BS: Blair Banned from Zimbabwe

Subject: BS: Blair Banned from Zimbabwe
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 02:56 PM

From yesterday's beeb--and of course the US response to the conflict is that the US must invade Zimbabwe:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2419923.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Blair Banned from Zimbabwe
From: CraigS
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 07:38 PM

link busted

Subject: RE: BS: Blair Banned from Zimbabwe
From: The Pooka
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 08:36 PM

Zimbabwe busted.

You meant the *UN* response, right Guest? Typo, no doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair Banned from Zimbabwe
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 11:11 AM

I just copy and pasted the link, and it worked fine.

Pooka, here is the direct quote from the BBC article:

"Last weekend, a United States official warned that the US may have to take "intrusive" measures to ensure that food aid was properly distributed."

Perhaps the typo was the fault of the BBC?

Subject: RE: BS: Blair Banned from Zimbabwe
From: The Pooka
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 11:54 AM

Perhaps so, Guest. Even the godlike British Broadcasting Corporation occasionally errs. Everybody knows that the *US*, as distinguished from the UN, is in favor of mass starvation and would never intervene to prevent it. Good thing we weren't running Ireland in the 1840's or there could have been a humanitarian catastrophe.

Here are a few more selective quotes from the BBC article -- your link to which, unlike the Zimbabwe government, is indeed in working order:

"On Thursday, the European Union accused President Robert Mugabe's government of channelling food aid to its own supporters and ignoring opposition activists, as millions face starvation...

Zimbabwe has denied the allegations and accused the US of preparing to invade.

Meanwhile, the treason trial of Zimbabwe opposition rival Morgan Tsvangirai has been postponed until February...

...the state radio station, Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation...
broadcast also outlined the ban on members of the British Government saying:

'The Zimbabwe Government has imposed a travel ban on British Prime Minister Tony Blair, his cabinet, junior ministers and heads of his government departments as part of its efforts to safeguard the country's sovereignty.'

Earlier this year, the EU imposed a travel ban on Mr Mugabe and other members of the country's ruling elite following disputed elections...

Zimbabwe's Information Minister Jonathan Moyo told the BBC's Network Africa programme that...Britain had been exaggerating reports of the situation in Zimbabwe.

Lawyers acting for Mr Tsvangirai, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), said they had applied for more time to prepare their defence, after state lawyers failed to hand over crucial documents in time...

The opposition accuse Mr Mugabe of mismanaging the country to the point where millions are facing severe food shortages.

Up to six million people - half the population - are estimated to need food aid after poor rains, combined with the government seizure of almost all white-owned farms.

Bertel Haarder, European Affairs Minister of Denmark, which holds the EU presidency, condemned Mr Mugabe for abusing food aid.

"We would like to strongly react against the fact that the Zimbabwe Government is using our aid and our food to put political and economic pressure on its own people," Mr Haarder said.

The BBC's Christian Fraser, who recently went to Zimbabwe, says that bags of maize were stacked outside polling stations during the by-election in Insiza - reportedly put there to reward people who voted for Mr Mugabe's Zanu-PF party.

Zanu-PF won the election in what was considered an opposition stronghold.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair Banned from Zimbabwe
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 12:02 PM

Pooka, thanks for providing the information I've already read, and provided the link to. I posted the information because I thought the article was important for several reasons. One is, to draw attention to the fact that while international attention is being focused almost exclusively on the US/British military buildup for war with Iraq, these other horrific tragedies are being ignored, and the necessary resources to deal with them, diverted.

I also felt it was very important to draw attention to the fact that the US response was, again, reactionary and unilateralist, rather than well planned and multi-lateral. With the Cowboy President, I think that sort of posturing needs to be taken seriously, if we are to prevent another Somalia from happening in Zimbabwe.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair Banned from Zimbabwe
From: Tiger
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 09:56 AM

And second prize is TWO weeks in Philadelphia.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair Banned from Zimbabwe
From: The Pooka
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 10:36 AM

Tiger, *G*. With apologies to WC Fields: all things considered, I'd rather be in Harare.

Guest, you're most welcome. Figured since you could pick out a quote, I could selectively excerpt some too. But since "these other horrific tragedies are being ignored," how is it that they're all over the news? "...and the necessary resources to deal with them, diverted." Yes. By Mugabe. To his pals. According to your article.

Now, this is just classic. Here you've got a nation starving, in significant part because of the expropriation policies of its corrupt dictator who then refuses to distribute the international aid to those who most need it, and also in part because of the weather -- and you're keen to blame the US *already*! It's guys like you who give anti-Americanism a bad name, you know that? ;}

Subject: RE: BS: Blair Banned from Zimbabwe
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 10:57 AM

Who is "blaming the US"?????? C'mon Pooka--if that is how you interpreted my original post, then you were sadly mistaken.

In the past decade, the US' record in dealing with just these sorts of human rights crises in Africa has been abysmal. I am not naive enough to think the Bush administration will improve upon the Clinton administration's record. Call me cynical, if you will, but I do know the history of my own nation in this regard.

I called attention to the article, because of the ways Mugabe is trying to escalate the situation diplomatically, to thumb his nose at the West who has long known his depraved human rights record. Right now, the US isn't in a position, much less a mindset, to intervene and commit troops to see the food aid delivered. Unfortunately, nor is the UN, which seems to have reached it's limit in a practical sense, to intervene in these types of crises, because of the lack of commitment by the US to pay it's dues, continue with it's commitments
to UN institutions, etc.

It is a very complex problem, much more pressing than the war with Iraq, which is what Britain and the US are focused on almost exclusively right now. That was why I posted it. But apparently you'd prefer we just sweep the story right back under the rug where you feel it belongs?

Subject: RE: BS: Blair Banned from Zimbabwe
From: The Pooka
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 11:45 AM

Guest - well, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. And I agree it's a very complex & very serious problem. / Call me cynical if you will, but as to my misinterpretation, here's your sequence that has left me somewhat confused:

1. "--and of course the US response to the conflict is that the US
must invade Zimbabwe..."

and,

2. "...the US response was, again, reactionary and unilateralist...I think that sort of posturing needs to be taken seriously, if we are to prevent another Somalia from happening in Zimbabwe."

but then,

3. "Right now, the US isn't in a position, much less a mindset, to intervene and commit troops to see the food aid delivered."

So -- is it your fear that we will invade and compel delivery of the aid AFTER we've finished up destroying Iraq -- while still stiffing the UN on our dues even though the Security Council is now supposedly in our pocket?? (I agree with you about the dues btw)

Look, G., you seem a sincere & thoughtful person. **What would you do now** to save Zimbabwe? Seriously. What's the right thing TO do; as distinguished from the things *NOT* to do? I, honestly, don't know. Tell me. Really.

PS: 4. "But apparently you'd prefer we just sweep the story right back under the rug where you feel it belongs?" No. You misinterpreted me. Of course it doesn't belong under the rug. My point was: it wasn't there in the first place. There've been many news stories about it regularly. / But still, thank you for calling it to our attention. To mix metaphors, it does belong on the front burner. It's a catastrophe.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair Banned from Zimbabwe
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 12:29 PM

I would like to see the US and Britain quickly build a multi-lateral peacekeeping coalition that will go in with UN troops and distribute the food aid, as has been done in other regions, with mixed success.

In other words, I think we should do something, but going in Somalia style will only lead to a tragedy of even greater proportions. Maintaining the status quo amounts to doing nothing, which is certainly the most cynical response.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair Banned from Zimbabwe
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 06:41 PM

Of course the UN/UK supervised the elections that put him in power in the first place. No surprise that now they cry he should be replaced, it happens all over Africa, nothing new about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair Banned from Zimbabwe
From: GUEST,Bill
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 07:35 PM

When are they going to ban him from Westminster?
Bill(the sound)

Subject: RE: BS: Blair Banned from Zimbabwe
From: The Pooka
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 08:06 AM

Guest: Well, that sounds like the "least-worst" option & see? - we can agree, after all. Let's tell our representatives to pay attention to this real, immediate crisis. (Saddam is probably going to string out the inspections business for months, anyway. War there, while still a likely & horrific prospect, is not inevitable.) // Re Zimbabwe elections: the initial one was like 30+ years ago, wasn't it?? *Perhaps* the people really wanted Mugabe then. Lord Acton's "Power corrupts" is true everywhere, sadly. What was needed, I suppose, was a Mandela. But there aren't enough Mandelas to go around, alas.

Bill (the sound) - how about we make Tonybear an honorary US Senator from Texas and put him up in a nice puppydog-house out on the north forty at Bush's ranch? Good? :)

Subject: RE: BS: Blair Banned from Zimbabwe
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 08:32 AM

Does he want to go there? If not then the ban seems a pretty pointless gesture.

Action could have been taken against Mugabe by the people that matter - the other southern African States - they chose not to.

Zimbabwe has its independence, they have elected their government. That Government is responsible for the welfare of that nation. Off hand I cannot remember that country suffering famine in the days before Mugabe took power. It had a fairly good economy and an extremely efficient farming sector within that economy - That has all now been destroyed - the farms commandeered and given to the Party Faithful, who have no knowledge of farming, and to "War Veterans", the majority of whom were not even born at the time the war was fought.

There is a saying about reaping what you sow - In Zimbabwe's case it would appear to be not reaping what you don't sow.

The leading critic of the government down there now seems to be the clergy, but with a little help from Mugabe's new found Libyan friend I dare say he'll get by.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair Banned from Zimbabwe
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 08:34 AM

I already did email my congressional reps. They hear from me quite regularly. :)