Zimbabwe Recounts Confirm Opposition Wins

Electoral Commission Says Results Make It Unlikely Ruling Party Can Wrest Control Of Parliament

(AP)  Zimbabwe's electoral commission said Saturday that a recount of votes for 10 parliamentary seats confirmed the original results, including opposition victories, making it unlikely that the ruling party can wrest control of parliament.

The recounts confirmed that six seats were taken by the opposition and four by President Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF party in the March 29 election.

The remaining 13 seats subject to recounts are mostly held by the opposition; Mugabe's party would need a virtual clean sweep to win back majority control of the 210-seat parliament.

Original results from the voting showed that opposition groups won 110 seats to Mugabe's 97. Three seats are vacant, awaiting by-elections after the deaths of candidates.

Differences between the original count and recounts were minor, with only a single vote difference recorded in one of the 10 districts. Regional election observers said they believed that pattern was likely to continue, without major reversals.

Results from the presidential election still have not been released. That delay and the call for recounts have widely been seen as stalling tactics, as Mugabe uses a violent crackdown on dissent to strengthen his grip on power.

Police confirmed Saturday that they arrested 215 people in a raid on Tsvangirai's headquarters in Harare the day before.

The oppositions said those arrested were seeking refuge after being attacked by ruling party loyalists in the countryside.

Women, some pregnant or with babies strapped to their backs, were among those taken away by police. Girls who had been threatened with rape and men with broken bones were also herded into a bus and pickup truck during the raid, the opposition said. Others had come for help and news of relatives missing in a wave of violence against opposition supporters blamed on militants of Mugabe's party.

Police spokesman Wayne Bvudzijena said those arrested were suspected of involvement in political violence.

Human rights lawyer Alec Muchadehama said among those detained were 24 children, "some still suckling," as well as six people over the age of 60.

He said lawyers had been assured by police that the babies would be released but this had not happened by Saturday morning. None of those arrested have been charged, he said.

"They are internally displaced people. They were seeking refuge. Their houses had been destroyed or they were running away or wanted help to get to a hospital," he said.

The raids sent a powerful message that Zimbabwe's longtime leader intends to hold on to power despite a growing global clamor for him to step aside.

Hundreds of opposition supporters have been abducted, tortured and assaulted in recent weeks in what independent religious and human rights groups call a violent crackdown on dissent.

Human Rights Watch said that a campaign against those perceived to have "voted wrongly" has escalated this week.

Carolyn Norris, the New York-based group's deputy director for Africa, said soldiers have joined in torturing and beating people in recent days. Previously, ruling party officials, militiamen and war veterans carried out the violence at informal torture centers in the countryside, the rights group said.

Amid continuing political uncertainty, Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa, a Mugabe loyalist, criticized a top U.S. envoy for backing claims that the opposition candidate beat Mugabe in the presidential vote, the state media reported Saturday.

On Thursday, Jendayi Frazer, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, declared Morgan Tsvangirai the victor and called on Mugabe to step down.

Chinamasa called Frazer's remarks "patently false, inflammatory, irresponsible and uncalled-for."

[milesbrown49]

I belive that during the rest of this year, Zimbabwe will work out. It is important for us to realize that Zimbabwe is in the middle of her exorcism from the haunting of colonization. There will be trials, but there will be prosperity again!!!

[lloydbest1]

"The problem is the US would only support someone who would let the US steal their natural resources on the cheap, and the Zimbabweans would be no better off than before." Posted by brianbwb at 02:50 AM : Apr 27, 2008

Unfortunately you are only too right about that. This is why I hammered the position that we should conduct our foreign policy to serve the interests of those nations we have relations with rather than our own And using how these nations treat their own people as a major determinant to whether we have a relationship with them or not...If those interests align, then fine. If not then we, as one of the most powerful nations on earth, have the flexibility and resources to "be the adult" and subordinate our interests to theirs. I can''t see that as being other than a win/win situation
My hope is the present myopic, zero sum game view we have toward the rest of the world will change somewhat when we elect someone who isn''t an ideologically driven psychopath to the White House (Obama, anyone?). Accordingly I hope we get the chance to elect that someone rather than having Guess Who raise another false flag and cancelling the works altogether
Brian, you probably see the world more for what it is than I. Despite being a "dammlibrul" I love my country and am sick to see it being ruined by a cadre of thugs who persist in doing just the sort of stuff you referenced in the quote above.

[downsteamjim]

Maybe Algore can go to Zimbabwe and help out the good liberal Mugabe. As far as the white farmers who had been on the land for generations giving it up to ''Africans'' is blatant racism. It implies that only blacks can own something in Africa. By the way in the bad old days when white farmers had farms, Zimbabwe was a major food exporter in Africa. Now it is the opposite.

[krotec54]

The Zimbabweans has a learning disability. They will be back to their old ways in a few years.

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by LloydBest1

If we are, as you say, "...a nation founded on principles of self determination", then it is only logical that we leave the Zimbabweans to determine their own destiny.

In light of the fact that "It is becoming more apparent there is more opposition than support for Dr. Mugabe", there is all the more reason to let the country flow according to its own politics. when Dr. Mugabe is unpopular enough, even his military will turn on him.

You rightly say "It is virtually certain Mugabe knows he''''s lost the presidential election and is attempting to hold on to power using means in violation to Zimbabwean and international law."

But, having our own elections tainted by fraud, we have no credibility to speak on that subject.

"In view of bullet 1 above, it IS, in fact in our interests to show some form of support to the opposition and encourage Mugabe to step aside."

The problem is the US would only support someone who would let the US steal their natural resources on the cheap, and the Zimbabweans would be no better off than before.

"Oh, and did I mention all the chromium Zimbabwe has and we do not?"

I refer to my last comment.

[brianbwb-2009]

"THOUSANDS OF DEAD AND DISPLACED WHITE FARMERS WHOS LAND WAS TAKEN CRY OUT FOR JUSTICE!" Posted by bluestardad

It wasn''t their land in the first place, and if they had not been so corrupt, they would not have been put out.

In that instance, justice was served.

[brianbwb-2009]

"The question is will the white farmers be willing to go back or will the Africans want them back?" Posted by krotec54

1. yes 2. no., and it is how it should be.

to drinuk

You are almost correct, but if you think the African leaders are any more corrupt than the leaders of the US and other western countries, you are blindly mistaken.

[krotec54]

The question is will the white farmers be willing to go back or will the Africans want them back?

[bluestardad]

THANKS AMERICAN AND ENGLAND FOR BRINGING THIS MUGABE TO POWER...

THOUSANDS OF DEAD AND DISPLACED WHITE FARMERS WHOS LAND WAS TAKEN CRY OUT FOR JUSTICE!

THEIR BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS!~

[gce65]

Invade Zimbabwe! Send those cowardly "War Veterans" (most aren''t veterans at all, but just thugs) scurrying like rats! For once I can think of a good use for a $120 barrel of oil: fuel for Mugabe to be burned at the stake!

[drinuk]

They are all the same, from the the shores of the Mediteranian to Cape Town, they are despotic. The opposition in Zimbarwe seem like good guys now but just wait till they get into power and start recieving hand outs from countries like the US and UK.
Their shopping list, as before will be Hilton Hotel franchises, body guards from North Korea, arms from China and they will still treat their people like ***, they are tribal and it always will be.

[lloydbest1]

Posted by LloydBest1 at 05:52 PM : Apr 26, 2008
Adding to my previous remarks:
Wandered off topic a bit, I apologise.
OTOH some manner of diplomatic intervention in a situation such as in Zimbabwe where there does not appear to be "anything in it for us" is just the sort of thing that may win back some of the good will we''ve squandered in recent years. Consider:
1. We are a nation founded on principles of self determination.
2. It is becoming more apparent there is more opposition than support for Dr. Mugabe.
3. It is virtually certain Mugabe knows he''s lost the presidential election and is attempting to hold on to power using means in violation to Zimbabwean and international law.
4. In view of bullet 1 above, it IS, in fact in our interests to show some form of support to the opposition and encourage Mugabe to step aside.

Oh, and did I mention all the chromium Zimbabwe has and we do not? It''s a strategic metal for those who don''t already know. This would be a good example where we can use some of our developmental expertise here and do well by doing good.

[lloydbest1]

"Historically, the US has to choose it''''s battles very carefully. We typically look for an alignment of US interests, ...and then decide if it is worth the risk. In Iraq, all of these criteria were easily met in advance...." Posted by taylor2124 at 09:47 AM : Apr 26, 2008
Most countries conduct foreign policy according to those criteria; and sensibly so.
In the case of ours, though, those are precisely the reasons we should NOT be in Iraq (to use taylor2124''s example) and should disentangle ourselves asap. Forgetting for the moment that the Iraq war is not in the best American interest, anyway we are a wealthy enough and powerful enough nation that we are able to, and should, conduct foreign policy so as to serve the interests of our neighbors, allies and (in strictly limited cases) our advesaries; with little or no regard to what may be good for us in the short term.
Our foreign policy "dollar" would be better spent mitigating such ****-ups as the Mugabe crisis, Darfur and other open sores that may not be directly tied to immediate U.S. interests. I do not suggest we invade Zimbabwe, either; in fact I would scream if we did. But we can do a lot of good if we''re careful about our diplomacy and put global interest ahead of ours. That''s the price we pay (or should) for being a superpower in the first place. Besides serving those global interests will ultimately serve our own.
Oh, and China, India and other superpower wannabes..These strictures apply to YOU as well.

[sear1ngtruth]

"When Americans listen to their innate sense of right vs. wrong, they prevail over those outsiders who seek their destruction."

Future of the 8rave.
ST

[gotagrip]

I do not favor going in to oust Mugabe, but you have to admit it was the exact excuse Bush/Cheney have been using in Iraq after they didn''t find WMDs. Removal of a brutal dictator who kills his own people.

Only difference is Zimbabwe has no oil. If the opposition really wants our help they need to discover some.

I would favor arming the opposition. The arms would be put to better use than the ones we send to Iraq that are used against us.

[jennasmith2]

ditto

[taylor2124]

Yeah, there''s an idea, lets invade Zimbabwe, an almost worthless country where the US has almost zero interests, in a part of the world where we have no military bases. Gee, why didn''t I think of that? Seriously, the US doesn''t have the resources to go everywhere and do all that needs be done in every corner of the world. And most of our allies are pretty lazy and ineffective in this kind of work. Historically, the US has to choose it''s battles very carefully. We typically look for an alignment of US interests, our military logistics, our allies%u2019 interests, the threat level, the resources to protect, and then decide if it is worth the risk. In Iraq, all of these criteria were easily met in advance, regardless of how hard the war has been. And just because something is difficult doesn''t mean it isn''t worth it. Right now Iraq appears to so many of us as an error. 20 years hence, I think history will judge it as the right thing to do.

[lindaredtail]

We have so many things that we could be doing other than being in Iraq. Africa needs our help. If Mugabe thought that for one minute we would join with African forces to push him out, he would be negotiating leaving the country as he should. I don''t think he started that way, but he has become a terrible tyrant and it is time for him to go.