You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Africa Subsaharan
President Obama leads US drive to topple Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe
2009-01-28
President Obama wants a fresh approach to toppling Robert Mugabe and is discussing with aides an unprecedented, US-led diplomatic push to get tough new UN sanctions imposed against the Zimbabwe regime, The Times has learned.

During talks Mr Obama has had with his top Africa advisers in recent weeks, the central idea they focused on was taking the issue of Zimbabwe before the UN Security Council, but for the first time to combine such a move with an intense diplomatic effort to persuade Russia and China not to block the initiative.

According to a senior aide present at the discussions, the goal of taking the issue of Zimbabwe to the Security Council would be to pass a series of "strong" sanctions, including a ban on arms sales and foreign investment. They also want to expand significantly the number of ruling Zanu-PF party officials subject to sanctions.

Last July, after Mr Mugabe was accused of rigging the elections to stay in power, China and Russia, who have significant financial interests in Zimbabwe, vetoed moves to impose UN sanctions. Mr Obama and his aides believe that, with the growing international outcry over conditions there and the devastating loss of life from the cholera outbreak, Beijing and Moscow can now be persuaded at the very least to abstain when the issue of sanctions comes to another vote.
Posted by:Fred

#16  What could possibly motivate a newly elected President or anyone else for that matter, to jump into a pot like this on his first week in office...?

If you're trying to show the world you've hit the deck-plates running, you do stuff like this. Basically it's "make a list of everything Bush did or didn't do, then start doing the opposite".
Posted by: Pappy   2009-01-28 21:27  

#15  CNN was repor on unrest in MADGASCAR this AM.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2009-01-28 19:43  

#14  Can any of you honestly say you would NOT have praised the decision to get rid of of mugabe *spit*, if it had been made by President Bush?


I can honestly say that I would have been against it. If we get involved in overthrowing governments then we assume responsibility for the aftermath. I don't think we have the ability to put in a stable government without a long term commitment of troops and I'm not interested in paying to clean up the mess.
Posted by: DoDo   2009-01-28 19:21  

#13  I would not have been praising this decision even if made by Pres. Bush.

It's sucking resources away from much more strategic fronts in the WoT and refocusing them on B.F.Zimbabwe.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2009-01-28 18:54  

#12  Can any of you honestly say you would NOT have praised the decision to get rid of of mugabe *spit*, if it had been made by President Bush?

I don't recall seeing any comments here exhorting Bush to overthrow Mugabe - maybe I'm wrong and there were some, but I don't recall seeing them. Nice though it would be to topple him, it would put good servicemen's lives at risk for little to no national strategic benefit. Mugabe's a problem for Zimbabwe, primarily, and the rest of Africa, secondly. Except for some brave individuals in Zimbabwe, neither of those groups have done much at all to warrant support overthrowing Mugabe - in fact it's been pretty clear that most of his neighbours like the guy (presumably because he makes them look not quite so bad by comparison).
Posted by: Bulldog   2009-01-28 18:18  

#11  This is just another way of draining America's resources, just like the current destruction of the regular budgetary process where all the socialist wish-list programs get first pick at the process and everyone else (including the military budget) gets to fight the entitlements for the leftovers a year or more down the road.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2009-01-28 17:49  

#10  With everything else out there for him to focus on - Zimbabwe, well it seems like a shift in policy to focus more on African issues. Seems to me to be a more ethnic decision than a strategic US interest decision. But then I'm a bit jaded in that we will walk away from Iraq and AQ and give the edge to people that supported, financed, and executed the most lethal strike on US soil in history. For the moment, this president is not even playing on the same field as our enemies. God help us...
Posted by: 49 Pan   2009-01-28 17:23  

#9  With events like these, I generally look for what is NOT being said. What could possibly motivate a newly elected President or anyone else for that matter, to jump into a pot like this on his first week in office...?
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-01-28 16:51  

#8  Can any of you honestly say you would NOT have praised the decision to get rid of of mugabe *spit*, if it had been made by President Bush?

We probably would have. But in the grand scheme of things, I highly doubt we'd be seeing such laudatory phrases as "fresh approach to toppling" had President Bush made the decision.

In any case, the Bush decision was to let Zimbabwe's neighbors handle it, which would have likely been praised had it been also made by a Democrat.

Either way, Bush would have been screwed.

Color us cynical.
Posted by: Pappy   2009-01-28 16:35  

#7  And how much will it cost us to clean up the mess?

And just WHY should America be interested in any way, shape, or fashion in "Cleaning up this mess"?
Posted by: Rednek Jim   2009-01-28 15:30  

#6  I don't have much faith in Obama, but I have to call bs on the above comments. Can any of you honestly say you would NOT have praised the decision to get rid of of mugabe *spit*, if it had been made by President Bush?


Posted by: Dcreeper   2009-01-28 15:12  

#5  While replicating his economic meltdown here at home.
Posted by: mojo   2009-01-28 14:24  

#4  Did he get this idea from watching the latest episodes of "24"???
Posted by: Yosemite Sam   2009-01-28 12:42  

#3  Why doesn't he appoint a special envoy to discuss it with Mugabe? Why are direct negotiaitons appropriate with Iran, but not Zimbabwe?

And how much will it cost us to clean up the mess?
Posted by: DoDo   2009-01-28 11:15  

#2  An example of how lefties love to waste time where no American interests are at stake. If its such a problem,let China and Russia with their "significant financial interests" sort it out.
Posted by: NCMike   2009-01-28 09:00  

#1  Hey China, Russia... I need a WIN in Africa. I'll give you the Panama Canal, GITMO, uranium for Iran, and free gas for Caribbean naval exercises for ten years for........tell'em Rahm, make it happen!
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-01-28 06:56  

00:00