Zimbabwe sanctions vetoed at UN

Duzzie

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7502965.stm

The UN have once again failed the people of Africa. They sat back and watched the massacre in Rwanda without raising a finger and now they are willing to do the same in Zimbabwe. Russia and China vetoed the draft resolution claiming that it would result in civil war. The fact is that the sanctions proposed were targeted at Mugabe and his cronies and also to prevent them from buying more arms to massacre anyone who oppose them.

Once again the UN has shown itself to be a toothless bureaucratic organisation who are unwilling or unable to anything to help the people who need their help. They should hang their heads in shame. Mugabe has once again been let off the hook and is free to continue with his raping of the country, after all he will now believe that he has “UN backing”. After the AU failed to publically rebuke him reinforces his views that he has done nothing wrong and that the problems in Zimbabwe are a western conspiracy.

I hope the UN are proud of what they have acheived today.

mike65

China as ever the spanner (in the works) they no doubt see more buisness oppotunites (arms mainly).

Mike.

Sand

Its the U.N./international community....unilateral action that basically gives the two fingers to the UN and the international community is the only hope of any oppressed people. The dictators run the U.N.

ejmaztec

I think that Russia is pointing out that it is one of the big boys again and used its veto for reasons completely unrelated to Zimbabwe.

Thirdfox

Notice how the only African nation on the security council (South Africa) also voted against the sanctions?

NYTimes reports that the SA have been leading the opposition to the proposals - maybe the other countries should consider their arguments against sanctions?

Not to say that personal interests aren't in play here (just look at the 100+ vetoes the US have made for Israel). Doubt anyone in the UN can sit on a moral high horse...

nacho libre

ejmaztec wrote: »

I think that Russia is pointing out that it is one of the big boys again and used its veto for reasons completely unrelated to Zimbabwe.

Does Russia have any lucrative trade deals with Zimbabwe as it did with Iraq under Saddam?

ejmaztec

nacho libre wrote: »

Does Russia have any lucrative trade deals with Zimbabwe as it did with Iraq under Saddam?

As far as trade is concerned, I don't think that either the Russians or the Chinese have been particularly busy in Zimbabwe, but both obviously see some potential. They were going to build power stations etc, but I don't know whether anything ever came of it.

LostinBlanch

Thirdfox wrote: »

Notice how the only African nation on the security council (South Africa) also voted against the sanctions?

NYTimes reports that the SA have been leading the opposition to the proposals - maybe the other countries should consider their arguments against sanctions?

Not to say that personal interests aren't in play here (just look at the 100+ vetoes the US have made for Israel). Doubt anyone in the UN can sit on a moral high horse...

Thabo Mbeki is a willing accessory to the actions of Mugabe and his thugs in Zimbabwe IMO. Even his own brother, Moeletesi, is against his supine kowtowing to Mugabe. Perhaps Mandela's recent statement about a lack of leadership resulting in the Zimbabwe situation applies equally to Mbeki?

LostinBlanch

Link to Moeletsi Mbeki's statement about South Africa's softly softly approach.

jmayo

Duzzie wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7502965.stm

The UN have once again failed the people of Africa. They sat back and watched the massacre in Rwanda without raising a finger and now they are willing to do the same in Zimbabwe. Russia and China vetoed the draft resolution claiming that it would result in civil war. The fact is that the sanctions proposed were targeted at Mugabe and his cronies and also to prevent them from buying more arms to massacre anyone who oppose them.

Before gettting sanctimonious about UN and other countries, for a start the countries of Africa are failing their own continent and their neighbouring peoples. At their recent African Leaders get together they affectively congratulated Mugabe for winning the bloody election.
Look at the leaders at that conference, were any of them really elected apart from maybe Mbeki.
Most of them have been in power for decades.

Every other continent is progressing whilst they are wallowing, countries being led by one incompetent despot after another and doing shag all about it, oh apart from blaming the west and their former colonial powers.
One of the few countries making any progress is Botswana, I can't think of many more.
Give South Africa enough time and it could become another Zimbabwe.

Why do you think that Sudan only want African peacekeepers in Darfur?
They know they will be bloody corrupt and probably as bad as the jangawee themsleves if they get the chance.

Oh and one of the main reasons for UN inaction in Rwanda was a bloody African Kofi Annan, who prevented Maj. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, head of a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Rwanda, from intervening on arms dumps before the killings began. They knew what was being planned but good old Kofi sat on his hands and prevented anything from being done or even said.

The UN has been a joke for years, Israel can flout sanctions whereas other countries are hammered.

FrankGrimes

For me it's really Russia, China, and South Africa that should be hanging their heads in shame - you can't blame the rest of the UN for the actions of these few in this particular case.

That said, it just once again highlights how ineffective the UN has become due to the frequent use of vetoes on the Security Council. I wouldn't be at all surprised if both China and Russia voted this way simply as an up yours to the English and US governments.

purple'n'gold

The entire UN has just become a tired old joke. The USA veto’s every resolution even remotely condemning Israel, so now Russia and China Veto a US resolution. And meanwhile Mugabe and his criminal underlings salt away their stolen loot in Switzerland and the unfortunate people of Zimbabwe starve.

the_syco

Without any army to back it, the UN is nothing more than a piece of paper. The pen may be mightier than the sword, but you can ignore the pen. You don't ignore the sword.

Denis Irwin

The South African, Russian and Chinese Govt's are an absolute disgrace for using their veto to block sanctions against Zimbabawe.(altough I suspect the Russian's are just using the Veto to flex their muscles :rolleyes:) How they can support the Evil and Unelected blood thirsty tyrant that is Mugabe is beyond comprehension.

Duzzie

jmayo wrote: »

Before gettting sanctimonious about UN and other countries, for a start the countries of Africa are failing their own continent and their neighbouring peoples. At their recent African Leaders get together they affectively congratulated Mugabe for winning the bloody election.
Look at the leaders at that conference, were any of them really elected apart from maybe Mbeki.
Most of them have been in power for decades.

Every other continent is progressing whilst they are wallowing, countries being led by one incompetent despot after another and doing shag all about it, oh apart from blaming the west and their former colonial powers.
One of the few countries making any progress is Botswana, I can't think of many more.
Give South Africa enough time and it could become another Zimbabwe.

Why do you think that Sudan only want African peacekeepers in Darfur?
They know they will be bloody corrupt and probably as bad as the jangawee themsleves if they get the chance.

Oh and one of the main reasons for UN inaction in Rwanda was a bloody African Kofi Annan, who prevented Maj. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, head of a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Rwanda, from intervening on arms dumps before the killings began. They knew what was being planned but good old Kofi sat on his hands and prevented anything from being done or even said.

The UN has been a joke for years, Israel can flout sanctions whereas other countries are hammered.

I agree 100%. Zimbabwes neighbours and Africa as a whole should have acted on Mugabe years ago when this was first starting off and Mbeki is more guilty than anyone, as the power in southern Africa, for his inaction. Time and time again the people of Africa have been failed by the AU, and i'm not just on about Zimbabwe here. Its like an old boy network where African leaders back each other because they know that it may be them next.

Given the complete lack of action by the AU, last night it fell to the UN to do the right thing. It is not as if it were blanket sanctions being imposed. It was a proposal to ban Mugabe and his 13 closest cronies from travelling and to seize the millions that they have stolen and plundered from the people of Zimbabwe. It was also to ban the sale of arms to Zimbabwe. Sanctions like that would hurt Mugabe and his cronies not the people of Zimbabwe. China vetoed because they are up to their eyes in Zimbabwe, they are effectively bankrolling Mugabes regime. Russias veto was nothing to do with Zimbabwe, it was a slap in the face for the US, using the Zimbabwe vote and the lives of Zimbabweans as a pawn in their politcal games. South Africa is going the same way as Zimbabwe. Their minsiters have publically stated that Zimbabwe should be used as a model for land reform in South Africa. Mbeki is too close to the the Zimbabwe situation to be objective, he was never going to vote against his old comrade in arms. Mbeki spent a lot of time in Zimbabwe being protected by the Mugabe regime during the apartied era.

Comments on here about the ineffectiveness of the UN over the Isreali situation are very valid. That said, Isreal is not my country, Zimbabwe is.

the_syco

Denis Irwin wrote: »

The South African, Russian and Chinese Govt's are an absolute disgrace for using their veto to block sanctions against Zimbabawe.(altough I suspect the Russian's are just using the Veto to flex their muscles :rolleyes:) How they can support the Evil and Unelected blood thirsty tyrant that is Mugabe is beyond comprehension.

I very much doubt that the Russians or Chinese have any say on who gets elected, just like those in Zimbabawe.

Thirdfox

Duzzie wrote: »

I agree 100%. Zimbabwes neighbours and Africa as a whole should have acted on Mugabe years ago when this was first starting off and Mbeki is more guilty than anyone, as the power in southern Africa, for his inaction. Time and time again the people of Africa have been failed by the AU, and i'm not just on about Zimbabwe here. Its like an old boy network where African leaders back each other because they know that it may be them next.

Given the complete lack of action by the AU, last night it fell to the UN to do the right thing. It is not as if it were blanket sanctions being imposed. It was a proposal to ban Mugabe and his 13 closest cronies from travelling and to seize the millions that they have stolen and plundered from the people of Zimbabwe. It was also to ban the sale of arms to Zimbabwe. Sanctions like that would hurt Mugabe and his cronies not the people of Zimbabwe. China vetoed because they are up to their eyes in Zimbabwe, they are effectively bankrolling Mugabes regime. Russias veto was nothing to do with Zimbabwe, it was a slap in the face for the US, using the Zimbabwe vote and the lives of Zimbabweans as a pawn in their politcal games. South Africa is going the same way as Zimbabwe. Their minsiters have publically stated that Zimbabwe should be used as a model for land reform in South Africa. Mbeki is too close to the the Zimbabwe situation to be objective, he was never going to vote against his old comrade in arms. Mbeki spent a lot of time in Zimbabwe being protected by the Mugabe regime during the apartied era.

Comments on here about the ineffectiveness of the UN over the Isreali situation are very valid. That said, Isreal is not my country, Zimbabwe is.

Obviously nothing in life is black or white and the reasons for the outcome last night can't be pinned on one reason. But in your opinion, would sanctions before talks have been a good way of getting Zanu PF to be in the mood for talking? Or would you rather the UN send 100,000 troops into the country and topple the regime? (Something the Americans would have very little appetite to do in the current political climate I would guess).

Looking at Iran/North Korea (two governments that are "incompatible" with the West) you can see that sanctions most often do not work, whereas the 6 party talks held in Beijing seems to have brought North Korea back from a completely isolated point.

And as for the legal argument employed by Russia and China, there is some merit to what they have said - is the current situation in Zimbabwe one that threatens world peace/stability? Mugabe, bad as he is does not seem to want to invade other countries (as opposed to potential cross border conflict in the middle east or Korean peninsular). I am not sure what the mandate of the security council is, but if it is only to deal with international stability then perhaps Zimbabwe doesn't qualify (as the Russian diplomat seems to have suggested).

If that is the case, you may lambaste the Russian/Chinese/South Africans (and 2 others) for their vote but if the US/UK and its supporters were trying to act beyond the mandate of the UN then either the rules have to be changed or they have to accept the limitations that they set up.

Of course Russia could still be sore over the disregard of international law when the US/UK recognised the Kosovo independence (my friend was telling me how her German law professor stated that it would be impossible for them to legally declare independence). Bending the rules to suit your own interests should not be allowed in my opinion. Either change the rules or accept them.

China seems to have invested a lot in the countries that the Americans aren't interested in or willing to deal with (South America, Africa etc.)

I suppose this is what you get in a regulated democracy like the security council (note how the supporters only got the minimum number of votes needed with the help of some relatively unknown countries like Burkina Faso or Panama, the cynic within me would suggest that the Americans made sure they offered something to help them vote in the "right" way, legal or not). Not that I say the other countries are any better, but it's just the realities of what happens in high politics.

Latchy

With russia /china turnaround it just shows that nothing as usual can be taken for granted in international politics

Duzzie

Thirdfox wrote: »

Obviously nothing in life is black or white and the reasons for the outcome last night can't be pinned on one reason. But in your opinion, would sanctions before talks have been a good way of getting Zanu PF to be in the mood for talking? Or would you rather the UN send 100,000 troops into the country and topple the regime? (Something the Americans would have very little appetite to do in the current political climate I would guess).

Sanctions being placed on Mugabe would not put Zanu PF in the mood for talks. Then again, this issue has been going on for years and talks have gotten nowhere. The current interest is a result of the disputed elections but it started long before then. The previous presidential election results in 2002 were eqally disputed by the MDC and condemned by the international community. Yet nothing was done about it. Mugabe just carried on regardless

I have in the past said that I do not believe that the invasion of Zimbabwe by the US or the UK is a feasable option. A UN lead peace keeping force, including a significant African input is very feasible, but not in the current climate, That is why the sanctions, including the banning of arms sales and the appointment of a UN negotiator to work with Mbeki were needed, to force Mugabe to step down and allow a UN peace keeping force.
These current South African lead talks will go nowhere. Mugabe is going through the motions but he will not give up power, certainly not to the MDC, just look at the statements he and his croinies have made in the past about never giving up power. He will go on with the talks holding all the cards and with no intention of stepping down or forming a government of national unity. The talks will go nowhere, the MDC will walk away from them as he wont deal with them on a level field and he will claim that he was talking to them but they walked away. He will then continue to run the country into the ground whilst lining his pockets with the international comumity doing nothing.
To say that the situation in Zimbabwe does not threaten international security is not correct. The influx of millions of refugees, or "fugitives" as Mbeki calls them, into the neighbouring countries has affected the security and stability of those countries. The recent increase in attacks on immigrants in South Africa is a direct consequence of the influx of refugees from Zimbabwe. The impact of the events in Zimbabwe are having a destabilising effect on the whole of southern Africa and therefore intervention by the UN is within there mandate. It has gone far beyond an internal problem for Zimbabwe.

Kevster

Do any of you think that this has anything to do with the recent granting of permission by the Czech Republic for the USA to build their missile defense system in Europe? Russia were very peeved by it and it could be that they are not agreeing to these sanctions in 'silent' protest against the missile defense system.

ejmaztec

Kevster wrote: »

Do any of you think that this has anything to do with the recent granting of permission by the Czech Republic for the USA to build their missile defense system in Europe? Russia were very peeved by it and it could be that they are not agreeing to these sanctions in 'silent' protest against the missile defense system.

Strong possibility, along with not liking the US sniffing around in Georgia and other ex-Soviet states. Re the Czech situation, Russia is going to do something of a military nature, but hasn't specified what this might be. At the least, there will probably be a problem with the gas supply in the depths of winter.

jmayo

If the people of Zimbabwe are relying on the UN, then they are truly screwed.
The UN is where the big guys play games and nothing of any consequence gets done.
China are aplying a long term game regarding creating a sphere of influence in Africa and the Russia of today, under Putin's influence, is flexing it's political muscles.

The one country that could do something is South Africa, but they are currently being run by an idiot who probably feels he owes Mugabe.

Kevster

China are also looking to South America, believe it or not. I'm definately getting the feeling recently that there are two 'Mega Super-Powers' on the rise in the world: One one side you have USA, France, Germany, Israel, UK, Japan, Canada, Australia, etc; and on the other you have countries like China, Russia, Iran, South Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Colombia, etc.

Let's face it too: Much of the oil is in the latter grouping.

SeanW

This, if nothing else, proves that the Chinese are friends only to horrible dictators and the enemies of all peaceful freedom loving people of the world.

Can anyone here forget "Yawtin"s rant here a few months ago during the Tibetan uprising about how those horrible evil Americans were supporting peace and democracy Buddhist protestors in Myanmar (one of the most corrupt, backward hellholes on Earth).

So standing with evil despots is just business as usual for China it seems. And I have feared for some time that Russia is sliding back towards Stalinism, and this would seem only to add to those fears.

I've read talk on this thread about how the Russians might have vetoed this resolution as a slient protest because they feel disrespected or something.

I don't care why. All that matters is that these two nations - both seeking to be superpowers - have made a demonstrated a clear preference for corruption and despotry. And in my book, that makes them evil.

Kevster

Sean, look where we live: We are on the side of the (apparently) good and morale team in the world. Do you think - if corruption were rife here - that we'd hear about it? No, but we would certainly hear about it in other nations on the 'dark' / 'bad' side (i.e. Russia, China, etc.).

The point I'm trying to make is to be careful about the use of the terms 'good' and 'evil', because corruption is inherent in the human psyche. USA is corrupt, as is England, and us (but so are Russia, China, and Iran).

Kevin