- Amnesty International report brands Libya's militias 'out of control'
- Obama proposes bringing jobs home from overseas. Would his plan work?
- Obama's NASA budget: Mars takes a hit, but space science isn't dead
- Payroll tax deal close: Why did Republicans back down? (+video)
- Israel says Bangkok, Delhi, and Tbilisi attacks all linked – to Iran
- Rick Santorum's new machine-gun ad: Will it work? (+video)
- Honduras prison fire kills more than 300, highlights regional problem (+video)
- Angry Birds joins Facebook in bid to reach 800 million users
Western and African leaders at odds over Zimbabwe
Commonwealth representatives met in London yesterday to discuss sanctions.
Flipping between the local and foreign TV channels after Zimbabwe's elections last week, one may have wondered if the newscasters were discussing the same event. "We have been congratulated by all our African neighbors for our upstanding election," said the smiling host of Zimbabwe TV's national morning show.
A mere channel zap away, a British correspondent her network barred from entering the country by the government was standing at a sweltering border-crossing reading a list of severe polling irregularities, which, she stated, rendered the election unacceptable.
Most of the Western world has condemned Zimbabwe's recent election. The United States refuses to recognize the result; Denmark has closed its Embassy in Harare; Australia, Britain, and Canada skipped President Robert Mugabe's inauguration ceremony; and the European Union is discussing tougher sanctions on the regime.
Most of the governments of this continent, however, are too busy applauding to take much note.
Explaining the differences between the Western and African reactions to the election solely in terms of different standards of democracy, most observers say, is facile and even condescending. Rather, they argue, it is instructive to look at some of the concrete considerations that effected the African stand from political expediency to style, from contrariness toward the West to various forms of solidarity.
"Ordinary Africans do not have different or lower standards than Europeans or Americans," says Robert Rotberg, director of Harvard University's Program on Intrastate Conflict. "They know full well what honesty and integrity mean. But their leaders often act differently, out of solidarity with their fellow heads of state, however evil."
South African President Thabo Mbeki the African leader most affected by the dire economic and politically inflammable situation in Zimbabwe, and potentially most influential in its resolution seems to be caught between the Western stance and the African one.
Both Mr. Mbeki and Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo have been circumspect in their comments on the elections. They met with Mr. Mugabe Monday, and have resisted international pressure to publicly criticize their colleague. They hoped to broker a resolution, but unsuccessfully lobbied Zimbabwe's opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, to join Mugabe in a coalition government.
Yesterday in London, Mbeki and Mr. Obasanjo met with Australian Prime Minister John Howard to discuss whether Zimbabwe should be sanctioned or even suspended from the commonwealth, though it appears that the African leaders favor less drastic measures.
The solidarity shown by most African leaders has many causes. There is a simple respect for elders in Africa, and a respect for strength for those like Mugabe who have ruled for 22 years. Analysts attribute this to the "glass-house syndrome" a fraternity between elderly, long-term rulers, none of whom is keen to have his own democratic inconsistencies exposed.
Page: 1 | 2 



