Mugabe: A legal remedy for the removal of a tyrant

1. Please state the grounds for the forceable removal of Mugabe from the position of President of Zimbabwe, particularly given past statements by SADC:

 http://www.sadc.int/news/news_details.php?news_id=927


ON THE POLITICAL SITUATION IN ZIMBABWE
The Extra-ordinary Summit noted and appreciated the briefing by H.E. President Robert G. Mugabe on the current political developments in Zimbabwe.

The Extra-Ordinary Summit recalled that free, fair and democratic Presidential elections were held in 2002 in Zimbabwe.

The Extra-Ordinary Summit reaffirmed its solidarity with the Government and people of Zimbabwe.

The Extra-Ordinary Summit mandated H.E President Thabo Mbeki to continue to facilitate dialogue between the opposition and the Government and report back to the Troika on the progress. The Extra-Ordinary Summit also encouraged enhanced diplomatic contacts which will assist with the resolution of the situation in Zimbabwe.

The Extra-Ordinary Summit mandated the SADC Executive Secretary to undertake a study on the economic situation in Zimbabwe and propose measures on how SADC can assist Zimbabwe recover economically.

The Extra-Ordinary Summit reiterated the appeal to Britain to honour its compensation obligations with regard to land reform made at the Lancaster House.

The Extra-Ordinary Summit appealed for the lifting of all forms of sanctions against Zimbabwe.

These grounds should be more than unsubstantiated allegations by opposition financed by the West.

2. Please state why Mugabe rather than any other African leader should be forceably removed.

why is this colonial shit giving some supposed 'legal' justification for the uk to invade yet another nation. fuck you and your laws.

But I reckon you've overlooked the Lancaster House Agreement which allowed for Zimbabwe Rhodesia to become Zimbabwe. The previous interim state of Zimbabwe Rhodesia is thus the legal precedent. & it appears from a quick and perfunctory search of the FCO archive and Hansard archive of the UK parliament that most debate on legal avenues open to diplomatic pressure discussed at that level have kicked off from that agreement.

But like you're the expert.
are you pro-human? we need experts on the pro-human side.

You can read the agreement here :-
www.zwnews.com/Lancasterhouse.doc

THis is the british talking. The same brits armed Suharto in his war on ESt timor, backed Idi Amin and protected Pinochet:


'Recently declassified Foreign & Commonwealth Office files in London offer a telling insight into the sheepish, yet cunning way Britain responded to Idi Amin's 1971 coup. In this month's "Tales from the Archives", Carina Ray uncovers the scathing indictments made by pan-African giants, such as Julius Nyerere and Kenneth Kaunda, of the motives behind Britain's recognition of Amin's government.

News of Idi Amin's coup in Uganda which overthrew the democratically-elected government of President Milton Obote on 25 January 1971 was welcomed by officials in Britain's Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) because they felt British interests stood a better chance under Amin.


In a memorandum written two days after the coup, Horace Smedley, an FCO analyst, told his superior, Lord Lothian: "We have no cause to shed tears on Dr Obote's departure. But we should not delude ourselves that Uganda will be much better run under the successor government. Amin is corrupt and unintelligent... One point on which we should benefit is the position of private enterprise. The programme of socialisation was very much Obote's own."

To this end, Smedley noted that "British interests require that we should be in a position to deploy our influence as soon as possible after a government is formed."

The British, however, found themselves in a precarious position with regards to how soon they could begin exerting their "influence" on Amin. In a meeting with his cabinet, the Conservative prime minister Edward Heath, while hoping to recognise Amin's regime "as quickly as possible", voiced his awareness "of the arguments for not rushing in so fast that it looked as though we had been responsible for the army takeover."

The British hoped that several leading African nations would take the plunge first so that they could simply fall in line with "African opinion". Once this had happened, the Brits were fully prepared to assume normal relations with Amin; in fact so eager were they that No. 10 Downing Street did not "want to make democratic moves by General Amin a condition of [their] recognition".
 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5391/is_200606/ai_n21392722

This was precisely the point I was making.

The pretext for invading Iraq was monstrous. The legal grounds for intervening in Zimbabwe are considerably stronger. If intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan or Sierra Leone was justified, why not Zimbabwe? There is surely a lack of even handedness here.

No. I don't advocate an invasion of Zimbabwe (at least, not especially) though it is now certain that Mugabe will only be removed by violent means and it might be thought that a military intervention by a third party might be a swifter means of resolution than a long and drawn out civil war, though again, the experience in Iraq and Afghanistan shows otherwise. I have merely indicated the legal argument that might be plausibly used.

The comment regarding the Lancaster House agreement was a good point, but the powers contained under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979 could still be exercised. It is immaterial that the country is now called Zimbabwe instead of Southern Rhodesia.

Of course the flaw in any such argument about relying on these powers is that Zimbabwe is now clearly a sovereign state in its own right and yet another military intervention without a UN Security Council resolution (which would never be forthcoming) would now be unthinkable.

Personally, I think Mugabe did have a valid point when he decided that ownership of 70% of Zimbabwe's best land by less than 1% of the population was an injust heritage of colonialism that demanded reform. But the way in which change was implemented was wholly contrary to the rule of law. Sadly, Mugabe has become yet another post-colonial African despot and it is time he went.

The oppressed majority in Zimbabwe need something a lot more tangible from the international community than a lot of hand-wringing platitudes about democracy and the rule of law.

I'm quite chuffed indeed. So like a man who has previously wallowed in the abject marginalisation of those who only ever get to sit and watch or listen to others decide what to talk about - I lean forward, moist my lips, clear my throat and thus years of pent-up frustration fall away like the scales from a freshly cured blind person from the bible or other religious texts noted for faith healing or opthalmic surgery.

Is it not true that under both the UK's constitution and International law, the last agreement or treaty on sovreignity issues is the starter and all previous are held to be beyond further prorogation? Thus with the passing of "the Constitution of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia (Amendment) (No. 4) Act 1979", HMG United Kingdom resumed the governance of the colony under the direct control of the Governor under the name of Southern Rhodesia, not only did HMG UK satisfy international law and end the de jure illegal Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) under the name "Rhodesia" , but HMG UK also saw the name changed and gave
clear commitments to all parties and under both international law and the UK constitution to a process of full independence which ended in the Lancaster House agreement.

Thus since the 25th of August 1980 as a member state of the UN, Zimbabwe has been an independent and sovreign state.

You can't really sentimentally speak today of the possibilities afforded by the Treaty of Troyes which gave Henry "two fingers" V the opportunity of a ruck at Agincourt to guarantee his crown of France, as offering the modern Briton the possiblity of legally extending democracy to Marseilles in a way which would satisfy more legal types than the occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan.

can you?

But for many years people have taken to the pages of the right wing magazine "The Spectator" to write (I suspect as they foam at the mouth) that as far as they are concerned the whole British Empire still exists and not a clause of writ, bill, treaty or agreement should be paid heed to. These types of people almost always used to mention Ireland prefixed with "southern" and wistfully refer to Poynings law of 1494 - I'm so surprised they never dug out the Treaty of Troyes.

So - really - your arguments are silly. hope nobody paid you a lot per hour for those.

I refer those who wrote comments to this piece to the following article:

We've done enough damage. All we can do is send food

Mugabe has a point on imperialism. Britain has no option but to sit
out the Zimbabwean tragedy, impotent on the sidelines

by Simon Jenkins
The Guardian
Date: Wednesday June 25, 2008
Ref: www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/25/zimbabwe.foreignpolicy

1. 'The legal grounds for intervening in Zimbabwe are considerably stronger. If intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan or Sierra Leone was justified, why not Zimbabwe? There is surely a lack of even handedness here.'

Sick. There are no legal grounds to invade any country UNLESS it represents an immediate threat, or you have UN SEC COUNCIL approval.,...You have neither.

You are also ignoring the effect an invasion would do like KILL thousands of people. But your not worried about that are u

2, ' It is immaterial that the country is now called Zimbabwe instead of Southern Rhodesia.'

Actually it is. Zimbabwe is a democracy Rhodesia was not.

3, 'Sadly, Mugabe has become yet another post-colonial African despot and it is time he wen'

repeat a lie often enough and people will begin to believe.

WHEN did Mugabe become a despot? Before or after he was knighted?

4. 'The oppressed majority in Zimbabwe need something a lot more tangible from the international community than a lot of hand-wringing platitudes about democracy and the rule of law.''

Noone is repressed, here is a story that will show you the police actualy aiding the MDC-M :

'POLICE intervened at the weekend to avert violent clashes between rival factions of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).

There was tension in Chitungwiza as former student leader Arthur Mutambara, now leading a rival faction, addressed a public rally.

As Mutambara addressed cheering supporters, a group of activists who support the other faction leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, appeared in the distance, cheering and singing.

Mutambara's supporters charged towards them, but police intervened to avert potential clashes.

In a statement Monday, a spokesman for Mutambara's faction accused Tsvangirai's group of "hiring thugs" to disrupt their rally.

"MDC would like to express its gratitude to the police for taking swift action to defuse the situation. We also wish to thank our supporters for staying calm in spite of the blatant and unprovoked attack by Tsvangirai's hired thugs," the spokesman said.

The spokesman said 5000 people attended the rally.

The MDC has split into two, and both factions claim to be the legitimate group. Efforts to reconcile the two, or get an "amicable divorce" appear to be floundering which could drag the fight over the party name to the Zimbabwe courts.

 http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/senate166.13964.html

So the rule of law is an imediment to you....andyou prefer a manly invasion.Sure, if you can guarantee it will kill nooone.

Then you'd send British armed forces in to remove him.

After all of his speeches denouncing the Imperialist nation of Great Britain, what better way to prove him right than for that country to try and forcibly remove him.

Mugabe still has a fair amount of support in Zimbabwe.

Can the same thing be said for it's former Colonial master?