President Robert Mugabe, 91, has long been one of the world’s most heartless and merciless dictators, but he seems also on a quest to show that he is also the most clueless. This week Mugabe expressed utter surprise that his people were starving as he and his notorious and corrupt family live like emperors. He assured that there is “no suffering” in Zimbabwe.
Most people have been reduced to selling things along the roadside. However, Mugabe expressed utter surprise by the notion of poverty in his country: “But what is it that the people are suffering from? Didn’t we give them land?”
Zimbabwe is a low-income, food-deficit country, ranked 156 out of 187 countries according to the 2013 UNDP Human Development Index. Currently, 72 percent of the population lives below the national poverty line (less than US$ 1.25 per day). Some 30 percent of the rural poor are considered to be ‘food poor’ or ‘extremely poor’. Although the prevalence of HIV has been reduced, it still remains high with nearly 15 percent of adults living with HIV – many of whom also suffer from malnutrition due to food insecurity.
Source: News24
I’ve been thinking about the comments that have been posted by Steg and others about armed conflict to topple genocidal regimens.
I think that this attitude stems from your own American Revolutionary Roots and has been passed down through the classroom.
But the truth is that the American Revolution was part of a much larger Global Conflict between the British Empire and France which continued until 1815 and the Battle of Waterloo.
The British were defeated by an American Alliance with countries such as France and Spain. Even neutral Russia sided unofficially with the Colonialists. The price Britain paid for their ultimate Global Victory was the loss of the American Colonies.
So when Steg is talking about SOLI training guerillas to fight for their freedom, I understand his thinking. It is a gut reaction of fighting spirit. But this is not how America won their independence from Britain, which at the time was a superpower fighting what they saw were farmers, in a war for which they had no real stomach.
The American Victory was procured with the assistance of their allies against a World Power, engaged in a Global Conflict.
So if we extrapolate these concepts to other theatres of conflict in today’s world it would appear that small arms training on its own cannot defeat a modern National Army. It can harass and disrupt, but can never win. Not on its own. The Americans didn’t win their independence this way and they didn’t fight their civil war this way either.
It seems to me that Armed Conflict begats more Armed Conflict and this is seen pretty much in all war zones.
So if a brutal Regimen is to be toppled by Armed Force, support of the National Army is required and in Zimbabwe this support appears to be absent or they would have done this already. In addition the rest of the world has turned its back on Zimbabwe and other countries in a similar situation in a “Potato Famine Analogy”.
Whilst Man has honed his skills of war to near perfection culminating in Weapons of Mad Destruction, the ability to build the peace following victory often fails. When you consider the success of rebuilding Germany and Japan you have to wonder why. Maybe it is because the WW2 was Total War and it was Total Surrender that made this possible? Other wars, which ended in stalemate did not create the same political solution and conflict continues to simmer below the surface. As the World Powers pull out of these regions the conflict flares up as the embers of war were never properly extinguished. What is perhaps most significant if all is that lessons are never learned and the same errors occur again and again.
This is why I am against Armed Conflict as the only weapon against a perceived enemy.
Real Victory can only be achieved by winning the minds of former and existing adversaries. A composite approach is required.
And this is something we are not very good at any more. We seem have forgotten how this was done in the past.
Ninian….You stated that Real Victory can only be achieved by changing the minds of current and former adversaries.
Feel free to make your case directly to ISIS, Al Queda, and the Taliban.(If they haven’t already cleaned up their act because of some judgement from your World Court).
I’m sure these groups will see the error of their ways once you establish a direct dialogue with them, face to face.
Tom Nash: Real Victory
You really have no real understanding of what I am talking about. You need to be able to think out of the box, not live in one.
I suggest you think long and hard and consider all the magnificent success of American Foreign Policy in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Palestine/ Israel Libya, Central and South America etc. Everything America has touched has turned to dust.
And yet America performed really well in the rebuilding of Germany and Japan.
And Ronald Regan “won” the Cold War.
If you can’t see what I am really suggesting I’m afraid there is no hope for you.
The price of failure is one too high to pay and your enemies will target your weaknesses mercilessly.
You will lose…..
And the “Free World” will have to pick up the pieces….. again.
Please review the “Zanu-PF” twitter webpage…scroll through the sundry photos posted for your viewing pleasure…a token white man, sporting a Zanu-PF t-shirt with a Mugabe likeness on the front, shows how twisted and lost this country is. The token white is not necessarily staged, Mugabe has a handful of dedicated white CIO agents, who do his lethal bidding, in fact, 2 can be spotted on various web pages at ZANU-PF rallies, they both stick out like cherries on a cream pie. Mugabe is now touting his wife to secure the reigns of power once he dies…his first wife was a good woman, who was able to restrain RGM from committing the atrocities in Bulawayo and throughout Zim, while she was living. Ken Flowers was head of the CIO under Smith and the nation has kept the template that Smith used, only flipping the script for RGM, with an added dash of “ultra-violence”, to maintain the status quo…
This goes back to your comment about “excluding politics” and “National Judiciaries”.
National judiciaries are intertwined with politics. I don’t see that you have presented a specific, realistic scenario that has a chance of functioning effectively.
Tom Nash: There is no perfect solution. In criminal law of crimes against humanity such as mass murder, the political interference could be minimised. If we are talking about government corruption my suggestion is a non starter.
But we aren’t
Sorry about autotypo errors.
This plan could be even be instigated remotely as long as access to a legal database could be obtained. This could overcome government boycotts.
Ninian…with your policy of “zero tolerance for crimes against humanity”, would you have removed Saddam and Gaddafi?
Ninian,
The U.N. has a c.70 year history of not acting in unison .The competing interests of different counties are brought together in that forum, with rare consensus on action.
In Syria, for example, the Russians, Chinese, and Iranians have a different set of interests than the Western powers.
Theoretically, the U.N
CAN act in unison. But there’s not much of a history of the U.N. overthrowing repressive regimes.
Foreign policy decision makers have to work with what they have, not an unrealistic expection of global agreement/cooperation.
The size of the U.S. military means that it would be disproportionately contributing to military action.
Another problem with what you’ve put forth in your comments about the obligations to have “zero tolerance” for regimes that violate human rights.
To be consistent in that view, you would have removed Saddam, Gaddafi, etc. for their crimes against humanity.
And those are the same actions you criticized earlier. You also noted that Assad’s father ruled with brutality and an iron fist, but ended tribal warfare (in IRAQ?!!??).
That seems to at least tacitly acknowledge the downside of toppling regimes.
IF the U.N. acted as one united military and political force, what you’re proposing might be “doable”. But policy makers do not have a global police force acting in unison.
Tom Nash:
I’m not saying this is easy but it must be done.
It needs to be on a legal basis not political like the UN.
I am not talking about my removing people from office.
I an talking about prosecution of criminals.
You may have trouble getting people like Saddam, Bin Laden, Assad etc. to appear in court.
Tom Nash: Court
All these things are true. The difficulties and obstacles are great. But a way needs to be found.
We are living in a world where it is not acceptable for America Russia or China etc can invade a country to impose their will. Just look at Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine, Eastern European Block Middle East etc for examples.
It just doesn’t work.
The authority of an apolitical International Court prosecuting crimes against humanity is a different Matter.
There are loads of ways this could be set up.
One possibility is to exclude governments and their political influence and to deal with National Judiciaries.
Whatever is set up it will be imperfect but it should have probitu and not be monopolised by the Great Powers.
And should this fail we need to prepare for Armageddon.
Russia and China have vetoed any sanctions against Mugabe in the U.N.
They would presumably have a voice in any kind of court sanctions, or simply ignore sanctions if imposed over their objections.
You mentioned Korea..that was actually a U.N.-sanctioned war.
I believe you mentioned the Nuremberg trials as a sort of model, but setting the stage for those trials involved some unpleasantness ( i.e., WWII).
Tom Nash:
You aren’t listening to me.
I am proposing to remove politics from the equation and bade this issue on International Judiciary.
The closest thing to what you are suggesting is the International Court at The Hauge.
What structural differences are you proposing from that court? And how do you get compliance?
Tom Nadh: I think this needs to be discussed by International Judiciary. One option could be to build on what already exists as in the Hague. But the ultimate court should be of global origins rather than European American, African or Asian etc if this is impossible have regional courts eg for Europe, the Americas, North and South and South East Asia, Africa, and Rest of World. This might make the system more workable? It would be for the Senior Judiciary to decide.
The remit and objectives need to be focused eg on crimes against humanity and the individuals perpetrating such crimes and the politicians need to be kept out as much as possible to enhance probity.
If we are talking about mass murder, there should be a common thread of through all legal systems. And we need to keep out of areas where system failure may be precipitated. As credibility is earned, the system should evolve as a product of its success.
I think this system makes more sense than the US and othet countries sending in soldier’s to get shot. If armed intervention is required a court could order this of the UN for example.
This means that all legal systems (not countries) will play a part in the administration of international justice
But whatever is created it should be safe from National Government interference as much as is possible.
Now there will be all sorts of pitfalls but this is a reasonable starting point.
Unless all people and all cultures agreed upon the moral foundation of law, it would be impossible to establish an effective international court system. You have to start with defining what makes a law have moral authority and what obligates everyone else to follow it. I doubt we would be able to get all the contributors on this blog to agree upon that principle.
Davidm2575: I disagree with your position. If what you say is true how was the Court in the Hague was created?
DavidM wrote: “Unless all people and all cultures agreed upon the moral foundation of law, it would be impossible to establish an effective international court system. You have to start with defining what makes a law have moral authority and what obligates everyone else to follow it. I doubt we would be able to get all the contributors on this blog to agree upon that principle.”
ninianpeckitt wrote: “I disagree with your position. If what you say is true how was the Court in the Hague was created?”
The International Court of Justice located in The Hague is not an effective international court system. It’s rulings are not compulsory. They are advisory. Besides that, the Security Council of the United Nations can veto their rulings. The court operates on the principle that no nation is superior or inferior to another nation. It is probably a good example of why I said what I said, that unless we all agree upon the basis of law and what gives law its moral authority, along with what obligates everybody else to follow that law, then there can be no effective international court system. Nations will continue to rise up against other nations.
ninian – you want a New World Order. Sorry. Cannot vote for that. I don’t even like the UN and they are pretty ineffective.
PCS: On the contrary I am wanting to dismantle a New World Order if this exists.
The Court I am suggesting has focal powers on crimes against humanity not on if America should have annexed Hawaii. You understand exactly what I am talking about.
The alternative is more terror outrages on US Soil as well as other countries.
Or do you plan to wait until they drop a nuclear weapon on you? It’s only a matter of time.
You need to think about these things
ninian – I thought your plan through and found it unworkable. Think of the General Assembly of the UN being a court. That is what you would have.
Now, let’s say you set this court up. Do I, as President, sent my best jurist or someone who will protect my nations interests?
“Hague”
ninian – how do you expect to take politics out the the International Judiciary. There were clearly politics on the Nuremberg Court. Check it out sometime.
Ninian- I think you missed my point?
SOLI is not a government entity. It is people putting their money and their lives where their mouths are, no coercion involved. They are not meant to be an army to fight. They are helping train volunteers who would fight for their freedom, the same way the US of A fought for ours.
The BIG idea, is that these natives of their country are receiving the training necessary to secure a free state. You begrudge the idea that people should have these opportunities?
In the same post you vilify Paul for not condemning collective actions against atrocities, while also condemning the people who would volunteer to actually DO something?
I believe all of us want common values of decency across the board. This will never happen. WELL, unless you are willing to go outright totalitarian and KILL everyone who has not toed the party line.
You cannot wish away human nature. We are ANIMALS. You have to realize your sensibilities are not mine, and that a lion does not know your rights. In the animal kingdom, it is not uncommon for one to literally be eaten alive. It is a brutal existence all across the board. The fact that we made it to ‘sapience’ and could thus really make our existence less brutal, is awesome. Yet the fact remains we are animals, and all of us have the capacity for violence.
You don’t agree that the best way to secure peace is to prepare for war? Or with my ‘drop a bunch of guns N ammo’ plan? That’s OK, but I think people this day and age generally misjudge the human animal. You have to- as you say- acknowledge reality.
We have seen The Monroe Doctrine, The Marshall Plan, and now The Ninian Doctrine.
If “the world powers ” are obligated to show “zero tolerance for crimes against mankind”, then the world powers are obligated, under the Ninian Doctrine, to commit ground troops to defeat ISIS.
They also were obligated, under the Ninian Doctrine, to remove Saddam Hussein from power. And Gadaffi as well, for there crimes against humanity.
The Ninian Doctrine conveniently reserves the right to criticize these actions if “a wave of anarchy” results from following that doctrine.
So the world is obligated to act in Zimbabwe…but if removal of Mugabe unleashed tribal violence/ slaughter, then the N.Doctrine says”bad move”..
Tom Nash: I’m very honoured with your nomenclature. But the problems to date have been managed by western alliances which really mean America. Period.
And this is the problem.
And it is a real problem.
America and Russia made a major contribution in the defeat of a global tyranny. It was the most valuable contribution in World History but did not address the post war tyranny of Stalin, Mao and others. But it did free millions.
What we need now is a Global Movement to address current issues of conflict and appalling brutality. In order for this to work it has to be apolitical with a governance structure related to International Law. A United Nations with legal teeth and the power to enforce legal judgment of international crimes against humanity. The foundations for this exist already and this is something to build on.
It is so easy to belittle these ideas. I agree it is a tall order. But in the absence of an alternative solution there would appear to be no other choice.
The world will not stand by to see more US invasions UK invasions Russian invasions etc and political smugness must be abandoned in order to address these issues. History will judge us harshly if we fail (again).
Allowing radical brutality to gain in strength affects us all and will only result in another Twin Towers or worse….
It is in everyone’s interest to cooperate. The current status is not the End Game by any means.
ninian – if there is a Global Force, my first move will be to have them free the Irish in Northern Ireland, then free the Falklands and all British territories and mandates.
I am suggesting an International Court with the power of force as deemed appropriate by the court. Based on Law.
Crimes against humanity might include mass murder, assassination without trial, torture etc with individuals held resonsible for crimes as in Nuremberg. If it was good enough for then it is good enough for now.
ninian – at least one justice of the US Supreme Court said the sentence at Nuremberg would not have held up to judicial scrutiny. Nuremberg was Winners’ Justice.
Paul C. Schulte: US Judge
One swallow doesn’t make a summer.
If the judge is right we must do better next time.
You are still avoiding the issue of Mugabe. What would you do about him?
Clue – Blaming the British is the wrong answer.
ninian – I answered what we should do about Mugabe right after I asked if you were ready to take your civics tests.
Colonialism is not unnatural…it’s an outgrowth of expansionism and progress…once a peoples grow up, they should be able to govern and maintain themselves, civil order and the status quo. Unfortunately this was not possible in Rhodesia, due in large part to vermin like Mugabe. Mugabe paid lip service to enhancing the quality of life of the natives of Rhodesia, because he despised the Brits and whitey, once he was given the power he abused it and maintained it through his secret police and terror squad, “the CIO”. Truth be told, Mugabe hates anyone who opposes him and will crush those who speak out, black or white. “Uncle Bob” maintained power much the same way the Caesar’s did, by paying off the Praetorian guard, a.k.a., (the CIO) with gold and other baubles, which are now burgeoning farms and land swelling with agriculture and livestock. Ian Smith stated that once the blacks have control of Rhodesia, in short order, it will devolve into chaos and bloodshed…took a few years, but Mugabe lived up to this prophecy and then some.
Hello Ninian,
I was replying to all the talk in the comments previous to mine about world policing. I do not believe the US should be the world police. I believe everyone should keep their own house in order. I believe the best way is to let peaceful life loving peoples be armed to the teeth, and trained to kill those who would interfere with their free, peace loving ways. My briefly detailed solution starts this off, with no direct cost to the American Taxpayer. There are other ways to help, too.
http://www.sonsoflibertyinternational.com/
The whole ‘armed society is a polite society’ mindset, combined with ,’If you want peace, prepare for war.”
Ninian Peckitt,
I think you might be failing to consider that the British were certainly no saints when it comes to conquest and subjugation of others in the name of land grabbing as well as actions that certainly would be considered crimes against humanity and war crimes in today’s international framework. So by focusing on the United States as being so replete with discord and hegemony, your points are tending to gloss over significant world events that were disruptive and resulting from British military and political actions.
There are several notable examples of genocide or crimes against humanity exacted by officials of the British with certainly the assent of political leadership. A few examples would be indigenous peoples of Tasmania, Australia and, in fact, North America by biological warfare to cause disease and weaken the population.
We also could look at the actions During the Boer War with the internment of civilians, most namely women and children, who died by the tens of thousands of starvation and disease in concentration camps. And, since we are discussing this region we could go into the Zulu Wars and the conquests of various African nations which resulted in the export of wealth to the British Government and officially sanctioned business interests that also tended to be backed up by military force to guarantee profits.
We could also reflect on the British actions in Ireland for centuries of subjugation of that nation. In fact, there was certainly evidence to indicate that what is commonly referred to as the Great Irish Famine was exacerbated by the British. And in drawing the comparison to the American Civil War that you propose was fostered by the disaster of the American Revolution, one only has to look at the example of Ireland where after its revolution in the early part of the 20th century, within an even shorter period the situation in Northern Ireland deteriorated into a thirty year insurgency that was essentially also a form of civil war in of itself.
And lastly, the notion that somehow the colonials must be certainly better off under British Rule seems to ignore the fact that perhaps that is a one-sided point of view and it could very well be the case that these individuals do not wish to be under colonial occupation, which should be by their own choice. How often was it that the British were not so eager to relinquish that control, such as in Malaya, India, South Africa, and the African continent. One only has to look at where the continent was in 1912 that with the exception of a very few such as Ethiopia and Liberia, the continent was almost completely controlled by European Interests by the vehicle of colonialism. Now, Africa is effectively released from this burden and there is no evidence to suggest the various peoples of Africa have any desire to return to their former dominance and dominion by foreign powers.
Darren Smith:
On many occasions I have posted details of the shame of British atrocities and never ever defended these historical events. I have been extremely critical of the unacceptable face of British History. I have posted about the horrors of shooting Aboriginals after church for sport in Tasmania and the extinction of this ethnic group and other horrors with condemnation.
I have focused on the United States to make a point that the USA does not hold nor has ever held the moral high ground and is in no position to patronise the rest of the World.
When the British left Malaya the Malays massacred the Chinese. And then vice versa.
When they left Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe seized power, made himself dictator and a reign of terror began which has completely destroyed the country. And if you call this progress? I don’t.
If you are to make a valid argument you must not work backwards from the outcome to make the blame fit your predetermined concepts. This is a fraudulent “Trumpesque” technique. You need to work through an issue chronologically with an open mind as if you are conducting a clinical trial and see what the outcome is…. then you can apportion blame correctly following detailed analysis.
You raised the issue of the Irish Potato Famine. This was related to a single type of potato the “Irish Lumper” that had no resistance to blight. Had a variety of potatoes been utilised the effect of blight would not have been do severe. But this was not understood at the time. The famine would have hit an independent Ireland with the same ferocity.
In 1844, Irish newspapers carried reports concerning a disease which for two years had attacked the potato crops in America. A likely source was the Eastern United States, where in 1843 and 1844 blight largely destroyed the potato crops. Ships from Baltimore, Philadelphia, or New York City almost certainly brought diseased potatoes to European ports. W. C. Paddock suggests that blight was transported on potatoes being carried to feed passengers on clipper ships sailing from America to Ireland.
The results were catastrophic.
Once introduced, it spread rapidly. By mid-August 1845, it had reached much of northern and central Europe; Belgium, The Netherlands, northern France, and southern England had all been stricken.
But in Ireland there were 1 million deaths related to dependency on the disease prone Irish Lumper. The Government had no idea what to do. And this is their Crime. They did practically nothing.
So the picture you are painting of the Big Bad British is one again that just isn’t true. If anyone was responsible for the potato blight it wasn’t the British.
But the real shame is in their abject failure to respond to a crisis in the United Kingdom.
Something that the popular and we’ll loved King George III would never have sanctioned.
As far as Africa is concerned independence has not delivered the freedom and quality of life enjoyed under your alleged oppressive British Rulers. Atrocities when they occurred were just as bad if not more so.
But this blog is about Robert Mugabe and what he has done to Zimbabwe and like the British in the potato famine America UK and the rest if the world is turning it’s back on these people.
So with the greatest if respect we are not in a position to lecture each other on these issues.
I have been provocative to make a point. And I have made this point in Spades.
Now the Global Powers should put some substance behind the rhetoric and create a world of zero tolerance to Crimes against Mankind.
Why won’t this happen? Because we would all be in the Dock.
The World Powers would no longer be able to take the High Ground.
And that would never do because your formula of convenience would no longer compute.
ninian – the potato famines are all on the British.
The French sociologist, Gustave de Beaumont, visited Ireland in 1835 and wrote: “I have seen the Indian in his forests, and the Negro in his chains, and thought, as I contemplated their pitiable condition, that I saw the very extreme of human wretchedness; but I did not then know the condition of unfortunate Ireland…In all countries, more or less, paupers may be discovered; but an entire nation of paupers is what was never seen until it was shown in Ireland.”
Paul C. Schulte: I have explained what happened in Ireland and the similarities of non action in Ireland with non action in Zimbabwe and elsewhere.
Paul does not condemn the lack of collective action to bring Robert Mugabe to justice, which incidentally is relevant to this blog. He demonstrates no empathy in the suffering of others in Zimbabwe. His views are as empty as the plates of the victims of the famine. As long as he is free with his God given Right of “personal freedom” his main course can regurgitate the empty arguments of a privileged position, whilst others are starving to death.
This is an example of everything that is wrong in America and why atrocities continue to cast its shadow on the surface of the Earth.
Robert Mugabe turned a rich agricultural land into a wilderness. He has exploited his people mercilessly for his own personal gain. He has lied with impunity. He has not played to the strengths if his people and only perpetuated a political apartheid in the disposession of citizens who could have made an invaluable contribution to an all inclusive multicultural society that created wealth, with a high standard of living for all.
I want to see a World with common values of decency. The things America professes to support but never delivered. I want to see individuals brought to account for their crimes by a world expressing zero tolerance for crimes against st humanity. I want to concentrate on what is going wrong in the Real World and to try to put it right through consensus whenever possible.
Others want to join paramilitary groups to protect themselves against King George III, President Obama, the Illuminati, New World Order, UFOs and God knows what else.
I want to know how Sons of Liberty International with its 36 members can defeat the US Army, Chinese Army or any ither Army for that matter.
You couldn’t even shoot down a cruise missile although you just might manage to fight your way out of a paper bag. It’s about time you grew up. You are only an embarrassment to your country. SOLI are just taking your money and laughing all the way to the Bank.
ninian – there was direct action by the English government, not non action. And I commented on the problem early on.
Dictators like Mugabe took power in the chaos that was created when the unnatural condition of colonialism was ended, typically through violent revolution. The Smith regime may have been better than the present one but one has always to ask, what would the place have evolved into if there had not been an European regime forced upon it, for better or for worse?
A minority ruling a disenfranchised majority is unnatural and regardless of how educated, christianized, or bought and paid for the majority, they will eventually revolt. The chaos will fill the void and that is the source of monsters such as Mugabe, Saddam, etc.
It is the stuff mad scientist movies are made of, messing with nature.
Isaac: Messing with Nature
Well if we look at what happened in the United States we had a Coup d’Etat against a non tyrannical British Government (and constitutional Monarch with no power) which imposed the lowest taxation rate in the British Empire to pay for a war waged on the colonies, in which George Washington fought for the British Crown.
There was transfer of power to a new (rich) Colonial elite with disenfranchisement of large numbers of the population including women, slaves, Indians.
The Americans went on a land grabbing exercise to annexe territory legally / illegally and committed genocide and ethnic cleansing of Indians. They failed in the conqueSt of Canada.
The second amendment resulted in anarchy on the streets with mass murder common place and a lunatic lobby strongly supporting this status quo in today’s world.
How am i doing? I could go on for hours if necessary.
One really interesting thing I discovered is the role of Catherine the Great of Russia in the American Revolution. Whilst Russia stayed neutral (officially) she helped as much as possible and in particular refused to be allied with Britain.
Alaska appears to have been sold as a consequence of the Crimea War and the possibility of annexation by the British from Canada.
So the anti Russian sentiments expressed by Americans on this site from time to time is interesting. In truth it was a coalition of powers that defeated the British not George Washington.
America chose the Road of Revolution and the result is a mess. A bloody civil war was fought 90 years after independence. Massive casulaties the like of which Amercia had never seen before. America still a Nation of corrupt Revolutionaries with extreme views helping despots stay in power and more importantly is oblivious to this.
Canada, Australia, New Zealand didn’t follow this route. Democracy evolved without Revolutuon. Singapore and Hong Kong are also hugely successful.
Revolution is not always inevitable and if you don’t understand this, you don’t understand anything.
Empire does not necessarily imply subjugation and in certain situations improves the living standards of living for the population. The British Empire is a good example which succeeded more often than it failed. Other Empires did not mirror this and we’re brutal eg involving genocide. Countries in North and South America are included in this group.
Countries which do revolt display a history of conflict post revolution. U.S. U.K. Ireland, most if Europe, India, Pakistan, Middle East, China, Russia, South America, France, Italy to name just a few. In fact it is more common to make war than it is to settle differences with diplomacy.
So it is wrong to base all that is “good in the world” on the American Example. America is no better than anyone else, and a lot worse than you might think.
There is absolutely no question that some countries were better off under colonial rule. Especially British Colonial Rule. There is no question that this includes Zimbabwe despite the unacceptable stain of Apartheid.
But does it include the United States? Here is what one American thinks…..
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VMqcLUqYqrs
Paul C Schulte
Yes – you are mirroring what I am saying. A weak Japanese Force defeated a much stronger British Garrison. It was the worst defeat in military history for the British Army and 80,000 prisoners were taken.
The British were out manoeuvred, out fought and were taken in by Japanese tactics moving trucks at night with headlights on at night to a false invasion point from the Malaysian Peninsula and then driving back to the real invasion point with their lights turned off. Simple and brilliant if the truth be told.
Percival did not realise the size of the Japanese forces and that they were exhausted – low on ammunition and could not afford losses in house to house fighting wit such a small force.
Percival was told that his water supply and ammunition would run out in 24 hrs and that’s why he surrendered. Should he have been Court Marshalled? Probably – as he had enough resources to win. But History has recently been a bit kinder to Percival.
If the British had armed the Chinese the victory would have been different. But they didn’t and the rest is history.
Life under the Japanese demonstrated that at least on this occasion the British were the Good Guys.
They were also the Good Guys in Rhodesia in comparison to what came after them.
So to blame the British for what happened in Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe is like blaming them for Donald Trump.
Isaac is delusional…colonialism gave these countries Christianity, first and foremost and education, a better quality of life, with healthcare as well an an infrastructure…Zimbabwe is a toilet thanks to Mugabe, when the Rhodies ran the show they had schools, hospitals, and a sense of the first world, that enhanced the mood and feeling of it’s citizenry, due to the solid infrastructure that Britain and later Ian Smith laid down for the citizens. Sure the blacks felt slighted, but they weren’t being tortured and butchered by the gestapo called Zanu-PF. I have family who are from Salisbury, and they witnessed first hand Mugabes savagery and the mendacity he peddled for years, in fact decades…this is the aftermath of his stupidity and evil…Isaac is a carp
Should be “ever ruled”.
I didn’t know that Assad’s father ever rule Iraq.
Isaac sayeth “The European powers that colonized Africa are, ultimately, to blame for the majority of the chaos in Africa. Belgium, France, Great Britain, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Italy, etc partitioned the country and enslaved the population. ” ….which is the most PREPOSTEROUS notion I have heard… since the last time I heard a fool say this.
Decolonialization is long done and over and the Africans are doing a great job murdering each other. ITs hardly the fault of Europe at this point. Really ridiculous Isaac.
Decolonialization is going to come home to roost in Palestine…. aimed at the European zionist jewish settlers and their descendants… and the sauce will be for the gander.
Ninian
The church was the vanguard of the colonial powers. There was no naked honesty in what the armies of the lord did. There was no statement to equal the honesty of the bank robber who when asked why he robbed banks replied, “Because that’s where the money is.”
Fighting to repel invaders is probably the only force stronger than fighting because one’s god desires it. Without god the thuggery would have subsided sooner. The colonial god is the god of thugs and thuggery.
In Africa and the Middle East the primary weapon of the colonial powers remains. The colonial powers would design an area with a majority and a minority. Then they would arm and train the minority to subdue and control the majority. This is going on still today. It exists where ever there is a minority, armed to the teeth by outside powers, controlling a majority. The real problem is when the colonial power leaves because of whatever reason one wishes to believe, and the majority sits a while, and thinks, and remembers, and grabs a few machetes. This is precisely what happened in Rwanda, what is happening in Iraq, and what just might happen someday in Palestine.
Isaac is right about the Church’s role and its obsession with conversion through force on a pretext of saving souls. This was especially vicious in the Catholic World.
The tactics of the Imperial Power was to Divide and Rule. The British were the masters of this skill. But America was quick to learn and demonstrated success in Hawaii and the Philippines.
The British were careful nor to arm the indigenous population whenever this was feasible. For example they refused to arm the Chinese in Singapore before the fall of the Island Fortress in 1942.
This proved to be a grave miscalculation and a humiliating defeat for Britain when a nearly exhausted Japanese force defeated a more powerful enemy.
British Colonies have generally been successful following independence and I have suggested why this might be the case.
The Rwanda problems really predate the Colonialist Powers. The Kingdom of Rwanda dominated from the mid-eighteenth century, with the Tutsi kings conquering others militarily, centralising power, and later enacting anti-Hutu policies.
Germany colonised Rwanda in 1884 as part of German East Africa, followed by Belgium, which invaded in 1916 during World War I. Both European nations ruled through the kings and perpetuated a pro-Tutsi policy.
The Hutu population revolted in 1959. They massacred numerous Tutsi and ultimately established an independent, Hutu-dominated state in 1962. The Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front launched a civil war in 1990. Social tensions erupted in the 1994 genocide, in which Hutu extremists killed an estimated 500,000 to 1 million Tutsi and moderate Hutu. The RPF ended the genocide with a military victory.
Iraq has been in tribal conflict for hundreds of years and this was brought to an end by Assad”s father who ruled with an iron fist and with brutality – but kept the peace maybe for the first time.
It is true that conflict occurs when the colonial power leaves but this is not always the case and when conflict breaks out, it is not always the fault of the former colonial power which in fact was often the vehicle to broker peace between traditional enemies.
In the USA for example it took 90 years for the civil war to break out following independence and within this period of time 36 wars were fought by the United States against a broad range of enemies. In fact the United States took on pretty much anyone that happened to be around at the time and a lot that weren’t.
I am arguing that there is a difference standing your ground in a conflict and ethnic cleansing and genocide. And I am arguing that we are now in an age where we have the ability to prevent mass murder.
Some argue “it is not our problem” and in a free world they are entitled to their opinion.
I am entitled to mine and I think that allowing these people to be massacred stinks….
It is uncivilised amoral and unacceptable and provides a snapshot of the bankruptcy of our Culture.
ninian – Singapore with 80,000 British soldiers surrendered to the Japanese who had 15,000 soldiers. I always felt Percival should be court-martialed. His tactics were wrong from start to finish. Any guns the British gave the Chinese would have meant one less the British had.
Pickett’s insight is also very cogent and insightful. Mugabe calls himself the “black Hitler”…in fact, delights in this appellation, which he gave himself… as he sports a little kinky Hitler stache, if you look closely. Many of his contemporaries, including Mandela spurned “uncle bob” years ago, as they accurately characterized him as a “tin-horn” dictator, who was a rapacious plunderer, with vengeance and hatred as his manifesto…”uncle-bob” is cancer and has only one white cabinet member in the Zimbabwe government David Coltart, who is the nations only calm, sane voice of reason…all other’s are under Mugabe’s demonic spell
Zanu-PF is a terror squad, pure and simple. Mugabe has been banned from going to Europe, but still flies into Rome and was at the papal Mass of pope Francis the I. Why he is not turned back at the airport in Rome is still perplexing, Mugabe is Catholic, in name only, and was educated in grammar and secondary school by Jesuits. When he was released in 1975 from prison, Ian Smith was aggressively trying to assassinate him, but Mugabe slipped over the border into Mozambique, with the assistance of a nun, who later regretted having helped this cockroach. Mugabe slyly cultivated the west for a number of years, as he sought the goodwill of the US and G.B., all the while laying traps for his master-plan, which was to liquidate whitey and reclaim the farms, that were legally owned by white farmers, who had the deed to this land, purchased whilst the country was Zimbabwe, NOT Rhodesia. When Mugabe dies, hell-fire awaits…an eternal suffering, in fact, his suffering will probably become legendary even in Hell.
Naja nivea is absolutely correct.
I believe that in today’s world humanity has a duty to address these issues and the hipocsisy to do nothing.
We are now living in a world where the perpetration of atrocities are totally acceptable and if zero tolerance is implimented a solution will be forthcoming.
The opportunity to allow Robert Mugabe to escape justice is absolutely unacceptable