Whilst we posture unabated regards Bush invading Iraq the madman of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe carries on with nary a word from the morale majority. Silence…

His latest plot to rape, pillage and plunder his country is to force, yes force retailers to discount their prices. This has only served to open the floodgates to ‘government lackey’ looters.

One shoe retail outlet in Harare, was issued with a new price list that meant they were required to discount their prices by in excess of 150 percent. They were stunned to see a massive crowd milling around their shop before opening. The crowd consisted of government relatives and cronies who obviously had been informed in advance about the raid, and they cleared the shop within hours.

Fuel stations and supermarkets have also been forced to cut their prices below what they have paid for the goods in the first place. Result - fuel stations have dried up the public transport system has ground to a halt, supermarkets are empty and owners cannot replace stock.

Petrol stations owners were forced to cut petrol and diesel prices from ZW$160,000 per litre to ZW$60,000 per litre. In case you are not aware the real value of ZW$160,000 is equal to US$653.248 on the open currency exchange.

Businesses are closing and people are starving. Only the big retail players remain open, stocking only petty products but thousands of people can not afford to buy their goods anyway. The government has promised to take-over all companies that fail to increase production or to cut their prices to the level set by this disgusting and despotic government.

Where are the leaders of the so called free word? Have you heard them speaking out? Have you heard the civil libertarians speaking out? No you have not? They are all on their soapbox sprouting on and on about illegal immigrants, about why we should remain in Iraq etc, on and on about fighting terrorism. Why do they remain silent about the decimation of the Zimbabwean peoples? They are very selective in their outrage and this is truly shameful.

Whilst we standby and say nothing these poor people are dying...as I have stated shameful..



`````````````````````````
title spelling edit

[edit on 21/7/07 by masqua]

It is a disgrace, really, and well done for highlighting this often-ignored crisis. Tony Blair didn't seem to do much more than give a few harsh words before deciding he would rather be following the directives of an industrial/military/oil cartel than taking on Mugabe.

Now, perhaps if there was OIL there, then half the US military would now be parked in downtown Harare...

Good post, LOL

Agreed, its a total disgrace the UN and the world at large has done virtually nothing to try and right what has been going on in Zimbabwe...What is worse in my mind tho, is the complete lack of action by the Commonwealth, particularly Britain and Australia

It makes me sick to see Howard and Downer bending over backwards to help the US with whatever pet military project is has at the time, yet Australia which sees itself as a real leader in the Commonwealth has stood by and watched this happen

Appalling

[edit on 21-7-2007 by Rilence]

You have hit the mark with your post Lady of the Lake.

Our Governments make much of their words condeming Mugabe but as you point out, do little. I have heard the comment that Zimbabwe is an independent country, and we should not interfere.

I guess the real reason why we have do nothing, no resources we have to protect.

If Zimbabwe had huge reserves of oil, you can guess our governments would have sorted things out.

There is no oil in Zimbabwe.

I flagged this because I also think its damned hypocritical that no ones done anything.

The "leaders of the free world" are openly engaged in some farcical military sham in Iraq for oil, after opening up a pandora's box of their own making and yet this whole Zimbabwe thing is just left to simmer.

Sooner or later a few dozen British or CIA funded mercenaries are going to show up and work with the opposition to get rid of Mugabe, its only inevitable and IMO its for the better. Actually, I would be surprised if they havent already been attempts.

Dont forget that in order for an outside force to get to Zimbabwe they have to fly over a neighboring country and from what I understand many of them are quite supportive of Mugabe, especially the ANC in South Africa who hold very similar beliefs to Mugabe's crew. Its kinda hard for the SAS and other British forces to get to Zimbabwe if they dont have permission to fly over South Africa or another neighboring country.

[edit on 21-7-2007 by ChrisF231]

In all sincerity here, I am not trying to be rude, so please keep that in mind while reading my post.


The very title of your thread, as well as its premise, shows a glaring ignorance of international relations and politics. The "morality" you claim as the impetus of much international intervention is merely the publicly digestible excuse to convince the average citizen that action is warranted. Seldom are the real motivators used as the rallying cry for war. Intervention is only justified if it is in a nation's interest or self preservation. Iraq was deemed justifiable because of the location of the nation as well as its natural resources. The rationale was purely strategic and economic.

Which brings us to Zimbabwe. The country produces very little, has little natural resources besides coal and some small deposits of semi-precious metals, it has an 80%+ unemployment rate, and its inflation rate could reach 1,500,000% soon. The long and the short of it is that there's nothing there to exploit. It is a lot of trouble for no gain to the nation that intervenes. Plus, Zimbabwe is in no way strategically important to anyone but its immediate neighbors.

Bottom line- There is no "self interest" reason for a nation other than those that border it to intervene.

This is International Politics 101 people, not rocket science.




[edit on 21-7-2007 by Reality Hurts]

My lady...

Well done to post this. Yes it is hypocritical of many gov't. to not do anything about Madman Mugabe, be it the UN or an alliance of nations.

However, if nations had teamed up to remove Mugabe, a chorus of voices would have been heard screaming about ulterior motives...strategic metals or whatever Zimbabwe has to offer the world should its travails ever cease.

Originally posted by ChrisF231
Dont forget that in order for an outside force to get to Zimbabwe they have to fly over a neighboring country and from what I understand many of them are quite supportive of Mugabe, especially the ANC in South Africa who hold very similar beliefs to Mugabe's crew. Its kinda hard for the SAS and other British forces to get to Zimbabwe if they dont have permission to fly over South Africa or another neighboring country.
[edit on 21-7-2007 by ChrisF231]

Thabo Mbeki had spoken out many times against Robert Mugabe. While the South Africa and the ANC are doing nothing to stop Mugabe, they are most certainly not supporting him!! The ANC hold similar beliefs to Mugabe's crew? and what beliefs; pray tell; are those?

Mugabe was of the opinion that the country belonged only to 'his' people which excluded all whites and some other African groups. Land was seized from these groups and put under government control. This was years ago. He has since gone much further with price cuts etc. It is no longer about 'his' people. It's about him and the few high ups that cling to his tails that are responsible for the heartache in Zimbabwe.

There are in fact huge reserves of minerals in Zimbabwe, they are however found in 'protected' regions of the country and are not publicly known.
Mugabe is aware of this but doesn't have the resources to get at the minerals, he is also keeping very tight lipped about it.

Lots of gold, silver, platinum and uranium.

I made a thread a while back on this.

Bloggers in Zimbabwe, even Church ministers have called on the British to invade its former colony and remove Mugabe.

The UK did consider sending peace keepers at one point, after we went into Sierra Leone and Sudan, but i think we didn't get the international backing to do so.

Something should be done. The EU should send troops asap.

I disagree with American troops going in though, it should be European forces, but the US political power can help to silence Russia and China. The two who are stopping us going in.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
In all sincerity here, I am not trying to be rude, so please keep that in mind while reading my post.


The very title of your thread, as well as its premise, shows a glaring ignorance of international relations and politics. The "morality" you claim as the impetus of much international intervention is merely the publicly digestible excuse to convince the average citizen that action is warranted. Seldom are the real motivators used as the rallying cry for war. Intervention is only justified if it is in a nation's interest or self preservation. Iraq was deemed justifiable because of the location of the nation as well as its natural resources. The rationale was purely strategic and economic.

Which brings us to Zimbabwe. The country produces very little, has little natural resources besides coal and some small deposits of semi-precious metals, it has an 80%+ unemployment rate, and its inflation rate could reach 1,500,000% soon. The long and the short of it is that there's nothing there to exploit. It is a lot of trouble for no gain to the nation that intervenes. Plus, Zimbabwe is in no way strategically important to anyone but its immediate neighbors.

Bottom line- There is no "self interest" reason for a nation other than those that border it to intervene.

This is International Politics 101 people, not rocket science.

[edit on 21-7-2007 by Reality Hurts]

That's what the rest of us are saying: that the 'free world' is hypocritical, because we go to Iraq to free the country from their dictator but we don't go to Zimbabwe.

International Politics are based on hypocrisy.

The only problem ism everyone (diplomats, peace keepers, etc) who gets sent there... are sent back. The UK have tried, the UN have tried, the US have tried... who's next?

South Africa is "trying"... but nothing is happening. Only silent diplomacy is taking place. South Africa is loaning money to Zimbabwe... but its not used to improve anything there (except Mugabe's house and security). The one political party who is trying (or tried) to start a revolution there... ended up in jail and was "forced" to stop.

If anyone in US want an example of a police state... look at Zimbabwe.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
Bottom line- There is no "self interest" reason for a nation other than those that border it to intervene.This is International Politics 101 people, not rocket science.[edit on 21-7-2007 by Reality Hurts]

Very true and what does that say about morality? That we give little thought or regard for the people it is all about - what is in for me!!

That is what is shameful. We can not truly claim to be civilised whilst we act as we do.

Very shortly millions of people will die because food is running out. Mugabe has raped, pillaged and plundered the land for years. The farmers who were capable of growing crops to sustain the population have been murdered or expelled and now the farms are in ruin.

Mugabe is now moving on business and mines. The truly shameful act is that the UK in particular and other western nations and corporations have been funding this murderer for years for self-gain.

We hear this story over and over gain.

Originally posted by masterp
That's what the rest of us are saying: that the 'free world' is hypocritical, because we go to Iraq to free the country from their dictator but we don't go to Zimbabwe.

International Politics are based on hypocrisy.

Noooooooooooooo..... International Politics are based on self interest and self preservation.

The US didn't "go to Iraq to free the country from their dictator". The US took action in Iraq for strategic and economic reasons. "Freeing the country" is the more publicly digestible reason for people who need to believe in a higher purpose.

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
Very true and what does that say about morality? ...[snip]... That is what is shameful.

There is no morality in politics. Less so in international politics, too much is at stake...i.e. the security, welfare, and well being of the state and its citizens.

Listen, you seem to be bright and I'm not trying to be hostile in my posts, but do yourself a favor and take a few courses on the topic. If you think that nation's foreign policy is, or should be expected to be, centered around morality, you need to dispel some naiveté. Especially since one man's morality is another man's belly laugh.

Look at GWB...do you want him determining the US's morality? How about Putin? Should he impose his morality upon his nation's foreign policy? What about Robert Mugabe? He imposed his morality upon Zimbabwe, and look how well that worked out.

This is not to say that the world cannot be a kinder and gentler place, but to have a foreign policy structured around "morality" is simply not realistic.

Listen, you seem to be bright and I'm not trying to be hostile in my posts, but do yourself a favor and take a few courses on the topic. If you think that nation's foreign policy is, or should be expected to be, centered around morality, you need to dispel some naiveté. Especially since one man's morality is another man's belly laugh.

Well thank you for your condescending comments with regards to my intellect and (in your view) obvious lack of knowledge with regards to foreign policy.

That said I do agree that foreign policy is about self-interest but that is what is wrong and that is what I am challenging here. Self-interest throughout history has done little to progress mankind on mass. If it had we wouldn’t have the conflict that we find ourselves embroiled in, in so many places. In the context or morality we are talking about acting and behaving with decency and honour and no we wouldn’t want people like Putin inflicting their so called moral code on the world (back to the decency and honourable comment). Those who chose not to act with decency and honour know they are not doing that and we are all only too aware of the results of this aren’t we.

I am not suggesting GWB goes in all guns blazing (God forbid) but he could be more vocal in his condemnation of what is happening in so many places Zimbabwe being top of my mind at present. Not just George W either so many other leaders including Church leaders. They are silent and by their silence they are condoning what is happening.




[edit on 22/7/2007 by Lady of the Lake]

None of our business. All we can do by sending in troops is make it worse; Iraq was a mistake, so is this. Interventionism is a waste of time, money, morality, and, most importantly, lives.

Americans shouldn't have to die because some politician thinks that it's our place to protect Zimbabwe.

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
That said I do agree that foreign policy is about self-interest but that is what is wrong and that is what I am challenging here. Self-interest throughout history has done little to progress mankind on mass.

So you just stated that, and I'm paraphrasing here, "foreign policy based on a nation's self-interest and security is wrong" and that "it has done little to progress mankind". You seem to dislike the idea of nations action in their own self interest, so what is left? Taking actions that aren't in their interest? What exactly are you espousing here?

Foreign policy is a set of goals that seeks to outline how that particular country will interact with other countries of the world. Its not about "progressing mankind". Foreign policy is similar to 1 on 1 personal interaction or a 1 on 3 group interaction, but on a grand scale. You shouldn't expect that any interaction with your neighbor is going to better mankind, nor should you expect it from foreign policy.

You need to have a better understanding of the subject, as you aren't getting your arms around what it is, what it does, and what can be expected. You're not even comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing apples to grandfather clocks.




[edit on 22-7-2007 by Reality Hurts]