[Crossposted at the FPA Africa Blog.]
Monday, August 18, 2008
Hoping Against All Hope: The State of Zimbabwe (Self-Indulgence Edition)
My latest op-ed is available here. I am especially pleased with this one because The Zimbabwean represents the ultimate example of speaking truth against evil. It is an expat newspaper based in London, but which publishes in South Africa, where most of its print readership is based. My cynicism comes to the fore quite clearly, I would guess.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
power sharing talks have occured between changerai and mugabe, but it is obviously an attempt to trick the world by mugabe. i believe an invasion will be the correct choice, mainly, because, unlike in iraq, there is much opposition to mugabe, while iraqi oposition to saddam was few and far between. however, i am certain many will view a british invasion as an attempt to take control of its former colony, again, however, this will, obviously, not be so. the oldest democracy(understanding the monarchy holds no power), would only invade, because the sheer inhumane treatment of zimbabweans become to much to stand by and watch, and even i admit, the brits do too much standing about and talking. one thing i will give to america, they are not shy, we are, shall i say, very cautious.
danny macnay
Danny --
You keep riding this hobbyhorse of a British invasion of Zimbabwe that is never going to happen, that is not even on the table, and that logistically would be next to impossible. Pius Ncube knew as much when he mentioned it in passing more than a year ago.
Zimbabwe is landlocked. The only way an invasion is happening is by crossing the borders of a willing state (unless, of course, you are proposing that Great Britain wage war against one of Zim's neighbors as well) and no state in southern Africa is allowing British troops in to invade Zimbabwe. To say that such an invasion would be the "correct choice" is to argue for no choice at all.
I am not even sure what you would advocate that the British military do -- capture Mugabe, I suppose. And install Tsvangirai, naturally. But what does that do in terms of the war veterans? How does this work in terms of South Africa's role in the region? i admit, I can be seduced by the idea of using force for good, but this is a pretty impossible to imagine scenario you are weaving.
dcat
it is no hobbyhorse, and it must be a possability, especially since mugabe himself expressed concern over the possaility. furthermore, just because a nation is land locked does not mean an imvasion is impossable. we invaded iraq with aircraft. we definatly bombed itwith aircraft, and we invaded europe that way, in ww2, parachutes, you know? yes, i know about the dday landings of june 6, but planes and boats were used.
i wonder, do you support the war in iraq and afghanistan? the subject is the same, and weather you have a sympathetic leaning to africa or not, it is the same concept. a tyrant must be removed.
Jesus Christ, Danny. Of course Mugabe raised the spectre of an invasion -- he's a demagogue who always plays the imperialist Britain card every time he feels the need to score political points at home. But the argument that because Mugabe says it it must be true must be one of the more inane things you've written.
From where would Great britain launch that attack? You talk about D-Day as if there is some parallel between that case and the situation in Zimbabwe when there is no parallel whatsoever.
One can support war in Afghanistan without supporting war in Iraq, and the idea that one must support waging war against every tyrant really does boggle the imagination. I can name a score of ruthless dictators, autocrats, and tyrants who are heads of state across the globe. Just because a country has a tyrant as a head of state does not mean that we are about to declare war, and it certainly does not mean that great britain has plans to do so.
This is not an option that is seriously on the table. Why must you continue to obsess with it/
dcat
i would not say i obsess with it, nor even find myself all that interested in it. A tyrant must be removed, and one is a tyrant when he commits genocide, and refuses to lose power, such as mugabe, who says only god can remove him. you may believe there are tyrants all over the world, but i doubt they are all that tyrinacle. i would disagree if they commited genocide, or refused to leave after their term in office was up.
i do not draw comparrisons about d- day and zimabwe, only stating that you can invade a land locked country if you do not share a border with it.
we invaded germany under hitler, because he was a terrible leader, as mugane is. i agree with you that there are many bad leaders, but not as bad as mugabe. you must be able to draw the line, or one would invade many different nations. the fact is, mugabe is a tyrant, like hitler, like saddam. surely you can seethe differences between the hitlers saddams and mugabes, from the browns blairs, bushes, kim jung ills, etc.
but yes, lets move on.
Wait, so you think Kim Jong Il is not a tyrant? What about Omar al-Bashir? the invocations of Hitler don't really help clarify the situation.
As for D-Day, you are aware of how that invasion went down, right? the years of planning in coordination with our allies? the fact that it happened in an ongoing war declared against those who engaged in the invasion? How the paratroopers did land, but behind German lines even as Allied troops invaded the coast of Normandy? Where exactly are you staging your attack on Zimbabwe from? Which countries are you flying over? Are you also going to wage war on those countries that don't agree to your invasion?
And again -- this is not a solution on anyone's table, so why do you keep bringing it up? Do you really think that England has given this even a scintilla of thought in the last year? In the last six months? as long as we are talking about things that are not going to happen why don't we just sprinkle happy dust over all of Zimbabwe? Give that dust some nutrients, feed the country, and let them all live in happy land with their unicorns and magic elves and dancing pixies?
Any military action in Zimbabwe will be fronted by African, almost certainly South African, troops. And so far there is no indication that such an invasion is in anyone's mind.
dcat
First of all, my nation if Great Britain, or the United Kingdom. sorry, but i get angry about being called england, to many english do that, never mind americans.
actually i was refering to Kim as a tyrant, he was in my list of three tyrants, as opposed to my list of three bad leaders.
yes, i am aware of dday, it was stil a land invasion nonetheless. Furthermore, the usa fly over many countries without consent. UK, being one of them, and declaring war on a powerful nation like Britain or America, over that, would only happen in the land of unicorns magig pixies etc......
is that your viewon ww2? we should have left germany to it? said that we may aswell let hitler rule, and use the whole elves and pixies reference?? america almost never entered ww2, and only did after the bombing of pearl harbour, but i am not holding it against you, for you did suply us with arms during the war, while you refused to enter, though you did force us to pay debts quickly, or eisenhower threatened to ruin our economy. really, not what i call friendly action.
again, i can say tyrants must be removed, and though Americans may believe the people should suffer under them, is completely up to you. we on the other hand, fully oppose tyrants. however, i say yet again,
let us move on.
furthermore, tony blair actually proposed the invasion, and only got talked out of it by a senior MP. see, you are not always right ha.
but seriously, look forward to seeing you next comment,hopefully notto attacking, for ihatebeing attacked with shit. ha, there, you see, one of your analogies. a rather smarter one, if you will excuse the vulgarity, than pixies and co.
Danny --
1) When did Blair propose an invasion? Evidence with citations and dates, please.
2) No, you did not place Kim in your list of tyrants. You wrote "surely you can seethe differences between the hitlers saddams and mugabes, from the browns blairs, bushes, kim jung ills, etc." You placed Kim Jong Il with Brown, Blair, and Bush.
3)Most of your previous two comments are literally incomprehensible. It is your responsibility to be coherent. For example, you wrote: "yes, i am aware of dday, it was stil a land invasion nonetheless" and yet this goes entirely against what you wrote earlier and which I criticized. Other points: When does the US military fly over the UK without permission? And your babble about World War II is pretty much incomprehensible, not to mention ahistorical.
So, yes, let's move on. And the way to do that is for you to stop posting comments on this post.
dcat
ok last post to clear it up, and as it is last post, i will not put ofrward other topics, just clear up what you are confused by.
i meant to put Kim in the tyrants list, sorry.
on the 11th of november 2007, lord Guthrie talked blair out of an invasion of iraq. i remember watching it on the news, then reading about it in the paper the next day, beofre reading it on the internet on the bbc page.
what i said about invading zimbabwe was a reply to you saying if we fly over a country, they may declare war on us. the truth is, your natin flys over other nations an verious occasions, and they do not declare war on you. i doubt zambia would declare war on britain for flying over it. i mean, you fly over us without permission, and we dont declare war. so,now you understand i believe we are done, but if you wish to post after me, so to have the final word, fair enough. so long as you know an invasion could be operated, very easily.
Ok, so Lord Guthrie in November 2007 says in an interview that he advised Tony Blair several months before not to engage in an invasion that Blair had inquired about the prospects of. Every country considers all options. This does not rise to the level of the UK considering seriously an invasion. And you'll note that the foreign secreatry argued that it would be a bad idea.
Fast forward to August 2008 -- I reiterate -- when in the last year or six months was there a serious plan to invade Zimbabwe? An interview about what Tony Blair considered at some point aside. And how does this work, again? The United States never flies over the UK without some form of permission. It does not happen, whether commercial jets or military planes, flying into another country's airspace is a very serious thing and these things are very clearly organized through the chennels that are well established.
An invasion, again, would be a near impossibility, no matter how easy you say it would be, without the acquiescence of one of Zimbabwe's neighbors. How do you land troops in Zimbabwe? Where do those troops come from? They all fly in? really? Zimbabwe has no antiaircraft capacity? South Africa, the region's power (and a country whose military would give the British a very tough time if engaged) is simply going to let the British march in to the region?
And again -- they invade, then what? What do they do? They depose Mugabe -- great. because as we've seen, when you depose a leader, that's the end of the problem, right? no more issues! Everything's fine!
Lord Guthrie knew what he was doing when he told Tony Blair that an invasion would be an unwise move.
dcat
as changarae has more support than mugabe, it would be easy, once mugabe was out. also, anglo-south african relationships are very good, and i am sure we would be aloud to do so. however, nor you or i can claim to know whatthey would do, and so it is a mute point.
Post a Comment