http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa...7/11/zimbabwe.sanctions/index.html

"Speaking before the vote, Zimbabwean Ambassador Boniface Chidyausiku said his nation has been a victim of "incessant meddling" from the international community.

Chidyausiku blamed sanctions already imposed on Zimbabwe for its underperforming economy and the suffering of its people."

Yep, it's the world's fault that Zimbabwe has become the economic mess that it is. Must be the obstructionist US.  

Quoting HuskyAviation (Thread starter): Must be the obstructionist US.

Yep, it's really all about you ! Zimbabwe, Iraq, Afghanistan .... just you.

Yes, the people of Zimbabwe are suffering because of those evil westerners. Damn them!

I once met Mugabe in a charity shop in London, lovely guy.

Oh, I'm half drunk on gin. Making the content of this post bullshit.

I doubt Russia and China want to spoil their profits from weapon sales to Zimbabwe.         

Didn't expect the Russians and Chinese to do the honourable thing, did we? I truly dislike those two countries and their repeated defense of oppressive regimes: Burma, Sudan and now Zimbabwe. China's repeated support of these regimes is more troubling. But I guess the US does the same too. Still it bothers me.

Quoting HuskyAviation (Thread starter): Chidyausiku blamed sanctions already imposed on Zimbabwe for its underperforming economy and the suffering of its people." Yep, it's the world's fault that Zimbabwe has become the economic mess that it is. Must be the obstructionist US.

Yeah, it's fashionable for Zimbabwe's leaders to blame the west, particularly the US and UK. It's an effective was to direct scrutiny away from Zimbabwe's government.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 3): I doubt Russia and China want to spoil their profits from weapon sales to Zimbabwe.

        

Didn't I predict this? I knew the Russians and Chinese would veto any sanctions against Zimbabwe and Mugabe. Did you expect anything else from them? This is why I believe NATO should take action against Zimbabwe and Mugabe and that action has to happen now. Going to the UN for this is pointless because it should have been obvious to the people in the Security Council that Russia and China would veto anything against that dictatorship. Things in the UNSC have become so predictable, there's no point in asking it to take action anymore.

Countries that deal arms shouldn't be members of the Security Council due to blatant conflict of interest. Russia and China's inaction clearly underscores that here, and by the same token in numerous past trouble spots, US, British and French participation are just as flawed. Permanent security council members should consist of neutral countries only.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 3): I doubt Russia and China want to spoil their profits from weapon sales to Zimbabwe.

Really? Does Zimbabwe have any hard currency left? Can they buy anything more than a few rifles? Maybe they can send a cargo ship full of their currency to China, recycle it or sell it as toilet paper, and use the money to buy a few bullets. 

I think it's more about the precedent. If Zimbabwe is sanctioned for fiddling with an election, what about a country that has no elections at all (China) or one that uses state control of the media to make election outcomes inevitable (Russia). Then there are all those other countries with questionable governance, especially in Africa, where China is trying, often with great success, to gain influence. This veto shows them that China can be counted on to protect the interests of the states (i.e. their leaders).

The Chinese and the Russians always veto UN sanctions / intervention since they believe it's totally okay to engage in brutality against their own people, or for another country to do so.


Andrea Kent

Quoting TheCol (Reply 3): I doubt Russia and China want to spoil their profits from weapon sales to Zimbabwe.

More like their exclusive trade deals.

Perhaps Bush needs to reconsider attending the Olympics, and show China that if it is going to stick up for a dictator, it will lose all the good feelings it has tried to create.

-Mir

We do a lot of screwed up things on the international stage, but as long as China and Russia are out there standing up for the evil guy, I can at least say "yeah but look at them".

Thank you China and Russia. Us Americans need someone to make us look good.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 6): Countries that deal arms shouldn't be members of the Security Council due to blatant conflict of interest. Russia and China's inaction clearly underscores that here, and by the same token in numerous past trouble spots, US, British and French participation are just as flawed. Permanent security council members should consist of neutral countries only.

Spot on. The UN should be a way to get things worked out, not a tool for powerful countries to exert their force on smaller ones.

China's corruption spreads well beyond its boarders...and of course it is trying to buy up and spread its influence and power.
As for Russia... Russia is also corrupt, but I think Russia does these things just to P*ss the rest of the world off to prove that they are still a big player. Also the arms sales to Zimbabwe from Russia must have a significant factor for them.

Just how long will China and Russia be able to support that fool Mugabe? By the time he finishes with Zimbabwe there won't BE an economy, there won't BE any arms sales and then the evil west will be told to dig deep to bail out the poor people of Zimbabwe because we caused them hardship.

When the nasty British left the place had a thriving economy, had enough food to feed half of Africa and was a shining example of what an African state could be. Of course, it's all our fault for going there in the first place.

Andy   

Quoting TheCol (Reply 3): I doubt Russia and China want to spoil their profits from weapon sales to Zimbabwe.

how on earth do they pay for those weapons?

Quoting Skidmarks (Reply 12): Just how long will China and Russia be able to support that fool Mugabe?

until the money runs out...either that our the two are about to start investing in the country and will rape it of its natural resources in exchange for weapons.

Russia is nothing more than a dictatorship & China...pfft, well this video pretty much sums up where China is currently at.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2008/07/11/2301640.htm

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 5): Things in the UNSC have become so predictable, there's no point in asking it to take action anymore.

There is a great feature in the past week's Economist about how the current NGOs are becoming warped and quite a bit deals with the UNSC and the structural flaws that are preventing it from effective policy. Worth a read.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 6): Countries that deal arms shouldn't be members of the Security Council due to blatant conflict of interest. Russia and China's inaction clearly underscores that here, and by the same token in numerous past trouble spots, US, British and French participation are just as flawed. Permanent security council members should consist of neutral countries only.

Of course a neutral third party is the ideal but even before globalisation gained momentum (but especially after), it is virtually impossible to find a country that is wholly neutral on even ONE issue notwithstanding the many that come before the UNSC. Switzerland I don't even think is a UN member; even the harmless countries like Liechtenstein and Luxembourg, etc., would be subject to heavy political pressure from their continental peers were they to hold the permanent spots. Same relationship between the US and Canada. Even if a neutral country holds the veto, there are plenty of ways to push it one way or another.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 11): As for Russia... Russia is also corrupt

While Russia was never the paragon of democracy, it is saddening to see the steep and fast backslide it has taken in the later Putin years.

Quoting Skidmarks (Reply 12): By the time he finishes with Zimbabwe there won't BE an economy, there won't BE any arms sales and then the evil west will be told to dig deep to bail out the poor people of Zimbabwe because we caused them hardship.

It is no secret that the "relationship" between the native Black Africans and colonial White Europeans is often and effectively used by Mugabe to hold power and enrage his countrymen with the west. I do not wish to make racially charged remarks; but, plainly, after the economy and the arms sales and the cozy relationships and even the food disappear, there will still be black nationalism. I don't have views on "black nationalism" one way or another but it is apparent that Mr Mugabe is using it as a lever for power and manipulation and places a black state above an economically prosperous and safe one.



AirStairs

Quoting Doug_Or (Reply 10): We do a lot of screwed up things on the international stage, but as long as China and Russia are out there standing up for the evil guy, I can at least say "yeah but look at them". Thank you China and Russia. Us Americans need someone to make us look good.

I could never understand why governments overlook the nature of the Chinese regime. Oh, wait...money. Well this vote should make governments wonder if these are governments that they can do business with.

Quoting AirStairs (Reply 14): It is no secret that the "relationship" between the native Black Africans and colonial White Europeans is often and effectively used by Mugabe to hold power and enrage his countrymen with the west. I do not wish to make racially charged remarks; but, plainly, after the economy and the arms sales and the cozy relationships and even the food disappear, there will still be black nationalism. I don't have views on "black nationalism" one way or another but it is apparent that Mr Mugabe is using it as a lever for power and manipulation and places a black state above an economically prosperous and safe one.

Sadly, African leaders have no problem with Africans oppressing Africans, no matter the consequences. And Mugabe knows that black nationalism is an effective tool.

Mugabe milks his reputation as a liberator. That reputation ignores certain facts: oppressing the Ndebele (some call it genocide), the threat to resume the guerrilla war in the late 70's if he lost the elections eventually placing him in power, rigging elections, running a prosperous economy into the ground, etc. But, it's all good: he is an African in Africa.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 3): I doubt Russia and China want to spoil their profits from weapon sales to Zimbabwe.

Did you actually check what weapons Zimbabwe bought from these two countries in the past several years before writing this?

I saved you some work, but you can do your own here: http://armstrade.sipri.org/arms_trade/trade_register.php

I decided to see what arms wre sold to Zimbabwe in the period from 1980 (when Mugabe came to power) till 2007:
=================================================================
Supplier country quantity System type Year ordered Year delivered

=================================================================
Brazil 90 EE-9 Cascavel Armoured car 1983 1984-1987
Bulgaria 60 M-43 120mmm Mortar 1999 2000
China 30 YW-531/Type63 APC 1981 1982
4 D-74 122mm towed gun 1983 1983
12 F-7M fighter a/c 1984 1986
2 FT-5 trainer a/c 1984 1986
22 WZ120/type-59 tank 1984 1985-1986
10 WZ121/type-69 tank 1986 1987
2 F-7B fighter a/c 1990 1991
1 Y-12 transport a/c 1991 1991
6 K-8 trainer/combat a/c 2005 2005
6 K-8 trainer/combat a/c 2006 2006
Czechoslovakia 52 RM-70 122mm MRL 1991 1991-1992
Czech Rep. 6 RM-70 122mm MRL 2000 2000
France 2 Rasit grnd. surv. radar 1986 1987
6 SA-316B light helicopter 1987 1988
23 ACMAT APC 1996 1999
Italy 2 Bell-412 helicopter 1983 1983
10 Bell-412 helicopter 1985 1986
6 SF-260M trainer a/c 1997 1998
Kenya 5 FGA aircraft 1981 1981
Libya 3 MiG-23MF fighter a/c 2000 2000
Russia 6 Mi-24V/Mi-35 combat helicoter 1998 1999
(ex-Russian, financed by DRC to in DRC against rebels)
Slovakia 2 2S1 122mm self-propelled gun 2000 2001
Spain 6 C-212 transport a/c 1982 1983
6 C-212 transport a/c 1985 1986
1 C-212 transport a/c 1988 1990
UK 8 Hawk-60 trainer/combat a/c 1980 1982
2 Canberra B-2 bomber a/c 1981 1981
5 Hunter FGA a/c 1983 1984
4 Hunter FGA a/c 1987 1987
5 Hawk-60 trainer/combat a/c 1990 1992
Ukraine 1 An-12 transport a/c 2000 2001
6 AI-25/DV-2 turbofan 2005 2005
6 AI-25/DV-2 turbofan 2006 2006
USA 2 Cessna-337/O-2 light a/c 1993 1993
===============================================================
As we can see, during Mugabe's rule many countries have been happy to sell their weaponry to Zimbabwe.

The largest weaponry supplier to Zimbabwe is obviously China. Russia sold only 6 helos in 1998, and those were actually financed by DRC. With the amount of weapons bought by Zimbabwe I doubt that sanctions would hurt Russian profits very much considering they sell billions worth of weapons to China, India, and other countries. So, for Russians that is literally a drop in the bucket. As far as Chinese arms exports - well the loss to them would be more significant. For example the latest 6 K-8 trainer a/c deal in 2006 is estimated at $120m.
Conclusion: most likely they had other motives when vetoing UN sanctions.

Quoting AirStairs (Reply 14): It is no secret that the "relationship" between the native Black Africans and colonial White Europeans is often and effectively used by Mugabe to hold power and enrage his countrymen with the west. I do not wish to make racially charged remarks; but, plainly, after the economy and the arms sales and the cozy relationships and even the food disappear, there will still be black nationalism. I don't have views on "black nationalism" one way or another but it is apparent that Mr Mugabe is using it as a lever for power and manipulation and places a black state above an economically prosperous and safe one.

If that is true, it makes little sense for me to believe UN sanctions pushed by the West, further isolating us from Africans, will do Zimbabwe any good. If anything we are exacerbating the situation by driving them more economically desperate, more likely to listen to crazy people like Mugabe.

Quoting OlegShv (Reply 16): 6 K-8 trainer/combat a/c 2005 2005 6 K-8 trainer/combat a/c 2006 2006 ... 6 AI-25/DV-2 turbofan 2005 2005 6 AI-25/DV-2 turbofan 2006 2006 For example the latest 6 K-8 trainer a/c deal in 2006 is estimated at $120m. Conclusion: most likely they had other motives when vetoing UN sanctions.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were "highly discounted" from their normal $20million price. This is not about the flow of cash from near-term weapons sales.

Quoting JoshSixtySeven (Reply 2): Oh, I'm half drunk on gin.

I hope its good gin, otherwise, its pointless  

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 6): Countries that deal arms shouldn't be members of the Security Council due to blatant conflict of interest. Russia and China's inaction clearly underscores that here, and by the same token in numerous past trouble spots, US, British and French participation are just as flawed. Permanent security council members should consist of neutral countries only.

I think this veto has more to do with the stupid and childish way matters are handled in the Security Council. Russia and China block any resolution backed by the US in response to the US blocking any resolution against Israel or any other US "ally".

Anyway, in the end, the Security Council is only used to protect its members' interests and nothing else.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 20): Anyway, in the end, the Security Council is only used to protect its members' interests and nothing else.

Ah yes, you would not believe the politics I hear about Brazil "deserving" a seat and how the politicians talk about "our interests". Not unexpected, and I'm sure the same is going on with every other nation trying to get a seat. The seat is coveted because of power and influence, not any other reason.

It is my understanding the League of Nations had similar problems.

Quoting AirStairs (Reply 14): While Russia was never the paragon of democracy, it is saddening to see the steep and fast backslide it has taken in the later Putin years.

The backward slide? The economy is booming (and no, its not due to oil/gas, so do some research before anyone comments on that being behind the shape of the Russian economy), GDP per capita is up 4 or 5 times what it was in 1997 (after those great wild west days of free market capitalism), there is a burgeoning media (regardless of what western government propaganda press make out), the State is strong and the people are better off for it. What exactly is this backslide? Oh, must be that Russia is again its own country, and the free and fairly elected leaders are now doing what is in the best interests of keeping the State structures cohesive, and in the best interests of the Russian people. The US/Europe are just pissed that they no longer hold any sway over Russia and it's people.

As to the topic, the AU wants talks to proceed, let the talks proceed and see what happens, then go for sanctions. That is what the Russians and Chinese have clearly stated. Many responses sound more like to me like "whitey knows best". Nice to see nothings changed around here.

Quoting Soyuzavia (Reply 22): As to the topic, the AU wants talks to proceed, let the talks proceed and see what happens, then go for sanctions. That is what the Russians and Chinese have clearly stated.

I don't buy that. I don't buy that the Russians and the Chinese want to let the African Union, which has also proven to be just as ineffective as the UNSC, go ahead with talks. The time for talking has ended, and the talks have failed. There has to be a different motive for China and Russia for blocking those sanctions with their veto because as I said, I don't buy that it's to let the AU talk about this, and even if that's true, those AU talks will end with the obvious: Thabo Mbeki supporting Mugabe's policies of crushing any kind of dissent, his economic policies (or rather, the economic destruction of the country), and his "reverse" racism towards white people living in Zimbabwe.

As for the ongoing racism thing in Zimbabwe, it is undeniable that white people have commited many crimes during their colonial rule in Africa (and in places such as South Africa and Namibia through Apartheid), but that's still NO reason to commit this reverse racism. In fact, there is NO justification at all for racism, but apparently, some people don't get it and resort to the exact same measures the white colonial rulers used to do to them, hence why I'm calling this reverse racism.

[Edited 2008-07-13 15:43:31]

Quoting Analog (Reply 7): Really? Does Zimbabwe have any hard currency left?

As Mir pointed out, they don't need hard currency. If we learned anything from Russia and China over the past 40 years, if they need something from a particular nation, they usually begin by appealing to the security issues of their prospective clients.

Quoting Analog (Reply 7): I think it's more about the precedent.

Russia and China couldn't care less about the "precedent". They know they can pretty much run the gauntlet within their own boarders.

Quoting OlegShv (Reply 16):

Your list doesn't show the statistics from small arms sales, which are more substantial.

Oh, BTW, here is some interesting news regarding China's involvement in Zimbabwe:

http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf...80428-CAH-china-zimbab-arms-fs.pdf
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ean-city-witnesses-say-811796.html

Chinese troops have been seen on the streets of Zimbabwe's third largest city, Mutare, according to local witnesses. They were seen patrolling with Zimbabwean soldiers before and during Tuesday's ill-fated general strike called by the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).

Three million rounds of AK-47 ammunition, 1,500 rocket-propelled grenades and more than 3,000 mortar rounds and mortar tubes are among the cargo on the Chinese ship, according to copies of the inventory published by a South African newspaper.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 25): Oh, BTW, here is some interesting news regarding China's involvement in Zimbabwe:

And as if anyone was at all surprised, China also appears to be involved in Darfur: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7503428.stm

This vote is also a clear indication to those foolish enough to believe China and Russia would side with the US in a conflict with Iran.

Quoting CPH-R (Reply 26): And as if anyone was at all surprised, China also appears to be involved in Darfur:

been known for a long time that the Chinese have been involved with Sudanese government in supplying arms in return for cheap oil, and this nation hosts the harmonious games next month...recalcitrant is the only word I can think of that politely describes the Chinese administration.

Russian pilots are also flying Antonov & MiL a/c in Darfur, for certain they are not dropping humanitarian aid when they do their runs.

[Edited 2008-07-16 04:00:39]

Quoting HuskyAviation (Thread starter): Must be the obstructionist US

Get over yourself, here is an instance where real regime change is needed and where it could be executed quickly, surgically and for the benefit of the entire country. Of course, Zimbabwe has relatively little for would-be "liberators" to pillage...

As for China and Russia, they have interests all over Africa - especially the Chinese. They can not be seen to be meddling politically anywhere in the continent lest they loose the goodwill they have with many states and leaders. This is not dissimilar to the US turning a blind eye to happenings in Saudi.

YOWza

Quoting YOWza (Reply 29): Get over yourself, here is an instance where real regime change is needed and where it could be executed quickly, surgically and for the benefit of the entire country.

Absolutely--and who do you propose to do the job?

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 30): Absolutely--and who do you propose to do the job?

I think that for far too long, bad things have gone on in Africa and the rest of the world has had to intervene but often has done so far, far too late.

In this instance the EU can not really be the thunderbolt because of the blessed colonial hangover that African dictators love making reference to. Asia, Oceania and South/Latin America don't much care and are too powerless to make a change. There's nothing in it for the US so they won't bother. Any such move by Canada would be political suicide for the conservatives, so they won't do it.

That leaves only African nations to fix this problem. Most African nations have their own problems to deal with.

To me the best approach would be covert action instigated by the government of South Africa. The ANC will not lose power in SA anytime soon, even if word gets out. By solving the Mugabe problem they will alleviate illegal immigration problems at home and send a message to all South Africans, reminding them what the ANC was all about. They onlydealt with Mugabe in the past because they had to. He's becoming a real problem for the ANC and is really hurting the SADC in general.

YOWza

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 6): Permanent security council members should consist of neutral countries only.

So Monaco, Vatican City and the Maldives would be the security counsel.

Come on, get serious. To the winners go the spoils.

No surprise here. China and Russia are big oligarchies that have shown repeatedly they got no real interest in supporting democratic regimes. Zimbabwe fits their favorite scenario: weak gov't, heavy corruption and a steady cash flow for guns.... best pals!

Quoting SBBRTech (Reply 33): steady cash flow for guns

Did you even bother reading the whole of this thread?

Quoting Pope (Reply 32): Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 6): Permanent security council members should consist of neutral countries only. So Monaco, Vatican City and the Maldives would be the security counsel. Come on, get serious. To the winners go the spoils.

Monaco: Principality, not country.
Vatican City: Not popular in the MENA region.
Madlives: Dictatorship anyone
 

Notice that when the Russian or the Chinese pull something like this, their true interests are questioned but when other parties do it that never really sees the light of day. Come on Thabo step it up.

YOWza

Quoting YOWza (Reply 34): Monaco: Principality, not country. Vatican City: Not popular in the MENA region. Madlives: Dictatorship anyone

I'm not familiar with the expression "MENA". Please explain.

While the Maldives may be a dictatorship, I don't believe they're arms dealers which was the standard Aaron747 set forth. As for the principality argument - you are right. But who else has no arms dealing at all and is a country? I was trying to have three so ties could be broken.

Quoting SBBRTech (Reply 33): Did you even bother reading the whole of this thread?

Mostly. Why, did I miss something that says otherwise ?

Quoting Pope (Reply 35): I'm not familiar with the expression "MENA". Please explain.

Middle East and North Africa

Quoting Pope (Reply 35): While the Maldives may be a dictatorship, I don't believe they're arms dealers

You would be surprised what goes on in such a tiny country especially giving that the NSS (national security service) is commanded by Gayoom and his cronies.

I was obviously just begin cheeky in my previous reply  

YOWza

Perhaps people should also go read the UN Charter and what the limits are in regards to UN involvement, because there is nothing but irresponsible comments above by most who don't know what the UN can and can't do. The US and UK tried to overstep UN authority in the Zimbabwe situation. And yes, I do believe that Mugabe should go, but I support the Russian position (myself believing in international law), as explained by the MID.

http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/e78a4807...1bef5c3257486003000bd?OpenDocument

Russia has closely watched the events that accompanied the preparation and conduct of Zimbabwe’s presidential elections. We condemn the irregularities and acts of violence during this period, for which the Zimbabwean authorities and opposition are responsible alike. Yet, in determining its position in the vote, Russia proceeded on the assumption that the situation in Zimbabwe threatens peace and security neither regionally, nor even less so internationally and does not require applying sanctions against it. We are convinced that a solution to Zimbabwe’s internal problems, which do exist, ought to be sought through a political dialogue between the Zimbabwean government and opposition. Zimbabwe’s neighboring countries and the continent’s regional and sub-regional organizations – the African Union and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) – also share this opinion. It is important that the African Union summit appealed on July 1 to states and all parties concerned to refrain from any actions that may negatively impact on the climate of dialogue.

.....

Another important component of Russia’s position on the US draft resolution was that the adoption by UN Security Council of that document would have established a dangerous precedent opening the way for Security Council interference in the domestic affairs of states over some or other political events, including elections, which is a gross violation of the UN Charter. We categorically do not accept the striving of certain SC members to take this body beyond its Charter prerogatives of maintaining peace and security. Such illegitimate and dangerous attempts could unbalance the entire United Nations system.

http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/e78a4807...add16c3257487002967b9?OpenDocument

In relation to the vetoing of this US draft by Russia and China, the US and British representatives took the liberty of saying that this our vote was almost a U-turn on the recent G8 Toyako summit’s accords regarding Zimbabwe, and that the Russian performance had raised questions about its reliability as a G8 partner.

We consider such remarks intolerable. The US and British representatives at the UN are at best completely uninformed about the G8 leaders’ Toyako discussion, or, at worst, are deliberately distorting the facts.
In actual fact, the special G8 statement on Zimbabwe, while expressing the leaders’ concern over the situation there, says nothing about the G8 countries’ support of any steps in the UN Security Council at this point. We shall note that this is not a fortuity, but the product of serious discussions, as a result of which, at Russia’s insistence, any mention of Security Council action was excluded from the approved text.

The G8 leaders, however, stressed their readiness for joint work with the Southern African Development Community, African Union, UN and other concerned organizations to look for a political solution and for rendering support to regional countries in their mediation between the Zimbabwean parties. Readiness also was expressed to take further steps against those resorting to violence. But there is not a single word in this G8 statement about any steps in the Security Council.

Moreover, we will slightly disclose the character of the discussion in Toyako on this score. The supporters of sanctions bluntly asked if Russia would support a UNSC resolution. Our answer was clear: we would be ready to consider some or other draft Council decisions according to their content. And we were ready to work in New York on the draft resolution proposed by the Republic of South Africa and directed at supporting the mediation efforts of African countries, without the imposition of unwarranted sanctions. But Washington and London blocked the work on this kind of resolution.

Africans’ mediation efforts are being actively carried out these days. We hope that they will help the Zimbabwean parties reach agreement.

We noted in Toyako and stress now – all moves of the international community, whether regionally or within the UN, should aim to encourage political and diplomatic methods of tackling problems rather than artificially complicate the situation, especially by engaging the Security Council in matters that extend beyond its scope of responsibility under the UN Charter.

----

In essence, the position of the Russians is that this is an internal matter for Zimbabwe (which it is), there is no threat of regional instability or security (which there isn't), the US and UK are at best distorting facts and at worst outright liers in stating their opinions of Russia's veto (I will go with the latter), and that the US and UK wanted the UN to overstep the bounds of the UN charter (which is the case).

The US and UK, in particular, have already set one extremely bad precedent this year (Kosovo anyone?!?), they truly should think more before trying to set more bad precedents. Additionally, we hear all the time from certain countries, especially the right wing American nuts that Africans should start to sort out their problems, and here we are, the African Union is attempting to mediate to resolve the problems that are Zimbabwe, and here are, the US and UK are totally disregarding African attempts which are still in their infancy, not even giving those attempts a chance. Hell, even Madiba has spoken out against Mugabe, and supports his removal, but Africans aren't being given the chance to work this thru for themselves. Again, it really does smack of whitey (American and English whiteys only) knows best.