So, Mugabe’s recently banned aid workers from operating within Zimbabwe, citing the “fact” that they’re conspiring with the opposition. Reports suggest that government run aid stations require an ID card, which handily records how the individual last voted, meanwhile the economy has collapsed, and Zimbabwean farms are only producing half of what is needed to feed the nation. It seems Mugabe’s plan is to starve the opposition into submission.
Western diplomats are being routinely intimidated (just this week, British and American diplomats were arrested after an epic car chase) and diplomacy’s failed—South Africa’s involvement in this has been a joke, and simply allowed Mugabe time to cement his position.
How can this be resolved? More diplomacy? Military action? No action?
It seems that any military action on the part of the West will simply be spun as neo-colonialism, and the two nations that would likely provide the backbone of any military operation, the US and UK, are tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq, but Mugabe seems completely impervious to any sort of negotiation.
Ultimately, don’t we have a moral obligation to do something? Further, won’t any action, taken now, be beneficial to us in the long run? It seems that the populations of Western countries view government [monetary, food, medical] aid to African nations as a moral obligation. Yet, if we can stop Zimbabwe from being a complete basketcase, and start it on the road to recovery, sooner rather than later, won’t this be cheaper for the West in the long run?
Too bad we…er…ummmm…(cough cough)…I mean someone couldn’t just shoot his jet down on his own borders when he’s returning from out of the country.
Sadly, there are just too many places on Earth where Military Intervention would be the only solution to people like him, and we can’t go around blowing the shit out of all those places in the vain hope that it would actually make things better.
The more I read about its history, the more I’m convinced it would be better off if it was still Rhodesia. It had a good economy and a high standard of living - it actually supplied food to the rest of Africa. The Rhodesians fought very valiantly in the Bush War but were ultimately defeated, and you know the rest. Mugabe…what a tool.
By which you really mean the white population had a good economy and a high standard of living while the indigenous population were shunted off the fertile land and resettled in areas that the white man didn’t want. Black inhabitants earned on average one tenth what their white countrymen earned. There were 50 seats in parliment for white voters (270,000) and 8 for black voters (6 million) and a further 8 for tribal chiefs. I’m not denying that Mugabe has gone of the rails and fucked the country royally, but **please ** let’s not pretend that things were peachy pre-independance. It is really only in the last 10 years or so that things have gone pear-shaped, for almost 20 years post-independance, Zimbabwe continued to be productive and prosperous, although one could argue that not much changed for the poorest, which led to the riduculous re-distribution campaigns that began the its troubles.
I think there is a wider question in this. When we (Europe and the USA) see blatant transgressions of human rights in other countries, do we have a right to intervene? We “intervened” in Iran and Afghanistan, but mainly for political reasons. Should the UN be given considerably more authority and have the means and the right to police countries where grave injustices are being committed? At least it would be shown to be the world’s view, not just two countries. Of course the UN would have to agree on a standard of national decency before it had the remit to take action.
I’d say any intervening here should be done by South Africa (especially as Zimbabwe’s troubles spill over the border in the form of refugees) . . . but Mbeki is on Mugabe’s side, for some reason.
There’s a lot of history…but pre-end-of-apartheid is starting to seem like ancient history, and really can’t be used to justify shit like this anymore. Damn Mbeki, I used to think he was quite OK as presidents go, but these last couple of years have really shown him to have clay feet.
But you’re right, South Africa should take the lead in sorting things out, by throwing its weight behind free and fair elections. “Should”, but I don’t hold out much hope, I’m afraid.
This is one area where Jacob Zuma (president of the ANC, and thereby president-elect of South Africa) is making some encouraging noises, although it’s difficult to tell whether this is just more of his “I’m not Mbeki” platform…
Yeah, damn him too for making me say “Y’know, Zuma’s right about this…”. I feel like I did when I heard that J Arthur Brown was molested in lockup “Damn It, now I have to sympathise with him!” :smack:
Not going to happen. Not like Zim. If SA goes under, it’ll likely be because the whole world is going under (peak oil, GCC…), not because some petty dictator has outlived his welcome. We’re not set up for that anymore.
Look, I’m sorry Zimbabwe is suffering, but let Japan or Australia or some of the other African nations step up and field this one. The US has its hands full right now, and whether or not you agree with the Iraqi War, we can’t be everyone’s bodyguard.
Mugabe is clearly a bad man, and his nation and the world would be better off without him.
I think the only option is for the US to invade and topple his regime.
Has always worked well in the past.
Should be able to accomplish that quickly and cheaply.
Heck, the welcoming citizens will most likely shower the incoming troops with flowers.
I remember hearing a lot of optimism back in the 1980s about Zimbabwe. I also remember Zimbabwe being held up as proof that South Africa could be prosperous, democratic, and peaceful after Apartheid ended.
