FG Poll...... Should Britain Invade Zimbabwe?

[Oscar Namechange]

Should Britain invade Zimbabwe? | Mail Online

[Clodhopper]

If we weren't involved in Iraq and Afganistan I might feel differently but since we are heavily involved already I don't think we can.

[Snowfire]

They dont have any oil so it wont be an option

[spot]

It's a nonsensical suggestion. Firstly we're not up to the job and secondly no country on Earth has a mandate to behave in such a manner. Zimbabwe's a sovereign country and there's no genocide to intervene over. The state of the local economy is primarily a result of ill-considered sanctions, the government obviously has the backing of a significant proportion of the population and the British don't have any desire to re-invent the British Empire from scratch.

That's not a newspaper, that's a political organ of the Murdoch publishing empire. It's about time Britain threw the mogul out entirely and demanded either a balanced newsworthy editorial control or closure.

eta: apparently not Murdoch after all, I merely assumed it. Some fanatical scion of inherited wealth called Rothermere would seem to own it, "an estimated wealth of £1,020 million" at the last count, brother-in-law or thereabouts of the vile Mark Thatcher and an expatriate for UK tax avoidance, may he rot. The Mail's still a slimy rag and the "news" is anything but news, it's merely pressure on public opinion. The Mark Thatcher connection is worth noting, he having bought into the coup attempt in Equatorial Guinea this decade and singularly not been taken to court for it yet. Perhaps this year they're trying to steal Rhodesia and softening up public opinion before they act?

[Clodhopper]

The collapsed economy is a result of 30 years of Mugabe salting it away for himself and his cronies - which is why the sanctions were aimed at them. He's taken the jewel of Africa and smashed it.

[Oscar Namechange]

Clodhopper;1227814 wrote: The collapsed economy is a result of 30 years of Mugabe salting it away for himself and his cronies - which is why the sanctions were aimed at them. He's taken the jewel of Africa and smashed it. Totally agree but I wonder if this is more on a personal level to topple Mugabe rather than liberate the country from a tyrant. We learnt our lesson there with Sadam.

[spot]

Clodhopper;1227814 wrote: The collapsed economy is a result of 30 years of Mugabe salting it away for himself and his cronies - which is why the sanctions were aimed at them. He's taken the jewel of Africa and smashed it.


You know, given that sanctions were imposed at an international level there's presumably a public document somewhere which backs up that suggestion of yours with considerable evidence. I'd quite like to read it, I presume you already have or you'd not be so certain about the cause and effect. What I see in Zimbabwe is a government supported by the popular will of the electorate (and yes, I did read the allegations of electoral fraud and no, I didn't think it amounted to rigging). Regime change is solely a matter for the citizens, it's no business at all of any group outside the country.

[Clodhopper]

I don't think so. More like the intervention in Sierra Leone. I could be wrong, though...

[Oscar Namechange]

Clodhopper;1227835 wrote: I don't think so. More like the intervention in Sierra Leone. I could be wrong, though...


BBC NEWS | Africa | Zimbabwe elite seeks to evade sanctions

[Bill Sikes]

Snowfire;1227766 wrote: They dont have any oil so it wont be an option


True, but it might go some way towards relieving racial tension - I suggest dropping members of the BNP from out of helicopters onto particular trouble-spots, starting at Mr. Mugabe's palace.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bill Sikes;1227857 wrote: True, but it might go some way towards relieving racial tension - I suggest dropping members of the BNP from out of helicopters onto particular trouble-spots, starting at Mr. Mugabe's palace. :eek::yh_sweat

[Clodhopper]

He you go, spot:

Zimbabwe Updated: 19/06/09

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





EU Sanctions

Measures

Common Position 2004/161/CFSP amended by Common Position 2009/68/CFSP (26/01/09)

•Embargo on arms and related material

•Ban on exports of equipment for internal repression

•Ban on provision of certain services related to the arms embargo, and embargo on equipment which might be used for internal repression.

•Travel ban and freezing of funds and economic resources in respected of listed targeted individuals

Valid until 20 February 2010

EU Legislation

Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004, amended by Commission Regulation Nos. 1488/2004, 1367/2005, Council Regulation 1791/2006 and Commission Regulation 77/2009



See also Interpretative Council statement: OJ L 57, 25.2.2004, p. 1.

UK Legislation

UK

•Zimbabwe (Sale, Supply, Export Technical Assistance, Financing and Financial Assistance and Shipment of Equipment) (Penalties, and Licences) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/559)

•The Zimbabwe (Freezing of Funds and Economic Resources) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/816)

•Export Control Order 2008 (SI 2008/3231)

•The Immigration (Designation of Travel Bans) Order 2000 (SI 2000/2724) as amended by The Immigration (Designation of Travel Bans) (Amendment) Order 2004 (SI 2004/3316)

•The Trade in Controlled Goods (Embargoed Destinations) Order 2004 (SI 2004/318) as amended

Overseas Territories

The Overseas Territories (Zimbabwe) (Restrictive Measures) (Amendment) Order 2004 (SI/2004/1111 of 29/04/04) and The Sovereign Base Areas (Judicial Authorities) Order 2004 (SI 2004/2036)

The Overseas Territories (Zimbabwe) (Restrictive Measures) (Amendment) Order 2005 (SI/2005/3183)

Channel Islands

•Community Provision (Zimbabwe – Restrictive Measures) (No.3) (Jersey) Order 2002 (10/10/02)

•The Zimbabwe (Export of Goods & Freezing of Funds) (Guernsey) Ordinance 2002

•The Zimbabwe (Export of Goods & Freezing of Funds) (Alderney) Ordinance 2002

•The Zimbabwe (Export of Goods & Freezing of Funds) (Sark) Ordinance 2002

•The European Communities (Zimbabwe Sanctions) (Application) Order 2002

Comments

For further details please see the HM Treasury and Department of Business, Innovation and Skills websites. A UK arms embargo has been in force since 12/5/00.



See also the Summary of Additional UK Restrictions on the Export of Strategic Goods.



Policy Restrictions

The Government will not grant export licences for dual-use equipment where there is a clear risk that the equipment would be used in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Ministerial Statement (Reference HC184 & 185) – 09/02/00



Objective

To encourage persons subjected to targeted measures to reject policies that lead to the suppression of human rights, the freedom of expression and of good governance.

Lift Criteria

Measures maintained until progress made on democracy, human rights and the rule of law.


Taken from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website. Link (I hope) below.

Zimbabwe

[Bill Sikes]

spot;1227832 wrote: You know, given that sanctions were imposed at an international level there's presumably a public document somewhere which backs up that suggestion of yours with considerable evidence. I'd quite like to read it, I presume you already have or you'd not be so certain about the cause and effect. What I see in Zimbabwe is a government supported by the popular will of the electorate (and yes, I did read the allegations of electoral fraud and no, I didn't think it amounted to rigging). Regime change is solely a matter for the citizens, it's no business at all of any group outside the country.


Blimey. That seens to show complete lack of knowledge, or care, or obtuseness, or the desire to be controversial.

To take one bit of the above, "What I see in Zimbabwe...." - well, that's not at all what's seen by the "International Community", for a start.

[spot]

Clodhopper;1227870 wrote: He you go, spot:

Taken from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website. Link (I hope) below.

Zimbabwe


Well, yes, that certainly demonstrates that sanctions are ongoing. What it doesn't even hint at is "the collapsed economy is a result of 30 years of Mugabe salting it away for himself and his cronies - which is why the sanctions were aimed at them".

My problem is one of falsifiability. If you say A is true and I find it hard to credit, all I can do is search for A to show myself to be wrong, I can't search for positive evidence that A is false because it doesn't exist. I think it's a reasonable convention on an Internet forum to be able to ask for confirmation of a positive statement at least now and then, when the entire thread depends on the truth of the assertion for its understanding. I do know there's lots of allegations of fraud but that's what you get when politicians throw mud, isn't it. That's why I was hoping your "why the sanctions were aimed at them" would be easily demonstrated and leave the Zimbabwe government demonstrably corrupt. When sanctions were imposed it can't have been left unmentioned if it was the reason for the imposition as you claim.

[gmc]

No we already did that. How do you think Rhodesia/zimbabwe came in to existence in the first place? We are no longer a colonial power and countries need to sort out their own problems. Intervention from abroad just doesn't work, besides which we are bankrupt. While it's unfortunate what happened to the white farmers bear in mind they-or rather their predecessors walked and just took the land by force. They can hardly complain when someone else takes it off them however it has turned out.

[Clodhopper]

Sorry spot - never occurred to me that anyone would doubt that Mugabe and cronies have been salting it away for decades. I posted the article to show the sanctions were targeted at those particular people.

gmc: How far back do you go with that? The French kicked the Celts out of France - does that mean the German invasions of France last century were ok and the French were unreasonable to be upset about it? Would it be fine for China to invade the USA on the same grounds? Unless I'm missing something I think your argument is rather weak, on this occasion...

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1227884 wrote: Well, yes, that certainly demonstrates that sanctions are ongoing. What it doesn't even hint at is "the collapsed economy is a result of 30 years of Mugabe salting it away for himself and his cronies - which is why the sanctions were aimed at them".

.


Mugabe accused of manipulating aid | World news | The Guardian

[Clodhopper]

:wah:....come to that, my examples could cover more bases - add the question of Welsh invasions of England and Amerindians firebombing all US cities?

[spot]

oscar;1227898 wrote: Mugabe accused of manipulating aid | World news | The Guardian
I get really puzzled by conversations like this - there's not a word of a hint anywhere in that article of "Mugabe salting it away for himself and his cronies", oscar, just go and check. Not one iota. Not even a twitch in that direction.

I'd not be surprised at a British politician muddying the waters with such an allegation but I do think that after the WMD lies regarding Iraq we ought to discount them if they carry no backing evidence. Meanwhile we do have the option of producing the international discussion which led to the imposition of sanctions, since that's where Clod tells us it was the reason for imposing them in the first place. Personally I think the Foreign Office has it in for Mugabe and always has had since he was first elected head of state. I reiterate my opinion that the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy is primarily a result of the international sanctions - that does at least have the merit of making good sense.

[fuzzywuzzy]

enough of all that .....can we still play cricket against them?

[Clodhopper]

Report from the Helen Suzman foundation:



You cannot appreciate why Mugabe and his henchmen are clinging so tenaciously to power until you know how much they have to lose

ALTHOUGH CORRUPTION within the Zimbabwean government is notorious, journalists have persistently failed to find proof of corruption in the case of President Robert Mugabe himself. The only time that anything really juicy emerged was during the US Senate hearings into the collapse of the Abu Dhabi-based Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) in 1992. According to the published testimony of BCCI officials the bank had secured preferential banking rights in Zimbabwe by bribing Mugabe and Vice-President Joshua Nkomo in 1980-81....

Link below:

Mugabe makaipa: Corruption in Zimbabwe

So Mugabe has taken bribes, according to this.

WHEN President Robert Mugabe’s wife Grace landed in Hong Kong last month on the final lap of a lengthy Asian holiday, she had more on her mind than her usual extravagant shopping for baubles and handbags.

The first lady was focused on two investments designed to keep the Mugabes rich should they one day be forced into exile from Zimbabwe, where thousands are starving and ravaged by cholera and opponents are jailed, beaten and tortured.

One investment was a £4m Hong Kong property in a walled and gated complex where residents enjoy quiet gardens, a clubhouse and a swimming pool. The other was a multi-million-pound diamond venture she is considering launching in China. This involves locating a centre for cutting and polishing diamonds at Qingdao, on China’s east coast, in conjunction with Zimbabwe’s central bank, which is notorious for funding her extravagant travels abroad.

The associate with whom she was discussing the diamonds also had a hand in the purchase of the property. Last week the Mugabes’ bolt-hole in Hong Kong was exposed by a Sunday Times investigation that highlighted a web of financial intrigue stretching across some of the most exotic and luxurious spots in the Far East, from Malaysia and Singapore to Thailand and Vietnam. It also focused attention on the aggressive methods the Mugabes have used to protect their interests, whether political or financial.


Link to full article below:

Nehanda Radio Blog » Blog Archive » The wealthy life of the Mugabe family

He's a smart enough cookie to work at second hand.

[spot]

That's more like it. It sounds a pitiably small amount of money for a chap who's supposedly been embezzling an entire country for thirty years, don't you think? What does it amount to? Ten million pounds? Twenty? For the wealthiest ex-colony in post-war Africa with "Mugabe salting it away for himself and his cronies" you'd surely have expected him to be a billionaire at this point and the article doesn't sound as though he is.

I can't see that being the reason for the collapse of the entire state. Foreign Office anger at the land confiscations - the 1% of the population holding 70% of the usable arable land outrage twenty years after the collapse of UDI - and the imposition of sanctions by the EU and USA, with the lack of foreign investment such international action leads to, that seems far more of an issue.

[Bruv]

Please don't rip into my details, but a short history lesson about the country we now call Zimbabwe is called for, and I am the kiddie to give it as I have taken some interest in this for some time.

You all know Rhodesia was a former British colony that declared UDI back when some of us were younger. The Brits started negotiations then with the rebel African leaders to bring majority rule. Finally they all came to an agreement that due to the colonial past and the land being in the hands of Europeans and the financial institutions that the UK and America would overtime assist monetarily to buy land so that it returned into African hands.

The freedom fighters were promised land to feed their families , as it had been before colonialisation.

Mugabe was eased into the job, these things happen by former colonial governments, as the best choice for the UK.Over time the land reforms hit a full stop when the UK and America reneged on the agreement known as the Lancaster house agreement.

The Veterans became more insistent and farm invasions started, Mugabe followed their lead and made land reform a priority, a popular move.

Remember all the best farming land had been 'obtained' by European, plus many of the financial institutions, multi national companies, Judiciary, school system and other major institutions were based on the British pattern, and were in European hands.

Most of the early farm reclamations went through the correct procedures, but without the financial backing as agreed at Independence, they failed due to lack of finance.

At this stage Mugabe was portrayed as a tyrant, while his countrymen saw him as a hero.

If you consider he had to breakdown a farming system dominated by Europeans, for the benefit of his own countrymen and against the might of the financial institutions, all western dominated, it is easy to see how he became known popularly as a anti western racist tyrant.

However since the early days......he has lost the plot.

[Clodhopper]

Not just him, him and his cronies. I would say we are seeing just the tip of the iceberg.

I, personally, have the financial nous and knowledge of a teapot - there's no way I can track the shenanigans of whatever accountants, false fronts, dodgy companies etc etc have been doing, but no way do I believe that the discovered stuff is all there is.

[Clodhopper]

Hi Bruv. Thanks for the info. Didn't know we had reneged on the Lancaster House stuff.

[spot]

It's strange, the direction these threads take. http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/curre ... babwe.html is a previous attempt at the same discussion. There are others if anyone would like them linking.

[Clodhopper]

Spot: Had a quick peek - don't bother with the rest. Agree that there is a certain hypocrisy to the interventions. I'm sorry we reneged on the Lancaster House agreements and I do wish we could do something about Mugabe, but we can't do much without US backing, and the US has/had little or no interest in Africa (Libya excepted) - they've always been more concerned with the Middle East.

Tied up in Afganistan and (to a much lesser extent) Iraq as we are, we simply don't have the capacity. An intervention in Zimbabwe would be a multi decade commitment.

My ex-father-in-law had links with the Foreign Office and he told me that there were reports on all the African countries' readiness for independence back in the 1950s which concluded they were at least 30 or 40 years from having the institutions, educational levels and traditions required to make a go of it, but that we were too broke to be able to stay (a consequence, in part, of the Americans' determination to remove us as major world players after WW2, for which one cannot entirely blame them).

There was probably a certain amount of, "Alright, see how you do without us, then," as well, given human nature. But note the contrast with India, which was granted independence in 1948. There were concerns about the Hindu/Muslim infighting (and it was horrible), but again, we couldn't stay, and India DID have the capacity to run itself - indeed, Britain helped with this!

I think there are circumstances where it is justifiable to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries. There are not yet clear guidelines on this, but the mass killing of internal opponents is one, in my opinion. Iraq and Zimbabwe fit this description (again, imo). I also agree with the attempt to make Afganistan a working state, but the reasons are different and to do with the fact I'd rather we fought Islamic fundamentalism there than in Europe. If we didn't, we'd have to fight it in Europe now, and in a wholly fundamentalist Afganistan later.

Ok, pick this to bits now. I'll add to it later as appropriate!

[gmc]

posted by clodhopper

gmc: How far back do you go with that? The French kicked the Celts out of France - does that mean the German invasions of France last century were ok and the French were unreasonable to be upset about it? Would it be fine for China to invade the USA on the same grounds? Unless I'm missing something I think your argument is rather weak, on this occasion...


Well personally I would deprive the descendants of the Norman bastards that invaded and stole a kingdom for themselves of everything they still have left and that goes for the inbred pillocks supposedly at the top the tree as well. I don't want to live in a feudal society and it's about tome we got rid of the trappings of it.

We're no longer a colonial power, leaving aside any issues or otherwise of that in the first place the simple fact is we cannot do that kind of thing any more. A large chunk of the modern day problems we are facing are due to the imperial age and the reluctance of the west to stop interfering in countries by helping depose the "wrong" sort of government with an interpretation of freedom and democracy that means they can elect anyone to power so long as it suits our interests.

Countries need to stand on their own two feet and the people sort out their problems. For how many years do you blame colonialism for the way africa is today

[Clodhopper]

gmc: Ok, if you took land less than 1000 years ago you have to give it back. This is going to be very upsetting for a lot of people who call themselves Americans, Canadians and South American!

Given the intermarrying between Norman and Anglo-Saxon that went on, vast numbers of English have Norman as well as Anglo-Saxon (and French, and Celt, and Viking etc etc) genes you are effectively disinheriting vast numbers of English folk, not just a few aristocrats (who will also have Anglo-Saxon genes).

[fuzzywuzzy]

Forget about Zim and concentrate on Somalia.

[gmc]

Clodhopper;1228394 wrote: gmc: Ok, if you took land less than 1000 years ago you have to give it back. This is going to be very upsetting for a lot of people who call themselves Americans, Canadians and South American!

Given the intermarrying between Norman and Anglo-Saxon that went on, vast numbers of English have Norman as well as Anglo-Saxon (and French, and Celt, and Viking etc etc) genes you are effectively disinheriting vast numbers of English folk, not just a few aristocrats (who will also have Anglo-Saxon genes).


Clearly I was talking about the norman conquest and being tongue in cheek about it. Have a look at who owns the land in this country, how they obtained it

Enclosure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and the tell me why we should allow the descendants of medieval warlords to keep what they took by force and a system of land ownership that has at it's heart the concept that the monarchy hands out the land as he she sees fit. Probably the most striking thing is how we all accept they are the rightful inheritors and anyone suggesting that anyone else might be perfectly justified in dispossessing them is somehow criminal, insane, a dangerous radical. It's almost impossible to study social history without ending up with left wing views, that's why some would prefer if children just learn about all the important dates and nothing else.

The whites in Rhodesia did exactly the same thing, walked and took over because they could. Anyone with half a brain could see that sooner or later it would all change. If you were a black man would you be prepared to let your conquerors keep what they stole once you were in a position to take it back? We eventually intermarried and came to accept all of ours-the inhabitants of the UK are truly a mongrel people-but that took a few hundred years.

The strong have always taken from the weak and perhaps always will in one way or another. We still do it in other ways, just look at the middle east, or nigeria. Perhaps it's justified because we need the resources but whether it makes sense as a long term strategy is open to question.

We used to be a colonial power and imperial power. All the colonial powers bankrupted themselves through warfare. The empire is in the past we need to move on and stop kidding ourselves we have a moral duty to all our former colonies. They need to shift for themselves and we need to stop kidding ourselves we somehow have all the answers and a moral imperative to do something about it.

[Clodhopper]

Clearly I was talking about the norman conquest and being tongue in cheek about it.


Sorry - tone of voice can be a bit hard to pick up in posts and I've not been sleeping well. Not at my sharpest.

and the tell me why we should allow the descendants of medieval warlords to keep what they took by force and a system of land ownership that has at it's heart the concept that the monarchy hands out the land as he she sees fit.


1) I do not agree with punishing the descendent for the crimes of the ancestor. The descendent has committed no crime, unless being born is a crime and I don't think that's what you are suggesting. At least, I hope not.

Besides, who would get all this land you would suddenly make available? Either you redistribute for free, and I'd need to see your criteria for who gets it; or it's sold, in which case the current "strong" would get it (ie you would just help the rich get richer).

2) We are a Constitutional Monarchy. The Queen does not have the powers of William the Bastard, a few reforms and the occasional civil war have seen to that. I believe the Crown receives the land of an owner who dies intestate and without heirs, which is as good a way as resolving the issue as any other. The monarchy is part symbol, part end-stop.

Probably the most striking thing is how we all accept they are the rightful inheritors and anyone suggesting that anyone else might be perfectly justified in dispossessing them is somehow criminal, insane, a dangerous radical.


Under our current system they are the rightful inheritors. Change the system and include 100% death duties if you like, but I doubt you'll find many takers. Other than that I'll assume you are being tongue in cheek again when you suggest that if a commoner such as myself killed the Duke of Westminster I could take over his estate a la Zimbabwe.

The whites in Rhodesia did exactly the same thing, walked and took over because they could. Anyone with half a brain could see that sooner or later it would all change. If you were a black man would you be prepared to let your conquerors keep what they stole once you were in a position to take it back?


Probably not. And now they are starving on some of the most fertile land in Africa. Leaving Mugabe to sort it out will work out in the long run. When everyone opposing him has been killed, black and white, there will be no-one left to argue. Bit hard on those criminally stupid enough to be born into the wrong tribe, though.

We used to be a colonial power and imperial power. All the colonial powers bankrupted themselves through warfare. The empire is in the past we need to move on and stop kidding ourselves we have a moral duty to all our former colonies. They need to shift for themselves and we need to stop kidding ourselves we somehow have all the answers and a moral imperative to do something about it.


We bankrupted ourselves fighting Nazi Germany, which merely hastened the end of an Empire already in decline. It's been dead for 75 years. For most of us the Empire has been in the past since before we were born, and in many cases before our parents were born. I don't think Empire motivates many of us. On the other hand to ignore the rest of the world and say it'll be juuuuust fine flies in the face of history: If we don't engage with the rest of the world, the rest of the world will come here and engage with us. I'd prefer that we engage.

[Bruv]

Besides, who would get all this land you would suddenly make available? Either you redistribute for free, and I'd need to see your criteria for who gets it; or it's sold, in which case the current "strong" would get it (ie you would just help the rich get richer).


Havn't read and digested the post.....in a hurry.

But the Lancaster House agreement set out the 'rules' for land phasing back into African hands. Wording was along the lines "Willing buyer willing seller" with Africans getting help to purchase land as and when it went on the market.

But due to land 'never' reaching the open market.......the agreement was worthless

[Clodhopper]

Havn't read and digested the post.....in a hurry.

But the Lancaster House agreement set out the 'rules' for land phasing back into African hands. Wording was along the lines "Willing buyer willing seller" with Africans getting help to purchase land as and when it went on the market.

But due to land 'never' reaching the open market.......the agreement was worthless


gmc and I were talking about land in Britain at that point. Well, I certainly was, anyway. Hope you have a chance to respond more at leisure when you return.

Oh - I should point out that I voted against intervention in the poll, on the practical grounds that we are too involved elsewhere.