Okay, so you just ventilated Mugabe. Now what?

Fond as I am of Imperialist Flag-Waving, I do accept that Unpleasant Things™ happened to some of the Native People under British Rule in various places.

Having said that, the Victorians had some… less enlightened ideas about Race than we do now.

The point that I believe both myself and Argent Towers are making isn’t that the people of Zimbabwe are incapable of governing themselves because they’re (Gasp!) Black, it’s that they’re incapable of governing themselves full stop and my response on how to deal with the problems facing Zimbabwe now would be exactly the same if the people running the country were Chinese or Indian or British or Russian- send in someone who CAN run the country to sort the problems out for them, and don’t leave until the problems are definitively solved. If that time is “Never” then so be it.

100 years ago a lawless country really wasn’t that much of an issue as long as the locals stayed within their borders to cause trouble. Nowadays, lawless countries are attractive to all sorts of international mischief-makers who can cause problems that affect the entire world, not just their neighbours. We can’t really sit back and let places like Zimbabwe collapse into complete anarchy or be run by unstable megalomaniacs like Mr. Mugabe. Can you imagine what would happen if he got his hands on The Bomb? It’s not outside the realms of possibility in the modern world.

Surely the principles behind Colonial rule could be applied with modern ideas regarding racial equality and equal treatment? Just because the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister and the Treasurer and the Chiefs of Staff of the Military are all white doesn’t mean that the Natives have to dig diamonds out of dangerous holes in the ground for a pittance. There has to be a middle ground, one that puts responsible people (regardless of race) in charge of the country, ensures that the populace are fed, receive adequate medical care, and don’t run the risk of having burning tyres jammed over their heads or being machine-gunned by 10 year olds with AK-47s because they were born in the wrong village.

The point being made, I think, is that it would solve the country’s problems, or at least make them a hell of a lot better than they are now.

British neo-colonialism isn’t the answer. Whether right or wrong, the British have no appetite for recolonizing Africa.

Why would anybody let the UN anywhere near Zimbabwe? The UN’s sat with its thumb up its arse when it was patently obvious, to anybody with a brain, that Zimbabwe was on the cusp of catastrophic failure.

The time for UN involvement wasn’t when people were being hacked to death and dieing in the streets from starvation. It was months ago, when an election was being stolen.

I said nothing about intervention in elections or anything, just humanitarian aid.

But yes, I agree with you that it’s a shame the world didn’t do something before now. I’m especially sad about my own country’s failings in this regard.

What on earth gives you the arrogance to make such a statement? Do you think that all countries during times of disturbance would have been better off if some other nation had intervened/ England during the civil war for example?

And it is, of course, just your opinion. Who decides when a country is sufficiently fucked up that it deserves the beneficent hand of a foreign power intervening? You do see the problem with this, don’t you?

I suggest a trip to Zim for you. Go to the safe houses in the towns round Harare and tell the MDC supporters there that they are wasting their time. That their resistance to tyranny and subsequent torture was pointless as they are “incapable of governing themselves”.

You stress otherwise but the only way I could see your views as arguable is if you thought the people you were talking about were less than human.

Not even months ago. If anyone wanted to have helped then diplomatic pressure from neighbouring countries in the run up to the 2000 election (and perhaps the aftermath) might have helped.

Right, it has nothing to do with blacks being unable to manage the place, it’s just that White makes Right. Let us return to that Golden Era for those with Anglo surnames. Why can’t those people accept well fed domination, anyway?
There is the naggy question, if it was so great, why did it change?

“When-we’s”, how apt. Southern Africa has several species of them.

I’m assuming here that I’m working in the confines of a dictaturial position to begin with, with the goal to establish a working economy, political safety and to quell the disorder.

My first step would be to divorce the military and the police entirely. While I would not cut the military spending and would retain a standing army, I would apply to the UN for Disaster Funding and lease police forces from EU countries such as the UK, Germany, France, Scandinavia and the US. Preferrably coloured personnell to as wide an extent as possible, for the sake of political expediency and avoiding the impression of re-instating “The Whites” as a ruling class.

For the military, I would introduce a 20/80% split between a volunteer, professional army and a Mandatory Service branch akin to the Scandinavian or Hungarian models. One year of service at the age of 18 (with temporary dispensation for people going into College or University) in the military, or two years in the Civil Service. People who have served their military service are ellegible to serve the country in wartime until the age of 50, while those who have elected to serve the Civil Service will be take up Civil Duties in wartime. (As in Norway, they would all be required to serve, but could opt for the Civil branch in the case of serious conscientous objections - religious or pacifism - or because of injuries preventing them from serving in a military capacity.)

The Police forces would be split between policing and establishing a series of competent police academies to train new recruits and officers from the local population, to eventually phase out. In the start-up phase, the military and the police would field joint operations to clean the field in the cities. An external political review commitee and external Police Integrity Agency would be put in place to enforce strict anti-corruption measures inside the police force.

As for the economy, macro measures would be needed. I am not an economist, but I envisage inviting external companies to establish new mining companies in the country, with the condition that the State holds a 51% share. While this is effectively socializing the industry, the State needs to aquire capital and the companies would be offered low-tax incentives for their share of the profit.

The next step after that would be for the state to reclaim agricultural lands in its entirety and repartition it to make sure that it is in the hands of skilled farmers and not political shills. Outside competence would be welcome in setting up agricultural schools for the new generation, subsidized so entry and enrollment would be free for people from an agricultural background. The goal is to ensure competent drift while creating an educated farming population.

One of the main conditions for setting up a farming economy would be ensuring the safety of people working in such conditions. This would mean extensive use of police or military personnel to maintain order in the countryside, which is opening a big can of worms and crow. I’ve only been to Zimbabwe once - in 2006 - but many of the people there told me tha they were hoping for something along the lines of Hitler’s Autobahn project; makework to keep the unemployed with food, shelter and money while working on something that would better both the economy and the infrastructure. So I imagine I would also start a similiar project, putting unemployed people without resources or the background to go into farming, to work on the roads and railroads. “Hands busy, fed and reasonably happy” was the term, I believe.

Once a degree or self-suppliance of food is established, I would start to go to work on the economy. While I would be happy to nationalize the natural resources, I don’t imagine I would have the capital or competence to manage it optimally so outside companies would have to be brought in.

Once both the agriculture and a working economy is in place, medical facilities and schools would be next. Higher education would for the time being be reserved for those with some financial means - the state cannot afford to subsidize such entirely without a large amount of capital. (It’s true that since I’m already dreaming, I might as well extend it to having a large enough capital to establish a for-all school system, but one has to be realistic about at least some things)

For the schools, I envisage a 6-year education from the ages of 9-15 to start with. Children would optimally start learning their parents’ tradecraft while younger and would go right into work afterwards. Workplaces would be given incentives to pay towards a college fund for workers, so that after around 8 years, a worker could choose to go to college or free up the money to establish a business for himself. This would be a mandatory flat fee from the workplaces in lieu of lower taxes and would carry over from workplace to workplace.

For the medical system, I would first invite in whatever medical agencies who could set up emergency centres in the cities and rural centres. After the military has stepped down and the police have stepped up to maintain safety in the cities, I would give incentives to the doctors and other health personnell who have learned the language to stay and help set up and man hospitals and education centres for nurses and doctors. While doctors would be a net import for many years, this would be a high priority to ensure expedient treatment. I would also attempt to set up treaties with the neighboring states with more stable healthcare to get doctor and nurse ministration forays around the countryside near the borders.

Of course, being a white governor in Africa would have a range of political problems. A problem for which I’m having a hard time coming up with any solutions, to be honest.

This is the point though. You make some excellent suggestions as a blueprint for getting Zimbabwe (or any other country) back on its feet. But wouldn’t this be better coming from a indigenous government (perhaps a negotiated national unity government as I suggested above)? Any such government would have a lot of support and the leeway to make the tough decisions that most Zimbabweans know are necessary.

Whether such a government would have the guts to make these tough calls is another matter, of course.

Depends on the situation. We don’t know what would have happened if the English had intervened in the US Civil War, as it most likely would have been on the side of the Confederacy and God only knows how things might have turned out then (either way, Slavery was doomed, though- but that’s for a different thead).

At the risk of sounding like a cliche, I’m sure there could be a UN Committee on Internal Unrest who could say “OK, this has gone far enough” and then authorise the appropriate action.

I respect their resistance to tyranny a great deal. It’s not the MDC’s ability to make rational, fair decisions or govern a country in an ideal world that I doubt, its whether or not the Army will listen to them when/if they get elected, or just stage a Coup and place General Somethingorother in power instead. Then we’re back to square one- meet the new boss, same as the old boss. I’d like to visit the country, FWIW, but I’d be the second-least popular person in the country before I’d even I’d even picked up my bags at Harare International, so realistically that’s not going to happen anytime soon.

No, I just think the country is too fucked up to fix its problems without outside help. Outside help that is most likely going to end up coming from Europeans, no matter how distasteful or “neo-colonialist” that may be to some. If South Africa or Egypt or the African National Union want to provide that help, even better- but so far they don’t appear to be that interested or able to do much, from what I’ve seen.

Certainly, I concur fully. The clincher is that such a government would need to remove itself entirely from the political status quo and political and financial “friendsships” that impinge on its willingness to take such tough decisions and follow up on them. Human life is cheap down there and I would not give any government who tried it without definite and visible backing, good odds.

I’m pretty sure that’s already one of the ideas behind the UN. Doesn’t work so much.

That’s certainly a possibility, but it’s not inevitable. Zimbabwe has no history of military coups (unless you regard what’s happening at the moment as such). The military will probably stay loyal to whoever pays them.

You’re Jonathan Moyo? :eek:

Well I’m not as pessimistic as that. And if it does need outside help I don’t think a return to imperial rule, or something close to it, is a way forward.

Absolutely.

What kind of ‘backing’ do you mean? And from whom?

And, if you don’t mind me asking, what were you up to in Zimbabwe in '06? You have the air of an NGO person? Election monitor? Diplomat? Just curious!

I could clean up Zimbabwe but I’d need dictatorial powers for at least ten years. It would start with a lot of summary executions and then seeking out people who had previously worked in agriculture, even if it meant importing from other countries, and turning the farms over to them, with no legal restrictions on how they manage said farms.

Frankly, if this meant temporarily turning the country back into Rhodesia so a decade from now I’d have something resembling pre-Mugabe Zimbabwe, I’d consider that a success.

I am beginning to understand why George W. Bush had so much support for invading Iraq to enact regime change; many people clearly think that correcting the problems of a country enmeshed in violence and economic and social turmoil is a straightforward matter of a more developed nation invading the country in question and imposing civilization upon it.

Unfortunately, I can think of only a handful of actual cases where this model is even crudely applicable, and of those all involve the nation in question submitting completely (as in Japan) or being occupied on an indefinite basis by a highly autocratic government (the Baltic client states of the Warsaw Pact). The wake of 16th and 17th century colonialism across the world has been uncategorically devastating for the indigenous peoples affected, destroying whole empires and virtually obliterating large populations from disease, famine, warfare, and intentional genocide; and the aftermath of decolonization has left a type of dependent, cargo cult mentality of entitlement among formerly self-sustaining cultures which is at the root of the problems in sub-Saharan Africa.

By comparison, look at Cambodia; once a protectorate of France, conquered by the Japanese in a brutal campaign, retaken after WWII but then continually suppressed, bombed, and invaded due to conflict elsewhere on the Indochinese Peninsula, then controlled and virtually destroyed by an insane dictator with an apocalyptic plan to rebuilt the nation as his ideal Communist state, and finally beat around and ignored by neighbors. International economic and political support allowed the nation to finally rally and establish a representative parliamentary democracy, and while all could not said to be well (corruption and graft are rampant), Cambodia has a much better future than it could be said to have had under previous efforts to invade or suppress atavistic elements.

Invading Zimbabwe and trying to turn it back into Rhodesia would not only be unpopular (both internally and abroad) and very expensive, it also wouldn’t solve the fundamental problems, just as the same approach has not worked in India, China, Persia, Egypt, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq…

Stranger

Not to hijack the thread, but could we also authorize a group of educated, experienced black Americans to colonize some of the less functional countries in the former Soviet Union & Eastern Block? I’m sure the Belarus and Romanians would welcome their new Negro overlords. After all, it would mean an end to a brutal dictatorship and government corruption.

I believe this totally misses my point: white minority rule would be totally unacceptable to the vast majority of the population. This fact in itself makes the plan ludicrous, you would end up with a hugely violent uprising, not a stable country. The whole premise of restoring white minority rule seems based on the idea that the people of Zimbabwe are pet dogs, happy with the occasional pat on the head and a daily meal, not human beings capable of anger when they are treated as subservient. I do not think that is your view, but if it is perhaps you should just go ahead and say it, so we stop wasting time arguing past each other.

There are people in Zimbabwe capable of leading the country. There are countries in Africa with competent democratically elected leadership (such as Botswana). This is the route to take, not the installation of minority government that would be unacceptable to the population. I guarantee that this government would have to engage in violent repression of what would almost certainly be a violent opposition, so in effect you’d just be installing a white Mugabe. It doesn’t matter how sound your economic policies are, you will not make progress with violent instability.

Quite frankly I find the eagerness displayed in this thread to go back to whitey somewhat suspicious, given that there are suitable candidates in the country for leadership, and a demonstrated ability of black Africans to run their own countries. The best spin I can put on this is an ignorance of the political dynamic in Zimbabwe, but it really does seem like people regard the population of Zimbabwe as subhuman. In “stop-the-mad-dictator” issues in other parts of the world it is never suggested that the way forward is a minority ethnic group forced upon the population, for obvious reasons. It is no different here.

Well, I hardly think it could be worse than the entirely home-grown chaos that now envelops Zimbabwe.

Besides, it’s a perfectly valid response to the OP’s hypothetical question. From you, a see a lot of “Oh, that won’t work”, but not a lot of suggestions of what might.

Oh come on, quit talking sense.

Anyway, I’m proposing a select committee of West Indian govt. officials and businessmen to take over Northern Ireland and the Basque country as protectorates. Clearly these people can’t manage their own affairs, and the rampant violence must be stopped.

Think of it like the installation of Aristide in Haiti with foreign troops. Of course, Haiti is tiny, & nearly surrounded by water. [del]Rhodesia[/del] Zimbabwe is far larger, & utterly inland. (And perhaps more importantly, Mugabe is protected by [del]Azania[/del] the Republic of South Africa.)

But wait, you say, Aristide was still a terroristic ass. Mightn’t the new guy be a horror as well? Yes, it could happen. But Aristide was removed by insurgents in time, & far more quickly than the Duvalier regíme. Mugabe’s replacement probably won’t last as long as Mugabe, & at least it means a cutting short of the Mugabe reign.