SOUTH Africa is at present leading opposition in the U.N. Security Council to U.S.-led efforts to impose further sanctions against President Robert Mugabe's government.
South Africa has the support of Libya, Vietnam and Indonesia ― all elected members of the Security Council — as well as permanent members China and Russia, making a total of six countries opposed to acting against President Mugabe.
To defeat the sanctions resolution, only one more elected member of the SC is needed.
Burkina Faso holds the trump card as it is being lobbied hard by both sides.
The West African country's president, Blaise Compaore, said at the recent African Union (A.U.) summit in Egypt that the Zimbabwe situation could affect the entire southern African region.
However, President Compaore’s credentials are not 100 per cent credible. He seized power in a coup 21 years ago, but has gone on to win three elections since then, most recently in 2005 despite a 2000 constitutional amendment limiting the president to two terms.
Zimbabwe is arguing that the crisis in the country is not a threat to international peace and stability.
China, Russia and South Africa argue that the problem in the country is ‘an African problem’ and efforts at mediation, by South African President, Thabo Mbeki should be respected. They are also calling for internal dialogue to resolve the country's problems.
The SC is currently in session in New York and should issue a statement today.
ADVERTISEMENT
ARTICLE ATTACHMENTS
READER OPINIONS
N/a • N/A Subject: What will this mean? Fri, 04 Jul 2008 09:01:14 • Can someone enlighten me on what it will mean if the sanctions are adopted? Does that mean that Zim officials will not be allowed to go even to African countries? In the event that they travel there what will happen? And who would be policing such movements? In another words, who is UN? How can only few members vote for such a big decision.?
Ashley • ashmillin@msn.com Subject: n/a Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:36:03 • Itayi,
Nice piece but a couple of issues stand out and I had to write to you.
Firstly, you state that China and Russia are oppposed to sanctions, seven members are needed to defeat the resolution by the US and UK and then go on to state Burkina Faso holds the trump card in reaching the required number of opposers. You've conviniently forgotten that China and Russia have a veto, so in essence only one of those two has to say no and the resolution is defeated.
Secondly, and more importantly, you are repeating hearsay that the Russian's and the Chinese will oppose sanctions. The truth is all statements concerning Zimbabwe from the UN have been watered-down due to SA intervention but the Chinese are under pressure of their own given the Olympics due in August and the Russians have nothing to gain from opposing sanctions as they have no business interests of significance in Zimbabwe. Furthermore you have not mentioned that SA is coming under increased scrutiny because of the differing voices from within her leadership. COSATU and the ANC together with the ANC leader Jacob Zuma want to see a tougher stance while the outgoing president Mbeki has become the international spokesman/legal counsel for the ZANU PF regime. His position is by far the most influential but he is under increased pressure to either show results from his so-called mediation or be exposed as to the reasons behind his soft-soft approach to the crisis (which he deemed not a crisis, even thoug he had been appointed to mediate something). At the same time Africa wants to send a message that the whole initiative behind NEPAD (which ironically is Mbeki's brainchild) is working and the very first case study presented for African dialogue and resolution under NEPAD principles is Zimbabwe. Alot is been said behind closed doors and to imagine that the positions of the various states is already clear is a tad too optimistic. The one question unanswered from the run-off is the economy in Zimbabwe and, without a negotiated settlement, this will only get worse for the country, it's neighbours chiefly SA and also the rest of Africa as the NEPAD initiative will be deemed a pipe dream by western governments and finance institutions when approached by Africa for debt relief and increased, favourable trade terms. Whilst I acknowledge that states such as China and Russia do not abide by sentiment or mass emotions when doing business and thus are willing to do business with disputed regimes when the rest of the world is clamouring for isolation and censure, you should also accept that the dynamics of world economics is changing constantly and they may soon sacrifice Zimbabwe in return for increased gains to be made elsewhere. An example is China's recent discussion about joining the WTO and the opening up of Chinese markets to Western firms. For how long will Zimbabwe have something more attractive to offer these states than what joining up with the rest of the Western worl bringsthe Chinese? The day Zimbabwe runs out of whatever the Chinese and Libyans presently get will be the day they abandon Zimbabwe to the whims and sanctions of the US and UK in exchange for trade and gains elsewhere. To compound matters, the present desperation of the ZANU PF regime means they are at pains to source foreign currency, food, fuel and other basics at whatever cost and this raises the question - are they getting top dollar for what they are selling or are the Chinese and Russians getting it on the cheap in return for sanctions/resolutions busting tactics at the UN?
Food for thought......
SUBMITYOUROPINION
Please make sure you fill in all sections for your post to be submitted. Use n/a if not submitting details. The submission code below is case-sensitive. Also make sure you get confirmation that your comment has been submitted.
