Urban Renewal, Zimbabwe Style!

[ICT/316]

Well, Zimbabwe President Bobby Mugabe is taking "Urban Renewal" to different level. Burning, smashing and bulldozing all the shantytowns. The campaign dubbed Operation Murambatsvina, or "drive out trash". Harare will be full of loft apartments and condo's in no time!

link/source:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050610/...babwe_strike_1

Bill

_________________

“[clears throat] Well, I could be wrong, but I believe uh, diversity is an old wooden ship that was used during the civil war era.”

- Ron Burgundy

[abrowne]

...where, exactly, will they go? Does he expect he can make them disappear? I fear that he might just make them disappear.

[jordanb]

Slash and burn is Mugabe's solution to everything. As to where they will go... I don't think he thinks that far ahead.

[mgk920]

...where, exactly, will they go? Does he expect he can make them disappear? I fear that he might just make them disappear.

Well, he has done a very good job of quickly making his country's agriculture disappear, so I don't see him having any problem at all with that minor detail.

<sigh...>

Mike

[abrowne]

It's not that he made the agriculture disappear, per se, its more that he persecuted, killed, and deported those who worked on and owned those agricultural plots. From what I understand the land is sitting idle, simply awaiting competent workers.

This is part of the problem with Africa. Nations find it very, very difficult to continue investing large sums of money into humanitarian projects when they turn their backs for one moment only to see this sort of crap erupt in their absence. Right or wrong, this sort of thing certainly damages perceptions, and thus dampens willingness to help. Congratulations, Mugabe - you've been successfully digging that hole deeper for years now!

[pommyplanner]

Unfortunately, Zimbabwe used to be a promising and affluent African country, it was one of the more stable countries being agricultural and mineral rich and importantly one of the few African countries who experienced little tribal conflict. Unfortunately the lasting legacy of a colonialism, a bitter civil war, poor distribution of wealth amongst the population and dictatorship with a long term stranglehold on a nation has limited it growth and prosperity. Mugabe appears to of created a climate of fear and social and economic instability. He has removed the rich white land owners, who although owned large parts of Zimbabwe, employed many people and contributed greatly to the countries GNP and stability to ‘hand back to the people’, in other words his corrupt government.

While he is in power, there is little hope for Zim, but who is to replace him? Another flavour of the month UK/EU/US backed dictator who ticks all the right boxes but is equally oppressive and corrupt? And lets not forget we in this forum come from a majority western/usually white/middle class/educated/conservative/liberal perspective viewing Mugabe as a terrible tyrant, but the majority of Africa and African leaders salute Mugabe as a hero who stands up to colonial patronisation and sanctions. For example, the Commonwealth of Nations (with a membership 53 of countries, with 1.8 billion citizens, about 30 percent of the world's population, a third of which are in Africa) rejected attempts by the UK, Canada and Australia to kick him out of the Commonwealth some 2-3 years ago. He still has strong support in these key nations, including South Africa (significantly).

The future? Well, while he clears the land of its people through a somewhat demented urban renewal program (again installing fear and instability), the western world looks on and stands back criticising in web forums and newspaper columns like this. But what’s the alternative? another US coalition backed disaster like Iraq..........

As for aid, its just another way of making ourselves feel better but also when it does arrive in countries like Zim, it falls into the hands of those in power eg. local militia, who distribute how they see fit eg. to their own supporters. The somewhat ‘undermined’ UN (post Iraq) should be responsible for all aid coming into the country, but this a short term solution.

Apologies for the rant but this is the way i see it!

This article today (10th June) in the UK’s ‘Independent’ newspaper covers the story well:
http://www.independent.co.uk/

[The One]

At least they haven't gone through the mandatory African blood letting yet..... That place is such a tragedy....and they were doing well for so many years.....bummer.....A destabalized Zimbabwe or anywhere else seems to be a good thing for the weak kneed South African's South Africa has done more covert & overt harm to all of its neighbors than any of the colonial powers in the last 25 years (at least since Portugal ran away)

[abrowne]

I know a few South African immigrants here in Canada. They hold some, uhh, questionable beliefs...

[SkeLeton]

Africa.... is doomed, just like several countries in Latin america, to eternal poverty... why? It's not because they can't create or distribute wealth, but they lack the education to use it. This lack of education is not only inherent of the poor submitted people, but also the ones in power live off everyone else and get rich while they're on power and leave the country poorer than it was before.

[CCMNUT39]

While Pommyplanner is certainly welcome to his/her/its rant....let's not forget that the US and UK are pledging how many millions of dollars to Africa? There is this huge push by Hollywood for the "ONE" campaign to stamp out povert as well....

As far as Africa is concerned, let em rot. How much money are we going to throw at a country that makes no effort to better themselves? Yes, you do have countries that are exceptions to the rule, especially in North Africa (Morroco, Egypt, Libya) and some in South Africa. After Ethopia and some of the other genocide atrocities in that region, it's throwing good money after bad. It's one thing to want to go and help others less fortunate, its another to certainly have your hand bitten while you are there.

And with Iraq, what can you say. It's a neverending battle with you folks who think that Saddam should have continued on course. He never did anything really wrong, killed anyone, started any wars, gassed civilians, or maunfactured weapons of mass destruction. He was one hell of a guy, a humanitarian if you will. It's just G.W. having visions of glorys as he lays his wee head on his pillow.Yes, I know, the U.S. coalition has not found any WMD. Doesn't mean he never possessed them or that they are not in Syria's or Iran's hands. Look to the first Gulf War and the fact that theIraqi Air Force deserted to Iran.

When Africa is ready to make serious changes, they will. Just like any other society.

[Dan]

I know a few South African immigrants here in Canada. They hold some, uhh, questionable beliefs...

Racist, or just "whenwes?" Most South African immigrants I've met here in the US aren't racist, but they left because they were personally affected by crime.

In the days when Zim was called Rhodesia, whites were a far lower percentage of the population than in South Africa. If whites made up a larger part of the population in Zimbabwe, could their economic influence have provided some "checks and balances" to Mugabe's plans? Would Mugabe implement his "kill whitey" program if they made up about 15% of the population (as in South Africa today) instead of just 5% (when Rhodesia gained its independence and majority rule began)?

[jmello]

Racist, or just "whenwes?" Most South African immigrants I've met here in the US aren't racist, but they left because they were personally affected by crime.

Most that I know left when their power was threatened at the end of apartheid. Of course, they have other explanations.

[abrowne]

I've met both varieties. One fellow in particular claimed that blacks were lazy (gee, I guess that's how they rose up from oppression of the Apartheid, then?). It's a sticky situation. Another fellow said the blacks stole the country - I couldn't even keep a straight face for this one considering Africa's colonial past.

[BKM]

And lets not forget we in this forum come from a majority western/usually white/middle class/educated/conservative/liberal perspective viewing Mugabe as a terrible tyrant, but the majority of Africa and African leaders salute Mugabe as a hero who stands up to colonial patronisation and sanctions. For example, the Commonwealth of Nations (with a membership 53 of countries, with 1.8 billion citizens, about 30 percent of the world's population, a third of which are in Africa) rejected attempts by the UK, Canada and Australia to kick him out of the Commonwealth some 2-3 years ago. He still has strong support in these key nations, including South Africa (significantly).

Thank Goodness for a STRONG LEADER WHO STANDS UP TO THE EVIL WHITE DEVIL, MAN!

At least you're not expecting us to give this vicious thug...oh, sorry, "revolutionary leader" any money.

You left out that much of the confiscated land is being given to his cronies and party leaders.

I can acknowledge his history. Heck, Congo is the mess it is today largely because of Belgian colonialism. One evil (Colonialism) does not justify another.

And no, I don't think the US/UK should invade and replace him-I have no easy solutions. Just don't try to justify his rule because other African dictators and one party state hacks find it useful for rhetorical purposes to support him. Few of them have any more legitimacy, anyway.

When Africa is ready to make serious changes, they will. Just like any other society.

Given the rapid devolution of Iraq toward Civil War and Iranian-style religious tyranny (as bad as Sadaam was, at least women were not routinely beaten for not wearing hejab) your opimism is touching.

Why do you not apply this same rule to Iraq?. This disaster is costing us billions of dollars-a bigger waste of moiney than foreign aid, don't you think?

[Journeymouse]

And with Iraq, what can you say. It's a neverending battle with you folks who think that Saddam should have continued on course. He never did anything really wrong, killed anyone, started any wars, gassed civilians, or maunfactured weapons of mass destruction. He was one hell of a guy, a humanitarian if you will. It's just G.W. having visions of glorys as he lays his wee head on his pillow.Yes, I know, the U.S. coalition has not found any WMD. Doesn't mean he never possessed them or that they are not in Syria's or Iran's hands. Look to the first Gulf War and the fact that theIraqi Air Force deserted to Iran.

When Africa is ready to make serious changes, they will. Just like any other society.

Umm... Do you know how bad that sounds? African countries are allowed to sort themselves out, but Arabian and Asian (?) countries are not to be trusted and have to have change enforced (thinking of Afghanistan and Iraq)? And I think you'll find that most people aren't argueing that Saddam Hussein was nice and fluffy, they're argueing that another country has no legal right to go charging in and make changes. At least not without the rest of the world.

Moral grey areas are fantastic, aren't they?

[pommyplanner]

Umm... Do you know how bad that sounds? African countries are allowed to sort themselves out, but Arabian and Asian (?) countries are not to be trusted and have to have change enforced (thinking of Afghanistan and Iraq)? And I think you'll find that most people aren't argueing that Saddam Hussein was nice and fluffy, they're argueing that another country has no legal right to go charging in and make changes. At least not without the rest of the world.

Moral grey areas are fantastic, aren't they?

i full support your point journeymouse, i think CCMNUT39 needs to get his facts straight instead of believing the commercially driven pro-war/ bush propaganda spewed out across the networks by ABC, NBC et al news post 9/11.
Besides, there are plenty of dictators around the world who need regime change, and he/she talks of saddam sarcastically as a person who "never did anything really wrong, killed anyone, started any wars, gassed civilians, or manufactured weapons of mass destruction". Its ironic that all those headings apply to the Bush administration:

1. "Never did anything wrong" = Bushs 4 years in government. eg. ignorance surrounding climate change and increasing gap between rich and poor
2. "Killed anyone"= large numbers of Iraqis and Afghans and coalition troops
3. "Started any wars" = i think that’s pretty obvious
3. "Gassed civilians" - the death penalty still exists in the US
4. "Manufactured weapons of Mass Destruction" - The US has the largest arsenal of nuclear warheads in the world and that’s not to mention modern weapons which are equally if not more devastating.

I think this clearly shows US (and UK for that fact) meet the criteria of a regime change! i wish Bush would do us all a favour.

ps. i also expect to now be investigated by government agencies because I’ve mentioned the words "bush" "war" "mass" "destruction" "nuclear" in this forum, hmm so much for freedom of speech.........

[Journeymouse]

I think this clearly shows US (and UK for that fact) meet the criteria of a regime change!

Before I agree to meet with you and commence the Revolution (the "password" being "African Swallow"), I need to check that you're not a smelly Conservative or even further Right Wing...

[pommyplanner]

Before I agree to meet with you and commence the Revolution (the "password" being "African Swallow"), I need to check that you're not a smelly Conservative or even further Right Wing...

i think you may of guessed that i am not. "African Swallow" sounds like a dodgy blue movie, but other than that i'll join in on the 'Bush' revolution!

[Journeymouse]

i think you may of guessed that i am not. "African Swallow" sounds like a dodgy blue movie, but other than that i'll join in on the 'Bush' revolution!

I was talking about Blair - and would you prefer a real Ministry of Funny Walks?