Comments on: Free Zimbabwe

By: W.A.M.

W.A.M. — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:10:05 +0000

Invader(s of) Zim…

The situation in Zimbabwe is precarious to say the least. Peaceful resolution doesn’t seem possible – either way blood is going to be spilled. Should South Africa invade? Do we even stand a chance?
……

By: higherstandard

higherstandard — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 00:44:12 +0000

“Zimbabwe’s neighbours aren’t likely to intervene because that would create a precedent which would cause sleepless nights in many a presidential palace. Nor could they accept intervention by a Western-backed UN force because that would smack of re-colonisation.”

A good discussion piece.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10520007&pnum=0

By: Steve Pierson

Steve Pierson — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:04:00 +0000

rave. The working class, the unions, have been the leaders of opposition to Mugabe and it is the unions, not the capitialists in SA who have prevented arms shipments getting to his regime.

By: Steve Pierson

Steve Pierson — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:02:12 +0000

rave. Without conceding the premeses of your argument when you say “Zimbabwe … would end up like South Africa.” are you talking about the South Africa that a third of Zimbabwe’s population has fled to in a bid to escape starvation, economic collapse, and state terrorism at home?

By: Matthew Pilott

Matthew Pilott — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 05:53:36 +0000

This deserves Godwin’s. Anyone care to phrase it?

By: higherstandard

higherstandard — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 05:49:54 +0000

No Lew it doesn’t say it all the sentence below is required.

Rave you are a deluded moron.

By: Lew

Lew — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 05:00:02 +0000

rave: “I support the ZANU-PF”

Says it all, really.

By: rave

rave — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 04:56:07 +0000

Tane: As a socialist I do not support Mugabe’s regime as capable of winning economic independence and meeting the needs of the people.
It has a proven record of selling out to the British, and of trying to solve its internal problems by repressive use of state force.
Nor do I support the MDC which is a stooge of Western Imperialism (the so-called international community)which in the event it won power would soon re-open Zimbabwe up to the IMF and international capital so it would end up like South Africa.

In the immediate situation I support the right of the people to vote for any party of their choice and not be exposed to state repression.

But any real change can only come from the independent actions of the poor workers and farmers of Zimbabwe, as against every faction of nationalist leaders who have, continue and will in the future, be subordinate to imperialism.

That is why I oppose the intervention of the West (which is the ultimate cause of the current problems) to ‘solve’ the situation. It is a sick joke to expect the West to create conditions for ‘democracy’ and ‘civil society’ in Zimbabwe. Despite all its shortcomings I support the ZANU-PF against attempts to destroy the economy by sanctions and blockades, and in the face of military intervention.

These general points are made clearly enough in Gowan’s many articles on his blog and they are a standard international socialist position which puts the international working class at the centre of making progressive changes.

By: Pascal's bookie

Pascal's bookie — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:20:40 +0000

I’m not convinced is a good idea myself, I was just wondering about a circuit breaker.

I’m also not convinced I’d be afraid for the system of international justice (such as it is) if Mugabe fled away in the night and rumours started floating about that he was holed up in China.

” exile would be a surrender manouvre by Mugabe”

Exactly. The idea being to provide a form of surrender tenable for the regime.

“The solutions are political, and to an extent economic.”

Which is where we couldn’t be arsed. Removing the Taliban from power was easy. Capturing the leadership probably doable but not done. Securing the peace hard and barely attempted.

I don’t see anything about Zimbabwe that makes me think that the world’s attention will stay focused once the comparatively easy bit is done and the regime is out of power but still hiding in the bush.

By: Lew

Lew — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:19:41 +0000

Pascal: Indeed, you didn’t, but I’m arguing it would constitute a form of appeasement. That in itself doesn’t mean it can’t be a good idea; I’m just not convinced it would be in this case.

If the ZNA have indeed prevented Mugabe from taking up such an offer already, I’d expect this would just result in warlordism unless a well-armed and well-equipped peacekeeping force with a strong international mandate were put in place at the same time, to fill the power vacuum. Once all the steps you list above were taken, exile would be a surrender manouvre by Mugabe, rather than acceptance of an offer of clemency by the international community; but perhaps that’s just window-dressing.

As far as the Taliban goes – it’s not that they couldn’t be arsed; it’s that they couldn’t. No invading force has ever pacified Afghanistan by military means, and I don’t see the US or UN doing so now. The solutions are political, and to an extent economic.

By: Pascal's bookie

Pascal's bookie — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:58:28 +0000

Lew, I don’t think I suggested appeasement.

Usually appeasement is where you give something to someone who is demanding it, in order to prevent war. I’m thinking about of an offer more along the lines of an ultimatum.

Raise the threat level to the point that Mugabe knows he is finished. Cut off all official ties. Declare Zimbabwe a failed state an establish an interim government in exile. Start getting a UN peace keeping force together. Have some ‘friendly’ state unofficialy offer him escape with complete deniabilty, make it look like he is fleeing, not getting a deal.

I completely agree that internal exile won’t work, but I fear that that is a more likely outcome from other scenarios. The world community will lose interest pretty quickly if Mugabe and his followers head for the bush and lay low. I mean, we couldn’t even be arsed finishing off the Taliban.

By: Lew

Lew — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:54:56 +0000

rave: `Democracy’ and `civil society’ are precisely what Mugabe and others fought to wrest for the Zimbabwean people from the Smith regime. They are (or should be) the end goal of revolution. Once they’re in place, problems begin to solve themselves. By rejecting them Mugabe has brought the current troubles on his country. By defending his doing so, claiming they are colonialist devices to enslave a people, you discredit the legitimate revolutions of history, and the will of the Zimbabwean people.

By: Tane

Tane — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:52:24 +0000

Rave, how am I supposed to know whether I want to go there if I can’t even understand what you’re trying to say?

Please, explain clearly: As a socialist, do you or do you not support Mugabe? Do you or do you not think he should be removed? Why?

By: rave

rave — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:46:51 +0000

Tane, I am critical of Mugabe. But you have to judge his failures and excesses in light of an ongoing war of liberation against imperialism.
What other word would you use for the way that the Western powers have brought Africa to its knees? ‘Civilisation’?
The precondition for “freedom” in Zimbabwe is real equality of ownership and control of the nation’s resources; anything less, including the terrible failures of Zanu-PF, are in the service of the freedom of international profiteers.
I never claimed that Mugabe was socialist. He has made far too many deals with imperialism for that. But now that he has thumbed his nose at his ‘real masters’ he will be brought down, and the rule of the coloniser, now as Gowans descibes, under the guise of ‘democracy’ and ‘civil society’, will be restored. Unless… but I don’t think The Standardistas want to go there.

By: Lew

Lew — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:17:44 +0000

Pascal/T-rex/MacDoctor: [Re offering Mugabe exile in lieu of prosecution].

This is similar to what the Thai government (with the tacit support of the international community) did for Pol Pot, Ta Mok, Ieng Sary and other high-ups from the Khmer Rouge – exiled them to their own armed camps in the badlands at the Thai border (Anlong Veng and Pailin areas) where until recently they remained, effectively immune to justice and still controlling large numbers of people and big chunks of the primary economy in gemstones and lumber.

Whether you favour this sort of thing is a question of whether you value peace over justice. The idea of appeasement is to secure peace at the cost of justice, but in the Cambodian case, there has been neither peace nor justice. I’m sure there are other cases along these lines with which I’m not familiar, but on the basis of my knowledge of this case, I’m disinclined to support such measures.