Saturday December 13, 2008 Link Roundup to December 13
- Alpinisms: School Of Seven Bells
Captivating music in a style I can't quite pin down. Was sucked in by an interview and the track "Half Asleep" which is a free download from the band, check my Twitter stream for the link. - Zimbabwe's Mugabe Accuses The U.S., U.K. For 'Masterminding' Cholera Outbreak
This man is getting to Idi Amin levels. He has to go. Sadly for the long-suffering people of Zimbabwe, there's no oil for the west to invade for, they will have to wait for natural causes. - Hotel is "proud to be dirty and carry a wide variety of bacteria."
I wonder if this one is on the travel office's "recommended" list?
Posted by webmink
( Dec 13 2008, 11:12:00 PM PST )
Permalink
Comments [6]
Post a Comment:
Comments are closed for this entry.
Regarding Mugabe:
Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Had they invaded you would have heard all the lefties of the world complain that they where "raping an innocent country".
Posted by Markus Härnvi on December 14, 2008 at 03:56 PM PST #
Don't forget about the people of Rwanda, Congo, Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria. Congo's is rich in minerals, while Sudan/Nigeria has substantial oil reserves in which China has great investment.
So if I understood your premise correctly that the US only intervenes when it serves its resource interests, then much of Africa would have be the 51st state.
Is the premise flawed? Its easy to be blinded by one's bias, it happens to all of mankind.
Posted by doug on December 15, 2008 at 06:58 AM PST #
@doug: Plenty more to the premise than that, but I'm guessing that wouldn't interest you much.
Posted by Simon Phipps on December 15, 2008 at 07:02 AM PST #
What interests me most is when individuals are critical of their own ideas as they are of others, much like the charter of an ombudsman.
So if you'll indulge my curiousity, how would you handle the removal of Mugabe? Assasination, extradition?
What country(ies) or organizations lead the operation?
What are the possible intended/unintended consequences to the intervention?
Would intervention be required in those nearby countries whose leaders and their inhumanity towards their people rival/exceed those of Mugabe?
Should one continue their support for the intervention and those leading it after learning the unintended consequences of deposing Mugabe caused worse conditions for the people?
How long do the interveners stay?
How does one persuade those who didn't want to intervene against Saddam (and those who regret supporting it) to intervene against Mugabe?
I'm not tweaking your nose here, just interested in how the world exports its sense of justice and humanity to those in need. Iraq deserved it, much of Africa does, and I'm disheartened by the lack of support the world gives even when there's consensus on these bad actors. When the UN sanctioned Iraq in the 90s most agree it backfired and punished its people more than Saddam. The same situation exists now with Mugabe and the ANC. Do even get me started with Rwanda, 800,000 killed mostly by machetes in 3 months and no one intervened, not the US/UK/UN, while the Western leaders were in Bosnian stating "Never Again" to genocide in the world.
Thanks for bringing attention to Zimbabwe's plight, hopefully some preemptive measures can be taken by the new administration to assist their people.
Posted by doug on December 15, 2008 at 06:32 PM PST #
@doug: While I don't have a detailed answer to that question, my allusion to Amin[1] is intentional. The tide appears to be turning in African opinion and it's time for one or two international supporters to act as guarantors for neighbouring states affected by the flow of refugees and to intervene in a way similar to Nyerere. I'd completely agree this is a difficult step to take, but Mugabe's transparent disdain for democracy - both in the abuse of his own citizens by misuse of the powers of government, and in his abuse of the electoral process - seem to have crossed the line to the point where intervention is needed. My cynicism is rooted in the previous cases you cite, where no amount of abuse seems sufficient cause for principled intervention.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin
Posted by Simon Phipps on December 16, 2008 at 04:21 AM PST #
I can relate to US critics who says that the US should intervene not only when it benefits their strategic interests.
I can also relate to critics who say that the intervention in Iraq was badly handled the first years.
I do have a hard time understanding those who thinks that the western world have no moral obligation to help abused people in Iraq, Iran, Ruwanda or Zimbabwe. Even military action has to be considered.
But the US can't be expected to be everywhere. A "Leauge of Democracies" is needed. The UN is too crippled by dictators.
Posted by Markus Härnvi on December 16, 2008 at 04:31 AM PST #