Its election day in Zimbabwe tomorrow!

Head down your book-makers; Robert Mugabe to win would be a good bet to make.



What do you think the international committee can do about the political turmoil? We(rest of world) surely cant just sit by and watch

If any action should be taken who should take responsibility in leading it against the regime?
Should South Africa take the helm being the power house of the region(not to mention the 3 million Zimbabweans creating xenophobia within its borders)? Should the UK lead the way(or stay well clear) due to its past relations(surely temporary colonialization is better than the current situation)? Should the USA intervene(just like Iraq!)? Should China show its true colours about its economic relationship with the Zanu and intervene politically? Should it just be left to the African Union(don't know what they can do)? Should the United Nations be doing what the United Nations can do(whats the point of it otherwise)? or Should it just be left well alone and we should all close our eyes to it?


I am really confused to why it is all nothing but a news story. Today the British removed Mugabe's knighthood and banned the national cricket team<<<like that is going to help the Zimbabweans. Placing sanctions however big or small or completely insignificant does nothing but make the people more scared of the Zanu. It saddens me.
------
I guess by the lack of response that this^^ is the general consensus.

If you are not aware Mugabe and the Zanu party secured the presidency despite there being no opposition, they even managed to win double the amounts of votes since the March elections.

In the meantime nobody in the international community does anything except place more and more sanctions on the Zimbabwean people. The countries inflation rate continues at a rate of 165,000% and unemployment is nearing 90%. From one of the richest and most successful countries in Africa in a space of 20 years it is now one of the poorest in the world. It has the worlds highest rate of AIDS(about 15% of the population), life expectancy has dropped from about 60 years old to just 34 in the space of 20 years.
It is frightening that this is allowed to happen; a 100% man-made humanitarian crisis.

And what exactly would you have us do? To fix their country requires money, they have no money, they remain in turmoil. This is how the world works and no amount of volunteers and non-profit organizations can fix it.

Frankly, I'm not updated in the Zimbabwe affairs. When I first read your post the first thing that came to my mind is how I'm easily a millionnaire in Zimbabwe with my few hundred euros. I do know that the leadership is terrible, dictatorship and such. And they also started attacking lawyers who are normally left alone. I assume that the election is just a bs thing to say they've had an election. As to who should intervene, I don't know. As for sanctions, it's not uncommon for certain countries to be internationally sanctioned for the acts of its government while the rest of the population who have no choice regarding the government suffers more.

It is not upto volunteers and non-profit organizations it is upto the UN and the international community to respond.

This is not about the money and it certainly should not be how the world works. Neither are plausible excuses to just turn the other way and hope it goes away.

Why does Zimbabwe not have any money? They were by African standards a wealth nation! Why do they remain in turmoil? Why do we allow them to remain in turmoil? If Zimbabwe had oil it would be a different story! If it were to happen on any other continent or closer to western politics it would be a different story! If Mugabe were a communist then it would be a different story! If it were a natural disaster and not a human one then it would be a different story!

We condemn Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, even the apartheid for their actions yet we continue to allow deluded megalomaniacs oppress mankind.

If my country were to ever go down the drain in the same way Zimbabwe has then I would hope the international community would come to our aid.
........ and I am thankful that the international community came to our aid when like the rest of Europe in the first half of the 20th century we did go down the drain.

Is it getting much coverage worldwide/France?

In the UK it has been making headlines every other day for a good few months now as the crisis worsens. It is obviously a delicate subject for the UK and one close to peoples hearts and that makes it all the more difficult to watch it unfold.

& Ysabel you would not be a millionaire but a multi-billionaire.

20 years ago the Zim$ was worth more than the US$ now the rate of exchange is;
US $1 = Zim $12,226,034,516
.......but this figure has probably risen significantly in the time I took to type it.

Its a difficult question. Botswana is the only African nation to really stand up and say anything, although there has been some small development in the African Union today asking for a (very unlikely) unity government to take place in Zimbabwe.
Maybe a twist of the arm for South Africa to react, they are after all hosting the World Cup in 2 years, they could do without Zimbabwean problems on their doorstep.

Listen, I'm not trying to be an **** or anything, I'm just bringing this discussion to reality, if there is no money in it then there will be no support. This is exactly why we don't have a cure for AIDS. The majority of people who have AIDS are poor and couldn't afford to pay for it, therefore there's no profit to be made. Like it or not that is how our word works and I'm not supporting it, just observing.

That is not true though. It only helps explain Iraq and gives Chris Rock something to joke about.

Why then are there coalition troops in Afghanistan?
Why are the UN in the Sudan and other sub-Saharan nations?
Why did the US invade Granada in 1983?
Why did we intervene in the Balkan conflict of the 90's?

Not one is for financial profit.

The reality that little is being done about Zimbabwe is purely political. The lack of a financial incentive makes little difference in global response, only if there was a financial incentive would countries intervene quicker whilst the lack of one is negligible. Can we really blame capitalist ignorance for not intervening?


Side note; The scientific community and international community spends a shed load (circa.US$10billion pa) on looking for a cure for AIDS. If a cure is ever found there is an unimaginable amount of money to be made from it, even more money than the pharmaceutical companies presently make treating it. The economical effect and the financial impact of an epidemic on a nation is rated higher than its empathy for the sufferers, consequently the cure for AIDS is an economical safe-guard if found.

Who should act? Ideally, we should have political power enough to make it pay off for Zimbabwe to, say, retain their seat on the Human Rights council by making various concessions and improvements with, among others, the African Union and so on.

But, since the UK and the US broke the UN a while back, and replaced it with assisted providencial intervention ("it's the right thing to do"), or the crisis based engagement (like Naomi Klein describes in "the Shock Doctrine") - I guess we only have the option to wait and see, or else invade and **** up again. Or, of course, take the diplomatic approach and send soliders unofficially to train anti- dictatorial and human- rights oriented death- squads.

Oh, I'm sorry - yes, I forgot. There's also the Bush- way. Use the crisis for political leverage at home to win an election on an arbitrary platform, and then make sure enough money to build a space- elevator is wasted on bribes and no- bid contracts to pick up the pieces again. But then, as others mentioned, Zimbabwe doesn't really have any natural resources we need too badly..

Oh, I'm sorry - yes, Bush, they have uranium. And that's going to be the real wildcard on the energy consumption problem that's cropping up around the world - because that's needed to sustain the growth. Yes, I'm very sorry for you mr. Bush, that you only have six months left and have already committed yourself to attacking Iran - so obviously we're all incredibly eager to set us up for weeping liberal and leftist bitter tears from how we're not able to intervene in Zimbabwe and get the dictator.

Btw - meanwhile, there's another war on on the Ivory Coast - they were doing pretty good, until someone decided that they needed a more ruthless figure to spend the money from foreign aid, prostitution and industry contracts more wisely.

But you all care **** all about that, no doubt.

Yes, that's right, mr. Bush - get the dictator and liberate everyone. All right, please calm down. You're frothing, mr. Bush..

What needs to be done is stopping some of the feedback loops that are tearing Zimbabwe apart. Disease leads to poverty, which leads to more disease, etc. Mugabe himself is probably as much a symptom as a cause of Zimbabwe's problems, of which the contributing factors of disease and drought cannot be ignored. There is no quick easy fix to these things, just a lot of little steps that can be taken. None of them will seem very satisfying on their own terms.

Just wondering, but would I be right in thinking that infact, Zimbabwe does have money, but Robert Mugabe has taken it for himself? Also that he would rather concentrate on getting more money and keeping Morgan Tsvangirai in prison...?

Secondly, Zimbabwe is not the only country looking for a cure for AIDS, African nations may have some of the highest populations of AIDS suffers, but there are other countries searching for a cure. It's more that because Mugabe has taken the money, his people can't get the drugs they need to stay as healthy as they can.

Possibly.

All I know is that Mugabe is a grade A a**hole and he needs to be overthrown if he's willing to have his competition killed off.