QUOTE:
Is it really not much of an issue within South Africa? Is there a large body of opinion that thinks Mbeki is doing the right thing?

No, it is very much an issue, and Mbeki will find few enthusiastic supporters for his policy (least of all in his political analyst brother, who is very good). But it is an issue that has been dealt with to death over the past six or so years.

Chubby: Zuma was found not guilty. You'll be pleased to learn then that the ANC would like his accuser to issue a public apology to Zuma. It leaves you speechless, doesn't it?

I agree that Mbeki has been a fucking disgrace.

And after all Maggie Thatcher did to rid SA of apartheid. Oh wait a minute..

Ha, I just made a point of that in an editorial on Mandela I've drafted:

"...Mandela was labelled a “terrorist”, even by the likes of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (whose appeasement of the apartheid regime was not dissimilar to President Thabo Mbeki’s acquiescence in the tyranny in Zimbabwe today)."

who won?

I watch the worlds interest in Zimbabwe and the hypocracy of it all.

There is no hypocrisy in objecting to human rights abuses. I think that matters have moved beyond notions of white farms being taken over to a whole region being destablised through the madness in one country where the regime is using hunger, mutilation, rape and murder as weapons of war against the people it is suppose to protect.

Is there not at least a possibility of hypocrisy in objecting to human rights abuses while supporting/condoning/commissioning them elsewhere? I assumed that's what TG was referring to, though I could be wrong.

Yeah I assumed the same. Still, two wrongs don't make a right. And if Mkebi spoke out as he should, Brown et al could (should) keep out of it.

I assumed that's what TG meant, too. Though I really dislike that term. One can presumably be inconsistent without being hypocritical.

And simply because one does not denounce all cases of abuse doesn't make it illegitimate to denounce any particular case, does it?

I condemn all human rights abuses even when the country in question has no oil to plunder

It's a point worth making, though. I don't think for a microsecond that Brown etc shouldn't condemn Mugabe for intimidation, imprisonment without trial, and torture of those thought to oppose him, but what's sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander, yet somehow never is.

I'm not normally all that into Clash lyrics, but that one that goes "If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" has always been pretty wise and true.

What Gramsci said.

In any case, when the US and Europe make statements about Zimbabwe, they are setting a standard to which we an hold them subsequently. It doesn't mean that they will then invariably stick to that standard themselves, obviously, but we have something to work with.

Besides, in the case of Zim there is such a broad coalition of condemnation that one cannot say that the US and Britain are providing any kind of leadership.

I was interested to note that Condoleeza Rice said she would ask China to use its (in my decisive) influence on Zimbabwe's junta to re-establish peace in Zim. Loath as I am to commend the neo-cons for anything, that is a very constructive move.

The reason I thought Brown should not make public statements is that they will be ceased upon by Mugabe to justify his actions. See also scrapping his knighthood.

In this case, you should get others to fire the bullets instead, if you pardon the metaphor.

That Adolph Hitler lyric is spot on...

Yeah, I think there's a spoken and unspoken consensus that Mugabe's a cunt. The central question is how you stop his tyranny. Empty sabre-rattling from Brown would be near the bottom of the list of Things That Would Actually Help (as would be Mbeki's disgraceful stance too, obviously).

"Is there not at least a possibility of hypocrisy in objecting to human rights abuses while supporting/condoning/commissioning them elsewhere? I assumed that's what TG was referring to, though I could be wrong."

the real reason for the press coverage

And this is not lost on Africans which is Why (amongst) other reasons the SADC are unwilling to take a harder stance against Zimbabwe as they will be labelled as the White Mans puppet an accusation that has harm Tsvangari majorly.
Plus there are far worse things going on in Africa at the moment than in Zimbabwe such as the Congo, Sudan, Ethiopia\Somalia.

Like it or not, Mugabe's requime are her to stay for as long as they want and the is very little we can do about it.
Any forced removal will cause a power vacuum and probably a long and very bloody Civil was.
Most AU leaders have enough on their plate in their home countries than go and tidy up something in a country with little strategic interest.

South Africans owe a debt of gratitude to many in the Mugabe leadership and he is calling in those debts big time. The tipping point is coming were the ANC leadership will feel they can no longer support him and the criticisms will become louder. The evidence of this is Zuma and Mandela (somewhat less forcefully) voicing criticsm.
However there is not really much SA can do anyway. Sending in troops univited is political suicide and sanctions will just increase the flow of refugess (who's number are already causing ploitical unrest).

Mugabe knows all this of course.

QUOTE:
And this is not lost on Africans which is Why (amongst) other reasons the SADC are unwilling to take a harder stance against Zimbabwe as they will be labelled as the White Mans puppet an accusation that has harm Tsvangari majorly.

SADC is deeply divided over Zim. Botswana, Zambia, Tanzania and, to some extent, Malawi are anti-Mugabe. Angola flip flops. Mozambique's government is losing its patience (and ex-president Chissano, a genuine liberation leader) has spoken out against Mugabe and the junta. I don't know about Lesotho. Swaziland, an absolute monarchy, is worried about pro-democracy movements in that kingsom. And in Namibia, SWAPO think Mugabe is peachy, and democracy there is not in a healthy state. For the most part, the SADC let SA run with ball. But patience with Mbeki is running out.

The white-man's-puppet slur against Tsvangirai is a potent weapon in terms of giving people a reason to overlook the repression in Zimbabwe. That's why the world should let the white farms thing rest. The victims of repression in Zimbabwe are black. The anti-Mbeki faction in the ANC understands that, and objects to the Mugabe junta on those grounds. Ditto the like-minded countries in the SADC.

The reason many African countries are hesitant to act against Mugabe/junta is that their house is not clean, and holding Mugabe accountable is going to raise expectations of governance which they might not wish to have examined too closely. The whole neo-colonialism thing is just a smokescreen.

QUOTE:

Plus there are far worse things going on in Africa at the moment than in Zimbabwe such as the Congo, Sudan, Ethiopia\Somalia.

Different kinds of conflict altogether. What it means is that even if the AU wanted to send peacekeeping forces to Zim, they would not have the resources to do so.

QUOTE:
Like it or not, Mugabe's requime are her to stay for as long as they want and the is very little we can do about it.
Any forced removal will cause a power vacuum and probably a long and very bloody Civil was.
Most AU leaders have enough on their plate in their home countries than go and tidy up something in a country with little strategic interest.

Almost a good pun in the first sentence. Zimbabwe is of immense strategic interests fir Southern Africa, which in turn is immensely important to Africa, particularly economically.

I think there is a consensus that a MDC for Zanu-PF deal is not feasible. To start with, there is indeed the question of a power vacuum, as well as the MDC's inexperience in governing. That is why everybody, including Mugabe and Tsvangirai, have accepted that a negotiated deal which will accommodate both sides will need to be struck. The question is from what premises such talks would proceed. The MDC thinks this will take years.

I don't think the danger of a civil war comes from a potential removal of Mugabe from power, but from his remaining in the presidency. I expect that the large-scale violence of the past few months will cease, while low-scale repression will continue. But as long as Mugabe, Zanu-PF and the army are in power, there will be no funding made available to rebuild a thoroughly fucked economy. Study the history of civil war, and you'll find that they are usually ignited by a mixture of political f