Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Bush administration has justifiably criticized the Zimbabwean regime of liberator-turned-dictator Robert Mugabe. It has joined a unanimous UN Security Council resolution condemning the campaign of violence unleashed upon pro-democracy activists and calling for increased diplomatic sanctions in the face of yet another sham election. In addition, both the House and the Senate have passed strongly worded resolutions of solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe in support of their struggle for freedom and democracy.
However, neither the Republican administration nor the Democratic-controlled Congress is sincerely concerned about human rights and democratic elections as a matter of principle. Rather, they are more likely acting out of political expediency. Despite claims of support for the advancement of democracy, the United States continues to support other African dictatorships that are as bad as or even worse than that of Zimbabwe.
Indeed, the United States currently provides economic aid and security assistance to such repressive African regimes as Swaziland, Congo, Cameroun, Togo, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Rwanda, Gabon, Egypt, and Tunisia. None of these countries holds free elections, and all have severely suppressed their political opposition.
The Worst Abuser
Among the worst of these African tyrannies has been the regime of Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea. Obiang has been in power even longer than the 28-year reign of Mugabe and, according to a recent article in the British newspaper The Independent, makes the Zimbabwean dictator "seem stable and benign" by comparison. Obiang originally seized power in a 1979 coup by murdering his uncle, who had ruled the country since its independence from Spain in 1968. Under his rule, Equatorial Guinea nominally allowed the existence of opposition parties as a condition of receiving foreign aid in the early 1990s. But the four leading candidates withdrew from the last presidential election in December 2002 in protest of irregularities in the voting process and violence against their supporters. In that election, Obiang officially received more than 97% of the vote (down from 99.5% in the previous election.)
Though the U.S. State Department acknowledged that the election was "marred by extensive fraud and intimidation," the Congress and the administration devoted none of the vehement condemnation that was so evident after the recent, similarly marred election process in Zimbabwe.
One major reason for the difference in response is oil. The development of vast oil reserves over the past decade has made Equatorial Guinea one of the wealthiest countries in Africa in terms of per capita gross domestic product. Virtually all of the oil revenues, however, goes to Obiang and his cronies. The dictator himself is worth an estimated $1 billion, making him the wealthiest leader in Africa; his real estate holdings include two mansions in Maryland just outside of Washington, DC. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the country's population lives on only a few dollars a day, and nearly half of all children under five are malnourished. The country's major towns and cities lack basic sanitation and potable water while conditions in the countryside are even worse.
During his most recent visit to Washington in 2006, Obiang was warmly received by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who praised the dictator as "a good friend" of the United States. Not once during their joint appearance did she mention the words "human rights" or "democracy." At the same press conference, Obiang praised his regime's "extremely good relations with the United States" and his expectation that "this relationship will continue to grow in friendship and cooperation." None of the assembled reporters raised any questions about the regime's notorious human rights record or its lack of democracy, instead using the opportunity to ask Secretary Rice questions about the alleged threat from Iran.
In 2002, the dictator met with President George W. Bush in New York to discuss military and energy security issues. He followed up in 2004 with meetings with then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham.
Cozy Relations
Equatorial Guinea receives U.S. government funding and training through the International Military Education and Training Program (IMET). In addition, the private U.S. firm Military Professional Resources Incorporated - founded by former senior Pentagon officials who cite the regime's friendliness to U.S. strategic and economic interests - plays a key role in the country's internal security apparatus. Furthermore, as a result of Obiang's understandable lack of trust in his own people, soldiers from Morocco - one of America's closest African allies - have served for decades in a number of important security functions, including the role of presidential guards.
Maintaining close ties with such a notorious ruler has led even conservative Republicans like Frank Ruddy, who served as President Ronald Reagan's ambassador to Equatorial Guinea in the mid-1980s, to denounce the Bush administration for being "big cheerleaders for the government - and it's an awful government."
Though the Chinese have also recently begun investing in the country's oil sector, U.S. companies ExxonMobil, Amerada Hess, Chevron/Texaco, and Marathon Oil have played the most significant role. A report by the International Monetary Fund notes that U.S. oil companies receive "by far the most generous tax and profit-sharing provisions in the region." Congressional hearings recently revealed how U.S. oil companies paid hundreds of millions of dollars destined to state treasuries directly into the dictator's private bank accounts. A Senate report faulted U.S. oil companies for making "substantial payments to, or entering into business ventures with," government officials and their family members.
The irony of the relative silence of Congress and the Bush administration regarding the human rights abuses and the undemocratic nature of Obiang's regime is that, due to the critical role of U.S. economic investment and security assistance, the United States has far more leverage on the government of Equatorial Guinea than it does on the government of Zimbabwe. As a result, Americans can feel self-righteous in their condemnation of a regime in Zimbabwe with which the United States has little leverage while continuing to support an even more repressive regime over which the United States could successfully exert pressure if it chose to do so.
This does not mean the United States should have waited until it first ends its support of Obiang and other African dictatorships before joining the rest of the international community in condemning the repression in Zimbabwe. However, as long as the United States maintains such blatant double-standards, U.S. credibility as a defender of human rights and free elections is seriously compromised and thereby plays right into the hands of autocrats and demagogues like Robert Mugabe.
Stephen Zunes is a senior analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus and a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco.
Copyright © 2008, Institute for Policy Studies
71 Comments so far
Show AllWales,
You can continue to make lame excuses until you are blue in the face. The fact is, it is never okay to shoot people over politics, steal elections, and starve your own children. Maybe someone else is stupid enough to buy what you are selling but not me.
Hey riddimboy,
Any time you start a conversation of thusly, you can expect it right back at ya.
"This … coming from a zionist asswipe is truly refreshing."
tambanow
"It is funny to me how when someone doesn't have a decent argument they resort to name calling! Wow - I am so NOT impressed."
My apologies to you. I simply respond in kind. There are a bunch of people on this board that expect you to follow their diktat. You attempt a more nuanced approach such as saying that all killing is bad, not just the bad guys (determined by the membership of the board) getting killed by the good guys (also determined...) and the opposite while not actually "rah-rahed" goes unremarked.
forextrader
"Why couldn't Britain honor their commitments and pay off the white farmers?"
Why indeed. I haven't heard a good reason for it. The land needed to be given to the people. But, Mugabe didn't distribute it fairly or to the peasants who knew how to farm it. He just handed it out to his supporters. The workers just exchanged a white overseer (who at least knew what he was doing) for a black overseer. Now they suffer from the worst of all worlds - Inefficient farms and unfair distribution of land.
Boy this discussion is really going to inspire newcomers to find out more and understand the situation.
kendpotter -- "Please feel free to go f__k yourself."
Hey asswipe .. i just took your advice .. feels great. Now take my advice and pull your head out of Cheneys ass. If you have nothing to contribute besides calling people offensive names (in other forums as well), you should just shut up and stay home and play with yourself or your mommy.
What is it that you want and what does Mugabe want? Give him some of what he wants and he will give you some of what you want. What does MDC want and what does ZANU PF want? MDC must give ZANU PF a little of what they want and ZANU PF will give them a little of what they want. Compromise: give and take. This is how it works between the Republicans and Democrats in USA and other working democracies in the world. Every dispute is decided in a court of law.
For you Kendpotter this is below you. You would rather dictate your way to other people. Call people names and label them into your dumb categories. If you don't get your way there is always the agents of corruption in Washington and London ready to pick up your cause. And once there are white people involved the perverted Western media, CNN, BBC etc, are ready to pick up your cause too. The Zimbabwe parliament, the judiciary and executive have no chance to decide anything as everything gets decided in Washington and London in court of public opinion.
Democracy and diplomacy are hard concepts for you Kendpotter caveman. Every problem becomes gigantic and an 84 year old man is like a monster of indescribable huge horrific powers.
You Kendpotter are a little dictator running around with a self righteous attitude.
What is it that you want and what does Mugabe want? Give him some of what he wants and he will give you some of what you want. What does MDC want and what does ZANU PF want? MDC must give ZANU PF a little of what they want and ZANU PF will give them a little of what they want. Compromise: give and take. This is how it works between the Republicans and Democrats in USA and other working democracies in the world. Every dispute is decided in a court of law.
For you Kendpotter this is below you. You would rather dictate your way to other people. Call people names and label them into your dumb categories. If you don't get your way there is always the agents of corruption in Washington and London ready to pick up your cause. And once there are white people involved the perverted Western media, CNN, BBC etc, are ready to pick up your cause too. The Zimbabwe parliament, the judiciary and executive have no chance to decide anything as everything gets decided in Washington and London in court of public opinion.
Democracy and diplomacy are hard concepts for you Kendpotter caveman. Every problem becomes gigantic and an 84 year old man is like a monster of indescribable huge horrific powers.
You Kendpotter are a little dictator running around with a self righteous attitude.
It is funny to me how when someone doesn't have a decent argument they resort to name calling! Wow - I am so NOT impressed.
A fair and decent discussion is when people can stay on topic and voice their opinion with actual facts to back it up - not sound bites and name calling.
Why couldn't Britain honor their commitments and pay off the white farmers? Britts and Americans love a train wreck instead. To kendpotter, if you want to respond, I welcome it, but kindly refrain from calling me any names especially obscene ones.
My apologies,
I was recently contacted off-line by an actual rectum. He complained about being compared to Robert Mugabe, so therefore, I tender my apologies to all you assholes out there. Comparing you to Mugabe (or vice versa) truly does you a disservice in that you actually perform a vital function for mankind and indeed all of the animal kingdom, whereas the world would obviously be better off without Mugabe.
Wales,
Tell the truth - You are one of the kleptocrats that has become rich, fucking his fellow Zimbabweans, aren't you? That is why you support Mugabe. You are probably living overseas someplace while you collect rents from peasant farmers working massive estates granted to you by Mugabe.
wales July 3rd, 2008 2:24 pm
Kendpotter,
"You miss the point pinhead."
I get the point perfectly, you just keep making up bullshit excuses. India is certainly a more diverse culture than Zimbabwe. Far more tribal groups, races, religions, more diverse in every way. Somehow democracy works there. But of course they were blessed with Ghandi and Nehru instead of being cursed with Mugabe and apologist assholes.
Separation of powers, what a laugh. It is certainly separate - at the length of an AK-47 barrel. Do as the President for life say or we will separate your head from the rest of your body. Or maybe we will roast you on a fire first while we reeducate some of your friends.
By the way, I think Bush sucks too. Don't think that his being an asshole in anyway makes Mugabe any less of a dickhead.
Kendpotter,
You miss the point pinhead.
Some of these countries will have no chance to develop as democracies because of:
1. outside influence which is readily accepted by the indigenous populations who don't know any better.
2. The US, Britain and their notorious western allies dictate this: If you don't vote what we want then it is not a free election.
3. The elected governments will not be recognized if they are not the West's choice. (Good examples Hamas and Zimbabwe)
4. Economic sanctions will be imposed until you learn to vote the right way that is picking the candidate that Washington and London wants.
Under these conditions any democracy will fail.
Other reasons why democracies in third world countries wont work: The West advocated jungle rules when it comes to the third world. One example: When there was a problem with the Florida Elections in 2000 US presidential elections the problem was solved through the court system with lawyers arguing their cases in public and it reached the Supreme Court. When the supreme court made the decision that was the end of that. When it comes to other countries US and its allies want to take any election dispute to the court of international public opinion. Nothing goes through the legal systems of those countries and if it does the judgment of those courts will not be accepted unless it agrees with the west.
They will also argue that the judges will favor Mugabe because he appointed them. The US supreme court judges are also appointed by the president of the US and that is why the supreme court of the US in 2000 judged in favor of George W Bush.
If the West implemented the same rules that they use in their own countries then maybe these countries would have a chance. Democracy must be made to work from the ground up. The courts must be allowed to work, outside influences must be stopped and people must be educated about the proper functions and processes of a democracy.
Who is corrupting democracies around the world if not the West and their allies? It is better that the West leave these countries alone to develop their own systems.
Now you accuse Mugabe of destroying the economy. That is all good. The last time I checked it is not illegal for a president to wreck the economy. George Bush is good at it. Look at the American debt. It is up to the Zimbabwe people to remove him. He is a 84 yr old man and he should not have all that power unless people support him. You spend your time in the court of international public opinion that you ignore what is important. It is not important to describe how bad Mugabe is, but how to emphasize and enforce separation of powers in the systems of government in Zimbabwe not international public opinion..
Wales,
One more thing for you, butthead.
When the British said, "These people can't possibly be allowed to rule themselves - They have no tradition of good government, the tribes will never get along, half the population is illiterate, it simply will never work. They need a firm guiding hand." That was of course racist bull-crap.
So why are you repeating all of their arguments?
wales
"Has anyone considered the fact that some countries are impossible to be governed as a democracy?"
The Communist Chinese certainly think you speak the truth. Personally I think you insult the intelligence and good will of Zimbabweans.
"Now the international communities are being lied to about Zimbabwe."
So it is not true that in the last 20 years their economy has fallen completely in the crapper, the currency is worthless (except as toilet paper), and that they transformed from being a food-exporting nation into a food-importing nation. Those are all lies concocted by ???
"They say Mugabe is the only problem."
Has anyone else been the iron-fisted dictator of Zimbabwe that last twenty years other than he? I must have missed it.
Destroying his countries economy has been his singular achievement. It is the outstanding accomplishment that really anchors his resume and application into the Egomaniacal Dictators Hall of Fame. While he has some ways to go before he can catch up with some of his more notorious colleagues, (That Idi Amin, what a character - Who else could have thought of using cannibalism as a terror method? I mean it so cliché but builds perfectly on Whitie's fears.) he is already guaranteed a spot in the outer hall. The inner sanctum of course is reserved for genocidal maniacs. To this day, no one has solved the conundrum of top killer - Mao or Pol Pot. Mao of course has the record for gross number but Pol Pot managed a far higher percentage of his population. Of course, in this regard, Mugabe is a rank amateur. He only kills dozens at a time instead of thousands or millions. He is really going to have to pick up the pace if he wants to move into the inner circle of all-time despots.
tambanow
"kendpotter - where the hell do you get your information?"
The New York Time, The Nation, Common Dreams, Al Jazeera (By the way today in Al Jazeera, Mbeki is apologizing for the ethnic violence South Africans have been inflicting on the masses of people fleeing the paradise of Mugabe's Zimbabwe), and many other sources.
How about you asshole?
riddimboy
"This … coming from a zionist asswipe is truly refreshing."
Please feel free to go fuck yourself.
Or better yet, take a vacation in the Mugabe created paradise of Zimbabwe. Take plenty of pictures and let us know how it was.
Has anyone considered the fact that some countries are impossible to be governed as a democracy? Look at Iraq. The opposition in Iraq were telling the Americans before the invasion that if Saddam was removed everything would be roses. Look at Iraq now. If the Americans leave it would be better off being run by a dictator like Saddam Husein. The same is with Afghanistan. The opposition to the Taliban were saying the same story. Now the international communities are being lied to about Zimbabwe. They say Mugabe is the only problem. If he is removed everything will be good. My belief is this that for every country that is run by a dictator rgere are a lot of little dictators. It is my way or the highway.
In Zimbabwe you have all these ethnic groups who do not see eye to eye. You have the whites who have no respect for blacks and would rather look at Europe to solve their problems than the Zimbabwean legal and political systems. There is the Ndebeles who don't trust the Shonas and the Shonas also who don't like the Ndebeles. There is the educated who can read but have no clue about the processes of democracy. You have the uneducated who are being manipulated and intimidated by both sides.. The legislature has no idea how it ought to work; compromising, reaching across the aisle, making deals and knowing how to function as a minority. As it stands now they want to dictate to each other and there is compromise.
Lets not be too quick to sell this democracy thing.
kendpotter - where the hell do you get your information? oh yeah - duh! The right-wing media! Sound bites! Why don't you back up the sound bites with some actual facts!
Kendpotter:
"The exercise of parlimentary power is often difficult when being reeducated, beaten, and shot."
Taking like this gets you beat up...
"It was MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai who said to Mugabe, "If you don't want to go peacefully, we will remove you violently." [1]
It was MDC faction leader Arthur Mutambara who said he was "going to remove Robert Mugabe, I promise you, with every tool at my disposal" and that "We're not going to rule out or in anything – the sky's the limit." [2]
It was secretary general of Tsvangirai's MDC faction, Tendai Biti, who warned of Kenya-style post electoral violence if Mugabe won. [3]
It was opposition principal Pius Ncube, then Archbishop of Bulawayo, who said he was "ready to lead the people, guns blazing," to oust the Mugabe government. [4]
It was the Zimbabwe Resistance Movement that promised to take up arms against the Zanu-PF government if "the poodles who run the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission," failed to declare Tsvangirai the victor of the presidential run-off election. [5]
In light of this, is it any surprise that Zanu-PF supporters are "outraged that the Security Council that never saw the need to convene and discuss Kenya when more than 2,000 people were hacked to death over two months, at times in front of Western cameras, saw it fit to meet and discuss Zimbabwe on the back of" claims by the opposition that it was being repressed by a campaign of violence? [6] "
http://gowans.wordpress.com/category/zimbabwe/
Those members of MDC have to grow up. You can be in parliament and debate your issues. Let the people know where you stand instead of always dishing out hate stuff about Mugabe. Let the people know what you stand for.
Parliament is the place to wage politically battles not the streets. MDC wants to protest on the streets 24/7 365 days a year without permits. That will only get you in trouble and sort of behavour is not even permitted in US or Europe.
Unlawful means to achieve a goal in Zimbabwe will not work.
""Here's what wrong with the MDC, according to the Zimbabwe section of the International Socialist Organization: "The increasing domination of the party leadership by capitalist and Western elites and the marginalization of workers and radicals…will lead to its likely pursuing a neoliberal capitalist agenda if it assumes power to the detriment of the working people.""
"That's when the folk like Stephen Zunes come out and start screaming the loudest about how bad the official enemies are..."
Once again, saffiyah is making things up.
If you look at the scores of articles Zunes has had posted on Common Dreams and on his website www.stephenzunes.org, you would find that virtually every one is focused on critiques of U.S. policies and U.S. allies, not "official enemies." In the minority of cases where he has written an article which includes a negative comment about policies of a government the U.S. government opposes, it has virtually always been in the context of noting the hypocrisy of U.S. policy (as in this article); U.S. government lies and gross exaggerations about the misdeeds of the "official enemy" in question; or, an assertion that U.S. policy is counter-productive in addressing areas in which there may indeed be some legitimate concerns. As in this article, such comments make up no more than a paragraph or two out of thousands of words.
Contrast this to the right-wing and mainstream media which is constantly harping on the real or alleged misdeeds of "official enemies" while defending U.S. imperialism.
So to claim that Zunes is "screaming the loudest about how bad the official enemies are" is a boldface lie.
"You tools, you fools. Just shut the hell up, your hypocrisy is nauseating."
This ... coming from a zionist asswipe is truly refreshing.
wales
"The MDC has majority in Parliament now, why don't they use this as a tool to advance their agenda."
The exercise of parlimentary power is often difficult when being reeducated, beaten, and shot.
Has anyone looked up the word dictator lately? People toss that word around like ya know what it means.
Dictator - a ruler who is unconstrained by law
authoritarian: a person who behaves in a tyrannical manner; a ruler with absolute power and authority, especially one who exercises it tyrannically; A ruler who is not restricted by a constitution, laws or any opposition.
Just a few definitions.
Mugabe doesn't seem to fall in this camp if you do your homework. I am not an apologist for Mugabe, but have done my homework and know where the problems lie.
Nelson Mandela described the Zimbabwean situation as a "tragic failure of leadership". He did not specifically say Mugabe. The failure of leadership in Zimbabwe is not Mugabe's fault alone but the opposition as well. Because of lack of leadership on the opposition they fail to assume power in Zimbabwe. Their political organization has failed to gain traction among African countries leadership. They are disorganized and their philosophy and policies substandard. As puppets of the west it also reflects on poor judgment and failure of leadership on the part of the Western countries.
The MDC has majority in Parliament now, why don't they use this as a tool to advance their agenda. Failure to use government institutions is also a failure of leadership. Why do we need talks to solve Zimbabwe problems when we have parliament. If the West understands leadership they should be coaching the MDC in how to be an effective legislative body. There is no way that the countries in the west will accept a person like Tsvangirai to be leader in their own countries whose party is supported by foreign governments.
Zimbabwe has always had strong leaders, from the Mhunumutapa Empire at Great Zimbabwe to Mzilikazi to Cecil John Rhodes, Ian Smith and now Mugabe. These men were no puppets and Zimbabwe will not allow it.
Zimbabwe is a "tragic failure of leadership" of everyone involved and that includes US, Britain, the Western world, Africa etc.
jclientelle
"US government is no way part of the solution. Let the foreign kleptocrats be. Let's get the log out of our own eye."
I agree, we must clean up our own act, but that doesn't mean we can't be part of the world community and keep these thugs at home to stew in their own juices and enjoy the fruits of their labors.
As for all of you Mugabe mouth-pieces (orifices) and apologists, you suck. You remind me of that asshole US Army Colonel quoted outside a hamlet in Vietnam, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."
"Yes, I Robert Mugabe, had to kill my people to save them from the evil interests of the Western Imperialists."
You tools, you fools. Just shut the hell up, your hypocrisy is nauseating.
tambanow and safiyyah,
grow up. what are you, the last salt lake city punks? geezus. Your neanderthal level of analysis (anti-american = good) to apologize for a Mugabe regime that has to massively and disingeniously violate its political opposition's human rights to stay in power could not be more ridiculous on a website like commondreams dedicated to international human rights and social democratic ideals.
Whatever the merits of Mugabe in the past, it does not justify the present travesty that he has perpetrated on the people of Zimbabwe or Mbeki's embrace of an afrocentric neoliberalism that argues for 'soft diplomacy' with Mugabe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/world/africa/17anc.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/world/africa/27mbeki.html
And don't give me some spam argument about how the new york times is an inferior source of information to the goofy websites you must be reading, i.e., one that tells you " thats when the folk like Stephen Zunes come out and start screaming the loudest about how bad the official enemies are" everytime what? people like Mugabe authorize the murder of their political opponents to disrupt a presidential vote? starve and torture their people to stay in power? blame the West and labor unions for where Zimbabwe is today? let me guess, the jews have something to do with it too. why exactly should americans give Mugabe or any other enemy of the working class the benefit of doubt?
Zunes clearly highlights the hypocrisy of US foreign policy: "Indeed, the United States currently provides economic aid and security assistance to such repressive African regimes as Swaziland, Congo, Cameroun, Togo, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Rwanda, Gabon, Egypt, and Tunisia. None of these countries holds free elections, and all have severely suppressed their political opposition.... Among the worst of these African tyrannies has been the regime of Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea."
But unlike you Zunes does not make the catastrophic leap of faith using a simplistic equation (anti-american = good) to justify someone (Mugabe) whose torture and rape of his own country is his and his alone repsonsibility. His regime of oppression cannot be justified, and Zunes is right to point out at the end, that "This does not mean the United States should have waited until it first ends its support of Obiang and other African dictatorships before joining the rest of the international community in condemning the repression in Zimbabwe..."
Safiyyah you mischaracterize Zunes when you say:
"That's when the folk like Stephen Zunes come out and start screaming the loudest about how bad the official enemies are, and that something just must be done immediately and not one second later."
He opposed the illegal Iraq war and, I am almost certain, the intervention in Serbia. I imagine that he would also not support sanctions that hurt the people of Zimbabwe.
We do well to criticize authoritarians abroad.
Sadaam Hussein was a real tyrant. I don't think the US helped the Iraqi people by deposing him however. But we don't empower the Imperialists by saying their enemies are bad if they are in fact bad. In fact, we empower the Imperialists when we become characatures of ourselves and give immunity to any tyrant who hates the US. It becomes easy for them to marginalize us when we stand for such atrocities and fail to stand for human rights everywhere.
For now, I say recognize what Mugabe has become but recognize also that the US government is no way part of the solution. Let the foreign kleptocrats be. Let's get the log out of our own eye.
Mugabe is an asshole. Sure he redistributed land - right into the hands of his own ruling class and military supporters - not to landless peasants. Yes, that is quite the accomplishment to turn the breadbasket of Africa into a starving nation. Not just any old jackass could have done it.
The only solution is to freeze the bank accounts of all senior ZANU buttheads/kleptocrats. Then invalidate their passports and make it impossible for them to travel abroad. Then they will be forced to live in the "paradise" they have created.
Leftk, there are no 'left-wing US apologists' for Mugabe with 'simplistic equations' out here for you to be getting so worried about. We all agree with you that Mugabe is no Mr. Nice.
It seems we go through this routine though with humanitarian interventionists, every single time the US and its imperialist allies decide to go to work on the people living under some Milosevic, Hussein, or Mugabe like regime that the powers to be in the US/ Britain want moved out of office. That's when the folk like Stephen Zunes come out and start screaming the loudest about how bad the official enemies are, and that something just must be done immediately and not one second later.
There is never any question as to why our heads are being turned by our government and its servile corporate media to hyper focus on the official enemy either? Just a mad rush to help demonize further the enemy in order to help move popular opinion in favor of some sort of aggressive economic/ military action that the Pentagon will ultimately direct with its ever expanding supporting cast of UN, EU, AU, NATO, Blackwater, iMF, WB, etc.
"How in the world can you and others feel so disproportionately righteous about Mugabe is beyond me but i guess the incessant media barrage can numb anyone's senses."
It's true I do think there are elements of truth in the MSM. I really do believe that Mugabe has crushed dissent and waged war on his own people. He has squashed labor movements and is a reactionary in spite of his anti-imperialsim.
I do agree with Zunes here. The US is hypocritical to denounce Mugabe while supporting other African dictators. I also agree with Zunes that this does not make Mugabe immune from criticism.
My outrage is less about Mugabe and more about his left-wing US apologists whose simplistic equation seems to be anti-american= good.
Zimbabwe is being attacked by the Globalist elite. Mugabe went ahead with land reforms to reverse ownership of whites who acquired land as a result of British colonial rule after Britain refused to honour their agreement. So they attacked the economy and tried to get a puppet installed in the elections.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/zimb_ambassador.html
"The ...... more important reason for the West's assault on Zimbabwe, is that the Zimbabwe government decided to take control of its land; of the land which remained the monopoly of a small racial monopoly from the days of British colonialism...... Yet, 19 years after independence, that land was still in the hands of British settlers. The colonial racial division of the land left the white farmers owning 65% of the best farmland of the country, while over 9 million blacks were crowded on small, infertile, sandy plots, or were made landless and jobless.
Moreover, Tony Blair's Labour government decided to abrogate the pledge, which the previous government had made before independence ...., that they would fund a resettlement program, a land reform in Zimbabwe. Tony Blair's government unilaterally announced, that they had stopped funding the land reform and resettlement program in Zimbabwe.
The Zimbabwe government, therefore, was left with no choice, but to announce its own plan of land reclamation, at an accelerated pace..... And by the end of December 2001, over 360,000 families had been resettled on new land.......
[So]They imposed informal sanctions on the country, including attempts to prevent oil deliveries reaching Zimbabwe. We had gasoline queues, and closures of some factories, leaving thousands of people unemployed. They withheld spare parts for our machinery and aircraft bought in Britain, including parts for incubators and respirators for newborn babies.
They called on .......Canada, the United States, Australia, and some European countries, to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe. As you know, the right wing in the United States jumped at the opportunity to punish an African country, whom they saw as being a "cheeky" one. They introduced the so-called Zimbabwe Democracy Bill, which was passed by Congress last year. ...
In particular, they keep trying to divide Africans, to get some Africans to break off from opposition to the line they are taking. They keep on blaming President Mbeki, for example, of South Africa, for refusing to be used against a friendly African government, which has impeccable pan-Africanist credentials.
Last week, President Mbeki.......... said that in Zimbabwe, the West's interest is clearly not about democracy, but about their wish to control the country.
Within Zimbabwe itself, Britain and its allies are trying to destabilize the elected Government of President Mugabe, in any way they can think of, in order to install a puppet government that will dance to their tune...... The British fear that their three-year-old Zimbabwean baby might fail to win the election; hence, they have decided to interfere directly in the elections themselves........What emerges here, is that the British have not abandoned their old ideas of imperial domination over their old colonies.......In all this, the public in the West is told, that their governments are intervening in the name of democracy. ........
We are members of a United Nations....[which] serves the interest of those powers first..... That is the system, which...condones aggression in the Democratic Republic of the Congo........, which intervenes to stop wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, but did nothing to stop genocide in Rwanda; and now, does little to end the ongoing atrocities and genocide in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The injustice of the international political order, rests on the injustice of the .....the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
In 1999, after our diplomatic quarrels with Britain had started, our annual application to the IMF was vetoed by Britain and the United States. The reason given, was that Zimbabwe—which had sent troops to the Democratic Republic of Congo—was too poor to involve itself in the war in the DRC; and therefore, they should be denied any further funds, so that they could not indulge in those kind of adventures.
Yet, at the same time—in fact, on the same day—Rwanda and Uganda had their applications approved by the IMF. These two countries also have troops in the DRC; they are the aggressors; and both countries are actually poorer than Zimbabwe. Yet, they received, and continue to receive, loans and grants from the Bretton Woods institutions, while Zimbabwe is quarantined. That is the effect of the big-power monopoly of these institutions."
Whats behind recent events?
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2008/2008_20-29/2008-27/index.html
"The British-controlled operatives are singling out members of the British-backed Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) for brutal attacks, including the mutilation of bodies, and then blaming the attacks on the ruling Zanu-PF party of President Robert Mugabe.
According to the Zimbabwe Sunday Times June 1, top opposition MDC officials have been "working in cahoots with some Rhodesian elements to set up underground structures that are behind the anti-immigrant attacks in South Africa and the terror campaign in Zimbabwe." The Times reports that, "Although the MDC has been claiming that its supporters have fallen victim to political violence, top party officials are allegedly recruiting young Zimbabweans in South Africa who are being deployed to cause terror in Zimbabwe." The Times said that people are being recruited from universities in South Africa, and others are Zimbabwe National Army deserters and former policemen.
Zimbabwean sources report that the modus operandi for these forces, in Zimbabwe, is to have their operatives dress up in the regalia of the ruling Zanu-PF, and go out to commit an atrocity. They then alert the press that an atrocity has taken place. The press arrives on the scene, hearing witnesses saying that the attack was carried out by Zanu people."
Of course, you can trust your credible MSM sources for whats really going on.
I can't help but notice that the US is 'bringing democracy' to all those nations (and not just Africa) that are RICH in natural resources. Thy hypocrisy stinks to high heaven!
Hi there LeftK
You say that China is behaving in a manner which you think is just as imperialist as the US, simply because China has sought to gain and exercise control over resources (primarily energy and minerals) in Africa.
I disagree; what China has done is NEGOTIATE with governments.
Sure, they might be negotiating with some nasty dudes: but as Rumsfeld might have said, you negotiate with the government you have, not the government you might like to have.
There have been no missles launched, no carrier battle groups dispatched, and no threats of invasion. {Because China's military-industrial establishment does not pocket the resource gains which would result - there is not the usual "croney's payoff at taxpayers' expense" that always results from Western invasions}.
That said, there are (as I understand) a few thousand Chinese troops in Sudan or thereabouts - the usual 'military advisors' that the US sprinkles across the globe to help shore up support for unpopular regimes with whom they deal. The Chinese have not sent in combat divisions.
Imperialism is not in play here - the Chinese have no desire whatsoever to play stupid military-invasion-to-acquire-resources games, because one thing Deng Xiaoping learned from his deep study of economics is that War is the MOST inefficient means of resource acquisition. Deng is long dead, but his political and economic ideology is alive and performing reasonably well.
For those who have studied it, you will know that Deng favoured economic liberalisation before political liberalisation - something that I would have thought impossible. The rising living standards that accompany a move towards free markets usually results in an increased desire for political liberalisation.
I have several friends who live and work in China (one of whom spent five years in Xian - not in Shenzen or Guangdong lke most round-eyes). Their 'intel' - from people on the ground with no governmental agenda to push - is that life in China is every bit as free as it is in France, England or the US.
Sure, the regime has a real bee in its bonnet about Falun Gong, and their behaviour towards Tibet is deplorable (but is no worse than the US's behaviour would be towards the Philippines, Guam, or Iraq if any of those protectorates tried to secede unilaterally... since Lincoln the only way to leave the Union is in a coffin).
I am also VERY chary of any story about foreign dictators - we all recall how Saddam supposedly had a big mincer into which he fed his enemies (and/or people who looked at him askance, and anybody with a squint, and anyone with red hair). A load of old toffee, in other words.
Nobody says that they guy was a nice fellow, but he was socially pluralistic (no pogroms against minorities, women gettin' educated, rising life expectancy and so on... until the US decided to impose a blockade).
Frankly Iraq seems to have been among the LEAST nasty Middle East places to live prior to 1991 (the reneging by the US on April Glaspie's permission to Hussein to invade Kuwait after Kuwait had refused to stop slant-drilling).
Imagine what life would have been like for a secular female Iraqi under Saddam, with oil at $140 a barrel...
In short, the only country in the world nowadays who is still stupid enough to believe that it is cheaper to acquire resources through armed conflict, is the United States. And part of that is because those who PROFIT from the exercise are the cronies of the political class; and those who pay the bills are the tax base.
Mugabe has done some dumb things (he has learned nothing from the history of the Weimar republic, in which currency debasement was used as a tool to try and kick-start an economy suffering from capital flight), and he has surrounded himself with some downright nasty people. But I have more respect for a tyrant who would shoot me in the head himself, than I have for some faux-liberty-peddling in-the-closet cokehead fratboy who has never gotten his hands dirty.
Cheerio
GT
France
leftk
"I think the Chinese are vicious authoritarian imperialists who are currently raping Africa like US/Britain have done for the past few hundred years."
I sort of agree. The Chinese are authoritarian to their own people but cannot be termed imperialist in regards to Africa. They havent invaded Africa (yet !!). They are definitely guilty of coddling corrupt African dictators like the West has been doing for centuries and sucking up African resources without really helping the African people (once again like the West has been doing for centuries).
I also strongly object to sanctions against any country for the most part. Invariably the only people who are affected by sanctions are the poor and the weak ... its a double whammy. I do however strongly support U.N. sanctions against the U.S.
If the only reason Mugabe is so strongly condemned is because of his perceived silencing of opposition and his supposed murder of hundreds of opposition party people, then Bush should be tried and hung as a war criminal. Bush's crimes are orders of magnitude larger than Mugabes. Bush and the silently approving or apathetic American people have murdered a million Iraqis and rendered 2-3 million Iraqis homeless and destitute ... i dont need to go on.
How in the world can you and others feel so disproportionately righteous about Mugabe is beyond me but i guess the incessant media barrage can numb anyone's senses.
By the way I did not see or hear similar condemnation all these years about Musharraf who is decidedly worse than Mugabe. Why is that ? You probably dont wanna hear the answer ...
All is forgiven Saffiyah.
My apologies to both of you, leftk and foxextrader, for getting your comments mixed up and incorrectly identifying who I meant to be replying to.
Well said, Nanlouise!
I don't think any responsible progressive could support sanctions against the people of Zimbabwe.
I think you're right that the audience for this article is pretty mainstream. Zunes really doesn't have illusions about the role of the US in the world. He supports the creation of an "anti-imperialist league" for heaven's sakes. Also if you look at his argument carefully, he is calling the US hypocritical, malevolent and in bed with some sinister folks.
Zunes is in some way saying that the US could be reformed to be a force of global democracy. That's certainly debateable and angers some on this website. To which I say fair enough.
Saffiyah has every right to criticize Professor Zunes or anyone else for what they actually say or actually believe, but he has no right to make things up.
For example, if you actually read the article, Zunes said nothing about economic sanctions or economic warfare against the Zimbabwean people, much less support the idea.
He did imply support for the idea of strengthening diplomatic sanctions, presumably meaning restricting the right of Mugabe and his cronies traveling abroad, reducing diplomatic missions, making it more difficult for government officials to stash the money they are stealing from the Zimbabwean people in overseas bank accounts, etc.
Also, I assume he understated the comments about the United States and democracy because he was writing this for somewhat more mainstream web sites like FPIF and the Huffington Post. If you read most of what he has written on the topic of the United States and human rights, you will find he has few illusions regarding the U.S. role in the world.
Saffiyah has every right to criticize Professor Zunes or anyone else for what they actually say or actually believe, but he has no right to make things up.
For example, if he had actually bothered to read the article before launching into a diatribe, he would have noticed that Professor Zunes said nothing about economic sanctions or economic warfare against the Zimbabwean people, much less support the idea.
He did imply support for the idea of strengthening diplomatic sanctions, presumably meaning putting greater restrictions on the rights of Mugabe and his cronies to travel abroad, reducing the size of diplomatic missions, making it more difficult for government officials to stash the money they've been stealing from the country into overseas bank accounts, and other means of pressuring government leaders without hurting the people.
Also, I assume Professor Zunes understated his comments about the United States and democracy deliberately because he was writing this article for somewhat more mainstream web sites like FPIF and the Huffington Post. If you read most of what he has written on the topic of the United States and human rights, you will find he has few illusions regarding the actual U.S. role in the world.
Safiyah, this is off topic, but I want to address your smart aleck comment about the Mexican elections. I am part Mexican and I denounced the Mexican elections as a sham. Obrador was the real winner. I was angered that America, Canada and the EU enabled that fraud. This is getting looney tunes. One poster accuses me of being a Mugabe apologist, then you come along and accuse me ogf being a Bush supporter. You CD readers can be pretty unreal. Wow I am Bush supporter and a Mugabe apologist. I never thought I would see the fucking day.
forextrader, I agree - The Mexican election was another one stolen.
Safiyyah, I think you are a Mugabe apologist. I think that is a decidedly un-progressive point of view. I think there are a lot of definitions of progressive and room for disagreement in the progressive movement.
I think all progressives should denounce authoritarian's like Mugabe and denounce imperialism. Within that framework I think there can be a lot of debate about how radical our solutions should be and whether or not we can sometimes side with the status quo. (I for one think its ok and think the US is a better and more democratic country than China or Zimbabwe (at least internally)).
I do say it's legitimate to call Mugabe a dictator. Leaders who threaten the oppostion with violence are dictators. I really wouldn't mind if the US deposed Mugabe. It might be good for Zimbabwe, if the voices of the people actually counted.
As for sham elections, I realize there were irregularities in Ohio in 2004 and the 2000 election was decided by the supreme court. This means the election was imperfect and possibly unjust. But it wasn't a sham even if the man most Americans voted for was himself a sham. The big difference is that Bush didn't threaten to kill Gore or Kerry supporters. I don't know much about the Mexican elections though I know Calderon is a thief.
I think it is completely legitimate for progressives to call Mugabe a dictator. He is the antithesis of progressivism. Like I said earlier, there are many anti-imperialists who are undemocratic and fascistic. Progressives should critique them too.
I would be happy to support democratic, anti-imperialist movements in Africa. But I think the UN can step in with sanctions when something outrageous happens as has happened in Zimbabwe. I realize that it's a bit precarious to support such interventionism as you're working with some precarious folk. I realize that ultimately this kind of interventionism is not the way forward, but I think there is room for some pragmatism.
A critique of imperialism can take us quite a ways, but it can't take us all the way. That is, we cannot exculpate those who would do such violence to their own people.
Saffiyah you quoted leftk, not me BTW. Please get it right, ok?
No saffiyah you got me wrong.I agree with you that it is not justifiable for Bush to be criticizing others. I agree that that US and the West should butt out of Africa. BTW Saffiyah, can you quote where I said that Mugabe was a dictator? I never said that. I also never said it was justifiable for Bush to criticize. Where did you get that quote from. I don't like the man, but it doesn't mean that I support what the west is doing. And yes Zimbabweans should solve their own problems. But let me ask you this Saffiyah, why don't you hold Britain responsible? Are you exonerating them. It seems like you are excusing Britain. They are the real villain. Saffiyah, next time you attack people, why don't you attack the right people who said those things that you accuse them of saying. I never said those things. You are barking up the wrong tree.
No, Forextrader, it is not 'justifiable' for Bush to be criticizing others for holding sham elections, precisely when he is also moving into place an economic war against that country.
If you and Zunes think it important to campaign against sham elections somewhere, then you guys should be urging the Chinese to economically boycott the US for its sham elections. Did Zunes get into a huff when Mexico had its sham elections and put Calderon in power? Did you? Sham elections got you upset?
And is it legitimate, as you put it, for progressives to call Mugabe a dictator while the US and the other colonial imperialists are charging ahead with an international campaign of hostilities against foreign nations? Why not urge the governments to butt out of Africa instead, and to dismantle their own illegitimate weaponry? Instead, you're trying to help along the idea that your government just must do something or other, some sort of 'humanitarian' interventionist thing. That's not progressive at all, but is just helping along the propaganda that keeps the War Machine a rolling here in the US.
riddimboy,
I never said it would be ok for them to accept aid from US/Britain. I am against imperialism. And I think the Chinese are vicious authoritarian imperialists who are currently raping Africa like US/Britain have done for the past few hundred years.
Thanks for the recomendation on the Gowans article.
leftk: OK fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were accusing me of being a preacher. My last statement was made out of frustration. My apologies. Again, I just want to say Mugabe's behavior has not been helpful; but it doesn't excuse Britain from it's role on reneging on the land reform proposals in Zimbabwe which led to the current catastrophe. It just angers me to see the British leadership be so smug.
Forextrader,
You just took me way out of context. I was saying that I completely agree with your indictment of Great Britain and Western Imperialism. I just wanted to highlight that I thought this did not exonerate Mugabe. I did not accuse you of wanting to exonerate Mugabe. I do fear that certain folks in on the discussion are more or less apologists for Mugabe.
Safiyyah,
"Zunes, on the other hand, does appear to laud this campaign to wage economic warfare on Zimbabwe. Read again the first paragraph of his commentary."
The theis of the first paragraph is that the Bush administration justifiably criticized the Mugabe regime. Isn't it justifiable to criticize a country that holds sham elections? Notice he refers to Mugabe as "liberator turned dictator". For the most part the 1st paragraph is factual.
In the second paragraph Zunes accuses American politicans of opposing Mugabe not out of principle but out of expedience. Not a very surprising accusation, but no less true for its blandness.
The majority of the article is expository and shows how the United States has a cushy relationship with Equatorial Guinea and elucidates some of the economic reasons for this overly cushy relationship.
Finally, Zunes shows the irony of America's double standards when dealing with African nations.
Zunes' is a voice against the corporate voice. But I think it is legitimate for progressives to criticize authoritarian's like Mugabe and such criticism does not automatically endorse US interventionism. To say that it does only puts words in Prof. Zunes' mouth.
I would be the last person to say< "the US and the EU can do no wrong."
"one of the most repressive and imperialistic governments in the world (China)."
Yeah ... but its okay for them to accept aid from 'the most oppressive and imperialistic governments in the world (U.S./Britain).
What are you smoking ?
Please read Stephen Gowans excellent and informative article on Zimbabwe ...
One does not become a 'Mugabe apologist' when one does not join in with the European and US government and media campaign to regain control of Zimbabwe for US and European imperialism.
Zunes, on the other hand, does appear to laud this campaign to wage economic warfare on Zimbabwe. Read again the first paragraph of his commentary.
By now, it should be well apparent that the first part of foreign interventionism by the US government always begins with economic warfare (sanctions), then followed with greater threats that threaten direct military engagement. So why is the professor Zunes, who submits himself as a 'progressive' to us, so ready to join in the corporate press's clamor about Mugabe and the need to supposedly take action by the European and US governments?
Hey leftk, way to go quoting me out of context. I'm not saying Mugabe should be exonerated. I'm just saying that Britain should own up to it's misdeeds that led to the current debacle. But people like you think that Britain, the US and the EU can do no wrong. I am beginning to understand why Mugabe supporters hate people like you.
Foxtrader:
"But Mugabe is very right about Britain and the West. Britain, the US and the EU have no credibility on the matter whatsoever. The British refuse to take responsibility for the debacle they caused in Zimbabwe."
Preach! (still this does not exonerate M.)
tambanow,
"If you want a little history on Human Rights in America and so called Democracy - I would start with Howard Zinn's book - People's History. You tell me about the Human Rights and Democracy then."
One of my favorite books. I have no illusions about the real interests of American democracy. Even if someone were to step in to rectify the situation in Zimbabwe, it should not be the US because a war of "liberation" will always turn into a war of domination so long as we are on the liberating side.
LifeOfQuest,
"Mugabe's sin is not that he is a dictator, his sin is that he decided to be his own man and to stand on his own two feet."
Fair enough, but it doesn't change the fact that he is an authoritarian dictator who has squashed any and all opposition, stopped fair elections, driven the poor out of their homes, and enacted laws against homosexuality.
You also say that Bush would stop elections if he could.
That's a hard claim to prove. As much as I think Bush is an imperial thug, he hasn't stopped an election yet. (Only stolen one). As much as the US is guilty of in the world, it does not give leftists the right to ignore injustices in other parts of the world. We can't say, "Oh yeah, that's bad but US hegemony is worse." If you stand against injustice, you've got to stand against injustice PERIOD.
Stephen K,
Right on! Mugabe is not a hero of the left. There are plenty of reasons to be anti-colonialist. Not all of them are egalitarian or just. I think you're also right that Zunes doesn't agree with the MSM that Mugabe is the worst leader in Africa. Of course, he doesn't make the case against Mugabe here. But I think if he did it would balance a critique of the Western imperialism with a critique of Mugabe's homegrown tyranny.
Finally, I think I agree that Zunes may not be radical enough. There is a hint in Zunes' writings that the US could be a force for democracy. I think part of this is just a reductio. In other words, he's saying lets take the US at face value and see what standards of democracy etc would look like if universally applied. Well, if you do that you see some very fundamental contradictions in American policy. So fundamental are these problems that they require a radical solution. So, in the end I think Zunes is very close to a radical position. In any case I think that we can forgive our differences with Steve as he is pointing out the right things.
I think the article is much more balanced than the Mugbe apologists make it out to be. He points out that there are many other African leaders who are just as bad or worse than Mugabe.
At the same time, you can't ignore the fact that the human rights situation in Zimbabwe right now is horrible. The mass of evidence is just too large to ignore.
I also don't get this idea of Mugabe being a hero of the left. As doug pointed out, Mugabe and Mbeki are both vehement opponents of the labour movement.
Interesting discussion here, although I certainly agree with Tambanow. Zune is not radical enough.
Mugabe's sin is not that he is a dictator, his sin is that he decided to be his own man and to stand on his own two feet. Before that, he was one of Washingon's boy, he was one of London's boy. But the old fella wisened with age. As we all know he was knighted by the Queen in 1994. So he did not start being a dictator yesterday. He is doing what he as always done and what all dictators do, which is hold on to power.
If president Bush had had his way, he would do he same. The stolen elections of 2000 and 2004 are vivid examples of this greed. Its the same thing Putin has done in Russia, by become the VP. Its the same thing the Queen of England has achieve(her power are above politics). And its the same thing all the other African dictators are doing or atleast trying to do--which is to grab more power for themselves and nothing for everyone else. Greed, is the source of all this evil.
The other african leaders are not in a good position to criticize Mugabe because they too are in the same boat. They are all power-hungry beast. From Egypt to south Africa and all the countries in between.
So if we are to criticise Mugabe, it is only fitting that we criticise the other dictatorial rulers, as well as our own empirial government, and for doing the same.
dougnwagner - as long as you use Western Media to prove your point then I know you are only a mouth piece for the propaganda. I don't even have to open your links to know what is said. It is all over the news. So if you want to share any insight - stay away from the easy, soft, in your face (at every turn) propaganda from Western Media.
leftk - If you were in Mugabe's shoes you would know that you have to turn to someone to be your ally. When the West has sanctions against you where are you going to turn? A small country like Zimbabwe, with serious sanctions levied against it can not survive without some outside help of some kind.
About Human Rights and Real Democracy: The US does not have the goods on either. If you want a little history on Human Rights in America and so called Democracy - I would start with Howard Zinn's book - People's History. You tell me about the Human Rights and Democracy then.
What has Mugabe recently done that needs to follow International Human Rights Laws?
I'm not here to defend Mugabe. He's an obnoxious homophobic brat. But Mugabe is very right about Britain and the West. Britain, the US and the EU have no credibility on the matter whatsoever. The British refuse to take responsibility for the debacle they caused in Zimbabwe. Britain was all too satisfied to let poor Zimbabwe crash and burn with a 4,000,000 per cent inflation rate and a currency which was once worth over $1.50, now is only worth less than one ten billionth of a US Dollar. As I always say, Great Britain is an oxymoron, there's nothing great about Britain. Britain can blame Mugabe all they want, but Britain is not blameless either.
tambanow, I can appreciate your defence of Mugabe insofar as he pushes against western colonialism. and pushes for sovereignty. This does not change the fact that he recieves mega-aid from one of the most repressive and imperialistic governments in the world (China). It does not change the fact that he is a murderer and a tyrant.
Again, I think Zunes hits a home run. This really needed to be said. Some folks seem to think Zunes isn't being radical enough here. They read Zunes as saying, America could be a source for good if it recognized human rights in other African countries.
I think this reading is wrong for 2 reasons:
1. Zunes' principal aim seems to be that of pointing US hypocrisy and lack of credibility as a defender of human rights. I don't think Zunes would say there is any fix in the near future.
2. Wouldn't the US be a source for human rights and democracy if it confronted its own greed and hypocrisy as seen in its support of brutal dictatorships across the globe?
Some will say the US is such an imperialist country that it can do no good anywhere, ever. That might be the case, but I don't think Zunes is wrong to want America to be a source of real democracy around the world. I also think he is correct to say that Mugabe must be held accountable to international human rights law. But if we hold him to human rights law shouldn't other nations be held accountable, shouldn't we?
Mugabe and Mbeki fear the labor unions that oppose them. Whatever the merits of Mugabe in the past, it does not justify the present travesty that he has perpetrated or Mbeki's embrace of neoliberalism.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/world/africa/17anc.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/world/africa/27mbeki.html
Locust - have you checked out who is supporting the propaganda link you put into the above statement. Why don't you check a little deeper into your sources and see what they are all about.
Mugabe did not destroy his country to make it into his own liking. So far from it! That is what the West is doing. Sorry you have your bearings totally mixed up.
zaz - what you say in your comment could be true - that is why people like myself and riddimboy, and others are trying to get people to see what is really going on. I should speak for myself - that is why I am saying stuff here and other places so people will open up to the fact that reality is not the Western media's take on things. That the Western powers have and continue to strangle countries that don't bow down to them. I am tired of sitting back and letting them have their propaganda say. It is time to stand up to all of this crap.
After reading Locust last statement I see he/she is one of those who spouts anything he/she has heard on the news like a leaky sieve. Your name is appropriate.
zaz - I respectfully disagree.
The only possible outside influences on Mugabe and the security state that supports him (army, police, ZANU-PF party and CIO) are China and South Africa.
China buys up Zim properties while selling jets and plastic crap (the Zims call the footwear in stores 'zhing zhongs' and hate them for falling apart quickly).
South Africa will only interfere when the exodus from Zim reaches crisis proportions (there were recent anti-foreign riots in Jo'burg but they seem to have settled down) or Zim starts encroaching on South African territory.
This is, unfortunately, a case where things are rotten but outside interference will only make things rotten in a different way.
For the record, when I was there in 2001 a US dollar traded for 100 Zim dollars. Now a dollar trades for 10 billion Zims (not counting the 3 zeros they lopped off in 2006-in effect making it 10 trillion to the dollar).
80% unemployment, lowest life expectancy on the planet and highest inflation outside of a war zone.
And the newest thing is that the ruling thugs are torturing opposition supporters using Paraquat, a herbicide.
I suspect the west will win this one. The embargos have reduced Mugabe's support and he'll be replaced by a puppet. You can't resist the west without the support of the population. As far as Mugabe's behavior - If reports are true, he may have been pushed over the edge. He won't be the first. Left governments in Latin America! - Same story.
Mugabe has done to Zimbabwe what the US did to Iraq, and what Bushco is doing to the USA.
He destroyed his country in order to re-make it to his liking.
BTW, while Mugabe has "declared hands off to the West" he sells bits of his country to China for badly needed forex (foreign currency, since the Zim dollar is worthless) and military equipment.
His water cannons and some other anti-riot stuff comes from Israel.
Zim has no oil, but it does have platinum (#2 after RSA) and uranium.
Here's a great site for news:
http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/
U.S. as a promoter of Democracy around the globe is a joke. We love to snuggle up to 'our' dicktators while we slap the errant ones with the 'Democracy' whip.
US as a defender of human rights is one of the biggest smokescreens around!
Zunes acts as if the only problem with the US government engaging in an economic war against Zimbabwe is that the US is not condemning other African dictatorships as well. Isn't that rather bizarre logic from somebody claiming to be so radical? Who appointed Zunes to be imperial adviser for the Empire's affairs anyway?
The real problem with the US and its European imperialist allies coming down on Mugabe is quite simply that these governments are imperialist warmongers, Stephen. You talk of 'U.S. credibility as a defender of human rights and free elections is seriously compromised' as if you were living on another planet entirely. The US government practices torture, bombs civilian infrastructure, and stampedes millions from their homes into refugee camps. The US government is not a defender of human rights and free elections at all.
To Zunes' credit he does point out the hypocrisy involved in Western reactions to Zimbabwe's internal problems.
As for jj -- "He did so without any involvement of western powers" ... you need to read a lot more before shooting off ... Zimbabwe has been discussed many times in the last week on CD ... go back ... read the comments ... then come back and puke over the board.
Mugabe has taken his country from prosperity to near starvation, from being an exporter of food to being a desperate importer. He did so without any involvement of western powers.
If Mugabe is such a saint then why must he travel surrounded by a gang of thugs to keep reporters and others with legitimate questions away from him?
Sorry, Tambanow, but your apology for this tyrant doesn't wash.
jj