| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Janko
Gambia
1267 Posts |
 Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 23:41:55
|
Lets be mindful not to throw the baby with the birth water
Sir dbaldeh, thanks,
You would at least agree with me that Mandela’s greatness lies in his doctrine of reconciliation not vengeance.(the Kenya solution)If Ahmadinejad(Iran)can lecture in American universities, why can’t Mugabe. I can understand the argument of old age being a hindrance to if or not Mugabe can be an educator but there is nothing wrong with his “intellectual” qualifications.
Interestingly it is okay to render Mugabe worthless and his bargain partners worthy. Why then equate his worthless being to the worthier citizens of Zimbabwe by a military intervention and or sanctions, because he has not been personally affected by the freezing of his assets or the embargo.
If you read my posts in this topic you would not only find that I am with you; Mugabe´s time is up, but I also try to look at Zimbabwe’s situation beyond Mugabe and beyond the principle of “not good enough” used to nullify the efforts of some of our progressive ideologists, who are labelled dictators, communists and despots but proven by history to be visionaries.
Thanks gambiabev,
”It is easy to look backwards and BLAME. Perhaps the English should blame the Romans?” That makes it okay to BLAME Mugabe but no one else. Do you know what part of the agreement of independence England did not fulfil; the land reformation plan …?
Am getting immune to the kind of argument not because it is an argument of resistance that kills the discuss or being said many, many times but also because it seems to imply that history has no impact on the lives of a people or that colonialism is pass and gone, is just to forget and move on, it is that easy. The problem of Zimbabwe has a history that is real and affecting lives, not a blame game but real. Zimbabwe got independent from Britain in my life time that is not a long time ago, is that so far dawn the path of history that it could be compared with the relationship (if there was any) the British had with Rome. In your view it is a reasonable comparison worth taken into consideration in the discussion of Zimbabwe today.
Nothing remains the same everything changes and constantly, law of nature, the question is what changes? Social, economical and other structural changes are effected by agreements where all parties are expected to fulfil their part of the bargain. It is very disturbing that the creators of Mugabe, the economy and the human condition in Zimbabwe today are deliberately being rendered innocent as to the Zimbabwean calamity. Nevertheless, the independence of Zimbabwe was negotiated with Britain and in England. Therefore, I do not share the notion that Mugabe is the only culprit, here and now.
Lets be mindful of not throwing the baby with the birth water, getting reed of Mugabe should not exceed the wellbeing of the people, or Zimbabwe, or the feature of her children. Let’s be mindful of not being rendered irrational by that obsession. A lesson to learn from such an obsession is the pursuit of Saddam and the catastrophic price the Iraqis are paying.
Lurker,
Please name me the dictators and despot of Africa, from independence to date.
|
Clean your house before pointing a finger ... Never be moved by delirious Well-wishers in their ecstasy |
 |
|
|
lurker
509 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 23:52:20
|
janko, i totally agree with you: you cannot remove the past from the present.i have never tried to.
however, you also cannot blame the use of murder to desperately cling to power, on the past.
now kindly name me the african leaders from independence who have not been dictators or despots. it should be a close call on which one of us would have the greater numbers.
here's a few for you off the top of my head..
amin, mugabe, banda, bokassa, charles taylor,mobutu, moi, kibaki,megistu,recent zambian guy , abacha,gaddafi,nujoma,jammeh,nguema, bongo, deby,compaore,habre. your turn.check out some others-http://www.ssn.flinders.edu.au/global/africa/marcroberts/body.htm
by the way, how come so very many african leaders got so very very rich. did they win the lottery? |
Edited by - lurker on 01 Jul 2008 00:17:26 |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2008 : 07:46:00
|
Well Lurker if you think DBaldeh is playing into your hands, I am not the one to follow that path. Nonetheless, just like I am no supporter of the military regime in the Gambia, I am not supporter of any kind of despot anywhere. I agree with Dbaldeh on many issues he has highlighted, but there are other issues I depart from him.
It is important to note that we all agree that:
1. Mugabe is an African liberation hero
2. Mugabe initially brought a lot of prosperity and pride to Zimbabwe and received international praise (even though he was still involved in some atrocities and repression of opponents)
3. lately Mugabe has evolved into a murderous tyrant and has plunged his country into an economic abyss.
These much we all agree. My position is that while I condemn Mugabe's recent actions, I refuse to close my eyes to the enormous efforts of the people of Zimbabwe who expressed their will for change in the earlier election that nearly removed Mugabe and called for a run-off. I refuse to close my eyes to the enormous amount of pressure from important voices in Africa and elsewhere for Mugabe to quit or make serious concessions. It worked in Kenya, it might work in Zimbabwe.
I refuse to give heed to Lurker's call for pessimism where optimism is possible.
Dbaldeh's assertion that "...the UN will finally put in place policies to kick out any African leader who doesn't represent the interest of their people" is ambiguous and vague to say the least. One problem with that is definition. Who defines what "interest of their people" mean? Is there a general consensus on what the "interest of their people" mean?
One thing we Africans need to come to terms with is the fact that the U.N., U.S., and the international community in general is tired of intervening in African conflicts ( and conflicts in general). The resources, the political will, and the popular support of their citizens is fading or completely lacking.
Secondly, I do not think, as Dbaldeh might suggest, that change in Africa will come from the political leadership. The current leaders in Africa (most of them) have a lot to lose by meddling in the internal affairs of one another. Change in Africa, in my view, has to come primarily from the masses, and secondarily by the intervention of African statesmen like Kofi Annan, Mandela, Bishop Tutu, and others. The African masses have to ask for change and insist on getting it.Despite some lingering problems, Senegal has done it before, Ghana has done it before, Nigeria has done it, Kenya has done it,Gambia nearly did it in 2006 before the collapse of NADD, Zimbabwe is in the process of doing it. Despite Lurker and other doomsday theorists I strongly believe that Zimbabwe will come out of this impasse as a stronger nation, and that Mugabe will have no choice but to either quit or substantially share power with his opponents.
The fact that the people of Zimbabwe and kenya among others have given Mugabe and Kibaki the rude shock of their lives and have them scrambling to save their faces is very encouraging. I am sure many African presidents must have **** in their pants following the events in Nairobi and Harare.
This is the way I see it. In this situation of despair, hope will emerge.
|
|
|
|
lurker
509 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2008 : 07:53:58
|
amen, kayjatta. i totally agree!
shame hope has to bloom from violence and not from free choice. |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
|
|
lurker
509 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2008 : 13:30:29
|
hard to see how tsvangirai can negotiate a unity govt while mugabe still at the helm. undermines his previous rhetoric and his decision to step out of the run-off.i think it is possible that the zanu-pf cohort may have to persuade him to slip off quietlyu and then they can negotiate their continued existence in power-sharing or suchlike. pressure is coming to bear on bob to go away as there cannot really be a harmonious solution while he is there.
the other leaders know this. he should have the dignity to disappear now. his time is past. |
|
|
|
lurker
509 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2008 : 18:16:31
|
| well. looks like i am wrong! zanu-pf told britain to go hand itself a thousand times and mugabe and his party have flatly refused any national unity govt, despite the motion being the wish of this AU meeting. so that's egg on their faces again. some of them must be seeeeeething with anger behind their smiles. this boy really takes the p-ss out of the whole lot of them. you gotta hand it to him - he is very good at what he does, as offensive as it is. |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2008 : 06:40:53
|
Lurker there is what they call "hard balling" (hard ball)in conflict negotiation. You do not expect Mugabe's side to agree to a unity government immediately. In every good negotiation concessions come gradually.
Let us see how this unfolds as pressure continues to mount on your dear Bob...
Looks like Britain's position that it will not accept any president other than Tsvangarai is itself hard balling. I am sure as negotiations progress that position will change, but for now it is not helpful... |
Edited by - kayjatta on 02 Jul 2008 08:30:00 |
|
|
|
monday
43 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2008 : 09:11:22
|
Looks like Britain's position that it will not accept any president other than Tsvangarai is itself hard balling. I am sure as negotiations progress that position will change, but for now it is not helpful...
[/quote]
Please for God sake, let UK back off and let Zimbabwe and other peace loving people or nations help solve the issue of Zimbabwe. Why are they so obsessive about Zimbabwe. UK is the sole country fanning the problem in Zimbabwe, even US or the other EU states are just cover-up. How on earth can they decide who should rule Zimbabwe.
If you follow Tsvangarai's speeches and moves since from the onset, you will definitely know that some one is pulling the strings behind the seen, I think this is one of the reasons why many African leaders refuses to denounce Mugabe cos they know what is going on. Should Tsvangarai be a man of "his own" belief me things would've been different but the guy is like a flip flop and Mugabe and other African leaders very well know this.
Remember SerreLeon, Liberia, Angola, Lumumba, etc. You see we Africans, we have a serious problem: we have a VERY short memory and also we do not properly and genuinely analyse situation. We need to think before jumping to conclusion.
Mugabe might have over stay in power but that has very little to do with the present situation. by the way, when and how did this economic crises started? |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2008 : 09:27:18
|
I agree Monday, but I also think all hands must be on deck here. Pressure should come from everywhere to bear on Mugabe to quit or make substantial concessions, because despite the alleged British hand behind Tsvangarai and MDC, the election that retain Mugabe to power is terribly flawed and should not be outrightly recognized. The failure of African leaders to loudly condemn Mugabe has more to do with the fact that many of them are no "democratic angels". They have a lot to lose by antagonizing Mugabe who threatened to point to their own undemocratic background.
And I agree that this matter still needs to be resolved in an African way, by African players. The rhetoric by U.K. and other western players may appear to be further complicating the matter, but in the long run they are important I believe... |
|
|
|
lurker
509 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2008 : 09:46:10
|
Monday, i believe the economic crash started about 1997. the zim dollar was 13 to one pound and by mid 98 it was heading for 40 to £1. this coincided with the food riots of 97 and the state handouts of lump sums and regular stipends to thousands of war veterans, many of whom were not old enough to have been fighting in the war!
the government's fiscal policies were underscored by massive corruption and removal of state funds and personal enrichment as per usual.
the confiscation of farmlands, no matter whether the right or wrong thing to do, had a disastrous effect on agricultural output.
tobacco , one of the chief earners suffered from poor rains, low yield harvests loss of professional maintenance. this drained the forex input from this crop by a huge percentage.
loss of other arables and beef with foot and mouth problems and fuel price increases started to bite.
people started to leave to find work elsewhere.
income from the safari business started to dwindle. hotels started to have less than sustainable occupancy rates.wildlife was poached out for food leaving nothing left to see for those who still wanted to come. airlines stopped servicing the country as regularly. tour companies , their staff and and operators stopped servicing the country.violence around the various elections propted countries to advise against travel to Zimbabwe.
price rises for travel, staples such as bread and maize meal started to rocket frequently. electricity and water supplies were ruined as the country could not pay the suppliers.
wages could no longer match prices , so more money was printed.inflation skyrocketed
the govt continued to buy fleets of cars and airplanes and arms and dodgy forex dealing now symbolised the huge growth of the black market economy.
massive wage rises were given to the police and the army and other military.
again, more money was printed such that the highest noteis now about something trillion dollars and is more expensive to print than it 's actual face value.
poor fiscval and economic management, sacking of various finance ministers etc did not help.
rightly or wrongly, no advice was sort from outside for management of ruinous hyperinflation.
meltdown is occurring which feeds its own flames as it is so far down the linbe. foreign investments into such an unstable economy dropped massively.
shops became empty of almost everything. huge queues for petrol, bread, etc. municipal services finished. no rubbish removal, no roadworks, no public gardening. some of the town centres are now like dirty jungles, with beggars everywhere.
govt decided to bulldoze tens of thousands of shanty homes and stalls and markets, depriving the poorest of their homes and livlihoods, and putting more on the streets begging. more people emigrated illegally into neighbouring countries, sparking riots in south africa.
none of the anbove is analysis by an economic expert.just my own observations over the years.
its all just historical lists of events combining to cause a terrible climax.
i am sure there are proper fundamental economic pathways which i cannot explain, which have theorems and proven equations of how an economy goes to pieces, but most of the above is involved, for sure. there are doubtless foreign countries who got involved in this meltdown, for betterment of their own situations or for the detriment of zimbabwes.who knows.?
yet, those who are in the right corridors continue to live there with forex being all-powerful. they have the best foods and drinks and cars. their lives are just dandy as long as they know the right people. it is a profiteering society now. the fake and real exchange rates can make people US dollar millionaires overnight.Mercs are bought and sold via these different rates for actual values of $50 whilst the seller makes millions out of using the real rate - not sure how it works, but it was explained by some guy in the press.
inflation runs at 8MILLION PERCENT NOW! what does that exactly mean! incomprehensible!apparently prices now double every two or three days.
schools are closing, teachers have long left with unqualified substitutes replacing them. zimbabwes once eminent education system is now in tatters.
the whole infrastructure is decimated. i , personally, cannot even express the magnitude of what has gone, that most of us take for granted.the scale is enormous.every aspect of life is affected by the meltdown.
hard for an average person to know how this can be reversed anbd how long it will take for a country which has imploded, to get back on its feet.
sooner they sort out the politics, sooner they can stop starving.
|
Edited by - lurker on 02 Jul 2008 09:57:42 |
|
|
|
Janko
Gambia
1267 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2008 : 11:40:08
|
Lurker,
thanks for the background; there is no smoke without fire
“….. for sure. there are doubtless foreign countries who got involved in this meltdown, for betterment of their own situations or for the detriment of zimbabwes.who knows.?.....”
When you say “foreign countries” what do you mean, which countries are you referring to?
I am not sure that the present Zimbabwean calamity began as you would want to make us think. You made no mention of what the courses are, why 1997 and not in the late 80´s, or why the confiscation of farmlands and not negotiation and after a whole page of how the whole situation is the making of Mugabe, you could only speculate the possibility of the involvement of foreign countries in just two lines.
It is very important to look at Zimbabwe’s present problem in its entirety to avoid her repeating the same mistake in a post Mugabe era.
|
Clean your house before pointing a finger ... Never be moved by delirious Well-wishers in their ecstasy |
Edited by - Janko on 02 Jul 2008 11:45:07 |
|
|
|
lurker
509 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2008 : 12:21:17
|
i don't know which countries were involved, so i don't name them. it is my own personal suspicion that there would be all sorts of things going on behind the scenes., but speculation is all it is. you know more? then you name them, cos i can't!
one of the barometers of the economic situation is the currency value in relation to the pound and dollar. in 1980, at liberation, there was 1 zim dollar to 1 british pound!17 years alter it was 13 to 1 or so. a year and a half later it was 40 to 1. i guess some might say that this was an indication of the downturn of the economy.
finally, janko, i am not here to try and "make you believe" anything.
Monday's question was specifically about the economy , not about the politics, so i just noted some of my observations, as i explained.
the zimbabwean calamity, as you put it , is politics, which then became economics ln my opinion.
you want to talk about politics, then that is another issue which we have all been debating for ages. i tried to answer Monday's question about how the economical situation arose.. not the ones you are asking. i am no expert. perhaps you can enlighten us.
|
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2008 : 12:35:24
|
Here are a few quick questions:
1. Do you think Mugabe is by trait a monster or he is a product of circumstances?
2. What good do you think Mugabe did (economically and politically) during his earlier days in power?
3. What mis-steps did Mugabe make that precipitated the "collapse" of Zimbabwe?
4. Did Britain has a role in Zimbabwe's political and economic problem?
5. What could Britain have done differently to manage the conflict in its former colonial subject, that is Zim as Lurker would put it?
6. Is it too late to save Zimbabwe?
7. What could be done to save this once flourishing nation that Bob Marley sang about? |
Edited by - kayjatta on 02 Jul 2008 12:36:20 |
|
|
|
MeMe
United Kingdom
541 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2008 : 13:20:38
|
Sorry, maybe too simplistic for this discussion but .... does it really, REALLY matter how/what/why/when to the people of Zimbabwe when they are being butchered, starved and goodness knows what else???? Political posturing, subscribing to the blame culture and navel-gazing time is over!
|
It is better to die standing than to live on your knees - Ernesto Guevara de la Serna |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
