In a dramatic change in policy, South Africa has agreed to an “incremental” threat of UN sanctions against Zimbabwe. It’s a move that Zimbabwe has warned the Security Council could push the country toward civil war. Contrary to Pretoria’s steadfast position against even putting its neighbour on the Security Council agenda, South Africa has argued that the Mugabe regime should at least be given a 30-day warning of impending sanctions. According to diplomats in closed-door discussions at the Security Council this week, South African ambassador Dumisani Kumalo argued for threatening sanctions as an alternative to immediate imposition, as proposed in a US and British draft resolution. “We have been standing still and now you want to go 200 miles per hour,” Kumalo was quoted by diplomats as saying.
Kumalo pointed to a long tradition of Security Council sanctions, which have usually been preceded by 30- or 60-day warnings. Until the shift, SA had consistently argued that Zimbabwe should not be discussed at the council, as it did not meet the UN Charter’s criteria of threatening international peace and security. The tough American and British resolution would immediately slap an arms embargo on Zimbabwe, and financial and travel sanctions on a list of 12 high-ranking Zimbabwe officials, starting with President Robert Mugabe. Zimbabwe’s UN mission said, in a letter provided by the UN yesterday, that the punitive measures proposed by the US and Britain against President Robert Mugabe’s government could turn Zimbabwe into another Somalia, where warring factions have clashed for 17 years.
Those sanctions, the mission said, would lead to the removal of Zimbabwe’s “effective government and, most probably, start a civil war in the country because, in their obsession with ‘regime change’, Britain and the US are determined to ignore real, entrenched, fundamental and enduring issues that lie at the heart of Zimbabwe’s internal politics”. The mission claimed the nation was not at war with itself, posed no threat to its neighbours or any other country, and would put the Security Council in the position of becoming “a force-multiplier in support of Britain’s colonial crusade against Zimbabwe“. Mugabe’s government acknowledged through its UN mission “some isolated and localised cases of violence have indeed occurred in Zimbabwe” since the March 29 vote. But the mission’s letter accused Tsvangirai’s opposition party of “premeditation, planning, stage management and exaggeration of this violence, with ever-increasing signs of very active British and American encouragement and collusion, as part of a grand strategy aimed at inviting foreign intervention in Zimbabwe“.
Despite some anticipation, the US decided not to present its resolution for a vote yesterday. Diplomats said it would most likely be voted on at the weekend. Though Russia has expressed opposition to the resolution, diplomats speculated a veto would be an extreme move by Moscow. Nine votes, without a veto, are required for passage on the 15-member Security Council. The United States can count eight yes votes or abstentions. The ninth vote belongs to Burkina Faso, which is being lobbied hard for its support by both sides, diplomats said. American diplomats are said to be unconcerned about disturbing talks in Pretoria between the MDC and ZANU PF. ZANU PF and the MDC met yesterday in Pretoria for the first time since the controversial presidential run-off elections on June 27.
They advanced tentative power-sharing proposals, but are still divided on who will lead a coalition. In a phone interview with The Star yesterday, Tsvangirai said: “This is not talks. This is talks about talks.” As day one of the talks came to a close last night, The Star was reliably informed that ZANU PF wanted “an inclusive government”, in which Tsvangirai would be given “a senior post”, with Mugabe as executive president. For its part, the MDC was pushing for Tsvangirai to be installed as prime minister, with executive powers, with Mugabe as ceremonial president.
(Source)