British Government Cannot be Arbiter of Zimbabwe Election Result

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

British Government Cannot be Arbiter of Zimbabwe Election Result

Editorial:
Foreign Secretary’s Statements on Zimbabwe: Obscuring Content in Favour of Process

Sunderland Medical Secretaries Strike

Women and Children among 14 Killed in Operation Anaconda Strike

Yemen: US Deployment of Military "Advisors"

Yesterday it was announced that Robert Mugabe had been declared the winner of the Zimbabwean presidential elections, polling 54% of votes cast. His closest rival Morgan Tsvangirai received 40% of the votes cast. It is reported that Zimbabwe’s Information Minister, Jonathan Moyo, said of the result, "It is a wonderful result for Zimbabwe and Africans, a reaffirmation of African dignity and independence in the face of the attempts of the likes of Tony Blair to recolonise us." Zimbabwe’s Minister of Justice, Patrick Chinamasa, stated that Mugabe’s victory gave the government a firm mandate to pursue "the objectives of the liberation war" and was a vindication of its policy of land redistribution, which has been opposed by the British government.

The British government reacted to the news of the election results in Zimbabwe by condemning the government of that country for what the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, called "a systematic campaign of violence and intimidation designed to achieve one outcome: power at all costs". On Tuesday in Parliament, even before the results of the election in Zimbabwe were known, Jack Straw declared that they were not "free and fair", stated that if President Mugabe was re-elected "the election is stolen", and issued threats of further action to be taken against the government of Zimbabwe by Britain and "those who hold dear the cause of democracy in Africa". The US government also condemned the elections as "fundamentally flawed". It predicted that for the people of Zimbabwe "the worst may still be ahead" and added that "Zimbabwe and the region cannot return to business as usual".

In opposition to the views of the British government and its allies it is reported that already several African countries that sent their own teams of observers to the elections in Zimbabwe have presented their views. The Southern African Development Community (SADC) observer mission, one of the largest and most significant delegations, issued an interim report which concluded that because of the "climate of insecurity" in Zimbabwe during the last two years the electoral process in Zimbabwe could not be said to "adequately comply" with the SADC election norms and standards. But in its major recommendations the SADC mission called for the political leadership of the country to unite to solve the country’s problems and declared, "It is evident to us that elections may not in themselves be a panacea to Zimbabwe’s complex situation of political conflict." The leader of the South African Observer Mission said that that the election should be considered legitimate, while a team of 16 Nigerian observers reported that it had "recorded no incidence that was sufficient to threaten the integrity and outcome of the election, in areas monitored by the team". An observer team from the Organisation of African Unity is reported to have said that in general the elections were "transparent, credible, free and fair" and to have condemned the international media for its inaccurate reporting of events in Zimbabwe. Observers from Namibia are also reported to have said that Mugabe’s re-election was legitimate, a view echoed by other African countries including Kenya and Tanzania.

The Foreign Secretary is due to make a full statement on Zimbabwe’s election results today, but it is already evident that despite the growing opposition to their continual interference Britain, together with the US and some of the countries of the EU, wish to be able to dictate not only who the people of Zimbabwe elect to office but also the means by which they do so. They are taking the lead in what they hope will be international condemnation of the election process, the government of Zimbabwe and its newly re-elected president. They are attempting to provide the justification for further intervention in Zimbabwe and elsewhere in Africa. And they are demanding that only their Eurocentric values and political institutions, those that further the interests of the big monopolies and financial institutions in Africa and throughout the world, are acceptable, that only they are the arbiters of what can be considered "democratic".

The British government, together with others and in conjunction with the prevailing mass media, has been intent on making an issue of the election in Zimbabwe. One can come to the conclusion that the government wants to make a point, that it has some vested interest in the outcome.

Commenting on the outcome of the Presidential elections in Zimbabwe, Jack Straw said:

"For months the Government of Zimbabwe has conducted a systematic campaign of violence and intimidation designed to achieve one outcome: power at all costs. It is no surprise that this outcome has now been achieved.

"If President Mugabe had been fully confident of popular support, he would not have prevented voters from registering, instructed the police to break up rallies, had the leader of the opposition arrested, and reduced the number of polling stations in opposition strongholds."

There is much to indicate that this is a very one-sided picture. However, notwithstanding this fact, the point that is obscured it this: what is the content of the democracy established in Zimbabwe?

If one were to make an issue about general elections in Britain (and of course the head of state to which the government and MPs swear loyalty and derive their authority is a hereditary post), and say that the massive media coverage of the big parties, the political advertisements which cost a fortune, the marginalisation of independent candidates and small parties, and other factors are all designed to achieve one outcome: power for a "major" party to come to power at all costs – then Jack Straw would not be so pleased or so convinced.

There was a struggle in Britain to get "free and fair" elections which was waged throughout especially the 19th century and into the 20th century. Rotten boroughs, property qualifications and so on – which represented both the corruption but particularly the conception that only certain men of property were endowed with the right to vote – were fought against in order to achieve universal suffrage. In the course of this, parties as electoral machines were forged and perfected. The main point of the parties as electoral machines was to usurp the right of the people to come to power, to be the decision-makers, to share power with their chosen representatives. The content has been to disempower the people. Now the process of "free and fair" elections is the a spurious yardstick to impose on supposedly uncivilised countries in other parts of the world, a battering ram to condemn all the peoples and countries that take a stand against Eurocentric and Anglo-American values. It has also become a means to maintain the status quo in Britain against the interests of the working class and people and to block the progress of society.

The means by which the Labour Party would like to cling to "power at all costs" may be different, have the veneer of "Western civilisation" upon them, but Jack Straw betrays himself in talking in this way, for "power at all costs" is how he sees the outcome of the political process. New Labour’s aim is not for an informed electorate, and an informed vote of that electorate for candidates which they have participated in selecting themselves.

"Sort out the process and then democracy will be guaranteed," is what Jack Straw is saying, completely obscuring the question of the content of that democracy. Rather the issue is that first of all the content of the democracy – for whom? who decides? – must be settled and then the processes renewed or brought into line, correlated with this content.

The working class must not allow itself to be taken in with the anti-Zimbabwean propaganda from the government about violence and intimidation. The fact is that Britain has openly intervened and has been instrumental in stirring up unrest in the first place, as well as refusing to carry out its elementary responsibilities to compensate for its period of colonial rule in the former Rhodesia. The Zimbabwean people must be allowed to run their own affairs without outside interference. But the working class and people in Britain must also not be hoodwinked by the emphasis on process by Jack Straw and Tony Blair, and must continue the fight for their own democratic rights and a democracy which serves their interests.

Medical secretaries employed by the City of Sunderland Hospitals NHS Trust warned on March 12 that patients face worsening disruption as the secretaries started a four-day strike. Around 136 of its 143 staff on strike are on the picket lines outside the hospital. They voted to continue their action next week with four more days of stoppages, unless a pay deal can be struck soon.

Medical secretaries are demanding a change in pay scale, equal to around £1,100 on a typical salary of £13,000, with City Hospitals Sunderland Trust offering around £500 less. They want recognition for the way that the workload has increased over the last 10 years. The Trust would only say discussions with the unions were continuing and disruption to patients was being kept to a minimum. Union leaders said pre-arranged clinics were going ahead at the moment but they would become harder to organise the longer secretaries remain on strike.

Liz Twist, regional head of health at UNISON, said: "Sunderland's medical secretaries have been heartened by the warmth of support shown by patients and the public and they are determined to persuade the Sunderland Trust management that their claim for regrading cannot be ignored."

The disruption looks likely to spread across the North-East, with strike ballot papers due to go out to secretaries at South Tyneside Healthcare and South Durham Healthcare Trusts at the end of this week.

Newcastle Hospitals Trust is expected to be given notice of a strike ballot this week and talks are planned at the University Hospital of North Durham.

Medical secretaries in Northumberland and North Tyneside abandoned plans for strike action after reaching agreement with Northumbria Healthcare Trust. The Trust, which includes the North Tyneside area, has agreed to their 150 employees' demands.

UNISON regional officer Trevor Johnston said: "There is absolute, total support for the strike. Every single one is out and they are all on the picket lines. We are providing cover in areas where it might be a life or death situation like crucial cancer areas. They are trying to cover some of the jobs with senior clinical nurses and there are tales of the post being opened by the director of finance. This trust is spending all their energies on circumnavigating the strike rather than sorting it out. They can't sustain this level. These people are going to have to go back and do their own work. Clinics are not being cancelled at the moment but if the action goes on they undoubtedly will be. Clinics and surgeries are pre-booked but if the action continues that won't be happening and it will start to have much more of an effect."

The US military says American fighter jets attacked a vehicle in eastern Afghanistan on March 6, killing 14 people, including women and children. A wounded child was taken to a military hospital and is in stable condition. A Central Command spokesman says it has not been determined whether all 15 people were civilians.

The vehicle was attacked by two US fighters after it was spotted leaving what the US commander described as a compound known to be used by al-Qaida members. He says it was located near Shikin, in Paktia province, near the Pakistan border. Asked why the incident was not disclosed earlier, the commander said US military officials needed time to piece together what happened before making the announcement.

Most of the dead were men, but some were women and children, Central Command said. It is not more precise about how many were women and children. "The Shikin area is a suspected sanctuary for the al-Qaida and Taleban and the personnel in this vehicle were believed to be linked to al-Qaida activities," Central Command's statement said.

Operation Anaconda, as part of which assault the women and children were killed, signals the beginning of a new phase of the US-led war in Afghanistan. Militarily, Operation Anaconda shows the US is resorting to ever more desperate measures in response to the opposition of the Afghan fighters to the annexation of their country. The number of air strikes shows that the battle is becoming ever more fierce and the Anglo-US and ISAF forces have not ensured that the war in Afghanistan meets with victory for Anglo-US imperialism.

But Operation Anaconda is resulting in hundreds of deaths of what the US command claims al Qaida fighters. Islamic news agencies, however, are claiming that the operation has been a failure: They say only a few dozen militants holed up in snowy mountain caves have been killed and that US losses have been significantly higher than the eight dead and 40 wounded that officials have acknowledged.

Because journalists do not have access to the battle area in the eastern Afghan province of Paktia, Western media have mostly cited Pentagon sources. However, it is clear that US forces are attacking and killing innocent Afghan people. On December 20, for example, the US blitz of a convoy of Paktia's elders killed about 65 people.

Commentators are speculating that Operation Anaconda signals the beginning of a protracted guerrilla war that could also affect Washington's timeline for the "war against terrorism" in other parts of the world.

A group of US military officials arrived in Yemen on March 13 to pave the way for US Special Forces to train local troops battling a terrorist cell linked to the Al-Qaida network, according to news agency reports.

Yemeni officials have said they would like the US to train 2,000 local military personnel. Yemen also wants boats, other equipment and help in building a new naval training facility in Aden to bolster security along the country's 1,500-mile coastline.

The US plans to deploy approximately 100 soldiers in Yemen. But strong opposition to the presence of US forces in the country remains, and commentators point out that the mission may trigger a surge in attacks against US assets and personnel. President Ali Abdallah Salih's decision to permit greater US involvement in domestic military operations may prompt opponents to resort to violence against US assets and personnel in the coming months.

The deployment marks a significant escalation in military relations between Yemen and the US. For years, Washington has conducted limited training missions for Yemeni troops, as part the International Military Education and Training assistance programme. However, the US wants to expand its presence in Yemen for several reasons. Washington hopes, for example, to build a Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) facility on the Yemeni island of Socotra and secure access to strategic sea lanes in the Red and Arabian seas.