Mugabe 'gives Zanu-PF key posts'

Mugabe 'gives Zanu-PF key posts'

news.bbc.co.uk

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has begun allocating key ministries to his own party in defiance of a power-sharing deal, reports say.

The opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) said it was a contemptuous move which it would not accept.

The MDC had signed the power-sharing agreement with Mr Mugabe's Zanu-PF party on 15 September.

On Thursday, it was announced that Zimbabwe's annual inflation rate had soared to 231,000,000%.

But Mr Mugabe blames Western sanctions...

(visit the link for the full news article)

Is this perhaps taking advantage of turmoil in the rest of the world? After all the killing in the streets, after the endless negotiations that finally brought a sane settlement to the political uncertainty, Magabe goes and spits in the face of the people he agreed to share power with - and in the collective face of Zimbabwe's citizens.

Does this guy WANT civil war, you have to ask?



news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)









[edit on 11/10/08 by pause4thought]

reply to post by pause4thought


Mad Bob is nothing more than an old school typical African dictator who, along with his cronies, does not want to lose their grip on power. They are also (rightly) terrified that they will be prosecuted for certain crimes against humanity ... in particular the massacre of over 20,000 people in Matabeleland by his infamous North Korean-trained Fifth (Red)Brigade in the 80's.
Zimbabwe Fifth Brigade

The current world turmoil will indeed aid Mugabe, but he has always taken particular delight in ignoring world opinion and pressure.

The REAL question, with inflation rate running at over 200 million percent, is why the population has not risen up sooner (as in years ago).
The popular answer is that the Army handles any insurrection with a very ruthless iron fist - and I think in addition to this, the population has been thoroughly brain-washed into thinking they will become a colony of the Great Britain again if Mugabe had to retire from the Dictatorial profession.

Originally posted by deltaalphanovember
and I think in addition to this, the population has been thoroughly brain-washed into thinking they will become a colony of the Great Britain again if Mugabe had to retire from the Dictatorial profession.

I've often mused on this and think this is very strange. I understand that many post-colonial places rejoice over the fact that they're not under under British rule. Half the posts on this board appear to have a subtext based on this!

However, when it comes to Zimbabwe specifically, and over the last few years, it seems a strange stance to take. I really do appreciate the idea of freedom and independence being a precious thing, but the Zimbabwe people are actually less free under this idiot than they'd ever be under British rule, particularly if it was a new British rule, rather than a continuation of the previous ruling.

Whilst I personally believe the 'war for oil' theory, I thought it was shocking that the likes of the UK and USA could go to Iraq under the supposed aim of ousting a dictator when this is happening to Zimbabwe. I know South African politics are 'complex' to put it politely, but isn't the politics of the Middle East? It didn't stop anyone lumbering in there did it?

The old bastard won't live for ever, but unfortunately, his death won't solve anything. I can see the space left in his wake just creating an even worse regime.

This reminded me of that John Cleese letter of unindependence.

To the citizens of the Zimbabwe, in the light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today.

On a serious note, did they really expect Mugabe to follow the rules, when there nothing in it for him?

reply to post by BBTBE


I suppose you are talking about 'trying to appease a dictator', with all its historical overtones?

A sobering thought.

Merriman, you have to understand the level of hatred that many africans feel towards Great Britain. Remember, in Africa, ownership of land is paramount. It is the measure of your wealth.
Why do you think the land-grab from the farmers was so successful, despite the implications (ie. no more food). Once the landless had a piece of land they were satisfied, had a measure of "wealth", and resorted to subsistence farming on some of the richest agricultural land in Africa.

Thus, ownership of Zimbabwe by Great Britain or any other country is tantamount to being a slave - just without the chains. This is extremely important to remember.
Consider also that countries like Nambia and South Africa are actively pursuing a similar(although less speedy) land grab of land from existing farmers.

In SA, farmers are being compensated at "market prices" for their land that has been earmarked for redistribution BUT they may NOT refuse to sell.

In Namibia, a delegation of Zimbabwean land redistribution "experts" was invited to advise the Namibian government on their own process.

To me, all of this adds up to slow mass starvation of the southern africa populace.

I feel I need to add a few links to support my statements above, so here is some bedtime reading:
Zimbabwe Land Grab - excellent article

about Namibia Land Grab:
Namibian land seizures very soon

and last but definitely not least South Africa:

In August, the government shelved a controversial land bill, which would have given authorities wider powers to seize white-owned farms, after civic and farmers' groups branded it unconstitutional and a threat to farm investment.

www.reuters.com...

Originally posted by deltaalphanovember
Merriman, you have to understand the level of hatred that many africans feel towards Great Britain. Remember, in Africa, ownership of land is paramount. It is the measure of your wealth.

Whilst I can't empathise or truly understand it - purely because I'm not African - I can at least appreciate what you're saying. But as I said earlier and, as the rest of your post illustrates, what they're experiencing isn't freedom or wealth, despite having land as a "measure of wealth". They're actually more enslaved under Mugabe than they'd be under a new British (or any other) rule.

To me, all of this adds up to slow mass starvation of the southern africa populace.

I've also wondered whether, for some reason, this is what the rest of the world, or some of it at least, actually expects to happen. I wouldn't be surprised to see a different type of land-grab in the next 20 years. Something very easy to achieve with a country on its knees.

[edit on 11-10-2008 by Merriman Weir]

Merriman

I've also wondered whether, for some reason, this is what the rest of the world, or some of it at least, actually expects to happen. I wouldn't be surprised to see a different type of land-grab in the next 20 years. Something very easy to achieve with a country on its knees.

Ok I am being tongue-in-cheek here, but I as I read your reply, I jokingly wondered what with all the financial problems in US and UK, us Africans will soon be doing a land grab of your countries and making the US and UK our colonies! Fancy having Mugabe as a leader?

Seriously though, Africa is faring rather well in the current global storm. Our secret? Limited foreign investment due to poor government leading to less interdependencies and hence less of a fallout.

Again, most westerners will struggle to understand tribalism, and the effects of social status with having large herds of cows, goats, sheep, land etc.

For example, a custom that is still commonly observed, is lobola. This is where the groom pays the father of the bride a certain pre-agreed amount of cows (or sheep/goats). Even highly educated and wealthy Africans will observe this tradition. Westerners do not have a common ground, so understanding is harder.

You also fail to understand that most Africans prefer hardship under their own government than relative comfort under a Western government. I won't simplify it and call it pride. It is so much more than that, and I doubt I am even qualified to quantify it, being a White South African and have more in common with you than my black next door neighbour.

Measurement of Wealth:
I think you will agree that measurements differ from country to country, culture to culture.
Think about it. What makes a bushman (for example) a wealthy person would cause you to think you were living in abject poverty. You must never make the mistake of using your measurements of wealth against another culture.

Do you want to want to know why African countries have had so many despots and tyrants? It is simply because Africans respect and adore power in a leader. The more powerful a leader is perceived to be, the more his people will support him. Tribalism means having a leader, a strong leader, who is feared and respected.

What I do know, is that purely Western methods and solutions will never work. Mbeki was a flawed leader but he was partially correct when he said "African solutions for African problems".

i can go on and on with examples .. but it is Sat afternoon, I am at work and my fingers are tired. I hope I did not leave some of my examples/arguments/statements unclosed.