[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoon
Title: Zimbabwe's winner (click to view)
Date: July 02, 2008
Good old Robert Mugabe was reelected as President of Zimbabwe last week, winning 90% of the vote. Of course, the opposing candidate was driven into exile and most of his supporters were beaten and arrested, but still, a win's a win, right?

The United States is now trying to get the UN to slap sanctions on Mugabe's regime, which is increasingly becoming one of Africa's biggest blights. Of course, efforts to crackdown on Mugabe are hampered on a number of fronts; the Russians and Chinese are staunch backers of his regime, and most of the African neighbourhood, including, significantly, South Africa, has shown very little interest in disciplining him in any major way. Just this week, in fact, Mugabe attended a meeting of the African Union and was given full honours, as if nothing was out of the ordinary.

[Pseudonym]

More like Zimbabwe's LOSER!

[CanadianJeff]

or Zimbabwe's tragic loss.

I just don't understand why anyone anywhere could support his regime...yet that seems to be the case with the African Union.

[martin14]

the AU still regards Mugabe as a hero,

one of the leaders to kick big bad whitey out of Rhodesia.

It's why they will never touch him.. they will let him
die quietly like Idi Amin.

Outside that, the Chinese can make some money,
the Russians do it to piss off the Brits


and the people in Rhodesia pay the price.

[Taospark]

Yeah, there's definitely a lot of distrust of anything Western or at least white in a lot of Africa (and South America) due to history. Beijing is mostly following up its decades-old policy of pursuing a sphere of influence wherever the Americans simply do not and the Russian government has been persuaded before to take stands against authoritarian regimes.

It really comes down to what people tolerate and consider more important. Given how bad the standard of living is in some areas of sub-Saharan and southern Africa, it really comes down to what leader seems strong enough to guarantee a stable economy and food supply, not what leader follows Western standards of democracy which seem more nebulous and unreliable by the year.

[romanP]

CanadianJeff wrote:

or Zimbabwe's tragic loss.

I just don't understand why anyone anywhere could support his regime...yet that seems to be the case with the African Union.

What are you talking about? The African Union has shown their disapproval as well. Mugabe's response was "Well, we do things my way in this country. You can do things your way in your country."

[romanP]

Taospark wrote:

It really comes down to what people tolerate and consider more important. Given how bad the standard of living is in some areas of sub-Saharan and southern Africa, it really comes down to what leader seems strong enough to guarantee a stable economy and food supply, not what leader follows Western standards of democracy which seem more nebulous and unreliable by the year.

Which says nothing of how Robert Mugabe runs his country. Zimbabwe is probably the poorest country in the world right now and growing poorer every day, and its citizens face police brutality and death for trying to do anything about it.

[Taospark]

romanP wrote:

Taospark wrote:

It really comes down to what people tolerate and consider more important. Given how bad the standard of living is in some areas of sub-Saharan and southern Africa, it really comes down to what leader seems strong enough to guarantee a stable economy and food supply, not what leader follows Western standards of democracy which seem more nebulous and unreliable by the year.

Which says nothing of how Robert Mugabe runs his country. Zimbabwe is probably the poorest country in the world right now and growing poorer every day, and its citizens face police brutality and death for trying to do anything about it.

I did say "seems to". Strongarm manuevers give the illusion of being in control and being able to deliver on promises of prosperity even if the intent is often the exact opposite.

Chavez' actions in Venezuela are certainly one example of how effective the tactic can be. When a U.S. backed attempt to oust him failed, the South American political community condemned it not on the grounds of Chavez' leadership ability but that change had to come internally, and the common tactic of shaming an authoritarian leader through diplomatic channels does not always work or at least quickly enough to be of use to the citizen on the ground.

[Psudo]

romanP wrote:

Zimbabwe is probably the poorest country in the world right now

According to the CIA World Factbook [1], Zimbabwe is literally the poorest country in the world with a GDP per capita of $200. 2nd to last is DR Congo with $300, and the lowest non-African region is Tokelau (a territory of Australia in the Pacific) with $1000.

For comparison, the number for the USA is $45,800 and for Canada is $38,400. Essentially, this number is the average gross annual income per person.

[romanP]

Taospark wrote:

Chavez' actions in Venezuela are certainly one example of how effective the tactic can be. When a U.S. backed attempt to oust him failed, the South American political community condemned it not on the grounds of Chavez' leadership ability but that change had to come internally, and the common tactic of shaming an authoritarian leader through diplomatic channels does not always work or at least quickly enough to be of use to the citizen on the ground.

I'm not sure why you're comparing Robert Mugabe to Hugo Chavez. Chavez has done some questionable things, but none that compare to the violence that occurs in Zimbabwe. At least Venezuelans can still question their government without having a death squad hunt them down in the street (they may go to prison for doing so, but this is still miles better than being beaten to a pulp on the sidewalk). Personally, I think Chavez' restrictive laws have a lot more to do with silencing people who were printing lies about him in the media, who were most likely somehow tied to the CIA, and not so much a desire to make sure nobody can say a bad word about him.
Mugabe, on the other hand, lives in a world of lawlessness where anything that keeps him in power goes.

[Taospark]

Repressing people by imprisoning those who call Chavez repressive is a self-fulfilling prophecy that will only get worse. Keep in mind that Chavez has essentially made himself President for life, set aside the Constitution and elections, placed the military more under his direct control, and nationalized a strategic commodity to export his foreign policy.

It all comes down to what the people will allow the leader to get away with. Mugabe is certainly worse than Chavez but the only thing separating the two of them is not the latter's self-restraint but the people's willingness to tolerate a dictatorial leader.

[romanP]

Taospark wrote:

Repressing people by imprisoning those who call Chavez repressive is a self-fulfilling prophecy that will only get worse. Keep in mind that Chavez has essentially made himself President for life, set aside the Constitution and elections, placed the military more under his direct control, and nationalized a strategic commodity to export his foreign policy.

This is probably all a domino effect caused by the CIA interfering in South American politics for the last 60 years. If the CIA didn't cause it directly, then it's an effect of the dirty things going on in the countries surrounding Venezuela that were largely also caused by the CIA.

Quote:

It all comes down to what the people will allow the leader to get away with. Mugabe is certainly worse than Chavez but the only thing separating the two of them is not the latter's self-restraint but the people's willingness to tolerate a dictatorial leader.

I think a major difference is that Hugo Chavez probably doesn't aspire to be president for life. I think the restrictions that are in place are there to protect his elected government.

[Psudo]

The jailing of a reporter in the Valorie Plume case is blamed on the US Administration (despite the investigation's purpose being to discredit that same administration). Then when Hugo Chavez does something similar except on a national scale you again blame the USA government (via the CIA).

At what point does it stop being the US Executive Branch's fault and start being the fault of the people who actually, directly interfering with freedom of the press?

[romanP]

Psudo wrote:

The jailing of a reporter in the Valorie Plume case is blamed on the US Administration (despite the investigation's purpose being to discredit that same administration). Then when Hugo Chavez does something similar except on a national scale you again blame the USA government (via the CIA).

At what point does it stop being the US Executive Branch's fault and start being the fault of the people who actually, directly interfering with freedom of the press?

As soon as the CIA stops headhunting every elected official in South America.

[CanadianJeff]

Roman do you understand what would happen if they just let all the dictators in South America run free? There are reasons they go after them.

Namely drugs, poverty and corruption. It's in North America's best interests to not allow the region to gain a larger foothold in crime and corruption. The US and it's allies are trying to fight for political stability down there to help form a new trading partner. That's going to be much easier with people like Chavez gone.

Agree or not there are valid reasons to "head-hunt" dictators in South America.