Getting rid of Mugabe

gbh

Awful situation in Zimbabwe, once the bright hope for Africa now steadily declining into poverty and lack of hope. Inflation now at 4000%, unemployment something like 80%. And the latest news is Mugabe is building a £3 million shrine to himself.

The man must be among the worst dictators in the world today. In power for 27 years but still no sign of tiring of high office. Any time democracy raises its head, he beats it down again.

Just wondering is there anything the Irish people can do to hasten his exit from power. For example is there a Zimbabwean embassy here and if there is why dont we just expell their diplomats until Mugabe is gone. Why do we give legitimacy to his illigitimate regime by doing business with his representitives?

Dirk Gently

is he not stepping down anyway. I thought I read a piece a while ago that said there were moves within his own party to remove him and apparently they are trying to do a deal with the opposition as to an acceptable replacement. Don't ask me for referances, it was a few months ago I read it, probably the bbc or the guardian.

FTA69

As long as Ian Smith never sees political office I'll be a happy man, how such a racist scumbag has been elevated into the leader of the "long-suffering" colonial minority there and subsequently lionised in the Brit media is beyond me.

mike65

FTA69, Smith is in South Africa and as far as I can tell holds no sway with anyone including the oppressed white minority.

Indeed Mugabe would be most pleased to read such comments above as its whats kept him in power.

Mike

FTA69

FTA69, Smith is in South Africa and as far as I can tell holds no sway with anyone including the oppressed white minority

He was being interviewed on a regular basis by the BBC and other papers IIRC, he may hold no political sway but I think self-righteous posturing by an apartheid leader is hypocritical in the extreme. I also wouldn't describe the white minority as "oppressed" considering they'd no business being there in the first place. It's not them I'm concerned about anyway, rather the ordinary Zimbabwean who has to live under Mugabe's corruption.

Indeed Mugabe would be most pleased to read such comments above as its whats kept him in power.

I doubt anything I say will make a difference to be honest.

Interestingly enough Mugabe is quite a popular leader in Africa, I remember talking to a number of ANC members who repeatedly dismissed any criticism of the man as "propaganda". I would have no problem with his dispossesion of colonialists, rather the fact the land ends up in the hands of his cronies.

Zambia

FTA69 wrote:

As long as Ian Smith never sees political office I'll be a happy man, how such a racist scumbag has been elevated into the leader of the "long-suffering" colonial minority there and subsequently lionised in the Brit media is beyond me.

So what your saying is you are happy to see the population of Zimbabwe starve so you can feel better about the removal of Ian Smith and his white regime.

Ian smith is consulted because he was a part of growing the country that Mugabe has destroyed. Zimbabwe was the one place in africa even in the 90's where whites and blacks lived in a sort of harmony. Never seen anywhere in africa at the time. Zimbabwens where happy enough. This is no longer the case , Mugabe took farms of White farmers who had paid for them since 1980 by mortgaging themselves with a Zimbabwen bank.

Its bleedin hearts like yours that refuse to take action against Zimbabwe because of the wholesale reason Mugabe is black leader in a black country. The rest of the OAU refuse to condemn him and his regime due to the same fact.

Pretty much because those in Glasshouses should not throw stones.

Mugabes crimes against his own people far outweigh anything that I have heard you scream blue murder about the British doing in the North. Could you imagine FF refusing to send food to Finglas unless the count returned a FF majority.

If I asked you honestly was life better for the average Rhodesian in 1975 or the current zimbabwen who cant afford to buy food due to some demented old man who wont step down. Believe me the answer would be the former.

A vote who be of small comfort to me when I was starving. and even if i did vote it was only in a rigged election under pain of beating.

The white regime was unfair and prejudice but in my opinion Mugabe is twice the blight on the country even the worst Rhodesian was.

FTA69

Ian smith is consulted because he was a part of growing the country that Mugabe has destroyed.

Ian Smith "grew" nothing, in fact he presided over an apartheid state and resisted with brute force any attempt to create a society based on majority rule. In other words he is not a man to lecture on democracy considering he withheld that right from the people because the majority happened to be black. A racist should not be held up in opposition to a dictator.

So what your saying is you are happy to see the population of Zimbabwe starve so you can feel better about the removal of Ian Smith and his white regime.

Where did I say that? Misrepresenting my post does nothing to advance your point, and as I said above I have no problem with condemning Mugabe or pointing out what he is, a dictator. I only queried the elevation of Smith into some sort of hero speaking out for a shower of colonials when in fact he was never democratically elected himself.

Its bleedin hearts like yours that refuse to take action against Zimbabwe because of the wholesale reason Mugabe is black leader in a black country. The rest of the OAU refuse to condemn him and his regime due to the same fact.

First of all I'm not a "bleeding heart". Second of all I actually had this argument with a group of ANC members who insisted he was the best thing since sliced bread. Thirdly, what do you mean by "take action"? Most countries in Africa have similar governmental systems and similar oppression. Why does Mugabe stand out as a priority for you?

Mugabes crimes against his own people far outweigh anything that I have heard you scream blue murder about the British doing in the North. Could you imagine FF refusing to send food to Finglas unless the count returned a FF majority.

What are you on about lad? Again I'll ask, where did I say I support Mugabe? At least attempt to actually read my posts before having a whinge over nothing.

Zambia

FTA69 wrote:

As long as Ian Smith never sees political office I'll be a happy man, how such a racist scumbag has been elevated into the leader of the "long-suffering" colonial minority there and subsequently lionised in the Brit media is beyond me.

This post indicates Mugabe or anyone is a better option Ian Smith when thats not the case

As for racist scumbag - well thats Mugabe...


Actually your right the bleeding heart comment I took to far , I apologise for it

El Stuntman

South Africa could remove Mugabe in the morning by closing the border

but they choose not to do this to their 'brother in the revolutionary struggle'

pathetic and cowardly

Benedict XVI

FTA69 wrote:

Interestingly enough Mugabe is quite a popular leader in Africa, I remember talking to a number of ANC members who repeatedly dismissed any criticism of the man as "propaganda". I would have no problem with his dispossesion of colonialists, rather the fact the land ends up in the hands of his cronies.

El Stuntman wrote:

South Africa could remove Mugabe in the morning by closing the border

but they choose not to do this to their 'brother in the revolutionary struggle'

pathetic and cowardly

From what I can see South Africa is on the same road as Zimbabwe.
The way they are turning a blind eye to events in the neighboring country is worrying.
I can see a Mugabe type emerge in SA in the next few year, re-possession of land and business from whites will start, the white brain drain is already in full swing and be fore you know it inflation will be spiraling and the shelves will be empty.

You have to ask ‘Can native Africans actually run a country successfully ?’, if you ask me the answer is a big ‘No’.

sovtek

Benedict XVI wrote:

You have to ask ‘Can native Africans actually run a country successfully ?’, if you ask me the answer is a big ‘No’.

You actually have to ask "When will Africans be allowed to run their countries'"?

Mugabe is only leading by bad example.

Zambia

sovtek wrote:

You actually have to ask "When will Africans be allowed to run their countries'"?

Mugabe is only leading by bad example.

Are you saying that Mugabes paticular traits have been taught to him by his former Colonial masters

El Stuntman

Benedict XVI wrote:

From what I can see South Africa is on the same road as Zimbabwe.
The way they are turning a blind eye to events in the neighboring country is worrying.
I can see a Mugabe type emerge in SA in the next few year, re-possession of land and business from whites will start, the white brain drain is already in full swing and be fore you know it inflation will be spiraling and the shelves will be empty.

You have to ask ‘Can native Africans actually run a country successfully ?’, if you ask me the answer is a big ‘No’.

I travel to SA several times every year. The only really scary politician down there is Jacob Zuma and there's very little chance of his career advancing any further. The country is booming economically and many whites are returning from London, Dublin (wow), Australia etc.

your post is baseless (and your last question is racist)

El Stuntman

sovtek wrote:

You actually have to ask "When will Africans be allowed to run their countries'"?

Mugabe is only leading by bad example.

please expand on this and provide some backup

Benedict XVI

El Stuntman wrote:

your post is baseless (and your last question is racist)

I know, it's just my opinion, lets see in 20 years time.

sovtek

El Stuntman wrote:

please expand on this and provide some backup

I would have thought it common knowledge. IMF/World Bank for starters.
Ian Smith ran the country like a saint.

El Stuntman

I think you'll find that all Zimbabweans were better off under Ian Smith (except maybe Mugabe and his now corruption-enriched cronies)

compare and contrast mortality figures for one revealing statistic

sovtek

El Stuntman wrote:

The country is booming economically and many whites are returning from London, Dublin (wow), Australia etc.

Which means a relative few are very rich while the rest are screwed.

sovtek

El Stuntman wrote:

I think you'll find that all Zimbabweans were better off under Ian Smith (except maybe Mugabe and his now corruption-enriched cronies)

compare and contrast mortality figures for one revealing statistic

Besides being the leader of a system that retained wealth for a minority of the population...do you think Ian Smith wasn't at all corrupt?
Mugabe's ruthlessness and incompetance are a direct result of that mentioned above.
The problem "our" government has isn't this though...its mainly because he told the IMF to **** off.

El Stuntman

sovtek wrote:

Which means a relative few are very rich while the rest are screwed.

funny, the burgeoning black middle class doesn't look too screwed to me

lostexpectation

john o shea of goal again adovcated invaded and recolonising africa again! on the radio, god he make my blood boil!

his exact words were the afircan dictatorships should be taken down, now what could that mean???

oh course it worked so well before didn't mr neocon-charity man

mike65

John O'Shea is one of the few who is'nt weighed down by Political Correct fear and loathing.

Mike.

crybaby

his exact words were the afircan dictatorships should be taken down, now what could that mean???

ah sure its only a bunch of dictators robbing their own people blind with corruption and doing nothing to advance a continent that is so far behind the rest of the world that it is scary, ah sure just leave them at it

Judt

lostexpectation wrote:

john o shea of goal again adovcated invaded and recolonising africa again! on the radio, god he make my blood boil!

his exact words were the afircan dictatorships should be taken down, now what could that mean???

oh course it worked so well before didn't mr neocon-charity man

Better benevolent dictators than idiots like Mugabe, is his reasoning I think. Not that the west would want to do it... I think though that there might be a couple of starving African's missing a few limbs, family members and their homes might not be particularly thankful for your enthusiastic defence of their right to live under an African dictatorship. But the question of the west moving in and clearing house is out of the question - even in places like Sudan, where Darfur has almost everyone universally calling for that kind of action, the west won't do it.

Why? Well, who the hell wants to get into that big quagmire? Name me a long-term successful UN mission in Africa...

The question "Are African's too stupid to run their own countries?" often gets bandied about. I don't think so. But I do think that they lack experience. The problem is that unlike, say, Europe a few hundred years ago, they have the examples of the rest of the world to go by on what works and what doesn't, and they seem to ignore them in favour of "OMFG, we have access to the funds of a country now?! Let's go buy gold plated swimming pools!"

The ultimate example of this being the wife of Nelson Mandela, who is one of the most corrupt individuals in Africa.

Africa has had a good run at independence, and I think the time has come to stop blaming the west for all of its problems. The African's have created plenty for themselves, and blaming it all on us is a bit like the Irish blaming their former economic woes on the British, because the Irish introduced idiotic protectionist policies on political rather than economic terms. There comes a point when you have to stop blaming your former colonial masters and face up to the problems you're creating for yourself.

FTA69

Zambia232 wrote:

This post indicates Mugabe or anyone is a better option Ian Smith when thats not the case

Probably not, I just can't see any reform taking place for the foreseeable future. And if it does it will have to come from the black population, not the whites.

As for racist scumbag - well thats Mugabe...

True, but their racism is quite different in nature. Smith's racism lay in the fact that he thought blacks as inherently inferior, the white colonial population didn't do much to endear themselves to the majority of Africans.

Actually your right the bleeding heart comment I took to far , I apologise for it

No bother at all lad.

Mick86

lostexpectation wrote:

john o shea of goal again adovcated invaded and recolonising africa again! on the radio, god he make my blood boil!

his exact words were the afircan dictatorships should be taken down, now what could that mean???

oh course it worked so well before didn't mr neocon-charity man

I don't object to African dictators, or any other kind for that matter, being deposed. Who does O'Shea propose to do the deposing? Why would anybody want toand if they did what's the benefit?

mike65 wrote:

John O'Shea is one of the few who is'nt weighed down by Political Correct fear and loathing.

Mike.

He's not weighed down by much in the brain department either.

crybaby wrote:

ah sure its only a bunch of dictators robbing their own people blind with corruption and doing nothing to advance a continent that is so far behind the rest of the world that it is scary, ah sure just leave them at it

These are all free and independent states we're talking about. They liberated themselves of the yoke of oppression and colonialism and what they do with their freedom is entirely up to them.

gbh

Judt wrote:

Africa has had a good run at independence, and I think the time has come to stop blaming the west for all of its problems. The African's have created plenty for themselves, and blaming it all on us is a bit like the Irish blaming their former economic woes on the British, because the Irish introduced idiotic protectionist policies on political rather than economic terms. There comes a point when you have to stop blaming your former colonial masters and face up to the problems you're creating for yourself.

Agreed...about 99% of their problems are internal, due to mismanagment, corruption, poor decision making and not following best international practises...I dont know about invading a country to bring down a regime because it sets a dangerous precedent and legitimises war against other countries. I do think there are more effective and peaceful ways to bring down a regime such as targeted sanctions, banning their diplomatic staff, helping the opposition.

lostexpectation

Judt wrote:

Better benevolent dictators than idiots like Mugabe, is his reasoning I think. Not that the west would want to do it... I think though that there might be a couple of starving African's missing a few limbs, family members and their homes might not be particularly thankful for your enthusiastic defence of their right to live under an African dictatorship. But the question of the west moving in and clearing house is out of the question - even in places like Sudan, where Darfur has almost everyone universally calling for that kind of action, the west won't do it.

wasn't mugabe benevolent(revolutionary) dictator when he started out? and pretty most of the time they've tried this before, the installed rulers whether left or right have turned into life long brutal dictators? it seems john o shea just wants to being captialism to africa not democracy, when he says freedom (read capitalism) but both left and right wing coups have ended up in just as brutal dictatorships in most cases.

indeed ian o'doherty on the satruday view referenced john o shea and admitted that he thought the west should impose its civility on africa.

Bad bad man

gbh wrote:

Awful situation in Zimbabwe, once the bright hope for Africa now steadily declining into poverty and lack of hope. Inflation now at 4000%, unemployment something like 80%. And the latest news is Mugabe is building a £3 million shrine to himself.

This is what happens 10 times out of 10 when the left overtakes a country and embeds a dictator. The USSR was one big prison state as is Cuba, Zimbabwe, China, North Korea, Vietnam et al.

The world will be reading the same thing about Hugo Chavez in another 10-15 years.

Bad bad man

lostexpectation wrote:

... it seems john o shea just wants to being captialism to africa not democracy, when he says freedom (read capitalism) but both left and right wing coups have ended up in just as brutal dictatorships in most cases.

Can you name a brutal right-wing dictatorship in existnce today? Granted Chile was bad for a while, but Pinochet gave up power voluntarily and Chile is now the most prosperous country in S. America.

jonny72

Bad bad man wrote:

This is what happens 10 times out of 10 when the left overtakes a country and embeds a dictator. The USSR was one big prison state as is Cuba, Zimbabwe, China, North Korea, Vietnam et al.

The world will be reading the same thing about Hugo Chavez in another 10-15 years.

The left overtook Zimbabwe and embedded Mugabe?? please explain.

FTA69

Bad bad man wrote:

This is what happens 10 times out of 10 when the left overtakes a country and embeds a dictator. The USSR was one big prison state as is Cuba, Zimbabwe, China, North Korea, Vietnam et al.

The world will be reading the same thing about Hugo Chavez in another 10-15 years.

What a joke. There are less political prisoners in Cuba than there was in Ireland 10 years ago. Although it might also be a tad inconveniant for you that the majority of those in Cuba actually support the Revolution. Likewise with the USSR, it wasn't a model for socialism by any means, and it was corrupt and repressive in many ways, but it was better than what Russia is now.

FTA69

FTA69 wrote:

What a joke. There are less political prisoners in Cuba than there was in Ireland 10 years ago. Although it might also be a tad inconveniant for you that the majority of those in Cuba actually support the Revolution Likewise with the USSR, it wasn't a model for socialism by any means, and it was corrupt and repressive in many ways, but it was better than what Russia is now.

Hmmm Human rights watch wouldnt have cuba down as a model of fairness and equality.
As for Russia and the old USSR-much of a muchness.

El Stuntman

I find it amazing to see the rose-tinted views that people have of Cuba in this country

here's an interesting blog post that I came across by a Boardsie who recently travelled to Cuba - it should help to banish people's illusions about the place.
I found it to be very interesting reading

lostexpectation

El Stuntman wrote:

I find it amazing to see the rose-tinted views that people have of Cuba in this country

here's an interesting blog post that I came across by a Boardsie who recently travelled to Cuba - it should help to banish people's illusions about the place.
I found it to be very interesting reading

I don't disbelieve anything he said about people scrounging for dollars etc, but he does undercut himself by quoting from the CIA factbook, ( again I have little doubt about there facts, only about how they choose em) but don't quote from source that tried several times to steal the whole f'ing country!

I think your point on the CIA fact book is rather irrelevant lost expectation.

Personally I'd rather live in a country where pd's just don't get elected as opposed to being thrown in jail for their beliefs.

SkepticOne

FTA69 wrote:

What a joke. There are less political prisoners in Cuba than there was in Ireland 10 years ago.

In the case of Ireland would the term political prisoner include IRA murderers?

DadaKopf

gbh wrote:

Agreed...about 99% of their problems are internal, due to mismanagment, corruption, poor decision making and not following best international practises...I dont know about invading a country to bring down a regime because it sets a dangerous precedent and legitimises war against other countries. I do think there are more effective and peaceful ways to bring down a regime such as targeted sanctions, banning their diplomatic staff, helping the opposition.

It's absurd to put a figure on it, or even suggest a proportion. The reality is that it's a very complex mix of both. The other rule is you simply cannot generalise about an entire continent of over 50 countries with very different histories.

John O'Shea goes on a lot about how corrupt 'Africa' is, but never talks about the American and European countries that supply this corruption. And he never talks about how people in Africa are successfully fighting corruption themselves, and in extremely difficult circumstances.

O'Shea blames all of Africa, picks on two or three, but forgets things like the World Bank Corporate Legal Corruption Component index, which shows Ireland as more internally corrupt than Botswana.

He also won't talk about how the OECD recently berated Ireland's record on combating corruption, or that the FF/PD government would not ratify the UN Convention Against Corruption.

Why is that, I wonder?

lostexpectation

Tristrame wrote:

I think your point on the CIA fact book is rather irrelevant lost expectation.

Personally I'd rather live in a country where pd's just don't get elected as opposed to being thrown in jail for their beliefs.

the pd don't have any political beliefs they have ibec

lostexpectation

DadaKopf wrote:

John O'Shea goes on a lot about how corrupt 'Africa' is, but never talks about the American and European countries that supply this corruption. And he never talks about how people in Africa are successfully fighting corruption themselves, and in extremely difficult circumstances.

what OShea talks about is not channeling any aid through the government of the countries but this must be nonsense surely, they do use other channels/ngo to distriubte aid but how could you possibly distribute a 100% of western aid without the cooperation and resources/structures of the the governments?

DadaKopf

lostexpectation wrote:

what OShea talks about is not channeling any aid through the government of the countries but this must be nonsense surely, they do use other channels/ngo to distriubte aid but how could you possibly distribute a 100% of western aid without the cooperation and resources/structures of the the governments?

More than that. If you don't fund Southern governments, you undermine their capacities to govern, and to learn from mistakes; if you provide aid the wrong way, or interfere in Southern countries' governing processes, you prevent them from learning from their mistakes. Countries are entitled to make mistakes, and crucially to learn from them, as Ireland has done.

Think how developed Ireland would be if all EU structural funds had been channelled through St. Vincent de Paul?

mike65

lostexpectation wrote:

wasn't mugabe benevolent(revolutionary) dictator when he started out?

He was, there was some worry when he won power over Joshua Nkomo who the UK government was secretly hoping would win. Mugabes domestic record was never great (he was using violent/covert supression against Nkomos allies from the off) but in terms of the economy things were okay until about 1987/88 when he effectivly seized power for good. Since then his growing obsession with "whitey" and land-reform has plunged the place into the hell-hole it is.

Mike.

nacho libre

El Stuntman wrote:

South Africa could remove Mugabe in the morning by closing the border

but they choose not to do this to their 'brother in the revolutionary struggle'

pathetic and cowardly

Yes it's a bloody disgrace. The nerve that guy had to attend the last Pope's funeral.

nacho libre

Judt wrote:

Better benevolent dictators than idiots like Mugabe, is his reasoning I think. Not that the west would want to do it... I think though that there might be a couple of starving African's missing a few limbs, family members and their homes might not be particularly thankful for your enthusiastic defence of their right to live under an African dictatorship. But the question of the west moving in and clearing house is out of the question - even in places like Sudan, where Darfur has almost everyone universally calling for that kind of action, the west won't do it.

Why? Well, who the hell wants to get into that big quagmire? Name me a long-term successful UN mission in Africa...

The question "Are African's too stupid to run their own countries?" often gets bandied about. I don't think so. But I do think that they lack experience. The problem is that unlike, say, Europe a few hundred years ago, they have the examples of the rest of the world to go by on what works and what doesn't, and they seem to ignore them in favour of "OMFG, we have access to the funds of a country now?! Let's go buy gold plated swimming pools!"

The ultimate example of this being the wife of Nelson Mandela, who is one of the most corrupt individuals in Africa.

Africa has had a good run at independence, and I think the time has come to stop blaming the west for all of its problems. The African's have created plenty for themselves, and blaming it all on us is a bit like the Irish blaming their former economic woes on the British, because the Irish introduced idiotic protectionist policies on political rather than economic terms. There comes a point when you have to stop blaming your former colonial masters and face up to the problems you're creating for yourself.

Yeah, like Gabon which seems to be one of the few African countries where the government don't use the economy as their own personal bank account.

Mad Finn

Judt wrote:

The problem is ..they seem to ignore them in favour of "OMFG, we have access to the funds of a country now?! Let's go buy gold plated swimming pools!"

The ultimate example of this being the wife of Nelson Mandela, who is one of the most corrupt individuals in Africa.

If that's Winnie you're talking about, don't you mean ex wife?

Mad Finn

FTA69 wrote:

As long as Ian Smith never sees political office I'll be a happy man, how such a racist scumbag has been elevated into the leader of the "long-suffering" colonial minority there and subsequently lionised in the Brit media is beyond me.

mike65 wrote:

FTA69, Smith is in South Africa and as far as I can tell holds no sway with anyone including the oppressed white minority.

He's also 88 years old and has outlived his wife and only son. He now lives with his step daughter (also widowed) in S Africa. I don't think he's making any political comebacks.

Mugabe's a bastard and always was. His massacres in Matabeteland (Nkomo's heartland) on first coming to power were evidence of that.

Mind you, he's not the first tawdry product of an Irish Jesuit schooling.

Most newly independent countries go through a violent upheaval with the various factions determined to grab their share of all the loot for themselves. our own Civil War was an example.

The greatest moment in the our immediate post independence was when Cosgrave as leader of the outgoing Cumann na nGaedhael government handed over power peacefully to Fianna Fail, many of whose members had come into the Dail armed for fear that he would not honour the result of the election. He did. And Civil War politics should have ended then.

After that, the political process had credibility. People knew you could get rid of a govenrment simply by voting them out. Zimbabwe doesn't seem to have that dynamic just yet.

FTA69

SkepticOne wrote:

In the case of Ireland would the term political prisoner include IRA murderers?

Yes, you mightn't agree with their armed campaign but it remains politically motivated. Likewise with those in Cuba who are members of the plethora of armed groups trying to overthrow the Revolution.

(Of course not all political prisoners in Cuba are not members of these groups.)

Mick86

FTA69 wrote:

Yes, you mightn't agree with their armed campaign but it remains politically motivated.

Either you support a political process or a revolution. The two are mutually exclusive. Much of what various terrorist groups do for "political" reasons is mere common criminality dressed as heroic revolution.

gbh

Total economic collapse of the country is predicted within 6 months. Inflation will get so bad the country will no longer function.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6751671.stm

Surely they won't re-elect Mugabe for president again.

DadaKopf

'Elect'? If, by that, you mean people being press ganged at gunpoint to vote Mugabe.

Therein lies the problem. It's only right the world isolates him, but this not only hurts your average Zimbabwean, but strengthens his rule since he can conveniently blame the West and stoke up the fires of pro-Mugabe nationalism.

More than that, he may leave, but he'd likely put a crony in his place, and so the cycle continues. As is the pattern in many sub-Saharan African countries, the only option is conflict. But the opposition hasn't the space to even do that.

But I think the real political pressure should, and is coming from African countries themselves.

FTA69

Mick86 wrote:

Either you support a political process or a revolution. The two are mutually exclusive. Much of what various terrorist groups do for "political" reasons is mere common criminality dressed as heroic revolution.

Revolution in itself is a political process as it is politically motivated and seeks to effect a political change.