Things in Zimbabwe are at a stalemate.

Morgan Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) have won a parliamentary majority, but we still await the release of the Presidential election results.

And whilst we wait, post-election violence has already claimed the lives of 20 MDC supporters. The violence is reportedly caused by pro-Mugabe militia, police and army together with war veterans.

And that violence is set to continue.

Morgan Tsvangirai had asked if the United Nations (UN) would only consider intervention once there are dead bodies in the streets.

Are the deaths not enough to energise some sort of intervention? Or does the UN need more encouragement - in the form of even more dead bodies in Zimbabwe?

The MDC has made representation to the United Nations for urgent intervention, and this has been blocked by the holder of the chairmanship of the Security Council, South Africa.

I thought it relevant to look at the aims of the United Nations.

The charter of the UN states that it: “deals with peaceful settlement of disputes. It requires countries with disputes that could lead to war to first of all try to seek solutions through peaceful methods such as negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.” If these methods of alternative dispute resolution fail, then they must refer it to the UN Security Council. Under Article 35, any country is allowed to bring a dispute to the attention of the UN Security Council or the General Assembly. This chapter authorizes the Security Council to issue recommendations but does not give it power to make binding resolutions; those provisions are contained Chapter VII. Chapter VI is analogous to Articles 13-15 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which provide for arbitration and for submission of matters to the Council that are not submitted to arbitration.”

Mediation has been tried and it has failed.

And the African Union has a similar Peace & Security Council mandate: “Proposed at the Lusaka Summit in 2001 and established in 2004 under a protocol to the Constitutive Act adopted by the AU Assembly in July 2002. The protocol defines the PSC as a collective security and early warning arrangement to facilitate timely and effective response to conflict and crisis situations in Africa. Other responsibilities conferred to the PSC by the protocol include prevention, management and resolution of conflicts, post-conflict peace building and developing common defence policies. The PSC has fifteen members elected on a regional basis by the Assembly.”

So - we now wonder why the alarm bells are not ringing in the UN and AU offices and why there are not at least some preparatory activities being carried out with the intention of resolving the Zimbabwean stalemate?

I ask whether lives in Zimbabwe are worth less than those in the Darfur, Kenya, Afghanistan or Iraq? I ask if African lives are not worth as much as lives that are lost elsewhere in the world - and the response I get is a resounding silence.

And I find it very strange that the blocking or intervention in Zimbabwe is headed by not only an African country, but one that is bordered with Zimbabwe and one that is affected by the crisis there.

More than that, the United Nations has issued a statement claiming that the violence in Zimbabwe is started, instigated and perpetrated by the Movement for Democratic change.

I am unsure how he has done it, but Mugabe has managed to get the support of the region and managed to convince the United Nations that he is the innocent party.

And in the meantime, he hangs on to power without the popular mandate, and rules the country with the re-appointed cabinet consisting of people who lost their parliamentary seats.

Now I ask, would the United Nations getting involved in the political melee in Zimbabwe be intervention or interference?

Robb WJ Ellis
The Bearded Man