jillybean Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 Every time I read the news the situation is in Zimbabwe has worsened. The world stands by watching as these atrocities continue, feel uncomfortable by what you hear, turn the page, change the channel and forget. I have a more personal connection to the country having spent some time there in 1998 and I'm shocked at the lack of world response. Why is it that people take more interest and can be more outspoken over a person who cuts the head off a dog? This act was obviously brutal and repulsive but think these people in Zimbabwe are no more able to protect themselves than this dog. Why is Mugabe allowed to continue his brutal regime? http://thebeardedman.blogspot.com/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 There is no oil there? (Or other strategic interest...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sceptic Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 Spot on Al maybe there is no oil in Ethiopia also, that may just be a small coincidence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 This is another one of those complicated issues where there aren't any simple solutions. 1. Mugabe is a dreadful tyrant. I don't think that anything he did in the past can possible excuse his autocratic behaviour. His policies were questionable when he initially took power. They've been getting progressively worse over time. Over the past five years or so, they have gotten down right scary. Even so, Mugabe is still very popular with certain segements of the population in Africa. 2. The European colonial legacy in Rhodesia and South Africa has to been taken into account. Zimbabwe was a white dominated colony until the late 1970s. (For what its worth, I think that the country was administered much better during this time). However, the colonial history makes it extremely difficult for Europe and North America to intervene. It will look like a return to colonialism. These two forces combine to really limit anyone's ability to intervene. In all seriousness.... What do you think should be done? I'm not sure what kind of policies would prove effective. Compounding this, no one really gives a damn. (Certianly not to the point where anyone is willing to donate much money) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 Spot on Al maybe there is no oil in Ethiopia also, that may just be a small coincidence Did I neglect to include "revenge" in strategic interest? Blackhawk down, anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 The world is waiting to see if at the height of the hyperinflation they can simply buy the entire country for $24 worth of beads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jikl Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 The only thing Australia has done is help get them kicked out of the Commonwealth. The Australian government is trying to force the cricket team not to tour there, which is interesting as an aside because if the cricket board can't prove it is a security risk they get fined $2mil for not going. Sean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted March 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2007 I don’t have an answer. The US, EU could apply more pressure with sanctions, South Africa could take some action. Peacekeepers, monitors – I don’t know what can be done. How long can we stand by and watch Rwanda, Sudan, Zimbabwe… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the saint Posted March 25, 2007 Report Share Posted March 25, 2007 As usual with all the genuine humanitarian cases of this kind, despite this being its Raison d'Etre, the UN does absolutely nothing but wave its arms. Simply because someone always has an agenda to keep the status quo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 25, 2007 Report Share Posted March 25, 2007 Sanctions is the worst possible way to deal with this issue. It will hurt already poor people and prove true Mugabe's thesis that the West is evil. Financial support to local humanitarian organizations not controled by Mugabe is generally better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 25, 2007 Report Share Posted March 25, 2007 Seems like the whole civil war discussion thread again. Which civil wars should we get involved in and what can we do and who sends young boys and girls into the middle of a civil war to die for others? The argument seems to come down to Genocide ok in one country and not in another and what is in one country's national interest or not. Tough questions to answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 25, 2007 Report Share Posted March 25, 2007 There's no civil war in Zimbabwe so far. Within one or two years, Mugabe will have lost control over his own party and/or the military and/or the police. No idea what will happen then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.