Sorry, TT, was that directed at me? I agree with you - that sentence was more directed at the more general charge of "hypocrisy" in criticizing events in Zim, not anything you said.

Fair dos. It's hard to know what's aimed at what often here. A threaded board would....

No, sorry.

Is there a major "Western" leader who hasn't supported/condoned/commissioned human rights abuses elewhere?

I would think there's a few who haven't supported or commissioned them (Spain? Sweden?).

"Condoned"...that's a tougher one, and would depend on how you defined it. I mean - what constitutes condoning human rights abuses in, say, China? Does buying chinese goods constitute condoning? Having diplomatic relations? Not making crticial statements at the UN? Inviting Hu Jintao round for tea?

Or, to flip the question, what would a country have to do in order to avoid being labelled as condoning a human rights abuse in a particular country?

Gman.


"SADC is deeply divided over Zim. Botswana, Zambia, Tanzania and, to some extent, Malawi are anti-Mugabe. Angola flip flops. Mozambique's government is losing its patience (and ex-president Chissano, a genuine liberation leader) has spoken out against Mugabe and the junta. I don't know about Lesotho. Swaziland, an absolute monarchy, is worried about pro-democracy movements in that kingsom. And in Namibia, SWAPO think Mugabe is peachy, and democracy there is not in a healthy state. For the most part, the SADC let SA run with ball. But patience with Mbeki is running out."

Thanks for your level of detail there, most of which is new to me as Britsh media don't tell you that much.

"The white-man's-puppet slur against Tsvangirai is a potent weapon in terms of giving people a reason to overlook the repression in Zimbabwe. That's why the world should let the white farms thing rest. The victims of repression in Zimbabwe are black. The anti-Mbeki faction in the ANC understands that, and objects to the Mugabe junta on those grounds. Ditto the like-minded countries in the SADC."

I think the west have realised that as well, hence why there is less mentioned about the farmers issue. When Mugabe became an evil tyrant in 2001, the Farmers issue was what was being played in the western media. When it was pointed out that the British government was responsible for compensating the farmers as part of the peace settlement in the early 80's (a responsiblility they did not honour, it was quickly and quietly dropped).

"The reason many African countries are hesitant to act against Mugabe/junta is that their house is not clean, and holding Mugabe accountable is going to raise expectations of governance which they might not wish to have examined too closely. The whole neo-colonialism thing is just a smokescreen."

Of course, which is what i was talking about, Mugabe knows this as well and has factored this into his behaviour. Even the African democracies have to be careful of how they criticise him so as not to embarrass their friends in other African countries who are not democracies.

"The whole neo-colonialism thing is just a smokescreen."

I would not go as far as to say that. Giving the impression that you are not being dictated to by the white man can gain you alot of political kudos, especially in southern Africa.

"I think there is a consensus that a MDC for Zanu-PF deal is not feasible. To start with, there is indeed the question of a power vacuum, as well as the MDC's inexperience in governing. That is why everybody, including Mugabe and Tsvangirai, have accepted that a negotiated deal which will accommodate both sides will need to be struck. The question is from what premises such talks would proceed. The MDC thinks this will take years."

Well for a start there would have to be mass pardons, not just for Mugabe, but his ruling cabal right down to their enforcers on the street who have been doing the brunt of the bullying. can the MDC and the population in general stomach that?
Speaking on the subject of pardons, it has to be watertight so that they are not arrested and brought before the Hague when they fly to Switzerland to visit their dentist.
The recent arrests of a few high profile dictators might please the Amnesty International and other human rights organisations but it makes the likes of Mugabe less willing to step down for fear of ending up like Milosevic et all.

"But as long as Mugabe, Zanu-PF and the army are in power, there will be no funding made available to rebuild a thoroughly fucked economy. Study the history of civil war, and you'll find that they are usually ignited by a mixture of political frustration and poverty, with other specific ingredients coming into the mix. Zimbabwe's disenfranchised and hungry masses might well arise spontaneously."


From my studies of civil wars (espeically in Africa), they only really kick off when the opposition is funded militarily by external forces. In other cases, when the populace rise up, they are brutally repressed. maybe you could point me to specific examples where this isn't the case.

"As the various roleplayers try to prepare the grounds for negotiations from an optimal starting positions, the MDC might decide that a low-level civil war would further their interests (I'm not saying it's on the agenda)."

The MDC would need a sponsor for that. I doub't any members of the SADC would provide arms for that (and if they though about it SA wouldn't allow them) nor would they allow any western Government to traffic arms to the MDC. If this was to become an armed conflict, it would have kicked off a while ago.

"Nobody is talking about military action. Targetted sanctions, however, would affect the self-interest of Zanu-PF's leadership. The threat of limiting or cutting the supply of electricity, transport routes (especially the east coast harbours), military assistance - and South Africa is continuing to supply arms to Zimbabwe and assisting its army infrastructure -- and so on would place immense pressure on the regime. Add to that diplomatic pressure which would isolate Zimbabwe further, and possibly also persuade China to exert pressure on Zim (which, as I have said, is crucial)."

Stronger action from south Africa could fuel more anti-SA feelings in Zimbabwe which must be running high due to the treatment of refugees. Something no doubt that Mugabe can make more political capital out of.

The more Mugabe is isolated, the more he is likely to fall into bed with the Chinese isn't it?

Bill Poster

"I'm always amused by talk of "African" issues and "African" spokespeople like TG claims to be. It would be like trying to find a common voice for Europeans, Asians and South Americans. They are large diverse continents with diverse views."

I don't know what you point is here, but its tone disturbs me.
I have never claimed to be a spokesman for Africa or all Africans.

I freely give my opinion as an African and i do on here express opinions of Africans i speak to on a variety of subjects (some opinions i do not share btw).


I am actually very hostile towards anyone in the media spotlight who proports to claim to speak for all black people.
If you ever bother to read my posts properly, you would of course know this.

search for any post i have made on OTF with regards people like Trevor Phillips for example.

Also

"The ones that are left are useful when Mugabe needs to stir some shit about white-owned land. Ignoring the fact that he gave the land he did 'grab back' to his cronies"

How do you know this, are you aware of exactly who his has given the land to and what their political affiliations are?
or is it what you have read and have accepted as fact?

Quick response to TG:

OK, I probably went a bit far with the claiming you spoke on behalf of all Africans but it was prompted by the "Africans know this" phrase you used.

I know you don't claim to speak for all black people any more than I speak for all whites. Neither did I accuse you of it. Read my posts properly.

As for what happened to the land, I've read what appear to be reliable reports of cronies of Bob building large houses with proceeds from dodgy dealings on land he gave them. As for what happened to all of the farm land, I think we'd all like to know that. If you have better (any) information on that I would be pleased to see it.

Anyway if it was all just about reclaiming land from the white farmers, why are there are left at all?

On another point, you seem to be advocating pardoning all those responsible for brutal behaviour so that they give themselves up as they wouldn't want to find themselves on trial in the Haig. I think the point of international law is kinda to stop that sort of thing happening in the first place. Pardoning anyone and everyone who has engaged in such crimes negates the deterent.

Yeah, I wouldn't have many quibbles with most of your response to my points, TG. Your point about the nature of civil war in Africa and their requiring (external) sponsorship is fair. I suspect though that were the MDC to lead a low-intensity civil war, they'd get such support. I'm not sure that the left in the ANC would dissuade the MDC from taking that route. Of course, the regime's response would be very brutal.

I don't think it will come to that. But a spontaneous uprising is a possibility. It is difficult to predict how a Zuma-led South Africa would respond to a brutal crackdown.

Regarding sanctions, many in Zimbabwe are calling for these themselves if it means getting rid of the regime.

Anyway, I don't think it will come to all that. For the next while there'll be lots of jockeying for position, diplomatically and on the ground, where the regime will seek to entrench itself by all means necessary.

QUOTE:
On another point, you seem to be advocating pardoning all those responsible for brutal behaviour so that they give themselves up as they wouldn't want to find themselves on trial in the Haig. I think the point of international law is kinda to stop that sort of thing happening in the first place. Pardoning anyone and everyone who has engaged in such crimes negates the deterent.

This is a very serious debate in international relations right now. A lot of people think the International Criminal Court is indirectly responsible for a lot of the carnage in Zimbabwe.

Lots of people in Zim might be prepared to swap Justice (in the western, court-based conception of the word) for peace - that is, let Mugabe and his cronies retire somewhere with their money, as long as they get out and leave Zimbabweans alone. But the ICC's decision to capture and try Charles Taylor after he had already left Liberia and retired means no despot wants ro risk relinquishing power under an circumstances, because no matter what kind of deal is struck to get them out of power, no matter what kind of immunity is granted, the ICC can still show up and bring you to the Hague.

A similar situation is occuring right now in Uganda, where Musveni and the LRA leadership are very close to terms, butthe LRA doesn't want to give up while there is an ICC warrant out for his arrest and the government of Uganda doesn't seem able to convince the ICC to drop charges.

QUOTE:
"Condoned"...that's a tougher one, and would depend on how you defined it. I mean - what constitutes condoning human rights abuses in, say, China? Does buying chinese goods constitute condoning? Having diplomatic relations? Not making crticial statements at the UN? Inviting Hu Jintao round for tea?

Or, to flip the question, what would a country have to do in order to avoid being labelled as condoning a human rights abuse in a particular country?

I dunno, AG, I think you're over-complicating things here. Let's just go with "support/commission" if that's easier.

Bill Poster,

"Where did i say, "Africans know this?"
Because I cannot find where my second post in this thread that i made such a comment.

Once you respond to that, then i will tackle the rest of your strawman ladened post.

Gman, It seems like we agree that things are sadly looking grim in that country for the medium term at least.

For every positive suggestion, there are about 10 reasons how that could make matter longer and more bloody.

Unfortunately, it seems that we can only cross our fingers and hope Mugabe and his mates get bored of the international attention and bugger off, but it seems that they are revelling in the publicity.

Antonio.

"This is a very serious debate in international relations right now. A lot of people think the International Criminal Court is indirectly responsible for a lot of the carnage in Zimbabwe."

I am not sure that i agree with that, but I think there is a very strong argument to be made there.
The long arm of the ICC would not doubt give dictators second thoughts about retiring to a neutral country and spending their millions in peace and tranquility.

OK I was paraphrasing "And this is not lost on Africans ". The meaning is the same.

Feel free to patronise away. I'm on holiday for a week.

"OK I was paraphrasing "And this is not lost on Africans ". The meaning is the same."

Well if you thought the meaning was the same, why the paraphrasing?

You basically made up comments, attributed them to me then started to attack me on them.
Then when i call you out on this, you accuse me of being patronising.
Classy.

Useful round-up of the AU's approach on Zimbabwe.

Seems like Nigeria and Senegal aren't fans of Mugabe either. And Ethiopia suggested that Mbeki might ask others to "help" him in mediation.

Now mind you, this is where the double standards problems kick in. Senegal has genuine democratic bona fides . Nigeria sees a lot of ballot-boix chicanery (though not, to my knowledge, political violence and murder). Ethiopia's ruling party killed quite a number of oppositionists last year (shooting into a crowd at a protest, wasn't it?).