[QUOTE=buttonjockey308]
20 years of aid concerts and fund raisers and charities tell us that no matter what we do, we can’t fix Africa. The world doesn’t have, nor has it every really had, the resources to do what needs done in that country.
[/QUOTE]
Country?
[QUOTE=Petrobey Mavromihalis]
I can just about understand the sentiment. But I think the extreme cynicism combined with an almost painful lack of first hand (or indeed any) knowledge leaves me cold.
[/QUOTE]
What I’m trying to say is, all those feuds and old scores to settle between factions might just possibly mean that the intervention of a third party - an outside force not already tainted with Mugabe’s regime - could help, not hurt.
[QUOTE=Petrobey Mavromihalis]
Your post surprised me until I read this last bit and realised where you were coming from!
Whilst its interesting to speculate on what you personally would do in charge (and i think as a white dictator you definitely would need a large military presence!*) it doesn’t really help. (Although I do realise that the OP can be read as asking for this kind of response, so no offence intended).
I think even a national unity government would need some sort of external ‘backing’ and I think it’s a really important question as to what form this would take. Military intervention, if it is needed, surely must come from within the continent. The same applies, realistically, to political pressure. It will be interesting to see what happens when Zuma gets into power. He’s a Union man, like Morgan, not a independence fighter like Mbeki and Mugabe. There are other reasonable leaders in the region who should be more involved. Outside of Africa interference should be limited to investment in the country, including form such places as China. The talks taking place at present are a compromise, to be sure, but represent a real chance. However, Mugabe has swallowed opposition in this fashion before . . .
[/QUOTE]
The question in the OP and the title piqued my sense for wargames and realpolitik, so I answered in terms of my personal dictatorship of the state. I think the parametres of the OP allows for that kind of speculation.
I don’t believe that China, or other countries outside of Africa, would invest in Zimbabwe outside of personal gain of resources or a loyal platform in south Africa. (Which has been one of the intentions of the Afghani and Iraq occupations) They cannot be guilted into it and surely wouldn’t do it pro-bono - all of the West and the wealthy East know that Africa has been a money sink for reparations for decades and decades, with few visible results and little tangible reward.
I just don’t think such occupations and such reparations are made on a sufficient time-scale. Hell, even the nearly benevolent Nazi occupation of Norway still met with patriotic resistance after five years, and that was with the Nazis predisposed to treat the Norwegians nicely. (And the disgusted heavens know many Norwegians joined the Nazis) I think an occupation to convert or “terraform” a country needs a timescale of decades, if not a full century. The people currently living in countries like Zimbabwe, Sudan, Kenya and so on know that the rules does not apply. For people who’ve seen through the surface of governmental authority, it’s hard to accept the yoke of a new one. Adherance to rules and laws is something one is brought up with and is not easily brought back into a life, once lost.
[QUOTE=Gukumatz ]
The question in the OP and the title piqued my sense for wargames and realpolitik, so I answered in terms of my personal dictatorship of the state. I think the parametres of the OP allows for that kind of speculation.
[/QUOTE]
That’s totally fine as I said. It just led me, at least, into some confusion as I initially thought you seriously thought whitey dicatatorship was the best way forward!
I’m not suggesting China et al should invest out of the goodness of their hearts. They already plough money into the country in hope of exploiting its mineral wealth, platinum in particular. At present though the money generally goes in the wrong direction - a recent arms shipment and Bob’s mansion for example. I’m just suggesting that this investment could be used better.
Another good foreign investment would be the return of tourists. I’ll be there as soon as Mugabe’s gone. Hell, I’d go now if I could guarantee my money didn’t go to the present government.
I’m not as pessimistic. Most Zimbabweans were brought up in a prosperous country with reasonable adherence to the rule of law.
[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
What I’m trying to say is, all those feuds and old scores to settle between factions might just possibly mean that the intervention of a third party - an outside force not already tainted with Mugabe’s regime - could help, not hurt.
[/QUOTE]
What factions are you talking about? There are plenty of people not tainted by Mugabe, even within Zanu PF.
[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
What I’m trying to say is, all those feuds and old scores to settle between factions might just possibly mean that the intervention of a third party - an outside force not already tainted with Mugabe’s regime - could help, not hurt.
[/QUOTE]
But you propose doing it with a third party that is also tainted - with years of colonial rule. How is that any different?