UN rejected draft SANCTION by US/UK on Mugabe.

This has further show that US/UK are no longer in tune with REALITY.

The world has moved away from being used to serve their selfish ends.

Sanctions does not solve any problem rather it kills the ordinary people.

Russia and China vetoed the resolution, saying the situation in Zimbabwe posed no threat to international security.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7503441.stm

Zimbabwe's Information Minister Sikhanyiso Ndlovu described the resolution as an attempt to make the people of Zimbabwe suffer so they would turn against their government.

Russia is becoming obsessed with disagreeing everything the West says for the sake of disagreeing.

McKren:

Russia is becoming obsessed with disagreeing everything the West says for the sake of disagreeing.

indeed.

Russia's ambassador Vitaly Churkin said sanctions would have taken the UN beyond its mandate.
The Russian foreign ministry added later that the sanctions would have "created a dangerous precedent, opening the way for interference by the Security Council in internal affairs in connection with certain political events including elections, which is a gross violation of the UN Charter".

UK/US blind hate could not allow them to see when they over-step their boundaries.

Dictator: a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control

we should all be happy, there still like of China, Russia. Russia remains clear focused on this issue.

The proposed sanctions were directed at Mugabe and 11 other government officials. It proposed freezing of thier assets and slamming some travel restrictions etc.
I fail to see how this would have 'made the people of Zimbabwe suffer'

landis:

UK/US blind hate could not allow them to see when they over-step their boundaries.

When they invaded Iraq without recourse to dialogue and political solutions, people said they were evil. Now they are trying to work through the UN and they are evil. What do you guys really want?

landis:


we should all be happy, there still like of China, Russia. Russia remains clear focused on this issue.

it is now clear that we have traitors in our midst. The same China that stubbornly vetoes any attempt to sanction the Sudanese government for their role in the Darfur massacres is the one you're touting as a hero, abi?

It's a pity, really, that Africans cannot give a damn about their fellow man. If the AU had any potency whatever, we would have been seeing less of these 'western interference'.

This is good news. I am glad the UN isn't allowing the US and UK fool the world again with their deceit.

Someone claims the sanctions were targeted at Mugabe and 11 officials, wonderful. Just as the sanctions targeted at Saddam and his top government functionaries affected only Saddam and his men.

The US and UK don't have any shame left otherwise they would have realized that the world knows the real motive behind sabotaging Zimbabwe - resources.

African leaders should come to the aid of Zimbabwe because what is happening now to Mugabe could equally happen to any African leader that allows the West to dictate what happens in any country.

Afam:

This is good news. I am glad the UN isn't allowing the US and UK fool the world again with their deceit.

Someone claims the sanctions were targeted at Mugabe and 11 officials, wonderful. Just as the sanctions targeted at Saddam and his top government functionaries affected only Saddam and his men.

The US and UK don't have any shame left otherwise they would have realized that the world knows the real motive behind sabotaging Zimbabwe - resources.

African leaders should come to the aid of Zimbabwe because what is happening now to Mugabe could equally happen to any African leader that allows the West to dictate what happens in any country.

What resources?!

Please note that nine countries voted for the sanctions while Russia and China opposed.

Russia is merely disagreeing because it must be seen to flex its muscles where the US is concerned. China is doing the same and could care less if the whole of Africa went up in flames tomorrow.
The funny thing is the assets the US/UK want frozen are not in China or Russia.

Was it not the same China shipping arms to Mugabe just a few months ago? These folks wouldnt mind a civil war breaking out just so long as they can sell their arms. Its a shame Africa has been reduced to a toy to be played among feuding world powers.

texazzpete:

What resources?!

Please note that nine countries voted for the sanctions while Russia and China opposed.

Name the nine countries. Last i checked its only 5 countries that has the veto power.

Pls check out www.mxit.com

You may download the application via www.mxit.com/wap

Pls feel free to join our forum http://forum.mxit.com/nig

will be glad to meet you there,

Regards,

Konstriktor(PM)

davidylan:

Was it not the same China shipping arms to Mugabe just a few months ago? These folks wouldnt mind a civil war breaking out just so long as they can sell their arms. Its a shame Africa has been reduced to a toy to be played among feuding world powers.

It is good that China is shipping arms to Mugabe to avoid what happened in Iraq where the US conspired with other nations to place an arms embargo on Iraq. If Iraq had access to arms just as other sovereign nations I am sure the US and Britain wouldn't have thought of invading Iraq.

Now, the US and UK is pushing for arms embargo on Zimbabwe so that it will be easy for them to arm and fund any willing tool (read opposition) that will ultimately wage war against Mugabe.

Someone asked "what resources?" The same resources that the whites killed and maimed innocent Zimbabweans for.

At UN, Zim Sanctions Killed by Double Veto, Colonialism Charged, Sudan and ICC Foreshadowed: Who Is Isolating Whom?


Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, July 11 -- Past 4 p.m. on Friday, the Security Council went into an open meeting on Zimbabwe. On his way in, Chinese Ambassador Wang said, "It is extremely difficult for China," which to many reporters meant that China would veto the sanctions resolution. But then the vote was called for. Zimbabwe spoke first, accusing the UK of hounding its former colony in forums from the Human Rights Council to the Commonwealth to "propaganda" media.

In the run up to the meeting, the Johannesburg Star's intrepid correspondent reported that South Africa offered a compromise, to threaten sanctions in 30 or 60 days, in the form of a Presidential Statement. But such a change would preclude a vote on Friday. So the call to the formal meeting, which Inner City Press ran to observe from the nearly-empty balcony seats, left many surprised.


5:31 p.m. -- Indonesia abstained, and five voted against: Vietnam, Libya, South Africa and Russia and China, the latter two with veto power. When their arms went up to vote no, many were surprised. But the proponents must have known, from their consultations earlier on Friday. So why did they still call it for a vote? A lone veto-er, as the U.S. has sometimes been, can be described as isolated. But to have a partner in the veto, and three other no's and an abstention, is hardly isolation.


For now we add: if a resolution were proposed to suspend an ICC indictment of Sudan's president, it would face vetoes in reverse,


Other updates below.




Ambassadors of South Africa and Zimbabwe, out of focus



4:29 -- South Africa says it will vote "no" on Zim resolution, based on AU position.



4:38 -- Libya says leave it to regional groups, this resolution violates Zimbabwe's sovereignty. Will vote no. But here comes Burkina-Faso,



4:42 -- Burkina-Faso says, based on arms embargo, it will "lend its support" to this draft resolution. Rejects Libya's argument that the resolution would embold MDC and make them not negotiate.

4:47 -- Indonesia says applying sanctions at this stage would undermine ongoing mediation, and so will abstain

4:50 -- Vietnam says it is not a threat to international peace and security, praises South African president "McBeki" and his mediation


5:31 p.m. -- Indonesia abstained, and five voted against: Vietnam, Libya, South Africa and Russia and China, the latter two with veto power. So the resolution failed. Afterwards French Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert, when asked if the proponents miscalculated by calling the vote, pointed out that[b] there were 9 votes for -- including, notably, Burkina-Faso -- and that the EU can continue with its own moves against Zimbabwe.[/b]


Inner City Press asked about South Africa's statement that Bernard Kouchner's statement that only a government led by the MDC would be legitimate worked against passage of the resolution. Ripert bristled, saying he was only answering so Inner City Press wouldn't call him unresponsive, and pointing to a July 4 statement referring to the March vote in Zimbabwe. Then he left. Video here, at end.

But the Kouchner quote, by Agence France Presse, was that "the government is illegitimate if it isn't led by opposition leader Mr Tsvangirai."


Ambassador Wang spoke on Zimbabwe, and then answered a question from Inner City Press about Darfur and the International Criminal Court. To be continued.

Afam:

It is good that China is shipping arms to Mugabe to avoid what happened in Iraq where the US conspired with other nations to place an arms embargo on Iraq. If Iraq had access to arms just as other sovereign nations I am sure the US and Britain wouldn't have thought of invading Iraq.

Now, the US and UK is pushing for arms embargo on Zimbabwe so that it will be easy for them to arm and fund any willing tool (read opposition) that will ultimately wage war against Mugabe.

Someone asked "what resources?" The same resources that the whites killed and maimed innocent Zimbabweans for.

What a shame. We all know the arms are going to be used by Mugabe on the opposition.
I dont however expect nitwits to understand the issue . . . see the arms in Congo, Ethiopia and Sudan . . . surely they were used to thwart US-led efforts to conoquer them.

You ask that Iraq should have had access to weapons like every sovereign nation and i laugh . . . besides the Russians, the US and Israel are the largest arms manufacturers in the world, did you expect the US to arm her enemies? What a tool.

Oh we are now talking of colonialism? Face facts - colonialism of Zimbabwe ended more than 20yrs ago . . . it left them as one of the most bouyant African states not an 11m% inflation rate.

It is fine to disagree with the US or UK but to lie, spread false propaganda and exhibit crass ignorance is distasteful.

davidylan:

What a shame. We all know the arms are going to be used by Mugabe on the opposition.
I don't however expect nitwits to understand the issue . . . see the arms in Congo, Ethiopia and Sudan . . . surely they were used to thwart US-led efforts to conoquer them.

You ask that Iraq should have had access to weapons like every sovereign nation and i laugh . . . besides the Russians, the US and Israel are the largest arms manufacturers in the world, did you expect the US to arm her enemies? What a tool.

Oh we are now talking of colonialism? Face facts - colonialism of Zimbabwe ended more than 20yrs ago . . . it left them as one of the most bouyant African states not an 11m% inflation rate.

I had thought that by now you would have learned to agree or disagree with a position without resorting to insults but I guess I was mistaken as a cursed child from the womb like you will never change, silly thing.

Afam:

This is good news. I am glad the UN isn't allowing the US and UK fool the world again with their deceit.

Someone claims the sanctions were targeted at Mugabe and 11 officials, wonderful. Just as the sanctions targeted at Saddam and his top government functionaries affected only Saddam and his men.

This is not a matter of 'someone claims', read the text of the resolution and you will find that the sanctions are directed against certain individuals in Govt unlike the Iraq sanctions which was more comprehensive. You love to wallow in superficial thinking.

Afam:

I had thought that by now you would have learned to agree or disagree with a position without resorting to insults but I guess I was mistaken as a cursed child from the womb like you will never change, silly thing.

and how have you "blessed adult" responded? By being mature?
The thread isnt about Afam . . . who by the way was recently disgraced out of the webmasters section for similar penchant for distasteful crassness.

Please on topic for more cerebral members who truly have something of substance to say. I've had enough of wool headed bigots who are so ignorant of facts they pretend to debate.

Here are the unsubstantiated drivel you just posted:

Afam:

It is good that China is shipping arms to Mugabe to avoid what happened in Iraq where the US conspired with other nations to place an arms embargo on Iraq.

1. Iraq always had access to Russian weapons, they were just inferior to US arms. Did you expect the US to arm Iraq with her latest war F-22 raptors? If Iraq wanted weapons why didnt they develop themselves? Do US arms fall from heaven?
2. The Chinese arms are not for defending the state against US-led invasion (a fraudulent assumption), they are being used by the state to subjugate the opposition.

Afam:

If Iraq had access to arms just as other sovereign nations I am sure the US and Britain wouldn't have thought of invading Iraq.

Nonsense . . . Iraq was building a nuclear reactor with the help of France before Israel bombed it. The Iraqis had weapons, they were no match for the US military.

Afam:

Now, the US and UK is pushing for arms embargo on Zimbabwe so that it will be easy for them to arm and fund any willing tool (read opposition) that will ultimately wage war against Mugabe.

They are pushing for arms embargoes because they are frankly tired of places like Darfur, Congo, Burundi, Ethiopia, Eritrea. Its a shame that the AU is simply an impotent organ.
Wool heads like you are the ones still blaming the US for not coming to the aid of Darfur.

Do you have evidence that the US is funding and arming the MDC or is this, as usual, the Afarm propaganda mill at work?

Afam:

Someone asked "what resources?" The same resources that the whites killed and maimed innocent Zimbabweans for.

Over 29 yrs ago and u're still whinning about colonialism? Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of Africa, with a stable economy and a much stronger currency than Nigeria before Mugabe came to power . . . the difference is clear.

Its the same resources Mugabe is maiming his own people for but you cant count on wool heads to know the difference.

@poster
spot on

irrespective of china and russia's political leanings,i will commned them for being the voices of reason and for being the checkmate on the excesses of the duo of brown and bush like someone said,they ll realise its no more business as usual,i believe the phase the world is moving into now is all about dialogue either the so called super powers agree or disagree,

This news is absolutely a great one.
US should think back to when they executed Iraq war without the approval of UN and many other nations.

The action of US and UK is nothing but hypocrisy at it's very best.

lucabrasi:

@poster
spot on

irrespective of china and russia's political leanings,i will commned them for being the voices of reason and for being the checkmate on the excesses of the duo of brown and bush like someone said,they ll realise its no more business as usual,i believe the phase the world is moving into now is all about dialogue either the so called super powers agree or disagree,

China as a voice of reason? the same China shipping arms to the repressive government of Mugabe?

doncaster

9 out of 15 countries voted for the resolution and that is enough to pass.

But if one of the 5 countries with veto power decides to use its veto power, the resolution fails. Rusia and China are among these 5 countries.
Rusia is developing a troubling pattern of misusing its veto power.

They just veto for the sake it.

Excuse: the crisis in Zimbabwe is not a threat to international security. What a myopic definition of international insecurity.
Hellooooooooo!!!!!!!! the economic crisis in Zimbabwe has caused a mass exodus of people to other southern african nations. Hence the Xenophobic attacks we saw in South Africa.

McKren:

Excuse: the crisis in Zimbabwe is not a threat to international security. What a myopic definition of international insecurity.
Hellooooooooo!!!!!!!! the economic crisis in Zimbabwe has caused a mass exodus of people to other southern african nations. Hence the Xenophobic attacks we saw in South Africa.

Its an indirect acknowledgement that Africa is frankly not included in some countries' definition of the "international community". What a sad day for Africa.

@4Play,

Can any sanction really be limited to individuals? If yes, how come only Saddam and members of his ruling cabal did not suffer when they claimed the sanctions were targeted at members of his regime? Millions of people died even before the invasion thanks to the sanctions.

@davidylan,

As usual, whenever you fail to reason like a human being you begin to spread lies and misinformation. I guess on Mugabe and Zimbabwe a lot of people on this thread have done justice to your myopic sense of reasoning.

On web masters section, I chose not to post anything on that forum, my decision entirely and I believe only a pig would turn that to mean being chased out of a part of the forum. I believe your parents are actually wasting their money on you because you keep getting worse every single day. Is your school on strike?

Afam:

@davidylan,

As usual, whenever you fail to reason like a human being you begin to spread lies and misinformation. I guess on Mugabe and Zimbabwe a lot of people on this thread have done justice to your myopic sense of reasoning.

I recently saw a write-up from you claiming that if the Zimbabwean people want Mugabe out they would remove him. Its obvious you really cant see your own nose.

Afam:

@4Play,
Can any sanction really be limited to individuals? If yes, how come only Saddam did not suffer when they claimed the sanctions were targeted at his regime?

Of course they can. Sanctions can take any form.If you place a travel ban on individuals and freeze their personal bank account, that is substantially different from the trade embargo placed on Iraq.

4 Play:

Of course they can. Sanctions can take any form.If you place a travel ban on individuals and freeze their personal bank account, that is substantially different from the trade embargo placed on Iraq.

Thank you, so why did the US and co place a trade embargo on Iraq when such embargo would lead to innocent people dying?

Abacha left Nigeria I believe on just 2 occasions and even with the problems with the West he was able to run a stable economy. So placing travel ban on presidents will certainly not do any good to the issue on ground in Zimbabwe.

The West has provided enough reasons for Mugabe to convince Zimbabweans that the opposition is simply a willing tool being funded and supported by the West.

With such scenario a lot of Zimbabweans will rather die fighting than allow the opposition leader taste the presidency.

Let the US and UK sort out the mess they created in Iraq before looking for another country to invade.

Rusia is developing a troubling pattern of misusing its veto power.

Yes, the situation in Zimbabwe is horrible and Mugabe also represents a deadly tyrant, but still it should be handled and managed by UN with the assistance of others (all together).

And I think Russia (just like others) is sick and tired of US and UK running the show and making unnecessary and erroneous calls that are severely affecting the rest of the world.

Big B1:



Yes, the situation in Zimbabwe is horrible and Mugabe also represents a deadly tyrant, but still it should be handled and managed by UN with the assistance of others (all together).

And I think Russia (just like others) is sick and tired of US and UK running the show and making unnecessary and erroneous calls that are severely affect the rest of the world.

can you tell us what the UN has "handled and managed" with any degree of success lately?

davidylan:

Its an indirect acknowledgement that Africa is frankly not included in some countries' definition of the "international community". What a sad day for Africa.

Precisely!

davidylan:

Its an indirect acknowledgement that Africa is frankly not included in some countries' definition of the "international community". What a sad day for Africa.

Right on!

can you tell us what the UN has "handled and managed" with any degree of success lately?

May be UN would be able to accomplish their goals effectively and efficiently if US could just stay in their corner and play their position.
I've also noticed that UN has been struggling ever since United States disregarded their objection to the Iraq war.

Do you think this may have something to do with the recent impotency of the UN?

Its an indirect acknowledgement that Africa is frankly not included in some countries' definition of the "international community". What a sad day for Africa.

Such is life, but African nations could easily turn things around for better.

Big B1:



May be UN would be able to accomplish their goals effectively and efficiently if US could just stay in their corner and play their position.
I've also noticed that UN has been struggling ever since United States disregarded their objection to the Iraq war.

Do you think this may have something to do with the recent impotency of the UN?

Without the US, the UN is nothing but a toothless organ. It is largely funded by the Americans so what are you talking about?
The UN has been forever struggling even before the Iraq war. Its funny that the UN has representatives of repressive arab governments sitting on the human rights committee . . .

Even Libya!

Time to do away with the UN.