Well, if Africa won't do anything about it, why should the West? Southern African leaders had the perfect chance to say what needed to be said in their summit on Thursday, and they screwed the pooch. They had the opportunity to chastise Mugabe, let him know that the surrounding nations were not going to continue taking refugees, etc. as the Zambian president seemed to say before the summit, comparing Zimbabwe to the "Titanic about to go down and pull most of its neighbors with it," and what happened? They came out with limp-wristed statements about dialogue needing to take place (yeah, tell that to the MDC people after they've been beaten by Mugabe's thugs) and that the West needed to lift its restrictions (so Mrs. Mugabe can go to London and Paris again and spend millions of dollars Zimbabwe doesn't have).
At this point, the West needs to wash its hands of the situation. If Africa doesn't want to put out the fire in its own house, screw them. Let the damn thing burn and don't come crying to the West.
2007-03-31 03:37:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by TheOnlyBeldin 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Unfortunately the disasterous US move of antagonizing a million Iraqis rather than just pursuing the ten most wanted and letting the Bath party live on has made any intervention very unlikely.
But in an ideal world, the UN, the African Union and various generous donors would simply buy a homeland for the ethnic minority in Zimbabwe, foster peace and cooperation in both Zimbabwes, and coerce (or bribe) all factions into accepting a democratic elections-based system of deciding the government of the day.
2007-03-31 05:46:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by Wise Kai 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
It will have to become like Rwanda before the other African States do anything, if even then. Thabo M'Beki of South Africa is a great friend of Mugabe, they were 'freedom fighters' at more or less the same time in Rhodesia and South Africa,
I am disappointed that Nelson Mandela has made no comment on what's happening.
2007-03-31 01:43:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by Rob Roy 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
It, and a lot of other "its" are of no interest to the west.
Much more damage has been, and will continue to be done in Zimbabwe and many other countries, with the west watching, knowing, bemoaning, and doing - nothing, while western governments stand by and "observe".
In any case, while not being anti African, I am a little cheesed off that my contributing generously to charities whose predominant focus has been the African continent, for the past 40 years, has seemed to do no more than result in increased demands for my help.
I am fed up with pouring money, combined with mine it is several tens of billions since the 1960s when I began to support African aid programmes, for that continent, only to continue to see a few people get very rich, wars to escalate, and poor people die.
My current inclination, reluctantly, is to give very serious thought to making no more contributions whatever, and let themselves sort things out.
2007-03-31 00:07:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Much worse. Zimbabwe, much like Darfur has very little to offer the western world. Since there are no resources, and Africa is not geographically desirable for military bases, there is nothing they can offer to attract western assistance. Unfortunately the histroy of Africa during the last 100 years has guaranteed that despots and dictators can flourish. The only thing that will change things in Africa is the African people.
2007-03-30 22:59:33
·
answer #5
·
answered by Eric V 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
Far worse, although it's already there. It's being farmed out to China, not redistributed to it's opwn people,. who are being shipped from concentration camp one to another.
If there was oil or another suchlike thing that could be leeched out, you'd see immediate action, of course.
People like MBeki are a JOKE. Maybe they're related to Mugabe.
2007-03-30 23:24:28
·
answer #6
·
answered by Unicornrider 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
As usual till its to late.Just like Rwanda.
2007-03-30 23:07:14
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
What are you suggesting? Do you want us to invade? As far as I know, we have no national interests there.
2007-03-30 23:04:09
·
answer #8
·
answered by yupchagee 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
it is not our business. they had rhodesia and tossed it away. time to pay-up.
2007-03-30 22:56:59
·
answer #9
·
answered by patriot07 5
·
1⤊
1⤋