Zimbabwe
Brutality in Zimbabwe continues and as the economy spirals ever downward Zimbabwe has become the quintessential basket case African nation. Inflation is reputed to be running at 1700% per annum. Food is in short supply since over 4000 white farmers were forcibly removed from their farms. Price caps on essential items are creating widespread shortages (as price caps always do).
I don’t actually have a lot to say about this tragedy except that it should not be forgotten. And it should also not be forgotten that the Australia government had a role in installing Robert Mugabe into power in 1980. Things were obviously meant to pan out differently.
Advertisement
94 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Recent Comments
Libertarians and ele… on Libertarians and elections (an… 
Dom Vasta on Libertarians and elections (an… 
Shem Bennett on Libertarians and elections (an… 
'Nuke' Gray on Libertarians and elections (an… Dom Vasta on Libertarians and elections (an… 
TerjeP (say tay-a) on Libertarians and elections (an… TerjeP (say tay-a) on Libertarians and elections (an… 'Nuke' Gray on Libertarians and elections (an… Shem Bennett on Libertarians and elections (an… 
Brendan Halfweeg on The Santa Claus Governmen…
Catallaxy Files- Open Forum: February 11, 2012 February 10, 2012 Sinclair Davidson
- Not all recessions are caused by the Fed February 10, 2012More middle of the night blogging. My economics is classical. The almost perfect overlay of my own book can be found in a series of notes taken by Nicholas Kaldor at the LSE in 1927-29 from lectures delivered by the great American economist, Allyn Young. These notes were only published around a decade ago but [...]Steve Kates
- Where’s Romney? February 10, 2012It is quite extraordinary to watch the American political process up close. Now, I admit I have been busy and I don’t watch much of the television and do not read a lot of the press. But before I arrived the thing I did want to do was see more of Mitt Romney since from [...]Steve Kates
- inCISe
- More on PHI rebate means test February 10, 2012When I wrote in Incise yesterday, ‘Rebate should not be means tested,’ I did not expect events to move quite as quickly as they have. The government seems confident it has the numbers to get the means test through. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rob Oakshott and Andrew Wilkie have indeed swallowed the government’s nonsensical arguments, but it will be interestin […]Robert Carling
- Quiggin versus Carling and Kirchner February 9, 2012John Quiggin accuses Robert Carling and I of ‘an appalling breach of elementary standards of research’ for not acknowledging that Alberto Alesina’s work on the effectiveness of fiscal stimulus and consolidations is ‘highly controversial.’ In fact, we referenced Alesina’s work precisely because it has featured so prominently in public debate, including in the […]Stephen Kirchner
- Police going too far February 9, 2012According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, police are lecturing parents for letting their children walk to the shops or catch a bus on their own, with senior police saying such incidents will be reported to the Department of Community Services (DOCs) if a child is considered at risk. But when is a child ‘at risk’? One mother was told it was inappr […]Sara Hudson
- More on PHI rebate means test February 10, 2012
- IPA news
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012Australians will be surprised to learn that, apparently, the federal government now has responsibility to help the city of...
- It's time to bring back the thrift February 9, 2012Ted Baillieu plans to shave 3600 jobs from Victoria's bloated public service. The state of Wisconsin in the US, with a...
- We'll huff, we'll puff, we'll blow the budget into surplus February 8, 2012Bill Clinton famously said, "It's the economy, stupid". So it is. Unsuccessful politicians might be inclined to argue,...
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012
I’ve been watching in horror what is happening in Zimbabwe. As a Canadian citizen it is hard for me to imagine what the population is experiencing. I’m sure that’s not what you guys bargained for when you struggled from the apartheid regime.
That guy mugabe looks like a new Hitler in modern times. This time he’s going after his own people.
I keep you people of Zimbabwe in my prayers.
I suspect that right now Mugabes prime motivation is fear. He is attempting to protect his position, his power and some sence of his greatness. What he is doing may be quite evil but given the hole he has dug himself his current actions are unfortunately all too human. Every leader wants to be loved but ultimately being loved is less important than retaining power. Although the fact that the charade of parliament continues suggests that public image still counts for something or is at least perceived to.
There does seem to be a huge measure of dogged bravery and unity amoungst the opposition forces. Yet given the results of our last intervention it is not clear that there is much we can or should do. Does anybody wish to smuggle themselves across the border and volunteer as a freedom fighter?
Does anybody wish to smuggle themselves across the border and volunteer as a freedom fighter?
I’ll donate to, or work for, a (preferably private) professional organisation chartered with taking him out. Now which civilised countries are going to sanction the actions of this organisation and agree not to prosecute or extradite the people working for it over the duration of this task?
Sometimes I’m sorry that Libertarians aren’t more active, as in organised in a world-wide active society or movement. When the Zimbabwean dictatorship collapses, I think the country would be ripe for a concerted libertarian campaign to turn it into a haven of freedom! If Libertarian International was a company, now would be the ideal time to prepare for the zimbabwe marketing campaign! Start trading, offering work in exchange for gold and silver to use for money! Sell them guns for personal protection! Start up a lending library with books on markets and property rights and other anti-state concepts!
But I fear any new government will just be a weaker version of the old, a brutal dictatorship of new oppressors, perhaps just milder.
It may sound a bit odd, but one of the reasons I was not opposed to the US intervention in Iraq (despite disbelieving the WMD argument) is Zimbabwe.
It is a simple fact that hundreds of thousands of people are dying a slow and miserable death from starvation and disease because of Mugabe, many of them are women and young children. It’s an absolute horror story.
He has corrupted what was once a fine country (I lived there briefly), undermining all the institutions required for proper governance including the legal system.
I cannot help thinking how simple it would be to drop a couple of cruise missiles on Mugabe’s palatial palace one evening, when he and his retinue of thugs were known to be present.
The new government that emerged would have a strong incentive not to got down the same path, knowing what happened to its predecessor. We know that works – Syria and Iran were both suddenly interested in democracy and freedom immediately after Iraq was invaded.
There has to be a time when the misery caused by despots overrides reluctance to interfere in the problems of other countries.
Mugabe’s prime motivation is revenge.
In the 1980s his gukurahundi was the planned genocide of the Ndbele paople in which an estimated 20,000 civilians wre killed by his North Korean-trained 5th Brigade for perceived disloyalty.
In 1999 his attempts to extend his rule through altering the constitution were rebuffed when his referendum was defeated largely by white farmers who bussed in their workers to (some say deliberately) remote polling stations.
Mugabe’s response was to dispossess those farmers, with special attention to liberal and civic-minded farmers like David Stevens who was executed in a police station.
In the 2000 election, the people voted to remove Mugabe’s party from power and it was only through vote rigging (many constituencies had more votes cast in the than there were constituants), intimidation, manipulation of ballots (area with opposition support were under-represented by polling stations to force voters to face long queus in the hope that they would give up queuing or fail the voting deadlines).
Mugabe’s response was predictable: food aid sent by the US and others was retained and only given to ruling party supporters. other commodities, too were only supplied on provision of ruling party support.
Until now, Zimbabweans have been too scared to lift their heads above the parapet; a few months ago, a mass street protest was organised to protestagainst inflation but only 30 people turned up to be faced by thousands of riot police who beat them mercilessly.
Mugabe obviously wants the Zimbabwe people to go back to keeping their heads down, so he has been happy to let people see what happens to them if they defy him.
Read “When the Crocodile eats the Sun” by Peter Godwin.
So how do we help them overthrow this tyrant? I want to do more than write him a rude letter!
Try writing your rude letter to Thabo Mbeki whose tacit support has enabled Mugabe to conduct his violent campaigns with impunity.
You would think this sort of thing was simple but whenever the idea gets tested they all to often seem to miss their man.
DL,
I thought Iran had always generally been interested in democracy — even before the US invaded (check out when the opposition party reformist party had the greatest support) — my impression was that if anything, the recent Iraq war has made this worse, as it gives crazy dictators R Us to a good focal point to blame all their problems on. I’m sure they’ll also gain more brownie points with the crazies when the US pools out and they are are able to exert strong influence on a much weakened Iraq (something they were not able to do themselves, despite great effort).
Also, speaking of dropping bombs on people, my suggestion is that some big organization simply makes a numbered list of the worst dictatorships. This way if people want to use military action, then at least we know we arn’t dropping bombs on people for political reasons like oil, or because some of the people on the losing side happen to be white. One can also imagine that once the first few numbers are removed, the next person on the list would really have to think hard about staying there.
I think such a public assisination shopping list is diplomatic folly. I really think we need to stop trying to police the wildlands and stick to homeland defence. Certainly the latter will require occasional excusions into the former, but Mugabe is not a threat to Australia. A protection racket run by the UN or some other international grouping is likely to undermine local efforts at political solutions. It is easy for us sitting half a world away to say that civil war is more desirable than dictator X but I really think that the people at the coal face (ie the locals) are better positioned to decide the time and place for reform.
If anything I prefer the solution suggested by Michael above where by the governments of the world take a neutral position on private freedom fighters that want to go and lend a hand. Although if you want to go and wage war against our allies it should be treated as treason. If Mugabe had known that getting booted from the Commonwealth would open the door to private militia departing Britian and Australia and elsewhere to cause him trouble then perhaps he would have tried harder to stay the cause on democratic freedom.
If we look at the private milicia that have been given the green light to depart from Syria and Iran to fight US forces in Iraq we can get a sence for how effective such war by proxy can be. Such private initiative by patriots and soldiers of fortune form very lethal fighting forces. And they cost the taxpayer nothing.
I think such a public assisination shopping list is diplomatic folly. I really think we need to stop trying to police the wildlands and stick to homeland defence.
This is like the old question which arises from time to time, especially with John H. I agree with the sentiment, but I find it hard to implement in practice. For example, a 9/11 happens, you know the organisation behind it is in a rogue state. Rogue state won’t assist in bringing organisation to justice, and in some underhand ways is complicit in the crime. What do you do? I think in reality you’ll find you’re at war quite a bit. Disapointing, but that’s the current level of development of humankind at this point.
With Mugabe, I agree. Civilised countries take a neutral position, i.e. declare Mugabe an outlaw who is no longer entitled to the protection of civilised society. Then let nature take it’s course. Possibly would have worked with Saddam as well.
we need to stop trying to police the wildlands and stick to homeland defence.
All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Think Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Sudan/Darfur.
And Zimbabwe.
Dear DAVID, I am not doing nothing, I am getting quite cross, and would not hand over any sugar to Mugabe if we were having coffee together. I am also not buying any products made in Zimbabwe, nor taking Zimbabwe lingo lessons. What more do you want me to do?
It’s at times like this that I wish that we had a few Bond-James-Bonds to send to these countries. a quick hatchet job, and everyone (except Mugabe, but you can only please 99% of the people) would be happier!
In 1976 the South African and US governments combined to place pressure on Ian Smith to agree to a form of majority rule. Basically in the 1970s, Rhodesia didn’t have much support from the west. Even Sth Africa a country sympathetic to the white government in Rhodesia capped their fuel and munition exports to Rhodesia and withdrew all their troops. And of course, there were the economic sanctions that were placed on the country.
It’s a pity that the alternative to the white government was Mugabe but he had overwhelming popular support. Considering the local and global climate at the time, it seems to me like the transition was inevitable. Back then, like today people didn’t seem to understand that an authoritarian government with socialist policies will have catastrophic consequences to a country. For example, the other day I was talking to a women about her recent trip to Vietnam. She excitedly started telling me that Ho Chi Minh was misunderstood, that she’d read a book on him and he had the right ideas for the country. I couldn’t believe that someone living in a western country could have this opinion and be so sucked in by a bit of propaganda. I felt embarrassed at her ignorance but this level of ignorance is common even in countries like Australia and even today.
Free health and education for all sounds tempting but in this case these type of policies have ultimately resulted in starvation. Zimbabwe has also suffered from ridiculous economic policy. For example, recently Mugabe’s party ordered that 3 zeros be removed from the end of the currency! New currency was printed and old currency outlawed. Not surprisingly, most banks, shops etc ended up closing that day unable to operate.
A few years ago it was cheaper to wipe your arse with $10 bills in Zimbabwe than buy toilet paper. But today, they’re still producing worthless coins with a value far lower than their cost of production.
Even in 1978 it wasn’t that easy to leave Zimbabwe. You were restricted in the amount of cash and possessions you could take with you. Today, as I understand, it is very difficult to legally leave Zimbabwe.
I feel very sorry for people faced with the decision to leave a dying country or stay. Do you leave your life’s work behind and become a refugee or do you stay and fight it out? This choice has been faced by millions of people across Africa, Asia and Sth America. And these people will never be compensated for the crimes committed by their governments.
Which is why I suggested that governments shouldn’t insist that good men do nothing.
David, how do you plan on funding these assassinations and the wars they’re likely to start?
David, how do you plan on funding these assassinations and the wars they’re likely to start?
Now don’t go getting all technical about details like that. I’d just look the other way for a moment if we (or better still the US) diverted a bit of foreign aid towards paying for a couple of cruise missiles to lob on Mugabe’s palace. The foreign aid generally does no good anyway, and the missiles might.
We would certainly not fund any wars that follow, although a war is less likely if the parties know there might be a cruise missile waiting them too. Some foreign aid to fund a supervised election might be worth considering though.
So we disrupt the local state of affairs with cruise missiles (the so called surgical strike) and then take zero responsibility for what follows? I think it makes more sence to abstain from any active involvement. That does not mean our government can’t be passively involved.
However your “look the other way” approach is essentially a passive policy anyway. Looking the other way is quite different to sending in the SAS. I’m quite okay with looking the other way because I think defending Mugabe is most definitely NOT one of our governments responsibilities.
Regards,
Terje.
I think it makes more sence to abstain from any active involvement.
Abstaining is what I meant about good men doing nothing.
Active involvement means doing ‘something’. Dropping a couple of cruise missiles (surgically or not, as long as the arsehole and his retinue are vapourised) is not as active as sending in the SAS. So I guess what I’m proposing is only moderately active.
take zero responsibility for what follows?
Threatening to lob another cruise missile on any arsehole who thinks Mugabe is a suitable role model is what I have in mind. That’s pretty responsible.
[BTW, sense is spelt sense, not sence. You generally spell it incorrectly.]
I never could make any sence out of the english language.
I also get “their” and “there” the wrong way around all the time even though I know perfectly well which is which (or is it witch). It’s kind of like a twitch.
The “good men doing nothing” is a useful line. You can use it to justify feeding the masses in Africa with foreign aid, building public housing to shelter the poor, socialising medicine or invading Iraq to kick start a civil war. The fallacy lies in the notion that “doing anything” is necessarily a more positive thing than “doing nothing” (laissez faire).
I think it is wrong to assume that the problem in Zimbabwe is down to one personality and that removing that personality will automatically usher in better times. That is not so different to the assumptions that we made when we helped Mugabe into power in the first place.
David, I’d love to see Mugabe assassinated and I can’t believe he’s survived this long, but I don’t see why another Mugabe wouldn’t step up in his place, probably not as bad, but along the same lines. Many African countries have sham democracies and socialist policies. The use of force won’t change people’s ideologies.
Logistically, there are too many countries like this to “fix”. Also, military occupation for extended periods is undesirable for everyone.
I’m pretty ignorant when it comes to international law. What level of human rights violations are necessary for an international hearing? Or is it more a problem of who will bring Mugabe to trial? I’m thinking of instances such as when Mugabe ordered the bulldozing of all those houses in downtown Harare.
I found this at http://www.swradioafrica.com/pages/Discarding%20Filth.htm
On 19 May 2005, the Government of Zimbabwe began an operation labelled “Operation Murambatsvina” (OM). While Government has translated this to mean “Operation Clean-up”, or “Operation Restore Order”, the more literal translation of “Murambatsvina” is “Drive out the Filth”.
“This is not the first time this Government has used “cleaning” terminology to describe a process in which Zimbabweans themselves become victims of a politically driven purge. In the 1980s, the Mugabe Government launched the now-infamous “Gukurahundi” campaign, where “gukurahundi” means “the spring rain that gets rid of the chaff from the last season”.“Gukurahundi” resulted in the massacre of an estimated 10,000 civilians in the western region of the country, and hundreds of thousands of other human rights violations”.
I think it is wrong to assume that the problem in Zimbabwe is down to one personality and that removing that personality will automatically usher in better times. That is not so different to the assumptions that we made when we helped Mugabe into power in the first place.
I agree the problems go deeper but certain personalities can have the game sewn up and contribute substantially more to the problem than others. It can help to eliminate them. Similar thing in Iraq. We helped Saddam into power in hope of a brave new middle eastern world, it failed, so it was time for him to go. I just think we could have achieved the same aim without the loss of 3000 coalition lives by use of covert action and it would still be just as morally correct. For the Americans, more or less do what they do anyway with their private military companies. The world sanctions Saddam as an outlaw and private military industry takes him out. In a perfect world it’s funded privately, but a halfway measure would be to let the government have some role.
By ‘world sanctions Saddam as an outlaw’ I mean ‘the civilised world sanctions Saddam as an outlaw’.
For the Americans, more or less do what they do anyway with their private military companies.
Hey Major Major, I’m not fussy about who launches the cruise missile. As long as it’s done.
And Terje, I agree that taking out Mugabe by itself might not be sufficient. The acolytes that wield power in his name need to go too. But that’s just a matter of waiting until they are in a meeting at the palace before launching the missile. One boom and they’re all gone.
The problem in Iraq was not the decision to go in, but the strategy when staying. There was no respect for the clans and tribes and a lack of understanding of local power balances. The Brits got it right in Basra and told the Americans how it should be done, but they wouldn’t listen. They are listening now, but a lot of damage has been done.
Still, there are signs the tide is turning. Have a look at these:
http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=50244
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/has_the_global_islamic_jihad_m.html
This is all theoretical- do you mean we do nothing now? What can we do, NOW, to affect Mugabe negatively? We will reach a better world by small steps taken NOW, not by describing what the future could be.
I fear that the ALS will just stay a chat society unless we start thinking about the real world. Chatting is fine, even with a Graemebird, who might use fowl language, but i would sure like a course of action!
David, are you seriously suggesting that Australian foreign policy should be “we reserve the right to murder any foreign government official we don’t like?”.
“but i would sure like a course of action”
I don’t see anything wrong with essentially no action on many different levels — including this one. I wish more politicians would learn that.
We should have targeted assassination. Why endanger more than a minimum number of innocent civilians? Why put up with third world corruption of justice systems?
What do the South African and British Governments think they achieved by rounding up Mark Thatcher? They’ve implicitly supported Mugabe since they won’t take any military action of their own. It’s not as if Mugabe will strike back because he is a British subject.
“David, are you seriously suggesting that Australian foreign policy should be “we reserve the right to murder any foreign government official we don’t like?”.”
Where did David say anything like that? Are you reading the same discussion as the rest of us?
We should have targeted assassination. Why endanger more than a minimum number of innocent civilians? Why put up with third world corruption of justice systems?
So you’re saying Australia should murder foreign officials deemed to have “corrupted justice systems”?
There’s not many other ways to spin your statements.
Since when was Abu Bakr Bashir a foreign official?
Since when did the terrorist wing of Hamas count as foreign diplomats to Israel?
“So you’re saying Australia should murder foreign officials deemed to have “corrupted justice systems”?”
No. We should use targeted assassination for the likes of Bashir, who escaped justice and remains a threat to Australian and Indonesian civilians. I would also prefer this course of action compared to a costly war with the civilian populace of a foreign power.
I really don’t care what happens to Mugabe, but the west should simply stop punishing their own citizens for trying to launch a rebellion against a dictator who is responsible for the murder of thousands. If neighbouring countries want targeted assassination, let them go ahead. He isn’t our concern. Why must we prosecute Australian citizens who would be part of a rebel force to oust him?
“There’s not many other ways to spin your statements.”
Very funny John, since you muddled up two obviously different ideas. Please read more carefully.
No, not targeted assasination. I wouldn’t trust a populist government to be judge and jury when it comes to taking a life.
A bounty for the capture of each major terrorist leader who is in our immediate vincinity or who is working against the Australian national interest would be sufficient. The offer would be open to anyone, including the friends and family of the leader. This method could be employed for someone like Saddam Hussein, although the reward offered would probably be something like $100 million. That would still be far cheaper and is not morally wrong, assuming when the dictator is delivered to the Australian government he/she is given a fair trial.
Also, less money spent on wars at a geographic distance and more money spent on setting up a ‘Star Wars’ type nuclear weapons defence system to thwart a potential missile attack. Less ‘forward defence’ and more money spent maintaining the integrity of Australian territory, in other words.
Since when was Abu Bakr Bashir a foreign official?
??? We should lob missiles at Indonesia because they didn’t give Bashir a long enough sentence? Are you NUTS?
Since when did the terrorist wing of Hamas count as foreign diplomats to Israel?
A strawman. That’s self defense and totally unrelated to the Mugabe situation.
I really don’t care what happens to Mugabe, but the west should simply stop punishing their own citizens for trying to launch a rebellion against a dictator who is responsible for the murder of thousands. If neighbouring countries want targeted assassination, let them go ahead. He isn’t our concern. Why must we prosecute Australian citizens who would be part of a rebel force to oust him?
Another Strawman, I never suggested we should.
I took issue with David’s proposal for the Australian government to murder Mugabe with missiles. Read my posts.
“We should lob missiles at Indonesia because they didn’t give Bashir a long enough sentence? Are you NUTS?”
Since when did targeted assassination make Israel “NUTS”? This is emotive piffle. Where is some analysis – Indonesia will swat us if we take unilateral action, or they will clean up their court system?
“A strawman. That’s self defense and totally unrelated to the Mugabe situation.”
So if the foreign diplomat line. He is not a diplomat and he doesn’t concern Australians in general. What matters is that the West punishes it’s own citizens for dirty work they haven’t got the balls to do or the competence to achieve in occupation. That said, we should have it for self-defence.
“I took issue with David’s proposal for the Australian government to murder Mugabe with missiles. Read my posts.”
Killing Mugabe isn’t murder. It is a noble act. How many have died for his last of the Stewarts attitude?
Your argument seems to be:
1. Killing Mugabe is “murder”.
2. The West is doing the right thing by outlawing people like Mark Thatcher.
3. We can’t have targeted assassination because it will start a war or something – even though the whole point is to minimise collateral damage (a free Bashir means more terrorism).
4. Mugabe is a foreign diplomat, and allowing people like Thatcher to what they will or have policy of targeted assassination is equivalent to our Government having a hand in murder of foreign diplomats (forgetting Mugabe is an undiplomatic, vote rigging murderer).
So was Churchill wrong to oppose assassinating Hitler on strategic (Nazi party succession issues) rather than moral grounds?
I don’t know what you are really arguing since you seem to be satisfied with self defence. The only real point you seem to be making is you fear Indonesia and Mugabe is like an innocent ambassador.
“I took issue with David’s proposal for the Australian government to murder Mugabe with missiles. Read my posts.”
He never actually said that. It might help to pay closer attention to what is written. Again, killing Mugabe isn’t murder.
“Also, less money spent on wars at a geographic distance and more money spent on setting up a ‘Star Wars’ type nuclear weapons defence system to thwart a potential missile attack. Less ‘forward defence’ and more money spent maintaining the integrity of Australian territory, in other words.”
Procurement of cruise missiles would go a long way strategically to make surgical strikes against terrorist strongholds more reliable, safer for our forces and effective. It will also make the air-sea gap a lot stronger and make it too costly to intimidate Australia with strategic weapons if we can target foreign heads of Government and their weapons enrichment and launch facilities. They are highly cost-effective.
I took issue with David’s proposal for the Australian government to murder Mugabe with missiles. Read my posts.
The government doesn’t do the killing. A court agreed to by a voluntary group of civilised nations decide to hear a charge against Mugabe of what is effectively crimes against humanity, probably better called ‘crimes against civilisation’. Mugabe is invited to attend and defend himself. If he attends and is found guilty he is either sentenced or perhaps he could be passed to the International Court of Justice to answer his case in a higher court for final sentencing. If he fails to show he is tried in absentia. If he is found guilty in absentiaa verdict is given that if he attends the same civilised nations he will be arrested and given a retrial while present, and that if he remains outside of them (such as remaining in Zimbabwe) he is no longer entitled to the protection of civilisation. i.e. if a citizen of one of the ‘civilised’ nations kills Mugabe then they will not be charged with crimes in any of the ‘ciivilised’ nations. It would not be a crime to donate money to have Mugabe killed or encourage others to do it. It would not be a crime to to organise his downfall through a professional military company. At any stage Mugabe can request safe passage into custody and a fair trial where he will be able to defend himself.
Some people are so clearly guilty of the most heinous crimes that putting a ‘wanted dead or alive’ verdict on them is perfectly reasonable. If they want a trial they can have it. If not, they don’t deserve the protection of civilisation. I think it’s not too hard to determine who they are. Mugabe and Saddam are/were in this situation. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is probably not (yet).
It is an affront to civilised people everywhere (but especially the civilised people in Zimbabwe) that Mugabe is considered a head of state when he is so obvioiusly guilty of the most horrific crimes anyone can be guilty of. It is an insult to civilised people everywhere to have to look to the ineffective, and perhaps even immoral, organisation of the UN to hold the beacon of justice, freedom and civilisation. When it comes down to it, all the work is done by civilised countries anyway, so if they have to bear the burden of maintaining justice they are entitled not to have live under the umbrella of a questionable organisation like the UN.
mur·der (mûr’dər)
v.tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
(and note that I didn’t claimed murder could never be justified)
Indonesia will swat us if we take unilateral action, or they will clean up their court system?
Yeah, the response to Australia firing missiles at them will be “those guys have a point, lets clean up our act”.
2. The West is doing the right thing by outlawing people like Mark Thatcher.
As stated in my last post, I never said this.
3. We can’t have targeted assassination because it will start a war or something – even though the whole point is to minimise collateral damage (a free Bashir means more terrorism).
Which do you think is more likely to cause collateral damage: A war or a terrorist outrage every few years? Not to mention the massive economic loss due to the cessation of Australian economic ties with most of Southeast Asia.
Not to mention that Indonesia is in a period of positive democratic reform which should be encouraged where practical.
Don’t be afraid, Mark.
“I took issue with David’s proposal for the Australian government to murder Mugabe with missiles. Read my posts.”
He never actually said that.
Actually, he did: “I’d just look the other way for a moment if we (or better still the US) diverted a bit of foreign aid towards paying for a couple of cruise missiles to lob on Mugabe’s palace.”
So what, a dictionary has definition of murder: philosophy is more useful than a singular set of definitions and says he is a tyrant who has gotten away with thousands of murders and his death is justified and will have a dynamic utilitarian benefit. If some of the assassination plots against Hitler worked, they too would have been unlawful. Was Count Claus von Stauffenberg an attempted murderer? Definitions are useful in the proper context.
“Yeah, the response to Australia firing missiles at them will be “those guys have a point, lets clean up our act”.”
That isn’t analysis. You’re trying to tell me that Indonesia will declare war on us because we kill a terrorist responsible for killing Australians but also killing more Indonesians than Australians he killed? They aren’t spoiling for a war like the Austrians were.
“As stated in my last post, I never said this.”
Agreed, but the West shouldn’t punish people like Mark Thatcher – agreed too.
“Which do you think is more likely to cause collateral damage: A war or a terrorist outrage every few years? Not to mention the massive economic loss due to the cessation of Australian economic ties with most of Southeast Asia.
Not to mention that Indonesia is in a period of positive democratic reform which should be encouraged where practical.
Don’t be afraid, Mark.”
How about killing terrorists because the war is never going to happen? What positive economic reform comes of letting Bashir free because the Indonesian justice system is corrupt?
David also said he didn’t think it was our job to knock off Mugabe, he just thought the aid had better use (paying for his funeral). You keep calling it murder, so do you find it morally wrong? Personally I don’t see why we should fund it when others are willing to voluntarily pay.
All this talk of assassination is rubbish.
If Mugabe were to die in any suspicious way the Army would take over the country and then you would REALLY see brutality. Not for nothing were these guys trained in North Korea.
Anyone conveniently colour-coded in a white skin would be fair game for torture and execution.
Any blacks who would be considered sympathisers would face similar treatment.
If you think that Zimbabweans don’t swallow Mugabe’s retoric about Britain wanting to enslave them, think again.
Rink,
Do you think there exists in Zimbabwe any secret organisations or numbers of individuals who would like to assasinate Mugabe and wage a revolution against his junta in the name of a free and open society?
Would it be wrong to help them if you agreed with their views?
>Do you think there exists in Zimbabwe any secret organisations or numbers
>of individuals who would like to assasinate Mugabe and wage a revolution
>against his junta in the name of a free and open society?
Extremists, you mean?
I am sure that such people exist.
I am also sure that were there to be an attack on Mugabe’s life, whether successful or not, the retribution would be swift and brutal.
The culprits would be easily recognisable from their convenient colour-coding and I don’t expect them to have any chance.
Extremists, you mean?
So Mugabe is the leader of a legitimate government and anyone who would attempt to overthrow him in the name of democracy, freedom and human rights (by any means including violence) is an extremist?
“If you think that Zimbabweans don’t swallow Mugabe’s retoric about Britain wanting to enslave them, think again”
I don’t think its rhetoric — Britain did want to enslave them — isn’t that the whole point of collonialism?
I think Michael Sutcliffe is on the right track.
Remember when POL POT was still recognised by the international community as the governing authority in Cambodia, despite having been overthrown and virtually an outlaw in his own country, because the UN didnt approve of the invasion of that country.
Who wept for this toad and his henchmen apart from the UN and left wing intelectuals?
States tend to support this course,in the name of stability as they fear the consequences if their own legitimacy is called into question.
No international recognition or protection should be afforded to governments which rule by terrorising their own people no matter how they came to power in the first place, and no manner of throwing them out should be illegal, as long as the rights of the population of those countries are respected afterwards.
Having said this, some rules would have to be established, so it wouldnt simply be a matter of what Tom Lehrer described as:-
They have to be protected, all their rights respected,
till someone we like can be elected.
The question at issue here is not JohnZ’s well developed ability to misconstrue what I and others write.
The question is, how should liberal democracies deal with individual despots whose removal would very likely vastly improve the lot of their people?
I draw a distinction between these and leaders of despotic governments where responsibility goes well beyond the leader and his immediate acolytes, or where there is an improving situation. Thus in the former category I would probably include Zimbabwe (Mugabe), North Korea (Kim Jong Il), Uzbekistan (Karimov), Sudan (al Bashir) and Burma (Than Shwe). Plus of course Iraq under Saddam and Cambodia under Pol Pot at the time. In the latter might be Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.
Options include:
Do nothing, as mostly occurs now (I regard meaningless UN resolutions as being nothing). Eventually, the despot dies of natural causes if nothing else.
Sanctions. The history of these is not encouraging. There is frequently lack of support (eg Russia, France, China) or lack of compliance (eg AWB). Nonetheless, financial sanctions appear to have had some effect on North Korea.
Targeted assassination. The Israelis have long used this against key Palestinians and the US more recently against Al Qaeda. However, I am not aware of any serious efforts against national leaders apart from Reagan’s bombing raid on Libya. That missed Gaddafi but killed his son and prompted him to abandon his support for terrorism. Twenty years later Gaddafi also decided to bring Libya into the civilised world.
Invasion. Examples include Iraq, Panama and Cuba (Bay of Pigs). This is clearly very expensive and prone to go wrong.
The libertarian principle of non-coercion does not apply between countries and there is no validity to the argument that a despotic dictator is somehow morally equivalent to George Bush or John Howard. I also have no problem with the notion of exporting liberal democracy, or at least creating an environment in which it might occur.
Therefore I continue to be drawn to the idea of targetted assassination in certain cases. Just one or two, plus publication of a list, may be enough to give the rest of them the hint. We know they take notice of these things, as I mentioned above. Liberty requires no apologies.
However, neither the International Criminal Court nor the International Court of Justice is equipped to handle this and I’m not sure what safeguards would be required anyway. The principal targets pretty much nominate themselves.
So the question is, do we take up a collection to pay for the cruise missiles or fund them by ceasing some government-funded foreign aid?
I remember thinking at the time of the protests against Rhodesia that this was going to happen. None of the self-righteous trendy protesters seemed to have the slightest idea what they were setting loose. I wonder where they all are now? It was trendy to protest about blacks not getting paid the same as whites, but it’s not trendy to protest about blacks being starved to death by blacks. Remember also that Zimbabwe has a ten-year head start over South Africa.
“All this talk of assassination is rubbish.
If Mugabe were to die in any suspicious way the Army would take over the country and then you would REALLY see brutality. Not for nothing were these guys trained in North Korea.”
Quite possibly it is. Like I said, it is why Churchill decided not to bump off Hitler, whereas instead of the army (the Wehrmacht had many dissenters and plotters like Stauffenberg), the SS would have been running the show.
However it should always be an option, and of course in this case it isn’t morally wrong.
Furthermore, there is no reason why it cannot be part of a due process of law in a liberal justice system – as the invasion of Afghanistan was rightfully an extension of policing powers.
If we can believe the papers, Zimbabwe is still collapsing, but is there any way that we can get them to open up their country so that a liberal economy can rectify things? When Mugabe goes, even if only from old age, can we offer them anything apart from chaos?
The libertarian principle of non-coercion does not apply between countries………
It does between two civilised countries. Civilised being countries that afford their citizens the rights of the non-coercion principle.
It does between two civilised countries. Civilised being countries that afford their citizens the rights of the non-coercion principle.
Relations between civilised countries should of course be non coercive, but not because of libertarian principles. They only relate to individuals.
There are other principles that apply though, notably mutual self-interest.
It is interesting how states seem to observe this gentlemen’s agreement not to kill each other’s heads of state, preferring to wage vast wars at much greater cost in lives. I have often asked myself why the world didn’t save itself the trouble and kill Hitler. I don’t agree with the war in Iraq, but I wouldn’t have objected to bumping off Saddam.
WHAT? ASSASSINATE HITLER? HOW BARBARIC!!! Please, justinjefferson, don’t go upsetting us all with these barbaric ideas. Gentlemen don’t assassinate each other. It’s not the done thing, at all, old chap. Oh, sure, you’d have saved millions of lives, but the principle of governments being sacrosanct would have been violated! And maybe someone worse would have taken over Germany, if Herr Hitler had met with extreme prejudice. Why, they might have gone Commo!
Can’t have that, old chap!
Conrad, you imply that Mugabe is correct in stating that Britain wants to enslave Zimbabwe.
That isn’t really my impression, but I presume you are a ruling party supporter?
Relations between civilised countries should of course be non coercive, but not because of libertarian principles. They only relate to individuals.
But a country is a collection of individuals.
All this talk of assassination is so much hogwash. Indeed Mugabe himself likes to talk up his chance of being assassinated; he feels it gives him credibility and it also justifies his actions.
There are guys in Chikurubi gaol who are there because they are suspected of some outlandish plot to assassinate Mugabe by pouring oil on the road so that he would be killed in the ensuing road accident.
The evidence for this is two 44 gallon drums of oil found on one of the suspect’s property.
All this talk of assassination is so much hogwash.
If you think that, why not contribute to another thread?
This one is considering whether assassination is an appropriate measure to deal with despots. Your comment adds nothing to that discussion.
But a country is a collection of individuals.
True, but that does not mean libertarian principles apply to countries in the same way they apply to individuals.
Libertarian principles also involve individual responsibility, free choice and equal treatment under the law.
Non-coercion just happens to be a libertarian principle for individuals as well as a good policy for countries. No more.
David, perhaps rink simply means that we don’t need to kill someone to bring him down. If we could find some way to introduce real (gold and silver) coins, instead of the paper money they have, that might further undermine him, AND the communist System.
BUT, should he be assassinated? The Allies might have been able to assassinate Hitler during the war, but chose to leave him alive to face all the consequences of defeat. If hitler had ‘passed away’ in 1942, for instance, he’d have been remembered as a genius, and not as the failure that he is now known as. So Mugabe should be left in power, with no one else to blame except himself.
perhaps rink simply means that we don’t need to kill someone to bring him down.
Perhaps. More likely he’s uncomfortable with the thought and does not want us to discuss it.
If hitler had ‘passed away’ in 1942, for instance, he’d have been remembered as a genius, and not as the failure that he is now known as. So Mugabe should be left in power, with no one else to blame except himself.
But literally millions of people would have survived. And in any case, as Churchill once said, history would be kind to us because we would write it. But even if he came to be regarded as a martyr to aryan purity, so what?
Leaving Mugabe in power to stuff up in his own time consigns huge numbers of people to disease, starvation and misery. How can that possibly be an acceptable tradeoff?
>This one is considering whether assassination is
>an appropriate measure to deal with despots.
>Your comment adds nothing to that discussion.
My Mistake.
I thought this was a rational discussion on the autocratic rule of an irrational tyrant.
So what should we do? Nothing? Should we support a fund to hire a hitman to deal with him? Or should we just sell them all guns and weapons, and train them how to shoot, and let the Zimbabweans take care of their own problems?
Rink,
Do you think he should be left alone or dealt with?
Either way, if so, how?
So what should we do? Nothing? Should we support a fund to hire a hitman to deal with him? Or should we just sell them all guns and weapons, and train them how to shoot, and let the Zimbabweans take care of their own problems?
My hypothesis is that Zimbabweans are so repressed by the despotic Mugabe that they are not in a position to remove him themselves. They are sick and starving, and have also been disarmed by the government to prevent insurrection.
The practicalities of re-arming them from outside the country are formidable and may not result in Mugabe’s removal anyway, at least without substantial conflict.
A sniper’s bullet might do the trick. A cruise missile that also took Mugabe’s inner circle of thugs would be better.
But, if we arm them ,and train them, then it’s their problem, and their solution. Any new government would not be able to claim ‘Foreigners done it! Rally round the flag!”, or would not last long if it did try that. The main reason he is in power is because the average person is powerless to resist! One of the reasons the Americans won their war of Independence is because firearms were so widespread, and Washington had a broad base from which to recruit. I think selling or giving them guns and training is a better solution in many ways.
I think that the snipers bullet would be a better option. The sniper can go after the inner circle at the same time if you like. I think cruise missiles are a clumsy option.
And I agree with the last point made by Nicholas about the way that foreign intervention is regarded on the ground. Mugabe does a good job of rallying support with the argument that his opponents are sponsored by foreign interests. A cruise missile may get your man but it would confirm peoples suspicions and ferment more political problems than a sniper (who would most likely escape or die and either way have little to say).
Mostly this is a disagreement about means however. And as Michael Sutcliffe has eloquently spelled out it only makes sence for what the civilised world might reasonably regard as outlaw dictators.
One of the reasons the Americans won their war of Independence is because firearms were so widespread, and Washington had a broad base from which to recruit. I think selling or giving them guns and training is a better solution in many ways.
I’m a big believer in armed citizens as a counter to tyrannical government. As Thomas Jefferson put it, “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?” Or as another US President, Woodrow Wilson, put it, “Liberty has never come from government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance.”
I just thought a couple of cruise missiles might be quicker and simpler, that’s all. But I think either would be fully justified.
Well, the ideal solution would be to sell the cruise missiles to the Zimbabwean Resistance side, and let them decide when and where to use them! Know anyone selling cruise missiles?
The problem is that the West has made such a venture (arming of rebels) illegal and punishable under our own law.
Our zeal for outlawing mercanaries has made it difficult for a thug like Mugabe to be trhown out without international intervention of sovereign states.
>Rink,
>Do you think he should be left alone
>or dealt with?
>
>Either way, if so, how?
Look, the fact is that a mass rally was called and only a handful of people turned up. There were thousands of police who heavily outnumbered the protesters and they arrested, what 50 people? Tsvangerai was only arrested when he visited a police station to see his 2ic.
Each Zimbabwean is hoping that someone else will risk his life for change, but no-one is prepared to go out onto the streets.
The people of Zimbabwe are completely cowed and these beatings were designed to keep them that way.
Until you get Zimbabweans who are prepared to risk their lives in greater numbers, the police and security forces will be happy to hand out beatings.
Once you get a few thousand getting out of control, that’s when the Cops will start to think about the wisdom of handing out severe beatings, but until that happens….
Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that Zimbabweans don’t support Mugabe; they might tell you that (it’s traditionally good manners to tell you what you want to hear). They might not like what he’s doing at the moment, but a lot of them feel he’s justified.
But one thing I do believe, killing Mugabe will not solve anything. On the contrary it will allow the generals to take over and implement their own brand of unpleasantness.
So what IS to be done.
Well, pressure should be applied to South Africa to stop them supporting him. And they DO support him. On local television news in South Africa the State controlled network hardly mentioned Zimbabwe last week, and when they did it was to carry the Zimbabwe Government side of the story.
Food Aid from the UN should only be supplied with strict conditions.
Currently food aid given by the US and the West is distributed by ruling party officials and is largely only given to those considered to be sympathetic to ZANU-PF. Which, as you can imagine, helps to shore up ruling party support.
Sort of flows into my idea that the West shouldn’t punish mercenaries. It was the South Africans who nabbed Thatcher.
“But one thing I do believe, killing Mugabe will not solve anything. On the contrary it will allow the generals to take over and implement their own brand of unpleasantness.”
What about targeting any number of high ranking officials that don’t support free speech and democratic republicanism?
I used to have a fear of public speaking, until I joined Toastmasters. Now they can’t get me to shut up. For most fears there is a club to help you overcome that fear.
What someone needs to do is start a Rebelmaster course, that would train people, like the timid Zimbabweans, in the art of civil disobedience, and insurrection. Instead of waiting for a natural leader to spontaneously emerge, we could train motivated individuals, and let them lead the resistance!
Any takers?
I suppose in a way that may work, many young, educated and affluent white northerners taught southern blacks civil disobedience and non-violent protest during the uglier parts of the civil rights campaign.
……..that would train people, like the timid Zimbabweans, in the art of civil disobedience, and insurrection. Instead of waiting for a natural leader to spontaneously emerge, we could train motivated individuals, and let them lead the resistance!
Any takers?
There are plenty of organisations that will do this right now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Military_Company
You just need a charity to fund it and some legal protection in the source countries.
I must admit that I feel some cultures have a greater thirst for liberty than others. How many people in Zimbabwe have done a Patrick Henry and cried ‘I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!’. Sometimes in a tribal society there is plenty of tribal warfare but very little controlled application of violence to achieve the ends of the civilsed individual. Same thing in Iraq.
The CIA could help us here! When some Balkan country was going through some convulsions on the path to a more open society, the CIA helped the pro-democracy side by giving them a book that looked like a manuel, which showed what other dictatorships had done in the past, and therefore what they could expect, and plan for, in the future! I saw this on some documentary show, perhaps Foreign Correspondent.
Good News
According to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6490805.stm they are likely to do it themselves, if it is not misinformation that is.
Morgan Tsvangirai is no doubt a man with considerable courage and determination. However his major qualification seems to be as previous top dog in the union movement. and a background as a miner. I doubt he has the economic skills to transform Zimbabwe (he obviously has many political skills) so the question will be whether he knows how to appoint people that do understand what needs to be done and if he can then trust them long enough to achieve results.
If he was to ask my advice (not very likely) then one of the first economic reforms I would suggest he do in the top job would be to instruct the central bank to redirect open market operations towards a fixed exchange rate with the South African Rand. Whilst the latter is not the most stable reference point for value (inflation of 6%pa) it would none the less be a huge improvement and it would be a very clear and accountable target from which the central bank could not deviate without being immediately exposed. The central bankers would not need much technical expertise to operate such a target and they would not be burdened by any need to source and collate masses of consumer price data. It would also immediately fascilitate easy trade with an important neighbour and make inbound capital investment from South Africa very simple for those involved. Such a move would not arrest inflation immediately but it would rapidly start the process.
this is what you wished for when you turned against white rule in favor of commie Negroes you should have known these bums could not run a descent govt.south africa will be next cesspool and i am sure you will whine and wonder why.
Bruce – I’m not sure who you are refering to but I was still a kid at the time and I was mostly wishing for a motorbike so I would not have to share the one we had with my siblings. I doubt I’d even heard of Rhodesia at the time. What do you propose should be done at this point in time?
Morgan Tsvangirai was arrested last night.
People are speculating that Tvangerai was arrested as a prelude to declaring a state of emergency. My information is that there is already an unofficial state of emergency with a curfew being enforced and Police roaming the streets to hand out hidings after 8 at night.
Also the Angolan are supplying troops to quell any anticipated unrest, so it doesn’t seem that Mugabe can trust his own Police to put down an uprising with sufficient brutality.
In the mean time regional leaders having met to slap his wrist have endorsed him as Leader and Mbeki has been appointed to make sure that he is allowed to continue his current course.
Not only that, but his party have also nominated him as their candidate to rule Zimbabwe for the next 6 years?
After the euphoria of the news that Mugube had lost the support of his own party and could be asked to stand down, the current news is disapointing. While I had some reservations about the ability of his party to remove him, (leaders like him tend to be as cunning as shithouse rats) and also whether the replacement would be any better than him, at last there seemed to be a ray of sunshine for these people.
The talk of assanation etc. above is untennable from my point of view, especially in the event of government involvement. I would oppose it for the same reason that I oppose capital punishment. Who, after all in their right minds would trust a government with the right to kill us, or anyone else.
On the other hand I wouldnt shed any tears if he got knocked off.
It is an obsenity that our government can, in our name recognise a government such as this as legitimate, merely because it has the power and brutality to effectively controll its people.
A principle will have to evolve whereby states which persue aggression against their own people ceace to be recognised by the international community, real principles not left wing crap.
While our nation recognises his government as legitimate, he also rules in our name and with our tacit approval.
””’Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that Zimbabweans don’t support Mugabe; they might tell you that (it’s traditionally good manners to tell you what you want to hear). They might not like what he’s doing at the moment, but a lot of them feel he’s justified”’
if you would experience the pain we are going through first hand…being tortured and killed in ur own country by fellow countrymen then u would not even suggest this…we have become powerless and defeated, when we vote for change your votes get rigged and then mugabe wins election but thats not because we want him but because we cannot control anything anymore as he is superior to everything and we have no say….PLEASE HELP
Zimbabwean, what do you want when you say help? What would help you, other than a blank cheque? Perhaps the best thing would be for you to leave the country, at least temporarily. Go to South Africa, and petition them to take over. If enough people are persuaded to leave, the country will collapse, and Mugabe with it! Then you could return to a country you can reclaim.
but considering that half of zimbabwe is already in south africa,england, australia etc….no one wants us in their counrty anymore and we cant blame them. a lot have complained and petitioned but to no avail. no one wants to help us…we are a third world country and would not be able to win this battle on our own….we want him dead, but how?????? what pains me is that had it been that zimbabwe had oil then action would have been prompt…people are dying a slow painful death all in the hands of one invincible man…
Things sound dreadful, but I can do very little here. Australians are severely limited in what guns and weapons they can buy, and we wouldn’t be allowed to send them to you. However, he is not invincible! Even if it is only old age, he won’t be there forever.
I have been advocating an international libertarian company for some time now. If it existed, it would be ideal for your case! An international company, if it acted NOW, would be able to liberate any land that needed it, like Zimbabwe. This wouldn’t be a talk-space, like this blog is, but an action-group.
Unfortunately, I don’t know of any Leviathan-hunting Club, but it might exist! Keep trying different blogs, and you might reach such a group!
Good luck, and if you do find it, tell us here!
“if you would experience the pain we are going through first hand…being tortured and killed in ur own country by fellow countrymen then u would not even suggest this…we have become powerless and defeated, when we vote for change your votes get rigged and then mugabe wins election but thats not because we want him but because we cannot control anything anymore as he is superior to everything and we have no say….PLEASE HELP”
Zimbabwean, when I read your words I wondered if I had been wrong.
But since then I have heard MANY Zimbabweans heap praise on Mugabe, so the fact must remain that there are not enough Zimbabweans who want to get rid of him.
If you are one, then I really DO feel sorry for you because you are truly alone.
Rink, there is a piece in today’s ‘Australian’ about how bad Zimbabwe is becoming, with Mugabe turning into a bigger thug than before. Other nations do nothing because he lives on his reputation from the time he was a resistance fighter, and he is seen as a ‘great’ man. What a joke!
Q. How many Zimbabweans does it take to change a light bulb?
A. A thousand, but they must all chip in equally so they can afford it.
“Q. How many Zimbabweans does it take to change a light bulb?
A. A thousand, but they must all chip in equally so they can afford it.”
No, the answer is none. Why bother?
1. The lightbulb is too expensive.
2. It is probably made in China and so will not last more than a day or two.
3. There is no electricity anyway.
Zimbabweans do not blame Mugabe for their predicament, they blame the West. Yes, I know, any fool can tell that Mugabe is doing this to them himself.
It’s like a Father who repeatedly beats his child; he tells his child that he is beating him for his own good. And because he loves his father, the child accepts the blame. Or places it on someone else.
The point is that if the social services come and take the child away from the father, the child will hate not the father but the social services.
Not true rink… a large percentage of city-based Zimbabweans do blame Mugabe. Even with the questionable democracy there, the city still vote overwhelmingly for the MDC. There is even a sub-section of the urban black population who are nostalgic about the UDI days (ie after the UK left but before black-rule).
Well, yes, but not enough to make any difference.
Something that you might also need to be aware of is a cultural phenomenon whereby a polite Zimbabwean will not tell you something you do not want to know.
Whites often used to get frustrated when asking for directions and being told that the destination is “just around that bend” when it most likely was 30 miles or more.
The point is that I meet enough black Zimbabweans to know that he is not as universally reviled as you might think.
mugabe must go for he has ruled zimbabwe since 1980. and the electorates have been able to identify his weaknesses and strength hence he does not observe democracy. he is no longer able to think logically. the economy has declined drasticaly. therefore he mustlive power for others to put everything right
mugabe must go for he has ruled zimbabwe since 1980. and the electorates have been able to identify his weaknesses and strength hence he does not observe democracy. he is no longer able to think logically. the economy has declined drasticaly. therefore he mustlive power for others to put everything right
My my how times have changed . Flashback to 1980 when Mugabe came to power he was the darling of the West. Even the Brits knighted him. It was well known that he massacred his own people way back then – but of course anything was better than Ian Smith’s evil white ruled Rhodesia.
Now let this be cautionary tale. For what is unfolding now in Zimbabwe has already started in South Africa. The murder of white farmers, the introduction of the Expropriation Bill and the general slide to crime and grime.
The Messiah Mandela has only just broken his silence and publicly condemned Mugabe, which begs the question, why a great humanitarian, who surely knows what it’s like to suffer, takes so long to speak out. We are still awaiting on the now president Thabo Mbeki to speak out. Lets add to the chorus of protest, lets call upon Bono, Bob Geldof and others to organize a concert to sing out and express their disgust of the Mugabe regime just like they did when evil whitey was in power.