What can the international community do about Mugabe

[kainedamo]

After being harrassed continually by police, the opposition leader in Zimbabwe backs down, and the police raid the headquarters of the opposition party.

Tsvangirai Offers To Talk To Mugabe
Updated:13:34, Monday June 23, 2008

Police in Zimbabwe have raided the headquarters of the opposition MDC - as party leader said he was ready to negotiate with President Robert Mugabe after his withdrawal from the presidential elections.

Morgan TsvangiraiHowever, Mr Tsvangirai said he would only do so on condition that political violence stopped.

About 10 police, some said to be in riot gear, raided the opposition's offices in Harare, taking several people out of the building and bundling them on to a bus.

Party spokesman Nelson Chamisa said most of the people taken away were women and children who had fled state-sponsored political violence and sought refuge.

Mr Tsvangirai's offer to negotiate comes amid mounting concern from within and outside Africa over the violence, in which the opposition says around 90 of its supporters have died.

The MDC leader told South Africa's Radio 702: "We are prepared to negotiate with Zanu-PF but of course it is important that certain principles are accepted before the negotiations take place.

"One of the preconditions is that this violence against the people must be stopped."

At the weekend Mr Tsvangirai pulled out of the June 27 poll, saying supporters of his Movement for Democratic Change would risk their lives by voting because of brutal attacks by Mugabe supporters.

Advertisement

Mr Mugabe, 84, who has been in power since independence from Britain in 1980, has vowed never to hand over to the opposition, branding them puppets of the West.

He denies his supporters are responsible for the violence.

Gordon Brown has said he is "disappointed" that Mr Tsvangirai had been forced out of the contest.

A UN emergency meeting will be held later to discuss the crisis in Zimbabwe.

UN chief Ban Ki-moon said Mr Tsvangirai's decision to quit the June 27 vote was a "deeply distressing development" and a bad omen for the country's future.

"The circumstances that led to the withdrawal of opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai... from the presidential elections represents a deeply distressing development that does not bode well for the future of democracy in Zimbabwe," Mr Ban's spokesman said in a statement.

"The campaign of violence and intimidation that has marred this election has done a great disservice to the people of the country and must end immediately."

A spokesman for the US Government said: "The government of Zimbabwe and its thugs must stop the violence now.


Robert Mugabe"All parties should be able to participate in a legitimate election and not be subject to the intimidation and unlawful actions of the government, armed militias and so-called war veterans."

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said Mr Tsvangirai's decision to quit was "understandable, given the unacceptable systematic campaign of violence, obstruction and intimidation lead by the Zimbabwean authorities, which has continued for several weeks".

"In these conditions, the elections have become a travesty of democracy," a statement from his office said.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told Sky News Mr Mugabe could not be considered Zimbabwe's legitimate ruler.

And Sky News' Africa correspondent Emma Hurd said: "It has proved to be an impossible task for him (Tsvangirai) to campaign in this election.

"It was fairly clear early in this process that it would be anything but a free and fair election.

"It appears the MDC is hoping that SADC (Southern Africa Development Community), the AU and the UN take some serious action in the country."

Mr Mugabe has accused the MDC of falsely reporting attacks on its supporters in order to be able to claim later that the election was rigged.

What can the international community do about Mugabe?

I think he needs to be removed. Maybe there is something the international community can do to help the people in Zimbabwe remove Mugabe.

[Raiden]

I think Mugabe should be removed forceably, but I don't think the international community will bother to get their hands dirty; they will continue to voice their disapproval but do nothing, as a military campaign will likely be costy and they don't think it's worth it.

[The Senator]

Assassinate him. If democracy can't prevail, then maybe a bullet or two will.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by kainedamo

After being harrassed continually by police, the opposition leader in Zimbabwe backs down, and the police raid the headquarters of the opposition party.



What can the international community do about Mugabe?

I think he needs to be removed. Maybe there is something the international community can do to help the people in Zimbabwe remove Mugabe.

Essentially nothing can be done. No foreign country will intervene, as frankly, its not practical anymore. This should be a black and white issue, but it won't be. Instead there would be tremendous backlash and pressure if someone stepped in and God knows what the consequences or death toll would be if Mugabe were killed or removed from power.

I mean, regardless of Bush's lies or the reasons for the war, in theory, removing Saddam Hussein from power should've been a good thing. And yet here we are, backlash from the international community, constant in-fighting within our own country over it, and Iraq is on the brink of civil war. What should've been a good action, was not. Some times the right way, isn't always the best way. Who knows what the results of taking Mugabe out of power would be? A civil war with thousands of lives lost? Perhaps a worst dictator would step into power? Sometimes you just gotta let things play out.

[kainedamo]

Originally Posted by Matt

Essentially nothing can be done. No foreign country will intervene, as frankly, its not practical anymore. This should be a black and white issue, but it won't be. Instead there would be tremendous backlash and pressure if someone stepped in and God knows what the consequences or death toll would be if Mugabe were killed or removed from power.

I mean, regardless of Bush's lies or the reasons for the war, in theory, removing Saddam Hussein from power should've been a good thing. And yet here we are, backlash from the international community, constant in-fighting within our own country over it, and Iraq is on the brink of civil war. What should've been a good action, was not. Some times the right way, isn't always the best way. Who knows what the results of taking Mugabe out of power would be? A civil war with thousands of lives lost? Perhaps a worst dictator would step into power? Sometimes you just gotta let things play out.

But, of course, the Iraq war was a completely different situation. It just isn't comparable. Was Saddam a tyrant? Undoubtidly. But I genuinely believe the Iraqi people weren't ready for his removal. Whereas in Zimbabwe, the people have developed a significant democratic opposition to Mugabe's rule. That opposition is met with violence and intimidation, but that opposition is still large. In Iraq, the opposition to Saddam's rule wasn't the same. The opposition leader, last I heard, has had to flee to a Dutch embassy. It will be some time before the people can democratically get Mugabe out. And in that time, how many more massacres will occur? How many Darfurs?

The circumstances call for Mugabe to be removed. We're not talking about what happened 10, 15, 20 years ago - we're talking about recent history. Their economy is an incredibly bad state, the people have no jobs or money, all the farmable land is occupied by Mugabe's friends, and Mugabe has been the cause of genocide. In Iraq, people had jobs, they had food.

The international community would not condemn the removal of Mugabe. The reasons for the condemnation for the Iraq war are obvious, and are not related to Saddam's removal. The condemnation has to do with lies about reasons for going in there, alterior motives, and the balls up of the invasion which arguably made the average Iraqis life worse rather than better.

[Matt]

Are you kidding? The opposition to Saddam in Iraq was huge. The problem is, once he was gone, the people no longer had an enemy to unite against, so they started killing each other. What is to stop that from happening in Zimbabwe when a similar power vaccum presents itself due to Mugabe's death? What is to stop a greater evil from stepping in? We simply cannot anticipate the outcome of an action like removing Mugabe from power. Sure, he is an evil guy, buy sometimes the enemy you know is better than a faceless enemy.

As for foreign opposition, any country that invades Zimbabwe will be met with similiar opposition from some country. That is just the times we live in. There is no longer black and white. Any country that has a vested interest in Mugabe's survival (and they're out there) will condemn any country that invades.

It is a horrible situation, but sadly, the Zimbabweians will have to free themselves.

[chamber-music]

Originally Posted by Matt

It is a horrible situation, but sadly, the Zimbabweians will have to free themselves.

Thats pretty much impossible at the moment. Mugabe has been saying only god has the power to remove him and his generals aren't gonna tell him to leave because they know as soon as a new democratic elected leader enters office they will probably be charged and arrested for all the raping, beatings and murdering they have been involved with.

The other African nations need to step up especially South Africa who are the only country that mugabe actully bothers to listen to. The countries of Africa really need to stop this see no evil, hear no evil crap and call Mugabe up on the stuff his doing to is people.

Its in Zimbabwe's neighbours best intrests because immigrants from there have been pouring into their countries. There has already been civial unrest and violence against Zimbawe immigrants in South Africa.

[The Senator]

I find it interesting how people are so adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq, yet they find no problem with starting wars in African nations which would ultimately end with the same results as Iraq.

We are not the world's police. And after the fiasco that occurred in the Middle East, the United States should keep itself out of all foreign conflicts for the time being. If the UN or other nations want to stop the atrocities which are occurring in Zimbabwe and the Sudan, fine. But I personally think the United States should stay out of it.

[Raiden]

Originally Posted by jmanspice

I find it interesting how people are so adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq, yet they find no problem with starting wars in African nations which would ultimately end with the same results as Iraq.

We are not the world's police. And after the fiasco that occurred in the Middle East, the United States should keep itself out of all foreign conflicts for the time being. If the UN or other nations want to stop the atrocities which are occurring in Zimbabwe and the Sudan, fine. But I personally think the United States should stay out of it.

I think you are right. While my post seems like I support action against Mugabe and Zimbabwe, like you said US should stay out of it, because intervention will only draw us into any country that will need occupation to stabilize the civil unrest and power struggles from the remnants of Mugabe's generals. Thanks to Afghan and Iraq, US should not get involved with another country's problems, and with the economy downturns and rising prices, US can't afford to, either.

[StorminNorman]

We should leave it to the UN.

Of course this means nothing will happen...but at least it prevents the yolk from falling on American faces.

[Marx]

Originally Posted by jmanspice

I find it interesting how people are so adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq, yet they find no problem with starting wars in African nations which would ultimately end with the same results as Iraq.

We are not the world's police. And after the fiasco that occurred in the Middle East, the United States should keep itself out of all foreign conflicts for the time being. If the UN or other nations want to stop the atrocities which are occurring in Zimbabwe and the Sudan, fine. But I personally think the United States should stay out of it.

Some people like to forget that fact.

Originally Posted by StorminNorman

We should leave it to the UN.

Of course this means nothing will happen...but at least it prevents the yolk from falling on American faces.

To me, this is a United Nations matter.

[Arc-Light]

I agree with what everyone has said, it would be a no win situation, plus it would be like Somalia all over again.

[rdh007]

Let's give him Czechoslovakia.

[Cosmic]

Some extremely brave people have been standing up against Mugabe's oppressive rule. They're fighting for freedom and democracy, against all odds. We should support them strongly. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's time for military intervention, but it should be an option.

[The Senator]

Originally Posted by Cosmic

Some extremely brave people have been standing up against Mugabe's oppressive rule. They're fighting for freedom and democracy, against all odds. We should support them strongly. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's time for military intervention, but it should be an option.

So, then, I take it we should stay in Iraq as well?

[Cosmic]

No, we should get out of Iraq, soon.

[The Senator]

Originally Posted by Cosmic

No, we should get out of Iraq, soon.

But, you also think that we should keep military intervention in Zimbabwe on the table? When removing Mugabe from power and installing a new government could end in the same tumultuous results as Iraq? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

[rdh007]

I'm one of these people who doesn't think we should've gone into Iraq when we leave guys like this alone. We've either got to step it up and be the world's police (not my first, second, nineteenth, or three-thousandth choice) for real or we've got to pick and choose our battles a little more carefully. We should still be engaged in Afghanistan and only Afghanistan (oh, and part of Pakistan if they're harboring known members of al-Qaeda). All of the military personnel that are in Iraq would better serve our nation by being at home with their kids or hunting down actual terrorists. Saddam was a jerk, it's great that he's gone. But there are hundreds of jerks and it would be equally great if they were gone too.

[Cosmic]

But, you also think that we should keep military intervention in Zimbabwe on the table? When removing Mugabe from power and installing a new government could end in the same tumultuous results as Iraq? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Stop trying so hard to compare Zimbabwe to Iraq. They're two different situations with very different and complex sets of circumstances.

[Cosmic]

Originally Posted by rdh007

I'm one of these people who doesn't think we should've gone into Iraq when we leave guys like this alone. We've either got to step it up and be the world's police (not my first, second, nineteenth, or three-thousandth choice) for real or we've got to pick and choose our battles a little more carefully. We should still be engaged in Afghanistan and only Afghanistan (oh, and part of Pakistan if they're harboring known members of al-Qaeda). All of the military personnel that are in Iraq would better serve our nation by being at home with their kids or hunting down actual terrorists. Saddam was a jerk, it's great that he's gone. But there are hundreds of jerks and it would be equally great if they were gone too.

I agree, except, you know that we didn't really invade and occupy Iraq simply because Saddam was a jerk. We should have sent troops into Sudan and Rwanda. Defending innocent people from slaughter isn't being the "world's police," it's being responsible.

[The Senator]

Originally Posted by Cosmic

Stop trying so hard to compare Zimbabwe to Iraq. They're two different situations with very different and complex sets of circumstances.

How? Wouldn't the situation basically be the same as Iraq, at its core?

-The United States goes in and removes Mugabe from power
-A Zimbabwean opposition movement rises, and starts attacking U.S. forces even though a majority of Zimbabweans may support his removal from power
-The United States helps draft a new government, one which is pro-West and therefore alienates many Zimbabweans
-A civil war begins to brew among Zimbabwe's ethnic tribes, as the United States continues to get its facts wrong while blindly interfering in Zimbabwe's affairs.

All the elements are there to make Zimbabwe just as catastrophic as Iraq. The only thing that's missing is a WMD controversy.

[The Senator]

Originally Posted by Cosmic

I agree, except, you know that we didn't really invade and occupy Iraq simply because Saddam was a jerk. We should have sent troops into Sudan and Rwanda. Defending innocent people from slaughter isn't being the "world's police," it's being responsible.

But, uh, hundreds were murdered under Saddam's ethnic cleansing in Iraq.

This means the Iraq war was justified, correct? Because we prevented the possible deaths of more Iraqis by removing Saddam from power?

[Cosmic]

Originally Posted by jmanspice

How? Wouldn't the situation basically be the same as Iraq, at its core?

-The United States goes in and removes Mugabe from power
-A Zimbabwean opposition movement rises, and starts attacking U.S. forces even though a majority of Zimbabweans may support his removal from power
-The United States helps draft a new government, one which is pro-West and therefore alienates many Zimbabweans
-A civil war begins to brew among Zimbabwe's ethnic tribes, as the United States continues to get its facts wrong while blindly interfering in Zimbabwe's affairs.

All the elements are there to make Zimbabwe just as catastrophic as Iraq. The only thing that's missing is a WMD controversy.

This is your scenario, not mine. Don't assume that intervention necessarily means an invasion.

[The Senator]

Originally Posted by rdh007

I'm one of these people who doesn't think we should've gone into Iraq when we leave guys like this alone. We've either got to step it up and be the world's police (not my first, second, nineteenth, or three-thousandth choice) for real or we've got to pick and choose our battles a little more carefully. We should still be engaged in Afghanistan and only Afghanistan (oh, and part of Pakistan if they're harboring known members of al-Qaeda). All of the military personnel that are in Iraq would better serve our nation by being at home with their kids or hunting down actual terrorists. Saddam was a jerk, it's great that he's gone. But there are hundreds of jerks and it would be equally great if they were gone too.

Which is why the United States should support the assassination of these dictators and nothing more. We shouldn't be building governments these people are only going to hate, we shouldn't be driving tanks into town squares and making asses of ourselves by tearing down statues or other totalitarian landmarks. We should kill the bastards in charge and let the government recover from their dictators' deaths.

[The Senator]

Originally Posted by Cosmic

This is your scenario, not mine. Don't assume that intervention necessarily means an invasion.

But that's how it always is, is it not? Whenever there is an unpopular dictator in charge, we invade militarily, putting our men and women at risk simply so we can intervene in affairs we shouldn't be involved in. That's what we did in South America, that's what we're doing in the Middle East, and that's ultimately what will happen in Africa. We have a responsibility to intervene diplomatically, but other countries have tried this in the past and it hasn't worked. Therefore, I do not see how military force is not one of the only options left on the table in countries such as the Sudan and Zimbabwe.