AfricaBlog: The Continuing Fall of Zimbabwe Archives

October 08, 2003

The Continuing Fall of Zimbabwe

Robert Mugabe continues to move aggressively against his opponents, trying to consolidate his position while the country falls further into economic and social disorder. The worrisome thought is that, if the opposition grows more bold, Zimbabwe could find itself quickly in the middle of another civil war. The more Mugabe pushes, the more likely it is that we will see a bloody war within the next few years.

Some 40 Zimbabwean union leaders and workers have been arrested, ahead of a planned protest march organised by the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions.

The ZCTU said they wanted to demonstrate against the high level of inflation, increasing cost of living and of transport costs in the country, which is going through an economic crisis.

To say that the country is going through an economic crisis is more than a bit of an understatement. It is going through the kind of economic crash that usually presages the downfall of a government--it has no way to dig itself out and has become a nation living, essentially, on international welfare.

The unions were due to hold their national protest against high taxation, the rapidly increasing cost of living, and the price and shortage of fuel, amid a deep economic crisis in Zimbabwe, where inflation is officially around 425%.

Zimbabwe is ready to explode--and international aid that is funneled to Mugabe's cronies or used to control opposition ethnic parties is only making the potential fall more deadly in potential. The UN, in a complete opposition to its normal do-nothing attitude, needs to seriously consider stepping in.

The sovereignty of a nation is in question when it is ruled by a dictator who holds sham elections, especially when that nation threatens to destabilize its neighbors with conflict. Dictatorships are not legitimate governments, do not represent their citizenry, and are part of the cycle that continues to destroy the nations of Africa.

Typically, the UN acts only after a war has broken out, or a tragedy has unfolded. For the good of the people of Zimbabwe, for the good of the region, and in order to keep the country from becoming embroiled in a civil war, the UN needs to act now.

Read the story.

Posted by zombyboy at October 8, 2003 09:56 AM

Comments

Typically the UN does 'nothing' after a war has broken out, or a tragedy has unfolded.

The UN needs to act now? The same UN that interceded so quickly in Rwanda? Or Liberia? Or Somalia? not to even mention the Congo.

Democracy is not a requirement for membership to the UN. The fact that another country is now not democratic has nothing to do with the UN. The countries in the UN that are democracies are in the minority.

As you'll recal the UN did not act in Yugoslavia either. There were 'no' UN resolutions allowing NATO to stop the Serbs in Kosovo.

Recently the world cried out 'against' America when it deposed Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Saddam made Mugabe look like a play-school bully with a good hart.

What makes you think the UN will want to intervene in Zimbabwe? I can see the French now: "A Pre-emptive intervention! Sacre blue! That would justify the Americans invasion!"

What on earth makes you think the UN will do anything about Mugabe, or even cares about the people of Zimbabwe? Reports have been coming out of North Korea of canabilism for years now, yet you want a UN intervention in 'Zimbabwe'?

No, the only way intervention is going to happen is if South Africa steps in, or Ossama "My cave has aircon" bin-Ladin starts selling second hand nuclear weapons in Harare.

Posted by: Richard at October 12, 2003 07:44 AM

Heh. No, I don't believe the UN will do anything--I just want them to. A strong UN could be a positive force in the world. Unfortunately, it would seem that the leadership wants to do everything possible to ensure that the UN remains a bloated, useless organization with no real influence on world events.

Posted by: zombyboy at October 14, 2003 09:20 AM

Hmmmm. Yes. That is what many people would like the UN to be. A force for good. The UN isnt though. What it is is the debating room of world politics. A Madhatter teaparty of realpolitic.

I think youre wrong in your assesment of the 'leadership'. (I assume you mean the US goverment, in which case we have different leaderships)

The only people who have been vocal critics of Zimbabwe in the international community has been America, England and Australia.

The UN has done nothing as regards Zimbabwe.
No surprizes there, as Libya, Syria and Zimbabwe are on the UN Human rights commision. Realistically it is not the job of the UN to save Zimbabwe. It is the job of the individual member states.

Posted by: Richard at October 15, 2003 01:00 AM