News0 min ago
Zimbabwe
What is our government doing about Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe? I read in the Daily Telegraph that Jack Straw wants Zimbabwe removed from international cricket - why doesn't the goverment do something themselves - they were quick enough to go into Iraq but are reluctant to go into a Commenwealth country - no oil I hear you say. Couldn't the government lean on the surrounding states particularly South Africa to something militarily. There seems lots of evidence but no one is willing to react to abuse of human rights.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Stretts. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Perhaps another factor is the amount of cr@p the government is getting for the Iraq war. They also know they need to focus on domestic issues more at the moment. Plus of course parliament is currently in summer recess.
I presume most of the anti-Iraq-war people would object to intervention in Zimbabwe? Especially the Socialist Workers Party (or whatever they're called) who's wonderful logic tells us that such action would lead to bombings in London... yeah... ok!!!
If your sentiment is that more should be done (and I believe that is your point) then I wholeheartedly agree! :-)
Try and mull over a few facts
The war in Iraq was illegal. Just because a crony of the govt who is a commercial lawyer said that it was Ok, does not make it so. Even Kofi Annan was doubtful of the legality of the Iraqi invasion
It is not for us to decide what to do about Zimbabwe. Dont be so arrogant as to think that we can go in and change another countries elected government. It is for the United Nations to sanction any interference in ZWE.
Why suddenly the call for banning them from international cricket. It was Ok for us to tour the country at the height of all the atrocities was it. the bloody arrogance of our govt asking for them to be banned. We toured them despite calls from everyone to call of the tour. we did it because we would have lost money and the ECB was interested in its coffers. Jack Straw even shook hands with Mugabe.
Now has Mugabe dissed the Bush family. NO. So there is your answer why no one does anything about the atrocities in ZWE.
Want a list of atrocities committed by govts around the world......it is a very long one.
Dom Tuk I think the reason Britain was so chummy with Zimbabwe over the last few years may have had something to do with the Olympic bid and not wanting to alienate African countries. Now London has won, the government can put its moralistic hat back on.
Nonetheless, the questions remain: should we try to send aid to the people in Zimbabwe who are suffering? (Mostly black - there aren't many whites left there.) If so, should we try to put some sort of pressure on Mugabe to see the money actually gets to them, not him? What sort of pressure?
Dom Tuk - your arguements are fairly sound, on the second time of reading. The first time round they're just so insulting and aggressive that it's really hard to want to take them on board.
jno raises a very interesting point, that applies not only to zimbabwe. Is there any point in sending aid when some dictators just burn it in front of starving people to show them how much power is held over them? The very fact that that question can be asked would seem to imply that other action is needed. 'Who', 'what', and 'when', however, are very tricky questions to answer!
In what way is his tyranny different from that of Mr Hussein? If it's right to invade Zimbabwe to defend and protect, it was right to invade Iraq irregardless of WMD. So we'll wait to get a UN mandate to invade. Just like we did with Rwanda (no mandate, half slaughtered) and FYugoslavia (no mandate, half slaughtered).
The decision to invade is of academic interest only. Unless you're a black zimbabwean woman with a baby in your arms, and you've got 5 days to live.
One thing that I think a lot of people miss is that international law is not really a hard and fast codified system. Can you see anyone imposing sanctions on the US? Maybe dictating penalties? There is no supra-organisation that will do that. The UN lacks the necessary resolve or power to challenge the bigger countries, and what can it do? It's muchlike the European law everyone bangs on about - blah blah blah we signed up etc ok so we pull out. What would happen? Who would enforce anything?
I think in this enviroment it is more important than ever to make the distinction between legality and morality. Merely because something is legal does not make it right, preferable or desirable - it makes it legal. If this is your only criteria for action then I think we're in a pretty poor state.
In addition, look at the troops that the UN often sends in - I would imagine that local troops might be used, the poorly paid African militia armies who loot and pillage where they can. All a UN mandate does is cover your ass against any negative press.
I think in this enviroment it is more important than ever to make the distinction between legality and morality. Merely because something is legal does not make it right, preferable or desirable - it makes it legal. If this is your only criteria for action then I think we're in a pretty poor state.
In addition, look at the troops that the UN often sends in - I would imagine that local troops might be used, the poorly paid African militia armies who loot and pillage where they can. All a UN mandate does is cover your ass against any negative press.
So eloquently put Juanker.
I do agree with El D's interesting point about law and morality. It's amazing how economists can get bogged down in efficiency, and perhaps so lawyers can get bogged down with legality. Something could be efficient and/or legal, but of course, as you said, not necessarily right.
International law is a minefield. I'm glad I didn't attempt to study it because it changes all the time anyway, and I begin to wonder if international law really exists. I know it does technically, but as so many ABers have said, some countries' leaders, including Zimbabwe's and America's, will always do what the heck they want anyway!
Oh lawyers can be utterly immature to you know! For starters, even when I'm qualified, it will just be my JOB. When I get home from work (so for about 5 hours a day - lol) I'll just be plain old me again. You know teachers swear, doctors smoke - a lot of people act in a way they wouldn't do at work! Plus at the moment it's only a plan, I'm not ACTUALLY a lawyer yet. :-)
Many thanks for so many replies. I've never been to ZWE but a colleague says its a great place if only........
think on this......you call the police because a family down the road are arguing, fighting and things are getting 'ugly' - the police arrive (eventually), stay a while, calm things down and the problem is sorted.
Doesn't the same apply internationally? or do we continue to stand on the sidelines and wave the piece of paper saying 'peace in our time'
it could never happen and it won't because first of all britain will have to get permission off the likes of south africa and others to use its land to launch an attack impossible.. but lets just say in the unlikely occurrance thatf blair did do as many are saying and invade zimbabwe, the many will pile on here in a instant and attack the government variously describing the action amongst others as war mongering and power hungry and comparing blair as stalin and adolph hitler.. and some will even in the best traditions of john pilger and noam chomsky conspiracy yarns say its really about zimbabwes huge and secret mineral resources..
Now you can get barely a 1000 people on the streets of london to protest against mugabi's rule...the british or american government invade zimbabwe to topple the gangster, and you can bet 100.000, will hit the streets in support of the poor downtrodden zimbabwean masses...and against the evil blair and bush..
