Zimbabwe nearing end of the road ?

mike65

Won't someone put Zimbabwe out of its misery?

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=42542

The economy is moribund, the currency worthless and half the nation is in danger of starvation. That would be bad enough, but in an escalating crackdown that began last month, police and security forces have been burning and bulldozing the pitifully humble homes and businesses in the sprawling shanty towns that surround Zimbabwe's major cities.

The main opposition party estimates that 1 million to 1.5 million are homeless, with their livelihoods destroyed.

The government insists that the demolitions are both urban renewal and a crackdown on black markets in the basic necessities of life — corn meal, cooking oil, sugar and gasoline. This reasoning is nonsense. The government doesn't have the money to build anything, let alone whole new communities, and the black market is about the only form of commerce left.

The real reason is to expel an angry, restive urban population and disperse it in the countryside where it will pose no threat to the regime of Robert Mugabe.

http://www.capetimes.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=272&fArticleId=2547300

Harare - Food-deficient Zimbabwe could soon face bread shortages as wheat imports have started running out due to foreign exchange problems, a state-owned newspaper said.

"The country could face bread shortages as flour supplies continue to dwindle," the Sunday Mail said.

National Bakers' Association chairperson and Lobels Bakers chief executive Burombo Mudumo said the supply situation was presently below normal for big bakeries who were using their strategic reserves.

The parastatal National Foods, which imports the bulk of Zimbabwe's wheat supplies, said it had been unable to successfully bid for foreign exchange under a mandatory government auction system due to a cash crunch.

Sorry cant think of much more to say........:(

Mike.

murphaph

Poor ba$tards. If only they had oil then the coalition of the willing would be all out to 'help' them.

Karl Hungus

It's very hard to think of anything to say with reguards to a situation like that. That bastard Mugabe is just ass-****ing his county entirely.

If you go to this website, the picture of him is reminiscant of another dictator with an equally iconic mustache. The world would indeed be a better place without him.

Red Alert

Realistically very little is going to happen there until Bob Mugabe kicks the bucket. There's no oil or the like there, and none of its neighbours has really any reason to invade. I'd give Mugabe another 5 years - he's in quite poor health.

murphaph

Red Alert wrote:

Realistically very little is going to happen there until Bob Mugabe kicks the bucket. There's no oil or the like there, and none of its neighbours has really any reason to invade. I'd give Mugabe another 5 years - he's in quite poor health.

Sadly a sh!t load of ordinary zimbabweans are gonna starve to death before the old bugger dies peacefully in his sleep.

Sand

Probably the best thing to do would be to get a resolution passed in the U.N. Call on Mugabe to stop treating his people in such a fashion, etc etc. If he doesnt pay attention, the U.N. could place sanctions to really speed things along to their conclusion. Intervention isnt really called for as Mugabe is only a threat to his own people. Theyre the ones with a responsiblity for dealing with him. Diplomacy never failed to solve everything.

RagShagBill

Diplomacy never failed to solve everything.

First of all, it depends by what you want solved.

Secondly, and not to sound like a war-mongering bastard, but that's just flat out false. Diplomacy failed to prevent Hitler's invasion of Poland, diplomacy failed to prevent Vietnam becoming Communist.

You know what I mean?

Anyway, for good stuff on Zimbabwe, check out http://www.sokwanele.com/blog/blog.html

I don't think an invasion is the right thing to do, because it could be used to justify Mugabe's arms buying, because it would, like Iraq, be an illegal invasion, thus making international law defunct and because we would see large scale death. However, something is needed, whether it be the UN or secretly funding the opposition, MDC, with money and arms, and actually backing a revolution if it were to occur.

Also, someone mentioned his ill health. I don't think this has any value, as he is due to resign at the end of the term he has just begun. No doubt we'll see him try to appoint an ideologically similar man.

angry_fox

Has Mugabe not offered the white farmers there land back if they come back? Heard they told him to F**k off.

Sand

Secondly, and not to sound like a war-mongering bastard, but that's just flat out false.

Actually it was sarcasm. Lets hope the international community can brainstorm a solution for Zimbabwe that doesnt involve waiting for Mugabe to die of old age. Sad part is, that is the international communitys solution.

However, something is needed, whether it be the UN or secretly funding the opposition, MDC, with money and arms, and actually backing a revolution if it were to occur.

U.N. cant and wont do anything. Hundreds of thousands are dying in Darfur and theyve done **** all. Theres too much politics involved for the U.N. to function in defence of human rights. The U.N. cant act against any sovereign nation, especially when they have an ally or concerned patron backing them in the security council - which they all do in todays interdependant global economy. Chinas thirst for Sudanese oil has ensured there will be no action taken to relieve the suffering in Darfur. Either way, fanning a brutal civil war is hardly the way forward for Zimbabwe, especially when you consider Mugabe was the right on poster child of the revolution against the neo-imperialist oppression by the Rhodesians not so long ago.

Mugabe doesnt care about sanctions, doesnt care about the international community and hes got the army and the police in his pocket. When the opposition stick their head up, theyre murdered. When reporters criticise him theyre silenced. Hes using hunger to starve his foes into submission. No one is willing to intervene in the required fashion.

Hence, like Darfur, its just a case of waiting for them to die until the problem solves itself.

bonkey

Sand wrote:

Chinas thirst for Sudanese oil has ensured there will be no action taken to relieve the suffering in Darfur.

Not to mention the US blocking the initial attempts to allow the ICC to step in. At least they've found a way around that one, for now.

Either way, fanning a brutal civil war is hardly the way forward for Zimbabwe,

No offence, Sand...but what - in your opinion - is the solution?

You're relatively critical of the international community not doing enough, but short of military action there's not much they can do. You admit internal armed struggle isn't likely to be a winner...so it would seem that you're either suggesting a military intervention would be the best way forward, or your criticising everyone for not doing it right but don't have any better options to offer.

So are you suggesting that the developed nations should roll their tanks in on top of every ruler we decide we should, can, or want to oust in the name of "freedom" - ignoring how long that will take?

Or is there some other option that everyone's missing?

jc

The Corinthian

I wonder if we'll all be having the same conversation about South Africa in another decade or two...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4613269.stm

murphaph

bonkey wrote:

Or is there some other option that everyone's missing?

Assasinate Mugabe? or does that fall under military action? Just an idea but it could lead to a civil war or just a straightforward Mugabe'esque replacement.

RagShagBill

Actually it was sarcasm. Lets hope the international community can brainstorm a solution for Zimbabwe that doesnt involve waiting for Mugabe to die of old age. Sad part is, that is the international communitys solution.

Boy do I feel like a right arse now.

U.N. cant and wont do anything. Hundreds of thousands are dying in Darfur and theyve done **** all. Theres too much politics involved for the U.N. to function in defence of human rights. The U.N. cant act against any sovereign nation, especially when they have an ally or concerned patron backing them in the security council - which they all do in todays interdependant global economy. Chinas thirst for Sudanese oil has ensured there will be no action taken to relieve the suffering in Darfur. Either way, fanning a brutal civil war is hardly the way forward for Zimbabwe, especially when you consider Mugabe was the right on poster child of the revolution against the neo-imperialist oppression by the Rhodesians not so long ago.

Mugabe doesnt care about sanctions, doesnt care about the international community and hes got the army and the police in his pocket. When the opposition stick their head up, theyre murdered. When reporters criticise him theyre silenced. Hes using hunger to starve his foes into submission. No one is willing to intervene in the required fashion.

Hence, like Darfur, its just a case of waiting for them to die until the problem solves itself.

I agree with every word. Would you support a full scale foreign intervention, or would you prefer someone does as I suggested, pushing arms into the country for a revolution?

I think some of the problem is that Zimbabwe is, or was anyway, a country which, like a lot of ex-colonised countries, had a market dominant minority. Thus, Mugabe could campaign about getting this ethnic minority who have stolen all our money out. He was, and I fear, still is, quite popular, espeically in rural areas.

Anyway, yes, I think I've had this discussion elsewhere, only you replace "Zimbabwe" with "Sudan" or "Iraq".

I like this Sand lad, he seems saner than some of the looney left here.

Calina

Couple of reports today that Mugabe hasn't died of heart failure: Scotsman link.

Wonder when he'll appear in public to prove he is just like a teenager. Obviously, I missed the reports that said he *had* died.

the_syco

Why don't we give Mugabe more money. Not publicly, of course, but behind the scenes. Let him live like a king. Get him a bit paranoid, maybe an "attempt" on his life, by a prime supporter. Alianate him from his people. Let him become as paranoid as possible, not trusting any of his subortinates.

And then give his oppostion some help to overthrow Mugabe. By that stage, hopefully Mugabe will be seen for what he is: a power hungry fool. And the next leader will have to be an opposite of Mugabe to be liked by the people.

sovtek

What to do about Mugabe.
That's a tough one.
However blaming the UN ignores blame shared by a few of it's strongest members for creating the situation that led to Mugabe in the first place.
As I understand it he wasn't a bad guy in the begining...and who knows what would have happened if the British would have just done the right think by Rhodesia/Zimbabwe in the first place.
The war against Zimbabwe perpetrated by the SA apartheid government (with support from the US and UK)went further to foster or even help create a brutal regime leader like Mugabe. That same aggression was extended to all SA's surrounding neighbors along with the resistance to apartheid rule (like the ANC)...Mugabe also supported those resistance movements. That's why people like Mbeke are loath to do much more than mildly criticize him.
Of course you could say "ok we know the history but what do we do now".
Frankly I don't know...but I have very little doubt that the current structures of power in the UN and the government of it's stongest members have changed enough to be the ones to solve it.

sovtek

the_syco wrote:

Why don't we give Mugabe more money. Not publicly, of course, but behind the scenes. Let him live like a king. Get him a bit paranoid, maybe an "attempt" on his life, by a prime supporter. Alianate him from his people. Let him become as paranoid as possible, not trusting any of his subortinates.

The presidents house in the city centre of Harare is constantly guarded and after 18:00 anyone driving down the road in front of it is shot.
The MDC leader was put on trial not too long ago, facing a death penalty for "treason".
I think he's crazy and paranoid enough as it is.
Of course having to fight the British, CIA, SADF and their other related military agencies for most of his life might have made him the paranoid, crazy and brutal bastard that he is today.

Quantum

mike65 wrote:

Won't someone put Zimbabwe out of its misery?

The tragic answer is - no one. Why ? Because no one gives a damn.

The people of Europe will wring their hands in cold sympathy and offer billions in aid to feed the people - but they won't allow anyone to lift a finger to actually bring freedom to the people. Millions can die, tends of thousands can be abused and tortured and killed, but that counts for nothing.
The sacred untouchable 'sovereignty' of Zimbabwe is out of bounds irrespective of any conceivable human degradation or suffering. The concept of liberating human beings from any kind of suffering is anathema to their supposed christian values. The concept of lifting a finger to end the suffering of fellow human beings is, it now appears, unacceptable and beyond consideration.

This is the reality of modern Europe.

mike65

The Corinthian wrote:

I wonder if we'll all be having the same conversation about South Africa in another decade or two...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4613269.stm

I thought that last night but had shut-down the pc! There are some worrying signs of SA following a similair path to Zimbabwe. If the whites leaves they'll take thier money and much of the know-how with them. Disaster will follow. Thabo Mbeki is a lousy leader of men.

Mike.

murphaph

The whole continent is fcuked in reality, from Libya to South Africa. If AIDS doesn't kill em all off starvation and civil war will.

Is there something inately wrong with Africa? Is it the people, is it the colonisation and carving up of tribal lands into fake countries by European powers?

Is there any hope for Africa really? Canceling their debt might be a step, but would the individual nations be able to borrow again? Would it just be a short term measure? Jesus there are lots of questions but fcuk all answers when it comes to the place.

mike65

I understand your frustration! One thng that always hangs heavy is why Asia which was colonised and mucked up/sometimes improved by various powers is broadly so much better off. Zimbabwe had - lush agriculture (largely destroyed) healthy mineral deposits (poorly exploited due to infrastructural and corruption failings) systems of law, health and education which have fallen in disrepair. Still Zambia and Botswana and Mozambique are doing better with the help of disposessed white farmers so hopefully (by accident) more of southern Africa will improve in the coming decades.

Mike.

murphaph

Well, which asian countries are we talking about? Most of Asia was not colonised by Europe, virtually all of Africa was. The bits of Asia that were colonised are indeed broadly better than most African states.

Are the people just more civilised in Asia?

They had great civilistations millenia ago. They gave us many of the things we take for granted like porcelain, gunpowder, writen languages, number systems, the digit 0 for placekeeping in mathematics for God's sake!

I can't think of anything that Africa has given the world in this regard. I'm sure someone will post a list of things now I've said that though

mike65

I won't go through the whole list but India/Pakistan/Malaysia/Thailand/Burma/Vietnam/Laos/Indonesia/Singapore/Hong Kong and even mainland China in a funny way (no British rule but plenty of licence) were colonised by European powers.

You're right about much of Asias luminous history pre-colonisation though.

As for what Africa gave us (or did'nt) there was a very lively thread which touched on that topic a year or two back.

Mike.

Sand

So are you suggesting that the developed nations should roll their tanks in on top of every ruler we decide we should, can, or want to oust in the name of "freedom" - ignoring how long that will take?

The developed "free" world has signed up to and honoured many declarations of human rights, theres been promises of "never again". To be honest Im sick of feel good politics. After Rwanda, we have Darfur. Same stuff happening all over again. The same organisation that is actually working *against* the defence of human rights, not upholding them. Not really its fault, no more than it actually achieved anything but it offers a mechanism for two of the most illiberal powers in the world, Russia and China to prevent any intervention in defence of human rights. Actually it offers them the moral highground in preserving illiberal states.

Roll our tanks in on top of every murderous tin pot dicatator starving his people, perverting the political proccess and inflicting misery on those whose interests hes supposed to act? You say it like it would be a bad idea to actually back up the commonly asserted view that a Zimbabwean has the same rights as you or I. At the end of the day you can either defend states or defend people but you cant do both.

In practical terms though it wouldnt work politically. Media criticism and political opportunism would ensure that any intervention would be constantly undermined by demands to withdraw as fast as possible. If previous interventions have taught us anything, its that intervention is a long term project. You can just invade on Friday, hold elections on Sunday and fly home on Monday. Early elections held in a sick society - and what other sort of society could reuire intervention - would only serve to reinforce grant power to the worst elements of that society - look at the Balkans. In an ideal situation, in Zimbabwe elections would be postphoned for years (up to a decade) whilst those intervening concentrated on establishing a rule of law that all trusted, a respected police force and civil service, a tradition of free speech and debate, efficient local government - and then once those were running national elections would be held. At the end of the day, elections are the least neccessary and most destabilising part of a good government.

Of course, no body would ever be given the time to carry out such a project. Wed have it denounced as neo-imperialist racist colonialist blah blah blah. All ignoring the fact that it took years before Germany regained its sovereignty and is still occupied to this day. The pressure amongst the right on would be to withdraw as fast as possible, give sovereignty over to Mugabe Jnr who seems like an awfully nice guy, and then send him lots of money.

So, if youre asking if I have another solution beyond the unpalatable concept of intervention - then no. There is no solution to the Mugabe problem other than that. So hopefully the newspapers will stop reporting on the issue until it runs its natural course. It only serves to remind us how meaningless stuff like the Declaration of Human Rights is.

Boy do I feel like a right arse now.

Dont worry about it. Sarcasm doesnt carry well across the internet.

would you prefer someone does as I suggested, pushing arms into the country for a revolution?

Nah - half the problem in the developing world is that the developed world has dumped immense amounts of small arms and other assorted weapons into domestic conflicts, pushing the balance of power all out of whack.

Once you hand over the guns, you lose all control over who uses them and for what purpose. Hence, theres a sort of moral obligation to keep arms under your control, or under the control of a liberal allied government. You wouldnt throw a gun into a room of fighting kids and hope for the best. It also makes realpolitick sense as well. You can be quite sure that a lot of the weapons that are killing US soldiers in Iraq these days were made or supplied by the US. Certainly the guys using them benefitted from US training.

The opposition in Zimbabwe, I dont know a whole lot about them. The MDC seem like really nice guys, but the international media is undoubtedly sympathetic to them so its hard to say what they might get up to if they suddenly were heavily armed and able to exact veangence against those who tormented them. And Im willing to bet it crosses tribal lines in Zimbabwe too, so there could be a whole powderkeg there.

If foreign troops were to go in, at least you know whose got the guns, and you know theyre following your orders, and that youre unlikely to unexpectedly find those guns trained on you in the future.

Is there something inately wrong with Africa? Is it the people, is it the colonisation and carving up of tribal lands into fake countries by European powers?

The basic problem is lack of good governance. Bad government can send even the richest nations down the toiliet, and good government can turn even poverty stricken economic basket cases with no natural resources into prosperous nations - Ireland is an example of that. The UK Africa commission has stated that the main factor in Africas development has to be a dramatic improvement in governance. Lets face it, Africa is fantastically wealthy in terms of natural resources. That works both for and against it, but if good governance could be achieved then the rest follows naturally.

Blaming colonialism is a bit lazy I think. Sure its a factor, but its hardly an unsurmountable barrier to economic progress, especially 50-60 years on in most cases. Why isnt India in the same boat? And if anything, the simple fact is that in terms of infrastructure and development a lot of Africa is much worse now than it was under colonialism. The Congo is a case in point.

They had great civilistations millenia ago.

So did Africa; Carthage and Egypt were more Medeterranean than African as such, but then the same could be said for Rome and the Greek kingdoms - Im working of hazy memories here but as far as I know there was some thriving sub saharan kingdoms in the early first millenium. Historians are divided on why they eventually failed, but then the same could be said for the Roman empire.

The Corinthian

Sand wrote:

So did Africa; Carthage and Egypt were more Medeterranean than African as such, but then the same could be said for Rome and the Greek kingdoms - Im working of hazy memories here but as far as I know there was some thriving sub saharan kingdoms in the early first millenium. Historians are divided on why they eventually failed, but then the same could be said for the Roman empire.

Carthage and Egypt were more Semitic or Middle-Eastern kingdoms than African. Abyssinia (Ethiopia) and Axum (the sub-Saharan kingdoms you mentioned) would be better examples, although these too would have had strong Semitic or Middle-Eastern influences.

Of course pointing the finger at African history has long been a popular proof of racialist theory. Anthropologically it ignores factors such as climate, resources and geography that have worked against the advancement of civilisation in Africa. In the same way, as you have suggested blaming European colonialism or even debt, as the left will often do, is equally simplistic.

Meh

The Corinthian wrote:

Of course pointing the finger at African history has long been a popular proof of racialist theory. Anthropologically it ignores factors such as climate, resources and geography that have worked against the advancement of civilisation in Africa.

If you've ever heard of the book Guns, Germs and Steel there's an excellent discussion of why Eurasia (and the Middle East in particular) was much better suited to developing civilization than Africa, the Americas and Australia, the main points being:

1. more easily domesticated wild animals
2. better plant species for farming
3. east-west continental axis means easier diffusion of farming crops/animals

sovtek

mike65 wrote:

If the whites leaves they'll take thier money and much of the know-how with them.

Actually people like DeBeers and Anglo American did as soon as the new government let them in 1994. So after decades of getting filthy, stupidly rich off the hard labour and lives of Africans...a few men get to make off with the riches.
Individuals, on the other hand, are limited to how much money they can take out of the country.

Disaster will follow. Thabo Mbeki is a lousy leader of men.

Mike.

OFFTOPIC
As long as Mbeki or Zuma carry out their duties with respect to how the first world wants them to run their economy (ie...neo-liberal policies that allow the transfer of capital out of the country, access to their markets and with keeping a large cheap labour force) then the country will probably remain relatively stable. That is, of course, until the vast majority of the population gets sick of living in increasing and dire poverty (which these policies perpetuate)...then see what happens.....K back on topic.

The Corinthian

sovtek wrote:

then see what happens.....

They find a scapegoat like they did in Zimbabwe?

murphaph

The Corinthian wrote:

Of course pointing the finger at African history has long been a popular proof of racialist theory. Anthropologically it ignores factors such as climate, resources and geography that have worked against the advancement of civilisation in Africa.

wtf? Southern Africa is one of the most bountiful lands in the world with coal, oil, natural gas, gold and other precious metals, diamonds and other precious gemstones, Iron ore, Bauxite. They have a dependable climate with few extremes. They have extraordinarily fertile soils in many parts. Southern Africa is in the Sh!tter though and it does indeed have a lot to do with the people whether you think that's racialist (racist) or not.

murphaph

Meh wrote:

If you've ever heard of the book Guns, Germs and Steel there's an excellent discussion of why Eurasia (and the Middle East in particular) was much better suited to developing civilization than Africa, the Americas and Australia, the main points being:

1. more easily domesticated wild animals
2. better plant species for farming
3. east-west continental axis means easier diffusion of farming crops/animals

I believe the reasons we have developed so much more in Europe than Asia at any rate is that we have Wheat as our main source of starch compared to the rice in Asia. Wheat production has been possible to mechanise so thought has gone in to developing technologies to improve efficiencies in production. In Asia rice production is nigh-on impossible to mechanise even today. So no thought went into it and no technologies derived from it. The second big reason was peace. China at any rate hade millenia of peace, while we in Europe were slaughtering each other. Warfare has and does lead to major technological advancements in any society partaking in it.

Macmorris

Meh wrote:

If you've ever heard of the book Guns, Germs and Steel there's an excellent discussion of why Eurasia (and the Middle East in particular) was much better suited to developing civilization than Africa, the Americas and Australia, the main points being:

1. more easily domesticated wild animals
2. better plant species for farming
3. east-west continental axis means easier diffusion of farming crops/animals

There's a fourth factor - the difference in intelligence between Eurasians and Africans. Eurasians are simply more intelligent than Africans and are more capable of creating and maintaining an advanced civilisation.

The reason why Asians and Europeans are more intelligent than Africans and other dark races is because the environment in which they evolved placed a greater survival advantage on high intelligence and inventiveness. Africans evolved in a warm environment with a relatively plentiful supply of food and so there wasn't much of a need for problem solving abilities. Europeans and Asians evolved in an Ice Age environment where food was scarce and where high intelligence would have given people a clear survival advantage.

Although Africans, and other tropical peoples, would have also had to use their intelligence, they didn't have to contend with the range of problems found in a cold, Ice Age environment. Europeans had to worry about things like keeping warm, storing food, setting traps for large mammals, developing a more sophisticated range of weapons and tools, and migrating in search of new food. All of these extra environmental demands would have favoured the reproduction of people with good problem solving abilities. Their genes still exist in the gene pools of the Asians and Europeans today and account for the difference in intelligence between the races.

There is a more detailed explanation of the origin of racial difference here
http://www.geocities.com/race_articles/lynn_race_evol.html

sovtek

Macmorris wrote:

There's a fourth factor - the difference in intelligence between Eurasians and Africans. Eurasians are simply more intelligent than Africans and are more capable of creating and maintaining an advanced civilisation.

The reason why Asians and Europeans are more intelligent than Africans and other dark races is because the environment in which they evolved placed a greater survival advantage on high intelligence and inventiveness. Africans evolved in a warm environment with a relatively plentiful supply of food and so there wasn't much of a need for problem solving abilities. Europeans and Asians evolved in an Ice Age environment where food was scarce and where high intelligence would have given people a clear survival advantage.

Although Africans, and other tropical peoples, would have also had to use their intelligence, they didn't have to contend with the range of problems found in a cold, Ice Age environment. Europeans had to worry about things like keeping warm, storing food, setting traps for large mammals, developing a more sophisticated range of weapons and tools, and migrating in search of new food. All of these extra environmental demands would have favoured the reproduction of people with good problem solving abilities. Their genes still exist in the gene pools of the Asians and Europeans today and account for the difference in intelligence between the races.

There is a more detailed explanation of the origin of racial difference here
http://www.geocities.com/race_articles/lynn_race_evol.html

Yea i've heard this racist explanation proferred before. Of course it ignores the fact that civilization, as far as we know, started in the warm Middle East...not in Europe!!!!!!!!!!!!

sovtek

The Corinthian wrote:

They find a scapegoat like they did in Zimbabwe?

Oh they already do that...unfortunetly they aren't half wrong.

murphaph

sovtek wrote:

Yea i've heard this racist explanation proferred before. Of course it ignores the fact that civilization, as far as we know, started in the warm Middle East...not in Europe!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sure the Middle East is warm. It's very warm and dry and pretty hostile where civilisation was reputedly born between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. These folks had to figure out irrigation systems to get the Babylons and Baghdads built so it's a bit different than a warm climate with plentiful natural supplies of food.

The Corinthian

sovtek wrote:

Oh they already do that...unfortunetly they aren't half wrong.

At this stage, that's a pretty questionable opinion.

Quantum

Sand wrote:

The developed "free" world has signed up to and honoured many declarations of human rights, theres been promises of "never again". To be honest Im sick of feel good politics. After Rwanda, we have Darfur. Same stuff happening all over again. The same organisation that is actually working *against* the defence of human rights, not upholding them. Not really its fault, no more than it actually achieved anything but it offers a mechanism for two of the most illiberal powers in the world, Russia and China to prevent any intervention in defence of human rights. Actually it offers them the moral highground in preserving illiberal states.

Roll our tanks in on top of every murderous tin pot dicatator starving his people, perverting the political proccess and inflicting misery on those whose interests hes supposed to act? You say it like it would be a bad idea to actually back up the commonly asserted view that a Zimbabwean has the same rights as you or I. At the end of the day you can either defend states or defend people but you cant do both.

It's so refreshing to see someone else who doesn't buy into the Aid obsessed - blame the rest of the world - pour more funds in through Debt cancellations schemes theory. Just rememebr that it is deeply politically incorrect to hold these views.

What has perpetuated the shambles that is Africa for fifty years is the unwilingness of the rich western world to anything for the people of Africa except throw money at them and thereby strengthen corrupt regimes throughout the coninent who thrive on war and poverty.
The liberal and politically correct sector have no interest in actually liberating these people at any costs whatsoever because of their obsession with sovereignty and the theory that to liberate is an interference with the rights of the people being liberated and neo-imperialist racist colonialism as you correct say. It is an indifference that underpins the deeply amoral policy of the West toward Africa for decades and continues in the guise of the barmy Debt cancellation scheme, which will lead to a new round of debt escallation and poverty and death. BUt it will make a lot of people feel a lot more comfortable as they sit smugly back and say to themselves that they tried.

Zimbabwe sits there.... people dying, people being made homeless, people starving. What does anyone do ? Nothing. Lots of wringing of hands, talk talk talk about sanctions. But where are the protestors ? where is the outrage ? It doesn't exist because most people don't give a damn. There's no stomach for ousting Mugabe because that would infringe on the rights of the people to suffer and die behind the wall of liberal political correctness.

Quantum

mike65 wrote:

I won't go through the whole list but India/Pakistan/Malaysia/Thailand/Burma/Vietnam/Laos/Indonesia/Singapore/Hong Kong and even mainland China in a funny way (no British rule but plenty of licence) were colonised by European powers.

Let's not forget that almost every part of Europe was internally colonised many many many times itself over the centuries and millenia, including Ireland. This has happened in every region of the world and has nothing to do with the state of Africa which is an incredibly rich region in terms of natural resources.

bonkey

Quantum wrote:

It's so refreshing to see someone else who doesn't buy into the Aid obsessed - blame the rest of the world - pour more funds in through Debt cancellations schemes theory.

...

Zimbabwe sits there.... people dying, people being made homeless, people starving. What does anyone do ? Nothing.

Its amazing that you can begin a post saying its nice to see someone not buying into the "give them more aid" mainstream concept, and then turn around and say that the mainstream concept is "do nothing".

Its even more amazing considering that in a recent thread you went to great lengths to argue that rather than give aid, we should let them sort themselves out and then offer them investment.

So keep up the criticism of those who'll do nothing. It makes your own stance of letting them sort out their own problems (re: corruption) even more untenable.

jc

pete

Macmorris wrote:

There is a more detailed explanation of the origin of racial difference here
http://www.geocities.com/race_articles/lynn_race_evol.html

I love this "I can prove we're superior to the darkies" stuff.

The above article is taken from "Mankind Quarterly":

The Mankind Quarterly, dedicated to'race-science' and 'racial history', was established in 1960 by Professor R. Gayre of Edinburgh who believed that 'racial fundamentals' were 'all important' in human affairs. He maintained that scientific evidence proved blacks 'prefer their leisure to the dynamism which the white and yellow races show'.(25) Gayre's work owed a heavy debt to that of Hans F. K. Günther, a major Nazi race theorist. Indeed, Gayre's first important work, Teutotn and Slav, argued for improving the 'racial homogeneity' and 'Nordic' purity of the German nation.(26) Among the founders, early editors, advisory board members and contributors to the /20/ Mankind Quarterly one finds people who have supported apartheid and neo-Nazism, such as Donald Swan, Robert Kuttner [link: http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bibliography/kuttner.htm] and the South African, J. Hofmeyer.

In the late 1970s, control of the Mankind Quarterly - was transferred to Roger Pearson [link :http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bios/pearbib.htm] in Washington D.C. who came to the United States from Britain in the mid-1960s to work with Willis Carto, America's leading publisher of antisemitic literature.

http://www.ferris.edu/ISAR/archives/mehler/foundation.htm

And on the author of the article:

The link between The Bell Curve and the racist and fascist group surrounding Mankind Quarterly is not accidental. Murray and Herrnstein acknowledge the guidance and literature of Richard Lynn, a professor of psychology in Northern Ireland. Lynn is an associate editor of Mankind Quarterly, whose work is cited in The Bell Curve no less than twenty-four times. Murray and Herrnstein note Lynn's assertion that the IQ of blacks in Africa is 70, at the low end of what is considered educably retarded. Although Lynn maintains that an IQ of 70 is a valid approximation of black IQ throughout Africa, it is based on a single 1989 study of 1000 sixteen-year-olds using the South African Junior Aptitude Test.

Furthermore, the actual author of this 1989 study was not Lynn but Dr. Ken Owen, who maintained explicitly that the results in no way suggested a biological inferiority of black people, but were the result of poorer education of black children under the racist system of apartheid. Yet both Lynn, and Murray and Herrnstein, insist on drawing racist implications from the Owen study, and from other such reports conducted under apartheid.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/019.html

Von

Quantum wrote:

Zimbabwe sits there.... people dying, people being made homeless, people starving. What does anyone do ? Nothing. Lots of wringing of hands, talk talk talk about sanctions. But where are the protestors ? where is the outrage ? It doesn't exist because most people don't give a damn. There's no stomach for ousting Mugabe because that would infringe on the rights of the people to suffer and die behind the wall of liberal political correctness.

What have you done then?

As for Darfur, it's business as usual.

A millionaire British businessman, Friedhelm Eronat, was named last night as the purchaser of oil rights in the Darfur region of Sudan, where the regime is accused of war crimes and where millions of tribespeople are alleged to have been forced to flee, amid mass rapes or murders.

Quantum

bonkey wrote:

Its amazing that you can begin a post saying its nice to see someone not buying into the "give them more aid" mainstream concept, and then turn around and say that the mainstream concept is "do nothing".

Its even more amazing considering that in a recent thread you went to great lengths to argue that rather than give aid, we should let them sort themselves out and then offer them investment.

So keep up the criticism of those who'll do nothing. It makes your own stance of letting them sort out their own problems (re: corruption) even more untenable.

jc

I'm not going to let you wind me up Bonkey and I don't want to start the other thread here. But you chose to mis represent what I say every time you post. so let me state exactly what I support and don't in simple terms:

I oppose Debt Cancellation and huge amounts of Aid, which I characterised above (perhaps lazily - I admit) as 'doing nothing', in that the doing was intended to represent 'action' rather than just money.

I support limited aid aimed at developing democratic institutions and structures and the eradication of corruption if they are done together.

I support Democracy, Trade and Investment as the solution for Africa.

I support military intervention to liberate any country under dictatorial regimes, by any democratic country that is able and willing to do so.

I have never ever implied that I supported letting them sort themselves out.

bonkey

Quantum wrote:

I'm not going to let you wind me up Bonkey and I don't want to start the other thread here.

Thats funny, because I read the post that I responded to and found it to be almost devoid of content that wasn't referencing back to the thread that was just closed.

Here was me replying thinking it was you trying to wind me up.

But you chose to mis represent what I say every time you post.

If I'm misrepresenting you its because I can't find a consistent message in your posts. I know roughly where you stand, but the details keep shifting from what I can see. Maybe I am misrepresenting you, but let me show you what I mean.

so let me state exactly what I support and don't in simple terms:

I'll respond with former quotes that you've previously made - the italicised bits below are all from your recent posts. Maybe it will highlight why I'm apparently misrepresenting you.

I support limited aid aimed at developing democratic institutions and structures and the eradication of corruption if they are done together.

They must tackle their corruption and develop democratic structures that can empower the people and build success. The African people must do this - not us.

I support Democracy, Trade and Investment as the solution for Africa.

I made it clear that there will be no investment until the corruption is dealt with.

I support military intervention to liberate any country under dictatorial regimes, by any democratic country that is able and willing to do so.

There is no way to force these countries not to do the same again. There is no mechanism to force them and I believe the same will happen again.
...
The African people must do this - not us.

I have never ever implied that I supported letting them sort themselves out.

They must tackle their corruption and develop democratic structures that can empower the people and build success. The African people must do this - not us.

I can't see how the two sets of comments form a consistent position.

Either we can, or cannot force a solution (military-backed or other) on them.
Either it is the African people alone or all of us together who can tackle these issues.
Either we help them fight corruption, or we withhold our help (you see investment as the way to go) until they have done this themselves.

So to reiterate - if I'm misrepresenting your position, its only because I can't see that you've staked out a consistent position.

jc

sovtek

murphaph wrote:

wtf? Southern Africa is one of the most bountiful lands in the world with coal, oil, natural gas, gold and other precious metals, diamonds and other precious gemstones, Iron ore, Bauxite. They have a dependable climate with few extremes. They have extraordinarily fertile soils in many parts. Southern Africa is in the Sh!tter though and it does indeed have a lot to do with the people whether you think that's racialist (racist) or not.

You mean it has alot to do with the people that came from somewhere else and took it from them (these people you refer to)...whilst getting stupidly rich in doing so and taking that money somewhere else....like New York or London

murphaph

sovtek wrote:

You mean it has alot to do with the people that came from somewhere else and took it from them (these people you refer to)...whilst getting stupidly rich in doing so and taking that money somewhere else....like New York or London

So now it's not geography and climate having conspired against the africans developing great civilisations , it's now back to imperialism. This imperialism only started a relatively short time ago in relation to the history of man. We were discussing why sub-saharan Africa had not developed any great civilisations so my point is still valid. Esentially they failed to take advantage of their local resources while asian & european peoples were taking advantage of theirs. These civilistations then moved outward and began taking advantage of Africa's resources using their military might and industrial ability to do it. This appears immoral today but back in those days it didn't because the Africans were considered not much more deserving than monkeys by europeans to be sitting on their huge natural resources whilst no exploiting them.

sovtek

murphaph wrote:

This imperialism only started a relatively short time ago in relation to the history of man. We were discussing why sub-saharan Africa had not developed any great civilisations so my point is still valid.

Look up Great Zimbabwe Ruins in google.
Of course this ignores the point that believing that you are somehow intellictually more advanced than another race...is racist.
Another point I want to make is that just because one group of people didn't invent the road...doesn't mean that the Romans were more intelligent than their "inferior" contemporaries.
Americans reached the moon before anyone else on earth....does that mean Americans are somehow more intelligent than the Brits? Russians? Africans?

Quantum

bonkey wrote:

Thats funny, because I read the post that I responded to and found it to be almost devoid of content that wasn't referencing back to the thread that was just closed.

You're a very hard guy to give the benefit of the doubt to.... You really do read only what you want to read.

Quantum wrote:

I support limited aid aimed at developing democratic institutions and structures and the eradication of corruption if they are done together.

They must tackle their corruption and develop democratic structures that can empower the people and build success. The African people must do this - not us.

Exactly, and no inconsistency there. We cannot build their structures or eradicate corruption for them. They must do it, but i support limited aid for that purpose. I really don't see how you can misinterpret this.

Quantum wrote:

I support Democracy, Trade and Investment as the solution for Africa.

I made it clear that there will be no investment until the corruption is dealt with.

Exactly. I really don't see how you can misinterpret this, or how you can imply there is any inconsistency.

Quantum wrote:

I support military intervention to liberate any country under dictatorial regimes, by any democratic country that is able and willing to do so.

There is no way to force these countries not to do the same again. There is no mechanism to force them and I believe the same will happen again.
...
The African people must do this - not us.

You are taking a quote out of context, not for the first time. My words above were made in a post that referred to the Debt Cancellation program where I said that THAT PROGRAM had no way to force these countries not to do the same again. I really don't see how you can misinterpret this, or how you can imply there is any inconsistency.

Quantum wrote:

I have never ever implied that I supported letting them sort themselves out

They must tackle their corruption and develop democratic structures that can empower the people and build success. The African people must do this - not us.

My comments on this have been clear - THEY must do the work - but I do support limited aid to help them. I do NOT support significant Aid until this is sorted. I never stated that they should be left alone and not influenced or helped at all in any way.

Bonkey wrote:

I can't see how the two sets of comments form a consistent position.

I really don't see how you can misinterpret any of my statements above, or how you can imply there is any inconsistency.

Bonkey wrote:

So to reiterate - if I'm misrepresenting your position, its only because I can't see that you've staked out a consistent position.

No. It seems to me that you only see what you want to see and don't read what I write.

As I demonstrate above there is no inconsistency, no minsunderstanding. I have been crystal clear. Agree or disagree. That's fine with me.

murphaph

sovtek wrote:

Look up Great Zimbabwe Ruins in google.
Of course this ignores the point that believing that you are somehow intellictually more advanced than another race...is racist.

Perhaps it does fit the dictionary definition of racism. I never said I personally was more intellectually superior than anyone (as my atrocious spelling will attest!). We were debating why Sub-Saharan Africa had not produced any of the world's great civilisations. You tried to correlate this to their environmantal conditions which clearly doesn't have any correlation of note and when challenged fell back on the imperialism is the cause of all their woes line which also fails to explain the lack of great civilisations from Sub-Saharan Africa because they had millenia to come up with something before europeans arrived on the scene.

sovtek wrote:

Another point I want to make is that just because one group of people didn't invent the road...doesn't mean that the Romans were more intelligent than their "inferior" contemporaries.
Americans reached the moon before anyone else on earth....does that mean Americans are somehow more intelligent than the Brits? Russians? Africans?

Your analogy fails because it's predominantly comparing the same race. Romans, Germanic tribes, Americans, British and Russians were/are predominantly caucasian. Anyway, the Romans didn't invent roads, not even straight roads because they were invented by the Etruscans.

It seems that any attempt to correlate Africa's woes to it's own people lead to accusations of racism. PC gone mad again.

Quantum

murphaph wrote:

It seems that any attempt to correlate Africa's woes to it's own people lead to accusations of racism. PC gone mad again.

Wrong. It's the attempt to correlate Africa's woes to their intelligence that is transparently racist. It has nothing to do with PC or not PC.

bonkey

Quantum wrote:

My comments on this have been clear - THEY must do the work - but I do support limited aid to help them. I do NOT support significant Aid until this is sorted. I never stated that they should be left alone and not influenced or helped at all in any way.

OK - when you used the word alone previously, I assumed you were using it in the sense you now use it here. You didn't mean that - ok.

But when you talk about no significant aid until they resolve their corruption issues, where exactly are setting the bar? Higher than the current level - excluding, if you like, such plans as the existing and proposed HIPC Debt Initiatives, etc. ? Or at, or below them?

The reason I'm asking is because I still can't see how this approach will in any way help those suffering in corrupt nations, but one of your criticisms of the latest iniative is by being limited in the scope of nations it applies to, it does nothing for such people.

Surely the initiative is taking exactly the same type of path you recommend, in setting requirements for eligibility, before which no significant aid is offered? Perhaps you disagree with where the requirements are set but that doesn't invalidate the concept rather than call for refinement. And if this initiative can have no mechanism to ensure continuing compliance, how can any other approach ensure compliance?

Again - it would seem that the only real difference in the approaches (thus far) is what the entry requirements are, rather than who it can help, what it can't do, etc.

Naturally, there then comes the question of what to deliver, which is where the major differences come in. You go for investment, investment, investment, whereas the Debt Relief initiative takes the approach that investment can only happen once the conditions for it are right - i.e. there is a certain minimum level of infrastructure and quality of workforce (even if by quality we are only distinguishing between a starving sufferer and a fed unskilled labourer).

This is why I can't understand your criticism of so many aspects of the proposed plan. You have not explained how your alternative offers the ineligible nations anything more than what they would get under this scheme, but you criticise this scheme as failing to offer them anything more than what they currently get. You have not explained how your barriers of qualification can be set at any more certain a level to prevent regression than those of the Debt Relief program, yet criticise it for being unable to guarantee a prevention of reversion to corruption.

You disagree, at the heart of it all, with the method of assistance. I'm clear on that, but amn't sure how you see investment being initiated once a nation would qualify for your preferred approach. If we consider the nations that are eligible for this proposed program - would any of them be eligible for yours? Are there any nations in common? If not, are there any nations at all which would meet your criteria? And if so - or whenever a nation reaches this stage - what would you do in terms of offering significant aid to attract investment?

The Corinthian

Quantum wrote:

Wrong. It's the attempt to correlate Africa's woes to their intelligence that is transparently racist. It has nothing to do with PC or not PC.

I find it remarkably hypocritical that you of all people should lecture anyone on being racist, seeing as you’ve had no problem making offensive generalisations about other nations and peoples in the past.

murphaph

Quantum wrote:

Wrong. It's the attempt to correlate Africa's woes to their intelligence that is transparently racist. It has nothing to do with PC or not PC.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I don't recall stating that Africans were less intelligent than caucasians. They might or might not be, no study of note has been conducted and is highly unlikely to ever be conducted for obvious reasons.