African Union: Failing Zimbabwe

miskin

Allowing Mr Mugabe to attend the African Union summit which took place today seems to me to be accepting Robert Mugabe as Zimbabwe's head of state.

Why do the African Nations insist on doing so little? The African Union is failing the people of Zimbabwe, it seems to be as bad as the UN in making decisions on what to do. They say they support 'talks' and 'negotiation', but these having been going on and failing for the past two months.

What the African Union needs to do is come together and reject Robert Mugabe as head of state, and instead invite Mr. Tsvangirai to the table for discussions. This would completely undermine Zimbabwes regime and send a clear message.

Mugabe is dragging it out for as long as possible. The longer this goes on, the more tired the people of Zimbabwe will get, and the more they will come to just accept they have Mugabe back for another term. But change is possible, and the AU should support it.

I personally believe they are currently a waste of space and money, much like the UN. (Well the UN is another matter, but it definately needs reforming).

sourdough

The problem is that Zimbabwe is far from being alone in the fact that there are fraudulent elections in various countries throughout Africa. For example, Kenya is one of the stronger states within Africa has recently had bloodshed over elections that were less than kosher. Similarly, Nigeria is thought to be one of the most corrupt governments in the world. Sudan, Congo... the list goes on. Therefore it is kind of a throwing rocks in a glass house sort of problem.

I do want to mention that Africa does get a bad rap when it comes to poor governments. If There was an Asian Union there would be a number of bad gov'ts represented as well. Of course many would argue that the US election in 2000 was stolen too.

Mugabe is a disaster and I think Jacob Zuma (future president of SA) has the potential to be just as bad.

tybird

The Union has a history of accepting these "big men" as long as they are black. "Big Men" is a term used by social scientists/historians to refer to post-colonial leaders of African nations of this ilk.

rebornFixer

I think many Africans still think that the former colonizers are the real enemy, when in reality it is their own corrupt elite that is helping to hold everyone down. Mugabe "got tough" with white farmers (killing the country's economy in the process), so people are for some reason willing to overlook all the human rights abuses and atrocities. It is also the case that his peers, those who would seek to hold him accountable, are in many cases just as bad as he is. Its like asking a bunch of hyenas to pass judgment on a lion for killing too many gazelles ...

tybird

reborncareerist wrote:

I think many Africans still think that the former colonizers are the real enemy, when in reality it is their own corrupt elite that is helping to hold everyone down. Mugabe "got tough" with white farmers (killing the country's economy in the process), so people are for some reason willing to overlook all the human rights abuses and atrocities. It is also the case that his peers, those who would seek to hold him accountable, are in many cases just as bad as he is. Its like asking a bunch of hyenas to pass judgment on a lion for killing too many gazelles ...

Well stated.

Kel Varnsen

sourdough wrote:

The problem is that Zimbabwe is far from being alone in the fact that there are fraudulent elections in various countries throughout Africa. For example, Kenya is one of the stronger states within Africa has recently had bloodshed over elections that were less than kosher. Similarly, Nigeria is thought to be one of the most corrupt governments in the world. Sudan, Congo... the list goes on. Therefore it is kind of a throwing rocks in a glass house sort of problem.

I just finished watching a story about this on the news and I totally agree with your statement. The president of Kenya was speaking out about Mugabe and it definitely seemed like a pot calling the kettle black situation (no pun intended).

sourdough

reborncareerist wrote:

I think many Africans still think that the former colonizers are the real enemy, when in reality it is their own corrupt elite that is helping to hold everyone down. Mugabe "got tough" with white farmers (killing the country's economy in the process), so people are for some reason willing to overlook all the human rights abuses and atrocities. It is also the case that his peers, those who would seek to hold him accountable, are in many cases just as bad as he is. Its like asking a bunch of hyenas to pass judgment on a lion for killing too many gazelles ...

I agree with you, but I think we cannot underestimate the impact of colonialism on Africa which was far worse than Canada etc. The roots of many of the conflicts lie or were exacerbated by colonialism. Africa was used, raped and fragmented by their colonizers and once they finally gained independence became immediate pawns during the cold war. Really what chance do they have with such a shoddy history of subjugation. When the colonizers left, they did not leave behind a legacy of infrastructure and educated people, but a mass of people who were excluded from positions of power and education only to have dictators installed for the benefit of the communists or capitalists. Furthermore, they were thrust into a global economy which does not make sense to a continent based on cooperation and egalitarianism between clans and tribal groups.

I do not have any sympathies for Mugabe, but I can understand his mistrust of the west.

Furthermore, the west and richer countries have repeatedly given a "FUCK YOU" to Africa through their non-commitment to poverty reduction and indifference to civilians (ie. Rwanda, Darfur, N. Uganda etc). Lets face it, we can criticize Mugabe for his carelessness and maliciousness towards his people, but I firmly believe that the vast majority of people in the west couldn't give a shit about a bunch Africans either. If we wanted to address Africa seriously we have the capacity to make a dramatic difference measured in lives in Africa. Our commitment (or indifference) to Africa has been reflected by our unwillingness to abide by our agreement to the ODA which pledges 0.7% of our GDP towards poverty reduction and CDA and the US have given less than a quarter of half a percentage of our GDP. Our unwillingness to support the African Union or the UN in protecting people targeted by genocidal governments and our refusal to forgive debts that were given to brutal dictators long gone.

BamaPJFan

As far as I'm concerned, the biggest atrocity on the Dark Continent right now is the slaughter of the seven mountain gorillas in Rwanda by a man who was sworn to protect them. But, why does news like that coming out of Africa not surprise me?

sourdough

BamaPJFan wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, the biggest atrocity on the Dark Continent right now is the slaughter of the seven mountain gorillas in Rwanda by a man who was sworn to protect them. But, why does news like that coming out of Africa not surprise me?

Really? No offense intended and I am saddened by the deaths of the gorillas, but 7 gorillas are a bigger deal than 300000 Darfurians killed (100000 more people than your entire city of Montgomery, AL), countless raped and 1.2 million displaced? Billions starving and children dying of malaria? Masses of people denied ARV's as AIDS continues to ravage entire countries? Tens of thousands of children walking kilometres every night because they fear of being abducted as child soldiers and seven gorillas are more important?

It boggles my mind. Imagine your entire city wiped out and burned to the ground. If this happened in the US, Canada, England, Italy... people would be outraged and demanding military intervention and immediate aid, but because they are only fucking Africans than who cares right?

spacekaddette

 .

BamaPJFan

sourdough wrote:

Really? No offense intended and I am saddened by the deaths of the gorillas, but 7 gorillas are a bigger deal than 300000 Darfurians killed (100000 more people than your entire city of Montgomery, AL), countless raped and 1.2 million displaced? Billions starving and children dying of malaria? Masses of people denied ARV's as AIDS continues to ravage entire countries? Tens of thousands of children walking kilometres every night because they fear of being abducted as child soldiers and seven gorillas are more important?

It boggles my mind. Imagine your entire city wiped out and burned to the ground. If this happened in the US, Canada, England, Italy... people would be outraged and demanding military intervention and immediate aid, but because they are only fucking Africans than who cares right?

My apologies. I forgot about Darfur. The media in the U.S. seldom covers it. The gorilla story is obviously much newer and is therefore more on my mind I guess.

sourdough

BamaPJFan wrote:

My apologies. I forgot about Darfur. The media in the U.S. seldom covers it. The gorilla story is obviously much newer and is therefore more on my mind I guess.

My apologies for the overreaction. I find it extremely exasperating because I honestly think we can all but eliminate poverty if countries would take the responsibility seriously. Governments will act once we start thinking of Africans and other impoverished people as equals. We would never accept what happens in the developing world if it was closer to home.

"All people are human, except some are more human than others"

polaris

i remember traveling through africa and meeting all kinds of people from different tribal groups and all i kept thinking was - if they were to ever take control of their land and gov't - they can do so much ...

really, between colonialism; globalization; economic blackmail; corruption - africa is what it is because of the west ... probably not gonna be economic superpowers as resources are limited there but clearly not a continent mired in endless debt to western nations and corrupt organizations ...

sourdough

Was he always seen as a tyrant? My impression is that he was greeted and welcomed and seen as a hero. A liberator who loved his country and empowered his people to overcome the systematic oppression from colonial times only to become corrupt limited by his ability to send Zimbabwe to glory. He was not originally hostile to the white population but recognized their role but with a strong role for the blacks. It is amazing to see how much of a fall from grace he has taken when he was knighted by the queen and given honorary degrees from prestigious universities.

Yes, he did use fear and violent tactics before taking office, but so did Mandela. In fact they were both seen under a similar light at one time.

I really think that Mugabe began as a visionary leader who has lost touch with his people and with reality. He has been in power for too long and now believes he is the only one who can protect it and this paranoia has only made his policies more insane.

spacekaddette

.

rebornFixer

polaris wrote:

really, between colonialism; globalization; economic blackmail; corruption - africa is what it is because of the west ... ..

Oversimplification.

polaris

reborncareerist wrote:

Oversimplification.

uhhh ... were you expecting a 30 post dissertation?

sourdough

What do you mean by "they were naturally warlike"? But were the Zulu's and other African tribes not traditionally warlike? Closer to home, the Haida and virtually all west coast first nations were pretty warlike. Actually you could make the argument that many western nations were pretty warlike in that time. Were the blacks not DENIED education and access to schools through a similar system based on racial exclusion?

I don't want to come out like a Mugabe sympathizer, because I think what he's done is incomprehensible, but I think you are underestimating the amount of discrimination during the British regime. My parents were born and raised in South Africa which shares a certain amount of historical similarities. Zimbabwe did flourish for a while under Mugabe, and he was a lot more moderate and even progressive at one time. He has been in power for too long and now feels invincible.

I'm reading "The Fate of Africa" but haven't quite gotten to the Zimbabwe chapters just yet.

tybird

sourdough wrote:

I'm reading "The Fate of Africa" but haven't quite gotten to the Zimbabwe chapters just yet.

PM me when you finish the book....and tell what you think of the book...have a copy downstairs...haven't read it.

rebornFixer

sourdough wrote:

Zimbabwe did flourish for a while under Mugabe, and he was a lot more moderate and even progressive at one time. He has been in power for too long and now feels invincible.

Well, at the end of the day, he's corrupt now and a huge problem. His past legacy obviously hasn't served as much of a moral compass.

sourdough

tybrid wrote:

PM me when you finish the book....and tell what you think of the book...have a copy downstairs...haven't read it.

My friend read it and really enjoyed the book. It is quite dense with lots of names to keep track of. I've only begun it and am taking it to Uganda with me for the summer.

reborncareerist wrote:

Well, at the end of the day, he's corrupt now and a huge problem. His past legacy obviously hasn't served as much of a moral compass.

Agreed. I think it is a fantastic example of the ability of power to corrupt people.

Heineken Helen

sourdough wrote:

I really think that Mugabe began as a visionary leader who has lost touch with his people and with reality. He has been in power for too long and now believes he is the only one who can protect it and this paranoia has only made his policies more insane.

sadly, I think this WAS the case... as is often the case with dictators :(