• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days (this includes any time you see the message "account suspended"). For more updates please see here.

Zimbabwe

Simon Darkshade

Mysterious City of Gold
Joined
Apr 8, 2001
Messages
10,296
Location
Daisy Hill Puppy Farm
Here is a nation torn apart by a tyrannical dictatorship who uses murder, torture and theft as its instruments of power. It's economy has gone to pieces, and its citizens, both black and white, are subject to the most outrageous abuses.
Election rigging and threats of the Zimbabwean military intevening if Mugabe is not "re-elected" add to what is a most deadly broth.

Yet the man is supported by a conference of local African leaders, who did not even tacitly censure his actions. The only action proposed is the eventual freezing of Mugabes international assets, and maybe even a strongly worded statement of disapproval. There is some mention of suspension from the Commonwealth, however I do not think the lily livered diplomats would really go that far. Someone might call them imperialists, and we can't have that happening, can we?:rolleyes:

About the only good thing about the former apartheid South African regime is that they would have intervened militarily by now.

And that is the type of action I believe is required - responsible intervention to remove a most despicable dictator, and kill him and all his cronies. Only then will Zimbabwe be able to progress as a modern nation, instead of heading screaming back into the Dark Ages like it is at the moment.

The risk of getting bogged down in a quagmire is quite minimal, as we can see from the Tanzanian invasion of Uganda to get rid of Idi Amin.
The vast majority of the people do not support him, but are cowed by his murderous mobs.

As previously mentioned, unfortunately, Mugabe's African neighbours do not perceive him to be majorly out of line. So, therefore, some other powers must shoulder the responsibility, those with traditional links to the area. If South Africa could be involved, it would be very convenient, but the government there would not be conducive to such action.

Even a non-official group would be a possibility.

I guess I am just sick of this matter getting lip service at best in the press, who moan about there being no solution to this situation, and the craven diplomats who strongly condemn what is going on, and threaten to take ceremonial action, and even contemplate economic sanctions at a later stage. It is my argument that such gestures would have no effective impact upon the situation, and what is needed is direct action.

One is not passing the buck to the US, UK etc, but rather saying that military intervention of some description looks to me the quickest and most effective way to ameliorate the situation. At the very least, I would like to spark up some debate on the matter.

What should the West do about the situation in Zimbabwe?
 
Couldn't a mercenary army be raised? Say by the UN or some African governing body. (Preferably lead by a quiet Irishman named Cat ;))
 
Mecenaries, used in the field, have a very dubious legal status. Most legitimate use of mercenaries these days is for training and instruction.
 
You had to bring "The Dogs of War" into this, didn't you Whiskey Priest?:p

The last use of mercenaries I heard of was the Sandline affair in PNG, where they were being used in a counter insurgency advisory role in Bougainville. They were not particularly approved of...
Thus, because of the obvious legal obstacles and circumstances referred to by my learned friend Lefty, calling Mike Hoare and his ilk out of retirement is not an option.
 
Yeah sorry about that, that book is about the only book related to Africa that I have read (Plus the movie was ok, love that Walken). Anyway, does Executive Outcomes still exist or have they gone the way of the dodo. If they still exist couldn't they be hired by the UN (they have hired "security advisors" before). An army could be raised and they could begin the drive on Harare.
 
Yeah, Walkens eyes are bloody huge in the night fight scenes:D
Don't know the status of Executive Outcomes at this stage, and in my view, what would be needed rather than a "drive on Harare" is rather a commando operation hitting the key targets simultaneously, and accomplishing a virtual fait accompli in terms of establishing a new regime.
No need to give Mugabe and his disgusting cronies the opportunity to flee into the countryside.
But if this type of operation was combined with intervention by a neighbouring state or UN forces, then it would be a different matter, as symbolism would be important.
 
Why would mercs be needed? You mean to tell me that the concerned nations of the world can't come up with the troops and wherewithall on their own? If this really is a case for military intervention it is a perfect opportunity for the EU to handle the situation and prove that this kind of thing doesn't require the US. If this really is the kind of problem that requires an external solution, will the world step to the plate, or will they wait to see what the US does?
 
Originally posted by Knowltok
Why would mercs be needed? You mean to tell me that the concerned nations of the world can't come up with the troops and wherewithall on their own?

Hmm... Rwanda, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone. Doesn't seems like the nations of the world care to much about what happens in Africa.
 
That really is my argument. I believe that either the EU, the UK or somebody should get their act together, get on down there, and then get on down with Mugabe, instead of threatening to suspend some foreign accounts whilst he lives off the pillage of the country anyway in a demented Marxist haze.

I don't know what the world will do in response to this situation, but at the moment the feeling is Sweet F.A. It requires resolve, and a willingness to ignore the bleatings of liberal critics who would whine that this type of solution smacks of colonialism and imperialism. I can't see the current various European governments, and the collective one, having that will, but I can countenance the possibility of British action.

It's getting like East Timor a few years back. The violence increased to the extent that the Australian government swallowed their sycophantic urges towards the Indos, and told them we were going in, so they better agree. Admittedly, and to the shame of the nation, it was 24 years late, but dammit, at least SOMETHING was done.

That is the type of spirit needed to deal with Zimbabwe, and the political will to kill Mugabe and his court (to properly safeguard the future of the people, and a new democratic government and system)
 
Could not agree more (well except for some of the rhetoric). I do not understand why my fellow liberals get upset when overthrowing dictators is brought up. The arguement could be made that we have done more to screw up the third world then help it. But as long as the objective is to set a good, represenative governement and not to create a puppet state for use in grand real politik (pardon my russian) schemes I will support it.

PS. Is there any opposition leader whom the west could support? My knowledge of that area of the world is somewhat lacking.
 
Originally posted by knowltok
will the world step to the plate, or will they wait to see what the US does?

Call me a cynic, but after watching the world for nearly half a century, I think the world will stand by, wringing their hands, and wait for the US to finally get fed up and step in. Then some countries will jump in alongside, others will cry that the action needs to be sanctioned by the UN, and as soon as ANYTHING goes wrong (and it will), America will be maligned for sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong.

I agree with Simon, something should be done. I just wish it wouldn't have to be the US doing it.
 
Here is a link to a BBC story about the opposition leader in Zimbabwe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_1773000/1773946.stm

He seems like a suitable candidate to put in place if Mugabe does not hold fair elections. But lets wait and see if Mugabe holds fair elections. IF there is no vote tampering or intimidation and Mugabe is reelected then there is nothing that we can do.

some more links on zimbabwe:

General Backround:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/zimbabwe/tension.html

Some of the new bills the Mugabe gov has passed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_1748000/1748979.stm/
 
The Zimbabwe Armed Forces have already stated that they will not allow a government other than that of Mugabe to take power in any way shape or form. The chances of free elections occuring in Zimbabwe are equivalent to my chances of winning Miss Universe 1999 - NIL.
 
maybe commando operations could help, but they can also go terrible wrong. a huge military operation will problary end up in a blood bath.

the best way would be if the military of zimbabwe turned away from mugabe. then peaceful election could be hold in zimbabwe without too much spilled. but how can we make that happen?
 
Mugabe ,well ,15 years ago he was considerd one of those new president's (along with Kagame (Rwanda) and Museveni) that would made Africa ,or atleast his own country a better place to live in.As far as i know a lot of European inteligencia considerd Mugabe and some other's to be the beginning of an "African renesaince" .

Anyway ,when you say Mugabe im not only thinking of Zimbabwe ,also about Congo.The country that is devided into 2 rebel group's and 1 official gouverment.Both rebel group's are supported by various country's ,among them Rwanda ,Uganda ,Angola and Zimbabwe.Zimbabwe itself (along with Angola and Namibie) millitary support's the DRC (Democratic rupublic of Congo) against country's as Uganda,Burundi and Rwanda ,wich force's occupy a large area of East-Congo ,and in wich Uganda and Rwanda recently went to war against eachother.

What is Zimbabwe doing in the D.R. of Congo? First of all you would think supporting an ally.But there is more to find in the DRC than only war: Diamond's ,gold and Coltan. (a very important and pricy recource used a lot in the IT sector)
Rwanda and Uganda have made a lot of money on the selling of various expensive recource's to company's in Europe and America.
It was promised to Zimbabwe by Kabila that ,if they would win this war ,that a lot of Zimbabwe's company's would get concession's in the DRC.

Simon asked me what the west should do with Zimbawe ,i ask myself what the west should do with the whole region. Zimbabwe ,the Democratic republic of Congo ,Uganda ,Rwanda ,Burundi ,Angola ,Namibie and some more country's in Africa where the gouverment's don't seem to be very interrested with the well being of there Citizin's ,nore with the well being of Congo's citizin's.Using Congo as a hub to To fight "third world" war with as stake the rich recource's of the Congo.
Actually ,before anybody would touch Zimbabwe ,rather i would like that there would be more western involvement in Rwanda Against Paul Kagame.
 
Originally posted by Whiskey Priest


Hmm... Rwanda, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone. Doesn't seems like the nations of the world care to much about what happens in Africa.

I know. It's too bad really. God help anyone who does go in to try and help. They will be put under the microscope of those that criticise any dirrect action. Read the article on the US in Somalia in another thread for a good feel of how this can go. It never seems to be enough to say, "Our best judgement at this time tells us that going in with military force to remove this government is the best move." All possible motives will be examined, past history will be mined for anything that may have had an impact, and heaven help a nation if anything actually goes wrong. Hopefully any nation that sends troops will be able to maintain an iron grip on the words and actions of its 19 and 20 year old soldiers sent to oust a problem regime, or a dangerous strongman.

Padma, I agree with you. I just wish the rest of the world that doesn't like the US as policeman would step up and make it happen. We are busy elsewhere, and this is a prime opportunity for another nation or group of nations to step in and do what is right. I mention the EU because there has been some chest-thumping about how great it is, and this is an opportunity to prove it, and to bind it closer together.
 
Originally posted by Whiskey Priest
Hmm... Rwanda, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone. Doesn't seems like the nations of the world care to much about what happens in Africa.

What's wrong with Sierra Leone? The British did a rather good job of stablising the situation, didn't they?
 
Yes, Hamlet, the British did a very good job in Sierra Leone.

A huge military operation would not end in a blood bath; well, maybe for those who are meant to be taken out:). But with proper planning and resources, plus the political will, it could be done with a minimum of fuss.

The Zimbabwe military will not turn away from Mugabe as their fortunes are extremely closely linked, in the manner of the situation in Iraq, to use a parallel example.

Simply throwing money at the problem will not do anything, as it is far deeper than that. If opposition groups get funding or support, they would be...disappeared. This bloke does not play according to the rules.

I agree with duck that action needs to be taken in Africa as a whole, but Zimbabwe represents the most persuasive case for Western military intervention. The others can be dealt with forthwith. They are quite important situations, but to get onto them, there needs to be a precedent set.
 
Its too bad there isn't oil there. That would put it on the US radar, and then we might give it an attempt.

No oil? Then its not our problem. Let the EU or the African community deal with it.
 
Back
Top Bottom