Given the post March 29 political climate, the withdrawal from the run off by Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai and the subesquent election result and swearing in of Cde Robert Mugabe' would it be advisable for Zimbabweans to consider calling for another election soon?
Elections
It is clear that new elections need to be part of what ever agreement the opposing political rivals reach (if at all) in the current impasse. In my opinion it is quite clear that the majority of the observer missions clearly stated that the conditions weren't correct for the holding of the run off vote. Thus, according to the SADC guidelines which Zimbabwe is party to the result is of no effect (no matter who was to blame for conditions not being right).
I think it is high time that both political parties put their egos aside and actually for once concentrate on the peolple of Zimbabwe. The best way to decide who holds the power is to hold an election in an environment where a fair winner can be decided and not over talks that seem to actually be going nowhere now.
I think only African observers should be present at such election. "Western and/or international" monitors/observes would create too much controversy. If Mugabe's government stay solely in executive power I feel they (Zimbabwe and Zanu) will be more and more isolated in the future as can be seen by Botswana's recent attitude to Zim.
Oh, certainly.
There should be another election immediately. I don't care who observes it as long as there's no violence, fear, torture and rape.
There will be a massive landslide against ZANU PF, a lot of crowing, and the people can then set about the task of finding better opposition than the MDC.
MDC
Is this tacit admittance that the MDC is not up to scratch?
Do you read what people post?
I don't care about the MDC. I don't particularly care for Morgan Tsvangirai. I don't particularly trust his motives. I've said that all along.
But the important thing is that the people of Zimbabwe CAN CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES. That's what the point of the Chimurenga was in the first place. They have to be able to choose without the fear and violence (which you never criticise.)
Hopefully one day if they don't like the MDC they can vote them out. They even re-elect ZANU-PF. As long as they CAN CHOOSE.
Jesus. You people.
IF
If those who vote are allowed to vote as they see fit why is it such a big problem for Zimbabwean writers to be allowed to write as they wish and let people choose whether to believe them or not.
Why campaigning for the punishing of a writer or their deportation?
I'm not campaigning.
My task here, as I see it, is to remind your readers that what you write defends the indefensible.
I think that you're pretty despicable, to be honest. No writers in Zimbabwe can afford to have a website like this. Few would have the courage to write like this condemning ZANU PF and Mugabe. It appears to be a crime to criticise Mugabe, and if it isn't you stand to be imprisoned anyway, or beaten.
Now, you're OK with that. That's between you and your conscience. But you ran away from Zimbabwe, with money you earned from the government, and now you're published in The Herald, and here, and elsewhere on the internet.
You're in a position of power. The only thing Zimbabweans who object to the violence and incompetence of their government can do is write on forums on the internet. They can't afford a website like this. While you work to defend a situation that keeps people oppressed, people need to object to what you write.
This is the contribution people outside of South Africa made to beat Apartheid. Now they have to do it to get rid of Bob and people like you, who would rather see the country burn then anyone else in power.
(By the way, that fat man with the acne scars? Unless Mugabe has him murdered, he's going to have some authority.)
DEFENCE OF THE INDEFENSIBLE
I hear that very often but what is the indefensible. I defend the people affected by the brutal effect of neo-liberalism and imperialism and these to me are the most defensible people there ever was.
Mugabe does not need my support but the wretched masses of this world do. I do not care what Tsvangirai will become but I will continue writing against imperialism with Tsvangirai dead or alive ruling or in opposition. He is just one factor of life but the larger picture is the EVIL system that we seek to destroy.
An excellent way of responding, by the way.
You just about ignored everything I wrote.
You're good at that.
Really quite Brilliant
I must agree - having read both posts, I am quite amused by your ability to completely ignore the essence of the previous post, Reason. Or was it a lack of comprehension that resulted in your remarkably disconnected answer.
IGNORE
Don't you think you underate or ignore the igmominous effect of the global order in the affairs of nation states yourself?
How can we be expected to fight ourselves from the same corner with imperialism. I know when to attck corruption and state capitalism in my own country and I will never do that o the pleasure and capital of foreign interests. Too smart to be used if you want.
The larger picture remains that the global order means that the WEST are causing instability in developing countries by manipulating political behaviour through their economic power and this website is one of many efforts being put forward to fight this EVIL.
Western Capital, western, and capital.
"WEST are causing instability in developing countries by manipulating political behaviour through their economic power"
I am going to assume that you havent yet had a chance to read my post titled "Policy" in response to your post title "Policy"/
If you have, you will know why I am confused - why would you want the west to remove their sanctions, when the only companies those sanctions affects are western countries? As a marxist, are you not wary of the interests of foreign capital?
I would be much obliged if you could respond to that post.
I am not
I am not at all bemoaning the absence of Western capital in Zimbabwe. Let them keep their capital forever. What I am against are embargoes and the closure of credit lines from international institutions as well as skewed trade relations. This is WHAT HAS killed us, that there is no good faith in the trade system.
Why campaigning and armtwisting weaker countries and even China into pulling out of any deals with Zimbabwe? That is what we fight.
You are all over the place
"What I am against are embargoes and the closure of credit lines from international institutions as well as skewed trade relations. "
They cannot close the credit lines unless they run the international institutions. If they do run the international institutions, then those international institutions are fulfilling the role of what you call 'western capital'. I notice you have ignored some of the things I posted, which I am used to, so I will post them again for your convenience
"As you may know, IMF stands for INTERNATIONAL Monetary Fund, and WB stands for WORLD Bank. The US and western countries can recommend against providing funds to Zimbabwe, but they cannot force either institution to do so. If the US and west had that much power, other countries would simply set up their own independent monetary fund. But these institutions are built through international negotiation, and countries only sign on when they feel that it is fair - no one foces them to sign on. In other words, the US and west have no control over what the WB and IMF do. China and Russia are also members of both organizations, which leaves one wondering why they would sign up to an organization that, you claim, is vulnerable to imperial machinations?
One of the conditions of signing on is that you meet an INTERNATIONALLY AGREED criteria. It is not a US or Western defined criteria - it is one that all nations agree to. If Zimbabwe cannot mneet the criteria for funding, it is denied funding. It is up to the regime in Harare to figure out how to meet the criteria."
As another poster here has succinctly put it
" I know that it will be argued by some that the policy of the funding institutions is driven by the west. This is not entirely true as many non western countries (Russia and China) contribute and adhere to the policy guidelines. What I am saying is that Zimbabwe cannot expect the World Bank and the IMF to hand out loans as and when they wish when the very basic conditions of securing the loan are not met by the country (Zimbabwe) applying for the loan. "
"Why campaigning and armtwisting weaker countries and even China into pulling out of any deals with Zimbabwe? That is what we fight."
This assumes that those weaker countries actually want to invest in Zimbabwe. There is no evidence that they do. Furthermore, China is investing in Zimbabwe, albeit only in ways that benefit it, which are, apparently, not many.
The simple truth is that it is Zanus policies, and not the Wests, that have turned investors away. You are blaming the west for Zanu policies, which is wrong. Sanctions make for a great scapegoat, but at the end of the day, a week economic atmosphere will drive investors farther away than the guns of the West. Just look at the Asian companies operating in Sudan in the face of western opposition.
This notion of good faith is spurious - if investments do not guarantee returns, no one is going to invest, not the IMF,not the WB,not China, not Russia, not Turkmenistan. The guidelines for investment are available globally and the world ahderes to them. Zimbabwe is not going to be treated as an exception.
What has killed you is the collapse of the agricultural component of the economy. If, anywhere in the world, you put non-farmers in charge of farming, you will create a Zimbabwe
Baseless assumptions
You make baseless assumptions that the IMF and World Bank are independent organisations running their own affairs in a transparent manner consistent with the wishes of all signed up member states.
That is academic illiteracy in the least and absolute mischief by fair comment and Grade A ignorance at worst.
Yes Zimbabwe may be having policy problems in terms of some of their econmic policies and the land policy is not one of these questionable policies.
However, it is not true to sugggest that Zimbabwe is the least qualified country to access IMF/WB funding. As it is Zimbabwe is among the three least owing countries in Africa and yet the credit lines are still closed until there is regime change.
Britain wants to ban all its companies from doing business in Zimbabwe and so does Australia. Who is targeted by this action? You will say it is Mugabe's cronies but you know that is holly crap.
The isolation of Zimbabwe has not even spared the Golden girl Kirsty who is forever tormented with the question why she does not abandon Zimbabwe.
Any country that engages positively with Zimbabwe is attacked like what has been happening to RSA and you say there is no interference and you say th sanctions effect is benign.
ignorance
One should be careful who they call ignorant or academically illeterate or whatever it is. I think you should educate yourself a bit more on the world bank.
The world bank and IMF are privately owned institutions. Lets discuss the WB There are 185 countries that "jointly own" the bank and contribute to policy, decisions and the like. So according to you these 185 countries all drive the agenda of the west? Is this what you are alleging? Are you further alleging that the information and decisions taken by the WB are fictions or complete lies?
The minutes of all the meetings (of the 4 boards of directors of the WB) and discussions (including the decision taken on Zimbabwe) is freely available to any individual as well. You can simply ask for it. So are you further alleging that the minutes have been "doctored" and that the board of directors responsible for taking the decision are lying? A rather astounding allegation but I wonder why it is not taken seriously?
The WB as stated above is owned by the 185 member institutions that have all signed up and agreed and contributed to the policy of the WB. So are you saying that all these 185 countries are pro-western institutionalism and that they are actively pursuing their agenda?
The WB has very well formulated guidelines which are used in EVERY COUNTRY to determine whether conditions are correct to lend money. Every country is assessed according to the same standards. If you want to further discuss this issue on what is used as a assessment criteria we can.
Indeed
Indeed the WB is owned by 185 countries but it is certainly not run by 185 countries. Who are the biggest customers to the Bank, who are the major shareholders there. Who influences policy there?
Just like you trust the WB website there is a lot of free information addressing the above questions and many people have argued that the sekewed balance of power in the running of the WB/IMF is a major issue of concern. Can Nicaragua vote against a decision and suceed. What is the difference between the US and Ethiopia's vote for example?
Each day political science students across the world are writing 3000 word essays on these pertinent questions and here you are pretending that the minutes of the WB are sancrosanct. How amazing!
WB
I am in no way saying that the WB minutes are sancrosanct but what I am saying is that they give a reliable basis for the reasons why decisons are taken. I am sure that certain countries have a stronger vote than others but the fact of the matter is that every country had a right to contribute to policies and policy formulation and guidleines that should be adhered by. And the majority of countries adhere to these guidleines and they get the funding. You allege that western ideas are promoted by the policies of the WB but then why aren't western ideas or whatever they are prevalent in countries that receive funding. So according to you Zimbabwe is so important that it is an exception to the rule and it is the only country that must be subjected to the "western ideas"? Indeed. How amazing!
I think
I think you totally miss the point. You and Reason are discussing Zimbabwe but we all know that North Korea, Burma, Iran, Syria, etc are all in the same boat although some of these countries have internal mechanism to cushion themselves a bit. Definetely its not only Zimabwe. In fact there is also a Syria Democracy Act just like Zimabwe's Zidera; laws passed by US Congress to help isolate these dissident countries.
Yes I quite agree
There are countries that prefer to stay outside the system.But Syria and Iran are not among them. Both countires are sanctioned by the US (and it only affects US companies), but they trade extensively with the west. And they can and do get funding from the WB and IMF. The only country they are banned from having economic links with is the US. Syria and Iran belong to the same category as Cuba - they are free to do business with anyone, and they do. Cuba has close ties to Canada of all places.
Burma and Norht Korea are different because they choose to keep investment out. They are isolating themselves, not the other way round. This was especially apparent in Burmas appalling response to the typhoon - they categorically refused to let western aid in, unless it came through India and China. North Korea too, only accepts Chinese, and occasssionally, South Korean, help.
Nonetheless, Zimbabwe is in good company. Syria and Iran have oil, so their economies do okay. The rest are economic basket cases. Of the type that Zimbabwe aspires to be.
Baseless? People in glass houses....
"You make baseless assumptions that the IMF and World Bank are independent organisations running their own affairs in a transparent manner consistent with the wishes of all signed up member states."
You make the baseless assumption that they are not indepenedent organizations running their own affairs in a transparent .. and so on and so forth.
Okay, let us work with that assumption. Let us assume that these organizations are being run by the west. In this case, they are mere tools of western imperialism. That would make them a straightforward substitute for the western capital whose absence you do not 'bemoan'. And yet you want them to invest in Zimbabwe, knowing (on the basis of your assumption) that they are controlled by imperialists. I cannot spell out your inconsistency any farther. If they are western tools, then they are the equivalent of western capital, and you dont want the latter, which suggests that you really shouldnt be complaining about the absence of the former. Correct me if I am wrong.
"However, it is not true to sugggest that Zimbabwe is the least qualified country to access IMF/WB funding."
Listen, either IMF/WB are independent bodies, or they are in the hands of the western imperialists. You assert that the latter is the case - that they are contrlled by western imperialists. In which case one wonders why you want them investing in your country.
The truth of the matter is that there are many anti-western countries that get funding from these institutions. It has nothing to do with regime change. It has everything to do with economic policies. Nobody is going to invest in a foul economic climate. And I am not even going to mention arbitrary land grabs and the message that sends to investors.
"Britain wants to ban all its companies from doing business in Zimbabwe"
Yes, and it hasnt. Why? Because even the companies themselves have said that it is the common man who will suffer. Which is why companies have NOT been banned. And I think you know that. Besides, if the British left a lucrative market, surely the Chinese, Russians, or Asians would quickly fill that void. Unless, of course, the market is not lucrative, but dead.
The sanctions may not be as benign as I suggest, but they are certainly not as ravaging as you suggest. For the real perpetrators, you will have to look closer to home. It is Zanu, with its land grabs and its anti-western vitriol, that has driven investment away. If IMF/WB are as influenced by the west as you claim, then their refusal to bail Zimbabwe out is justified on the basis of his anti-western stance alone - he could easily take a loan and refuse to repay it by claiming that the west owes him this money for what they did in Rhodesia.
A thought that has, no doubt, occured to you.
Agreed
It is the pretence that there is no Western influence that we fight. If the World Bank and IMF were as open and candid about their Western agenda as yourself then there would be no debate at all. Many countries would know them for what they are and take correct position.
Zimbabwe has not done enough to back its rhetoric with action and I have written whole articles on this. That is a fact and I have been in touch with a lot of Cuban gvt officials for purposes of borrowing ideas to pass on to Zimbabwe.
There is very good policy frameworks in Zim, very sound drafting of policy but absolutely hopeless implementation. Equally there is zero evaluation and appraisal of policy. Simply put there is no committment beyond rhetoric and this is why the sanctions could not be defeated.
We cannot win this war by doing the Western bidding but by instilling discipline among ourselves and creating accountability within public service.
That is the problem of Zimbabwe. Implementation and not formulation of policy.
implementation
Quite correct- policy implementation especially with regards to the land policy has been disastrous. Everyone can agree that land re-distribution was necessary but the implementation of it was to be quite honest- plain bad.
But to go so far as to say that policy formulation is good, well I'm not so sure. The economic policies are not formulated well and neither are the monetary policies. Leave printing money aside (everyone knows this fuels hyperinflation) other policies such as banning the exports of "essential commodities" and "price freezing" have also had disastrous consequences. This had nothing to do with implementation but rather formulation.
To answer Reason's post above this one, one could also say that it is just as bad or illeterate to assume that the IMF and WB are as aligned to the West as you say they are. So according to Reason the IMF and WB lie on their websites and their policies? Is this the assertion that you are making, Reason? It is rather bold and it seems to me that you are once again alleging something that you are not backing up with facts. Remember to be a successful debater you need to have reliable facts. One cannot argue on speculation.
In short the facts that have been stated (you can find them all over the internet or at the respective websites of the IMF/WB) are that the current policies in Zimbabwe are not conducive to the IMF/WB lending money to that government. Policy changes were suggested (but not forced) in order for Zimbabwe to qualify for a loan. Such suggestions were simply swept under the blanket. therefore, Zimbabwe did not qualify.
Furthermore, the WB/IMF are well within their rights to ask for certain policies to be in place before they lend huge amounts of money like they do. That is simple economics.
To expect
To expect the IMF/WB to acknowledge that they are in solidarity or hand in glove with the UK/US alliance over Zimbabwe and put it such a position on their website is not only naive but maybe plain stupid.
it is like expecting the White House to publicle declare that they in Iraq to maintain their influence over the oil resource in the Middle East or that they are in Afghnistan to make sure that they surround their rival China by occupying stretegic geographical positions.
Now Australia's former treasurer who did the sanctions list for Zimbabwe is being head hunted to join the WB and many of the West's "former" politicians running these organisations. To you his past with Zimbabwe will have no bearing on what the WB will do for or against Zimbabwe.
It is high time you realise that a website of an organisation being questioned for sinister motives cannot be a credible source of information to defend the same organisation.
If The Herald cannot be a good source to judge ZANU PF and its gvt so is not the website of the IMF for judgement of same, so is not The New York Times for White House and so on.
assumptions... again..
Your views on the IMF and WB are once again mere assumptions. It is quite clear that you think that because Zimbabwe has been refused financing from these institutions then that automatically makes those institutions intermediaries of the "Western agenda". I mean come on. that is as baseless an argument as you can make.
As with most of your other arguments you fail time after time to provide facts for your arguments. You can't honestly expect the forum contributors to honestly believe that the Wb/IMF website is lying now can you? Oh wait when they are providing funding to pretty much every other country in Africa? So according to your assumption then the "Western Agenda" is alive and flourishing in practically every other country in Africa? We all know it is not.
It is not
Certainly it is not but it is a fact that the Western agenda is only seriously threatened In Harare when it comes to Africa. Most of the funding is just good enough to create a passive clintel while part of it is only a bait to rip of the indeginous populations. No one can dream of ripping off Zimbabwe at the moment because of the radical stance of the Gvt there and that explains the isolation to me.
So
What is the western agenda that is threatened in Harare? A regime change? And why is the western agenda then not prevalent in countries that do receive funding? you're running around the questions i put to you once again.
The Agenda
Waht Reason is saying is that the West have been deprived of their control over Zimabwe's resources and they still have that contrl in most former colonies in Africa.
Zimbabwe repossesed its land and passed the Indeginisation Act COMMONLY CALLED THE 51% CONTROL POLICY ad that alone makes them enemy number one because it upsets the Western agaenda of world dominance from an econmic perspective.
Regime change is just a method fighting, it is not the agenda. I hope I help you mate.
i don't think that's the reason.
OK, we all know the land has been nationilised and re-distributed. Thats water under the bridge. So it's your contention that the only interest that the west has in Zimbabwe is their companies, and the Idiginisation Act and that the passing of the Act will deprive the west of "their stake" of the resources in Zimbabwe. Mate, the act hasn't even been passed yet! And whats more many companies both western and non western continue to operate in Zimbabwe. But if the Act were to be passed then I would imagine it would no longer be viable for many of these companies to continue their operations. As per usual it will probably be argued that the pull out of such companies will be as a result of the evil imperialists forcing such companies out. And the disastrous decrease in production, loss in jobs and poor maintenance of infrastructure will be all blamed on the west. How appropriate. The fact that it would be a poor business decision to continue a business that you don't even have a majority stake in probably doesn't count as a factor for you. It's like the Zanu government is trying to hold these companies at ransom: "provide all the money, do all the work, but we want all the fruits".
I didn't realise that a stake in Zimbabwe's resources gives you world dominance? Must be oil buried under the soil or something> tongue in cheek stuff for you again...
Resources
Control of resources is not a small matter in the imperialist lexicon. It is the centerpiece of imperial authority and it is the foundation of Western foreign policy, all the way from the days of Adam Smith to the days of Hegel.
Zimbabwe's radical stance is not viewed as so bad because the country itself is so rich. It is bad because what the country is doing is a bad example that can cause international mayhem for the West if its not checked.
That explains the why Zimbabwe dominates Western media more than any other country on the planet today.
Control of Resources
Zimbabwes radical stance is not radical. Other countries have done it. Other countries are doing it. Zimbabwe is welcome to join them.
What is remarkable is your belief that the Zimbabwean model is, or can be, a successful model for others to emulate. You are ignoring the many lessons of the past.
Look at Chinese economic policies post 1978. Compare them to Chinese policies pre 1978. Compare China of 2008 to China of 1978. They had the same nationalist control of resources ideology that you do. They realised they were only shooting themselves in the foot. They opened up their economy to investment. The rest is history.
India did the same - in the 1970s they even kicked Coke and IBM out, in the name of control of resources. In 1991 they started economic reforms that changed the rule on, amongst other things, foreign ownership. Look at India now.
Zimbabwe is doing what these countries did, but somehow you think it is novel. It is not. It is like watching an adolescent tantrum. Everyone does it. And then everyone grows up.
The economic logic behind this is very simple. I know you are a marxist, so you do not understand economics, but when a company owns only 49% of a company in another country, it is not going to transfer technological knowhow or information that it has developed and researched. The reason is very simple - in the other country the majoirty holding partner can sell this knowhow, which has been developed at great cost, to other companies, legally, and hold onto the profits accrued. Legally. Say it takes 20 years to develop a computer. The knowhow is passed on to the 51% owner, who can sell the computer, at no cost to himself (he did not have to develop it), for a great profit to the highest bidder, with the 49% owner legally entitled to not even a penny. Its called daylight robbery. And it has happened in the past. And companies have learnt the hard way.
That is why they will never invest in a context in which they are not completely in control of the products they develop. ZImbabwe is welcome to join North Korea et al as an economic basket case scaring investors away.
With economic policies such as these, you dont need sanctions to keep investors away. The west doesnt give a damn about how you run your economy - just as they didnt when India and China had their autarkic fits. There are many markets out there and many resource rich countries out there that will do business on friendlier terms than Zimbabwe. You can contine to be like North Korea and wave your flag proudly as a survivor in an imperialist world. While your people starve. And drown in rivers trying to flee the country.
Zimbabwe does not dominate western media more than any other country in the World today. Pakistan's Musharraf is outdoing you by some distance. And he has for a while. But you are right - there is a novelty to Zimbabwe that makes a good story. Not many leaders these days say "Only God can remove me". Its like being in a really bizzare time wharp - everything about Zimbabwes attitude is sooo 1970s, with its mix of imperialism and marxism, two of the most discredited '-isms' in todays world.
1970s
This base argument that anti-imperialism is outdated is just a convenient way of justfying injustice. If it was there in the seventies and its back today it means it was never defeated anyway.
Its like Fukuyama's end of history rhetoric. Where is Russia today and where is the USA is dominance in East Europe.
Zimbabwe may faulter because of the weakness of its leadership but the atruggle will not die in Zimbabwe. Some of us are prepared for far worse wars than what is happening in Zimbabwe.
What is the problem with the West allowing others the same aspirations for happiness and prosperity as they have for themselves? Let resources in Venezuela develop Venezuela and let those in Zim develop Zimbabwe.
This is the basis of our argument and the cause of our struggle. We are not fighting the "evil West" because there is no such thing as that. What we are fighting is an unjust system maintained by a sabre rattling Western foreign policy, a tool so effectively used by the West's ruling elite.
The real injustice
The real injustice being committed is by the current regime on their own people. With selective food hand-outs (to party loyalists), and the oppression of the media, the opposition. The system of the west can at least provide food and when they don't they are labelled as the evil imperialists exerting their influence.
The system in Zimbabwe is oppresive and I know that you are going to say it isn't but then again that shows your ignorance to the FACTS. And all oppression needs to be resisted. I suppose you agree with an opposition party leader being beaten up in police custody, with operation murambatsvina? all this while Zimbabwe's "ruling elite" sit happy in their mansions in Borrowdale brooke (and probably laugh). Let's hear the latest ramble on how the system is not oppressive and that all the things they do are in the name of fighting the imperialists agenda in Zimbabwe> tongue in cheek stuff for you again>
Zimbabwean people
It is very convenient to suggest that a particualr group of Zimbabweans are the totality of Zimbabwean people.
I condemn all forms of violence and March 11, 2007 was just barbaric and I have written on that.
But to say the people who were beaten up represent the totality of Zimbabwe or an expresssion of a gvt persecuting its entire population. This is a political conflict that has gone bad with both sides sharing the blame although ZANU PF has an unfare advantage of state machinery.
The realisation that both sides share the blame is what has led to the current talks.
What a load of crock.
Are you dyslexic? I ask in all sincerity. You have latched on to the last two sentences and quite happily ignored the others. Its almost as if you didnt read them.
You think Imperialism is back. Good on you. I am from a former colony too. Imperialism is not part of the thinking where I come from. It is a relic. We are secure in our identity and dont see the need to blame others for our problems.
Imperialsim is not a justification for injustice. It is a justification for poor performance. Zimbabwe should take responsibility for the mess it is in, instead of looking all over the place. Like I said, bigger and better resourced countris than yours have gone down this nationalizing path. And they corrected their errors, and succeeded. They could have become economic toilets like Zimbabwe, and they could have continued justifying it by blaming imperialism. But they didnt. They adapted to the world instead of getting caught in some static 1970s mindset.
Zimbabwe IS faultering because of its leadership. There is no struggle in Zimbabwe, and I dont know which war you talk about? Zimbabwe is in no position to go to war with anyone. Nor is at war. It is just a poor country getting poorer.
And how do you plan on fighting the system? By killing the people who control it? Because frankly you dont even know who you are fighting, or what you are up against. Its all rhetoric. Its like saying you are fighting the devil. But what do you know about the devil. Nothing. It just sounds great. Grow up, Reason.
Nonsense.
Zimbabwe does not 'dominate' the Western press. Yyour violent government, your hilarious economy and your comic cliche of a brutal dictator just makes a good story.
The 'Western press' does not print what the 'Western government' tells it to (that happens in censored dictatorships, like Zimbabwe)and besides, Wafawarova, your perceived imperialist threat exists largely in your own imagination. Venezuala and Libya both have comparatively flourishing economies and South Africa before apartheid faced far, far worse sanctions and didn't succumb to hyperinflation.
There's so much interest in the west out of genuine, deep pity for the humiliation Zimbabweans have to suffer right now because of Mugabe and ZANU PF. Half of what you write is unprincipled propaganda designed to make Zimbabwean opposition appear 'unpatriotic'.
Propaganda
Well, the West will not write headlines that Zimabweans are agreeing to move forward with Mugabe can they. We only read headlines when the MDC is playing the obnoxious foreign sponsored opposition. I want you read Arthur Mutambara's ABC interview and see how the tables are turning.
In Zimbabwe our problem has never been the MDC per se. It has always been Britain gaining leverage in our affairs through the sponsorship of the MDC and its surrogate organisatons.
If you think Zimbabwe does not dominate the Western media ask anyone around you to name one African President they know and see if you can count to two before they say Mugabe.
The West and you in particular are obsessed with Mugabe to the extent that you think it is Mugabe's fault that the weather is bad in Zimbabwe.
Well, some of us are quite clear on Mugabe's mistakes and they are many but we will never ever be manipulated by what Mutambara calls "collectively stupid Westeners."
The Herald.
You're comparing The Herald, which is a newspaper with absolutely no credibility, the de facto newsletter of ZANU PF, with the New York Times?
The New York Times is fiercely critical of the current regime, Wafawarova, in a way which would see its editor beaten up or in jail and the newspaper closed down if it were in Zimbabwe. It criticises it all the time. It publishes its mistakes, it runs critical editorials, it publishes news that isn't just unflattering but damaging.
As much as you want The Herald to be 'just another newspaper', being published in The Herald just makes your a PR man and a hack. Which is what you are.
Show me
Show me where the New York Times criticiese the Iraq War in principle end not how the US is failing to win. Show me where they question the US funding of rebellion in Venezuela. Show me where they question what is happening at Guanatanamo Bay. Show me where they tell us the links between the US gvt and Taliban are. Show me where they tell us that Bush is baselessly going after Iran. Tell us where they blame the death of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
Show me where they condemn the US stand alone policy on Cuba. Tell me when they condemned the US for ignoring the UN before invading Iraq.
The Herald can come up with criticism like how the new famrmers are not utilising the farms, how civil servants are lazy, how corruption is enemy number one and how the gvt is not recognising disabled people or marginalised groups or any such distractive issue and this is exactly what the New York Times does when it is pretending to criticise the gvt.
I do not know what Reason will say but I do not credit Western Media in the very least.
THEY DO IT ALL THE TIME.
Do your own googleing. Jesus. The NY Times constantly criticises the Iraq war in principle and American foreign and domestic policy. They do it all the time.
You seriously think that the whole world is like Zimbabwe, don't you? Well, no, it isn't. Even in America newspapers can publish what they want without fear of beatings or jail and they don't publish what the government tells them to like The Herald.
There is no journalism in The Herald and no journalists worth the name are published in that 'newspaper'. The New York Times on the other hand is not owned by any political party and prints embarrassing and critical reportsand commentary every day.
Seriously. If you don't know what you're talking about don't participate.
Do they
I do read the New York Times and I will tell you for a fact that the Iraq war has been criticised for its "poor planning" and for "no victory in sight". To me the question is not what has gone wrong with the war. It is. what are the Americans doing there in the first place.
You can imagine objectivity on the part of western media until the ghosts return to life but the fact remains that the Western communities rank amongst the most indoctrinated people on this planet.
The US has 7% of its budget on PR each year and all this is to manipulate public opinion. The Herald does the same in their own way and they must equally take blame but the West is no better example by any stretch of imagination.
On People who cannot read. Apparently.
"what are the Americans doing there in the first place."
Clearly we have an electronic imbecile operating here.
From the New York Times,titled "We Still Have a Choice on Iraq" dated Sept 6, 2002. The entire article, by John Kerry, no less, deals with ths issue as do a gazillion others.
"Regime change in Iraq is a worthy goal. But regime change by itself is not a justification for going to war. Absent a Qaeda connection, overthrowing Saddam Hussein -- the ultimate weapons-inspection enforcement mechanism -- should be the last step, not the first. Those who think that the inspection process is merely a waste of time should be reminded that legitimacy in the conduct of war, among our people and our allies, is not a waste, but an essential foundation of success."
Will that be all? While you are at it, learn how to use your damn Computer. Lazy moron.
Oh and type in Mainstream Media sometime and see what the Republicans have to say about it.
ONLY A PERFECT IDIOT
Only a perfect idiot can raise the weapons of mass destruction argument and expect a response. You are really funny.
I never said John Kerry was smart
...and thank God he didnt get elected. But that, whatever its merits, was the debate back in 2002. The absence of WMDs only became apparent after the war started - in March 2003. I am assuming that most non-Perfect idiots like yourself know that. Or were you one of those perfect idiots who thought he never had them in the first place, mostly out of the ignorance of the fact that he had used them agaisnt the Kurds and Iranians.
So get off your retrospective perch and remember, that in 2002, the world did believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Thats why they kept sending inspectors in - inspectors who complained not of an absence of weapons, but of a lack of access to sites.
And By World
By the rest of the world you mean the Western ruling elite I suppose. And there you are saying the biological gass weapons supplied by the US to Saddam is what the inspectors were loooking for. Again I am not going to engage in such baseness. Wake up on Iraq or remain in your stupid deep slumber.
Calm down, angry Reason
Dont ignore the context, which you are splendidly good at doing. Somebody posted saying that the NYT had never published an article opposing the war on 'principle'. That article seems to be doing just that,non? Opposing the war on the principle that the presence of WMDs havent been proved by inspectors, and that regime change is NOT a legitimate reason for war.
Read and undsertand the context before you go around calling people idiots. I think Kerry is an idiot and I don't support his view. But that was published then, and to retrospectively laugh at it is like saying "I told you so" to Neville Chamberlain when Hitler attacked Poland. It achieves nothing.
That was the debate then, whatever its merits, and the NYT clearly provided one piece opposing the war on principle 6 months before it started. Dont go running off drawing conclusions on what my stance on the Iraq war is on it.
But you are right. When we talk about things like WMD, I tend to give western sources mildly more credibility than I do the Zimbabwean intelligence agency. The latter are only for spying on non-Zanu ZImbabweans. You should know - you have probably benefitted from it.
Principle
The principle is neither WMDs nor democratisation. The principle is the UN Charter Chapter 7, (NONE INTERFERENCE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF FELLOW MEMBER STATES).
That is the principle. The US has no right to be in Iraq or anywhere on this planet outside the sole ground of self defence. Full stop and that is the principle and not the NYT talking about imaginary weapons. That is stupid. Pure and simple.
Principle
The NYT wasnt the only one talking about WMDs. Other sources that later opposed the war were backing it. I remmeber a Chinese memo being leaked in this regard that treated Iraq as a status quo WMD state. I cannot find it which is a pity.
However, I agree, countries should not be interfering in other countries affairs. Now where was your post about Free Tibet?
Tell you what.
Google 'new York times editorial Iraq war disaster'.
Click on the FIRST HIT. Read it.
Also google for 'forgeries' 'Valérie plame' and 'impeach bush editorial'.
Then ask yourself if the Herald would publish an editorial calling for the arrest of Mugabe.
Then fuck off.
In the last American election...
...the NYT also published an editorial endorsing John Kerry.
Now ask yourself how likely it would be for The Herald to endorse Tsvangirai.
If ZANU doesn't like your paper, you're in prison and your paper's against the law. Anyone published in The Herald is a ZANU hack with no integrity.
The Herald
Kerry and Bush are two sides of the same coin and Mugabe and Tsvangirai only have incompatibilities in common.