What should be done about Zimbabwee president/dictator Robert Mugabe

We went in and beat up a few criminal gangs/wannabe militias. Yes we did it very well...but it didn't do anything to resolve the underlying economic issues of the country, and it is still extremely dangerous. We could do the same in Zimbabwe for sure, we could do the same in any African country if we really wanted to, but would it actually solve any of the deeper issues of the country? Would it repair the economy and get agricultural production back up? No, we'd have to stay to do that, and in my view the longer we stay in any nation the more negative the media portrayal of the occupation becomes.

My point was only that we can intervene in Africa and be praised for it. And it can raise our stature with those people that we help. Obviously an extended stay will bring with it more risks of things not working out. But Sierra Leone proves that if we do the job right than our regard will be improved.

My point was only that we can intervene in Africa and be praised for it. And it can raise our stature with those people that we help. Obviously an extended stay will bring with it more risks of things not working out. But Sierra Leone proves that if we do the job right than our regard will be improved.

We went in and beat up a few criminal gangs/wannabe militias. Yes we did it very well...but it didn't do anything to resolve the underlying economic issues of the country, and it is still extremely dangerous. We could do the same in Zimbabwe for sure, we could do the same in any African country if we really wanted to, but would it actually solve any of the deeper issues of the country? Would it repair the economy and get agricultural production back up? No, we'd have to stay to do that, and in my view the longer we stay in any nation the more negative the media portrayal of the occupation becomes.

I see what you're saying and I agree to an extent, but was our action in Sierre Leone that successful, e.g. whilst it achieved its objectives did it have a substantial and lasting impact on the people of that country?

I think it's also the case that we went into Sierre Leone on a short-term basis, with narrow aims (that weren't that benign). Those being to get the kidnapped soldiers back and teach those that did it a swift lesson. Going into Zimbabwe and removing an entrenched government that does still garner the support of a small minority of the population will be a very different matter in my opinion.

Guilt by inaction? Discuss.

We should of gone into Zimbabwe instead of Iraq. With links in Zimbabwe and having visited it several times, Zimbabweans feel they have four options:



However, i think it needs to be recolonised, its economy stabilised by returning farms to its previous white owners (most of these farms are no longer being used and are owned by Mugabe's cronies), and then it being made an independent country with real and comptent political parties

returning farms to its previous white owners

You can't just "recolonise" a country. But I like Agent Smith's idea of an interim administration (or something like that in principle). I've always favoured that sort of intervention and don't really see why it shouldn't be possible.

Yeah... before anyone cries racism, the fact that the solution would be to give all the farms to the whiteys isn't racist; it's because all the best farmers in Zimbabwe are white. Why? Because they owned all the land when things were run in a racist way, so they know how to work it. Simply grabbing it off them and giving it to new black owners who have no idea what they're doing was never going to work. If he wanted to give the farms back to the blacks without starving everyone to death, what Mugabe should have done was forced all the white farmers to take on black apprentices to learn the necessary skills. Indeed, that's arguably what should happen now.

There is an argument that seizing lands from white farmers was immoral, but how would it possibly be any more acceptable to seize lands from the black farmers again? To do so would effectively require an imperialist recolonisation...

You'd still need to invade to force out the other government.

And I think the reason people don't like it is because appointing an interim government looks like installing a puppet one (which it is in many ways) and people prefer things to look right rather than be best. Unfortunately another case of ideology over pragmatism.

I don't know that you'd have to necessarily invade. As with Gaddafi, it may not be necessary to force out the government. Now, I can't say that I know a great deal about economics and things, but I was thinking of a more carrot-and-stick scenario. I think that organisations like the IMF, UN, EU etc - the guys who control the purse strings - should have far more administrative say in how their money spent. What they lack is political legitimacy, but they are availed of significant wherewithal and expertise. They need a shorter leash. I wonder if it would not be possible by whatever means that economists, international lawyers and diplomats achieve these things, to have something that works like this:

A package/agreement be negotiated which doesn't make excessively specifc political demands, but requires stringent economic guarantees - which would, I believe, result in politically and economically favourable results for everyone. An "administrative squad" or whatever then be set up to manage the package on the ground, under the auspices of these organisations. The fund be managed on the ground by a consortium of representatives from the AU, SADC, Commonwealth and other parties who Mugabe would be more willing to treat with whilst saving face. The proposition would be made more desirable, by threatening severe and complete economic sanctions not only on Mugabe himself, but on the regional leaders who are aiding him (of course, one of the reasons that Rhodesia had to capitulate in the 70s, was because of well-executed sanctions). And that's the basic idea.

Probably not terribly realistic (I won't say impossible), but I'd like to see these things dealt with more assertively than they tend to be. This should, as Lib North suggested, be managed as one would manage a company under bad management. I just think we've become so used to saying things "aren't possible", without trying to find alternatives. What is lacking is usually political will, not means - I think Iraq demonstrates this. I appreciate that a sovereign country and a company aren't alike in all senses, but, this would be one way of resolving these issues without going for the extreme options of military intervention or willful inaction.

There is an argument that seizing lands from white farmers was immoral, but how would it possibly be any more acceptable to seize lands from the black farmers again?

Africa can't rule itself fact, we should invade and call it Rhodesia.

Oh yes, saying "fact" at the end of a sentence makes it true 'init'?