Newvision is editorial board chairman is known to be a British Citizen called Pike. Tell Pike to stop jocking. The same Bitish tentacle pretending as Ugandan is writing promoting his agenda on Ugandan soil. Annan can not be an African mediator just because he is black. If Blackness is the criteria, MDC leader is black, US ambassador in Zim is black, Rice is black. I don't think the issue of Zim is not as simple as black versus white person. It is rather justice for majority versus rigths to the selfish minority. Annan is known to serve the interest of US and UK as UN secretary post in Black skin.

"It is rather justice for majority versus rigths to the selfish minority." - Based on the results of the first election where things were close to free and fair, you must mean that the selfish minority is indeed Mugabe, the butcher of harare.

The only way it will work is with MDC being the recognised party. As you said Inde, the first election was the closest that Mugabe would let the elections be Free & Fair. The second round was entirely illegal (before you all say it wasn't, Mugabe had 21 days to proceed with the Run Off)and with all the violence that was used to intimidate voters it definitely was not free and fair. Mugabe now has not only made himself look stupid but all the people that support him. 100 people dead, people fleeing the country or asking for help from foreign embassies, MDC head quarters being raided constantly, intimidation (By that i mean severe beatings) of MDC supporters before they even hold a rally, people coloring their fingers with inc so it looks like they have voted and the video of the police being told who to vote for while the cronie watches them vote (very Secret). People say that Morgan isn't the man to take them into the future, well quiet clearly he is the best choice to give a shot.

At this point in time, any impartial readers or analysts of the ongoing furor of Western countries, with UK and USA in lead, against president Robert Mugabe must certainly have already asked themselves the following questions: First, what is so important about whether or not Zimbabwe's elections were fair that justifies this immeasurable amount of furor from western countries against president Mugabe? Second, let’s assume that president Mugabe stole the elections just like numerous other leaders did in some other countries. Have UK and USA ever previously displayed such amounts of furor against those other countries’ presidents who had stolen the elections? Third, if president Mugabe was really as evil as Western countries (with UK and USA in lead) presently portray him, how could all of the seven African head of states gathered at the G8 Summit in Japan vehemently reject the UK- and USA-drafted sanctions against president Mugabe’s Zimbabwe? Present at the G8 Summit were the presidents of Tanzania, Nigeria, South Africa, Ghana, Algeria, Ethiopia, and Senegal, all of whom rejected the sanctions idea. These questions and many others lead only to one logical conclusion: “There is something not genuine in UK and USA’s mobilization of the world’s nations and institutions against president Mugabe, and that must be the reason why other G8 members such as Russia, Japan, and China rejected the UK and USA’s punitive approach to Zimbabwe crisis.”

At this point in time, any impartial readers or analysts of the ongoing furor of Western countries, with UK and USA in lead, against president Robert Mugabe must certainly have already asked themselves the following questions: First, what is so important about whether or not Zimbabwe's elections were fair that justifies this immeasurable amount of furor from western countries against president Mugabe? Second, let’s assume that president Mugabe stole the elections just like numerous other leaders did in some other countries. Have UK and USA ever previously displayed such amounts of furor against those other countries’ presidents who had stolen the elections? Third, if president Mugabe was really as evil as Western countries (with UK and USA in lead) presently portray him, how could all of the seven African head of states gathered at the G8 Summit in Japan vehemently reject the UK- and USA-drafted sanctions against president Mugabe’s Zimbabwe? Present at the G8 Summit were the presidents of Tanzania, Nigeria, South Africa, Ghana, Algeria, Ethiopia, and Senegal, all of whom rejected the sanctions idea. These questions and many others lead only to one logical conclusion: “There is something not genuine in UK and USA’s mobilization of the world’s nations and institutions against president Mugabe, and that must be the reason why other G8 members such as Russia, Japan, and China rejected the UK and USA’s punitive approach to Zimbabwe crisis.”

Fisrtly, the reason it is important for the elections to be free and fair is that Zimababwe is a democracy which means the people vote for who they think is best to run the country. Agreed that Tsvangarai won the first round but not by enough to claim outright victory. the Run off was then supposed to be held within 21 days which it wasn't and looking from the outside in, the only reason it wasn't was so Mugabe could stamp out the non Zanu PF supporters. Even a blind man could see that.

Secondly, again you say the Western countries are this and that but it is only an excuse. There are no excuses for what Mugabe has done. It is just too much for some people to say that sometimes people can do things for the greater good. Why does everytime a Western country get involved in something they must always want something. For me personally, i dont give a shit what the UK or US think. my opinions come from the facts i know.

Thirdly, the sanctions that were put forward were strictly for Mugabe and his regime. Nothing at all to do with the Zimbabwean people. Russia, China & Japan have all said that the Mugabe regime is not the ideal government to lead the country and they all support a mediator in a bid for a government of national unity or transitional government. All in all they know and have admitted, the Zanu PF party cannot run the country and it is in order for a change.

Again ill say it. Mugabe is definatly not the person to take Zim forward. c'mon even his supporters know that. Weather he gets a golden hand shake and is allowed to retire peacefully is for the Zim people to decide. Surely the 80+ year old cannot think he is the man to lead the country forward. dont get me wrong, HE WAS. But now he has become a disgrace. he is scared of what may be in store for him if he ever loses the iron fist control he has over Zimbabwe.

To all those people who say that Tsvangarai is a puppet to the west. You are just kidding yourself as you are puppets to the Mugabe regime and you believe all he propaganda that is spewed from Zanu PF party and that poor excuse for a newspaper called the Herald.

Sorry about the long winded post. But they are some of my personal thoughts

I've noticed that the honourable editor "omitted" to mention that despite the African Union's call for a government of national unity between President Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF and Mr Morgan Tsvangirai's Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), the latter insists on a transitional government. Hence, the continued stalemate. Of course, there are other conditions ...

I guess the editor and the French presidency can tell us why there was a need for a run-off in Zimbabwe. If Mr Tsvangirai's MDC had "won" the March 29 2008 elections, I'm sure he would be in Zimbabwe's State House by now.

In terms of that country's Constitution and electoral laws, for either of them to have "won" or at least to enjoy some "showboating" now, he ought to have garnered at least 51% of the votes. We all know that Mr Tsvangirai came close to notching the requisite simple majority.

Also, you allege, without adducing any evidence, that "Mbeki is too close to Mugabe, their past and current interests are too deeply intertwined, to be credible as an arbiter". Oh, for your information, the African Union has given the South African president (Thabo Mbeki) the mandate to continue with his mediation efforts. Your convenient ignorance or disregard of this fact appears to be contemptuous of African efforts to break the deadlock in Zimbabwe.

Also, as a worthy editor you should recall that President Mbeki was showered with praise by MDC and even the west for concessions that ZANU-PF made before the march 29 elections. Even his harshest critics gave him credit for achieving what was seen as the impossible.

I'm sure no sane person would have a problem if the AU were to decide to make Mr Kofi Anan a mediator in Zimbabwe and relieve President Mbeki of his duties. However, as things stand we've President Mbeki occupying centre stage.

Unfortunately, you seem to suggest that Mr Anan's clout in solving the Kenyan problem would necessarily translate into his success in Zimbabwe. Talking of a panacea for all ills? Anyway, what are Mr Anan's "soft-spoken diplomatic skills".

Neither Mr Mbeki nor Mr Anan is a demigod who can just wave a magic wand overnight and have the Zimbabwean problems vanish. Therefore, it would be foolish for any of us to think that "enter Mr Anan and exit Mr Mbeki", all is history and, hey presto, the two "warring parties" bury the hatchet and drink from the same Zimbabwean well, and Zimbabwe is rescued from her economic quagmire. In other words, let's be cautious when we try to compare the situation in Zimbabwe with that which obtained in Kenya.

Lastly, what I'm asking for honourable editor is for some dispassionate and intelligent take on a complex issue like Zimbabwe. Playing to the western gallery does not help.