NYT
June 24, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
Soccer 1, Mugabe 0
By PETER GODWIN

IN these last few weeks, the full nature of Robert Mugabe’s repressive
regime in Zimbabwe has been cruelly exposed. With his increasingly
brazen resort to torture and hit squads to terrorize his own people,
Mr. Mugabe has crossed a moral line. Some United Nations lawyers now
say there is enough evidence to charge him with crimes against
humanity.

Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change
and Mr. Mugabe’s opponent in Friday’s runoff presidential election,
had little choice but to pull out of the race. (Mr. Tsvangirai has
taken refuge in the Dutch embassy in Harare.) Proceeding with
elections would have ensured the murder of even more of his
supporters. Any middle ground in this conflict has disappeared.

Standing amid the ruins of Zimbabwe looms the vacillating, dithering,
morally compromised figure of Thabo Mbeki, the president of South
Africa — hitherto the point man in the region — who was supposed to
help ensure a free and fair outcome in the Zimbabwean election. Even
at this late stage, with death squads on the move, Mr. Mbeki is still
trying to persuade the Movement for Democratic Change to participate
as a junior partner in some sort of Kenya-style unity government.

Mr. Tsvangirai and his followers — who have remained nonviolent,
participated in three rigged elections and tried to inhabit
“democratic space” as it diminished to a sliver — are understandably
loath to join in an administration with the very people who have been
attacking them. What’s more, joining would only reward Mr. Mugabe for
his violent repression. The solution for Zimbabwe is simple: a free
and fair election.

The international community has no choice but to delegitimize Mr.
Mugabe’s regime. For a start, the “results” of Friday’s election
should not be recognized. In effect, the world should no longer
acknowledge Mr. Mugabe as Zimbabwe’s president. And should the
opposition set up a government in exile, the West should move to deal
with that government instead, based on the results of the March
election, in which Mr. Tsvangirai drew more votes than Mr. Mugabe.

Of course, South Africa could use its economic power to draw Mr.
Mugabe’s rule to an end in weeks rather than months. Yet Mr. Mbeki has
steadfastly refused to act, providing a protective cloak for Mr.
Mugabe’s repression. And just a few weeks ago, even as opposition
members were being tortured, Mr. Mbeki visited Zimbabwe, allowing
himself to be garlanded at the airport and displayed on state-run TV
with a broadly grinning Mr. Mugabe. In the United Nations Security
Council, where South Africa currently has a seat, Mr. Mbeki has
opposed attempts to put the political situation in Zimbabwe on the
agenda.

If Mr. Mbeki’s cost-benefit calculus has been such that he hasn’t seen
it necessary to take tougher action, perhaps it’s time to change that
calculus. Perhaps, for example, now is not the time for you to book a
safari to South Africa. Or for you, or any institution that manages
your funds, to make new investments in the country.

Most important, there is the FIFA soccer World Cup, for which South
Africa is to act as host in 2010. That may seem like a long way off,
but South Africa is already investing huge amounts both financially
and politically, for what is supposed to be its triumphal coming-out
party. Maybe Zimbabwe should become to the South Africa-hosted World
Cup what Tibet has been to the Beijing Olympics — the pungent
albatross that spoils every press conference and mars every
presentation with its insistent odor.

Perhaps it’s time to share the Zimbabweans’ pain, to help persuade Mr.
Mbeki to bear down on its source by threatening to grab the world’s
soccer ball and take our games elsewhere.

Peter Godwin is the author of “When a Crocodile Eats the Sun.”

X-No-Archive: yes

"Lance"  wrote in message 
news:7a3059ea-64e3-4ac7-80dd-a756d0d14b98@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Perhaps it’s time to share the Zimbabweans’ pain, to help persuade Mr.
Mbeki to bear down on its source by threatening to grab the world’s
soccer ball and take our games elsewhere.



Much like a stroppy kid in the playground might do...?
Come on...  ask yourself why when, in a country a way a way, similar 
atrocities were being carried out, where regime change was 'finally' decided 
to be wanted by the US, that the entire furious wrath of the US military was 
brought to bear whilst in this African state we get weasel words, little 
action and condemnation of Mugabe.. but retention of political 
association...?
Apart from the obvious answer of oil ....  it beggars belief.
After Iraq, I'll wager that just the (real) threat of sending the US 
military to get Mugabe would be enough..

Mark

On Jun 24, 3:10 pm, "mark"  wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> "Lance"  wrote in message
>
> news:7a3059ea-64e3-4ac7-80dd-a756d0d14b98@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Perhaps it’s time to share the Zimbabweans’ pain, to help persuade Mr.> Mbeki to bear down on its source by threatening to grab the world’s
> soccer ball and take our games elsewhere.
>
> Much like a stroppy kid in the playground might do...?
> Come on...  ask yourself why when, in a country a way a way, similar
> atrocities were being carried out, where regime change was 'finally' decided
> to be wanted by the US, that the entire furious wrath of the US military was
> brought to bear whilst in this African state we get weasel words, little
> action and condemnation of Mugabe.. but retention of political
> association...?
> Apart from the obvious answer of oil ....  it beggars belief.
> After Iraq, I'll wager that just the (real) threat of sending the US
> military to get Mugabe would be enough..
>
Would they? Considering the mess in both Iraq and Afghanistan where
wars have gone on for years, it would seem a rather feeble thing to
threaten anybody with. Saddam Hussein simply had a poor exit strategy,
presumably the CIA glossed over that when they installed him.

A better threat would be to do something similar to what the UK did in
Sierra Leone in 2000. That took about a day and it was all over.

X-No-Archive: yes

"Peter Brooks"  wrote in message 
news:c99a10d2-8dfe-4313-b546-81301c1d8d13@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 3:10 pm, "mark"  wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> "Lance"  wrote in message
>
> news:7a3059ea-64e3-4ac7-80dd-a756d0d14b98@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Perhaps it’s time to share the Zimbabweans’ pain, to help persuade Mr.
> Mbeki to bear down on its source by threatening to grab the world’s
> soccer ball and take our games elsewhere.
>
> Much like a stroppy kid in the playground might do...?
> Come on... ask yourself why when, in a country a way a way, similar
> atrocities were being carried out, where regime change was 'finally' 
> decided
> to be wanted by the US, that the entire furious wrath of the US military 
> was
> brought to bear whilst in this African state we get weasel words, little
> action and condemnation of Mugabe.. but retention of political
> association...?
> Apart from the obvious answer of oil .... it beggars belief.
> After Iraq, I'll wager that just the (real) threat of sending the US
> military to get Mugabe would be enough..

***
Would they? Considering the mess in both Iraq and Afghanistan where
wars have gone on for years, it would seem a rather feeble thing to
threaten anybody with. ***

In the sense that saddam was captured and dealt with [..I'm not arguing the 
case for or against this, by the way]
it's clear that *if*  they went after mugabe... they would quite possibly 
get him very quickly..  particularly when you consider the level of 
resistance to the US military in Africa compared to at least some armament 
and troops in Iraq - light weaponary and machete wielding loyalists would 
last about 5 seconds frankly.
The point is this.  If mugabe *thought* the US were coming what would he 
likely do..?
Stay put..?  The US would have him days, maybe even hours.  Run..?  well 
that's about the desired outcome really...
As much as I despise the US and it's incursion and invasion in Iraq - it's 
changed the perception a bit.  Bush on his way out,  what has he to lose..?
He might even secure some of the mineral wealth from under the noses of the 
Chinese.
If you were mugabe, today, and Bush said we're coming to get you.....  what 
would you do..?


Saddam Hussein simply had a poor exit strategy,
presumably the CIA glossed over that when they installed him.

Yes. absolutely.

A better threat would be to do something similar to what the UK did in
Sierra Leone in 2000. That took about a day and it was all over.

That might work also...
Noticed today some in the UK are calling for military action..


Mark

On Jun 24, 7:29 pm, "mark"  wrote:
>
> If you were mugabe, today, and Bush said we're coming to get you.....  what
> would you do..?
>
It isn't possible to give a sensible answer to that. Mugabe isn't
sane, so a rational response is not likely.

On Jun 25, 7:03 am, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> On Jun 24, 7:29 pm, "mark"  wrote:
>
> > If you were mugabe, today, and Bush said we're coming to get you.....  what
> > would you do..?
>
> It isn't possible to give a sensible answer to that. Mugabe isn't
> sane, so a rational response is not likely.

What evidence have you for Mugabe's lack of sanity? That he's a ruler
who has treated most of his people very badly is, I think, without
doubt. But there have been many like that. If he is sane what he must
fear is that, if he accepts the election results, he will end up
rotting in jail followed by a long trial and a swift hanging (like
Sadam and many other evil dictators). So his actions at the moment are
entirely understandable, and sane. If he doesn't hang on grimly to
power he's going to be, literally, hanging.

With South Africa, Russia and China supporting Mugabe's regime there
is little the West can do without causing more tensions. Boycotting
the World Cup in South Africa seems a ridiculous idea. It will not
have any effect on the politics, and little on the football!  With
England not qualifying for the European championships and the other
home countries permanently unable to qualify for anything why should
South Africa, or anyone else, care? It would be like Jamaica
boycotting the winter olympics.

On Jun 25, 12:06 pm, Paul Grieg  wrote:
>
>
> What evidence have you for Mugabe's lack of sanity? That he's a ruler
> who has treated most of his people very badly is, I think, without
> doubt. But there have been many like that. If he is sane what he must
> fear is that, if he accepts the election results, he will end up
> rotting in jail followed by a long trial and a swift hanging (like
> Sadam and many other evil dictators). So his actions at the moment are
> entirely understandable, and sane. If he doesn't hang on grimly to
> power he's going to be, literally, hanging.
>
I don't know about that. I'm sure Ebagum would find a nice pad in Cape
Town and be welcomed there if he resigned.

Look at the Shrub and Phony Tony, they're not dangling on the end of
Ropes and they are responsible for far more illegal deaths.

Paul Grieg wrote:
> On Jun 25, 7:03 am, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 7:29 pm, "mark"  wrote:
> >
> > > If you were mugabe, today, and Bush said we're coming to get you.....  what
> > > would you do..?
> >
> > It isn't possible to give a sensible answer to that. Mugabe isn't
> > sane, so a rational response is not likely.
>
> What evidence have you for Mugabe's lack of sanity? That he's a ruler
> who has treated most of his people very badly is, I think, without
> doubt. But there have been many like that. If he is sane what he must
> fear is that, if he accepts the election results, he will end up
> rotting in jail followed by a long trial and a swift hanging (like
> Sadam and many other evil dictators). So his actions at the moment are
> entirely understandable, and sane. If he doesn't hang on grimly to
> power he's going to be, literally, hanging.
>
> With South Africa, Russia and China supporting Mugabe's regime there
> is little the West can do without causing more tensions. Boycotting
> the World Cup in South Africa seems a ridiculous idea. It will not
> have any effect on the politics, and little on the football!  With
> England not qualifying for the European championships and the other
> home countries permanently unable to qualify for anything why should
> South Africa, or anyone else, care? It would be like Jamaica
> boycotting the winter olympics.

I think the prospect of a football boycott would have a substantial
impact on the South African government and public.

Lance

On Jun 25, 2:35 pm, Lance  wrote:
> Paul Grieg wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 7:03 am, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> > > On Jun 24, 7:29 pm, "mark"  wrote:
>
> > > > If you were mugabe, today, and Bush said we're coming to get you.....  what
> > > > would you do..?
>
> > > It isn't possible to give a sensible answer to that. Mugabe isn't
> > > sane, so a rational response is not likely.
>
> > What evidence have you for Mugabe's lack of sanity? That he's a ruler
> > who has treated most of his people very badly is, I think, without
> > doubt. But there have been many like that. If he is sane what he must
> > fear is that, if he accepts the election results, he will end up
> > rotting in jail followed by a long trial and a swift hanging (like
> > Sadam and many other evil dictators). So his actions at the moment are
> > entirely understandable, and sane. If he doesn't hang on grimly to
> > power he's going to be, literally, hanging.
>
> > With South Africa, Russia and China supporting Mugabe's regime there
> > is little the West can do without causing more tensions. Boycotting
> > the World Cup in South Africa seems a ridiculous idea. It will not
> > have any effect on the politics, and little on the football!  With
> > England not qualifying for the European championships and the other
> > home countries permanently unable to qualify for anything why should
> > South Africa, or anyone else, care? It would be like Jamaica
> > boycotting the winter olympics.
>
> I think the prospect of a football boycott would have a substantial
> impact on the South African government and public.
>
From what I can see, you're right! There are people who claim that it
was the rugby boycott that brought down apartheid rather than anything
else - I think they exaggerate, but South Africans take sport very
seriously.

Many restaurants close over Saturday lunch because so many people are
likely to be involved in, or watching, some sort of sport. It is a
good time to go out for lunch, actually, because those that are open
tend to be almost empty, so pleasantly quiet with swift service.

I think a boycott would be a wonderful idea - particularly if it
stopped the 2010 World Cup. They could then stop the unnecessary
sporting infrastructure projects and put the money into something
sensible.

Good news all round, really..