Robert Mugabe must be out of his mind!
One day after alleging that the current cholera epidemic in Zimbabwe was the result of a biological attack by Britain with the intent of genocide, two days after claiming that there was no problem with cholera, and all of this occurring only a couple of months after denying international involvement in sorting out the dispute concerning the presidential election; "President" Robert Mugabe has called out to the international community pleading:
"a huge international aid effort is needed to help combat a cholera outbreak that has killed hundreds" -- Globe and Mail
While I feel for the people of Zimbabwe, I believe that international aid should be given to help combat the cholera epidemic but with the condition that Mugabe be permanently removed from any position of power within Zimbabwe. It is his fault that the Zimbabwean people have fallen into such a poor state of living/health. He has been the only leader in Zimbabwe since it gained independence and has overseen the steady decline in the prosperity of the state. And its not like he showed much concern about his people when his ZANU-PF thugs were moving around the state forcing people to vote for him or be beaten up and killed.
This is very simple, Mugabe must go! No matter what!
- blenCOWe
Showing posts with label Zimbabwe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zimbabwe. Show all posts
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Friday, December 12, 2008
What A Load of Crap!
My bullshit detector pretty much blew up when I read this:
The "government" of Zimbabwe is blaming the recent outbreak of cholera on the British government! Zimbabwe' information minister, Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, has proclaimed that,
"This is a serious biological-chemical weapon; a genocidal onslaught on the people of Zimbabwe by the British [who are] still fighting to re-colonize Zimbabwe and using their allies." -- Al Jazeera English
It is my sincerest hope that nobody who can think for themselves actually believes this to be true. Beyond the basic common sense that the UK, as a state that has ratified the 1975 Biological Weapons Convention and that is a western liberal democracy, would presumably take such despicable actions even if it did want to re-colonize Zimbabwe (one would think it would be able to use superior military might to great effect!) is the current situation in Zimbabwe and the events of this past year.
This is clearly a ploy by Robert Mugabe to explain away the epidemic and retain what little, if any, credibility he has as a leader of the Zimbabwean state. By placing such ridiculous blame on the British, Mugabe is drawing attention off of the victims and the dire situation going on and diverting the attention to this non-sense proposition.
Ignore the stupidity! Focus on the lives in danger!
And would somebody please remove Mugabe!
- blenCOWe
The "government" of Zimbabwe is blaming the recent outbreak of cholera on the British government! Zimbabwe' information minister, Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, has proclaimed that,
"This is a serious biological-chemical weapon; a genocidal onslaught on the people of Zimbabwe by the British [who are] still fighting to re-colonize Zimbabwe and using their allies." -- Al Jazeera English
It is my sincerest hope that nobody who can think for themselves actually believes this to be true. Beyond the basic common sense that the UK, as a state that has ratified the 1975 Biological Weapons Convention and that is a western liberal democracy, would presumably take such despicable actions even if it did want to re-colonize Zimbabwe (one would think it would be able to use superior military might to great effect!) is the current situation in Zimbabwe and the events of this past year.
This is clearly a ploy by Robert Mugabe to explain away the epidemic and retain what little, if any, credibility he has as a leader of the Zimbabwean state. By placing such ridiculous blame on the British, Mugabe is drawing attention off of the victims and the dire situation going on and diverting the attention to this non-sense proposition.
Ignore the stupidity! Focus on the lives in danger!
And would somebody please remove Mugabe!
- blenCOWe
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Whose Victory is it?
A victory over racism? Not quite!
The defeat, by veto, of the recent UN Security Council resolution concerning Zimbabwe is being praised by Robert Mugabe and his fraudulent government as "a victory over racism and meddling in its affairs."
This was not a victory over racism, it was a victory over democracy and the rule of law. What has happened here is that a precedent has been set that authoritarian governments who abuse their power to maintain their position. In the future, dictators will be able to look back and point to this situation and use it to justify their actions.
What is really ignorant in this situation is the tone that Zimbabwean officials have taken towards the international community. For example, the Information Minister Skihanyiso Ndlovu told Reuters that,
"We are very happy with the turn of events and would like to thank those who helped defeat international racism disguised as multilateral action at the U.N."
This was not a random move or an act of spite. This resolution was a show by the majority of the members of the Security Council (who are elected by the international community) to condemn the manner in which Mugabe has retained power.
And those members of the Council who helped to bring down the resolution, what was their reason? They claimed that,
"imposing sanctions would indeed have impacted negatively on the current dialogue process among Zimbabwe political parties."
That seems like a responsible answer but one that doesn't reflect the current realities of the situation. These talks, that Russia, China and South Africa were afraid of damaging, are virtually non-existent as of right now.
Reuters is reporting that, "President Robert Mugabe's party and the opposition failed last week to agree to a framework for talks to end Zimbabwe's crisis." Without even a framework in place, how can these three nations believe that taking action against the Mugabe government would negatively influence the talks when the two parties cannot even agree to the manner in which the two sides will come together.
In the end, these members are using the talks as a shield from their unwillingness to take a stand against the ongoing attrocities.
This was a victory for Mugabe and Mugabe alone and has nothing to do with racism or influencing the peace talks.
- blenCOWe
The defeat, by veto, of the recent UN Security Council resolution concerning Zimbabwe is being praised by Robert Mugabe and his fraudulent government as "a victory over racism and meddling in its affairs."
This was not a victory over racism, it was a victory over democracy and the rule of law. What has happened here is that a precedent has been set that authoritarian governments who abuse their power to maintain their position. In the future, dictators will be able to look back and point to this situation and use it to justify their actions.
What is really ignorant in this situation is the tone that Zimbabwean officials have taken towards the international community. For example, the Information Minister Skihanyiso Ndlovu told Reuters that,
"We are very happy with the turn of events and would like to thank those who helped defeat international racism disguised as multilateral action at the U.N."
This was not a random move or an act of spite. This resolution was a show by the majority of the members of the Security Council (who are elected by the international community) to condemn the manner in which Mugabe has retained power.
And those members of the Council who helped to bring down the resolution, what was their reason? They claimed that,
"imposing sanctions would indeed have impacted negatively on the current dialogue process among Zimbabwe political parties."
That seems like a responsible answer but one that doesn't reflect the current realities of the situation. These talks, that Russia, China and South Africa were afraid of damaging, are virtually non-existent as of right now.
Reuters is reporting that, "President Robert Mugabe's party and the opposition failed last week to agree to a framework for talks to end Zimbabwe's crisis." Without even a framework in place, how can these three nations believe that taking action against the Mugabe government would negatively influence the talks when the two parties cannot even agree to the manner in which the two sides will come together.
In the end, these members are using the talks as a shield from their unwillingness to take a stand against the ongoing attrocities.
This was a victory for Mugabe and Mugabe alone and has nothing to do with racism or influencing the peace talks.
- blenCOWe
Saturday, July 12, 2008
This is Getting Old!
I don't even know why the United Nations even bothers sustaining the Security Council anymore. It continues to show that it is a toothless relic of an idealist era. The presence of the five veto votes makes it almost impossible for the Security Council to act when and where it is needed the most.
First, China blocked the Council from taking action in Darfur. Now China and Russia have vetoed a resolution to sanction Mr. Mugabe's fraudulent government in Zimbabwe. In both cases, oppressive regimes have used violence and human rights violations, numerous people have been killed, beaten or forced into hiding, received international attention through activism and news, and... have faced little or no action from the UN Security Council. Also relevant has been the fact that China have used its veto both times to prevent any action from being taken.
Unlike events of the past (e.g. Iraq, Cold War), these situations have nothing to do with imperialism or hegemonies. Darfur and Zimbabwe are humanitarian crises. They involve oppression through force and should be easily condemned by the rest of the international community. Unfortunately, though, this has not been the case. The existence of these vetoes prevents the Security Council from fulfilling its full potential.
For as long as the Council has existed, it has been ineffective. It was understandable (and by this I don't mean acceptable) because of the realities of the Cold War period. But the world has changed since then. No longer do spheres of influence dominate world politics in the same way that they used to. The countries of the world should be able to stand up and fight against those that commit these humanitarian attrocities. This has nothing to do with the arguments that the Security Council is an apparatus of the victors of WWII. What this has to do with is the sheer inability for the Council, as it is constructed, to be able to function effectively with the task it was entrusted with.
I think it is time to seriously approach reform or disbandment of the Security Council and in such a way that those who currently wield the power are unable to stop the change. To do so would re-invigorate both the Council and the UN and would provide a more capable framework for international security.
Furthermore, China is showing again that is will not protect human rights. Preventing the Council from acting in Darfur and again in Zimbabwe and the fact that is was caught selling arms to Mugabe's enforcers in the lead up to the election. And then, of course, there is the Tibet issue! China is showing its support to the those who use violence to take away the human rights of its victims/opponents.
That is some foreign policy!
- blenCOWe
First, China blocked the Council from taking action in Darfur. Now China and Russia have vetoed a resolution to sanction Mr. Mugabe's fraudulent government in Zimbabwe. In both cases, oppressive regimes have used violence and human rights violations, numerous people have been killed, beaten or forced into hiding, received international attention through activism and news, and... have faced little or no action from the UN Security Council. Also relevant has been the fact that China have used its veto both times to prevent any action from being taken.
Unlike events of the past (e.g. Iraq, Cold War), these situations have nothing to do with imperialism or hegemonies. Darfur and Zimbabwe are humanitarian crises. They involve oppression through force and should be easily condemned by the rest of the international community. Unfortunately, though, this has not been the case. The existence of these vetoes prevents the Security Council from fulfilling its full potential.
For as long as the Council has existed, it has been ineffective. It was understandable (and by this I don't mean acceptable) because of the realities of the Cold War period. But the world has changed since then. No longer do spheres of influence dominate world politics in the same way that they used to. The countries of the world should be able to stand up and fight against those that commit these humanitarian attrocities. This has nothing to do with the arguments that the Security Council is an apparatus of the victors of WWII. What this has to do with is the sheer inability for the Council, as it is constructed, to be able to function effectively with the task it was entrusted with.
I think it is time to seriously approach reform or disbandment of the Security Council and in such a way that those who currently wield the power are unable to stop the change. To do so would re-invigorate both the Council and the UN and would provide a more capable framework for international security.
Furthermore, China is showing again that is will not protect human rights. Preventing the Council from acting in Darfur and again in Zimbabwe and the fact that is was caught selling arms to Mugabe's enforcers in the lead up to the election. And then, of course, there is the Tibet issue! China is showing its support to the those who use violence to take away the human rights of its victims/opponents.
That is some foreign policy!
- blenCOWe
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Stand Up and Fight
The sham that was the Zimbabwean presidential "election" is over now and Robert Mugabe will be announced shortly as winning by a landslide. Mugabe will argue that the election is a fair representation of his support because the country's electoral commission refused to remove Morgan Tsvangirai's name from the ballot.
Now while it is obvious that this was not a free and fair election, I believe that there are better ways that this election could have been contested. While Mugabe's ZANU-PF thugs rounded up people and forced them to vote, Tsvangirai was hiding in the Dutch embassy. That doesn't really spark much belief in his commitment to his convictions.
I understand that Tsvangirai feared for his supporters and attempted to pull his name out of the election in order to protect them. His fears are understandable as both he and the members of his Movement for Democratic Change faced violence and detainment in the weeks leading up to the run-off vote. But this brings to mind to old axiom of "no risk, no reward." If he was truly committed to change then he would have continued to contest the election.
This brings to mind the ideas of Vaclav Havel who was a leader of the "Velvet Revolution" and the first president of the Czech Republic. He led a non-violent revolution against the Communist government in Czechoslovakia. He believed that people need to suffer for their beliefs. If Morgan Tsvangirai wanted to truly represent change and democracy for Zimbabwe then he should have continued to contest the election and Mugabe's governance by force. Realistically, with the worldwide attention that this election was receiving, Tsvangirai and his supporters would be less likely to suffer serious harm. They might get roughed up a little bit or detained but this would just add to the negative publicity that Mugabe's government was already receiving. Supporters of the MDC were not able to free themselves from the oppression of this election so why is it fair that Tsvangirai can run and hide while everyone else must suffer.
But this is all moot now that the election is over. So what is next for Zimbabwe?
I applaud Stephen Harper for coming out and denouncing the sham election, calling it an "ugly perversion of democracy" and for proposing sanctions against the Zimbabwean government. Not being short-sighted, I also applaud the other world leaders, including the UN Security Council, for denouncing Mugabe and the ZANU-PF's actions.
But what to do? what to do?
I am in no means an interventionist when it comes to foreign policy. I tend to prefer Realist international theory and niche democracy. I feel that in following these directions, it is possible for a state's foreign policy to be efficient and beneficial for all parties concerned. But in terms of Zimbabwe, I believe some intervention is called for. Mugabe's government is maintaining its control through violence and oppression and this is something that peaceful democracies must vehemently oppose.
Human security should be the foremost concern and it appears that the only way to ensure this would be to intervene and return control of the country to the people. Like any other international action, there will be questions over the "legality" (if there is such a thing in international politics) of intervention. Jean Jacques Rousseau has written that,
"the uprising that ends by strangling or dethroning a sultan is as lawful an act as those by which he disposed, the day before, of the lives and goods of his subjects. Force alone maintained him, force alone overthrows him."
I read this quote a couple days ago and my mind went instantly to thoughts of Mugabe and Zimbabwe. He has come out and said that he would die before succeeding control to Tsvangirai. This opens the door; it is clear that he does not believe in democracy and a fair electoral process. The only way to remove this oppression is to intervene.
But who? Who will answer the call to arms?
Now while it is obvious that this was not a free and fair election, I believe that there are better ways that this election could have been contested. While Mugabe's ZANU-PF thugs rounded up people and forced them to vote, Tsvangirai was hiding in the Dutch embassy. That doesn't really spark much belief in his commitment to his convictions.
I understand that Tsvangirai feared for his supporters and attempted to pull his name out of the election in order to protect them. His fears are understandable as both he and the members of his Movement for Democratic Change faced violence and detainment in the weeks leading up to the run-off vote. But this brings to mind to old axiom of "no risk, no reward." If he was truly committed to change then he would have continued to contest the election.
This brings to mind the ideas of Vaclav Havel who was a leader of the "Velvet Revolution" and the first president of the Czech Republic. He led a non-violent revolution against the Communist government in Czechoslovakia. He believed that people need to suffer for their beliefs. If Morgan Tsvangirai wanted to truly represent change and democracy for Zimbabwe then he should have continued to contest the election and Mugabe's governance by force. Realistically, with the worldwide attention that this election was receiving, Tsvangirai and his supporters would be less likely to suffer serious harm. They might get roughed up a little bit or detained but this would just add to the negative publicity that Mugabe's government was already receiving. Supporters of the MDC were not able to free themselves from the oppression of this election so why is it fair that Tsvangirai can run and hide while everyone else must suffer.
But this is all moot now that the election is over. So what is next for Zimbabwe?
I applaud Stephen Harper for coming out and denouncing the sham election, calling it an "ugly perversion of democracy" and for proposing sanctions against the Zimbabwean government. Not being short-sighted, I also applaud the other world leaders, including the UN Security Council, for denouncing Mugabe and the ZANU-PF's actions.
But what to do? what to do?
I am in no means an interventionist when it comes to foreign policy. I tend to prefer Realist international theory and niche democracy. I feel that in following these directions, it is possible for a state's foreign policy to be efficient and beneficial for all parties concerned. But in terms of Zimbabwe, I believe some intervention is called for. Mugabe's government is maintaining its control through violence and oppression and this is something that peaceful democracies must vehemently oppose.
Human security should be the foremost concern and it appears that the only way to ensure this would be to intervene and return control of the country to the people. Like any other international action, there will be questions over the "legality" (if there is such a thing in international politics) of intervention. Jean Jacques Rousseau has written that,
"the uprising that ends by strangling or dethroning a sultan is as lawful an act as those by which he disposed, the day before, of the lives and goods of his subjects. Force alone maintained him, force alone overthrows him."
I read this quote a couple days ago and my mind went instantly to thoughts of Mugabe and Zimbabwe. He has come out and said that he would die before succeeding control to Tsvangirai. This opens the door; it is clear that he does not believe in democracy and a fair electoral process. The only way to remove this oppression is to intervene.
But who? Who will answer the call to arms?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
