Zimbabwe

After the genocide in Rwanda, Lt General Romeo Dallaire (who had commanded the UN peace-keeping force there at the time) was forced to conclude that the Western world's response to troubles like this is essentially a racist response.

I have little evidence to conclude otherwise.

So I doubt that the world will do much to stop what is happening in Zimbabwe because Zimbabwe is full of black people.

I thought from almost the start that the settlement arranged at Lancaster House in 1979 and '80 amounted to a sell out, and the subsequent mayhem where Nkomo's supporters (a minority tribal group, centrered in the South West near Buloweyo) where effective subject to something close to genocide - ethnic cleansing had not become a fashionable euphamism at that time - by a leader forced onto the new Zimbabweans by the miss-guided application of "free and fair" elections. In my view longer was needed for the country to learn what the consequenses of voting might be.

The unelected group that ran the contingency governement [including Muserewa] between Smith and Mugabe should have had a longer run, and the new constitution should have been based on a federation, considering the fact that Rhodesia, even excepting the white minority, was not peopled by a homgenous aboriginal group, but has two such groups, unequal in size, and deeply divided. [Though they were unified in their struggle against Smith's illegal UDI governement].

In fairness I would imagine that the Zimbabweans have a pretty clear view of what can happen if the wrong type of leader is elected by now, and I have long held the view that the British Army had far reason to be sent to Zimbabwe and oversee truly multi-party elections rather than be in Iraq trying to play second fiddle to the dreadfully blundering policy of the USA in the second Gulf War.

Does that make a racist? I hope not. But I do have an interest. Some very good friends of mine were mudereed on a farm near Buloweyo in 1978, actually by Nkomo's clique, the mayhem including murdering the whole native born staff as well..

Sincerely, Fredrik

quote:

So I doubt that the world will do much to stop what is happening in Zimbabwe because Zimbabwe is full of black people

But (being base for the moment) so is the USA? And South Africa.

I suppose I am not quite impartial on this [see my first post], but the lack of responses indicate that pretty much people are interested in Iraq [for example] more than newer [and less potentially lucrative for us] ex-British-colonial problems.

The problems left when some colonies gained indepenedance was that often these territoroies - newly founded nations - often were hardly unified entities, and strife was guaranteed given the problems of different cultures and ethnic groups being put in the position of trying to establish a satisfactory and new status quo. The one thing that makes a democrasy work is a mature attitude to voting for essentially tollerant and democratic leaders, and this is rarely the outcome in newly founded democrasies, based on Universal suffrage. There is noi tradition or respect for the new ideas...

Tbis was the issue in Zimbabwe, in my view, but it has been managed successfully in other cases. India is the prime example, and in that case Mountbatten oversaw a hasty division of Imperial India into two states: Pakistan and India in 1947. Though the result of the division was not entirely clean - think of Kashmir - the outcome was far preferable to the problems that might have occured otherwise.

I doubt if the UK or even the Commonwealth as a whole will do anything about Zimbabwe, which is sad. We cannot turn the historical clock back, and in the case of [the old] Rhodesia this would have involved the crushing of Mr Smith's illegal UDI [Unilateral declaration of independance from the British Empire] government during the first premiereship in UK of Harold Wilson, followed by a long spell of transitional governement, without the long struggle against the white moinority governemnt that came as a result of UDI. This could have been handled much better, and should have been handled much more robustly from the 1960s on, in my view.

I still think that the UK has a responsibility to help the people of Zimbabwe out of the dictatorship of Mugabe towards a governement chosen by the people. I believe they have enough bitter experience to get this right by now.

They might well establish exactly what Mr Blair and Mr Bush say they want in Iraq, a real democrasy. The people there now know exactly what happens when an undemocratic leader is put into power. I shall continue to watch this with interest and the best wishes for a good outcome in time for the Zimbabwean people. I maintain that the UK and the Commonwealth have a part to play in rebuilding that sadly devastated nation, which could speed up the move towards decent governement and a basic respect for civil liberties...

Kindst regards from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by JamieWednesday:
[QUOTE]So I doubt that the world will do much to stop what is happening in Zimbabwe because Zimbabwe is full of black people

But (being base for the moment) so is the USA? ...QUOTE]

Whether it is racist or not is open to debate, although one could point to the lack of response to the plight of the US own citizens in New Orleans as an indicator. My own view would be that as there is little or no material gain to the 'West' to interfere in Zimbabwe they feel it is preferable to sweep it under the carpet.

Mark

I am sure that is the view of the Western Governments, in reality...

My point is that this is another issue where there is a difference of opinion between me and the British Governement!

ATB from Fredrik

"I still think that the UK has a responsibility to help the people of Zimbabwe out of the dictatorship of Mugabe towards a governement chosen by the people. I believe they have enough bitter experience to get this right by now." ... Quote FF

Frederik

We are not the worlds policeman and if we do intervence there must be some sort of payment or reward. That is the way it has always been and will always be.

Intervention costs money and possibly lives and you don't do it for nothing.

Zimbabwe is frankly not worth worrying about. South Africa has the same natural resources and cheap labour and we can use that more effectively and safely.

End of realistic discussion.

Regards

Mick

Dear Mick,

Do you think we should have been in Iraq, then? If not then your position on Zimbabwe at least is consistent...

In the circumstances of poor Zimbabwe, it never even got out of the starting blocks on the road to success as an independant nation, and I think we are still partly reponsible for that as the former colonial power. If it had gone wrong because of the "second" leader being no democrat then I am inclined to think we would have had less responsibility than we do. In practice, the settlement as good as handed Mugabe the country on a plate, which even at the time had people who knew his ways shaking their heads in disbelief. The outcome looked pretty inevitable for some people from the start, without some element of federal governement...

I see that I am in a minority again, but that is nothing new! At least we can stay polite!!

Kindet regards from Fredrik

Fredrik

We will be making money out of Iraq in trade deals for years to come, so it is not as bad as it first looks.

Zimbabwe is just a dead duck really.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
I see that I am in a minority again, but that is nothing new! At least we can stay polite!!

I don't think you are in the minority, Fredrik, I was just stating what I believe to be the west's stance. I happen to think that Zimbabwe is important as it is full of human beings and, as fellow human beings, we should do something, but we won't because there is nothing in it for us.

Mark

Dear Mark,

I had a feeling that that would your stance, and I did not want to squeeze it out you by pointing out that you did not quite make your own view of it clear. Our [Western] governements want our respect, but hardly play a respectable game in my view! Is it any wonder that politicians are not held in high regard, even discounting the activities of the popular media?

All the best to you dear Mark, from Fredrik

I am not sure how Iraq could ever be profitable if we are to look at it in purely monetary terms.
With equipment replacement/ repair and medical and pension costs we in the U.S. are over 2 Trillion down. Next factor in long term financing of this debt... Would have been much cheaper to write checks to Exxon, BP, Haliburton, KBR and the rest of the usual suspects.
Back to human terms, the Iraq action and lack of action elsewhwere are indefensible in my eyes.

rOb

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
you did not quite make your own view of it clear.

You're right. I have since edited the post to read more accurately as it is most certainly not my view.

Zimbabwe is by no means alone as a country whose plight has been ignored by western governments. There is a long history of countries who have been invaded, oppressed, torn by civil war, beset by famine etc, etc, and who happen not to have large reserves of mineral wealth or to be strategically well-placed, which have been largely ignored and left to rot by the 'civilised' world.

Mark

Dear Mark,

The plight of peoples in countries not of any value to us any more is one of the shadows of Empire, which a mature and wealthy country like Britain should certainly take more seriously than she does. The trouble, I suspect, is that are not many votes in it so there is little prospect of things improving much, at least as far as I can see it.

I am not one of those who think that the old Empire was inherently a bad thing or even as bad as most of other Imperialist time historical and political life, but there were big problems that have left lasting suffering from our Empire. That is my point, and so long as we are a player at the World Table, then we have a real work to do to try and help alleviate the plight of te peoples of these countries, which after all often provided the labour and resourses which helped make Britain rich and "The Leading Nation" for centuries. This is the reverse of a denegration of the British get up and go which made this all possible, but rather a hope that the real debt to others less well off now might be acknowledged in a practical way in our own time.

I think we should start by being better friends to the US as well, and really letting them know when we disagree with them. A good friend is the very best placed critic. MacMillan did it with Kennedy, and I am sure that Blair should have with GW Bush...

Kindest regards from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
After the genocide in Rwanda, Lt General Romeo Dallaire (who had commanded the UN peace-keeping force there at the time) was forced to conclude that the Western world's response to troubles like this is essentially a racist response.

I have little evidence to conclude otherwise.

So I doubt that the world will do much to stop what is happening in Zimbabwe because Zimbabwe is full of black people.

On the other hand, when Western nations do intervene to help, they are often accused of being racist because the action implies that Africans are not capable of running their own countries...damned if you do, damned if you don't.

quote:

Originally posted by Jo Sharp:

On the other hand, when Western nations do intervene to help, they are often accused of being racist because the action implies that Africans are not capable of running their own countries...damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I'd suggest that this is an artifact of free speech in a democracy.

The public nature of political life, and the freedom of the press and speech, means that those who put themselves forward for public life must necessarily be arrogant and focused on their own vision.

It doesn't have oil, so we (and the global cowboys) won't invade and kick the fucker Mugabe out.

But we sure as shit should!

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:
It doesn't have oil, so we (and the global cowboys) won't invade and kick the fucker Mugabe out.

But we sure as shit should!

I agree, there is no money in it for the "god damm" GWB, so why should he bother.

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:

[QUOTE] We will be making money out of Iraq in trade deals for years to come, so it is not as bad as it first looks.

That's a relief then, I was beginning to think the 650,000 dead and died for nothing.

quote:

Zimbabwe is frankly not worth worrying about. South Africa has the same natural resources and cheap labour and we can use that more effectively and safely.

Yet again Parry dismisses an entire nation as unimportant because we have no use for them. You were born 300 years too late Parry.

Reading Mick Parry's replies in this Thread forces me to one conclusion, not about Mick, even world politics, but about myself and those who take a similar line to me...

We are too gentle, too full of scruples, and too idealistic to get on very well in this world, for, like it or not, what Mick says is surely true of the Governments we have in the "free" world, and to be brutally honest the greater part of the peoples who elect them, or anyone other group of humans for that matter.

This not a comfortable conclusion, and it makes me ask the, "Is the world becoming a better place, or not?" Over time one might hope that the thinking specei of homo sapiens might be expected to become a more civilised one over time, but I think that it is probably about the same as ever overal.

I do think that the UK had a time between the 1930's and '80s, when we reached a sort of Zenith in terms of civilisation. I am sure that we are slipping back into the primordial swamp of the uncivilised average that human nature arrives at when it is motivated by greed alone, seemingly seen everywhere one looks. I would hope not merely for stasis, but an incremental improvement with time as we learn to be more generous with, and more careful of others, and indeed all of the life on the planet. I cannot see this gradual improvement, for all that I would prefer to be an optimist in this regard.

I doubt if the average level of civilisation - as opposed to the outside veneer of technoilogical advance such as better sanitation, medication, and housing [etc] for some humans - has changed since the dawn of the human race. It is not comforting to consider how base is our behavior as a specie that is nominally sentient and fitted with the capacity to use a conscience, and reasoned moral framework, as a guide to doing the right thing for others without consideration of personal gain or loss for ourselves.

My conclusion that our advance on our pre-human ancestors is not so great as we occasionally think! As GB Shaw said on being asked what he thought about civilisation:

"It is a grand idea. Someone should invent it soon..." [a paraphrase, I am sure, but his thrust is thought provoking].

That was a very dark post and observation. I cannot see it any other way, so I hope the thought does not depress anyone else too much.

The only chink of optimism I allow myself is that without doubt there are very fine, and good individual humans, but taken as whole the human race is entirely failing to live up to its possibilities and potential, as a truly civilised specei...

Unless morality means nothing? If so I am all for human extinction. The planet would survive, and something better might evolve - in another Eon.

Sincerely, Fredrik

A dark post indeed, it leads one to wonder if pressure could not be applied via ECOMOG / ECOWAS who have a history of peace keeping duties in many parts of Africa but this is a dispute between those in power and those who wish to be in power so perhaps not a war and as such can not be helped by ECOMOG. Any country could if they so wished detain Mugabe as he stepped on to their soil just as happened in 1998 to Gen Augusto Pinochet. This just might be the catalyst needed to spark a change but remember the change may be a palace coup within the ruling party and not the result one had hoped for.

There are many countries in the world that do not meet our domestic high standards.

Why start at the end of the alphabet?

The consideration here is not one of arbitrarily choosing a letter from the alphabet, and so on...

If you read my preceeding posts in this Thread, you will find your question answered already, Nigel. May I suggest you start with my first reply on page one, and work through in chronological order, for the sake of clarity? You may find that you disagree, but at least you would have joined in the exchange in a meaningful way...

Sincerely, Fredrik

PS: For Roy, I am sure that your fear about an in-house Coup d'Etat is justified. That is why British military intervention is justified in my view.

Could China be a force for good in the general area? I think with their massive trade contracts and not being an ex-colonial power they could if so minded be in a strong position to shape the future for countries they wish to support. The only problem with this is that the Chinese view of the future may not math the view as seen from the West but then does the view of the West matter?

I think that China, whether we in the old West actually like the details or not, is certain to get more involved, and could be significant force for good in the world. Fingers crossed on that one.

Certainly the UK and US have, in any case, lost a lot of respect and moral authority in our expedition in Iraq, however it is examined. We have not won the war on terror, which largely came about because of the invasion, and it was hardly an invasion which was internationally supported. In that sense I am sure that China, itself, will take no notice of us, if we don't like their foreign policy as she grows into the leading World Superpower over the next decades. Compared to other potential Superpowers, China has the longest culture and civilisation of any, existing or up and coming. It is not based in western ideas of liberal democracy though. Their idea of Order is completlely different...

ATB from Fredrik