HARARE (AFP) - Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe came under increased pressure Monday to allow the release of presidential election results as his rival Morgan Tsvangirai met with ruling party chief Jacob Zuma in South Africa.
The heat on 84-year-old Mugabe was turned up with a flurry of near-simultaneous statements from the European Union, the White House, the US State Department and the United Nations.
The man who says he defeated Mugabe outright, opposition leader Tsvangirai, meanwhile, made his first overseas trip since the March 29 polls.
Tsvangirai's Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) was cagey about the visit, describing it as routine and denying any meetings with government officials took place.
However, a spokesman from the African National Congress confirmed to AFP that Tsvangirai held talks with Zuma, who was elected head of the ANC in December and is likely to be the next South African president.
UN chief Ban Ki-moon urged the commission, whose leaders are appointed by Mugabe, to release results of the polls "expeditiously and with transparency," while the European Union called for them "without further delay."
The US further questioned the logic behind Mugabe's ruling party's call for a recount of the presidential vote.
"It's overdue that the election results be announced," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters in Washington.
"It's interesting that they haven't had the official election results announced, yet there is a call for a recount. I'm not sure of the logic train there," McCormack said.
"Land must remain in our hands. The land is ours, it must not be allowed to slip back into the hands of whites," Mugabe, who has ruled since independence from Britain in 1980, was quoted as saying by the state media on Monday.
Critics blame Mugabe's land reform programme, which was intensified after he lost the referendum in 2000, for Zimbabwe's economic meltdown.
Faced with 80 percent unemployment and six-digit inflation, almost one third of Zimbabwe's 13 million population have left the country, both to find work and food as even basics such as bread and cooking oil are now hard to come by.
RLCC Comment: Mugabe is attempting to cheat. His leadership has been disastrous. While the racism of the Whites during Rhodesian rule was awful, Mugabe can not use that as an excuse to continue running Zimbabwe further into the ground. There were and are Whites who would have helped feed the people with proper farming and be much more egalitarian had Mugabe reached out to them in the Christian spirit.
Yahoo! News: World - Africa, April 6, 2008, 6:27pm, obtained via:
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)