on terror. The Italian authorities are currently investigating
the extraordinary rendition of Abu Omar, an Egyptian
cleric living as a refuge in Italy. He was seized by the CIA from
the street in Milan in 2003. He was then taken to the US airbase
at Brescia and flown to Ramstein in Germany from where he was
taken to an Egyptian prison and tortured.
Even the Sudanese government, which is regularly condemned
in the US press, has proved useful in intelligence matters to
the US government. Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya was recruited to
the US war on terror in 2004.
The African states may well acquiesce to US demands on Mugabe,
if they want to maintain their favoured status as allies in the
war on terror.
Zimbabwe has become something of test case for US power in
Africa, which has suffered a serious setback following the military
debacle in Iraq and the emergence of China as a major player on
the continent.
I would suggest that one not take from the soft words
in an open plenary as a reflection of the deep concern of leaders
here of the situation in Zimbabwe, said US Assistant Secretary
of State for Africa Jendayi Fraser. I would expect them
to have very, very strong words for him.
Her remarks were as much an instruction to the African leaders
as a comment for journalists. The US, Britain and the European
Union have made it clear that they will not recognise Mugabe as
president of Zimbabwe.
Visiting Beijing, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called
for China to support an arms embargo against Zimbabwe. But Chinese
Foreign Secretary Yang Jiechi insisted that the only way forward
was for the government of Zimbabwe to enter into talks with the
opposition.
It seems that a call for a negotiated settlement and a power-sharing
government like that established in Kenya following the disputed
election earlier this year may emerge from the AU summit. On the
second day of the summit the South African paper Business Day
reported that President Thabo Mbeki was close to brokering a deal
between Mugabe and Tsvangirai.
Even if Thabo Mbeki succeeds in establishing a government of
national unity, that is unlikely to be the end of the matter.
The US and UK seem to have already rejected this option.
An article in the Financial Times on 25 June posed a
somewhat different scenario. The articles authors reflected
on the recent pronouncements by a series of African leaders and
former leaders denouncing Mugabe.
Rising commodity prices and economic liberalisation has ensured
that growth rates across much of Africa remain at 5 percent, the
article said. But food prices and transport costs are rising fast,
it warned. Under these circumstances, Mugabes intransigence
may have unforeseen effects.
Not only has Robert Mugabe put southern Africa in jeopardy.
Like ripples on a pond, which can drown a man already up to his
nose in water, his actions can strain an uneasy peace in Kenya,
affect food shipments to refugees in east Africa and add to the
trials of Britains beleaguered government.
The article was written by former Africa editor of the Financial
Times Michael Holman and Dr Gregg Mills, director of the Brenthurst
Foundation, a think tank founded by the Oppenheimer family to
further the economic development of Africa. These two old Africa
hands proceeded to imagine a scenario in which attacks on whites
might lead the UK to attempt an evacuation of its nationals and
a convoy to the South African border might be attacked.
Zimbabwes second city of Bulawayo, the article suggests,
might become a centre of resistance and railway connections might
be severed. Mbeki might offer Mugabe sanctuary in South Africa,
but President of the ANC Jacob Zuma and the South African trade
unions might respond by organising countrywide protests.
In the midst of all that, Holman and Mills imagine, Somali-based
terrorists bomb a tourist hotel while in Kenya further ethnic
riots disrupt the power-sharing government and hamper relief to
refuges in central Africa.
This could be the plot of a political thriller rather than
an article in a sober financial journal. But the fact that it
appears in the Financial Times and is the work of two senior
commentators on Africa gives it a certain weight.
Such is the fragility of the world situation following the
credit crunch and the still expanding speculative bubble in commodity
prices that Mugabes attempt to hang on to power threatens
to destabilise not only southern Africa, but the entire continent.
In recognising that threat, Holman and Mills evince a desire to
seize the moment and precipitate a crisis that they envisage to
be already on the horizon.
How far the US and UK intelligence agencies would be behind
the disastrous scenarios that Holman and Mills draft out, we may
never know. But it is revealing that such influential commentators
assume only a bloody outcome is possible in Zimbabwe.
The article is an indication of the extent to which the attitude
of the US and UK towards Zimbabwe has shifted. At present it is
accepted that the US and UK cannot intervene openly in Zimbabwe.
As the Economist recently said, other methods, with
Africans to the fore, must be tried first. But the scenario
drafted out by Mills and Holman would provide a pretext for American
and British intervention.
An editorial in the Financial Times expressed the western
powers dissatisfaction with Mbekis attempts to establish
a government of national unity in Zimbabwe.
Thabo Mbeki, South Africas president, who has sought
to resolve the crisis with a Kenyan-style national unity government,
should accept he has failed. There is no way any western nation
will send international aid to a regime that has Mr. Mugabe or
ZANU-PF at the helm. An MDC government that included a small ZANU-PF
contingent would be an acceptable price for ending the violence,
but is unlikely to happen.
The Financial Times called for tighter sanctions and
demanded that Western financial institutions should be debarred
from operating in Harare.
US and UK policy is moving rapidly in this direction. President
George Bush announced that he had instructed Condoleezza Rice
and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to develop sanctions
against this illegitimate Government of Zimbabwe and those who
support it.
The giant mining company Anglo-American has come under intense
pressure to abandon its planned investment in a Zimbabwe platinum
mine. Barclays bank is coming under pressure to cease business
in Zimbabwe after more than a century. The UK-based supermarket
chain Tesco has announced that it has stopped sourcing goods from
Zimbabwe.
These economic measures and the proposed sanctions will inevitably
have more impact on the population of Zimbabwe than on the ruling
elite, who have long since established their own secret channels
for funding. Tesco, Barclays and Anglo-American are major employers
in what is left of the formal economy in Zimbabwe.
Sanctions will mean that it will become even more difficult
for hospitals to source medicines and for ordinary people unconnected
with the regime to buy fuel. As the West tightens the screws on
the Zimbabwean economy, more people will flock across the countrys
borders to escape poverty and malnutrition.
The experience of the recent election has demonstrated that
Morgan Tsvangirais opposition offers no alternative to Mugabe
or to Western domination. From the outset, Tsvangirais party
has been a pliant tool of the West and the international financial
institutions.
Tsvangirais pusillanimous performance in the second round
of the presidential elections seems to have convinced any potential
backers in the West that he is useless for their purposes. He
announced his withdrawal from the election last week with a letter
to the Guardian in which he appealed for international
military intervention. Within days he had denied that he ever
sent that article to the paper. On its part the Guardian,
while loath to discredit Tsvangirai, had to point out that they
had received the article from the usual sources.
The usual sources turned out to be a media
consultant who had provided 400 pieces under Tsvangirais
byline for the Guardian, the Melbourne Age and the
Washington Post. Inadvertently, Tsvangirai had admitted
far more than he intended about the nature of his campaign and
the extent to which it is run by big business interests and is
far removed from the interests of the people who are being beaten
and killed in Zimbabwe.
See Also:
Zimbabwe: Tsvangirai pulls
out of election as Britain and US seek regime change
[26 June 2008]
Zimbabwe: Mugabe government
halts food aid
[19 June 2008]
Zimbabwe: Tsvangirai agrees
to second round of elections
[13 May 2008]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |