Mugabe: How Much Longer In Power?
 

Robert Mugabe, dog-and-ponying an, uh, election just like Saddam Hussein's last one, has five years or so more to complete Zimbabwe's ruination.

Unless of course he and his lackeys get removed. Interestingly, there seem to be no known worse replacements for this lot around.

So, aside from Robert Mugabe dying of old age -- he just celebrated his 84th birthday -- how many years are likely to pass before he's removed from his position of screwing everything in Zimbabwe up?

Economic History of Zimbabwe -- Wiki.

Voice of America

Cato Institute

Sokwanele's Blog

Another View -- no comment.

Mugabe: How Much Longer In Power?
 

As long as the Chinese, Russians, and South Africans, support him.

Until someone has the balls to knock him off. Yep, they did a great thing for that country when they ran off the white farmers and took back the land. Good job. Hungry yet?

They sure are. ZANU-PF dies with Mugabe.

It's not just the Chinese, Russians and South Africans who're supporting him. Practically every western nation is along with all the rest. There was an interesting article on Sky News about it a week or so ago and a rep from Tesco was on there talking about how if they stopped importing fresh produce from Zimbabwe the farmers and their families would suffer etc.

Same story you'll get from just about anyone who does business with a corrupt government anywhere. 'it's the little people who will suffer if we stop doing business with them'. Never mind that they're probaby paying the so called little people a fraction of what they pay the corrupt government for allowing them to pillage the countryside.

I won't buy anything labelled as produce of Zimbabwe.
To be honest I haven't seen anything recently, but it was a conscious decision a few years back.

And even that makes me wonder if I am doing the right thing. It's hard to hurt a ruler without hurting their (often unwilling) subjects.

That's true. It's a tough one, and I suppose there could always be a civil war when the people get tired of his regimen. That's about the only solution atm, but in a country which is still recovering from the last one, I wonder if the 'little people' haven't just lost the will to fight, so they just go along with whoever happens to be in charge for the time being as long as they get to feed their family.

The things you buy from Zimbabwe, are labeled "Made in China". China is outsourcing billions of dollars worth of work to Zimbabwe, for their cheap labor. :rolleyes:

What would you suggest? Certainly you would not support an armed over throw by force? I would.

Heheheh. Second the notion.

So GWB says your country is going to involve itself in another conflict even though your resources are stretched to the limit already and you say that's ok?

My suggestion would be world wide trade sanctions however, western nations are unlikely to do that it would seem. The leader before Mugabe was corrupt and once Mugabe seized power, his government has become corrupt also.

Is it the job of the rest of the world to force this country to govern itself without corruption when evidence of 'old boy' deals are obvious at the highest levels of government at home? Sending more soldiers off to die in someone else's war may not be received as whole heartedly as you may think Merc.

But that might interfere with business. The people that control our government, would rather use the military to do foreign adjustments, so those people can conduct business as usual.:o

I never said the US should do it.

Then who?

African Nations. I felt the same way when we went to Bosnia, not our problem, that is Europe's problem. Same for Somalia, screw that place. And now Darfur, not our problem.

China. It should be their problem.

I disagree with Mercenary -- it is hardly "not our business" to eliminate oppression, is it? Not, at any rate, as long as any human feeling is in our hearts.

Of course, if human feeling has been deliberately excised...

Well, that's not the road to virtue.

Given the collapsed state of the Zimbabwean economy, economic sanctions however stringent would hardly even be felt. You'll see results when you remove the bad actors who perpetuate the situation. Where's the reason to restrict the amount of force used in the removal?

In countries such as Zimbab, as impoverished and unstable as it has been, as raped as it has been by those in power, and in a place that has been beaten into the ground for the last 25 plus years since they kicked out the whites, to simply remove the dictator (as much as I agree with it) would give the victor the same set of problems that we have in Iraq. An unstable, post coup d’état and sucking black hole of people trying to take advantage of the lull in anarchy. It would only work with the complete support of the Army and Generals in charge who could stay on and maintain order. It would still take tens of years for it to recover economically. We don't need another briar patch.

Now this is inflation:

http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/...360284,00.html

Kicking out the only group of people who can feed the masses:

http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/...358773,00.html

Everything you always wanted to know about Zimbabwe:
http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/Zimbabwe/Home

Zim 'shames' most Africans
18/07/2008 15:31 - (SA)

London - Zimbabwe's current plight "shames most Africans", former United Nations chief Kofi Annan said in an interview published on Friday, while voicing hope for a negotiated solution to the country's crisis.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner, offering to help resolve the standoff as he did earlier this year in Kenya, urged the West not to let Zimbabwe's situation strengthen the image of Africa as a continent in crisis.

"Zimbabwe shames most Africans but at the same time it's wrong to judge the whole continent on what is happening there, it is not a litmus test for the region," he told The Observer newspaper.

"Mozambique came through a civil war extremely admirably. You have Botswana doing extremely well, Malawi is making great steps to improve food production," he said, according to the website of the weekly's sister paper the Guardian.

(continues)
http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/...359941,00.html

On a further note, Zimbabwe just printed their first 10 billion dollar notes.

You're behind, Merc's first link is for the 100 billion note.

Oh...well never mind. Things are a bit slower here. :)

Once ZANU is put on history's ash heap, and I won't be too nice about how I'd get it there, for I figure the deader they are... probably the fastest fix to their money problems would be to adopt the South African Rand, as a stable currency with a stable base. To that end, I'd restrict exports of gold by a third to a half, the government trading for/buying bullion, to build up a gold reserve for the currency and strengthen faith in money again. Right now in Z they haven't any at all, and with ample reason. Some gold would still be exported for the sake of foreign exchange and hard-currency getting.

The problem with most of Africa is that it is ripe with governmental corruption. People who think we have a problem have never been to Africa.

Anyone been to practically any Asian country lately? (or in the last thousand years)

Most if not all developing nations are run by corrupt government bodies including police.

As an example, one of my cousins was recently in an Asian country and got caught doing something wrong which could have seen him jailed for years, but he paid off the officers who picked him up and was free to go within minutes.

If you're confident you live in a country with no govenmental corruption Aliantha, and with no unprincipled police then I truly envy you.

Clearly you have misread my post. I didn't say there was no corruption within the government of the country I live. There has been, on a grand scale in fact.

My point was simply to suggest that Africa is not the only continent with such corruption, and that you will find very similar evidence of blatant corruption in many Asian countries also. In developed nations, such as the US, Uk, European countries, corruption exists, but is far more heavily policed at lower levels than it is in developing nations.

I hope that's clear enough for you now.

[reflects that Ali lives in Queensland, AKA the moonlight state]

:lol2:

Ok, that was 20 years ago. And the royal commision cleaned it all up.

(Note to non-Aussies: in the late 1980s there was an inquiry that exposed pretty serious police corruption at all levels in Queensland. Nothing on that scale since, but the stain is still visible from here.)

I was actually thinking of the wheat board, but Mr Fitzgerald and his enquiry did cross my mind.

There is an interesting distinction between corruption at low and high levels of power.
For example, a local cop might take a small cash "fine" to overlook a specific crime. Or, a polititian could require a large "campaign contribution" to award a juicy contract to a certain company (AWB, Halliburton, etc.).
Somehow, white collar corruption seems more respectable. It's probably much more profitable.

The problem with low level police corruption is, the common man has no one to turn to for justice. A bad cop, or two, can be reported, but when the organization is corrupt, there is nobody to help you except Zorro or the Mafia.

If someone robs you, there is no money left to get police action. And if the police do listen to your complaint, the thief has your money to bribe them with.

Living with this, on a daily basis, is more oppressive than reports of high level corruption, and probably the prime reason Mexico is mired in poverty.:(

Mexican taxes plus the mordida paid to petty officialdom equals excessive taxation, yes. Definitely the clear and present neighborhood example of how not to.