Zimbabwe

Satch

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Posts
84
Reaction score
0
I'm going to throw this out there in the vague hope that it'll spark an interesting debate (and partly because it's topical to where I am at the moment!)

So - should the West get involved in trying to sort Zimbabwe out or should it be left to the other African nations to try and resolve the issue?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7304635.stm <-Background on Zimbabwe with links to other BBC stories about the situation

Personally, I think that it would be best to leave it to the African nations as the UN or other Western organisation getting involved would probably just exacerbate the situation. Mugabe keeps going on about how the West are still trying to exert control over Africa and the introduction of an influence from outside of Africa would just evidence his claims and his propaganda machine would have a field day, maybe increasing support for him again.

What's your take?
 

mr.sniper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Posts
120
Reaction score
0
Yeah i also agree that it should be left to african countries espiecially South Africa. Thabo Mbeki clearly isnt doing anything, he still thinks that they should sort out their own problems and that SA shouldnt get involved.
 

Iago

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2008
Posts
89
Reaction score
0
The West has to be very careful about intervening in Africa given its colonial past. Zimbabwe seems to be screaming out for help, but I think it would be foolish to do anything other than put political pressure on Mugabe (despite the fact that this has never seemed to work), because of any potential perceived hypocrisies.
 

AdmiralAwesome

Active Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Posts
3,116
Reaction score
19
Send in the Marines!

Seriously though, I think it's difficult to say, but I agree with Satch - under no circumstances whatsoever should the UN get involved. South Africa could bring down Mugabe in a month if they could gather strong enough political will, but I think the problem is that Mugabe is still quite popular among African leaders. As far as African leaders of the past 50 years go, Mugabe is by a long way not the worst.

I think perhaps a two-fold approach would be best - backroom pressure on Mbeki to get him to take a tougher stance, and some clear deadlines and threats applied to Mugabe, i.e free and internationally observed elections by x, or economic sanctions and diplomatic exile. I doubt we could remove Mugabe by force of arms with our current commitments, but we could seriously send a message if the situation got bad enough... Destroy his shiny new Airforce on the ground. But then I tend to be a bit of a hawk.
 

Chris

Veteran Contributor
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Posts
655
Reaction score
0
Leaving this to South Africa and other local African countries will only allow Robert Mugabe’s regime to continue. Thabo Mbeki is currently fighting his own power battle within the ANC ( African National Congress – the ruling political party is South Africa) and it is my opinion that he will not intervene in the Zimbabwean Elections, even though he rightly should. Mugabe has “corrected” voting results in the past and he is doing it again and inflicting some of the most violent terror in recent years upon anyone that could shed light as to the correct number of votes or a member of the competing party. What you see on the news about the amount of people being tortured or killed comes from those fortunate enough to escape to the borders as no news crews are allowed into the country unless there coverage is monitored by the Zimbabwean police loyal to Mugabe (and those just too frightened to stand up to him).

The man is happy to see the people of his country suffer while he and his party live the life of luxury they are exempt from the inflation that is ludicrous! You can order a meal (if you can afford too) for a price of $250 000 (Zimbabwean dollars) and when the time comes to pay you will have found that the price has doubled while you were eating, this is not an exaggeration it is a fact.

Surrounding African Nations will do nothing to stop Mugabe unless it will directly affect them as they themselves have far too many problems of their own...however that said there are many reasons as to why they would also prefer Mugabe to stay in power and let him have his way but they are debatable to no end but I would be happy to share my thoughts on the subject should anyone wish.

My opinion is that either Mugabe will take back “the election” and Zimbabwe will just be ground further into a waste land or there will be a civil war...no slaughter would be a better way to describe it (would not be the first time either). Mugabe has the police and the Army each of which is armed with South African and Chinese weapons and travel in vehicles that arrived via Namibia or Mozambique.

African States don’t care about other African states unless they have too, it is the African mindset unfortunately.
 

lewdog29

Active Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Posts
66
Reaction score
0
personally I think it would be a lot better for everyone if Bob was assonated!! It would solve a lot of problems. I don't think Thabo is going to intervene he hasn't done anything in the past, he's always just sat on the fence.
 

Chris

Veteran Contributor
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Posts
655
Reaction score
0
Well I would not say assassinate to be honest as that would just create a power vacuum that could spiral out of control, something similar to what happened with Saddam Hussein would be more preferable as you need to remove the rest of the undesirables in the Zimbabwean government to actually stop the problem. I can think of at least thirteen officials that would have to be removed from power and most likely there are a good number that I am unaware of.
 

AdmiralAwesome

Active Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Posts
3,116
Reaction score
19
We don't have the manpower to remove Mugabe with our current commitments. The Americans could do it, but they're pretty against expeditionary warfare at the moment. The only hope is a political solution - we have to show Mugabe's party that they're much better off without him by imposing sanctions and only removing them when they hold democratic elections.
 

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,714
Reaction score
4,254
One tip when going into this sort of debate guys, make sure you are well aware of something called the "stanford experiment".

If you know this inside out you can link it to any regime in the world, how it came into being, how it's developed and where it ends up and what happens with power vacuums.

Anyone who would have studied it could have predicted well in advance what was going to happen in Iraq and indeed would happen in Zimbabwe.

BBC recreated the experiment in 2002, called "The Experiment" have a search and see if you can download it from anywhere. It's a big big eye opener.

All the best
GW
 

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,714
Reaction score
4,254
Here is the original version

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2o0Nx31yicY&feature=related

I'll try and find the bbc version. You soon realise that people like Saddam didn't create Iraq or abuse his position, Iraq and his position made him and he had very little choice in what he became, exact same with Mugabe.

It's also true of traffic wardens, Police Officers anyone that has a position of power is likely to follow the path set out in this study.

Not sure they will ever be allowed to put it to the extremes of the 70's version again.

All the best
GW
 

Ashley

Veteran Contributor
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
614
Reaction score
0
Here is the original version

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2o0Nx31yicY&feature=related

I'll try and find the bbc version. You soon realise that people like Saddam didn't create Iraq or abuse his position, Iraq and his position made him and he had very little choice in what he became, exact same with Mugabe.

It's also true of traffic wardens, Police Officers anyone that has a position of power is likely to follow the path set out in this study.

Not sure they will ever be allowed to put it to the extremes of the 70's version again.

All the best
GW

Agreed but Traffic wardens and Police Officers have a choice
 

RC

Active Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Posts
561
Reaction score
0
Also, obviously most dictators don't actually carry out any of the atrocities personally. If you are interested in the Psychology behind why normal / good / ordinary people obey and commit these attrocities, check out Milgrims Study of obedience.

http://www.holah.karoo.net/milgramstudy.htm

Rich.
 

Chris

Veteran Contributor
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Posts
655
Reaction score
0
Have two friends in SA that are paramedics that I just spoke too, they are being sent to the Zimbabwe border to help deal with the flood of injured people massing at the border. From what they say the majority of the injuries are from beatings and rape by Zanu supporters.

Mugabe is most likely employing these intimidation tactics in hopes that the potential "Re-Vote" will go his way.

Cant say the Burmese have it any better at the moment though, poor people its a serious shame.
 

hughbrown

Valuable Contributor
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Posts
471
Reaction score
0
South Africa is turning into a new Zimbabwe.
Our Economy is dieing, we have EXTREMELY corrupt leaders and the people here think that they are intitled to things for free and are rioting and killing other ethnic groups.
We can actually hear the Riots from my house and there are always police Eurocopters and SANDF Oryxes flyin overhead.
If Africa is left to itself it will tear itself appart.
During Apartheid the Black majority actually had better lives than they do under leaders that just want to line their own pockets
 

jimmy mal

Valuable Contributor
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Posts
170
Reaction score
0
My opinion on all of this is that the British Forces should be sent in as a peace keeping force. It is a difficult one but when innocent people are the victims then the people with the ability to help should i.e the British government. Something needs to be done in Africa but can it realistically be dramatically changed. The nature of the corruption and civil wars go back in history so does it come from a deeper issue that needs to be addressed. However in the short term and to protect lives some form of action needs to be taken.

Jim
 

hughbrown

Valuable Contributor
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Posts
471
Reaction score
0
The UK cant legally intrvene without the SA/Governments request
unless they become like the Yanks
 

Chris

Veteran Contributor
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Posts
655
Reaction score
0
Yep Xenophobic attacks are happening daily in South Africa the military has had to be deployed to help quell the violence. But i cant really blame them to be honest, most of the people involved in the attacks can barely feed there families and now illegal immigrants are taking away the possibility of employment, no hunger and lack of education automatically lead to violence when there is nothing in place to help society.

During Apartheid the Black majority actually had better lives than they do under leaders that just want to line their own pockets

Sorry but that is utter nonsense, yes most are struggling to live but at least they are free to try and live. They were treated like live stock during apartheid and had limited freedom and those in power could do what they wished and no one actually cared so I'm sorry I would rather struggle to live life than to be another man's slave.

The only reason the wrong people are in power currently is due to the lack of education the black majority have had since the start of white colonization. If you have no education on how the world works and another man says i will give you houses, food and water if you make me your leader after years of being essentially livestock or a slave of course you are going to elect him. This is changing though, many more are educated and are learning that they have been lied to by leadership and ANC in the next two elections will see the difference of the peoples will.

Also i must say that i know first hand that white people in South Africa are the first to complain about government but do not vote in any elections while muttering how it wont make a difference even if they did, which is utter rubbish every vote does count, you may not get the presidency but you can get more seats in parliament to help make changes.

The country has only been democratic since 1994 thats only 14 years to learn how to work together and if you look at how other countries have dealt with these problems in history you learn that only internal change can truly decide the country's future.


If Africa is left to itself it will tear itself appart.

Unfortunately that's how the world works every country has had it in their history its not only African countries with problems, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has been going on for ages.

Essentially you cannot police the world and unless there is mass genocide on Mugabe's lawn the UN/UK/USA will not intervene and i can sure as hell say SA will not ask for their help since the government just doesn't really care at the moment
 

hughbrown

Valuable Contributor
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Posts
471
Reaction score
0
Quote:
During Apartheid the Black majority actually had better lives than they do under leaders that just want to line their own pockets

Sorry but that is utter nonsense, yes most are struggling to live but at least they are free to try and live. They were treated like live stock during apartheid and had limited freedom and those in power could do what they wished and no one actually cared so I'm sorry I would rather struggle to live life than to be another man's slave.

i see your point but now the majority are living extremely bad lives, i dont approve of Apartheid but im just saying that the leaders of this country are EXTREMELY corrupt.

The Xenophobic violence has spread to SA's ethnic groups attacking each other eg. Zulu attacking Shangaan etc,
 

Latest posts

New Threads

Top