Dude - setting aside all of the massive, terrifying moral problems with re-establishing an authoritarian, racist, brutal state, there’s a practical issue: where the heck would you find the people to run it? Regardless of what you may think, most people would be horrified at the idea of running their very own apartheid system. I very much doubt you could convince large numbers of Brits to move to Zimbabwe and oppress the locals - they’d think it monstrous.
Actually, now that I think about it, Russia itself was in dire straights recently. No way to tell when she’ll sink into economic and political chaos again. Let’s put together a team of Koreans to take over running the country, to replace the old nomenklatura.
South Korea has produced an economic miracle in the last few decades, Russia still lags way behind. Maybe the Korean ruling class will be able to do something substantial with the place.
I’m sure ethnic Russians wouldn’t have any objections. It would be just like old times, under the Mongol conquest.
golf clap
If you look back upthread you’ll find plenty of suggestions other than nostalgia for the colonial era. I think Voyager summarized it well in post #7 (though I think that “easy” is a bit of hyperbole). The problems Zimbabwe, and in general sub-Saharan Africa, have today are a direct result of colonialism. Suggesting a reinstitution of colonialism to fix them is like drinking to cure a hangover.
Stranger
Actually, I wasn’t, but rather scouring the country for people who had previously worked on the farms for the colonials and giving the farms to them.
Which then creates the kind of inequity and resentment that gave rise to the Mugabe regime in the first place. There is no perfect solution to this problem, but a return to the scenario which gave rise to the current set of problems is a highly imperfect solution. “We can do better this time,” is the sort of attitude that embroiled the United States in Indochina despite the French and British experience and explicit advice from the former occupying powers that no good would come of it.
And on the practical side, Mr. Excellent makes an astute point that this would require some party to step up and take charge. The once mighty British Empire collapsed under the weight of its colonial responsibilities; while the cost of involvement in WWII hastened the fall, the collapse of the Empire was already occurring even as it reached its zenith in the 1920’s, as native populations, given a taste of industrialization and the products therefrom agitated for freedom, and the greater Dominions began instituting autonomous authority to make treaties and self-govern without oversight from the Crown. Once profitable territories and protectorates became fiscal and political liabilities (and, in the case of India, Ceylon, and the African territories, an example of atavistic, racist attitudes that rapidly became unpalatable for a major democratic player on the world stage after the atrocities of WWII). Someone attempting to institute a colonial-like occupying regime in an African nation today would bear a very heavy fiscal and political cost, hence why world involvement in internal massacres and civil wars has been tentative and reluctant. The British certainly couldn’t do it, the United States is too distracted (and at this point, too universally despised) to do it, the French would want no part of it; the only nation which could plausibly do this would be China, and they’re far more interested in selling goods and weapons in Africa for profit and open exchange than getting involved in internal politics.
Stranger
Well, whatever, but if I personally was given dictatorial power for a decade, that’s still what I’d do.
The UN sends in people to make sure the elections are fair; when they are not there is absolutely no repercussions directly for the powers that be. Sanctions, please, they are already beyond listening to the will of the people.
Modern nations need to embrace political assassination as a solution to the mind set of Kleptocratic regimes. The notion that an African leader snatches power, runs his country down the tubes while stealing as much foreign aid as possible to live out his retirement in a cushy Nigerian mansion because it’s too much trouble to extradite him has to stop.
Bobby Mugabe - "We are not going to give up our country because of a mere X. How can a ballpoint fight with a gun?”
BOOM!!!
Mayhaps the will of the people will have more impact if there’s a Tomahawk doing the talking.
Oooh, good game!
Well if I was given power for a decade I’d wish for the whole country to hold hands and be happy.
Well, if I was given dictatorial power for a decade, I’d use it to position myself to get dictatorial power for another decade, ad nauseam. Then I, or my designated successors, could permit/allow/impose democratic institutions as it suits. Meanwhile, I’d build me one of them fancy underground SPECTRE lairs next to a volcano, waterfall, or maybe underwater, except I’d make the ventilation tubes too narrow to climb through and tell my henchmen to summarily execute anyone who the ladies find irresistible.
“Do you expect me to talk, Stranger?”
“No, Mr. Spook, I expect you to die.”
“If I fail to report, double-oh-eight replaces me.”
“Thanks for the head’s up.” zapzapzap
“Wha!! Aaarrrgggghhhh…”
Stranger
Okay, but somehow I think arranging for knowledgeable people to run the farms will be a bit more productive.
I suggest the radical idea of nothing.
Rip Mugabe out like cheap velcro and let the people have at it.
Sure, things are going to be very ugly for a handful of decades, but if the people are as competent to lead themselves as we’ve been told, then they’ll get it all sorted and be back in the cat-bird seat in no time.
Or not.
I just saw an online news report from AFP that said the Zimbabwe government has just issued a 100 BILLION dollar note!!
I thought the assumption in the OP was that Mugabe had holes in him. And anyone can elect a horror as leader, even the US. But the fact that they managed to give him a majority despite the government shows that a lot of people in this thread are underestimating the population.
I lived in the former Belgian Congo a year after independence. The Belgians were far worse than the British, but I could see some of the reasons for chaos. They had just started letting Africans in the University outside of Leopoldville, and basically the entire class became cabinet ministers. Zimbabwe from what I read is in much better shape.
Yes, this is obvious. As is pointing out that someone should sort out the economy. Do you think that the best way of achieving this is through an externally imposed leadership? Do you really think that bringing in land owners from overseas is a solution to Zim’s problems? You don’t think there is enough talent already in the country? Who do you think actually worked on all those white-owned farms?
You talked earlier of being happy to return Zim to its pre-Mugabe state. That was a country at civil war.
Ah, the Rumsfeld doctrine. Get in, do what you want, get out before the dust settled, let someone else pick up the pieces. Didn’t work so good, in fact it fell apart even before it got to the ‘get out’ phase.
Violently eliminating Mugabe would put Zimbabwe in a similar situation to Iraq immediately after the fall of Saddam, but a good deal worse off. The economy is far far worse, parts of the population are already killing each other, there is no external force capable of stabilizing even small parts of the country, no easy way to get such a force in, and essentially no functioning state apparatus other than those devoted to retaining Mugabes grip. There are some mitigating factors (less outside interference, smaller urban areas, etc.) but you’d still be trying to rebuild a broken country - which typically would involve a decade of effort, billions upon billions of dollars, and a lot of lives, assuming anyone cares enough to try (how long has Somalia been rotting away for now?).
Discussing hypothetical golden moments in the country’s past is as useless as wondering whether Iraq was better off under Caliph As-Saffah or Artaxerxes. The notion of imposing a white regime is pretty much in the same league as pondering whether the Israelis might like to take over Iraq - i.e. right up there with space aliens landing to set things right.
I get the impression you didn’t actually read my proposal.
Fine, *pre-*pre-Mugabe. The time when Zimbabwe was a food-exporting oasis of relative stability, whatever.
Oh blimey.
Your ‘proposal’ was this:
Ok, we’ll presume the arrogance in the first sentence is a jokey response to what you thought the OP was proposing.
After that I think we better sketch over the whole summary execution idea. The country’s had enough of that already.
Then your only point seems to be to get the farms going again. I’ll give you that you don’t immediately presume you’ll have to go out-of-country to get the skills.
But then you are happy to take the country back in time. Once again pre-Mugabe Zim was in civil war. Pre-pre-Mugabe Zim (as you elegantly put it) was a desperately divisive nation on its way to a civil war.
Zim is a desperately divisive nation now. If you simply want to say you want the country to be prosperous and peaceful, then I agree. But the only people who were prosperous pre-Mugabe were the same colour as you. It was no fucking ‘oasis’.
Are the blacks in current-day Mugabe’s Zimbabwe really more prosperous than they were in Rhodesia? Last I heard, they were starving, and being massacred by the government’s thugs.
How is that an improvement over Rhodesia?
Oh wait, I already know - it’s an improvement because at least now they’re not under minority rule. Because a hellhole under majority rule is preferable to a stable nation under minority rule, because we worship the concept of cultural relativism and self-determination (at the expense of gallons upon gallons of blood) as if it were a golden calf.
I think a far more interesting question is why otherwise learned and (presumably) upstanding citizens wish to use violence as a means of changing another country’s internal politics or steering its civil conflicts to their liking? Surely they would understand the history of such attempts which serve as a fig leaf for baser motives. How are you to balance the local complexities in order to affect the change you want? And why do you get to decide? Because you were born on the North American landmass?
Stranger on a Train: Being an anti-interventionist American is like being an anti-sacrifice Mayan.
Read again please. I’ve not once said things are rosy now compared to the past you seem obsessed by. In fact I have gone out of my way to stress the horror of the present situation (of which I have first hand experience).
But, and I’m getting a trifle bored of repeating myself, a nostalgia for some mythical time when Rhodesians all loved each other and were happy and wealthy is just stupid.