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 Mugabe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mugabe. 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
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)
