What is Thabo Mbeki getting from keeping Mugabe in power. It must be something.....

There's some theory that they are related in some way...wives etc. Mbeki denied that AIDs is a problem on the continent, so his dealings in Zimbabwe are another act of denial.

Western countries want Mugabe ousted from power for two reasons. First, Mugabe sent his military to DR Congo in the 1990's to halt the invasion and occupation of DR Congo by the armies of Rwanda, Burundi, and Uganda. The invasion was financially and militarily sponsored by the USA and UK with the aim of effecting a regime change in DR Congo so that western countries would exploit (loot) the natural resources of DR Congo at will. Up until the time of the invasion, Zimbabwe had been buying its jet fighters from England, with an agreement that the sellers of those jet fighters would be supplying the jets' spare parts to Zimbabwe should Zimbabwe need any spare parts. Surprisingly, after Zimbabwe's military intervention to DR Congo, UK passed a bill that declared it illegal for any firm to sell military equipment, including jet fighters' spare parts, to Zimbabwe. In response, Mugabe turned to China, from whence he began to buy military equipment.

Second, the redistribution of the land, which had illegally been acquired and owned by white farmers for years, to Black Zimbabweans is, in the western view, a crime that Mugabe should not have committed and for which he cannot be forgiven. Hence the USA and UK's endeavour to mobilize the world, including the UN, the European Union, the African Union, and individual nations against Mugabe. However, African leaders know the true motives behind this worldwide mobilization by the USA and UK. Accordingly, the African Union's resolution on Zimbabwe is far from being an endorsement of the joint stand of the USA, UK, and their Western allies on Mugabe's Zimbabwe. And as long as Mugabe has the trust and support of the African people and African governments, Mugabe will not hesitate to tell the Western world “go to hang, and hang a thousand times”.

Western countries want Mugabe ousted from power for two reasons. First, Mugabe sent his military to DR Congo in the 1990's to halt the invasion and occupation of DR Congo by the armies of Rwanda, Burundi, and Uganda. The invasion was financially and militarily sponsored by the USA and UK with the aim of effecting a regime change in DR Congo so that western countries would exploit (loot) the natural resources of DR Congo at will. Up until the time of the invasion, Zimbabwe had been buying its jet fighters from England, with an agreement that the sellers of those jet fighters would be supplying the jets' spare parts to Zimbabwe should Zimbabwe need any spare parts. Surprisingly, after Zimbabwe's military intervention to DR Congo, UK passed a bill that declared it illegal for any firm to sell military equipment, including jet fighters' spare parts, to Zimbabwe. In response, Mugabe turned to China, from whence he began to buy military equipment.

Second, the redistribution of the land, which had illegally been acquired and owned by white farmers for years, to Black Zimbabweans is, in the western view, a crime that Mugabe should not have committed and for which he cannot be forgiven. Hence the USA and UK's endeavour to mobilize the world, including the UN, the European Union, the African Union, and individual nations against Mugabe. However, African leaders know the true motives behind this worldwide mobilization by the USA and UK. Accordingly, the African Union's resolution on Zimbabwe is far from being an endorsement of the joint stand of the USA, UK, and their Western allies on Mugabe's Zimbabwe. And as long as Mugabe has the trust and support of the African people and African governments, Mugabe will not hesitate to tell the Western world “go to hang, and hang a thousand times”.

Sanctions only hurt the poor and needy, Mugabe would not feel them, and the people are not ready to fight sanctions would not work.

Western countries want Mugabe ousted from power for two reasons. First, Mugabe sent his military to DR Congo in the 1990's to halt the invasion and occupation of DR Congo by the armies of Rwanda, Burundi, and Uganda. The invasion was financially and militarily sponsored by the USA and UK with the aim of effecting a regime change in DR Congo so that western countries would exploit (loot) the natural resources of DR Congo at will. Up until the time of the invasion, Zimbabwe had been buying its jet fighters from England, with an agreement that the sellers of those jet fighters would be supplying the jets' spare parts to Zimbabwe should Zimbabwe need any spare parts. Surprisingly, after Zimbabwe's military intervention to DR Congo, UK passed a bill that declared it illegal for any firm to sell military equipment, including jet fighters' spare parts, to Zimbabwe. In response, Mugabe turned to China, from whence he began to buy military equipment.

Second, the redistribution of the land, which had illegally been acquired and owned by white farmers for years, to Black Zimbabweans is, in the western view, a crime that Mugabe should not have committed and for which he cannot be forgiven. Hence the USA and UK's endeavour to mobilize the world, including the UN, the European Union, the African Union, and individual nations against Mugabe. However, African leaders know the true motives behind this worldwide mobilization by the USA and UK. Accordingly, the African Union's resolution on Zimbabwe is far from being an endorsement of the joint stand of the USA, UK, and their Western allies on Mugabe's Zimbabwe. And as long as Mugabe has the trust and support of the African people and African governments, Mugabe will not hesitate to tell the Western world “go to hang, and hang a thousand times”.

At this point in time, any impartial readers or analysts of the ongoing furor of Western countries, with UK and USA in lead, against president Robert Mugabe must certainly have already asked themselves the following questions: First, what is so important about whether or not Zimbabwe's elections were fair that justifies this immeasurable amount of furor from western countries against president Mugabe? Second, let’s assume that president Mugabe stole the elections just like numerous other leaders did in some other countries. Have UK and USA ever previously displayed such amounts of furor against those other countries’ presidents who had stolen the elections? Third, if president Mugabe was really as evil as Western countries (with UK and USA in lead) presently portray him, how could all of the seven African head of states gathered at the G8 Summit in Japan vehemently reject the UK- and USA-drafted sanctions against president Mugabe’s Zimbabwe? Present at the G8 Summit were the presidents of Tanzania, Nigeria, South Africa, Ghana, Algeria, Ethiopia, and Senegal, all of whom rejected the sanctions idea. These questions and many others lead only to one logical conclusion: “There is something not genuine in UK and USA’s mobilization of the world’s nations and institutions against president Mugabe, and that must be the reason why other G8 members such as Russia, Japan, and China rejected the UK and USA’s punitive approach to Zimbabwe crisis.”

I am sure that have a theory as to why the West is reacting to Mugabe in the way that it is. Why don't you enlighten us?

PS. It appears that you have be a little out of date in your comments about Russia et al.

Russia has now agreed to sanctions on mugabe and regime, more to follow!

Katz, you question as to why the West is reacting to Mugabe as they are is interesting. In my opinion is confronts something about the role of UK and the anglo white community refuses to accept...that is, the British have decided to isolate Zimbabwe because of land issues, which they consider illegal and African reaction to that is that UK is playing the clever racial card. In short.. Zimbabwe has white anglo Britons, therefore they are worthy for fighting for, than people dying in Darfur and DRC (Total of 6 million black people dead)

Clearly, UK gov't campaigns against Zimbabwe in all internation forums, whether it is about cricket, IMF board meeting etc That is the reason why most of us think the UK has lost it's soul about Zimbabwe..Hence has become totally ineffective. Britons are pushing the limits with Africans, especially in Southern Africa. Their credibility is zero!

The UK should find ways of dialogue with SADC. It is silly for British people to continue to quote any idiot in Africa who utters a word against Mugabe!

Another way to answer your question would be to say that the West is responding in the same way as during the "Cold War" Africa also does respond in the same..Africa knows historically, that Russia and China always supported Africa.

Hi Phiri - my apologies for the delayed response; my question to you is: if the British are only motivated by a racial desire to protect their kith and kin in Zimbabwe (this is not a theory that I support by the way) then what is it that motivates the rest of the European Union and the United States?

As a student of history and current affairs you know that the US has always been antithetical in regard to Britain's colonial interests (Suez, SE Asia -you name it); whilst France has always been competitive with the UK in this regard.

One would think that with the extremely poor standing of the US in the world as a result of the illegal and ruinous debacle in Iraq and the problems that the European Union has with assimilating its expansion eastwards, that both powers would stay clear of Zimbabwe if this was only a question of Britain trying to protect the handful of whites that are left in Zimbabwe. Instead they have chosen to get involved. Why? Simply because it is such a clear cut case of evil which threatens regional progress. QED

The USA has been active in Africa because of the aftermath of 9/11. The USA knows that Africa could be a breading ground for Islamic terrorism. The USA has been the largest HIV/AIDS medicine donor in Zimbabwe. George Bush's recent visit to Africa demonstrate that most Africans can accept Bush, despite the outer disregard of international law toward Iraq and severe human right violation committed by USA troops.

I never said the UK is 100% motivated by race, that would be too much of a simplistic statement. However, it is true that the UK has used race in dealing with Zimbabwe. Especially regarding the predominately anglo white farmers. The UK, rather than being engaged in solving the land issue, Tony Blair said UK was not obligated to pay land claims against white farmers. They decided to disengage themselves from the process. When the 20,000 massacare of the ndebeles took place, UK never raised a finger, but when white farmers were displaced hell broke lose!

Zimbabwe is a strategic country for white anglo strategy presence in Southern Africa! despite the brave face most Zimbabweans put up, in truth, we have been at war with british people for decades!

Sorry Phiri I did not follow your line of thought in respect of the US buying into the Zimbabwe problem. I have not heard of anyone suggesting that there is a thread between the propagation of Islamic terrorism in the Horn of Africa and Christian Southern Africa.

You did not address the question of the European Union's involvement and I find it difficult to believe that the UK has sufficient influence in Europe to cause France, Germany, Italy or Belgium to name a few with African 'history'to act against their interests by taking up the cause of Zimbabwe if only to help out their friends in London.

I agree that the West's silence at the time of Gukurahundi is inexplicable if not inexcusable. I would argue that the reason for that silence lies with the time at which it occurred, namley when Zimbabwe was the principal front line state facing apartheid South Africa. I would further argue that the West did not want to do anything to undermine or distract attention away from struggle to free South Africa. When Rhodesia was in the front line of white domination of Africa, the West had no problem invoking full mandatory sanctions against the quarter of a million whites living there and by extension the 5 million whites living in South Africa ( a good many of whom are of UK heritage); so why would the West now try to protect the few thousand whites still living in Zimbabwe? The race argument does not make sense.

Thanks for the step by step enlightenment. I, for one, am eagerly waiting to sit somewhere in the library near me to read a book (hear from the Horse's mouth itself)written by my fellow brother Pres Mugabe about all this. He must write PLEEASE!.

The whole saga is showing vividly that Neo-colonialism is alive and well. The gloves are OFF especially with Zim.When one hears media outlets like BBC/CNN/SKYNEWS talk about Zim you would think Zim is a county on the Island and not an independent country in Africa.If Bob goes ...I really suspect THAT this could be a good election talk-point a few years from now.

Surely Neo-Colonialism should never be allowed to take ROOT in africa - and this is a good challenge for the Contemporary African!

For starters you are either impartial or ignorant. If you do not see importancy of free elections then you are probably a dictactor yourself. Its not about Mugabe, its about the suffering Zimbabwean poor people. Is that difficult to reason. Obviously me and you writing these e mails are well above the poverty line. The question is what do you gain by siding with the illigimate regime while poor Zimbabweans are suffering.

Africa must reject US sanction calls. African slaves made America one of the richest countries in the world. America's economy and military dominance today is linked directly to Africa and african slaves. Unfortunately, instead of paying Africa back, America has rather preferred to preside over the gradual and systematic destruction of the continent through ignorance and policies that are always drawn along racial lines. US media, to justify slavery and racism, has tendency to present Africa as a continent of sickness, starvation, etc . . . In the natural order of things, there's no reason why Africa should not exercise considerable influence over the West. African population is growing, the potential wealth of the continent is enormous, whether one considers the agricultural possibilities, or the mineral, which have yet to be accurately estimated, or the potential resources of energy.

I suggest Pres Mugabe must write a book and inform Africa about reality. Or Don't Presidents write books?

I hope he remembers all the people he killed.

If one really contemplate well with a clear conscience, President Mbeki is a wise man. That is why Mandela nominated him.

If Mbeki is a wise man then I am King Solomon.