Why Didn’t Jimmy Carter Monitor Zimbabwe Election?
At the recent African Union summit in Egypt, member nations failed to condemn Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s President-for-Life, for stealing the election from opposition candidate Morgan Tsvangirai. The union did pass a resolution “calling for him to negotiate with” the man who bested him in the initial balloting on March 29.
Some say Tsvangirai would have won that election outright, thus not requiring a subsequent runoff; a delay in releasing the final results (showing him winning a plurality, but not with the necessary majority) led many to believe that Mugabe’s government tinkered with the returns.
Because “of violence against his supporters,” Tsvangirai withdrew from the June 27 run-off, allowing Mugabe to win reelection unopposed. Reading that “monitors and much of world opinion” condemned that election “as violent and unfair,” I wondered if Jimmy Carter were one of their number as ever since the American people voted him out of office, he has made it his business to supervise elections around the world. Carter always seems to find them fair even when others find fraud, particularly in elections which keep anti-American leaders as happened in Venezuela four year ago.
The Carter Center did issue a release on May 23 faulting Zimbabwean authorities for preventing the “Zimbabwe Election Support Network (ZESN), a legally established and widely respected citizen rights group” to observe the elections and make sure they comply with the “country’s electoral laws, code of conduct, and international principles for election observation.”
But, Jimmy didn’t make much of an effort to send a team down there. Nor did the former Democratic president raise much of a ruckus when the Zimbabwean government refused to accept observers from his center, the European Union (EU) or from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Parliamentary Forum.
After the elections, Carter did join former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan in calling “on the African Union to appoint a special envoy to mediate talks between Mugabe and the opposition to create a transitional government and prepare for free elections.” Considering that Mugabe did just about everything in his power to prevent the latest elections from being free, it’s unlikely suggestions from former world leaders would do much good.
Current world leaders have made sterner demands with the EU President saying it “would only accept a Zimbabwean government led by Tsvangirai, echoing a Western position that Mugabe was an illegitimate leader.“
Maybe Jimmy didn’t get all agitated about the goings-on in the now-impoverished African nation because he knew Mugabe (the very man responsible for its impoverishment) is no friend of the United States. And he only wants to condemn those nations allied to the nation he once led.
UPDATE: Or maybe Jimmy has been “uncharacteristically silent” (in Philip Terzian’s words) because “it was the Carter State Department, in 1978, that turned its back on the moderate Methodist bishop Abel Muzorewa, who had sought accommodation with Rhodesia’s white settlers, in favor of the charismatic gunman Mugabe.” Might shine the light on the Democrat’s real foreign policy record rather than his current rhetoric.
UP-UPDATE: Â James Kirchick discussed the involvement of the Carter Administration in Mugabe’s rise in this article. Â Read the whole thing; it may help explain Carter’s silence for it serves as yet another example of how on foreign policy alone, that Democrat ranks as the nation’s worst chief executive.
14 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Excellent point!
Why would Jimmah complain? The dictator won. All is right in the world according to Jimmah.
Comment by American Elephant — July 2, 2008 @ 2:06 am - July 2, 2008
Mugabe’s reign of terror may not be for much longer. He’s 84, you know, and no one lives forever.
Comment by Attmay — July 2, 2008 @ 4:59 am - July 2, 2008
As one who was disheartened to see Mugabe steal an election, it came as no surprise that he was not condemned by member nations of African Unity. Who was going to condemn him, champions of free elections such as Mubarek, Qaddafi, or some other dictator?
Comment by Pat — July 2, 2008 @ 9:32 am - July 2, 2008
And people want Jimmy Carter to monitor OUR election in November?
That’s rich.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 2, 2008 @ 10:09 am - July 2, 2008
The question that would really underscore the tragedy for many in Africa is where have Carter and his ilk been for the last quarter century? For many Africans the dreams of personal freedom and economic progress once self rule replaced colonial powers have been dashed.
Years ago, when Zimbabwe was Rhodesia, I strongly objected to the western boycott of Rhodesia because I didn’t think it was really helping the people in that country.
When my wife and I planned a “photo safari” in Africa I wrote Prime Minister Ian Smith (I’m pretty sure that was his name), told him how I felt about the boycott and let him know that we planned to ignore the boycott and spend a few days in Rhodesia. Several weeks before our departure from the United States we received a wire from the prime minister’s office, asking for details about our travel plans.
When we arrived in Rhodesia (I don’t remember the name of the capital city) we were met by an aide to the prime minister, who apologized for the prime minister’s inability to greet us (he was out of the country). We had not expected to be greeted by anyone but were very grateful for the car and driver the government provided for our entire visit.
While we were troubled by some of the things we saw on that visit, I want to say that living under white rule in Rhodesia was paradise compared to what it’s like under the ruthless black dictator in what is now Zimbabwe.
And Zimbabwe isn’t the only African country where the hopes of the people for a better life have been dashed.
Comment by Trace Phelps — July 2, 2008 @ 11:34 am - July 2, 2008
#5 - You’re right, Trace. Let’s not forget Uganda under Idi Amin and Libya under Khadafy.
Not to mention Sierra Leone, Darfur and others on the continent.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 2, 2008 @ 11:47 am - July 2, 2008
All one has to do is say: I’m holding democratic elections, and the world is silent. In truth, Mugabe is a vicious dictator, he never was going to give up power.
At least Queen Elizabeth saw fit to remove his knighthood, and now Germany has stopped sending Zimbabwe blank bank notes on which to print more useless money.
It is obvious that Carter prefers dictators to democratically elected leaders, he is probably sorry he didn’t try some kind of coup to stay in office himself.
Comment by Leah — July 2, 2008 @ 11:55 am - July 2, 2008
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 07/02/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Comment by David M — July 2, 2008 @ 2:14 pm - July 2, 2008
#5: Trace, that is SO weird! I was against the western boycott of Rhodesia too, but when my partner and I traveled there for our “photo safari” and the Prime Minister was a no-show, I said to Shane, “That’s IT! We are NEVER coming here again.”
Comment by Sean A — July 2, 2008 @ 10:46 pm - July 2, 2008
Sean, I didn’t go to Rhodesia because it is a lousy place for a photo safari and the Prime Minister’s first name was short of weight bearing consonants and his last name was s-o-o-o-o common. I always Land Rovered around the Serengeti. The Kenyan porters are so much better than the lesser Zimbabwean bearers of Rhodesia.
Comment by heliotrope — July 2, 2008 @ 11:26 pm - July 2, 2008
#9 Sean A: LOL.
Comment by V the K — July 3, 2008 @ 11:55 am - July 3, 2008
Does Carter concern himself with any foreign policy issue where he can’t garner headlines bashing the nation he once led.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 4, 2008 @ 11:15 am - July 4, 2008
I just happened to coincidently watch J Kirchick on bloggingheads.tv “debating” (can one really have a debate with a Leftist?) Matthew Yglesias.
This guy has good ideas.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/12579
Comment by Vince P — July 9, 2008 @ 7:27 am - July 9, 2008
Guess what, Jimmy Carter actually sees gays as humans worthy of dignity and equality. That’s a lot more than any Republican Presidential candidate can say over the past thirty years. Trash Jimmy Carter all you want but realize that the vast majority of the Republican party loathes your very existence.
Comment by chris — August 31, 2008 @ 1:00 pm - August 31, 2008