Getting rid of Mugabe

FTA69

Bad bad man wrote:

This is what happens 10 times out of 10 when the left overtakes a country and embeds a dictator. The USSR was one big prison state as is Cuba, Zimbabwe, China, North Korea, Vietnam et al.

The world will be reading the same thing about Hugo Chavez in another 10-15 years.

What a joke. There are less political prisoners in Cuba than there was in Ireland 10 years ago. Although it might also be a tad inconveniant for you that the majority of those in Cuba actually support the Revolution. Likewise with the USSR, it wasn't a model for socialism by any means, and it was corrupt and repressive in many ways, but it was better than what Russia is now.

FTA69

FTA69 wrote:

What a joke. There are less political prisoners in Cuba than there was in Ireland 10 years ago. Although it might also be a tad inconveniant for you that the majority of those in Cuba actually support the Revolution Likewise with the USSR, it wasn't a model for socialism by any means, and it was corrupt and repressive in many ways, but it was better than what Russia is now.

Hmmm Human rights watch wouldnt have cuba down as a model of fairness and equality.
As for Russia and the old USSR-much of a muchness.

El Stuntman

I find it amazing to see the rose-tinted views that people have of Cuba in this country

here's an interesting blog post that I came across by a Boardsie who recently travelled to Cuba - it should help to banish people's illusions about the place.
I found it to be very interesting reading

lostexpectation

El Stuntman wrote:

I find it amazing to see the rose-tinted views that people have of Cuba in this country

here's an interesting blog post that I came across by a Boardsie who recently travelled to Cuba - it should help to banish people's illusions about the place.
I found it to be very interesting reading

I don't disbelieve anything he said about people scrounging for dollars etc, but he does undercut himself by quoting from the CIA factbook, ( again I have little doubt about there facts, only about how they choose em) but don't quote from source that tried several times to steal the whole f'ing country!

I think your point on the CIA fact book is rather irrelevant lost expectation.

Personally I'd rather live in a country where pd's just don't get elected as opposed to being thrown in jail for their beliefs.

SkepticOne

FTA69 wrote:

What a joke. There are less political prisoners in Cuba than there was in Ireland 10 years ago.

In the case of Ireland would the term political prisoner include IRA murderers?

DadaKopf

gbh wrote:

Agreed...about 99% of their problems are internal, due to mismanagment, corruption, poor decision making and not following best international practises...I dont know about invading a country to bring down a regime because it sets a dangerous precedent and legitimises war against other countries. I do think there are more effective and peaceful ways to bring down a regime such as targeted sanctions, banning their diplomatic staff, helping the opposition.

It's absurd to put a figure on it, or even suggest a proportion. The reality is that it's a very complex mix of both. The other rule is you simply cannot generalise about an entire continent of over 50 countries with very different histories.

John O'Shea goes on a lot about how corrupt 'Africa' is, but never talks about the American and European countries that supply this corruption. And he never talks about how people in Africa are successfully fighting corruption themselves, and in extremely difficult circumstances.

O'Shea blames all of Africa, picks on two or three, but forgets things like the World Bank Corporate Legal Corruption Component index, which shows Ireland as more internally corrupt than Botswana.

He also won't talk about how the OECD recently berated Ireland's record on combating corruption, or that the FF/PD government would not ratify the UN Convention Against Corruption.

Why is that, I wonder?

lostexpectation

Tristrame wrote:

I think your point on the CIA fact book is rather irrelevant lost expectation.

Personally I'd rather live in a country where pd's just don't get elected as opposed to being thrown in jail for their beliefs.

the pd don't have any political beliefs they have ibec

lostexpectation

DadaKopf wrote:

John O'Shea goes on a lot about how corrupt 'Africa' is, but never talks about the American and European countries that supply this corruption. And he never talks about how people in Africa are successfully fighting corruption themselves, and in extremely difficult circumstances.

what OShea talks about is not channeling any aid through the government of the countries but this must be nonsense surely, they do use other channels/ngo to distriubte aid but how could you possibly distribute a 100% of western aid without the cooperation and resources/structures of the the governments?

DadaKopf

lostexpectation wrote:

what OShea talks about is not channeling any aid through the government of the countries but this must be nonsense surely, they do use other channels/ngo to distriubte aid but how could you possibly distribute a 100% of western aid without the cooperation and resources/structures of the the governments?

More than that. If you don't fund Southern governments, you undermine their capacities to govern, and to learn from mistakes; if you provide aid the wrong way, or interfere in Southern countries' governing processes, you prevent them from learning from their mistakes. Countries are entitled to make mistakes, and crucially to learn from them, as Ireland has done.

Think how developed Ireland would be if all EU structural funds had been channelled through St. Vincent de Paul?

mike65

lostexpectation wrote:

wasn't mugabe benevolent(revolutionary) dictator when he started out?

He was, there was some worry when he won power over Joshua Nkomo who the UK government was secretly hoping would win. Mugabes domestic record was never great (he was using violent/covert supression against Nkomos allies from the off) but in terms of the economy things were okay until about 1987/88 when he effectivly seized power for good. Since then his growing obsession with "whitey" and land-reform has plunged the place into the hell-hole it is.

Mike.

nacho libre

El Stuntman wrote:

South Africa could remove Mugabe in the morning by closing the border

but they choose not to do this to their 'brother in the revolutionary struggle'

pathetic and cowardly

Yes it's a bloody disgrace. The nerve that guy had to attend the last Pope's funeral.

nacho libre

Judt wrote:

Better benevolent dictators than idiots like Mugabe, is his reasoning I think. Not that the west would want to do it... I think though that there might be a couple of starving African's missing a few limbs, family members and their homes might not be particularly thankful for your enthusiastic defence of their right to live under an African dictatorship. But the question of the west moving in and clearing house is out of the question - even in places like Sudan, where Darfur has almost everyone universally calling for that kind of action, the west won't do it.

Why? Well, who the hell wants to get into that big quagmire? Name me a long-term successful UN mission in Africa...

The question "Are African's too stupid to run their own countries?" often gets bandied about. I don't think so. But I do think that they lack experience. The problem is that unlike, say, Europe a few hundred years ago, they have the examples of the rest of the world to go by on what works and what doesn't, and they seem to ignore them in favour of "OMFG, we have access to the funds of a country now?! Let's go buy gold plated swimming pools!"

The ultimate example of this being the wife of Nelson Mandela, who is one of the most corrupt individuals in Africa.

Africa has had a good run at independence, and I think the time has come to stop blaming the west for all of its problems. The African's have created plenty for themselves, and blaming it all on us is a bit like the Irish blaming their former economic woes on the British, because the Irish introduced idiotic protectionist policies on political rather than economic terms. There comes a point when you have to stop blaming your former colonial masters and face up to the problems you're creating for yourself.

Yeah, like Gabon which seems to be one of the few African countries where the government don't use the economy as their own personal bank account.

Mad Finn

Judt wrote:

The problem is ..they seem to ignore them in favour of "OMFG, we have access to the funds of a country now?! Let's go buy gold plated swimming pools!"

The ultimate example of this being the wife of Nelson Mandela, who is one of the most corrupt individuals in Africa.

If that's Winnie you're talking about, don't you mean ex wife?

Mad Finn

FTA69 wrote:

As long as Ian Smith never sees political office I'll be a happy man, how such a racist scumbag has been elevated into the leader of the "long-suffering" colonial minority there and subsequently lionised in the Brit media is beyond me.

mike65 wrote:

FTA69, Smith is in South Africa and as far as I can tell holds no sway with anyone including the oppressed white minority.

He's also 88 years old and has outlived his wife and only son. He now lives with his step daughter (also widowed) in S Africa. I don't think he's making any political comebacks.

Mugabe's a bastard and always was. His massacres in Matabeteland (Nkomo's heartland) on first coming to power were evidence of that.

Mind you, he's not the first tawdry product of an Irish Jesuit schooling.

Most newly independent countries go through a violent upheaval with the various factions determined to grab their share of all the loot for themselves. our own Civil War was an example.

The greatest moment in the our immediate post independence was when Cosgrave as leader of the outgoing Cumann na nGaedhael government handed over power peacefully to Fianna Fail, many of whose members had come into the Dail armed for fear that he would not honour the result of the election. He did. And Civil War politics should have ended then.

After that, the political process had credibility. People knew you could get rid of a govenrment simply by voting them out. Zimbabwe doesn't seem to have that dynamic just yet.

FTA69

SkepticOne wrote:

In the case of Ireland would the term political prisoner include IRA murderers?

Yes, you mightn't agree with their armed campaign but it remains politically motivated. Likewise with those in Cuba who are members of the plethora of armed groups trying to overthrow the Revolution.

(Of course not all political prisoners in Cuba are not members of these groups.)

Mick86

FTA69 wrote:

Yes, you mightn't agree with their armed campaign but it remains politically motivated.

Either you support a political process or a revolution. The two are mutually exclusive. Much of what various terrorist groups do for "political" reasons is mere common criminality dressed as heroic revolution.

gbh

Total economic collapse of the country is predicted within 6 months. Inflation will get so bad the country will no longer function.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6751671.stm

Surely they won't re-elect Mugabe for president again.

DadaKopf

'Elect'? If, by that, you mean people being press ganged at gunpoint to vote Mugabe.

Therein lies the problem. It's only right the world isolates him, but this not only hurts your average Zimbabwean, but strengthens his rule since he can conveniently blame the West and stoke up the fires of pro-Mugabe nationalism.

More than that, he may leave, but he'd likely put a crony in his place, and so the cycle continues. As is the pattern in many sub-Saharan African countries, the only option is conflict. But the opposition hasn't the space to even do that.

But I think the real political pressure should, and is coming from African countries themselves.

FTA69

Mick86 wrote:

Either you support a political process or a revolution. The two are mutually exclusive. Much of what various terrorist groups do for "political" reasons is mere common criminality dressed as heroic revolution.

Revolution in itself is a political process as it is politically motivated and seeks to effect a political change.

SkepticOne

FTA69 wrote:

(Of course not all political prisoners in Cuba are not members of these groups.)

No, and there's the difference. In Cuba you merely have to speak out against injustice and you are imprisoned and tortured. In Ireland you shoot a cop while robbing a bank and you are a "political prisoner".

DadaKopf

FTA69 wrote:

Revolution in itself is a political process as it is politically motivated and seeks to effect a political change.

It's not *that* simple. Although, true that when a state has a monopoly of the use of force, it's usually the state that defines the parameters of political violence.

But perhaps what Mich86 meant was it's not political *procedure*, or process in the *limited sense*. Rather than a set of social and political processes.

As in, 'the political' as narrowly or broadly defined.

williambonney

Mugabe actually looks like an ape.

FTA69

SkepticOne wrote:

No, and there's the difference. In Cuba you merely have to speak out against injustice and you are imprisoned and tortured. In Ireland you shoot a cop while robbing a bank and you are a "political prisoner".

Of course, anyone who says anything in Cuba is automatically imprisoned and tortured, roughly 200 people out of a population of 7 odd million. :rolleyes:
Many of which are actually members of terrorist organisations.

As for the cop remark, that wasn't the limit of IRA actions as well you know.

mike65

roughly 200 people out of a population of 7 odd million.

Thats okay then. As for the provos shooting cops that was indeed only part of thier day-to-day activity.

Mike.

FTA69

They shot RUC members who were combatants, the same way Sean Lemass took part in the shooting of RIC members in a similar conflict. Anyway, this is besides the point, I'm f*cked if I'm getting into another argument about the IRA.

SkepticOne

FTA69 wrote:

Of course, anyone who says anything in Cuba is automatically imprisoned and tortured, roughly 200 people out of a population of 7 odd million.

They would not have the resources to do that. The idea would be to make an example of a certain number and terrorise the rest into silence.

Very different to the way we operate in this country. Yes, quite rightly, subversives are locked up in Ireland, but this is in order that peaceful political discourse can be engaded in by the rest of us free from violence and intimidation.

If you want Cuban style government to operate here you must persuade me and and a majority of the country that that is the way to go. If you point guns at me or others because you are not getting your own way you will be locked up. I think most people will agree with me that this is the way it should be.

Getting back on topic, I think Mugabe has such a hold on his country that he will have to die before there is progress. Mugabe operates in much the same way as what some have called political prisoners on this thread. Rather than win over the people, they haul into custody those who are speaking out and beat them. He has also closed down all independent private media outlets.

sovtek

El Stuntman wrote:

funny, the burgeoning black middle class doesn't look too screwed to me

When did that happen? Poverty has increased since Apartheid ended. Walk into Khayelitsha around sunset and tell them how their economy is booming.

http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001005/index.php

El Stuntman

sovtek wrote:

When did that happen? Poverty has increased since Apartheid ended. Walk into Khayelitsha around sunset and tell them how their economy is booming.

http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001005/index.php

lol, I'll be in SA next week - I'll report back with an update since my last visit (March) but I doubt there will be any less black people buying BMWs, houses, private education for their kids, domestic services etc etc than there were then (a helluva lot)

I personally work with a lot of the new black (not to mention Coloured) middle class so can claim some small degree of knowledge on its emergence. Believe me, it's there!

FTA69

SkepticOne wrote:

They would not have the resources to do that. The idea would be to make an example of a certain number and terrorise the rest into silence.

They would have the resources to imprison a lot more people than 200, don't worry about that. But yet they don't.

Very different to the way we operate in this country. Yes, quite rightly, subversives are locked up in Ireland, but this is in order that peaceful political discourse can be engaded in by the rest of us free from violence and intimidation.

I have no real problem with IRA members being locked up, tortured and beaten, they don't expect any less from the government. However there are also those involved solely in politics which suffer harrasment and intimidation from the police. Go to any commemoration or Republican meeting and you will see car-loads of Special Branch monitoring proceedings. This is hardly the hallmark of peaceful discourse is it?

Mugabe operates in much the same way as what some have called political prisoners on this thread. Rather than win over the people, they haul into custody those who are speaking out and beat them.

The Heavy Gang?