quote:

---

Australian Prime Minister John Howard has ordered the country's cricket team to pull out of a planned tour of Zimbabwe later this year. [...]

The prime minister said the government could use its power over the players' passports if Cricket Australia did not abide by his decision. [...]

The head of Cricket Australia, James Sutherland, said the body was committed to help Zimbabwe cricket develop and would now look at holding the matches in a venue outside the country. [...]

"The Mugabe regime is behaving like the Gestapo towards its political opponents," Mr Howard said.

"I have no doubt that if this tour goes ahead it will be an enormous boost to this grubby dictator." [emphasis added]

---

quote:

---

Australia yesterday said it would spend A$18 million ($15 million) backing critics of Zimbabwe's strongman President Robert Mugabe just a day after banning a cricket tour of the troubled African nation.

As Zimbabwe criticised Australia's government for stopping the country's world champion cricketers from touring in September, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Canberra was determined to assist Zimbabweans battle abuses under Mugabe. [...]

Zimbabwe's Information and Publicity Minister Sikhanyiso Ndlovu on Sunday accused Australia's Prime Minister John Howard of using sport to demonise his government, while junior minister Bright Matonga said Canberra should not be judging his country.

"This is also a racist ploy to kill our local cricket since our cricket team is now dominated by black players as we slowly transform cricket from being an elite sport," Matonga told Zimbabwe's The Herald newspaper.

Howard, who has likened Mugabe's tactics to those of World War Two Nazis, said any racist accusations were absurd and the majority of Australians supported the government's boycott decision, including cricket captain Ricky Ponting.[...]

Australia's cricket decision won backing from Zimbabwe's main opposition figure, Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) Leader Morgan Tsvangirai, who was this year beaten by government security forces.

"I think as a way of applying international pressure it is welcome," Tsvangirai told Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
You're comparing John Howard to Robert Mugabe?

I don't like Howard. He panders to racism. But he's no Mugabe.

---

Mugabe doesn't have troops in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else.

Mugabe hasn't set aside a fund of millions to effect regime change in Australia.

When John Howard has the leader of the Australian Labour Party arrested and beaten up by the secret police - please wake me up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

When John Howard has the leader of the Australian Labour Party arrested and beaten up by the secret police - please wake me up.

---

As an exercise, try to make a list of countries that you hate (Column A) and a list that George W. Bush hates (Column B).

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

As an exercise, try to make a list of countries that you hate (Column A) and a list that George W. Bush hates (Column B).

Then make Column C, entitled "Hmmm, isn't that a coincidence..."

---

quote:

---

As an exercise, try to make a list of countries that you hate (Column A) and a list that George W. Bush hates (Column B).

---

Let me try to spell it out simply:

I opened this thread by wondering out loud what credentials a right-wing imperialist racist scum like John Howard has to lecture Mugabe or anyone else.

Stockholm, as is his style, decides to opine that John Howard is better than Mugabe!! Why would anyone make such an asinine statement?

I replied by pointing out that whatever crimes Mugabe has committed (and he has committed many), he has never to my knowledge tried (like John Howard does every single day) to overthrow foreign states by force, invade and occupy other people's lands, etc. In other words, his crimes are the sort in which the U.N. doesn't interfere. They let the people of the country sort it out themselves.

If anyone doesn't agree with my viewpoint, go ahead and express your own. But stop this bullshit of "why do you support Mugabe" or "don't you know that Mugabe and Zimbabwe are not the same" or "what will the right-wingers say if they read this thread and misinterpret it as unionist loving Mugabe".

What a bunch of crybabies. Sheesh.

Now, this thread is about countries like Australia trying to bring about regime change in countries like Zimbabwe. You can replace Australia by U.S., U.K., NATO, Soviet Union (until its downfall), etc. - and you can replace Zimbabwe by Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.

Or, you can ignore the content of this thread and have a very smug feeding frenzy based on your inability to read.

Temporary end of rant.

[ 17 May 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

Some of you people sound exactly like those "progressives" who, when the U.S. and its allies were starving Iraq, and when the U.S. was preparing its invasion and slaughter, spent their time talking about how evil Saddam Hussein was.

Or those today who just can't get over how evil the Taliban are.

What the f*** is the difference here - except maybe that Saddam Hussein and the Taliban arguably represented a danger (at certain times) beyond their own borders?!

Just because I hate Bush and Howard doesn't mean that I need to take the view that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and start being apologist for a pig like Mugabe.

Do you support John Howard (John Howard), not the Commonwealth, or the U.N., or Thabo Mbeki, or anyone else) trying to effect political change in Zimbabwe via forcing Australian cricketers against their will not to compete there, and sending money to internal opposition groups?

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
That doesn't mean I'll ever overlook the evil committed outside of "our" particular regimes either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dogbert:
I'm sure he's doing the right thing for the wrong reason, but denouncing it as being like the Iraq war? Bit much, don't you think?

---

No, he's not doing the "right thing". No other country has banned its cricketers from Zimbabwe. And no state has the right to donate money to an oppositional party in another country. And Howard has troops in Iraq.

So explain to me - one more time - why unilaterally invading Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein was wrong, but unilaterally interfering in Zimbabwe's internal affairs is good?

Is Mugabe worse than Saddam Hussein?

How about this: Imagine there is a terrible communist regime in Afghanistan oppressing the Afghan people, and a foreign power finances internal patriots to overthrow that regime. Is that good? Cf. U.S. supporting Mujaheddin, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, etc.

Or a vicious dictator that doesn't allow free elections, imprisons his opponents, and won't let anyone leave his island country. A neighbouring democratic country helps freedom fighters with money and safe haven to work for regime change. Cf. Bay of Pigs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I agree, Erik, and I think you're consistent in your stands. But please admit we don't hear much from you or me or anyone else about the evil in scores of regimes around the world that bludgeon their political opponents and don't run fair elections. It's the U.S.-sponsored "Most Hated of the Month Club" which I find not only offensive - but always the prelude to interference, invasion, regime change - and misery for the people.

---

I agree with that too, except perhaps the always part. The intense media focus on problems in foreign countries, making them out to be threats much beyond their own borders while ignoring our own part in it is hypocritical of itself. Leftists should also take into account, no question. But I suspect the Bush regime is quite happy to let parts of the "third world" which have little or no strategic value rot away under their own dictatorships. There must be better less invasive ways to assist their own home grown reformers or revolutionaries.

[ 17 May 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

Australia says it will deport eight Zimbabwean university students whose parents are senior members of the government of President Robert Mugabe.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said the move was an extension of sanctions against Zimbabwe.

It was aimed at preventing those behind human rights abuses from giving their children the education their policies denied ordinary Zimbabweans, he said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geneva:
if the subject here is Zimbabwe, there is a lenghty and very balanced 70-page section on Zimbabwe in the current issue (Aug./Sept 07) of New African:
http://www.africasia.com/newafrican/

damn it, though, they are late posting that issue, but it should appear soon ...

---

but for studying the situation it is indispensible, in that includes the entire text of many op-eds, statements and political declarations made on ALL sides of the issue, including by :
opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, the Minister of Finance, several labour leaders, white and black businessmen, the ex-U.S. ambassador (highly critical), the head of the media commission, etc etc.

very timely document, and a few surprises ...

[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

Trailing badly to Labour in every election poll, we're supposed to believe that John Howard has suddenly had a 'conversion on the road to Damascus' when it comes to global human rights.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
I think that Mugabe is a lot worse than just someone who "doesn't behave". He is a 100% evil, hateful, homophobic, murderous fiend who really deserves to die the slowest and most painful death possible.

---

That would include Zimbabwe, among many others.

What I don't support is comparing the evils of regimes in some sort of one-upmanship game. Howard is an ass in his own way and with his own impact. Hopefully he loses the next election to someone who is less of an ass.

Mugabe is an ass for obvious reasons. Hopefully he chokes on his next bite. Ditto the leaders of Burma and damn near every other oppressed populace.

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
I would be quite happy to withdraw support and refuse to trade with any countries that do not treat their citizens with respect and human decency. Throw in any countries that feel they have the right to invade other countries as well.

---

How well did that work over a decade in Iraq?

The notion of starving the populace until they rise up and overthrow regimes that we don't like is one whose theoretical underpinnings need a lot more scrutiny.

If there are regimes that need such treatment, they should be rare exceptions and subject to international agreement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
So then i guess you agree with Margaret Thatcher that it was wrong to have any sanctions against South Africa?

---

Mugabe allows political opposition and for rich whites to co-exist and expect legal representation and full protection of the state laws and police forces.

The evidence for ultra violence commited by S African police and most basic human rights violations perpetrated by the white racist regime were well documented over the cold war era.

quote:

---

Mugabe allows political opposition

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

How well did that work over a decade in Iraq?

The notion of starving the populace until they rise up and overthrow regimes that we don't like is one whose theoretical underpinnings need a lot more scrutiny.

If there are regimes that need such treatment, they should be rare exceptions and subject to international agreement.

Above all, such boycotts and embargoes should not be based upon simply checking the White House and Whitehall websites and reading off who the latest Public Enemy No. 1 is. I'm certainly not saying that's what Stockholm does...

---

I couldn't agree with you more. International agreement, or at least the consensus of the non-oppressive, non-invading regimes, is essential.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

is that what you call is when he has his thugs attack supporters of the opposition and has the opposition leader routinely arrested and beaten up??

---

Are you trying to tell us that there is no political opposition to Mugabe ?.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
There is political opposition to every regime on the face of the earth. The question is whether that opposition is allowed to exist or whether it is persecuted.

---

I don't think we should interfere in the activities in other countries. Holding opinions is not interference, incidentally. That said, I don't think we should enable oppressive regimes, or profit from them.

So to answer the Iraq analogy someone tried against me above, I think the sanctions were hideous. Not because Saddam was some kind of hero - he was a monster - but because of their impact and their true political purposes, which had little to do with the nature of the Iraqi regime, and much to do with the nature of the Iraqi resources.

Starving out the population is not an answer, but neither is pretending everything is fine and sending sports teams. I prefer ignoring and not trading with the regimes, but that's because I don't want to see my country profit through the oppression of others.

Rather than pick sides, I'd prefer to stay out of the internal activities of other countries. We are not in any kind of position to dictate what is best, and when we try it usually does far more harm than any potential good. But that doesn't mean we can't take a moral position on our own actions by not supporting or acknowledging the regimes in question.

They are two separate questions:

1. Do we support intervention or invasion of other countries when the regime is distasteful (as in the case of Zimbabwe). Personally, I don't - because the cure is usually worse than the disease.

quote:

---

Rather than pick sides, I'd prefer to stay out of the internal activities of other countries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

So, you would have been content to sit back in a chaise-longue and sip a mint julep while a million Tutsis were massacred in Rwanda?

---

Well good men in Warshington and the Pentagon didn't sit back and do nothing. Aspiring leader of Rwanda at the time, Paul Kagame, was receiving military training at Fort Levenworth. And the CIA/Pentagon were arming militia groups and terrorists to the eye teeth leading up to the massacre. There are still views in the U.S. circulating that support Kagame and pro-RPA and pro-Tutsi side of the 1994 genocide. Ugandan and Rwandan guerillas and mercenaries continue raids on Congolese territories rich in mineral and natural resource wealth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:
Rather than pick sides, I'd prefer to stay out of the internal activities of other countries.

Does that include the US?

---

The U.S. invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, interference in the Middle East, war threats against Iran and other countries, economic and political blackmail exercised Canada and other nations of the hemisphere, threats against Venezuela, blockade of Cuba, murder and torture in Guantanamo and in secret prisons everywhere, "rendition" of Maher Arar, ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

So, you would have been content to sit back in a chaise-longue and sip a mint julep while a million Tutsis were massacred in Rwanda?

---

Good imagery, and a typical debating style. In discussions like this, Rwanda is the new Godwin's law, because it is extreme and meant to trump nuance. And the chaise lounge and mint julep - what a pretty picture you paint. What did you do during the massacre Stock?

I would have been comfortable with an international consensus of democratic nations intervening before a million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were massacred for their land, among other things (not just Tutsis - you'd do well to learn a little on the actual subject you refer to). I was comfortable with the invasion of Rwanda by the RPF when the slaughter started - particularly because they were actual, you know, Rwandans, though not perfect by any stretch. I'd have been even happier if the borders of the damn country hadn't been drawn up by the European powers in the 19th century, and if internal divisions between Hutu and Tutsi weren't almost entirely created by European colonizers - previous intervenors.

I'd be comfortable with an intervention in Sudan, where more than a million have been killed in multiple wars. I am NOT comfortable with the knowledge that we continue to trade with Sudan, and some Canadian companies are openly complicit in the slaughter in the South and the West of that country.

However, in the event of an intervention in either country, or any of the others where there are hideous activities going on, what would be the outcome? What has been the track record of interventions in the past? It's a tricky, complicated world, and intervention almost always makes things worse. Thus I am inclined to be extremely careful about intervention.

But again, that doesn't mean I want us to be involved in, or profit from, the activities of repressive regimes. Surely you can understand the nuance? Or is nuance 'not your thing'?

And,

quote:

---

If Darfur is modest in comparison to Iraq, both are pipsqueeks compared to Congo. There, some four million civilians have been slaughtered over several years, largely as a result of intervention by US proxies, Uganda and Rwanda.

---

Remember Patrice Lumumba, the Congo's first and last democratically-elected prime minister. And remember Che

[ 13 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

[ 14 September 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:

NCLB, opposition to equal maariage, restrictions on abortion rights, etc.

---

Sure, but lots of countries do that. We haven't seen many posts or threads about condemning Ireland. Internal politics of (relatively) democratic countries are and should be the domain of their citizens (not that we can't agree with or like one side or the other).

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
No one has commented on unionist's posting of the astonishing win by the Zimbabwe cricketers over the world champion Auzzies.

---

quote:

---

In a surprise move announced in parliament, senior members of the Movement for Democratic Change said they would not try to block legislation to amend the constitution under which the electoral boundaries will be changed, the number of MPs increased and parliamentary elections brought forward by two years.

"As a confidence-building measure we have made a bold decision not to stand in the way of the constitutional amendments," Thokozani Khupe, deputy leader of the main MDC faction, said in parliament.

"This should be regarded as a first step in resolving the national crisis," she added.

Welshman Ncube, a senior figure in a rival MDC faction, said the agreement would help heal the divisions in the crisis-ridden southern African country which saw attacks by the security forces on MDC leaders earlier this year.

"For those of our compatriots who love our beautiful country, some might be alarmed by this decision. To some the MDC might appear to have abandoned its principles on the constitutional reforms," he said.

"Zimbabweans are faced with a national crisis. We might differ but we agree there is a crisis. Somewhere along the way we lost each other. We need to find each other. This is our attempt to say 'let's reach out to each other'."

Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa characterised events in parliament as "a historic moment."

"For the first time Zimbabweans on both sides have demonstrated a commitment to shape our destiny," he said.

---

quote:

---

Zimbabwe's parliament has passed a compromise bill on constitutional change that will allow presidential and parliamentary elections in 2008.

Members of parliament from both the ruling Zanu-PF and the fractured opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) supported the bill.

All 111 MPs present voted in favour of the bill to amend the constitution. [...]

There is a new spirit of consensus between the MDC and the government following talks mediated by South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki, says the BBC's Peter Biles in Johannesburg.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

please admit we don't hear much from you or me or anyone else about the evil in scores of regimes around the world that bludgeon their political opponents and don't run fair elections. It's the U.S.-sponsored "Most Hated of the Month Club" which I find not only offensive - but always the prelude to interference, invasion, regime change - and misery for the people.

---

And that this is mentioned.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dogbert: I'd guess that Mugabe's lack of international bullying probably has more to do with lack of ability than any sort of morality. He certainly doesn't seem to mind doing much of anything to his own people.

---

Because actually Zimbabwe did interfere in the processes of another country, when it had the ability to do so. Most people don't know a whole lot about that war, which isn't surprising, but Mugabe is just like Howard in this respect. He too interferes in other countries for the sake of what he sees as his countries 'national interests'. Just like those leaders, he interfered in that war for reasons of personal political position. So all things being equal, even if we were to ignore Mugabe's domestic incompetence and crimes be still played the game of 'Risk' just like Howard, just like Blair and just like Bush.

[ 20 September 2007: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

President Robert Mugabe will defy Prime Minister Gordon Brown's boycott threat if invited to attend a Europe-Africa summit, says Zimbabwe's UN Ambassador.

Boniface Chidyausiku said Mr Brown had "no right to dictate" who should be at the meeting in Portugal in December.

It follows Mr Brown's threat that he will not attend the summit of African and EU leaders if Mr Mugabe is there. [...]

The leader of one of Zimbabwe's neighbours, Zambia, who is also chairman of the regional Southern Africa body, SADC, has alsow warned that if Mr Mugabe is not allowed to attend the summit, then neither will he.

"I will not go to Portugal if Mugabe is not allowed. I don't know how many of us [African leaders] will be prepared to go to Portugal without Mugabe," said President Levy Mwanawasa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
Unionist, I'm curious, did you read that link about the second Congo Civil War?

---

You mean, the one showing that Zimbabwe is an aggressive militarist power trying to bring about regime change, colonize foreign lands, and rob their resources, just like the U.S.?

quote:

---

The cost of fighting Congo's civil war has had a devastating effect on the economy of the entire region.

Many of President Mugabe's woes in Zimbabwe can be traced directly to his involvement here.

Zimbabwe spends an estimated $US2m a day on its deployment here.

That is money that Zimbabwe has never allowed for in its annual budgets.

The result is a massive fiscal deficit, growing government spending, rocketing interest rates, spiralling inflation, unemployment and food and fuel shortages.

It is the root of the political crisis that is threatening to end Robert Mugabe's 21-year hold on power.

---

bbc link

And while I'll note that Zimbabawe has since pulled out of the DRC, Zimbabawe was in the DRC long enough to waste enough money that they couldn't afford to waste considering the massive drop in living standards that the country has faced since then.

But yeah, okay, obviously Zimbabawe hasn't done the same amount of interfering in his the domestic affairs of other nations as the US and it's junior partners. But the point is that your team keeps defending Mugabe on the basis that the he doesn't interfere in his neighbours affairs, unlike Bush and his little buddy Howard. Except that that's not really true though. So yeah....

And yes, John Howard is still a vindictive dick. And yeah, by Gordon Brown mentioning what he did in the way he did he's making Mugabe a distraction. Ugh duhr, this is babble not a discussion thread at the globeandmail.com

[ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
... arm-chair marxist ... your team ...

---

Parenthetical comment: Do you have the maturity, emotional equanimity, and patience to carry on a discussion without making childish assumptions and hurling out epithets?

Do you actually believe it reinforces your argument to say things like: "I hate you and your gang and you're a silly person, nyeh nyeh nyeh?"

VK, Robert Mugabe is an anti-democratic self-perpetuating corrupt ruler who lost his way over 25 years and is making his people suffer.

You, apparently, don't get nuance, so you've missed all my posts where I've said so.

You also don't seem to get that my reason for opening this whole thread was to condemn any outside forces who are trying to interfere in Zimbabwe's internal affairs and achieve regime change. Especially, especially, those self-styled "progressives" who never seem to notice human rights abuses until they are trumpetted by the Anglo-American mass media. So they rant and rave about Zimbabwe and Iran and Darfur and North Korea and whatever else George W. Bush and Gordon Brown have decided to rant and rave about.

It is however relevant for me to mention Zimbabwe's presence in the internal affairs of other countries in this thread due to the nature of this argument. And yes, I know, you've criticized Mugabe's human rights record - okay I'll try not to mention internal Zimbabwean problems unless they're directly related to Zimbabwe's international actions. Yeah, simply saying "Mugabe is bad" is boring and doesn't accomplish anything.

Anyways much of the argument of your team (the 'your team' isn't an insult, it's short hand for people with "'truly' progressive" views on this so you ought not to have such thin skin - the arm chair marxist thing was the insult so I won't use it) seems to promote is "look at how bad the west is here, here and here." Then the other side comes in and says "look at how bad Zimbabwe is here, here and here." And then your team says "that's not important, the west is interfering and being imperialistic." As if the last point is somehow a trump card. And, relating to both sides of the argument, as if there are really only two sides to the argument. Maybe this is just basic IR, but all states act to peruse their self-interests which include interference in the internal affairs of other states. So I don't see how criticizing the west and then ignoring Zimbabwe's actions is a particularly consistent thing to do. So yeah, the relevance of "Africa's World War" to this discussion does have context even if it isn't "that context". Africa's World War was originally a civil war inside the DRC, until neighbouring countries were "called in" or interjected. That may not be imperialism, but it sure is interference in domestic affairs.

As for "scores of other countries" who cares? That's what's irrelevant. We're talking about the west (Australia, the US and the UK in particular) and Zimbabwe. If I wanted to hear about Georgia and Russia, or the US and Cuba (Fidel and Stockholm that's not an invitation), or Canada and Hati then I'd find or start a thread about them.

[ 22 September 2007: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

Outrage intensifies over Gordon Brown's threat

quote:

---

Amid growing international consensus that the conference must go ahead even without Britain, the Pan-African Parliament said Mr Brown should desist from behaving like an overlord.

In remarks that received worldwide coverage yesterday, Dr Gertrude Mongella, the Tanzanian president of the Pan-African Parliament, said "arm-twisting" was not the way to solve Zimbabwe’s challenges.

Her comments reflect the determination of the African Union to go ahead as planned and invite President Mugabe to the Euro-Africa summit in Lisbon, Portugal, in December. [...]

"I think this is again another way of manipulating Africa. Zimbabwe is a nation which got independence. I think in the developed countries there are so many countries doing things which not all of us subscribe to — we have seen the Iraq war, not everyone accepts what is being done in Iraq." [...]

"I think if we want to move in the right direction, with the African way of doing things, you discuss things under a tree till you agree. So if somebody does not come under a tree to discuss, that is not the African way of doing things." [...]

President Mwanawasa [of Zambia] even countered Mr Brown with his own threat, saying if President Mugabe is barred from attending the summit, Zambia and probably other African leaders would not go to Lisbon.

Mr Louis Michel, the EU Commissioner for Aid and Development, signalled Mr Brown’s growing isolation, saying that one person cannot scuttle a key summit between two continents.

"We think that a single individual case cannot take as hostage the relations between two continents," said Mr Michel.

---

quote:

---

The Zimbabwean parliament has passed a bill to move majority control of foreign-owned companies operating in the country to black Zimbabweans.

The goal is to ensure at least a 51% shareholding by indigenous black people in the majority of businesses.

The bill completes a process that began with the controversial seizure of white-owned farms starting in 1999. [...]

"If we do not dismantle the structure of colonialism that we inherited then we have not given back all the country's resources to its rightful owners, who are our people," Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Minister Paul Mangwana said, quoted by Reuters news agency.

---

quote:

---

Members of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) walked out of parliament in protest at the bill before voting began.

"We see it as a strategy to amass wealth by the ruling elite, and nothing to do with the empowerment of people," MDC spokesman Nelson Chamisa told the BBC News website.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
But is it really about social justice?

---

The MDC, like every neo-colonial force, questions the motives in order to block the progressive change itself.

It's about majority rule and affirmative action. It's about burying the racism and apartheid and colonialism of the past. And it's about 27 years late, as the land reform was over 20 years late.

Do you think it's unreasonable to tell companies: "If you want to operate here, make sure 51% of your shareholders are black" - when black Africans form 98% of the total population!!??

quote:

---

Ethnic groups (2005 Est.): black 98% (Shona 80-84%, Ndebele 8-10% -- up to 1 million Ndebele may have left the country, mainly for South Africa, over the last five years -- other 8-10%, Bantus of other tribes also came from neighboring Mozambique), white 1%; (mostly British, and some Afrikaners and Portuguese Mozambicans).

---

Source

[ 28 September 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

As for saying that the MDC is a 'neo-colonial' force, I think that's a bit rich considering the implications you're trying to make. It's indigenous and progressive with it's leader Morgan Tsvangirai having come from the trade union movement. The fact that foreigners have decided to directly support it isn't something that changes it's origins. That statement you made, made it sounds like the ZANU-PF is still a progressive leftist force. If it is, then someone help us re-establish what it really means to be on the left and progressive. Though I would agree that having foreigners directly support the MDC weakens it's credibility at home, thus it's a strategically stupid move for them to accept such help, which is something they and all non-Zimbabwean, non-contemporary Mugabe fans should keep in mind.

[ 28 September 2007: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
The point is that it's been 27 years since Mugabe took power, and if he really cared about this he would've introduced measures to this effect years ago.

---

That's exactly what I said. Too little, too late. And I have made the same warning - exactly - about South Africa. But you didn't see the problem there.

quote:

---

Now, considering how desperate the situation is in the country even someone with as much righteous indignation as you, must be able to recognize that this is obviously a political farce designed to make it look like they're "doing something."

---

Mugabe is a thuggish dictator. And he spent over two decades squandering the tremendous political capital he had won as a leader of Zimbabwe's national liberation war, by suckholing the British government(s) and the old colonial ruling class. NO ONE in the West was complaining about him then. The war of words started when he told the millionaire white farmers that the party was over. Now, he is Public Enemy #1, subject of sanctions, target of regime change politics.

I wasn't born yesterday. But if you make me out to be a friend of Mugabe (which is a cheap and stupid argument on your part - and you're far from stupid), let me ask you where your Mugabe-bashing was for the 20 years when he was doing sweet f***-all to economically emancipate his people?

quote:

---

.. let me ask you where your Mugabe-bashing was for the 20 years when he was doing sweet f***-all to economically emancipate his people?

---

My righteous indignation was with my toy cars for the first ten years and then once I got a little older with my playstation.

Anyways, I just happen to agree with the opposition, this isn't going to do anything to help the economy and the average person. So I'm not sure why you think it's a good idea, sorry but too late is too late. Mugabe should resign in favour of someone who knows how to run an economy. Because frankly there's pretty much nothing of value to redistribute and it's a totally pointless exercise now. At best, if he resigns, if someone competent will take his place and the economy will rebound, if the millions of people who left the country (most of them being the most skilled - and the vast majority of them are black btw) will have confidence in the new leader and return and if investment can be attracted then everything will be hunky dory because over half the wealth will be in indigenous hands. Of course that's a lot of ifs.

Besides, do the people even trust him to redistribute this wealth beyond his supporters to all Zimbabweans, considering domestic concerns about issues like corruption and gaft, and his party's history of demolishing slums that voted for the opposition (without giving them replacement housing)? If anything they need to resort to measures that will restore confidence in the Zimbabwean monetary system like cutting inflation to a reasonable level, restoring employment and fighting the scourge of HIV/Aids then once there's some actual wealth it can be redistributed. So that means, had he done this fifteen maybe even ten years ago this could've been a benefit for the people they claim this is going to benefit now.

Now as I've told you with regards to South Africa, they may be moving slowly, maybe even too slowly, maybe they're being "too moderate", and I suppose that could turn out badly. But I've already sketched out what's different between South Africa and Zimbabwe in a socio-political sense. And I'd also like to point out that SA has legislation in place to integrate those who were previously left out (black economic empowerment). Since there is wealth in that country I think that makes sense, and unless someone comes to power there and decides to run the economy into the ground then I don't think they will follow down that road.

[ 28 September 2007: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:

Anyways, I just happen to agree with the opposition, this isn't going to do anything to help the economy and the average person.

---

I didn't see it as a "help the economy" measure. It's an anti-colonial measure. There are lots of U.S. and British firms waiting in the wings to "help the economy" if the "right people" take power.

quote:

---

Mugabe should resign in favour of someone who knows how to run an economy.

---

Ian Smith is still alive and living in Cape Town, apparently. Did you have someone else in mind?

quote:

---

Besides, do the people even trust him to redistribute this wealth beyond his supporters to all Zimbabweans, considering domestic concerns about issues like corruption and gaft, and his party's history of demolishing slums that voted for the opposition (without giving them replacement housing)?

---

quote:

---

Hence sanctions, boycotts, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
My righteous indignation was with my toy cars for the first ten years and then once I got a little older with my playstation.

---

While you were still playing with toy cars, I was hearing arguments that many newly liberated colonies just needed economic experts at the helm in order to taste the fruits of liberty.

Especially experts with friendly contacts in the West.

I'm from the old school, where they taught us that freedom and prosperity were not bequeathed by others. Sometimes it means that prosperity has to wait.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
It's nice to know that you're defending the average Zimbabwean. One wouldn't really get that impression from your posts.

---

quote:

---

I'm defending their right and ability to govern themselves without outside interference. I'm defending them against those foreigners who know what's best for them. I'm celebrating their war of liberation of the 1970s, where they threw off the White Man's Burden once and for all.

---

And I'm defending their rights to have free and fair elections, freedom from the scourge of HIV/Aids, freedom from sanctimonious, yet interestingly enough comfortable, western and white progressives who care more about the effects of ideology, cricket test matches and imperialist language than the effects of a corrupt and dictatorial leadership on a people who are trying to live their lives. And I'm celebrating the fact that people of Zimbabwe, regardless of all the privations that they've faced whether it be from colonial powers in the past, or the leadership that liberated them then betrayed them still have the will to go on and fight their oppressors past and present.

So, I wonder if Prince Harry's future father in-law will have to give up 51% of his business? Or maybe he won't because of his chummy relationship with the government. I'll wait and see, but it's another reason why I don't think the Zimbabwean government has credibility on this considering their past positions.

quote:

---

Following Mr Mugabe's campaign of bulldozing townships across the country, which has left 200,000 people homeless and caused at least two deaths, the opposition Movement for Democratic Change said yesterday that Mr Davy's links with the Zanu-PF politician meant he was "sustaining" the regime and would justify his inclusion on the EU's list.

"The MDC has called for all people directly or indirectly involved in repression to be placed on the targeted sanctions list," said Welshman Ncube, the MDC's secretary-general.

"People who sustain the regime directly or indirectly through their businesses should also be included.

"If people like Charles Davy are indirectly involved in businesses with the regime they fall under the second category and should be included on the list."

---

[ 29 September 2007: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

Mr Davy owns a five per cent stake in Lemco Safari Area, a private game reserve covering 1,300 square miles in southern Zimbabwe. [...]

When Mr Mugabe began seizing white-owned land five years ago, Mr Davy made a "strategic decision" to sacrifice four other farms, covering 140,000 acres, to the government for resettlement.

"I have given up a rather large part of my life to end up with the bit I have left," he said. "A lot of farmers in Zimbabwe have lost their farms and I am no different."

Mr Davy's hunting business provides homes and livelihoods for 600 black families.

He called on the MDC to "concentrate on repairing the situation here in Zimbabwe rather than trying to disrupt" his work.

---

[ 29 September 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]