ZIMBABWE

ALEXANDRA FULLER, author, February 15, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: From a policy perspective, should the United States be paying more attention to Zimbabwe? How involved should Americans become with difficulties in Zimbabwe? What would you recommend our government should be doing?
FULLER: Yes, I think it is imperative that America pay more attention to the situation of Zimbabwe because it is strategically situated and if it collapses into anarchy and civil war the fall over to sub-Saharan Africa will be catastrophic. We can not ignore Africa---both form a humanitarian and economic point of view. A freeze of external assets with immediate effect targeted at Mugabe and his cronies would not harm the majority of Zimbabweans who are already suffering but would directly impact the leaders whose disastrous decisions of the last 18 months have led Zimbabwe into economic and civil nosedive. Colin Powell last week already indicated that travel to the U.S. by President Mugabe and his inner circle would be restricted, but in my opinion this rebuke does not go far enough. Mr. Mugabe’s tactics of intimidation, flagrant disregard for human rights, and the recent passage of three laws to restrict freedoms of speech and association have shown his disregard for international condemnation. The United States is in a unique position to effect Zimbabwe’s leader’s decisions. Unfortunately history has a way of repeating itself. Laws put in place by Ian Smith (Prime Minister of Rhodesia in the 60s and 70s) and by colonial authorities before him took land by force, but returning this land to indigenous Zimbabweans where they have long been held by successful white commercial farmers in a haphazard and unlawful way does nothing to promote security and economic growth.

ANABEL HUGHES, Zimbabwe Democracy Trust Member, March 8, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: When you oversee the elections, what types of possible violations are you guarding against? Is it relatively easy or difficult to tell if there are problems with the electoral process?
HUGHES: Election rigging is commonplace in Zimbabwe. This time round, Mr. Mugabe has left nothing to chance and has openly flouted laws by overruling Supreme Court decisions after changing the Electoral Act to suit himself. He has tampered with the voters’ roll and has insisted monitor cannot travel with ballot boxes. Observers on the ground have they, themselves, been subjected to his militia’s strong arm tactics, so yes, it is easy for them to witness that the election will not be free and fair, but as to witnessing tampering this weekend, remains to be seen.
CZIKOWSKY: It is reported that the government has not released the polling locations to election observers. How are voters supposed to know where the vote? Or, is that the whole idea: It will be primarily government supporters who will learn these locations?
Also, the law prevents the presence of election observers. Is any independent confirmation of the propriety of this election thus possible?
HUGHES: No, I don’t believe that any independent confirmation is going to be possible. The whole electoral process is being overseen by the Zimbabwean army, for obvious reasons. No observers/monitors are allowed to travel with the ballot boxes to the counting areas, and as you rightly said, no one even knows where the polling stations are going to be. It has been confirmed that the number of urban polling stations, opposition strongholds, have been cut in half while the rural polling stations have been doubled. This is all part of the government’s tactics to secure victory through any means possible.

MARTIN MEREDITH, author, April 12, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Do you believe Secretary Rice’s comments mean that the United States is going to become actively involved, or will it remain primarily a verbal paper tiger, on African affairs? What role do you believe the United States should play in directly or indirectly assisting people facing starvation, genocide, and repression?
MEREDITH: Zimbabwe is low on the U.S. list of foreign priorities. President Bush has previously said that he is content to follow the lead set by South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki. Mbeki prefers a policy of ‘quiet diplomacy’ towards Zimbabwe. In those circumstances, I don’t see the U.S. taking a more active approach.
But I believe that the U.S. should use its power in certain circumstances to intervene in cases of starvation, genocide, and repression, provided it acts in conjunction with other governments following a similar course. Joint action is a formidable weapon. But in all cases, the U.S. should always work to give maximum exposure to the nefarious activities of tyrannical governments. Publicity is also a formidable weapon.