Why I am not runningAll well and good and some moral justification for yet another U-SUK led invasion of a far off land for profit. Except, today, Tsvangarai's article no longer exists on the Guardian web site, although it is cached here. And, while the article itself has disappeared, that didn't stop its central meme -- that of Tsvangarai calling for military intervention in Zimbabwe -- making its way into the Washington Post.
My people are at breaking point. World leaders' bold rhetoric must be backed with military force
Our call now for intervention seeks to challenge standard procedure in international diplomacy.
We envision a more energetic and, indeed, activist strategy. Our proposal is one that aims to remove the often debilitating barriers of state sovereignty, which rests on a centuries-old foundation of the sanctity of governments, even those which have proven themselves illegitimate and decrepit.
We do not want armed conflict, but the people of Zimbabwe need the words of indignation from global leaders to be backed by the moral rectitude of military force. Such a force would be in the role of peacekeepers, not trouble-makers. They would separate the people from their oppressors and cast the protective shield around the democratic process for which Zimbabwe yearns.
More curious still the little twist in the story that Morgan himself has added to what appeared to be his call for a invasion of Zimbabwe:
An article that appeared in my name, published in the Guardian (Why I am not running, June 25), did not reflect my position or opinions regarding solutions to the Zimbabwean crisis. Although the Guardian was given assurances from credible sources that I had approved the article this was not the case.
By way of clarification I would like to state the following: I am not advocating military intervention in Zimbabwe by the UN or any other organisation.
A number of questions arise about the original alleged Tsvangarai article in yesterday's Guardian, here's a few of them.
- From whence did the original and now removed Tsvangarai article come?
- Who were the 'credible sources' that advised the Guardian Tsvangarai had approved the article?
- How did the Guardian verify the article's approval?
- Who at the Guardian approved the publication of the original article?
If you were still labouring under the misapprehension that the majority of the 'news' is in fact actually 'news', rather than a considerable amount of propaganda presented as 'news', perhaps you might want to reconsider your position.
In the meantime, the Guardian has a little explaining to do.