Robert Mugabe; Is this Right -vs- Wrong?

Is the whole Zimbabwe a simple case of the forces of evil acting against the forces of good? This appears to be the consensus in the international press and is gaining sway in Africa. Bertie said that the fact that Mugabe wasn't concerned to provide for his own people spoke for itself. Is there an alternative view or is it perverse to look for an alternative view given recent happenings?

I would look for an alternative view. I was looking at life expectancy in another thread and Zimbabwe is said to be the lowest in the world now, with women having shorter lives than men - the opposite to the pattern virtually everywhere else (both genders less than 40 years - that must mean very high child mortality). Life expectancy is a very good measure of pressure on a society and its people. In went down in the Russian Federation and eastern europe with the collapse of the workers' states. Irish life expectancy was miserable under Dev and on into the 1990s and is still not great although improving. Replacing the previous colonial state in Zimbabwe is not easy. Mugabe had an army of people who wanted to be paid off with land after the colonial white regime was defeated. Mugabe's line is that the U.K. and others have made it as difficult for Zimbabwe as possible. I really dont know enough about it and I think it would be good if we could develop a thread that probes beyond the newspaper headlines.

life expectancy link -
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/41339.php

Life is never so black and white Zhou, do you think all those supporters and miltias he has running around for him are simply evil? I haven't noticed any interviews with the likes of them in the international media.

The situation overall is pretty dire though, and talk of good/evil is semantic. The man should have been stood up to years ago; he is to African leaders what the Balkans were/are to Europe: a big nasty problem that we tried to ignore.

Our approach to regimes seems to be largely opportunistic. I was looking for life expectancy figures and came up with reports on Chad. No matter how much people protest to the contrary, the EU intervention in Chad is largely seen as favourable to maintaining the Deby regime.


http://www.afrol.com/articles/28834

Quote :

Chad joins worst regimes
afrol News, 7 May - Chad has been placed on a list of the world's most repressive regimes and societies, putting the country at par with China, Zimbabwe and Syria.

A new report released by Freedom House [an independent nongovernmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world], "Worst of the worst: the world's most repressive societies 2008", blamed Chad for its increased corruption and controls on nongovernmental organisations.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Is the whole Zimbabwe a simple case of the forces of evil acting against the forces of good?

Too simple. Mugabe seems to me to be mentally unbalanced and certainly not one of the good guys. But in 10 years time Tsingavari (or whoever replaces Mugabe) will probably be doing the same thing.

The Zimbabwean situation breaks my heart and makes me feel so hopeless. There will be no good ending to this.

Am old enough to rem., as a student, Rte getting cameras (am sure they did, didn't they? into the Dail in the 80s for a State visit by Mugabe when he was still the respected Freedom Fighter, rightly honoured by another ex-colony for his fight for freedom and for the land. That resonated with Ireland.

I have met Zimbabweans in London in the last 5 or 6 years, who have suffered beyond any of our imaginings. Their experiences make me want to cry even as I write. The current situation comes after a sustained and ever-demented campaign by Mugabe lasting over the last at least 6 years.
And, just as with the Nazis, his campaign follows a well-rehearsed pattern. You start a small group, a group most of society won't object to belittling - yes, it's the Gays. Kick em around, call em dogs, beat em, rape em .... then the White farmers, well they've got it coming, oops so the economy then goes down, but anyway, .... on and on, the Churches, even the Anglicans, til ... 2008 and you can literally attack half the population, lock up the leaders of the Opposition ...

In my LLB class a few years ago, one of our classmates was a diplomat from the Zimbabwean embassy. Never discussed anything til the last class of term, when our Human Rights Prof. brought in a load of red wine for a free discussion evening - christ, even half-sozzled, although the discussion was angling towards criticising the Mugabe regime, we were so sodding respectful, especially the other African students of whom they were a number. Sod this, I thought, so I started talking about the people from GALZ, who had just visited London ... oh he had excuses, he actually thought GALZ were wonderful people and yes, perhaps the authorities had been a tad over-enthusiastic in their treatment of them, but we were receiving British govt propaganda on our screens .... blah blah blah. And that Mbeki could've pulled the plug long ago ... but then he has been utterly complicit in \ responsible for the deaths of so many of his own people, why should he behave any better when it comes to a neighbouring country?

... ok, i have had my emotional rant, got that off my chest, I will return to this tomorrow if I have time, when I will be a bit calmer.


but re good and evil, surely it is about power, pure and simple? thing is, go back to the elections a couple of months ago, did any of you really think he could wage such a violent campaign and still get even this far? - and yet he has done it. Ok, the Angolans have sort of criticised today/yesterday and hopefully others will follow. Sth Africa is the key but I have nothing but loathing for Mbeki.

No time to read about chad tonight, cactus, will do that tomorrow and consider your other points.

Lestat wrote:

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Is the whole Zimbabwe a simple case of the forces of evil acting against the forces of good?

Too simple. Mugabe seems to me to be mentally unbalanced and certainly not one of the good guys. But in 10 years time Tsingavari (or whoever replaces Mugabe) will probably be doing the same thing.

I don't really agree with that. Mugabe has a plethora of parisitic hangers-on who have their fingers in the till, a critical situation for them as it involves 100's Millions Dollars.

Evil or not , he is definitely rotten to the core. He has forsaken his country and Millions of Zimbabwean men women and children in the process. Apperently these last few days he has gone further and is bringing bus loads of MDC supporters away for beatings ??

Time to take action people. The UN security council this evening declared that 'Free and fair presidential elections would not be possible'

Tell me something I don't fucking know lads.

Troops. That's what I think. Lots of troops. Germans, French, Irish, African, Australian, American...you get the idea.

Put the boot of history up Mugabe's arse.

And as an aside, I don't want Ireland to be politically neutral. I expect the Irish Government to give out shite when it is called for.

It is here.

No point sending in the troops if they won't solve anything. Mugabe has fanatical support for him as a liberator of black africans. He has branded the efforts of the international community to be imperial/colonial. Any invasion would feed into this and a much more devastating civil war would ensue.

Perhaps the same americans who said that it was right to invade to remove the evil tyrant Saddam Hussein because there is a 'chance' that good will come of it would be in favour of invasion. Nobody else will be though. the only type of international force which could possibly go in would be a united all African force and even that would probably have to be a joint effort between SADC and the AU.

I will just go back to how very difficult it is for a post colonial country to pick itself up and get it on the right track. Just think about how hard it was for Ireland - our population continued to decrease right into the 1960s and our life expectancy was miserable compared with the UK.
We had a civil war and people slaughtered each other. We still have a post colonial civil service without a proper public service ethos.

In Africa it is made even more difficult as the states there were mainly created over a wet weekend by a few european governments drawing lines on a map with a ruler and grabbing control to rip off the natural resources. Somalia, Chad and the Sudan all sliced north south across completely different ethnicities, communities and terrain so each country is like a slice of neapolitain rather than a coherent entity.

And there has been constant interference ever since. It is no wonder Mugabe is able to hold onto the support of poor and landless people.

I wish I knew more about Zimbabwe - does anyone know any good, objective book, preferably written from the African point of view?

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

....Troops. That's what I think. Lots of troops. Germans, French, Irish, African, Australian, American...you get the idea.....

Good God No.

When Mugabe goes ranting about colonialism and how it's all a British plot he sounds like what he is- a space cadet. You start invading Zimbabwe with white troops you prove him right. Not alone that but every African in existence would rally behind him. Even those who would initially support such an invasion would change their minds when the inevitable happens and somebody accidentally kills innocent civilians.

Plus of course almost everybody on your list is off fighting wars of liberation in places with oil. So there really isn't anyone with the manpower or political will to shed his country's blood for regime change in Zimbabwe.

Lestat wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

....Troops. That's what I think. Lots of troops. Germans, French, Irish, African, Australian, American...you get the idea.....

Good God No.

When Mugabe goes ranting about colonialism and how it's all a British plot he sounds like what he is- a space cadet. You start invading Zimbabwe with white troops you prove him right. Not alone that but every African in existence would rally behind him. Even those who would initially support such an invasion would change their minds when the inevitable happens and somebody accidentally kills innocent civilians.

Plus of course almost everybody on your list is off fighting wars of liberation in places with oil. So there really isn't anyone with the manpower or political will to shed his country's blood for regime change in Zimbabwe.

I went looking for the more complex picture that was mentioned earlier on the thread and found this very interesting paper - it is meant to be about forest conservation but anyone who has read "Collapse" will recognise the stuff going on - forest depletion, topsoil erosion, population pressures on land and so on, along with owership of most of the best land by white commercial farmers. It is not the simple story of inefficient blacks pushing out efficient whites that the press have given us over the years.

http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2002/envsec_conserving_5.pdf

It explains the background to the "land invasions" and the lack of food. It obviously doesn't go near the politics but in a way is all the more interesting for that.

Thanks CF - can you explain the applicable "Collapse" theory for those who have not read that book?

I think one of the alleged problems with the land grab was that the land went to his thugs rather than to the people who had farmed it for the whites. It is all anecdotal so it is hard tell how much is true.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Thanks CF - can you explain the applicable "Collapse" theory for those who have not read that book?

I think one of the alleged problems with the land grab was that the land went to his thugs rather than to the people who had farmed it for the whites. It is all anecdotal so it is hard tell how much is true.

A lot of what "Collapse" is about is how important topsoil is for supporting populations, and how as populations grow on the basis of exploitation of rich valley topsoils they spread up and deforest slopes - rail then washes the topsoil away and without the forests there are floods in the valleys.

An example I know (not in the book) is Malaga, where a few hundred years ago forests on the mountains to the north of the city were felled and the city almost washed away with flooding. The lesson was learned and they reafforested the slopes successfully.

In Zimbabwe the land was taken in the 19th and 20th centuries and most of the population ended up on the poorer land. Some people moved into forested areas. Land degradation became a problem overall. It would again remind me of Ireland where the best land in the east was farmed at low population densities in large farm units and the higher population densities in the west were in small farms with poorer soils.

Not only is the information anecdotal, but it is also very emotional on both sides. The natural impulse is to feel sympathy for a white farmer who has put everything into building up a farm to see it handed over to subsistence agriculture.
I would also feel sympathy for people who were put off their land and had to fight to get it back.

The African states seem to be trying to fix these problems, that are not easy ones. I think we need to let them get on with it, even if we imagine we have the answers and they don't.

Interesting debate on yesterday's edition of the Moral Maze on BBC Radio 4 which you will find on the BBC Radio 4 website on this issue if anyone is interested.

CF + JF - thanks for the interesting links, I will try to check them out when I have more time next week.

In the meantime, I understand that the UK Government had agreed to compensate the white farmers but then reneged on the deal. It is not relevant to Mugabes actions in allowing thugs to run riot but it does show the UK which has been most trenchant in its criticism, speaking out of the both sides of its mouth.

Further, even though I condemn the actions of Zanu-PF, especially in their decision to proceed with the run off, I note the USA is using the old trick of making Mugabe directly responsible for the actions of Zanu-PF thugs whereas George Bush disavowed responsibility for the torture of prisoners took place in Abu Ghraib notwithstanding there was a chain of command from him to he perpetrators of the violence and he had authorised the loosening of restraints on the use of torture.

It is clear that these hypocrisies on the part of the leaders of the Free World severely lessen their moral authority and powers to help oppressed and abused peoples.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

It is clear that these hypocrisies on the part of the leaders of the Free World severely lessen their moral authority and powers to help oppressed and abused peoples.

No they don't. The decision to "help oppressed and abused peoples" is based solely on money not on moral issues. As someone reputedly said once "If Kuwait grew carrots we wouldn't give a damn." Zimbabwe grows carrots.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

CF + JF - thanks for the interesting links, I will try to check them out when I have more time next week.

In the meantime, I understand that the UK Government had agreed to compensate the white farmers but then reneged on the deal. It is not relevant to Mugabes actions in allowing thugs to run riot but it does show the UK which has been most trenchant in its criticism, speaking out of the both sides of its mouth.

Further, even though I condemn the actions of Zanu-PF, especially in their decision to proceed with the run off, I note the USA is using the old trick of making Mugabe directly responsible for the actions of Zanu-PF thugs whereas George Bush disavowed responsibility for the torture of prisoners took place in Abu Ghraib notwithstanding there was a chain of command from him to he perpetrators of the violence and he had authorised the loosening of restraints on the use of torture.

It is clear that these hypocrisies on the part of the leaders of the Free World severely lessen their moral authority and powers to help oppressed and abused peoples.

There seems to be a combination of corrupt elite issues with an agenda to oust an awkward regime. Why would
Mugabe be ousted and not Deby? It is all indeed a question of who benefits from resources.

For anyone interested in getting a better picture of Mugabe the man - there is an excellent book out at the moment called "Dinner with Mugabe". Its by Heidi Holland and it includes two interviews with the man himself. Excellently written and very thought-provoking.

Cactus Flower, I was thinking about the question you asked in your last comment, here's a good and very even-handed site, http://zimreview.wordpress.com/

On the broader issue, well, it's all poison really. Mugabe has been revoltingly shameless (and egocentric) in his approach - but then he always was, and one wonders if his age isn't an issue as well. The MDC has been utterly inept, but in such a context probably anyone would be at least slightly so. There is a degree of hypocrisy, and I genuinely think that the British Government under Labour inflamed the situation in the 1990s with crass stupidity. That said there aren't really excuses for what's going on. Nor is there a clear solution, and as reported on C4 News refugees continue to flood out.

You linked to this article on the cedarlounge, WBS regarding the role of symbolism in Zimbabwean politics. Well worth a read.

It's good isn't it? I think his points re the MDC and his thoughts on Mandela's dichotomy on this issue quite convincing.

Certainly Mandela finds himself in a tricky position - it's just a pity that strength of his message may be lost in his subtlety and the subtlety may at the same time be lost because he didn't say enough to excite a soundbite hungry media.

But, as they say, it's out there...

But more interesting for me in general is the way the article highlights the 'language' of political discourse - the rhetoric, the symbolism in all its guises and the ipas de deux interplay - whose sophistication we don't see much of in much Western reporting.

The problem is deeper by far than Mugabe.

It is a desperate situation - thanks for the link WBS. They blog correctly in my view described how the provocative european journalists yesterday were counterproductive to moving anything on.

Yesterday saw some big moves in Latin America, a continent that is changing a lot. The main trend I would see that gives some hope for the future is the gradually increasing capacity of the African states to find common interests and act together. Whilst they are being criticised for not acting enough, or fast enough, at least they haven't added fuel to the fire in the way the British have.