Cuan a écrit:

Cuan a écrit:

Ok.

With all this talk about what the US is doing for the rest of the
world, what is the US planning for Africa?

C'mon, surely the US, in its pursuit for global democracy has
something to say about the sad state of affairs in poor ol' africa?

Let's see, the Zimbabwean dollar has declined further than that of the
Afghan currency. The head of state earns more than the country he
runs. And the farmlands in the country have become stagnant, with no
experienced workmen to cultivate any crops. When people tour the once
thriving tobacco plantations, they encounter human fieces on the side
of the road. What of the new world order now?

Let's see, what has Zimbabwe got to offer? Nothing. But in a few
short years, they'll be crawling to the World Bank in search of a loan
which will, no doubt, end up in the coffers of the Mugabe Government.

They would rather have their black compatriots running the once
economically vibrant land, yet, none of them are willing to do any
work at all. This was an electioneering campaign from the word "go",
only now, they're left with the remnants of a once thriving economy
(by African standards) which is *****-about-face as far as dealing with
the very real crisis they are facing.

As a South African, who's biggest trading partner *was* Zimbabwe, I
feel they need to be held to account for the disservice they're
rendering to, not only themselves, but to whatever remains of their
neighbouring business partners.

So, maybe you, Jean, the guardian of all that is 'just', can tell us
what you feel? Shouldn't the US intervene, as it has always done, and
defend the ailing economy of Zimbabwe, the same way it defended the
ailing Iraqis and Afghanis? This *was* a democracy on its best day,
and now it's become a dictatorship. Why doesn't *this* raise some
american eyebrows? No oil?

I have predicted this would happen the day Mugabe started to steal from
the farm ers and other providers of the nation because they were of a
different skin color. All his racist rhetorics couldn't work in the
field because even if he can rob everything and kill everyone he cannot
find people to replace them.

The US and the coalition did liberate Iraq, but they did it based on a
UN resolution that had authorized the use of force (678) and on a
consensus of a last chance to implement the 687e resolution in which
were listed the conditions of the cease-fire. (I know they all betrayed
their signatures, but I won't speak about all the implications of that
here, but to say it will be very hard in the future to make the UN work
when force would be required, as it was what happened with Iraq, the UN
worked.)

In Africa (I lived for almost 5 years in different regions of Africa)
there are also lots of alliances, even with outstanding murderer
dictator like Mugabe. Africa is a block, like Europe. True, there are
discrepancies, some of these countries have a lot of natural resources,
others do not have much, recently (in the past two decades) there has
been impoverishment, for different reasons but mostly because of drought
and erosion of fertile land. And there is little that can be done in
some cases, in others it takes investments. A country must be stable for
investors to go there.

Without going on in detail about each of the other African countries,
the short version is that Zimbabwe killed its long term investors in
order to steal everything from them. But they killed the golden hen.
They cannot replace the labor, it takes a lot more...

Now, can the UN deal with it the way it dealt with Iraq? That is if it
could make as if it was before Iraq, like it should have been. I
wouldn't hold my breath given how anti-semite he is, and you see that it
was ready to vote blame for the elimination of the head of a terrorist
organization who was responsible for the killing of scores of innocent
civilians on purpose, this is another problem, politics now is like
before WW2. We couldn't stop the anti-semites or Hitler, because of all
the other complicit nations. But I won't get into that further neither.

In essence your question is can the UN, and thus we (NATO, say), deal
with it. You will notice that shortly after France betrayed the
coalition and pretended it didn't have a mandate, it sent troops to
Zaire without any such mandate and who even question anything? But Zaire
has riches. but even if it was not a question of wealth, the US and the
UN in theory certainly has another more noble vision, it is difficult to
get even some blue print for some course of action there, because of all
these recent events that did shatter the UN (and would have destroyed it
would the Security Council nations against it have their way with 1441).
Anyway, it will take a lot of time to heal and to make the UN decide
hard choices and implement them unless there are major conflicts, or
coups, or mass destruction. Of course there is also NATO, again very
bruised by this betrayal from France, and Russia, its most recent member
until recently.

Mercenaries? If you mean could we solve it otherwise, swiftly eliminate
the "problem"? The US by itself is bond by a policy preventing them
getting at Mugabe. Of course there is the Commonwealth that has a beef
against him, after all there are MI5 mercenaries, "James Bond"s, under
the order of the Queen, but the British have their handful with
terrorists that can harm them domestically, they have no real incentive
to risk diplomatic incident with an operation that would be quite
sizable. Because of the very nature of the task, and the problem the
country has because of this guy, there is nothing that can be
interesting enough for independent mercenaries to undertake this. It
would cost so much to put the country back together, whether after he is
thrown out democratically or if he is eliminated, that no operation on
that scale can be afforded by those who have an interest in seeing these
people liberated.

Only the US or England could really do something. The problem is that
because they are perceived to have taken such an initiative, liberation
of the people of Iraq, they are ostracized by much of the rest of the
world and by much of their own people. That is if they had decided only
for the single reason of doing the right thing for the people of that
country. It was infinitely more complex than that, but that is what
they are perceived to have done, and blamed for it. So how can it
happened in Zimbabwe.

Indeed it is atrocious, but it is not urgent for the stability of the
world. The stability of the world is the utmost reason something would
be done and never unilaterally. Iraq was never unilaterally but you saw
what happened. The world has become crazy now, and begs for the third WW
and to be dominated by fanatics and anti-Semites, which will eventually
end up happening, despite everything. But these few last words are the
prophetic reality. Let's stick to the actual reality.

Mind you anything could happen, this is another continent, the UN could
review its inaction about Rwanda, and decide to reconsider all its
approach about the whole of Africa, and not only for health concerns.

let's hear your views on "selective democracy".

- cuan

Think about it, you tell me, what do you think would happen if the US
would intervene in Zimbabwe? Be honest. An uproar, right? Even if it is
the most despicable regime on the planet. So let's hear it, what do YOU
propose?

J.

Cuan a écrit:

let's hear your views on "selective democracy".

- cuan

Think about it, you tell me, what do you think would happen if the US would
intervene in Zimbabwe? Be honest. An uproar, right? Even if it is the most
despicable regime on the planet. So let's hear it, what do YOU propose?