The recent response of the "international community" to political developments in Guinea and Zimbabwe has been stunning in its double standards. Guinea's president, Lansana Conté, in power since 1984 through a coup d'etat, held a referendum on 11 November to change a constitutional clause barring him from seeking a third term. The landmark event barely commanded any attention in the democracy-loving Western media. The referendum results, according to the government, showed a massive 98.36% "yes vote" on a turnout of more than 87% in favor of amending the constitution to give Conté a third term when his current one expires in 2003, and also extending the presidential mandate from five to seven years.

The opposition hotly disputed the results, saying fewer than 20% of registered voters took part. Journalists covering the event reported that "there were no long queues at the polling stations" to warrant an 87% turnout. Jeune Afrique, the Paris-based weekly, reported that the results were "computer-generated" by Guinea's interior ministry, and "there was massive fraud and intimidation" "I am ashamed for my country," said Mamadou Ba, the opposition spokesperson.

The referendum did not only lift the upper sealing on how many terms a president can serve (now it is indefinite), it also lifted the age limit of 70 for presidential candidates that would have barred Conté from standing again in 2003. Days after the referendum, the government postponed "indefinitely" the parliamentary election fixed for 27 December, claiming that the postponement would allow for further consultation between the political parties and the electoral commission. Conté 67, first seized power in a coup in 1984. He was elected president in 1993, and again in 1998.

Mugabe has served only four years longer than him. The response of the "international community" to his referendum has been quite shocking. The EU, which has been threatening sanctions against Mugabe, and recently sent a delegation to Harare to further pressurize him "on democracy and human rights", only expressed "concern" about the lack of respect for constitutional rule in Guinea.

The G7 ambassadors in Conakry had lectured Conté before the referendum on the need to hold it under democratic principles, yet they merely expressed "concern" after the disputed results had been announced. No threats of sanctions! At the time of going to press, there had been no reported individual American, French or British reactions to the referendum, giving the impression that democracy and the rule of law were good only for Zimbabweans, not Guineans!

Meanwhile, in Zimbabwe itself, President Mugabe has come under intense Western pressure in recent weeks to allow in EU and other election monitors four whole months before the presidential elections in April, or suffer sanctions. Mugabe, now 78, has been called all sorts of names and accused of "pulling out all the stops to ensure that he remains in power". In Britain, the newspapers systematically mauled Mugabe in editorials published throughout October, November and December, denouncing him as a "dictator" who would rather see his country totally ruined than give up power.

Mugabe has firmly opposed the EU election monitors arriving four months before the actual event, and was reported to have stormed out of a meeting with the EU delegation that visited Harare in November. The delegation was led by the Belgian foreign minister, Louis Michel, and included the European Council secretary-general Javier Solana, and the EU commissioner for external affairs, Chris Patten. Mugabe was reported to have told them that it was the sovereign right of Zimbabwe to choose who should observe its elections, and made it clear that Harare would not invite the EU monitors if the EU continued with its stance of imposing itself on Zimbabwe.

After the meeting, Chris Patten told reporters: "We didn't have a meeting of minds with President Mugabe." Days later, President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa uncharacteristically criticised Mugabe in a big way at a meeting with business leaders in South Africa. "Clearly," Mbeki said, "in a situation in which people get disenfranchised, in which people get beaten up so that they don't take an honest decision or act according to their political convictions, obviously there can't be free elections if there are circumstances like that." It was all music to the ears of London. The Times (of London) reported on 4 December that: "Mbeki's tougher stance [against Mugabe] followed a series of telephone conversations with Western leaders in which he was urged to step up the pressure on Mugabe."

The paper added: "The New National Party which recently agreed a power-sharing deal with Mbeki's ruling ANC, called on [him] to withdraw all support for Mugabe to ensure that he was not re-elected. ‘Mugabe has become a total liability that South Africa can no longer afford’, the party said." Judging from the reaction from Harare, Mbeki's public criticism stung Zimbabwe like "a knife through the back". The state-owned Herald newspaper wrote an editorial attacking Mbeki and accusing him of "knifing Zimbabwe in the back, and of making statements that neatly dovetailed into Britain's grand plan for a global coalition against Zimbabwe".

Already, there is a big rift between America and Zimbabwe, following the House of Representatives vote in favour of the "Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act" which prescribes targeted sanctions against Zimbabwe. The Act, already passed by the Senate in August, now awaits President George Bush's signature to become law.

Political watchers say the intense pressure being exerted on Mugabe, almost on a global scale now (because of his land reform programme and intervention in Congo), is akin to the "psychological warfare" and "dirty tricks" mounted on Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana by America and its European allies before his overthrow in a coup in February 1966. Two president, two treatments: Mugabe (top) gets the stick, Conte (above) gets the carrots

CONCLUSION: From this source above, I am really educated on how the western politics works. They are interferring in African politic if only they have interest and the interests are at the brink of collapse. However, reading this artcle, shows me again how greedy some African rulers can be in sticking on power like it was made for only you. These kinds of power hungry individuals are driving our continent to hell. The west don’t care hence their "interests" are not in danger. Let them kill each other they will say.

However, from a clear sources, Britain is selling 400million worth of weapons to Africa every year and that amount increases when the labour came to power, and America more than that amount yet they are blaming africans of arm smuggling, who are making those ammunitions? Talking of diamond dealers who are buying the large amount of those diamonds? Let them stop making killer machines and stop buying those diamonds in the black markets and see the end results. Contrary to this, they are deporting anyone cought selling hard drugs to their people, yet they have the right to sell killer machine to our people without facing any deportation. I wish one day the african nations can come together to understand the world politic and play by the same rules.

Edi