quote:

---

As world attention is fixed on Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, there has been hardly any outcry from the international community about the dire human rights situation in another African country—Equatorial Guinea—where Teodoro Obiang has ruthlessly ruled for nearly thirty years. Obiang has been called the worst dictator in Africa, but since vast oil and natural gas reserves were discovered in the mid-1990s, he has become a close US ally.

---

Democracy Now!

[ 12 July 2008: Message edited by: sgm ]

quote:

---

The indigenous policy will make it compulsory for locals to have a 51% stake in all foreign-owned ventures while leaving the foreign interest with a 49% stake. It applies broadly across all the sectors of the economy but it will hit the mining sector harder it the State passes the Mines and Minerals Amendment Bill, which is only awaiting the reconvening of Parliament following the conclusion of elections two weeks ago.

...

In Zimbabwe, mining is now so lucrative that it has been re-classified as a 'strategic' sector owing to the huge foreign currency earnings it brings annually. Government is also intent on ensuring a heavy controlling hand in the sector after it accused some foreign-owned companies of working with Western governments to effect what it has dubbed the "illegal regime change agenda".

---

quote:

---

With around 80 listed companies involved in activities such as manufacturing, agriculture, mining and retail, the ZSE provides investors with returns that are ahead of inflation.

In the first four months of 2007, analysts said the ZSE was growing twice as fast as consumer prices.

---

Zimbabwe signs China energy deal China needs everybody's raw materials

China’s methods are cutting across the interests of the IMF

China-Zimbabwe: a special relationship

China's lesson for the World Bank economist Jeffrey Sachs 2007

quote:

---

As the World Bank clings to its free-market ideology, China is providing more practical help for developing countries.
The China Daily recently ran a front-page story recounting how Paul Wolfowitz used threats and vulgarities to pressure senior World Bank staff. The newspaper noted that Wolfowitz sounded like a character out of the mafia television show The Sopranos. At the same time, while the Wolfowitz scandal unfolded, China was playing host to the Africa Development Bank (ADB), which held its board meeting in Shanghai. This is a vivid metaphor for today’s world: while the World Bank is caught up in corruption and controversy, China skilfully raises its geopolitical profile in the developing world.China’s rising power is, of course, based heavily on its remarkable economic success . . .

---

[ 12 July 2008: Message edited by: Robespierre ]

quote:

---

Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! recently carried an interview on a double-standard in the treatment of African nations: Zimbabwe vs. Equatorial Guinea:

---

Another double standard is how vast amounts of time are spent being obsessed with Israel and the Palestinians while the world turns a blind eye to what goes on in Tibet, Chechnya, Kashmir, Sri Lanka etc...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
I have been semi-following the machinations around Zimbabwe for years but I don't know what the strategic significance of that nation to warrant such continued attention from global powers? Is it water, minerals, geographic location, what?

---

Minerals, mainly - and China has been taking advantage of the situation of the disapproval of other countries by signing deals in Zimbabwe for them. A lot of the desperation about removing Mugabe on the part of Western governments is certainly about this rather than democratic principles. I suppose doing the right thing for the wrong reasons will have to suffice.

[ 12 July 2008: Message edited by: Doug ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

Another double standard is how vast amounts of time are spent being obsessed with Israel and the Palestinians while the world turns a blind eye to what goes on in Tibet, Chechnya, Kashmir, Sri Lanka etc...

---

The U.S. has been in there like a dirty shirt supporting KLA drug traffickers, Kosovar-Albanian mobsters, and even al Qaida and mujahiden in their terror war in Chechnya. Washington’s double agent, Ali Mohamed, was their insider in al-Qaeda as well as chief 9/11 plotter. FBI ordered RCMP to release an al Qaida hijacker specialist from custody in Vancouver at start of the decade. Poor Omar Khadr doesn't rate so much as his Canadian citizenship rights.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Perhaps, but why would the Americans care? The divisions on the security council are reminiscent of the cold war?Why would Russia and China want to stand in the way of Britain and the US crushing Mugabe? There is something more at play here and I don't know what is, do you, Mr. Jones? (sorry)

---

When Zimbabwe first won its independence, Mugabe was, like Mandela later would be, a symbol of colonial liberation widely regarded as a hero to anti-colonialists around the world. What was happening in Zimbabwe was celebrated in song. Mugabe was a potentially dangerous symbol.

Powerful countries along with the IMF and World Bank worked with Mugabe to ensure that change would not be radical or disruptive and for over a decade they got their way. Zimbabwe became (in the media) the "bread basket" of Africa - "proof" that warring factions could come together and learn to work together for the common good. Mugabe was now a useful symbol.

Under the surface, however, the fundamental problems weren't being resolved. When Mugabe agreed to an IMF structural adjustment plan in the late 90s - rioting broke out. If Mugabe had held the line he might have been a potentially useful symbol.

However, Mugabe then dramatically shifted course. He denounced the IMF, announced a program of land reform, and declared that he would be sending troops to support the government in Congo - who were at war from US-backed Rwanda and Uganda. Mugabe was becoming a symbol of defiance.

Fortunately, for ths US, the land reform process was poorly planned and Mugabe had no viable alternative to the SAP the IMF was offering. The economy began to tank, an opposition was formed (and funded by the US). Now Mugabe was a symbol of a man who squandered Zimbabwe's potential and an example of what happens when you defy the IMF.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:

I suppose doing the right thing for the wrong reasons will have to suffice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:

Zimbabwe is not of any tactical importance but, like Cuba, it is currently very important for the US to establish that it is a "failed state". Castro was never a threat by himself but he provided inspiration to anti-US feeling across the Americas - which is now manifested (to varying degrees) in most South American governments. Mugabe, if he had been a different person, could have provided the same inspiration for Africa.

---

Mugabe is an inspiration to tens of millions of S. Africans still mired in poverty after a dozen years of failed neoliberal economic reforms.

Cuba's socialism shines bright in comparison to failed reforms for neoliberal capitalism of the 1990's in countries like Nicaragua and Haiti, Argentina, Russia, S. Africa, The country which followed Washinginton consensus to a tee, Thailand, fared about the worst.

quote:

---

Originally posted by reglafella:
Do you think that it would be possible to start a Zimbabwean opposition without external support?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by reglafella:
Do you think that it would be possible to start a Zimbabwean opposition without external support?

Put your hand over your heart when you answer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:

Mugabe is important as a symbol - and the US reaction is entirely about ensuring that he becomes a symbol of failure and kleptocracy.

When Zimbabwe first won its independence, Mugabe was, like Mandela later would be, a symbol of colonial liberation widely regarded as a hero to anti-colonialists around the world. What was happening in Zimbabwe was celebrated in song. Mugabe was a potentially dangerous symbol.

Powerful countries along with the IMF and World Bank worked with Mugabe to ensure that change would not be radical or disruptive and for over a decade they got their way. Zimbabwe became (in the media) the "bread basket" of Africa - "proof" that warring factions could come together and learn to work together for the common good. Mugabe was now a useful symbol.

Under the surface, however, the fundamental problems weren't being resolved. When Mugabe agreed to an IMF structural adjustment plan in the late 90s - rioting broke out. If Mugabe had held the line he might have been a potentially useful symbol.

However, Mugabe then dramatically shifted course. He denounced the IMF, announced a program of land reform, and declared that he would be sending troops to support the government in Congo - who were at war from US-backed Rwanda and Uganda. Mugabe was becoming a symbol of defiance.

Fortunately, for ths US, the land reform process was poorly planned and Mugabe had no viable alternative to the SAP the IMF was offering. The economy began to tank, an opposition was formed (and funded by the US). Now Mugabe was a symbol of a man who squandered Zimbabwe's potential and an example of what happens when you defy the IMF.

Zimbabwe is not of any tactical importance but, like Cuba, it is currently very important for the US to establish that it is a "failed state". Castro was never a threat by himself but he provided inspiration to anti-US feeling across the Americas - which is now manifested (to varying degrees) in most South American governments. Mugabe, if he had been a different person, could have provided the same inspiration for Africa.

---

You figure the help has to be white?

quote:

---

Originally posted by reglafella:

You figure the help has to be white?

I didn't say anything about white.

---

Whiter than Tide.

Expressions of Imperialism within Zimbabwe

quote:

---

The goal of the overthrow agenda is to reverse the land reform and economic indigenization policies of the Zanu-PF government — policies that are against the interests of the ruling class foundations that fund the fifth columnists’ activities. The chairman of Anglo-American finances Zimbabwe’s anti-Mugabe civil society because bringing Tsvangirai’s MDC to power is good for Anglo-American’s bottom line. Likewise, the numerous Southern African corporations that Lord Renwick of Clifton sits on the boards of stand to profit from the MDC unseating Zimbabwe’s national liberation agenda. Lord Renwick is head of an outfit called the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust (ZDT), also part of the interlocked community of imperialist governments, wealthy individuals, corporate foundations, and NGOs working to reverse Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle. The ZDT is a major backer of the MDC.(16)

---

That's what happened.

Which makes talk of "reversing" Zim's land reform laughable. That wasn't land reform. That was Bob Mugabe stealing the land from the people a second time. He just had the good sense to make it look like he was doing a brave thing.

I thought it was pretty much agreed upon that Mugabe handed the land over to supporters and war buddies, and not the people.

I'm sure they're all sitting on their tractors right now, staring out at their empty fields and just waitin' for the day when the oil and fertilizer arrive so they can get down to some farming!

However, that might be coming to an end as they've run out of paper and printer parts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by reglafella:
Fan of the guy?

I thought it was pretty much agreed upon that Mugabe handed the land over to supporters and war buddies, and not the people.

I'm sure they're all sitting on their tractors right now, staring out at their empty fields and just waitin' for the day when the oil and fertilizer arrive so they can get down to some farming!

Oh, to answer you directly and clearly - no, I don't think it was the availability of oil or fertilizer. I think it was cronyism. I'm gonna get accused of imperialism now, aren't I?

---

You must be attending the Jeff House school of debate and I see you've missed the question entirely.

It is perhaps the Western media and useful idiots who've agreed, but I'm not sure there is a consensus. Personally, I've never been to Zimbabwe so I don't know the situation.

What I do know is that there is a growing global food crisis and I do know that there is also a growing global energy crisis.

There are crises around food and energy that is enveloping nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Yet, for some reason, it is only Zimbabwe where the food crisis can be blamed on land redistribution.

So if not Zimbabwe's war buddies farming in every other nation undergoing a food and energy crisis, what is the cause?

I could argue, for example, that you and your family will kill more people of the southern hemisphere with your consumption of food and energy than the 113 allegedly killed by Mugabe's forces in the disputed election.

Ya, too many folks wanting to make their car run on food, right?

As I remember it, the problems in Zim predated that some, so it makes it kind of hard to blame their food shortage on that.

But you seem to really want to avoid blaming Mugabe for anything. Afraid your friends will call you a "useful idiot"?

Food shortages have plagued Zimbabwe for many years as they have many African countries for many years. Do you remember Live Aid? What do you think is a major component of the celebrity endorsed End Poverty movement? You think it is all aimed solely at Zimbabwe?

A useful idiot is one who can't think for himself and then resorts to silly name calling and insults when compelled to develop a thought.

If you cast your eyes upward some you'll see that it was you who brought out "useful idiots".

And I may be a noobie, but I'm not so naive as to be unaware who that was aimed at.

Don't take it as an insult if I say you're dishonest.

"How many Africans could you potentially save if you reduced your consumption by half?"

So now I'm the one killing Africans, not Mugabe.

Here, lemme have a go at that.

quote:

---

If you cast your eyes upward some you'll see that it was you who brought out "useful idiots".

And I may be a noobie, but I'm not so naive as to be unaware who that was aimed at.

---

quote:

---

Don't take it as an insult if I say you're dishonest

---

quote:

---

So now I'm the one killing Africans, not Mugabe.

Here, lemme have a go at that.

"Look!! Over there!! It's a flying dog!"

---

Perhaps Mugabe is as bad as they say. But if he is, he is only one of many. You have no control over Mugabe anymore than you have control of any other brutal ruler including our own. But you do have control over your own choices - your own responsibility and your own complicity.

So much easier to blame a man so far away and removed than to examine your own life and the role you play in perpetuating injustice and oppression all over the world.

I lurked here long enough to see a few of those, and I can't deny, the seem handy.

Why should anyone care about Mugabe? Why do you care about Mugabe? What makes Mugabe's alleged 113 dead opposition members of greater concern than the DRC, or Kenya, or Ethiopia, or Sierre Leone, or Iraq, or Palstine, or etc, etc, etc ... ?

And why is it fair to condemn Mugabe but not your own actions? Why is your complicity off limits?

quote:

---

Originally posted by reglafella:

All else being equal, at least the previous thieves knew how to grow food on the land they took.

---

They've been very poor in Africa throughout brutal white European rule, and there is zero evidence that any country in the world was ever made prosperous by neoliberal economic reforms of the 1990's. African countries are still poorest in the world and plagued by AIDS and disease. Haiti and Guatemala are still the poorest countries in this hemisphere after more than decade of neoLiberal reforms that have worked only to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few while pauperizing the large majority.

The Catholic Bishops of Africa tell us that 300 million Africans earn anywhere less than a dollar a day, and its because European banks and Wall Streeters hang on to old African debts racked up by colonialists of the recent past, like they hang on to Haiti's debt incurred by a string of U.S.-backed puppets and brutal dictators. Some of the debt principals have been paid back over three times with usurous rates of compound interest.

And the Bishops point out that although they claim to be fomenting peace in Africa, British arms dealers are supplying 80% of weapons to fuel conflicts in Africa. From our own reading, babblers know that of twelve major wars in Africa, the American CIA has been involved in eleven of them.

And neoliberal reforms of the 1990's have worked to cripple their economies and open up whole countries to global real estate speculation and agribusinesses demanding that Africa's natural resources be stripped bare and minerals extracted in order to qualify for IMF emergency loans and World Bank development money. They are instructed not to spend on education and health care, because debt payments are prioritized over and above plans for nation building and common sense in general.

[ 15 July 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Why should anyone care about Israel?

None of us live there either.

"What is your connection to Zimbabwe?"

None. Zim is just shorter. It was actually here that I first saw it & assumed it was a normal enough short form.

"They've been very poor in Africa throughout brutal white European rule, and there is zero evidence that any country in the world was ever made prosperous by neoliberal economic reforms of the 1990's."

Nor, it seems, are they made more prosperous by swapping white thugs for black ones. Doesn't seem to me that Mugabe's "revolution" has made things noticably better than they were.

Thing is, nobody seems to have the imagination for a third option. Folk seem to endorse letting Mugabe and his goons keep raping women and burning men alive, that being better than electing the MDC and taking the chance that Ian Smith's corpse might reanimate and take over again.

But what about a candidate for the people? Someone who might take all that land and give it back to the folk who've known how to till it for generations? Someone who might hold free elections where supporting the wrong guy doesn't get your arms hacked off at the elbow. Someone who might see to it that bread no longer costs 100,000,000 dollars.

The only reason I can see that there isn't such a person is that Mugabe, being the brutal thug that he is, would have had such a person, and their family, publicly murdered for treason long ago.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Also you call it Zim. I notice that term is usually only used in the British or English African press. What is your connection to Zimbabwe?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by reglafella:
Nor, it seems, are they made more prosperous by swapping white thugs for black ones. Doesn't seem to me that Mugabe's "revolution" has made things noticably better than they were.

Thing is, nobody seems to have the imagination for a third option.

---

They so have a third option in Zimbabwe, and some percentage of Zimbabweans voted for them. Some large percentage voted for the MDC after being propped up by British and U.S. money, which amounts to outside political interference in a country which would not be tolerated in our own Westmonster democracies still using dated first-past-the-post electoral system here in the limited democracies.

quote:

---

But anyhoo, I'll be happy to stop talking about Zimbabwe if everyone will stop talking about Israel, the U.S., and all the other countries in which we don't live. Deal? Takers?

---

quote:

---

Why should anyone care about Israel?

---

quote:

---

Nor, it seems, are they made more prosperous by swapping white thugs for black ones. Doesn't seem to me that Mugabe's "revolution" has made things noticably better than they were.

---

quote:

---

But what about a candidate for the people? Someone who might take all that land and give it back to the folk who've known how to till it for generations?

---

quote:

---

But anyhoo, I'll be happy to stop talking about Zimbabwe if everyone will stop talking about Israel, the U.S., and all the other countries in which we don't live. Deal? Takers?

---

Not at all. I was picturing a local candidate who's neither of the existing two.

"I would be thrilled with that as I would prefer to talk about your continued complicity in the deaths of far more Africans than Mugabe through your disproportionate consumption of resources and your participation in the so-called global economy."

Haha. That didn't last long. Even while abandoning talk of Mugabe you managed to sneak him in.

quote:

---

Even while abandoning talk of Mugabe you managed to sneak him in.

---

But of course it's all just silliness. You know as well as me that nobody's going to stop talking about Israel, or Zimbabwe, or any other country, and certainly not because we feel any pressing need to atone for our carbon sins.

"They so have a third option in Zimbabwe, and some percentage of Zimbabweans voted for them."

So on the one hand they had the MDC, which everyone seems to think is just counting the moments until they can trade Zimbabwe back to the Brits for a few quid.

And on the other you've got a dictator-for-life who brazenly states he'll never leave office, and who tries to help that along by raping or murdering supporters of the first guy.

And then there's a third option, and "some percentage" voted for him?

Mugabe is not the issue. There are Mugabes all over the world and men far worse than Mugabe who are supported by our governments. So why is Zimbabwe so important?

As it is turning out, Zimbabwe is an important source of mined raw minerals. That is likely, although there may be other reasons, why global powers suddenly give a damn about the plight of Zimbabweans.

Surely there were all kinds of evil dictators then too, but folk all over North America and Europe wanted to get involved.

But now nobody's supposed to even want to, or if they do it's assumed they're in the back pocket of the British Imperialists or something.

quote:

---

Originally posted by reglafella:
Why were progressives so riled up about South Africa then, back in the day?

---

Because we didn't like wealthy white racist cliques dictating to millions of black Africans how to run their lives.

quote:

---

But now nobody's supposed to even want to, or if they do it's assumed they're in the back pocket of the British Imperialists or something.

---

Because we don't want wealthy white racist cliques dictating to millions of black Africans how to run their lives.

quote:

---

Originally posted by reglafella:
So on the one hand they had the MDC, which everyone seems to think is just counting the moments until they can trade Zimbabwe back to the Brits for a few quid.

---

The MDC has openly admitted to pro-British privatization agenda for Zimbabwe. And that's because they don't deny being funded by white British and U.S. interests. They won 100 seats March to Zanu-PF's 99, a distorted result of their obsolete Westminster first-past-the-post electoral system after Zanu-PF actually took the popular vote 45% to 42% for MDC.

Compare that to 200 Ethopians murdered by
Meles Zenawi's thugs in 2005 after EU observers declared he lost the election by a large margin, and thousands more were imprisoned. The U.S.-backed stooge's "election committee" then reversed the election results and declared Zanawi winner by majority. Western-backed despotism in several other African countries as well. But that doesn't concern everyone.

[ 15 July 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

No, but it does seem a bit of a "shirts and skins" approach to things. I should only have an opinion when there's a white guy in the mix??

And really, if I could believe that the people of Zimbabwe really *want* to live under Mugabe, I'd hold my tongue. I'm not opposed to Mugabe because I think I know better. But when people get told "vote for me or you get a bullet" it makes it hard to get an accurate sense of what the people really want. I expect pretty much everyone wants to NOT get killed, and that kind of taints things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by reglafella:

Tell me, though. If Mugabe were a right-wing dictator, would that change your outlook any? Would you still say that we all ought not to concern ourselves, even though there's no white guy? Would you say that there's a white guy in there somewhere, if the West likes him?

---

What if there were three dozen brutal right-wing dictatorships(and several more not listed here) from last century to this one, many of who were never brought to justice? What if all of them make Bob Mugabe look like a visionary and revolutionary hero by comparison to all of those right-wing dregs and scum of the earth who were propped up, supported, installed and forced into power, aided and abetted by the "democratic" west? Would you still be harping on so about a black revolutionary leader whose rebels have sworn by him and never to hand the country back to their brutal white colonizers through phony-baloney neoliberalizing shills for "benevolent" white imperialism, MDC?

There is a reason why brutal right-wing dictatorships never last as long as leftwing "dictators", and that's because the people in those vicitimized countries tolerate brutality and despotism for only so long before giving them the heave-ho without any outside help necessary. In the end, the people have no fear of their bullets and brutality. Live free or die hard.

[ 15 July 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Why were progressives so riled up about South Africa then, back in the day?

Surely there were all kinds of evil dictators then too, but folk all over North America and Europe wanted to get involved.

---

You see, the so-called progressives got involved in the fight against apartheid at the behest of the ANC, a popular movement representing the people of South Africa, and we didn't advocate bombing, killing, or starving anyone.

When the right, which didn't mind black Africans in chains, cried crocodile tears over sanctions hurting "the innocent", it was the people of South Africa who said, "no we want sanctions. We can't be hurt anymore."

And despite the struggle against Apartheid, progressives were also involved in struggles against dictators like Papa Doc and Baby Doc, and Somoza, who would make Mugabe look like a humanitarian. And those bloody, evil dictators were supported by the very same governments that now find Mugabe so distasteful.

In fact, when Haitians rose up to put down the Duvaliers, the US sent marines to put down the Haitians.

But I'm sure now they are only concerned about democracy and human rights.

quote:

---

But now nobody's supposed to even want to, or if they do it's assumed they're in the back pocket of the British Imperialists or something.

---

quote:

---

Lemme turn the question around, though. Do you suppose there's any possibility, however slight, that these same progressives want to turn attention away from Mugabe's thuggery because they have fond memories of cheering him on? Or because this doesn't exactly make Marxist revolution look all that appealing once it ripens some?

---

The reason there is war and violence in Africa is because of the same reasons that have always existed since the time of slavery. They bleed so we can live in wealth.

What will you give up for African lives? I have asked you this question several times and you avoid it. Are you a humanitarian or an ideologue pretending you care about lives that are as invisible to you as the air?

[ 15 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Right, "Zim" sounds like it could be white South Afreekaner slang for Zimbabwe and not an affectionate one. Those uppety blacks want putting down.

---

Well, when I spoke (admittedly over ten years ago now) with Zimbabweans involved in NGOs, they sometimes would refer to "Zimdollars", in some contexts. They had no need to refer to anything but dollars when going to a grocery store or buying a newspaper. When talking with folks from the north about organizational funding, economic conditions, or anything that might be measured in Canadian dollars, American dollars, Australian dollars, or Zimbabwean dollars, it was easy to say Zimdollars when talking about a group's budget, for example, to make it clear what particular denomination the amount was in.

Ya, I've definitely been ignoring it. Mostly because it's just a diversion.

Counting this thread, there's at least 9 good long threads on Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe - Zimbabwe #8) and while I'm too lazy to pore through each one of them, I'm willing to bet that if I did I wouldn't find you asking this question of anyone but me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by reglafella:
And this place needs a better welcoming committee. Not that you're not doing your best.

---

Oh, yes, this one is painful, too.