Zimbabwe nearing end of the road ?

mike65

Won't someone put Zimbabwe out of its misery?

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=42542

The economy is moribund, the currency worthless and half the nation is in danger of starvation. That would be bad enough, but in an escalating crackdown that began last month, police and security forces have been burning and bulldozing the pitifully humble homes and businesses in the sprawling shanty towns that surround Zimbabwe's major cities.

The main opposition party estimates that 1 million to 1.5 million are homeless, with their livelihoods destroyed.

The government insists that the demolitions are both urban renewal and a crackdown on black markets in the basic necessities of life — corn meal, cooking oil, sugar and gasoline. This reasoning is nonsense. The government doesn't have the money to build anything, let alone whole new communities, and the black market is about the only form of commerce left.

The real reason is to expel an angry, restive urban population and disperse it in the countryside where it will pose no threat to the regime of Robert Mugabe.

http://www.capetimes.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=272&fArticleId=2547300

Harare - Food-deficient Zimbabwe could soon face bread shortages as wheat imports have started running out due to foreign exchange problems, a state-owned newspaper said.

"The country could face bread shortages as flour supplies continue to dwindle," the Sunday Mail said.

National Bakers' Association chairperson and Lobels Bakers chief executive Burombo Mudumo said the supply situation was presently below normal for big bakeries who were using their strategic reserves.

The parastatal National Foods, which imports the bulk of Zimbabwe's wheat supplies, said it had been unable to successfully bid for foreign exchange under a mandatory government auction system due to a cash crunch.

Sorry cant think of much more to say........:(

Mike.

murphaph

Poor ba$tards. If only they had oil then the coalition of the willing would be all out to 'help' them.

Karl Hungus

It's very hard to think of anything to say with reguards to a situation like that. That bastard Mugabe is just ass-****ing his county entirely.

If you go to this website, the picture of him is reminiscant of another dictator with an equally iconic mustache. The world would indeed be a better place without him.

Red Alert

Realistically very little is going to happen there until Bob Mugabe kicks the bucket. There's no oil or the like there, and none of its neighbours has really any reason to invade. I'd give Mugabe another 5 years - he's in quite poor health.

murphaph

Red Alert wrote:

Realistically very little is going to happen there until Bob Mugabe kicks the bucket. There's no oil or the like there, and none of its neighbours has really any reason to invade. I'd give Mugabe another 5 years - he's in quite poor health.

Sadly a sh!t load of ordinary zimbabweans are gonna starve to death before the old bugger dies peacefully in his sleep.

Sand

Probably the best thing to do would be to get a resolution passed in the U.N. Call on Mugabe to stop treating his people in such a fashion, etc etc. If he doesnt pay attention, the U.N. could place sanctions to really speed things along to their conclusion. Intervention isnt really called for as Mugabe is only a threat to his own people. Theyre the ones with a responsiblity for dealing with him. Diplomacy never failed to solve everything.

RagShagBill

Diplomacy never failed to solve everything.

First of all, it depends by what you want solved.

Secondly, and not to sound like a war-mongering bastard, but that's just flat out false. Diplomacy failed to prevent Hitler's invasion of Poland, diplomacy failed to prevent Vietnam becoming Communist.

You know what I mean?

Anyway, for good stuff on Zimbabwe, check out http://www.sokwanele.com/blog/blog.html

I don't think an invasion is the right thing to do, because it could be used to justify Mugabe's arms buying, because it would, like Iraq, be an illegal invasion, thus making international law defunct and because we would see large scale death. However, something is needed, whether it be the UN or secretly funding the opposition, MDC, with money and arms, and actually backing a revolution if it were to occur.

Also, someone mentioned his ill health. I don't think this has any value, as he is due to resign at the end of the term he has just begun. No doubt we'll see him try to appoint an ideologically similar man.

angry_fox

Has Mugabe not offered the white farmers there land back if they come back? Heard they told him to F**k off.

Sand

Secondly, and not to sound like a war-mongering bastard, but that's just flat out false.

Actually it was sarcasm. Lets hope the international community can brainstorm a solution for Zimbabwe that doesnt involve waiting for Mugabe to die of old age. Sad part is, that is the international communitys solution.

However, something is needed, whether it be the UN or secretly funding the opposition, MDC, with money and arms, and actually backing a revolution if it were to occur.

U.N. cant and wont do anything. Hundreds of thousands are dying in Darfur and theyve done **** all. Theres too much politics involved for the U.N. to function in defence of human rights. The U.N. cant act against any sovereign nation, especially when they have an ally or concerned patron backing them in the security council - which they all do in todays interdependant global economy. Chinas thirst for Sudanese oil has ensured there will be no action taken to relieve the suffering in Darfur. Either way, fanning a brutal civil war is hardly the way forward for Zimbabwe, especially when you consider Mugabe was the right on poster child of the revolution against the neo-imperialist oppression by the Rhodesians not so long ago.

Mugabe doesnt care about sanctions, doesnt care about the international community and hes got the army and the police in his pocket. When the opposition stick their head up, theyre murdered. When reporters criticise him theyre silenced. Hes using hunger to starve his foes into submission. No one is willing to intervene in the required fashion.

Hence, like Darfur, its just a case of waiting for them to die until the problem solves itself.

bonkey

Sand wrote:

Chinas thirst for Sudanese oil has ensured there will be no action taken to relieve the suffering in Darfur.

Not to mention the US blocking the initial attempts to allow the ICC to step in. At least they've found a way around that one, for now.

Either way, fanning a brutal civil war is hardly the way forward for Zimbabwe,

No offence, Sand...but what - in your opinion - is the solution?

You're relatively critical of the international community not doing enough, but short of military action there's not much they can do. You admit internal armed struggle isn't likely to be a winner...so it would seem that you're either suggesting a military intervention would be the best way forward, or your criticising everyone for not doing it right but don't have any better options to offer.

So are you suggesting that the developed nations should roll their tanks in on top of every ruler we decide we should, can, or want to oust in the name of "freedom" - ignoring how long that will take?

Or is there some other option that everyone's missing?

jc

The Corinthian

I wonder if we'll all be having the same conversation about South Africa in another decade or two...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4613269.stm

murphaph

bonkey wrote:

Or is there some other option that everyone's missing?

Assasinate Mugabe? or does that fall under military action? Just an idea but it could lead to a civil war or just a straightforward Mugabe'esque replacement.

RagShagBill

Actually it was sarcasm. Lets hope the international community can brainstorm a solution for Zimbabwe that doesnt involve waiting for Mugabe to die of old age. Sad part is, that is the international communitys solution.

Boy do I feel like a right arse now.

U.N. cant and wont do anything. Hundreds of thousands are dying in Darfur and theyve done **** all. Theres too much politics involved for the U.N. to function in defence of human rights. The U.N. cant act against any sovereign nation, especially when they have an ally or concerned patron backing them in the security council - which they all do in todays interdependant global economy. Chinas thirst for Sudanese oil has ensured there will be no action taken to relieve the suffering in Darfur. Either way, fanning a brutal civil war is hardly the way forward for Zimbabwe, especially when you consider Mugabe was the right on poster child of the revolution against the neo-imperialist oppression by the Rhodesians not so long ago.

Mugabe doesnt care about sanctions, doesnt care about the international community and hes got the army and the police in his pocket. When the opposition stick their head up, theyre murdered. When reporters criticise him theyre silenced. Hes using hunger to starve his foes into submission. No one is willing to intervene in the required fashion.

Hence, like Darfur, its just a case of waiting for them to die until the problem solves itself.

I agree with every word. Would you support a full scale foreign intervention, or would you prefer someone does as I suggested, pushing arms into the country for a revolution?

I think some of the problem is that Zimbabwe is, or was anyway, a country which, like a lot of ex-colonised countries, had a market dominant minority. Thus, Mugabe could campaign about getting this ethnic minority who have stolen all our money out. He was, and I fear, still is, quite popular, espeically in rural areas.

Anyway, yes, I think I've had this discussion elsewhere, only you replace "Zimbabwe" with "Sudan" or "Iraq".

I like this Sand lad, he seems saner than some of the looney left here.

Calina

Couple of reports today that Mugabe hasn't died of heart failure: Scotsman link.

Wonder when he'll appear in public to prove he is just like a teenager. Obviously, I missed the reports that said he *had* died.

the_syco

Why don't we give Mugabe more money. Not publicly, of course, but behind the scenes. Let him live like a king. Get him a bit paranoid, maybe an "attempt" on his life, by a prime supporter. Alianate him from his people. Let him become as paranoid as possible, not trusting any of his subortinates.

And then give his oppostion some help to overthrow Mugabe. By that stage, hopefully Mugabe will be seen for what he is: a power hungry fool. And the next leader will have to be an opposite of Mugabe to be liked by the people.

sovtek

What to do about Mugabe.
That's a tough one.
However blaming the UN ignores blame shared by a few of it's strongest members for creating the situation that led to Mugabe in the first place.
As I understand it he wasn't a bad guy in the begining...and who knows what would have happened if the British would have just done the right think by Rhodesia/Zimbabwe in the first place.
The war against Zimbabwe perpetrated by the SA apartheid government (with support from the US and UK)went further to foster or even help create a brutal regime leader like Mugabe. That same aggression was extended to all SA's surrounding neighbors along with the resistance to apartheid rule (like the ANC)...Mugabe also supported those resistance movements. That's why people like Mbeke are loath to do much more than mildly criticize him.
Of course you could say "ok we know the history but what do we do now".
Frankly I don't know...but I have very little doubt that the current structures of power in the UN and the government of it's stongest members have changed enough to be the ones to solve it.

sovtek

the_syco wrote:

Why don't we give Mugabe more money. Not publicly, of course, but behind the scenes. Let him live like a king. Get him a bit paranoid, maybe an "attempt" on his life, by a prime supporter. Alianate him from his people. Let him become as paranoid as possible, not trusting any of his subortinates.

The presidents house in the city centre of Harare is constantly guarded and after 18:00 anyone driving down the road in front of it is shot.
The MDC leader was put on trial not too long ago, facing a death penalty for "treason".
I think he's crazy and paranoid enough as it is.
Of course having to fight the British, CIA, SADF and their other related military agencies for most of his life might have made him the paranoid, crazy and brutal bastard that he is today.

Quantum

mike65 wrote:

Won't someone put Zimbabwe out of its misery?

The tragic answer is - no one. Why ? Because no one gives a damn.

The people of Europe will wring their hands in cold sympathy and offer billions in aid to feed the people - but they won't allow anyone to lift a finger to actually bring freedom to the people. Millions can die, tends of thousands can be abused and tortured and killed, but that counts for nothing.
The sacred untouchable 'sovereignty' of Zimbabwe is out of bounds irrespective of any conceivable human degradation or suffering. The concept of liberating human beings from any kind of suffering is anathema to their supposed christian values. The concept of lifting a finger to end the suffering of fellow human beings is, it now appears, unacceptable and beyond consideration.

This is the reality of modern Europe.

mike65

The Corinthian wrote:

I wonder if we'll all be having the same conversation about South Africa in another decade or two...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4613269.stm

I thought that last night but had shut-down the pc! There are some worrying signs of SA following a similair path to Zimbabwe. If the whites leaves they'll take thier money and much of the know-how with them. Disaster will follow. Thabo Mbeki is a lousy leader of men.

Mike.

murphaph

The whole continent is fcuked in reality, from Libya to South Africa. If AIDS doesn't kill em all off starvation and civil war will.

Is there something inately wrong with Africa? Is it the people, is it the colonisation and carving up of tribal lands into fake countries by European powers?

Is there any hope for Africa really? Canceling their debt might be a step, but would the individual nations be able to borrow again? Would it just be a short term measure? Jesus there are lots of questions but fcuk all answers when it comes to the place.

mike65

I understand your frustration! One thng that always hangs heavy is why Asia which was colonised and mucked up/sometimes improved by various powers is broadly so much better off. Zimbabwe had - lush agriculture (largely destroyed) healthy mineral deposits (poorly exploited due to infrastructural and corruption failings) systems of law, health and education which have fallen in disrepair. Still Zambia and Botswana and Mozambique are doing better with the help of disposessed white farmers so hopefully (by accident) more of southern Africa will improve in the coming decades.

Mike.

murphaph

Well, which asian countries are we talking about? Most of Asia was not colonised by Europe, virtually all of Africa was. The bits of Asia that were colonised are indeed broadly better than most African states.

Are the people just more civilised in Asia?

They had great civilistations millenia ago. They gave us many of the things we take for granted like porcelain, gunpowder, writen languages, number systems, the digit 0 for placekeeping in mathematics for God's sake!

I can't think of anything that Africa has given the world in this regard. I'm sure someone will post a list of things now I've said that though

mike65

I won't go through the whole list but India/Pakistan/Malaysia/Thailand/Burma/Vietnam/Laos/Indonesia/Singapore/Hong Kong and even mainland China in a funny way (no British rule but plenty of licence) were colonised by European powers.

You're right about much of Asias luminous history pre-colonisation though.

As for what Africa gave us (or did'nt) there was a very lively thread which touched on that topic a year or two back.

Mike.

Sand

So are you suggesting that the developed nations should roll their tanks in on top of every ruler we decide we should, can, or want to oust in the name of "freedom" - ignoring how long that will take?

The developed "free" world has signed up to and honoured many declarations of human rights, theres been promises of "never again". To be honest Im sick of feel good politics. After Rwanda, we have Darfur. Same stuff happening all over again. The same organisation that is actually working *against* the defence of human rights, not upholding them. Not really its fault, no more than it actually achieved anything but it offers a mechanism for two of the most illiberal powers in the world, Russia and China to prevent any intervention in defence of human rights. Actually it offers them the moral highground in preserving illiberal states.

Roll our tanks in on top of every murderous tin pot dicatator starving his people, perverting the political proccess and inflicting misery on those whose interests hes supposed to act? You say it like it would be a bad idea to actually back up the commonly asserted view that a Zimbabwean has the same rights as you or I. At the end of the day you can either defend states or defend people but you cant do both.

In practical terms though it wouldnt work politically. Media criticism and political opportunism would ensure that any intervention would be constantly undermined by demands to withdraw as fast as possible. If previous interventions have taught us anything, its that intervention is a long term project. You can just invade on Friday, hold elections on Sunday and fly home on Monday. Early elections held in a sick society - and what other sort of society could reuire intervention - would only serve to reinforce grant power to the worst elements of that society - look at the Balkans. In an ideal situation, in Zimbabwe elections would be postphoned for years (up to a decade) whilst those intervening concentrated on establishing a rule of law that all trusted, a respected police force and civil service, a tradition of free speech and debate, efficient local government - and then once those were running national elections would be held. At the end of the day, elections are the least neccessary and most destabilising part of a good government.

Of course, no body would ever be given the time to carry out such a project. Wed have it denounced as neo-imperialist racist colonialist blah blah blah. All ignoring the fact that it took years before Germany regained its sovereignty and is still occupied to this day. The pressure amongst the right on would be to withdraw as fast as possible, give sovereignty over to Mugabe Jnr who seems like an awfully nice guy, and then send him lots of money.

So, if youre asking if I have another solution beyond the unpalatable concept of intervention - then no. There is no solution to the Mugabe problem other than that. So hopefully the newspapers will stop reporting on the issue until it runs its natural course. It only serves to remind us how meaningless stuff like the Declaration of Human Rights is.

Boy do I feel like a right arse now.

Dont worry about it. Sarcasm doesnt carry well across the internet.

would you prefer someone does as I suggested, pushing arms into the country for a revolution?

Nah - half the problem in the developing world is that the developed world has dumped immense amounts of small arms and other assorted weapons into domestic conflicts, pushing the balance of power all out of whack.

Once you hand over the guns, you lose all control over who uses them and for what purpose. Hence, theres a sort of moral obligation to keep arms under your control, or under the control of a liberal allied government. You wouldnt throw a gun into a room of fighting kids and hope for the best. It also makes realpolitick sense as well. You can be quite sure that a lot of the weapons that are killing US soldiers in Iraq these days were made or supplied by the US. Certainly the guys using them benefitted from US training.

The opposition in Zimbabwe, I dont know a whole lot about them. The MDC seem like really nice guys, but the international media is undoubtedly sympathetic to them so its hard to say what they might get up to if they suddenly were heavily armed and able to exact veangence against those who tormented them. And Im willing to bet it crosses tribal lines in Zimbabwe too, so there could be a whole powderkeg there.

If foreign troops were to go in, at least you know whose got the guns, and you know theyre following your orders, and that youre unlikely to unexpectedly find those guns trained on you in the future.

Is there something inately wrong with Africa? Is it the people, is it the colonisation and carving up of tribal lands into fake countries by European powers?

The basic problem is lack of good governance. Bad government can send even the richest nations down the toiliet, and good government can turn even poverty stricken economic basket cases with no natural resources into prosperous nations - Ireland is an example of that. The UK Africa commission has stated that the main factor in Africas development has to be a dramatic improvement in governance. Lets face it, Africa is fantastically wealthy in terms of natural resources. That works both for and against it, but if good governance could be achieved then the rest follows naturally.

Blaming colonialism is a bit lazy I think. Sure its a factor, but its hardly an unsurmountable barrier to economic progress, especially 50-60 years on in most cases. Why isnt India in the same boat? And if anything, the simple fact is that in terms of infrastructure and development a lot of Africa is much worse now than it was under colonialism. The Congo is a case in point.

They had great civilistations millenia ago.

So did Africa; Carthage and Egypt were more Medeterranean than African as such, but then the same could be said for Rome and the Greek kingdoms - Im working of hazy memories here but as far as I know there was some thriving sub saharan kingdoms in the early first millenium. Historians are divided on why they eventually failed, but then the same could be said for the Roman empire.

The Corinthian

Sand wrote:

So did Africa; Carthage and Egypt were more Medeterranean than African as such, but then the same could be said for Rome and the Greek kingdoms - Im working of hazy memories here but as far as I know there was some thriving sub saharan kingdoms in the early first millenium. Historians are divided on why they eventually failed, but then the same could be said for the Roman empire.

Carthage and Egypt were more Semitic or Middle-Eastern kingdoms than African. Abyssinia (Ethiopia) and Axum (the sub-Saharan kingdoms you mentioned) would be better examples, although these too would have had strong Semitic or Middle-Eastern influences.

Of course pointing the finger at African history has long been a popular proof of racialist theory. Anthropologically it ignores factors such as climate, resources and geography that have worked against the advancement of civilisation in Africa. In the same way, as you have suggested blaming European colonialism or even debt, as the left will often do, is equally simplistic.

Meh

The Corinthian wrote:

Of course pointing the finger at African history has long been a popular proof of racialist theory. Anthropologically it ignores factors such as climate, resources and geography that have worked against the advancement of civilisation in Africa.

If you've ever heard of the book Guns, Germs and Steel there's an excellent discussion of why Eurasia (and the Middle East in particular) was much better suited to developing civilization than Africa, the Americas and Australia, the main points being:

1. more easily domesticated wild animals
2. better plant species for farming
3. east-west continental axis means easier diffusion of farming crops/animals

sovtek

mike65 wrote:

If the whites leaves they'll take thier money and much of the know-how with them.

Actually people like DeBeers and Anglo American did as soon as the new government let them in 1994. So after decades of getting filthy, stupidly rich off the hard labour and lives of Africans...a few men get to make off with the riches.
Individuals, on the other hand, are limited to how much money they can take out of the country.

Disaster will follow. Thabo Mbeki is a lousy leader of men.

Mike.

OFFTOPIC
As long as Mbeki or Zuma carry out their duties with respect to how the first world wants them to run their economy (ie...neo-liberal policies that allow the transfer of capital out of the country, access to their markets and with keeping a large cheap labour force) then the country will probably remain relatively stable. That is, of course, until the vast majority of the population gets sick of living in increasing and dire poverty (which these policies perpetuate)...then see what happens.....K back on topic.

The Corinthian

sovtek wrote:

then see what happens.....

They find a scapegoat like they did in Zimbabwe?

murphaph

The Corinthian wrote:

Of course pointing the finger at African history has long been a popular proof of racialist theory. Anthropologically it ignores factors such as climate, resources and geography that have worked against the advancement of civilisation in Africa.

wtf? Southern Africa is one of the most bountiful lands in the world with coal, oil, natural gas, gold and other precious metals, diamonds and other precious gemstones, Iron ore, Bauxite. They have a dependable climate with few extremes. They have extraordinarily fertile soils in many parts. Southern Africa is in the Sh!tter though and it does indeed have a lot to do with the people whether you think that's racialist (racist) or not.

murphaph

Meh wrote:

If you've ever heard of the book Guns, Germs and Steel there's an excellent discussion of why Eurasia (and the Middle East in particular) was much better suited to developing civilization than Africa, the Americas and Australia, the main points being:

1. more easily domesticated wild animals
2. better plant species for farming
3. east-west continental axis means easier diffusion of farming crops/animals

I believe the reasons we have developed so much more in Europe than Asia at any rate is that we have Wheat as our main source of starch compared to the rice in Asia. Wheat production has been possible to mechanise so thought has gone in to developing technologies to improve efficiencies in production. In Asia rice production is nigh-on impossible to mechanise even today. So no thought went into it and no technologies derived from it. The second big reason was peace. China at any rate hade millenia of peace, while we in Europe were slaughtering each other. Warfare has and does lead to major technological advancements in any society partaking in it.

Macmorris

Meh wrote:

If you've ever heard of the book Guns, Germs and Steel there's an excellent discussion of why Eurasia (and the Middle East in particular) was much better suited to developing civilization than Africa, the Americas and Australia, the main points being:

1. more easily domesticated wild animals
2. better plant species for farming
3. east-west continental axis means easier diffusion of farming crops/animals

There's a fourth factor - the difference in intelligence between Eurasians and Africans. Eurasians are simply more intelligent than Africans and are more capable of creating and maintaining an advanced civilisation.

The reason why Asians and Europeans are more intelligent than Africans and other dark races is because the environment in which they evolved placed a greater survival advantage on high intelligence and inventiveness. Africans evolved in a warm environment with a relatively plentiful supply of food and so there wasn't much of a need for problem solving abilities. Europeans and Asians evolved in an Ice Age environment where food was scarce and where high intelligence would have given people a clear survival advantage.

Although Africans, and other tropical peoples, would have also had to use their intelligence, they didn't have to contend with the range of problems found in a cold, Ice Age environment. Europeans had to worry about things like keeping warm, storing food, setting traps for large mammals, developing a more sophisticated range of weapons and tools, and migrating in search of new food. All of these extra environmental demands would have favoured the reproduction of people with good problem solving abilities. Their genes still exist in the gene pools of the Asians and Europeans today and account for the difference in intelligence between the races.

There is a more detailed explanation of the origin of racial difference here
http://www.geocities.com/race_articles/lynn_race_evol.html