Readers’ Responses to Our Question (27)

Is there no crisis in Zimbabwe ?

The Zimbabwe High Court’s dismissal of an opposition demand for the Zimbabwe Election Commission to immediately release the results of Presidential elections held more than 16 days ago smacks of the highest level of arrogance and is a clear indication that the judiciary system needs a major overhaul. It is no wonder mayhem exists. Rule of law has long departed the country.

The nation is left at a loss. The people do not know where to turn to for help. All democratic forces have fallen silent. This is the 3rd election Robert Mugabe is stealing (2002, 2005 & 2008). Third world populations are encouraged to participate in democratic institutions so their voices can be heard. But it seems when they do what is right, they are beaten, maimed, and killed by the very governments that ask them to vote, but -surprise, - surprise, - the world agonisingly watches. This is third consecutive election the world has stood by with its arms folded. How many does it take to get a serious UN intervention? Blood on the streets!

The South African President, Thabo Mbeki insulted 12.8 million suffering masses of Zimbabwe by saying “there is no crisis in Zimbabwe ”.

Is there no a crisis when a country has over 100,580% inflation rate? Zambia ’s inflation is 9.5%

In 1980 US$1= ZW$0.80. Today US$1=ZW$50million

Is there no crisis when a country has 80% unemployment rate?

Is there no crisis when a country has an immortality rate of 51.12 deathes/1,000 births?

Is there no crisis when a country has a life expectancy of 39.5years?

Is there no crisis when there 1.8million people living with AIDS?

Is there no crisis when GDP is -6%? Zambia ’s GDP grew by 6% in 2007

Is there no crisis when 78% of the population are living below poverty datum line?

Is there no crisis when 3,4million leave the country to work and live elsewhere?

Is there no crisis when 25% of people need food aid? UN estimates

Is there no crisis when a country cannot tell its own people election results?

Is there no crisis when a 14-member group of neighbouring countries fail to point out the screaming anomalies with their neighbouring state?

What is a crisis if this is not a crisis?

International sanctions against Thabo Mbeki's regime in South Africa might be a good way to start the offensive against Mugabe.
Formation of an alternative Government outside Zimbabwe, funding and arming an insurgency against the the regime of Mugabe and Thabo Mbeki could be the next step. As long as you remain polite with lunatics such as Mbeki and Mugabe, Africa will continue to remain in the gutter perhaps for another 50 years. Otherwise, we might see a very properous developing Africa in as little as 10 years.
It is time to let Mugabe know that impunity will not be tolerated by the rest of humanity who happen to kith and kin with people of Zimbabwe as fellow human beings irrespective of the color of skin.

Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, where are you???

Ypu know, those trade sanctions we placed on Iraq worked pretty well. They caused Saddam Hussein to destroy his WMD's and to clean up his act considerably. Same thing for North Korea. So, why not stick with the tried and true and impose trade sanctions on him and his country. If the various dimplomatic fools and heads-of-state twits think they need to do something more to earn their keep, why don't they go about forming some sort of international agreements about banking secrecy? It might be intersting to see how much money the various dictators from these poor countries around the world have stashed away. It would also solve a very big problem all Western countries have where the wealthy stash enormous amounts of money and "blind" investments and avoid paying taxes. The same sort of sanctions imposed upon countries that harbor secret bank accounts would work to cease allowing themselves to be used as part of this massive criminal enterprise by dictators and the rich (pretty much the same sort people, as far as most of us are concerned).

The days when the United States could take an active role in ensuring the downfall of this monster Mugabe are long gone. We cannot interfer until after he is gone--and then only to offer aid to a new administration which will be hamstrung by poverty and collapse. That they will take, and gladly. Any other kind of butting-in will only be resented and used against America for years to come, with the cries of "imperialism!" echoing across the continent and beyond.

Where is the UN? Why such silence? What in the name of God Himself is the UN for, if not this? What a useless body of poltroons, greed merchants, and ideologues. And so Zimbabwe suffers. There is no body in the world today able and willing to help.

D Hodara 12.11pm has said exactly what I think too. I recall many visits to Rhodesia as it was 30 years ago, a land of peace and much prosperity.
What has happened to the Blacks in (now) Zimbabwe is a disgrace. The potentates in the surrounding countries are patently afraid of this Tyrant Mugabe.
It frankly disappoints me that some one with wide international respect like Mandela has not spoken up for the suffering people of Zimbabwe. As for the current President of South Africa to say this week that there is no crisis in Zimbabwe is a bit like saying as he did, that AIDS and HIV are not related.
Having said all this the west has to leave it to Africa itself plus the new power of influence there, China to help the poor people to recover.

How about letting it play out.

If Mugabe is doing wrong to his country, he should be overthrown.But now the question is, who should do this.For example, I ask a simple question to Americans that if a president of USA does something wrong to his fellow countrymen, who should take lead to get rid of him? You are right. The people of a country should always stand against politicians who harm the nation. Hence, the people of Zimbabwe should rise against Mugabe,not a person or government from other country. But yes,people or governments of other nations can give them moral and other necessary support without interfering in the sovereignity of the said nation.Hence it's time to awaken the people of Zimbabwe to rise against the inhuman rulers of their country.

my question to all is why the fruit is democracy limited in few countries?you are talking about mugabe.why you not talk about musharraf? why you not talk abou sheikh of kuwait?why you not talk about husnimubarak of egypt?
In all these country even there is no sighn of democracy.other hand donot worry british Arm is ready to invade and capture Mugabe like saddam hussain.

The US should invade Zimbabwe, just like Iraq. Only there will be no insurgency.

This is a question that the United Nations was intended to answer. How do the sensible nations of the world remove a senseless and corrupt dictator? National boundaries are sacrosanct, to be violated only in times of war. Is war necessary to force someone who clearly is unfit for high office and uninterested in the welfare of people "under" him? The trappings of power include direction of military forces. No sovereign nation would ever agree to change their governments simply because a committee in an office building in New York City voted for that to happen. Maybe all world leaders should be compelled to wear an explosive collar that can be remotely activated when the wearer is judged to be mentally unstable, criminally-minded, or corrupt. Some domestic populations would dearly love to have control over that button.

This is a follow up you can call it second thought.

What the nations should do

I think if they really believe in democracy, against dictator ship wants human right abuses to stop then...

they stop selling those bullets which kill opposition voices, they stop sending those gases which is used by riot police they stop allowing such dictators and their families the free visa to visit western world on shopping spree, they stop western banks to open secret accounts of those dictators to keep their illegal savings in safe heaven for next generation, they stop allowing to purchase lucrative real state in western capitals ...so on

but if you want to invade a country and remove mugabe for the cost of say one million head no ...that is not a good bargain

so why not wait for the nature to take its course

bottom line politics and ethics are two different world

The question comes very late. Intervention should have already occured at the previous elections. In fact, a once prosperous and agriculturally sufficient country, Zimbabwe was ruined by the megalomaniac 84 years old ruler. His hatred of the whites and the deep corruption to remain in power, are starving and ruining his people with a runaway inflation of 100.000 percent. Normally, South Africa and the other African countries should have intervened, but there has never been any open criticism of M. Mugabe, who continued to rule, declaring that all that was happening to the country was the West countries' fault.
Unfortunately, he controls the army, the police and the administration who, to continue benefiting from his largesses, will keep him in power, whilst arresting and/or brutalizing his opponents. The world is up in arms - rightly - for Tibet, but the suffering of the Zimbabwe people calls very shy critics. The only nations who may interfere are the African countries, and M. Mugabe has refused to participate to the meeting this week-end. In my opinion, there will not be any intervention and Zimbabwe and its people will continue to suffer until......

it's a brilliant question, one that involves political philosophy. but in so answering it, let me state that this blogger do so in light of the conditions prevailing in my own country, that what i might be prescribing here for zimbabwe under robert mugabe should be made applicable to other third world countries laboring under almost similar conditions.

theoretically, a nation should be able to chart its own destiny--or sort out its own mess--without outside interference. that is giving respect to the principle of "sovereignty" among independent nations.

BUT there's a caveat, however.

If a country's own government has turned into an "ogre" (read: fascist totalitarian, dictatorial, genocidal regime), then there's your basis for 'coming in,' that is to say, 'saving' an oppressed people from its own government, which has made its own country no longer a self-respecting member of interdepedent community of free, peaceful & democratic nations.

when to say that a govenment has turned fascist, dictatorial, genocidal, totalitarian--in short, undemocratic?

there's one, no, two hard-and-fast rules on this: when its people no longer are able to speak up freely, when doing so, for the critics, entails the risk of being "extra-judicially" killed or 'silently' if 'creatively' done in (as in a 'slow-mo' death via insecticide spraying by military/police scalawags, with permission from the government & its top guns in the military), then such government fails to satisfy the lincolnian concept of a democratic rule.

two, if via the democratic process of elections and the resort to democratic institutions a country's populace are unable to boot out of power their abusive government, then ,clearly, it's time to "save" such people from such a pestilential government.

but since those "saviors" (mostly mature democracies, such as 1st world countries, the likes of the u.s., britain. etc.) might be accused of being "holier-than-thou" (this is where the 'cast-the-first- stone','sovereignty' 'what-if-the-shoe-is-on-the-other-foot,' 'messianic complex' counter-arguments come in, as earlier forwarded in above-cited blogs)--then, the mode of intervention should be done in a political fashion that is totally acceptable to the community of nations.

this blogger suggests that the united nations should assume a pivotal, paramount role, with a fiat so strong that the message comes unequivocally clear to zimbabwe's strongman robert mugabe: you've been in power for 28 long years, & your people are sending you tell-tale signals that they want a clean break from the past, as well as from your choking rule, so cut & cut cleanly.

failing the diplomatic suasion, the u.n. can try a different tack: democratic elections, one that's absolutely free from the riggings that mugabe has, obviously, been able to impose on his people, by manipulating--making a mockery of--the recent presidential elections in his country.

there is a solid precedent in this. remember the former little indonesian province whose people, just a few years back, decided they wanted to break free from the control of the indonesian government, to be an independent nation itself?

didn't the united nations manage the elections of its first set of rulers or elected government officials? the u.n. effort there was absolutely beyond reproach, such that the results were accepted by all in the world of nations, & y the indonesian government itself.

now, pray tell me what this southeast asian country.

likewise, the u.n. can reprise such a role in zimbabwe--or, for that matter, even in other third world countries whose governments are accused by their peoples of being "illegitimate," "dictatorial," enganged in geneocide or "extra-judicial killings" and utterly corrupt.

that is the way to do it that doesn't grate on the sensibilities of peoples in the community of nations.*

See, the problem is, it's HIS country.
Like Iraq was Saddam Hussein's country.
And when the international community (whatever that might be) decides what is good for another country, we get war.

What if China decided that the American Way was simply corrupt and dangerous (which it is), and decided to "intervene"?

Can't Ignatius and co. follow an analogy to its conclusion?

Want another Iraq is Zimbabwe?

No problem. A few hundred A-bombs should take care of most of the population, then we . . . oh, I don't know what we do next. They don't have any oil, dammit.

Brilliant idea to push Mugabe out of power. Who exactly do these armchair warriors think is going to bell the cat?

Who will throw the first stone

This is now the problem. The nations who used to preach ethics , human rights, democracy have lost their credibility.

Once upon a time I was the stauch supporter for removing Saddam, thinking that if Saddam goes the world will turn to heaven.

The nations today should watch only. The democracy and true ethical values will ultimately creep up in the darkest part of the planet earth. Let nature takes its course.

Africa's Despots must sort out their own mess. It is counterproduct for anyone believing that they to belong to a better educated superior civilisation to intervene. Even South Africa is now going down the plughole.

MikeB,

Good sarcasm. Couldn't agree more.

There is nothing new about bad leaders/corrupt leaders/repressive systems on this planet. The US used it's treasure (people and money) to invade Iraq and Afghanistan citing security concerns and national interest. I sincerely doubt the same arguments can be made in this case that wouldn't be met with howling laughter. Economic and diplomatic sanctions would seem to be the appropriate route in this case. Anything else would just be a waste of resources.

MikeB,

One more idea. We could swap Bush for Mugabe. Nah, that wouldn't be fair to the people of Zimbabwe.

The current administration started with much anticipated promise. One issue was the food disaster that occurred due to the takeover of the many farms that provided an abundance of crops even enough for export. Now we have reports of shortages and starvation. Corruption and inflation have reduced this once proud and prosperous nation to status similar to other troubled ones on the continent. I can only hope the will of the voters can be fulfilled here. Intervention even to implement the correct election results would be difficult and cause additional conflict and would need to be carefully thought out before

People want other nations to interfere in the internal politics of another country? I'm shocked. If I were president I'd never do it since afterwards I'd be called imperialist and have people saying I lied and people died. You know irresponsible things like taht. Whatever happened to that international group that meets in New York? Can they take on any responsibiity to get Mugabe out?

Britain supposedly gave a democratic government to Zimbabwe when the country became independent, only to prove that one power cannot give freedom and democratic government to the people, in a top-down dispensation, but the people must create that government to protect the freedom that they have won. The pre-colonial conflict in Rhodesia before it became Zimbabawe was about racial privilege and discrimination. A white British minority, using all the high-minded laws of Britain, established itself as a ruling caste, just as Anglo-Irish Protestants did in Ireland during the 17th century. When the whites lost power to the black majority, a black elite assumed the existing economic and political structure of inequality which was decided on cronyism among the black majority. Indepenence therefore was never about democracy. It was about changing the color of the elite controlling the wealth, the political power, and social privileges inherent to the colonial structure that was passed along from the whites to the black ZANU-PF led by Robert Mugabe. Implicit in that transfer of power was the understanding that the transfer meant ownership, which is the antithesis of democracy. But the British and Americans, along with other frontline African countries and the United Nations, who ought to have known better, went along with the transfer of power. What ought to have happened is that the negotiations between Mugabe and Ian Smith's white political supporters ought to have involved the creation of political checks and balances, as in the United States. Instead, on independence, ZANU-PF received a political structure ripe for abuse and the denial of democratic process, the same system that had been created by the white British minority to deny democracy, freedom and power to the black majority. American, British and United Nations intervention to "give" freedom and democracy to the black majority meant only giving the elite in ZANU-PF absolute control of Zimbabwe's government. Few people ever considered that independence for Zimbabwe meant only changing absolute control of the political process from a white to a black minority. And now because the lessons of that mistake have not been learned, there are calls for intervention once again to give "democracy" and "freedom" to Mugabe's opponents, in the same way and for the same reasons that "democracy" and "freedom" were taken away from Ian Smith and "given" to Mugabe. So there is no reason then for Morgan Tsvangirai and his Movement for Democratic Change (which none of the commentators such as Gumede even names), which claims to have won the March 29 runoff election, not to repeat the same pattern, since they, like Mugabe and ZANU-PF, were "given" power through outside intervention, not through any internal outcome whether it was violent, peaceful or through negotiations. Zimbabwe needs to create a political process that has checks and balances so that no political party can defy the wishes of the majority of the people. But that goal will require trial and error kinds of learning within Zimbabwe of the people, for the people and by the people of Zimbabwe. Given people freedom and democracy is like trying tto give them something that they may want but that they need first to want to learn how to use it: things like wealth, honesty, fairness in politics, good manners, and political ethics. No one can claim to teach them those things. They must be discovered by each group of nations according to the specific cultural experiences that demonstrate their value. You can't give someone what must have value only if they discover it. No intervention in Zimbabwe because even the African neighboring countries are led by people who have likewise been "given" democracy by the same outside powers. And those neighboring African countries are hardly prospering beacons of democracy and fair play.

South Africa should be doubled over diplomatically to acknowledge the violation of human rights in the country next door. South Africa is the dictator's lifeline. It might also be helpful if the Washington Post puts the nearly two-week-old story on it's front page.

Per MikeB's proposal, I advocate sending in a joint UN force led by Jimmy Carter with Ted Kennedy heading up the convoy as lead driver. Maybe we can get B.O. to stand up and clearly annunciate his favorite call to arms: "PRESNT!!!!!" Hillary could go, but has that pesky sniper ducking allergy......

Oh, yes! Let's form an international force and invade the country. Afterall, that worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan. What a bunch of blithering idiots, morons, jerks, dweebs, twits, and incompetent fools this whole lot is for suggesting this lunacy. No people with anything like a survival instinct will tolerate any of these fools having any say in their future.

The U.S. and Britain should stay out of Zimbabwe's electoral mess. There is too much history of colonialism and American economic support of apartheid for those two nations to intervene without drawing attention away from the real problem, which is Mugabe himself. This is a situation that should be addressed by neighboring African leaders such as Mwanawasa and Mbeki and the AU, a time for them to stand for their espoused democratic beliefs; the U.S. and Britain should pledge to support whatever decision those leaders wish to make.

Sure they should, but it should not include the United States.
We have interfered with history too much as it is.
Look, sooner or later a people oppressed must rise up on their own.
They must stop looking towards big daddy USA to come in and be their courage.
That includes Afghanistan.
If Afghan men are willing to standby as some religious zealot beats his wife with a stick for showing her calves, then he deserves the taliban as a government.
If the opposition in Zimbabwe cannot figure out how to acquire weapons and courage to defend themselves against Mugabe and his "veterans" then they natural law just kicks in wether it is unjust or not.
The Noth Vietnemese did it. Algerians, many others have done it, who just plain WANTED it more.
If the people of Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Iraq, Darfur or any other people don't TRY and win for themselves their freedom, then we cannot.
The USA has just plain run out of rural, average grades, lower middle class kids to throw into any other meatgrinders.