quote:

---

Anyone who wasn't in favor of regime change could be shouted down because Saddam Hussein was a mass-murderer. I don't buy the dichotomy "you're either with us or with the terrorists". I think we can be a little more intelligent then that.

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/01/zimbabwe

quote:

---

A crisis meeting of Robert Mugabe's security cabinet decided to block the opposition from taking power after what appears to have been a comprehensive victory in Zimbabwe's elections but was divided between using a military takeover to annul the vote and falsifying the results.

Diplomatic and Zimbabwean sources who heard first-hand accounts of the Joint Operations Command meeting of senior military and intelligence officers and top party officials on Sunday night said Mugabe favoured immediately declaring himself president again but was persuaded to use the country's electoral commission to keep the opposition from power.

---

What did I tell you Mugabe is a PIG!

quote:

---

Independent monitors collating the count from polling booth returns say the MDC presidential candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai, won about 55% of the vote and Mugabe 38%. The MDC also gained control of both houses of parliament, according to the monitors.

---

I guess some babblers will be crying their eyes out because their hero is going to bite the dust.

quote:

---

Sources with knowledge of the JOC meeting said the Zanu-PF leadership was "in shock" after it was informed of the scale of the victory of the MDC's presidential candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai.

A senior diplomatic source who received accounts from two people privy to the JOC meeting said it discussed shutting down the count and Mugabe declaring himself re-elected or the army stepping in to declare martial law on the pretext of defending the country from instability caused by the opposition claiming victory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Fidel, I think you know very well that "ironic racism" is no better than the usual kind. C'mon.

---

Can we all agree that there's no reason for anybody on the left to defend Mugabe anymore? Clearly, he's nothing to do with the left.

Zimbabwe needs a genuinely democratic and genuinely socialist future. Perhaps there's a chance for this now. It was always clear that there was no chance for anything positive as long as Mugabe stayed in power.

He should've just retired in 1990. There was no good reason for the man to stay on after that. Mugabe was the Liberator of Zimbabwe, and he should've let it go at being known as that.

There's no reason that Zimbabwe couldn't have a future that was neither Mugabist nor reactionary.
And Zimbabwe's revolution had no greater need to attack gays and lesbians than Cuba's did. Cuba finally stopped that, but we know Mugabe never would've. And mentioning what he did never meant letting other homophobic states off the hook.

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

I thought after the debacle in Iraq, (and it really has been a debacle, hasn't it?) we would be a little bit more careful throwing out knee-jerk "liberal" responses when confronted with the leaders of nations in crisis. It a combination of 20/20 hindsight, and wishful thinking, that seems to motivate many of these responses.

The fact is that Zimbabwe will continue to be a country in crisis after Mugabe goes, and crisis breeds represssion, and this is not going to change miraculously overnight just because people saying the things we like to hear may get into power.

Sure, there are a lot of people I would like not to see in power, on the other hand, I am not ready to call for insurrection, and revolution just because I would prefer the world to be different.

My question is, will we be hearing as much about the crisis in Zimbabwe when the seat of power is occupied by someone more in tune with western interests? My experience is that we will not.

How is it any less "knee jerk" to automatically dismiss any criticism of a bad leader as simply "Western propaganda".

Did that tactic do the left any good with regard to the USSR? Or Eastern Europe? Is it helping at all in terms of the Israel/Palestine issue(certainly we now know that nothing progressive will EVER be done by Hamas or Hezbollah and that both are unworthy of Left support).

What I'm saying is, we have to have our own standards of accountability-standards not always tied to "what the West/or Bush/or Brown/ or whomever are trying to cause".

It was the lack of such standards, for example, that helped make the independent radical left politically irrelevant in post-1989 Eastern Europe, even though many of those who had dissented against the Eastern European Stalinist regimes had once been leftists themselves.

We can't ALWAYS say "The West is criticizing Leader X-therefore we have to be silent about Leader X does or we are aiding the 'counter-revolution'".

We have to be independent. Is that so hard to accept?

(And of course what happened in Iraq was and is a debacle. Did you honestly think it was even possible I'd disagree with you? I was against that from the start, and have been marching and helping organize against it the whole time.)

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Clearly, Mugabe's government must not stay in power. ...

Zimbabwe needs a genuinely democratic and genuinely socialist future.

---

Ken, you and I share attitudes about what is right and wrong in the world. But I have been saying this to you for about two years in different world situations and I'll say it again:

Zimbabwe's government is none of your business.

Nor mine. Any talk about who "should" stay in power and what kind of future it "needs" feeds into imperialist interference and domination - as it did in Iraq (as Cueball correctly notes) and everywhere else for that matter.

What's next? The "left"'s consensus on what kind of government Iran should have? Surely no "leftist" believes in theocracy, right?

Why is Zimbabwe any less the left's business than Palestine or South Africa? What the hell is the difference? We need one standard, a standard where we defend and promote left values throughout the world. This is what internationalism means. Without internationalism, you don't HAVE a left.

You're not a leftist if you only focus on your own country. There can't be a left in only one country. The left is ABOUT the world.

There is a difference between calling for change and calling for sending in the damn Marines. Why can't you accept that?

You would at least agree, I hope, that those on the left that refused to condemn Stalinism were wrong, wouldn't you?

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Fine. If you want the left not to give a damn about the rest of the world (which is what your position has to mean) that's your call. But you have no right to insist that anyone else see it as a moral absolute.

Why is Zimbabwe any less the left's business than Palestine or South Africa? What the hell is the difference? We need one standard, a standard where we defend and promote left values throughout the world. This is what internationalism means. Without internationalism, you don't HAVE a left.

---

Sending in the Marines in many cases requires the consent of "liberal" public opinion. What is essential to this is not getting support for direct intervention, but aquiesence. Silencing opposition is enough.

What we have seen recently is a series of interventions in places like Afghanistan, and in Iraq, in which "the left" has effectively agreed not to oppose intervention by an appeal to treasured ideals of liberals, such as women's rights, and gay rights, and a raft of other "human rights" concerns that are used as leverage to forge a consensus that does not oppose the direct abbrogation of the rights of sovereign nations, and incidentally the rights of all persons living there, gay, straight, Muslim, non-Muslim, male or female, for objectives quite a bit different than those reflecting the concerns of liberal opinion.

It is, above all, important not to be used, and not to be the hand-maiden to imperialism especially our own, and this is precisely the same principle at work when we discuss Palestine, or South Africa for example.

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Fine. If you want the left not to give a damn about the rest of the world (which is what your position has to mean) that's your call.

---

You think emotional blackmail and straw-man-ism is a worthy way to argue? You think our position is isolationist or some other similar nonsense word? Or do you actually have trouble figuring out a position that says that people in countries emerging from the straitjacket of imperialism, colonialism and white racist apartheid rule should be supported in their efforts to govern themselves without outside interference?

quote:

---

Why is Zimbabwe any less the left's business than Palestine or South Africa? What the hell is the difference?

---

Self-rule is the difference. Surprised you missed that.

quote:

---

We need one standard, a standard where we defend and promote left values throughout the world. This is what internationalism means. Without internationalism, you don't HAVE a left.

---

"We" need one standard? Ok, world, adopt mine.

quote:

---

The left is ABOUT the world.

---

That's a geographic oxymoron.

quote:

---

There is a difference between calling for change and calling for sending in the damn Marines. Why can't you accept that?

---

Because while George W. Bush was preparing to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and enslave the rest, you had these pathetic little "leftist" liberals hanging by his scrotum saying, "Oh, that Saddam, he's a monster! He's very very right wing!"

quote:

---

You would at least agree, I hope, that those on the left that refused to condemn Stalinism were wrong, wouldn't you?

---

When my parents' town was liberated in the spring of 1944 by the Soviet Army, condemnation of Stalinism wasn't their first thought. You might even say they "refused" to "condemn Stalinism". But guess what: there were other priorities at that moment. So the answer to your question is: It depends when and in what context.

Saddam Hussein was a very bad man by all accounts. Did you condemn him in the weeks and months leading up to March 2003?

How about the Taliban, Ken. Does the "left" have to condemn them too?

And what about Fidel Castro and Kim Jong-Il?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

When my parents' town was liberated in the spring of 1944 by the Soviet Army, condemnation of Stalinism wasn't their first thought. You might even say they "refused" to "condemn Stalinism". But guess what: there were other priorities at that moment. So the answer to your question is: It depends when and in what context.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
I object to this habitual comparing a public figure to an animal by Stockholm.

---

Yes. It's totally unfair to pigs.

Does this mean that all threads about the American elections should be shut down since we as Canadians have no right to venture an opinion on who we would like to see win?

quote:

---

Stockholm: I'm still trying to understand...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
It has nothing to do with Mugabe being "left" or nice anything of the kind. I has to do with questioning what forces are so committed to bringing him down, and why, and what the result of that will be.[/i]

---

sheesh, the "forces bringing him down"?!?;
it started mostly with the trade unions, after 20 years in power, or does a historic leader have to stay in power for life??

in the 1970s, pretty much everyone in the Western liberal media wanted the Rhodesian relic of another age to be ended fast
(remember when Mugabe was a very regular on As it Happens with Barbara Frum (he called it the "Bar-ba-ra Show")? He got very sympathetic coverage here )

Mugabe delivered broadly what he promised, with no ethnic vengeance but rather a conciliatory approach, followed by two decades of stability and relative prosperity. Great.

but after 20 years in power, there started to be opposition (surprise), most prominently from trade-union leaders -- which Mugabe took as defiance, insult, disrespect, whatever --, and reacted with a whiplash, dragging the country downward, downward

So: the heroic leader DID free his country, was praised for it, but then he wrecked it too.
-- Why should we remain blind to the Act 2 of this drama, and attribute it to obscure forces? They were pretty clear in their democratic opposition there, starting in about 2000.

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
Obviously you supported intervention to liberate your parents' town?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Liberate my parents' town from the Nazi invaders. Yeah. I think you just answered your own question.

---

quote:

---

HARARE, Zimbabwe — The opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai is in talks with advisers to President Robert G. Mugabe of Zimbabwe, amid signs that some of those close to Mr. Mugabe may encourage him to resign, a Western diplomatic source and a prominent Zimbabwe political analyst said Tuesday. The negotiations about a possible transfer of power away from Mr. Mugabe come after he apparently concluded that a runoff election would be demeaning, a diplomat said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geneva:
He got very sympathetic coverage here.

---

Yes, because he was fighting to topple a renegade regime that that declared UDI (unilateral declaration of independence) from the U.K. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say that the West helped the liberation forces in any way. They had to throw their shackles off themselves.

quote:

---

Mugabe delivered broadly what he promised, with no ethnic vengeance but rather a conciliatory approach, followed by two decades of stability and relative prosperity. Great.

but after 20 years in power,

---

After 20 years in power, some little birdie woke up and said, "What about land reform? How come the whites still own and run everything? How come the gap between rich and poor? When do we start controlling our own fate?"

Of course, Mugabe had done next to nothing on this front, so off he went in a panic to rectify the omissions of the previous two decades. And, no doubt, with lots of corruption and favoritism by many accounts. Suddenly, not only was there internal opposition, but the sympathetic foreigners cried foul. He had gone off script with world finance, whose main and only aim is economic domination of everything and everyone.

quote:

---

So: the heroic leader DID free his country, was praised for it, but then he wrecked it too.

---

Because, I think, he took action 20 years too late, and in undemocratic draconian inconsistent fashion. So, the real question is, should we let Zimbabweans correct the situation as they see fit, or should we lecture them (and economically and otherwise pressure them) to do what we wise white christian benefactors know in our hearts is the right thing to do?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
So you only support intervention into other countries if a country is being invaded?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Liberate my parents' town from the Nazi invaders. Yeah. I think you just answered your own question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:

So you only support intervention into other countries if a country is being invaded?

---

If I may distil Unionist's position.

If country A is invaded by country B, then it is OK for country C to intervene to kick out the country B forces.

Which I agree with, considering the history of my country.

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: pk34th45 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pk34th45:

If I may distil Unionist's position.

If country A is invaded by country B, then it is OK for country C to intervene to kick out the country B forces.

---

Wrong (I mean - wrong, that's not exactly my position). The Soviets didn't have the right to intervene in Czechoslovakia because the Nazis had occupied Czechoslovakia. The Soviets had the right to intervene there because the Nazis had invaded the Soviet Union and there was a war on.

The United States had a right to land in Normandy and help liberate France (and other countries) because Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy had declared was against the United States on December 11, 1941 (some of you may not have been aware of that) and Germany was occupying France.

The United States, Canada and other countries had a legal (not a a moral) right to send troops to Korea in 1950 because the Soviet Union was idiotically (or cunningly?) boycotting the Security Council at the time - I think over the U.N.'s refusal to seat the PRC delegation, but not sure - anyway, as a result, the Soviets were unable to exercise their veto.

The United States and some of its servile allies had no right to sent troops to Viet Nam or Afghanistan or Iraq...

It's hard to state overarching principles here - maybe somebody can do a better job.

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

This isn't to say that Mugabe's a hero and the ZCTU are villains. Just noting that the simplistic narrative of an all-powerful evil dictator taking on a powerless opposition doesn't tell the whole story.

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Mercy ]

quote:

---

But I will not be very happy if whoever wins reverses the gains of the liberation struggle

---

What gains? 100,000% inflation, 80% unemployment, rampant corruption and violence, the world's lowest average life expectancy...(just to name a few of less damning statistics).

Some stories I've read say that Mugabe basically "lost it" after his wife died and he became incredibly bitter etc... why doesn't he see a psychiatrist about his feelings about losing his wife instead of making a country of 15 million suffer the consequences. Interesting Stalin himself said that after his first wife died and he lost the only person he ever cared for - he ceased to have any trace of compassion in him - so 20 million Russians had to die because Stalin never got over the death of his wife.

oh well.

The problem is that the usual idiots glorify the leader, insure that he feels he can do no wrong, justify his every act, make stupid analogies contrived to turn our attention away from The Leader and his stupid mistakes.

Then, when the whole revolutionary project lies in ruins, they move on to their next Third World Cheering Project.

quote:

---

Intensive diplomatic efforts were under way today to secure a face-saving exit for Robert Mugabe after 28 years as President of Zimbabwe.

His closest cohorts informed him last night that he had he had failed to win an outright victory in the country’s weekend presidential poll.

Despite tampering with the results from the countrywide elections, the Zimbabwean Electoral Commission was set to announce that the main opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, had taken 48 per cent of the vote, against 42 per cent for the 84-year-old incumbent.

The two men would therefore have to face a run-off poll in three weeks' time which Mr Mugabe has no hope of winning. "He considers this to be a huge insult, he is a proud man and needs an exit strategy," said a source close to the talks.

South Africa was leading the behind-the-scenes negotiations which are centring on a power-sharing deal which would see Mr Mugabe’s ruling Zanu-PF which has ruled the country for 28 years taking a vice-presidential slot.

Such a deal would also ensure that Mr Mugabe retained immunity from prosecution for any crimes committed in his authoritarian rule.

"It is over for Mugabe. No one is now talking about him staying on, just somehow finding a graceful exit," the source added.
....

An independent monitoring group, the Zimbabwe Election Support Network, said that its projections gave Mr Tsvangirai 49.4 per cent, against 41.8 per cent for Mr Mugabe and 8.2 per cent for Mr Makoni – which was broadly in line with the Zanu (PF) predictions.

Marwick Khumalo, head of an observer group from the Pan-African parliament, said that the elections themselves were free, fair and credible overall and yesterday the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) observer team also endorsed the polls.

"The ACP election observer mission was particularly impressed by the calm and peaceful atmosphere that prevailed before, during and immediately after polling day," the state-owned Herald newspaper quoted the ACP as saying.

Opposition activists have been clinging to the fact that results have been posted immediately outside local polling stations, saying that would make it more difficult for Mr Mugabe to rig the election – although they complain of up to a million ghost voters. - Times Online

---

If that's the case, then I wonder if British and American "observers" will be allowed to participate?

quote:

---

afrol news: MDC leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, has polled 51% compared to President Robert Mugabe's 42%. The opposition party also grabbed 53% of the parliamentary seats while the ruling Zanu-PF 42%. The MDC breakaway polled five seats.

Sources however said there will likely be a run-off between Mugabe and Tsvangirai. If that is the case, the electoral commission is constitutionally mandated to organize elections within two weeks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
What gains?

---

quote:

---

Projections from the incumbent ZANU-PF party showed Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), with 48.3 per cent of the vote, compared with Mugabe's 43 per cent, according to senior sources quoted by Reuters. The projections gave a third contender, Simba Makoni, eight per cent of the vote.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity.

If no candidate wins more than 51 per cent of the vote, the election will go into a second round.

---

quote:

---

The severe limitations of US imperialism’s policy toward Africa is also revealed in its one-sided policy toward Zimbabwe. China has stepped into the vacuum in Zimbabwe created by sanctions imposed by US imperialism and its sidekick in London. Chinese entities have emerged as the dominant force in Zimbabwe’s economy, which still retains a decent infrastructure of roads and an educated populace. Zimbabwe’s neighbors – notably South Africa and Namibia – still await a reckoning of their own as to how to confront the detritus of the bad old days of European settler colonialism. Intriguingly, as recently as 1998 China ranked only 11th in Harare’s roll call of importers – an indicator of how quickly change has occurred. Yet today informed estimates suggest that there are at least 15 sizeable Zimbabwe-China business deals, mostly involving state enterprises.

Zimbabwe’s wealth of resources – which includes gold, platinum, coal, nickel, diamonds, and the like – guarantees the continuing interest of US imperialism and its allies. These resources – particularly petroleum – also guarantees that Africa as a whole will be of interest to US imperialism. By 2005 this continent provided more oil to the US than the Middle East. Three of the top 10 suppliers to the US by 2005 were Nigeria, Algeria and Angola. Yet, here again the crisis of US imperialism is no better revealed for hands were wringing throughout Washington when in January 2006 China’s state-run oil firm announced it would pay $2.3 billion for a 45 percent stake in a bountiful Nigerian oilfield and then in May of that year President Hu Jintao made a triumphal visit to West Africa.

---

quote:

---

When you say that Zimbabwe was better off under white rule, when the black majority were second-class citizens, you are crossing a line.

---

I never said Zimbabwe was any better off under white rule. I think the country was probably better off in the early years of Mugabe's rule - before he became "non compis mentis".

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
I never said Zimbabwe was any better off under white rule. I think the country was probably better off in the early years of Mugabe's rule - before he became "non compis mentis".

---

quote:

---

Well reports today suggest Mugabe will be stepping down in favour of the opposition leader. If this happens I will happily eat my words about Mugabe and dictatorship (hes still a lousy brutal idiot though)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Wrong (I mean - wrong, that's not exactly my position). The Soviets didn't have the right to intervene in Czechoslovakia because the Nazis had occupied Czechoslovakia. The Soviets had the right to intervene there because the Nazis had invaded the Soviet Union and there was a war on.

The United States had a right to land in Normandy and help liberate France (and other countries) because Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy had declared was against the United States on December 11, 1941 (some of you may not have been aware of that) and Germany was occupying France.

The United States, Canada and other countries had a legal (not a a moral) right to send troops to Korea in 1950 because the Soviet Union was idiotically (or cunningly?) boycotting the Security Council at the time - I think over the U.N.'s refusal to seat the PRC delegation, but not sure - anyway, as a result, the Soviets were unable to exercise their veto.

The United States and some of its servile allies had no right to sent troops to Viet Nam or Afghanistan or Iraq...

It's hard to state overarching principles here - maybe somebody can do a better job.

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

---

- investor confidence
- supply side economics
- restoring good relations ...
- targeting "poverty reduction"

Targeting poverty reduction is an IMF/Bretton Woods euphemism that replaced the odious and disgraced "Structural Adjustment Programs". Taken as a whole, these could be seen as code words to indicate to Western supporters that Tsvangirai will be "their man" in Harare.

Doing a google advanced search I see that there is not one single word about China on the MDC website. Hmm.

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

The United States and some of its servile allies had no right to sent troops to Viet Nam or Afghanistan or Iraq...

---

quote:

---

The MDC will seek to promote Zimbabwe as a tourist and investment destination. It will correct the negative image that the country has established for itself in the past two decades and restore international confidence in the country as a secure and welcoming place to visit and invest in. The MDC government will maintain Zimbabwe’s membership of the World Bank and the IMF as well as the African Development Bank.

---

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Bacchus ]

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Bacchus ]

China Daily

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

ETA: I see Bacchus fixed his link. Never mind.

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacchus:
Well if they were invited by the official government then they do (that is to say the government that existed at the time of the troop sending, so Vietnam yes, Iraq and Afghanistan no)

---

April Fools, right?

The U.S. installed Ngo Dinh Diem through direct funding and electoral fraud in 1955.

By the time the next puppet came around (Nguyen Cao Ky), the U.S. had long since invaded and occupied - so yes, the "invitation" continued.

Although, I must say, I'm not sure how the treasonous puppets in south Viet Nam managed to invite the U.S. to bomb north Viet Nam.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacchus:
Thats what happens when I work and cruise the BBC and babble at the same time

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
What are you guys doing arguing Viet Nam, Czechslovakia, etc. in a thread about the elections in Zimbabwe?

---

We're looking for historical parallels so we can send in troops if the vote doesn't go our way.

1)When I talked about people refusing to condemn Stalinism, I didn't mean anything remotely like your parents or those liberated in 1945. The USSR DID liberate Eastern Europe from fascism and deserve praise for doing so. But they were supposed to go home a week later, not occupy the whole region for forty years and force all the people living in it to live under police state rule and, in so doing, make almost all Eastern Europeans loathe the very words "socialism", "Marxism", and "communism".

Opposing what happened in East Berlin in 1953, Hungary in 1956, Poland right after that and Czechoslovakia in 1968 (as consistent and honorable leftists did) is in a whole different category than opposing the liberation in 1945. Nothing the USSR did in Eastern Europe AFTER the liberation was justified.

Opposing Mugabe and his senseless repression is in the first category of that last paragraph. It's nothing at all like those "liberal hawks" clamoring for Marines in Vietnam or Iraq.
Mugabe could've nationalized the white racist land without doing any of the things he's denounced about by human rights supporters or LGBT activists. Mugabe never needed to oppress anybody.

2)I hated those "liberal hawks" as much as anybody.

What you're STILL not getting is that there is a HUGE distinction between saying "that Saddam/those Taliban/that Stalin are offending my precious liberal values so let's invade right now or spend four decades building an insanely large nuclear stockpile"(which is the position you rightly condemn AND the position I join you in condemning)
and the position I actually hold myself, which is this "This particular regime, which once had left support(this is a generic example, btw)is no longer worthy of that support. Leftists of conscience around the world should call either for radical reform of the regime to put it in accord with universal LEFT values(full egalitarianism, full democracy economic, social and political, full respect of the rights of ethnic minorities, LGBT people, and women living within it, free speech and an independent non-corporate media)
or support, by their words and through nonviolent solidarity, those people within that society who are working to replace the decayed and no longer left regime with a truly left government that is an example to the world of how things can be better. And we mean the people in that country, not outside imperialists, who we agree have no right to intervene anywhere."

Or at least, to support progressive dissident efforts within those societies.

Within Afghanistan, of course the left should condemn the Taliban. The Taliban has murdered thousands of leftists, among others. But we should do it by supporting the Radical Afghan Women(RAWA), not that idiot with the yak fetus hat the U.S. put in power.

And it would have meant supporting Nagy in Hungary and Dubcek in Czechoslovakia. Clearly, all decent leftists would agree that what the USSR did in those places was indefensible and that the USSR, by that point, no longer had anything remotely to do with socialism. It would have been unconscionable to say "but they have self-rule, so we must be silent". Just as it will be unconscionable for anyone on the left to take that view, for example, if you ever get a unitary Palestine led by Hamas and Hamas sets up a police state that persecutes gays and women and murders secular leftists(as we know it will if it ever leads such a state, since Hamas is clearly reactionary and antidemocratic).

I'm talking about defending left principles and hold all states accountable for their actions, while still standing implacably against superpower intervention. That's nothing like backing western imperialism, and you know it.

Taking the position that we must be silent about whatever happens in countries with "self-rule" has never brought the left anything but grief. And it's always led to the betrayal of genuine leftists within those "self-rule" countries, as Hugo Chavez betrayed everyone on the Iranian left when he allied himself with the fascist shitbag Ahmadinejad.

Our principles matter, dammit. We can't just say "Country X is anti-U.S., so we have to avoid saying anything against anything they do".

Remember where that led some of the left in 1939.
And remember what that almost led to for your grandparents, unionist.

Socialism, democracy, and opposition to all oppression. That's what the left is SUPPOSED to be about. Not "the enemy of our enemy is our friend".

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

Headline: Mugabe's family seeks political asylum!

Tanzania's President Kikwete hosts SADC summit
He also has to do babysitting for Robert Mugabe's grandson, Morgan ...

Morgan Tsvangirai is the MDC candidate for President of Zimbabwe and has been faced with numerous assassination attempts, deaths of bodyguards, merciless beatings at the hands of the police, and so on.

Morgan Mugabe is the grandson of Robert Mugabe.

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

President Mugabe just won't retire. A recent budget session in the Harare Parliament reveals why ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacchus:
Um thanks Cueball. I didnt understand what you meant until I clicked on it. Thats what happens when I work and cruise the BBC and babble at the same time

---

quote:

---

The severe limitations of US imperialism’s policy toward Africa is also revealed in its one-sided policy toward Zimbabwe. China has stepped into the vacuum in Zimbabwe created by sanctions imposed by US imperialism and its sidekick in London. Chinese entities have emerged as the dominant force in Zimbabwe’s economy

---

So, I suppose this makes China the imperialists now.

quote:

---

Stockholm: I'm still trying to understand...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats a good sign. Try dispensing with the straw men and reading what we are writing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Wrong (I mean - wrong, that's not exactly my

The United States and some of its servile allies had no right to sent troops to Viet Nam or Afghanistan or Iraq...

It's hard to state overarching principles here - maybe somebody can do a better job.

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

---

How about this as a possible suggestion: international law and national sovereignty.

It is wrong to invade somebody else's country just because you feel like it (i.e. you don't like their government, or they have something you want.)

It is okay to invade somebody's country and occupied territories if they are attacking you or are clearly and demmonstrably preparing to attack you.

These are the basic principles of international law that were asserted especially as part of the Nuremburg Tribunals.

Invading someone else's country leads to many atrocities, which is why after World War II, the "crime against peace" (i.e. invading another country) was established as the most serious crime. Only clear defensive warfare was permitted.

The exception to these rules appear to be massive humanitarian catastrophes, in which a world body, such as the UN, votes widely in favour of sending in a multinational peacekeeping force under clear rules of engagement.

This is where it becomes tricky, however, since the U.S., U.K., etc... have tried to justify a number of illegal interventions as "humanitarian." One reason the UN strongly supported national sovereignty and international law after WWII is precisely because Nazi Germany and fascist Italy and Japan used humanitarian justifications for their illegal occupations of the Sudetenland, Ethiopia, and China. So this is a real point of contention because of the possibility of abuse.

quote:

---

Brendan Stone: Sorry if this is too much of a detraction from the Zimbabwe thread, I just thought I should attempt to follow up on this.

---

I see it differently, however. What you have is a government that has chosen its own path, one not dictated by Washington. It may not be the right path, we may not agree with it.

However, let us consider the implications for other governments that follow their own path, and are targeted by Washington.

The U.S. has tried to unseat Hugo Chavez, democratically-elected, a few times now. Perhaps you do not like Hugo Chavez. Okay, so let's say that Che Guevara or Emma Goldman or some other left 'hero' is hypothetically leading a country. We would want them to be able to choose their own path, right?

If we say that it is okay for the West to target Zimbabwe with major electoral coverage, making elections a massive issue, which allows massive world and local pressure to be brought against the government, what kind of precedent does this set?

If we sit by and watch as Britain reneges on its committments to rebuild Zimbabwe after colonizing and stratifying it, and the IMF demands shock therapy in return for desperately-needed loans, and then the U.S. enforces an economic seige on the country, and then blame Mugabe for everything, calling him a "subhuman" "pig" (I quote verbatim from members), what kind of precedent does that set for others that stray from Washington's path?

If we pine for the downfall of Zimbabwe's government against a Western-funded, Western-directed group of neo-liberals, including Tsvangirai, who was caught planning to assassinate Mugabe on one occassion, what kind of precedent does that set?

I would not ask people to support Mugabe, but I would ask that you support non-interference. If the West met its committments in the Lancaster House agreement, and demonstrated real enthusiasm for the necessary land reform instead of leaving the burden on top of a new post-liberation government, and demonstrated willingness to compensate the people of Zimbabwe for decades of considerable crimes, and if these Western governments then left Zimbabwe to its own devices, instead of maintaining a media barrage, severe economic sanctions (including even limitations on AIDS relief), and support of the opposition movement, then I think we could make judgements on Mugabe.

But in the real world, that's how things work. It doesn't matter if you are Mugabe or Khomeni or Fidel Castro, if you don't play the game, they're going to come for you.

So do you support countries' rights to go their own direction, or do you support Western punitive intervention and demonization of every government that balks the party line? Countries need some freedom to operate if they are going to enact progressive policies, even if they don't all enact progressive policies.

I, personally, like when the anti-war movement says "don't bomb that country," as opposed to "do we like those people enough to not support bombing them?"

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Brendan Stone ]

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

It's April 1st right...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brendan Stone:
If we pine for the downfall of Zimbabwe's government against a Western-funded, Western-directed group of neo-liberals, including Tsvangirai, who was caught planning to assassinate Mugabe on one occassion, what kind of precedent does that set?

---

Brendan, I was with you for the most part until the above charge. You should know by now that Ari Ben-Menasheh is a pretty sketchy character, at best. Someone or other hired him to entrap Tsvangirai, and it didn't work:

quote:

---

Ari Ben-Menashe is the author of Profits of War: Inside the Secret U.S.-Israeli Arms Network, a book purporting to describe his involvement in Iran-Contra and other intelligence operations. An Iraqi Jew who was educated in Israel, he is a former Israeli government employee, and has said that he worked for the intelligence services. [1] He has also said he was a "troubleshooter" for former prime minister Yitzhak Shamir. [2] He now runs Albury Grain Sales, a commodities brokerage registered in Montreal, Canada, where he lives. [3]

Ben-Menashe came to the attention of the international media in 2002, when he alleged that Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of Zimbabwe's opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change, had asked him to help to "eliminate" President Robert Mugabe. Ben-Menashe produced a videotape of conversations between himself and Tsvangirai in London, England, and Montreal, where the latter appeared to ask for Ben-Menashe's help as a political consultant. Unbeknownst to Tsvangirai, Ben-Menashe's Montreal consultancy firm at the time, Dickens and Madson, was working for Mugabe, and tapes of the ambiguous conversation were passed to the Zimbabwean authorities, who charged Tsvangirai with treason, which is punishable by death in that country. [4]

Tsvangarai was acquitted in 2004 when a court in Harare accepted he had not used the word "eliminate" to mean that he wanted Mugabe to be assassinated. [5] Judge Paddington Garwe described Ben-Menashe, who was the prosecution's star witness, as "rude, unreliable, and contemptuous." [6]

---

I share all the same concerns about Tsvangirai as you do. But repeating a frivolous and slanderous charge, that has been determined to be unfounded, detracts from your argument.

quote:

---

LOL no Cueball its true, I was working on porn for a client

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I share all the same concerns about Tsvangirai as you do. But repeating a frivolous and slanderous charge, that has been determined to be unfounded, detracts from your argument.

source.

---

Ah, I stand corrected. I should have checkedo n my own notes, in fact. Yes, Tsvangirai was acquitted (though he had initially denied a meeting took place with Ben Menashe, and seemed interested in the coup discussion.) There is no solid proof Tsvangirai wanted to kill Mugabe, though I share those other concerns.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brendan Stone:
It is okay to invade somebody's country and occupied territories if they are attacking you or are clearly and demmonstrably preparing to attack you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Um, the latter not so much. It's what we now call the doctrine of pre-emptive war, championed by the Nazis in WWII, and today by G.W. Bush.

If it were considered OK to attack a country that is "clearly and demonstrably preparing to attack you," the USA would have been legal fair game for attacks from many countries over the years.

---

I understand your intent. Even assuming a framework under which it is acceptible to strike someone who is about to strike you, however, the U.S. war against Iraq is still illegal, since there was no clear evidence that Iraq was planning to strike the U.S. The same goes for the Nazis, since there was no proof Poland was about to attack. Those aggressions are still illegal under the doctrine of preemptive warfare, since there was no imminent threat.

I am just trying to imagine a more balanced situation. Let's say that country A is massing its troops on country B's borders, and country A is actively threatening through propaganda to attack country B. Would a pre-emptive strike be justified then?

Under a framework of international law, I would think that even pre-emptive warfare would still require very good evidence, and probably UN approval.

What would the other option be? Presumably, the UN Security Council would mediate the imminent tensions before a war broke out.

Here's what Wikipedia (I know, I know) has to say:

"There is some question as to the legality of this [preemptive] doctrine under international law. Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter is generally considered to be jus cogens, or a peremptory norm which cannot be violated. It bars the threat or use of force against any state in the absence of an acute and imminent actual threat. [addition - i.e. what if there is an acute and imminent threat?] At the same time, however, Article 51 clearly permits self defense. The tension between these two principals is evident in the doctrine of preemptive war, which claims to be defensive, yet does not come in response to an attack."

Or, as Alan Bock states,

"There’s a well-accepted definition for preemptive war in international law," Joseph Cirincione, Director of the Non-Proliferation Project of the Carnegie Endowment, told me on the telephone last week. "Preemptive war is justified by an imminent threat of attack, a clear and present danger that the country in question is about to attack you. In such a case a preemptive attack is recognized as justifiable."

But, yes, as you point out, this concept has been abused. What would you recommend for cases of imminent danger?
(sorry, getting off-topic again, going to have to stop this or move into a new thread.)

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Brendan Stone ]

quote:

---

If we say that it is okay for the West to target Zimbabwe with major electoral coverage, making elections a massive issue, which allows massive world and local pressure to be brought against the government, what kind of precedent does this set?

If we sit by and watch as Britain reneges on its committments to rebuild Zimbabwe after colonizing and stratifying it, and the IMF demands shock therapy in return for desperately-needed loans, and then the U.S. enforces an economic seige on the country, and then blame Mugabe for everything, calling him a "subhuman" "pig" (I quote verbatim from members), what kind of precedent does that set for others that stray from Washington's path?

If we pine for the downfall of Zimbabwe's government against a Western-funded, Western-directed group of neo-liberals, including Tsvangirai, who was caught planning to assassinate Mugabe on one occassion, what kind of precedent does that set?

I would not ask people to support Mugabe, but I would ask that you support non-interference. If the West met its committments in the Lancaster House agreement, and demonstrated real enthusiasm for the necessary land reform instead of leaving the burden on top of a new post-liberation government, and demonstrated willingness to compensate the people of Zimbabwe for decades of considerable crimes, and if these Western governments then left Zimbabwe to its own devices, instead of maintaining a media barrage, severe economic sanctions (including even limitations on AIDS relief), and support of the opposition movement, then I think we could make judgements on Mugabe.

But in the real world, that's how things work. It doesn't matter if you are Mugabe or Khomeni or Fidel Castro, if you don't play the game, they're going to come for you.

So do you support countries' rights to go their own direction, or do you support Western punitive intervention and demonization of every government that balks the party line? Countries need some freedom to operate if they are going to enact progressive policies, even if they don't all enact progressive policies.

---

There is so much wrong with this, let's start.

1.

quote:

---

If we say that it is okay for the West to target Zimbabwe with major electoral coverage, making elections a massive issue, which allows massive world and local pressure to be brought against the government, what kind of precedent does this set?

---

This is utter nonsense.

My goodness a country being infilitrated by an army of reporters! How will they survive!!!!!

"The west" is targeting Zimbabwe? Show me the directive from Gordon Brown to the editors of the Guardian ordering them to go to Zimbabwe.

Brendan, this is called holding leaders to scrutiny, which I thought we were all supportive of.

quote:

---

the IMF demands shock therapy in return for desperately-needed loans, and then the U.S. enforces an economic seige on the country, and then blame Mugabe for everything, calling him a "subhuman" "pig" (I quote verbatim from members), what kind of precedent does that set for others that stray from Washington's path?

---

I think we can debate the merits of the IMF's demands when giving loans and I'd probably agree with you on a lot of the criticisms, however, Mugabe certainly knew of them. The precedent I think it sets is: if you don't want to have to deal with the IMF, don't go into debt.

I don't know of any 'economic seige' by the U.S. They have sanctions on Zimbabwe, but

1.the sanctions are actually fairly limited

2.The U.S never traded much with Zimbabwe anyway (South Africa has always been by far Zimbabwe's largest trading partner), so it's actually highly debatable how much impact these limited sanctions have had on Zimbabwe. They too are worthy of debating their merits, in large part because Mugabe has been able to deflect the blame he deserves by blaming them and sympathizers like many here have quoted him verbatim since, without actually looking into whether it has any merit (which, as I've explained here, it mostly doesn't).

quote:

---

If we pine for the downfall of Zimbabwe's government against a Western-funded, Western-directed group of neo-liberals, including Tsvangirai,

---

And, it would seem, supported by the people of Zimbabwe too, which you neglected to mention.

quote:

---

I would not ask people to support Mugabe, but I would ask that you support non-interference.

---

There are something like 3 million Zimbabwe citizens living in refugee camps in South Africa (1/4 of the entire population!) and we're supposed to just stay quiet on this? The U.N mostly pays for these refugees and the U.N is mainly financed by the west, you expect the 'west' to just be silent over this?

quote:

---

Countries need some freedom to operate if they are going to enact progressive policies, even if they don't all enact progressive policies.

---

Name one 'progressive policy' implemented by Mugabe? if giving land to his cronies is your idea of a 'progressive policy' then I think you have no idea of much of anything.

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brendan Stone:
But in the real world, that's how things work. It doesn't matter if you are Mugabe or Khomeni or Fidel Castro, if you don't play the game, they're going to come for you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:
Brendan Stone wrote:

Name one 'progressive policy' implemented by Mugabe? if giving land to his cronies is your idea of a 'progressive policy' then I think you have no idea of much of anything.

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

---

It was generally accepted among less biased sources that the Mugabe government implemented or attempted to implement progressive or quasi social-democratic politices during the 1980s.

For example, see Jacobs, Susie, "Gender and Land Reform: Zimbabwe and Some Comparisons," International Sociology 7 (1992): 5-34.

As I argued elsewhere, "Following independence, the new ZANU-PF government in Zimbabwe attempted to improve the living standards of regular citizens via a number of reforms. Women, as a group, benefited from reforms in "health and nutrition," as well as education. The government created a Ministry for Women's Affairs, though it was underfunded. During this period, according to the Lancet, Zimbabwe acted as "a role model for post-colonial Africa." As Laakso explains, "For much of the 1980s, Zimbabwe featured in comparative studies and in the international media as a model of African democracy, good governance and multiracial harmony." The country was a food "success story" during the widespread African famines of the 1980s.

See also: Palmer, Robin, "Land Reform in Zimbabwe, 1980-1990," African Affairs 89 (1990): 163-181.

Second, the land reform was not simply Mugabe handing out land to his "cronies." There were more serious attempts at land reform, through they suffered from inexperience and a lack of funding.

In Deininger, Klaus, Hans Hoogeveen, and Bill Kinsey, "Benefits and Costs of Land Reform in Zimbabwe: with Implications for Southern Africa," Unpublished paper presented at the Understanding Poverty and Growth in Sub-Saharan Africa Conference held by the Centre for the Study of African Economies, Oxford, (2002), you can learn that in the 1980s, the "land redistribution program was well planned, carefully organized and lawful." (54) IT was also an intensive, subsidized, centralized program, in which most recipients ended up under conditions with which they were familiar: communal farming.

There were a lot of challenges to be faced in the land redistribution, but I think it is excessive to suggest that 55,000 households that were resettled at one point were all Mugabe's "cronies."

And yes, Zimbabwe is centered out in the media. Even in terms of killings of white farmers. It is an equally, or more prevalent phonomenon in South Africa, but it receives more coverage when it happens in Zimbabwe. Just as Zimbabwe's contested elections receive more coverage than those of other countries.

You would benefit from doing some critical reading on the "colour Revolutions," such as this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1638

and also the work of William Robinson, on how the U.S. engages and manipulates the "civil society" of target countries in order to acheive desired outcomes. Selective U.S. interference in the elections and political processes of other countries is very real, and is not conducted to "hold leaders to scrutiny" (unless you mean selected leaders.)

On sanctions, here are three paragraphs from an essay that I wrote:

"First, in 2001, the IMF declared its resources off-limits to Zimbabwe. (86) U.S. President Bush and Senator Jesse Helms then passed an act to prevent U.S. financial institutions from loaning money to Zimbabwe, or from canceling any of Zimbabwe's debt. Western organizations acted to discourage trade, including British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who claimed to be "building coalitions" to "oppose any access by Zimbabwe to international financial resources." (87) By threatening the denial of funding to South African Development Community programs, Straw used Britain's clout to demand sanctions against Zimbabwe. African leaders continued to resist the intense Western pressure to apply sanctions, however. (88)

Under the U.S. Zimbabwe Democracy Bill, the U.S. ordered its officials to prevent every major international bank from approving transactions with Zimbabwe. (89) In 2002, the E.U. and the United States withdrew funding and applied sanctions against the Mugabe-led government, and individuals who were perceived as being friendly to it. The U.S. and E.U. also applied a travel ban on Zimbabwean government officials, and the U.S. froze the assets of hundreds of Zimbabwean individuals and businesses. (90) Other "de facto" sanctions exist. For example, according to a former head of UNICEF, only $4 per person is distributed per-person for Zimbabwean AIDS sufferers, compared to an average of $74 in other countries. (91)

The results of the sanctions were severe, as foreign trade plummeted towards near zero, and "foreign direct investment in Zimbabwe plunged by over 99 percent." Inflation soared, and the lack of foreign exchange devastated Zimbabwe's manufacturing sector, causing unemployment to rise to over 70 percent. (92) These factors - the external campaign by great powers to cripple Zimbabwe's economy - are rarely discussed by Western academics or journalists, who instead portray the crisis in Zimbabwe solely as the result of the land reform, or Mugabe's mismanagement. The Western campaign, however, has emboldened the opposition in Zimbabwe, itself partly a creation of Western interests."

http://www.raceandhistory.com/Zimbabwe/2007/2205.html

If Zimbabwean voters want to get rid of Mugabe, it is their right. However, be aware of the context in which it is occuring.

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Brendan Stone ]

quote:

---

This is not pre-emptive war; there is a crucial difference. Pre-emptive war has a meaning, it means that, for example, if planes are flying across the Atlantic to bomb the United States, the United States is permitted to shoot them down even before they bomb and may be permitted to attack the air bases from which they came. Pre-emptive war is a response to ongoing or imminent attack.

The doctrine of preventive war is totally different; it holds that the United States - alone, since nobody else has this right - has the right to attack any country that it claims to be a potential challenge to it. So if the United States claims, on whatever grounds, that someone may sometime threaten it, then it can attack them.

The doctrine of preventive war was announced explicitly in the National Strategy Report last September. It sent shudders around the world, including through the U.S. establishment, where, I might say, opposition to the war is unusually high. The National Strategy Report said, in effect, that the U.S. will rule the world by force, which is the dimension - the only dimension - in which it is supreme. Furthermore, it will do so for the indefinite future, because if any potential challenge arises to U.S. domination, the U.S. will destroy it before it becomes a challenge. - Source

---

Pre-emptive war is a species of self-defence. The UN Charter (Art. 51) limits the right of self-defence to a response to an "armed attack". Moreover, the right is terminated once the Security Council takes action.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[QB]

---

quote:

---

It was generally accepted among less biased sources that the Mugabe government implemented or attempted to implement progressive or quasi social-democratic politices during the 1980s.

---

So, that was what 20 years ago? So, we're supposed to ignore that Mugabe has become a power mad tyranical lunatic who has murdered thousands of his own people and caused 3 million of his own citizens to flee and become refugees because he was good 20 years ago?

quote:

---

There were a lot of challenges to be faced in the land redistribution, but I think it is excessive to suggest that 55,000 households that were resettled at one point were all Mugabe's "cronies."

---

I was referring to the latest round, and yes, all the land was given to cronies.

quote:

---

And yes, Zimbabwe is centered out in the media. Even in terms of killings of white farmers. It is an equally, or more prevalent phonomenon in South Africa, but it receives more coverage when it happens in Zimbabwe. Just as Zimbabwe's contested elections receive more coverage than those of other countries.

---

So what?

quote:

---

and is not conducted to "hold leaders to scrutiny" (unless you mean selected leaders.)

---

I am referring to media scrutiny. If you have any serious evidence that 'western' leaders are dictating the editorial practices of newspapers regarding Zimbabwe then present it. Otherwise, I'd categorize it as just more loony conspiracy theories.

On sanctions, here are three paragraphs from an essay that I wrote:

quote:

---

The results of the sanctions were severe, as foreign trade plummeted towards near zero, and "foreign direct investment in Zimbabwe plunged by over 99 percent." Inflation soared, and the lack of foreign exchange devastated Zimbabwe's manufacturing sector, causing unemployment to rise to over 70 percent. (92)

---

None of your paragraphs directly tie the sanctions to the economic collapse (as opposed to other factors).

1.Zimbabwe's primary trading partner prior to and post sanctions is South Africa and they have not been effected by the sanctions.

2.Most people here don't like foreign direct investment, and it is often called part of the 'imperialist agenda', so you can't have it both ways: you can't call foreign direct investment 'imperialist' and then complain when it is cut off. And the total foreign direct investment was rather small prior to the imposition of the sanctions ($400 million according to Wiki in an economy of $20 billion).

3.It is a truism in economics that long term inflation can only be caused by a persistent overprinting of money, and no other factor. There is absolutely no way that sanctions could cause an inflation rate of 100,000%.

The independent journal articles that I've read on the situation primarily blame the land redistribition and corruption by Mugabe (along with the drought) as the major reasons for the economic collapse in Zimbabwe. I see nothing you've written that counters that.

As the old truism goes, correlation is not causation. The sanctions were very limited, the IMF pulled out because of non payment and not because of the sanctions and Zimbabwe lost very little trade with the U.S because it didn't have much trade to begin with.

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

You asked me for evidence of any possible progressive policies, and I gave it to you. How much longer does this have to go on for?

It is clear that I differ from you in where to assign the blame in Zimbabwe - it is clear to me, at least, and I present the information as best as I can, that the United States and Britain, in particular, have conducted interference against Zimbabwe's government in a manner that impedes its ability to operate. This interference needs to be taken into account when judging Zimbabwe's government.

You misinterpret my argument about the media. I am suggesting that our media coverage in Canada, the U.S., and Britain is biased, and in line with the opinion of our political elites on Zimbabwe. (In other words, it is manufacturing consent against Zimbabwe, as it does against so many other designated enemies.)

I covered this extensively in my essay. There are other reasons for the instutitional bias. For example, I note that "Willems has observed how several British journalists assigned to Zimbabwe were actually former Rhodesians, who had worked for the colonial newspapers prior to Zimbabwe's independence. Because of its prior colonial relationship with Rhodesia, Britain maintains a standing presence of journalists in Zimbabwe, which has received more attention from BBC documentaries than any single country. The British media focuses heavily on Zimbabwe's elections and alleged government crackdowns, and frames its reporting in such a way that 'heroic' journalists take 'risks' to interview members of the 'opposition.' A few British newspapers have gone so far as to spread allegations of ethnic cleansing in Zimbabwe so opportunistic that even the anti-Mugabe Labour Government denied them. This British media coverage is important, since Willems points out Mudimbe's observation that the media has assumed the role of defining Africa, a job previously left to anthropologists. (35) In other words, a heavily-biased media is the organ most responsible for informing the English-speaking world about events in Zimbabwe."

Throughout my essay, I refer to the biased role of the media. I simply ask that people read and consider my viewpoint, and see to what degree they agree with me. No amount of evidence seems to convince you, however.

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Brendan Stone ]

Mugabe sent Zimbabwean troops to the Democratic Republic of Congo and bolstering the Kabila government's defences against CIA-backed mercenaries and death squads marauding over the border from Uganda and Rwanda. These two U.S. proxy nations, soldiers and mercenaries have murdered over 5, 000, 000 Congolese since the 1980's.

quote:

---

For the most part, my source on the economic sanctions is Gregory Elich, in his book "Strange Liberators." I strongly recommend that book, as it deals with many of the arguments I am presenting, and is good reading anyway."

---

I'll look him up. It usually helps to use more than one source, and also to analyze the primary evidence yourself.

My take on the sanctions after doing all that is this:

As the old truism goes, correlation is not causation. The sanctions were very limited, the IMF pulled out because of non payment and not because of the sanctions and Zimbabwe lost very little trade with the U.S because it didn't have much trade to begin with. Conclusion: at most the sanctions played a limited role in the collapse of the economy.

quote:

---

You asked me for evidence of any possible progressive policies, and I gave it to you. How much longer does this have to go on for?

---

I should have asked for current progressive policies, of which, there don't seem to be any.

quote:

---

This interference needs to be taken into account when judging Zimbabwe's government.

---

None of this 'interference' justfies rigged elections, cronyism, corruption, mass beatings of opponents... Those seem to be about the only actions of the government.

quote:

---

You misinterpret my argument about the media. I am suggesting that our media coverage in Canada, the U.S., and Britain is biased.

---

You mean, if it weren't for the western governments the media in those countries wouldn't be against cronyism, corruption, mass beatings of opponents...?

quote:

---

Throughout my essay, I refer to the biased role of the media. I simply ask that people read and consider my viewpoint, and see to what degree they agree with me. No amount of evidence seems to convince you, however.

---

Because you haven't presented much convincing evidence. I think I've already taken apart most of your claim that the sanctions were the reason the economy collapsed and as for the media stuff, with the exception of the one anecdotal report you mentioned on 'ethnic cleansing' that seemed to be incorrect, you haven't put forward any evidence of media bias. 'Over coverage' is a pretty weak charge.

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

March 4, 1980: George M. Houser, Executive Director of the American Committee on Africa:

The Zimbabwe African Nation Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) headed by Robert Mugabe, has won an amazing and overwhelming victory in the unprecedented election in Rhodesia. I have just returned from a three week trip to Rhodesia (soon to be officially Zimbabwe). I was part of an unofficial group of five American observers. Although our group represented four organizations, we acted as a team during the time we were in Rhodesia. Enclosed is a copy of our report, based on the finding and experiences, and issued on March 3 before the result of the election was known. We had previously issued an interim report on February 25 in Salisbury in collaboration with seven unofficial observers from Canada in which we made a series of practical suggestions to the British governor which we hoped might improve chances for a free and fair election. This statement received from page attention in the Rhodesia Herald and other papers in Salisbury, as well as prominent coverage on the BBC.

Now that the election results are known, the most obvious thing to say is that black people of Zimbabwe have registered their preference for a government headed by Robert Mugabe. This speaks authoritatively for the independent judgement of the people. As our report points out, the media (newspapers, TV and radio), dominated by the white minority, was strongly biased against ZANU-PF and for the UANC of Muzorewa.

A second observation is that the harassment and intimidation practiced by the security forces, the police and auxiliaries against ZANU-PF and to a lesser extent against Nkomo’s Patriotic Front (PF) did not work as expected. We were told again and again by local ZANU-PF leaders that the strong arm methods of the military forces of the government would turn the people against the party favored by the white minority, the UANC. This is in fact what happened.

A third observation is that Lord Soames has no alternative to asking Mugabe to form a government. ZANU-PA has an absolute majority in the House of Assembly. It was feared that the British, in order to keep Mugabe out of power, might ask a combination of parties, each holding only a minority of seats in parliament to form a government. If this had been done, it could have caused serious problems. But now this is obviated.

Although there may be cries of “foul” and “fraud” in the election by some, the overall judgement of observers is that the election reflected the views of the majority of the people of Zimbabwe. The Commonwealth observers clearly stated this. The British said this. Both Mugabe and Nkomo said they would accept the results. Only Muzorewa refused to commit himself to the results. We can only hope this will not lead to continued conflict with dissident whites in Rhodesia backed by South Africa attempting to interfere in the establishment of the new government.

There is now hope that a government of true majority rule will be accepted by all parties and a new Zimbabwe can move onto the task of developing a free nation- peaceful, prosperous and secure.

---

link

Wait! There's more ...

quote:

---

Rhodesia, February 20, 1980. George M. Houser and Tilden LeMelle: “Free and fair elections in usual sense are impossible in Rhodesia now. The best that can be said is that if results are accepted without a complete breakdown, a tolerable peace may be realized.

“Guns are everywhere – the Rhodesian army, the so-called auxiliaries some 22,000 representing politically the muscle for Muzorewa, some guerrilla groups still at large outside the assembly points, and individual whites carrying rifles and revolvers are they travel around.

“In the country side the people are certainly intimidated. In our experience so far we have seen how this intimidation works against ZANU(PF) and favors Muzorerwa. In two tribal trust lands south of Salisbury some sixty miles, we have seen how the auxiliaries use their guns to intimidate people favorable to ZANU(PF) – by beatings and threats aimed at keeping people from attending ZANU rallies. We ourselves were surrounded by regular Rhodesian security forces at gunpoint with threats of killing our ZANI companions as “terrorists.” We were interrogated at the army base in Chiota reserve, then by the Special Branch at police headquarters at Marandellas.

“Intimidation? We felt it.

“Virtually all whites here are for Muzorewa. The white landowners will threaten their workers with loss of jobs of they don’t vote for UANC. Sithole told us this happened in April elections and will happen this time.

“The white press is completely biased – blaming all violence on “terrorists” meaning ZANLA and ZIPRA. No blame on security forces or auxiliaries.

“Our observations will be broadened in the days to come though visits to other areas of the country.”

---

Mugabe won handily in 1980 despite all the intimidation by the white establishment. I can't help but think that he's trying to relive past glories that are unlikely to happen again.

The information from 1980 is nevertheless interesting.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:

Because you haven't presented much convincing evidence. I think I've already taken apart most of your claim that the sanctions were the reason the economy collapsed and as for the media stuff, with the exception of the one anecdotal report you mentioned on 'ethnic cleansing' that seemed to be incorrect, you haven't put forward any evidence of media bias. 'Over coverage' is a pretty weak charge.

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

---

Over-coverage is not a weak charge. Over-coverage places a lot of pressure on an already- compromised electoral process. If the U.S. was assisting and providing funding to Quebec separatists, and then a referendum was held in which U.S. and Western media gave us continuing high-stakes coverage on a preassumption that the separatists were right and probably going to win, we would consider the overall campaign prejudiced against the Canadian government. It's the same for countries like Zimbabwe, ganged up on by powerful governments and their loyal media.

You also didn't ask for one "current" progressive policy as you recently claimed, this is verbatim what you asked for:
"Name one 'progressive policy' implemented by Mugabe? if giving land to his cronies is your idea of a 'progressive policy' then I think you have no idea of much of anything."

Where does it say "current" in there? I'm getting tired of this.

My main argument is that the U.S. should not interfere in the politics of other countries, with a corresponding self-righteous media barrage once we've helped to destabilize it, whether we like those countries or not. Do you agree or disagree?

And it's certainly easy from our comfortable vantage point in a developed country that stole land from its own aboriginals to criticize events in Zimbabwe.

But I'm curious to know how our much more knowledgeable progressives would have handled things differently in Zimbabwe.

You represent a national liberation movement that played a large role in overthrowing a racist, violent apartheid regime.

Now, while independent, 6,000 white commercial farmers own 42% of the land. Under the Lancaster House agreement, Britain is supposed to financially support a land redistribution process.

You are situated beside Apartheid South Africa, and in a country with little civil society and functional mechanisms of government.

The comparatively-wealthy white farmers are well organized, and possess media and institutional links with Britain. They don't really want to give up their land.

You try to implement social-democratic measures, with some success. But funds are low, and you soon experience a major drought. Costs are mounting to maintain what you have.

Do you take the loan from the IMF?

How do you get the money to keep things going?

When Britain backs out of the Lancaster House agreement in 1992, how do you handle land reform?

Meanwhile, if you intend to implement any progressive policy, the U.S. is standing in the wings to fund and give a media 'halo' to your opposition.

So what do you do?

Your support base is largely rural, especially among the war veterans who fought and watched family and friends die for the promise of land reform.

It's easy for some to criticize the Mugabe government, but I'd like to know how you would have turned Zimbabwe into Switzerland by now, while redistributing land and not following the Washington Consensus.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Brendan Stone ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:
I think I've already taken apart most of your claim that the sanctions were the reason the economy collapsed

---

I think there's a lot of factors at play. Zimbabwe's economic troubles started in the late 90s while it was trying to follow the IMF's Structural Adjustment Program dictates. Mugabe balked once the "corrections" started. Things were bad but they got infinitely worse after the US and EU imposed sanctions. In the last thread I posted an essay by Tawnada Hondora (a prominent Mugabe opponent, a former Chair of the Zimbabwean Lawyers for Human Rights) noting that the sanctions have destroyed Zimbabwe's economy. It's here.

I don't see how people can suck and blow on this. Either the sanctions are designed to have an impact or they're not. If they don't have an impact why impose them? How can you claim that denying a government any access to outside capital, destroying its credit rating, and refusing to let the Chair of the Reserve Bank out of the country doesn't hurt the economy? You can try and justify the measures. You can claim it's not the sole problem. But to argue that there's no impact is just wacky.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Mercy ]

quote:

---

Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete (May 2007) : You know the economic sanctions prevent Zimbabwe from borrowing on the international market, and Zimbabwe can't get debt cancellation, aid, budgetary support or credits like Tanzania, Ghana and Nigeria...

---

SADC cannot abandon Zimbabwe

It will be instructive to see whether the US will remove the punitive "Zimbabwe Democracy Act" following the election or whether that country will continue to bleed Zimbabwe dry regardless of whether Mugabe or Tsvangirai wins the election.

By the way, here's Mugabe discussing land reform, British violation of past agreements, and the effects of US sanctions on Zimbabwe:

The next step will be to send a message to China by forcing Zimbabwe to renege on agreements signed with China. Then the mineral and other wealth can be properly "drained" from Zimbabwe at "fair market" prices. Then flood Zimbabwe with subsidized foods so that the domestic agriculture can be destroyed.

France is ok now, with Sarkozy in charge.

ETA: I forgot Hamas and Hezbollah and Sudan. My bad.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Caissa: Mugabe has to recognize that he has lost the election and go.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

I'm still waiting for the results to be announced. What's YOUR source of news on that?

---

quote:

---

I'm still waiting for the results to be announced.

---

Relax...the election was on Saturday and today is Wednesday. Mugabe's thugs need time to stuff the ballot boxes and rig the vote counting - mind you even after doing that it STILL looks like he'll lose.

Us good. Bad guys bad. Grunt. It doesn't really require any thought, just a target or a victim.

............

quote:

---

Caissa: If we were able to have some nicely verified numbers, I'd be quite happy to wager giving odds with N. Beltov and Unionist on the Zimbabwean election results.

---

I'm glad to see that you've backed off the spurious claim that you already know the results. Betting on the likely results is, of course, a great way to change the subject.

quote:

---

It's always interesting to note how the left often supports and excuses insupportable leaders based on the leaders' stated political ideologies.

---

quote:

---

I'm often struck by how moralistic characterizations of international politics is a kind of infantilization of politics.

Us good. Bad guys bad. Grunt. It doesn't really require any thought, just a target or a victim.

---

You mean like the way we all denounce Bush, Blair, harper, Pinochet, Franco etc...?