Why don't we intervene in Zimbabwe if the west is so against dictators?

Question

re: Mugabe

Answer 1

The pat answer is 'oil', but the real answer is slightly more complex - as you might expect. The reason 'the west' do not intervene militarily in Zimbabwe, Sudan, North Korea or Burma (to name but a few) is that there is no regional pressure for such a move and their geo-political position makes any such intervention both unlikely to achieve any positive outcome or have any significant measure of economic support.
All four countries have large politically stable neighbours who give the actual or tacit political and economic support and upon whose support any intervention rests.
In Zimbabwe's case, it is South Africa.
The West would support SA if it decided to intervene militarily on a humanitarian basis but would not intervene themselves directly unless an occupying power, such as SA invited them in.
Saddam managed to alienate all his neighbours and therefore left himself vulnerable to attack.
Desmond Tutu said Africa should hang its head in shame over Zimbabwe. Amen to that.

Answer 2

Two points:
1. The people of Zimbabwe brought this upon themselves.
They were watching while Mugabe was 'expropriating' productive farm land owned by white Zimbabweans.
They were silent bystanders when Mugabe gave this land to his cronies.
They did nothing when Mugabe rigged one election after another.
2. The South African Government can take half of the blame.
Mbeki, through doing nothing, is just as guilty as Mugabe.
The Zimbabwe regime has kept going through direct South African support. Shame on Mbeki!

Answer 3

I'll repeat an answer I gave on this previously.

Under international law, no government can invade another country for the puposes of overthrowing a leader or a regime. This sort of action is only possible if another country attacks or threatens to attack, which is why we and America went into Iraq, because Saddam attacked planes monitoring the "no fly zones."

To do so would be a war-crime and in contravention of the agreed terms of the United Nations.

It has nothing to do with money or oil.

Answer 4

Well the setup in place is such that if America/UK intervenes, they have nothing to gain.
1.A lot of their medical personel are in these western countries adding value and they are too far away to become locations for refugees.
2. The people in Zimbabwe drove away non-black settlers (who were mainly agriculturist, the mainstay of the economy). The present chaos in place would mean they would have to spend a lot on security and land management before they can reap any reward (it will be cheaper to look at another country like Iran and class them in the Axis of terror).
The west helping would not be a wise economic move.

3.

Answer 5

Spoken like a real non-Zimbabwean resident! imagine for a 2d that you've been living there, all this help comes into your united states yet you get none of it because your authorities is corrupt. you're literally lack of life of starvation and all you want is something to devour and drink, yet you won't be able to have something, because someone overseas determined, "no more advantageous faulty mollycoddling or mothering from the West. Africans should be left to their personal completely in a position contraptions and fend for themselves. Sink, starve or swim- enable them. Their lands, their issues, their ideas." Hmmm. walk a mile in a persons shoes formerly you elect them.

Answer 6

Its a colonial power thing. We should, we would be perfectly justified in doing so, we would get lots of support from around the world. HOWEVER, They would use the propoganda of Britain trying to re-establish itself as a colonial power in Africa. This would make many African nations VERY nervous and would side with the Zimbabwe leadership through this fear.

It would be better if we could support an African nation in its attempt to sort it out!

Answer 7

It appears the American people are against helping people that are oppressed in other country's. Look how you folks are re-acting to the Iraq War. Imagine all of the Anti-War rallies if we tried to help another country. Don't you lot think President Bush is already a War Mon-gar? How could anyone else be helped now. Why don't you ask the "good folks" at the UN why the are not helping? Same answer, no gold, no oil, no kick-backs.

Answer 8

One more time.
Read this slowly and try to take it on board!
The black majority of Zimbabwe - then Rhodesia, wanted Black Majority Rule.
They got it.
OK???!!!
Now butt out - like the British and Americans should have done many years ago - and let them get on with it.

Answer 9

They have their Independence which is what they wanted. This was the land of milk and honey,but look what they have done to it..
They should be looking at their neighbours for help.
You should be asking " South Africa Why won't you help them"
Britain cannot go back

Answer 10

because the forces are over stretched and you cant invade every country there are so many dicators in the world today mugabe is just one of a few and africa being invaded never