I'm just someone who spent a while in Zim in the early 90s, and has good reason to love the country and the people. Returned 1996; not been back since.

Can anyone tell me why the international community has let this go on for so long?

No oil - that's one factor.

So the US won't be interested, and so far after colonial times the UK is out of the frame too. So do we turn to South Africa to do something?

Rhetorical question but it would be interesting to get your views, assuming that is, that the "animal watchers" care about anything else.

Toppping in the hope that the animal watchers know what an election is.

I will give you my answer.

I think it is pathetic that both South Africa and Botswana have not done anything. Both countries have more then enough power to do something and sit back and let it all continue. Being born a Pom, spending most of my life in S.A., considering myself a South African, I have become embarrassed because of this scenario (and of coarse the fact that we do not have enough electricity and plenty of crime and BEE and………)

What do you want the international community to do?

Well, let's see, Gritty ..

The international community acted in Kosovo to stop bloodshed.

Tne International communtiy acted (debatable) in Iraq and Afghanistan. Though, of course, that was not out of principle, it was to protect America's interests.

What I want to know from you, is why the USA isn't sending in the troops to Zimbabwe?

What in your opinion makes Zimbabse different from Irag?

Sounds like a perfect project for the UN...time to put on the blue helmets and step up to the plate.

Simplistically, there are stated differences between Iraq and Zimbabwe. Bush/Cheney/etc. claimed to be going into Iraq because of WMD's (now, whether that's pretense of not is, of course, a subject for history to decide). As far as I've read, Zim does not have WMDs (ie, nuclear weapons), so is not a threat to the US or its neighbors. So, there's one major difference between Zimbabse and Irag.

The better question is why South Africa, a regional power, has not done anything in Zimbabwe, nor has the African Union. So long as they continue to treat Mugabe as royalty (as a hero who overthrew the colonial powers), he will remain in power.

And, my suspicion is that Mugabe will have again stolen the recent elections.

I would say that Zimbabwe is a threat to Africa as a whole....not from a military standpoint point, but a mindset.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/wo...mp;oref=slogin

Opposition is claiming victory -- let's see what happens.

So, afterall, it appears that you favor a military solution from your earlier statement. How would you carry it out? Get rid of one man? If so, what about the military, which has stated that they will not accept leadership from anyone other than Mugabe?

Who will carry out this plan? The United States? It appears they're busy right now, for better and worse. I can't speak much about the UK, but I would imagine that they may not want to get involved; after all, it was Rhodesia that unilaterally declared independence from Great Britain, was it not? If the UK is the old colonial force, why would they want to get involved and thus be invariably labeled as neo-colonialists?

The Southern Africa Development Community effusively praised Mugabe and called for the lifting of sanctions against Zimbabwe following their emergency summit in 2007. It appears they're not going to spearhead any efforts to change.

As you know, this problem has been going on since 2000 or so. I've yet to hear the UN do anything substantial. If you or anyone else has more information about this, I'd be glad to hear it.

So, it appears the big players are out for the time being. I'm sincerely curious to hear your suggestions. Since this a travel board, may I suggest that this topic be moved to the forum lounge? I think this is a more appropriate place to discuss this in more detail.

I think that you will find that there are many here who do care about Africa's people and express it in many different ways.

The lack of results at this point has me concerned that Mugabe is not playing fair. Hope I am wrong.

Well, I fear the worst.

The longer it takes for the "official" results to come through, the more likely it is that Mugabe will be declared the "official winner". And we all know that the longer it takes the more likely it is that the results are rigged.

So what's to be done?

I don't like military solutions (cos they are rarely "solutions&quot. And, thankfully, right now the US doesn't have Zim in its sights (no oil). I wouldn't want the US going in there, would you? That leaves the UN (not going to happen); or the EU (unlikely)

Now the way I see it, SA is the power in the area. And if Africans should control African affairs, then it's up to SA. Either they sort it out or they admit to being not quite ready for that kind of responsibility, and call on help from elsewhere.

Diplomatically SA must seem to be in control. They have smart people. Time for them to stand up and do something.

Don't you think?

I find it interesting that every remark about the US on this site is followed by....a negative remark..ie oil.

How about this....

The US (who has given millions and millions of dollars to fight AIDS and Malaria in Africa) has decided not to intervene in the elections of Zimbabwe. The US is looking towards the United Nations or South Africa to stand up and make sure the elections are performed fairly.

This is sort of like sitting down with the family before calling the police (USA).

afterall--thank you for clarifying your ideas. It appeared earlier that you favored military options through your earlier examples of international interventions (i.e., Kosovo, Iraq, etc.).

I agree that SA (and others in the region) probably are best suited to changing the situation. Are you familiar with Mbeki's strategy of "quiet diplomacy?" The consensus is that it does not appear to have worked, unfortunately.

I also seem to recall reading that the US is relying on SA to settle this affair rather than intervene more directly.

May I politely suggest that one reason why the US may not have Zimbabwe "in its sights" is due to our lack of historical colonial involvement in Africa? I would assert that the US just doesn't have the experience that France, Britain, Portugal, Germany, and Belgium have had in the region (did I leave anyone out?).

Of course, I cite this as one of a plethora of possible reasons. I do think the absence of oil is not a primary reason. There isn't any (known) oil in Somalia, but the US was militarily involved there (for better and worse). Conversely, Nigeria has lots of oil, and the US did not militarily intervene during any of their civil uprisings.

My bad...how could I forget the Dutch?!?! My apologies for temporarily forgetting those of you with Dutch heritage.

Mugabe is in talks with the MDC over the prospect of stepping down

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7325286.stm

Chinua Achebe - (part 3)

All I know is that he should get a proper ousting!

Not all those who choose not to participate in travel board threads about the current political situation and election in Zimbabwe have no awareness of or knowledge of the situation.

If I was judged only to care about those things that I discuss on internet boards it could be said that I care about very few things indeed!

I am keeping my fingers crossed about the election results but sadly, I suspect that Mugabe will simply not allow a result that isn't favourable to him. Whether he simply announces that he has won regardless or whether he has his minions rig the ballots, who knows.

I think most of the information coming from Zim is still patchy - given that there isn't adequate media coverage and complete lack of accurate information.