Why not Mugabe instead of Gadaffi?

The Rook

Hi all

Not sure if this is the right place for this question, but it's as good a place as any and better than most!

So with the Allied Forces now attacking the Libyan Government forces for what they say is humanitarian reasons.....why don't they attack Zimbabwe and Mugabe's forces for the same reason?

I have an inkling that it's due to a lack of oil reserves in Zimbabwe, but is that it? I can't believe that the Allied Forces are taking an action that they say is for one reason but is so clearly for something else so I can't help but think that I MUST be missing something!!

Anyone?!!

Cheers

The Rook

Dammer

There are probably a few reasons, but I'd go the following weighted...

70% for the Oil

20% Get rid of Gadaffi

10% Install western friendly regime

Mal-Adjusted

The west likes stability. the powers that be most likely didn't like a potentially prolonged civil war in a country so close to Europe. the presence of a huge oil port was probably a large factor in it as well...

PatricaMcKay

The Rook wrote: »

So with the Allied Forces now attacking the Libyan Government forces for what they say is humanitarian reasons.....why don't they attack Zimbabwe and Mugabe's forces for the same reason?

Basically because as Blair admitted before Zanu-PF and Mugabe are to popular and their popularity has only been on the up since he said that. Thats why simply.

Einhard

Because there has been no massive popular revolt against Mugabe. Indeed, the opposition are currently in a coalition government with Zanu-PF.

Because the opposition hasn't called for military intervention.

Because no regional political groups have called for military intervention.

Because the UN hasn't sanctioned military intervention.

Because the situations in both nations are entirely different.

I'm beginning to think that those who state the Libyan intervention is all about oil, actually want it to be about oil, because it suits whatever political agenda they have. I don't see how they could otherwise ignore all the contrary evidence.

aidan24326

The Rook wrote: »

Hi all

Not sure if this is the right place for this question, but it's as good a place as any and better than most!

So with the Allied Forces now attacking the Libyan Government forces for what they say is humanitarian reasons.....why don't they attack Zimbabwe and Mugabe's forces for the same reason?

I have an inkling that it's due to a lack of oil reserves in Zimbabwe, but is that it? I can't believe that the Allied Forces are taking an action that they say is for one reason but is so clearly for something else so I can't help but think that I MUST be missing something!!

Anyone?!!

Cheers

The Rook

Because it's never about humanitarian reasons. It's about protecting Western strategic and economic interests. Why Libya is of importance I'm not sure, but why Zimbabwe isn't I am fairly sure. The US, Britain and France choose their regime overthrows selectively depending on whether the country in question has an economic impact on Europe/US/Global Industry.

Overheal

can someone give us (read: me) a brief rundown of Mugabe's crimes? I'm trying to look it up on his bio page and the Zimbabwe article but all im getting is your typical police brutality here, racism there, and some seizure of farmland also attributable to racism. None of which seems to merit military intervention. Zimbabwe has already been sanctioned by the US and EU several times and it seems to reflect on the country's decimated economy. Whereas in Libya you have a rebel force staging a war against a military which was turned on it's own people, killing people with tanks and air strikes. The situation is rather different from my vague understanding.

There seems to be an ignorance among many that apparently the only best recourse is invasion and regime change of all these places, when if what I'm looking at is true, all it took was sanctions to bring the country into a slump. Apparently the only thing stopping Zimbabwe from recovering is a stubborn Mugabe that would rather rule by his own ideals and isolate his nation from the rest of the world than to live up to the UDHR and get the sanctions lifted. The ball is in his court. Am I wrong? It's okay if I'm wrong, I'm just brushing up on this stuff now. The UN puts sanctions on other countries all the time, and they either choose to ignore them or bargain their way out of them. One way or another it's much less expensive in lives and money than going in with military force.

Victor

Overheal wrote: »

can someone give us (read: me) a brief rundown of Mugabe's crimes? I'm trying to look it up on his bio page and the Zimbabwe article but all im getting is your typical police brutality here, racism there, and some seizure of farmland also attributable to racism.

Its more than that.

80% unemployment. Systematic use of thuggery to get his way. Regular killing of political opponents. Election fraud - "democratic dictatorship". Military intervention in the DRC.

Oh yes, he's a friend of Ghaddaffi (amongst others) and sent him lions and gave him a farm.

Overheal

Victor wrote: »

Its more than that.

80% unemployment. Systematic use of thuggery to get his way. Regular killing of political opponents. Election fraud - "democratic dictatorship". Military intervention in the DRC.

Oh yes, he's a friend of Ghaddaffi (amongst others) and sent him lions and gave him a farm.

I saw the unemployment rate. I assume the people just live subsistent lives but is it grounds for UN intervention? The UN has rules in place that expressly forbid that from happening except in the most extreme cases. Where Libya falls in on that I leave up to the lawyers.

Predator_

Do no believe the lies, this is not to protect civilians. Thats if your still stupid enough to believe their lies.

RandomName2

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

The west likes stability. the powers that be most likely didn't like a potentially prolonged civil war in a country so close to Europe. the presence of a huge oil port was probably a large factor in it as well...

If you like cheap oil (or other natural resources) you cosy up to dictators, not attack them .

RandomName2

Overheal wrote: »

can someone give us (read: me) a brief rundown of Mugabe's crimes? I'm trying to look it up on his bio page and the Zimbabwe article but all im getting is your typical police brutality here, racism there, and some seizure of farmland also attributable to racism. None of which seems to merit military intervention. Zimbabwe has already been sanctioned by the US and EU several times and it seems to reflect on the country's decimated economy. Whereas in Libya you have a rebel force staging a war against a military which was turned on it's own people, killing people with tanks and air strikes. The situation is rather different from my vague understanding.

There seems to be an ignorance among many that apparently the only best recourse is invasion and regime change of all these places, when if what I'm looking at is true, all it took was sanctions to bring the country into a slump. Apparently the only thing stopping Zimbabwe from recovering is a stubborn Mugabe that would rather rule by his own ideals and isolate his nation from the rest of the world than to live up to the UDHR and get the sanctions lifted. The ball is in his court. Am I wrong? It's okay if I'm wrong, I'm just brushing up on this stuff now. The UN puts sanctions on other countries all the time, and they either choose to ignore them or bargain their way out of them. One way or another it's much less expensive in lives and money than going in with military force.

You have to treat somewhere like Zimbabwe/Rhodesia as a long standing failed state that would require a whole transplant of governance, judicial system and public service. Blowing off Mugabe's head - whilst justified, would in itself change little.

I mean guys like Mugabe like generating man-made famines and the like as a means to stay in power (some other dictators actually want their countries prosper to some extent in order to be strong enough to conquer new territory). I'm afraid that any successor to Mugabe would probably continue this MO just as a means to maintain power. It's a sort of self-selecting procedure ;-)

When going into Afghanistan the US went to great pains to prevent the Northern Alliance from turning into a new Taliban (which they were successful in). However, loyalty to a unified central government has been far harder to achieve, despite significant effort.

Jonny7

"Its about oil" "Its about Western imperialism" "Its all lies by the West"

Iraq 91 - yes
Iraq 03 - very much yes
Most of the cold war - yes

Yugoslavia - no
Somalia - no

If Libya had no oil - this action would still be happening, I know many can't 'believe' that but not all our leaders think constantly like Rumsfeld and Bush

If Libya had no oil, but was based deeper into Africa, more jungle - No fly zone wouldn't work and would be logistically much harder, another Somalia, would have to be boots on the ground, very risky - perhaps something like that will be possible if Libya is a success but now, with all the factors - no

If Gaddafi stepped aside like a normal leader and didn't turn into a genocidal monster - then no

Dr. Greenthumb

Zimbabwe used to be called the bread basket of Africa I believe up until Mugabe went mental.

They used to have a thriving agricultural sector up until the late 90's. My brother went college with some white Zimbabweans who families owned massive farms and employed a lot of people. Some even went back to fight in the white army that was protecting these farms. The repossession of these farm is what plummeted Zimbabwe into the state they are in now. The native African didn't have the know how to run them so the crops failed.

From what I heard a lot of the farmers were offered lands in neighboring countries.

AlekSmart

Dr. Greenthumb wrote: »

Zimbabwe used to be called the bread basket of Africa I believe up until Mugabe went mental.

They used to have a thriving agricultural sector up until the late 90's. My brother went college with some white Zimbabweans who families owned massive farms and employed a lot of people. Some even went back to fight in the white army that was protecting these farms. The repossession of these farm is what plummeted Zimbabwe into the state they are in now. The native African didn't have the know how to run them so the crops failed.

From what I heard a lot of the farmers were offered lands in neighboring countries.

Dr Greenthumb is opening a can of worms here sure`nuff.

Comrade Mugabe and his Party Loyalists brought an entire new meaning to the term "Popular Rebellion".

The manner by which Mugabe and ZANU-PF took control and dismantled what was a functional and efficient pallette in Rhodesia and instead instituted a Year Zero regime remains somewhat of a stain on Western Nations claims to be defenders of Citizens Rights (a lá Libya)

It`s not nearly enough to say that "the Africans did not have the know-how to run the farms" but rather why Mr Mugabe and successive of his administrations actively conspired to prevent the new Zimbabewean citizens from accquiring such skills.

The famines and general collapse which Mugabe`s policies resulted in were not so much crimes against humanity alone but a genuine desire to inflict misery and destruction upon the entire fabric of a country and it`s people.

donaghs

There is hypocrisy in most humanitarian interventions, but pointing the finger in another direction isnt a solution.

I'd say apart from the oil/gas factor, the main reason Mugabe is still in power is that he is on good terms with the main regional power, South Africa. And has very good relations with the ANC.

mike65

Dr. Greenthumb wrote: »

Zimbabwe used to be called the bread basket of Africa I believe up until Mugabe went mental.

Indeed it was

Dr. Greenthumb wrote: »

From what I heard a lot of the farmers were offered lands in neighboring countries.

Angola, Mozambique, Zambia took in some of the "white flight" with mixed results. As for the lack of intervention, apart from protecting Benghazi real-politik means Libya of immediate concern - right on Europes doorstep in the midst of an arc of Arab uprisings. That "big picture" needs managment and the current intervention is part of it, whether its acknowledged or not (subject for another thread).

Zimbabwe on the other hand is mainly a concern for new economic masters China, South Africa and the African Union these days (since "peace" broke out) and its one they won't go near. Personally I think the UN should have sanctioned action about 10 years ago.

Mal-Adjusted

RandomName2 wrote: »

If you like cheap oil (or other natural resources) you cosy up to dictators, not attack them .

um...what do you think they're doing? Gadaffi was simply never going to win this one so TPTB have 2 options, do nothing and let civil war tear the country's infrastructure apart until Gadaffi is beaten 6 months to a year down the line & try to cosy up to the new guy(s) then... or attack Gadaffi now, end the violence quickly, protect infrastructure and endere you to the new regime by doing so. simples

PeakOutput

The Rook wrote: »

Hi all

Not sure if this is the right place for this question, but it's as good a place as any and better than most!

So with the Allied Forces now attacking the Libyan Government forces for what they say is humanitarian reasons.....why don't they attack Zimbabwe and Mugabe's forces for the same reason?

I have an inkling that it's due to a lack of oil reserves in Zimbabwe, but is that it? I can't believe that the Allied Forces are taking an action that they say is for one reason but is so clearly for something else so I can't help but think that I MUST be missing something!!

Anyone?!!

Cheers

The Rook

why does it have to be one or the other? they should kill both obviously

Overheal

PeakOutput wrote: »

why does it have to be one or the other? they should kill both obviously

Im no UN Law scholar but my understanding in the last day or two is there is nothing Mugabe is doing that merits international intervention. The UN can mandate an intervention, like it did with the French involvement in Rwanda, but his crimes are relocating his people and taking land off whites. Does he have killing fields? Is he systematically murdering the whites? Are those whites free to leave the country? Are the general population, impoverished and unemployed also free to leave?

There's a difference between reallocating farmland and declaring that you will go home to home to eliminate the 'rats'. And then launching your military on your own people. When his fighter jets started defecting and flying into other countries I think thats when the international community began taking serious notice of something wrong happening.

PeakOutput

Overheal wrote: »

Im no UN Law scholar but my understanding in the last day or two is there is nothing Mugabe is doing that merits international intervention. The UN can mandate an intervention, like it did with the French involvement in Rwanda, but his crimes are relocating his people and taking land off whites. Does he have killing fields? Is he systematically murdering the whites? Are those whites free to leave the country? Are the general population, impoverished and unemployed also free to leave?

There's a difference between reallocating farmland and declaring that you will go home to home to eliminate the 'rats'. And then launching your military on your own people. When his fighter jets started defecting and flying into other countries I think thats when the international community began taking serious notice of something wrong happening.

ye obviously it is not as simple as just going in guns blazing, I was just saying in my opinion the downfall of mugabe should be orchestrated and this either or argument holds no water.

You shouldnt give out to someone who just did something good because he dosnt do it often enough.

that last sentence may only make sense in my head, im tired

southsiderosie

I think a key difference is also the nature of intervention.

The Allies are getting involved in Libya because it is strictly on the basis of not having to put boots on the ground. Libya has mobilized tanks and planes; the West can fly in and bomb those tanks and planes and bases without getting its hands too dirty.

In contrast, Mugabe used crowds of rent-a-thugs to attack opposition groups, false imprisonment, and intimidation. While he is no less of a tyrant than Gaddafi, his methods are relatively low-tech, and therefore any military intervention would involve ground troops, which can get very messy very quickly. So from that perspective, sanctions make more sense, as they are a relatively cost-free way to hit a 'rogue' regime.

Overheal

Theres also the sense on a time limit in Libya: if we had waited until May, for instance, would there be anything left to defend or would Ghadaffi have lived up to his promise to cleanse one house at a time? There isn't nearly the same sense of urgency to Zimbabwe.

R P McMurphy

Even if the intervention in Libya was motivated by interests in the county's resources, I think that to stand back and do nothing while civilians were being killed would be unacceptable.

As for mugabe, I had hoped for greater intervention to assist the general population. With the entrance of the opposition into power sharing he is there for the long haul

simplistic2

Here’s what’s going on. A slave owner has lost the plot and is slaughtering his slaves, so the international committee of slave owners (ICOSO) have decided to have a meeting. I happen to have a few excerpts from the meeting, it went something like this:

Slavemaster Peirre : Christ what the hell is he doing! The fool is killing all his workers.

Slavemaster Ronald : Calm down, Calm down there only bloody slaves.

Slavemaster Peirre: We must do something!

Slavemaster Deano : Why the bloody hell should we?! What’s in it for us?

Slavemaster Peirre: What the hell do you think is in it for us? Oil of course! Why else do we call these meetings! Deano your becoming complacent!

Slavemaster Deano: Right so should I issue the standard war on terrorism line?

Slavemaster Ronald: No,no I’ve done that routine to death , we need something more caring ,more humane...

Slavemaster Peirre : I’ve got it! We’ll tell them that we are doing it because we care about his slaves and the way he’s treating them is not on!

Slavemaster Deano: Your mad Peirre! But I like it...they’ll lap that one up!

Slavemaster Peirre : Right lads, now back to your tax farms and big smiles all round!

RandomName2

simplistic2 wrote: »

Here’s what’s going on. A slave owner has lost the plot and is slaughtering his slaves, so the international committee of slave owners (ICOSO) have decided to have a meeting. I happen to have a few excerpts from the meeting, it went something like this:

Slavemaster Peirre : Christ what the hell is he doing! The fool is killing all his workers.

Slavemaster Ronald : Calm down, Calm down they're only bloody slaves.

Slavemaster Peirre: We must do something!

Slavemaster Deano : Why the bloody hell should we?! What’s in it for us?

Slavemaster Peirre: What the hell do you think is in it for us? Oil of course! Why else do we call these meetings! Deano you're becoming complacent!

Slavemaster Deano: Right so should I issue the standard war on terrorism line?

Slavemaster Ronald: No,no, I’ve done that routine to death , we need something more caring ,more humane...

Slavemaster Peirre : I’ve got it! We’ll tell them that we are doing it because we care about his slaves and the way he’s treating them is not on!

Slavemaster Deano: You're mad Peirre! But I like it...they’ll lap that one up!

Slavemaster Peirre : Right lads, now back to your tax farms and big smiles all round!

And yet I'm sure if they did nothing the Western powers would be blamed anyways. :pac:

Sometimes it's just lose-lose.

I suppose they were in Vietnam for the oil too? :pac:

Look, what you say has some validity; but just as you say that their response is knee-jerk, so is yours.

donaghs

Overheal wrote: »

Im no UN Law scholar but my understanding in the last day or two is there is nothing Mugabe is doing that merits international intervention. The UN can mandate an intervention, like it did with the French involvement in Rwanda, but his crimes are relocating his people and taking land off whites. Does he have killing fields? Is he systematically murdering the whites? Are those whites free to leave the country? Are the general population, impoverished and unemployed also free to leave?

There's a difference between reallocating farmland and declaring that you will go home to home to eliminate the 'rats'. And then launching your military on your own people. When his fighter jets started defecting and flying into other countries I think thats when the international community began taking serious notice of something wrong happening.

Mugabe has been accused of using genocide against some of the (black) peoples of Zimbabwe, e.g. Matabeleland in the early 80s.
http://www.zanupfpub.com/index2.html

petroltimer

shock and awe baby, why don't the yanks get in there and smoke him out, maybe they could make a new deck of cards, ace of spades gadafi and the joker would be obama because thats what he is a 1 term joke.

Dave!

That's some goood metaphor use!