Dennis Kucinich: Obama's Libya Attack An Impeachable Offense

A number of Democratic and Republican lawmakers are concerned about the White House's air assault on Libya, but Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) raised the rhetoric to 11 on Monday, suggesting President Obama should be impeached.

"President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn't have Congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said," Kucinich said in an interview with Raw Story."It's not even disputable, this isn't even a close question. Such an action -- that involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way, whether they're in the Air Force or the Navy -- is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone."

According to Kucinich, Obama's decision "would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense," though he questioned whether Congress would ever move forward with a trial in practice.

As reported earlier by Politico, Kucinich raised the specter of impeachment in a conference call with Democratic lawmakers on Saturday.

Presidents have initiated many military conflicts without congressional approval since World War II, including President Clinton's air assault on the Milosevic regime in Serbia in 1999, President Bush's intervention in Somalia in 1992, and President Reagan's own attack on Qaddafi in 1986. The War Powers Act -- passed in reaction to the Vietnam War and mostly ignored by Presidents since then -- requires the president to inform Congress that he is committing U.S. forces abroad within 48 hours and to request approval within 60 days.

Benjy Sarlin/talkingpointsmemo.com

UK/War in Libya: Protesters outside the Ministry of Defence in London

Protesters outside the Ministry of Defence in London show their opposition
to the international coalition's involvement in Libya.
Photograph: Toby Melville/Reuters

Downing Street is battling to hold together the international coalition opposing Muammar Gaddafi's actions amid signs of Arab unease at the scale and impact of western-led military operations in Libya, divisions within Nato over the no-fly zone, and a rising tide of global criticism.

A spokesman for David Cameron said the prime minister had spoken by telephone to Amr Moussa after the Arab League's secretary general expressed concern about civilian casualties caused by British, American and French air attacks which, he suggested, exceeded their UN mandate. The Gaddafi regime claims dozens of civilians have been killed and hundreds wounded in the past two days.

Cameron and Moussa "agreed that the protection of civilians was paramount", the spokesman said, adding that Cameron had assured Moussa the coalition was "working with targeting to avoid civilian deaths".

The foreign secretary, William Hague, said he was also in touch with the Arab League chief: "I think too much was made of Amr Moussa's comments. I will be talking to him again today. I talked to Arab foreign ministers yesterday. I did not detect in them any weakening of their commitment."

Speaking in Cairo after a meeting with Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, Moussa said he respected security council resolution 1973, passed last week, which authorised the creation of a no-fly zone over Libya and the use of "all measures necessary" to ensure Gaddafi halted attacks on civilians.

The resolution was agreed by a majority vote after the 23-member Arab League endorsed calls for a no-fly zone. Diplomats say Arab support was crucial in persuading the US and other countries to back the resolution - co-sponsored by Britain and France - and in ensuring China and Russia did not veto it.

Moussa said: "The Arab League position on Libya was decisive and from the first moment we froze membership of Libya ... Then we asked the United Nations to implement a no-fly zone. We respect the UN resolution and there is no conflict with it, especially as it indicated there would be no invasion but that it would protect civilians from what they are subject to in Benghazi."

But reprising his previously expressed concerns about the impact of the air strikes on civilians, Moussa added: "We will continue to work on the protection of civilians. We urge everybody to take this into consideration in any military action."

Despite evident pressure to tone down his remarks, Moussa confirmed he had called an emergency meeting of Arab League ambassadors on Tuesday to discuss Libya. He reiterated his view that while the league had backed a no-fly zone, it had not supported attacks on Gaddafi's armed forces and military and communications infrastructure, as carried out during Operation Odyssey Dawn over the weekend.

Concern about the depth and longevity of Arab commitment to the Libyan intervention also focused on the failure, so far, of any Arab country to directly contribute personnel and military hardware, despite earlier assurances of support.

Qatar's state news agency reported that the Gulf state would contribute four jet fighters to the no-fly operation but they have yet to show up in theatre. Other Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which have said they are supportive, have declined to say what if anything they are doing to help.

Egypt, the Arab world's most populous state which is still grappling with the effects of its recent revolution, has said it will not get involved - although there have been unconfirmed reports that it has allowed the smuggling of arms to Libyan rebels across its western border.

Firing another warning shot across the coalition's bows, Abdul Rahman bin Hamad al-Attiyah, secretary general of the six-nation Gulf Co-operation Council, stressed the aim of the Libyan operation must be limited to protecting civilians - and that it should not be seen as an invasion of an Arab country.

"What is happening now is not an intervention. It is about protecting the people from bloodshed," he said.

Worries among Britain's Arab allies that a hidden agenda lies behind the attack on Libya have been underscored the comments of Liam Fox. The defence secretary said an attempt to kill Gaddafi was "potentially a possibility". Demands by Cameron, Barack Obama and the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, that Gaddafi stand down have also been widely interpreted as support for regime change.

Speaking en route to Russia, the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, distanced himself from Fox's comments, saying it was unwise to make promises that might not be deliverable.

Gates's remarks underlined another potential headache for Downing Street - Obama's determination to hand over direction and implementation of military operations in Libya to European and Arab countries, and possibly Nato, as soon as possible.

"It is pretty clear that we agreed to use our unique capabilities and the breadth of those capabilities at the front end of this process, and then we expected in a matter of days to be able to turn over the primary responsibility to others," Gates said. "We will continue to support the coalition. We'll be a member of the coalition. We will have a military role in the coalition, but we will not have the pre-eminent role," he said.

Asked who would be in charge once American commanders stood down, Gates said: "I think that there are a couple of possibilities. One is British and French leadership, another is the use of the Nato machinery, and I think we just have to work out the command and control that is most accommodating to all of the members of the coalition."

Efforts to give Nato a lead role in operating the no-fly zone remained in difficulty after Turkey, the only majority Muslim Nato member, effectively blocked an agreement on alliance participation on Sunday.

Speaking in Mecca on Monday, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, elaborated his country's misgivings.

"Our biggest desire is for this operation to be finished as soon as possible," he said. "Our biggest desire is for the Libyan people to determine their own future ... Now the issue is, is Nato going into operation? If Nato is going into operation, we have some conditions. Nato should recognise that Libya belongs to the Libyans, not for the distribution of its underground resources and wealth."

The Turkish foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, raised legal objections. "There are legal procedures for the establishment of a coalition in an international operation. We take the view that for Libya, these were not sufficiently respected."

Erdogan's suggestion that western actions were influenced by interest in Libya's oil wealth reflected suspicions voiced by Arab commentators and Gaddafi himself, who has accused Britain and other countries of seeking to re-colonise Libya.

Erdogan said he had spoken to Gaddafi three times during the crisis. Turkey, which has investments in Libya reportedly worth $15bn (£9.2bn), has represented British interests there since British diplomats were withdrawn as the crisis worsened.

Other Nato countries oppose British and French policy in Libya, notably Germany and Poland. Speaking before European Union talks in Brussels, Guido Westerwelle, the German foreign minister, said the Arab League's criticism of the operation had vindicated Berlin's stance.

"If we see that three days after this intervention began, the Arab League already criticises it, I think we had good reasons ... for our concern," he said. "This does not mean that we are neutral, it does not mean we have any sympathy with Gaddafi, but it means we see the risks."

Complicating matters further, France is opposed to giving Nato an active role. It argues that the alliance's reputation has been damaged by Afghanistan. France has long resented Washington's leading role in Nato. Italy, in contrast, said it wanted greater Nato involvement, as a way of locking in the US. "No decision has been taken. Nato is continuing its work," a French foreign ministry official said as talks continued in Brussels.

Downing Street has not found much enthusiasm for its Libyan offensive within the broader EU, either, which is split like Nato on the issue. Catherine Ashton, the EU foreign policy chief, clashed with Cameron at an EU summit this month, suggesting he "hold his horses" over an intervention which, she predicted, would lead to loss of civilian life.

The EU foreign ministers' meeting on Monday focused instead on boosting humanitarian assistance and isolating Gaddafi. "We are looking at what more we can do in terms of economic sanctions, what more we can do for planning. The most obvious issue is humanitarian support," Ashton said.

Adding to the growing pressure on Britain and France, which were beginning to look slightly isolated, Russia's prime minister, Vladimir Putin, a long-standing critic of the west, joined China, India, Brazil and other leading developing countries in criticising the intervention. His comments appeared deliberately designed to inflame Arab and Muslim opinion.

"The [UN] resolution is defective and flawed. It allows everything. It resembles medieval calls for crusades," he said.

China, also highly critical, called a new meeting of the UN security council later on Monday to take a second look at Libya.

Questions continued to be raised about the duration of the allied engagement in Libya, how success will be defined, and when British forces might come home. Compounding Downing Street's discomfort, Henry Guaino, a senior adviser to Sarkozy, indicated there was no end in sight. The intervention, he said, was likely to last "a while".

Guardian.co.uk

Líbia/Guerra: Carta ao Presidente americano Barack Husseim Obama, de Kingamba Mwenho

Caríssimo Barack Husseim Obama,
aceite as minhas melhores saudações!

Enquanto escrevo estas linhas o sangue de pessoas inocentes escorre pelas artérias de Tripoli e outras cidades da Líbia. A intervenção militar que estais levando a cabo é ilegal, é colonialista e é injusta. De ti, Senhor Presidente Obama, ninguém esperava uma decisão do género: uma guerra oportunista pelo petróleo e outros recursos naturais e por espaços aonde instalar novas bases militares. Até mesmo a possibilidade de dividir a Líbia é suja quanto sanguinária considerando as consequências dessa acção militar e económica.

Quando fostes eleito, todos viram na tua eleição uma esperança real para o mundo, esperamos para América uma nova época de decisões políticas ponderadas, de bons exemplos em termos de respeito entre as nações, iniciativas de grande respiro que poderiam ate mudar o modo de fazer política em muitas partes do mundo.  Tu eras uma pequena esperança deste mundo, muitos viram em ti o “escolhido”, aquele que sempre se esperou para mudar as actuais sortes do mundo: a começar dos problemas crónicos dos Estados Unidos que infelizmente são espelho de muitas realidades globais.  Mas analisando o que fizestes até agora, se vêm mais desilusões que elementos de esperança. Nestas horas estás acabando de matar as nossas esperança,  estas  mutilando  as nossas aspirações estás queimando tudo aquilo que sempre afirmastes: a luta por um mundo melhor, um mundo aonde o direito e a dignidade dos povos é mais importantes do que os negócios das grandes lobbies internacionais.

Cada  hora que passa as acções do grupo de “oportunistas sob a tua liderança” está ceifando vidas e não salvando-as, está complicando a situação económica e político-militar do Norte África e não melhorando. Aquilo que se vê é uma grande vontade de ocupar a Líbia e repartir-se as suas riquezas porque são muitas as interrogações sem respostas. Eis algumas:

1) Como explicar a lentidão do processo diplomático - por parte das Nações Unidas e das várias potências ocidentais com interesses em Líbia - no momento em que Muammar Gaddafi se encontrava em dificuldades? Se a “Diplomacia da ONU” estivesse em favor do líbios teria aproveitado aquele momento para instaurar um processo de paz no qual Muammar Gaddafi acabava saindo da política e o país marcharia para uma nova era,  íntegro e com dignidades.

2) Como justificar a aceleração nunca vista das decisões das Nações Unidas em vista das acções militares em Lìbia? Todas as guerras são inúteis: vimos no Iraque e em muitos outros países. Se a intenção é tirar Muammar Gaddafi do poder a guerra não é a solução, nunca será, porque o post-Gaddafi será mais complicado acabando por levar mais vidas do que aquelas que lá se foram ate ao momento. Um elemento não menos importante: é absurdo que o presidente de um país diga ao Chefe de uma outra nação para deixar o poder. O que dizer então de George Bush Jr. quando após os potentes bombardeamentos e ocupação do Iraque viu que a guerra continuava, que as motivações da guerra eram falsas, que as suas acções e decisões aumentaram as mortes e não instauraram uma democracia... não se demitiu, mas é um sanguinário e o mundo pedia a sua testa.

3) Como explicar a elaboração da Resolução 1979 das Nações Unidas que institui uma “No fly zone” com termos vagos e chacal/colonizadores mesmo sabendo que nenhum dos beligerantes quer a presença militar Ocidental em solo líbio? Esta resolução foi feita com a maior abertura de interpretação e muitas armadilhas lexicais  que nos levam a crer que a invasão de terra também já fora preparada com antecedência. Nem a Liga Árabe, nem a União Africana, nenhuma outra organização aceitou uma opção do género, mas as forças ocidentais as prepararam e as estão a aplicar.

4) Como explicar a presença de uma centena de militares ingleses (Cfr. notícias da Ansa/BBC/The Times) em Líbia três semanas antes da aprovação da Resolução das NU sobre a “No fly zone”? A Coroa inglesa antecedeu tudo enviando mais de cem homens das suas brigadas especiais a fim de ajudar os rebeldes (pura violação do solo líbio e muitas convenções das Nações Unidas). Isto me leva crer que as potências ocidentais prepararam a guerra com antecedência tendo em conta todos os detalhes para eliminar Gaddafi e ate mesmo a divisão do país.

5) Como explicar o rápido reconhecimento, por parte das potências ocidentais em causa, do Grupo de rebeldes sem referências e com possíveis infiltrações terrorítiscas num cenário de política internacional no qual um legítimo Governo decide de resolver os seus problemas internos?

6) Como explicar os debates sobre a divisão das riquezas líbias que as televisões, rádios e jornais ocidentais estão levando a cabo? Hoje é mais claro que nunca que o controlo do petróleo líbio é a primeira intenção desta intervenção, esta é a primeira conclusão de todos os debates mediáticos. Diz-se que um elefante não se esconde atrás de um caniço... o mesmo sobre esta guerra.

São muitas as questões sem resposta. Não encontro explicações sobre a quantidade de meios militares acumulados entorno a Líbia, tudo é surreal, é triste porque si afirma mais uma vez o direito da força e não a força dos direitos humanos.

Senhor presidente, se a vossa intenção era marcar a história com um timbro de fogo benigno, o intervenção em Líbia constitui um passo falso, é uma das tuas piores decisões e te recordarás para sempre. Serás recordado como presidente cuja a BOA fama foi maior que as suas reais acções e sobretudo como um político tele-Guiado que em vez de levar a esperança em África, utilizou as Nações Unidas para permitir a infiltração dos poderes fortes do petróleo e do gás em Líbia. As guerra de ocupação são sanguinárias, são tristes, são perigosas para inteira comunidade internacional, são terríveis e restam na memória histórica dos ocupados.

Senhor Presidente, estás ainda em tempo, e tens todo o poder para pôr fim (TO STOP) a máquina infernal da guerra, e diga a aos teus amigos que o solo líbio pode tornar-se num outro Afghanistan, senão uma outra Somália. Não queremos um outro Estado fantasma em terras africanas (Cfr. Somália), não queremos outras ocupações em estilo colonizador (Cfr. Iraque). Todos os povos querem sistemas de governo democráticos, mas como sabemos que esta não se EXPORTA, quem quiser ajudar comece financiando as organizações sociais que se batem para o efeito. A formação, a formação antes de tudo é o caminho para a democracia, a violência provoca violência e não leva a lado nenhum.

Sobre guerra o General William Sherman disse uma vez  que somente aqueles que nunca deram um tiro, nem ouviram os gritos e os gemidos dos feridos, é que clamam por sangue, vingança e mais desolação. A guerra é o inferno. Esta aventura vai terminal mal para os pobres, para os civis e bem para as potências ocidentais já prontas para aumentar a produção do petróleo.

Cordialmente,
Kingamba Mwenho!

 

Historical Silver Eagle Prices: Remembering When The American Silver Eagle Commanded A 400% Premium

Did you know that American Silver Eagles can command extraordinary premiums, in certain situations? Read and find out about the time when these coins were fetching premiums up to 400% more than other silver bullion coins...

I recently published an article on Ezinearticles entitled, "2011 American Silver Eagle: 5 Reasons Why You Should Buy This Silver Coin! " extolling the virtues of this lovely silver bullion coin. One of the five reasons I listed as a good reason to buy was the excellent profit potential, even with the price of silver trading over $30 an ounce (the price of silver has since pulled back a bit).

Since the time I published that article, an incident happened that really got me excited, even more, about the investment potential of American Silver Eagles.

I was in my local coin shop recently, browsing through their trays of various silver rounds. With the price of silver off its recent highs, I thought this would be the perfect time to add to my silver stock!

I happened to overhear a conversation between the coin shop owner and another customer. It went something like this:

Owner: "Hey, Bill, you ordered any 2011 Silver Eagles yet?"

Bill: "Hadn't thought about it. They're a bit pricey. Thought I'd just stick with buying a bag or two of junk silver when I have some extra cash."

Owner: "Junk is always good but I like Eagles, too. Some folks I know made some serious money on them back in '99.

Bill: "Really?"

Owner: "Yeah, back during that whole Y2K scare period. When everyone thought the world was going to end at the stroke of midnight on January 1st. " (He laughed). "People were paying crazy prices for those coins - double the spot price of silver!"

Bill: "You're joking?"

Owner: "I'm serious! It was crazy, man! I guess people figured if the whole banking system shut down or something, those silver eagles would come in handy."

Bill: "Yeah, but why the Eagles?"

Owner: "Guess it was because Silver Eagles are so well-recognized. And they have that U.S. government guarantee."

Bill: "Man! I had no idea! I thought silver was silver..."

A this point in the conversation, I moved away (lest they think I was eavesdropping, LOL!). When I got home that day, I did a little research on Silver Eagles and it turns out what the shop owner told the customer was true.

At the end of 1999, at the height of the Y2K scare American Silver Eagles were fetching HUGE premiums. The spot price of silver at that time was around $6.50. But Silver Eagles were commanding prices up to $12.50 an ounce!

Meanwhile, the Canadian Silver Maple leaf coin, an equally lovely silver bullion coin with a higher silver purity, was only commanding prices of $7.50 on the market.

Like the coin shop owner said, the reason investors were more than willing to pay the huge premium for the American Silver Eagle and not the Silver Maple leaf coin was because they believed in the event the banking system was unable to function, the silver Eagle coin would be more readily accepted for bartering purposes!

And the reason investors felt the Silver Eagle would be more readily accepted was because of their United States government guarantee and worldwide recognition! Of course, after the Y2K scare passed, premiums on the coins quickly returned to normal but anyone who would have sold during this period would have done fabulously!

Could a situation like this happen again?

Yes, the economy appears to be on the mend but the risks are still out there. In the event of a widespread financial panic, would the American Silver Eagle once again be the go-to silver bullion coin? And possibly command a huge premium over other silver coins? Who knows? But, as Mark Twain once said: "The past doesn't repeat itself - it rhymes!"

Order your 2011 American Silver Eagle coins today! Just go to: ==> http://BullionBargains.us

By Christina Goldman

Live Money: How to Invest in Silver: “wealth management portfolio”

A lot of people are considering precious metals investment as a significant part of their wealth management portfolio. Platinum, gold, silver and other metals such as palladium and titanium that have great monetary value are some of the options you can choose for investing. However, gold and silver are the most common metals that investors choose, where silver is the cheaper option. Gold is more valuable than silver and it backs some of the major currencies in the world, but silver can also be a great option to invest in.

Why Invest in Silver

Silver may not be as expensive or even attractive as the yellow metal, gold. However, it can be a great choice for investment, considering the many uses it has and the likely decline in its global reserves. Usually, a major part of silver is obtained from zinc and copper mines, with the silver mines contributing only 30%. But as silver has numerous uses in industrial and medicinal productions, the demand is always high. Considering the demand and supply in the future, the probability of an increase in silver prices is very high, making it a safer, affordable investment option.

Different Investment Options for Silver

Silver has always been valuable, and was used as money for a long time in the past. Unlike earlier times, when you could only buy the physical metal for investment, there are a variety of options available today for silver investment.

Buy the Physical Metal – Silver Bars, Coins and Jewellery

One of the best and the easiest ways to invest in silver is to purchase it in the physical form. You can choose from a number of silver bullion options that include silver coins, bars, silverware and silver jewellery.

• Silver Coins – Silver coins come in a variety of designs and can weigh anywhere from 1 ounce to 1 kg. You can choose to buy silver coins minted by private companies, which are available in local jewelery shops, or from national governments that issue special silver rounds such as UK Britannias, US Eagles, Chinese Pandas, and Canadian Maples.
• Silver Bars – Silver bars, again, can be bought directly from government auctions, banks or private mining companies.
• Sterling Silver – Sterling silver is a form of physical silver, which is not 100% pure silver. It is made of 92.5% actual silver, and the remaining percentage of other metals such as copper. As pure silver is too soft to be molded in to intricate designs and larger moulds, sterling silver is often used for manufacturing jewellery and other forms of silver ware like cutlery, frames etc.

As silver is relatively cheaper, you can purchase a few kilos of the metal with just a few thousand dollars. However, as storing and securing such quantities of this metal is not easy, you can choose from the other silver investment options below.

Silver Futures

You can invest in silver futures by opening a futures trading account that allows you to buy or sell silver for gain. In futures, you have to get into a contract that can be a little expensive and risky. Usually, a single silver futures contract represents 5,000 ounces of silver, and expires after a month. Although silver futures may not become useless like a few stocks, considering the risk, you should not invest in them unless you are an experienced trader.

Investment in Silver Stocks and Silver Mines

There are a number of silver mining company stocks in the UK and around the world. You can look for private companies and silver mining companies, in major exchanges like London, NY or Tokyo, that offer stocks in the silver sector. Although silver stocks are usually safer than other stocks, there is an element of risk involved as silver prices can be highly volatile.

Perform a background check thoroughly, for each of the available stocks, to figure out the profitability and risk before investing. An advantage of investing in silver stocks is that, although it is risky, it gives you the flexibility to buy and sell it like any other stock for profit.

Mutual Funds

Like silver stocks, silver mutual funds can be a good choice for investing in silver, if you do not want to have the actual metal in your possession. You can either choose to invest in actual silver or in the stocks of a silver mining company, through a mutual fund. The best way to choose the right silver mutual fund is to keep in mind your investment objectives and the allocation of precious metals in your portfolio. Although mutual funds are relatively safer and more profitable when compared to stocks, you should invest in them only after thorough research to minimize risk.

Silver ETFs

You can invest in silver ETFs or exchange traded funds simply by opening a brokerage account. As there are a number of silver ETF options in the market, it is a relatively easy investment option. However, before you choose to invest in one, research the trends in silver prices, and the trends in the value of the ETF you’re considering. To make profit with silver ETFs, you should invest in them when the prices are low. Silver is sometimes just one part of the portfolio of an ETF. In such a case, choose an ETF that has sufficient amount allocated to silver, to meet your investment goals.

Among all the options mentioned above, tangible silver and ETFs are often the preferred investment options, as they are considered low risk investments.

Russia Today: Dancing queens; The most beautifull russian girls are learning to waltz

Zimbabwe/Long Crisys: Peter Godwin exposes the truth and the fear of the Mugabe era

In mid-2008, after nearly three decades of increasingly tyrannical rule, Robert Mugabe, the 84-year-old Pandora’s Box of Zimbabwe, lost an election. But instead of conceding power, he launched a brutal campaign of terror against his own citizens. Peter Godwin, author of the award-winning books Mukiwa: A White Boy In Africa and When a Crocodile Eats the Sun, was one of the few outside observers to bear witness to the terrifying period that Zimbabweans call, simply, “The Fear”.

Peter Godwin was born and raised in Zimbabwe. He studied Law at Cambridge University, and International Relations at Oxford. He is an award-winning foreign correspondent, author, documentary-maker and screenwriter.
After practising human rights law in Zimbabwe, he became a war correspondent, and has reported on war from over 60 countries, including in Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Somalia, Congo, Ivory Coast, Sudan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kashmir and during the last years of apartheid South Africa.
He served as East European correspondent and diplomatic correspondent for the London Sunday Times, and chief correspondent for BBC television’s flagship foreign affairs program, Assignment – making documentaries from such places as Cuba, Panama, Indonesia, Pakistan, Spain, Northern Ireland, the Philippines, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, the Baltics, and the Balkans as it descended into war.
At great personal risk, Godwin returns secretly to the country he knows so well. He visits the torture bases, the burning villages, the death squads, the opposition leaders in hiding, the last white farmers, the churchmen and diplomats putting their own lives on the line to stop the carnage.
Threaded through with personal history, The Fear: The Last Days of Robert Mugabe is the brave and astonishing record of a dictatorship gone mad.
Accompanied by his sister, Georgina, Godwin journeys through the ravaged, once-familiar landscape.
They visit the grave of their sister, killed during the civil war. As they pour “lucky bean” seeds from the coral tree in their old garden into the runnels of the letters on her gravestone, they call their mother, now living in exile in faraway London. “Where would you like to be buried when you die?” he asks her. “At home,” she says. “In Africa. Next to your father.”
Told with a brilliant eye for detail and Godwin’s natural storytelling gifts, this is a story framed by personal loss. But, most deeply, it is a moving and stunning account of a people grotesquely altered, laid waste by a raging despot. It is about the astonishing courage and resilience of a people, armed with nothing but a desire to be free.
Leadership editor Robbie Stammers had the pleasure of meeting up with Godwin on his visit to South Africa recently, and had the following questions to ask him:
You have studied Law at Cambridge and International Relations at Oxford – it is an incredibly impressive CV. You could have landed with your bum in the butter in a very cushy job. What made you decide to become a war correspondent, travelling to some of the most violent countries in the world?

My real problem is that I don’t plan ahead. I’ve never been career-minded.
People with whom I grew up have dispersed across the world, so you get used to this constant change and, somehow, that becomes your expectation. And in that sense, planning seems sort of pointless.
I trained as a lawyer, but I mostly read law to appease my father.
When I went back to Zimbabwe originally, it was to finish the fieldwork for a PhD and I ran out of money, so the only thing I was trained to do as such was law. So I started working as a lawyer while I was trying to finish the PhD and didn’t do it for very long – and I don’t think I was very good at it, either. I got bored!
The thing about law is that you see it on television and everyone is in court, but every one minute you’re in court, arguing your case, there is probably an hour of research. I took on a big high-treason case and I did hours of political research on it, which fascinated me.
I then started doing odd pieces of freelance journalism and the London Sunday Times said, “Well, if you want to send that stuff, there is no guarantee we will publish it and we’re not going to pay your expenses. We won’t pay for anything unless we use it.”
I had no expectations, and then I discovered that they had run these pieces and I started writing more and more.
I imagine that increased your confidence?
I enjoyed it. I never went to journalism school or anything. I just learnt on the job and became some sort of “Wiki journalist”.
I found myself ultimately in London, on the foreign desk with a short-term contract.
You become a prisoner of your own resumé insofar as to say, “Look, this guy has been in a war in Africa.” So then I ended up just getting sent wherever, covering conflict.
I did it for a long time – for the Sunday Times and then for the BBC. I must’ve done probably 10 years as a foreign correspondent and then documentaries for the BBC before moving over full-time to books.
You had to contend with two competing legal systems: that of the Rhodesian government and the other of tribal chiefs. Do you think tribal chiefs still play a significant role today in Zimbabwe?
They play a huge role.
Zimbabwe is much more rural than South Africa; and the other thing in Zimbabwe, which to a greater or lesser extent is probably not half as true now as it used to be, is that many urban Zimbabweans have rural homes at the same time.
What’s happening now is that the chiefs are under more and more pressure from Mugabe. He put them on salaries, gives them cars, and then expects them to be agents of political control. If their areas turn against Zanu-PF and Mugabe, then the chiefs will come under enormous pressure and will be changed, if necessary.
So one of the bad things that we have seen happen in the last couple of decades – but in particular, in the last five or 10 years – is the chiefs coming under Zanu-PF’s control.
It has been noted that Zimbabwe is the most educated country on the continent. If you consider Zimbabweans to be a very highly educated country, how has Mugabe managed to secure such an iron fist over his people, and why have they not had the ability to fight the oppressor?
In some ways, the more educated you are, the more options you have to get out.
The fact is, with no education whatsoever, you may ultimately resist more; but if you have two degrees and a job offer is on your desk, you can just bugger off.
So Zimbabweans have left in enormous numbers. Black Zimbabweans in their millions. So that’s been one of the problems – the best and brightest have been skimmed off and have gone elsewhere into the Diaspora.
The other thing is, Zimbabweans have actually resisted – peacefully. The opposition movement (Movement for Democratic Change), from its very formation in early 2000, was a platform that was dedicated to non-violence, and it’s kept that up. It hasn’t been given nearly enough credit for that.
However, it is up against an army and police force that are extremely well established. These aren’t people into whose gun barrels you’re going to put carnations. Trust me, they are not people who are going to be using just teargas. They are pretty hardcore.
I think that there has been reluctance on the part of the opposition leadership to push young people into the guns of these oppressors.
You could argue that we’ve actually lost far more people over the last 10 years to disease and HIV and a collapse of health and agriculture than we might have done in a short, sharp revolution, but that is difficult to say.
Has the brain drain in Zimbabwe passed a point of no return?
I think that it’s hanging by a thread.
At the moment in Zimbabwe, there is still a cultural memory of how things should work, and I think that is related to the education point.
You get this tragic situation where, if you finished school 10 years ago, you’d be 28 now. So anyone beyond their mid-20s is probably still very well educated, but people under that age may have very little, since the education system has collapsed. You therefore have these contiguous generations where one is very well educated and the other is not at all educated.
We now have kids of 15 years of age who cannot even read or write, and I think that’s the worry – that you lose the cultural memory of efficiency and how it all works.
People can’t even remember how a good economy once functioned. You have to start from scratch.
Since last year, with the banishment of the Zimbabwe dollar, and everything turning into the so-called Government of National Unity, there’s been some improvement, mostly for the upper middle-classes. However, the ordinary folk still struggle to source US dollars, so their lives haven’t changed that much.
I think that the law of entropy applies here, where the more complicated the organism, the more likely it is to go wrong.
Zimbabwe has always been a smaller and simpler place than South Africa. The economy is less complex and it can probably be fixed quicker with relatively less capital.
So I do honestly think that if democracy – real democracy, not the fudge we have at the moment – were restored in Zimbabwe, much money would go in and I think you could fix it astonishingly quickly.
Whether you could still do that in five years, I don’t know. I think if it were started quickly, you could just snatch it back; but the longer it’s delayed, the more difficult it gets.
It is very sad. I have travelled to many places over the years and, after visiting Zimbabwe in 1997, I realised one of the most beautiful places on earth is right on our doorstep.
An astonishing country – and the truth is, it’s one of the reasons that I keep writing about it.
The point is that Zimbabwe is greater than the sum of its parts. It’s more important than just being viewed as a small landlocked country. In many ways, it’s become totemic. It is symbolic of Africa’s hopes and fears – continentally.
At one point, it was the most advanced country with the highest standards of living. People would always point to it as an example of “See what Africa can do and what it can achieve”, and now it’s one of the worst countries.
It has become a universal story, with a Shakespearean plot line.
There is something about the place – it affects people more than most other countries.
You must have a file bigger than a telephone directory on Mugabe’s desk, considering your books – starting with Mukiwa, to the current The Fear.
I’m not sure. (laughs) They are much more sensitive about daily newspapers, radio and TV footage, though, and I don’t think they’re great readers of books. I think, in general, they don’t see books as much of a threat.
But since The Fear was published, the ripple effect in other countries has been enormous, particularly in South Africa, where people said: “Oh, my God. This is happening on our borders!”
They are gobsmacked and ashamed that they haven’t given the situation more attention because they’ve become anaesthetised to it in a way. Then, suddenly, if you put it all together in one book, it has a real emotional impact.
You may not reach tens of millions of people, but the people you do reach become activists in a way. It can really galvanise them into doing something.
How did you manage to return secretly time and again and interview the key people you did for The Fear?
It was no great cloak and dagger thing, but there are places and ways to get in.
After years in war-torn areas, you can judge how and when a political climate goes up and down. There are times when the police are everywhere and other times when they are literally looking elsewhere and are not that bothered.
In some points, it was a very scary place to be in and, indeed, I had some near misses.
I think, certainly, having been born and having grown up in Zimbabwe helps you to fit in.
My journalistic background taught me how to blend into different environments. For example, when I was on the white farms, I made sure I was dressed to look just like a farmer; and when I was in the hospitals, I dressed consistently with people who might routinely be there.
Your sister, Georgina, was with you. I imagine that by what I’ve read, she is a broadcaster and a writer in her own right, who was banned from Zimbabwe. If everything went according to plan and the winds of change sweep through Zimbabwe, would you and your sister return to live there?
The problem is, the longer you stay out, the more you do get integrated into your other life.
My kids were born in America and London and my wife edits Marie Claire magazine in New York, so there would be nothing really as an equivalent job for her.
I think Georgina may be very tempted to go back and I’m sure she could get a good job in Zimbabwe.
I would probably spend a big chunk of every year there, but whether I could move lock, stock and barrel immediately back is a different question.
I think I’d be in a situation where I would spend six months a year there and then commute the rest of the time.
What are your thoughts on the current dilemma facing the country? Just last month, Mugabe told his so-called Prime Minister of the Government of Unity Morgan Tsvangirai that he had unilaterally appointed all 10 provincial governors. What now?
This Global Political Agreement has been breached by Zanu-PF in major ways, all the way along.
Most importantly, the electronic media is still completely dominated by Zanu-PF, as are the police and the army. All these many breaches, any one of which should be enough for the MDC to pull out.
And the process of public consultation, nationally – with town hall meetings and meetings in the countryside to decide what should go into a new constitution draft – was also deeply flawed.
In fact, what’s been happening, is Mugabe’s people have been breaking up these get-togethers where the people are critical of Zanu-PF. They get beaten up and intimidated. So that process of consultation has been a joke. It’s been a disaster.
Mugabe said that they would have a referendum on a new Constitution early this year, and if the answer was a resounding “yes” from the public, then they would have elections in June under the new Constitution; and if they vote “no”, they would still have elections in June, but under the old Constitution.
But they basically have the same underlying conditions that they had in the 2008 elections. The dollar might have gone, but Mugabe is still in charge of the forces of intimidation.
The chance of having a free and fair election under the conditions I’ve described is infinitely small.
One thing that is necessary before you go anywhere near the next election in Zimbabwe, is to completely reform the voters’ roll, which is a joke. There are thousands of voters who are over 100 years old in a country that has one of the lowest lifespan averages in the world – I don’t think so.
There are ghost voters: almost a third of the registered voters are actually dead! Others are infants.
So the MDC is faced with this terrible conundrum, which is that either it can pull out now and just bring the whole ‘unity’ government down and Mugabe would go it alone, or it can stay with it through the constitutional vote and into the next elections and almost certainly lose because of fraud and intimidation – even if the MDC is the most popular party.
My biggest worry now is the diamonds discovered in Chiadzwa. This has effectively given Mugabe a new lease on his political life. It has changed everything.
Diamonds in Chiadzwa were discovered in 2006 and started being mined by freelancers until about 2008. Then Mugabe’s people stepped in and now the Chiadzwa diamonds are the exclusive domain of Mugabe and the military. So, suddenly, this huge extra amount of money comes flowing in.
Zimbabwe was a kleptocracy, but even for the corrupt elite, there is not much left to steal in a full-blown failed state, when everything
has collapsed.
The farms, the mines and businesses eventually run out of money and the economy just gets smaller and smaller.
One would sometimes hope in those situations that that was where you would find the solution, with just no one making money anymore – but then the diamonds changed the whole dynamic.
It’s depressing. The timing of the diamond finds is extremely demoralising – it has refinanced Mugabe’s regime, made them more determined to cling to power.
This may sound like a rather juvenile question, but it is one that has come up for years at dinner parties. People argue that you do not want to make a martyr out of him, but why has no one assassinated Mugabe yet?
Mugabe has pretty good security, and the concern there is that if your method of changing power is through assassination, it tends to create a knock-on effect.
Also, the people in Zimbabwe are relatively pacifistic.
There was apparently a very early attempt by a chef, who put ground glass into Mugabe’s food in the ‘80s, but I don’t think that was political – it was some bizarre witchcraft thing.
Mugabe alluded to it once, but other than that, nothing that we know of.
Do you think many of the Zimbabwean exiles are in denial about what goes on at home?
I think that most of the black Diaspora has been aware of it because many of them have had relatives who had been tortured as well
as threatened.
It depends on when you left. Some of the whites who left a long time ago have decoupled and don’t pay daily attention to what is happening in Zimbabwe.
It also depends where people are with their own lives. Some people have stopped being exiles and ‘become’ South Africans or whatever. Their identities have changed.
For those who still try to keep a finger on the pulse, there is still much detail they may not know about which is contained in The Fear, and it has much more power when it is all laid out in literary terms in one chunk. It shocks them.
You have been involved in bringing so much attention to the atrocities happening in your homeland. Is there ever going to be a place for Peter Godwin to get involved politically, considering your history with your own country?
No, I think that is funny, as I have been asked that before.
I’m not a politician, but I think writers have real roles to play in these situations. They can bear witness, and help expose the terrible truth to conscientise people.
We have different roles in society, and writers have a really important one – particularly in unfree societies.
This is what I did after the 2008 elections. I felt that if I could contribute in some small way toward a transition to real democracy, then that would be reward enough.
When you returned at the time of the 2008 elections, to “dance on the political grain of Mugabe”, were you full of hope at the time?
Oh, yes, there was a period of about two weeks where we had seen the raw data and realised the huge extent of the turn against Mugabe.
There was much negotiation behind closed doors. Specifically with some of the Western diplomats helping to put together an exit package from Mugabe – amnesty and financial guarantees etc. – and it looked like it was really going to happen, that he would stand down.
Of course, Harare was pulsing with rumours and we all thought that there was a really good chance.
I think Mugabe was feeling his age and his wife, Grace, was saying: “It’s enough.” Then Mugabe had meetings with the generals and decided to go another way altogether.
For that brief window, though, it looked like change was going to happen.
But political parties that are born of liberation wars, and become the government, can be particularly stubborn about ceding power. They can be quite Messianic – believing they have a right to continue in power indefinitely.
In South Africa, you are on your fourth president, but Zimbabwe is still on its first.
Mugabe is so associated with power, and the party would be very vulnerable without him. He has painted himself into this corner, as he never allowed a successor to be groomed – such is the hubris of the dictator.
I don’t think that Mugabe has been bullied or controlled, but I do think that he’s not hands-on in the day-to-day running of the country. He has always delegated, that’s always been a style. He’s never been a hands-on guy in terms of how it’s done.
What is Peter Godwin’s definition of a good leader?
If you want to be a good leader, we all know the obvious things one needs, but I think you also have to have empathy. A good leader needs the ability to try and see things from other people’s point of view. You need a certain amount of empathy before they are able to feel compassion – and Mugabe has shown no compassion whatsoever to his own people.
When more and more power is concentrated in one man, such as Mugabe, the more difficult it is to change his own world view. He becomes even more authoritarian.
He reacts badly to criticism; and if people criticise him, they get taken out or squeezed out.
In that situation, people around you only tell you what you want to hear, which affects the impartiality of your input. You start getting more and more unreliable data, and your decisions start to get more and more skewed and bizarre.
For instance, about the famine, when people tried to warn Mugabe that farming had collapsed and that what few crops that had been planted, had failed, one of Mugabe’s ministers said: “No, no, I’ve flown over the country and all looks nice and green.” That’s what Mugabe wants to hear, and his ministers all know you don’t ever bring him bad news.
A real leader needs to get the real input and absorb it with empathy and then act upon it.
Mugabe lives in a totally delusional world now and I think that that is the biggest danger Zimbabwe faces.

Source: Leadership online/by Robbie Stammers