Eliza Margarita Bates and Cara Zwerling

Posted September 15, 2008 | 10:50 AM (EST)

McCain, Obama on International Diplomacy and Immigration

Over the course of this week, OffTheBus will be running a primer on some of the most important foreign policy issues the next president will face. The primer will act as a guide to how candidates Barack Obama and John McCain stand on each issue. Check out the links for more information on these issues. Today, the primer looks at where Obama and McCain stand on international diplomacy and immigration.

Read more on the Huffington Post or here after the jump.

International Diplomacy: Barack Obama

Barack Obama has pledged to make the renewal of American Diplomacy a hallmark of his foreign policy platform. From his widely discussed (and roundly mocked) vow to engage our enemies in conversation to his less discussed and perhaps more monumental pledge to swell the ranks of our Foreign Service, PeaceCorps and AmeriCorps volunteers, Barack Obama has put diplomatic conversation back on the foreign policy map.

And what better way to talk about talking than to discuss his views on the United Nations.

In his article in Foreign Affairs magazine, Barack Obama highlighted some of the major issues facing the United Nations, a body that he insists “requires far-reaching reform.” He asserted that “the U.N. Secretariat’s management practices remain weak [and] peacekeeping operations are overextended.” He also expressed criticism of the new U.N. Human Rights Council, which, he argued, spends a disproportionate amount of time disparaging Israel while ignoring issues in the rest of the world.

In spite of the need for change at the U.N., Mr. Obama has pledged to renew the U.S. commitment to the international body because “none of these problems will be solved unless America rededicates itself to the organization and its mission.”

Obama has also weighed in on two contentious U.N. issues – payment of dues and Security Council reform. Regarding dues, Obama has stated unequivocally that he “will insist that Congress provide funds to pay our dues on time, in full, and without improper conditions.” On the increasingly topical subject of U.N. Security Council reform, Obama has stated that “The Security Council’s structure and composition are not reflective of 21st Century realities ” and that as President he would consider proposals to increase global representation of the body while “maintaining the US veto.”

If working towards U.N. reform really is Mr. Obama’s goal, he may have a willing ally. The current Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, has also called for substantive change at the international body, and was recently overheard complaining about the lack of progress in that direction during the first year of his tenure. If the U.N. is ever to live up to its potential, the combination of a reform minded Secretary-General and an engaged U.S. president could prove a winning combination.

International Diplomacy: John McCain

John McCain has pledged to leave the days of Bush unilateralism behind. He argues that the “United States cannot lead by virtue of its power alone” that “we must also lead by attracting others to our cause” and that we must “be a good and reliable ally.”

He has stated that Russia should be replaced in the G8 by India and Brazil and that the Security Council should be enlarged giving Japan and Brazil permanent seats.

Security Council enlargement is code generally for increased international representation. But for John McCain it means stacking the decks in our favor. And why not? Russia is flexing its muscles. China is on the rise. Apparently we are headed for a new Cold War.

After years of cooperation and productivity, the Security Council is once again deadlocking. Georgia. Zimbabwe. Kosovo. Sudan. Burma. Try as it might, the Security Council is having a hard time finding common purpose these days. In the heat of this summer’s political crisis in Zimbabwe, the U.S. and its western allies put forth a Security Council resolution against the Mugabe regime. Their efforts were greeted with the Security Council’s loudest boo – a China/Russia double veto. It was only the second time a double veto had been cast since 1972. The other time was last year.

To combat the new post-post-Cold War split, John McCain has proposed the creation of a League of Democracies that “would not supplant the UN or other international organizations but complement them by harnessing the political and moral advantages offered by united democratic action.” In a speech at the Los Angeles World Affairs Council in March of this year, John McCain laid out his plan to create a new international organization “that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.”

In theory, it sounds like a good idea. If we can’t play well with Russia or China (or Venezuela, or Libya, or Iran or…), perhaps we should throw a new party and forget to invite them.

But as Foreign Policy magazine notes in its 10 worst ideas article, it doesn’t really work that way. For starters, who would we invite? Democracies are such fickle creatures. As Fareed Zakaria notes, there is that pesky issue that not all democracies are liberal. And what about countries like Bolivia or Nicaragua? Democracies, yes. Allies of the U.S.? Heck, no.

This brings us back to where we began. Although Russia and China cast the death blows against the Zimbabwe resolution, the mastermind behind the execution was South Africa. As part of the Security Council and the African Union, South Africa – the most powerful democracy in Africa – was able to stack the decks in favor of its friend Mr. Mugabe.

Democracy can be a fickle friend. Perhaps it’s better to stick with the devil you know.

Immigration: John McCain

John McCain is a maverick on immigration. True or False?

One thing is true – back in 2006, John McCain could rightfully be called a maverick on immigration.

Back then McCain took a well publicized stand against the loudest loonies of his party to propose bipartisan legislation towards comprehensive immigration reform. The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (S. 1033), co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy (D-MA), proposed to both give illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship and to boost security at the U.S.-Mexico border. It was a balanced piece of legislation that McCain argued would “bring common sense to the current system and promote our national security interests” by strengthening border security and providing “sufficient legal channels to pair willing workers with willing employers”.

The move was highly unpopular within McCain’s own party and nearly cost him the nomination. But one can only assume that McCain actually meant it.

Fast forward to today and take a quick glance at McCain’s website. All traces of Mr. Maverick are gone. McCain’s new immigration mantra is “Secure the Borders First.” His plan highlights security schemes and punitive measures. It gives a nod to the need for reform at the very bottom of the page, but it does not elaborate. It is clear that his priorities have shifted. In stark contrast to his original immigration proposal, McCain’s current set of ideas is reactionary and essentially ignores that there are very real roots to the problem of illegal immigration that need to be addressed.

It is hard to grasp what McCain really believes on the issue of immigration or how he would react as President. When does a flip-flop constitute a change in position as McCain asserts, and when is it merely pandering? If McCain wins and sticks to his one-term pledge, it will be interesting to see which of his two immigration personas takes office.

Immigration: Barack Obama

Barack Obama has remained relatively consistent in his position vis-à-vis immigration from his early days in Illinois politics through his latest statements. His basic themes are thus: Make it easier for people to come here legally, make it harder for those who choose to bypass the system and create a path to citizenship for those who have already crossed the border and made a life for themselves here. And do all this while keeping us safe.

Barack Obama has repeatedly called for a reform of our current immigration system. He argues that our system is too slow in processing background checks, is prohibitively expensive for those “who have good character, but don’t have the money” and does not allow for the needs of businesses to bring in workers legally.

He supports creating a clear path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and has pledged that he will “not support any bill that does not provide this earned path to citizenship for the undocumented population.”

Obama also supports giving undocumented immigrants access to driver licenses and insurance. He has held this position since his time in the Illinois State Senate and reiterated those sentiments in a 2007 primary debate in Las Vegas. He notes that “illegal immigrants don’t come here to drive, they come here to work” and that extending access to licenses and insurance is a public safety issue.

Obama consistently repeats the need for stronger border security, and he voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006″ (H.R.6061) which called for reinforced fencing along the border with Mexico.

Although many of his positions are widely known and are searchable through senate record databases, Obama’s website is thinly populated with immigration related information. Obama has not tried to sugar coat his positions for a general election audience, but he has certainly not tried to highlight them either.

In the United States, we often take for granted the peaceful transfers of power that occur between political parties during elections. Peaceful and just elections could be democracy’s most fantastic quality; however, there are plenty of nations that still suffer from bloodshed and turmoil over election results. One is Zimbabwe.

According to a BBC News report from today, despite the agreement between Robert Mugabe of Zanu-PF and Morgan Tsvangirai to meet and negotiate the previous election results, the talks ‘adjourned’ so that negotiators could meet with party leaders. Up to now, neither leader nor party are willing to concede even a little ground–Mugabe unwilling to give up the election victory to Tsvangirai and Tsvangirai unwilling to participate in a Mugabe-run government even with a vice presidency spot.

In this, another and another report, we can see that South African President Thabo Mbeki is determined to portray the meeting as ‘going well’ and has ‘not broken down.’ Unfortunately, if neither faction budges in negotiations, the standstill will simply continue without any progress.

The greatest hope right now for Zimbabwe probably will not be the outcome of the elections–whoever the victor is will have to deal with exorbitant hyperinflation, a crushed economic system and meager hope for recovery. Even Tsvangirai, with his promises for reform and democracy, will likely make little impact on the current state of of Zimbabwe affairs without outside intervention.

So let’s ask ourselves: what are we doing for Zimbabwe right now and is it enough? What Zimbabwe needs right now are social services that can temporarily alleviate the suffering that people feel before long-term reconstruction and reconciliation can occur.

As the New York Times reports, political turmoil has disrupted education and welfare services in Zimbabwe. Teachers and aid workers have become targets for intimidation from the ruling party. Over half of the nonprofit organizations that offered aid to orphans said that they would cut or suspend their assistance. And Bush wants to only strengthen Zimbabwe sanctions? As well as offer a marginal $2.5 million additional for political asylums?

While sanctions seem like a good idea–cutting off money from corrupt businesses–it is only a temporary plug on the water spout. Those businesses are obviously just going to go somewhere else. Namely, Russia or China, both of which refused an international sanction on Zimbabwe in the United Nations.

Even if we do cut off all the revenue for those businesses, all that does is further hinder the Zimbabwean economy because regardless of corruption, they are still some of the largest businesses functioning in Zimbabwe. Instead, we should be focusing on the root of the problem–perhaps, the lack of rule of law? Property rights? Political integrity? I know, I know. Vast problems, but it’s possible to start somewhere. The United States should be taking more proactive approaches in its humanitarian missions.

Bush made a tour of Africa but should have spent more time meeting with leaders to discuss Darfur and Zimbabwe. He should still meet with leaders of African nations regarding humanitarian assistance in Zimbabwe. Neo-colonial fears should not be preventing the United States from taking action. We are really only worsening the current state of Africa by leaving it behind in so many numerous instances.

We should be sending nutritional and medical assistance for displaced persons and refugees that have fled outside of Zimbabwe, whose numbers have rocketed to 250,000 in Bostwana alone. Food relief, temporary shelter, clothing and medicine are absolutely vital so some of their suffering can be assuaged long enough for economic, political and social stability to return to a sufficient extent. E

ven though Mugabe does not allow NGO assistance in his nation, we SHOULD probably be infringing upon national sovereignty because it is not Mugabe’s assertions that should be dictating what we do. EU, Russian and Chinese skepticism of sovereignty infringement is well-founded; however, humanitarian aid should not be a dilemma. Military intervention, I can not see happening, but that would be up for negotiation.

In another case, AIDS is a disease that is endemic in Zimbabwe, plaguing an enormous part of its population. The US could definitely be sending generic antiretroviral drugs to halt the escalation of AIDs, a major problem that further cripples the economy by killing labor productivity and further destroys social and political stability by killing teachers, lawyers, politicians, etc.

There is just a lot more we could do.

Chilling description of what took place in Zimbabwe in Washinton Post:

President Robert Mugabe summoned his top security officials to a government training center near his rural home in central Zimbabwe on the afternoon of March 30. In a voice barely audible at first, he informed the leaders of the state security apparatus that had enforced his rule for 28 years that he had lost the presidential vote held the previous day.

Then Mugabe told the gathering he planned to give up power in a televised speech to the nation the next day, according to the written notes of one participant that were corroborated by two other people with direct knowledge of the meeting.

But Zimbabwe’s military chief, Gen. Constantine Chiwenga, responded that the choice was not Mugabe’s alone to make. According to two firsthand accounts of the meeting, Chiwenga told Mugabe his military would take control of the country to keep him in office or the president could contest a runoff election, directed in the field by senior army officers supervising a military-style campaign against the opposition. Read the rest.

What is revealed in this article has a very simple name: a military coup. Only this coup was not against the ruling president or a democratically elected leader, but against the people of the country who, despite voting for a new president, were not given an opportunity to have their votes actually effect any change.

Who is Constantine Chiwenga? According to The First Post, he is…

Birthplace: Chiweshe.
Family: Wife Jocelyn, several children.
History: Joined Mugabe in Mozambique for the independence struggle, then in 1980 joined the Army, and rose swiftly through the ranks, thanks to ruthless ambition.

Chiwenga was one of the first to raise his hand when Mugabe asked “Who wants a white farm?,” repaying his boss by declaring before the 2002 Presidential election that his forces would accept no outcome other than a Mugabe victory.

Today he remains at the head of the much-politicised Army, and both he and his wife are amongst those barred from travelling to Europe and the US.
Future: Will put up a fight.

P.S. See a great resource Zimbabwe Situation for more information. Also take a look at Zimbabwe Today.

“I am depressed … I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings and corpses and anger and pain … of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer executioners…I have gone to join Ken if I am that lucky.”

Those were the words left in the suicide note of Kevin Carter, the photojournalist who won a Pulitzer Prize for this tragic image.

Carter’s story came back to memory this week as I read Mark MacKinnon’s (Globe and Mail Journalist) moving account of the time he spent in Zimbabwe covering the country’s illegitimate elections. The picture he paints is of a country that has been ravaged by political corruption and the violent unimaginable crimes against humanity. MacKinnon recalls meeting  men who had not eaten for days, and woman and children who had to sleep on the ground in bombed out buildings because of the coutry’s political instability.

And as I read his story, I wondered the same thing I wondered, when I read Carter’s: How do you come face to face with such deep levels of human suffering and not do anything about it?

I do not know if MacKinnon was able to offer any assistance to any of the sufering he met. He does not say in his report. In Carter’s story however, it is said that he shooed the vulture away but did not offer assistance to the girl. It is suggested that his inability to help in this and other similar situations was what led to his subsequent depression and suicide.

This leads to questions like, where does one draw the line between professionalism and humanity? And how hard is it to walk away from suffering knowing that you couldn’t help even if you wanted to? I imagine that these images stay in the mind long after the story is written and the newspaper or magazine has gone into the archives. They are probably experiences that the journalist must carry around forever.

Knowing this has given me a greater respect for the people who bring us these stories of suffering that take place around the world. Undoubtedly, it takes a lot of strength to do the job that they do. Journalism of this type is not for the faint of heart.

In surveying the various blogs on WordPress tonight, I came across a few other blog posts on Zimbabwe, which readers might find to be of interest.

But if you’re interested in Zimbabwe, don’t forget to read my original post on Zimbabwe, which has two videos and good analysis. (click here)

This site (click here) urges readers to send a message to the UN Security Council and its neighbors to pressure Mugabe et al to end the violence.

This site (click here) urges Zimbabweans to boycott Friday’s election in Zimbabwe.

This blogger (click here) asks Mugabe why he needs to hold onto power when he is already 84 years old.

This writer, (click here), hailing from the state of Indiana, provides a brief synopsis and commentary on the situation there.

A pretty extreme left writer on Zimbabwe, but who nevertheless knows more about Zimbabwe than most of us. Seems to support Mugabe against the imperialist West. Interesting for a counter-perspective. (click here)

And, just to prove that racist attitudes about Africa still exist, see this site (click here).

: : : : : : : : : : :

It’s a wise decision, I think, Mugabe and his supporters in power showed that they’re not leaving under any circumstance so whatever was going to take place on June 27th was clearly not a democratic election – with African countries failing at any sort of action against Mugabe and his cronies killing off the opposition leaders, it’s the only right thing to do:

NY Times: ”Conditions as of today do not permit the holding of a credible poll,” Tsvangirai said. ”Given the totality of these circumstances, we believe a credible election is impossible. We can’t ask the people to cast their vote on June 27 when that vote will cost their lives. We will no longer participate in this violent sham of an election.”

Mugabe is old and surely these are his last days, but those who support him now, those who robbed the people of Zimbabwe, those who think that violence and intimidation are the way to rule should probably think twice and look around at, for example, the results of the first round – people want change and they will get it eventually because if we learned anything in the 20th century it is the fact that no power is able to hold on to its position without popular approval.

There are three interesting and important demos coming up:

1. Saturday 21st June – National March against Fascism and Racism – 12pm in Tooley Street, London SE1 (behind the Greater London Assembly building, near Tower Bridge, nearest tube London Bridge), then marching to Trafalgar Square

March and carnival parade against fascism and racism including floats with top artists performing, marching & samba bands and trade union & student union banners. Organised by Love Music Hate Racism (LMHR) and Unite against Fascism (UAF).

2. Sunday 22nd June – Support the Czech Hunger Strikers, No to US Missile Defence – CND Hungerstrike from 8am and Vigil 12-2pm Opposite Downing Street

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) is holding a 24-hour fast opposite Downing Street in support of the Czechs currently holding a hunger strike against the US siting a radar base near Prague as part of its “Star Wars” missile defence plans. The fast will run from 8am on the Sunday to 8am on the Monday.

Kate Hudson and Pat Arrowsmith are both fasting for the full 24 hours.

They are asking supporters to either join Kate and Pat in the hunger strike for the whole period or any part of it, and, particularly to join a solidarity vigil to be held at the same place from noon to 2pm on the Sunday.

A number of leading political and cultural figures have joined a hunger strike in Prague. They are protesting at the Czech government’s continuing negotiations with the US to build a Missile Defence radar near the city. The hunger strike will be organised on a ‘chain’ basis, with people participating for 24 hour slots – the hunger strikers have called an international day of action on Sunday 22nd June to increase pressure on the Czech government.

3. Monday 23rd June – Demonstration for Democracy, Rights and Freedom for Zimbabwe – Outside Zimbabwean Embassy, 429 Strand, London, WC2R OJR from 12.30-2pm

Acton for Southern Africa (ACTSA) and the Trades Union Congress (TUC) are protesting at the actions of the Zimbabwe government towards Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) leaders Lovemore Matombo and Wellington Chibebe.

A demonstration will take place outside the Zimbabwe Embassy in London on Monday 23 June at lunchtime to protest at attempts to silence trade union leaders and the state sponsored violence and intimidation which has intensified since the first round of elections in March.

But this demo has a twist, as Eric Lee of LabourStart explains:

This is one of the most unusual trade union campaigns I’ve ever heard of — and I’m pretty excited by it. Please take a moment and read on.

Many of you will have heard that two leaders of Zimbabwe’s embattled trade union movement were arrested a few weeks ago on charges of ’spreading falsehoods prejudicial to the state’ — in other words, telling the truth.

Next Monday, Lovemore Matombo and Wellington Chibebe, President and General Secretary of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, are going back to court to face charges.

Unions around the world are organizing protests that day at Zimbabwe embassies, and if you can attend or organize such an event that’s great.

But there’s something you can do right now without getting up out of your chair.

The Trades Union Congress here in London is making a giant photo mosaic of Lovemore and Wellington, using pictures of hundreds of their supporters from around the world — and they want to use your photo as one tiny part of it.

They’ll get this printed on a large banner in time for the London demonstration on 23 June, and they’ll make the image available to other international demonstrations and to the media.

Please email a photo of your face to zim@tuc.org.uk

You can read more about this effort here.

This is a last minute campaign, so we need to get your photos in immediately.

<!– ckey=”7DDD6B04″ –>

UK

Labour is coming under yet more heavy criticism of the loss of confidential files on a train.

The Tories are also being vocal on the EU Treaty referendum following Ireland’s rejection on Friday.

David Davis, who resigned as MP this week, is being backed by rebel Labour MPs.

He’s gained the backing of Henry Porter for his move.

And Andrew Rawnsley.

His move provides a key test for Brown and Cameron.

World

Mugabe says that he’ll wage war if he loses.

Robert Fisk discusses the Middle East’s appetite for threats.

FARC is beaten down and reeling from a number of defeats and the desertion of Chavez’s support.

Iran has been warned over further sanctions.

US

McCain’s ‘chilling’ plan for America.

Obama’s been attacking him over energy tax plans.

The New Yorker has a profile of Keith Olbermann.

Naomi Klein comments on Obama.

He’s polling ahead of McCain by four points at the moment.

Across the world too, Obama is currently ahead.

The two are also going to the mat over Hillary’s supporters and those crossover voters.

Will her female supporters go to McCain?

Joseph Nye discusses the soft power Obama would bring as president.

Peggy Noonan discusses what McCain and Obama represent.

Susan Faludi says the gender wars are far from over.

- Alastair Reith

In the past month or so, elections took place in three very different countries, far away from one another, with distinctly different languages, cultures and histories. These countries did have some things in common. All were all poor, third-world countries, whose people live in poverty and oppression, and they all voted against the regimes and systems they currently live under.

Tonga votes against monarchy, for democracy

In the leadup to the Tongan elections, mainstream New Zealand media talked a great deal about how the people of Tonga did not want radical change and did not really want the monarchy to go, and how the pro-democracy candidates were going to get an awful result.

Just as with their predictions in Nepal, they were proved to be completely wrong. In the Tongan elections, pro-democracy candidates won all nine elected seats.

Of the 34 seats in the Tongan parliament, candidates are democratically elected to only nine, with 16 members being appointed directly by the king, and another nine representing “the noble families of the realm”. This is essentially a semi-feudalistic system, with a small minority of nobles and the capitalists linked to them monopolising all power and wealth in the country.

Democratic reforms are due to be implemented in 2010, with the balance of seats being changed to 17 MPs elected by the people, nine MPs to represent the “nobility” and 4 MPs to be appointed by the King.

While this would certainly be a positive move and a step in the right direction, ultimately the King and his nobles have no right to exist. The people of Tonga deserve to live in a nation where everyone is treated equally and nobody lives in great privilege simply due to being born lucky.

Such a society can only come about through completely eradicating not only feudalism but capitalism as well, and moving towards a socialist system.

Zimbabwe votes against Mugabe’s dictatorship, but is the MDC any better?

In Zimbabwe’s parliamentary elections, the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) won 99 seats in the House of Assembly, with Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party winning 97 and the minority MDC faction winning 10.

In the last issue of The Spark we reported that the results of the presidential elections had not yet been released, and fears were growing that the results would be rigged in Mugabe’s favour. The MDC declared that it had won an outright victory.

The results of the recount were released on May 2, with Morgan Tsvangirai of the MDC winning 47.9% of the vote to Mugabe’s 43.2%. As neither of the two main candidates won a majority, a run-off will be held on June 27.

Since the initial elections, ZANU-PF has unleashed a wave of violence against MDC members, with several being killed. Interestingly, government-approved farm occupations have begun again in some areas. This also happened after the 2000 elections, and clearly shows that the farm occupations are not part of any attempt by Mugabe to radically transform Zimbabwe’s economy and transfer land and wealth to the poor, but is rather just an attempt to distract people from his election defeats.

Disturbing reports have also emerged about the actions of the MDC (which advocates neo-liberal, right-wing economic policies). ZANU-PF accuses them of being funded by American and British imperialism, and it would not be at all surprising if this were the case – the US and British have a long history of meddling in Third World politics, and have openly declared their intentions to effect regime change in Zimbabwe¹. There are also unverified reports of foreign NGOs telling voters that if they do not vote for the MDC, food distribution will stop.

Nepal votes for Maoist revolutionaries

In the recent Constituent Assembly elections, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) won 220 out of 575 seats, making them by far the largest party in the Assembly. (The two next biggest, the Nepali Congress and the revisionist (ie claiming to be Marxist, but acting counter-revolutionary) Communist Party of Nepal (UML), won 110 and 103 respectively, making them smaller than the Maoists even when put together!)

The vote for the revolutionary Maoists represents the mass support they enjoy amongst the Nepalese masses, on whose side they fought during the decade-long People’s War. In the course of this struggle the Maoists liberated 80% of the countryside, before changing their tactics in order to move the revolutionary struggle into the urban areas.

The four next-biggest parties agreed on May 24 to back a Maoist-led government. However, there is still a great deal of conflict between the Maoists and the non-revolutionary parties. The Maoists are demanding that, as the largest party, they receive the two biggest portfolios in the government, the posts of Prime Minister and President. They have compromised to agree that the Chairman of the Constituent Assembly could be a non-Maoist.

The Nepal Congress in particular is calling for the Maoists to disband the People’s Liberation Army and the Young Communist League, but the Maoists have rejected this.

After a huge step forward, tensions remain in the new Nepal.

¹ http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/

My Beloved Friends and Family,

I am just letting you know that I am well despite the circumstances in Zimbabwe.  I am resting safe beneath the wings of God and relying on his divine provision.  Meals come my way daily, it seems, and I know that my Father in Heaven is supplying all my needs according to his glorious abundance in Christ Jesus.

The saga of Zimbabwe’s election has reached larger proportions. On Friday, the election commission announced that opposition candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai, had won more votes that incumbent despot Robert Mugabe, but not enough as to not warrant a run-off.

The New York Times reports that the opposition party has denounced the officials for accelerating the release of the results before the opposition had any chance to challenge them.

“They did not verify the results,” Mr. Chamisa said. “They did not give us an opportunity to contest the results. They are waylaying the people’s will. Clearly, this is scandalous.

The opposition rejects the results and has been arguing that they won the necessary 50.3% for Mr. Tsvangirai to become the new president. Following the release of the official results however, they have not made these pronouncements publicly. No date has been set for the run-off election.

So the “elections” in Zimbabwe are heading into a run-off – clearly a move by Mugabe aimed at keeping the power – with “war veterans” harassing the opposition, surrounding countries quietly condoning the bullshit, it’s going to be a great show of democratic power – does anyone still believe that this is a fair election? But then again, Mugabe isn’t in the business of explaining things, is he? Everyone should be thankful that he finally decided to do anything about the situation. The problem now is of course a very serious one: if opposition ignores the run-off, Mugabe “wins” the election, if they participate, then Mugabe’s thugs will intimidate the voters and even if MDC wins again, how’s to say the results will ever see the light of day? So this is a “do-over” election and we all know it’s a mockery of democracy:

HARARE (Reuters) – Zimbabwe’s opposition leader defeated President Robert Mugabe in the presidential election but faces a run-off vote after he failed to win an outright majority, the electoral body said. Movement for Democratic Change leader Morgan Tsvangirai won 47.9 percent of the vote on March 29 and Mugabe took 43.2 percent, said Chief Elections Officer Lovemore Sekeramayi. The result was announced after a verification process by the candidates to check the result, but an opposition MDC spokesman said the announcement was scandalous and described it as “daylight robbery”. He said the party executive would decide on the next move. Read the rest.

I remember in 1990s in Russia people sabotaged elections by voting “Against All” – do they have that option on the Zimbabwe ballots? – Russian goverment since decided to eliminate the option since “Against All” sometimes “won” the elections…