[Prestwick]

After seeing the BBC Newsnight report (all twenty horrifying and fury inducing minutes of it) I think back to the catalouge of appeasement, corruption and sheer political inaction that has let Robert Mugabe destroy what was once the "breadbasket of Africa", institute one a racist, homophobic police state who only aid the populance when they want to get out and whose mismanagement of the economy, I could go on.

Instead, I'll go on about the total incompetence of the British government, too busy handwringing and looking embarrased after seeing their dancing monkey of many a 1960s British University campus go nuts in his native environment, a European Union so two faced and hypocritical that even though it placed a travel ban on Mugabe and his thugs, they still manage to let him enter Europe again and again to be applauded like some kind of perverse hero on stage. Of the Commonwealth ripped apart by either naked self interest to protect Mugabe (the African nations) or by simple lack of interest. I would say "for all its fine words" but I don't even think Canada has even said anything, ever, at all, in any of the past two administrations to warrant any interest in the Zimbabwean situation.

This is something which no matter how many times I try to ignore or forget, I just simply cannot ignore the anger of how this man has been allowed to destroy such a promising and beautiful country in such a way. It makes me more angry how those very institutions who are meant to make a difference completely fail.

[BartSimpson]

It's things like this that make one wonder of the relevance of the Commonwealth anymore.

[Streaker]

Why would Zimbabwe be the Commonwealth's shame?

Only one Commonwealth nation has ever colonised Zimbabwe: Maybe it would be closer to the truth to say that it is Britain's shame.

[Prestwick]

The Commonwealth is irrelevent simply because, much like things like the UN General Assembly or the UN Human Rights Body, its been hyjacked by those whose agenda is to protect and defend those corrupt despots that still exist as its members.

The only way to get even mildly censured is to do something incredibly major like a coup de tat or declare war on someone else. And even then, it'll be a reasonably straight nation like Australia and two incredibly corrupt nations sitting on a three nation panel to decide the 'punishment'. The whole thing is geared now towards serving the interests of those corrupt members of the Commonwealth.

And at a time like that, you would expect members like Canada, the UK, India, Australia, etc to try and keep order and reform the organisation and yes nations like Australia take a really active part in Commonwealth Affairs. They were practically the only nation in the Commonwealth to kick up a fuss about Zimbabwe in the first place (and still do). However, the fact that Canada usually only turns up to meetings for the free food underpins the sheer lack of interest to which they warrant any Foreign Affairs other than arguing with America over bloody timber and having loads of photos taken with the Mexican President. For all its trumpeting over inventing Peacekeeping (*cough*PearsonstabbedEdeninthebackoverSuez*hack*) and an ethical foreign policy, it really should do more to help out, especially when the development of such a critical area of the third world is at stake.

Streaker wrote:

Why would Zimbabwe be the Commonwealth's shame?

Only one Commonwealth nation has ever colonised Zimbabwe: Maybe it would be closer to the truth to say that it is Britain's shame.

Simply saying that because the UK colonised Zimbabwe, we're somehow to blame for all of this doesn't help. It has nothing to do with what happened in the 19th century, it has everything to do with the huge refugee crisis developing in nations like South Africa and Zambia, both Commonwealth nations. It has everything to do with the refugees, both white and black fleeing to the UK, Canada and Australia, along with the social and financial burdens that influx has brought over the past decade.

This is a problem for the Commonwealth to solve. Simply saying "ha ha, you dropped it, you bought it" isn't going to solve the problem.

[sandorski]

The Commonwealth was/is really just a last ditch effort to save the waining British Empire. I think it's mostly dying of neglect caused by too many cross competing Alliances/Orgs(NATO, UN, EU, NAFTA, Norad, yadda yadda ya). It could have been a great force in the world, but now it's mostly just a sideshow to the Olympic Games.

[BartSimpson]

sandorski wrote:

The Commonwealth was/is really just a last ditch effort to save the waining British Empire. I think it's mostly dying of neglect caused by too many cross competing Alliances/Orgs(NATO, UN, EU, NAFTA, Norad, yadda yadda ya). It could have been a great force in the world, but now it's mostly just a sideshow to the Olympic Games.

Ouch.

And that's a very astute observation and similie.

[Prestwick]

The Commonwealth is quite a misunderstood organisation. It wasn't really meant to "save" anything, it was more an organisation for newly independent nations with colonial ties to the UK to be a member of in order to discuss matters of mutual interest.

There were some processes between Commonwealth Nations such as European Union-like open borders for Commonwealth members. A Canadian for example could come to the UK without need for a visa and could take up residence and work without need for a permit. However, joining the European Union changed all of that and one of the provisos for joining was to drop any preferential treatment to Commonwealth citizens.

The nice thing is that gradually, it is expanding. Some of the candidates haven't had any ties with the UK at all, like Rwanda and Algeria for example. Mozambique is the first member of the Commonwealth not to have any ties to the UK whatsoever. Israel and Palestine have expressed interest as well.

[Toro]

A priest recently asked the UK to invade and depose Mugabe.

[Prestwick]

No, that was the Archbishop of York and he actually asked the world to put in place more effective sanctions to control Zimbabwe rather than invade it.

[Streaker]

Prestwick wrote:

Streaker wrote:

Why would Zimbabwe be the Commonwealth's shame?

Only one Commonwealth nation has ever colonised Zimbabwe: Maybe it would be closer to the truth to say that it is Britain's shame.

Simply saying that because the UK colonised Zimbabwe, we're somehow to blame for all of this doesn't help. It has nothing to do with what happened in the 19th century, it has everything to do with the huge refugee crisis developing in nations like South Africa and Zambia, both Commonwealth nations. It has everything to do with the refugees, both white and black fleeing to the UK, Canada and Australia, along with the social and financial burdens that influx has brought over the past decade.

This is a problem for the Commonwealth to solve. Simply saying "ha ha, you dropped it, you bought it" isn't going to solve the problem.

My own sense is that it's a problem for Zimbabweans to solve: Let there be some diplomatic pressure from other Commonwealth nations, but nothing beyond that. Any heavyhanded measures would only provide a demagogue like Mugabe with a convenient scapegoat.

Anyhow, outsiders have a way a making a bad situation worse and this isn't merely confined to the nineteenth century.

[Arctic_Menace]

BartSimpson wrote:

It's things like this that make one wonder of the relevance of the Commonwealth anymore.

Ooh, don't say things like that around Clogeroo, or else he'll get very angry, start to cry adn try to beat you up.

[Prestwick]

Thats and! *cries*.

[JJ]

The Commonwealth basically only exists as a forum for irrelevant world leaders to sit in second-rate capital cities and discuss how terrible things are in southern Africa. Literally- that's basically all the organization has ever done in its 50-something year history. First everyone was upset with Iain Smith in Rhodesia. Then when he got kicked out everyone became obsessed with the apartheid regime in the Republic of South Africa. And now that apartheid’s gone Mr. Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe is the new cause celeb.

The whole organization is such a fundamentally silly, arbitrary thing. The countries have absolutely nothing in common, and their membership ascribes to no sort of coherent logic that is even remotely justifiable in this day and age. I say the whole thing should be abolished, and in its place we should form a new international organization for democratic countries. I think such a thing is overdue.

[sandorski]

JJ wrote:

The Commonwealth basically only exists as a forum for irrelevant world leaders to sit in second-rate capital cities and discuss how terrible things are in southern Africa. Literally- that's basically all the organization has ever done in its 50-something year history. First everyone was upset with Iain Smith in Rhodesia. Then when he got kicked out everyone became obsessed with the apartheid regime in the Republic of South Africa. And now that apartheid’s gone Mr. Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe is the new cause celeb.

The whole organization is such a fundamentally silly, arbitrary thing. The countries have absolutely nothing in common, and their membership ascribes to no sort of coherent logic that is even remotely justifiable in this day and age. I say the whole thing should be abolished, and in its place we should form a new international organization for democratic countries. I think such a thing is overdue.

I'd like the Democratic Nations idea. Except no Members with permanent exclusive Powers like Vetoes and other such nonsense.

[Scape]

Except invasion, what else could the commonwealth do? It is a sovereign country with rights as such and part of that is to have rulership as bad as they currently have. Now if there is slavery in a country and they make a popular brand of clothing then perhaps you could stop buying that brand of clothing. If he was proven to be giving aid to an international terrorist organization (like COBRA!!!) then perhaps there could be something done but on what authority can any nation intervene upon domestic affairs of another country? Now we do hold the purse strings and we can tell this thug to play by our tune or there will be no aid. As long as there is unity in that message he will be forced to play along otherwise he very well could go Jonestown and take the whole country with him. Even if he did do that shouldn't the authority be bestowed to a regional power like South Africa rather than some distant international body?