The inconvenient truths about the West and Zimbabwe


WAY FORWARD: Arthur Mutambara

•In this article, MDC leader Arthur Mutambara looks at the difficulties in implementing the September 15 GPA, the unhelpfulness of western interventions in Zimbabwe's domestic politics while interrogating existing strategies for achieving democracy in Zimbabwe:


THE year 2008 was a very difficult one for us as a nation. Since the inconclusive harmonised elections held on March 29, there has been a political impasse in our land. The country has been without a legitimate government. Our economy has virtually collapsed, while disease and starvation are ravaging our people. Hopelessness and despair characterise and define the national psyche. There has been complete leadership failure across the board, within Zimbabwe, in the region and in the international community.
As we start a new year, let us reflect on some of the major debates that are shaping our politics as we exit 2008. Of particular interest in this treatise are the uncomfortable realities and challenges that sometimes we shy away from confronting. In particular we seek to slay that elephant in the national living room: How ignorant and unstrategic external involvement in the Zimbabwean discourse does more harm than good.

We seek to argue that in the year 2008, brazen and crass Western shenanigans have actually undermined the opposition and strengthened Robert Mugabe. More importantly, it is our submission that the uninformed and reckless foreign policy positions of Western governments, in particular the US and the UK, have negatively impacted our national interest. Zimbabweans have to clearly understand this for our collective fortunes to be different in the year 2009.

The ‘Mugabe Must Go’ Chorus

As we exited 2008, in the month of December, there was a crescendo of demands for the departure of Mugabe from the political stage. There is nothing new and creative in this Mugabe must go mantra. The trouble is that many people and institutions on this track suffer from the disease of the heart being in the right place, while the mind is not being applied. One needs both a good heart and a good mind.

Some of us have been singing the Mugabe must go mantra for the past 21 years, to no avail. Incidentally, Western governments disagreed with us in 1988 when we turned against the Zanu PF regime. Now they patronise us, as if they understand why Mugabe must go, better than us, his Zimbabwean victims.

We have been fighting Mugabe for two decades, where have you been America and Europe? Why did you support Mugabe in the late 1980’s when we were opposing him? Why did you actively back him during Gukurahundi? We never heard you say ‘Mugabe must go’ during that period. Instead you gave him prestigious awards on both sides of the Atlantic.

We can understand it if your defence is that you are slow learners and late bloomers where our matters are concerned. We can accept that. But it then also means you must take your cue from us who understand the Zimbabwean terrain better. You must accept that you are essentially ignorant, unstrategic, and hence ineffective where African matters are concerned. While you seek to assist us in our struggles for change, your brazen behaviour effectively undermines us and strengthens our opponents. You must listen to us and not the other way round.

The December 2008 ‘Mugabe must go’ chorus was as pathetic as it was both unimaginative and predictable. It started with Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga, Bishop John Sentamu and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, in that order. As soon as they were done, David Milliband and Condi Rice came in to support the “many” voices of African leaders. Thereafter, it was Gordon Brown, George Bush, Sarkozy, and Merkel. Then every European leader and their grandmother joined in, supporting the “many” voices of African leaders. To crown it all, there was an incompetent dash to the UN Security Council, where everything came crumbling down: what an embarrassing non-event. Why was anyone surprised by this unmitigated failure? Was there ever a method in the madness? What was to be the logical conclusion of the chorus?

First and foremost there was no African leader who had spoken. So whom, were the Western leaders purporting to support? Soon after Odinga spoke, he was contradicted by his own Foreign Minister. This means he was not speaking on behalf of Kenya or President Kibaki. Bishop Sentamu does not speak for any African country. Well, the same for Tutu; he is a good African who speaks for no African nation. For him to be effective he should work on convincing the South African political leadership to adopt his views.

Interesting enough, even the usually reckless and unimaginative Ian Khama was not part of the African voices. So when these American and European leaders went into chorus, who were they supporting? In a continent of 53 countries, the US and UK could not convince a single African President to be part of their elegant chorus.

If the Western leaders were indeed just supporting themselves, why did they lie that they were supporting voices of African leaders? If they care about what African leaders think, why did they not spend enough time convincing the real African leaders of the correctness of Western positions and thereafter, have the African leaders speak first?

Surely if, for example, Presidents Kgalema Motlanthe, Armando Geubuza, José Eduardo dos Santos, Jakaya Kikwete and Mwai Kibaki had taken a particular collective position on Zimbabwe, and Western governments had come in to support them, there would have been some traction.

But no, the Western powers chose to create their own pseudo African leaders, and then force a world chorus. This was sure to fail. Beyond the chorus, there was no real strategy to resolve the crisis in Zimbabwe. There was no specific action that the US and the UK were going to take after the chorus. Would it not have been logical to back the slogans with both procedural plans and proper African buy-in?

It seems the rationale was that Mugabe was just going to fall off the Zimbabwe political stage because of the deafening sound of Western leaders repeating the same meaningless message. How pathetic! Well, shame on them for trivialising the legitimate struggle of our people.

The Avenues through which Mugabe Can Go

There are three ways Mugabe can be removed from the Presidency and leadership of Zimbabwe: (1) use of violence or arms of war (2) peaceful mass uprising or demonstrations (3) free and fair elections.

The use of violence to drive out Mugabe has been suggested in certain quarters. What has not been done is an interrogation of what form this will take, its meaning, consequences and the aftermath. One way a violent overthrow can be envisaged is to have American and British troops invade Zimbabwe as they did in Iraq. Of course they can get rid of Mugabe that way.

However, Western forces will have to bleed on Zimbabwean soil in the process. It will not be a walk in the park. After the US misadventure in Somalia, where American marines were slaughtered in the streets of Mogadishu, the debate in the US Senate was very instructive. The key sentiment was quite unequivocal, “That entire country of Somalia is not worth a single American life. We should never allow American lives to be lost in defence of these worthless African countries.”

That was the attitude then. Has anything changed? Jendayi Frazer, Condi Rice and George Bush, are you now ready to bleed in pursuit of African freedom and prosperity? If you are not prepared to have US marines killed in Zimbabwe, please just shut up on the issue of military intervention to remove Mugabe.

Let us assume for a minute that these Western leaders are serious players and not just careless talkers. They can then actually bring their troops into Zimbabwe and get the job done. After Mugabe is gone the Saddam way, what happens next? What has US military intervention produced in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do we have democratic outcomes in these countries? Are they peaceful, democratic and prosperous nations? Why would the Zimbabwean outcome be any different? If not, then why should this even be considered as an option?

In terms of foreign armies invading Zimbabwe, it is only Western nations that are worth analysing as we have attempted above. Only two African countries, Botswana and Kenya, have expressed an appetite for physical confrontation with Zimbabwe. We will not even dignify Botswana’s posturing with too much discussion. They have no army but an incompetent police force which has no capacity to invade a desert much less a country with Zimbabwe’s military experience. Raila Odinga does not speak for the Kenyan government, so the analysis ends there. If only he could start by convincing his own government, we will have more to say about the efficacy of his utterances.

The other version of violence that can certainly topple Mugabe is an armed struggle waged by Zimbabweans themselves in the same way that ZANLA and ZIPRA executed war against Ian Smith. How feasible and practical is this proposition at this point in time and within the geopolitical context of the SADC region? Is it even a desirable alternative for the people of Zimbabwe? We believe there are no affirmative responses to either of these questions.

The second possible method by which Mugabe can be deposed is through peaceful mass uprisings or demonstrations. Do we have the capacity as Zimbabweans to execute these? What do the gallant efforts of the NCA and WOZA teach us. How many of us join their brave marches? How many Zimbabweans joined the soldiers when they went on the rampage on the streets of Harare?

It is clear that the appetite for an ‘Orange Revolution’ in Zimbabwe has still to be developed, before a mass uprising becomes a realistic platform to drive Mugabe out. Our politicians within the opposition movement also have to be ready to assume the sacrifices that this option entails. Where political leaders go into hiding at the slightest threat of persecution, we fail to see how this option can be brought to fruition.

This leaves us with the third and only avenue for the departure of Mugabe, that is, through free and fair elections. The question then becomes how do we achieve a free and fair election in Zimbabwe? Certainly not through demanding harmonised elections today which will be conducted under June 27 conditions. Needless to say, in such a plebiscite, Mugabe will capture the Presidency and the current combined opposition majority in Parliament will be completely reversed.

Let us be strategic. Our people and country are not election ready at the moment. We need to go through a transitional period in which we resolve the humanitarian crisis afflicting our people, carry out national healing, begin economic recovery, and more importantly adopt a new people-driven democratic constitution. This is the bridge that Zimbabwe needs in its march to democracy. After that, we can then carry out free and fair elections. If Mugabe participates in those elections, he will be defeated. This is the only practical way that will lead to Mugabe’s departure.

The Global Political Agreement of September 15, 2008, seeks to facilitate such a possibility. Folks, this is as good as it gets. Unfortunately, Mugabe will have to be part of the transition, as we explain in the next section. Brown and Bush must get over their foolish, uninformed and unstrategic obsession with Mugabe going today. If they cannot explicitly articulate how they are going to remove him, they should please just back off, and allow our country to move on. We have to save Zimbabwean lives that are being lost needlessly.

Why Mugabe Cannot Go Away Through Talks

The election results from March 29, 2008, produced no outright winner both in Parliament and at the Presidency. The June 27 re-run was an illegitimate farce, so we are stuck with the March inconclusive outcome. As democrats, we must accept that this means that Mugabe and his party are as much a factor as Tsvangirai and his party are.

Short of a new set of elections or change of leadership by their parties, it means neither Tsvangirai nor Mugabe can be negotiated away. On what basis can we have a negotiated agreement that excludes Robert Mugabe? If we accept the March results as legitimate, he is a leader of a party which has 99 MPs vs. 100 for MDC-T, 30 Senators vs. 24 for MDC-T. He came second to Tsvangirai, 43.2% vs. 47.8%. More importantly Mugabe currently possesses the Presidency of Zimbabwe, yes illegitimately. Well, at law they say that possession is 90% of ownership.

The fact that Mugabe has this power of incumbency is the reason why Arthur Mutambara is still on trial in the Supreme Court, Tendai Biti has treason charges around his neck, activists are being abducted, and Morgan Tsvangirai, the Prime Minister-designate, had a torrid time getting a passport. This means Mugabe is in charge of the Zimbabwean State. Given this reality on the ground, and the electoral outcome of March 29, 2008, (which because of our lack of strategic thinking we have all sanitised as a legitimate outcome), it is foolishness to think that you can negotiate Mugabe out of power, and somehow miraculously achieve a power sharing arrangement that excludes him.

In terms of democratic practice it will be unjust, and in terms of real politick it will be impossible. Oh yes, on the basis of the March 29 results, Mugabe should be part of any power sharing transitional authority in Zimbabwe, since he is President of a Party well represented in both legislative houses, and he came second in the inconclusive Presidential race. We might not like these democratic circumstances, but we have to live with that reality.

Politics is an art of the possible, as Bismarck once famously said. In the current Zimbabwean political landscape, the possibilities belong to both Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai. They need each other. We can debate the specific role that Mugabe should play. For now that debate was settled by Mugabe, Tsvangirai and Mutambara when they signed the Global Political Agreement (GPA). Mugabe is President-designate and Morgan Tsvangirai is Prime Minister-designate. But, are we saying that GPA is the only show in town? No, absolutely not.
Alternative Frameworks to the GPA

A lot of debates and thinking has gone into crafting alternatives to the agreement of September 15, 2008. Unfortunately, it has been a comedy of errors and unsophisticated hallucinations. Even well respected international bodies like the International Crisis Group (ICG) have been found miserably wanting. Renowned conflict resolution experts, civic society leaders and Western pundits have shown astonishing lack of creativity and imagination.

The starting point in establishing an alternative path for Zimbabwe consists of grasping a clear understanding of why we are having challenges in implementing the current GPA. The new formulation must then robustly illustrate how it will avoid these current challenges. Beyond this, the efficacy, process details, timelines and milestones of any new strategy must then be clearly articulated. None of the critics of the current GPA has even begun to do any of the above.

Among a number of obstacles to consummation, the major challenge we have faced in executing the Zimbabwean GPA is the inability to achieve sufficient buy-in from the two major protagonists in the political impasse: Zanu PF and MDC-T. They are the critical players in any national transitional discussion, because any agreed arrangement will require legal effect through a constitutional amendment in parliament. Such a change will require a two thirds majority which can only be achieved by the participation of both Zanu PF and MDC-T, as a minimum requirement.

None of the proposals from the ICG, the civic society groups (both national and regional), or the arrogant and ignorant international community has addressed this simple challenge: How are you going to ensure that both MDC-T and Zanu PF will embrace your new grand proposal? If one or both of them do not accept your framework what are you going to do? Please, this is commonsensical. Anyone seeking to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis democratically and within the laws of Zimbabwe must apply their mind to this critical success factor: the show stopper.

The busy bodies at the ICG and in civic society do not even have the capacity to appreciate the existence of the problem, much less the intellect to develop the requisite solution. We are not saying it is impossible to develop an alternative negotiated framework to the September GPA. We are emphasising that it will require good and rigorously working minds to come up with one.

The reasons why we insist on fixing and then implementing the current flawed and imperfect GPA is because at some point the buy-in between the two key protagonist was achieved through the signatures of the MOU on July 21, 2008, and the GPA on September 15, 2008. Yes, there are disagreements now, but there are two agreed reference points. The key players and their teams have been actively negotiating the political impasse from March 29, 2008, and now four months after signing the GPA there are still implementation challenges.

Yes, this is bad and regrettable. However, let us be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. If we adopt a completely new process, how and when are we going to convince the two key players to start working towards an MOU? Are you going to get that MOU signed soon, and after that how much time will be required to get to a new GPA of sorts? Furthermore, while we embark on these new processes that require time and resources what will be happening to the suffering people of Zimbabwe, the collapsed economy, and the destroyed industrial base? Given the hardened positions of the two protagonists at the moment, can you even begin to sell the new path to them?

The most bizarre, irritating and clearly ineffective critics of the current GPA are those that premise their proposals by denouncing one of the two key protagonists. Usually it is Mugabe and his Zanu PF who are dismissed. How do you even conceptualise a negotiated outcome without the involvement of the Zanu PF group? We thought it was common cause that you do not make peace with your friends, but with your opponents.

One would expect someone of Jendayi Frazer’s stature to understand all this. How does she say that the US supports the negotiated power sharing, but insists that Mugabe must not be involved? Making these statements while defying the consistent advice that she received from all the South African leaders that she interacted with means that Frazer is insulting the SA leadership at every level. By this disrespectful conduct, she is humiliating both SADC and the AU.

In this situation, with respect to the US-proposed dialogue framework, who will be the principals, negotiators, facilitators and guarantors? South Africa is the only country with leverage on Zimbabwe. To bring any kind of change in Zimbabwe you have to work with SA, and not insult or humiliate them. Anyone serious about the Zimbabwean agenda must grasp this.

Jendayi, I assume that she is supportive of Mr Tsvangirai and she wants him to succeed. Does she actually have any respect for him? He signed the GPA in which Mugabe is designated as the President. Is it that she thinks Mr. Tsvangirai does not know what is good for him and therefore she has to lead him every step of the way?

By the way, it is not true that the US government supported the agreement when it was signed. For the record, both the US and the UK were opposed to the GPA from the beginning. They did not like the fact that Mugabe was both Head of State and Chairman of Cabinet, and they despised the GPA positions on land reform and sanctions. Everyone knows this. We are not children.

The US and the UK are now taking advantage of the delay in implementation of the agreement to savage and destroy the GPA. Do Frazer and her government have a workable alternative framework to the current GPA, together with an enforcement mechanism? And what is this that she said about the weakness and incompetence of her favorite GPA principal? Did she not say the following; “Tsvangirai is too weak and incompetent for us to allow him to be in an inclusive government with Mugabe. He will be completely outmaneuvered. Tsvangirai is not as strong as Odinga. If he was, we would have allowed him to get into the GNU with Mugabe?”

How can she possibly say such insulting remarks about her favorite opposition leader? With friends like these, who needs enemies? Incidentally, did she share her views about Tsvangirai with him? Why not? Anyway, who is she to allow or disallow African leaders? Does the US government have locus standi to do this? From where does she derive such legal, political or moral authority? Would a reverse scenario where international players seek to influence US politics be acceptable to the US?

Jendayi, can’t you see that you are ruining the opposition you seek to assist, and strengthening Mugabe that you seek to destroy? You are foolishly confirming everything that Mugabe has said about the opposition: that we are puppets. Moreover, Mugabe’s strengths are Africa, Pan-Africanism and anti-Imperialism. Any foreign policy that undermines African leaders and African institutions plays right into Mugabe’s game plan. Why can’t Western diplomats master these basics? Why do we have a premonition that most of the destructive grandstanding by Western governments is meant for their domestic constituencies?

More specifically, US foreign policy is always characterised by double standards, hypocrisy and dishonesty all rooted in the pursuit of US permanent interests. We seriously hope that incoming US President Obama and his new team will depart from this ignorant, ruinous and ineffective foreign policy that effectively undermines its intended beneficiaries, strengthens the targeted villains, while blighting the US standing in the World.

Things have to change in 2009. We are not naïve. We know that the general thrust of the US foreign policy objective is largely independent of both the individual who is the US President and the Party they belong to. However, we hope the policy execution, nuances and tactics will be different. Zimbabweans have great expectations.

Collapse of the Mugabe Regime

It is clear that the Mugabe regime will not collapse because of economic decay, mass starvation or epidemics such as cholera. The formal economy collapsed way back when. The regime survives on the informal sector and through rent-seeking behaviours. Yes, ordinary people are perishing and will continue to do so, but the regime will not collapse. Can we all come to grips with this?

The diamonds of Chiadzwa, the Platinum Mines, and assistance from friendly nations such as DRC, Angola, China and Russia will see the regime pull through another 5-10 years. Of course this will be at major cost to the population. Zimbabweans should care about this.

However, to the external players that suggest that we must wait for the collapse of the regime at any cost, the needless loss of life in pursuit of the departure of Mugabe is a small price to pay. After all, the lives lost are Black lives which are not equivalent to White lives. Since September 15, 2008, we have had Western governments encouraging the continuation of suffering and death of our people in the misguided belief that this will lead to the collapse of the Mugabe regime. Well, this will not happen, and our people are dying in vain. All Zimbabwean leaders must understand this.

We must collectively take responsibility for the calamity afflicting our country. In particular, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai are equally culpable for the failure to work together. They are effectively working against the interests of their supporters and the generality of our citizenry. The two leaders are more concerned about a misguided power play executed at the expense of Zimbabwean lives. They have blood on their hands. The US and UK governments who are specifically undermining SADC efforts to establish an inclusive government in Zimbabwe are complicit in this crime against humanity.

In the case of these Western governments, they are driven by racism and utter disrespect for African lives. As Africans, our position is that not a single Zimbabwean life should be used as a stick to inflict pain on Robert Mugabe. People’s lives are too important to be used as ineffective political tools and weapons. We all know that Mugabe will not collapse because of cholera, mass starvation and a collapsed economy, so why are we supporting this ineffective strategy?

Nevertheless, let us deceive ourselves for a moment and assume the game plan works and the Mugabe regime actually collapses through the existing crisis. Why are we assuming that such a demise of Mugabe will lead to a democratic outcome? We saw what happened in Guinea when their dictator died. Did the opposition take over? Nope. If the Mugabe regime collapses, it is most likely that the army will take over. Some ambitious and gutsy colonel or general will step in. Our democratisation processes will, resultantly, regress at least 10 years.

There is absolutely no way Tsvangirai and his Party will be the beneficiaries of the collapse of Robert Mugabe. Quite to the contrary, the Zanu PF regime will make sure they collapse together with Tsvangirai and MDC-T. Do the current abductions, confessions and dubious trials of activists mean anything to anyone? MDC-T will not exist after the demise of Mugabe. I hope Tsvangirai understands this in no uncertain terms. I wish our brazen and unintelligent Western friends will do more listening and thinking.

This Mugabe must collapse strategy is not in the best interest of Zimbabwe. A regime change agenda achieved through a scorched earth policy is not what we need in our country. It will not benefit anyone. As Zimbabweans, we should think seriously about options that will allow us to continue to build, brick by brick, our democratic institutions.

Opportunity for a New Beginning

The year 2009 presents us with an opportunity for a new beginning. However, for this to be achieved, we have to learn some difficult lessons from inconvenient truths. We have to do things differently. We must embrace self-criticism as part of our best practices, and adopt an interrogative and questioning attitude to all stakeholders, including those that purport to support our struggles and our national interest.

In the struggle for a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Zimbabwe, it is not enough to be right. It is not enough to be a victim or to have the higher moral authority. The victims must behave well. Those with moral high ground must be driven by principles and values. Those on the right side of history must be thoughtful and strategic. Those that support victims of despotic regimes must apply their analytical skills. Good heart, bad mind will not cut it.

In all this, we must always put the people first. We must cherish servant leadership. Only then can we succeed. While external players and events affect our country, we must take responsibility for our own circumstances. We should be at the centre of our struggles and be the drivers of our nation building processes. We must have enough leadership strength to define and determine both the terms of reference and frameworks through which foreigners participate in the affairs of our nation.

In 2009, Zimbabweans must set the agenda and own the rules of the game. We must be masters of our own destiny. The critique of external influences that has been proffered should not be used to absolve us as citizens. We as Zimbabweans, created the current socio-political and economic crisis, and we will be the primary drivers and developers of the sustainable answers. And yes, a people do get a government that they deserve. Let us all be the change we wish to see in the year 2009.

Arthur G.O. Mutambara is president of MDC

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/mutambara4.19221.html

Les vérités incommodes au sujet de l'ouest et du Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into French thanks to WorldLingo
Les vérités incommodes au sujet de la MANIÈRE d'ouest et


du Zimbabwe EXPÉDIENT : Arthur Mutambara

•En cet article, le Chef Arthur Mutambara de MDC regarde les difficultés en mettant en application le 15 septembre GPA, l'unhelpfulness des interventions occidentales dans la politique domestique du Zimbabwe tout en interrogeant des stratégies existantes pour réaliser la démocratie au Zimbabwe :


L'année 2008 était très difficile pour nous comme nation. Depuis que les élections harmonisées peu concluantes se sont tenues le 29 mars, il y a eu une impasse politique dans notre terre. Le pays a été sans gouvernement légitime. Notre économie s'est pratiquement effondrée, alors que la maladie et la famine ravagent nos personnes. Le désespoir et le désespoir caractérisent et définissent la psyche nationale. Il y a eu échec complet de conduite d'un bout de l'affaire à l'autre, dans le Zimbabwe, dans la région et dans la communauté internationale.
Comme nous commençons une nouvelle année, laissez-nous réfléchissent sur certaines des discussions principales qui forment notre politique pendant que nous annulons 2008. D'intérêt particulier pour ce traité sont les réalités inconfortables et des défis ces parfois nous lançons loin de la confrontation. En particulier nous cherchons à massacrer cet éléphant dans la salle de séjour nationale : Comment la participation externe ignorante et unstrategic dans le discours zimbabwéen fait plus de mal que bon.

Nous cherchons à arguer du fait qu'en l'année 2008, les shenanigans occidentaux d'airain et grossiers ont miné réellement l'opposition et le Robert renforcé Mugabe. D'une manière primordiale, c'est notre soumission que les positions non informées et insouciantes de politique étrangère des gouvernements occidentaux, en particulier les USA et le R-U, ont négativement effectué notre intérêt national. Les Zimbabwéens doivent clairement comprendre ceci pour que nos fortunes collectives soient différents en l'année 2009.

Le `Mugabe doit aller' choeur

pendant que nous annulions 2008, en décembre, il y avait un crescendo des demandes du départ de Mugabe à l'étape politique. Il y a rien de neuf et créateur dans ce Mugabe doit aller incantation. La difficulté est que beaucoup de gens et établissements sur cette voie souffrent de la maladie du coeur étant dans le bon endroit, alors que l'esprit n'est pas appliqué. On a besoin d'un bon coeur et d'un bon esprit.

Certains d'entre nous avaient chanté Mugabe doivent aller incantation pendant les 21 dernières années, en vain. Par ailleurs, les gouvernements occidentaux étaient en désaccord avec nous en 1988 où nous nous sommes retournés contre le régime de Zanu pf. Maintenant ils patronise nous, comme si ils comprennent pourquoi Mugabe doit disparaître, meilleur que nous, ses victimes zimbabwéennes.

Nous aviez-vous combattu Mugabe pendant deux décennies, où avez-vous été l'Amérique et l'Europe ? Pourquoi avez-vous soutenu Mugabe vers la fin des années 80 où nous nous opposions à lui ? Pourquoi l'avez-vous activement soutenu pendant le Gukurahundi ? Nous n'avons jamais entendu que vous dire le `Mugabe devez aller' pendant cette période. Au lieu de cela vous lui avez donné les récompenses prestigieuses des deux côtés de l'Océan atlantique.

Nous pouvons le comprendre si votre défense est que vous êtes les étudiants lents et les défaites en retard où nos sujets sont concernés. Nous pouvons accepter cela. Mais il alors également des moyens vous doit prendre votre sélection de nous qui comprennent le terrain zimbabwéen mieux. Vous devez accepter que vous êtes essentiellement ignorant, unstrategic, et par conséquent inefficace où des sujets africains sont concernés. Tandis que vous cherchez à nous aider dans nos luttes pour le changement, votre comportement d'airain nous mine efficacement et renforce nos adversaires. Vous devez écouter nous et pas le contraire.

Le `Mugabe du décembre 2008 doit aller' choeur était aussi pathétique qu'il était dénué d'imagination et prévisible. Il a commencé par le premier ministre kenyan Raila Odinga, évêque John Sentamu et archevêque Desmond Tutu, dans cet ordre. Dès qu'ils ont été faits, David Milliband et riz de Condi sont entrés pour soutenir les « beaucoup de » voix des chefs africains. Ensuite, c'était Gordon Brown, George Bush, Sarkozy, et Merkel. Puis chaque chef européen et leur grand-mère se sont joints dedans, soutenant les « beaucoup de » voix des chefs africains. Pour le couronner tout, il y avait un tiret incompétent au Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU, où tout est venu s'émiettant vers le bas : quel non-événement embarrassant. Pourquoi est-ce que n'importe qui a été étonné par cet échec non mitigé ? Y avait-il jamais une méthode dans la folie ? Quel était d'être la conclusion logique du choeur ?

En premier lieu il n'y avait aucun chef africain qui avait parlé. Ainsi qui, les chefs occidentaux prétendaient-ils soutenir ? Peu après qu'Odinga ait parlé, il a été contredit par son propre ministre des affaires étrangères. Ceci signifie qu'il ne parlait pas au nom du Kenya ou du Président Kibaki. Évêque Sentamu ne parle pour aucun pays africain. Bien, les mêmes pour Tutu ; il est un bon Africain qui parle pour aucune nation africaine. Pour qu'il soit efficace il devrait travailler à convaincre la conduite politique sud-africaine d'adopter ses vues.

Intéressant assez, même habituellement l'insouciant et le dénué d'imagination Ian Khama n'étaient pas une partie des voix africaines. Ainsi quand ces chefs américains et européens sont entrés dans le choeur, qui étaient eux soutenant ? Dans un continent de 53 pays, les USA et le R-U n'ont pas pu convaincre un président africain simple de faire partie de leur choeur élégant.

Si les chefs occidentaux étaient en effet justes se soutenant, pourquoi se sont-ils trouvés que ils soutenaient des voix des chefs africains ? S'ils s'inquiètent de quels chefs africains pensent, pourquoi n'ont-ils pas passé assez de temps convainquant les vrais chefs africains de l'exactitude des positions occidentales et ensuite, de faire parler aux chefs africains d'abord ?

Sûrement si, par exemple, les Présidents Kgalema Motlanthe, Armando Geubuza, DOS de José Eduardo Santos, Jakaya Kikwete et Mwai Kibaki avaient pris une position collective particulière sur le Zimbabwe, et les gouvernements occidentaux étaient entrés pour les soutenir, il y aurait eu de la traction.

Mais le non, les puissances occidentales a choisi de créer leurs propres pseudo chefs africains, et puis force un choeur du monde. C'était sûr d'échouer. Au delà du choeur, il n'y avait aucune vraie stratégie pour résoudre la crise au Zimbabwe. Il n'y avait aucune mesure spécifique que les USA et le R-U allaient prendre après le choeur. N'aurait-il pas été logique de soutenir les slogans avec des plans procéduraux et l'Africain approprié achètent-ils ?

Il semble que le raisonnement était que Mugabe était aller juste tomber l'étape politique du Zimbabwe en raison du bruit assourdissant des chefs occidentaux répétant le même message sans signification. Comment pathétique ! Bien, honte sur eux pour trivialising la lutte légitime de nos personnes.

Les avenues par lesquelles Mugabe peut passer

là sont trois manières que Mugabe peut être enlevé de la présidence et de la conduite du Zimbabwe : (1) utilisation de violence ou bras de soulèvement ou de démonstrations de masse paisible de la guerre (2) (3) librement et élections justes.

L'utilisation de la violence de chasser Mugabe a été suggérée dans certains quarts. What has not been done is an interrogation of what form this will take, its meaning, consequences and the aftermath. L'one-way qu'un renversement violent peut être envisagé est d'avoir les troupes américaines et britanniques envahir le Zimbabwe comme elles ont fait en Irak. Naturellement ils peuvent se débarasser de Mugabe de cette façon.

Cependant, les forces occidentales devront saigner sur le sol zimbabwéen dans le processus. Ce ne sera pas une promenade en parc. Après le mésaventure des USA en Somalie, où des marines américaines ont été abattues dans les rues de Mogadiscio, la discussion dans le sénat des USA était très instructive. Le sentiment principal était tout à fait clair, « qui le pays entier de la Somalie n'est pas en valeur une seule vie américaine. Nous devrions ne jamais accorder les vies américaines être perdus à la défense de ces pays africains sans valeur. »

C'était l'attitude alors. Est-ce que quelque chose a changé ? Jendayi Frazer, riz de Condi et George Bush, êtes-vous maintenant prêt à saigner à la poursuite de la liberté et de la prospérité africaines ? Si vous n'êtes pas disposé à avoir des marines des USA tuées au Zimbabwe, svp juste fermé sur la question de l'intervention militaire pour enlever Mugabe.

Supposons pendant une minute que ces chefs occidentaux sont les joueurs sérieux et les causeurs négligents non simplement. Ils peuvent alors réellement introduire leurs troupes dans le Zimbabwe et obtenir le travail fait. Après que Mugabe soit allé la manière de Saddam, que se produit après ? Que l'intervention militaire des USA a-t-elle produit en Irak et en Afghanistan ? Avons-nous des résultats démocratiques dans ces pays ? Sont-ils des nations paisibles, démocratiques et prospères ? Pourquoi les résultats zimbabwéens seraient-ils différents ? Est-ce que sinon, alors pourquoi ceci devrait même être considéré comme option ?

En termes d'armées étrangères envahissant le Zimbabwe, c'est seulement des nations occidentales qui valent la peine d'analyser car nous avons essayé ci-dessus. Seulement deux pays africains, Botswana et Kenya, ont exprimé un appétit pour la confrontation physique avec le Zimbabwe. Nous ne finirons pas même le Botswana posant avec trop de discussion. Ils n'ont aucune armée mais une force incompétente de police qui n'a aucune capacité d'envahir un désert beaucoup moin'un pays avec une expérience militaire du Zimbabwe. Raila Odinga ne parle pas pour le gouvernement kenyan, ainsi les extrémités d'analyse là. Si seulement il pourrait commencer par convaincre son propre gouvernement, nous aurons plus à dire au sujet de l'efficacité de ses expressions.

L'autre version de la violence qui peut certainement renverser Mugabe est une lutte armée faite par Zimbabweans eux-mêmes de la même manière que ZANLA et ZIPRA ont exécuté la guerre contre Ian Smith. Combien faisable et pratique est cette proposition en ce moment à temps et dans le contexte géopolitique de la région de SADC ? Est-ce même une alternative souhaitable pour le peuple du Zimbabwe ? Nous croyons qu'il n'y a aucune réponse affirmative à non plus de ces questions.

La deuxième méthode possible par laquelle Mugabe peut être déposé est par les soulèvements ou les démonstrations de masse paisibles. Avons-nous la capacité comme Zimbabwéens d'exécuter ces derniers ? Ce qui font les efforts vaillants du NCA et du WOZA nous enseignent. Combien est-ce que d'entre nous joignent le leur bravent mars ? Combien de Zimbabwéens ont joint les soldats quand ils sont allés sur le saccage sur les rues de Harare ?

Il est clair que l'appétit pour une révolution orange de `' au Zimbabwe ait toujours pour être développé, avant qu'un soulèvement de masse devienne une plateforme réaliste pour conduire Mugabe dehors. Nos politiciens dans le mouvement d'opposition doivent également être prêts à assumer les sacrifices que cette option nécessite. Là où les chefs politiques entrent dans se cacher à la plus légère menace de la persécution, nous ne voyons pas comment cette option peut être apportée à la fructification.

Ceci laisse nous avec le tiers et seulement l'avenue pour le départ de Mugabe, c'est-à-dire, par des élections libres et justes. La question devient alors comment nous réalisons une élection libre et juste au Zimbabwe ? Certainement pas en exigeant les élections harmonisées aujourd'hui qui seront conduites sous le 27 juin conditionne. Inutile de dire, dans un tel plébiscite, Mugabe capturera la présidence et la majorité combinée courante d'opposition au Parlement sera complètement renversée.

Soyons stratégiques. Nos personnes et pays ne sont pas élection prête à l'heure actuelle. Nous devons passer par une période de transition l'où nous résolvons la crise humanitaire affligeant nos personnes, effectuons curatif national, commençons le rétablissement économique, et adoptons d'une manière primordiale une nouvelle constitution démocratique personne-conduite. C'est le pont dont le Zimbabwe a besoin dans sa marche à la démocratie. Après celle, nous pouvons alors effectuer des élections libres et justes. Si Mugabe participe à ces élections, il sera défait. C'est la seule manière dont pratique mènera à Mugabe le départ.

L'accord politique global du 15 septembre 2008, recherches de faciliter une telle possibilité. Les gens, ceci sont aussi bons qu'il obtient. Malheureusement, Mugabe devra faire partie de la transition, comme nous expliquons dans la prochaine section. Le brun et le Bush doivent obtenir au-dessus de leur hantise idiote, non informée et unstrategic avec Mugabe allant aujourd'hui. S'ils ne peuvent pas explicitement articuler comment ils vont l'enlever, ils devraient satisfaire juste dégagent, et permettent à notre pays de passer. Nous devons sauver les vies zimbabwéennes qui sont perdues inutilement.

Pourquoi Mugabe ne peut pas passer loin par des entretiens

les résultats d'élection à partir du 29 mars 2008, produit aucun gagnant pure au Parlement et à la présidence. La réexécution du 27 juin était une farce illégitime, ainsi nous sommes coincés avec les résultats peu concluants de mars. Comme démocrates, nous devons accepter que ceci signifie que Mugabe et sa partie sont autant un facteur que Tsvangirai et sa partie sont.

Court d'un nouvel ensemble d'élections ou de changement de la conduite par leurs parties, il signifie que ni Tsvangirai ni Mugabe ne peut être négocié loin. Sur quelle base pouvons-nous avoir un accord négocié qui exclut Robert Mugabe ? Si nous acceptons mars résulte comme légitime, il est un chef d'une partie contre laquelle a 99 MPs 100 pour MDC-T, 30 sénateurs contre 24 pour MDC-T. Il est venu en second lieu à Tsvangirai, 43.2% contre 47.8%. D'une manière primordiale Mugabe possède actuellement la présidence du Zimbabwe, oui d'une manière illégitime. Bien, à la loi ils disent que la possession est 90% de la propriété.

Le fait que Mugabe a cette puissance de titularisation est la raison pour laquelle Arthur Mutambara est toujours sur l'épreuve dans la cour suprême, Tendai Biti a des frais de trahison autour de son cou, des activistes sont enlevés, et Morgan Tsvangirai, le principal Ministre-indiquent, ont eu un temps torride obtenir un passeport. Ceci signifie que Mugabe est responsable de l'état zimbabwéen. Donné cette réalité sur la terre, et les résultats électoraux du 29 mars 2008, (qu'en raison de notre manque stratégique de pensée nous tous avons aseptisés comme résultats légitimes), c'est sottise pour penser que vous pouvez négocier Mugabe hors de la puissance, et réalise de façon ou d'autre miraculeuxment un arrangement de partage de puissance qui l'exclut.

En termes de pratique démocratique il sera injuste, et en termes de vrai politick il sera impossible. Oh oui, sur la base du 29 mars résulte, Mugabe devrait faire partie de n'importe quelle autorité transitoire de partage de puissance au Zimbabwe, puisqu'il est président d'une partie bien représentée dans les deux maisons législatives, et il est venu en second lieu dans la course présidentielle peu concluante. Nous ne pourrions pas aimer ces circonstances démocratiques, mais nous devons vivre avec cette réalité.

La politique est un art du possible, comme Bismarck une fois célèbre dit. Dans le paysage politique zimbabwéen courant, les possibilités appartiennent à Robert Mugabe et Morgan Tsvangirai. Ils s'ont besoin. Nous pouvons discuter le rôle spécifique que Mugabe devrait jouer. Pour maintenant que la discussion a été arrangée par Mugabe, Tsvangirai et Mutambara quand ils ont signé l'accord politique global (GPA). Mugabe est Président-indiquent et Morgan Tsvangirai est principal Ministre-indiquent. Mais, disons-nous que GPA est la seule exposition en ville ? Non, absolument pas.
Les cadres alternatifs à beaucoup

de GPA de discussions et de pensée est entrés dans des solutions de rechange de ouvrage à l'accord du 15 septembre 2008. Malheureusement, c'a été un comédie des erreurs et des hallucinations peu sophistiquées. Même des corps internationaux respectés par bien comme le groupe international de crise (ICG) se sont avérés vouloir malheureux. Les experts en matière renommés de résolution de conflit, les chefs civiques de société et les pandits occidentaux ont montré le manque étonnant de créativité et d'imagination.

Le point de départ en établissant un chemin alternatif pour le Zimbabwe se compose saisir un arrangement clair de pourquoi nous avons des défis en mettant en application le GPA courant. La nouvelle formulation doit alors robuste illustrer comment elle évitera ces défis courants. Beyond this, the efficacy, process details, timelines and milestones of any new strategy must then be clearly articulated. None of the critics of the current GPA has even begun to do any of the above.

Among a number of obstacles to consummation, the major challenge we have faced in executing the Zimbabwean GPA is the inability to achieve sufficient buy-in from the two major protagonists in the political impasse: Zanu PF and MDC-T. They are the critical players in any national transitional discussion, because any agreed arrangement will require legal effect through a constitutional amendment in parliament. Such a change will require a two thirds majority which can only be achieved by the participation of both Zanu PF and MDC-T, as a minimum requirement.

None of the proposals from the ICG, the civic society groups (both national and regional), or the arrogant and ignorant international community has addressed this simple challenge: How are you going to ensure that both MDC-T and Zanu PF will embrace your new grand proposal? If one or both of them do not accept your framework what are you going to do? Please, this is commonsensical. Anyone seeking to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis democratically and within the laws of Zimbabwe must apply their mind to this critical success factor: the show stopper.

The busy bodies at the ICG and in civic society do not even have the capacity to appreciate the existence of the problem, much less the intellect to develop the requisite solution. We are not saying it is impossible to develop an alternative negotiated framework to the September GPA. We are emphasising that it will require good and rigorously working minds to come up with one.

The reasons why we insist on fixing and then implementing the current flawed and imperfect GPA is because at some point the buy-in between the two key protagonist was achieved through the signatures of the MOU on July 21, 2008, and the GPA on September 15, 2008. Yes, there are disagreements now, but there are two agreed reference points. The key players and their teams have been actively negotiating the political impasse from March 29, 2008, and now four months after signing the GPA there are still implementation challenges.

Yes, this is bad and regrettable. However, let us be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. If we adopt a completely new process, how and when are we going to convince the two key players to start working towards an MOU? Are you going to get that MOU signed soon, and after that how much time will be required to get to a new GPA of sorts? Furthermore, while we embark on these new processes that require time and resources what will be happening to the suffering people of Zimbabwe, the collapsed economy, and the destroyed industrial base? Given the hardened positions of the two protagonists at the moment, can you even begin to sell the new path to them?

The most bizarre, irritating and clearly ineffective critics of the current GPA are those that premise their proposals by denouncing one of the two key protagonists. Usually it is Mugabe and his Zanu PF who are dismissed. How do you even conceptualise a negotiated outcome without the involvement of the Zanu PF group? We thought it was common cause that you do not make peace with your friends, but with your opponents.

One would expect someone of Jendayi Frazer’s stature to understand all this. How does she say that the US supports the negotiated power sharing, but insists that Mugabe must not be involved? Making these statements while defying the consistent advice that she received from all the South African leaders that she interacted with means that Frazer is insulting the SA leadership at every level. By this disrespectful conduct, she is humiliating both SADC and the AU.

In this situation, with respect to the US-proposed dialogue framework, who will be the principals, negotiators, facilitators and guarantors? South Africa is the only country with leverage on Zimbabwe. To bring any kind of change in Zimbabwe you have to work with SA, and not insult or humiliate them. Anyone serious about the Zimbabwean agenda must grasp this.

Jendayi, I assume that she is supportive of Mr Tsvangirai and she wants him to succeed. Does she actually have any respect for him? He signed the GPA in which Mugabe is designated as the President. Is it that she thinks Mr. Tsvangirai does not know what is good for him and therefore she has to lead him every step of the way?

By the way, it is not true that the US government supported the agreement when it was signed. For the record, both the US and the UK were opposed to the GPA from the beginning. They did not like the fact that Mugabe was both Head of State and Chairman of Cabinet, and they despised the GPA positions on land reform and sanctions. Everyone knows this. We are not children.

The US and the UK are now taking advantage of the delay in implementation of the agreement to savage and destroy the GPA. Do Frazer and her government have a workable alternative framework to the current GPA, together with an enforcement mechanism? And what is this that she said about the weakness and incompetence of her favorite GPA principal? Did she not say the following; “Tsvangirai is too weak and incompetent for us to allow him to be in an inclusive government with Mugabe. He will be completely outmaneuvered. Tsvangirai is not as strong as Odinga. If he was, we would have allowed him to get into the GNU with Mugabe?”

How can she possibly say such insulting remarks about her favorite opposition leader? With friends like these, who needs enemies? Incidentally, did she share her views about Tsvangirai with him? Why not? Anyway, who is she to allow or disallow African leaders? Does the US government have locus standi to do this? From where does she derive such legal, political or moral authority? Would a reverse scenario where international players seek to influence US politics be acceptable to the US?

Jendayi, can’t you see that you are ruining the opposition you seek to assist, and strengthening Mugabe that you seek to destroy? You are foolishly confirming everything that Mugabe has said about the opposition: that we are puppets. Moreover, Mugabe’s strengths are Africa, Pan-Africanism and anti-Imperialism. Any foreign policy that undermines African leaders and African institutions plays right into Mugabe’s game plan. Why can’t Western diplomats master these basics? Why do we have a premonition that most of the destructive grandstanding by Western governments is meant for their domestic constituencies?

More specifically, US foreign policy is always characterised by double standards, hypocrisy and dishonesty all rooted in the pursuit of US permanent interests. We seriously hope that incoming US President Obama and his new team will depart from this ignorant, ruinous and ineffective foreign policy that effectively undermines its intended beneficiaries, strengthens the targeted villains, while blighting the US standing in the World.

Things have to change in 2009. We are not naïve. We know that the general thrust of the US foreign policy objective is largely independent of both the individual who is the US President and the Party they belong to. However, we hope the policy execution, nuances and tactics will be different. Zimbabweans have great expectations.

Collapse of the Mugabe Regime

It is clear that the Mugabe regime will not collapse because of economic decay, mass starvation or epidemics such as cholera. The formal economy collapsed way back when. The regime survives on the informal sector and through rent-seeking behaviours. Yes, ordinary people are perishing and will continue to do so, but the regime will not collapse. Can we all come to grips with this?

The diamonds of Chiadzwa, the Platinum Mines, and assistance from friendly nations such as DRC, Angola, China and Russia will see the regime pull through another 5-10 years. Of course this will be at major cost to the population. Zimbabweans should care about this.

However, to the external players that suggest that we must wait for the collapse of the regime at any cost, the needless loss of life in pursuit of the departure of Mugabe is a small price to pay. After all, the lives lost are Black lives which are not equivalent to White lives. Since September 15, 2008, we have had Western governments encouraging the continuation of suffering and death of our people in the misguided belief that this will lead to the collapse of the Mugabe regime. Well, this will not happen, and our people are dying in vain. All Zimbabwean leaders must understand this.

We must collectively take responsibility for the calamity afflicting our country. In particular, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai are equally culpable for the failure to work together. They are effectively working against the interests of their supporters and the generality of our citizenry. The two leaders are more concerned about a misguided power play executed at the expense of Zimbabwean lives. They have blood on their hands. The US and UK governments who are specifically undermining SADC efforts to establish an inclusive government in Zimbabwe are complicit in this crime against humanity.

In the case of these Western governments, they are driven by racism and utter disrespect for African lives. As Africans, our position is that not a single Zimbabwean life should be used as a stick to inflict pain on Robert Mugabe. People’s lives are too important to be used as ineffective political tools and weapons. We all know that Mugabe will not collapse because of cholera, mass starvation and a collapsed economy, so why are we supporting this ineffective strategy?

Nevertheless, let us deceive ourselves for a moment and assume the game plan works and the Mugabe regime actually collapses through the existing crisis. Why are we assuming that such a demise of Mugabe will lead to a democratic outcome? We saw what happened in Guinea when their dictator died. Did the opposition take over? Nope. If the Mugabe regime collapses, it is most likely that the army will take over. Some ambitious and gutsy colonel or general will step in. Our democratisation processes will, resultantly, regress at least 10 years.

There is absolutely no way Tsvangirai and his Party will be the beneficiaries of the collapse of Robert Mugabe. Quite to the contrary, the Zanu PF regime will make sure they collapse together with Tsvangirai and MDC-T. Do the current abductions, confessions and dubious trials of activists mean anything to anyone? MDC-T will not exist after the demise of Mugabe. I hope Tsvangirai understands this in no uncertain terms. I wish our brazen and unintelligent Western friends will do more listening and thinking.

This Mugabe must collapse strategy is not in the best interest of Zimbabwe. A regime change agenda achieved through a scorched earth policy is not what we need in our country. It will not benefit anyone. As Zimbabweans, we should think seriously about options that will allow us to continue to build, brick by brick, our democratic institutions.

Opportunity for a New Beginning

The year 2009 presents us with an opportunity for a new beginning. However, for this to be achieved, we have to learn some difficult lessons from inconvenient truths. We have to do things differently. We must embrace self-criticism as part of our best practices, and adopt an interrogative and questioning attitude to all stakeholders, including those that purport to support our struggles and our national interest.

In the struggle for a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Zimbabwe, it is not enough to be right. It is not enough to be a victim or to have the higher moral authority. The victims must behave well. Those with moral high ground must be driven by principles and values. Those on the right side of history must be thoughtful and strategic. Those that support victims of despotic regimes must apply their analytical skills. Good heart, bad mind will not cut it.

In all this, we must always put the people first. We must cherish servant leadership. Only then can we succeed. While external players and events affect our country, we must take responsibility for our own circumstances. We should be at the centre of our struggles and be the drivers of our nation building processes. We must have enough leadership strength to define and determine both the terms of reference and frameworks through which foreigners participate in the affairs of our nation.

In 2009, Zimbabweans must set the agenda and own the rules of the game. We must be masters of our own destiny. The critique of external influences that has been proffered should not be used to absolve us as citizens. We as Zimbabweans, created the current socio-political and economic crisis, and we will be the primary drivers and developers of the sustainable answers. And yes, a people do get a government that they deserve. Let us all be the change we wish to see in the year 2009.

Arthur G.O. Mutambara is president of MDC

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/mutambara4.19221.html

Las verdades incómodas sobre el oeste y el Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into Spanish thanks to WorldLingo
Las verdades incómodas sobre la MANERA del oeste y


de Zimbabwe REMITEN: Arturo Mutambara

•En este artículo, el líder Arturo Mutambara del MDC mira las dificultades en poner el 15 de septiembre en ejecución GPA, el unhelpfulness de intervenciones occidentales en las políticas domésticas de Zimbabwe mientras que interroga a las estrategias existentes para alcanzar democracia en Zimbabwe:


El año 2008 era muy difícil para nosotros como nación. Puesto que las elecciones armonizadas poco concluyentes celebradas el 29 de marzo, ha habido una callejón sin salida política en nuestra tierra. El país ha estado sin un gobierno legítimo. Nuestra economía se ha derrumbado virtualmente, mientras que la enfermedad y el hambre ravaging a nuestra gente. La desesperación y la desesperación caracterizan y definen la psique nacional. Ha habido falta completa de la dirección a través del tablero, dentro de Zimbabwe, en la región y en la comunidad internacional.
Como comenzamos un Año Nuevo, déjenos reflejan en algunos de los discusiones principales que están formando nuestra política mientras que damos salida a 2008. De interés particular en este tratado están las realidades incómodas y los desafíos esos arrojamos a veces lejos del enfrentamiento. Particularmente intentamos matar ese elefante en la sala de estar nacional: Cómo la implicación externa ignorante y unstrategic en el discurso de Zimbabwean hace más daño que bueno.

Intentamos discutir que en el año 2008, los shenanigans occidentales descarados y crass han minado realmente a la oposición y a Roberto consolidado Mugabe. Más importantemente, es nuestra sumisión que las posiciones mal informadas e imprudentes de la política extranjera de gobiernos occidentales, particularmente los E.E.U.U. y el Reino Unido, negativamente han afectado nuestro interés nacional. Zimbabweans tiene que entender claramente esto para que nuestras fortunas colectivas sean diferente en el año 2009.

El `Mugabe debe ir' estribillo

mientras que dimos salida a 2008, en el mes de diciembre, había un crescendo de las demandas para la salida de Mugabe de la etapa política. Hay nada nuevo y creativo en este Mugabe debe ir mantra. El apuro es que mucha gente e instituciones en esta pista sufren de la enfermedad del corazón que está en el lugar derecho, mientras que la mente no se está aplicando. Uno necesita un buen corazón y una buena mente.

Algunos de nosotros han estado cantando el Mugabe deben ir mantra por los últimos 21 años, inútilmente. Incidentemente, los gobiernos occidentales discreparon con nosotros en 1988 en que dimos vuelta contra el régimen de Zanu PF. Ahora ellos patronise nosotros, como si entiendan porqué Mugabe debe ir, mejor que nosotros, sus víctimas de Zimbabwean.

¿Nosotros ha estado luchando Mugabe por dos décadas, dónde usted ha sido América y Europa? ¿Por qué usted apoyó Mugabe en los últimos años 80 en que lo oponíamos? ¿Por qué usted lo movió hacia atrás activamente durante Gukurahundi? Nunca oímos que usted decir el `Mugabe debe ir' durante ese período. En lugar usted le dio concesiones prestigiosas en ambos lados del Atlántico.

Podemos entenderlo si su defensa es que usted es principiantes lentos y los últimos bloomers donde se refieren nuestras materias. Podemos aceptar eso. Pero entonces también los medios usted debe tomar su señal de nosotros que entiendan el terreno de Zimbabwean mejor. Usted debe aceptar que usted es esencialmente ignorante, unstrategic, y por lo tanto ineficaz donde se refieren las materias africanas. Mientras que usted intenta asistirnos en nuestras luchas para el cambio, su comportamiento descarado nos mina con eficacia y consolida a nuestros opositores. Usted debe escuchar nosotros y no el contrario.

El `Mugabe del diciembre de 2008 debe ir' estribillo era tan pathetic como era unimaginative y fiable. Comenzó con el primer ministro Raila Odinga, obispo Juan Sentamu y arzobispo Desmond Tutu de Kenyan, en esa orden. Tan pronto como fueran hechos, David Milliband y el arroz de Condi vinieron adentro apoyar las “muchas” voces de líderes africanos. Después de eso, era Gordon Brown, George Bush, Sarkozy, y Merkel. Entonces cada líder europeo y su abuela ensamblaron adentro, apoyando las “muchas” voces de líderes africanos. Para coronarlo todo, había una rociada incompetente al consejo de seguridad de la O.N.U, adonde vino todo desmenuzándose abajo: qué no-acontecimiento embarazoso. ¿Por qué cualquier persona fue sorprendida por esto unmitigated falta? ¿Había siempre un método en la locura? ¿Cuál era ser la conclusión lógica del estribillo?

Sobre todo no había líder africano que había hablado. ¿Tan quién, los líderes occidentales pretendían apoyar? Pronto después de que Odinga hablara, a su propio Ministro de Asuntos Exteriores lo contradijo. Esto significa que él no hablaba a nombre de Kenia o de presidente Kibaki. Obispo Sentamu no habla para ningún país africano. Bien, iguales para Tutu; él es un buen africano que habla para ninguna nación africana. Para que él sea eficaz él debe trabajar en el convencimiento de la dirección política del africano del sur que adopte sus opiniones.

Interesando bastantes, incluso el Ian generalmente imprudente y unimaginative Khama no era parte de las voces africanas. ¿Tan cuando estos líderes americanos y europeos entraron estribillo, que eran ellos que apoyaban? En un continente de 53 países, los E.E.U.U. y el Reino Unido no podían convencer a un solo presidente africano que sea parte de su estribillo elegante.

¿Si los líderes occidentales eran de hecho justos apoyándose, por qué mintieron que apoyaban voces de líderes africanos? ¿Si cuidan sobre qué líderes africanos piensan, por qué no pasaron bastante tiempo convenciendo a los líderes africanos verdaderos de la corrección de posiciones occidentales y después de eso, para hacer que los líderes africanos hablen primero?

Seguramente si, por ejemplo, presidentes Kgalema Motlanthe, Armando Geubuza, DOS Santos, Jakaya Kikwete y Mwai Kibaki de José Eduardo hubieran tomado una posición colectiva particular respecto a Zimbabwe, y los gobiernos occidentales habían venido adentro apoyarlos, habría habido algo de tracción.

Pero no, las energías occidentales eligió crear a sus propios pseudo líderes africanos, y después fuerza un estribillo del mundo. Esto era seguro fallar. Más allá del estribillo, no había estrategia verdadera para resolver la crisis en Zimbabwe. No había acción específica que los E.E.U.U. y el Reino Unido iban a tomar después del estribillo. ¿No habría sido lógico mover hacia atrás los lemas con planes procesales y el africano apropiado compra?

Se parece que el análisis razonado era que Mugabe era el ir justo a bajar de la etapa política de Zimbabwe debido a el sonido deafening de los líderes occidentales que repetían el mismo mensaje sin setido. ¡Cómo es pathetic! Bien, vergüenza en ellos para trivialising la lucha legítima de nuestra gente.

Las avenidas a través de las cuales Mugabe puede pasar

allí son tres maneras que Mugabe se puede quitar de la presidencia y de la dirección de Zimbabwe: (1) uso de la violencia o brazos 2) de la sublevación de la guerra (o demostraciones totales pacíficas (3) libres y elecciones justas.

El uso de la violencia de expulsar a Mugabe se ha sugerido en ciertos cuartos. What has not been done is an interrogation of what form this will take, its meaning, consequences and the aftermath. Una forma que un derrocamiento violento puede ser considerado es tener tropas americanas y británicas invadir Zimbabwe como hicieron en Iraq. Por supuesto pueden conseguir librados de Mugabe esa manera.

Sin embargo, las fuerzas occidentales tendrán que sangrar en el suelo de Zimbabwean en el proceso. No será una caminata en el parque. Después del misadventure de los E.E.U.U. en Somalia, en donde mataron a los infantes de marina americanos en las calles de Mogadishu, el discusión en el senado de los E.E.U.U. era muy instructivo. El sentimiento dominante era absolutamente inequívoco, “que el país entero de Somalia no es digno de una sola vida americana. Debemos nunca permitir que las vidas americanas sean perdidas en defensa de estos países africanos sin valor.”

Ésa entonces era la actitud. ¿Cualquier cosa ha cambiado? ¿Jendayi Frazer, arroz de Condi y George Bush, es usted listo ahora sangrar en búsqueda de la libertad y de la prosperidad africanas? Si usted no está preparado para tener infantes de marina de los E.E.U.U. matados en Zimbabwe, por favor justo cerrado para arriba en la aplicación la intervención militar para quitar Mugabe.

Asumamos por un minuto que estos líderes occidentales son jugadores serios y transmisores descuidados no justos. Pueden entonces realmente traer a sus tropas en Zimbabwe y conseguir el trabajo hecho. ¿Después de que se vaya Mugabe la manera de Saddam, qué sucede después? ¿Qué la intervención militar de los E.E.U.U. ha producido en Iraq y Afganistán? ¿Tenemos resultados democráticos en estos países? ¿Son naciones pacíficas, democráticas y prósperas? ¿Por qué el resultado de Zimbabwean sería diferente? ¿Si no, entonces por qué se debe esto incluso considerar como opción?

En términos de ejércitos extranjeros que invaden Zimbabwe, es solamente las naciones occidentales que valen el analizar pues hemos procurado arriba. Solamente dos países africanos, Botswana y Kenia, han expresado un apetito para la confrontación física con Zimbabwe. Incluso no dignificaremos Botswana posturing con demasiada discusión. No tienen ningún ejército sino una fuerza incompetente del policía que no tenga ninguna capacidad de invadir un desierto mucho menos un país con la experiencia militar de Zimbabwe. Raila Odinga no habla para el gobierno de Kenyan, tan los extremos del análisis allí. Si solamente él podría comenzar convenciendo su propio gobierno, tendremos más a decir sobre la eficacia de sus elocuciones.

La otra versión de la violencia que puede derribar ciertamente Mugabe es una lucha armada emprendida por Zimbabweans ellos mismos de la misma forma que ZANLA y ZIPRA ejecutaron guerra contra Ian Smith. ¿Cómo factible y práctico es este asunto a este punto a tiempo y dentro del contexto geopolítico de la región de SADC? ¿Es incluso un alternativa deseable para la gente de Zimbabwe? Creemos que no hay respuestas afirmativas a tampoco de estas preguntas.

El segundo método posible por el cual Mugabe puede ser depuesto está con sublevaciones o demostraciones totales pacíficas. ¿Tenemos la capacidad como Zimbabweans de ejecutar éstos? Qué hacen los esfuerzos galantes del NCA y del WOZA nos enseñan. ¿Cuántos de nosotros ensamblan sus marchas valientes? ¿Cuánto Zimbabweans ensambló a soldados cuando fueron en el alboroto en las calles de Harare?

Está claro que el apetito para una revolución anaranjada del `' en Zimbabwe tiene todavía ser desarrollado, antes de que una sublevación total se convierta en una plataforma realista para conducir Mugabe hacia fuera. Nuestros políticos dentro del movimiento de la oposición también tienen que ser listos asumir los sacrificios que esta opción exige. Donde los líderes políticos entran ocultar en la amenaza más leve de la persecución, no podemos ver cómo esta opción se puede traer a la fruición.

Esto deja nos con el tercero y solamente la avenida para la salida de Mugabe, es decir, con elecciones libres y justas. ¿La pregunta entonces se convierte en cómo alcanzamos una elección libre y justa en Zimbabwe? Ciertamente no con exigir las elecciones armonizadas que serán conducidas bajo el 27 de junio condiciona hoy. Innecesario decir, en tal plebiscito, Mugabe capturará la presidencia e invertirán a la mayoría combinada actual de la oposición en el parlamento totalmente.

Seamos estratégicos. Nuestra gente y país no son elección lista en el momento. Necesitamos pasar con un período transitorio en el cual resolvamos la crisis humanitaria que aflige a nuestra gente, realicemos curativo nacional, comencemos la recuperación económica, y adoptemos más importantemente una nueva constitución democrática gente-conducida. Éste es el puente que Zimbabwe necesita en su marzo a la democracia. Después de ésa, podemos entonces realizar elecciones libres y justas. Si Mugabe participa en esas elecciones, lo derrotarán. Ésta es la única manera práctica que conducirá a la salida de Mugabe.

El acuerdo político global del 15 de septiembre de 2008, búsquedas de facilitar tal posibilidad. La gente, ésta es tan buena como consigue. Desafortunadamente, Mugabe tendrá que ser parte de la transición, como explicamos en la sección siguiente. El marrón y Bush deben conseguir sobre su obsesión absurda, mal informada y unstrategic con Mugabe que va hoy. Si no pueden articular explícitamente cómo van a quitarlo, deben satisfacer apenas retroceden, y permiten que nuestro país se mueva encendido. Tenemos que ahorrar las vidas de Zimbabwean que se están perdiendo innecesario.

Porqué Mugabe no puede salir con negociaciones

los resultados de elección a partir del 29 de marzo de 2008, producido ningún ganador absoluto en el parlamento y en la presidencia. El reestreno del 27 de junio era una farsa ilegítima, así que nos pegan con el resultado poco concluyente de marcha. Como demócratas, debemos aceptar que esto significa que Mugabe y su partido son tanto un factor como son Tsvangirai y su partido.

Corto de un nuevo sistema de elecciones o de cambio de la dirección por sus partidos, significa que ni Tsvangirai ni Mugabe se puede negociar lejos. ¿Sobre qué base podemos tener un acuerdo negociado que excluya a Roberto Mugabe? Si aceptamos la marcha resulta como legítimo, él es un líder de un partido contra el cual tenga 99 MPs 100 para MDC-T, 30 senadores contra 24 para MDC-T. Él vino en segundo lugar a Tsvangirai, 43.2% contra 47.8%. Mugabe posee más importantemente actualmente la presidencia de Zimbabwe, sí ilegítimamente. Bien, en la ley dicen que la posesión es el 90% de la propiedad.

El hecho de que Mugabe tiene esta energía del incumbency es la razón por la que Arturo Mutambara todavía está en ensayo en el Tribunal Supremo, Tendai Biti tiene cargas de la traición alrededor de su cuello, están secuestrando a los activistas, y Morgan Tsvangirai, el primero Ministro-señala, tenía un rato del torrid el conseguir de un pasaporte. Esto significa que Mugabe está a cargo del estado de Zimbabwean. Dado esta realidad en la tierra, y el resultado electoral del 29 de marzo de 2008, (que debido a nuestra carencia estratégico del pensamiento todos hemos esterilizado como resultado legítimo), es insentatez para pensar que usted puede negociar Mugabe fuera de energía, y alcanza de alguna manera milagrosamente un arreglo el compartir de energía que lo excluya.

En términos de práctica democrática será injusto, y en términos de politick verdadero será imposible. El Oh sí, en base del 29 de marzo resulta, Mugabe debe ser parte de cualquier autoridad transitoria el compartir de energía en Zimbabwe, puesto que él es presidente de un partido representado bien en ambas casas legislativas, y él vino en segundo lugar en la raza presidencial poco concluyente. Puede ser que no tengamos gusto de estas circunstancias democráticas, pero tenemos que vivir con esa realidad.

La política es un arte del posible, como Bismarck una vez famoso dicha. En el paisaje político actual de Zimbabwean, las posibilidades pertenecen a Roberto Mugabe y Morgan Tsvangirai. Se necesitan. Podemos discutir el papel específico que Mugabe debe desempeñar. Para ahora que el discusión fue colocado por Mugabe, Tsvangirai y Mutambara cuando firmaron el acuerdo político global (GPA). Mugabe es Presidente-señala y Morgan Tsvangirai es primero Ministro-señala. ¿Pero, estamos diciendo que GPA es la única demostración en ciudad? No, absolutamente no.
Los armazones alternativos a los muchos

de GPA de discusiones y de pensamiento han entrado alternativas que hacían a mano al acuerdo del 15 de septiembre de 2008. Desafortunadamente, ha sido una comedia de errores y de alucinaciones sencillas. Incluso han encontrado a los cuerpos internacionales respetados pozo como el grupo internacional de la crisis (ICG) desgraciadamente el desear. Los expertos renombrados de la resolución del conflicto, los líderes cívicos de la sociedad y los pandit occidentales han demostrado la carencia asombrosa de la creatividad y de la imaginación.

El punto de partida en establecer una trayectoria alternativa para Zimbabwe consiste en el agarrar de una comprensión clara de porqué estamos teniendo desafíos en poner el GPA en ejecución actual. La nueva formulación debe entonces robusto ilustrar cómo evitará estos desafíos actuales. Beyond this, the efficacy, process details, timelines and milestones of any new strategy must then be clearly articulated. None of the critics of the current GPA has even begun to do any of the above.

Among a number of obstacles to consummation, the major challenge we have faced in executing the Zimbabwean GPA is the inability to achieve sufficient buy-in from the two major protagonists in the political impasse: Zanu PF and MDC-T. They are the critical players in any national transitional discussion, because any agreed arrangement will require legal effect through a constitutional amendment in parliament. Such a change will require a two thirds majority which can only be achieved by the participation of both Zanu PF and MDC-T, as a minimum requirement.

None of the proposals from the ICG, the civic society groups (both national and regional), or the arrogant and ignorant international community has addressed this simple challenge: How are you going to ensure that both MDC-T and Zanu PF will embrace your new grand proposal? If one or both of them do not accept your framework what are you going to do? Please, this is commonsensical. Anyone seeking to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis democratically and within the laws of Zimbabwe must apply their mind to this critical success factor: the show stopper.

The busy bodies at the ICG and in civic society do not even have the capacity to appreciate the existence of the problem, much less the intellect to develop the requisite solution. We are not saying it is impossible to develop an alternative negotiated framework to the September GPA. We are emphasising that it will require good and rigorously working minds to come up with one.

The reasons why we insist on fixing and then implementing the current flawed and imperfect GPA is because at some point the buy-in between the two key protagonist was achieved through the signatures of the MOU on July 21, 2008, and the GPA on September 15, 2008. Yes, there are disagreements now, but there are two agreed reference points. The key players and their teams have been actively negotiating the political impasse from March 29, 2008, and now four months after signing the GPA there are still implementation challenges.

Yes, this is bad and regrettable. However, let us be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. If we adopt a completely new process, how and when are we going to convince the two key players to start working towards an MOU? Are you going to get that MOU signed soon, and after that how much time will be required to get to a new GPA of sorts? Furthermore, while we embark on these new processes that require time and resources what will be happening to the suffering people of Zimbabwe, the collapsed economy, and the destroyed industrial base? Given the hardened positions of the two protagonists at the moment, can you even begin to sell the new path to them?

The most bizarre, irritating and clearly ineffective critics of the current GPA are those that premise their proposals by denouncing one of the two key protagonists. Usually it is Mugabe and his Zanu PF who are dismissed. How do you even conceptualise a negotiated outcome without the involvement of the Zanu PF group? We thought it was common cause that you do not make peace with your friends, but with your opponents.

One would expect someone of Jendayi Frazer’s stature to understand all this. How does she say that the US supports the negotiated power sharing, but insists that Mugabe must not be involved? Making these statements while defying the consistent advice that she received from all the South African leaders that she interacted with means that Frazer is insulting the SA leadership at every level. By this disrespectful conduct, she is humiliating both SADC and the AU.

In this situation, with respect to the US-proposed dialogue framework, who will be the principals, negotiators, facilitators and guarantors? South Africa is the only country with leverage on Zimbabwe. To bring any kind of change in Zimbabwe you have to work with SA, and not insult or humiliate them. Anyone serious about the Zimbabwean agenda must grasp this.

Jendayi, I assume that she is supportive of Mr Tsvangirai and she wants him to succeed. Does she actually have any respect for him? He signed the GPA in which Mugabe is designated as the President. Is it that she thinks Mr. Tsvangirai does not know what is good for him and therefore she has to lead him every step of the way?

By the way, it is not true that the US government supported the agreement when it was signed. For the record, both the US and the UK were opposed to the GPA from the beginning. They did not like the fact that Mugabe was both Head of State and Chairman of Cabinet, and they despised the GPA positions on land reform and sanctions. Everyone knows this. We are not children.

The US and the UK are now taking advantage of the delay in implementation of the agreement to savage and destroy the GPA. Do Frazer and her government have a workable alternative framework to the current GPA, together with an enforcement mechanism? And what is this that she said about the weakness and incompetence of her favorite GPA principal? Did she not say the following; “Tsvangirai is too weak and incompetent for us to allow him to be in an inclusive government with Mugabe. He will be completely outmaneuvered. Tsvangirai is not as strong as Odinga. If he was, we would have allowed him to get into the GNU with Mugabe?”

How can she possibly say such insulting remarks about her favorite opposition leader? With friends like these, who needs enemies? Incidentally, did she share her views about Tsvangirai with him? Why not? Anyway, who is she to allow or disallow African leaders? Does the US government have locus standi to do this? From where does she derive such legal, political or moral authority? Would a reverse scenario where international players seek to influence US politics be acceptable to the US?

Jendayi, can’t you see that you are ruining the opposition you seek to assist, and strengthening Mugabe that you seek to destroy? You are foolishly confirming everything that Mugabe has said about the opposition: that we are puppets. Moreover, Mugabe’s strengths are Africa, Pan-Africanism and anti-Imperialism. Any foreign policy that undermines African leaders and African institutions plays right into Mugabe’s game plan. Why can’t Western diplomats master these basics? Why do we have a premonition that most of the destructive grandstanding by Western governments is meant for their domestic constituencies?

More specifically, US foreign policy is always characterised by double standards, hypocrisy and dishonesty all rooted in the pursuit of US permanent interests. We seriously hope that incoming US President Obama and his new team will depart from this ignorant, ruinous and ineffective foreign policy that effectively undermines its intended beneficiaries, strengthens the targeted villains, while blighting the US standing in the World.

Things have to change in 2009. We are not naïve. We know that the general thrust of the US foreign policy objective is largely independent of both the individual who is the US President and the Party they belong to. However, we hope the policy execution, nuances and tactics will be different. Zimbabweans have great expectations.

Collapse of the Mugabe Regime

It is clear that the Mugabe regime will not collapse because of economic decay, mass starvation or epidemics such as cholera. The formal economy collapsed way back when. The regime survives on the informal sector and through rent-seeking behaviours. Yes, ordinary people are perishing and will continue to do so, but the regime will not collapse. Can we all come to grips with this?

The diamonds of Chiadzwa, the Platinum Mines, and assistance from friendly nations such as DRC, Angola, China and Russia will see the regime pull through another 5-10 years. Of course this will be at major cost to the population. Zimbabweans should care about this.

However, to the external players that suggest that we must wait for the collapse of the regime at any cost, the needless loss of life in pursuit of the departure of Mugabe is a small price to pay. After all, the lives lost are Black lives which are not equivalent to White lives. Since September 15, 2008, we have had Western governments encouraging the continuation of suffering and death of our people in the misguided belief that this will lead to the collapse of the Mugabe regime. Well, this will not happen, and our people are dying in vain. All Zimbabwean leaders must understand this.

We must collectively take responsibility for the calamity afflicting our country. In particular, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai are equally culpable for the failure to work together. They are effectively working against the interests of their supporters and the generality of our citizenry. The two leaders are more concerned about a misguided power play executed at the expense of Zimbabwean lives. They have blood on their hands. The US and UK governments who are specifically undermining SADC efforts to establish an inclusive government in Zimbabwe are complicit in this crime against humanity.

In the case of these Western governments, they are driven by racism and utter disrespect for African lives. As Africans, our position is that not a single Zimbabwean life should be used as a stick to inflict pain on Robert Mugabe. People’s lives are too important to be used as ineffective political tools and weapons. We all know that Mugabe will not collapse because of cholera, mass starvation and a collapsed economy, so why are we supporting this ineffective strategy?

Nevertheless, let us deceive ourselves for a moment and assume the game plan works and the Mugabe regime actually collapses through the existing crisis. Why are we assuming that such a demise of Mugabe will lead to a democratic outcome? We saw what happened in Guinea when their dictator died. Did the opposition take over? Nope. If the Mugabe regime collapses, it is most likely that the army will take over. Some ambitious and gutsy colonel or general will step in. Our democratisation processes will, resultantly, regress at least 10 years.

There is absolutely no way Tsvangirai and his Party will be the beneficiaries of the collapse of Robert Mugabe. Quite to the contrary, the Zanu PF regime will make sure they collapse together with Tsvangirai and MDC-T. Do the current abductions, confessions and dubious trials of activists mean anything to anyone? MDC-T will not exist after the demise of Mugabe. I hope Tsvangirai understands this in no uncertain terms. I wish our brazen and unintelligent Western friends will do more listening and thinking.

This Mugabe must collapse strategy is not in the best interest of Zimbabwe. A regime change agenda achieved through a scorched earth policy is not what we need in our country. It will not benefit anyone. As Zimbabweans, we should think seriously about options that will allow us to continue to build, brick by brick, our democratic institutions.

Opportunity for a New Beginning

The year 2009 presents us with an opportunity for a new beginning. However, for this to be achieved, we have to learn some difficult lessons from inconvenient truths. We have to do things differently. We must embrace self-criticism as part of our best practices, and adopt an interrogative and questioning attitude to all stakeholders, including those that purport to support our struggles and our national interest.

In the struggle for a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Zimbabwe, it is not enough to be right. It is not enough to be a victim or to have the higher moral authority. The victims must behave well. Those with moral high ground must be driven by principles and values. Those on the right side of history must be thoughtful and strategic. Those that support victims of despotic regimes must apply their analytical skills. Good heart, bad mind will not cut it.

In all this, we must always put the people first. We must cherish servant leadership. Only then can we succeed. While external players and events affect our country, we must take responsibility for our own circumstances. We should be at the centre of our struggles and be the drivers of our nation building processes. We must have enough leadership strength to define and determine both the terms of reference and frameworks through which foreigners participate in the affairs of our nation.

In 2009, Zimbabweans must set the agenda and own the rules of the game. We must be masters of our own destiny. The critique of external influences that has been proffered should not be used to absolve us as citizens. We as Zimbabweans, created the current socio-political and economic crisis, and we will be the primary drivers and developers of the sustainable answers. And yes, a people do get a government that they deserve. Let us all be the change we wish to see in the year 2009.

Arthur G.O. Mutambara is president of MDC

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/mutambara4.19221.html

Verità inopportune circa l'ovest e lo Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into Italian thanks to WorldLingo
Le verità inopportune circa il SENSO dello Zimbabwe e


di ovest SPEDISCONO: Arthur Mutambara

•In questo articolo, il capo Arthur Mutambara del MDC guarda le difficoltà nell'effettuare il 15 settembre GPA, il unhelpfulness degli interventi occidentali nelle politiche domestiche dello Zimbabwe mentre consultando le strategie attuali per realizzare democrazia nello Zimbabwe:


L'anno 2008 era molto difficile per noi come nazione. Dato che le elezioni armonizzate inconcludenti tenute il 29 marzo, ci è stato un'impasse politica nella nostra terra. Il paese è stato senza un governo legittimo. La nostra economia virtualmente è sprofondato, mentre la malattia e l'inedia stanno devastando la nostra gente. Il Hopelessness e la disperazione caratterizzano e definiscono lo psyche nazionale. Ci è stato guasto completo di direzione attraverso il bordo, in Zimbabwe, nella regione e nella Comunità internazionale.
Come cominci un nuovo anno, lascili riflettono su alcuni dei dibattiti principali che stanno modellando la nostra politica mentre annulliamo 2008. Di interesse particolare in questo trattato sono le realtà scomode e sfide quelle a volte lanciamo via dal confronto. In particolare cerchiamo di slay quell'elefante nella stanza vivente nazionale: Come la partecipazione esterna ignara e unstrategic al discorso di Zimbabwean fa più danno che buon.

Cerchiamo di sostenere che durante l'anno 2008, gli shenanigans occidentali brazen e crass realmente hanno insidiato l'opposizione ed il Robert rinforzato Mugabe. Più d'importanza, è la nostra presentazione che le posizioni non informate e reckless di politica straniera dei governi occidentali, in particolare gli Stati Uniti ed il Regno Unito, negativamente hanno avuto effetto sul nostro interesse nazionale. Zimbabweans deve capire chiaramente questo affinchè le nostre fortune collettive sia differente durante l'anno 2009.

Il `Mugabe deve andare' Chorus

mentre abbiamo annullato 2008, in dicembre, ci era un crescendo delle richieste della partenza di Mugabe dalla fase politica. Ci è niente di nuovo e creativo in questo Mugabe deve andare mantra. La difficoltà è che molte gente ed istituzioni su questa pista soffrono dalla malattia del cuore che è nel giusto posto, mentre la mente non sta applicanda. Uno ha bisogno sia di buon cuore che di buona mente.

Alcuni di noi stanno cantando il Mugabe devono andare mantra per il 21 anno scorsi, inutilmente. Incidentalmente, i governi occidentali sono non stato d'accordo con noi in 1988 in cui ci siamo rivoltati contro il regime di Zanu pf. Ora patronise noi, come se capiscano perchè Mugabe deve andare, migliore di noi, le sue vittime di Zimbabwean.

Noi è stato il combattimento Mugabe per due decadi, dove voi è stato l'America ed Europa? Perchè avete sostenuto Mugabe verso la fine degli anni 80 in cui stavamo opponendolo? Perchè attivamente lo avete sostenuto durante il Gukurahundi? Non ci siamo sentiti mai che dire il `Mugabe dovete andare' durante quel periodo. Invece gli avete dato i premi prestigious da entrambi i lati dell'Atlantico.

Possiamo capirli se la vostra difesa è che siete principianti lenti e bloomers ritardati in cui i nostri argomenti sono interessati. Possiamo accettare quello. Ma allora anche mezzi voi deve prenderci la vostra indicazione che capiscono più meglio il terreno di Zimbabwean. Dovete accettare che siete essenzialmente ignari, unstrategic e quindi inefficace dove gli argomenti africani sono interessati. Mentre cercate di aiutarli nelle nostre lotte per cambiamento, il vostro comportamento brazen li insidia efficacemente e rinforza i nostri avversari. Dovete ascoltare noi e non il contrario.

Il `Mugabe del dicembre 2008 deve andare' chorus era pathetic come era sia unimaginative che prevedibile. Ha cominciato con il Primo Ministro keniano Raila Odinga, Bishop John Sentamu e arcivescovo Desmond Tutu, in quell'ordine. Non appena sono stati fatti, David Milliband ed il riso di Condi sono entrato sostenere “le molte„ voci dei capi africani. Da allora in poi, era Gordon Brown, George Bush, Sarkozy e Merkel. Allora ogni capo europeo e la loro nonna si sono uniti dentro, sostenendo “le molte„ voci dei capi africani. Per crown tutto, ci era un precipitare incompetent al Consiglio di sicurezza di NU, in cui tutto è venuto sbriciolandosi giù: ché non-evento embarrassing. Perchè chiunque è stato sorprendo da questo unmitigated il guasto? Era mai ci un metodo nella follia? Che cosa era essere la conclusione logica del chorus?

In primo luogo non ci era capo africano che aveva parlato. Così chi, i capi occidentali stavano pretendendo di sostenere? Presto dopo che Odinga parlasse, è stato contraddetto dal suo proprio ministro straniero. Ciò significa che non stava parlando a nome del Kenia o del presidente Kibaki. Il Bishop Sentamu non parla per alcun paese africano. Bene, lo stessi per Tutu; è un buon Africano che parla per nessuna nazione africana. Affinchè lui sia efficace dovrebbe lavorare a convincere la direzione politica dell'Africano del sud adottare i suoi punti di vista.

Interessando abbastanza, neppure lo Ian solitamente reckless e unimaginative Khama non faceva parte delle voci africane. Così quando questi capi americani ed europei hanno entrato nel chorus, che erano che sostengono? In un continente di 53 paesi, gli Stati Uniti ed il Regno Unito non hanno potuto convincere un singolo presidente africano fare parte del loro chorus elegante.

Se i capi occidentali fossero effettivamente giusti sostenendosi, perchè si sono trovati che stavano sostenendo le voci dei capi africani? Se si preoccupano per che capi africani pensano, perchè non hanno speso abbastanza tempo convincendo i capi africani reali della precisione delle posizioni occidentali e da allora in poi, fare parlare ai capi africani in primo luogo?

Certamente se, per esempio, i presidenti Kgalema Motlanthe, Armando Geubuza, il DOS Santos, Jakaya Kikwete e Mwai Kibaki del José Eduardo avessero preso una posizione collettiva particolare sullo Zimbabwe ed i governi occidentali erano entrato sostenerli, ci sarebbe stato una certa trazione.

Ma no, le alimentazioni occidentali ha scelto generare i loro propri capi africani pseudi ed allora forza un chorus del mondo. Ciò era sicura venire a mancare. Oltre il chorus, non ci era strategia reale per risolvere la crisi nello Zimbabwe. Non ci era azione specifica che gli Stati Uniti ed il Regno Unito stavano andando intraprendere dopo il chorus. Non sarebbe stato logico sostenere gli slogan con sia i programmi procedurali che l'Africano adeguato compra?

Sembra che la spiegazione razionale era che Mugabe era andare giusto cadere da dalla fase politica dello Zimbabwe a causa del suono deafening dei capi occidentali che ripetono lo stesso messaggio insignificante. Quanto pathetic! Bene, vergogna su loro per trivialising la lotta legittima della nostra gente.

I viali attraverso cui Mugabe può passare

là sono tre sensi che Mugabe può essere rimosso dalla presidenza e dalla direzione dello Zimbabwe: (1) uso della violenza o armi 2) della rivolta di guerra (o dimostrazioni totali pacifiche (3) libere ed elezioni giuste.

L'uso della violenza cacciare Mugabe è stato suggerito in determinati quarti. What has not been done is an interrogation of what form this will take, its meaning, consequences and the aftermath. Il one-way che un overthrow violento può essere previsto è di avere truppe americane e britanniche invadere lo Zimbabwe come hanno fatto in Irak. Naturalmente possono eliminare Mugabe quel senso.

Tuttavia, le forze occidentali dovranno sanguinare sul terreno di Zimbabwean nel processo. Non sarà una camminata nel parco. Dopo il misadventure degli Stati Uniti in Somalia, in cui i fanti di marina americani sono stati macellati nelle vie di Mogadiscio, il dibattito nel senato degli Stati Uniti era molto istruttivo. Il sentimento chiave era abbastanza inequivocabile, “che l'intero paese della Somalia non è degno una singola vita americana. Dovremmo non lasciare mai che le vite americane siano perse in difesa di questi paesi africani senza valore.„

Quello allora era l'atteggiamento. Qualche cosa è cambiato? Jendayi Frazer, riso di Condi e George Bush, siete voi ora aspettare per sanguinare nell'inseguimento della libertà africana e la prosperità? Se non siete preparati per avere fanti di marina degli Stati Uniti uccisi nello Zimbabwe, prego giusto chiuso in su sull'emissione di intervento militare per rimuovere Mugabe.

Supponiamo per un minuto che questi capi occidentali sono giocatori serii e talkers trascurati non giusti. Possono allora realmente introdurre le loro truppe nello Zimbabwe ed ottenere il lavoro fatto. Dopo che Mugabe sia andato il senso del Saddam, che cosa accadrà dopo? Che cosa l'intervento militare degli Stati Uniti ha prodotto Irak e nell'Afghanistan? Abbiamo risultati democratici in questi paesi? Sono nazioni pacifiche, democratiche e prosperose? Perchè il risultato di Zimbabwean sarebbe affatto differente? Se non, allora perchè dovrebbe questo persino essere considerato come opzione?

In termini di eserciti stranieri che invadono lo Zimbabwe, è soltanto nazioni occidentali che valgono la pena di analizzare poichè abbiamo tentato sopra. Soltanto due paesi africani, Botswana e Kenia, hanno espresso un appetito per confronto fisico con lo Zimbabwe. Neppure non dignify il Botswana che posturing con troppa discussione. Non hanno esercito ma una forza incompetent della polizia che non abbia capacità di invadere un deserto molto meno un paese con esperienza militare dello Zimbabwe. Raila Odinga non parla per il governo keniano, così le estremità di analisi là. Se soltanto potesse cominciare convincendo il suo proprio governo, avremo più da dire circa l'efficacia delle sue espressioni.

L'altra versione della violenza che può certamente rovesciare Mugabe è una lotta munita intrapresa da Zimbabweans essi stessi nello stesso senso che ZANLA e ZIPRA hanno eseguito la guerra contro Ian Smith. Quanto fattibile e pratico è questa proposta a questo punto a tempo ed all'interno del contesto geopolitico della regione di SADC? È persino un'alternativa desiderabile per la gente dello Zimbabwe? Crediamo che non ci siano risposte affermative a neanche di queste domande.

Il secondo metodo possibile da cui Mugabe può deposed è con le rivolte o le dimostrazioni totali pacifiche. Abbiamo la capacità come Zimbabweans di eseguire questi? Che cosa fanno gli sforzi gallant del NCA e del WOZA li insegnano. Quanto di noi uniscono loro marzo brave? Quanto Zimbabweans ha unito i soldati quando sono andato sul rampage sulle vie di Harare?

È chiaro che l'appetito per un giro arancione del `' nello Zimbabwe ha ancora essere sviluppato, prima che una rivolta totale si trasformi in in una piattaforma realistica per guidare Mugabe fuori. I nostri politici all'interno del movimento di opposizione anche devono essere aspettano per ammettere i sacrifici che questa opzione richiede. Dove i capi politici entrano nel nascondersi alla minaccia minima del persecution, non riusciamo a vedere come questa opzione può essere portata a compimento.

Ciò lascia noi con il terzo e soltanto il viale per la partenza di Mugabe, cioè con le elezioni libere e giuste. La domanda allora si trasforma in come realizziamo un'elezione libera e giusta nello Zimbabwe? Certamente non through richiedendo le elezioni armonizzate oggi che saranno condotte sotto il 27 giugno condiziona. Inutile per dire, in un tal plebiscito, Mugabe bloccherà la presidenza e la maggior parte unita corrente di opposizione nel Parlamento completamente sarà invertita.

Siamo strategici. La nostri gente e paese non sono elezione aspettano al momento. Dobbiamo passare con un periodo di transizione in où risolviamo la crisi umanitaria che affligge la nostra gente, effettuiamo healing nazionale, cominciamo il miglioramento della situazione economica e più d'importanza adottiamo una nuova costituzione democratica gente-guidata. Ciò è il ponticello di che lo Zimbabwe ha bisogno nel relativo procedere alla democrazia. Dopo quella, possiamo allora effettuare le elezioni libere e giuste. Se Mugabe partecipa a quelle elezioni, sarà sconfitto. Ciò è l'unico senso pratico che condurrà alla partenza del Mugabe.

L'accordo politico globale del 15 settembre 2008, ricerche facilitare una tal possibilità. La gente, questa è buona come ottiene. Purtroppo, Mugabe dovrà fare parte della transizione, come spieghiamo nella sezione seguente. Il colore marrone e Bush devono ottenere sopra la loro ossessione insensata, non informata e unstrategic con Mugabe che va oggi. Se non possono articolare esplicitamente come stanno andando rimuoverli, dovrebbero soddisfare appena recedono e permettono che il nostro paese passi. Dobbiamo conservare le vite di Zimbabwean che stanno perdende inutilmente.

Perchè Mugabe non può passare via con i colloqui

i risultati di elezione dal 29 marzo 2008, prodotto nessun vincitore autentico sia nel Parlamento che alla presidenza. Il 27 giugno rifatto era un farce illegitimate, in modo da siamo attaccati con il risultato inconcludente di marzo. Come carbossimetilazioni, dobbiamo accettare che questo significa che Mugabe ed il suo partito sono tanto un fattore come Tsvangirai ed il suo partito sono.

Corto di nuovo insieme delle elezioni o del cambiamento di direzione dai loro partiti, significa che nè Tsvangirai nè Mugabe può essere negoziato via. Su che base possiamo avere un accordo negoziato che esclude Robert Mugabe? Se accettiamo marzo risulta come legittimo, è un capo di un partito cui ha 99 MPs contro 100 per MDC-T, 30 senatori contro 24 per MDC-T. È venuto in secondo luogo a Tsvangirai, 43.2% contro 47.8%. Mugabe attualmente possiede più d'importanza sì illegitimately la presidenza dello Zimbabwe. Bene, a legge dicono che il possesso è 90% della proprietà.

Il fatto che Mugabe ha questa alimentazione del incumbency è la ragione per la quale Arthur Mutambara è ancora sulla prova nella Corte suprema, Tendai Biti ha spese del treason intorno al suo collo, gli attivisti stanno rapendi e Morgan Tsvangirai, il principale Assistere-indica, si divertito ottenere un passaporto. Ciò significa che Mugabe è incaricato dello Zimbabwean dichiara. Dato questa realtà sulla terra ed il risultato elettorale del 29 marzo 2008, (che a causa della nostra mancanza strategico di pensare tutti abbiamo sterilizzato come risultato legittimo), è foolishness per pensare che possiate negoziare Mugabe da alimentazione ed in qualche modo miraculously realizza una disposizione di compartecipazione di alimentazione che lo esclude.

In termini di pratica democratica sarà unjust ed in termini di politick reale sarà impossibile. L'OH sì, in base al 29 marzo risulta, Mugabe dovrebbe fare parte di tutta l'autorità di transizione di compartecipazione di alimentazione nello Zimbabwe, poiché è presidente di un partito rappresentato bene in entrambe le case legislative ed è venuto in secondo luogo nella corsa presidenziale inconcludente. Non potremmo gradire queste circostanze democratiche, ma dobbiamo vivere con quella realtà.

La politica è un'arte del possibile, come Bismarck una volta famoso detto. Nel paesaggio politico corrente di Zimbabwean, le possibilità appartengono sia a Robert Mugabe che Morgan Tsvangirai. Si hanno bisogno di. Possiamo dibattere il ruolo specifico che Mugabe dovrebbe svolgere. Per ora che il dibattito è stato depositato da Mugabe, da Tsvangirai e da Mutambara quando hanno firmato l'accordo politico globale (GPA). Mugabe è Presidente-indica e Morgan Tsvangirai è principale Assistere-indica. Ma, stiamo dicendo che GPA è l'unica esposizione in città? No, assolutamente non.
Le strutture alternative ai dibattiti

molto ed a pensare di GPA ha entrato nelle alternative di formazione all'accordo del 15 settembre 2008. Purtroppo, è stato una commedia degli errori e dei hallucinations non sofisticati. Anche gli organismi internazionali rispettati pozzo come il gruppo internazionale di crisi (ICG) sono stati trovati misero desiderare. Gli esperti Renowned di risoluzione di conflitto, i capi civici della società ed i pandit occidentali hanno indicato la mancanza astonishing di creatività e di immaginazione.

Il punto di partenza nella stabilizzazione del percorso alternativo per lo Zimbabwe consiste di afferrare una comprensione libera di perchè stiamo avendo sfide nell'effettuare il GPA corrente. La nuova formulazione deve allora robusto illustrare come eviterà queste sfide correnti. Beyond this, the efficacy, process details, timelines and milestones of any new strategy must then be clearly articulated. None of the critics of the current GPA has even begun to do any of the above.

Among a number of obstacles to consummation, the major challenge we have faced in executing the Zimbabwean GPA is the inability to achieve sufficient buy-in from the two major protagonists in the political impasse: Zanu PF and MDC-T. They are the critical players in any national transitional discussion, because any agreed arrangement will require legal effect through a constitutional amendment in parliament. Such a change will require a two thirds majority which can only be achieved by the participation of both Zanu PF and MDC-T, as a minimum requirement.

None of the proposals from the ICG, the civic society groups (both national and regional), or the arrogant and ignorant international community has addressed this simple challenge: How are you going to ensure that both MDC-T and Zanu PF will embrace your new grand proposal? If one or both of them do not accept your framework what are you going to do? Please, this is commonsensical. Anyone seeking to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis democratically and within the laws of Zimbabwe must apply their mind to this critical success factor: the show stopper.

The busy bodies at the ICG and in civic society do not even have the capacity to appreciate the existence of the problem, much less the intellect to develop the requisite solution. We are not saying it is impossible to develop an alternative negotiated framework to the September GPA. We are emphasising that it will require good and rigorously working minds to come up with one.

The reasons why we insist on fixing and then implementing the current flawed and imperfect GPA is because at some point the buy-in between the two key protagonist was achieved through the signatures of the MOU on July 21, 2008, and the GPA on September 15, 2008. Yes, there are disagreements now, but there are two agreed reference points. The key players and their teams have been actively negotiating the political impasse from March 29, 2008, and now four months after signing the GPA there are still implementation challenges.

Yes, this is bad and regrettable. However, let us be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. If we adopt a completely new process, how and when are we going to convince the two key players to start working towards an MOU? Are you going to get that MOU signed soon, and after that how much time will be required to get to a new GPA of sorts? Furthermore, while we embark on these new processes that require time and resources what will be happening to the suffering people of Zimbabwe, the collapsed economy, and the destroyed industrial base? Given the hardened positions of the two protagonists at the moment, can you even begin to sell the new path to them?

The most bizarre, irritating and clearly ineffective critics of the current GPA are those that premise their proposals by denouncing one of the two key protagonists. Usually it is Mugabe and his Zanu PF who are dismissed. How do you even conceptualise a negotiated outcome without the involvement of the Zanu PF group? We thought it was common cause that you do not make peace with your friends, but with your opponents.

One would expect someone of Jendayi Frazer’s stature to understand all this. How does she say that the US supports the negotiated power sharing, but insists that Mugabe must not be involved? Making these statements while defying the consistent advice that she received from all the South African leaders that she interacted with means that Frazer is insulting the SA leadership at every level. By this disrespectful conduct, she is humiliating both SADC and the AU.

In this situation, with respect to the US-proposed dialogue framework, who will be the principals, negotiators, facilitators and guarantors? South Africa is the only country with leverage on Zimbabwe. To bring any kind of change in Zimbabwe you have to work with SA, and not insult or humiliate them. Anyone serious about the Zimbabwean agenda must grasp this.

Jendayi, I assume that she is supportive of Mr Tsvangirai and she wants him to succeed. Does she actually have any respect for him? He signed the GPA in which Mugabe is designated as the President. Is it that she thinks Mr. Tsvangirai does not know what is good for him and therefore she has to lead him every step of the way?

By the way, it is not true that the US government supported the agreement when it was signed. For the record, both the US and the UK were opposed to the GPA from the beginning. They did not like the fact that Mugabe was both Head of State and Chairman of Cabinet, and they despised the GPA positions on land reform and sanctions. Everyone knows this. We are not children.

The US and the UK are now taking advantage of the delay in implementation of the agreement to savage and destroy the GPA. Do Frazer and her government have a workable alternative framework to the current GPA, together with an enforcement mechanism? And what is this that she said about the weakness and incompetence of her favorite GPA principal? Did she not say the following; “Tsvangirai is too weak and incompetent for us to allow him to be in an inclusive government with Mugabe. He will be completely outmaneuvered. Tsvangirai is not as strong as Odinga. If he was, we would have allowed him to get into the GNU with Mugabe?”

How can she possibly say such insulting remarks about her favorite opposition leader? With friends like these, who needs enemies? Incidentally, did she share her views about Tsvangirai with him? Why not? Anyway, who is she to allow or disallow African leaders? Does the US government have locus standi to do this? From where does she derive such legal, political or moral authority? Would a reverse scenario where international players seek to influence US politics be acceptable to the US?

Jendayi, can’t you see that you are ruining the opposition you seek to assist, and strengthening Mugabe that you seek to destroy? You are foolishly confirming everything that Mugabe has said about the opposition: that we are puppets. Moreover, Mugabe’s strengths are Africa, Pan-Africanism and anti-Imperialism. Any foreign policy that undermines African leaders and African institutions plays right into Mugabe’s game plan. Why can’t Western diplomats master these basics? Why do we have a premonition that most of the destructive grandstanding by Western governments is meant for their domestic constituencies?

More specifically, US foreign policy is always characterised by double standards, hypocrisy and dishonesty all rooted in the pursuit of US permanent interests. We seriously hope that incoming US President Obama and his new team will depart from this ignorant, ruinous and ineffective foreign policy that effectively undermines its intended beneficiaries, strengthens the targeted villains, while blighting the US standing in the World.

Things have to change in 2009. We are not naïve. We know that the general thrust of the US foreign policy objective is largely independent of both the individual who is the US President and the Party they belong to. However, we hope the policy execution, nuances and tactics will be different. Zimbabweans have great expectations.

Collapse of the Mugabe Regime

It is clear that the Mugabe regime will not collapse because of economic decay, mass starvation or epidemics such as cholera. The formal economy collapsed way back when. The regime survives on the informal sector and through rent-seeking behaviours. Yes, ordinary people are perishing and will continue to do so, but the regime will not collapse. Can we all come to grips with this?

The diamonds of Chiadzwa, the Platinum Mines, and assistance from friendly nations such as DRC, Angola, China and Russia will see the regime pull through another 5-10 years. Of course this will be at major cost to the population. Zimbabweans should care about this.

However, to the external players that suggest that we must wait for the collapse of the regime at any cost, the needless loss of life in pursuit of the departure of Mugabe is a small price to pay. After all, the lives lost are Black lives which are not equivalent to White lives. Since September 15, 2008, we have had Western governments encouraging the continuation of suffering and death of our people in the misguided belief that this will lead to the collapse of the Mugabe regime. Well, this will not happen, and our people are dying in vain. All Zimbabwean leaders must understand this.

We must collectively take responsibility for the calamity afflicting our country. In particular, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai are equally culpable for the failure to work together. They are effectively working against the interests of their supporters and the generality of our citizenry. The two leaders are more concerned about a misguided power play executed at the expense of Zimbabwean lives. They have blood on their hands. The US and UK governments who are specifically undermining SADC efforts to establish an inclusive government in Zimbabwe are complicit in this crime against humanity.

In the case of these Western governments, they are driven by racism and utter disrespect for African lives. As Africans, our position is that not a single Zimbabwean life should be used as a stick to inflict pain on Robert Mugabe. People’s lives are too important to be used as ineffective political tools and weapons. We all know that Mugabe will not collapse because of cholera, mass starvation and a collapsed economy, so why are we supporting this ineffective strategy?

Nevertheless, let us deceive ourselves for a moment and assume the game plan works and the Mugabe regime actually collapses through the existing crisis. Why are we assuming that such a demise of Mugabe will lead to a democratic outcome? We saw what happened in Guinea when their dictator died. Did the opposition take over? Nope. If the Mugabe regime collapses, it is most likely that the army will take over. Some ambitious and gutsy colonel or general will step in. Our democratisation processes will, resultantly, regress at least 10 years.

There is absolutely no way Tsvangirai and his Party will be the beneficiaries of the collapse of Robert Mugabe. Quite to the contrary, the Zanu PF regime will make sure they collapse together with Tsvangirai and MDC-T. Do the current abductions, confessions and dubious trials of activists mean anything to anyone? MDC-T will not exist after the demise of Mugabe. I hope Tsvangirai understands this in no uncertain terms. I wish our brazen and unintelligent Western friends will do more listening and thinking.

This Mugabe must collapse strategy is not in the best interest of Zimbabwe. A regime change agenda achieved through a scorched earth policy is not what we need in our country. It will not benefit anyone. As Zimbabweans, we should think seriously about options that will allow us to continue to build, brick by brick, our democratic institutions.

Opportunity for a New Beginning

The year 2009 presents us with an opportunity for a new beginning. However, for this to be achieved, we have to learn some difficult lessons from inconvenient truths. We have to do things differently. We must embrace self-criticism as part of our best practices, and adopt an interrogative and questioning attitude to all stakeholders, including those that purport to support our struggles and our national interest.

In the struggle for a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Zimbabwe, it is not enough to be right. It is not enough to be a victim or to have the higher moral authority. The victims must behave well. Those with moral high ground must be driven by principles and values. Those on the right side of history must be thoughtful and strategic. Those that support victims of despotic regimes must apply their analytical skills. Good heart, bad mind will not cut it.

In all this, we must always put the people first. We must cherish servant leadership. Only then can we succeed. While external players and events affect our country, we must take responsibility for our own circumstances. We should be at the centre of our struggles and be the drivers of our nation building processes. We must have enough leadership strength to define and determine both the terms of reference and frameworks through which foreigners participate in the affairs of our nation.

In 2009, Zimbabweans must set the agenda and own the rules of the game. We must be masters of our own destiny. The critique of external influences that has been proffered should not be used to absolve us as citizens. We as Zimbabweans, created the current socio-political and economic crisis, and we will be the primary drivers and developers of the sustainable answers. And yes, a people do get a government that they deserve. Let us all be the change we wish to see in the year 2009.

Arthur G.O. Mutambara is president of MDC

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/mutambara4.19221.html

Die ungünstigen Wahrheiten über den Westen und den Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into German thanks to WorldLingo
Die ungünstigen Wahrheiten über die Westen und Zimbabwe


WEISE SCHICKEN nach: Arthur Mutambara

•In diesem Artikel betrachtet MDC fap Führer Arthur Mutambara die Schwierigkeiten, wenn er das 15. September GPA, das unhelpfulness der westlichen Interventionen Zimbabwes in den inländischen Politiken einführt, bei der Abfragung der vorhandenen Strategien für das Erzielen von Demokratie in Zimbabwe:


DAS Jahr 2008 war ein sehr schwieriges für uns als Nation. Seit die ergebnislosen harmonisierten Wahlen am 29. März hielten, hat es eine politische Sackgasse in unserem Land gegeben. Das Land ist ohne eine gesetzmaßige Regierung gewesen. Unsere Wirtschaft hat praktisch eingestürzt, während Krankheit und Verhungern unsere Leute ravaging. Hoffnungslosigkeit und Verzweiflung kennzeichnen und definieren die nationale Psyche. Es hat kompletten Führungausfall das allgemeine, innerhalb Zimbabwe, in der Region und in der internationalen Gemeinschaft gegeben.
Wie wir ein neues Jahr beginnen, lassen Sie uns sich reflektieren auf einigen der Hauptdebatten, die unsere Politik formen, während wir 2008 herausnehmen. Vom bestimmten Interesse an dieser Abhandlung sind die unbequemen Wirklichkeiten und die Herausforderungen, die manchmal shy wir diese sind, weg vom Konfrontieren. Insbesondere suchen wir, diesen Elefanten im nationalen Wohnzimmer zu töten: Wie unwissende und unstrategic externe Miteinbeziehung in der Zimbabwean Darlegung mehr Schaden als gut tut.

Wir suchen, zu argumentieren, daß im Jahr 2008, unverschämte und crass westliche shenanigans wirklich die Opposition und den verstärkten Robert Mugabe untergraben haben. Wichtiger, ist es unsere Unterordnung, der die nicht informierten und reckless Positionen der fremden Politik der westlichen Regierungen, insbesondere die US und Großbritannien, negativ unser Staatsinteresse ausgewirkt haben. Zimbabweans müssen dieses offenbar verstehen, damit unsere Kollektivvermögen im Jahr 2009 unterschiedlich sind.

Das `Mugabe muß gehen' Chor,

während wir 2008, im Monat Dezember herausnahmen, es ein Crescendo der Nachfragen nach der Abfahrt von Mugabe vom politischen Stadium gab. Es gibt nichts neues und kreativ in diesem Mugabe muß gehen Beschwörungsformel. Die Mühe ist, daß viele Leute und Anstalten auf dieser Schiene unter der Krankheit des Herzens leiden, das im rechten Platz ist, während der Verstand nicht angewendet wird. Ein benötigt ein gutes Herz und einen guten Verstand.

Einige von uns haben das Mugabe müssen gehen Beschwörungsformel für die letzten 21 Jahre, vergebens gesungen. Übrigens waren westliche Regierungen mit uns 1988 anderer Meinung, als wir gegen das Zanu Leistungsfaktor Regime wendeten. Jetzt sie patronise wir, als ob sie verstehen, warum Mugabe gehen muß, besser als wir, seine Zimbabwean Opfer.

Wir haben Mugabe für zwei Dekaden, wo sind Sie gewesen Amerika und Europa gekämpft? Warum stützten Sie Mugabe Ende der achtziger Jahre, als wir ihm entgegensetzten? Warum unterstützten Sie ihn aktiv während Gukurahundi? Wir hörten nie, daß Sie, `Mugabe zu sagen' während dieser Periode gehen müssen. Stattdessen gaben Sie ihm prestigevolle Preise auf beiden Seiten des Atlantiks.

Wir können es verstehen, wenn Ihre Verteidigung ist, daß Sie langsame Anfänger und späte blühende Pflanzen sind, in denen unsere Angelegenheiten betroffen werden. Wir können das annehmen. Aber es dann auch Mittel Sie muß Ihr Stichwort von uns nehmen, die das Zimbabwean Gelände besser verstehen. Sie müssen annehmen, daß Sie im Wesentlichen unwissend unstrategic sind, und folglich erfolglos, wo afrikanische Angelegenheiten betroffen werden. Während Sie suchen, uns in unseren Kämpfen für änderung zu unterstützen, untergräbt Ihr unverschämtes Verhalten uns effektiv und verstärkt unsere Konkurrenten. Sie müssen zu uns und nicht zur Art und Weise hören.

Das Dezember 2008 `Mugabe muß gehen' Chor war so pathetisch, wie es unimaginative und vorhersagbar war. Es begann mit Kenyan Premierminister Raila Odinga, Bishop John Sentamu und Erzbischof Desmond Tutu, in diesem Auftrag. Sobald sie getan wurden, kamen David Milliband und Condi Reis herein, die „vielen“ Stimmen der afrikanischen Führer zu stützen. Danach war es Gordon Brown, George Bush, Sarkozy und Merkel. Dann verbanden jeder europäische Führer und ihre Großmutter innen und stützten die „vielen“ Stimmen der afrikanischen Führer. Es aller krönen, gab es einen inkompetenten Schlag zum UNO Sicherheit Rat, wohin alles unten zerbröckelnd kam: ein was für peinlicher Nichtfall. Warum wurde jemand durch dieses unmitigated Ausfall überrascht? Gab es überhaupt eine Methode in der Verrücktheit? Was war, die logische Zusammenfassung des Chors zu sein?

In erster Linie gab es keinen afrikanischen Führer, der gesprochen hatte. So wem, behaupteten die westlichen Führer, zu stützen? Bald, nachdem Odinga sprach, wurde er von seinem eigenen Außenminister widersprochen. Dies heißt, daß er nicht im Namen Kenias oder des Präsidenten Kibaki sprach. Bishop Sentamu spricht nicht für irgendein afrikanisches Land. Gut die selben für Tutu; er ist ein guter Afrikaner, der für keine afrikanische Nation spricht. Damit er er sollte arbeiten auf dem Überzeugen der politischen Führung des Südafrikaners, seine Ansichten anzunehmen wirkungsvoll ist.

Genug interessierend, sogar, war der normalerweise reckless und unimaginative Ian Khama nicht Teil der afrikanischen Stimmen. So, als diese amerikanischen und europäischen Führer in Chor einstiegen, die sie stützend waren? In einem Kontinent von 53 Ländern, konnten die US und Großbritannien nicht einen einzelnen afrikanischen Präsidenten überzeugen, ein Teil ihres eleganten Chors zu sein.

Wenn die westlichen Führer in der Tat gerecht waren, stützend, warum lagen sie, daß sie Stimmen der afrikanischen Führer stützten? Wenn sie sich interessieren für, welche afrikanische Führer denken, warum verbrachten sie nicht genügend Zeit, die wirklichen afrikanischen Führer der Korrektheit der westlichen Positionen überzeugend und, die afrikanischen Führer zuerst sprechen danach zu lassen?

Sicher, wenn z.B. Präsidenten Kgalema Motlanthe, Armando Geubuza, José Eduardo DOS Santos, Jakaya Kikwete und Mwai Kibaki eine bestimmte Kollektivposition auf Zimbabwe genommen hatten, und westliche Regierungen waren hereingekommen, sie zu stützen, würde es etwas Zugkraft gegeben haben.

Aber Nr., die westlichen Energien beschloß, ihre eigenen afrikanischen Pseudoführer herzustellen und zwingt dann einen Weltchor. Dieses war sicher auszufallen. Über dem Chor hinaus gab es keine reale Strategie, zum der Krise in Zimbabwe zu beheben. Es gab keine spezifischen Maßnahmen, die die US und Großbritannien waren, nach dem Chor zu ergreifen. Würde es nicht logisch gewesen sein, die Slogans mit Verfahrensplänen zu unterstützen und korrekter Afrikaner kaufen ein?

Es scheint, daß das Grundprinzip war, daß Mugabe gerechtes Gehen war, weg vom Zimbabwe politischen Stadium wegen des deafening Tones der westlichen Führer zu fallen, welche die gleiche bedeutungslose Anzeige wiederholen. Wie pathetisch! Gut Schande auf ihnen für das Trivialising den gesetzmaßigen Kampf unserer Leute.

Die Alleen, die Mugabe dort durchlaufen

kann, sind drei Möglichkeiten, die Mugabe vom Vorsitz und von der Führung von Zimbabwe entfernt werden kann: (1) Gebrauch von Gewalttätigkeit oder Arme des ruhigen Massenaufstiegs oder der Demonstrationen des Krieges (2) (3) frei und angemessene Wahlen.

Der Gebrauch von Gewalttätigkeit, Mugabe zu verjagen ist in bestimmten Vierteln vorgeschlagen worden. What has not been done is an interrogation of what form this will take, its meaning, consequences and the aftermath. One-way, den ein heftiger Overthrow beabsichtigt werden kann, ist, die amerikanischen und britischen Truppen zu haben, Zimbabwe einzudringen, wie sie im Irak taten. Selbstverständlich können sie Mugabe so loswerden.

Jedoch müssen westliche Kräfte auf Zimbabwean Boden im Prozeß bluten. Es ist nicht ein Weg im Park. Nach dem US Mißgeschick in Somalia, in dem amerikanische Marinen in den Straßen von Mogadischu geschlachtet wurden, war die Debatte im US Senat sehr lehrreich. Das Schlüsselgefühl war, „ziemlich unmißverständlich, das gesamtes Land von Somalia nicht wert ein einzelnes amerikanisches Leben ist. Wir sollten nie erlauben, daß amerikanische Leben werden verloren zum Schutze von diesen wertlosen afrikanischen Ländern.“

Die war die Haltung dann. Hat alles geändert? Jendayi Frazer, Condi Reis und George Bush, sind Sie jetzt bereit, in der Verfolgung der afrikanischen Freiheit und des Wohlstandes zu bluten? Wenn Sie nicht vorbereitet werden, die US Marinen zu haben, die in Zimbabwe getötet werden, bitte gerechtes geschlossen auf die Ausgabe der militärischen Intervention, um Mugabe zu entfernen.

Lassen Sie uns für eine Minute annehmen, daß diese westlichen Führer ernste Spieler und nicht gerechte unvorsichtige Talkers sind. Sie können ihre Truppen in Zimbabwe dann wirklich holen und die Arbeit erhalten erledigt. Nachdem Mugabe die Saddam Weise gegangen ist, geschieht was zunächst? Was hat US militärische Intervention im Irak und in Afghanistan produziert? Haben wir demokratische Resultate in diesen Ländern? Sind sie ruhige, demokratische und wohlhabende Nationen? Warum würde das Zimbabwean Resultat irgendein unterschiedlich sein? Wenn nicht, dann warum sollte dieses eine Wahl sogar gehalten werden?

In den fremden Armeen ausgedrückt, die Zimbabwe eindringen, ist es nur westliche Nationen, die sind zu analysieren, da wir oben versucht haben. Nur zwei afrikanische Länder, Botswana und Kenia, haben einen Appetit an körperliche Konfrontation mit Zimbabwe ausgedrückt. Wir nicht sogar zeichnen Botswanas posierend mit zu vieler Diskussion aus. Sie haben keine Armee aber eine inkompetente Polizeikraft, die keine Kapazität hat, eine weniger Wüste viel einzudringen ein Land mit Zimbabwes militärischer Erfahrung. Raila Odinga spricht nicht für die Kenyan Regierung, so die Analyse Enden dort. Wenn nur er beginnen könnte, indem er seine eigene Regierung überzeugte, haben wir mehr, zum über die Wirksamkeit seiner äußerungen zu sagen.

Die andere Version der Gewalttätigkeit, die Mugabe zweifellos stürzen kann, ist ein bewaffneter Kampf, der von Zimbabweans selbst in der gleichen Weise unternommen wird, der ZANLA und ZIPRA Krieg gegen Ian Smith durchführten. Ist diese Angelegenheit an diesem Punkt in der Zeit und innerhalb des geopolitischen Kontextes der SADC Region wie durchführbar und praktisch? Ist es sogar eine wünschenswerte Alternative für die Leute von Zimbabwe? Wir glauben, daß es keine bestätigenden Antworten zu auch nicht dieser Fragen gibt.

Die zweite mögliche Methode, durch die Mugabe abgesetzt werden kann, ist durch ruhige Massenaufstiege oder Demonstrationen. Haben wir die Kapazität als Zimbabweans, diese durchzuführen? Was tun, unterrichten die tapferen Bemühungen des NCA und des WOZA uns. Wieviele von uns verbinden ihre tapferen Märze? Wievieles verband Zimbabweans die Soldaten, als sie auf randalierte auf den Straßen von Harare gingen?

Es ist frei, daß der Appetit an eine `orange Revolution' in Zimbabwe, hat noch entwickelt zu werden, bevor ein Massenaufstieg eine realistische Plattform wird, zum von Mugabe heraus zu fahren. Unsere Politiker innerhalb der Opposition Bewegung müssen bereit auch sein, die Opfer anzunehmen, die diese Wahl zur Folge hat. Wo politische Führer in das Verstecken an der geringfügigsten Drohung der Verfolgung einsteigen, können wir sehen, wie nicht diese Wahl zur Verwirklichung geholt werden kann.

Dieses läßt uns mit dem Third und nur Allee für die Abfahrt von Mugabe, das heißt, durch die freien und angemessenen Wahlen. Die Frage wird dann, wie wir eine freie und angemessene Wahl in Zimbabwe erzielen? Zweifellos nicht durch das Verlangen der harmonisierten Wahlen heute, die unter 27. Juni geleitet werden, bedingt. Unnötig, in solch einer Volksabstimmung, Mugabe nimmt zu sagen den Vorsitz gefangen und die gegenwärtige kombinierte Opposition Majorität im Parlament wird vollständig aufgehoben.

Lassen Sie uns strategisch sein. Unsere Leute und Land sind nicht die Wahl, die im Augenblick bereit ist. Wir müssen eine übergangszeit durchlaufen, in der wir die humanitäre Krise, die unsere Leute beheben betrübt, das nationale Heilend durchführen, Wirtschaftsaufschwung anfangen und wichtiger eine neue Leute-gefahrene demokratische Beschaffenheit annehmen. Dieses ist die Brücke, die Zimbabwe in seinem März zur Demokratie benötigt. Nach der können wir die freien und angemessenen Wahlen dann durchführen. Wenn Mugabe an jenen Wahlen teilnimmt, wird er besiegt. Dieses ist die einzige praktische Weise, die zu Abfahrt Mugabes führt.

Die globale politische Vereinbarung von 15. September 2008, Suchvorgänge, solch eine Möglichkeit zu erleichtern. Völker, dieses ist so gut, wie es erhält. Leider muß Mugabe ein Teil des überganges sein, wie wir im folgenden Abschnitt erklären. Braun und Bush müssen über ihrer dummen, nicht informierten und unstrategic Obsession mit Mugabe erhalten, das heute geht. Wenn sie nicht ausdrücklich artikulieren können, wie sie ihn entfernen werden, sollten sie gerade gefallen sich zurückziehen und lassen unser Land an bewegen. Wir müssen die Zimbabwean Leben speichern, die unnötig verloren werden.

Warum Mugabe nicht Gespräche weg durchlaufen kann

die Wahlergebnisse ab dem 29. März 2008, produziert keinem völligen Sieger im Parlament und am Vorsitz. Die 27. Juni Wiederholung war eine ungesetzliche Farce, also werden wir mit dem März ergebnislosen Resultat gehaftet. Als Demokraten müssen wir annehmen, daß dieses bedeutet, daß Mugabe und seine Partei so viel ein Faktor sind, wie Tsvangirai und seine Partei sind.

Kurz von einem neuen Satz Wahlen oder änderung der Führung durch ihre Parteien, bedeutet es, daß weder über Tsvangirai noch Mugabe weg verhandelt werden können. Auf welcher Grundlage können wir eine verhandelte Vereinbarung haben, die Robert Mugabe ausschließt? Wenn wir annehmen, resultiert der März, wie gesetzmaßig, er ein Führer einer Partei ist, die 99 MPs gegen hat 100 für MDC-T, 30 Senatoren gegen 24 für MDC-T. Er kam an zweiter Stelle zu Tsvangirai, 43.2% gegen 47.8%. Wichtiger besitzt Mugabe z.Z. den Vorsitz von Zimbabwe, ja ungesetzlich. Gut am Gesetz sagen sie, daß Besitz 90% des Besitzes ist.

Die Tatsache, daß Mugabe diese Energie von Incumbency hat, ist der Grund, warum Arthur Mutambara noch auf Versuch im Höchsten Gericht ist, Tendai Biti hat Verrataufladungen um seinen Ansatz, werden Aktivisten entführt, und Morgan Tsvangirai, das Haupt Minister-kennzeichnen, hatten eine torrid Zeit, einen Paß zu erhalten. Dies heißt, daß Mugabe verantwortlich für den Zimbabwean Zustand ist. Diese Wirklichkeit aus den Grund und das Wahlresultat von 29. März 2008 gegeben, (das wegen unseres Mangels strategisch am Denken alle wir als gesetzmaßiges Resultat saniert haben), ist es die Dummheit, zum zu denken, daß Sie über Mugabe aus Energie heraus verhandeln können, und erzielt irgendwie wundersam eine Gewaltenteilung Anordnung, die ihn ausschließt.

In demokratischer Praxis ausgedrückt ist es unjust, und in realem politick ausgedrückt ist es unmöglich. OH- ja, auf der Grundlage von das 29. März resultiert, Mugabe sollte ein Teil jeder Gewaltenteilung übergangsberechtigung in Zimbabwe sein, da er Präsident einer Partei ist, die gut in beiden gesetzgebenden Häusern vertreten wird, und er kam an zweiter Stelle in das ergebnislose Präsidentenrennen. Wir konnten nicht diese demokratischen Umstände mögen, aber wir müssen mit dieser Wirklichkeit leben.

Politik ist eine kunst vom möglichen, als Bismarck einmal berühmt gesagt. In der gegenwärtigen Zimbabwean politischen Landschaft gehören die Möglichkeiten Robert Mugabe und Morgan Tsvangirai. Sie benötigen sich. Wir können die spezifische Rolle debattieren, die Mugabe spielen sollte. Für, nun da Debatte durch Mugabe, Tsvangirai und Mutambara vereinbart wurde, als sie den globalen politischen Vertrag (GPA) schlossen. Mugabe ist Präsident-kennzeichnen und Morgan Tsvangirai ist Minister-kennzeichnen Haupt. Aber, sagen wir, daß GPA einzige zeigen in der Stadt ist? Nr., absolut nicht.
Alternative Rahmen zu einer GPA

Menge Debatten und Denken ist in in Handarbeit machende Alternativen zur Vereinbarung von 15. September 2008 eingestiegen. Leider ist es eine Komödie von Störungen und von unverfälschten Hallucinations gewesen. Sogar sind Brunnen respektierte internationale Körper wie die internationale Krise Gruppe (ICG) miserabel, gefunden worden zu wünschen. Berühmte Konfliktauflösung Experten, bürgerliche Gesellschaftführer und westliche Pandite haben erstaunlichen Mangel an Kreativität und Phantasie gezeigt.

Der Ausgangspunkt, wenn er einen alternativen Weg für Zimbabwe herstellt, besteht, zu fassen ein freies Verständnis von, warum wir Herausforderungen haben, wenn wir das gegenwärtige GPA einführen. Die neue Formulierung muß dann robust veranschaulichen, wie sie diese gegenwärtigen Herausforderungen vermeidet. Beyond this, the efficacy, process details, timelines and milestones of any new strategy must then be clearly articulated. None of the critics of the current GPA has even begun to do any of the above.

Among a number of obstacles to consummation, the major challenge we have faced in executing the Zimbabwean GPA is the inability to achieve sufficient buy-in from the two major protagonists in the political impasse: Zanu PF and MDC-T. They are the critical players in any national transitional discussion, because any agreed arrangement will require legal effect through a constitutional amendment in parliament. Such a change will require a two thirds majority which can only be achieved by the participation of both Zanu PF and MDC-T, as a minimum requirement.

None of the proposals from the ICG, the civic society groups (both national and regional), or the arrogant and ignorant international community has addressed this simple challenge: How are you going to ensure that both MDC-T and Zanu PF will embrace your new grand proposal? If one or both of them do not accept your framework what are you going to do? Please, this is commonsensical. Anyone seeking to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis democratically and within the laws of Zimbabwe must apply their mind to this critical success factor: the show stopper.

The busy bodies at the ICG and in civic society do not even have the capacity to appreciate the existence of the problem, much less the intellect to develop the requisite solution. We are not saying it is impossible to develop an alternative negotiated framework to the September GPA. We are emphasising that it will require good and rigorously working minds to come up with one.

The reasons why we insist on fixing and then implementing the current flawed and imperfect GPA is because at some point the buy-in between the two key protagonist was achieved through the signatures of the MOU on July 21, 2008, and the GPA on September 15, 2008. Yes, there are disagreements now, but there are two agreed reference points. The key players and their teams have been actively negotiating the political impasse from March 29, 2008, and now four months after signing the GPA there are still implementation challenges.

Yes, this is bad and regrettable. However, let us be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. If we adopt a completely new process, how and when are we going to convince the two key players to start working towards an MOU? Are you going to get that MOU signed soon, and after that how much time will be required to get to a new GPA of sorts? Furthermore, while we embark on these new processes that require time and resources what will be happening to the suffering people of Zimbabwe, the collapsed economy, and the destroyed industrial base? Given the hardened positions of the two protagonists at the moment, can you even begin to sell the new path to them?

The most bizarre, irritating and clearly ineffective critics of the current GPA are those that premise their proposals by denouncing one of the two key protagonists. Usually it is Mugabe and his Zanu PF who are dismissed. How do you even conceptualise a negotiated outcome without the involvement of the Zanu PF group? We thought it was common cause that you do not make peace with your friends, but with your opponents.

One would expect someone of Jendayi Frazer’s stature to understand all this. How does she say that the US supports the negotiated power sharing, but insists that Mugabe must not be involved? Making these statements while defying the consistent advice that she received from all the South African leaders that she interacted with means that Frazer is insulting the SA leadership at every level. By this disrespectful conduct, she is humiliating both SADC and the AU.

In this situation, with respect to the US-proposed dialogue framework, who will be the principals, negotiators, facilitators and guarantors? South Africa is the only country with leverage on Zimbabwe. To bring any kind of change in Zimbabwe you have to work with SA, and not insult or humiliate them. Anyone serious about the Zimbabwean agenda must grasp this.

Jendayi, I assume that she is supportive of Mr Tsvangirai and she wants him to succeed. Does she actually have any respect for him? He signed the GPA in which Mugabe is designated as the President. Is it that she thinks Mr. Tsvangirai does not know what is good for him and therefore she has to lead him every step of the way?

By the way, it is not true that the US government supported the agreement when it was signed. For the record, both the US and the UK were opposed to the GPA from the beginning. They did not like the fact that Mugabe was both Head of State and Chairman of Cabinet, and they despised the GPA positions on land reform and sanctions. Everyone knows this. We are not children.

The US and the UK are now taking advantage of the delay in implementation of the agreement to savage and destroy the GPA. Do Frazer and her government have a workable alternative framework to the current GPA, together with an enforcement mechanism? And what is this that she said about the weakness and incompetence of her favorite GPA principal? Did she not say the following; “Tsvangirai is too weak and incompetent for us to allow him to be in an inclusive government with Mugabe. He will be completely outmaneuvered. Tsvangirai is not as strong as Odinga. If he was, we would have allowed him to get into the GNU with Mugabe?”

How can she possibly say such insulting remarks about her favorite opposition leader? With friends like these, who needs enemies? Incidentally, did she share her views about Tsvangirai with him? Why not? Anyway, who is she to allow or disallow African leaders? Does the US government have locus standi to do this? From where does she derive such legal, political or moral authority? Would a reverse scenario where international players seek to influence US politics be acceptable to the US?

Jendayi, can’t you see that you are ruining the opposition you seek to assist, and strengthening Mugabe that you seek to destroy? You are foolishly confirming everything that Mugabe has said about the opposition: that we are puppets. Moreover, Mugabe’s strengths are Africa, Pan-Africanism and anti-Imperialism. Any foreign policy that undermines African leaders and African institutions plays right into Mugabe’s game plan. Why can’t Western diplomats master these basics? Why do we have a premonition that most of the destructive grandstanding by Western governments is meant for their domestic constituencies?

More specifically, US foreign policy is always characterised by double standards, hypocrisy and dishonesty all rooted in the pursuit of US permanent interests. We seriously hope that incoming US President Obama and his new team will depart from this ignorant, ruinous and ineffective foreign policy that effectively undermines its intended beneficiaries, strengthens the targeted villains, while blighting the US standing in the World.

Things have to change in 2009. We are not naïve. We know that the general thrust of the US foreign policy objective is largely independent of both the individual who is the US President and the Party they belong to. However, we hope the policy execution, nuances and tactics will be different. Zimbabweans have great expectations.

Collapse of the Mugabe Regime

It is clear that the Mugabe regime will not collapse because of economic decay, mass starvation or epidemics such as cholera. The formal economy collapsed way back when. The regime survives on the informal sector and through rent-seeking behaviours. Yes, ordinary people are perishing and will continue to do so, but the regime will not collapse. Can we all come to grips with this?

The diamonds of Chiadzwa, the Platinum Mines, and assistance from friendly nations such as DRC, Angola, China and Russia will see the regime pull through another 5-10 years. Of course this will be at major cost to the population. Zimbabweans should care about this.

However, to the external players that suggest that we must wait for the collapse of the regime at any cost, the needless loss of life in pursuit of the departure of Mugabe is a small price to pay. After all, the lives lost are Black lives which are not equivalent to White lives. Since September 15, 2008, we have had Western governments encouraging the continuation of suffering and death of our people in the misguided belief that this will lead to the collapse of the Mugabe regime. Well, this will not happen, and our people are dying in vain. All Zimbabwean leaders must understand this.

We must collectively take responsibility for the calamity afflicting our country. In particular, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai are equally culpable for the failure to work together. They are effectively working against the interests of their supporters and the generality of our citizenry. The two leaders are more concerned about a misguided power play executed at the expense of Zimbabwean lives. They have blood on their hands. The US and UK governments who are specifically undermining SADC efforts to establish an inclusive government in Zimbabwe are complicit in this crime against humanity.

In the case of these Western governments, they are driven by racism and utter disrespect for African lives. As Africans, our position is that not a single Zimbabwean life should be used as a stick to inflict pain on Robert Mugabe. People’s lives are too important to be used as ineffective political tools and weapons. We all know that Mugabe will not collapse because of cholera, mass starvation and a collapsed economy, so why are we supporting this ineffective strategy?

Nevertheless, let us deceive ourselves for a moment and assume the game plan works and the Mugabe regime actually collapses through the existing crisis. Why are we assuming that such a demise of Mugabe will lead to a democratic outcome? We saw what happened in Guinea when their dictator died. Did the opposition take over? Nope. If the Mugabe regime collapses, it is most likely that the army will take over. Some ambitious and gutsy colonel or general will step in. Our democratisation processes will, resultantly, regress at least 10 years.

There is absolutely no way Tsvangirai and his Party will be the beneficiaries of the collapse of Robert Mugabe. Quite to the contrary, the Zanu PF regime will make sure they collapse together with Tsvangirai and MDC-T. Do the current abductions, confessions and dubious trials of activists mean anything to anyone? MDC-T will not exist after the demise of Mugabe. I hope Tsvangirai understands this in no uncertain terms. I wish our brazen and unintelligent Western friends will do more listening and thinking.

This Mugabe must collapse strategy is not in the best interest of Zimbabwe. A regime change agenda achieved through a scorched earth policy is not what we need in our country. It will not benefit anyone. As Zimbabweans, we should think seriously about options that will allow us to continue to build, brick by brick, our democratic institutions.

Opportunity for a New Beginning

The year 2009 presents us with an opportunity for a new beginning. However, for this to be achieved, we have to learn some difficult lessons from inconvenient truths. We have to do things differently. We must embrace self-criticism as part of our best practices, and adopt an interrogative and questioning attitude to all stakeholders, including those that purport to support our struggles and our national interest.

In the struggle for a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Zimbabwe, it is not enough to be right. It is not enough to be a victim or to have the higher moral authority. The victims must behave well. Those with moral high ground must be driven by principles and values. Those on the right side of history must be thoughtful and strategic. Those that support victims of despotic regimes must apply their analytical skills. Good heart, bad mind will not cut it.

In all this, we must always put the people first. We must cherish servant leadership. Only then can we succeed. While external players and events affect our country, we must take responsibility for our own circumstances. We should be at the centre of our struggles and be the drivers of our nation building processes. We must have enough leadership strength to define and determine both the terms of reference and frameworks through which foreigners participate in the affairs of our nation.

In 2009, Zimbabweans must set the agenda and own the rules of the game. We must be masters of our own destiny. The critique of external influences that has been proffered should not be used to absolve us as citizens. We as Zimbabweans, created the current socio-political and economic crisis, and we will be the primary drivers and developers of the sustainable answers. And yes, a people do get a government that they deserve. Let us all be the change we wish to see in the year 2009.

Arthur G.O. Mutambara is president of MDC

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/mutambara4.19221.html

As verdades inconvenient sobre o oeste e o Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into Portuguese thanks to WorldLingo
As verdades inconvenient sobre a MANEIRA do oeste e


do Zimbabwe ENVÍAM: Arthur Mutambara

•Neste artigo, o líder Arthur Mutambara do CDM olha as dificuldades em executar o setembro 15 GPA, o unhelpfulness de intervenções ocidentais na política doméstica de Zimbabwe ao interrogating estratégias existentes para conseguir a democracia em Zimbabwe:


O ano 2008 era muito difícil para nós como uma nação. Desde que as eleições harmonised inconclusive prendidas março em 29, houve um impasse político em nossa terra. O país foi sem um governo legitimate. Nossa economia desmoronou virtualmente, quando a doença e o starvation ravaging nossos povos. O Hopelessness e o desespero caracterizam e definem o psyche nacional. Houve uma falha completa da liderança através da placa, dentro de Zimbabwe, na região e na comunidade internacional.
Como nós começamos um ano novo, deixe-nos refletem em alguns dos debates principais que estão dando forma a nossa política enquanto nós retiramos 2008. Do interesse particular neste treatise são as realidades incômodas e os desafios esses às vezes nós recuamos longe de confrontar. No detalhe nós procuramos slay esse elefante no quarto vivo nacional: Como a participação externa ignorant e unstrategic no discurso de Zimbabwean faz mais dano do que bom.

Nós procuramos discutir que no ano 2008, os shenanigans ocidentais brazen e crass undermined realmente a oposição e o Robert strengthened Mugabe. Mais importante, é nossa submissão que as posições uninformed e reckless da política extrangeira de governos ocidentais, no detalhe os E.U. e o Reino Unido, impactaram negativamente nosso interesse nacional. Zimbabweans tem que claramente compreender este para que nossas fortunas coletivas sejam diferente no ano 2009.

O `Mugabe deve ir' Chorus

enquanto nós retiramos 2008, no mês de dezembro, havia um crescendo das demandas para a partida de Mugabe do estágio político. Não há nada novo e creativo neste Mugabe deve ir mantra. O problema é que muitos povos e instituições nesta trilha sofrem da doença do coração que está no lugar direito, quando a mente não for aplicada. Um necessita um coração bom e uma mente boa.

Alguns de nós têm cantado o Mugabe devem ir mantra por os 21 anos passados, a nenhum proveito. Incidentally, os governos ocidentais discordaram com nós em 1988 em que nós giramos de encontro ao regime de Zanu picofarad. Agora eles patronise nós, como se compreendem porque Mugabe deve ir, melhor do que nós, suas vítimas de Zimbabwean.

Nós tem lutado Mugabe por duas décadas, onde você foi América e Europa? Por que você suportou Mugabe nos 1980's atrasados em que nós o opúnhamos? Por que você o suportou ativamente durante Gukurahundi? Nós nunca ouvimo-nos que você para dizer o `Mugabe deve ir' durante esse período. Instead você deu-lhe concessões prestigiosas em ambos os lados do Atlântico.

Nós podemos compreendê-lo se sua defesa for que você é learners lentos e os bloomers atrasados onde nossas matérias são concernidas. Nós podemos aceitar aquele. Mas então também meios você deve fazer exame de sua sugestão de nós que compreendem o terreno de Zimbabwean mais melhor. Você deve aceitar que você é essencialmente ignorant, unstrategic, e daqui ineficaz onde as matérias africanas são concernidas. Quando você procurar nos ajudar em nossos esforços para a mudança, seu comportamento brazen undermines eficazmente nos e strengthens nossos oponentes. Você deve escutar nós e não a outra maneira redonda.

O `Mugabe de dezembro 2008 deve ir' chorus era tão pathetic como era unimaginative e predictable. Começou com o ministro principal Raila Odinga, Bishop John Sentamu e Archbishop Desmond Tutu de Kenyan, nessa ordem. Assim que fossem feitos, David Milliband e o arroz de Condi vieram dentro suportar “muitas” vozes de líderes africanos. Depois disso, era Gordon Brown, George Bush, Sarkozy, e Merkel. Então cada líder europeu e sua avó juntaram dentro, suportando “muitas” vozes de líderes africanos. Para coroá-lo todo, havia um traço incompetent ao conselho de segurança dos UN, aonde tudo veio se desintegrando para baixo: que non-evento embarrassing. Por que qualquer um foi surpreendido por este unmitigated a falha? Havia sempre um método na loucura? Que era ser a conclusão lógica do chorus?

Primeiro e foremost não havia nenhum líder africano que tinha falado. Assim quem, os líderes ocidentais purporting suportar? Logo depois que Odinga falou, contradicted por seu próprio ministro extrangeiro. Isto significa que não estava falando em nome de Kenya ou de presidente Kibaki. O Bishop Sentamu não fala para nenhum país africano. Bem, o mesmos para Tutu; é um africano bom que fale para nenhuma nação africana. Para que seja eficaz deve trabalhar em convencer a liderança política do africano sul adotar suas vistas.

Interessando bastantes, mesmo o Ian geralmente reckless e unimaginative Khama não era parte das vozes africanas. Assim quando estes líderes americanos e europeus entraram no chorus, que eram eles que suportam? Em um continente de 53 países, os E.U. e o Reino Unido não podiam convencer um único presidente africano ser parte de seu chorus elegante.

Se os líderes ocidentais fossem certamente justos se suportando, por que se encontraram que suportavam vozes de líderes africanos? Se se importassem com que líderes africanos pensam, por que não gastaram bastante hora convencendo os líderes africanos reais da exatidão de posições ocidentais e depois disso, mandar os líderes africanos falar primeiramente?

Certamente se, por exemplo, os presidentes Kgalema Motlanthe, Armando Geubuza, dos Santos, Jakaya Kikwete e Mwai Kibaki de José Eduardo fizessem exame de uma posição coletiva particular em Zimbabwe, e os governos ocidentais tinham vindo dentro suportá-los, haveria alguma tração.

Mas o No., os poders ocidentais escolheu criar seus próprios líderes africanos pseudo, e força então um chorus do mundo. Isto era certo falhar. Além do chorus, não havia nenhuma estratégia real para resolver a crise em Zimbabwe. Não havia nenhuma ação específica de que os E.U. e o Reino Unido estavam indo fazer exame após o chorus. Não seria lógico suportar os slogans com plantas processuais e o africano apropriado buy-in?

Parece que o rationale era que Mugabe era ir justo cair o estágio político de Zimbabwe por causa do som deafening dos líderes ocidentais que repetem a mesma mensagem sem sentido. Como pathetic! Bem, shame neles para trivialising o esforço legitimate de nossos povos.

As avenidas que Mugabe pode atravessar

lá são três maneiras que Mugabe pode ser removido do Presidency e da liderança de Zimbabwe: (1) uso da violência ou braços 2) do uprising da guerra (ou demonstrações maciças calmas (3) livre e eleições justas.

O uso da violência expulsar Mugabe foi sugerido em determinados quartos. What has not been done is an interrogation of what form this will take, its meaning, consequences and the aftermath. O one-way que um overthrow violento pode envisaged é ter tropas americanas e britânicas para invadir Zimbabwe como fizeram em Iraq. Naturalmente podem começar livrados de Mugabe essa maneira.

Entretanto, as forças ocidentais terão que sangrar no solo de Zimbabwean no processo. Não será uma caminhada no parque. Após o misadventure dos E.U. em Somália, onde os fuzileiros navais americanos slaughtered nas ruas de Mogadishu, o debate no Senate dos E.U. era muito instructive. O sentiment chave era completamente unequivocal, “que o país inteiro de Somália não é worth uma única vida americana. Nós devemos nunca permitir que as vidas americanas sejam perdidas na defesa destes países africanos worthless.”

Aquela era a atitude então. Qualquer coisa mudou? Jendayi Frazer, arroz de Condi e George Bush, está você agora pronto para sangrar na perseguição da liberdade e da prosperidade africanas? Se você não for preparado para ter os fuzileiros navais dos E.U. matados em Zimbabwe, por favor justo fechado acima na introdução da intervenção militar para remover Mugabe.

Deixe-nos supor por um minuto que estes líderes ocidentais são jogadores sérios e talkers descuidados nao justos. Podem então realmente trazer suas tropas em Zimbabwe e começar o trabalho feito. Depois que Mugabe é ido a maneira de Saddam, que acontece em seguida? Que a intervenção militar dos E.U. produziu em Iraq e em Afeganistão? Nós temos resultados democráticos nestes países? São nações calmas, democráticas e prósperas? Por que o resultado de Zimbabwean seria diferente? Se não, então por que deve isto mesmo ser considerado como uma opção?

Nos termos dos exércitos extrangeiros que invadem Zimbabwe, é somente as nações ocidentais que valem a pena analisar porque nós tentamos acima. Somente dois países africanos, Botswana e Kenya, expressaram um apetite para o confrontation físico com Zimbabwe. Nós não dignify mesmo Botswana que posturing com demasiada discussão. Não têm nenhum exército mas uma força incompetent das polícias que não tenha nenhuma capacidade invadir muito um deserto menos um país com experiência militar de Zimbabwe. Raila Odinga não fala para o governo de Kenyan, assim as extremidades da análise lá. Se somente poderia começar convencendo seu próprio governo, nós teremos mais a dizer sobre o efficacy de seus utterances.

A outra versão da violência que pode certamente topple Mugabe é um esforço armado empreendido por Zimbabweans ele mesmo na mesma maneira que ZANLA e ZIPRA executaram a guerra de encontro a Ian Smith. Como praticável e prático é este proposition neste momento a tempo e dentro do geo - contexto político da região de SADC? É mesmo uma alternativa desejável para os povos de Zimbabwe? Nós acreditamos que não há nenhuma resposta affirmative a tampouco destas perguntas.

O segundo método possível por que Mugabe pode deposed é com os uprisings ou as demonstrações maciças calmas. Nós temos a capacidade como Zimbabweans executar estes? O que fazem os esforços gallant do NCA e do WOZA ensinam-nos. Quanto de nós juntam seus marços bravos? Quanto Zimbabweans juntou os soldados quando foram no rampage nas ruas de Harare?

Está desobstruído que o apetite para uma volta alaranjada do `' em Zimbabwe tem ser desenvolvido ainda, antes que um uprising maciço se transforme uma plataforma realística para dirigir para fora Mugabe. Nossos políticos dentro do movimento da oposição também têm que estar prontos para supor os sacrifícios que esta opção envolve. Onde os líderes políticos entram em esconder na ameaça a mais ligeira do persecution, nós não vemos como esta opção pode ser trazida ao fruition.

Isto deixa nos com o third e somente a avenida para a partida de Mugabe, isto é, com as eleições livres e justas. A pergunta transforma-se então como nós conseguimos uma eleição livre e justa em Zimbabwe? Certamente não com exijir as eleições harmonised hoje que serão conduzidas sob junho 27 condiciona. Needless para dizer, em tal plebiscite, Mugabe capturará o Presidency e a maioria combinada atual da oposição no Parliament será invertida completamente.

Deixe-nos ser estratégicos. Nossos povos e país não são eleição pronta neste momento. Nós necessitamos atravessar um período transitional em que nós resolvemos a crise humanitária que afflicting nossos povos, realizamos healing nacional, começamos a recuperação econômica, e adotamos mais importante um constitution democrático pessoa-dirigido novo. Esta é a ponte que Zimbabwe necessita em seu março à democracia. Após aquela, nós podemos então realizar eleições livres e justas. Se Mugabe participar naquelas eleições, será derrotado. Esta é a única maneira prática que conduzirá à partida de Mugabe.

O acordo político global setembro de 15, 2008, procura facilitar tal possibilidade. Os povos, este são tão bons como começa. Infelizmente, Mugabe terá que ser parte da transição, como nós explicamos na seção seguinte. O marrom e Bush devem começar sobre seu obsession foolish, uninformed e unstrategic com o Mugabe que vai hoje. Se não puderem explicitamente articular como estão indo o remover, devem satisfazer a parte traseira justa fora, e permitem que nosso país mova-se sobre. Nós temos que conservar as vidas de Zimbabwean que estão sendo perdidas needlessly.

Porque Mugabe não pode atravessar afastado conversas

os resultados de eleição março de 29, 2008, não produziu nenhum vencedor outright no Parliament e no Presidency. Junho o 27 tornado a colocar em funcionamento era um farce illegitimate, assim que nós somos furados com o resultado inconclusive de março. Como democratas, nós devemos aceitar que este significa que Mugabe e seu partido são tanto quanto um fator como Tsvangirai e seu partido são.

Curto de um jogo novo das eleições ou da mudança da liderança por seus partidos, significa que nem Tsvangirai nem Mugabe podem ser negociados afastado. Em que base podemos nós ter um acordo negociado que exclua Robert Mugabe? Se nós aceitarmos o março resulta como legitimate, é um líder de um partido que tenha 99 MPs contra 100 para MDC-T, 30 Senators contra 24 para MDC-T. Veio em segundo a Tsvangirai, 43.2% contra 47.8%. Mais importante Mugabe possui atualmente o Presidency de Zimbabwe, sim illegitimately. Bem, na lei dizem que a possessão é 90% da posse.

O fato que Mugabe tem este poder do incumbency é a razão porque Arthur Mutambara está ainda na experimentação na corte suprema, Tendai Biti tem cargas do treason em torno de sua garganta, as activistas estão sendo sequestradas, e Morgan Tsvangirai, o principal Ministro-designa, teve uma estadia do torrid começar um passport. Isto significa que Mugabe está na carga do estado de Zimbabwean. Dado esta realidade na terra, e o resultado electoral março de 29, 2008, (que por causa de nossa falta estratégico de pensar nós todos sanitised como um resultado legitimate), é foolishness para pensar de que você pode negociar Mugabe fora do poder, e consegue de algum modo miraculously um arranjo compartilhar de poder que o exclua.

Nos termos da prática democrática será unjust, e nos termos do politick real será impossível. O Oh sim, na base março do 29 resulta, Mugabe deve ser parte de toda a autoridade transitional compartilhar de poder em Zimbabwe, desde que é presidente de um partido representado bem em ambas as casas legislativas, e veio em segundo na raça presidencial inconclusive. Nós não pudemos gostar destas circunstâncias democráticas, mas nós temos que viver com essa realidade.

A política é uma arte do possível, como Bismarck dito uma vez famosa. Na paisagem política atual de Zimbabwean, as possibilidades pertencem a Robert Mugabe e Morgan Tsvangirai. Necessitam-se. Nós podemos debater o papel específico que Mugabe deve jogar. Para esse debate foi estabelecido agora por Mugabe, por Tsvangirai e por Mutambara quando assinaram o acordo político global (GPA). Mugabe é Presidente-designa e Morgan Tsvangirai é principal Ministro-designa. Mas, nós estamos dizendo que GPA é a única mostra na cidade? No., absolutamente não.
As estruturas alternativas aos muitos

de GPA dos debates e de pensar entraram em alternativas crafting ao acordo setembro de 15, 2008. Infelizmente, foi um comedy dos erros e de hallucinations unsophisticated. Mesmo os corpos internacionais respeitados poço como o grupo internacional da crise (ICG) foram encontrados miseràvel querer. Os peritos Renowned da definição do conflito, os líderes civic da sociedade e os pundits ocidentais mostraram a falta astonishing da creatividade e da imaginação.

O ponto começar em estabelecer um trajeto alternativo para Zimbabwe consiste agarrar uma compreensão desobstruída de porque nós estamos tendo desafios em executar o GPA atual. A formulação nova deve então robustly ilustrar como evitará estes desafios atuais. Beyond this, the efficacy, process details, timelines and milestones of any new strategy must then be clearly articulated. None of the critics of the current GPA has even begun to do any of the above.

Among a number of obstacles to consummation, the major challenge we have faced in executing the Zimbabwean GPA is the inability to achieve sufficient buy-in from the two major protagonists in the political impasse: Zanu PF and MDC-T. They are the critical players in any national transitional discussion, because any agreed arrangement will require legal effect through a constitutional amendment in parliament. Such a change will require a two thirds majority which can only be achieved by the participation of both Zanu PF and MDC-T, as a minimum requirement.

None of the proposals from the ICG, the civic society groups (both national and regional), or the arrogant and ignorant international community has addressed this simple challenge: How are you going to ensure that both MDC-T and Zanu PF will embrace your new grand proposal? If one or both of them do not accept your framework what are you going to do? Please, this is commonsensical. Anyone seeking to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis democratically and within the laws of Zimbabwe must apply their mind to this critical success factor: the show stopper.

The busy bodies at the ICG and in civic society do not even have the capacity to appreciate the existence of the problem, much less the intellect to develop the requisite solution. We are not saying it is impossible to develop an alternative negotiated framework to the September GPA. We are emphasising that it will require good and rigorously working minds to come up with one.

The reasons why we insist on fixing and then implementing the current flawed and imperfect GPA is because at some point the buy-in between the two key protagonist was achieved through the signatures of the MOU on July 21, 2008, and the GPA on September 15, 2008. Yes, there are disagreements now, but there are two agreed reference points. The key players and their teams have been actively negotiating the political impasse from March 29, 2008, and now four months after signing the GPA there are still implementation challenges.

Yes, this is bad and regrettable. However, let us be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. If we adopt a completely new process, how and when are we going to convince the two key players to start working towards an MOU? Are you going to get that MOU signed soon, and after that how much time will be required to get to a new GPA of sorts? Furthermore, while we embark on these new processes that require time and resources what will be happening to the suffering people of Zimbabwe, the collapsed economy, and the destroyed industrial base? Given the hardened positions of the two protagonists at the moment, can you even begin to sell the new path to them?

The most bizarre, irritating and clearly ineffective critics of the current GPA are those that premise their proposals by denouncing one of the two key protagonists. Usually it is Mugabe and his Zanu PF who are dismissed. How do you even conceptualise a negotiated outcome without the involvement of the Zanu PF group? We thought it was common cause that you do not make peace with your friends, but with your opponents.

One would expect someone of Jendayi Frazer’s stature to understand all this. How does she say that the US supports the negotiated power sharing, but insists that Mugabe must not be involved? Making these statements while defying the consistent advice that she received from all the South African leaders that she interacted with means that Frazer is insulting the SA leadership at every level. By this disrespectful conduct, she is humiliating both SADC and the AU.

In this situation, with respect to the US-proposed dialogue framework, who will be the principals, negotiators, facilitators and guarantors? South Africa is the only country with leverage on Zimbabwe. To bring any kind of change in Zimbabwe you have to work with SA, and not insult or humiliate them. Anyone serious about the Zimbabwean agenda must grasp this.

Jendayi, I assume that she is supportive of Mr Tsvangirai and she wants him to succeed. Does she actually have any respect for him? He signed the GPA in which Mugabe is designated as the President. Is it that she thinks Mr. Tsvangirai does not know what is good for him and therefore she has to lead him every step of the way?

By the way, it is not true that the US government supported the agreement when it was signed. For the record, both the US and the UK were opposed to the GPA from the beginning. They did not like the fact that Mugabe was both Head of State and Chairman of Cabinet, and they despised the GPA positions on land reform and sanctions. Everyone knows this. We are not children.

The US and the UK are now taking advantage of the delay in implementation of the agreement to savage and destroy the GPA. Do Frazer and her government have a workable alternative framework to the current GPA, together with an enforcement mechanism? And what is this that she said about the weakness and incompetence of her favorite GPA principal? Did she not say the following; “Tsvangirai is too weak and incompetent for us to allow him to be in an inclusive government with Mugabe. He will be completely outmaneuvered. Tsvangirai is not as strong as Odinga. If he was, we would have allowed him to get into the GNU with Mugabe?”

How can she possibly say such insulting remarks about her favorite opposition leader? With friends like these, who needs enemies? Incidentally, did she share her views about Tsvangirai with him? Why not? Anyway, who is she to allow or disallow African leaders? Does the US government have locus standi to do this? From where does she derive such legal, political or moral authority? Would a reverse scenario where international players seek to influence US politics be acceptable to the US?

Jendayi, can’t you see that you are ruining the opposition you seek to assist, and strengthening Mugabe that you seek to destroy? You are foolishly confirming everything that Mugabe has said about the opposition: that we are puppets. Moreover, Mugabe’s strengths are Africa, Pan-Africanism and anti-Imperialism. Any foreign policy that undermines African leaders and African institutions plays right into Mugabe’s game plan. Why can’t Western diplomats master these basics? Why do we have a premonition that most of the destructive grandstanding by Western governments is meant for their domestic constituencies?

More specifically, US foreign policy is always characterised by double standards, hypocrisy and dishonesty all rooted in the pursuit of US permanent interests. We seriously hope that incoming US President Obama and his new team will depart from this ignorant, ruinous and ineffective foreign policy that effectively undermines its intended beneficiaries, strengthens the targeted villains, while blighting the US standing in the World.

Things have to change in 2009. We are not naïve. We know that the general thrust of the US foreign policy objective is largely independent of both the individual who is the US President and the Party they belong to. However, we hope the policy execution, nuances and tactics will be different. Zimbabweans have great expectations.

Collapse of the Mugabe Regime

It is clear that the Mugabe regime will not collapse because of economic decay, mass starvation or epidemics such as cholera. The formal economy collapsed way back when. The regime survives on the informal sector and through rent-seeking behaviours. Yes, ordinary people are perishing and will continue to do so, but the regime will not collapse. Can we all come to grips with this?

The diamonds of Chiadzwa, the Platinum Mines, and assistance from friendly nations such as DRC, Angola, China and Russia will see the regime pull through another 5-10 years. Of course this will be at major cost to the population. Zimbabweans should care about this.

However, to the external players that suggest that we must wait for the collapse of the regime at any cost, the needless loss of life in pursuit of the departure of Mugabe is a small price to pay. After all, the lives lost are Black lives which are not equivalent to White lives. Since September 15, 2008, we have had Western governments encouraging the continuation of suffering and death of our people in the misguided belief that this will lead to the collapse of the Mugabe regime. Well, this will not happen, and our people are dying in vain. All Zimbabwean leaders must understand this.

We must collectively take responsibility for the calamity afflicting our country. In particular, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai are equally culpable for the failure to work together. They are effectively working against the interests of their supporters and the generality of our citizenry. The two leaders are more concerned about a misguided power play executed at the expense of Zimbabwean lives. They have blood on their hands. The US and UK governments who are specifically undermining SADC efforts to establish an inclusive government in Zimbabwe are complicit in this crime against humanity.

In the case of these Western governments, they are driven by racism and utter disrespect for African lives. As Africans, our position is that not a single Zimbabwean life should be used as a stick to inflict pain on Robert Mugabe. People’s lives are too important to be used as ineffective political tools and weapons. We all know that Mugabe will not collapse because of cholera, mass starvation and a collapsed economy, so why are we supporting this ineffective strategy?

Nevertheless, let us deceive ourselves for a moment and assume the game plan works and the Mugabe regime actually collapses through the existing crisis. Why are we assuming that such a demise of Mugabe will lead to a democratic outcome? We saw what happened in Guinea when their dictator died. Did the opposition take over? Nope. If the Mugabe regime collapses, it is most likely that the army will take over. Some ambitious and gutsy colonel or general will step in. Our democratisation processes will, resultantly, regress at least 10 years.

There is absolutely no way Tsvangirai and his Party will be the beneficiaries of the collapse of Robert Mugabe. Quite to the contrary, the Zanu PF regime will make sure they collapse together with Tsvangirai and MDC-T. Do the current abductions, confessions and dubious trials of activists mean anything to anyone? MDC-T will not exist after the demise of Mugabe. I hope Tsvangirai understands this in no uncertain terms. I wish our brazen and unintelligent Western friends will do more listening and thinking.

This Mugabe must collapse strategy is not in the best interest of Zimbabwe. A regime change agenda achieved through a scorched earth policy is not what we need in our country. It will not benefit anyone. As Zimbabweans, we should think seriously about options that will allow us to continue to build, brick by brick, our democratic institutions.

Opportunity for a New Beginning

The year 2009 presents us with an opportunity for a new beginning. However, for this to be achieved, we have to learn some difficult lessons from inconvenient truths. We have to do things differently. We must embrace self-criticism as part of our best practices, and adopt an interrogative and questioning attitude to all stakeholders, including those that purport to support our struggles and our national interest.

In the struggle for a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Zimbabwe, it is not enough to be right. It is not enough to be a victim or to have the higher moral authority. The victims must behave well. Those with moral high ground must be driven by principles and values. Those on the right side of history must be thoughtful and strategic. Those that support victims of despotic regimes must apply their analytical skills. Good heart, bad mind will not cut it.

In all this, we must always put the people first. We must cherish servant leadership. Only then can we succeed. While external players and events affect our country, we must take responsibility for our own circumstances. We should be at the centre of our struggles and be the drivers of our nation building processes. We must have enough leadership strength to define and determine both the terms of reference and frameworks through which foreigners participate in the affairs of our nation.

In 2009, Zimbabweans must set the agenda and own the rules of the game. We must be masters of our own destiny. The critique of external influences that has been proffered should not be used to absolve us as citizens. We as Zimbabweans, created the current socio-political and economic crisis, and we will be the primary drivers and developers of the sustainable answers. And yes, a people do get a government that they deserve. Let us all be the change we wish to see in the year 2009.

Arthur G.O. Mutambara is president of MDC

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/mutambara4.19221.html

De besvärliga sanningarna om det västra och Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into Swedish thanks to WorldLingo
6
null

Неудобные правды о западе и Зимбабве
Automatically translated into Russian thanks to WorldLingo

Ongelegen truths over het Westen en Zimbabwe
Automatically translated into Dutch thanks to WorldLingo
Ongelegen truths over het VOORWAARTSE Westen en


de MANIER van Zimbabwe: Arthur Mutambara

•In dit artikel, MDC bekijkt de leider Arthur Mutambara de moeilijkheden in het uitvoeren van 15 September GPA, unhelpfulness van westelijke acties in de binnenlandse politiek van Zimbabwe terwijl het ondervragen van bestaande strategieën om democratie in Zimbabwe te bereiken:


Het jaar 2008 was zeer moeilijke voor ons als natie. Sinds de onovertuigende geharmoniseerde verkiezingen die op 29 worden gehouden Maart, is er een politieke impasse in ons land geweest. Het land is zonder een wettige overheid geweest. Onze economie is vrijwel ingestort, terwijl de ziekte en de verhongering onze mensen verwoesten. Hopelessness en de wanhoop kenmerken en bepalen nationale psyche. Er is over de hele linie, binnen Zimbabwe, in het gebied en in volledige leidingsmislukking de internationale gemeenschap geweest.
Aangezien wij een nieuw jaar beginnen, overdenk enkele belangrijke debatten die onze politiek gestalte geven aangezien wij 2008 weggaan. Van bijzonder belang in deze verhandeling zijn de ongemakkelijke werkelijkheid en de uitdagingen die soms wij voor het confronteren terugschrikken. In het bijzonder willen wij die olifant in de nationale woonkamer doden: Hoe de onwetende en unstrategic externe betrokkenheid in de Zimbabwean verhandeling meer kwaad dan goed doet.

Wij willen debatteren dat in het jaar 2008, koperachtige en botte Westelijke shenanigans eigenlijk de oppositie en versterkt Robert Mugabe hebben ondermijnd. Wat nog belangrijker is, is het onze voorlegging dat de niet geïnformeerde en reckless buitenlands beleidsposities van Westelijke overheden, in het bijzonder de V.S. en het UK, negatief onze nationale rente hebben beïnvloed. Zimbabweans moeten dit voor onze collectieve fortuinen verschillend duidelijk begrijpen om in het jaar 2009 te zijn.

`Mugabe moet gaan' Chorus

aangezien wij 2008, in de maand van December, daar waren een crescendo van vraag naar het vertrek van Mugabe van het politieke stadium weggingen. Er zijn nieuw niets en creatief in dit Mugabe moet gaan mantra. Het probleem is dat vele mensen en instellingen op dit spoor aan de ziekte van het hart lijden dat in de juiste plaats is, terwijl de mening niet wordt toegepast. Men vergt zowel een goed hart als een goede mening.

Sommigen van ons hebben Mugabe moeten gaan mantra in de afgelopen 21 jaar, nutteloos gezongen. Overigens, gingen de Westelijke overheden met ons niet akkoord in 1988 toen wij tegen het regime van Zanu PF draaiden. Nu patronise zij ons, alsof zij waarom Mugabe moet gaan, beter dan ons, zijn Zimbabwean slachtoffers begrijpen.

Wij is het vechten Mugabe voor twee decennia geweest, waar u Amerika en Europa geweest? Waarom steunde u Mugabe in de recente jaren '80 toen wij ons hem verzetten? Waarom steunde u hem actief tijdens Gukurahundi? Wij hoorden nooit u zegt `Mugabe' tijdens die periode moet gaan. In plaats daarvan gaf u hem prestigieuze toekenning aan beide kanten van de Atlantische Oceaan.

Wij kunnen het begrijpen als uw defensie is dat u langzame leerlingen en recente bloomers bent waar onze kwesties betrokken zijn. Wij kunnen dat goedkeuren. Maar het betekent dan ook u uw richtsnoer van ons moet nemen die het Zimbabwean terrein beter begrijpen. U moet aanvaarden dat u hoofdzakelijk onwetend, unstrategic bent, en vandaar ondoeltreffend waar de Afrikaanse kwesties betrokken zijn. Terwijl u ons in onze strijd voor verandering wilt bijstaan, ondermijnt uw koperachtig gedrag ons effectief en versterkt onze tegenstanders. U moet aan ons en niet andersom luisteren.

December 2008 `Mugabe moet gaan' chorus was zo pathetisch aangezien het zowel fantasieloos als voorspelbaar was. Het begon met Keniaanse Eerste Minister Raila Odinga, Bischop John Sentamu en Aartsbisschop Desmond Tutu, in die orde. Zodra zij werden gedaan, kwam de Rijst David Milliband en Condi binnen om de „vele“ stemmen van Afrikaanse leiders te steunen. Daarna, was het Gordon Brown, George Bush, Sarkozy, en Merkel. Dan traden elke Europese leider en hun grootmoeder toe, steunend de „vele“ stemmen van Afrikaanse leiders. Om het allen te bekronen, was er een incompetent streepje aan de Veiligheidsraad van de V.N., Waar alles afbrokkelend onderaan kwam: een welke verwarrende niet-gebeurtenis. Waarom iedereen werd verrast door deze unmitigated mislukking? Was er ooit een methode in de waanzin? Wat moest de logische conclusie van chorus zijn?

Vooral was er geen Afrikaanse leider die had gesproken. Zo wie, beweerden de Westelijke leiders om te steunen? Spoedig nadat Odinga sprak, werd hij tegengesproken door zijn eigen Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken. Dit betekent hij niet namens Kenia of President Kibaki sprak. De bischop Sentamu spreekt niet voor enig Afrikaans land. Goed, het zelfde voor Tutu; hij is een goede Afrikaan die voor geen Afrikaanse natie spreekt. Voor hem efficiënt om te zijn zou hij bij het overtuigen van de Zuidafrikaanse politieke leiding moeten werken om zijn meningen goed te keuren.

Interesserend genoeg, zelfs gewoonlijk reckless en fantasieloze was Ian Khama een geen deel van de Afrikaanse stemmen. Zo toen deze Amerikaanse en Europese leiders in chorus gingen, die ondersteunend zij waren? In een continent van 53 landen, konden de V.S. en het UK geen één enkele Afrikaanse Voorzitter overtuigen om deel van hun elegante chorus uit te maken.

Als de Westelijke leiders inderdaad zich enkel steunden, waarom lagen zij dat zij stemmen van Afrikaanse leiders steunden? Als zij geven om welke Afrikaanse leiders denken, waarom brachten hebben zij genoeg tijd niet door die overtuigt de echte Afrikaanse leiders van de juistheid van Westelijke posities en daarna, de Afrikaanse leiders eerst spreken?

Zeker als, bijvoorbeeld, Presidenten Kgalema Motlanthe, Armando Geubuza, José Eduardo dos Santos, Jakaya Kikwete en Mwai Kibaki een bepaald collectief standpunt betreffende Zimbabwe hadden ingenomen, en de Westelijke overheden waren binnengekomen om hen te steunen, zou er wat tractie geweest zijn.

Maar nr, de Westelijke bevoegdheden verkoos om hun eigen pseudo Afrikaanse leiders te creëren, en dan wereldchorus te dwingen. Dit was zeker te ontbreken. Voorbij chorus, was er geen echte strategie om de crisis in Zimbabwe op te lossen. Er was geen specifieke actie dat de V.S. en het UK na chorus gingen nemen. Het niet zou logisch geweest zijn om de slogans met zowel procedureplannen als juiste Afrikaan inkoopt te steunen?

Het schijnt de reden was dat Mugabe enkel ging van het politieke stadium van Zimbabwe wegens het oorverdovende geluid van Westelijke leiders vallen die het zelfde bericht herhalen zonder betekenis. Hoe pathetisch! Goed, schande op hen voor het trivialising van de wettige strijd van onze mensen.

De wegen waardoor Mugabe kan daar

gaan zijn drie manieren Mugabe kunnen uit het Voorzitterschap en de leiding van Zimbabwe worden verwijderd: (1) gebruik van geweld of wapens van opstand van de oorlogs (2) de vreedzame massa of demonstraties (3) vrije en eerlijke verkiezingen.

Het gebruik van geweld is om Mugabe te verdrijven voorgesteld in bepaalde kwarten. Wat niet is gedaan is een ondervraging van welke vorm dit, zijn betekenis, gevolgen en de nasleep zal nemen. Unidirectioneel kan een hevige omverwerping worden overwogen is Amerikaanse en Britse troepen te hebben Zimbabwe binnenvallen aangezien zij in Irak deden. Natuurlijk kunnen zij Mugabe van de hand doen die manier.

Nochtans, zullen de Westelijke krachten op Zimbabwean grond in het proces moeten aftappen. Het zal geen gang in het park zijn. Na misadventure van de V.S. in Somalië, waar de Amerikaanse marine in de straten van Mogadishu werd geslacht, was het debat in de V.S. Senaat zeer leerzaam. Het belangrijkste gevoel was vrij onmiskenbaar, „dat het volledige land van Somalië niet één enkel Amerikaans leven waard is. Wij zouden het Amerikaanse leven nooit moeten toelaten om ter verdediging van deze waardeloze Afrikaanse landen worden verloren.“

Dat was toen de houding. Is om het even wat veranderd? Jendayi Frazer, Rijst Condi en George Bush, bent u nu bereid om in achtervolging van Afrikaanse vrijheid en welvaart af te tappen? Als u bereid bent om de geen marine te hebben van de V.S. gedood in Zimbabwe, gelieve enkel te zwijgen op de kwestie van militaire interventie om Mugabe te verwijderen.

Veronderstel voor een minuut dat deze Westelijke leiders ernstige spelers en niet alleen achteloze talkers zijn. Zij kunnen hun troepen eigenlijk dan brengen in Zimbabwe en de baan gedaan worden. Nadat Mugabe gegaan de Saddam manier is, wat daarna gebeurt? Wat heeft de militaire interventie van de V.S. die in Irak en Afghanistan wordt veroorzaakt? Hebben wij democratische resultaten in deze landen? Zijn zij vreedzame, democratische en rijke naties? Waarom het Zimbabwean resultaat zou verschillend zijn? Als niet, toen waarom zou dit gelijk als optie moeten worden beschouwd?

In termen van buitenlandse legers die Zimbabwe binnenvallen, is het slechts Westelijke naties die de moeite waard zijn analyserend aangezien wij hierboven hebben geprobeerd. Slechts twee Afrikaanse landen, Botswana en Kenia, hebben een eetlust voor fysieke confrontatie met Zimbabwe uitgedrukt. Wij zullen niet dignify zelfs het posturing van Botswana met teveel bespreking. Zij hebben geen leger maar een incompetente politiekracht die geen capaciteit heeft om een woestijn veel minder binnen te vallen een land met de militaire ervaring van Zimbabwe. Raila Odinga spreekt niet voor de Keniaanse overheid, zo de analyseeinden daar. Als slechts hij kon beginnen door zijn eigen overheid te overtuigen, zullen wij meer hebben over de doeltreffendheid van zijn uitingen te zeggen.

De andere versie van geweld die Mugabe kan zeker omverwerpen is een bewapende strijd waged door Zimbabweans zelf op de zelfde manier dat ZANLA en ZIPRA oorlog tegen Ian Smith uitvoerden. Hoe uitvoerbaar en praktisch is dit voorstel op dit punt op tijd en binnen de geopolitieke context van het SADC gebied? Is het zelfs een wenselijk alternatief voor de inwoners van Zimbabwe? Wij geloven er geen bevestigende reacties op één van beiden van deze vragen zijn.

De tweede mogelijke methode waardoor Mugabe kan worden getuigd is door vreedzame massaopstanden of demonstraties. Hebben wij de capaciteit als Zimbabweans om deze uit te voeren? Wat de dappere inspanningen van NCA en WOZA doen onderwijs ons. Hoeveel van ons aansluiten zich bij hun moedige marsen? Hoeveel Zimbabweans aansloten zich bij de militairen toen zij op de uitzinnigheid op de straten van Harare gingen?

Het is duidelijk dat de eetlust voor een Oranje Revolutie `' in Zimbabwe nog heeft worden ontwikkeld, alvorens een massaopstand een realistisch platform wordt om Mugabe te verdrijven. Onze politici binnen de oppositiebeweging moeten ook bereid zijn om de offers te veronderstellen die deze optie met zich meebrengt. Waar de politieke leiders in het verbergen bij de lichtste bedreiging van vervolging gaan, slagen wij er niet in om te zien hoe deze optie aan bloei kan worden gebracht.

Dit verlaat ons met de derde en slechts weg voor het vertrek van Mugabe, namelijk door vrije en eerlijke verkiezingen. De vraag dan wordt hoe wij een vrije en eerlijke verkiezing in Zimbabwe bereiken? Niet zeker door vandaag het eisen van geharmoniseerde verkiezingen die onder 27 Juni voorwaarden zullen worden geleid. Onnodig om, in zulk een volksstemming, Mugabe te zeggen het Voorzitterschap zal vangen en de huidige gecombineerde oppositiemeerderheid in het Parlement zal volledig omgekeerd worden.

Strategisch ben. Ons mensen en land zijn op het ogenblik klaar geen verkiezing. Wij moeten door een overgangsperiode gaan waarin wij de humanitaire crisis oplossen die onze mensen treft, het nationale helen uitvoeren, met economisch herstel, beginnen en wat nog belangrijker is een nieuwe mensen-gedreven democratische grondwet goedkeuren. Dit is de brug die Zimbabwe in zijn maart aan democratie nodig heeft. Na dat, kunnen wij vrije en eerlijke verkiezingen dan uitvoeren. Als Mugabe aan die verkiezingen deelneemt, zal hij worden verslagen. Dit is de enige praktische manier die zal leiden tot het vertrek van Mugabe.

De globale Politieke Overeenkomst van 15 September, 2008, heeft tot doel om zulk een mogelijkheid te vergemakkelijken. De mensen, dit zijn zo goed aangezien het krijgt. Jammer genoeg, zal Mugabe deel van de overgang moeten uitmaken, zoals wij in de volgende sectie verklaren. Bruin en Bush moet over hun dwaze, niet geïnformeerde en unstrategic obsessie krijgen die met Mugabe vandaag gaat. Als zij niet kunnen uitdrukkelijk articuleren hoe zij hem gaan verwijderen, zouden zij, ons land terugtrekken en enkel alstublieft moeten toestaan om zich te bewegen. Wij moeten Zimbabwean leven redden dat overbodig wordt verloren.

Waarom Mugabe door Besprekingen niet kan weggaan

de verkiezingsresultaten vanaf 29 Maart, produceerde 2008, geen openlijke winnaar zowel in het Parlement als bij het Voorzitterschap. 27 Juni re-run was illegitimate farce, zodat zijn wij geplakt met het onovertuigende resultaat van Maart. Als democraten, moeten wij aanvaarden dat dit betekent dat Mugabe en zijn partij zo veel een factor zoals Tsvangirai zijn en zijn partij is.

Plotseling van een nieuwe reeks van verkiezingen of verandering van leiding door hun partijen, betekent het noch Tsvangirai noch Mugabe kan weg worden besproken. Op welke basis kunnen wij een besproken hebben overeenkomst die Robert Mugabe uitsluit? Als wij de resultaten van Maart wettig goedkeuren, is hij een leider van een partij die 99 Afgevaardigden versus heeft 100 voor mdc-t, 30 Senatoren versus 24 voor mdc-t. Hij kwam ten tweede aan Tsvangirai, 43.2% versus 47.8%. Wat nog belangrijker is bezit Mugabe momenteel het Voorzitterschap van Zimbabwe, ja illegitimately. Goed, bij wet zeggen zij dat het bezit 90% van eigendom is.

Het feit dat Mugabe deze macht van incumbency heeft is de reden waarom Arthur Mutambara nog op proef in het Opperste Hof is, heeft Tendai Biti verraadlasten rond zijn hals, worden de activisten ontvoerd, en Morgan Tsvangirai, Eerste minister-wijst, had een torrid tijd aan die een paspoort krijgt. Dit betekent Mugabe verantwoordelijk voor de Zimbabwean Staat is. Gezien deze werkelijkheid ter plaatse, en kiesresultaat van 29 Maart, 2008, (die wegens ons gebrek aan het strategische denken wij allen als wettig resultaat) hebben gezuiverd, is het foolishness om te denken dat u Mugabe kunt bespreken uit macht, en op de een of andere manier een macht het delen regeling wonderbaarlijk te bereiken die hem uitsluit.

In termen van democratische praktijk zal het onrechtvaardig zijn, en in termen van echte politick zal het onmogelijk zijn. Oh ja, op basis van Maart 29 resultaten, zou Mugabe deel van om het even welk macht het delen overgangsgezag in Zimbabwe moeten uitmaken, aangezien hij Voorzitter van een Partij die goed in beide wetgevende huizen wordt vertegenwoordigd is, en hij kwam ten tweede in het onovertuigende Presidentiële ras. Wij zouden niet van deze democratische omstandigheden kunnen houden, maar wij moeten met die werkelijkheid leven.

De politiek is een kunst van mogelijk, als Bismarck zodra famously bovengenoemd. In het huidige Zimbabwean politieke landschap, behoren de mogelijkheden tot zowel Robert Mugabe als Morgan Tsvangirai. Zij vereisen elkaar. Wij kunnen de specifieke rol debatteren die Mugabe zou moeten spelen. Voor nu het debat door Mugabe, Tsvangirai en Mutambara werd geregeld toen zij de Globale Politieke Overeenkomst (GPA) ondertekenden. Mugabe is voorzitter-aanwijst en Morgan Tsvangirai is Eerste minister-aanwijst. Maar zijn wij die zeggen dat GPA de enige show in stad is? Nr, absoluut niet.
Het alternatieve Kader aan GPA is

Heel wat debatten en het denken in het bewerken van alternatieven aan de overeenkomst van 15 September, 2008 gegaan. Jammer genoeg, is het een komedie van fouten en onbedorven hallucinations geweest. Zelfs zijn de goed geëerbiedigdet internationale instellingen zoals de Internationale Groep van de Crisis (ICG) gevonden miserably willend. Renowned deskundigen van de conflictresolutie, de burger de maatschappijleiders en de Westelijke experts hebben verbazingwekkend gebrek aan creativiteit en verbeelding getoond.

Het uitgangspunt in het vestigen van een alternatieve weg voor Zimbabwe bestaat uit het begrijpen van een duidelijk inzicht in waarom wij uitdagingen in het uitvoeren van huidige GPA hebben. De nieuwe formulering moet krachtig dan illustreren hoe het deze huidige uitdagingen zal vermijden. Beyond this, the efficacy, process details, timelines and milestones of any new strategy must then be clearly articulated. None of the critics of the current GPA has even begun to do any of the above.

Among a number of obstacles to consummation, the major challenge we have faced in executing the Zimbabwean GPA is the inability to achieve sufficient buy-in from the two major protagonists in the political impasse: Zanu PF and MDC-T. They are the critical players in any national transitional discussion, because any agreed arrangement will require legal effect through a constitutional amendment in parliament. Such a change will require a two thirds majority which can only be achieved by the participation of both Zanu PF and MDC-T, as a minimum requirement.

None of the proposals from the ICG, the civic society groups (both national and regional), or the arrogant and ignorant international community has addressed this simple challenge: How are you going to ensure that both MDC-T and Zanu PF will embrace your new grand proposal? If one or both of them do not accept your framework what are you going to do? Please, this is commonsensical. Anyone seeking to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis democratically and within the laws of Zimbabwe must apply their mind to this critical success factor: the show stopper.

The busy bodies at the ICG and in civic society do not even have the capacity to appreciate the existence of the problem, much less the intellect to develop the requisite solution. We are not saying it is impossible to develop an alternative negotiated framework to the September GPA. We are emphasising that it will require good and rigorously working minds to come up with one.

The reasons why we insist on fixing and then implementing the current flawed and imperfect GPA is because at some point the buy-in between the two key protagonist was achieved through the signatures of the MOU on July 21, 2008, and the GPA on September 15, 2008. Yes, there are disagreements now, but there are two agreed reference points. The key players and their teams have been actively negotiating the political impasse from March 29, 2008, and now four months after signing the GPA there are still implementation challenges.

Yes, this is bad and regrettable. However, let us be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. If we adopt a completely new process, how and when are we going to convince the two key players to start working towards an MOU? Are you going to get that MOU signed soon, and after that how much time will be required to get to a new GPA of sorts? Furthermore, while we embark on these new processes that require time and resources what will be happening to the suffering people of Zimbabwe, the collapsed economy, and the destroyed industrial base? Given the hardened positions of the two protagonists at the moment, can you even begin to sell the new path to them?

The most bizarre, irritating and clearly ineffective critics of the current GPA are those that premise their proposals by denouncing one of the two key protagonists. Usually it is Mugabe and his Zanu PF who are dismissed. How do you even conceptualise a negotiated outcome without the involvement of the Zanu PF group? We thought it was common cause that you do not make peace with your friends, but with your opponents.

One would expect someone of Jendayi Frazer’s stature to understand all this. How does she say that the US supports the negotiated power sharing, but insists that Mugabe must not be involved? Making these statements while defying the consistent advice that she received from all the South African leaders that she interacted with means that Frazer is insulting the SA leadership at every level. By this disrespectful conduct, she is humiliating both SADC and the AU.

In this situation, with respect to the US-proposed dialogue framework, who will be the principals, negotiators, facilitators and guarantors? South Africa is the only country with leverage on Zimbabwe. To bring any kind of change in Zimbabwe you have to work with SA, and not insult or humiliate them. Anyone serious about the Zimbabwean agenda must grasp this.

Jendayi, I assume that she is supportive of Mr Tsvangirai and she wants him to succeed. Does she actually have any respect for him? He signed the GPA in which Mugabe is designated as the President. Is it that she thinks Mr. Tsvangirai does not know what is good for him and therefore she has to lead him every step of the way?

By the way, it is not true that the US government supported the agreement when it was signed. For the record, both the US and the UK were opposed to the GPA from the beginning. They did not like the fact that Mugabe was both Head of State and Chairman of Cabinet, and they despised the GPA positions on land reform and sanctions. Everyone knows this. We are not children.

The US and the UK are now taking advantage of the delay in implementation of the agreement to savage and destroy the GPA. Do Frazer and her government have a workable alternative framework to the current GPA, together with an enforcement mechanism? And what is this that she said about the weakness and incompetence of her favorite GPA principal? Did she not say the following; “Tsvangirai is too weak and incompetent for us to allow him to be in an inclusive government with Mugabe. He will be completely outmaneuvered. Tsvangirai is not as strong as Odinga. If he was, we would have allowed him to get into the GNU with Mugabe?”

How can she possibly say such insulting remarks about her favorite opposition leader? With friends like these, who needs enemies? Incidentally, did she share her views about Tsvangirai with him? Why not? Anyway, who is she to allow or disallow African leaders? Does the US government have locus standi to do this? From where does she derive such legal, political or moral authority? Would a reverse scenario where international players seek to influence US politics be acceptable to the US?

Jendayi, can’t you see that you are ruining the opposition you seek to assist, and strengthening Mugabe that you seek to destroy? You are foolishly confirming everything that Mugabe has said about the opposition: that we are puppets. Moreover, Mugabe’s strengths are Africa, Pan-Africanism and anti-Imperialism. Any foreign policy that undermines African leaders and African institutions plays right into Mugabe’s game plan. Why can’t Western diplomats master these basics? Why do we have a premonition that most of the destructive grandstanding by Western governments is meant for their domestic constituencies?

More specifically, US foreign policy is always characterised by double standards, hypocrisy and dishonesty all rooted in the pursuit of US permanent interests. We seriously hope that incoming US President Obama and his new team will depart from this ignorant, ruinous and ineffective foreign policy that effectively undermines its intended beneficiaries, strengthens the targeted villains, while blighting the US standing in the World.

Things have to change in 2009. We are not naïve. We know that the general thrust of the US foreign policy objective is largely independent of both the individual who is the US President and the Party they belong to. However, we hope the policy execution, nuances and tactics will be different. Zimbabweans have great expectations.

Collapse of the Mugabe Regime

It is clear that the Mugabe regime will not collapse because of economic decay, mass starvation or epidemics such as cholera. The formal economy collapsed way back when. The regime survives on the informal sector and through rent-seeking behaviours. Yes, ordinary people are perishing and will continue to do so, but the regime will not collapse. Can we all come to grips with this?

The diamonds of Chiadzwa, the Platinum Mines, and assistance from friendly nations such as DRC, Angola, China and Russia will see the regime pull through another 5-10 years. Of course this will be at major cost to the population. Zimbabweans should care about this.

However, to the external players that suggest that we must wait for the collapse of the regime at any cost, the needless loss of life in pursuit of the departure of Mugabe is a small price to pay. After all, the lives lost are Black lives which are not equivalent to White lives. Since September 15, 2008, we have had Western governments encouraging the continuation of suffering and death of our people in the misguided belief that this will lead to the collapse of the Mugabe regime. Well, this will not happen, and our people are dying in vain. All Zimbabwean leaders must understand this.

We must collectively take responsibility for the calamity afflicting our country. In particular, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai are equally culpable for the failure to work together. They are effectively working against the interests of their supporters and the generality of our citizenry. The two leaders are more concerned about a misguided power play executed at the expense of Zimbabwean lives. They have blood on their hands. The US and UK governments who are specifically undermining SADC efforts to establish an inclusive government in Zimbabwe are complicit in this crime against humanity.

In the case of these Western governments, they are driven by racism and utter disrespect for African lives. As Africans, our position is that not a single Zimbabwean life should be used as a stick to inflict pain on Robert Mugabe. People’s lives are too important to be used as ineffective political tools and weapons. We all know that Mugabe will not collapse because of cholera, mass starvation and a collapsed economy, so why are we supporting this ineffective strategy?

Nevertheless, let us deceive ourselves for a moment and assume the game plan works and the Mugabe regime actually collapses through the existing crisis. Why are we assuming that such a demise of Mugabe will lead to a democratic outcome? We saw what happened in Guinea when their dictator died. Did the opposition take over? Nope. If the Mugabe regime collapses, it is most likely that the army will take over. Some ambitious and gutsy colonel or general will step in. Our democratisation processes will, resultantly, regress at least 10 years.

There is absolutely no way Tsvangirai and his Party will be the beneficiaries of the collapse of Robert Mugabe. Quite to the contrary, the Zanu PF regime will make sure they collapse together with Tsvangirai and MDC-T. Do the current abductions, confessions and dubious trials of activists mean anything to anyone? MDC-T will not exist after the demise of Mugabe. I hope Tsvangirai understands this in no uncertain terms. I wish our brazen and unintelligent Western friends will do more listening and thinking.

This Mugabe must collapse strategy is not in the best interest of Zimbabwe. A regime change agenda achieved through a scorched earth policy is not what we need in our country. It will not benefit anyone. As Zimbabweans, we should think seriously about options that will allow us to continue to build, brick by brick, our democratic institutions.

Opportunity for a New Beginning

The year 2009 presents us with an opportunity for a new beginning. However, for this to be achieved, we have to learn some difficult lessons from inconvenient truths. We have to do things differently. We must embrace self-criticism as part of our best practices, and adopt an interrogative and questioning attitude to all stakeholders, including those that purport to support our struggles and our national interest.

In the struggle for a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Zimbabwe, it is not enough to be right. It is not enough to be a victim or to have the higher moral authority. The victims must behave well. Those with moral high ground must be driven by principles and values. Those on the right side of history must be thoughtful and strategic. Those that support victims of despotic regimes must apply their analytical skills. Good heart, bad mind will not cut it.

In all this, we must always put the people first. We must cherish servant leadership. Only then can we succeed. While external players and events affect our country, we must take responsibility for our own circumstances. We should be at the centre of our struggles and be the drivers of our nation building processes. We must have enough leadership strength to define and determine both the terms of reference and frameworks through which foreigners participate in the affairs of our nation.

In 2009, Zimbabweans must set the agenda and own the rules of the game. We must be masters of our own destiny. The critique of external influences that has been proffered should not be used to absolve us as citizens. We as Zimbabweans, created the current socio-political and economic crisis, and we will be the primary drivers and developers of the sustainable answers. And yes, a people do get a government that they deserve. Let us all be the change we wish to see in the year 2009.

Arthur G.O. Mutambara is president of MDC

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/mutambara4.19221.html

الحقائق غيرمناسب حول الالغرب وزمبابوي
Automatically translated into Arabic thanks to WorldLingo
يرسل الحقائق غيرمناسب حول الالغرب وزمبابوي


طريق: آرثور [موتمبرا]

•في هذا مادة, [مدك] ينظر زعيمة آرثور [موتمبرا] في الصعوبات في يطبّق سبتمبر - أيلول 15 [غبا], ال [أونهلبفولنسّ] من تدخلات غربيّة في زمبابوي سياسة محلّية بينما يستجوب إستراتيجيات موجودة ل يحقّق ديموقراطيّة في زمبابوي:


كان السنة 2008 جدّا يصعب واحدة ل نا كأمة. بما أنّ اللانهائيّة يتوافق إنتخابات يمسك في مارس - آذار 29, قد كان هناك مأزق سياسيّة في أرضنا. قد كان البلد دون حكومة شرعيّة. ينهار اقتصادنا يتلقّى في الواقع, بينما مرض وجوع يكون يخرب الناسنا. يميّز فقدان الأمل وقنوط ويعيّن النفس وطنيّة. قد كان هناك كاملة قيادة إخفاق [ث بوأرد], ضمن زمبابوي, في المنطقة وفي الالمجتمع الدولي.
تركتنا بما أنّ نحن نبدأ سنة جديدة, يعكس على بعض من المناقشات كبريات أنّ يكون يشكّل سياستنا بما أنّ نحن نخرج 2008. من فائدة خاصّة في هذا مقال الحقائق متضايق وتحديات أنّ أحيانا يحرن نحن بعيدا من يجابه. [إين برتيكلر] يبحث نحن أن يذبح أنّ فيل في ال [ليفينغ رووم] وطنيّة: كيف جاهلة وتورط [أونسترتجك] خارجيّة في [زيمببون] خطبة يتمّ كثير ضرر من جيّدة.

نحن نبحث أن يجادل أنّ في السنة 2008, نحاسيّة ويضعف [شننيغنس] فاحشة غربيّة يتلقّى واقعيّا المعارضة ويقوّى روبرت [موغب]. أكثر بأهمّيّة, هو خضوعنا أنّ ال [أونينفورمد] ومتهوّرة سياسة خارجيّة موقعات من حكومات غربيّة, [إين برتيكلر] ال [أوس] وال [أوك], يتلقّى سلبيّا يصدمون [نأيشنل ينترست] نا. [زيمببون] يضطرّ بوضوح فهمت هذا لحظوظنا جماعيّة أن يكون مختلفة في السنة 2009.

ال `[موغب] ينبغي ذهبت' جوقة

بما أنّ نحن خرجنا 2008, في الشهر ديسمبر - كانون الأوّل, هناك كان تصعيد الطلبات للمغادرة [موغب] من المرحلة سياسيّة. هناك [نوثينغ نو] ومبتكرة في هذا [موغب] ينبغي ذهبت [منترا]. الاضطراب أنّ كثير يعاني الناس ومؤسسات على هذا أثر من المرض من القلب يكون في ال يصحّ مكان, بينما العقل يكون لا يكون طبّقت. واحدة يحتاج على حدّ سواء قلب جيّدة وعقل جيّدة.

يحرق بعض من نا يتلقّى يكون [موغب] ينبغي ذهبت [منترا] للسابقة 21 سنون, [تو نو فيل]. عرضا, تعارض حكومات غربيّة مع نا في 1988 عندما نحن التفتنا ضدّ [زنو] [بف] نظامة. الآن هم [بترونيس] نا, [أس يف] يفهم هم لما [موغب] ينبغي ذهبت, جيّدة من نا, ه [زيمببون] ضحايا.

نحن يتلقّى يكون تتنازع [موغب] لاثنان عقود, أين يتلقّى أنت يكون أمريكا وأوروبا? لماذا أنت ساندت [موغب] [إين ث لت] 1980 عندما تعارضه نحن كان? لماذا أنت بنشاط ساعدته أثناء [غكورهوندي]? نحن أبدا سمعنا أنت قلت `[موغب] ينبغي ذهبت' أثناء أنّ فترة. بدلا من ذلك أعطىه أنت مكافآت معتبرة على كلا جوانب من [أتلنتيك].

نحن يستطيع فهمت هو إن دفاعك يكون أنّ أنت طالبات بطيئة و [بلوومرس] متأخّر حيث أوامرنا يكون تعلّقت. نحن يستطيع قبلت أنّ. غير أنّ هو بعد ذلك أيضا [منس] أنت ينبغي أخذت مشعرتك من نا الذي يفهم [زيمببون] أرض على نحو أفضل. أنت ينبغي قبلت أنّ أنت أساسا جاهلة, [أونسترتجك], وبالتّالي غيرفعّال حيث أوامر [أفريكن] يكون تعلّقت. بينما أنت تبحث أن يساعدنا في كفاحنا لتغير, يضعفنا تصرفك نحاسيّة بشكل فعّال ويقوّي مقاوماتنا. أنت ينبغي استمعت إلى نا ولا ال [أثر وي رووند].

ديسمبر - كانون الأوّل 2008 `[موغب] ينبغي ذهبت' جوقة كان مثل مثير للشفقة بما أنّ كان هو على حدّ سواء [أونيمجنتيف] ومتوقّعة. هو بدأ مع [كنن] رئيس وزراء [ريلا] [أدينغ], أسقف جون [سنتمو] ورئيس الأساقفة ديسمند توتو, في أنّ أمر. [أس سون س] أتمّت هم كان, دايفيد [ميلّيبند] و [كندي] أرز أتى داخل أن يساند ال "كثير" صوى من زعيمات [أفريكن]. بعد ذلك, كان هو [غردون] سمراء, جورج بوش, [سركوزي], و [مركل]. بعد ذلك تلاقى كلّ زعيمة أوروبيّة وجدتهم داخل, يساند ال "كثير" صوى من زعيمات [أفريكن]. أن يتوّج هو كلّ, كان هناك إندفاع ضعيف التّكوين إلى المنظّمة الأمم المتّحدة أمن مجلس, حيث كلّ شيء أتى يفتّت إلى أسفل: ما [نون-فنت] محرج. لماذا كان أيّ شخص فاجأت ب هذا [أونميتيغتد] إخفاق? كان هناك في أيّ وقت طريقة في الحالة جنون? ماذا كان أن يكون الاستنتاج منطقيّة من الجوقة?

[فيرست ند فورموست] كان هناك ما من زعيمة [أفريكن] الذي كان قد تكلّم. هكذا من, كان الزعيمات غربيّة زعموا أن يساند? قريبا عقب تكلّم [أدينغ], هو كان ناقضت ب ه خاصّة وزير الخارجيّة. هذا يعني لم يتكلّم هو كان [أن بهلف وف] كينيا أو رئيس [كيبكي]. لا يتكلّم أسقف [سنتمو] ل أيّ [أفريكن كونتري]. جيّدا, ال نفس لتوتو; هو إفريقية جيّدة الذي يتكلّم ل ما من أمة [أفريكن]. ل ه أن يكون فعّالة هو سوفت عملت على يقنع القيادة افريقي جنوبي سياسيّة أن يتبنّى منظراته.

يهمّ كافي, حتّى ال عادة متهوّرة و [ب] أيان [أونيمجنتيف] [كهما] لم جزء من الصوى [أفريكن]. هكذا عندما هذا أمريكيّة وذهب زعيمات أوروبيّة داخل جوقة, الذي كان هم يساند? في قارّ من 53 بلاد, ال [أوس] و [أوك] استطاع لم يقنع رئيس وحيد [أفريكن] أن يكون جزء من جوقتهم أنيقة.

إن الزعيمات غربيّة كانوا حقّا صحيحة يساندبنفسي, لماذا هم كذبوا أنّ ساند هم كان صوى من زعيمات [أفريكن]? إن هم يهتمّون حول ما زعيمات [أفريكن] يفكّرون, لماذا لم ينفق هم بما فيه الكفاية وقت يقنع الزعيمات حقيقيّة [أفريكن] من الصحة من موقعات غربيّة وبعد ذلك, يتلقّى الزعيمات [أفريكن] تكلّمت أولى?

بالتّأكيد إن, مثلا, رؤساء [كغلما] [موتلنث], [أرمندو] [جوبوزا], [جوس] [إدوردو] [دو] [سنتوس], [جكا] [كيكوت] و [موي] [كيبكي] كانوا قد أخذوا موقعة خاصّة جماعيّة على زمبابوي, وكان حكومات غربيّة قد أتوا داخل أن يساندهم, هناك كان بعض عمليّة جرّ.

غير أنّ اختار رفض, القوى غربيّة أن يخلق هم خاصّة زعيمات كاذب [أفريكن], وبعد ذلك يجبر عالم جوقة. هذا كان يوقن أن يفشل. إلى ما بعد الجوقة, كان هناك ما من إستراتيجية حقيقيّة أن يحلّ الأزمة في زمبابوي. هناك كان ما من عمل خاصّة أنّ ال [أوس] وال [أوك] كان ذهب أن يأخذ بعد الجوقة. هو لم كان قد [ب] منطقيّة أن يساعد الشعارات مع على حدّ سواء خطط إجرائيّة وإفريقية مناسبة [بو-ين]?

هو يبدو كان التفسير سبب أنّ [موغب] كان صحيحة يذهب أن يسقط من زمبابوي مرحلة سياسيّة بسبب ال يصمد صوة من زعيمات غربيّة يكرّم ال نفسه رسالة عديم المعنى. كيف مثير للشفقة! جيّدا, عار على هم ل [تريفيليز] الكفاح شرعيّة من الناسنا.

الجادّات من خلال أيّ [موغب] يستطيع ذهبت

هناك ثلاثة طرق [موغب] يستطيع كنت أزلت من الرئاسة وقيادة زمبابوي: (1) إستعمال العنف أو [أرمس] من حرب (2) سلميّة شاملة ثورة أو مظاهرات (3) مجّانا وإنتخابات عادلة.

اقترحت الإستعمال العنف أن [دريف ووت] [موغب] يتلقّى يكون في أرباع مؤكّدة. What has not been done is an interrogation of what form this will take, its meaning, consequences and the aftermath. [أن-وي] [أفرثروو] عنيفة يستطيع كنت تصوّرت أن يتلقّى أمريكيّة وقوات بريطانيّة غزات زمبابوي بما أنّ هم أتمّوا في العراق. [أف كورس] هم يستطيع حصلت يخلّص من [موغب] أنّ طريق.

مهما, سيضطرّ قوات غربيّة نزفت على [زيمببون] تربة في العملية. هو لن [ب] مشية في المتنزهة. بعد ال [أوس] بلدة في صومال, حيث المارينز أمريكيّة كان ذبحت في الشوارع مقديشيو, كان المناقشة في ال [أوس] مجلس الشيوخ جدّا مثقّفة. كان العاطفة أساسيّة الى حدّ بعيد جلّيّة, "أنّ بلد كاملة صومال ليس يساوي [أمريكن ليف] وحيدة. نحن سوفت أبدا سمحت حيوات أمريكيّة أن يكون خسرت [إين دفنس وف] هذا [أفريكن كونتري] عديم جدوى."

أنّ كان الموقف بعد ذلك. يتلقّى أيّ شيء يغيّر? [جندي] [فرزر], [كندي] أرز وجورج بوش, تكون أنت الآن يتأهّب أن ينزف في مطاردة من [أفريكن] حرية وإزدهار? إن أنت يكون لا تعدّ أن يتلقّى [أوس] المارينز يقتل في زمبابوي, رجاء صحيحة يغلق فوق على الإصدار من تدخل عسكريّة أن يزيل [موغب].

تركتنا افترضت لدقيقة أنّ هذا زعيمات غربيّة لاعب جدّيّة ولا ثرثارة صحيحة لا مبال. هم يستطيع بعد ذلك واقعيّا أحضرت قواتهم داخل زمبابوي وحصلت الشغل يتمّ. عقب ذهبت [موغب] صدّام طريق, ماذا يحدث بعد ذلك? ماذا يتلقّى [أوس] تدخل عسكريّة ينتج في العراق وأفغانستان? نحن نتلقّى نتيجات ديموقراطيّة في هذا بلاد? يكونون هم سلميّة, ديموقراطيّة وأمم مزدهرة? لماذا [زيمببون] نتيجة كان أيّ مختلفة? [إيف نوت], بعد ذلك لماذا سوفت هذا حتّى كنت اعتبرت كخيار?

بخصوص جيوش أجنبيّة يغزو زمبابوي, هو فقط أمم غربيّة أنّ [ب وورث] يحلّ بما أنّ نحن قد حاولنا أعلاه. قد عبّر عن فقط اثنان [أفريكن كونتري], بوتسوانا وكينيا, شهية لمواجهة طبيعيّة مع زمبابوي. سيوقّر نحن لن حتّى بوتسوانا يتوضّّع مع [توو موش] نقاشة. هم يتلقّون ما من جيش غير أنّ ضعيف التّكوين شرطة قوة أيّ يتلقّى ما من قدرة أن يغزو صحراء كثير أقلّ بلد مع زمبابوي خبرة عسكريّة. لا يتكلّم [ريلا] [أدينغ] ل [كنن] حكومة, هكذا التحليل نهايات هناك. إن فقط هو استطاع بدأت ب يقنع ه خاصّة حكومة, سيتلقّى نحن أكثر أن يقول حول الفاعليّة من تعبيراته.

الأخرى صيغة العنف أنّ يستطيع بالتّأكيد أطحت [موغب] كفاح مسلّحة يشنّ ب [زيمببون] بنفسي [إين ث سم وي] أنّ [زنلا] و [زيبرا] نفّذ حرب ضدّ أيان [سميث]. كيف يمكن وعمليّة يكون هذا اقتراح [أت ثيس بوينت] في وقت وضمن السياق [جو-بوليتيكل] من ال [سدك] منطقة? يكون هو حتّى خيار مرغوبة لالالناس زمبابوي? نحن نصدق هناك ما من إستجابات إيجابيّة إلى أيضا من هذا أسئلة.

الثاني يمكن طريقة ب أيّ [موغب] يستطيع كنت عزلت من خلال سلميّة شاملة ثورات أو مظاهرات. نحن نتلقّى القدرة ك [زيمببون] أن ينفّذ هذا? ماذا يتمّ يعلمنا الجهود شهمة من ال [نك] و [ووزا]. [هوو مني] من نا يتلاقى مسيراتهم شجاعة? [هوو مني] [زيمببون] تلاقى الجنديات عندما ذهب هم على الإهتياج على الشوارع هاراري?

هو واضحة أنّ يتلقّى الشهية ل `ثورة برتقاليّة' في زمبابوي بعد أن يكون طوّرت, قبل أن ثورة شاملة يصبح منصة واقعيّة أن يقود [موغب] خارجا. سياسياتنا ضمن المعارضة حركة أيضا يضطرّ كنت يتأهّب أن يفترض التضحيات أنّ هذا خيار يستلزم. حيث زعيمات سياسيّة يذهبون داخل يخفي في التهديد خفيفة إضطهاد, يفشل نحن أن يرى كيف هذا خيار يستطيع كنت أحضرت إلى تمتع.

هذا يترك نا مع الثالثة وفقط جادّة للمغادرة [موغب], [ثت يس,] من خلال حرّة وإنتخابات عادلة. يصبح السؤال بعد ذلك كيف نحن نحقّق حرّة وإنتخاب عادلة في زمبابوي? يكيّف بالتّأكيد لا من خلال يطلب يتوافق إنتخابات اليوم أيّ كنت سيوصل تحت يونيو - حزيران 27. غير ضروريّ أن على قبض يقول, في هذا استفتاء, [موغب] الرئاسة والحاليّة يضمّ معارضة أغلبية في مجلس نواب كنت تماما سيعكس.

تركتنا كنت استراتيجيّة. نا ليس الناس وبلاد إنتخاب يتأهّب [أت ث مومنت]. نحن نحتاج أن يذهب من خلال [ترنسأيشنل بريود] في أيّ نحن نحلّ الأزمة إنسانيّة يحزن الناسنا, يوفي وطنيّة يشفي, يبدأ انتعاش اقتصاديّ, وأكثر بأهمّيّة يتبنّى جديدة [بيوبل-دريفن] دستور ديموقراطيّة. هذا الجسر أنّ زمبابوي يحتاج في مسيرته إلى ديموقراطيّة. بعد أنّ, نحن يستطيع بعد ذلك وفيت حرّة وإنتخابات عادلة. إن [موغب] يساهم في أنّ إنتخابات, سيهزم هو كنت. هذا الطريق وحيد عمليّة أنّ سيقود إلى [موغب] مغادرة.

يبحث الإتفاق شاملة سياسيّة سبتمبر - أيلول 15, 2008, أن يسهّل هذا إمكانية. [فولكس], هذا مثل جيّدة بما أنّ يحصل هو. لسوء الحظّ, سيضطرّ [موغب] كنت جزء من الإنتقال, بما أنّ نحن نفسّر في القسم تالية. بني وبوش ينبغي حصلت على هم حمقاء, [أونينفورمد] واستحواذ [أونسترتجك] مع [موغب] يذهب اليوم. إن هم يستطيع لا بوضوح مفصلت كيف هم يكون يذهبون أن يزيله, هم سوفت سررت فقط [بك وفّ], ويسمح بلدنا أن يتحرّك فوق. نحن يضطرّ أنقذت [زيمببون] حيوات أنّ يكون يكون خسرت [نيدلسّلي].

أنتج لما [موغب] يستطيع لا يذهب بعيدا من خلال محادثات

النتيجة انتخابات من مارس - آذار 29, 2008, ما من رابحة صريحة على حدّ سواء في مجلس نواب وفي الرئاسة. كان يونيو - حزيران 27 [ر-رون] مهزلة شرعيّة, لذلك نحن ب التصق مع مارس - آذار نتيجة لانهائيّة. كديموقراتيات, نحن ينبغي قبلت أنّ يعني هذا أنّ [موغب] وحزبه مثل كثير عاملة بما أنّ [تسفنجري] وحزبه.

قصيرة من مجموعة جديدة من إنتخابات أو تغير القيادة بأحزابهم, يعني هو لا [تسفنجري] ولا [موغب] يستطيع كنت فاوضت بعيدا. على ما أساس يستطيع نحن يتلقّى يفاوض إتفاق أنّ يستثني روبرت [موغب]? إن نحن نقبل ينتج مارس - آذار بما أنّ شرعيّة, هو زعيمة من حزب أيّ يتلقّى 99 [مبس] [فس.] 100 ل [مدك-ت], 30 عضو مجلس الشيوخ [فس.] 24 ل [مدك-ت]. هو أتى ثانية إلى [تسفنجري], 43.2% [فس.] 47.8%. أكثر بأهمّيّة يملك [موغب] حاليّا الرئاسة زمبابوي, نعم [إيلّجتيمتلي]. جيّدا, في قانون يقول هم أنّ امتلاك 90% من ملكية.

الحقيقة أنّ يتلقّى [موغب] هذا قوة الواجب السبب لما آرثور [موتمبرا] يكون بعد على محاكمة في المحكمة عليا, [تندي] [بيتي] يتلقّى خيانة حشوات حول عنقه, نشط يكون خطفت, و [مورغن] [تسفنجري], الأوّليّة [مينيستر-دسنت], تلقّى [تورّيد] وقت يحصل جواز سفر. هذا يعني [موغب] [إين شرج وف] [زيمببون] دولة. يعطي هذا حقيقة على الأرض, والنتيجة انتخابيّة مارس - آذار 29, 2008, (أيّ بسبب افتقارنا من استراتيجيّة يفكّر نحن يتلقّى كلّ نصحّ كنتيجة شرعيّة), هو حماقة أن يفكّر أنّ أنت يستطيع فاوضت [موغب] من قوة, وبطريقة ما [ميركلووسلي] يحقّق قوة يشارك ترتيب أنّ يستثنيه.

بخصوص ممارسة ديموقراطيّة سيكون هو جائرة, وبخصوص [بوليتيك] حقيقيّة هو سيكون مستحيلة. ينتج [أه] نعم, [أن ث بسس وف] مارس - آذار 29, [موغب] سوفت كنت جزء من أيّ قوة يشارك سلطة انتقاليّة في زمبابوي, بما أنّ هو يكون رئيس من حزب جيّدا يمثّل في كلا منازل تشريعيّة, وهو أتى ثانية في الجنس لانهائيّة رئاسيّة. نحن أمكن لم يحبّ هذا ظروف ديموقراطيّة, غير أنّ نحن يضطرّ عشت مع أنّ حقيقة.

سياسة فنّ من ال يمكن, كبسمارك مرّة [فمووسلي] يقال. في الحاليّة [زيمببون] منظر طبيعيّ سياسيّة, ينتسب الإمكانيات إلى على حدّ سواء روبرت [موغب] و [مورغن] [تسفنجري]. هم يحتاجون بعضهم بعضا. نحن يستطيع ناقشت الدور خاصّة أنّ [موغب] سوفت لعبت. ل [نوو ثت] قرّرت مناقشة كان ب [موغب], [تسفنجري] و [موتمبرا] عندما هم وقعوا الإتفاق شاملة سياسيّة ([غبا]). [موغب] [برسدنت-دسنت] و [مورغن] [تسفنجري] أوّليّة [مينيستر-دسنت]. غير أنّ, يكون نحن نقول أنّ [غبا] العرض وحيد في مدينة? رفض, إطلاقا لا.
قد ذهب هياكل بديلة إلى ال [غبا]

[ا لوت] من مناقشات ويفكّر داخل يحبك خيارات إلى الإتفاق سبتمبر - أيلول 15, 2008. لسوء الحظّ, قد كان هو ملهاة من أخطاء وهلوسات [أونسفيستيكتد]. حتّى بئر أسّست يحترم [إينترنأيشنل بودي] مثل الدوليّة أزمة مجموعة ([إيكغ]) يتلقّى يكون [ميسربلي] يريد. مشهورة نزاع قرار قد أبدى خبيرات, مدنيّة مجتمعة زعيمات وخبيرات غربيّة افتقار مذهلة من إبداع وتخيل.

يتألّف ال [سترت بوينت] في يؤسّس ممر بديلة لزمبابوي يمسك تفهم واضحة من لما نحن يكون نتلقّى تحديات في يطبّق ال [غبا] حاليّة. الصياغة جديدة ينبغي بعد ذلك بشكل عنيف وضّحت كيف هو سيتفادى هذا تحديات حاليّة. Beyond this, the efficacy, process details, timelines and milestones of any new strategy must then be clearly articulated. None of the critics of the current GPA has even begun to do any of the above.

Among a number of obstacles to consummation, the major challenge we have faced in executing the Zimbabwean GPA is the inability to achieve sufficient buy-in from the two major protagonists in the political impasse: Zanu PF and MDC-T. They are the critical players in any national transitional discussion, because any agreed arrangement will require legal effect through a constitutional amendment in parliament. Such a change will require a two thirds majority which can only be achieved by the participation of both Zanu PF and MDC-T, as a minimum requirement.

None of the proposals from the ICG, the civic society groups (both national and regional), or the arrogant and ignorant international community has addressed this simple challenge: How are you going to ensure that both MDC-T and Zanu PF will embrace your new grand proposal? If one or both of them do not accept your framework what are you going to do? Please, this is commonsensical. Anyone seeking to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis democratically and within the laws of Zimbabwe must apply their mind to this critical success factor: the show stopper.

The busy bodies at the ICG and in civic society do not even have the capacity to appreciate the existence of the problem, much less the intellect to develop the requisite solution. We are not saying it is impossible to develop an alternative negotiated framework to the September GPA. We are emphasising that it will require good and rigorously working minds to come up with one.

The reasons why we insist on fixing and then implementing the current flawed and imperfect GPA is because at some point the buy-in between the two key protagonist was achieved through the signatures of the MOU on July 21, 2008, and the GPA on September 15, 2008. Yes, there are disagreements now, but there are two agreed reference points. The key players and their teams have been actively negotiating the political impasse from March 29, 2008, and now four months after signing the GPA there are still implementation challenges.

Yes, this is bad and regrettable. However, let us be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. If we adopt a completely new process, how and when are we going to convince the two key players to start working towards an MOU? Are you going to get that MOU signed soon, and after that how much time will be required to get to a new GPA of sorts? Furthermore, while we embark on these new processes that require time and resources what will be happening to the suffering people of Zimbabwe, the collapsed economy, and the destroyed industrial base? Given the hardened positions of the two protagonists at the moment, can you even begin to sell the new path to them?

The most bizarre, irritating and clearly ineffective critics of the current GPA are those that premise their proposals by denouncing one of the two key protagonists. Usually it is Mugabe and his Zanu PF who are dismissed. How do you even conceptualise a negotiated outcome without the involvement of the Zanu PF group? We thought it was common cause that you do not make peace with your friends, but with your opponents.

One would expect someone of Jendayi Frazer’s stature to understand all this. How does she say that the US supports the negotiated power sharing, but insists that Mugabe must not be involved? Making these statements while defying the consistent advice that she received from all the South African leaders that she interacted with means that Frazer is insulting the SA leadership at every level. By this disrespectful conduct, she is humiliating both SADC and the AU.

In this situation, with respect to the US-proposed dialogue framework, who will be the principals, negotiators, facilitators and guarantors? South Africa is the only country with leverage on Zimbabwe. To bring any kind of change in Zimbabwe you have to work with SA, and not insult or humiliate them. Anyone serious about the Zimbabwean agenda must grasp this.

Jendayi, I assume that she is supportive of Mr Tsvangirai and she wants him to succeed. Does she actually have any respect for him? He signed the GPA in which Mugabe is designated as the President. Is it that she thinks Mr. Tsvangirai does not know what is good for him and therefore she has to lead him every step of the way?

By the way, it is not true that the US government supported the agreement when it was signed. For the record, both the US and the UK were opposed to the GPA from the beginning. They did not like the fact that Mugabe was both Head of State and Chairman of Cabinet, and they despised the GPA positions on land reform and sanctions. Everyone knows this. We are not children.

The US and the UK are now taking advantage of the delay in implementation of the agreement to savage and destroy the GPA. Do Frazer and her government have a workable alternative framework to the current GPA, together with an enforcement mechanism? And what is this that she said about the weakness and incompetence of her favorite GPA principal? Did she not say the following; “Tsvangirai is too weak and incompetent for us to allow him to be in an inclusive government with Mugabe. He will be completely outmaneuvered. Tsvangirai is not as strong as Odinga. If he was, we would have allowed him to get into the GNU with Mugabe?”

How can she possibly say such insulting remarks about her favorite opposition leader? With friends like these, who needs enemies? Incidentally, did she share her views about Tsvangirai with him? Why not? Anyway, who is she to allow or disallow African leaders? Does the US government have locus standi to do this? From where does she derive such legal, political or moral authority? Would a reverse scenario where international players seek to influence US politics be acceptable to the US?

Jendayi, can’t you see that you are ruining the opposition you seek to assist, and strengthening Mugabe that you seek to destroy? You are foolishly confirming everything that Mugabe has said about the opposition: that we are puppets. Moreover, Mugabe’s strengths are Africa, Pan-Africanism and anti-Imperialism. Any foreign policy that undermines African leaders and African institutions plays right into Mugabe’s game plan. Why can’t Western diplomats master these basics? Why do we have a premonition that most of the destructive grandstanding by Western governments is meant for their domestic constituencies?

More specifically, US foreign policy is always characterised by double standards, hypocrisy and dishonesty all rooted in the pursuit of US permanent interests. We seriously hope that incoming US President Obama and his new team will depart from this ignorant, ruinous and ineffective foreign policy that effectively undermines its intended beneficiaries, strengthens the targeted villains, while blighting the US standing in the World.

Things have to change in 2009. We are not naïve. We know that the general thrust of the US foreign policy objective is largely independent of both the individual who is the US President and the Party they belong to. However, we hope the policy execution, nuances and tactics will be different. Zimbabweans have great expectations.

Collapse of the Mugabe Regime

It is clear that the Mugabe regime will not collapse because of economic decay, mass starvation or epidemics such as cholera. The formal economy collapsed way back when. The regime survives on the informal sector and through rent-seeking behaviours. Yes, ordinary people are perishing and will continue to do so, but the regime will not collapse. Can we all come to grips with this?

The diamonds of Chiadzwa, the Platinum Mines, and assistance from friendly nations such as DRC, Angola, China and Russia will see the regime pull through another 5-10 years. Of course this will be at major cost to the population. Zimbabweans should care about this.

However, to the external players that suggest that we must wait for the collapse of the regime at any cost, the needless loss of life in pursuit of the departure of Mugabe is a small price to pay. After all, the lives lost are Black lives which are not equivalent to White lives. Since September 15, 2008, we have had Western governments encouraging the continuation of suffering and death of our people in the misguided belief that this will lead to the collapse of the Mugabe regime. Well, this will not happen, and our people are dying in vain. All Zimbabwean leaders must understand this.

We must collectively take responsibility for the calamity afflicting our country. In particular, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai are equally culpable for the failure to work together. They are effectively working against the interests of their supporters and the generality of our citizenry. The two leaders are more concerned about a misguided power play executed at the expense of Zimbabwean lives. They have blood on their hands. The US and UK governments who are specifically undermining SADC efforts to establish an inclusive government in Zimbabwe are complicit in this crime against humanity.

In the case of these Western governments, they are driven by racism and utter disrespect for African lives. As Africans, our position is that not a single Zimbabwean life should be used as a stick to inflict pain on Robert Mugabe. People’s lives are too important to be used as ineffective political tools and weapons. We all know that Mugabe will not collapse because of cholera, mass starvation and a collapsed economy, so why are we supporting this ineffective strategy?

Nevertheless, let us deceive ourselves for a moment and assume the game plan works and the Mugabe regime actually collapses through the existing crisis. Why are we assuming that such a demise of Mugabe will lead to a democratic outcome? We saw what happened in Guinea when their dictator died. Did the opposition take over? Nope. If the Mugabe regime collapses, it is most likely that the army will take over. Some ambitious and gutsy colonel or general will step in. Our democratisation processes will, resultantly, regress at least 10 years.

There is absolutely no way Tsvangirai and his Party will be the beneficiaries of the collapse of Robert Mugabe. Quite to the contrary, the Zanu PF regime will make sure they collapse together with Tsvangirai and MDC-T. Do the current abductions, confessions and dubious trials of activists mean anything to anyone? MDC-T will not exist after the demise of Mugabe. I hope Tsvangirai understands this in no uncertain terms. I wish our brazen and unintelligent Western friends will do more listening and thinking.

This Mugabe must collapse strategy is not in the best interest of Zimbabwe. A regime change agenda achieved through a scorched earth policy is not what we need in our country. It will not benefit anyone. As Zimbabweans, we should think seriously about options that will allow us to continue to build, brick by brick, our democratic institutions.

Opportunity for a New Beginning

The year 2009 presents us with an opportunity for a new beginning. However, for this to be achieved, we have to learn some difficult lessons from inconvenient truths. We have to do things differently. We must embrace self-criticism as part of our best practices, and adopt an interrogative and questioning attitude to all stakeholders, including those that purport to support our struggles and our national interest.

In the struggle for a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Zimbabwe, it is not enough to be right. It is not enough to be a victim or to have the higher moral authority. The victims must behave well. Those with moral high ground must be driven by principles and values. Those on the right side of history must be thoughtful and strategic. Those that support victims of despotic regimes must apply their analytical skills. Good heart, bad mind will not cut it.

In all this, we must always put the people first. We must cherish servant leadership. Only then can we succeed. While external players and events affect our country, we must take responsibility for our own circumstances. We should be at the centre of our struggles and be the drivers of our nation building processes. We must have enough leadership strength to define and determine both the terms of reference and frameworks through which foreigners participate in the affairs of our nation.

In 2009, Zimbabweans must set the agenda and own the rules of the game. We must be masters of our own destiny. The critique of external influences that has been proffered should not be used to absolve us as citizens. We as Zimbabweans, created the current socio-political and economic crisis, and we will be the primary drivers and developers of the sustainable answers. And yes, a people do get a government that they deserve. Let us all be the change we wish to see in the year 2009.

Arthur G.O. Mutambara is president of MDC

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/mutambara4.19221.html

West flouting universality rule

By Reason Wafawarova in SYDNEY, Australia

YET again the world watches in utter disgust as Israel engages in its ritual killings of innocent Palestinian civilians and children, just because the Israeli ruling elite are of the belief that "this is the time for fighting", according to Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defence Minister.

The British and the Americans awkwardly blame "Palestinian aggression" for the brutalities of Israel and they dimly mumble something remotely linked to a call for restraint.

Meanwhile, Israeli authorities are reported to be arrogantly declaring a no time frame continued bombardment of Gaza.

The principle of universality is perhaps the most elementary of all moral truisms. However, when one is confronted with United States and Israeli exceptionalism, there is this flat rejection of universality in the Western intellectual, moral and political culture.

Formally the post-war consensus as enshrined in the United Nations Charter’s Article 51, on principles governing the use of force remains in effect.

The brutal and unacceptable aggression by Israel on Palestinians brings to light this revealing and disturbing scenario that portrays a shift in the spectrum of opinion in Western elite circles.

While none of them are willing to be honestly barbaric enough to openly and explicitly reject the post-World War II consensus, the truth is that the consensus is being ignored and is deemed too extreme to consider under the Israeli "special circumstances".

The only time the consensus is rigorously preached by Western politicians is during public discussions and electoral politicking.

The end of the last millennium and the beginning of this was characterised by a forceful articulation of a departure from the post-war consensus.

Nato’s bombing of Serbia, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and the 2003 rape of Iraq are classic expressions of this departure and arrogant deviation.

The Western intellectual and political culture has coined the phrase "illegal but legitimate" to try and give a face of decency to this terrorism.

The enthusiastic support by Western intellectuals for resort to violence they deem to be legitimate is, of course, a gross violation of the principle of universality.

It is a violation enshrined in the historical and somewhat racial prejudices that say only the "unpeople of this world" (as Mark Curtis would put it) are liable to crime and barbarity.

When one takes a look at George W. Bush’s doctrine of "anticipatory self-defence", as articulated in the US National Security Strategy of September 2002, then it is interesting to see how what applies to the US has become unacceptable banditry for all others, unless they are authorised allies and client states of the US.

The post-war consensus still reaffirms the stand of the world on war — that is the world outside what the West calls "the international community", namely itself.

The declarations of Sadc and the African Union on the political impasse in Zimbabwe only received crude derision from Western circles.

This is the standard reaction to the "bleatings" of the lesser peoples of this world.

When the Declaration of the South Summit of 2000 was made, firmly rejecting the "so-called right of humanitarian intervention", the same committed derision from the West was poured mercilessly.

The accompanying detailed and sophisticated analysis of neo-liberal globalisation was thoroughly ignored in the West, just like the Sadc resolution that says there must be an inclusive government in Zimbabwe "forthwith".

Back to the Bush doctrine of "anticipatory self-defence", a US "senior official", later confirmed to be Condoleezza Rice, outlined that the phrase refers to "the right of the United States to attack a country that it thinks could attack it first".

This is the same lady who concluded that international court jurisdiction has "proven inappropriate for the United States", and that the US is not subject to "international law and norms" generally.

While the majority of American and Western citizens hold the view that force can only be used when there is strong evidence that a country is in imminent danger of being attacked, the elitist view is apparently very different.

The idea of exceptionalism was evident as early as the time of the Nuremberg Tribunal. Both the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials were flawed, if the least were to be said. They were founded on rejection of the principle of universality.

In order to bring the defeated war criminals to justice, it was deemed necessary to devise definitions of "war crime" and "crime against humanity". The tribunal’s chief counsel for war crimes, Telford Taylor, explained how this was done.

Said Taylor: "Since both sides had played the terrible game of urban destruction — the Allies far more successfully — there was no basis for criminal charges against the Germans or Japanese, and, in fact, no such charges were brought . . . Aerial bombardment had been used so extensively and ruthlessly on the Allied side as well as the Axis side that neither at Nuremberg nor Tokyo was the issue made a part of the trials."

The operative definition of "crime" became: Crime that you committed or carried out but we did not. By this logic, the Nazi war criminals were absolved each time the defence could show that their US and UK counterparts carried out the same crimes.

On these grounds, the tribunal excused Admiral Karl Donitz from "breaches of the international law of submarine warfare" on the grounds of testimony from the British Admiralty and US Admiral Nimitz that America and the UK had carried out the same crimes from the first days of the war.

While it can be argued that neither side was punished for these crimes, it remains clear that the approach discredited international law, as well as subsequent tribunals like the Yugoslavia Tribunal and the Special Court for Sierra Leone at The Hague.

Washington’s self-exemption from international law and the fundamental principle of universality, together with Israel’s blatant breaches of international law and every peace treaty in existence, are clear indicators of a world headed for disaster.

When one considers the behaviour of the US at international level, the practice of exceptionalism is understandable.

If the West entertained for a moment the principle of universality and also accepted for once that every country, just like the US, has the right of "anticipatory self-defence" against terror or those "they think might attack" them first, then countries like Iran, Cuba and Nicaragua in the 1980s would have been entitled to attack the US whichever way possible, given the involvement in very serious terrorist attacks against them, including blatantly advertised threats of attack on the part of Iran. Such conclusions are considered utterly outrageous, of course.

Well, an inquiry by British journalists in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks found out that, "Osama bin Laden and the Taliban received threats of possible American military strikes against them two months before the terrorist assaults on New York and Washington", which "raises the possibility that bin Laden, far from launching the attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon out of the blue, was launching a pre-emptive strike in response to what he saw as US threats".

This, by US and UK standards, must be legitimate anticipatory self-defence; unthinkable as it is.

In similar fashion one could argue that Japan’s bombing of US colonies, Hawaii and the Philippines, was legitimate anticipatory self-defence since the American Press was awash with details of how American planes were capable of "burning down Tokyo, a city of rice-paper and wood houses" — all from bases in Hawaii and the Philippines.

On November 15, 1941, US General George C. Marshall explained that "there won’t be any hesitation about bombing civilians".

This provided far more justification for anticipatory self-defence than anything so far conjured up by Bush, Blair, Ehud Olmert or anyone else from the Allied West.

We all know the implications of applying these elementary moral principles. The general meaning and implications of international law are clear enough for anyone to understand, much as law is subject to a scope of interpretation.

Washington and Israel’s unilateral ‘‘right’’ to resort to force is nothing but arrogant behaviour motivated by the might of military supremacy.

This military supremacy is the only explanation that can be given when Condoleezza Rice writes in Foreign Affairs (2000) condemning the "reflexive appeal . . . to notions of international law and norms, and the belief that the support of many states — or even better, of institutions like the United Nations — is essential to the legitimate exercise of power."

Rice reiterated that the US needs not to conform to "illusory norms of international behaviour", or "adhere to every international convention and agreement that someone thinks to propose."

It is interesting to note that the US expects every country apart from its clients and allies to rigorously obey these norms, not as they are but as the US interprets them; or else countries risk facing what befell Iraq, Afghanistan, Chile or Zimbabwe.

According to the Clinton doctrine, America is entitled to resort to "unilateral use of military power in order to ensure uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources".

This, of course, does not apply to other countries. They are not even allowed access to their own resources and Zimbabwe is just paying heavily for accessing its own land.

Nicaragua, Grenada, Laos and other countries were invaded by the US for claiming ownership of their own resources.

The Israeli forces are massacring Palestinians today for their own land and all that can be heard from the US and the UK are feeble and faint calls for restraint.

They speak louder against a cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe. They shout raucously for regime change in Zimbabwe and they even advocate the use of force, something they condemned with the holiest of anger when Russia invaded Georgia earlier this year.

Zimbabweans need to look at these world events objectively and surely we cannot all be fooled by the same people all the time.

Zimbabwe we are one and together we will overcome.

It is homeland or death!

l Reason Wafawarova is a political writer and can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk or reason@rwafawarova.com or visit www.rwafawarova.com

Règle se moquante occidentale d'universalité
Automatically translated into French thanks to WorldLingo
Règle se moquante occidentale d'universalité

par Reason Wafawarova à SYDNEY, Australie

encore une fois que les montres du monde dans le dégoût total comme l'Israel s'engage dans ses massacres rituels des civils et des enfants palestiniens innocents, juste parce que l'élite régnante israélienne sont de la croyance que « c'est le moment pour combattre », selon Ehud Barak, le ministre israélien de la défense.

Les Anglais et les Américains blâment maladroitement « l'agression palestinienne » des brutalités de l'Israel et ils marmonnent faiblement quelque chose à distance liée à un appel pour la contrainte.

En attendant, on rapporte que des autorités israéliennes déclarent avec arrogance un bombardement continu de la tranche de temps de non de Gaza.

Le principe de l'universalité est peut-être le plus élémentaire de tous les truismes moraux. Cependant, quand on est confronté avec les Etats-Unis et l'exceptionalism israélien, il y a ce rejet plat de l'universalité dans la culture d'intellectuel, morale et politique occidentale.

Formellement le consensus d'après-guerre comme enchâssé aux Nations Unies ont accordé une charte l'article 51, selon des principes régissant l'utilisation des restes de force en effet.

L'agression brutale et inacceptable par l'Israel sur des Palestiniens met en lumière ce scénario de indication et inquiétant qui dépeint une variation dans le spectre de l'opinion en cercles occidentaux d'élite.

Tandis qu'aucun de eux n'est disposé à être honnêtement assez barbare rejeter à ouvrir et explicitement le consensus de la guerre II de poteau-Monde, la vérité est que le consensus est ignoré et est considérée trop extrême pour considérer dans « les circonstances spéciales » israéliennes.

Le seul cas où le consensus est rigoureusement prêché par les politiciens occidentaux est pendant des débats publics et politicking électoral.

La fin du dernier millénium et du commencement de ceci a été caractérisée par une articulation puissante d'un départ au consensus d'après-guerre.

Le bombardement de l'OTAN de la Serbie, l'invasion 2001 de l'Afghanistan et le viol 2003 de l'Irak sont des expressions classiques de ces départ et déviation arrogante.

La culture intellectuelle et politique occidentale a inventé l'expression « illégale mais légitime » pour essayer et donner un visage de décence à ce terrorisme.

L'appui enthousiaste par les intellectuels occidentaux pour la ressource à la violence qu'ils considèrent être légitimes est, naturellement, une violation brute du principe de l'universalité.

C'est une violation enchâssée dans l'historique et les préjudices quelque peu raciaux qui indiquent que seulement le « unpeople de ce monde » (car Mark Curtis le mettrait) sont exposés au crime et à la barbarie.

Quand on jette un coup d'oeil chez George W. La doctrine de Bush « de la défense anticipée », comme articulée dans la stratégie de sécurité nationale des USA du septembre 2002, alors il est intéressant de voir comment ce qui s'applique aux USA a le banditisme inacceptable devenu pour tous les autres, à moins qu'elles soient les alliés et les états autorisés de client des USA.

Le consensus d'après-guerre réaffirme toujours le stand du monde sur la guerre qu'est monde extérieur ce que l'ouest appelle « la communauté internationale », à savoir elle-même.

Les déclarations de Sadc et l'union africaine sur l'impasse politique au Zimbabwe ont seulement reçu la dérision brute des cercles occidentaux.

C'est la réaction standard aux « bleatings » des lutins de ce monde.

Quand la déclaration du sommet du sud de 2000 a été faite, rejetant fermement la « prétendue droite de l'intervention humanitaire », la même dérision commise de l'ouest a été versée impitoyablement.

L'analyse de détaillée et sophistiquée de l'accompagnement de la mondialisation néo--libérale a été complètement ignorée dans l'ouest, juste comme la résolution de Sadc qui indique qu'il doit y a un gouvernement inclus au Zimbabwe « immédiatement ».

De nouveau à la doctrine de Bush « de la défense anticipée », le « haut fonctionnaire » des USA, plus tard confirmé pour être Condoleezza Rice, décrite que l'expression se rapporte « la droite des Etats-Unis d'attaquer un pays qu'ils pensent pourrait les attaquer d'abord ».

C'est la même dame qui a conclu que la juridiction internationale de cour a « inadéquat prouvé pour les Etats-Unis », et que les USA ne sont pas sujets « au droit et à des normes internationaux » généralement.

Tandis que la majorité de citoyens américains et occidentaux estiment que la force peut seulement être employée quand il y a d'évidence forte qu'un pays est dans le danger imminent d'être attaqué, la vue d'élitiste est apparemment très différente.

L'idée de l'exceptionalism était évidente dès la période du tribunal de Nuremberg. Les épreuves de Nuremberg et de Tokyo étaient défectueuses, si les mineurs devaient être dits. Ils ont été fondés sur le rejet du principe de l'universalité.

Afin d'apporter les criminels défaits de guerre à la justice, il a été considéré nécessaire de concevoir des définitions de « crime de guerre » et de « crime contre l'humanité ». Les avocats-conseils en chef du tribunal pour des crimes de guerre, Telford Taylor, expliqué comment ceci a été fait.

Ledit Taylor : « Puisque les deux côtés avaient joué le jeu terrible de la destruction urbaine - les alliés bien plus avec succès - il n'y avait aucune de base aux frais criminels contre les Allemands ou frais japonais et et, en fait, aucun tel n'a été apporté. . . Le bombardement aérien avait été employé tellement intensivement et impitoyablement du côté allié aussi bien que le côté d'axe qui ni à Nuremberg ni à Tokyo n'était la question a fait une pièce des épreuves. « 

La définition effective « du crime » est devenue : Le crime que vous avez commis ou avez effectué mais nous pas. Par cette logique, les criminels nazis de guerre ont été affranchis chaque fois que la défense pourrait prouver que leurs contre-parties des USA et du R-U ont effectué les mêmes crimes.

Pour ces raisons, le tribunal a excusé amiral Karl Donitz des « infractions du droit international de la guerre submersible » en raison du témoignage de l'Amirauté britannique et d'amiral Nimitz des USA que l'Amérique et le R-U avaient effectué les mêmes crimes des premiers jours de la guerre.

Tandis qu'il peut discuter que ni l'un ni l'autre côté n'a été puni pour ces crimes, il reste clair que l'approche a critiqué le droit international, aussi bien que les tribunaux suivants comme le tribunal de la Yougoslavie et la cour spéciale pour la Sierra Leone à la Haye.

L'individu-exemption de Washington du droit international et le principe fondamental de l'universalité, ainsi que les infractions flagrantes de l'Israel du droit international et de chaque traité de paix en existence, sont les indicateurs clairs d'un monde dirigé pour le désastre.

Quand on considère le comportement des USA au niveau international, la pratique de l'exceptionalism est compréhensible.

Si l'ouest amusait pendant un moment le principe de l'universalité et également admis pour une fois ce chaque pays, juste comme les USA, a le droit « de la défense anticipée » contre la terreur ou ceux « qu'elles pensent pourraient les attaquer » d'abord, puis des pays comme l'Iran, Cuba et le Nicaragua dans les années 80 aurait été autorisé à attaquer les USA n'importe quelle manière possible, donné la participation dans le terroriste très sérieux attaque contre eux, y compris des menaces d'une manière flagrante annoncées d'attaque de la part de l'Iran. De telles conclusions sont considérées tout à fait indignes, naturellement.

Bien, une enquête par les journalistes britanniques au lendemain des attaques du 11 septembre fondent dehors cela, « Oussama Ben Laden et les menaces reçues talibans des militaires américains possibles frappe contre eux pendant deux mois avant les assauts de terroriste sur New York et Washington », que « soulève la possibilité que Ben Laden, loin de lancer les attaques sur le centre commercial mondial à New York et le Pentagone hors du bleu, lançait une grève de préemption en réponse à ce qu'il a vu comme menaces des USA ».

Ceci, par des normes des USA et du R-U, doit être défense anticipée légitime ; impensable en tant que lui est.

De mode semblable on pourrait discuter le bombardement du ce Japon des colonies des USA, Hawaï et les Philippines, était défense anticipée légitime puisque la pression américaine était inondée des détails d'à quel point les avions américains étaient capables de la « brûlure en bas de Tokyo, une ville de riz-papier et le bois loge » - tous des bases en Hawaï et les Philippines.

Le 15 novembre 1941, le Général George C. des USA. Le maréchal a expliqué que « il n'y aura pas aucune hésitation au sujet des civils de bombardement ».

Ceci a fourni bien plus de justification pour la défense anticipée que n'importe quoi jusqu'ici créé par Bush, Blair, Ehud Olmert ou n'importe qui autrement de l'ouest allié.

Nous tous savons les implications d'appliquer ces principes moraux élémentaires. La signification et les implications générales du droit international sont assez claires pour que n'importe qui comprenne, beaucoup car la loi est sujette à une portée d'interprétation.

La droite unilatérale de `de `de Washington et de l'Israel'' à la ressource à la force n'est rien mais comportement arrogant motivés par la force de la suprématie militaire.

Cette suprématie militaire est la seule explication qui peut être donnée quand Condoleezza Rice écrit dans les affaires étrangères (2000) condamnant « l'appel réfléchi. . . aux notions du droit et des normes internationaux, et à la croyance que l'appui de beaucoup d'états - ou même améliorez, des établissements comme les Nations Unies - est essentiel à l'exercice de la puissance légitime. Le « 

riz a réitéré que les USA doivent ne pas se conformer « aux normes illusoires du comportement international », ou « adhérez à chaque convention et accord internationaux que quelqu'un pense pour proposer. »

Il est intéressant de noter que les USA s'attendent à ce que chaque pays indépendamment de ses clients et alliés obéisse rigoureusement ces normes, pas car elles sont mais comme USA les interprète ; ou bien revêtements de risque de pays ce qui a arrivé à l'Irak, à l'Afghanistan, au Chili ou au Zimbabwe.

Selon la doctrine de Clinton, l'Amérique est autorisée à recourir « utilisation unilatérale de puissance militaire afin de s'assurer uninhibited l'accès aux marchés principaux, aux approvisionnements en énergie, et aux ressources stratégiques ».

Ceci, naturellement, ne s'applique pas à d'autres pays. Ils ne sont pas même permis l'accès à leurs ressources propres et le Zimbabwe est paiement juste fortement accéder à sa propre terre.

Le Nicaragua, le Grenada, les Laotiens et d'autres pays ont été envahis par les USA pour la propriété réclamante de leurs ressources propres.

Les forces israéliennes massacrent des Palestiniens aujourd'hui pour leur propre terre et tous ce qui peuvent être entendus des USA et du R-U sont des appels faibles et faibles pour la contrainte.

Ils parlent plus fort contre une manifestation de choléra au Zimbabwe. Ils crient raucously pour le changement de régime du Zimbabwe et ils préconisent même l'utilisation de la force, quelque chose qu'ils ont condamnée avec le plus saint de la colère quand la Russie a envahi la Géorgie plus tôt cette année.

Les Zimbabwéens doivent regarder ces événements du monde objectivement et sûrement nous ne pouvons pas tous être dupés par le même peuple toute heure.

Le Zimbabwe nous avons un ans et ensemble nous surmonterons.

C'est patrie ou mort !

l raison Wafawarova est un auteur politique et peut être entré en contact sur wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk ou reason@rwafawarova.com ou visite www.rwafawarova.com

Regla del oeste de la universalidad que se burla de
Automatically translated into Spanish thanks to WorldLingo
La regla del oeste de la universalidad que se burla de

de Reason Wafawarova en SYDNEY, Australia

CON TODO los relojes del mundo en repugnancia completa como Israel engancha otra vez a sus matanzas rituales de civiles y de niños palestinos inocentes, apenas porque la élite predominante israelí está de la creencia que “ésta es la época para luchar”, según Ehud Barak, el ministro israelí de la defensa.

Los Británicos y los americanos culparon torpe la “agresión palestina” por las brutalidades de Israel y mascullan dévil algo ligado remotamente a una llamada para el alojamiento.

Mientras tanto, las autoridades israelíes se divulgan para declarar arrogante un bombardeo continuado del marco de tiempo de no de Gaza.

El principio de la universalidad es quizás el más elemental de todos los truismos morales. Sin embargo, cuando uno se enfrenta con Estados Unidos y exceptionalism israelí, hay este rechazamiento plano de la universalidad en la cultura occidental del intelectual, moral y política.

El consenso de la posguerra según lo engarzado en los Naciones Unidas cargó formalmente el artículo 51, sobre los principios que gobernaban el uso del restos de la fuerza en efecto.

La agresión brutal e inaceptable por Israel en palestinos trae la luz a este panorama que revela y que disturba que retrate una cambio en el espectro de la opinión en círculos occidentales de la élite.

Mientras que ningunos de ellos están dispuestos a ser honesto barbáricos bastante rechazar a abiertamente y explícitamente el consenso de la guerra II del poste-Mundo, la verdad es que se está no haciendo caso el consenso y se juzga demasiado extremo considerar bajo “circunstancias especiales israelíes”.

La única vez que el consenso riguroso es predicado por los políticos occidentales está durante discusiones públicas y politicking electoral.

El final del milenio pasado y del principio de esto fue caracterizado por una articulación poderosa de una salida del consenso de la posguerra.

El bombardeo de la OTAN de Serbia, la invasión 2001 de Afganistán y la violación 2003 de Iraq son expresiones clásicas de esta salida y desviación arrogante.

La cultura intelectual y política occidental ha acuñado la frase “ilegal pero legítima” para intentar y para dar una cara de la decencia a este terrorismo.

La ayuda entusiástica de los intelectuales occidentales para el recurso a la violencia que juzgan para ser legítimos es, por supuesto, una violación gruesa del principio de la universalidad.

Es una violación engarzada en el histórico y los prejudicar algo raciales que dicen que solamente el “unpeople de este mundo” (pues Mark Curtis lo pondría) son obligados al crimen y a la barbaridad.

Cuando uno hecha una ojeada George W. La doctrina de Bush de la “autodefensa de anticipación”, según lo articulado en la estrategia de la seguridad nacional de los E.E.U.U. del septiembre de 2002, entonces es interesante ver cómo qué se aplica a los E.E.U.U. tiene bandolerismo inaceptable convertido para todos los otros, a menos que él sea aliados y estados autorizados del cliente de los E.E.U.U.

El consenso de la posguerra todavía reafirma el soporte del mundo en guerra que es el exterior de mundo qué el oeste llama “la comunidad internacional”, a saber sí mismo.

Los declaraciones de Sadc y la unión africana en la callejón sin salida política en Zimbabwe recibieron solamente el derision crudo de círculos occidentales.

Ésta es la reacción estándar a los “bleatings” de la poca gente de este mundo.

Cuando el declaración de la cumbre del sur de 2000 fue hecho, rechazando firmemente la “derecha supuesta de la intervención humanitaria”, el mismo derision confiado del oeste fue vertido sin piedad.

El análisis de detallado y sofisticado del acompañamiento del globalisation neo-liberal fue no hecho caso a fondo en el oeste, apenas como la resolución de Sadc que dice que debe haber un gobierno inclusivo en Zimbabwe “inmediatamente”.

De nuevo a la doctrina de Bush de la “autodefensa de anticipación”, el “alto funcionario” de un E.E.U.U., confirmado más adelante para ser Condoleezza Rice, contorneado que la frase refiere “la derecha de los Estados Unidos de atacar un país que piensen podría atacarlos primero”.

Ésta es la misma señora que concluyó que la jurisdicción internacional de la corte tiene “inadecuado probada para los Estados Unidos”, y que los E.E.U.U. no están conforme a “derecho y a normas internacionales” generalmente.

Mientras que la mayoría de ciudadanos americanos y occidentales lleva a cabo la visión que la fuerza puede ser utilizada solamente cuando hay evidencia fuerte que un país está en peligro inminente de ser atacado, la opinión del elitista es al parecer muy diferente.

La idea del exceptionalism era evidente desde la época del tribunal de Nuremberg. Los ensayos de Nuremberg y de Tokio eran dañados, si se dijeran los lo menos. Fueron fundados en el rechazamiento del principio de la universalidad.

Para traer a los criminales derrotados de la guerra a la justicia, era juzgado necesario para idear definiciones del “crimen de guerra” y del “crimen contra humanidad”. Los principales consejos para los crímenes de guerra, Telford Taylor del tribunal, explicado cómo esto fue hecha.

Taylor dicho: “Puesto que ambos lados habían jugado el juego terrible de la destrucción urbana - los aliados lejos más con éxito - no había base para las cargas criminales contra los alemanes o cargas japonesas, y, de hecho, no se trajo las ningunas tales. . . El bombardeo aéreo había sido utilizado tan extensivamente y despiadadamente en el lado aliado así como el lado del eje que ni en Nuremberg ni Tokio era la edición hizo una pieza de los ensayos. “

La definición operativa “del crimen” se convirtió: El crimen que usted confió o realizó solamente nosotros no. , Esta lógica absolvieron a los criminales nazis de la guerra cada vez que la defensa podría demostrar que sus contrapartes de los E.E.U.U. y de Reino Unido realizaron los mismos crímenes.

En estos argumentos, el tribunal excusó a almirante Karl Donitz de “aberturas del derecho internacional de la guerra submarina” sobre la base de testimonio del Ministerio de marina británico y de almirante Nimitz de los E.E.U.U. que América y el Reino Unido habían realizado los mismos crímenes a partir de los primeros días de la guerra.

Mientras que puede ser discutido que ninguno de los dos lados fue castigado por estos crímenes, sigue siendo claro que el acercamiento desacreditó derecho internacional, así como los tribunales subsecuentes como el tribunal de Yugoslavia y la corte especial para Sierra Leona en La Haya.

La uno mismo-exención de Washington del derecho internacional y el principio fundamental de la universalidad, junto con las aberturas evidentes de Israel del derecho internacional y de cada tratado de la paz en existencia, son indicadores claros de un mundo dirigido hacia desastre.

Cuando uno considera el comportamiento de los E.E.U.U. en el nivel internacional, la práctica del exceptionalism es comprensible.

Si el oeste entretuviera por un momento el principio de la universalidad y también aceptado para una vez ese cada país, apenas como los E.E.U.U., tiene la derecha de la “autodefensa de anticipación” contra terror o ésos “que piensan pudieron atacarlos” primero, entonces los países como Irán, Cuba y Nicaragua en los años 80 habría sido dada derecho a atacar los E.E.U.U. cualquier manera posible, dado la implicación en terrorista muy serio ataca contra ellos, incluyendo amenazas evidentemente anunciacióces del ataque de parte de Irán. Tales conclusiones se consideran completamente indignantes, por supuesto.

Bien, una investigación de los periodistas británicos en las consecuencias de los ataques del 11 de septiembre funda hacia fuera eso, el “compartimiento de Osama cargado y las amenazas recibidas Taliban de militares americanos posibles pulsa contra ellos dos meses antes de los asaltos del terrorista en Nueva York y Washington”, que “levanta la posibilidad que el compartimiento cargado, lejos de lanzar los ataques contra el centro de comercio mundial en Nueva York y el pentágono del azul, lanzaba una huelga con derecho preferente en respuesta a lo que él vio como amenazas de los E.E.U.U.”.

Ésta, por estándares de los E.E.U.U. y de Reino Unido, debe ser autodefensa de anticipación legítima; increíble como él es.

En la manera similar uno podría discutir el bombardeo de ese Japón de las colonias de los E.E.U.U., Hawaii y las Filipinas, era autodefensa de anticipación legítima puesto que la prensa americana era inundada con los detalles de cómo los planos americanos eran capaces de “quemarse abajo de Tokio, una ciudad del arroz-papel y la madera contiene” - todos de bases en Hawaii y las Filipinas.

El 15 de noviembre de 1941, general George C. de los E.E.U.U. El ordenar explicó que “no habrá ninguna vacilación sobre civiles del bombardeo”.

Esto proporcionó lejos más justificación para la autodefensa de anticipación que cualquier cosa conjurada hasta ahora para arriba por Bush, Blair, Ehud Olmert o cualquier persona del oeste aliado.

Todos sabemos las implicaciones de aplicar estos principios morales elementales. El significado y las implicaciones generales del derecho internacional están bastante claros para que cualquier persona entienda, mucho pues la ley está conforme a un alcance de la interpretación.

La derecha unilateral del `del `de Washington y de Israel'' al recurso a la fuerza no es nada sino comportamiento arrogante motivados por la fuerza de la supremacía militar.

Esta supremacía militar es la única explicación que puede ser dada cuando Condoleezza Rice escribe en los asuntos exteriores (2000) que condenan la “súplica reflexiva. . . a las nociones del derecho y de las normas internacionales, y a la creencia que la ayuda de muchos estados - o aún mejore, de instituciones como los Naciones Unidas - es esencial para el ejercicio de la energía legítimo. El “

arroz reiteró que los E.E.U.U. necesitan no conformarse con “las normas ilusorias del comportamiento internacional”, o “adhiera a cada convención y acuerdo internacionales que alguien piense para proponer.”

Es interesante observar que los E.E.U.U. esperan que cada país aparte de sus clientes y aliados riguroso obedezca estas normas, no pues son sino como los E.E.U.U. los interpreta; o bien revestimientos del riesgo de países qué aconteció Iraq, Afganistán, Chile o Zimbabwe.

Según la doctrina de Clinton, América se da derecho a recurrir “uso unilateral de la energía militar para asegurarse uninhibited el acceso a los mercados dominantes, a los abastecimientos de energía, y a los recursos estratégicos”.

Esto, por supuesto, no se aplica a otros países. Incluso se prohiben el acceso a sus propios recursos y Zimbabwe es el pagar justo pesadamente tener acceso a su propia tierra.

Nicaragua, Grenada, Laos y otros países fueron invadidos por los E.E.U.U. para la propiedad que demandaba de sus propios recursos.

Las fuerzas israelíes están masacrando a palestinos hoy para su propia tierra y todas que se pueden oír de los E.E.U.U. y del Reino Unido son llamadas débiles y débiles para el alojamiento.

Hablan más ruidosamente contra un brote del cólera en Zimbabwe. Gritan raucously para el cambio del régimen en Zimbabwe e incluso abogan el uso de la fuerza, algo que condenaron con el más santo de la cólera cuando Rusia invadió Georgia a principios de este año.

Necesidad de Zimbabweans de mirar estos acontecimientos del mundo objetivo y no podemos todos ser engañados seguramente por la misma gente toda la hora.

Zimbabwe somos uno y juntos superaremos.

¡Es patria o muerte!

l razón Wafawarova es escritor político y se puede entrar en contacto con en wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk o reason@rwafawarova.com o visita www.rwafawarova.com

Regola flouting ad ovest di universalità
Automatically translated into Italian thanks to WorldLingo
Regola flouting ad ovest di universalità

da Reason Wafawarova a SYDNEY, Australia

ancora una volta che le vigilanze del mondo nella repulsione assoluta come Israele si aggancia nelle relative uccisioni ritual dei civili palestinesi non colpevoli ed i bambini, solo perché l'elite di regolamento israeliana sono della credenza che “questo è il momento per combattimento„, secondo Ehud Barak, il ministro israeliano della difesa.

I Britannici e gli Americani incolpano maldestramente “dell'aggressione palestinese„ i brutalities dell'Israele e fioco mumble qualcosa collegata a distanza ad una richiesta per fermo.

Nel frattempo, le autorità israeliane sono segnalate dichiarare arrogante un bombardamento continuato della struttura di tempo di no di Gaza.

Il principio di universalità è forse l'più elementare di tutte le verità morali. Tuttavia, quando si è confrontato con gli Stati Uniti e il exceptionalism israeliano, ci è questo rifiuto piano di universalità nella coltura morale e politica occidentale dell'intellettuale.

Il consenso del dopoguerra come incastonato nelle Nazioni Unite ha istituito formalmente l'articolo 51, per principii che governano l'uso del remains della forza in effetti.

L'aggressione brutale ed inaccettabile dall'Israele sui Palestinesi porta luce a questo piano d'azione rivelante e preoccupante che ritrae una variazione nello spettro dell'opinione nei cerchi occidentali dell'elite.

Mentre nessun di loro sono disposti ad essere onestamente abbastanza barbaric rifiutare ad apertamente ed esplicitamente il consenso di guerra II del alberino-Mondo, la verità è che il consenso sta ignorando ed è ritenuta troppo estremo considerare in “circostanze speciali„ israeliane.

L'unica volta il consenso rigorosamente è predicato dai politici occidentali è durante le discussioni pubbliche e politicking elettorale.

La conclusione di ultimo millennio e dell'inizio di questo è stata caratterizzata da un'articolazione valida di una partenza dal consenso del dopoguerra.

Il bombardamento della NATO della Serbia, l'invasione 2001 dell'Afghanistan e la violenza 2003 di Irak sono espressioni classiche di queste partenza e deviazione arrogante.

La coltura intellettuale e politica occidentale ha coniato la frase “illegale ma legittima„ per provare e dare una faccia di decency a questo terrorismo.

Il supporto entusiastico dagli intellettuali occidentali per il ricorso alla violenza che ritengono per essere legittimi è, naturalmente, una violazione lorda del principio di universalità.

È una violazione incastonata nello storico ed i pregiudizi in qualche modo razziali che dicono che soltanto “il unpeople di questo mondo„ (poichè Mark Curtis lo metterebbe) sono responsabili al crimine ed al barbarity.

Quando uno dà un'occhiata a George W. Dottrina del Bush “di self-defence anticipato„, come articolata nella strategia di sicurezza nazionale degli Stati Uniti del settembre 2002, allora è interessante vedere come che cosa si applica negli Stati Uniti ha banditry inaccettabile diventato per tutti gli altri, a meno che siano autorizzate gli alleati ed il cliente dichiara degli Stati Uniti.

Il consenso del dopoguerra ancora riafferma il basamento del mondo sulla guerra che è la parte esterna di mondo che cosa l'ovest chiama “la Comunità internazionale„, vale a dire in se.

Le dichiarazioni di Sadc e l'unione africana sull'impasse politica nello Zimbabwe hanno ricevuto soltanto il derision grezzo dai cerchi occidentali.

Ciò è la reazione standard “ai bleatings„ della poca gente di questo mondo.

Quando la dichiarazione della sommità del sud di 2000 è stata fatta, rifiutante saldamente “la cosiddetta destra di intervento umanitario„, lo stesso derision commesso dall'ovest è stato versato mercilessly.

L'analisi dettagliata e resa sofisticato accompagnare del globalisation neo-liberale è stata ignorata completamente nell'ovest, appena come la risoluzione di Sadc che dice che ci deve essere un governo compreso nello Zimbabwe “immediatamente„.

Di nuovo alla dottrina di Bush “di self-defence anticipato„, il funzionario “„ degli Stati Uniti, più successivamente confermato per essere Condoleezza Rice, descritto che la frase si riferisce “la destra degli Stati Uniti attacare un paese che pensano potrebbe attacarlo in primo luogo„.

Ciò è la stessa signora che ha concluso che la giurisdizione internazionale della corte ha “inadeguato provato per gli Stati Uniti„ e che gli Stati Uniti non sono generalmente conforme “a diritto ed alle norme internazionali„.

Mentre la maggior parte dei cittadini americani ed occidentali tiene la vista che la forza può essere usata soltanto quando ci è prova ben fondata che un paese è in pericolo imminente di attacco, il punto di vista dell'elitista è apparentemente molto differente.

L'idea del exceptionalism era evidente fin dal periodo del tribunale de Norimberga. Sia le prove de Tokyo che de Norimberga erano difettose, se le minime dovessero dirsi. Sono stati fondati sul rifiuto del principio di universalità.

Per portare i criminali sconfitti di guerra a giustizia, è stato ritenuto necessario inventare le definizioni “del crimine di guerra„ e “del crimine contro umanità„. I consulenti legali principali per i crimini di guerra, Telford Taylor del tribunale, spiegato come questo è stato fatto.

Taylor detto: “Poiché entrambi i lati avevano giocato il gioco terribile di distruzione urbana - gli alleati molto più con successo - non ci era base per le spese criminali contro i tedeschi o spesa giapponese e e, infatti, nessuna tali è stata portata. . . Il bombardamento aereo era stato usato così estesamente e ruthlessly dal lato alleato così come il lato di asse che nè a Norimberga nè Tokyo era l'edizione ha fatto una parte delle prove. “

La definizione attiva “del crimine„ è diventato: Il crimine che avete commesso o effettuate ma noi non. Da questa logica, i criminali nazisti di guerra sono stati assolti ogni volta la difesa potrebbe indicare che le loro controparti del Regno Unito e degli Stati Uniti hanno effettuato gli stessi crimini.

Per questi motivi, il tribunale ha scusato l'ammiraglio Karl Donitz “dalle fratture del diritto internazionale di guerra sottomarina„ sulla base della testimonianza dal Ministero della marina britannico e dall'ammiraglio Nimitz degli Stati Uniti che l'America ed il Regno Unito avevano effettuato gli stessi crimini dai primi giorni della guerra.

Mentre può essere discusso che né l'uno né l'altro lato è stato punito per questi crimini, rimane chiaro che il metodo ha screditato il diritto internazionale, così come i tribunali successivi come il tribunale della Iugoslavia e la corte speciale per la Sierra Leone a L'aia.

L'auto-esenzione de Washington da diritto internazionale ed il principio fondamentale di universalità, insieme alle fratture blatant dell'Israele di diritto internazionale e di ogni trattato di pace in atto, sono indicatori liberi di un mondo diretto per il disastro.

Quando si considera il comportamento degli Stati Uniti al livello internazionale, la pratica del exceptionalism è comprensibile.

Se l'ovest intrattenesse per un momento il principio di universalità ed anche accettato una volta per quel ogni paese, appena come gli Stati Uniti, ha la destra “di self-defence anticipato„ contro il terrore o quelli “che pensano potrebbero attacarli„ in primo luogo, allora paesi come l'Iran, Cuba e la Nicaragua negli anni 80 sarebbe stata autorizzata di attacare gli Stati Uniti quali senso possibile, dato la partecipazione a terrorista molto serio attaca contro di loro, compreso le minacce blatantly fatte pubblicità a dell'attacco da parte dell'Iran. Tali conclusioni sono considerate assolutamente outrageous, naturalmente.

Bene, un'inchiesta dai giornalisti britannici nel guaime degli attacchi dell'11 settembre fonda fuori quella, “lo scomparto di Osama carico e le minacce ricevute Taliban dei militari americani possibili colpisce contro di loro due mesi prima degli assalti del terrorista su New York e Washington„, che “solleva la possibilità che lo scomparto carico, lontano dal lancio degli attacchi al centro di commercio mondiale a New York ed al pentagono dall'azzurro, stava lanciando un colpo preventivo in risposta a che cosa ha visto come minacce degli Stati Uniti„.

Ciò, dai campioni del Regno Unito e degli Stati Uniti, deve essere self-defence anticipato legittimo; impensabile come esso è.

Di modo simile si potrebbe discutere il bombardamento del quel Giappone delle colonie degli Stati Uniti, Hawai e le Filippine, era self-defence anticipato legittimo poiché la pressa americana era awash con i particolari di come gli aerei americani erano capaci “di bruciarsi giù Tokyo, una città di riso-carta ed il legno alloggia„ - tutti dalle basi in Hawai e le Filippine.

Il 15 novembre 1941, General George C. degli Stati Uniti. Il Marshall ha spiegato che “ci non sarà alcun'esitazione circa i civili del bombardamento„.

Ciò ha fornito molto più giustificazione per self-defence anticipato che qualche cosa finora evocato da Bush, da Blair, da Ehud Olmert o da chiunque altrimenti dall'ovest alleato.

Tutti conosciamo le implicazioni di applicazione dei questi principii morali elementari. Il significato e le implicazioni generali di diritto internazionale sono abbastanza chiari affinchè chiunque capiscano, molto poichè la legge è conforme ad una portata dell'interpretazione.

La destra unilaterale del `del `dell'Israele e de Washington'' al ricorso a forza è niente di ma comportamento arrogante motivati dalla forza del supremacy militare.

Questo supremacy militare è l'unica spiegazione che può essere data quando Condoleezza Rice scrive negli affari esteri (2000) che condannano “l'appello riflessivo. . . alle nozioni di diritto e delle norme internazionali ed alla credenza che il supporto di molti dichiara - o persino migliori, delle istituzioni come le Nazioni Unite - è essenziale all'esercitazione di alimentazione legittima. “

Il riso ha ripetuto che gli Stati Uniti devono non essere conformi “alle norme illusorie di comportamento internazionale„, o “aderisca ad ogni convenzione ed accordo internazionali che qualcuno pensa per proporre.„

È interessante notare che gli Stati Uniti invitare ogni paese oltre ai relativi clienti ed alleati rigorosamente ad obbedire queste norme, non poichè sono ma come gli Stati Uniti li interpreta; oppure rivestimenti di rischio di paesi che cosa ha accaduto Irak, l'Afghanistan, il Cile o lo Zimbabwe.

Secondo la dottrina di Clinton, l'America è autorizzata di ricorrere “uso unilaterale di alimentazione militare per accertarsi uninhibited l'accesso ai mercati chiave, alle disponibilità di energia ed alle risorse strategiche„.

Ciò, naturalmente, non si applica ad altri paesi. Neppure non si concedono l'accesso alle loro proprie risorse e lo Zimbabwe è pagamento giusto pesante l'accesso a della relativa propria terra.

La Nicaragua, la Granada, il Laos ed altri paesi sono stati invasi dagli Stati Uniti per la proprietà sostenente delle loro proprie risorse.

Le forze israeliane massacring oggi i Palestinesi per la loro propria terra e tutte che possano essere sentite dagli Stati Uniti e dal Regno Unito sono richieste deboli e deboli per fermo.

Parlano più alto contro uno scoppio del colera nello Zimbabwe. Gridano raucously per il cambiamento di regime nello Zimbabwe e persino sostengono l'uso di forza, qualcosa che abbiano condannato con il più santo di rabbia quando la Russia ha invaso la Georgia all'inizio di quest'anno.

Necessità di Zimbabweans di guardare obiettivamente questi eventi del mondo e certamente non possiamo tutti essere imbrogliati dalla stessa gente tutto il tempo.

Lo Zimbabwe siamo l'uno e sormonteremo insieme.

È patria o morte!

la l motivo Wafawarova è un produttore politico e può mettersi in contatto con su wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk o reason@rwafawarova.com o chiamata www.rwafawarova.com

Flouting Universalität Westrichtlinie
Automatically translated into German thanks to WorldLingo
Flouting Universalität Westrichtlinie

durch Reason Wafawarova in SYDNEY, Australien

DENNOCH wieder die Weltuhren äußern innen Ekel, während Israel in seinen rituellen Tötungen der unschuldigen palästinensischen Zivilisten und der Kinder sich engagiert, gerade weil die israelische regierende Auslese vom Glauben sind, den „dieses die Zeit für das Kämpfen“, entsprechend Ehud Barak, der israelische Verteidigung-Minister ist.

Die Briten und die Amerikaner tadeln unbeholfen „palästinensischen Angriff“ für die Brutalitäten von Israel und sie murmeln schwach etwas, das entfernt mit einem Anruf für Begrenzung verbunden wird.

Unterdessen werden israelische Behörden berichtet, eine anhaltende Bombardierung des Nr.zeitrahmens von Gaza arrogant zu erklären.

Die Grundregel von Universalität ist möglicherweise aller moralischen Truisms das grundlegendste. Jedoch wenn man mit Vereinigten Staaten und israelischem exceptionalism konfrontiert wird, gibt es diese flache Ablehnung von Universalität in der westlichen Intellektuell-, moralischen und politischenkultur.

Formal charterten die Nachkriegsübereinstimmung, wie in den Nationen eingeschlossen Artikel 51, auf den Grundregeln, welche in Wirklichkeit die Gewaltanwendung des Remains regeln.

Der brutale und nicht annehmbare Angriff durch Israel auf Palästinensern bringt dieses aufschlußreiche und beunruhigende Drehbuch ans Licht, das eine Verschiebung im Spektrum der Meinung in den westlichen Auslesekreisen schildert.

Während keine von ihnen bereit sind, ehrlich genug zu barbarisch zu sein die übereinstimmung des PfostenWeltkrieges öffentlich und ausdrücklich zurückzuweisen II, ist die Wahrheit, daß die übereinstimmung ignoriert wird und wird zu extrem, unter den israelischen „speziellen Umständen“ zu betrachten gemeint.

Das einzige mal als die übereinstimmung rigoros von den westlichen Politikern ist während der allgemeinen Diskussionen und des Wahlc$politickings gepredigt wird.

Das Ende des letzten Jahrtausends und des Anfanges von diesem wurde durch eine starke Artikulation einer Abfahrt von der Nachkriegsübereinstimmung gekennzeichnet.

Bombardierung NATOs von Serbien, die Invasion 2001 von Afghanistan und der Raub 2003 vom Irak ist klassische Ausdrücke dieser Abfahrt und arroganten Abweichung.

Die westliche intellektuelle und politische Kultur hat die „ungültige aber gesetzmaßige“ Phrase geprägt, um ein Gesicht des Anstands zu diesem Terrorismus zu versuchen und zu geben.

Die enthusiastische Unterstützung durch westliche Intellektuelle für Erholungsort zur Gewalttätigkeit, die sie meinen, um gesetzmaßig zu sein, ist selbstverständlich eine grobe Verletzung der Grundregel von Universalität.

Es ist eine Verletzung, die im historischen eingeschlossen wird und ein wenig rassische Vorurteile, die sagen, daß nur das „unpeople dieser Welt“ (da Mark Curtis es setzen würde), sind zum Verbrechen und zum Barbarity verantwortlich.

Wenn man einen Blick bei George W. nimmt Lehre Bushs „des vorwegnehmenden Self-defence“, wie in der US Staatssicherheit Strategie von September 2002, dann ist es artikuliert interessant, zu sehen, wie was auf die US zutrifft, gewordenes nicht annehmbares Banditentum für alle andere hat, es sei denn sie autorisierte Verbündete und Klient Zustände der US sind.

Die Nachkriegsübereinstimmung versichert noch den Standplatz der Welt auf Krieg nochmals - der die Weltaußenseite ist, was der Westen „die internationale Gemeinschaft“ nennt, nämlich selbst.

Die Erklärungen von Sadc und der afrikanische Anschluß auf der politischen Sackgasse in Zimbabwe empfingen nur groben Hohn von den westlichen Kreisen.

Dieses ist die Standardreaktion zu den „bleatings“ der wenigen Völker dieser Welt.

Als die Erklärung des Südgipfels von 2000 abgegeben wurde, das „sogenannte Recht der humanitären Intervention“ fest zurückweisend, wurde der gleiche festgelegte Hohn vom Westen gnadenlos gegossen.

Genau geschilderte und verfeinerte Analyse des Begleitens des Neo-liberalen globalisation wurde gänzlich im Westen, gerade wie der Sadc Auflösung ignoriert, der sagt, daß es eine einschließliche Regierung in Zimbabwe „unverzüglich“ geben muß.

Zurück zu der Bush Lehre „des vorwegnehmenden Self-defence“, US „auf den höheren Beamten“, später bestätigt, um Condoleezza Rice könnte zu sein, umrissen, daß die Phrase „das Recht der Vereinigten Staaten, ein Land in Angriff zu nehmen sich bezieht, das sie denkt, sie zuerst in Angriff nehmen“.

Dieses ist die gleiche Dame, die feststellte, daß internationale Gerichtjurisdiktion „nachgewiesenes nicht angebrachtes für die Vereinigten Staaten“ hat und daß die US nicht abhängig von „internationalem Gesetz und Normen“ im Allgemeinen sind.

Während die Majorität der amerikanischen und westlichen Bürger die Meinung vertreten, daß Kraft nur aufgewendet werden kann, wenn es starken Beweis gibt, daß ein Land in der unmittelbar drohenden Gefahr von angegriffen werden ist, ist die Elitäransicht anscheinend sehr unterschiedlich.

Die Idee von exceptionalism war schon in der Zeit des Nürnberg Tribunals offensichtlich. waren die Nürnberg und Tokyo Versuche defekt, wenn die wenigen gesagt werden sollten. Sie wurden auf Ablehnung der Grundregel von Universalität gegründet.

Um die besiegten Kriegverbrecher zur Gerechtigkeit zu holen, wurde es notwendig Definitionen „des Kriegsverbrechens“ und „des Verbrechens gegen Menschlichkeit“ zu planen gemeint. Die Hauptratschläge des Tribunals für Kriegsverbrechen, Telford Taylor, erklärt, wie dieses getan wurde.

Besagtes Taylor: „Da beide Seiten das schreckliche Spiel der städtischen Zerstörung gespielt hatten - die Verbündeten weit erfolgreich - es gab keine Grundlage für kriminelle Aufladungen gegen die Deutschen, oder japanische und tatsächlich keine solche Aufladungen wurden geholt. . . Luftbombardierung war so weitgehend verwendet worden und unbarmherzig auf der verbündeten Seite sowie die Mittellinie Seite, die weder in Nürnberg noch in Tokyo war, bildete die Ausgabe ein Teil von den Versuchen. „

Die wirksame Definition „des Verbrechens“ wurde: Verbrechen, das Sie festlegten oder durchführten, aber wir nicht. Durch diese Logik wurden die Nazikriegverbrecher absolviert, jedesmal wenn die Verteidigung zeigen könnte, daß ihre US und Großbritannien Gegenstücke die gleichen Verbrechen durchführten.

Auf diesem Boden entschuldigte das Tribunal Admiral Karl Donitz „von den Brüchen des internationalen Gesetzes der Unterwasserkriegsführung“ auf Grund des Zeugnisses von der britischen Admiralität und VOM US Admiral Nimitz, denen Amerika und Großbritannien die gleichen Verbrechen von den ersten Tagen des Krieges durchgeführt hatten.

Während es argumentiert werden kann, daß auch nicht Seite für diese Verbrechen bestraft wurde, bleibt es, daß die Annäherung internationales Gesetz diskreditierte, sowie folgende Tribunale wie das Jugoslawien Tribunal und das spezielle Gericht für Sierra Leone in Den Haag frei.

Selbst-befreiung Washingtons vom internationalen Gesetz und die grundlegende Grundregel von Universalität, zusammen mit Israels krassen Brüchen des internationalen Gesetzes und jedes Friedensvertrags im Bestehen, sind Löschanzeiger einer Welt, die für Unfall vorangegangen wird.

Wenn man das Verhalten der US auf internationalem Niveau betrachtet, ist die Praxis von exceptionalism verständlich.

Wenn der Westen während eines Momentes die Grundregel von Universalität unterhielt und auch einmal angenommen für dieses jedes Land, gerade wie die US, hat das Recht „des vorwegnehmenden Self-defence“ gegen Terror, oder die „, das sie denken, konnten sie zuerst in Angriff nehmen“, dann Länder wie der Iran, Kuba und Nicaragua in den achtziger Jahren würde erlaubt worden sein, die US welche Weise, die, die Miteinbeziehung im sehr ernsten Terroristen gegeben möglich ist, gegen sie in Angriff nimmt, einschließlich kraß annoncierte Drohungen des Angriffs von seiten des Irans in Angriff zu nehmen. Solche Zusammenfassungen gelten als äußerst unverschämt, selbstverständlich.

Gut gründen eine Anfrage durch britische Journalisten in der Nachmahd der 11. September Angriffe heraus die, „das beladene Osama Sortierfach und die Taliban empfangenen Drohungen des möglichen amerikanischen Militärs schlägt gegen sie zwei Monate vor den Terroristangriffen auf New York an und Washington“, dem „die Möglichkeit daß das beladene Sortierfach aufwirft, weit von das Ausstoßen der Angriffe auf der Welthandel-Mitte in New York und dem Pentagon aus dem Blau heraus, stieß einen Vorkaufsschlag in Erwiderung auf aus, was er als US Drohungen sah“.

Dieser, durch US und Großbritannien Standards, muß gesetzmaßiger vorwegnehmender Self-defence sein; undenkbar als es ist.

Auf ähnliche Art und Weise könnte man Bombardierung dieses Japans der US Kolonien, Hawaii und die Philippinen argumentieren, war gesetzmaßiger vorwegnehmender Self-defence, da die amerikanische Presse mit Details von, wie amerikanische Flächen „zum Brennen hinunter Tokyo fähig waren, eine Stadt des Reispapiers awash war und Holz bringt“ - alle von den Unterseiten in Hawaii und in den Philippinen unter.

Am 15. November 1941 US General George C. Marschall erklärte, daß „es kein Zögern über Bombardierungzivilisten gibt“.

Dieses stellte weit mehr Rechtfertigung für vorwegnehmenden Self-defence als alles zur verfügung, das bis jetzt oben sonst durch Bush, Blair, Ehud Olmert oder jedermann vom verbündeten Westen beschworen wurde.

Alle wir kennen die Implikationen des Anwendens dieser grundlegenden moralischen Grundregeln. Die allgemeine Bedeutung und die Implikationen des internationalen Gesetzes sind genug frei, damit jedermann, viel versteht, wie Gesetz abhängig von einem Bereich der Deutung ist.

Washington und Israels ist einseitiges ``Recht'' zum Erholungsort zur Kraft nichts aber arrogantes Verhalten, die durch die Macht der militärischen Vorherrschaft motiviert werden.

Diese militärische Vorherrschaft ist die einzige Erklärung, die gegeben werden kann, wenn Condoleezza Rice in die Außenpolitik (2000) den „Reflexivanklang verurteilend schreibt. . . zu den Begriffen des internationalen Gesetzes und der Normen und zum Glauben, daß die Unterstützung vieler Zustände - oder sogar verbessern Sie, von den Anstalten wie die Nationen - zur gesetzmaßigen Machtausübung wesentlich ist. „

Reis reiterierte, daß die US sich nicht an „illusorische Normen des internationalen Verhaltens“ anpassen müssen, oder „befolgen Sie jede internationale Versammlung und Vereinbarung, die jemand denkt, um vorzuschlagen.“

Es ist interessant, zu merken, daß die US jedes Land abgesehen von seinen Klienten und Verbündeten erwarten, diese Normen rigoros zu befolgen, nicht da sie sind, aber als die US sie deutet; oder sonst Länderrisikoeinfassungen, was den Irak, Afghanistan, Chile oder Zimbabwe sich ereignete.

Entsprechend der Clinton Lehre wird Amerika erlaubt, Zuflucht zu nehmen „einseitiger Gebrauch von militärischer Energie zwecks sicherzustellen uninhibited Zugang zu den Schlüsselmärkten, zu den Energiezufuhren und zu den strategischen Betriebsmitteln“.

Dieses selbstverständlich trifft nicht auf andere Länder zu. Sie werden nicht sogar Zugang zu ihren eigenen Mitteln erlaubt und Zimbabwe ist gerechtes für das Zugänglich machen seines eigenen Landes schwer zahlen.

Nicaragua, Grenada, Laos und andere Länder wurden durch die US für behauptenden Besitz ihrer eigenen Mittel eingedrungen.

Die israelischen Kräfte akrieren Palästinenser heute für ihr eigenes Land mass und alle, die von den US und von Großbritannien gehört werden können, sind schwache und schwache Anrufe für Begrenzung.

Sie sprechen louder gegen einen Choleraausbruch in Zimbabwe. Sie schreien raucously nach Regimeänderung in Zimbabwe und sie befürworten sogar die Gewaltanwendung, etwas, das sie mit dem heiligsten des Zornes verurteilten, als Rußland Georgia früh dieses Jahr eindrang.

Zimbabweans Notwendigkeit, diese Weltfälle objektiv zu betrachten und sicher können wir nicht alle von den gleichen Leuten getäuscht werden alle Zeit.

Zimbabwe sind wir einer und zusammen überwinden wir.

Es ist Heimat oder Tod!

mit L Grund Wafawarova ist ein politischer Verfasser und kann auf wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk oder reason@rwafawarova.com oder Besuch www.rwafawarova.com in Verbindung getreten werden

Régua flouting ocidental do universality
Automatically translated into Portuguese thanks to WorldLingo
A régua flouting ocidental do universality

por Razão Wafawarova em SYDNEY, Austrália

CONTUDO outra vez os relógios do mundo na aversão totala como Israel acopla em suas matanças ritual de civis e de crianças Palestinian inocentes, apenas porque o elite governando Israeli é da opinião que “este é o momento para lutar”, de acordo com Ehud Barak, o ministro Israeli da defesa.

Os Ingleses e os americanos responsabilizam inàbil “o aggression Palestinian” pelos brutalities de Israel e mumble não ofuscante algo ligado remotamente a uma chamada para o restraint.

Entrementes, as autoridades Israeli são relatadas declarar arrogante um bombardeio continuado do frame de tempo do No. de Gaza.

O princípio do universality é talvez o mais elementar de todos os truisms morais. Entretanto, quando se é confrontado com os Estados Unidos e o exceptionalism Israeli, há esta rejeção lisa do universality na cultura ocidental do intelectual, a moral e a política.

Formalmente o consenso da pós guerra como enshrined nas nações unidas fretou o artigo 51, nos princípios que governam o uso do remains da força de fato.

O aggression brutal e inaceitável por Israel em Palestinians traz a luz a este scenario revelando e perturbando que portrays um deslocamento no spectrum da opinião em círculos ocidentais do elite.

Quando nenhuns deles forem dispostos ser honesta barbaric bastante para rejeitar a abertamente e explicitamente o consenso da guerra II do borne-Mundo, a verdade é que o consenso está sendo ignorado e está julgada demasiado extremo para considerar sob “as circunstâncias especiais Israeli”.

A única vez que o consenso preached rigorously por políticos ocidentais é durante discussões públicas e politicking electoral.

O fim do último millennium e do começo deste foi caracterizado por um articulation forceful de uma partida do consenso da pós guerra.

O bombardeio da OTAN de Serbia, a invasão 2001 de Afeganistão e a violação 2003 de Iraq são expressões clássicas destes partida e desvio arrogante.

A cultura intelectual e política ocidental inventou a frase “ilegal mas legitimate” para tentar e dar uma cara do decency a este terrorismo.

A sustentação entusiástica por intelectuais ocidentais para o recurso à violência que julgam para ser legitimate é, naturalmente, uma violação bruta do princípio do universality.

É uma violação enshrined no histórico e os preconceitos um tanto raciais que dizem que somente o “unpeople deste mundo” (porque Mark Curtis o poria) são responsáveis ao crime e ao barbarity.

Quando um fizer exame de um olhar em George W. Doutrina de Bush “do self-defence antecipador”, como articulada na estratégia da segurança nacional dos E.U. de setembro 2002, então é interessante ver como o que se aplica aos E.U. tem banditry inaceitável tornado para todo o outro, a menos que for aliados e estados autorizados do cliente dos E.U.

O consenso da pós guerra reaffirms ainda o carrinho do mundo na guerra que é a parte externa de mundo o que o oeste chama “a comunidade internacional”, a saber própria.

As declarações de Sadc e a união africana no impasse político em Zimbabwe receberam somente o derision cru dos círculos ocidentais.

Esta é a reação padrão aos “bleatings” de poucos povos deste mundo.

Quando a declaração do Summit sul de 2000 foi feita, rejeitando firmemente “a direita so-called da intervenção humanitária”, o mesmo derision cometido do oeste foi derramado mercilessly.

A análise detalhada e sofisticada acompanhar do globalisation neo-liberal foi ignorada completamente no oeste, apenas como a definição de Sadc que diz que deve haver um governo inclusivo em Zimbabwe “forthwith”.

Para trás à doutrina de Bush “do self-defence antecipador”, o oficial “sênior” de uns E.U., confirmado mais tarde para ser Condoleezza Rice, esboçada que a frase consulta “a direita dos Estados Unidos atacar um país de que pensassem poderia atacá-los primeiramente”.

Esta é a mesma senhora que concliu que o jurisdição internacional da corte tem “impróprio provado para os Estados Unidos”, e que os E.U. não são sujeitos “à lei e às normas internacionais” geralmente.

Quando a maioria de cidadãos americanos e ocidentais prender a vista que a força pode somente ser usada quando há uma evidência forte que um país está no perigo imminent do ataque, a opinião do elitista é aparentemente muito diferente.

A idéia do exceptionalism era evidente assim que a época do tribunal de Nuremberg. As experimentações de Nuremberg e de Tokyo eram danificadas, se as menos devessem ser ditas. Foram fundados na rejeção do princípio do universality.

A fim trazer os criminosos derrotados da guerra à justiça, foi julgado necessário planejar definições de “do crime guerra” e do “crime de encontro ao humanity”. Os conselhos principais para crimes de guerra, alfaiate do tribunal de Telford, explicado como isto foi feito.

Alfaiate dito: “Desde que ambos os lados tinham jogado o jogo terrível da destruição urbana - aliados distante mais com sucesso - não havia nenhuma base para cargas criminal de encontro aos alemães ou carga japonesa, e, no fato, nenhuma tal foi trazida. . . O bombardeio aéreo tinha sido usado assim extensivamente e ruthlessly no lado aliado as well as o lado da linha central que nem em Nuremberg nem em Tokyo era a edição fêz uma peça das experimentações. “

A definição operativa “do crime” tornou-se: O crime que você cometeu ou realizou mas nós não. Por esta lógica, os criminosos Nazi da guerra absolved cada vez que a defesa poderia mostrar que suas contrapartes dos E.U. e do Reino Unido realizaram os mesmos crimes.

Nestas terras, o tribunal desculpou o almirante Karl Donitz das “rupturas da lei internacional da guerra submarina” nas terras do testimony do Admiralty britânico e do almirante Nimitz dos E.U. que América e o Reino Unido tinham realizado os mesmos crimes dos primeiros dias da guerra.

Quando se puder discutir que nenhum lado estêve punido para estes crimes, remanesce desobstruído que a aproximação desacreditou a lei internacional, as well as tribunais subseqüentes como o tribunal de Jugoslávia e a corte especial para Sierra Leão em Haia.

A self-isenção de Washington da lei internacional e o princípio fundamental do universality, junto com rupturas blatant de Israel da lei internacional e do cada tratado da paz na existência, são indicadores desobstruídos de um mundo dirigido para o disastre.

Quando se considera o comportamento dos E.U. no nível internacional, a prática do exceptionalism é compreensível.

Se o oeste entertained por um momento o princípio do universality e aceitado também para uma vez esse cada país, apenas como os E.U., tem a direita “do self-defence antecipador” de encontro ao terror ou aqueles “que pensam puderam atacá-los” primeiramente, então países como Irã, Cuba e Nicarágua nos 1980s seria intitulada atacar os E.U. qualquer maneira possível, dado a participação no terrorista muito sério ataca de encontro a eles, including ameaças blatantly anunciadas do ataque na parte de Irã. Tais conclusões são consideradas totalmente outrageous, naturalmente.

Bem, um inquérito por journalists britânicos no aftermath dos ataques setembro de 11 funda para fora aquele, de “o escaninho Osama Laden e as ameaças recebidas Taliban de forças armadas americanas possíveis golpeiam de encontro a elas dois meses antes dos assaltos do terrorista em New York e Washington”, que “levanta a possibilidade que o escaninho Laden, longe de lançar os ataques no centro de comércio de mundo em New York e no Pentagon fora do azul, lançava uma batida pre-emptive em resposta a o que viu como ameaças dos E.U.”.

Este, por padrões dos E.U. e do Reino Unido, deve ser self-defence antecipador legitimate; unthinkable como ele é.

Na forma similar se poderia discutir o bombardeio desse Japão de colônias dos E.U., Havaí e as Filipinas, era self-defence antecipador legitimate desde que a imprensa americana era awash com os detalhes de como os planos americanos eram capazes da “queimadura abaixo Tokyo, uma cidade do arroz-papel e a madeira abriga” - tudo das bases em Havaí e nas Filipinas.

Novembro em 15, 1941, general George C. dos E.U. O Marshall explicou que “não haverá nenhuma hesitação sobre civis do bombardeio”.

Isto forneceu distante mais justificação para o self-defence antecipador do que qualquer coisa conjured assim distante acima por Bush, por Blair, por Ehud Olmert ou por qualquer um mais do oeste aliado.

Nós todos sabemos as implicações de aplicar estes princípios morais elementares. O meaning e as implicações gerais da lei internacional estão desobstruídos bastante para que qualquer um compreenda, muito porque a lei é sujeita a um espaço da interpretação.

A direita unilateral do `do `de Washington e de Israel'' ao recurso à força não é nada mas comportamento arrogante motivated pelo poder do supremacy militar.

Este supremacy militar é a única explanação que pode ser dada quando Condoleezza Rice escreve nos casos extrangeiros (2000) que condemning “a apelação reflexiva. . . às noções da lei e de normas internacionais, e à opinião que a sustentação de muitos estados - ou melhore mesmo, das instituições como as nações unidas - é essencial ao exercício de poder legitimate. O “

arroz reiterated que os E.U. necessitam não se conformar “às normas illusory do comportamento internacional”, ou “adira a cada convenção e acordo internacionais que alguém pensa para propôr.”

É interessante anotar que os E.U. esperam cada país aparte de seus clientes e aliados obedecer rigorously estas normas, não porque são mas como os E.U. os interpreta; ou revestimentos outros do risco de países o que befell Iraq, Afeganistão, Chile ou Zimbabwe.

De acordo com a doutrina de Clinton, América é intitulada recorrer “uso unilateral do poder militar a fim assegurar-se uninhibited o acesso aos mercados chaves, às fontes de energia, e aos recursos estratégicos”.

Isto, naturalmente, não se aplica a outros países. Não é permitido mesmo o acesso a seus próprios recursos e Zimbabwe é pagar justo pesadamente alcançar sua própria terra.

Nicarágua, Grenada, Laos e outros países foram invadidos pelos E.U. para a posse reivindicando de seus próprios recursos.

As forças Israeli massacring Palestinians hoje para sua própria terra e todos que podem ser ouvidos dos E.U. e do Reino Unido são chamadas feeble e fracas para o restraint.

Falam mais ruidosamente de encontro a um outbreak do cholera em Zimbabwe. Shout raucously para a mudança do regime em Zimbabwe e advogam mesmo o uso de força, algo que condemned com o mais holiest da raiva quando Rússia invadiu Geórgia no começo desse ano.

Necessidade de Zimbabweans olhar objetiva estes eventos do mundo e certamente nós não podemos tudo ser enganados pelos mesmos povos toda a hora.

Zimbabwe nós somos um e junto nós superaremos.

É homeland ou morte!

l razão Wafawarova é um escritor político e pode ser contatado em wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk ou reason@rwafawarova.com ou visita www.rwafawarova.com

Västra flouting universality härskar
Automatically translated into Swedish thanks to WorldLingo
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:19:57 GMT
Server: Apache
Set-Cookie: JSESSIONID=3A1266E820532A7C250D1EEFC7987ADD.lv1-42; Path=/
X-WL-ERRORCODE: 1176
Content-Length: 11337
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1

Västra flouting universality härskar

resonerar By Wafawarova i SYDNEY, Australien,

YET igen kopplar in världsklockorna i fullkomlig avsmak som Israel i dess rituella dödanden av oskyldiga palestinska civilister och barn som är rättvisa, därför att den israeliska avgörandeeliten är av tron som ”denna är tiden för stridighet”, enligt Ehud Barak, den israeliska försvarminister.

Britten och amerikanerna klandrar obehagligt ”palestinsk agression” för brutaliteterna av Israel, och de mumlar dunkelt något som anknytas avlägset till en appell för tvång.

Under tiden anmälas israeliska myndigheter arrogantly för att förklara en nr.tid inramar fortsatt beskjutning av Gaza.

Principen av universality är kanske de mest elementära allra moraliska truismsna. Emellertid när man konfronteras med enigt, påstår och den israeliska exceptionalismen, där är denna lägenhetkassering av universality i den västra moralisk och politisk kulturen för intellektuellen.

Formellt återstår den post-war konsensusen som enshrined i Förenta nationcharter artikel 51, på principer som reglerar bruket av styrka, verkställer in.

Den brutala och oacceptabla agressionen av Israel på palestinier kommer med för att tända detta avslöjande, och det störande scenariot, som beskriver en förskjutning i spectrumen av åsikten i västra elit, cirklar.

Stunder inga av dem är villiga att vara honestly barbariska nog till öppet, och tydligt kriger utskottsvaran posta-Världen konsensus II, är ansas sanningen, att konsensusen ignoreras och för ytterligheten som ska betraktas under de israeliska ”speciala omständigheterna”.

Den enda tiden som konsensusen predikas rigorously av västra politikar, är under offentliga diskussioner och val- att politicking.

Avsluta av den sist milleniummen och början av denna karakteriserades av en kraftfull artikulering av en avvikelse från den post-war konsensusen.

Natos bombning av Serbia, invasionen 2001 av Afghanistan och 2003na våldtar av Irak är klassikeruttryck av detta avvikelse och arrogant avsteg.

Den västra intellektuellen och den politiska kulturen har myntat den olagliga formulera ”men legitimerar” till försök och ger en vända mot av anständighet till denna terrorism.

Den entusiastiska servicen av västra intellektueller för semesterort till våld som de ansar för att vara legitima, är, naturligtvis, en brutto- kränkning av principen av universality.

Det är en kränkning enshrined i det historiskt, och något rasfördomar som något att säga endast ”unpeoplen av denna värld” (som markerar skulle Curtis satte den) är ansvarig till brott och omänsklighet.

När en tar en look på George W. Bush doktrin av ”föregripa self-defence”, som artikulerad i US-nationell säkerhetstrategin av September 2002, därefter är det intressant att se hur vad applicerar till USEN har bliven oacceptabel banditliv för alla andra, om inte de bemyndigas, påstår bundsförvanter och beställaren av USEN.

Den post-war konsensusstillbilden intygar på nytt stativ av världen kriger på - som är världsyttersidan vad de västra appellerna ”internationellt samfund”, namely sig själv.

Förklaringarna av Sadc och den afrikanska unionen på det politiska dödläget i Zimbabwe endast mottaget rått hån från västra cirklar.

Denna är den standarda reaktionen till ”bleatingsna” av mindre bemannar av denna värld.

Då förklaringen av det södra toppmötet av 2000 gjordes som fast kasserar ”den so-called rätten av humanitärt ingripande”, hälldes det samma hängivna hån från det västra, skoningslöst.

Ignorerades specificerad och sofistikerad analys för medfölja av neo-liberalen globalisering grundligt i den västra rättvisa något liknande den Sadc upplösningen att något att säga där måste vara en inklusive regering i Zimbabwe ”forthwith”.

Baksida till den Bush doktrinen av ”föregripa self-defence”, en US ”hög tjänsteman”, mer sistnämnd som bekräftas för att vara Condoleezza Rice som skisseras att formulera ser till ”rätten av Förenta staterna för att anfalla ett land att den funderare kunde anfalla det först”.

Denna är den samma ladyen som avslutade att landskampdomstoljurisdiktion har ”bevisat olämpligt för Förenta staterna”, och att USEN inte är att betvinga ”landskamplag och norms” allmänt.

Fördriva majoriteten av amerikan, och den västra medborgarehållen som beskåda, som styrka kan endast användas, när det finns starkt bevisar, att ett land är i förestående fara av att anfallas, den elitisk beskådar är som synes mycket olik.

The idea of exceptionalism was evident as early as the time of the Nuremberg Tribunal. Både de Nuremberg och Tokyo försöken var defekta, om least skulle sägas. De grundades på kasseringen av principen av universality.

För att komma med de besegrade krigsförbrytarna till rättvisa ansades det nödvändigt att planera definitioner av ”krigsbrottet” och ”brott mot mänsklighet”. Domstol högsta advokat för krigsbrott, Telford Taylor som förklaras hur detta gjordes.

Said Taylor: ”Sedan båda sidor hade lekt den ruskiga leken av stads- förstörelse - bundsförvanterna långt mer lyckad - det fanns inte någon bas för brottsåtal mot germansna, eller japanen och, i faktum, inga sådan laddningar koms med. . . Flyg- beskjutning hade använts så omfattande, och ruthlessly på den förbundna sidan as well as axelsidan, som neither på Nuremberg nor Tokyo var, gjorde utfärda en del av försöken. ”

Blev den operativa definitionen av ”brott”: Brott som du som var hängiven eller bars ut, utan vi inte. Av denna logik frikänndes de Nazi krigsförbrytarna, varje gång försvaret kunde visa att deras US- och UK-motstycken bar ut de samma brotten.

På dessa jordning ursäktade domstolen amiralen Karl Donitz från ”brytningar av landskamplagen av ubåtkrig” på jordningen av vittnesbörden från den brittiska Admiraltyen och US-amiralen Nimitz som Amerika och UKEN hade burit ut de samma brotten från de första dagarna av kriga.

Stunden som det kan argumenteras, att ingen av sida bestraffades för dessa brott, det, återstår frikänden, som att närma sig misskrediterade landskamplag, såväl som följande domstolnågot liknande den Jugoslavien domstolen och den speciala domstolen för Sierra Leone på Haguen.

Washington själv-befrielse från landskamplag och grundprincipen av universality, samman med Israel påfallande brytningar av landskamplag och varje fredfördrag i existens, är klara indikatorer av en värld som är hövdad för katastrof.

När man betraktar uppförandet av USEN på landskampen jämnt, är öva av exceptionalismen begriplig.

Om det västra som underhållas för ett ögonblick principen av universality och också en gång accepteras för det varje land, rättvis något liknande USEN, har rätten av ”föregripa self-defence” mot skräck eller de ”dem funderarestyrkan att anfalla” dem först, därefter gillar länder Iran, Kuba, och skulle Nicaragua på åttiotalet har berättigats till att anfalla USEN, vilkendera långt möjlighet som ges medverkan i mycket allvarliga terroristattacker mot dem, inklusive uppenbart annonserade hot av attack på delen av Iran. Sådan avslutningar är ansett utterly skandalöst, naturligtvis.

Välla fram en förfrågning av Britt journalister i efterdyningen av de September 11 attackerna som ut finnas det, ”Osama, slänga i soptunnan Laden, och de Taliban mottagna hoten av slag för möjlighetamerikanmilitären mot dem två månader för terroristanfallarna på New York och Washington”, som ”lönelyfter möjligheten, som slänga i soptunnan Laden som lanserar attackerna på världshandeln, centrerar långtifrån i New York och pentagonen ut ur blåtten, lanserade ett pre-emptive slag som svar på vad han sågar som US-hot”.

Denna vid US- och UK-normal, måste vara legitim föregripa self-defence; otänkbart som det är.

I liknande dana en kunde argumentera den Japan bombning av US-kolonier, Hawaii, och Filippinerna, var legitim föregripa self-defence, sedan amerikanpressen var awash med specificerar av hur amerikanen hyvlar var kapabel av ”bränning besegrar Tokyo, rice-skyler över brister en stad av och wood hus” - alla från baser i Hawaii och Filippinerna.

På November 15, 1941, US-General George C. Marshallen förklarade att ”det ska för att inte vara någon tvekan om bombningcivilister”.

Detta g långt mer motivering för föregripa self-defence än något som så långt annars trollades upp av Bush, Blair, Ehud Olmert eller någon från det förbundna västra.

Alla vi vet implikationerna av att applicera dessa elementära moraliska principer. Det allmänna menande och implikationerna av landskamplag är klara nog för att någon ska förstå, mycket, som lag är betvingar till en räckvidd av tolkningen.

Är höger Washington och Israel ensidig `- `'' att tillgripa för att tvinga ingenting utom arrogant uppförande som motiveras av styrkan av den militära supremacyen.

Denna militära supremacy är den enda förklaringen som kan ges, när Condoleezza Rice skriver i utländska angelägenheter (2000) som fördömer ”den reflexiva vädjanen. . . till aningar av landskamplag och norms och tron, att servicen av många påstår - eller även förbättra, av institutionnågot liknande Förenta nationen - är nödvändig till det legitimt övar av driver. ”

Reiterated Rice att USEN behöver att inte att inordna sig ”illusory norms av landskampuppförande”, eller ”klibba till varje landskampregel och överenskommelse som någon funderare som ska föreslås.”,

Den är intressant att notera att USEN förväntar varje land frånsett dess beställare och bundsförvanter rigorously för att lyda dessa norms, inte som de är, men som USEN tolkar dem; eller andra länder riskerar fasadbeklädnad vad drabbade Irak, Afghanistan, Chile eller Zimbabwe.

Enligt den Clinton doktrinen berättigas Amerika till att tillgripa ”ensidigt bruk av militären driver för att se till uninhibited tar fram för att stämma marknadsför, energiförsörjningar och strategiska resurser”.

Detta, applicerar naturligtvis inte till andra länder. De är tillåtna tar fram inte ens till deras egna resurser, och Zimbabwe är rättvist betala tungt för att ta fram dess egna land.

Nicaragua, Grenada, Laos och andra länder invaderades av USEN för att fordra äganderätt av deras egna resurser.

De israeliska styrkorna massakrerar palestinier i dag för deras egna land, och alla, som kan höras från USEN och UKEN, är svaga och att svimma appeller för tvång.

De talar mer hög mot ett kolerautbrott i Zimbabwe. De ropar raucously för styreändring i Zimbabwe, och de förespråkar även bruket av styrka, något som de fördömde med det mest holiest av ilska, då Ryssland invaderade Georgia tidigare detta år.

Zimbabweans behov att se dessa världshändelser mål och säkert kan inte vi alla bedras av det samma folket hela tiden.

Zimbabwe är vi en, och tillsammans ska vi betaget.

Det är hemland eller död!

l resonerar Wafawarova är en politisk författare och kan kontaktas på wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk eller reason@rwafawarova.com eller besök www.rwafawarova.com

Западное flouting правило всеобщности
Automatically translated into Russian thanks to WorldLingo
Западное flouting правило всеобщности

Причиной Wafawarova в SYDNEY, Австралии

НО снова вахты мира в дотла disgust как Израиль включает в своих ритуальных умерщвлениях невиновных палестинских civilians и детей, как раз потому что израильская управляя элита верования которого «это будет время для воевать», согласно Ehud Barak, израильский военныйа министр.

British и американцы несуразно обвинили «палестинское агрессию» для зверства Израиля и они тускло бормочет что-то дистанционно соединенное к звоноку для ограничения.

Между тем, сообщены, что заносчиво объявляют израильские авторитеты бомбардировку нет продолжаемую временные рамки Gaza.

Принцип всеобщности возможно самыми элементарными всех нравственных труизмов. Однако, когда confronted с Соединенными Штатами и израильским exceptionalism, будет этот плоский сброс всеобщности в западной культуре интеллигентки, нравственных и политических.

Официально post-war консенсус как enshrined в Организации Объединенных Наций фрахтовал статью 51, на принципах управляя применением силы остаток in effect.

Зверское и неприемлемое агрессия Израилем на палестинцах приносит к свету этот показывая и нарушая сценарий портретирует перенос в спектр мнения в западных кругах элиты.

Пока никакие из их охотно готовы быть честно barbaric достаточно к открыто и точно излучить консенсус войны II столб-Мира, правда что консенсус игнорируется и посчитана слишком весьма рассматривать под израильскими «специальными обстоятельствами».

The only time консенсус rigorously проповедован западными политиканами во время общественных обсуждений и электорального politicking.

Конец последнего тысячелетия и начала этого был охарактеризован forceful сочленением отклонения от post-war консенсуса.

Бомбометание Nato Сербии, нашествие 2001 Афганистана и рапс 2003 Ирака будут классицистическими выражениями этих отклонения и заносчивого отступления.

Западная интеллектуальная и политическая культура чеканила фразу «противозаконную но правомерную» для того чтобы попытаться и даться сторона пристойности к этому террорисму.

Восторженной поддержкой западными интеллигентками для курорта к расправе, котор они считают, что будут правомерны будет, of course, большое нарушение принципа всеобщности.

Будет нарушением enshrined в историческом и несколько расовые предубежденности говорят только «unpeople этого мира» (по мере того как Mark Curtis положило бы его) liable к злодеянию и barbarity.

Когда одно взглянет на George W. Bush. Bush доктрина «антиципаторной самозащиты», как артикулировано в стратегии национальной безопасности США сентября 2002, тогда интересно увидеть как применяется к США имеет, котор стали неприемлемое banditry для всех других, если они не быть утверженными союзниками и положениями клиента США.

Post-war консенсус все еще вновь подтверждает стойку мира на войне что снаружи мира запад сам вызывает «сообществ», namely.

Объявления Sadc и африканское соединение на политическом impasse в Зимбабве только получили незрелое derision от западных кругов.

Это будет стандартная реакция к «bleatings» меньших людей этого мира.

Когда было сделано объявление южного саммита 2000, твердо излучая «so-called right of интервенция во имя гуманных целей», такое же порученное derision от запада было полито безпощадно.

Анализ сопровождения детализированный и изощренный neo-либерального globalisation тщательно был проигнорирован в западе, как раз как разрешение Sadc который говорит должно быть включительное правительство в Зимбабве «forthwith».

Back to доктрина кустика «антиципаторной самозащиты», должностное лицо США «старшее», более поздно подтверженные, что был конспектированным Кондолиза Райс, что фраза refer to «right of Соединенные Штаты для того чтобы атаковать страну которая она думает смогл атаковать ее сперва».

Это будет такой же повелительницей заключила что международное юрисдикция суда имеет «доказанное неуместное для Соединенных Штатов», и что США не subject to «международное право и нормы» вообще.

Пока большинство американских и западных граждан придерживается взгляда что усилие можно только использовать когда будет убедительное доказательство что страна находится в неминуемой опасностьи быть атакованным, взгляд elitist явно очень друг.

Идея exceptionalism была очевидна начиная с времени трибунала Nuremberg. И пробы Nuremberg и токио были flawed, если самое меньший должны было быть сказанным. Они были основаны на сбросе принципа всеобщности.

Принесло нанесенные поражение военных преступников к правосудию, оно были посчитаны, что обязательно изобрести определения «военныа преступления» и «преступление против человечества». Консультанты для военных преступления, портной трибунала главные Telford, объясненный как это было сделано.

Сказанный портной: «В виду того что обе стороны сыграли ужасную игру урбанского разрушения - союзников далеко более успешно - не было основы для уголовное обвинение против немцев или не были принесены японские, и, в действительности, никакие такие обязанности. . . Воздушная бомбардировка была использована настолько обширно и ruthlessly на Allied стороне также, как сторона оси ни на Nuremberg ни токио был вопрос сделал часть проб. «

Оперативное определение «злодеяния» стало: Злодеяние вы поручили или унесли только мы не сделали. этой логикой, военные преступники Nazi были absolved each time оборона смогла показать что их двойники США и Великобритании унесли такие же злодеяния.

На этих землях, трибунал извинил Admiral Карл Donitz от «проломов международного права submarine войны» on the grounds of свидетельствование от великобританского Admiralty и Admiral Nimitz США которому америка и Великобритания унесли такие же злодеяния от первых дней войны.

Пока оно можно поспорить что никакая сторона не была репрессирована для этих злодеяний, она остает ясной что подход оскандалил международное право, также, как затем трибуналы как трибунал Югославии и специальный суд для Сьерра-Леона на The Hague.

Собственн-exemption вашингтона от международного права и основным принципом всеобщности, совместно с проломами Израиля blatant международного права и каждого договора мира в существовании, будут ясные индикаторы мира возглавленного для бедствия.

Когда рассматривать поведение США на международном уровне, практика exceptionalism постижима.

Если запад развлек на момент принцип всеобщности и также принято для раз той каждой страны, как раз как США, то имеет right of «антиципаторная самозащита» против террора или те «, котор они думает могли атаковать» их сперва, тогда страны как Иран, Куба и Никарагуа в 1980s были бы озаглавлены для того чтобы атаковать США whichever дорогу по возможности, дали запутанность в очень серьезном террористе атакует против их, включая blatantly разрекламированные угрозы нападения on the part of Иран. Такие заключения учтены дотла неистово, of course.

Наилучшим образом, дознание великобританскими журналистами в отаве нападений 11-ое сентября основывает вне то, «Осама Бен Ладен и полученные Taliban угрозы по возможности американских воиска поражают против их 2 месяца перед штурмами террориста на нью-йорке и вашингтон», которому «поднимает возможность что ящик Laden, far from запускать нападения на центре международной торговли в нью-йорке и пентагоне из сини, запускало упреждающий удар in response to он увидел как угрозы США».

Это, стандартами США и Великобритании, должно быть правомерная антиципаторная самозащита; unthinkable как оно.

В подобном способе одно смогло поспорить бомбометание той японии колоний США, Гавайских островов и Philippines, было правомерной антиципаторной самозащитой в виду того что американское давление было awash с деталями как американские плоскости были способны «гореть вниз с токио, город рис-бумаги и древесина расквартировывает» - все от оснований в Гавайских островах и Philippines.

15-ого ноября 1941, генералитет Джордж C. США. Выстраивайте объяснено что «не будет любого hesitation о civilians бомбометания».

Это обеспечило значительно больше объяснения для антиципаторной самозащиты чем что-нибыдь до тех пор заколдованное вверх Кустиком, Блэр, Ehud Olmert или любым еще от Allied запада.

Мы все знаем прикосновенности прикладывать эти элементарные нравственные принципы. Вообще смысль и прикосновенности международного права ясны достаточно для любого для того чтобы понять, много по мере того как закон subject to объем толкования.

Правом ``вашингтона и Израиля односторонным'' к курорту к усилию будет ничего но заносчивым поведением motivated мощью воинского supremacy.

Это воинское supremacy будет единственным объяснением можно дать когда Кондолиза Райс пишет в международных делах (2000) судя «рефлексивное воззвание. . . к придумкам международного права и норм, и верованию что поддержка много положений - or even улучшайте, заведений как Организация Объединенных Наций - необходима к правомерному осуществлению власти. «

Рис reiterated что США нужно не соответствовать к «иллюзорным нормам международного поведения», или «придерживайтесь к каждым международной конвенции и согласованию которое кто-то думает для того чтобы предложить.»

Интересно заметить что США ожидают, что каждая страна отдельно от своих клиентов и союзников rigorously повинует этим нормам, не по мере того как они но как США интерпретирует они; or else облицовки риска стран befell Ирак, Афганистан, Чили или Зимбабве.

Согласно доктрине Клинтон, америка озаглавлена прибегнуть «односторонная польза военной власти обеспечить uninhibited доступ к основным рынкам, energy supplies, и стратегическим ресурсам».

Это, of course, не применяется к другим странам. Им даже не позволяют доступ к их собственным ресурсам и Зимбабве справедливый оплачивать тяжело для достигать своей собственной земли.

Никарагуа, Гренада, Лаос и другие страны были вторгнуты США для требуя владения их собственных ресурсов.

Израильские усилия massacring палестинцы сегодня для их собственной земли и все можно услышать от США и Великобритании будут ослабелые и faint звоноки для ограничения.

Они говорят более louder против outbreak холеры в Зимбабве. Они кричат raucously для изменения режима в Зимбабве и они даже защищают применение силы, что-то, котор они засудили с самым святейшим гнева когда Россия вторгнулась Georgia earlier this year.

Потребность Zimbabweans посмотреть эти случаи мира объективно и уверенно мы не можем все быть околпачены такими же людьми полностью время.

Зимбабве мы одним и совместно мы отожмем.

Будет homeland или смертью!

l причиной Wafawarova будет политический сочинитель и может быть контактирован на wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk или reason@rwafawarova.com или посещении www.rwafawarova.com

Het westen dat universaliteitsregel afwijst
Automatically translated into Dutch thanks to WorldLingo
Het westen dat universaliteitsregel afwijst

door Reden Wafawarova in SYDNEY, Australië

nogmaals de wereld let op in uiterste afschuw aangezien Israël in zijn rituele moord van onschuldige Palestijnse burgers en kinderen in dienst neemt, enkel omdat de Israëlische beslissende elite van de overtuiging is dat „dit de tijd voor het bestrijden van“, volgens Ehud Barak, de Israëlische Minister van de Defensie is.

De Britten en de Amerikanen beschuldigen onhandig „Palestijnse agressie“ van brutalities van Israël en zij mompelen vaag iets ver met betrekking tot een vraag naar terughoudendheid.

Ondertussen, wordt de Israëlische overheid gemeld om een het kader voortdurend bombardement van de nrtijd van Gaza arrogantly te verklaren.

Het principe van universaliteit is misschien het elementairst van alle morele truïsmen. Nochtans, wanneer met Israëlische exceptionalism van Verenigde Staten en wordt geconfronteerd, is er deze vlakke verwerping van universaliteit in de Westelijke intellectuele, morele en politieke cultuur.

Formeel in feite blijft de naoorlogs consensus zoals die in Artikel 51 van het Handvest van de Verenigde Naties, op principes wordt vastgelegd die het gebruik van kracht regeren.

De brutale en onaanvaardbare agressie door Israël op Palestijnen brengt om dit onthullende en storende scenario aan te steken dat een verschuiving in het spectrum van advies in Westelijke elitecirkels afbeeldt.

Terwijl geen van hen bereid eerlijk barbaars genoeg aan is te zijn post-wereldOorlog II openlijk en uitdrukkelijk om te verwerpen consensus, is de waarheid dat de consensus wordt genegeerd en te extreem geacht om in de Israëlische „speciale omstandigheden“ te overwegen.

De enige tijd de consensus streng door Westelijke politici wordt gepredikt is tijdens openbare besprekingen en het kies politicking.

Het eind van het laatste millennium en het begin van dit werd gekenmerkt door een krachtige verbinding van een vertrek van de naoorlogs consensus.

Het bombarderen van de NAVO van Servië, de invasie van 2001 van Afghanistan en de verkrachting van 2003 van Irak zijn klassieke uitdrukkingen van dit vertrek en arrogante afwijking.

De westelijke intellectuele en politieke cultuur heeft de uitdrukking „onwettig maar wettig“ gemunt om een gezicht van fatsoen te proberen en te geven aan dit terrorisme.

De enthousiaste steun door Westelijke intellectuelen voor toevlucht aan geweld dat zij wettig hebben geacht om te zijn is, natuurlijk een brutoschending van het principe van universaliteit.

Het is een schending die in de historische en enigszins rassenvooroordelen wordt vastgelegd die zeggen slechts „unpeople van deze wereld“ (aangezien het Teken Curtis het) zou zetten aan misdaad en barbarity aansprakelijk is.

Wanneer men een blik in George W. neemt De doctrine van Bush van „vervroegde self-defence“, zoals die in de V.S. wordt gearticuleerd de Strategie van de Nationale Veiligheid van September 2002, dan het is interessant om te zien hoe wat op de V.S. van toepassing is onaanvaardbaar banditisme voor al anderen is geworden, tenzij zij erkende bondgenoten en satellietstaten van de V.S. zijn.

De naoorlogs consensus bevestigt nog de tribune van de wereld op oorlog opnieuw - dat is de wereldbuitenkant wat het Westen de „internationale gemeenschap“, namelijk zelf roept.

De verklaringen van Sadc en de Afrikaanse Unie op de politieke impasse in Zimbabwe ontvingen slechts ruwe derision van Westelijke cirkels.

Dit is de standaardreactie op „bleatings“ van de kleinere volkeren van deze wereld.

Toen de Verklaring van de Top van het Zuiden van 2000 werd afgelegd, stevig verwerpend het „zogenaamde recht van humanitaire interventie“, zelfde toegewijde werd derision van het Westen genadeloos gegoten.

Het begeleiden detailleerde en fijnde analyse van neo-liberal globalisering ver grondig werd genegeerd in het Westen, enkel zoals de Sadc resolutie die zegt er een inclusieve overheid in Zimbabwe „moet zijn onmiddellijk“.

Terug naar de doctrine van Bush van „vervroegde self-defence“, schetsten de V.S. „hogere ambtenaar“, later bevestigd om Condoleezza Rice te zijn, dat de uitdrukking naar het „recht van de Verenigde Staten verwijst een land aan te vallen dat het denkt het kon eerst aanvallen“.

Dit is de zelfde dame die besloot dat de internationale hofjurisdictie „voor de Verenigde Staten“ ongepast is gebleken, en dat de V.S. niet over het algemeen onderworpen aan „internationale wet en normen“ zijn.

Terwijl de meerderheid van Amerikaanse en Westelijke burgers van mening is dat de kracht slechts kan worden gebruikt wanneer er sterk bewijsmateriaal is dat een land in dreigend gevaar om worden aangevallen is, is de elitaire mening blijkbaar zeer verschillend.

Het idee van exceptionalism was duidelijk zodra de tijd van de Rechtbank van Nuremberg. Zowel waren de proeven van Nuremberg als van Tokyo ontsierd, als de minst moesten worden gezegd. Zij werden gebaseerd op verwerping van het principe van universaliteit.

om de verslagen oorlogsmisdadigers aan rechtvaardigheid te brengen, werd het geacht noodzakelijk om definities van „oorlogsmisdaad“ en „misdaad tegen het mensdom“ te bedenken. Het belangrijkste advies van de rechtbank voor oorlogsmisdaden, Telford Taylor, verklaarde hoe dit werd gedaan.

Bovengenoemde Taylor: „Aangezien beide partijen het vreselijke spel van stedelijke vernietiging hadden gespeeld - de Bondgenoten veel meer met succes - er was geen basis voor misdadige lasten tegen de Duitsers of Japanner, en, in feite, geen dergelijke lasten werden gebracht. . . Het lucht bombardement was gebruikt zo uitgebreid en ruthlessly aan de Verenigde kant evenals nam de partij van de As die noch in Nuremberg noch Tokyo was de kwestie een deel van de proeven. De „

doeltreffende definitie van „misdaad“ werd: Misdaad die u beging of uitvoerde maar wij niet. Door deze logica, werden de Nazi oorlogsmisdadigers ontheven telkens als de defensie kon aantonen dat hun Britse tegenhangers van de V.S. en de zelfde misdaden uitvoerden.

Voor deze gronden, excuseerde de rechtbank Admiraal Karl Donitz van „breuken van de internationale wet van onderzeese oorlogvoering“ wegens verklaring van de Britse Admiraal Nimitz van Admiraliteit en van de V.S. dat Amerika en het UK de zelfde misdaden van de eerste dagen van de oorlog hadden uitgevoerd.

Terwijl men kan debatteren dat geen van beide kant voor deze misdaden werd gestraft, blijft het duidelijk dat de benadering internationale wet, evenals verdere rechtbanken zoals de Rechtbank van Joegoslavië en het Speciale Hof voor Sierra Leone in Den Haag wantrouwde.

De zelf-vrijstelling van Washington van internationale wet en het fundamentele principe van universaliteit, samen met de flagrante breuken van Israël van internationale wet en elk vredesverdrag bestaand, zijn duidelijke indicatoren van een wereld die voor ramp wordt geleid.

Wanneer één het gedrag van de V.S. op internationaal niveau overweegt, is de praktijk van exceptionalism begrijpelijk.

Als het Westen voor een ogenblik het principe van universaliteit onderhield en ook voor een keer dat elk land, enkel zoals de V.S. goedkeurde, heeft het recht van „vervroegde self-defence“ tegen verschrikking of die „zij denken zouden kunnen“ hen aanvallen eerst, dan zouden de landen zoals Iran, Cuba en Nicaragua in de jaren '80 het recht gehad hebben om de V.S. aan te vallen welke manier mogelijk, gezien de betrokkenheid in zeer ernstige terrorist tegen hen, met inbegrip van flagrant geadverteerde bedreigingen van aanval namens Iran aanvalt. Dergelijke conclusies worden beschouwd als volkomen buitensporig, natuurlijk.

Goed, kwam een onderzoek door Britse journalisten in de nasleep van 11 September aanvallen te weten dat, „Oussama ben Laden en de Taliban ontvangen bedreigingen van mogelijke Amerikaanse militaire stakingen tegen hen twee maanden vóór de terroristenaanvallen op New York en Washington“, dat „de mogelijkheid opheft dat ben Laden, verre van de lancering van de aanvallen op het Centrum van de Wereldhandel in New York en het Pentagoon uit het blauw, een preventieve staking lanceerde in antwoord op wat hij als bedreigingen van de V.S.“ zag.

Dit, door de Britse normen van de V.S. en, moet wettige vervroegde self-defence zijn; ondenkbaar zoals het is.

Op gelijkaardige manier kon men debatteren dat het bombarderen van Japan van de kolonies van de V.S., Hawaï en de Filippijnen, wettige vervroegde self-defence was aangezien de Amerikaanse Pers awash met details was van hoe de Amerikaanse vliegtuigen „onderaan Tokyo, een stad van rijst-papier en houten huizen“ konden branden - allen van basissen in Hawaï en de Filippijnen.

Op 15 November, 1941, de V.S. General George C. Stel verklaard op dat „er niet om het even welke aarzeling over het bombarderen van burgers“ zal zijn.

Dit verstrekte veel meer rechtvaardiging voor vervroegde self-defence dan om het even wat tot dusver opgeroepen door Bush, Blair, Ehud Olmert of iedereen anders van het Verenigde Westen.

Wij allen kennen de implicaties van het toepassen van deze elementaire morele principes. De algemene betekenis en de implicaties van internationale wet zijn duidelijk voor te begrijpen iedereen, veel aangezien de wet aan een werkingsgebied van interpretatie genoeg onderworpen is.

Is het unilaterale recht ``van Washington en van Israël'' om tot kracht zijn toevlucht te nemen niets maar het arrogante gedrag dat door wordt gemotiveerd zou van militaire suprematie kunnen.

Deze militaire suprematie is de enige verklaring die kan worden gegeven wanneer Condoleezza Rice in Buitenlandse zaken (2000) veroordelend het „wederkerende beroep schrijft. . . aan begrippen van internationale wet en normen, en de overtuiging dat de steun van vele staten - of zelfs beter, van instellingen zoals de Verenigde Naties - aan de wettige oefening van macht essentieel is. De „

rijst herhaalde dat de V.S. niet om met „denkbeeldige normen van internationaal gedrag“ te hoeven in overeenstemming te zijn, of „elk internationaal overeenkomst en akkoord aanhangen die iemand om denkt voor te stellen.“

Het is interessant om op te merken dat de V.S. elk land behalve zijn cliënten en bondgenoten verwachten dat uitvoert streng deze normen, niet aangezien zij zijn maar als V.S. interpreteert hen; of anders riskeren de landen onder ogen ziend wat Irak, Afghanistan, Chili of Zimbabwe overkwam.

Volgens de doctrine Clinton, Amerika het recht heeft tot „unilateraal gebruik van militaire macht zijn toevlucht nemen te verzekeren toegang tot zeer belangrijke markten, energievoorziening, en strategische middelen“ uninhibited.

Dit, natuurlijk, is niet op andere landen van toepassing. Zij worden zelfs verleend geen toegang tot hun eigen middelen en Zimbabwe betaalt enkel zwaar voor de toegang tot van zijn eigen land.

Nicaragua, Grenada, Laos en andere landen waren binnengevallen door de V.S. voor het eisen van eigendom van hun eigen middelen.

De Israëlische krachten slachten vandaag Palestijnen voor hun eigen land af en dat alles kan van de V.S. worden gehoord en het UK is zwak en vaag verzoekt terughoudendheid.

Zij spreken luider tegen een cholerauitbarsting in Zimbabwe. Zij schreeuwen raucously voor regimeverandering in Zimbabwe en zij bepleiten zelfs het gebruik van kracht, iets zij met heiligst van woede veroordeelden toen Rusland Georgië vroeger op het jaar binnenviel.

Zimbabweans moeten deze wereldgebeurtenissen objectief bekijken en zeker niet kunnen wij allen zijn fooled de hele tijd door de zelfde mensen.

Zimbabwe zijn wij één en samen zullen wij overwinnen.

Het is geboorteland of dood!

l de Reden Wafawarova is een politieke schrijver en kan op wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk of reason@rwafawarova.com of bezoek www.rwafawarova.com worden gecontacteerd

غربيّة يسخر صفة عالميّة قاعدة
Automatically translated into Arabic thanks to WorldLingo
غربيّة يسخر صفة عالميّة يشبك قاعدة

ب [رسن] [وفوروفا] في سيدني, أستراليا

مع ذلك ثانية العالم ساعات في إشمئزاز مطلقة كإسرائيل في قتله رتيبة من بريئة فلسطينيّة مدنيات وأطفال, فقط لأنّ الإسرائيليّة يحكم نخبة يكون من الإعتقاد أنّ "هذا يكون الوقت ل يتنازع", وفقا ل [إهود] [برك], الإسرائيليّة دفاع وزيرة.

يلوم الالبريطانيوّن والأمريكيات برعونة "إعتداء فلسطينيّة" لالوحشيّ إسرائيل وهم [ديملي] يتمتمون شيء بعيدا يقترن إلى دعوة لقيد.

في الوقت نفسه, أفدت سلطات إسرائيليّة أن يكون بتكبّر أفدت رفض [تيم فرم] يستمرّ قصف غزّة.

المبدأ الصفة عالميّة ربّما ال أكثر أوّليّة من كلّ بديهيّة أخلاقية. مهما, عندما جابهت واحدة مع الولايات المتّحدة الأمريكيّة و [إإكسسبأيشنليسم] إسرائيليّة, هناك هذا رفض مسطّحة صفة عالميّة في الغربيّة مثقفة, أخلاقية وثقافة سياسيّة.

رسميّا [شرتر'س] التوافق الآراء ما بعد الحرب بما أنّ يدّخر في الالأمم المتّحدة مادة 51, على مبادئ يحكم الإستعمال من قوة أثر [إين فّكت].

القاسية ويحضر إعتداء غير مقبول بإسرائيل على فلسطينيات إلى ضوء هذا يكشف ويزعج سيناريو أنّ يصوّر تغير في الطيف الرأي في غربيّة نخبة دوائر.

بينما لا شيء من هم يكون مستعدّة أن يكون بنزاهة [بربريك] بكفاية إلى علانيّة وبوضوح رفضت ال [بوست-وورلد] حرب [إيي] توافق الآراء, الحقيقة أنّ تجاهلت التوافق الآراء يكون واعتبرت أيضا متطرّفة أن يعتبر تحت الإسرائيليّة "ظروف خاصّة".

[ث ونلي تيم] وعظت التوافق الآراء بصرامة بسياسيات غربيّة أثناء [بوبليك ديسكوسّيون] وانتخابيّة [بوليتيكينغ].

ميّزت النهاية من الألفية متأخّرة والبداية من هذا كان بمفصلة قوّيّة من مغادرة من التوافق الآراء ما بعد الحرب.

منظّمة حلف شمال الأطلسي قصف صربيا, ال 2001 غزوة أفغانستان وال 2003 عمليّة اغتصاب العراق تعبيرات كلاسيكيّة من هذا مغادرة ويتفخّر إنحراف.

الغربيّة عقليّة وقد سكّ ثقافة سياسيّة العبارة "غير شرعيّ غير أنّ شرعيّة" أن يحاول وأعطيت وجه اللياقة إلى هذا إرهاب.

الدعم متحمّسة بمثقفات غربيّة لمنتجع إلى عنف هم يعتبرون أن يكون شرعيّة, [أف كورس], انتهاك إجماليّة من المبدأ الصفة عالميّة.

هو انتهاك يدّخر في التاريخيّة وأضرار عنصريّة نوعا ما أنّ يقول فقط ال "[أونبيوبل] من هذا عالم" (بما أنّ [مرك كرتيس] وضع هو) مسؤولة إلى جريمة و [بربريتي].

عندما يأخذ واحدة نظرة في جورج [و.]. بوش مذهب من "دفاع عن النفس إستباقيّة", بما أنّ يمفصل في ال [أوس] أمن وطنيّ إستراتيجية سبتمبر - أيلول 2002, بعد ذلك هو ممتعة أن يرى كيف ماذا يطبّق إلى ال [أوس] يتلقّى يصبح غير مقبول [بنديتري] لكلّ أخرى, ما لم هم يكونون يفوّر حلفاء وزبونة دول من ال [أوس].

أعاد تأكيد التوافق الآراء ما بعد الحرب بعد الحامل قفص من العالم على حرب [- ثت] ال [وورلد ووتسد] ماذا الالغرب يدعو "الالمجتمع الدولي", أيّ بنفسي.

استلم الإعلانات [سدك] والإتحاد [أفريكن] على المأزق سياسيّة في زمبابوي فقط سخرية خام من دوائر غربيّة.

هذا الردّ فعل معياريّة إلى ال "[بلتينغس]" من ال [لسّر بيوبلس] من هذا عالم.

عندما جعلت الإعلان من القمة جنوبيّة من 2000 كان, بشدّة يرفض ال "حق ما يسمّى من تدخل إنسانيّة", ال نفسه يرتكب سخرية من الالغرب كان صببت بقسوة.

ال يرافق يفصل وتجاهلت يعقد تحليل من عولمة [نيو-ليبرل] كان تماما في الالغرب, فقط مثل [سدك] قرار أنّ يقول هناك ينبغي كنت حكومة شاملة في زمبابوي "توّا".

[بك تو] بوش مذهب من "دفاع عن النفس إستباقيّة", [أوس] "مسؤول كبير", فيما بعد يؤكّد أن يكون [كندوليزّا] أرز, يحدّد أنّ يحيل العبارة "الحق من الولايات المتّحدة الأمريكيّة أن يهاجم بلد أنّ هو يفكّر استطاع هاجمت هو أولى".

هذا ال نفسه سيدة الذي استنتج أنّ دوليّة محكمة يتلقّى سلطة قضائيّة "يبرهن غيرمناسب لالولايات المتّحدة الأمريكيّة", وأنّ ال [أوس] ليس [سوبجكت تو] "دوليّة قانون ومعايير" عموما.

بينما الأغلبية من أمريكيّة ومواطنات غربيّة يمسك المنظرة أنّ قوة يستطيع فقط كنت استعملت عندما هناك [سترونغ فيدنس] أنّ بلد في خطر وشيكة من يكون يهاجم, النخبوية منظرة ظاهريّا جدّا مختلفة.

كان الفكرة ال [إإكسسبأيشنليسم] جلّيّة [أس رلي س] الوقت من [نورمبرغ] محكمة. على حدّ سواء [نورمبرغ] وطوكيو كان محاكمات ذو نقائص, إن ال بعض كان أن يكون قلت. هم كان أسّست على رفض من المبدأ الصفة عالميّة.

[إين وردر تو] أحضرت ال يهزم حرب مجرمات إلى عدل, اعتبرت هو كان ضروريّة أن [دفيز] تعريفات من "جريمة حرب" و" جريمة ضدّ إنسانية". المحكمة إستشارة رئيسيّة لجريمة حرب, [تلفورد] تايلور, يفسّر كيف هذا كان أتمّت.

يقول تايلور: "بما أنّ كلا جوانب كانوا قد لعبوا اللعبة رهيبة من تدمير مدنيّة - الحلفاء بعيدا أكثر بنجاح - كان هناك ما من أساس لحشوات إجراميّة ضدّ الألمانيات أو يابانيّة, و, [إين فكت], ما من هذا حشوات كان أحضرت. . . استعملت قصف جوّيّة تلقّى يكون هكذا بشكل واسع وبقسوة على الجانب متحالفة [أس ولّ س] المحور جانب أنّ لا في [نورمبرغ] ولا طوكيو كان الإصدار جعل جزء من المحاكمات. "

أصبح التعريف فعّالة من "جريمة": أتمّ جريمة أنّ أنت ارتكبت أو وفى غير أنّ نحن لم. ب هذا منطق, ال [نزي] حرب أحلّت مجرمات كان [إش تيم] الدفاع استطاع أبديت أنّ هم [أوس] و [أوك] نظائر وفوا ال نفسه جرائم.

على هذا أراضي, عذر المحكمة أميرال [كرل] [دونيتز] من "ثغر مخالف من القانون دوليّة من حرب تحت بحريّ" لدواعي شهادة من [أدميرلتي] بريطانيّة و [أوس] أميرال [نيميتز] أنّ أمريكا وال [أوك] كان قد وفى ال نفسه جرائم من الأيام أولى من الحرب.

بينما هو يستطيع كنت جادلت أنّ عاقبت لا جانب كان ل هذا جرائم, هو يبقى واضحة أنّ المقاربة شوّه قانون دوليّة, [أس ولّ س] محاكم لاحقة مثل يوغوسلافيا محكمة والمحكمة خاصّة ل [سرّا ليون] في [ث هغ].

واشنطن [سلف-إكسمبأيشن] من قانون دوليّة والمبدأ أساسيّة صفة عالميّة, مع إسرائيل ثغر مخالف صخّابة من قانون دوليّة وكلّ سلام معاهدة في وجود, [كلر ينديكتور] من عالم [هدد] لكارثة.

عندما يعتبر واحدة التصرف من ال [أوس] في مستوى دوليّة, الممارسة ال [إإكسسبأيشنليسم] مفهومة.

يتلقّى إن الالغرب سلّى لعزم المبدأ الصفة عالميّة وأيضا يقبل ل مرّة أنّ كلّ بلد, فقط مثل ال [أوس], الحق من "دفاع عن النفس إستباقيّة" ضدّ ذعر أو أنّ "هم يفكّرون أمكن هاجمت" هم أولى, بعد ذلك بلاد مثل إيران, كوبا ونيكارغوا في الثمانينات يتلقّى يكون خوّلت أن يهاجم ال [أوس] [وهيشفر] طريق يمكن, يعطي التورط في إرهابية جدّيّة جدّا يهاجم ضدّ هم, بما في ذلك [بلتنتلي] يعلن تهديدات الهجوم [أن ث برت وف] إيران. اعتبرت هذا استنتاجات تماما مهينة, [أف كورس].

جيّدا, يؤسّس تحقيق بصحفيات بريطانيّة في النتيجة من سبتمبر - أيلول 11 هجوم خارجا أنّ, "[أسما] خانة مثقّل ب [تليبن] يستلم تهديدات من يمكن جيش أمريكيّة يصيب ضدّ هم اثنان شهور قبل الإرهابية هجوم على نيويورك وواشنطن", أيّ "يرفع الإمكانية أنّ خانة مثقّل ب, [فر فروم] يطلق الهجوم على العالم تجارة مركز في نيويورك والبانتاغون من الاللون الأزرق, كان أطلق إضراب وقائيّة [إين رسبونس تو] ماذا هو رأى ك [أوس] تهديدات".

هذا, ب [أوس] و [أوك] معايير, ينبغي كنت دفاع عن النفس شرعيّة إستباقيّة; غير وارد ك هو.

في نمط مماثلة واحدة استطاع جادلت أنّ اليابان قصف من [أوس] مستعمرات, هاواي فليبين, كان دفاع عن النفس شرعيّة إستباقيّة بما أنّ الصحافة أمريكيّة كان مغمورة مع تفاصيل من كيف طائرات أمريكيّة كانوا قادرة من "يحرق نزولا إلى طوكيو, مدينة ال [ريس-ببر] ويؤوي خشب" - كلّ من أسس في هاواي فليبين.

في نوفمبر - تشرين الثّاني 15, 1941, [أوس] جنرال جورج [ك.]. مارشال فسّر أنّ "لن [ب] هناك أيّ تردد حول قصف مدنيات".

هذا زوّد بعيدا كثير تبرير لدفاع عن النفس إستباقيّة من أيّ شيء [س فر] يناشد فوق ببوش, بلير, [إهود] [ألمرت] أو أيّ شخص وإلّا من الالغرب متحالفة.

نحن كلّ نعرف التضمنات من يطبّق هذا مبادئ أوّليّة أخلاقية. العامّة معنى وتضمنات من قانون دوليّة واضحة بكفاية ل أيّ شخص أن يفهم, كثير بما أنّ قانون يكون [سوبجكت تو] مجال التفسير.

واشنطن وإسرائيل وحيد جانب ``حق'' إلى منتجع إلى قوة لاشيء غير أنّ يتفخّر تصرف يحثّ بالقدرة من تفوق عسكريّة.

هذا تفوق عسكريّة الشرح وحيد أنّ يستطيع كنت أعطيت عندما [كندوليزّا] يكتب أرز في [فورين فّيرس] (2000) يدين ال "إستئناف انعكاسيّة. . . حسنت إلى أفكار من دوليّة قانون ومعايير, والإعتقاد أنّ الدعم من كثير دول - [أر فن], من مؤسسات مثل الالأمم المتّحدة - أساسيّة إلى ال [إإكسرسس وف بوور] شرعيّة. "

كرّم أرز أنّ ال [أوس] يحتاج لا أن يطابق إلى "معايير موهمة من تصرف دوليّة", أو "التصقت إلى كلّ دوليّة إتّفاق وإتفاق أنّ أحد ما يفكّر أن يقترح."

هو ممتعة أن يلاحظ أنّ يتوقّع ال [أوس] كلّ بلد [أبرت فروم] ه زبونات وحلفاء أن بصرامة أطعت هذا معايير, لا بما أنّ هم يكونون غير أنّ ك ال [أوس] يفسّرهم; وإلّا بلد خطر تخريج ماذا حدث العراق, أفغانستان, شيلية أو زمبابوي.

وفقا ل [كلينتون] مذهب, خوّلت أمريكا أن يتردّد أن "إستعمال وحيد جانب من قوة عسكريّة [إين وردر تو] ضمنت [أونينهيبيتد] منفذة إلى أسواق أساسيّة, [إنرج سوبّلي], وموردات استراتيجيّة".

لا يطبّق هذا, [أف كورس], إلى أخرى بلاد. سمحت هم لا حتّى منفذة إلى [أون رسورس] هم وزمبابوي صحيحة يدفع بثقل ل ينفذ ه خاصّة أرض.

غزات نيكارغوا, غرناده, لاوس وأخرى بلاد كان ب ال [أوس] ل يدّعي ملكية من [أون رسورس] هم.

يذبح القوات إسرائيليّة فلسطينيات اليوم ل هم خاصّة أرض وكلّ أنّ يستطيع كنت سمعت من ال [أوس] وال [أوك] ضعيفة ودعوات ضعيفة لقيد.

هم يتكلّمون [لوودر] ضدّ كوليرا نشوب في زمبابوي. هم يصيحون على نحو أجشّ لنظامة تغير في زمبابوي ويدافع هم حتّى الإستعمال القوة, شيء هم أدانوا مع ال [هوليست] من حالة عندما روسيا غزا جورجيا [إرلير ثيس ر].

[زيمببون] حاجة أن ينظر في هذا عالم حادثات [أبجكتيفلي] وبالتّأكيد نحن يستطيع لا كلّ كنت خدعت ب ال نفسه الناس [ألّ ث] وقت.

زمبابوي نحن واحدة ومعا سيقهر نحن.

هو وطن أو موت!

[ل] سبب [وفوروفا] كاتبة سياسيّة ويستطيع كنت اتّصل ب على [وفوروفهوو.ك.وك] أو [رسنروفوروف.كم] أو زيارة www.rwafawarova.com

BOTSWANA a progressive nation: think again. The 2008 World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) report places Botswana among the few countries that show significant progress in governance issues. Botswana is regarded as an example to its fellow African countries when it comes to fighting corruption and maintaining political and economic stability.

Of late Botswana has become a vocal critic of the conflict in Zimbabwe. It went as far as suggesting the removal of President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Botswana’s Foreign Affairs Minister recently said his country is prepared to host a democratic resistance movement led by the opposition to topple President Mugabe from power. Such utterances have been condemned by Zimbabwean authorities labelling them as provocative and absurd. But while Botswana is trying to display its moral credentials to the region and the world at large, its own record at home is not that pleasant.

This article raises the issues that taint Botswana’s good standing as a progressive nation and thus making its criticism of Zimbabwe pure nuisance.

Rich but Poor

Since independence, Botswana has experienced one of the fastest growth rates in per capita income in the world. Transforming itself, in the process, from a poor country with a per capita of US$80 to a per capita of US$6 000. This makes Botswana one of the African countries with the highest average personal incomes on the continent. [1] Moreover, Botswana’s economic growth averaged 9% per year from 1967 to 2006 and towards the end of last year its foreign exchange reserves stood at US$10.2 billion.

However, despite these impressive achievements Botswana’s population is generally poor. Unemployment is close to 40%.

There is one doctor for each 5 150 people.

Botswana’s life expectancy at birth was 64 years in 1990 and in 2005 it fell to 39 years and is estimated to fall further to 31 years in the year 2015. Ironically, during the same period and for the same indicator Zimbabwe’s statistics are 59 years (1990), 33 years (2005) and 31 years in the year 2015.

The Plight of Indigenous People

In 2006, the Paris-based International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) together with the leading human rights group in Botswana, DITSHWANELO supported the view of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that the Botswana government is not doing enough to contain discrimination directed towards indigenous people, certain ethnic groups, non-citizens, asylum seekers and refugees in Botswana.

The UN Committee recommended then that the authorities should “review the constitutional definition of discrimination as it does not explicitly prohibit discrimination based on descent, national or ethnic origin and indirect discrimination. Furthermore, it asks for a review of the exceptions to the prohibition of discrimination in relation to non-citizens and on the basis of ethnic origin or tribe.”

In September this year, the National broadcaster Btv, which is heavily controlled by the government, was criticised by a multicultural advocacy group called RETENG for introducing only a Setswana language news bulletin and leaving out other local indigenous languages during a programming shake-up at the broadcaster. The advocacy group expressed grief over government’s reluctance to listen to those who promote indigenous languages.

The country’s Chieftainship Act and the Tribal Territories Act are said to have recognised only the Tswana-speaking tribes. The non-recognition of some tribes, leads to non-representation in the House of Chiefs, resulting in such tribes being disadvantaged when it comes to land allocation.

Political Tolerance

In 2005, professor Kenneth Good who is Australian by birth but lived in Botswana for about 20 years, was declared a persona non grata by the then President Festus Mogae after the professor criticised the manner in which the presidential transitions in that country are handled. The professor’s criticism was contained in an academic paper entitled “Presidential Succession in Botswana: No Model for Africa”. He referred to Botswana’s democracy as “unhealthy” and with “severe restrictions and limitations upon it”.

In that paper Professor Good argued that Botswana’s presidential succession is dominated by a handful privileged clique and that presidential decisions are unquestionable.

The deportation of Professor Good attracted the attention of the International Press Institute (IPI), which condemned the deportation in a letter to the government. In that letter the IPI reasoned that the court insistence that the president has the prerogative to give or not give reason why he declared professor Good an undesired immigrant could only be interpreted as the application of Section 93 of the Penal Code which regards the insulting of a president or a member of the National Assembly as an offence.

In the same letter, the IPI reiterated its call for the worldwide repeal of Section 93 of the Penal Code as it in their views gives room to governments to crack down on their critics.

In August this year, a deputy minister in President Khama’s cabinet was reported to having called for the amendment of the Constitution to allow a presidential third term for the incumbent. Despite being regarded as one of the wealthiest nations on the African continent, the deputy minister argued that Botswana is a poor country that could not be able to maintain three former presidents, thus the need to prolong President Khama’s term of office from 2018 to 2023.

In jest, now that former president Festus Mogae is the recipient of the Mo Ibrahim Prize which consists of US$5 million over 10 years and US$200 000 annually for life afterwards and also a possible additional US$200 000 per year for 10 years towards charity work. The deputy minister should perhaps ask ex-president Mogae to consider declining the government allowance. However, seriously talking, the deputy minister’s undesirable wish has the potential to ruin Botswana’s revered political stability and respect for the rule of law and thus should be avoided in the future.

Death Penalty

Earlier this year, the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), in its concluding remarks called on the Government of Botswana to move towards the abolition of the death penalty. The HRC was appalled by the government’s stance that it has no intention of abolishing the death penalty from its statutes. In a submission to the HRC, the FIDH and DITSHWANELO criticised the government for carrying out the execution process of prisoners in secrecy. The two organisations called on government to provide family members with information regarding the execution of their loved ones.

In November 2007, DITSHWANELO reminded the government that its continuing application of the death penalty goes against the moratorium that was brought in place by a resolution adopted by the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly.

Furthermore, the organisation reminded the government that the death penalty is against the basic principle of human dignity as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and thus should be done away with. Moreover, it reminded the government that there is no reliable substantiation that declares the death penalty as the most efficient deterrent against crime.

Corporal Punishment

Botswana is perhaps one of the few countries that mete out punishment in the form of corporal punishment. While this form of punishment has been outlawed in many civilised countries over the world, in Botswana it is legal.

Botswana’s judiciary allows the application of corporal punishment to people aged from 14 and up. Meaning that children aged between 14 and 18 are subjected to corporal punishment. That is not in the spirit of many UN human rights conventions such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Furthermore, Botswana has so far gone against the advice of the African Charter of Human Rights and People’s Rights to replace corporal punishment with less humiliating options.

According to the UN’s Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, corporal punishment, punishment by placing in a dark cell, and all cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments shall be completely prohibited as punishments for disciplinary offences.

Evicting the San People

The United Nations human rights agency UNHCHR has in the past criticised Botswana’s treatment of its minority citizens, especially the indigenous San people. The UNHCHR were not happy with the removal of the San people from the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR) by the Government.

In 2002, the San people took the Botswana government to court to oppose the forceful removal from the CKGR. However, the San people’s quest for justice has been marred by bad tactics employed by government in order to frustrate them.

First, the authorities in Botswana barred the San people from stating their case before the UNHCHR’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination during that committee’s session in Geneva in 2006.

The passports of the representatives of the San people from their organisation called First People of the Kalahari were confiscated, making it impossible for them to travel to Geneva.

Secondly, a few months before the court ruling on the issue of the relocation of the San people from the CKGR, a senior official from the Ministry of Communications, Science and Technology, instructed the state media to refrain from covering news items that were seen as criticising the government position regarding the San eviction from the CKGR.

The same official reminded the state media practitioners to carry the interests of the state above anything else in their reporting. He accused the private media of being unpatriotic in their reporting.

Thirdly, in 2006, the Court ruled that the eviction order was illegal and ordered government to permit the San people return to their land. But the government has blatantly refused to uphold that court ruling and instead decided to apply it selectively.

For instance, the San people could only return to the CKGR on condition that they acquire special hunting licenses and that they should not expect government to provide them with water for human consumption.

According to the HRC and the US State Department, such conditions were viewed as deliberate attempts by the Botswana government to discourage the evicted San communities from returning to the CKGR.

While government is said to be claiming that the Kalahari reserve could not maintain the San livelihoods, others are arguing that the government’s main motive is to displace the San people so that they make way for companies that wants to exploit the diamond-rich CKGR.

Mistreating of Zimbabweans

Botswana foreign minister Phandu Skelemani was recently quoted in the media as saying, “Anybody who comes to Botswana saying that they fear for their life, from their own country, we will not chase them away”.

But this goodwill by the minister does not reflect the situation on the ground considering that in 2004 about 72,112 Zimbabweans were deported from Botswana and 38 000 in 2006. While Botswana is happily benefiting from Zimbabwe’s demise by employing qualified Zimbabweans in its public and private sector, it is on the other hand chasing back those who are regarded as illegal immigrants. In most cases illegal immigrants are those who are uneducated and thus regarded as a burden.

The treatment of Zimbabweans immigrants in Botswana has at times raised tensions between the two neighbouring countries. With Botswana arguing that flogging is the method of punishment preferred by Zimbabweans found guilty of committing a crime. But Zimbabwean authorities have condemned such antique form of retribution. They claim that Zimbabweans are coerced into accepting corporal punishment over being arrested since once arrested they are beaten and their money and belongings are impounded before being deported to Zimbabwe.

In conclusion, Botswana’s seems to lack any commitment to address all these concerns as raised by various stakeholders. And it is only proper that if it wants its opposition to the Mugabe regime to be taken seriously, that it handle s its own domestic mess with the same vigour and arrogance.

[This article was first published on the website of Namibia's New Era newspaper.]

Quelques questions sérieuses au sujet du Botswana
Automatically translated into French thanks to WorldLingo
Le BOTSWANA une nation progressive : pensez encore. Les 2008 indicateurs mondiaux du gouvernement de la banque mondiale (WGI) rapportent des endroits Botswana parmi les quelques pays qui montrent le progrès significatif dans des questions de gouvernement. Le Botswana est considéré comme exemple à ses pays africains de camarade quand il vient à la corruption de combat et à maintenir la stabilité politique et économique.

Du défunt Botswana est devenu un critique vocal du conflit au Zimbabwe. Il est allé jusque suggérer le déplacement du Président Robert Mugabe du Zimbabwe. Les affaires étrangères du Botswana ministre récemment dit son pays est préparées pour accueillir un mouvement de résistance démocratique mené par l'opposition à renverser le Président Mugabe de la puissance. De telles expressions ont été condamnées par des autorités de Zimbabwean les marquant comme provocatrices et absurdes. Mais tandis que le Botswana essaye de montrer ses qualifications morales à la région et le monde dans son ensemble, son propre disque n'est pas à la maison celui plaisant.

Cet article soulève les questions qui corrompent la bonne position du Botswana comme nation progressive et faire de ce fait sa critique de l'ennui pur du Zimbabwe.

Les riches mais les pauvres

depuis l'indépendance, Botswana ont éprouvé un des taux de croissance les plus rapides dans par habitant le revenu dans le monde. Se transformant, dans le processus, d'un pays pauvre avec a par habitant d'US$80 à a par habitant d'US$6 000. Ceci fait le Botswana un des pays africains avec les revenus personnels moyens les plus élevés sur le continent. [1] D'ailleurs, la croissance économique du Botswana a fait la moyenne de 9% par an 1967 2006 et vers la fin de l'année dernière ses réservations de devises étrangères se sont élevées à US$10.2 milliard.

Cependant, en dépit la population du ce des accomplissements Botswana impressionnant est généralement pauvre. Le chômage est de près de 40%.

Il y a un docteur pour chaque 5 150 personnes.

L'espérance de la vie du Botswana à la naissance était de 64 ans en 1990 et en 2005 on estime qu'elle est tombée à 39 ans et tombe plus loin à 31 ans en l'année 2015. Ironiquement, pendant la même période et pour du même les statistiques Zimbabwe d'indicateur sont 59 ans (1990), de 33 ans (2005) et de 31 ans en l'année 2015.

La situation difficile du peuple autochtone

en 2006, la fédération internationale Paris-basée pour les droits de l'homme (FIDH) ainsi que le principal groupe de droits de l'homme au Botswana, DITSHWANELO a soutenu la vue du Comité de l'ONU sur l'élimination de la discrimination raciale que le gouvernement du Botswana ne fait pas assez pour contenir la discrimination orientée sur le peuple autochtone, certains groupes ethniques, les non-citoyens, les chercheurs d'asile et les réfugiés au Botswana.

Le Comité de l'ONU a recommandé alors que les autorités si « passez en revue la définition constitutionnelle de la discrimination car elle n'interdit pas explicitement la discrimination basée sur la descente, l'origine nationale ou ethnique et la discrimination indirecte. En outre, il demande un examen des exceptions à la prohibition de la discrimination par rapport aux non-citoyens et sur la base de l'origine ethnique ou de la tribu.  »

En septembre cette année, le radiodiffuseur national Btv, qui est fortement commandé par le gouvernement, a été critiqué par un groupe multiculturel de recommandation appelé le RETENG pour présenter seulement un bulletin d'informations de langue de Setswana et omettre d'autres langues indigènes locales pendant un bouleversement de programmation au radiodiffuseur. Le groupe de recommandation a exprimé la peine au-dessus de l'hésitation du gouvernement pour écouter ceux qui favorisent des langues indigènes.

On dit que la Loi du rang de chef du pays et l'acte tribal de territoires identifient seulement les tribus Tswana-parlantes. La non-reconnaissance de quelques tribus, mène à la non-représentation dans la Chambre des chefs, ayant pour résultat de telles tribus étant désavantagées quand elle vient pour débarquer l'attribution.

La tolérance politique

en 2005, professeur Kenneth bon qui est australien par naissance mais est habité au Botswana pendant environ 20 années, a été déclarée un grata de Person non par alors le Président Festus Mogae après le professeur a critiqué la façon dont les transitions présidentielles dans ce pays sont manipulées. La critique du professeur a été contenue dans un papier d'universitaire intitulé « succession présidentielle au Botswana : Aucun modèle pour l'Afrique ». Il s'est référé à la démocratie du Botswana comme « malsaine » et avec « des restrictions et des limitations graves sur elle ».

Dans ce professeur de papier Good a argué du fait que la succession présidentielle du Botswana est dominée par une clique favorisée par poignée et que les décisions présidentielles sont incontestables.

La déportation de professeur Good a attiré l'attention de l'institut international de pression (IPI), qui a condamné la déportation dans une lettre au gouvernement. Dans cette lettre l'IPI raison pour laquelle l'insistance de cour que le président a la prérogative à donner ou ne pas donner la raison pour laquelle il a déclaré le professeur bon un immigré peu désiré pourrait seulement être interprété car l'application de la section 93 du code pénal qui considère insulter d'un président ou d'un membre de l'Assemblée nationale comme une offense.

Dans la même lettre, l'IPI a réitéré son appel pour l'abrogation mondiale de la section 93 du code pénal comme il dans leurs vues donne la pièce aux gouvernements à la fente vers le bas sur leurs critiques.

En août cette année, un ministre de député dans le coffret du Président Khama's a été rapporté à la réclamation l'amendement de la constitution pour permettre une troisième limite présidentielle pour le candidat sortant. En dépit d'être considéré en tant qu'une des nations les plus riches sur le continent africain, le ministre de député a argué du fait que le Botswana est un pays pauvre qui ne pourrait pas pouvoir maintenir trois anciens présidents, ainsi la nécessité de prolonger la période d'activité du Président Khama's de 2018 à 2023.

Pour rire, maintenant que l'ancien Président Festus Mogae est le destinataire du prix de MOIS Ibrahim qui se compose d'US$5 million sur 10 ans et d'US$200 000 annuellement pendant la vie après et également un US$200 additionnel possible 000 par an pendant 10 années vers le travail de charité. Le ministre de député devrait peut-être demander à ex-président Mogae de considérer refuser l'allocation de gouvernement. Cependant, sérieusement parlant, le souhait indésirable du ministre de député a le potentiel de ruiner la stabilité politique vénérée et le respect du Botswana pour la règle de la loi et devrait être évité ainsi à l'avenir.

La pénalité de mort

plus tôt cette année, le Comité de droits de l'homme de l'ONU (HRC), dans ses remarques de conclusion a invité le gouvernement du Botswana pour se déplacer vers l'abolition de la pénalité de mort. Le HRC appalled par la position du gouvernement qu'il n'a aucune intention de supprimer la pénalité de mort de ses statuts. Dans une soumission au HRC, le FIDH et le DITSHWANELO ont critiqué le gouvernement pour suivre le procédé d'exécution des prisonniers en secret. Le gouvernement invité deux par organismes pour fournir à des membres de famille l'information concernant l'exécution du leur a aimé ceux.

En novembre 2007, DITSHWANELO a rappelé le gouvernement que son application continue de la pénalité de mort va à l'encontre le moratoire qui a été apporté en place par une résolution adoptée par le troisième Comité de l'Assemblée générale de l'ONU.

En outre, l'organisation a rappelé le gouvernement que la pénalité de mort est contre le principe de base de la dignité humaine comme exprimé en déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme et devrait être éliminée ainsi. D'ailleurs, il a rappelé le gouvernement qu'il n'y a aucune justification fiable qui déclare la pénalité de mort comme force de dissuasion la plus efficace contre le crime.

La punition corporelle

Botswana est peut-être l'un des quelques pays qui distribuent dehors la punition sous forme de punition corporelle. Tandis que cette forme de punition a été proscrite dans beaucoup de pays civilisés au-dessus du monde, au Botswana elle est légale.

L'ordre judiciaire du Botswana permet l'application de la punition corporelle aux gens âgés de 14 et se lève. Signifiant que des enfants âgés entre 14 et 18 sont soumis à la punition corporelle. Ce n'est pas dans l'esprit de beaucoup de conventions de droits de l'homme de l'ONU telles que la convention des Nations Unies sur les droits de l'enfance, l'article 5 de la déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme et l'article 7 de l'engagement international sur des droites civiles et politiques.

En outre, le Botswana est jusqu'ici allé à l'encontre le conseil de la charte africaine des droits de l'homme et des droits des personnes de remplacer la punition corporelle avec moins d'options humiliantes.

Selon les règles minimum standard de l'ONU pour le traitement des prisonniers, la punition corporelle, la punition par le placement dans une cellule foncée, et les punitions tout cruelles, inhumaines ou dégradantes seront complètement interdites comme punitions pour des offenses disciplinaires.

En expulsant le San peuplez

les droits de l'homme des Nations Unies que l'agence UNHCHR a dans le traitement du Botswana critiqué par passé de ses citoyens de minorité, particulièrement le peuple autochtone de San. Les UNHCHR n'étaient pas heureux avec le déplacement des personnes de San de la réservation centrale de jeu de Kalahari (CKGR) par le gouvernement.

En 2002, les personnes de San ont pris le gouvernement du Botswana à la cour pour s'opposer au déplacement puissant du CKGR. Cependant, la recherche des personnes de San pour la justice a été troublée par la mauvaise tactique utilisée par gouvernement afin de les frustrer.

D'abord, les autorités au Botswana ont empêché les personnes de San d'énoncer leur cas devant le Comité de l'UNHCHR sur l'élimination de la discrimination raciale pendant la session de ce comité à Genève en 2006.

Les passeports des représentants des personnes de San de leur organisation appelée les premières personnes du Kalahari ont été confisqués, le rendant impossible pour qu'elles voyagent à Genève.

Deuxièmement, quelques mois devant la cour régnant sur la question de la relocalisation des personnes de San du CKGR, un haut fonctionnaire du ministère des communications, la Science et technologie, a demandé aux médias d'état pour s'abstenir aux nouvelles de bâche qui ont été vues en tant que critique de la position de gouvernement concernant l'expulsion de San du CKGR.

Le même fonctionnaire a rappelé les praticiens de médias d'état de porter les intérêts de l'état au-dessus de toute autre chose dans leur reportage. Il accuse les médias privés d'être peu patriotique dans leur reportage.

Troisièmement, en 2006, la cour a régné que l'ordre d'expulsion était illégal et le gouvernement commandé pour permettre les personnes de San reviennent à leur terre. Mais le gouvernement a d'une manière flagrante refusé de confirmer que cour régnant et a à la place décidé de l'appliquer sélectivement.

Par exemple, les personnes de San pourraient seulement retourner au CKGR à condition qu'elles acquièrent les permis spéciaux de chasse et cela elles ne devraient pas s'attendre à ce que le gouvernement leur fournisse l'eau pour la consommation humaine.

Selon le HRC et le département d'état des USA, de telles conditions ont été regardées en tant que tentatives délibérées par le gouvernement du Botswana de décourager les communautés expulsées de San du renvoi au CKGR.

Tandis que le gouvernement serait réclamant que la réservation de Kalahari ne pourrait pas maintenir les vies de San, d'autres arguent du fait que le motif principal du gouvernement est de déplacer les personnes de San de sorte qu'elles fassent la manière pour des compagnies qui veut exploiter le CKGR diamant-riche.

Maltraiter du ministre des affaires étrangères

Phandu Skelemani du Botswana de Zimbabwéens a été récemment cité dans les médias comme disant, « quiconque qui vient à l'énonciation du Botswana qu'ils craignent pendant leur vie, de leur propre pays, nous ne les chassera pas loin ».

Mais cette bonne volonté par le ministre ne reflète pas la situation sur la terre considérant cela en 2004 environ 72.112 Zimbabwéens ont été expulsées du Botswana et 38 000 de 2006. Tandis que le Botswana tire bénéfice heureusement de la cession du Zimbabwe d'employer des Zimbabwéens qualifiés dans son secteur public et privé, il d'une part chasse en arrière ceux qui sont considérés comme les immigrés illégaux. Dans la plupart des cas les immigrés illégaux sont ceux qui sont incultes et considérés ainsi comme fardeau.

Le traitement des immigrés de Zimbabwéens au Botswana a parfois soulevé des tensions entre les deux pays voisins. Avec le Botswana discuter que la flagellation est la méthode de punition a préféré par Zimbabweans trouvé coupable de commettre un crime. Mais les autorités zimbabwéennes ont condamné une telle forme antique de hâtiment. Ils réclament que des Zimbabwéens sont contraints dans accepter l'excédent de punition corporelle étant arrêté depuis une fois arrêté eux sont battus et leur argent et affaires sont confisquées avant d'être expulsé au Zimbabwe.

En conclusion, le Botswana semble manquer de n'importe quel engagement pour adresser tous ces soucis comme augmentés par de divers dépositaires. Et il est seulement approprié que s'il veut que son opposition au régime de Mugabe soit prise sérieusement, cela il la poignée s son propre désordre domestique avec la mêmes vigueur et arrogance.

[Cet article a été édité la première fois sur le site Web du nouveau journal de l'ère de la Namibie.]

Algunas preguntas serias sobre Botswana
Automatically translated into Spanish thanks to WorldLingo
BOTSWANA una nación progresiva: piense otra vez. Los indicadores mundiales 2008 del gobierno del banco mundial (WGI) divulgan los lugares Botswana entre los pocos países que demuestran progreso significativo en ediciones del gobierno. Botswana se mira como ejemplo a sus países africanos del compañero cuando viene a la corrupción que lucha y a mantener estabilidad política y económica.

De último Botswana se ha convertido un crítico vocal del conflicto en Zimbabwe. Fue hasta sugerir el retiro de presidente Roberto Mugabe de Zimbabwe. Los asuntos exteriores de Botswana ministran recientemente dicho su país están preparados para recibir un movimiento de resistencia democrático conducido por la oposición a derribar a presidente Mugabe de la energía. Tales elocuciones han sido condenadas por las autoridades de Zimbabwean que las etiquetaban como provocativas y absurdas. Pero mientras que Botswana está intentando exhibir sus credenciales morales a la región y el mundo en grande, su propio expediente en el país no es ése agradable.

Este artículo plantea las ediciones que corrompen la buena situación de Botswana como nación progresiva y así la fabricación de su crítica del fastidio puro de Zimbabwe.

Los ricos pero los pobres

desde independencia, Botswana han experimentado una de las tasas de crecimiento más rápidas per capita de la renta en el mundo. Transformándose, en el proceso, de un país pobre con a per capita de US$80 a a per capita de US$6 000. Esto hace Botswana uno de los países africanos con los ingresos personales medios más altos en el continente. [1] Por otra parte, el desarrollo económico de Botswana hizo un promedio del 9% por año a partir de 1967 a 2006 y hacia finales del año pasado sus reservas de la moneda extranjera estaban paradas en US$10.2 mil millones.

Sin embargo, a pesar de la población de este logros Botswana impresionante es generalmente pobre. El desempleo está cerca del 40%.

Hay un doctor para cada 5 150 personas.

La esperanza de vida de Botswana en el nacimiento era 64 años en 1990 y en 2005 bajó a 39 años y se estima para bajar más lejos a 31 años en el año 2015. Irónico, durante el mismo período y para la estadística del mismo Zimbabwe del indicador están 59 años (1990), 33 años (2005) y 31 años en el año 2015.

El apuro de la gente indígena

en 2006, la federación internacional París-basada para los derechos humanos (FIDH) junto con el grupo principal de los derechos humanos en Botswana, DITSHWANELO apoyó la opinión el comité de la O.N.U sobre la eliminación de la discriminación racial que el gobierno de Botswana no está haciendo bastantes para contener la discriminación dirigida hacia la gente indígena, ciertos grupos étnicos, non-citizens, buscadores del asilo y refugiados en Botswana.

El comité de la O.N.U recomendó entonces que las autoridades si “repase la definición constitucional de la discriminación pues no prohíbe explícitamente la discriminación basada en pendiente, origen nacional o étnico y discriminación indirecta. Además, pide una revisión de las excepciones a la prohibición de la discriminación en lo referente a non-citizens y en base de origen étnico o de la tribu. ”

En septiembre este año, el locutor nacional Btv, que es controlado pesadamente por el gobierno, fue criticado por un grupo multicultural de la defensa llamado RETENG para introducir solamente un boletín informativo de la lengua de Setswana y dejar hacia fuera otras idiomas indígenas locales durante una conmoción de programación en el locutor. El grupo de la defensa expresó pena sobre la repugnancia del gobierno para escuchar los que promueven idiomas indígenas.

El acto de Chieftainship del país y el acto tribal de los territorios se dicen para haber reconocido solamente las tribus de Tswana-discurso. El non-recognition de algunas tribus, conduce a la no-representación en la casa de jefes, dando por resultado tales tribus que son perjudicadas cuando viene aterrizar la asignación.

La tolerancia política

en 2005, profesor Kenneth bueno quién es australiano por nacimiento pero se vive en Botswana por cerca de 20 años, fue declarada un grata del personaje no por entonces el presidente Festus Mogae después del profesor criticó la manera de la cual las transiciones presidenciales en ese país se manejan. La crítica del profesor fue contenida en un papel académico titulado “sucesión presidencial en Botswana: Ningún modelo para África”. Él refirió a la democracia de Botswana como “malsana” y con “restricciones y limitaciones severas sobre ella”.

En ese profesor de papel Good discutió que la sucesión presidencial de Botswana sea dominada por una pandilla privilegiada puñado y que las decisiones presidenciales son indiscutibles.

La deportación de profesor Good atrajo la atención del instituto internacional de la prensa (IPI), que condenó la deportación en una letra al gobierno. En esa letra el IPI razonó que la insistencia de la corte que el presidente tiene la prerrogativa a dar o no dar razón por la que él declaró a profesor bueno un inmigrante indeseado podría ser interpretado solamente pues el uso de la sección 93 del código penal que mira insultar de un presidente o de un miembro de la asamblea nacional como ofensa.

En la misma letra, el IPI reiteró su llamada para la abrogación mundial de la sección 93 del código penal como en sus opiniones da el sitio a los gobiernos a la grieta abajo en sus críticos.

En agosto este año, divulgaron un ministro del diputado en gabinete de presidente Khama a llamar para la enmienda de la constitución para permitir un tercer término presidencial para el titular. A pesar de ser mirado como una de las naciones más ricas en el continente africano, el ministro del diputado discutió que Botswana es un país pobre que no podría poder mantener a tres presidentes anteriores, así la necesidad de prolongar el término de presidente Khama de la oficina a partir de 2018 a 2023.

En broma, ahora que presidente anterior Festus Mogae es el recipiente del premio del MES Ibrahim que consiste en US$5 millón sobre 10 años y US$200 000 anualmente para la vida luego y también un US$200 adicional posible 000 por el año por 10 años hacia trabajo de la caridad. El ministro del diputado debe quizás pedir que ex-presidente Mogae considere el declinar del permiso del gobierno. Sin embargo, seriamente hablando, el deseo indeseable del ministro del diputado tiene el potencial de arruinar la estabilidad política venerada y el respecto de Botswana por la regla de la ley y se debe evitar así en el futuro.

La pena de muerte

a principios de este año, el comité de los derechos humanos de la O.N.U (HRC), en sus observaciones que concluían invitó el gobierno de Botswana para moverse hacia la abolición de la pena de muerte. El HRC fue aterrado por la postura del gobierno que no tiene ninguna intención de suprimir la pena de muerte de sus estatutos. En una sumisión al HRC, el FIDH y el DITSHWANELO criticaron el gobierno para realizar el proceso de la ejecución de presos en secreto. El gobierno invitado dos organizaciones para proveer de miembros de la familia la información con respecto a la ejecución de su amó unos.

En noviembre de 2007, DITSHWANELO recordó el gobierno que su uso de continuación de la pena de muerte va contra la moratoria que fue traída en lugar por una resolución adoptada por el tercer comité de la Asamblea General de la O.N.U.

Además, la organización recordó el gobierno que la pena de muerte está contra el principio de base de la dignidad humana según lo expresado en el declaración universal de derechos humanos y debe ser eliminada así. Por otra parte, recordó el gobierno que no hay justificación confiable que declara la pena de muerte como el impedimento más eficiente contra crimen.

El castigo corporal

Botswana es quizás uno de los pocos países que mete hacia fuera el castigo bajo la forma de castigo corporal. Mientras que esta forma de castigo se ha proscrito en muchos países civilizados sobre el mundo, en Botswana es legal.

La judicatura de Botswana permite el uso del castigo corporal a la gente envejecida a partir del 14 y sube. Significando que sujetan a los niños envejecidos entre 14 y 18 al castigo corporal. Eso no está en el alcohol de muchas convenciones de los derechos humanos de la O.N.U tales como la convención de Naciones Unidas sobre las derechas del niño, del artículo 5 del declaración universal de derechos humanos y del artículo 7 del convenio internacional en las derechas civiles y políticas.

Además, Botswana ha ido hasta ahora contra el consejo de la carta africana de derechos humanos y de las derechas de la gente de substituir el castigo corporal por menos opciones de humillación.

Según las reglas mínimas estándares de la O.N.U para el tratamiento de presos, el castigo corporal, el castigo colocando en una célula oscura, y los castigos todo crueles, inhumanos o que degradan serán prohibidos totalmente como castigos para las ofensas disciplinarias.

Desahuciando el San pueble

los derechos humanos que la agencia UNHCHR tiene en el pasado el tratamiento del Botswana criticado de sus ciudadanos de la minoría, especialmente la gente indígena de Naciones Unidas del San. Los UNHCHR no eran felices con el retiro de la gente del San de la reserva central del juego de Kalahari (CKGR) por el gobierno.

En 2002, la gente del San llevó el gobierno de Botswana la corte para oponer el retiro poderoso del CKGR. Sin embargo, la búsqueda de la gente del San para la justicia ha sido estropeada por las malas táctica empleadas por el gobierno para frustrarlas.

Primero, las autoridades en Botswana barraron a gente del San de indicar su caso ante el comité del UNHCHR sobre la eliminación de la discriminación racial durante la sesión de ese comité en Ginebra en 2006.

Los pasaportes de los representantes de la gente del San de su organización llamada primera gente del Kalahari fueron confiscados, haciéndolo imposible para que la viaje a Ginebra.

En segundo lugar, algunos meses antes de la corte que gobernaba en la aplicación la relocalización de la gente del San del CKGR, un alto funcionario del ministerio de las comunicaciones, ciencia y tecnología, mandó a los medios del estado para refrenarse de las noticias de la cubierta que fueron consideradas como crítica de la posición del gobierno con respecto al desahucio del San del CKGR.

El mismo funcionario recordó a médicos de los medios del estado llevar los intereses del estado sobre todo lo demás en su divulgación. Él acusa los medios privados de ser unpatriotic en su divulgación.

En tercer lugar, en 2006, la corte gobernó que la orden del desahucio era ilegal y el gobierno pedido para permitir a la gente del San vuelve a su tierra. Pero el gobierno ha rechazado evidentemente mantener que corte que gobernaba y en lugar de otro ha decidido a aplicarla selectivamente.

Por ejemplo, la gente del San podría volver solamente al CKGR a condición de que ella adquiere licencias especiales de la caza y eso ella no debe esperar que el gobierno provea de ellas agua para la consumición humana.

Según el HRC y el departamento del estado de los E.E.U.U., tales condiciones fueron vistas como tentativas deliberadas por el gobierno de Botswana de desalentar a las comunidades desahuciadas del San de volver al CKGR.

Mientras que el gobierno reputa que demanda que la reserva de Kalahari no podría mantener los sustentos del San, otras están discutiendo que el motivo principal del gobierno es desplazar a la gente del San de modo que ella haga la manera para las compañías que desea explotar el CKGR diamante-rico.

El Mistreating del Ministro de Asuntos Exteriores

Phandu Skelemani de Zimbabweans Botswana fue cotizado recientemente en los medios como diciendo, “cualquiera que viene al refrán de Botswana que temen para su vida, de su propio país, nosotros no los perseguirá lejos”.

Pero esta voluntad por el ministro no refleja la situación en la tierra que considera eso en 2004 cerca de 72.112 que Zimbabweans estuvo deportado de Botswana y de 38 000 de 2006. Mientras que Botswana está beneficiando feliz del fallecimiento de Zimbabwe empleando Zimbabweans cualificado en su sector público y privado, por otra parte está persiguiendo detrás a los que se miren como inmigrantes ilegales. En la mayoría de los casos los inmigrantes ilegales son los que son uneducated y miraron así como carga.

El tratamiento de los inmigrantes de Zimbabweans en Botswana ha levantado ocasionalmente tensiones entre los dos países vecinos. Con Botswana discutiendo que sea el azotar el método de castigo preferido por Zimbabweans encontró culpable de confiar un crimen. Pero las autoridades de Zimbabwean han condenado tal forma antigua de recompensa. Demandan que Zimbabweans está forzado en aceptar el excedente del castigo corporal que es arrestada arrestado desde entonces una vez ellos está batido y su dinero y pertenencia están confiscadas antes de estar deportado a Zimbabwe.

En la conclusión, Botswana se parece carecer cualquier comisión para tratar todas estas preocupaciones según lo levantado por los varios tenedores de apuestas. Y es solamente apropiado que si quisiera que su oposición al régimen de Mugabe fuera tomada seriamente, eso él la manija s su propio lío doméstico con el mismo vigor y arrogancia.

[Este artículo primero fue publicado en el Web site del periódico nuevo de la era de Namibia.]

Alcune domande serie circa il Botswana
Automatically translated into Italian thanks to WorldLingo
Il BOTSWANA una nazione progressiva: pensi ancora. Gli indicatori in tutto il mondo 2008 della banca del mondo (WGI) di controllo segnalano i posti Botswana fra i pochi paesi che mostrano il progresso significativo nelle edizioni di controllo. Il Botswana si considera come esempio ai relativi paesi africani del collega quando viene alla corruzione di combattimento e ad effettuare la stabilità politica ed economica.

Del Botswana ritardato è diventato un critico vocale del conflitto nello Zimbabwe. È andato fino a suggerire la rimozione del presidente Robert Mugabe dello Zimbabwe. Gli affari esteri del Botswana assistono recentemente detto il suo paese è preparato per ospitare un movimento di resistenza democratico condotto dall'opposizione rovesciare il presidente Mugabe da alimentazione. Tali espressioni sono state condannate dalle autorità dello Zimbabwean che le identificano come provocatorie ed irragionevoli. Ma mentre il Botswana sta provando a visualizzare le relative credenziali morali alla regione ed il mondo nel suo insieme, la relativa propria annotazione nel paese non è quella piacevole.

Questo articolo solleva le edizioni che alterano la buona condizione del Botswana come nazione progressiva e così fare la relativa critica del fastidio puro dello Zimbabwe.

I Rich ma i poveri

da indipendenza, Botswana ha sperimentato uno dei tassi di accrescimento più veloci per capita nel reddito nel mondo. Trasformandosi, nel processo, da un p#se povero con la a per capita di US$80 alla a per capita di US$6 000. Ciò fa il Botswana uno dei paesi africani con gli più alti redditi personali medii sul continente. [1] Inoltre, lo sviluppo economico del Botswana ha stato in media 9% all'anno 1967 - 2006 e verso la conclusione dell'anno scorso le relative riserve di divise estere si sono levate in piedi a US$10.2 miliardo.

Tuttavia, malgrado la popolazione del questo i successi Botswana impressionante è generalmente povera. La disoccupazione è vicino a 40%.

Ci è un medico per ogni 5 150 genti.

La speranza di vita del Botswana alla nascita era di 64 anni in 1990 e in 2005 è caduto a 39 anni ed è valutata per cadere più ulteriormente a 31 anno durante l'anno 2015. Ironicamente, durante lo stesso periodo e per le statistiche dello stesso Zimbabwe dell'indicatore sono 59 anni (1990), di 33 anni (2005) e di 31 anno durante l'anno 2015.

La situazione difficile della gente indigena

in 2006, Parigi-ha basato la federazione internazionale per i diritti dell'uomo (FIDH) insieme al gruppo principale di diritti dell'uomo nel Botswana, DITSHWANELO ha sostenuto il punto di vista del comitato di NU per l'eliminazione di distinzione razziale che il governo del Botswana non sta facendo abbastanza per contenere la distinzione orientata verso la gente indigena, i gruppi etnici sicuri, i non-citizens, i cercatori dell'asilo ed i rifugiati nel Botswana.

Il comitato di NU ha suggerito allora che le autorità se “riveda la definizione costituzionale di distinzione poichè non proibisce esplicitamente la distinzione basata sulla discesa, origine nazionale o etnica e distinzione indiretta. Ancora, chiede una revisione delle eccezioni alla proibizione di distinzione rispetto ai non-citizens ed in base all'origine etnica o alla tribù. „

In settembre questo anno, il distributore a spaglio nazionale Btv, che è controllato pesante dal governo, è stato criticato da un gruppo multicultural di avvocatura denominato RETENG per introdurre soltanto un notiziario di lingua di Setswana ed omettere altre lingue indigene locali durante l'agitazione di programmazione al distributore a spaglio. Il gruppo di avvocatura ha espresso il dolore sopra riluttanza del governo per ascoltare coloro che promuove le lingue indigene.

La Legge di Chieftainship del paese e la Legge tribale dei territori si dicono per riconoscere soltanto le tribù Tswana-parlanti. Il non-recognition di alcune tribù, conduce alla non-rappresentazione nella Camera dei capi, con conseguente tali tribù che sono svantaggiate quando viene atterrare la ripartizione.

La tolleranza politica

in 2005, il professor Kenneth buon chi è australiano dalla nascita ma è vissuto nel Botswana per circa 20 anni, è stata dichiarata un grata del persona non allora dal presidente Festus Mogae dopo il professore ha criticato il modo in cui le transizioni presidenziali in quel paese sono maneggiate. La critica del professore è stata contenuta in una carta accademica intitolata “successione presidenziale nel Botswana: Nessun modello per l'Africa„. Si è riferito alla democrazia del Botswana come “non sana„ e con “le limitazioni e le limitazioni severe su esso„.

In quel professor di carta Good ha sostenuto che la successione presidenziale del Botswana è dominata da una cricca privilegiata manciata e che le decisioni presidenziali sono unquestionable.

La deportazione del professor Good ha attratto l'attenzione dell'istituto internazionale della pressa (IPI), che ha condannato la deportazione in una lettera al governo. In quella lettera il IPI ragione per cui l'insistenza della corte che il presidente ha la prerogativa da dare o non dare la ragione per la quale ha dichiarato il professor buon un immigrante indesiderato potrebbe essere interpretato soltanto poichè l'applicazione della parte 93 del codice penale che considerare insultare di un presidente o di un membro dell'Assemblea nazionale come un'offesa.

Nella stessa lettera, il IPI ha ripetuto la relativa richiesta per l'abrogazione in tutto il mondo della parte 93 del codice penale come nei loro punti di vista dà la stanza ai governi alla crepa giù sui loro critici.

In agosto questo anno, un ministro del delegato in armadietto del presidente Khama è stato segnalato a richiedere la correzione della costituzione per permettere un terzo termine presidenziale per l'incombente. Malgrado essere considerato una delle nazioni più ricche sul continente africano, il ministro del delegato ha sostenuto che il Botswana è un p#se povero che non potrebbe potere effettuare tre ex presidenti, così la necessità di prolungare il periodo d'attività del presidente Khama da 2018 a 2023.

Nel jest, ora che l'ex presidente Festus Mogae è il destinatario del premio di Mo Ibrahim che consiste annualmente di US$5 milione in 10 anni e di US$200 000 per vita in seguito ed anche un US$200 supplementare possibile 000 all'anno per 10 anni verso il lavoro di carità. Il ministro del delegato dovrebbe forse chiedere al ex-presidente Mogae di studiare la possibilità di rifiutare il permesso di governo. Tuttavia, seriamente comunicando, il delegato che desiderio indesiderabile del ministro ha il potenziale rovinare il Botswana revered la stabilità ed il rispetto politici per la norma di legge e dovrebbe essere evitato così in avvenire.

La pena di morte

all'inizio di quest'anno, il comitato di diritti dell'uomo di NU (HRC), nelle relative osservazioni concludenti ha invitato il governo del Botswana per muoversi verso l'abolizione della pena di morte. Il HRC appalled dalla posizione del governo che non ha intenzione di abolizione della pena di morte dai relativi statuti. In una presentazione al HRC, il FIDH e il DITSHWANELO hanno criticato il governo per l'avanzamento del processo di esecuzione dei prigionieri nella segretezza. Il governo invitato due organizzazioni per fornire ai membri della famiglia le informazioni per quanto riguarda l'esecuzione del loro amava ones.

Nel novembre 2007, DITSHWANELO ha ricordato al governo che la relativa applicazione continua della pena di morte va contro la moratoria che è stata portata sul posto da una risoluzione adottata dal terzo comitato dell'assemblea generale di NU.

Ancora, l'organizzazione ha ricordato al governo che la pena di morte è contro il principio di base della dignità umana come espresso nella dichiarazione universale dei diritti dell'uomo e dovrebbe essere eliminata così. Inoltre, ha ricordato al governo che non ci è conferma certa che dichiara la pena di morte come il fattore dissuasivo più efficiente contro il crimine.

La punizione corporale

Botswana è forse uno dei pochi paesi che mete fuori la punizione sotto forma di la punizione corporale. Mentre questa forma della punizione è stata proscritta in molti paesi civilizzati sopra il mondo, nel Botswana è legale.

L'ordinamento giudiziario del Botswana permette l'applicazione della punizione corporale alla gente anziana da 14 ed aumenta. Significando che i bambini anziani fra 14 e 18 sono sottoposti alla punizione corporale. Quello non è nello spirito di molte convenzioni di diritti dell'uomo di NU quale la convenzione delle Nazioni Unite sui diritti del bambino, dell'articolo 5 della dichiarazione universale dei diritti dell'uomo e dell'articolo 7 del patto internazionale sui diritti civili e politici.

Ancora, il Botswana finora è andato contro il parere della lettera africana dei diritti dell'uomo e dei diritti della gente sostituire la punizione corporale con meno opzioni d'umiliazione.

Secondo le regole minime standard del NU per il trattamento dei prigionieri, la punizione corporale, la punizione disponendo in una cellula scura e le punizioni tutto il crudeli, inumane o degradanti completamente saranno proibite come punizioni per le offese disciplinari.

Evicting il San popoli

i diritti dell'uomo che l'agenzia UNHCHR ha nel passato il trattamento del Botswana criticato dei relativi cittadini di minoranza, particolarmente la gente indigena delle Nazioni Unite di San. I UNHCHR non erano felici con la rimozione della gente di San dalla riserva centrale del gioco di Kalahari (CKGR) dal governo.

In 2002, la gente di San ha portato il governo del Botswana in il tribunale per opporre la rimozione valida dal CKGR. Tuttavia, la ricerca della gente di San per giustizia è stata guastata dalle tattiche difettose impiegate dal governo per frustrarle.

In primo luogo, le autorità nel Botswana hanno escluso la gente di San dal dichiarare il loro caso prima del comitato del UNHCHR per l'eliminazione di distinzione razziale durante la sessione di quel comitato a Ginevra in 2006.

I passaporti dei rappresentanti della gente di San dalla loro organizzazione denominata prima gente del Kalahari sono stati confiscati, rendente lo impossible affinchè loro viaggino a Ginevra.

Secondariamente, alcuni mesi davanti alla corte che regola sull'emissione della rilocazione della gente di San dal CKGR, un funzionario dal Ministero delle comunicazioni, la scienza e tecnologia, ha insegnato ai mezzi di dichiarare per astenersi da dalle notizie del covering che sono state viste come critica della posizione di governo per quanto riguarda il eviction di San dal CKGR.

Lo stesso funzionario ha ricordato ai professionisti di mezzi di dichiarare trasportare gli interessi del dichiarare sopra niente altro nella loro segnalazione. Accusa i mezzi riservati di essere unpatriotic nella loro segnalazione.

In terzo luogo, in 2006, la corte ha regolato che l'ordine di eviction era illegale ed il governo ordinato per permettere alla gente di San rinvia alla loro terra. Ma il governo ha rifiutato blatantly di sostenere che corte che regola e preferibilmente ha deciso applicarlo selettivamente.

Per esempio, la gente di San potrebbe rinviare soltanto al CKGR a condizione che acquistano le autorizzazioni speciali di caccia e quello non dovrebbero invitare il governo per fornire loro acqua per consumo umano.

Secondo il HRC e gli Stati Uniti State Department, tali circostanze sono state osservate come tentativi intenzionali dal governo del Botswana di scoraggiare le Comunità evicted di San dal rinvio al CKGR.

Mentre il governo sarebbe sostenente che la riserva di Kalahari non potrebbe effettuare le vite di San, altre stanno sostenendo che il motivo principale del governo è di spostare la gente di San in modo che facciano il senso per le aziende che desidera sfruttare il CKGR diamante-ricco.

Mistreating del ministro

straniero Phandu Skelemani di Zimbabweans Botswana recentemente è stato citato nei mezzi come dicendo, “qualcuno che venisse al detto del Botswana che temono per la loro vita, dal loro proprio paese, noi non li inseguirà via„.

Ma questa benevolenza dal ministro non riflette la situazione sulla terra che considera quello in 2004 circa 72.112 che Zimbabweans deported dal Botswana e da 38 000 di 2006. Mentre il Botswana sta traendo beneficio felicemente dal demise dello Zimbabwe impiegando Zimbabweans qualificato nel relativo settore pubblico e privato, d'altra parte sta inseguendo indietro coloro che è considerare gli immigranti illegali. Nella maggior parte dei casi gli immigranti illegali sono coloro che è uneducated e così ha considerato una difficoltà.

Il trattamento degli immigranti di Zimbabweans nel Botswana ha sollevato occasionalmente i tensionamenti fra i due paesi limitrofi. Con il Botswana che discute che la fustigazione è il metodo di punizione preferito da Zimbabweans ha trovato colpevole di commettere un crimine. Ma le autorità di Zimbabwean hanno condannato tale forma antica di retribution. Sostengono che Zimbabweans è costretto nell'accettare l'eccedenza di punizione corporale che è arrestato da allora arrestato una volta è battuto ed i loro soldi ed effetti personali sono confiscati prima di deported nello Zimbabwe.

In conclusione, il Botswana sembra difettare di tutto l'impegno per richiamare tutte queste preoccupazioni come alzate di vari consegnatari. Ed è soltanto adeguato che se desidera la relativa opposizione al regime di Mugabe essere preso seriamente, quello esso maniglia s il relativo proprio mess domestico con lo stessi vigore ed arrogance.

[Questo articolo in primo luogo è stato pubblicato sul Web site di nuovo giornale di era del Namibia.]

Einige ernste Fragen über Botswana
Automatically translated into German thanks to WorldLingo
BOTSWANA eine progressive Nation: denken Sie wieder. Die weltweiten Regierungsgewalt-Anzeigen 2008 der Weltbank (WGI) berichten über Plätze Botswana unter den wenigen Ländern, die bedeutenden Fortschritt in den Regierungsgewaltausgaben zeigen. Botswana wird als Beispiel zu seinen Mitafrikanischen Ländern betrachtet, wenn er zu kämpfender Korruption und zum Beibehalten der politischen und ökonomischen Stabilität kommt.

Von spätem Botswana ist ein vocal Kritiker des Konflikts in Zimbabwe geworden. Es ging bis zu dem Vorschlagen des Abbaus des Präsidenten Robert Mugabe von Zimbabwe. Außenpolitik Botswanas ist vor kurzem besagtes sein Land wird vorbereitet, eine demokratische Widerstandsbewegung zu bewirten behilflich, die durch die Opposition geführt wird, Präsidenten Mugabe von der Energie zu stürzen. Solche äußerungen sind durch die Zimbabwean Behörden verurteilt worden, die sie beschriften, wie provozierend und absurd. Aber, während Botswana versucht, seine moralischen Bescheinigungen zur Region und die Welt anzuzeigen an großem, ist seine eigene Aufzeichnung zu Hause nicht angenehme die.

Dieser Artikel hebt die Ausgaben an, die Botswanas gute Stellung als progressive Nation und seine Kritik Zimbabwe der reinen Beeinträchtigung folglich bilden verderben.

Rich aber Armen

seit Unabhängigkeit, Botswana hat eine der schnellsten Wachstumsraten per capita im Einkommen in der Welt erfahren. , Im Prozeß, aus einem armen Land mit a per capita von US$80 zu a per capita von US$6 000 sich umwandeln. Dieses bildet Botswana einen von den afrikanischen Ländern mit den höchsten durchschnittlichen persönlichen Einkommen auf dem Kontinent. [1] Außerdem Botswanas berechnete Wirtschaftswachstum 9% pro Jahr von 1967 bis 2006 und in Richtung zum Ende des letzten Jahres standen seine Devisenkursreserven an US$10.2 Milliarde.

Jedoch trotz ist Bevölkerung dieses eindrucksvollen der Ausführungen Botswanas im Allgemeinen arm. Arbeitslosigkeit ist nah an 40%.

Es gibt einen Doktor für jede 5 150 Leute.

Lebenserwartung Botswanas an der Geburt war 64 Jahre 1990 und 2005 fiel sie auf 39 Jahre und wird geschätzt, um auf 31 Jahre im Jahr 2015 weiter zu fallen. Ironisch während der gleichen Periode und für die gleichen Statistiken des Anzeigezimbabwes sind 59 Jahre (1990), 33 Jahre (2005) und 31 Jahre im Jahr 2015.

Die Lage der eingeborenen Völker

2006, die Paris-gegründete internationale Vereinigung für menschliche Rechte (FIDH) zusammen mit der führenden Gruppe der menschlichen Rechte in Botswana, DITSHWANELO stützte die Ansicht des UNO Ausschusses für die Beseitigung der rassischen Unterscheidung, der die Botswana Regierung nicht genug tut, um die Unterscheidung zu enthalten, die in Richtung in Richtung den eingeborenen Völkern, in Richtung bestimmten ethnischen Gruppen, in Richtung den Nichtbürgern, in Richtung den Asylsuchern und zu den Flüchtlingen in Botswana verwiesen wird.

Der UNO Ausschuß empfahl dann daß die Behörden, wenn „die konstitutionelle Definition der Unterscheidung wiederholen Sie, da sie nicht ausdrücklich die Unterscheidung verbietet, die auf Abfall, nationaler oder ethnischer Ursprung und indirekte Unterscheidung basiert. Ausserdem bittet es um einen Bericht der Ausnahmen zum Verbot der Unterscheidung in Beziehung zu Nichtbürgern und auf der Grundlage von ethnischen Ursprung oder Stamm. “

Im September dieses Jahr, wurde die nationale Rundfunkstation Btv, die schwer durch die Regierung gesteuert wird, von einer multikulturellen Befürwortung Gruppe kritisiert, die RETENG für nur eine Setswana Sprachennachrichtensendung vorstellen und andere lokale eingeborene Sprachen während eines programmierenshake-up an der Rundfunkstation auslassen angerufen wurde. Die Befürwortung Gruppe drückte Leid über Abneigung der Regierung aus, um auf die zu hören, die eingeborene Sprachen fördern.

Tat Chieftainship des Landes und die Stammes- Gegend-Tat werden gesagt, nur die Tswana-sprechenden Stämme erkannt zu haben. Die Nichtanerkennung einiger Stämme, führt zu Nichtdarstellung im Haus der Leiter, mit dem Ergebnis solcher Stämme, die benachteiligt sind, wenn sie kommt, Verteilung zu landen.

Politischer Toleranz

2005, Professor Kenneth, der gut ist, wer ist, australisch durch Geburt aber in Botswana für ungefähr 20 Jahre gewohnt, wurde ein Person nicht grata vom dann Präsidenten Festus Mogae nach dem Professor kritisierte die Weise erklärt, in der die Präsidentenübergänge in diesem Land angefaßt werden. Die Kritik des Professors wurde in einem akademischen Papier enthalten, das „Präsidentenreihenfolge in Botswana erlaubt wurde: Kein Modell für Afrika“. Er bezog sich auf Demokratie Botswanas, wie „ungesund“ und mit „strengen Beschränkungen und Beschränkungen nach ihr“.

In diesem Papierprofessor argumentierte Good, daß Botswanas Präsidentenreihenfolge von einer Handvoll privilegierten Clique beherrscht wird und daß Präsidentenentscheidungen unquestionable sind.

Die Zwangsverschickung des Professors Good erregte die Aufmerksamkeit des internationalen Presse-Instituts (IPI), das die Zwangsverschickung in einem Buchstaben zur Regierung verurteilte. In diesem Buchstaben folgerte das IPI daß die Gerichtbeharrlichkeit, daß der Präsident das Vorrecht hat, zum zu geben, oder, Grund nicht zu geben, warum er den guten Professor erklärte, ein unerwünschter Immigrant nur gedeutet werden könnte da die Anwendung von Abschnitt 93 des Strafcodes, der das Beleidigen eines Präsidenten oder des Mitgliedes der Nationalversammlung als eine Handlung ansieht.

Im gleichen Buchstaben reiterierte das IPI seinen Anruf für den weltweiten Repeal von Abschnitt 93 des Strafcodes, wie es in ihren Ansichten Raum zu den Regierungen zum Sprung unten auf ihren Kritikern gibt.

Im August dieses Jahr, wurde ein Abgeordnetminister Präsident Khamas im Schrank das Verlangen berichtet, die änderung der Beschaffenheit, zum einer Präsidentendritten Bezeichnung für den Amtsinhaber zu erlauben. Trotz als eine der wohlhabendsten Nationen auf dem afrikanischen Kontinent betrachtet werden, argumentierte der Abgeordnetminister, daß Botswana ein armes Land ist, das nicht beibehält drei ehemalige Präsidenten, so die Notwendigkeit, Präsident Khamas Amtszeit von 2018 bis 2023 auszudehnen könnte.

Im Jest nun da ehemaliger Präsident Festus Mogae die Empfänger des MO Ibrahim Preiss ist, der US$5 Million über 10 Jahren und aus US$200 000 jährlich für das Leben danach und auch ein mögliches zusätzliches US$200 000 pro Jahr für 10 Jahre in Richtung zur Nächstenliebearbeit besteht. Der Abgeordnetminister sollte Expräsidenten Mogae möglicherweise bitten die, Regierung Genehmigung zu sinken zu erwägen. Jedoch ernsthaft sprechend, revered der Abgeordnete nicht wünschenswerter Wunsch, den des Ministers das Potential hat, Botswanas zu ruinieren, politische Stabilität und Respekt für den Rechtsgrundsatz und sollte folglich zukünftig vermieden werden.

Todesstrafe

früh dieses Jahr, der UNO menschliche Recht-Ausschuß (HRC), in seinen folgernden Anmerkungen ersuchte um die Regierung von Botswana, um in Richtung zur Aufhebung der Todesstrafe zu bewegen. Das HRC wurde durch die Position der Regierung entsetzt, daß es keine Absicht des Abschaffens der Todesstrafe von seinen Gesetzen hat. In einer Unterordnung zum HRC, kritisierten das FIDH und das DITSHWANELO die Regierung für das Durchführen des Durchführung Prozesses der Gefangener in der Geheimhaltung. Die zwei Organisationen ersuchte Regierung, zum der Familie Mitglieder mit den Informationen betreffend sind die Durchführung von ihrem zu versehen liebte eine.

Im November 2007 erinnerte DITSHWANELO die Regierung, daß seine fortfahrende Anwendung der Todesstrafe gegen das Moratorium geht, das an der richtigen Stelle durch eine Auflösung geholt wurde, die vom dritten Ausschuß von UNO Generalversammlung angenommen wurde.

Ausserdem erinnerte die Organisation die Regierung, daß die Todesstrafe gegen das Grundprinzip der menschlichen Würde ist-, wie in der Universalerklärung der menschlichen Rechte ausgedrückt und folglich beseitigt werden sollte. Außerdem erinnerte es die Regierung, daß es keine zuverlässige Bekräftigung gibt, die die Todesstrafe als das leistungsfähigste Abschreckungsmittel gegen Verbrechen erklärt.

Körperliche Strafe

Botswana ist möglicherweise eins der wenigen Länder, die heraus Bestrafung in Form von körperlicher Strafe austeilen. Während diese Form der Bestrafung in vielen zivilisierten Ländern über der Welt geächtet worden ist, in Botswana ist sie zugelassen.

Justizgewalt Botswanas erlaubt den Leuten die Anwendung der körperlicher Strafe, die von 14 gealtert werden und up. Bedeutung, daß die Kinder, die zwischen 14 und 18 gealtert werden, körperlicher Strafe unterworfen werden. Das ist nicht im Geist vieler UNO Versammlungen der menschlichen Rechte wie der Nationen Vereinbarung über die Rechte des Kindes, des Artikels 5 der Universalerklärung von menschlichen Rechten und des Artikels 7 der internationalen Vereinbarung auf den Zivil- und politischen Rechten.

Ausserdem ist Botswana bis jetzt gegen den Rat der afrikanischen Charter der menschlichen Rechte und der Rechte der Leute, körperliche Strafe mit weniger demütigenden Wahlen zu ersetzen gegangen.

Entsprechend den minimalen Standardrichtlinien der UNO für die Behandlung der Gefangener, werden körperliche Strafe, Bestrafung, indem man in eine dunkle Zelle legt, und ganz grausame, unmenschliche oder entwürdigende Bestrafungen vollständig als Bestrafungen für Dienstpflichtverletzungen verboten.

Das San gewaltsam vertreibend, bevölkeren Sie

die Nationen menschlichen Rechte, die Agentur UNHCHR in der Vergangenheit kritisierten Behandlung des Botswanas seiner Minoritätbürger hat, besonders die eingeborenen San Völker. Die UNHCHR waren nicht mit dem Abbau der San Leute von der zentralen Kalahari Spiel-Reserve (CKGR) durch die Regierung glücklich.

2002 verklagten die San Leute die Botswana Regierung, um dem starken Abbau vom CKGR entgegenzusetzen. Jedoch ist die Suche der San Leute nach Gerechtigkeit durch die schlechten Taktiken beschädigt worden, die durch Regierung eingesetzt werden, um sie zu frustrieren.

Zuerst hielten die Behörden in Botswana die San Leute vom Angeben ihres Falles vor dem Ausschuß des UNHCHRS für die Beseitigung der rassischen Unterscheidung während des Lernabschnittes dieses Ausschusses in Genf 2006 ab.

Die Pässe der Repräsentanten der San Leute von ihrer Organisation, die erste Leute des Kalahari genannt wurde, wurden konfisziert und bildeten es unmöglich, damit sie nach Genf reisen.

Zweitens einige Monate vor dem Gericht, das auf der Ausgabe der Verschiebung der San Leute vom CKGR anordnet, wies ein höherer Beamter vom Ministerium der Kommunikationen, Wissenschaft und Technologie, die Zustandmittel an, um BedeckungNachrichten zu nehmen, die als Kritisieren der Regierung Position betreffend ist die San Vertreibung vom CKGR gesehen wurden.

Der gleiche Beamte erinnerte die Zustandmittelpraktiker, die Interessen des Zustandes über noch etwas an ihrem Bericht zu tragen. Er beschuldigte die privaten Mittel vom Sein unpatriotic in ihrem Bericht.

Drittens 2006, ordnete das Gericht an, daß der Vertreibung Auftrag ungültig war und die bestellte Regierung, zum der San Leute zu ermöglichen zu ihrem Land zurückgehen. Aber die Regierung hat kraß abgelehnt daß das anordnende zu unterstützen Gericht und entschieden anstatt, es selektiv anzuwenden.

Zum Beispiel konnten die San Leute zum CKGR nur zurückkommen, unter der Bedingung daß erwerben sie spezielle Jagdlizenzen und das sollten sie nicht Regierung erwarten, um sie mit Wasser für menschlichen Verbrauch zu versehen.

Entsprechend dem HRC und der US Zustand-Abteilung wurden solche Bedingungen als überlegte Versuche durch die Botswana Regierung, die gewaltsam vertriebenen San Gemeinschaften vom Zurückbringen zum CKGR zu entmutigen angesehen.

Während Regierung soll, behauptend, daß die Kalahari Reserve nicht die San Lebensunterhalt beibehalten könnte, argumentieren andere, daß das Hauptmotiv der Regierung, die San Leute zu verlegen ist, damit sie Weise für Firmen bilden, die das Diamant-reiche CKGR ausnutzen möchte.

Das Schlecht behandeln Zimbabweans

Botswana des Außenministers Phandu Skelemani wurde vor kurzem in den Mitteln veranschlagen, wie sagend, „jedes, das zum Botswana Saying kommt, den sie für ihr Leben, aus ihrem eigenen Land, wir fürchten, sie nicht weg jagt“.

Aber dieses Wohlwollen durch den Minister reflektiert nicht die Situation aus den Grund den 2004 ungefähr 72.112 betrachtend, die Zimbabweans von Botswana und 38 von 000 2006 verbannt wurden. Während Botswana glücklich vom Ende Zimbabwes profitiert, indem er qualifiziertes Zimbabweans in seinem allgemeinen und privaten Sektor einsetzt, jagt er einerseits zurück die, die als ungültige Immigranten betrachtet werden. In den meisten Fällen sind ungültige Immigranten die, die uneducated und betrachteten folglich als Belastung sind.

Die Behandlung der Zimbabweans Immigranten in Botswana hat manchmal Spannungen zwischen zwei Anliegerstaat aufgeworfen. Mit Botswana bevorzugte das Argumentieren, daß das Prügeln ist, der Methode der Bestrafung durch Zimbabweans gefunden schuldig von der Festlegung eines Verbrechens. Aber Zimbabwean Behörden haben solche antike Form der Vergeltung verurteilt. Sie behaupten, daß Zimbabweans in das Annehmen des Strafeüberschusses gezwungen werden, der festgehalten seit dem einmal festgehalten sie ist, werden geschlagen und ihr Geld und Eigentum beschlagnahmt wird, bevor man nach Zimbabwe verbannt wird.

Als schlußfolgerung scheint Botswanas, jede mögliche Verpflichtung zu ermangeln, um alle diese Interessen zu adressieren, wie von den verschiedenen Verwahrern angehoben. Und es ist daß, wenn es seine Opposition zum Mugabe Regime ernst genommen werden wünscht, das es Handgriff s seine eigene inländische Verwirrung mit der gleichen Stärke und Arroganz nur korrekt.

[Dieser Artikel wurde zuerst auf der Web site Namibias der neuen ärazeitung. veröffentlicht]

Algumas perguntas sérias sobre Botswana
Automatically translated into Portuguese thanks to WorldLingo
BOTSWANA uma nação progressiva: pense outra vez. Os indicadores 2008 Worldwide do Governance de banco de mundo (WGI) relatam lugares Botswana entre poucos países que mostram o progresso significativo em edições do governance. Botswana está considerado como um exemplo a seus países africanos do companheiro quando vem ao corruption de combate e a manter a estabilidade política e econômica.

De Botswana atrasado tornou-se um crítico vocal do conflito em Zimbabwe. Foi até sugerir a remoção do presidente Robert Mugabe de Zimbabwe. Os casos extrangeiros de Botswana ministram recentemente dito seu país são preparados para hospedar um movimento de resistência democrático conduzido pela oposição topple o presidente Mugabe do poder. Tais utterances condemned pelas autoridades de Zimbabwean que etiquetam as como provocative e absurd. Mas quando Botswana tentar indicar seus credentials morais à região e o mundo em grande, seu próprio registro no repouso não é aquele agradável.

Este artigo levanta as edições que taint a posição boa de Botswana como uma nação progressiva e assim fazer seu criticism do incômodo puro de Zimbabwe.

Os Rich mas os pobres

desde a independência, Botswana experimentaram uma das taxas de crescimento as mais rápidas per capita na renda no mundo. Transformando-se, no processo, de um país pobre com a per capita de US$80 a a per capita de US$6 000. Isto faz Botswana um dos países africanos com as rendas pessoais médias as mais elevadas no continente. [1] Além disso, o crescimento econômico de Botswana calculou a média de 9% por o ano de 1967 a 2006 e para o fim do ano passado suas reservas de troca extrangeira estiveram em US$10.2 bilhão.

Entretanto, apesar a população deste das realizações Botswana impressive é geralmente pobre. O desemprego é perto de 40%.

Há um doutor para cada 5 150 povos.

A expectativa de vida de Botswana no nascimento era 64 anos em 1990 e em 2005 caiu a 39 anos e é estimada para cair mais mais a 31 anos no ano 2015. Ironically, durante o mesmo período e para os statistics do mesmo Zimbabwe do indicador são 59 anos (1990), 33 anos (2005) e 31 anos no ano 2015.

O Plight de povos indígenos

em 2006, o Federation internacional Paris-baseado para as direitas humanas (FIDH) junto com o grupo principal das direitas humanas em Botswana, DITSHWANELO suportou a opinião o comitê dos UN no Elimination da discriminação racial que o governo de Botswana não está fazendo bastantes para conter a discriminação dirigida para povos indígenos, determinados grupos étnicos, non-citizens, seekers do asylum e refugees em Botswana.

O comitê dos UN recomendou então que as autoridades se “reveja a definição constitutional da discriminação porque não proíbe explicitamente a discriminação baseada na descida, origem nacional ou étnica e discriminação indireta. Além disso, pede uma revisão das exceções à proibição da discriminação com relação aos non-citizens e na base da origem étnica ou do tribe. ”

Em setembro este ano, o radiodifusor nacional Btv, que é controlado pesadamente pelo governo, foi criticado por um grupo multicultural do advocacy chamado RETENG para introduzir somente um boletim de notícia da língua de Setswana e deixar para fora outras línguas indígenas locais durante um shake-up de programação no radiodifusor. O grupo do advocacy expressou o grief sobre a relutância do governo para escutar aquelas que promovem línguas indígenas.

O ato de Chieftainship do país e o ato tribal dos territórios são ditos ter reconhecido somente os tribes Tswana-faladores. O non-recognition de alguns tribes, conduz à non-respresentação na casa dos chefes, tendo por resultado tais tribes que são disadvantaged quando vem aterrar o alocamento.

A tolerância política

em 2005, o professor Kenneth bom quem é Australian pelo nascimento mas é vivido em Botswana por aproximadamente 20 anos, foi declarada um grata do persona non então pelo presidente Festus Mogae após o professor criticou a maneira em que as transições presidenciais nesse país são seguradas. O criticism do professor foi contido em um papel académico intitulado “sucessão presidencial em Botswana: Nenhum modelo para África”. Consultou à democracia de Botswana como “insalubre” e com “limitações e limitações severas em cima dela”.

Nesse professor de papel Bom discutiu que a sucessão presidencial de Botswana está dominada por um clique privilegiado punhado e que as decisões presidenciais são unquestionable.

A deportação do professor Bom atraiu a atenção do instituto internacional da imprensa (IPI), que condemned a deportação em uma letra ao governo. Nessa letra o IPI raciocinou que o insistence da corte que o presidente tem o prerogative a dar ou para não dar a razão porque declarou o professor bom um immigrant indesejado poderia somente ser interpretado porque a aplicação da seção 93 do código Penal que considera insultar de um presidente ou de um membro do conjunto nacional como uma ofensa.

Na mesma letra, o IPI reiterated sua chamada para o repeal worldwide da seção 93 do código Penal como em suas vistas dá o quarto aos governos à rachadura para baixo em seus críticos.

Em agosto este ano, um ministro do deputado no armário do presidente Khama foi relatado à chamada para a emenda do Constitution para permitir um terceiro termo presidencial para o encarregado. Apesar de ser considerado como uma das nações as mais ricas no continente africano, o ministro do deputado discutiu que Botswana é um país pobre que não poderia mantivesse três presidentes anteriores, assim a necessidade prolongar o termo do presidente Khama de escritório de 2018 a 2023.

No jest, agora esse presidente anterior Festus Mogae é o receptor do prêmio do Mo Ibrahim que consiste em US$5 milhão sobre 10 anos e em US$200 000 anualmente para a vida mais tarde e também um US$200 adicional possível 000 por o ano por 10 anos para o trabalho do charity. O ministro do deputado deve talvez pedir que o ex-presidente Mogae considere declinar a permissão do governo. Entretanto, seriamente falando, o deputado que desejo indesejável do ministro tem o potencial arruinar Botswana revered a estabilidade e o respeito políticos para a régua de lei e assim deve ser evitado no futuro.

A penalidade de morte

no começo desse ano, o comitê das direitas humanas dos UN (HRC), em suas observações conclindo convidou o governo de Botswana para mover-se para o abolition da penalidade de morte. O HRC appalled pelo stance do governo que não tem nenhuma intenção de abolishing a penalidade de morte de seus statutes. Em uma submissão ao HRC, o FIDH e o DITSHWANELO criticaram o governo para realizar o processo da execução dos prisioneiros no secrecy. O governo convidado duas organizações para fornecer membros da família com a informação a respeito da execução do seu amou.

Em novembro 2007, DITSHWANELO lembrou o governo que sua aplicação continuando da penalidade de morte vai de encontro ao moratorium que foi trazido no lugar por uma definição adotada pelo terceiro comitê do general conjunto dos UN.

Além disso, a organização lembrou o governo que a penalidade de morte está de encontro ao princípio básico da dignidade humana como expressado na declaração universal de direitas humanas e assim deve ser eliminada. Além disso, lembrou o governo que não há nenhum substantiation de confiança que declara a penalidade de morte como o impedimento o mais eficiente de encontro ao crime.

A punição corporal

Botswana é talvez um de poucos países que mete para fora a punição no formulário da punição corporal. Quando este formulário da punição outlawed em muitos países civilised sobre o mundo, em Botswana é legal.

O judiciary de Botswana permite a aplicação da punição corporal aos povos envelhecidos de 14 e levanta-a. Significando que as crianças envelhecidas entre 14 e 18 estão sujeitadas à punição corporal. Isso não está no espírito de muitas convenções das direitas humanas dos UN tais como a convenção unida das nações nas direitas da criança, do artigo 5 da declaração universal de direitas humanas e do artigo 7 do convénio internacional em direitas civis e políticas.

Além disso, Botswana foi assim distante de encontro ao conselho da carta patente africana de direitas humanas e de direitas do pessoa substituir a punição corporal com menos opções humilhando.

De acordo com as réguas mínimas padrão dos UN para o tratamento dos prisioneiros, a punição corporal, a punição colocando em uma pilha escura, e as punições toda cruéis, inumanas ou degradando serão proibidas completamente como punições para ofensas disciplinary.

Evicting o San povoe

as direitas que humanas unidas a agência UNHCHR tem no tratamento do Botswana criticado passado de seus cidadãos do minority, especialmente povos indígenos das nações do San. Os UNHCHR não eram felizes com a remoção dos povos do San da reserva central do jogo de Kalahari (CKGR) pelo governo.

Em 2002, os povos do San fizeram exame do governo de Botswana à corte para opôr a remoção forceful do CKGR. Entretanto, o quest do pessoa do San para a justiça foi estragado pelas táticas más empregadas pelo governo a fim frustrá-las.

Primeiramente, as autoridades em Botswana barraram os povos do San de indicar seu caso antes do comitê do UNHCHR no Elimination da discriminação racial durante a sessão desse comitê em Genebra em 2006.

Os passports dos representantes dos povos do San de sua organização chamada primeiros povos do Kalahari confiscated, fazendo o impossível para que viajem a Genebra.

Secondly, alguns meses antes da corte que governa na introdução do relocation dos povos do San do CKGR, um oficial sênior do Ministry das comunicações, ciência e tecnologia, instruiu os meios do estado para refrain dos artigos de notícia do covering que foram vistos como criticar a posição do governo a respeito do eviction do San do CKGR.

O mesmo oficial lembrou os practitioners dos meios do estado carregar os interesses do estado acima de qualquer outra coisa no seu relatório. Acusa os meios confidenciais de ser unpatriotic no seu relatório.

Thirdly, em 2006, a corte governou que a ordem do eviction era ilegal e o governo requisitado para permitir os povos do San retorna a sua terra. Mas o governo recusou blatantly uphold que corte que governa e decidiu-se preferivelmente aplicá-la seletivamente.

Por exemplo, os povos do San poderiam somente retornar ao CKGR na circunstância que adquirem licenças especiais da caça e que não devem esperar o governo as fornecer com água para o consumo humano.

De acordo com o HRC e o departamento do estado dos E.U., tais circunstâncias foram vistas como tentativas deliberadas pelo governo de Botswana de desanimar as comunidades evicted do San do retorno ao CKGR.

Quando o governo for dito reivindicar que a reserva de Kalahari não poderia manter os meios de subsistência do San, outra está discutindo que o motriz principal do governo é deslocar os povos do San de modo que façam a maneira para companhias que quer explorar o CKGR diamante-rico.

Mistreating do ministro

extrangeiro Phandu Skelemani de Zimbabweans Botswana foi citado recentemente nos meios como dizendo, “qualquer um que vem ao provérbio de Botswana que temem para sua vida, de seu próprio país, nós não os perseguirá afastado”.

Mas este goodwill pelo ministro não reflete a situação na terra que considera aquele em 2004 aproximadamente 72.112 que Zimbabweans deported de Botswana e de 38 000 em 2006. Quando Botswana se beneficiar feliz do demise de Zimbabwe empregando Zimbabweans qualificado em seu setor público e confidencial, está na uma mão que persegue para trás aquelas que são consideradas como immigrants ilegais. Em a maioria de casos os immigrants ilegais estão aqueles que são uneducated e consideraram assim como um burden.

O tratamento de immigrants de Zimbabweans em Botswana levantou às vezes tensões entre os dois países neighbouring. Com Botswana discutir que flogging é o método da punição preferiu por Zimbabweans encontrado culpado de cometer um crime. Mas as autoridades de Zimbabwean condemned tal formulário antique do retribution. Reivindicam que Zimbabweans coerced em aceitar o excesso da punição corporal que é prendida desde prendido uma vez eles está batido e seus dinheiro e pertences impounded antes de deported a Zimbabwe.

Na conclusão, Botswana parece faltar todo o compromisso para dirigir-se a todos estes interesses como levantados por várias partes interessadas. E é somente apropriado que se quiser sua oposição ao regime de Mugabe ser feito exame seriamente, isso ele o punho s seu próprio mess doméstico com o mesmos vigour e arrogance.

[Este artigo foi publicado primeiramente no Web site do jornal novo da era de Namíbia.]

Något allvarligt ifrågasätter om Botswana
Automatically translated into Swedish thanks to WorldLingo
BOTSWANA en progressiv nation: funderare igen. Världsbanken den världsomspännande rapporten 2008 för maktindikatorer (WGI) förlägger Botswana bland de få länderna som visar att viktigt framsteg i makt utfärdar. Botswana betraktas som ett exempel till dess med- afrikanska länder, när det kommer till stridighetkorruption och att underhålla politisk och ekonomisk stabilitet.

Av sena Botswana blivit har en röst- kritiker av konflikten i Zimbabwe. Det gick så långt som föreslå borttagningen av presidenten Robert Mugabe av Zimbabwe. Botswana sörjer för utländska angelägenheter för en tid sedan said hans land är förberedda att vara värd en demokratisk motståndsrörelse ledde vid oppositionen för att topple presidenten Mugabe från driver. Sådan utterances har fördömts av zimbabwiska myndigheter som märker dem som provokativa och absurda. Men stunden Botswana är pröva att visa dess moraliska vitsord till regionen, och världen på stort, dess egna rekord- hemmastatt är inte det som är angenäm.

Lönelyfter för denna artikel utfärdar det skamfläckBotswana bra anseende som en progressiv nation och thus danande dess kritik av Zimbabwe ren otyg.

Rich men fattigt

efter självständighet, Botswana har erfarit en av de snabbaste tillväxttakterna i per capitainkomst i världen. Omforma sig, i det processaa, från ett fattigt land med en per capita av US$80 till en per capita av US$6 000. Detta gör Botswana en av de afrikanska länderna med de högsta genomsnittliga personliga inkomsterna på kontinenten. [1] Dessutom Botswana i genomsnitt uppgå till ekonomisk tillväxt 9% per år från 1967 till 2006, och in mot avsluta av dess utländska utbyte reserverar i fjol stått på miljarden US$10.2.

Emellertid är illviljan dessa mäktiga prestationBotswana befolkning allmänt fattig. Arbetslöshet är nästan 40%.

Det finns en manipulerar för varje 5 150 folk.

Botswana livförväntning på födelse var 64 år i 1990 och i 2005 det avverkningen till 39 år och beräknas till nedgången vidare till 31 år i året 2015. Ironically under den samma perioden och för samma indikatorZimbabwe statistik är 59 år (1990), 33 år (2005) och 31 år i året 2015.

Svår situation av infött folk

i 2006, denbaserade landskampfederationen för mänsklig rättighet (FIDH) samman med den ledande mänsklig rättighetgruppen i Botswana, DITSHWANELO stöttade beskåda av UN-kommittén på elimineringen av rasdiskriminering som den botswanska regeringen inte gör nog för att innehålla diskriminering som riktas in mot infött folk, bestämda folkgrupper, non-citizens, asylsökare och flyktingar i Botswana.

Un-kommittén rekommenderade därefter att myndigheterna, bör ”granska den konstitutionella definitionen av diskriminering, som den inte förbjuder tydligt diskriminering som baseras på nedstigning, medborgare- eller person som tillhör en etnisk minoritetbeskärningen och indirekt diskriminering. Dessutom frågar det för en granska av undantagen till förbud av diskriminering i förhållande till non-citizens och på basen av den etniska beskärningen eller stammen. ”

I September detta år, kritiserades medborgareTV-presentatör Btv, som tungt kontrolleras av regeringen, av en mångkulturell stödgrupp som kallades RETENG för introduktion endast av en information för Setswana språknyheterna och att lämna ut annan lokal infödda språk under en programmera shake-up på TV-presentatör. Stödgruppen uttryckte sorg över regering motvillighet för att lyssna till de som främjar infödda språk.

Landets Chieftainship agerar, och de stam- territorierna agerar sägs att ha känt igen endast detalande stammarna. Nonen-recognition av några stammar, blytak till non-framställningen i huset av chefer och att resultera i sådan stammar som missgynnas, när det kommer att landa tilldelning.

Politisk tolerans

i 2005, den professorKenneth godan, som är australiensisk vid födelse men bos i Botswana för omkring 20 år, förklarades en grata för image non av presidenten Festus Mogae efter professorn kritiserade därefter sättet som det presidents- landet för övergångar behandlas i däri. Professor kritik innehölls i ett akademiskt skyler över brister berättigad ”presidents- följd i Botswana: Inget modellera för Afrika”. Han såg till Botswana demokrati som ”sjuklig” och med ”stränga begränsningar och begränsningar på den”.

Skyla över brister däri den argumenterade professorgodan att Botswana presidents- följd domineras av näven privilegierat gäng och att presidents- beslut är unquestionable.

Utvisningen av professorgodan tilldrog uppmärksamheten av landskamppressinstitutet (IPI), som fördömde utvisningen i en märka till regeringen. Märka däri den resonerade IPIEN att domstolenvisheten, att presidenten har prerogativen som ska ges eller inte give resonerar varför han förklarade professorgoda som en undesired invandrare kunde endast tolkas som applikationen av delar upp 93 av det straff- kodifierar, som hälsningar förolämpa av en president eller en medlem av nationalförsamlingen som en förseelse.

I samma märka, IPIEN reiterated dess appell för den världsomspännande avskaffandet av delar upp 93 av det straff- kodifierar, som det i deras beskådar ger rum till regeringar till sprickan besegrar på deras kritiker.

I Augusti detta år, anmäldes en ställföreträdande minister   i presidenten kabinett Khamas till att ha kallat för rättelsen av konstitutionen som låter ett presidents- tredje, benämner för kyrkoherdet. Illviljan som betraktades som en av de mest förmögna nationerna på den afrikanska kontinenten, den ställföreträdande minister, argumenterade att Botswana är ett fattigt land som inte kunde underhåller tre tidigare president, således behovet att förlänga presidenten Khamas benämner av kontor från 2018 till 2023.

I skoj nu är den tidigare president Festus Mogae det mottagareare av prisen för Mo Ibrahim som består av US$5 miljon över 10 år och US$200 000 årligen för liv därefter och också en möjlighet extra US$200 000 per året för 10 år in mot välgörenhetarbete. Den ställföreträdande minister   bör kanske fråga före detta-presidenten Mogae för att betrakta att gå ned det regerings- avdrag. Emellertid och allvarligt att tala, den ställföreträdande minister   har bör oönskade wish det potentiellt som fördärvar Botswana vördade politiska stabilitet och respekt för rättssäkerheten och thus, undvikas i framtiden.

Dödsstraff

tidigare detta år, UN-mänsklig rättighetkommittén (HRC), i dess avslutande anmärkningar som kallas på regeringen av Botswana till flyttningen in mot avskaffandet av dödsstraff. HRCEN appalled av regering stance att den har ingen avsikt av att avskaffa dödsstraff från dess lagar. I en submission till HRCEN kritiserade FIDHEN och DITSHWANELOEN regeringen för att bära ut utförandet som var processaa av fång i sekretess. De två organisationarna kallade på regering för att ge familjemedlemmar med information angående utförandet av deras älskade.

I November 2007, påminde DITSHWANELO regeringen att dess fortsätta applikation av dödsstraff går mot moratoriummen som koms med in förlägger vid en upplösning som adopterades av den tredje kommittén av UN-generalförsamlingen.

Dessutom påminde organisationen regeringen att dödsstraff är mot den grundläggande principen av människovärde som uttryckt i den universella förklaringen av mänsklig rättighet och thus bör göras bort med. Dessutom påminde det regeringen att det inte finns någon pålitlig substantiation som förklarar dödsstraff som den effektivaste skrämseleffekten mot brott.

Kroppsagan

Botswana är kanske en av de få länderna som mete ut bestraffning i form av kroppsaga. Fördriva detta bildar av bestraffning har kriminaliserats i många civiliserade länder över världen, i Botswana som den är laglig.

Botswana domarkåren låter applikationen av kroppsagan till folk som åldras från 14 och, up. Menande som barn som åldras mellan 14 och 18, betvingas till kroppsagan. Det är inte i anden av många UN-mänsklig rättighetreglar liksom Förenta nationregeln på rätterna av barnet, precisera sina anklagelser mot 5 av den universella förklaringen av mänsklig rättighet och precisera sina anklagelser mot 7 av landskampöverenskommelsen på borgerliga och politiska rätter.

Dessutom har Botswana så långt väck mot rådgivningen av den afrikanska chartern av mänsklig rättighet och folks rätter att byta ut kroppsaga med mindre förödmjuka alternativ.

Enligt UN'SNA standarda härskar minimien för behandlingen av fång, kroppsagan, bestraffning, genom att förlägga i en mörkercell, och all grymma, omänskliga eller förnedras bestraffningar förbjudas fullständigt som bestraffningar för disciplinära förseelsear.

Avhysa Sanen bemanna

Förenta nationmänsklig rättighet som byrån UNHCHR har i förflutna kritiserade Botswana behandling av dess minoritetmedborgare, speciellt det infödda San-folket. UNHCHRNA var inte lyckliga med borttagningen av San-folket från den centralKalahari leken reserverar (CKGR) vid regeringen.

I 2002 tog San-folket den botswanska regeringen till domstolen för att motsätta den kraftfulla borttagningen från CKGREN. Emellertid San-folkets har sökanden för rättvisa fördärvats av dåligataktik som används av regeringen för att frustrera dem.

Först bommade för myndigheterna i Botswana San-folket från att påstå deras fall för UNHCHR'SENS kommitté på elimineringen av rasdiskriminering under den kommittés period i Geneva i 2006.

Passen av teknikerna av San-folket från deras organisation som kallades första folk av Kalaharien, beslagtogs, danande det som var omöjligt för att dem ska resa till Geneva.

Secondly några månader, för domstolsbeslutet på utfärda av förflyttningen av San-folket från CKGREN, en hög tjänsteman från departement av kommunikationer, vetenskap och teknologi, instruerade det statliga massmedia att avstå från täckande nyheternaobjekt som sågs, som kritisera regeringen, placerar angående San-evictionen från CKGREN.

Den samma representanten påminde de statliga massmediapraktikerna att bära intresserar av det statliga ovannämnt något annat i deras anmäla. Han anklagade det privata massmedia av att vara unpatriotic i deras anmäla.

Thirdly i 2006, härskade domstolen att evictionen beställer var olaglig och den beställde regeringen till tillstånd San-folket går tillbaka till deras land. Men regeringen har uppenbart vägrat för att försvara den domstolsbeslut och har i stället avgjort att applicera den selektivt.

För anföra som exempel, kunde San-folket endast gå tillbaka till CKGREN villkorar på att de får speciala jaktlicenser och att de inte bör förvänta regeringen att ge dem med bevattna för människaförbrukning.

Enligt HRCEN och US-utrikesdepartementet som är sådan villkorar beskådades som avsiktliga försök av den botswanska regeringen att avskräcka de avhyste San-gemenskaperna från att gå till CKGREN tillbaka.

Stundregeringen sägs för att fordra att Kalaharien reserverar inte kunde underhålla San-livelihoodsna, andra argumenterar att regering huvudsakliga bevekelsegrund är att förflytta San-folket, så att de gör långt för företag som önskar att exploatera denrika CKGREN.

Mistreating av Zimbabweans

den botswanska utrikesministern Phandu Skelemani citerades för en tid sedan i massmedia som ordstäv, ”vem som helst som kommer till det botswanska ordstävet, som de fruktar för deras liv, från deras egna land, oss ska för att inte jaga dem bort”.

Men denna goodwill av minister   reflekterar inte läget på det slipat betrakta det i 2004 omkring 72.112 som Zimbabweans deporterades från Botswana och 38 000 i 2006. Stunden Botswana gynnar lyckligt från Zimbabwe frånfälle, genom att använda kvalificerade Zimbabweans i dess allmänhet, och privat sektor, jagar den å ena sidan tillbaka de som betraktas som illegal invandrare. Ofta är illegal invandrare de som är uneducated och betraktade thus som en börda.

Behandlingen av Zimbabweans invandrare i Botswana stundom har lyftt spänningar mellan de två neighbouring länderna. Med Botswana är att argumentera den prygel metoden av bestraffningen som föredras av Zimbabweans funnit skyldigt av att begå ett brott. Men zimbabwiska myndigheter har fördömt den sådan antikviteten bildar av vedergällning. De fordrar att Zimbabweans betvingas in i att acceptera kroppsaga över arresterat att vara efter en gång arresterat dem är utslagen och deras pengar och tillhörigheter impoundeds innan du deporteras till Zimbabwe.

Avslutningsvis verkar Botswana för att sakna någon förpliktelse att tilltala alla dessa bekymmer som lyftta av olika stakeholders. Och det är endast riktigt att, om det önskar att dess opposition till det Mugabe styret ska tas allvarligt, det det handtag s dess egna inhemska mess med den samma vigouren och arrogansen.

[Denna artikel publicerades först på websiten av Namibias den nya Eratidningen.],

Некоторые серьезные вопросы о Ботсване
Automatically translated into Russian thanks to WorldLingo
БОТСВАНА прогрессивная нация: думайте снова. 2008 индикаторов управления Всемирного Банка всемирных (WGI) сообщают места Ботсвану среди немногих стран показывают значительно прогресс в вопросах управления. Ботсвана сосчитана как пример к своим странам собрата африканским когда она приходит к воюя развращению и поддержанию политического и экономическая стабильность.

последней Ботсваны становил вокальный критик конфликта в Зимбабве. Оно пошло далеко как предлагать удаление президента Роберт Mugabe Зимбабве. Международные дела Ботсваны служат недавн сказанное его страна подготовлены хозяйничать демократическое движение сопротивления водить противовключением topple президент Mugabe от силы. Такие произнесения были засужены авторитетами Zimbabwean обозначая их как провокационн и вздорно. Но пока Ботсвана пытается показать свои нравственные credentials к зоне и мир на большом, свой собственный показатель дома не то приятное.

Эта статья поднимает вопросы taint положение Ботсваны хорошее как прогрессивная нация и таким образом делать свой критицизм nuisance Зимбабве чисто.

Богатые люди но бедные

с независимости, Ботсвана испытывали одно из самых быстрых темпов роста в per capita доходе в мире. Преобразовывающ, в процессе, от наиболееа нуждающаяся страна с a per capita US$80 к a per capita US$6 000. Это делает Ботсвану одно африканских стран с самыми высокими средними личными доходами на материке. [1] Сверх того, экономический роста Ботсваны усреднил 9% в год от 1967 до 2006 и к концу last year свои валютные запасы стояли на US$10.2 миллиарде.

Однако, несмотря на населенность этой импрессивной достижения Ботсваны вообще плох. Незанятость close to 40%.

Один доктор для каждых 5 150 людей.

Жизненные ожидания Ботсваны на рождение были 64 лет в 1990 и в 2005 они понизились до 39 лет и оценены, что понижают более далее до 31 лет в годе 2015. Иронически, во время такого же периода и для статистик такой же Зимбабве индикатора 59 лет (1990), 33 лет (2005) и 31 лет в годе 2015.

Plight коренныа народности

в 2006, Paris-основанное международное федерирование для прав человека (FIDH) совместно с leading группой прав человека в Ботсване, DITSHWANELO поддержал взгляд комитета ООН на ликвидации расовой дискриминации которому правительство Ботсваны не делает достаточно для того чтобы содержать различение сразу к коренныа народности, одни этнические группы, non-гражданам, искателям asylum и беженцам в Ботсване.

Комитет ООН порекомендовал после этого что авторитеты «расмотрите конституционное определение различения по мере того как оно точно не запрещает различение основанное на спуске, национальном или этническое происхождение и косвенно различении. Furthermore, оно ask for просмотрение исключений к запрещению различения по отношению к non-гражданам и on the basis of этническое происхождение или триба. »

В сентябре этот год, национальный передатчик Btv, который тяжело проконтролирован правительством, был рецензирован multicultural вызванной группой advocacy RETENG для вводить только сводку последних известий языка Setswana и оставлять вне другие местные индигенные языки во время программируя сотрясения на передатчике. Группа advocacy выразила печаль над магнитным сопротивлением правительства для того чтобы слушать к тем повышают индигенные языки.

Сказаны, что узнают поступок Chieftainship страны и соплеменный поступок территорий только Tswana-говоря триб. Non-recognition некоторых триб, водит к non-представлению в доме вождей, resulting in такие трибы обездоленные люди когда он приходит приземлиться распределение.

Политический допуск

в 2005, профессор Кеннет хорошее австралийско рождениом но прожито в Ботсване на около 20 лет, был объявлен персоне нон грата после этого президентом Festus Mogae после профессора рецензировал образ в котором отрегулированы президентские переходы в той стране. Критицизм профессора содержался в академичной озаглавленной бумаге «президентской последовательностью в Ботсване: Отсутствие модели для Африки». Он refer to народовластие Ботсваны как «нездорово» и с «суровые ограничения и ограничениями на ем».

В том бумажном профессоре Хорош поспорило что последовательность Ботсваны президентская преобладана кликой данной �