Zimbabwe Archbishop: UK should invade to depose Mugabe

Zimbabwe Archbishop: UK should invade to depose Mugabe

uk.news.yahoo.com

LONDON (Reuters) - A leading Zimbabwean cleric believes Britain would be justified in invading its former colony in order to rid it of President Robert Mugabe.

Pius Ncube, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Bulawayo, told the Sunday Times the deepening destitution in his country, including millions going hungry and the world's highest inflation rate meant Britain would be right to act.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 2-7-2007 by UM_Gazz]

The phrase "between a rock and a hard place" leaps to mind.

Such an intervention is now extremely politically difficult because of Iraq, which has caused a great deal of resentment in the general public when it comes to interventions (although I think this would be more like Kosovo or Sierra Leone than Iraq or Afghanistan).

Should the UK even consider this? Does it have a duty to get rid of Mugabe, considering that Britain played a major role in his rise to power and that Zimbabwe was controlled by Britain?

I think what's clear is that, to lessen some of the political difficulties, it has to be UK-led (not US-led), a coalition, and involve Commonwealth nations (preferably one such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India etc). South Africa is digging its heels, but other Commonwealth nations have expressed grave concern over Mugabe's regime (e.g. Australian PM John Howard) so support from the Commonwealth could probably be achieved.

Obviously there has to be involvement from the US and Europe too, and again this would not be too difficult to achieve - the US has spoken out against Mugabe in the past and the EU has banned him and his associates from stepping on European soil. The African Union should also be involved as much as possible.

The UK alone probably couldn't do this right now given its commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq. But it could do so as part of a multinational force with backing from other nations. The big question is a moral one, then: Do we have any right to do this? Should we leave Africa alone and risk the famines, droughts and pandemics getting worse or do we have a moral right to intervene?

It's a tough one.

uk.news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I wrote an old post on ATS in where i said the UK should invade Zimbabwe

we have the morale right to do so, we gave them freedom and Britain should ensure their freedom.

But of course, it won't happen.

I agree... you've got to be pretty desperate to call for your own country to be invaded.

But, as you said, the government is unlikely to do anything since it was very badly stung over Iraq.

Who'd be a politician eh? Damned if you & damned if you don't.

It's hard to imagine that too many people would kick up that much of a fuss if there was an invasion to promote regime change in Zimbabwe but there are a lot of steps to be gone through yet before any military action. It's just a great pity that stronger diplomatic efforts have not been implemented already such as exclusion from international bodies and severe trade sanctions, no one can even agree on any sporting sanctions yet.

There would also be huge sensitivity about the UK, as the former colonial power, going in with guns blazing. I strongly believe that it is time for Africa in general and South Africa in particular to stand up and be counted in this matter and, if necessary, impose a change in Zimbabwe. For the UK to lead such an effort without major African nations fully involved would be inconceivable.

[edit on 2-7-2007 by timeless test]

Well lets put it this way for my view, If I were there minister for defence for the UK, Mugabe would have been dead for about six years already.

It's disgraceful that we haven't got rid of him, and frankly I would think we do spend enough on the military if we used it for something useful, such as getting rid of Mugabe.

Unfortunately he isn't in Bush's "axis of evil" and so they can't be bothered.

I finally get it ... The world is a breeding ground for unsound and unthical behaviour every so often ; A country gets so outta control a certain militia group can start up ... within this country and expose its ... downfalls .... I just hope that this does not happen within the U.S. ...

Why do I see the U.S. getting attacked and all the sudden the good people are the bad people and the bad people the good ??

Once this happens people will have to AID the U.S. .... Now which side are they going to "AID" ?

Does anyone know of a country that would help the U.S. if there was a chance that they could anihilate the country just as east ?

I think that there is to much animosity and Jealousy towards the U.S. somewhat the same thing with China ... But more in a Technological sense.

What has that got to do with the topic of this thread, Deus_Brandon?

We don't have the troops!!! they are to busy fighting the pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But if there was one country that was within our responsabilities it would be Zimbabwae as a former colonial possesion. But right now it can only be down to the Zimbabwaein people perhaps with the backing of British Intelligence, although this is probabley pretty low down their priorites right now.

If we invaded Zimbabwe, it would kind of give Mugabe what he wants. Zimbabwe has a big racial problem between whites and blacks, if the UK were to go there it would look to them like "the whites are attacking us". It's a hard situation to rectify because there is a fine line between the races of people in that region and if either side crosses it there will be a bloodbath. It's just a shame that people in South Africa & Zimbabwe have such a racial hatred to one another, due to the misuses of power in the past.

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
We don't have the troops!!! they are to busy fighting the pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm thinking one F117 or similar with a well placed bunker buster bomb on Mugabe and the heads of power in that country, piloted by a black person to prevent, as estar puts it, the problem of "the whites are attacking us".

BTW I personally can't understand where such colour based hatred come from, even why someone thought up that they should be enslaved.

Originally posted by estar
If we invaded Zimbabwe, it would kind of give Mugabe what he wants.

Hence the need for a body of support from other areas of Africa, the Commonwealth, the EU and the United States.

But I agree with your underlying message: if action is to be taken, previous mistakes (such as those over Iraq) must be learnt and a definite multilateral dimension to any action is required.

I read this and my first thoughts were "yeah right" and "with what".

Despite what many people think the UK couldn't do this. Even with the troops we have in Iraq redeployed.

We do not have the assault capabilites to soley invade a huge country like Zimbabwe. We don't have the manpower either.

Our forces are designed to fight as part of NATO actions, or at least with 2/3 of our close allies, not on their own in such a manner.

Indeed.

As much as I would support it, we would be talking the entire military, plus reserves.

Such an undertaking, evenm with popular support within zimbabwe itself, is too risky an adventure.

Originally posted by neformore
Our forces are designed to fight as part of NATO actions, or at least with 2/3 of our close allies, not on their own in such a manner.

Hence the requirement of Commonwealth, African Union, US and EU forces too - a genuine multinational operation on which many people feel strongly. For moral, political and military backing as well as sharing the responsibility for rebuilding Zimbabwe post-invasion (since the country is going to require years of care and attention after the shambles Mugabe has made).