Britain Concerned with Zimbabwe Elections

CHEN:
Britain joined the U.N. secretary general and the chairman of the African Union in raising the crisis in Zimbabwe yesterday. This was despite efforts by South Africa to focus on other issues. The occasion was a summit of Security Council and African leaders at the U.N.

STORY:
South Africa, current president of the U.N. Security Council, scheduled the summit to discuss cooperation between the United Nations and the African Union. It did not include Zimbabwe as an official topic. Some western countries thought otherwise.

[Gordon Brown, British Prime Minister]:
"No one thinks, having seen the results of polling stations, that President (Robert) Mugabe has won this election. A stolen election would not be a democratic election at all...So let a single clear message go out from here in New York... that we stand solidly behind democracy and human rights for Zimbabwe."

South African President Thabo Mbeki, who chaired yesterdays summit says the situation in Zimbabwe is not a crisis and can be resolved through the Southern Africa Development Community, which has avoided a tough stand.

Ban Ki-moon, U.N. Secretary General made it clear that he was not satisfied with this approach.

[Ban Ki-moon, U.N. Secretary General]:
"The Zimbabwean authorities and the countries of the region have insisted that these matters are for the region to resolve but the international community continues to watch and wait for decisive action."

The Security Council is not expected to take any action on Zimbabwe because of resistance from South Africa and other council members.


Western diplomats say any discussion of the issue at the meeting helps to boost the pressure on Mugabe,
Brown and Ban also called for more action to ease the crisis in the western Sudan region of Darfur.
The council plans to adopt a resolution at the summit calling for better ties with the AU and other regional groups.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• ntd
• ntdtv
• news
• Zimbabwe
• Britain
• U.N.
• security
• council
• south
• African

[ActionGroupA]

Just look at the seriousness and the sense of patrotism by which these people are contesting the verdict of the Zimbabwean election. So busy with while the criminals in the AU are having a fields day. Don't these people understand that they can do the same thing to the Africa Union for a democratic, accountable, transparent, peaceful and properious Africa Union? Are these people aware the Zimbabwe remit a portion of their tax annually to the AU unaccountably?

[7olusegun]

The black people were forcefully taken to the US by the cacausians for their own selfish gains (not the blacks themselves invading). I aint talking about anyone migrating to another land(s) to live but anyone seizing power (savagely when necessary) of another country just because the invader have the weapons. It will be a great relief of freedom to the Irish (as a whole) to see their occupying captors leave or give power back to Ireland.

[theredraven]

Yeah. maybe all black people should leave the US too and all white people so the Native Indians can have their land back.

Maybe the French should give us back part of our kingdom too that they nicked.

But if you want to kick the people in Northern Ireland out or place them under rule from Eire be my guest. You'll have the "Troubles" all over, just in reverse with bombs going off in Dublin instead of Belfast.

Leaving doesn't sound so smart now does it?

[7olusegun]

All these imbroglio would not have materialised in the first place if Britain did not invade Ireland in any way. The IRA is a militant wing of the Irish army. Overall, no nation on earth will like another to invade its sovereignty and take over its power. It is irrelevant whether or not a portion of Irish denizens will like to remain under the British (as many of these denizens are British also by denomination). Britain should unanimously leave Ireland.

[theredraven]

Yes and when the Republic was formed, they added an opt out clause for the mainly Protestant & Unionist North which allowed them to remain part of the UK if they wanted to. They chose to do this which upset the IRA (who aren't the same as the Irish state).

Might be illogical to you, but if you were a pro UK guy about to put under rule of an anti-UK government, wouldn't you take the opt out clause?

[7olusegun]

Yeah maybe; the British first put Mugabe in jail for about 10 years in his home land. They were not invited to forcefully take over power of another nation with brute force (and point a finger on someone else, calling them 'terrorists'). Mugabe probably also had a personal vendetta against the British. Will the British allow black Africans to occupy up to 85% of Britain (as they did in Zimbabwe)?

[7olusegun]

Not so! I wathced a documentary concerning ireland and the narrator said Oliver Cromwell forcefully invaded Ireland to occupy it. This led to prolonged conflict between Britain and Ireland and the republic of Ireland was eventually formed. For the so called agreement? If that was the case, how come the IRA bitterly opposes Britain's occupation of NI such that simitex explosives were desperate measures to drive the British out of NI? Your so called 'agreement' is ilogical.

[theredraven]

You do know we helped Mugabe against an evil white supremacist in Ian Smith right? Before Mugabe turned evil (which is after his wife died in the mid 90's)?

We don't like people who turn round and bite the hand that put them in power.

[theredraven]

I don't see the Indian or Pakistani governments starving their own people to death.

And no, we don't supply weapons to Islamic nutters in Somalia. We leave that to the Chinese to do.

[theredraven]

The Falklan islands were actually signd over to us about 150 years ago by Argentina so we aren't forcefully occupying it at all.

And Ireland agreed that the counties of NI could opt out of the Irish Republic if they wanted. Oh dear, you need to read a history book don't you?