AppliedCynicism/Zimbabwe

The situation in Zimbabwe is getting desperate. If you were someone in a position of power, for example Tony Blair, what would you do to improve matter?

CorkScrew's take:

I think the obvious problem at the moment is Mr Mugabe. The Atlantic has an excellent [description] of how he's brought the country down - he's a one-man political disaster.

The problem is that the organisation he has built up around himself is remarkably coherent, despite having no definite ideology. It is unlikely to turn against him as he is the source of short-term wealth. If Mugabe is assassinated then there might be some short-term confusion in the upper ranks but in the long term the movement will keep on moving.

Frankly, I think that Zimbabwe is a powder keg and that the rest of the world could do worse than light the fuse and cover their ears...

By this I mean that to strip away the power of Mugabe's mob there needs to be a stronger countermovement, which can most easily be done by making Mugabe unpopular and/or a liability. A liability he already is, but only in the long-term. Additionally, in the short term it's hard to become unpopular when you have a mob standing by to beat up anyone who says a word against you.

This system of governance is short-termist and ultimately self-destructive. The most efficient way to deal with the regime would thus, in my opinion, be to speed up the destruction. The side-effects in the form of starvation and so on will be unpleasant, but the result will be either the total alienation of a hungry population or an attempt at reunification by means of war. In the first situation, the state would be sufficiently blatantly undemocratic for a group like the UN to step in (assuming there isn't actually a civil war, in which case we'd have an even better excuse to help). By deposing the government, bringing in food and restoring farms to effective management (there are good black managers out there, but they're starving after being kicked off the farms), the UN could show itself as a shining beacon of light in the world, yadda yadda yadda.

The second case, that of war, is a bit harder to predict fully, but I owuld expect it to go something like this:
1) Mugabe needs a gimmick to keep power
2) Mugabe starts a war
3) Mugabe attacks a neighbouring nation, probably of a different tribal background (with hate rhetoric therefore freely available)
4) Mugabe exhausts all his resources and popularity trying to defeat said nation, who will of course be reinforced diplomatically if not physically by UN efforts (preferably subtly and in an unmistakably heroic manner - protecting refugee camps and all that).
5) The war returns to Zimbabwean turf and rolls straight over Mugabe's mob
6) The UN steps in to pick up the pieces

Added bonuses of this methodology include:
1) Mugabe is completely isolated from other African leaders, so there's no backlash from them against us lot.
2) Most of Mugabe's mob get brought down with him. Even those who don't are then shunned by a pissed-off population.

So how to trigger this decline? It's gonna happen anyway, but the sooner the better (although it might be good to wait til the US has calmed down a bit...) My first thought involves subversive action by special forces, but that's too easily traceable. Anyone got any thoughts/references on the subject of bringing down a nation from within?

In what way is the government not already blatantly undemocratic enough to step in and depose?

Hmmm. That's a fairly good point - except that most of the systems in place are fine, it's just the guy currently at the top has his own little militia that's the problem. Offering assistance to deal with the militia is the usual help, but won't work in this case because the democratically elected ruler will turn such help down. So the only real problems I can see with deposing him are appearing to damage democracy as an ideal and the unrest it would bring to the region. With the state the congo is in, standing well back is advised... --Vitenka

: The systems that were in place were fine. Zimbabwe used to provide the region's food. Now it doesn't - and it doesn't because those systems have been deconstructed. The old, unfair social order had the main advantage that the people who owned the land were the ones who knew how to farm it. --Requiem

: In the way that South Africa said it was democratic? Don't ask me why. --Requiem

I don't see how that follows? The government is blatantly undemocratic, it has clearly failed its people and the people know it, why wait for things to get worse before making them better? - ChiarkPerson

: This part is a fair question and needs a response. 'tenka's point above is relevant. - MoonShadow

(Or is the problem that this solution exposes how impotent we are, whereas sitting around working out complicated step-by-step methodologies for doing something implausible and unnecessary makes us feel important and clever in a way that acknowledging a simple solution that we can't put into practice doesn't?) - ChiarkPerson

This part seems out of order. Whether particular suggestions are "implausible and unnecessary" or not is part of the subject of this page, and just repeatedly asserting that they all are does nothing to advance the debate. As for the remaining rhetoric - ChiarkPerson: what sort of response did you hope to receive by writing this paragraph in this way? Is there a genuine question there that you wish answered? - MoonShadow

: I'm guessing that the numbered steps above are what is being referred to, in which case it's all very well sitting here and coming up with step-by-step theories about how Zimbabwe could progress towards a better system of governance but, really, we are kidding ourselves if we think we have any control over the future of Zimbabwe (unless anyone here has power in this matter that hasn't been disclosed). Having said that, the point of this page / section is to play "But what if they listened to us...?", in which case, we shouldn't try coming up with complicated scenarios that involve all sorts of independent agencies working as we would like; rather, we should try to think about what would actually be a good solution to the issue. Please don't anyone tell me that speeding up the country's descent into chaos withthe intermediate aim of plunging the region into war is actually the best thing for the world. --M-A

You are either trying to start a philosophical debate or trolling. I vote trolling. --Vitenka

I vote not trolling. I also vote against being reactionary and for conversation that is more than a succession of swipes at each other (sometimes other people want to discuss the issue, but don't really want to get caught up in these fights). --M-A

I don't think this is trolling, but I would point out that a simple solution that we can't actually apply isn't in any real sense a solution. What I was proposing when I set up this section of the wiki was a think tank - a group to think about problems, and think about which situations they're solveable under, and which they're not. Obviously, they're mostly not solveable from the point of view of Cambridge students. However, from the POV of the Prime Minister, they might be solveable.

: That contradicts itself. If a simple solution you can't apply is not a solution, how is a complex 'solution' you can't apply any more one?

I appreciate that we're not really adding anything to the sum total of human achievement here, but it's a really good way to get the hang of world affairs. ChiarkPerson: you may understand it all already, but I need all the help I can get and having a group of people to bounce ideas off is helpful for me. - CorkScrew

: If you really want to understand, I suggest either reading some good books or doing a course like [U213]. Discussing issues with a bunch of people just as uninformed as yourself will not help your understanding one jot. And I can't help either: I am by no means an expert. I am just prepared to admit what I do and don't know instead of trying to appear all-knowing on all subjects. Yes, I do know that this means they must have made a mistake accepting me to the University.

Edith: Get the Airforce to drop food and aid parcels with "With Love From Great Britain" stamped on them over the worse affected areas. Try not to hit too many houses.

That's actually one of the best ideas I've heard. There must be some reason why that wouldn't help in the long term or we'd have done it already surely? Maybe it's just the expense of the jet fuel and the fear that Mugabe will claim credit... - CorkScrew

I fear you are expecting too much of our government. We aren't doing it because it would provide very little for Britain and would cost a lot of money. There may well be some altruists in the government, but not enough of them - SunKitten (well, it is AppliedCynicism)

Yeah. Main reason - can't afford it. Subsidiary reason 1 - aircraft would get shot at for being British. Subsidiary reason 2 - Mugabe's men would collect up the food aid and keep it. --Requiem

: Yes, armies do tend to grab food aid. We'd do better to lace the food with cannabis and put "With Love From Jamaica" on it. --Pallando

Um. We (through the UN) are already providing food aid, so 'can't afford it' isn't the reason (though it's made difficult by Mugabe refusing to say how much is really needed).

Assuming that what is really at issue is the flyovers (otherwise the answer to Edith is 'we are'), the point is that according to convention you can't fly aircraft over another country's airspace without permission, and Mugabe is unlikely to give permission. Of course in practical terms it could be done, but you'd have to be prepared to shoot down the Zimbabwean air force's interceptors: not difficult, except politically, but politically very difficult. I'm sure MoonShadow will come up with some clever comment about 'just what we did in Iraq, then?' and, yes, pretty much that. But if we're going to do that we might as well go the whole way and topple Mugabe's government, with all the attendant problems.

: Edith: Well I put that down as a pipe dream answer that I knew wouldn't work (more like AppliedIdealism? really). But the serious sugestions to take from what I was trying to say were:

Most Food Aid from the UK or EU comes in unmarked sacks labled UN Food Aid. US food aid is stamped in large letters with With Love From The United States of America. It's a cheap trick but it works.
Mugabe would never allow food labled with such blatent propaganda to be distributed though official channels. Thus the air drop. Of course that raises other issues but sod it. Let's be nasty and shoot down the air force. This is AppliedCynicism and we don't care.
If we invade then the government of the occupied state is our problem. If we encourage the overthrow of Mugabe by empowering his people. That's their problem. Again, AppliedCynicism in action.

Of course an alternative to spending lots of money on food aid is to drop that amount in US Dollar bills (Euros might work better from a propaganda view) over the poorer areas. The ensuing havoc to the economy ought to stir things up a bit. Again leaflets With Love from the United Kingdom --Edith

My suggestions are basically non-violent acts of war however you see it. Attempting the direct overthrow of a head of state is an act of war (or at least a gross violation of soviegnity) however you do it. Most of the suggestions I've seen seem to suggest this solution in one way or another. --Edith

What, precisely, is your point? You're trying to 'improve matters' (that being the original challenge) by destroying the economy further, or encouraging civil war and not helping, or... what? Is this some new meaning of 'improve'? How exactly does putting 'with love from the Ivory Tower' on the side of the food empower the people? I simply dont' understand what you're getting at or how this is supposed to make things better for anyone, so maybe you could explain?

: Oh I'm not trying to help the people of Zimbabwe at all. The question posed seemed to be "how can we improve the situation for the United Kingdom?" which is usually what international politics boils down to once AppliedCynicism occurs. The With Love from the U.K is to counter the rhetoric usually employed against the UK of neo-colonialism, actions speak louder than words and we're the ones sending the food. --Edith
: All this hangs off the interpretation of AppliedCynicism, if the interpretation is "How can we make things better?" then I suggest looking at current efforts. Despite what many people tend to think the people in government do genuinely care and have looked at the situation in detail. If on the other hand the question is: "If you are an amoral bastard trying to improve the situation (for yourself, it always comes down to enlightened self interest without morality). How would you go about things?" then see my responses above, I tend to find thinking outside my usual mindset more interesting. I stick with the "With love..." thing either way, it shows a side of the nation other than a man in a suit on TV and makes us harder to attack. --Edith.

MoonShadow's quick (and he's sure extremely full of holes and easy for certain people to knock down) take:

The problem AIUI isn't just Mugabe and his mob, it's all the idiots squatting on farmland (and there's rather a lot of them - check out the incident described in the article; the ratio is 50:3 squatters to government "officials"; the article's a bit hazy on numbers in general, though - for instance it mentions that half the population is 5.5m people, yet 200,000 white farmers make up 15% of the electorate - does this imply nine out of ten people can't vote?) doing sod all and wondering where their food trough has gone. Giving land to peasants will only cause mass starvation if the peasants don't then bother to (or can't for some reason - but the article doesn't imply that) work it to feed themselves. The nonfarming population - I'm guessing the majority - needs to be educated; and I don't mean airy-fairy political sciences or complicated farming methods, I just mean they need to understand that being given land is synonymous with being told no-one else is going to feed them and therefore if they don't work it or pay someone to work it, they don't eat. Not sure how you do that, but if you just return control to a resented minority group without doing this first ISTM you'll simply get another revolution and another Mugabe.

Food aid: good in principle, but gotta be done right - drop stuff they have the option of growing, e.g. unhulled grain instead of army rations; maybe along with suitably worded "look, since Mugabe gave you all this land, why don't you plant some of this on it rather than just wolfing it all down?" leaflets..

: Problem is, if they do start trying to plant stuff on the land, it'll probably all be taxed away by the govt officials that nominally own it. Also, the squatters don't even claim to be farmers. They're clueless. The owners don't claim to be farmers either - the farms are just a status symbol. So the chance of food being produced any time soon is nil. We've already seen what happens to people who actually try to farm the land, so I doubt any of the newcomers will be imitating them. - CorkScrew

CategorySerious