[R-G] Tsvangirai pulls out of election as Britain and US seek regime change

[Anthony Fenton]

WSWS : News & Analysis : Africa
Zimbabwe: Tsvangirai pulls out of election as Britain and US seek  
regime change
By Ann Talbot
26 June 2008
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/zimb-j26.shtml

The decision by Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the opposition Movement  
for Democratic Change (MDC), to pull out of the presidential election  
in Zimbabwe has been followed by an appeal for military intervention  
to oust Robert Mugabe.

Tsvangirai sought refuge in the Dutch embassy Sunday, following weeks  
of government-backed brutality directed at MDC supporters.

He wrote in the UK-based Guardian yesterday that the intention of the  
MDC was to “challenge standard procedure in international diplomacy.”

“The quiet diplomacy of South African President Thabo Mbeki has been  
characteristic of this worn approach,” Tsvangirai added. That had  
failed and “a more energetic and, indeed, activist strategy” was needed.

“Our proposal is one that aims to remove the often debilitating  
barriers of state sovereignty, which rests on a centuries-old  
foundation of the sanctity of governments, even those which have  
proven themselves illegitimate and decrepit.” Tsvangirai continued.

He demanded United Nations intervention. “We do not want armed  
conflict, but the people of Zimbabwe need the words of indignation  
from global leaders to be backed by the moral rectitude of military  
force.”

With a UN force in place it would be possible, Tsvangirai maintained,  
for presidential elections to proceed.

If there was ever any doubt about the MDC’s political dependence on  
the US and UK this call for state sovereignty to be overthrown would  
dispel it. Tsvangirai is calling for an army of colonial intervention  
to take over Zimbabwe. He rejects any conception that this former  
colony is an independent country with the right of self-determination.

Mugabe has long accused Tsvangirai of being a puppet of London and  
Washington. He is not wrong in that. But it is Mugabe’s own attempt to  
beat the population of Zimbabwe into supporting him that has opened  
the door to foreign intervention.

The estimate of the number of people who have died in Zimbabwe as a  
result of government-backed violence has risen to 500. Doctors confirm  
that at least 100 have died. But the figure is probably much higher  
because hundreds are missing after being kidnapped by government  
forces and irregular units.

Mugabe presents himself as an opponent of colonialism. But it was  
Britain and the US that put him in power in 1980 and stood by when he  
wiped out his opponents in ZAPU with a similar campaign to the one he  
has unleashed on the MDC.

So favourably did successive British governments look on Mugabe that  
he was awarded a knighthood. That honour has only just been removed.

The British government has rejected efforts by Mbeki to secure a  
compromise government of national unity and is seeking to secure the  
support of various African regimes and sections of the ZANU-PF and  
security services for Mugabe’s removal.

Mugabe has lost the popular support he once enjoyed and ZANU-PF is  
deeply divided by factional struggles.

Lawyers for Tendai Biti, the deputy leader of the MDC who has been  
arrested and charged with treason, say that he is being interrogated  
about which leading members of ZANU-PF have done deals over immunity  
from prosecution. At present Emerson Mnangagwa, who chairs the Joint  
Operations Command and is organizing the repression, is in a dominant  
position. He is attempting to strengthen his position in ZANU-PF  
against other factions, especially that of Grace and Solomon Mujuru,  
by implicating them with the opposition.

But Mugabe has been able to remain in power thus far primarily due to  
the political impotence of the MDC as a tool of the Western powers and  
Zimbabwe’s white business community.

Such was the hostility to ZANU-PF that the MDC won a victory in the  
March elections against their own expectations. But it does not enjoy  
the type of active mass support that would allow it to combat Mugabe’s  
repression. Its aim has always been to win power courtesy of US and  
British backing for regime change. Even the MDC’s most active  
supporters are flocking to the MDC headquarters for protection only to  
be carried off to torture camps by the military.

Tsvangirai’s sudden decision to abandon the election and call directly  
for outside intervention reflects a shift in this direction in London.  
Lord Paddy Ashdown, former European Union high representative for  
Bosnia and Herzegovina, has let it be known that he thinks military  
intervention could be justified, making a spurious comparison with the  
situation in Rwanda, where civil war in 1994 claimed between 500,000  
and 1 million lives.

“The situation in Zimbabwe could deteriorate to a point where genocide  
could be a possible outcome—something that looks like [another]  
Rwanda.” Ashdown told the Times.

Ashdown stressed that Britain would have to play “a delicate role.”  
Military intervention would depend on the Africa Union and Zimbabwe’s  
neighbours.

Lord Carrington, who as British foreign secretary negotiated the  
Lancaster House agreement that brought Mugabe to power, also stressed  
that it was for other African countries to deal with Mugabe.

These statements reflect the very real difficulties facing the Western  
powers and their efforts to bring about regime change in the aftermath  
of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions.

This has meant that to date Britain and the US have concentrated on  
placing maximum pressure to isolate Mugabe and, if possible, to secure  
the agreement of a coalition of African states to depose him.

Britain, the US and France secured a UN Security Council resolution  
condemning “the campaign of violence against the political  
opposition ... which has resulted in the killing of scores of  
opposition activists and other Zimbabweans and the beating and  
displacement of thousands of people, including many women and children.”

This is the first time that the UN has passed such a resolution.  
Previous British and US attempts to push through a resolution  
condemning the Zimbabwean government have been blocked by China and  
Russia.

Both Britain and the US have refused to recognize the outcome of the  
election, which with the withdrawal of Tsvangirai will inevitably  
return Mugabe to power. Prime Minister Gordon Brown declared in the  
House of Commons that Mugabe’s government “is a regime that should not  
be recognised by anyone.” US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice  
concurred. “The Mugabe regime,” she said, “cannot be considered  
legitimate in the absence of a run-off.”

They wanted the UN Security Council to recognise Tsvangirai as  
president, but this was rejected.

London and Washington are demanding a tightening of sanctions against  
Zimbabwe, directed particularly at isolating Mugabe’s immediate clique  
within ZANU-PF. “We are preparing intensified sanctions—financial and  
travel sanctions—against named members of the Mugabe regime,” Gordon  
Brown said at Prime Minister’s question time.

“We do know the names of the individuals who are surrounding Mugabe at  
the moment, we know the names of the criminal cabal that is trying to  
keep him in power, and we will name those individuals and these will  
be part of the next stage of the sanctions.”

Tsvangirai’s withdrawal from the election has given Washington and  
London the necessary pretext to demand immediate regime change in  
Zimbabwe. Neither the UK nor the US government is publicly discussing  
military intervention, but Ashdown is being used to float the idea in  
an unofficial capacity. His military background in the SAS and his  
role in Bosnia give his remarks a certain weight.

Sustained diplomatic pressure is being brought to bear in Africa.  
Following the UN resolution the South African Development Community  
(SADC) called an emergency meeting to discuss the Zimbabwe situation.

President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa has found himself completely  
sidelined. It appears that he has either not been invited to the  
emergency meeting or has refused to attend. Mbeki has been acting as a  
mediator in Zimbabwe on behalf of the SADC and has come under  
increasing criticism.

President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania is currently head of the African  
Union, the body that would be called upon to authorize the use of  
troops in Zimbabwe. He is playing a leading role in the SADC meeting.

An SADC spokesman acknowledged that the organisation was concerned  
about the “climate of extreme violence” in Zimbabwe. UN Secretary- 
General Ban Ki-moon said that he was in close contact with a number of  
African leaders about the situation. They were agreed, he said, that  
the elections should be postponed.

Kofi Annan, Ban Ki-moon’s predecessor at the UN, said that “Any run- 
off or announcement of a winner under these circumstances will neither  
be credible nor acceptable to Zimbabweans, Africa and the  
international community.”

ANC President Jacob Zuma has come increasingly to the fore over the  
question of Zimbabwe and is treated as if he is already South Africa’s  
president by the UK and the US. He has declared, “We cannot agree with  
ZANU-PF. We cannot agree with them on values.”

Zuma called for regional leaders to intervene. Speaking with the  
authority of the ANC he said that the election on Friday should be  
abandoned. “The ANC [African National Congress] says the run-off is no  
longer a solution,” Zuma said, “you need a political arrangement  
first ... then elections down the line.”

The Confederation of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) has thrown  
its weight behind Zuma. COSATU General Secretary Zwelinzima Vavi  
insisted, “The SADC governments must not drag themselves into  
recognising what everybody now agrees to be an illegitimate Robert  
Mugabe government.”

“We don’t want Mugabe to be recognised at all, that should be the  
starting point.”

Former South African President Nelson Mandela used the occasion of a  
celebrity dinner in London to “express his deep concern and sadness”  
at the situation in Zimbabwe. Since his retirement Mandela rarely  
comments on current politics, so his remarks will increase the  
isolation of Mbeki and help to sanction further action by the UK and US.

British and American companies with investments in Zimbabwe are also  
coming under intense political pressure to toe the Washington and  
London line. Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, chairman of Anglo-American,  
insisted in a BBC interview that his company was not doing business  
with the Mugabe regime. But Anglo-American is about to invest $400  
million in its Unki platinum mine.

Anglo-American is one of a number of companies—including Lonrho,  
British American Tobacco, BP, Barclays Bank, Old Mutual and Standard  
Chartered Bank—that have all continued to do business in Zimbabwe.  
Despite Mugabe’s increasingly strident tone he has not threatened the  
position of these companies in any way. All of them have been vital to  
the continued existence of the regime. Barclays Bank has provided an  
essential line of finance to Mugabe’s government. At least four  
leading ZANU-PF figures bank with Barclays. The bank has provided  
loans for farms they received in the land redistribution programme.

Always in the background in any discussion of Africa is the spectre of  
China, which is one of the main investors in Zimbabwe. In the past the  
UK and US have been prepared to turn a blind eye to companies doing  
business there because it provided them with a vital bulwark against  
Chinese encroachment.

In the past, Mugabe and other African heads of state have thought that  
China’s presence on the continent gave them a greater room for  
manoeuvre. But it is becoming increasingly clear that it merely puts  
them in the firing line as Britain and the United States position  
themselves to regain a colonial control over the continent’s strategic  
resources.