Is it time for international intervention in Mugabe's terror campaign?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter DM
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential for international intervention in Zimbabwe in response to Robert Mugabe's policies and actions against anti-government citizens. Participants explore the implications of such intervention, the role of the UN, and the reactions of neighboring countries, particularly in the context of humanitarian concerns and geopolitical interests.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern over Mugabe's policies and question whether the situation has reached a point where international action is warranted.
  • Others highlight the reluctance of countries like China and Algeria to intervene, framing it as a matter of respecting domestic affairs.
  • There are discussions about the impact of Zimbabwe's political turmoil on neighboring countries, particularly regarding illegal immigration into South Africa and Botswana.
  • Some participants draw parallels between Zimbabwe and Iraq, questioning the inconsistency in international responses based on perceived strategic interests.
  • Concerns are raised about the humanitarian implications of intervention versus the potential for economic sanctions to harm innocent citizens.
  • Participants debate whether foreign policy is driven by self-interest rather than humanitarian concerns, with some arguing that Zimbabwe does not pose a significant threat to other nations' interests.
  • There are differing views on whether the UN should intervene in Zimbabwe's policies or focus on alleviating the strain on South Africa from immigration issues.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the necessity or appropriateness of international intervention in Zimbabwe. Multiple competing views remain regarding the motivations for intervention and the potential consequences of such actions.

Contextual Notes

Participants express various assumptions about the motivations behind foreign policy decisions, the humanitarian impact of intervention, and the complexities of regional dynamics, which remain unresolved throughout the discussion.

DM
Messages
164
Reaction score
0
Dear members,

It has beleaguered me for some time now seeing Robert Mugabe's policy in action on all anti-government working class citizens in Zimbabwe. I have recently read, Financial Times, that the UN is urging other countries to act upon this "indiscriminate and unjustified" operation. A worrying factor is learning that "China and Algeria have so far resisted interference in what they describe as a domestic affair". Is this right? After so many tolerances by the UN and other countries, has this operation reached the threshold of 'acting' as opposed to condemning and warning Zimbabwe's president?

In addition to this dismal case, South Africa was approached by Zimbabwe officials for a "financial aid package" for "critical goods". At what cost should this transpire?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
DM said:
Dear members,

It has beleaguered me for some time now seeing Robert Mugabe's policy in action on all anti-government working class citizens in Zimbabwe. I have recently read, Financial Times, that the UN is urging other countries to act upon this "indiscriminate and unjustified" operation. A worrying factor is learning that "China and Algeria have so far resisted interference in what they describe as a domestic affair". Is this right? After so many tolerances by the UN and other countries, has this operation reached the threshold of 'acting' as opposed to condemning and warning Zimbabwe's president?

In addition to this dismal case, South Africa was approached by Zimbabwe officials for a "financial aid package" for "critical goods". At what cost should this transpire?
With the main opposition party MDC in turmoil through factional fighting, employing the same heavy handed tactics as Zanu PF it is hard to see how the situation can be improved for the ordinary citizens by the UN or anybody else. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...im25.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/25/ixworld.html
Like with Iraq economic sanctions only hurt the innocent as the ruling elite ensure they do not suffer as a result.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Art
With the main opposition party MDC in turmoil through factional fighting, employing the same heavy handed tactics as Zanu PF it is hard to see how the situation can be improved for the ordinary citizens by the UN or anybody else.

Indeed, one is compelled to ponder how this situation is able to ameliorate in the hands of fascists.
 
why western world does not bring "liberty and freedom" to Zimbawbwe like they brought to Iraq ?
 
stoned said:
why western world does not bring "liberty and freedom" to Zimbawbwe like they brought to Iraq ?
Because there is no oil to liberate or free.
 
The Smoking Man
Because there is no oil to liberate or free.

Yes, good point.
 
Zimbabwe is like Iraq--except the people there openly ask for international intervention. As I have stated in other threads, the U.S. needs to determine what our foreign policy is to be (or for that matter, what is the UN's role supposed to be?). First to be realistic, and than to be consistent.

Botswana is like the U.S., being flooded by people entering illegally from Zimbabwe in search for work and a better life. This is a problem that 'nation builders' probably have not considered. If a country can become more democratic and prosperous than it's neighbors, illegal entry over borders place great strain on the country with success.
 
SOS2008
Botswana is like the U.S., being flooded by people entering illegally from Zimbabwe in search for work and a better life. This is a problem that 'nation builders' probably have not considered. If a country can become more democratic and prosperous than it's neighbors, illegal entry over borders place great strain on the country with success.

I too agree with the strain put on South Africa however, do you think the influx of illegal people entering the country should or should not be permitted? Wouldn't a full endorsment allow these people to accommodate themselves on a democratic country and more importantly liberate them from injustices?

or

Should the UN intervene in Zimbabwe's current policies and alleviate South Africa's wound of illegal immigrants? which one is more rational?
 
Last edited:
stoned said:
why western world does not bring "liberty and freedom" to Zimbawbwe like they brought to Iraq ?

The Smoking Man said:
Because there is no oil to liberate or free.

Indeed, the sad fact is, "there's nothing in it for us".
 
  • #10
DM said:
SOS2008


I too agree with the strain put on South Africa however, do you think the influx of illegal people entering the country should or should not be permitted? Wouldn't a full endorsment allow these people to accommodate themselves on a democratic country and more importantly liberate them from injustices?

or

Should the UN intervene in Zimbabwe's current policies and alleviate South Africa's wound of illegal immigrants? which one is more rational?
Botswana officials say they could not sustain an open border policy. I'm inclined to believe them, because the U.S. is struggling with this though far more wealthy and stable. So I would opt for addressing the problems in Zimbabwe, just as I opt for addressing problems in Mexico.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
brewnog said:
Indeed, the sad fact is, "there's nothing in it for us".
What? Are you saying foreign policy is based on self-interests and not human rights, democracy, and all the moral reasons given for invading Iraq?
 
  • #12
SOS2008 said:
What? Are you saying foreign policy is based on self-interests and not human rights, democracy, and all the moral reasons given for invading Iraq?
Some one some where must hold an interest in the situation there and really they ought to be the ones to take care of it. Ofcourse there may be the problem that whom ever holds the interest is benefited most by things being the way they are.
It may not be very humanitarian but generally as a rule of thumb you're not supposed to get involved in these sorts of things unless you have something to gain. If a government does this it runs the risk of hurting their own citizens in expenditures of tax money while there is no benefit to their citizens for the tax money spent. The government very possibly wouldn't be popular with it's people for doing such a thing. You can see the shift in the stance on the war in Iraq as more and more people realize that they have little, if anything, to gain from it.
 
  • #13
HAH! The average conservative doesn't give a rats ass as to whether or not the war is benefiting them, they just care about what FOX News tells them.
 
  • #14
SOS2008 said:
What? Are you saying foreign policy is based on self-interests and not human rights, democracy, and all the moral reasons given for invading Iraq?

Very much so and I think that throughout history, this has been the case. The situation in Zimbabwe is in no ways hurting any other countries interests. Economically, no trade with Zim will barely leave a dent on any other countries economy and even though there political system is a bit ... there is no chance that the "system" would spread and thereby cause a growing problem that could rival the political systems of USA or China (think back to the 60s-80s in South America for an example on what I'm talking about.)

I can even go as far as saying that even though Zim is our (South Africa's) neighbour, everyday life for me is not being affected by Zim. In SA, tourists are still pouring in, foreign investment (though with the growing economy, it becoming less and less needed) is not being very much deterred by our neighbours and, as mentioned, the economy, even though there's so much negativity, is exploding. When you take these into consideration, SA doesn't even NEED to intervene.

Now, I'm not saying I support it - Old Bob up north is really a pain in the ... and he needs to go, but if the most abled country in Africa has no reason to intervene even though Zim is right next door, does anyone really expect the US, China or any other First World country to step in? Sorry, I'd rather sort Nigeria out coz they got oil (even though there ain't a situation to sort out in Nigeria. :-p )
 
  • #15
SOS2008 said:
What? Are you saying foreign policy is based on self-interests and not human rights, democracy, and all the moral reasons given for invading Iraq?

As people like to point out, you can't take out every maniacal dictator in the world. Given the choice between taking one out that has something you want, or taking one out that doesn't have something you want, which would you choose?

Of course, you could always just leave all dictators to their own devices, plus diplomacy/reasoning/what have you and take none of them out.
 
  • #16
The people of Zimbabwe had really deserved someone a lot less criminal than Mugabe in office after the abolition of Ian Smith's regime..:frown:
 
  • #17
loseyourname said:
As people like to point out, you can't take out every maniacal dictator in the world. Given the choice between taking one out that has something you want, or taking one out that doesn't have something you want, which would you choose?

Of course, you could always just leave all dictators to their own devices, plus diplomacy/reasoning/what have you and take none of them out.

But you are saying it like if us government wanted to take out some dictator and they chose someone from which country they will get somenthing (Oil in this case).

But that is vey naive... The real situation is, they wanted to take somenthing from some country (Oil) they chose the country who has more of that, and then they take out it dictator... If it where a democracy they would have overtrown the democracy and put a dictator... the way they done to many times in history and they still doing it...
 
  • #18
loseyourname said:
As people like to point out, you can't take out every maniacal dictator in the world. Given the choice between taking one out that has something you want, or taking one out that doesn't have something you want, which would you choose?

Of course, you could always just leave all dictators to their own devices, plus diplomacy/reasoning/what have you and take none of them out.
I should probably clarify that when I say "addressing" a problem I'm not necessarily referring to regime change, and certainly not via military action. There are many things that can be accomplished through international cooperation, with countries in the SA area (i.e., "sphere of influence") taking a lead role--the same approach as dealing with Korea. Because it get's back to taking responsibility for your own country and region of the world, and not putting everything on the U.S. But I do feel we should care about situations like this on the basis of human rights--not just self interests such as oil, etc.
 
  • #19
Burnsys said:
But you are saying it like if us government wanted to take out some dictator and they chose someone from which country they will get somenthing (Oil in this case).

But that is vey naive... The real situation is, they wanted to take somenthing from some country (Oil) they chose the country who has more of that, and then they take out it dictator... If it where a democracy they would have overtrown the democracy and put a dictator... the way they done to many times in history and they still doing it...

There are reasons to change a regime aside from them having something you want. The 'democracies' you refer that were overthrown with US help were perceived as being hostile to the American way of life and a possible threat to US world power, so they were overthrown. Again, how else do you expect a government to act? What nation with the power of the US has ever not acted in this manner?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to condone any of this. I just don't understand when people complain that the US removes Saddam but doesn't remove other dictators just as bad as him that don't rule oil-rich countries. Again, given the choice, what would you do? If you're going to complain about the US removing Saddam, then don't be asking the US to remove Mugabe (note: this isn't directed at you, as you obviously have not called for that).
 
  • #20
loseyourname said:
If you're going to complain about the US removing Saddam, then don't be asking the US to remove Mugabe (note: this isn't directed at you, as you obviously have not called for that).

No. The UN should make the plea since they condoned the war in Iraq and should therefore approach the U.S for help. After all they deserve it, right?
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Well then I guess another really sad thing about the invasion of Iraq is that we aren't getting any oil from it?
 
  • #22
we hear so much about "evil" Mugabe only because few white farmers were kicked out from their farms, nothing more.
 
  • #23
DM said:
No. The UN should make the plea since they condoned the war in Iraq and should therefore approach the U.S for help. After all they deserve it, right?

I don't know if the UN should necessarily approach the US for help, but the UN is the proper entity to be handling this. They should be approaching all of their constituent countries for help, in particular the ones that started the African mess in the first place - old European colonial powers.
 
  • #24
DM said:
Dear members,

It has beleaguered me for some time now seeing Robert Mugabe's policy in action on all anti-government working class citizens in Zimbabwe. I have recently read, Financial Times, that the UN is urging other countries to act upon this "indiscriminate and unjustified" operation. A worrying factor is learning that "China and Algeria have so far resisted interference in what they describe as a domestic affair". Is this right? After so many tolerances by the UN and other countries, has this operation reached the threshold of 'acting' as opposed to condemning and warning Zimbabwe's president?

In addition to this dismal case, South Africa was approached by Zimbabwe officials for a "financial aid package" for "critical goods". At what cost should this transpire?

Yes Mugabe, he is probably the biggest genius that has ever lived in Africa, the greatest continent of all :rolleyes:

I think his actions against white farmers are an act of genocide and he should be on trail for that. This socalled president illustrates the very core problem of Africa : incompetent, corrcupt losers that have power over a bunch of simple people that are unable to think critically because of poverty. That is not their mistake ofcourse but also NOT OURS. Entities like Mugabe are to blaime. How can you accept such a guy as a president if he even does not have a policy ? C'mon, let us be serious here. These guys are the very reason that Africa (with all its potential) is stuck in the current state it is in. The solution is quite straightforeward. Eliminate these inferior givernments that block the very solution of Africa's problem: personal educaton.

just my two cents

marlon
 
  • #25
stoned said:
we hear so much about "evil" Mugabe only because few white farmers were kicked out from their farms, nothing more.

Is that so? What about the rest? Have you forgotten the demolition of houses on all those who are labelled, or perhaps branded as 'anti-government citizens'? Besides struggling with impoverished conditions, they now have to cope with loosing their rudimentary accommodations in Zimbabwe?
 
Last edited:
  • #26
I think his actions against white farmers are an act of genocide and he should be on trail for that. This socalled president illustrates the very core problem of Africa : incompetent, corrcupt losers that have power over a bunch of simple people that are unable to think critically because of poverty. That is not their mistake ofcourse but also NOT OURS

Outragous, so you don't think slave camps and the total disrespect of Human Rights like that, that were setup in The Congo by King Leopald II of Belgium, have nothing to do with the poverish, war torn situation that arises directly after he was forced to leave?

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/leopold.html
http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria16_2.html
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.7.1.03.HTM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3516965.stm
http://www.google.be/search?hs=I6&h...ficial&q=king+leopold+congo&btnG=Search&meta=

Also the fact that Africans do not have an equal footing, nowadays to trade with the developed nations doesn't have anything to the fact they are poor? Come on we are just as much to blame as the "bunch of simple people that are unable to think critically because of poverty" or "corrcupt losers" who gain profit from corrupt western goverments and companies, by allowing these consesions to happen...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
Anttech said:
Outragous, so you don't think slave camps and the total disrespect of Human Rights like that, that were setup in The Congo by King Leopald II of Belgium, have nothing to do with the poverish, war torn situation that arises directly after he was forced to leave?
First of all it is LeopOld
Secondly, NO i do not think that. It is exactly this line of reasoning that is wrong. You can apply these arguments to nearly every nation in this world. For example, look at us during the second world war, hell even during the entire middle ages and look at where we are now. Look at the Chinese people or the Indian people being dominated by the Brittish for so long and look at them now...I mean it goes on and on and on. Your remark does not justify the reason why Africa is in the condition it is in today. History proves this over and over again, open your eyes and stop thinking in terms of answers you learn at high school.

marlon
 
  • #28
marlon said:
First of all it is LeopOld
Secondly, NO i do not think that. It is exactly this line of reasoning that is wrong. You can apply these arguments to nearly every nation in this world. For example, look at us during the second world war, hell even during the entire middle ages and look at where we are now. Look at the Chinese people or the Indian people being dominated by the Brittish for so long and look at them now...I mean it goes on and on and on. Your remark does not justify the reason why Africa is in the condition it is in today. History proves this over and over again, open your eyes and stop thinking in terms of answers you learn at high school.

marlon

Firstly, The brittish were never in "China" again your history needs scrutinsied. The Brittish were in Hong Kong, an island of mainland china

look here for a map of the Brittish Empire, Doesnt seem to include China?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

Africa has other problems, yes, like corupt goverments I wasnt say otherwise. I am highlighting the fact that Europe has been a massive contribution to this... The congo is a prize example! It has never been the same after King Leopold II desided to rape the country for profit last century and in doing so comitte mass genocide.

It is very easy for you to shift blame, well it is not all Africas fault, we in the devloped world are also to blame, for our history of explotation, and even current trade explotation!

Comparing Asia and Africa is like comparing Apples and Pears, they are so vastly different it is foolish to do so... Anyway I would love to see some example of "History proves this over and over again"
 
  • #29
Anttech said:
Firstly, The brittish were never in "China" again your history needs scrutinsied. The Brittish were in Hong Kong, an island of mainland china

i never said the Brittish were in China, i was talking about underdeveloped and held-back regions with a lot of poverty. I said the Indians were dominated by the brittish and a mentioned China because of what they do in Nepal.

I wrote "Look at the Chinese people or the Indian people being dominated by the Brittish for so long and look at them now"

This sentence means look at the Chinese for one fact and look at the Indians being dominated by the Brittish...You misinterpreted my words.

I am highlighting the fact that Europe has been a massive contribution to this...
and i am highlighting why this is not the case. remeber that Congo wanted us out. that is ofcourse normal, but the fact that they do not succeed in setting up a decent society is not our fault. This happens in EVERY African country, so this is too obvious to be just a coincidence, wouldn't you say ?

Again, i repeat myself, our regions have been raped by 100dres of years and look at us now, just like the Indians, chinese, The US, Australia...

C'mon, face it.

marlon
 
  • #30
Look at the Chinese people or the Indian people being dominated by the Brittish for so long and look at them now

Ill forgive you because I am sure English isn't your first langague, but it reads differently from what you ment

but the fact that they do not succeed in setting up a decent society is not our fault.

And do you not feel at all guilty for the suffering Belgium caused there? The way I see it, its the same as Killing a childs father and then when the child grows up into a cycopath, the killer could say.. "Nothing to do with me, the mother didnt have a clue how to raise a child"
 

Similar threads

News Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism
  • · Replies 110 ·
4
Replies
110
Views
15K
News The Roots of Terrorism and US Foreign Policy
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
News Renaissance and reaction to Islam.
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
8K
News Ahmadinejad's speech at Durban II
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
8K
News Patriot Act 2: Summarized by Alex Jones
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
News Bush Administration: My Indictment
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
News What do you think about the deal with North Korea?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
News Downing Street - New memos released
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
News Bush's Changing World: Analysis by Claude Salhani
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K