Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Mugabe’s Terror Campaign

  1. Jul 25, 2005 #1

    DM

    User Avatar

    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 threshhold 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?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 25, 2005 #2

    Art

    User Avatar

    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: Jul 25, 2005
  4. Jul 25, 2005 #3

    DM

    User Avatar

    Art
    Indeed, one is compelled to ponder how this situation is able to ameliorate in the hands of fascists.
     
  5. Jul 25, 2005 #4
    why western world does not bring "liberty and freedom" to Zimbawbwe like they brought to Iraq ?
     
  6. Jul 25, 2005 #5
    Because there is no oil to liberate or free.
     
  7. Jul 26, 2005 #6

    DM

    User Avatar

    The Smoking Man
    Yes, good point.
     
  8. Jul 26, 2005 #7

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  9. Jul 27, 2005 #8

    DM

    User Avatar

    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?
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2005
  10. Jul 27, 2005 #9

    brewnog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Indeed, the sad fact is, "there's nothing in it for us".
     
  11. Jul 27, 2005 #10

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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: Jul 27, 2005
  12. Jul 27, 2005 #11

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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? :surprised
     
  13. Jul 27, 2005 #12
    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.
     
  14. Jul 27, 2005 #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.
     
  15. Jul 29, 2005 #14
    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. :tongue: )
     
  16. Jul 29, 2005 #15

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  17. Jul 29, 2005 #16

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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:
     
  18. Jul 29, 2005 #17
    But you are saying it like if us goverment wanted to take out some dictator and they chose someone from wich 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...
     
  19. Jul 29, 2005 #18

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  20. Jul 30, 2005 #19

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    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 goverment 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).
     
  21. Jul 30, 2005 #20

    DM

    User Avatar

    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: Jul 30, 2005
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Mugabe’s Terror Campaign
  1. American Terrorism (Replies: 70)

  2. War on Terror (Replies: 53)

  3. Terrorism and WMD (Replies: 4)

  4. Terrorism in Mumbai (Replies: 31)

  5. In Defense of Terror (Replies: 6)

Loading...