How to get rid of Robert Mugabe

The Economist (Print Edition)



IT IS hard to believe that the horrors inflicted by Zimbabwe’s ruler on his own people could get worse. But even in the past week they have. The burning to death of a six-year-old boy because his father is an opposition politician, and the butchering of the young wife of the capital’s new opposition mayor, are part of a growing wave of violence that has persuaded Morgan Tsvangirai, the opposition leader, to withdraw from the presidential run-off that was due on June 27th. He rightly felt that, by standing in the election, he was risking the lives of too many thousands of his supporters.

Yet Robert Mugabe’s crimes are finally coming home to roost. He will claim to be re-elected president, by default. But he has lost one of the big things that have kept him in power to date: the grudging support of Africa. His brutality and fraudulence have become so plain for all to see that neighbours who once defended him are changing their tune. Just as he is poised to declare himself the winner, almost the entire continent—not to mention the rest of the world—has come to believe that he cannot be allowed to stay in office (see article).

He is, as a result, weaker; but he and his thugs are determined to hang on. He has the tyrant’s delusion that “only God”, as he puts it, can displace him. So Western and African countries, especially Zimbabwe’s neighbours, must act in concert to get rid of the ogre that has shamed an entire continent.

How to finish him off
The first and easiest act is to refuse to recognise any administration led by Mr Mugabe. The European Union, the United States and much of the rich world will ostracise him. Now is the time for Africa, especially the influential regional club of 14 countries known as the Southern African Development Community (SADC), to follow suit. A swelling chorus of other African leaders has condemned the election as unfair. Even South Africa, whose spineless president, Thabo Mbeki, is still refusing to criticise Mr Mugabe outright, has begun to turn against him. Its likely next president, Jacob Zuma, is increasingly exasperated. Its trade unions have called for a blockade of Zimbabwe, symbolic at first but perhaps a harbinger of pressure to come. Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s beacon of decency, in London this week to celebrate his 90th birthday, spoke out against the “tragic failure of leadership in our neighbouring Zimbabwe”.

South Africa remains the key. Its leaders have long had the power to bring Mr Mugabe to his knees, just as their white predecessors squeezed the life out of Rhodesia’s white-supremacist leader, Ian Smith, three decades ago, letting Mr Mugabe take over when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe. Mr Mbeki will argue that economic strangulation would hurt the hapless Zimbabwean masses more than the pampered elite around Mr Mugabe. In the short run, he is right. Humanitarian aid must continue to flow into Zimbabwe, though Mr Mugabe has made it hard—often impossible—for charitable outfits to ensure that their largesse goes directly to the right poor people. But South Africa, along with other countries in the SADC, should certainly join in imposing the targeted sanctions already enforced by the EU, the Americans and other governments against Mr Mugabe and 130-odd of his closest comrades, who are banned from visiting the penalising countries and have had their assets there frozen. Depriving Mr Mugabe’s cronies of trips to a decent country that works could have a salutary effect.

The African Union (AU), which embraces all 53 of Africa’s countries, should also be far more robustly involved. Unlike the SADC, which is often paralysed by its search for consensus, the AU’s rules provide for decisions, specifically including the imposition of sanctions on errant members, to be taken by a two-thirds majority. The union is holding its annual summit next week, in Egypt. It should call on its members not to recognise Mr Mugabe as president or his party as the government.

The United Nations, too, must be ready to help. South Africa has been disgracefully blocking discussion of Zimbabwe in the 15-strong Security Council, of which it is a current member (see article). But this week it was shamed into signing a unanimous statement deploring the Zimbabwean government’s violence. There have been calls for the UN to send peacekeepers and to oversee fresh elections: a nice idea that will not come to pass any time soon. At present, no such resolution in the Security Council would get the necessary support, especially from Russia and China (not to mention South Africa). Moreover, while the loss of life in such blighted places as Sudan’s Darfur province and Somalia is still many times higher than in Zimbabwe, the UN has proved unable to send anything like an adequate force to those places; getting the Security Council, and in particular China, to take action over Darfur was like pulling teeth. Yet there is every reason to start campaigning for the UN to take up the cause of Zimbabwe too. It should certainly help to manage a fresh election.

Why not send in the troops?
Some romantic spirits ask why Mr Mugabe cannot be ousted by force—by Western powers, if not the UN. It would be glorious if he were removed by any method at all. But it remains unthinkable for such an action to be taken without the co-operation—logistical, among other things—of the region’s leaders. Persuading them to collaborate in isolating Mr Mugabe is hard enough. Deploying an international force should not be ruled out in the future, especially if the violence spreads. But other methods, with Africans to the fore, must be tried first.

In any event, the rich world should spell out a generous and co-ordinated recovery plan to be acted on as soon as Mr Mugabe has gone and proper elections held that would presumably bring Mr Tsvangirai to power. Zimbabwe needs at least $10 billion to put it on the path to recovery. Yet it is a resource-rich country with a core of well-educated people, millions of whom have fled abroad and must be wooed back home. Mr Mugabe may cling to power for a while, but his grip is weaker. Zimbabwe needs help from the West. But most of all it needs its African neighbours to tell the tyrant unambiguously to go—and to snuff him out if he refuses. It can be done.

Britain, Tony Blair and Mugabe are to blame for Zimbabwe’s woes.

Polls have already opened in the presidential rerun in Zimbabwe, and Mugabe is headed for sure “landslide win” – he has no opponent. Many will vote for Mugabe not because they adore his leadership but rather because of what he has led them to believe; the west is out to turn Zimbabwe into another failed state like Iraq and Somalia through western puppets like one Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). They will vote for him because they have no other option – many Zimbabweans have known only one leader since independence. They will vote and do as he says because he is the only person fit to rule Zimbabwe. He is a war veteran with “unmatched qualities” anywhere in Zimbabwe. To call Zimbabwe "a failed State" is an understatement since the situation has spiraled out of control mainly because the world failed to act in time to stop Mugabe and his cronies from going too far. No words can exhaustively describe what Robert Mugabe has done to Zimbabwe. He has killed, maimed and raped his country. But what turned Mugabe into such a vicious dictator?


When Mugabe first ascended into power in 1980, he was the most popular president the world had ever witnessed. He exuded charm akin to the Democratic nominee Barrack Obama when he clinched the US Democratic primaries. Zimbabwe’s economy at the time was an envy of many countries due to its rapid growth. The country had great hope that no other developing country could march. ZANU-PF party was immensely popular, had no opponents (he destroyed them) until the 1990's when calls for democratizing Zimbabwe became so loud mainly from the commonwealth states.


To Mugabe, Democracy meant "Going back to colonial rule" - an ideology he did not subscribe to. It did not matter much until a few years later when Mugabe took a suicidal turn - he forcefully repossessed land from white Zimbabwean farmers (mainly from Britain) for redistribution to "black Africans". Britain could have let Mugabe rule for as long as he wanted had he not "robed" what they had fought so had to achieve during the colonial times. This “unpopular” decision gave birth to another equally “unpopular” movement (according to Mugabe) - MDC (Movement for Democratic Change) led by Morgan Tsvangirai. Mugabe was not ready to allow "external pressure" to undermine the freedom and sovereignty he had helped Zimbabwe achieve from Britain. He will go to war if this ever happens.


Given the impressive economic growth of Zimbabwe during the 1980s, Mugabe didn’t care whether or not Britain supported him. He failed to reckon the power behind the commonwealth (read Britain). None of the members could go against the wishes of her majesty the Queen (Who is advised by the British Premier). How dare he takes land that is not his and hands it over to his friends?
This situation has put Mugabe between a rock and a hard place; there are growing calls for his ouster, which makes him even more determined to hold on to power - all African leaders are forcing him into "quite diplomatic" talks with the opposition. The UN, SADC and AU have all failed to stop him. He won’t let them.


In his time as British Premier, Tony Blair carefully crafted a western media circus that would later turn Mugabe into a villain. During the 1980's, Mugabe was a media darling. Zimbabwe was a true story that described the struggle Africa underwent at the mercies of the colonial regime. Mugabe was a hero of sorts – and he remained so for “far too long” without realizing that his country needed another hero(in) not him. Britain was ready to help in effecting this change. Then came Morgan Tsvangirai who Mugabe literally beat senseless in more than one occasion, not because he hated him so much, but because he was sleeping with the enemy at Uncle Bob's expense. He is one of the western puppets that Mugabe has sworn to destroy at all costs – he is succeeding because the world has let him.


Whoever thinks Mugabe is not aware of the consequences of his actions against innocent Zimbabweans must be very mistaken. Robert Mugabe knows exactly what he is doing. He knows that the present circumstances cannot allow him to be “a common man”. A common man is vulnerable to many unpleasant situations such as 80 per cent unemployment and the world’s highest inflation rate. He has to be president, because the justice system will send him to join former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein wherever he may be. He has killed many people and denied many their human rights. He has starved innocent women and children. To make the matters worse, Robert Mugabe has single handedly managed to destroy his country's economy turning many into economic refugees. He knows only too well that immediately he cedes power, the International Criminal Court will come calling to hang yet another dictator that the world does not need. It’s a fight for his life.

Hail Mugabe, long live Bob, you are a true African hero

by CHARLES ONYANGO-OBBO (Daily Nation)


Hearing it being told, Zimbabwe’s Big Man Robert Mugabe is an insane old man who should be locked up in a mental asylum, not running a country.

Writers, like this columnist, have been challenged to acknowledge the “good side” of Mugabe. So we did.

Recently I watched a documentary of the DR Congo’s thieving former dictator, Mobutu Sese Seko. The programme revealed that Mobutu liked to hit on his ministers’ and ambassadors’ wives, and would take them off to his room as they watched.

Mugabe started dating his present wife, Grace, who is 40 years his junior, when she was a secretary at State House, and his wife Sally was ailing. Grace Marufu, as she was then known, was married to Flight Lt Patrick Guririza.

When Mugabe decided to take Grace as his, he didn’t do as Uganda’s former dictator (and friend of Mobutu) Field Marshal Idi Amin did when he set eyes upon the beautiful Sarah Kyolaba. Idi was immediately smitten, but like a good general, he first inquired about the competition.

He was told Sarah had a boyfriend, a fashionable musician of the time. Idi sent his boys round to the fellow’s house a few nights later, and he was never seen again, leaving him to take Sarah as his youngest (she reportedly also became his favourite) wife without any rival lurking in the shadows.

Compared to Mobutu who grabbed many people’s wives, Mugabe stole only one. And compared to Amin, he didn’t kill Flt-Lt Guririza. He exiled him to China as a diplomat. So in those two regards, Mugabe is far better than Amin and Mobutu.

Now, for those who are too young to remember, in 1980 a young sergeant in the Liberian army called Samuel Doe seized power in a coup. He was, like many African military dictators of his time, an appalling ruler. Rebellion broke out in his country. One of the rebel leaders was another strange man, Prince Johnson.

As Doe’s forces succumbed to the rebels, the man was still hanging around in the presidential palace. The story goes that, sensing danger, Doe hurriedly arranged a helicopter for a last-minute escape. However, the presidential guard, realising that he was leaving them to be killed for his sins, detained him and said they were not going to be left to “die alone”.

So it was that in September 1990, the rebels captured Doe. They stripped him naked, tied his hands behind his back, and begun torturing him. In a video that was widely circulated at the time, and that didn’t do the image of Africa much good, Prince Johnson is shown ordering his men to chop off a bloodied Doe’s ear and stuff it in his mouth.

Having killed Doe, the rebels fought over his intimate bits, heart and liver which they ate raw in the belief that all his powers would be transferred to them.

Now, compare that to how Mugabe has treated opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai. In the first round of the elections, Mugabe’s supporters and police beat up and intimidated the opposition and mugged them of some of their votes.

Still, they had sufficient decency left. They didn’t steal enough to deny Tsvangirai victory. They only rigged it to prevent him getting the more than 50 per cent required by law.

A few weeks earlier, Zanu-PF goons had set upon Tsvangirai and beaten him senseless, leaving him with huge gashes on the head, closed eyes, and a major limp. Still, he lived to win the first round. If it had been Liberia, Tsvangirai would have had his ears cut off, killed, and then the remnants eaten.

You have to give Mugabe his due.

You might say it’s partly because of sanctions against him, but unlike other presidents, Mugabe spends a lot of his time in Zimbabwe. In that way he’s definitely better than Cameroon’s strongman Paul Biya.

In the last few years, Biya has lived mostly in France although he remains president. He returns to Cameroon for brief periods (perhaps to collect money from the Central Bank). But for sure, whenever elections are up, he comes, rigs the poll, and goes back to France.

There are those who say that, in the process, Biya has become the first truly hi-tech African president — he rules by remote control. Without the options of Biya, Mugabe has built his palaces in the outskirts of Harare, not on the Riviera.

Finally, there is Mugabe’s friend, former Ethiopian dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam, who has lived in exile in Zimbabwe since he was deposed nearly 18 years ago. It’s estimated Mengistu killed at least 1.5 million people during his cruel rule.

On the other hand, when he was faced by the Matabeleland-based rebellion against his rule between 1982 and 1983, Mugabe unleashed the notorious Fifth Brigade to quash it. More than 20,000 people were killed.

It might well be that Mugabe harbours Mengistu to remind himself that he is “not as bad”. His regime killed “only” 20,000 people, as opposed to the former Ethiopian hard man who dispatched 1.5 million.

Time to End Mu-Garbage tyranny in Zimbabwe

By James Bone, Francis Elliott and Jonathan Clayton
Times online


With just a week to go before Zimbabwe’s run-off elections – and with the body count growing – President Mugabe has been warned that he could be hauled before the International Criminal Court in The Hague over the atrocities inflicted on his opponents.

A key Western diplomat, speaking yesterday on condition of anonymity, said: “He needs to know he is moments away from an ICC indictment.”

Twelve bodies of activists, most of them showing signs of torture, were found across Zimbabwe yesterday.

In New York, Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, convened a crisis meeting at the United Nations. She said: “By its actions, the Mugabe regime has given up any pretence that the June 27 elections will be allowed to proceed in a free and fair manner. We have reached the point where stronger international action is needed.”

Also yesterday, Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the opposition party Movement for Democratic Change, was denied a passport, and his deputy, Tendai Biti, was charged with subversion and election rigging – offences that carry the death penalty.

African leaders began to desert Mr Mugabe. A day after President Mbeki of South Africa failed to make any headway in face-to-face talks with President Mugabe, neighbouring states delivered their strongest condemnation yet.

Bernard Membe, the Tanzanian Foreign Minister, said: “There is every sign that these elections will never be free or fair.” He said that he and the foreign ministers of Swaziland and Angola – the peace and security troika from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) – would write to their presidents to “do something urgently” to save Zimbabwe.

A senior SADC diplomatic source said: “The last allies he has in the world – SADC – are now saying they have had enough and this disgrace cannot go on. His obduracy has united them against him. They are trying to make him realise that a poll victory is no victory.”

South Africa, which has advocated “quiet diplomacy”, snubbed Dr Rice’s efforts. Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma, the Foreign Minister, skipped the UN meeting on Zimbabwe but attended a separate meeting with Dr Rice on sexual violence. They met briefly. Dr Rice said that she and Ms Zuma wanted the same thing for Zimbabwe.

Any attempt to bring Mr Mugabe before the court in The Hague faces formidable obstacles. The ICC has charged 11 Africans – two from Sudan, four from Uganda, one from the Central African Republic and four from the Democratic Republic of the Congo – but it does not have jurisdiction over Zimbabwe. It would have to be referred to the court by the 15-nation UN Security Council.

The Security Council is so split that the US, holding the presidency this month, is having trouble even holding a briefing on the violence. US diplomats may have to force a procedural vote to get Zimbabwe on to the agenda because of resistance from council members such as South Africa, Russia, China, Vietnam, Indonesia and Libya.

The US does not itself recognise the ICC, although it allowed the council to refer the Darfur crisis to the court. An official told The Times that the Bush Administration would be reluctant to accept another “carve-out” to the ICC by referring Zimbabwe.

The Zimbabwean authorities are outraged by any suggestion that Mr Mugabe might face an international court. Florence Ziyambi, the prosecutor, cited the threat of international prosecution as one of the grounds for charging Mr Biti. “They are alleging that the President is a criminal since they want to take him to The Hague,” she told the court. Whatever happens on the 27th, Mu-Garbage must be stopped.