Showing posts with label Zimbabwe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zimbabwe. Show all posts
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Monday, June 30, 2008
Democracy EU style
So Mugabe loses a vote, ignores it and demands the people vote again until they get the result right.
I wonder where he got that idea from?
I wonder where he got that idea from?
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Zimbabwe: Am I supposed to care?
According to the Telegraph, the UN Security Council has issued a statement claiming that the forthcoming "run off" for Zimbabwe's Presidential election can not be fair.
Honest.
"The Security Council regrets that the campaign of violence and the restrictions on the political opposition have made it impossible for a free and fair election to take place on June 27," the 15-nation body said in its non-binding statement.
That'll have Mugabe trembling in his boots - a non binding statement that fails to mention the word "Mugabe" at any time.
The British-drafted statement was watered down from an earlier version, which explicitly blamed Mugabe's government for the crisis and said Mr Tsvangirai would be the legitimate leader if a credible run-off vote could not be held.
Watered down, no doubt to get China and South Africa on board, but I'm pretty sure the original statement would have been a pretty diluted affair. What is needed is something like this .....
"The UN recognises that Mugabe is a murdering thug who has systematically raped and pillaged the nation of Zimbabwe for his own ends and those of his cohorts for more than a quarter of a century. The UN determines to take whatever action is necessary to end the brutality being perpetrated upon the people of Zimbabwe"
..... followed by sending in a snatch team backed up by 5000 troops to round up Mugabe and his henchmen and drag their naked snivelling forms through the streets of Harare. That is what they should do - but they won't, because the UN is part of the hand-wringing socialist "cabal" that put Mugabe in power and helps to keep him there.
As a right wing conservative, I look at what is happening in Zimbabwe and wonder why I am supposed to care. This is a problem created by the left - Mugabe was/is a well known Marxist - and maintained by the left through aid programmes and South African support. Let them deal with it.
It's their perfect opportunity to prove that the left can handle despots - it is the perfect proving ground for the socialist blocs of the UN and EU to demonstrate how the left deal with the dictatorships they create (there are lots more after this one) - so go on, deal with it. And no - dealing with it doesn't mean waiting for Mugabe to die.
I'll start caring when the left start taking it seriously (beyond weasel words and hand wringing).
Honest.
"The Security Council regrets that the campaign of violence and the restrictions on the political opposition have made it impossible for a free and fair election to take place on June 27," the 15-nation body said in its non-binding statement.
That'll have Mugabe trembling in his boots - a non binding statement that fails to mention the word "Mugabe" at any time.
The British-drafted statement was watered down from an earlier version, which explicitly blamed Mugabe's government for the crisis and said Mr Tsvangirai would be the legitimate leader if a credible run-off vote could not be held.
Watered down, no doubt to get China and South Africa on board, but I'm pretty sure the original statement would have been a pretty diluted affair. What is needed is something like this .....
"The UN recognises that Mugabe is a murdering thug who has systematically raped and pillaged the nation of Zimbabwe for his own ends and those of his cohorts for more than a quarter of a century. The UN determines to take whatever action is necessary to end the brutality being perpetrated upon the people of Zimbabwe"
..... followed by sending in a snatch team backed up by 5000 troops to round up Mugabe and his henchmen and drag their naked snivelling forms through the streets of Harare. That is what they should do - but they won't, because the UN is part of the hand-wringing socialist "cabal" that put Mugabe in power and helps to keep him there.
As a right wing conservative, I look at what is happening in Zimbabwe and wonder why I am supposed to care. This is a problem created by the left - Mugabe was/is a well known Marxist - and maintained by the left through aid programmes and South African support. Let them deal with it.
It's their perfect opportunity to prove that the left can handle despots - it is the perfect proving ground for the socialist blocs of the UN and EU to demonstrate how the left deal with the dictatorships they create (there are lots more after this one) - so go on, deal with it. And no - dealing with it doesn't mean waiting for Mugabe to die.
I'll start caring when the left start taking it seriously (beyond weasel words and hand wringing).
Monday, May 19, 2008
The next Zimbabwe
Long before I started blogging - long before there was an Internet for me to blog on even - I was one of those people who wasn't taken in by the conversion of Rhodesia into Zimbabwe or the "saintly" Sir Robert Mugabe (just plain Mr. as he was back then), although I have to be honest and admit that even I was surprised by how quickly Rhodesia the bread basket of Africa was turned into Zimbabwe the basket case of Africa.
Zimbabwe didn't collapse overnight - it was a long process that began in 1979. Similarly, Mugabe didn't suddenly become a despot - he was always a despot. It just took a long time for the west to realise.
And the reason for both of these events being allowed to happen is that for 20 years of Mugabe's rule he was given an easy ride by the liberal left and their media. It was only when the dreadful state of that once successful state became impossible to deny that the liberal left started to give it some scrutiny - and by then it was too late. Zimbabwe is a failed state with a population riddled with disease and on the verge of starvation.
What is more, anyone pinning their hopes of an MDC putsch and a change of government making a difference will be severely disappointed. It will not change a thing - different face, same old corrupt despotic regime.
The reason I am saying this now is because I want it to go on the record this time - in 20 years time South Africa will be where Zimbabwe is now. The "rainbow" nation will be just another failed African state riddled with corrupt self-serving officials, disease will be rife and huge numbers of people will be living in a state of perpetual starvation.
Why do I think this? Socialism.
Mugabe was and is a Marxist. The ANC was and is Marxist. Even in the hands of genuinely good people socialism will always lead to authoritarianism and totalitarianism - it has to, there is nowhere else for it to go. The only question is - how soon?
Zimbabwe didn't collapse overnight - it was a long process that began in 1979. Similarly, Mugabe didn't suddenly become a despot - he was always a despot. It just took a long time for the west to realise.
And the reason for both of these events being allowed to happen is that for 20 years of Mugabe's rule he was given an easy ride by the liberal left and their media. It was only when the dreadful state of that once successful state became impossible to deny that the liberal left started to give it some scrutiny - and by then it was too late. Zimbabwe is a failed state with a population riddled with disease and on the verge of starvation.
What is more, anyone pinning their hopes of an MDC putsch and a change of government making a difference will be severely disappointed. It will not change a thing - different face, same old corrupt despotic regime.
The reason I am saying this now is because I want it to go on the record this time - in 20 years time South Africa will be where Zimbabwe is now. The "rainbow" nation will be just another failed African state riddled with corrupt self-serving officials, disease will be rife and huge numbers of people will be living in a state of perpetual starvation.
Why do I think this? Socialism.
Mugabe was and is a Marxist. The ANC was and is Marxist. Even in the hands of genuinely good people socialism will always lead to authoritarianism and totalitarianism - it has to, there is nowhere else for it to go. The only question is - how soon?
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Who is responsible for Zimbabwe? Not Britain.
Stephen Glover has jumped on the "we must do something about Zimbabwe" band wagon with this article in the Daily Mail. It contains a lot of the usual stuff about how Zimbabwe is a better cause than Afghanistan and how we somehow have a responsibility for Zimbabwe.
I disagree.
I have never visited Afghanistan, but I know Zimbabwe well. When I first went there, in 1978, it was in the throes of a civil war. Nonetheless, it was, by African standards, extremely prosperous. There was no starvation. In fact, it exported crops such as maize and tobacco.
It was indeed prosperous by African standards. It was also called Southern Rhodesia, not Zimbabwe. Does that matter? Yes it does. Apart from being prosperous it also had the infrastructure and institutions of a settled nation - the colonial legacy.
Nearly 30 years later, it is one of the poorest places on earth, and probably the most pitiable.
Nearly 30 years later and Rhodesia doesn't exist. In it's place is a socialist totalitarian state called Zimbabwe ruled by a prominent, ruthless Marxist dictator who, 30 years ago, was one of the darlings of the liberal left.
Should we care? Of course I think so. I partly believe this because, until 1980, Zimbabwe was a British colony.
Of course we should care! When thousands of people are in imminent danger of dying from starvation it is only human to care. But, while the land it stands on was once part of a British colony, Zimbabwe never was. If you believe it was then you must also believe that Israel was also a "British colony" - and Gaza. Should we intervene there, too?
Glover's next statement is breathtaking in it's absurdity.
For better or worse, it is our creation.
NO, NO, NO! We did not create Zimbabwe! We created a successful and prosperous nation called Rhodesia. Zimbabwe was the creation of Africans, Marxists and soft left liberals - not of Britain. When BMW build a car which someone buys and then proceeds to smash to pieces is the end result a creation of BMW? Of course not.
What Britain created was a successful nation state - prosperous and functioning with all the institutions and essential infrastructure for it to become a beacon of light in the dark continent. What the Marxists, aided by the complicity of the liberals, then did with that was to systematically ravage that nation with utter disregard for the inhabitants - black or white. From the bread basket of Africa to basket case of Africa in 30 years.
Zimbabwe is the creation of socialism. Not of Britain. It is the creation of black Africans, not white Britons. Glover then outlines his grand plan. A rather familiar grand plan.
My suggestion is not that Britain should single-handedly invade Zimbabwe.
Well, thank goodness for that. We'd struggle to invade the Isle of Wight these days.
Any intervention, though likely to be welcomed by most Zimbabweans, and probably not opposed by the majority of a very disenchanted army, would have to be under a United Nations mandate. It would have to involve other powers, not least among them South Africa, which has hitherto displayed a shamefully indulgent attitude towards Mugabe.
Welcomed by most Zimbabweans - but not by the majority of blacks around the world I would wager. The "disenchanted army" may not like Mugabe, but I expect the vast majority of their commanders do as they have benefited very nicely from his regime - and joining the army is one way of ensuring that you have food and authority in a dump like Zimbabwe. When the options are starvation and helplessness or a full belly and the authority an AK47 gives you I think Mr Glover would be surprised how hard some of these soldiers would fight.
And where the hell is this "United Nations mandate" going to come from? Apart from the obvious fact that it would be opposed by every black nation and group - particularly the African Union - there is the little matter of getting past the Chinese or Russian veto. It's all very well talking glibly about "UN mandates" when you know damn well that it ain't gonna happen.
As for South Africa - without the support of SA over the last 10 years or so, Mugabe would have been long gone. South Africa is where Zimbabwe was 25 years ago. Outwardly everything seems fine, but it is heading the same way as Zimbabwe. It may take a little longer to get there, but make no mistake - in another 20-30 years we'll be looking at South Africa and wondering what we can do to save it.
What has happened to Zimbabwe is truly terrible. But I refuse to join in this self-flagellation and belief that it is somehow the "responsibility" of Britain. It is the creation and responsibility of the liberal left and Africans.
Let them deal with it.
I disagree.
I have never visited Afghanistan, but I know Zimbabwe well. When I first went there, in 1978, it was in the throes of a civil war. Nonetheless, it was, by African standards, extremely prosperous. There was no starvation. In fact, it exported crops such as maize and tobacco.
It was indeed prosperous by African standards. It was also called Southern Rhodesia, not Zimbabwe. Does that matter? Yes it does. Apart from being prosperous it also had the infrastructure and institutions of a settled nation - the colonial legacy.
Nearly 30 years later, it is one of the poorest places on earth, and probably the most pitiable.
Nearly 30 years later and Rhodesia doesn't exist. In it's place is a socialist totalitarian state called Zimbabwe ruled by a prominent, ruthless Marxist dictator who, 30 years ago, was one of the darlings of the liberal left.
Should we care? Of course I think so. I partly believe this because, until 1980, Zimbabwe was a British colony.
Of course we should care! When thousands of people are in imminent danger of dying from starvation it is only human to care. But, while the land it stands on was once part of a British colony, Zimbabwe never was. If you believe it was then you must also believe that Israel was also a "British colony" - and Gaza. Should we intervene there, too?
Glover's next statement is breathtaking in it's absurdity.
For better or worse, it is our creation.
NO, NO, NO! We did not create Zimbabwe! We created a successful and prosperous nation called Rhodesia. Zimbabwe was the creation of Africans, Marxists and soft left liberals - not of Britain. When BMW build a car which someone buys and then proceeds to smash to pieces is the end result a creation of BMW? Of course not.
What Britain created was a successful nation state - prosperous and functioning with all the institutions and essential infrastructure for it to become a beacon of light in the dark continent. What the Marxists, aided by the complicity of the liberals, then did with that was to systematically ravage that nation with utter disregard for the inhabitants - black or white. From the bread basket of Africa to basket case of Africa in 30 years.
Zimbabwe is the creation of socialism. Not of Britain. It is the creation of black Africans, not white Britons. Glover then outlines his grand plan. A rather familiar grand plan.
My suggestion is not that Britain should single-handedly invade Zimbabwe.
Well, thank goodness for that. We'd struggle to invade the Isle of Wight these days.
Any intervention, though likely to be welcomed by most Zimbabweans, and probably not opposed by the majority of a very disenchanted army, would have to be under a United Nations mandate. It would have to involve other powers, not least among them South Africa, which has hitherto displayed a shamefully indulgent attitude towards Mugabe.
Welcomed by most Zimbabweans - but not by the majority of blacks around the world I would wager. The "disenchanted army" may not like Mugabe, but I expect the vast majority of their commanders do as they have benefited very nicely from his regime - and joining the army is one way of ensuring that you have food and authority in a dump like Zimbabwe. When the options are starvation and helplessness or a full belly and the authority an AK47 gives you I think Mr Glover would be surprised how hard some of these soldiers would fight.
And where the hell is this "United Nations mandate" going to come from? Apart from the obvious fact that it would be opposed by every black nation and group - particularly the African Union - there is the little matter of getting past the Chinese or Russian veto. It's all very well talking glibly about "UN mandates" when you know damn well that it ain't gonna happen.
As for South Africa - without the support of SA over the last 10 years or so, Mugabe would have been long gone. South Africa is where Zimbabwe was 25 years ago. Outwardly everything seems fine, but it is heading the same way as Zimbabwe. It may take a little longer to get there, but make no mistake - in another 20-30 years we'll be looking at South Africa and wondering what we can do to save it.
What has happened to Zimbabwe is truly terrible. But I refuse to join in this self-flagellation and belief that it is somehow the "responsibility" of Britain. It is the creation and responsibility of the liberal left and Africans.
Let them deal with it.
Monday, March 26, 2007
What should we do about Zimbabwe?
Rampant inflation, unemployment running at around 80%, a lunatic thug in charge of the brutal ruling party and an opposition that is regularly -and literally - beaten into submission. Life expectancy now hovers around the mid thirties and the former bread basket of Africa is incapable of feeding itself.
Zimbabwe is a mess. I don't think anyone can argue with that. The question is; what can we do about it?
I see so many people discussing this on blogs, news comment sites and so on - but I still don't know what it is that these people expect to happen.
The first thing we have to consider, I suppose, is whether we should do anything about it? Do we have any responsibility to Zimbabwe which acts as a justification to intervene?
Zimbabwe is, after all, an independent country, on a different continent and there is no geographical relationship between us. There is a historical and colonial link - but that was long ago and it was their choice to break that link. There is no direct threat to Britain from Zimbabwe, either - although you could argue that the situation there exacerbates the asylum and immigration problems faced by Britain creating more pressure on our public services and housing stock.
What about a moral responsibility? Well, personally, I believe that we all, as individuals, have a moral responsibility to act in ways that improve the lives of those less fortunate than ourselves through charities - by volunteering or donating or both - and I believe that for the vast majority of situations, this is is the course to take.
By the way, let me point out that what I have just said does not mean I approve of passing that responsibility on to the state. I don't. In fact, I think that is one of the most damaging aspects of socialism with too many people believing that paying taxes is a better way to help the poor and disadvantaged. It isn't. It is the worst way and guarantees that the genuinely needy will remain needy.
Obviously there are individual actions we can take to apply pressure on Zimbabwe, but the situation there is such that individual acts are not enough. Instead it is a situation where a nation needs to act collectively - and that means through the government. Obviously a government has no moral obligation to any people other than the people it governs, so, in that respect, there is no moral obligation for this government to act on Zimbabwe - unless the people of this country expressed that as their will.
If there is a responsibility - or any other justification to act, what should that action be?
The preferred way for many is sanctions, but do they really work? Don't sanctions and economic embargoes just end up hurting the people you're supposed to be trying to help? Other sanctions - such as sporting boycotts - are unlikely to have any real effect either. They might make us feel a bit better, but I can't see Mugabe being forced to climb down just because Zimbabwe are kicked out of the cricket world cup. It's not as if they were likely to win the damn thing and gain some sort of propaganda coup from that!
As far as I can see, the only action that would have any chance of forcing Mugabe out is military action, but that, like sanctions, has serious implications for the people you're supposed to be helping. On the positive side, military action would be considerably quicker than sanctions, but the "pain" for the populous of Zimbabwe would be that much more intense. Is the swift traumatic death of war better or worse than the slow lingering, but equally certain death of sanctions, starvation and misery?
Even if we did kick out Mugabe through military action - what then? Another despot and the same problem again 20 years down the line? I listen to people talking about the "success" of South Africa - just as they talked about the "success" of Zimbabwe 20 odd years ago when that was the "rainbow nation" and the model for all Africa. South Africa will be the new Zimbabwe in 20 years time - ruled by a despot, no effective opposition (it has none now), a collapsed economy, raging unemployment and riddled with crime (it already is).
So, what should we do? What can we do? I'd really like to know.
Zimbabwe is a mess. I don't think anyone can argue with that. The question is; what can we do about it?
I see so many people discussing this on blogs, news comment sites and so on - but I still don't know what it is that these people expect to happen.
The first thing we have to consider, I suppose, is whether we should do anything about it? Do we have any responsibility to Zimbabwe which acts as a justification to intervene?
Zimbabwe is, after all, an independent country, on a different continent and there is no geographical relationship between us. There is a historical and colonial link - but that was long ago and it was their choice to break that link. There is no direct threat to Britain from Zimbabwe, either - although you could argue that the situation there exacerbates the asylum and immigration problems faced by Britain creating more pressure on our public services and housing stock.
What about a moral responsibility? Well, personally, I believe that we all, as individuals, have a moral responsibility to act in ways that improve the lives of those less fortunate than ourselves through charities - by volunteering or donating or both - and I believe that for the vast majority of situations, this is is the course to take.
By the way, let me point out that what I have just said does not mean I approve of passing that responsibility on to the state. I don't. In fact, I think that is one of the most damaging aspects of socialism with too many people believing that paying taxes is a better way to help the poor and disadvantaged. It isn't. It is the worst way and guarantees that the genuinely needy will remain needy.
Obviously there are individual actions we can take to apply pressure on Zimbabwe, but the situation there is such that individual acts are not enough. Instead it is a situation where a nation needs to act collectively - and that means through the government. Obviously a government has no moral obligation to any people other than the people it governs, so, in that respect, there is no moral obligation for this government to act on Zimbabwe - unless the people of this country expressed that as their will.
If there is a responsibility - or any other justification to act, what should that action be?
The preferred way for many is sanctions, but do they really work? Don't sanctions and economic embargoes just end up hurting the people you're supposed to be trying to help? Other sanctions - such as sporting boycotts - are unlikely to have any real effect either. They might make us feel a bit better, but I can't see Mugabe being forced to climb down just because Zimbabwe are kicked out of the cricket world cup. It's not as if they were likely to win the damn thing and gain some sort of propaganda coup from that!
As far as I can see, the only action that would have any chance of forcing Mugabe out is military action, but that, like sanctions, has serious implications for the people you're supposed to be helping. On the positive side, military action would be considerably quicker than sanctions, but the "pain" for the populous of Zimbabwe would be that much more intense. Is the swift traumatic death of war better or worse than the slow lingering, but equally certain death of sanctions, starvation and misery?
Even if we did kick out Mugabe through military action - what then? Another despot and the same problem again 20 years down the line? I listen to people talking about the "success" of South Africa - just as they talked about the "success" of Zimbabwe 20 odd years ago when that was the "rainbow nation" and the model for all Africa. South Africa will be the new Zimbabwe in 20 years time - ruled by a despot, no effective opposition (it has none now), a collapsed economy, raging unemployment and riddled with crime (it already is).
So, what should we do? What can we do? I'd really like to know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)