For Immediate Release by Geneva Based Human Rights Watch:

Angola: Resume Negotiations with UN Rights Body - Government Seeks to Avoid Scrutiny Before Elections.

(New York, May 25, 2008) – As a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Angola should reconsider its March 2008 order that the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Angola cease activities by the end of May 2008, Human Rights Watch said today.

“Angola is going back on its word to support a constructive dialogue and increased cooperation with the UN human rights office,” said Georgette Gagnon, Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The government made that commitment in writing to the president of the UN General Assembly before joining the Human Rights Council in May 2007. Angola should keep its promises.”

The closure of the OHCHR field office in Angola comes three months ahead of Angola’s parliamentary elections scheduled for September 5-6, 2008 – the first to be held in the country since 1992.

“The Angolan government’s decision to shut down this important human rights office signals growing government intolerance of human rights scrutiny and other criticism in the run-up to September’s elections,” said Gagnon. “It’s worrying that the already limited space for human rights defenders could be restricted further.”

The government issued its order shortly after the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the UN Special Rapporteur for the Freedom of Religion or Belief made public their Angola mission reports at the 7th session of the Human Rights Council in March 2008. Angolan officials rejected out of hand many of the working group’s findings, denying there had been any case of torture and claiming excessive pre-trial detention in Angola had stopped by the end of 2007.

The Angolan government has sought to justify its decision to close the OHCHR office on the grounds that the presence of the office in Angola is no longer necessary now that peace and democratization has been consolidated and functioning national human rights institutions established. The government has also stated that the office had no legal status in the country and as such never existed. Moreover, in March 2008, the minister of justice suggested at the Human Rights Council that the UN high commissioner for human rights’s criteria for establishing field offices were not transparent and may have “political motivations.”

As Human Rights Watch has found, peace has still not taken root in the enclave of Cabinda, and national human rights institutions such as the Provincial Human Rights Committees are yet not fully operational. The government continues to restrict the activities of independent media in much of the country.

The government’s argument that the OHCHR had no legal status is not convincing since it had agreed that the office should continue technical cooperation in Angola after the departure of the UN peacekeeping mission in 2003. The OHCHR field office has played an important role, assisting the government in establishing national human rights institutions and alternative justice mechanisms, drafting reports to UN human rights bodies and training the police to be more aware of human rights. It also facilitated access for Angolan nongovernmental organizations to UN human rights mechanisms.

In 2007, the OHCHR tried to persuade the government to permit the office to operate with a full human rights protection mandate. This would have been a major step toward sustaining ongoing reform efforts and ensuring an open environment for human rights defenders in the country.

Human rights defenders told Human Rights Watch how the OHCHR’s presence in Angola guaranteed them some degree of protection from government intimidation. This is particularly important as civil society organizations are increasingly worried about the government’s ongoing revision of the legal framework governing civil society, which could again threaten their existence. In 2007, government officials publicly accused several organizations of illegal activities, without ever substantiating such claims, and threatened to close the organizations.

Human Rights Watch called on the government of Angola to immediately reestablish dialogue with the OHCHR and quickly negotiate a solution that strengthens human rights capacity and allows for effective UN human rights monitoring to be resumed in the country. Human Rights Watch also urged the government to guarantee space for national and international civil society to operate freely in Angola before and after the upcoming elections in September.

For more of Human Rights Watch’s work on Angola, please visit:
 http://hrw.org/doc/?t=africa&c=angol…

For more information, please contact:
In London, Carolyn Norris (English, French): +44-20-7713-2784; or +44-78-5172-1744 (mobile)
In Washington, DC, Jon Elliott (English, French): +1-202-612-4348
In Geneva, Juliette De Rivero (English, French, Spanish): +41-22-738-0481; or +41-79-640- 1649 (mobile)
In New York, Georgette Gagnon (English): +1-917-535-0375 (mobile)

————————————

Hallo Zimbabwe - here we come.

Yours truly,

Angola

Remember - We Have Oil and Oil Industry Will Help Us - We do not relly on God.

————————————

And yes - what is the story about those two UN votes that were invalidated in the contest between the UK and Spain - where the UK won by one vote but the UN is keeping the names of the two countries that their votes were invalidated as a UN top secret. They do not even say why they were invalidated. Was there some nusty thing said on the ballot about Spain or the UK? Some other slur? See the Inner City report. Don’t you think this is even strange by the UN standards of deffining democracy?

Amid Mysterious Invalid Ballots, France and UK Squeak By Spain on Human Rights Council.

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, May 21 — The UK beat out Spain by a single vote for a seat on the Human Rights Council, with two nations’ votes being declared invalid. Not only will the UN not disclose which two countries had their ballots invalidated — despite repeated requests, the UN will not even state on what basis the two possibly dispositive votes were deemed invalid. Instead, the UN’s response is that “voting was done through secret ballot, therefore, there is no voting sheet on how individual countries have voted nor is there specific information on why ballots may have been invalid.” The grounds for disregarding a cast vote can and should be made public, even if the identity of the disqualified voter remains secret.

            Following the vote, UK Permanent Representative John Sawers extended his hand with a smile to Spain’s Ambassador, who bristled, shook and walked away. A single vote…

The UN Is Incapable Of Helping Solve The World’s Food Problems Like It Was Incapable To Solve Many Other Problems - This Simply Because Of Vested Interests That Will Not Allow It To Do So. The Case in Point is that When The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon was instrumental in Getting The ECOSOC President, Mr. Leo Merores from Haiti to hold May 20, 21, and 22, 2008 a three days meeting “On The Global Food Crisis,” Lots Of Presentations Were Made, But The Most Positive Ray of Hope That Could Have Been Gleaned From The Case Of Malawi, Was Relegated To A Foot-Note.

We will deal with the other stuff later, but our approach is to put up in front the positive example of Malawi, to us the poster-case of success that puts to complete shame all the other spokespeople.

So what happened to Malawi? Seemingly they decided that to succeed they must undertake self help. They stopped spending on arms, instead designed a program where they will subsidize the supply of seeds, fertilizers, pesticides to their small farmer. They knew not to give out things for free. Farmers had to pay something, but it was calculated so, that what they got for their money will be showing profit if they put in the work. And by God, work they did, and the enterprise turned into great success. Now the President of Malawi can teach the UN how to go about making Africans independent of the hand-out industry. In effect - free food that comes in as foreign aid - had the side effect of destroying the local agriculture in the first place. US and EU subsidized exports also have the same effect of making impossible the marketing of local produce.

Some countries prefer to fight the dragons, talk about Doha, and unfairness. Malawi stopped talking and went instead to work, telling the world - keep your handouts.

Having presented the Malawi case, let me now mention the May 15, 2008 panels at the UN Commission on Sustainable Development “Food Commodity Crises Caught World Napping, Say Speakers.” The meeting was chaired by Minister Francis Nhema of Zimbabwe - a neighbor of Malawi that used to be Africa’s Bread Basket and is now Africa’s Basket-Case. There the Head Of State, President Magus preferred to destroy the agriculture, being motivated in games he was playing against the land holders. He did not invent hunger, this was produced earlier by Stalin who starved the Ukrainians for exactly the same reasons. But South Africa led the other Africans to make Zimbabwe Chair of the CSD for exactly the session for which they showed least talent - the session on Land Use and Agriculture. What we got out of this was Ms. Kathleen Abdallah showing up at the UN Briefings to The Press and saying that the production of biofuels causes hunger. Neigh, hunger was there for completely independent reasons - look into the cases of Malawi and Zimbabwe for understanding.

But this is not the issue, the issue is that biofuels cut into the use of oil - and oil-sales-people do not like the concept.

If what I said in the last line looks strange to you - here what the Representative from Colombia said May 21, 2008 at the second day of the ECOSOC meeting: “Fuel prices were a big factor in pushing up food prices and generalizations about biofuel production could be misleading. Colombia produced biofuel from crops like sugar cane and palm oil which did not entail replacing food crops grown on fertile land or reducing the national food supply. On the contrary, biofuel production had dynamized the agricultural sector, generating thousands of new rural jobs, stimulating investment, research and technological development, and promoting higher productivity in under-utilized lands - he said.” These are all arguments we dealt many times on this website. what we want to note now is that this story about the biofuel-production being the culprit for the food riots, is being told now at every UN event by eager NGOs that could represent any interest you can think of. One such intervention I just described at http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2008/05… happened on May 21st, and another one, that I will be describing also (not done yet) happened on May 22nd.

The bottom line is that short term emergency aid is important - but this is not the solution to the problems of the survivors. For that, it seems the UN is lacking the capacity, because it is lacking in staff that is ready to do the right thing that is guaranteed to put them out of business.

The not-so-diplomatic ambassador to Zimbabwe.

Themba Hadebe / Associated Press
Zimbabwe accuses the U.S. diplomat James McGee, right, of interfering in the nation’s internal affairs. Also shown, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, Ambassador Jendayi Frazer, center, and ambassador to South Africa Eric M. Bost, left, during a media briefing in Pretoria, South Africa.

James McGee eschews the low-key approach favored by most envoys. He has turned up the pressure on the government while exposing political violence. The regime has retaliated.
By Robyn Dixon, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 23, 2008
JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA — To Zimbabwe’s government, James McGee is the undiplomatic diplomat.

McGee, the U.S. ambassador to Zimbabwe for the last six months, has eschewed the tactful, almost invisible role that envoys often take. With foreign journalists largely blocked from covering events in the African nation, McGee and other Western diplomats have adopted an outspoken posture, exposing political violence and ratcheting up international pressure on the regime.

• Zimbabweans in South Africa flee attacks
• Meant to strengthen, land grab weakened Zimbabwe’s Mugabe
• U.N. response on Zimbabwe divided

In turn, McGee has been savagely scolded in the state media, reprimanded by the government, harassed by police during a fact-finding mission and had a staff member threatened with assault. Zimbabwean officials accuse him of breaking the Vienna Convention on diplomats, interfering in its internal affairs and making politically charged and inflammatory comments.

Not that the government’s adversaries have been immune from McGee’s blunt criticisms. As opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai stayed in neighboring South Africa while his supporters back home were being beaten and harassed, McGee said he should be in Zimbabwe despite reports of a plot to assassinate him.

McGee, a thrice-decorated Vietnam veteran, traveled with diplomats from Britain, the Netherlands, Japan and Tanzania last week to a suspected torture center in the countryside where government opponents are alleged to have been interrogated and beaten. The previous week he and others visited Avenues Clinic in the capital, Harare, crowded with victims of the regime’s violence against opposition activists and supporters.

McGee appears to have gotten under President Robert Mugabe’s skin as much as his predecessor, Christopher Dell, who so outraged the regime that the pro-government Herald ran a front-page headline, “Mugabe to Dell: Go to Hell,” which the envoy later framed. Dell was put under 24-hour surveillance, according to the Herald.

The day after McGee’s fact-finding mission to the detention facility, during which police blocked his convoy for an hour and threatened to beat a member of his staff, the Herald prominently ran a letter describing the diplomat as a “political activist for the wrong cause” sent to “do Washington’s dirty work in Zimbabwe.”

Several days later, another Herald article said of the ambassador, who is African American: “Contrary to his delusions, McGee is not fighting for the democratization of Zimbabwe but is just a big player in the Uncle Tom role long conceived by America.”

McGee dismissed the Herald criticisms, saying the paper was “nothing more than an instrument for vituperative and erroneous information.”

His missions have played an important part in independently confirming the level of political violence after disputed elections in March, as well as intensifying diplomatic pressure on a regime that analysts and diplomats see as determined to cling to power. The ruling party lost control of parliament in the elections and Mugabe faces a runoff with Tsvangirai for the presidency, expected late next month.

McGee said there was conclusive “damning” evidence that the camp he visited with diplomats was an interrogation center, with small cells where people had been imprisoned overnight or longer. Though the cells were empty during the visit, McGee and his colleagues saw four books in which prisoners’ names were logged.

“These notebooks contained some pretty damning evidence,” McGee said in a telephone interview. “They had the names of the people. They had the interrogation methods used on these people. It said they were undergoing beatings.

“There were the names of the people they were looking for to interrogate. They were looking for a village head man. He’s in hiding now. The book said, ‘We want to find him and interrogate him because he didn’t stop his people from voting for the MDC,’ ” he said, referring to the opposition Movement for Democratic Change.

During his visit to the Avenues Clinic he met a woman in her 80s who said she had been hit on the head with an ax by ruling party supporters because her grandchildren were associated with the MDC.

“The evidence in the hospital was even more damning,” McGee said. “We had some horrific pictures of people who were horrendously beaten for political purposes, people who were beaten to within an inch of their life.

“This type of political violence just has to stop. It is getting out of control, and until it stops I don’t think we need to talk about anything else in this country,” he said.

McGee said that when he presented his credentials to Mugabe in November, the president invited him to travel around the country and see things for himself. “He said, ‘If you find that things are bad, come back and report them to me.’ “

The ambassador said his attempts to present the evidence from the fact-finding mission to Mugabe were ignored.

Foreign Minister Simbarashe Mumbengegwi recently told journalists in Harare that McGee was called in and reprimanded for making statements the government said were supportive of the MDC.

“This was clear interference in Zimbabwe’s domestic affairs and in violation of the protocols governing diplomatic relations between states,” Mumbengegwi said.

McGee said he and other Western diplomats made a point of inviting African envoys to fact-finding missions and similar events. Six Southern African diplomats had attended a function at his home where a 13-minute film on the violence was aired. He said there was no breach of the diplomatic rules.

“I and my colleagues in the diplomatic community talk about this often,” he said. “How far can we go? We determine it according to the established rules and the Vienna Convention. We will stay within the boundaries of diplomatic behavior.

“We don’t become involved in internal politics of a government, but that doesn’t mean people can be beaten without us trying to figure out what’s going on.”

 robyn.dixon at latimes.com

From The Asia Society’s “China’s Rise Series” - China’s Africa Strategy: On Trade, Aid, and Development.

May 5th, 2008, The Asia Society organized an interesting panel discussion chaired by Scott Malcomson of the New York Times, who is also a Member of PEN and the Council on Foreign Affairs. Himself an author of books on The American Misadventure of Race, on the falt between the Ottomans and Europe, and on the Pacific Islands. He had a very leger way of handling the three very different members of the panel and the inquisitive crowd.

Victor Zhikai Gao, a graduate of the Yale School of Law is Director of the China Association of International Studies (CNAIS) in Beijing - where much of China’s Official International Activities is being decided. With his understanding of both worlds he is also a welcome Councilor to the Asia Society and to the China Association of Mayors and the natural President of the Yale School Association of China.

Stephanie Kleine-Ahlbrandt was his opponent. She ones worked for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva where she was in charge of the activities in China. She is no fan of the UN in particular and is now working with the International Crisis Group on Prevention of Conflict with her area including North East Asia / China.

Harry G. Broadman, Economic Adviser for the Africa Region, World Bank, was the man in the middle. He once was also on the White House Staff of the Office of the Council of Economic Advisers, and practically all over the spectrum on China issues in political Washington. At the World Bank he authored in 2007 the volume: “Africa’s Silk Road: China and India’s New Economic Frontier.” We must note that he was quite aloof when looking at the arguments of the two sides. His position was the position of a pure economist who might miss a tidal wave that shows up unpredictably. We tried to obtain his volume for review purpose from the Office of the World Bank at the United Nations, but there was no cooperation on their part. i was told I can try to buy that volume. Did not provide me even his contact coordinates.

Broadman was given the opportunity to be the opening speaker in order to put China in the context of India’s much earlier involvement in Africa. He explained that a Chinese deal is a State-to State affair, while in the Indian case it is a medium size family owned company that comes to Africa. Interestingly he also remarked that the Indian who comes to Africa wants to be seen as African and not as Indian - this leads to an Indian involvement in local markets. China on the other hand comes in with large National company and markets from abroad via large outside distributors. (In short, as we remarked in our articles about the recent Opera Satyagraha, about the Indians in South Africa, they became settled African-Indians. No such thing with the Chinese. At least not yet at this stage.)

Later, Broadman also remarked correctly that Africa is a large continent and is very diverse. China on the other hand, though diverse, it is still one State. This makes it inaccurate to speak of China and Africa as if there were an equivalence here. Things are indeed much more complex. Much more nuanced views are needed. To this the moderator added the description of those two elephants fighting and killing the grass under their feet - so Africa is the grass. The Question about who are the elephants was left hanging. It is obvious that China is one elephant now. Is it possible that Europe is the other Elephant? Will It Become India In a Short Few Years? Any place on the grass for the US? Now, there clearly was no time to go further into details at the panel discussion.

Stephanie Kleine-Ahlbrandt pointed out that China is grateful to the African Countries for helping defeat the votes on Human Rights in China as well as for having a one China policy. North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma - that is where the tectonic plates of the West and of China meet - and it shows. Non-interference is a great way to secure a deal but not the security of your investment. 80% of Sudan’s oil-fields are in South Sudan. China realizes it has to deal also with the people of that area.

Nigeria, Pakistan, Ethiopia, there was kidnapping of Chinese personnel. Continuing to back Zimbabwe, a basket case, is not attractive. The overland pipeline in Burma needs stability. China is thus pressuring the parties to reach agreements.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the agreements with China stipulate that China cannot bring in more then 20% of Chinese personnel. In Latin America China got very little entrance in part because of the question of the execution of projects - they just did not want to see an influx of Chinese - besides, China likes to work with dictatorships that are happy when you let them line their pockets.

Gao, presenting China’s perspective on Africa, pointed out that China was called names unjustifiably. It was said that China is neo-colonialist - focusing on oil and raw materials with disregard of Africa. But this negates that China has already 50 years of relations with Africa - right from the start when it broke away from the Soviet Union and was isolated from the US. That is when China looked at the emerging states of Africa. China had no colonial experience and it was set aside from Europe and the US. The US with its legacy of slavery had its own burden in its relations with the emerging Africa.

Then, Africa, with its demand for lower and medium rang products - set very good marketing goals for China.  China could not buy UNICAL in the US, so they went to Nigeria and the US started to label them for that.

In a world where investment in oil is declining, it was China’s investment in Nigeria that can be viewed as having started an enlargement of oil production that brought more oil into the world market. China does not get most of this oil - this oil goes to the west. China has it easier to transport the oil from the Middle East!

Regarding the global oil market, China has to be brought into the discussion on reducing energy content in production.

When Question were opened to the floor -  Patrick R.D. Hayword, Director office of The Special Adviser On Africa, observed that Africans are not children and that he hopes that in the future, when Africais being discussed, there is also an African on the panel. He was amazed at the whole issue - Why is there so much alarm in this part of the world - from the fact that Africa has relations with China? To that there was total agreement, but Stephanie added that there is skepticism because of the way Zimbabwe is being backed- we would like here to note that the backing is both - from china and from Africa - and the problem is self-defeating except if you accept the proposition that you make friends by backing the dictator in power. Gao added that while the Africa push was enhanced during 1987-1990, the oil subject started only later.

Other questions dealt with: Food commodities versus soft commodities; Services provided by the Chinese are of poor quality - like the example of air conditioners in hotels with instructions in Chinese (to which we have to add that it seems those cheap hotels were built for the Chinese employees and for future tourism from China); UN peace-keeping operations and the fact that the UN cannot come up with UN Security Council Resolutions because of the looming China veto.

Gao explained that China was the first to send troops to Sudan, and that China has a top principle which calls for non-interference in other countries’ affairs.

Broadman added that China’s wonder was how it was able to feed itself. That is an area where the development partners were unable to come up with results. China helps thus in moving Africa away from only exporting natural resources into the production of food. NOW THAT IS SOMETHING TO REMEMBER WHEN TALKING ABOUT BIOFUELS VERSUS FOOD CROPS - CHINA COULD LEAD AFRICA AWAY FROM DESTRUCTIVE WESTERN FOOD POLICIES INTO AN ERA OF ENHANCED PRODUCTION OF FOOD WITHOUT HARMING ALSO THE PRODUCTION OF FUELS.

Gao added immediately that CHINA DID BETTER IN CREATING SELF-SUFFICIENCY in FOOD.

China has now a surplus of $1.7 trillion. Wealth it accumulated in 30 years. It came from exports. Talking about Sovereign Funds - China’s Fund got only $200 billion out of above amount.

Gao called for more people-to-people exchange. At this stage there are less NGOs in China then in the West. Stephanie said that actually China responds to head-to-head agreements, where lists of needs are presented, by starting deliveries 3-4 months later - something that would take longer time in the western pipelines.

Tsvangirai accused of treason as China arms Zimbabwe.

Also: Mugabe militia take a bloody revenge.

By a Special Correspondent for The Independent.
Friday, 18 April 2008

Zimbabwe’s government has ignored a significant call from South Africa to release the result of the presidential elections and has accused the opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, of treason by plotting with Britain to overthrow the President, Robert Mugabe.

Themba Maseko, a South African government spokesman, said the situation in Zimbabwe was “dire”. Mr Maseko said: “When elections are held and results are not released two weeks after, it is obviously of great concern.”

The comments mark a significant shift from South African President Thabo Mbeki’s policy towards Mr Mugabe’s regime, which has has divided his own party, the ANC, and attracted stinging criticism.

But South Africa confirmed that it will not intervene to stop a shipment of Chinese-made weapons from reaching Zimbabwe, despite fears of a violent crackdown in the country.

A Chinese ship docked in Durban harbour late on Wednesday carrying three million rounds of ammunition for small arms, 3,500 mortar bombs and mortar tubes, as well as 1,500 rocket-propelled grenades, according to local media.

Mr Maseko said that as long as the administrative papers are in order, South Africa cannot intervene to prevent weapons being transported through its territory to its landlocked neighbour. “We are not in a position to act unilaterally to prevent a trade deal between two countries. South Africa is not at all involved in the arrangement. It would be possible but very difficult for South Africa to start intervening and saying that we will not allow the shipment through.”

Mr Mbeki used his nation’s current presidency of the UN Security Council to prevent calls by Britain and others for Zimbabwe to be put on the council agenda on Wednesday. Afterwards, he admitted there were “things that have gone wrong” in Zimbabwe, and said opposition parties must be able to participate in verifying poll results.

Mr Tsvangirai, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), called the treason charge “outrageous” and said the 84-year-old Mr Mugabe, who has led Zimbabwe since independence from Britain 28 years ago today, might be forced to “face justice”.

The treason claim against the MDC leader, which recalls past court battles on the same charge, arose after Harare’s state-owned Herald newspaper published what purported to be a letter by Mr Tsvangirai begging for British military intervention, and a reply from Gordon Brown.

The British embassy denounced the alleged letter from the Prime Minister as a “forgery”, saying: “No such letter or wider correspondence exists.” But Zimbabwe’s Justice Minister, Patrick Chinamasa, said the opposition leader had behaved “treasonably”, and there was no doubting the consequences.

The affair follows a familiar pattern: Mr Tsvangirai has twice before been charged with treason, which carries the death penalty. The last case tied down the MDC leader for 18 months, defending himself after the government produced a videotape which appeared to show him trying to buy arms for an insurrection.

Mr Tsvangirai has remained abroad most of the time since the 29 March election, in which the ruling Zanu-PF party lost its parliamentary majority and Mr Mugabe is believed to have been beaten in the first round, according to independent monitoring groups. Yesterday, he told the Associated Press Mr Mugabe was losing the chance of an “honourable exit”.

“The more he is digging in, the more he’s abusing people,” he went on. “I still think we should forgive and forget. But given the wave of violence against the people, how do you sell that to the people?” The MDC leader has said that he was not interested in a “witch hunt” because it would distract from mending the political and economic crises.

Opponents fear the President and his associates would simply cling to power all the harder if they face being tried for human rights abuses.

———————–

Mugabe militia take a bloody revenge.

By a Special Correspondent
Friday, 18 April 2008

Mike had reached the safety of a hospital in Harare after being attacked by President Robert Mugabe’s youth militia a week ago. The 20-year-old’s arms were heavily bandaged from fingertip to elbow, and his face was scorched from bundles of burning grass that been thrust at his eyes and hands.

Struggling for clarity through a heavy dose of painkillers, Mike told a story that has become all too familiar as Mr Mugabe and his Zanu-PF party take revenge for their unexpected setback in the elections last month at the hands of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).

Zanu-PF lost its parliamentary majority, and the result of the presidential contest has still not been released, almost certainly because Mr Mugabe finished well behind the MDC leader, Morgan Tsvangirai.

“On Friday I was taking supplies to a shop my family has in Mudzi [in Mutoko district, about 90 miles east of the capital],” Mike said. “About 9pm I was attacked by Zanu-PF youths from the local area. They said it was because I am a member of the MDC, but I couldn’t identify any of them because they were shoving burning grass in my face. My hands were burnt when I put them up to protect myself.”

Mike’s attackers beat him with thick wooden staves, breaking his right arm and dislocating two fingers of his left hand before looting his shop. Police took him to the local hospital, but, crippled by Zimbabwe’s economic collapse, it had no drugs to treat him and Zanu-PF’s other victims. The MDC had to pay for two trucks to bring them to the capital.

Many patients had similar stories. In one room lay an uncle and nephew, the former with both arms broken, the latter with a broken leg. In another was a man with his left arm broken, a fingertip missing from his right hand and a severe wound in his leg. He said a man wearing an MDC T-shirt knocked on his door and asked where he could find a local party activist. When the ruse failed, they attacked him instead.

Zimbabwe Doctors for Human Rights said it had treated 173 victims of organised violence and torture between 29 March and 14 April.

In a statement marking Zimbabwe’s independence day today, the US ambassador, James McGee, said: “We have disturbing and confirmed reports of threats, beatings, abductions, burning of homes and even murder, from many parts of the country.”

Zanu-PF suffered in the election because voters in its heartland – the three provinces of Mashonaland, across the north and north-east of Zimbabwe – dared to turn to the opposition. It is here that the retaliation has been most brutal. The MDC says at least two of its supporters have been killed and scores more badly beaten. One man recognised his local Zanu-PF MP among his attackers.

A senior MDC official, who asked not to be named because of a wave of arrests of party figures, said reports were coming in of villagers’ huts and granaries being torched and livestock being killed. Last week, dissident policemen said they had been given orders to seal off areas while the inhabitants were terrorised by “war veterans”, party militias and members of the security forces.

According to an affidavit seen by The Independent, people in Murewa West, a rural area of Mashonaland East province where the Zanu-PF MP lost her seat, were forced to attend a meeting last Thursday. Zimbabwe’s Minister of Health, Dr David Parirenyatwa, threatened them with death if they voted again for the MDC in a presidential election run-off.

Back in his hospital bed, Mike has just one question for the outside world. “Why is Zimbabwe being overpowered by one person?”

Mbeki isolated at UN as leaders demand action on Zimbabwe.

By David Usborne and Colin Brown in New York, The Independent of London.
Thursday, April 17, 2008.

Gordon Brown used the world’s top diplomatic table to accuse Robert Mugabe of trying to steal the election in Zimbabwe, increasing pressure on the regime and embarrassing the President’s chief political protector, South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki.

World leaders, gathered at the United Nations in New York yesterday, served notice to President Mbeki that they have lost patience with his repeated assertions that there remains “no crisis” in neighbouring Zimbabwe. Results of elections held there almost three weeks ago are still being withheld.
Britain and other Western countries used a special session of the Security Council, called by the South African leader who holds the chairmanship of the council, to call for the release of results that could spell an end to the 28-year rule of Mr Mugabe. They stopped just short of berating Mr Mbeki personally for his refusal to intervene directly.

Mr Mbeki’s attempts to keep the subject of Zimbabwe off the agenda were roundly thwarted. First Mr Brown and then the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon, signalled that the international community can no longer ignore the situation.

Mr Brown, at the start of a three-day visit to America, suggested that Mr Mugabe was trying to “steal” the 29 March election. “No one thinks, having seen the results of polling stations, that President Mugabe has won,” he told the session, which was attended by presidents from several African states, including Somalia, Ivory Coast and Tanzania.

Mr Ban said the credibility of democracy in Africa was at stake. The secretary general also ignored Mr Mbeki’s attempts to keep Zimbabwe off the agenda. “The situation could deteriorate further with serious implications for the people of Zimbabwe,” he said, adding: “The Zimbabwean authorities and the countries of the region have insisted that these methods are for the region to resolve. But the international community continues to watch and wait for decisive action. The credibility of the democratic process in Africa could be at stake here.”

While little more than diplomatic theatre – there was no attempt by Britain or its allies to draft a resolution to condemn the Mugabe regime for fear it would almost certainly fail – the session served to underline the increasing isolation of Mr Mbeki.

In recent days he has come under pressure even from his own party to acknowledge that Zimbabwe is in deep crisis.

After the session, Mr Brown again spoke. “We don’t have the presidential results published yet,” he said. “What you have seen [at the UN] is the determination of the international community saying the results have got to be published. They’ve got to be transparent. Everything has got to be above board.”

Mr Mbeki came to New York fresh from being chastised by Jacob Zuma, who won the leadership of the ruling African National Congress party last December. Signalling discord with Mr Mbeki over Zimbabwe, Mr Zuma said the region “cannot afford a deepening crisis in Zimbabwe. The situation is more worrying now given the reported violence that has erupted.” He added. “The delay in the verification process and release of results increases anxiety each day.”

If speakers at the UN, including Mr Brown, held back directly from criticising Mr Mbeki at the public session, it was for fear that he might dig his heels in deeper and it would therefore be counterproductive. “We are worried that if we attack Mbeki, he will become more stubborn than ever. He did that over Aids in Africa and we don’t want that to happen on Zimbabwe,” said one British source.

Mr Brown has privately urged African leaders to put pressure on Mr Mbeki behind the scenes. The Prime Minister held private talks with Jakaya Kikwete, President of Tanzania and chairman of the African Union, to press Mr Mbeki to take a tougher stance. Mr Kikwete told the UN session that the regional organisation, the Southern African Development Community, wanted “to ensure the will of the people of Zimbabwe is respected”. He said that this would be the spirit of meetings that would be held soon, and that the organisation needed to be supported.

ANC breaks with Mbeki to condemn ‘evident’ crisis in Zimbabwe; Leading Further article of The Independent - Africa must condemn Mr Mugabe’s brutal coup.

By a Special Correspondent in Harare
The Independent, Wednesday, April 16, 2008

South Africa’s ruling African National Congress has split publicly over the still-undeclared presidential election result in Zimbabwe, where President Robert Mugabe is accused of defying the verdict of his own voters.

Leading ANC figures have openly contradicted President Thabo Mbeki, who declared after meeting Mr Mugabe in Harare last weekend that there was “no crisis” in Zimbabwe. A top ANC official, Matthews Phosa – a close ally of the ANC leader Jacob Zuma – said yesterday that a crisis was “evident” in South Africa’s northern neighbour. The party’s national working committee, in a snub to the president, resolved to open direct contact with Zimbabwe’s ruling Zanu-PF and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) to promote dialogue.

The deadlock in Zimbabwe has caused frustration in South Africa with Mr Mbeki’s brand of “quiet diplomacy” to boil over. His critics believe the president’s uncritical support of Mr Mugabe is allowing the 84-year-old autocrat to prepare a campaign to overturn the results of both the parliamentary elections, in which Zanu-PF lost its majority, and the presidential poll, where the MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai is believed by independent monitors to have come within 1 per cent of an overall majority.

The raging controversy in South Africa’s ruling circles contrasted with apparent apathy on the streets of Harare yesterday, where Mr Tsvangirai’s call for a national “stay-away” was all but ignored. The opposition blamed lack of publicity and Zimbabwe’s economic collapse, which makes it difficult for people to forego a day’s income.

Zimbabweans are likely to hope instead that South Africa, the regional power, will at last put effective pressure on Mr Mugabe. Warning that the “dire” situation in Zimbabwe was having negative consequences for the whole of southern Africa, the top ANC committee said it would be “undemocratic and unprecedented” for Mr Mugabe to hold a run-off vote without first announcing the result of the 29 March presidential poll.

Mr Phosa, the ANC treasurer, said the continuing failure to release results was causing uncertainty that could “lead to explosions”, adding: “We don’t want to prophesise disaster, we don’t want disaster, we think pre-emptive action should be taken to avoid disaster.”

Mr Tsvangirai is in South Africa, having remained abroad since the election amid hints that he fears for his life if he returns to Zimbabwe. He has been criticised by some in the opposition for failing to appear more “presidential” since the poll, and for being unrealistic in demanding that an emergency regional summit in Zambia last weekend recognise him immediately as Zimbabwe’s president.

In Harare yesterday, it was soon evident that Mr Tsvangirai’s “stay-away” call had been a flop. There was some tension early in the day in the city centre, where riot police raced down streets, chanting and beating their batons against the sides of their trucks. But most shops and banks were open, apart from some near the MDC headquarters, and those with jobs were pouring in from the “high-density suburbs” – the euphemistic name for the former segregated townships, which are MDC strongholds.

Although there was the hulk of a burnt-out bus on the outskirts, and residents in one area reported some stoning of minibuses in an effort to stop commuters heading for work, the police soon dismantled roadblocks and scaled down their presence as it became clear there was no opposition to deal with. Many arriving for work said they knew nothing of the strike call – Mr Mugabe’s government keeps tight control of the media.

—————

Leading article: Africa must condemn Mr Mugabe’s brutal coup.

The Independent Editorial. Wednesday, 16 April 2008

Yesterday’s general strike in Zimbabwe was always likely to be a relative flop. The people of that nation are demoralised and intimidated. Only once in the past decade has there been much general support for a “stayaway”. With inflation running at 100,000 per cent and four out of five people unemployed, few of those who still have a job were willing to risk a day’s pay. So the weary and impoverished population formed the usual daily queues at banks to withdraw just enough hyperinflationary cash to buy bread, for which they had to queue again at the supermarkets.

The strike was called by the opposition Movement for Democratic Change to press for publication of last month’s general election results. The poll gave new meaning to the term “secret ballot” when President Robert Mugabe refused to announce the voters’ verdict when it turned out not to suit him. A strike was a feeble strategy but it was all the opposition could muster once the High Court, packed with judges who are Mugabe stooges, ruled that it was perfectly legal for Zimbabwe’s Electoral Commission to delay its announcement pending a “recount” in 23 constituencies – no doubt to give Mr Mugabe time to rig the results.

The sad truth is that Mr Mugabe’s gangster tactics are working. He has had arrested five election officials who were insufficiently malleable. He has had the thuggish militia he calls the “war veterans” invade 60 of the biggest white-owned commercial farms to stir up atavistic resentments from the colonial era. He did this just two weeks before the wheat-planting season, despite projections that Zimbabwe will run out of maize by mid-July. He has had his courtroom cronies give the stamp of specious legality to the process. Yesterday came the first reports of the murder of MDC supporters in a systematic crackdown which saw foreign journalists detained and the arrest of the lawyer representing the MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai.

Intimidation is spreading through rural areas north of Harare which were once Mugabe strongholds but which voted for the opposition a fortnight ago. Two hundred MDC supporters have been hospitalised after being brutally beaten into chanting pro-government slogans, in what Mugabe loyalists are calling “Operation Mavhoterapapi” (”Operation where you put your X”). Its aim is to “re-educate” MDC supporters to vote the right way next time and scare civil servants who run polling stations to allow vote-rigging in any future ballot. The violence is escalating. The harsh reality is that the momentum is now very clearly with Mr Mugabe.

Zimbabwe’s neighbours have failed its people badly. The summit called by President Levy Mwanawasa of Zambia at the weekend, under the aegis of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), did not urge Mr Mugabe to step aside, as the MDC had requested, but merely called for the election results to be announced “expeditiously”. The crooked Zimbabwean president failed to attend. And when SADC’s designated mediator, President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, went to Harare instead, it was only to announce that there was “no crisis” and to call for patience.

The world’s patience, however, is exhausted with Mr Mugabe. Mr Mbeki’s “quiet diplomacy” has failed. So has the SADC’s limp initiative. But though Britain and the US will today raise the Zimbabwe crisis at a UN Security Council meeting, the solution rests with Africa. It is now time for the African Union – a body which has prided itself on requiring human rights, democracy and good governance – to become involved and condemn Mr Mugabe’s coup. The African Union’s credibility is on the line and, the West should make clear, so is the financial and political backing that the industrialised nations currently offer it.