UNITED NATIONS (FinalCall.com) – The United Kingdom is again demanding that the UN Security Council place Zimbabwe on its agenda. On Mar. 17, British Ambassador to the UN Emyr Jones Parry requested UN officials to conduct “humanitarian briefing,” however, South Africa’s ambassador Dumisani Shadrack Kumalo said his government would have no part of bringing Zimbabwe before the Security Council.

South Africa has the rotating presidency of the council for the month of March.

“We will oppose any British attempt to have Zimbabwe brought before this body,” stated the South African ambassador. He said there was nothing happening in Zimbabwe that could be construed as an issue of international peace and security, which is the criteria for bringing a sovereign nation before the 15-member council.


A South African spokesman agreed with the ambassador, telling The Herald (Zimbabwe) on Mar. 24 that indeed “Zimbabwe did not pose a threat to regional stability.”

The British press has stepped up its anti-Mugabe crusade publishing stories beginning Mar. 11, stating that the Zimbabwe police and security forces attacked a peaceful so-called prayer vigil, which was sponsored by the opposition political party Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). There are claims in the Western press that opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai and others were seriously injured.

“We’re all deeply shocked and saddened that the government of Zimbabwe feels that it has to resort to such brutal tactics against its own people,” U.S. ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell stated, according to The Age (Australia).

However, Minister Abdul Akbar Muhammad, International Representative of the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, who, at Final Call press time, is traveling from Botswana to South Africa, argues that the western media reports only one side of the issue.

“We must examine closely the root of the problem,” he told The Final Call. “What sparked the confrontation between the police and the MDC?” he asked. “What took place? Did the MDC, in fact, attempt to stone people who would not join their prayer vigil? We must seek out all of the facts,” stressed Min. Muhammad.

A March 24 article in The Herald stated that “MDC hit squads are on a campaign of assaulting members of the police force and bombing police stations,” while the South African government spokesman, Themba Maseko, condemned the “culture of intolerance and violence from the opposition MDC, saying the party’s refusal to accept the outcome of democratic elections was to blame for the problems in Zimbabwe.”

Min. Muhammad believes that the governments of the United States of America and the United Kingdom are behind the MDC and its shenanigans.

A press statement on the U.S. Embassy of the Republic of Zimbabwe’s website (www.zimbabwe-embassy.us) makes some salient points concerning what they term a “clear drift of politics of violent confrontation and blatant thuggery” by the MDC.

The press statement claims that, “MDC leadership has publicly announced its mission to seek to topple government through civil unrest in order to realize the British-led goal of regime change.”

The statement further claims that MDC leadership is “urging their supporters to disregard the laws of the land and undermine civil order.” There have also been statements from MDC leadership openly “inciting their supporters to attack structures and figures of law enforcement,” notes the press release.

Zimbabwe’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Simbarashe S. Mumbengegwi, in a statement posted on his website, noted the following: “It is a most regrettable development that the United Kingdom continues to try to settle a score with Zimbabwe, by trying to drag her bilateral dispute with our nation before the United Nations.”

In 2005, Britain tried to have the Security Council condemn Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, accusing him of not “providing proper housing” for some 700,000 of his countrymen. The Security Council refused to condemn the president; and the secretary-general, Kofi Annan stated publicly that the situation on the ground in Zimbabwe was not a violation of any one’s human rights.

But, if anyone expected the 83-year-old former ‘freedom fighter’ to shrink under all of the negative press and condemnation from Western leaders, they best think again.

According to stories published Mar. 23 by Agence France-Presse (AFP), Pres. Mugabe “denounced” the MDC and its leader Morgan Tsvangirai as “stooges of the West.”

AFP reports that Pres. Mugabe noted in the speech at his party’s headquarters in Harare that Mr. Tsvangarai “would never rule the country as long as he was alive.”

“Tsvangarai, you want to rule this country on behalf of British Prime Min. Tony Blair,” the Zimbabwean president is quoted as saying. AFP stated that Pres. Mugabe “charged Britain with using the MDC as a front to re-colonize Zimbabwe in order to plunder the nation’s minerals.”

Observers say that Zimbabwe is a nation blessed with uranium, diamonds and platinum. According to activists such as Obi Egbuna of the Washington-based Pan-African Liberation Organization and the Zimbabwe/Cuba Friendship Association, the tobacco company Phillip Morris has long sought to re-gain control of Zimbabwean tobacco and are also behind much propaganda condemning Pres. Mugabe’s land reform programs.

Mr. Egbuna, in a article published in The Herald in December 2006, stated: “It is the liberal British Prime Minister Tony Blair, that many in the U.S. consider a cheap imitation of Bill Clinton–who is leading the charge to overthrow Pres. Robert Mugabe, and made George W. Bush march to the beat of his drum.” The activist told The Final Call that Mr. Blair does not want to leave office, having not been able to “overthrow Mr. Mugabe.”

He calls the recent press attacks against the Mugabe administration “a propaganda war.” In a Jan. 12 article entitled “Zim’s detractors either uninformed or afraid,” Mr. Egbuna writes that, “Zimbabwe detractors are either uninformed, afraid or have been brought by groups like the National Endowment for Democracy.” He notes that this is an indirect ploy to divert attention from Zimbabwe because its enemies do not want to highlight its political will and courage.

Both Min. Muhammad and Mr. Egbuna stress that the greatest issue angering the West is Pres. Mugabe’s ‘land reform program.’

Pres. Mugabe addressed a group of American journalists and medical types in Harare on Oct 9, 2002, which was covered in The Final Call newspaper, wherein he explained what the land reform meant to Zimbabweans:

“You cannot have a country where you control only the politics of that country. What is the vote about if it is not about giving you strength, and, at the end of the day, consolidating your right of ownership and the right of self-determination in regard to your entire environment?”

Pres. Mugabe then explained to the delegation the history of the failed promises of the British and the Americans to fund the transfers of land from Whites to Blacks that was recalled in the 1979 declaration known as “The Lancaster House Agreement.” He shared how then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher gave his government an initial $40 million, but failed to fulfill their commitment, and how the U.S. government stopped aid during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

According to Mr. Egbuna, Mr. Blair has gone as far as denying that a Lancaster House Agreement ever existed.

Think-tanks, such as the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR), are now arguing that the only way to get rid of Mr. Mugabe is by creating dissension within the ZANU-PF party according to a Mar. 19 podcast by journalist Peta Thornycroft on cfr.org.

Even the International Crisis Group (ICG) dares suggests that “conditions are ripe for political change.”

“The desire to remove Mugabe within the year provides a rare rallying point that cuts across partisan affiliations, and ethnic and regional identities,” writes the ICG.

Mr. Egbuna argues that “On the ground, the people are demanding that the president stay-the course; and not leave office until the land is freed.”

However, Western political voices are asking for more sanctions against the Mugabe-administration, hoping to cause dissent.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard, during his weekly radio message given on Mar. 21, said he intends to push for the tightening of diplomatic sanctions against Harare, according to the the Mar. 22 edition of the Financial Gazzette (Harare).

Washington, according to Tom Casey, the U.S. Department of State deputy spokesman, said the Bush administration was “consulting with like-minded countries” and the European Union, on possible actions to take. However, EU and United Nations officials are skeptical that new sanctions would have any affect,” according to the Voice of America (VOA).

In 2002 and 2003, the U.S. imposed specific and focused sanctions on members of the Zimbabwean government and members of ZANU-PF.

According to Mr. Casey, the U.S. is seeking new ways to “target the Zimbabwean government” without causing additional hardships to the general populace. Something that Min. Muhammad says is impossible.

“While there are claims that sanctions are targeted against regimes, the truth is that it is the people who really hurt,” Min. Muhammad said.

“The Congressional Black Caucus must be engaged to challenge the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, which imposed the initial U.S. sanctions,” argues Mr. Egbuna, a point also raised by Pres. Mugabe during his address to the delegation in 2002.

“Pres. Mugabe is also in the cross-hairs of the West, because he dare challenge the western imperialistic grip on the African continent with programs such as his “Look East Policy,” where he has built trade relations with China, Malaysia, Singapore and both Koreas,” Mr. Egbuna said.