News and Politics Forum

peoples army wrote:

The best the West can probably offer in a situation like this is deft political involvement with regional players, and disaster relief assistance to victims within the country (emergency food aid, shelter, etc) supported by AU/UN troops for security and child rape.

Fixed it for you.

Biker Dude wrote:

I wasn't aware that Zimbabwe used apartheid

I'm not sure if you're pretending to be clever with the word "Zimbabwe" and get off on a technicality or not.
So, yes, technically, "Zimbabwe" hasn't ever operated under anything even closely resembling apartheid, but rather the increasingly oppressive and racist government of Robert Mugabe.
However if you look further back to the state of "Rhodesia" before it became "Zimbabwe", then you will find a history rife with racism against black Zimbabweans that started in 1890 with the work of the British South African Company. This included land acts in 1899 and 1931 (after Southern Rhodesia became independent of British Rule), which while they might not technically be apartheid acts, were part of a much larger government system that for all intents and purposes closely resembled an apartheid state.

OR that it recently stopped.  Here I was thinking Mugabe had been in power for almost 30 years...

Regardless of the government, it often takes more than 30 years to sufficiently correct the nasty effect that colonialism has on a society. While no one can deny the level of damage that the Mugabe government has done to Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe and the people that support him are a product of what came before. It's more than a little bit disingenuous to ignore the history of the country prior to 1980 and suggest everything was rosy until Mugabe came to power.

dubfan wrote:

Fixed it for you.

While I understand your disgust with atrocities that have been committed by UN peace keepers, a security force must be present if disaster relief is to be guaranteed to reach the people. A multi-national force is much more likely to gain international support than a United States force...not that the US has the manpower anyway.

As an aside, US forces have also committed war crimes in the past. There will be some criminals within any armed force.

Turd Ferguson wrote:

I'm guessing that Japan, Germany, and Italy don't count?

The world and those countries were in a much different place politically, socially, and economically than the world and Zimbabwe today.
Totally different situations, not the least because of the history of governance in those countries prior to their usurpation by imperialist regimes.
What works in one situation does not necessarily work in another.

The only good thing about the white colonials is that they kept the natives from killing each other.

Well, that and the aqueducts, sanitation, roads, irrigation, public baths, medicine, wine, public order, public health, education and a fresh water system.

Otherwise, I'm completely in agreement with ya

Qwinn

Turd Ferguson wrote:

You sure do like the moral relativism argument, don't you, PA?

Have you lived in the region?
If you have, and you don't recognize the nuances of the situation due to its history, I don't expect you to recognize that it's not a morally relativist argument, but an understanding that the current situation extends beyond the influence of one man's regime.

India comes to mind. As does many of the former non-African British colonies..

The fact that some countries have emerged from their colonial past is merely an example that it's possible to. It does not mean that it has to take place for each along the same time scale and in the same form.
It will be different for each country, and the history of Zimbabwe is different in many ways from the history of India.

Moral relativism again, I'm afraid. You can't make the comparison between troops of a country conscripted into service under the all-wonderful powder blue flag to the professional forces of the US military. For that matter, consider where those UN troops hail from, too.

I'm not suggesting that UN forces are better than US forces on any level, merely stating that a force's moral authority extends beyond the acts of some of its members.

I'm all for another force working in the region besides the AU or the UN; however, the force must be international, and Zimbabweans and other governments in the region want it to be someone who doesn't seem like they have imperialist intentions. If there's another force that meets those requirements, send them instead. I don't have any particular love for the blue helmets, which you seem to think I do for some reason.

You couldn't find a culture more diametrically opposed to the Western culture of the US than the Japanese circa WWII. Imperialist Japan existed for MANY years prior to WWII. Same with Germany. Italy was only recently unified in the historical scope.

All of those countries had a long history of self-rule, and the ability to manage their own institutions which comes about as a result.
The same can't be said for Zimbabwe, or any of the other colonial countries. Additionally, at the time, those countries (Italy, Germany, Japan) were defeated militarily in a world war, in a totally different global political climate. There's a difference between trying to remove a tyrant in a country that hasn't been outwardly aggressive to any other country (emerging from a recent colonial past), and overthrowing leaders of an enemy empire that were part of a world war.

Qwinn wrote:

Well, that and the aqueducts, sanitation, roads, irrigation, public baths, medicine, wine, public order, public health, education and a fresh water system.

The strength of that argument rests on the idea that those same technologies could not have been transfered in a more human manner, or developed independently by the country in consideration.

The ends don't justify the means. If a slave owner teaches his slaves how to work a farm, that doesn't mean it's good to have been a slave because of the professional development received.

zukiphile wrote:

Is it at all queer to lay the blame for producing Mugabe at the hands of the very people who spilled blood to keep him and his sort out of power?

He was able to gain support and power because a large portion of the society was oppressed under Rhodesian rule.
Had the government that was in place beforehand truly been a government of the people, I doubt he would've received the support he did.
It's the same way communists gain power in other countries.

EDITED for typos.

Last edited by peoples army (06-30-2008 12:09 AM)

Turd_Ferguson wrote:

...amazingly they (the people she encountered) have a very positive opinion about W. Apparently his 3 day, 4 night stay there is the only time a Western leader has stayed for more than a few hours... means a lot.

GWB has spent a lot of time in the region, primarily working on issues of malaria and HIV. As far as I know, he's probably "invested" more in African countries than any other recent US president, at least through the aid he's earmarked for the continent.

At the same time, when I was living in Namibia and the war in Iraq began, people were burning US flags in the streets.
Namibians never, ever, get that riled up about anything -- it isn't a place where people burn flags.

So I think the opinion of the west in the region is still mixed.

And, as you pointed out, Tanzania is A LOT different than Zimbabwe.

However, this article and its associated quotes are rather telling:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w … 242895.ece

In Nairobi, Raila Odinga, the Kenyan Prime Minister, called on the union to eject Mr Mugabe from the summit. He said: “He should be suspended until he allows the African Union to facilitate free and fair elections.” The African Union’s own observers in Harare said the vote “fell short” of the organisation’s standards.

And Odinga isn't a saint either.

This is one of the reasons I think the best way for the West to be involved with Zimbabwe is through deft political action and disaster relief (food, shelter, refugee programs). The more direct intervention is by the west, the more African leaders are let off the hook. That region NEEDS to develop better leadership before it can really begin to move forward; the AU and African leaders need to be taken to task by the world for not putting more pressure on Zimbabwe. I think the United States really can do that, especially with the help of other like-minded countries.

However, sometimes it seems like that may happen. While nothing of real consequence has happened at the AU, African leaders have made some good decisions in the past:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7354428.stm

The ship was finally allowed to dock in Angola. But South Africa, Mozambique, and Namibia all denied the ship entry to their docks, and spoke out against arming the Mugabe regime. It was a positive sign.

EscapeVelocity wrote:

Arm the insurgency and give them safe haven to operate and supply in Mozambique, South Africa, Zambia, Angola, Botswana, and Namibia.

There is no insurgency.

peoples army wrote:

EscapeVelocity wrote:

Arm the insurgency and give them safe haven to operate and supply in Mozambique, South Africa, Zambia, Angola, Botswana, and Namibia.

There is no insurgency.

That is because they arent armed or supplied.  Thus my answer to the threads question.

Maybe pass out Che T-Shirts as uniforms for the insurgency.  That should confuse the Western Indecent Left.

Last edited by EscapeVelocity (07-02-2008 01:29 AM)

peoples army wrote:

EscapeVelocity wrote:

That is because they arent armed or supplied.  Thus my answer to the threads question.

...Or because they don't exist.

There is an OPPOSITION, but it's not an insurgency.

I have Zimbabwean friends, in Zimbabwe now, who are part of the opposition, in one form or another.
They don't seem very interested in another armed uprising. It's a cycle that perpetuates itself, and has in many other African countries, and the people of Zimbabwe (or at least the people I know), seem keen to avoid it.

Turd Ferguson wrote:

Anyway, the US has, under the Bush Admin, thrown more money at HIV research and aid to countries in SSA than any other previous administrations. Can't seem to find the specifics, but my sis had it handy in her Tanzania research.

I am confused why we're still talking about this. I already said in my last post that the Bush administration has done a lot in Africa. We're in agreement on that. I only wanted to mention that there are many in the region who still aren't the biggest supporters of the US/West in general for a variety of reasons, so I don't think it's accurate to say people in Africa have an entirely positive or negative view of the West.

I wish I could find it, PA, but IIRC a prominent African leader/thinker said around the time of the last feel-good Live Aid show that the West needs to completely remove the tit from Sub-Saharan Africa's mouth and allow these countries to operate independant of the foreign welfare.

Again, we're in agreement here: when I originally gave what I thought would be an appropriate solution for Western action in Zimbabwe, I said that disaster relief should be supplied, with a secured force, so that it can reach starving people. That's not the type of aid that the African leader is talking about. There have been moves, which the US has been involved in, to increase the sanctions on Zimbabwe, and I think this is a step in the right direction as well, and goes along with what you're saying.

On a larger level, I agree that aid to the region needs to be reduced dramatically, and the remainder delivered in a much more accountable way. However what we're talking about here has very little to do with aid and much more to do with how to deal with a dictator who's bringing his country to the brink of collapse.

EDIT: didn't finish a sentence...

PA... you have summarized your point effectively; more than adequate for anyone reading to understand. I have a question though.

As you know, China is a strong supporter of the ZANU-PF, and is building a strong trade relationship with ZW via Mugabe, who represents some shared political philosophies with Chinese Governance.  How do you think this relationship will be maintained if Mugabe's Regime is ushered out by Western and AU pressure?  Not just it's effect on ZW, but the Chinese presence in Southern Africa as a whole. 

I have not confirmed the figures, but I understand China to may represent a stronger aid and trade ally for Sub-Saharan Africa than the US/UN.

Excellent posts btw.

Last edited by Charles Taylor (07-02-2008 08:14 PM)

EscapeVelocity wrote:

While no one wants an armed uprising, that is exactly what is needed.  If the people were armed, the ZANU-PF, the military, and the War Veterans wouldnt be running over them willy nilly as they are now.

I understand your frustration with the current state of Zimbabwe. It really is a tragedy of the highest order. I would also like to think an armed revolution could lead to positive change.

However, I think it's difficult to say whether or not a full-scale civil war would make things better or worse. I would say more often than not, history shows that civil wars within Africa don't lead to stabilization. After all, Mugabe is a product of one.

If civil war really is the only way, the West would do well to avoid arming either side a la Cold War policies; such policies gave birth to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and similarly brutal forces around the world. It would be better to destabilize the despot through international smart sanctions and other forms of international pressure, similar to that which was used against South Africa when the US finally got its head out of its ass.

Charles Taylor wrote:

I have not confirmed the figures, but I understand China to may represent a stronger aid and trade ally for Sub-Saharan Africa than the US/UN.

Their influence within the region grows by the day.
I have no idea how China can be convinced to divest in dictators in Africa.
The only thing I can think of that might help would be for the west to engage in economic activity that trumps whatever China offers to the more stable democratic countries in the region, thus limiting China's regional influence, and isolate those countries (politically and economically) that are supported by China's investments. Then let the countries crumble internally while helping to build for a replacement government.

China offers no meddling in non democratic and human rights abusing governments.  There is nothing the West can do about that.

Last edited by EscapeVelocity (07-02-2008 10:52 PM)

peoples army wrote:

I understand your frustration with the current state of Zimbabwe. It really is a tragedy of the highest order. I would also like to think an armed revolution could lead to positive change.

Really is, considering that its future was once very bright, and from an economic standpoint, they were the breadbasket of Africa prior to the late 80's.

However, I think it's difficult to say whether or not a full-scale civil war would make things better or worse. I would say more often than not, history shows that civil wars within Africa don't lead to stabilization. After all, Mugabe is a product of one.

Indirectly, he is. At the very same time, the peaceful exchange of power the West typically enjoys is absent as well. (with few examples) Even South Africa is in a lot of trouble still.

If civil war really is the only way, the West would do well to avoid arming either side a la Cold War policies; such policies gave birth to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and similarly brutal forces around the world. It would be better to destabilize the despot through international smart sanctions and other forms of international pressure, similar to that which was used against South Africa when the US finally got its head out of its ass.

I think you're oversimplifying the Mujahideen taking over. There's far too many factors at play, and given the alternative to Soviet rule at the time, there was a definite upshot to them. However, as we've seen and need not go into, it backfired on us. Badly.

Sanctions don't work always, either, as you state below, and I can't agree more. If the entire group doesn't play by the rules they're pointless. Case in point is Iraq and the Oil for Food Program, the Cuban Embargo, and so on.

I have no idea how China can be convinced to divest in dictators in Africa.
The only thing I can think of that might help would be for the west to engage in economic activity that trumps whatever China offers to the more stable democratic countries in the region, thus limiting China's regional influence, and isolate those countries (politically and economically) that are supported by China's investments. Then let the countries crumble internally while helping to build for a replacement government.

What manner of economic action would you suggest?

I can only see an armed uprising with effective sanctions being the logical and rational choice.

IOW,

Status quo. I therefore stand by my previous suggestion of nuking from orbit.

Fair enough, PA.

I have this vision of you among the Euro hand wringers in the UN, who like to make grand pronouncements to save face, while doing everything possible not to confront real human rights abusers.

The Responsibility to Protect just the latest farce.....that one was Canada's.  The Euros heartily supported the "initiative."  LOL!

Last edited by EscapeVelocity (07-03-2008 03:06 AM)