UK tries to stop Zimbabwe chairing UN commission [Archive]

Ymir

4 May 2007, 08:26 PM

UK tries to stop Zimbabwe chairing UN commission
By Ann Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
Published: 04 May 2007

Britain is engaged in a last-ditch effort to prevent Zimbabwe, whose development has been reversed by the policies of Robert Mugabe, from taking over as chairman of the UN Sustainable Development Commission.

Zimbabwe's environment minister, Francis Nhema, is set to be elected commission chairman next week after the African group of countries at the UN agreed to nominate him.

UN diplomats said yesterday that Britain and other like-minded countries were privately consulting African states, aware of the disastrous message that Mr Nhema's appointment would send.

"Zimbabwe is not exactly a paragon of development," said one diplomat. Under President Mugabe, Zimbabwe, once the bread-basket of Africa, can no longer feed itself. Annual inflation is running at 2,200 per cent, millions have been made poor and tens of thousands have died from malnutrition and lack of medical care.

The UN diplomats recognised that it was unlikely the African group would have a change of heart at this stage. Zimbabwe's nomination as chairman was agreed last month under a geographical rotation system. The outgoing chairman is from Qatar.

The commission has a broad mandate, including climate change, and sees itself as an "authoritative source of expertise" on sustainable development.

In a decision which will deal a further blow to the UN's reputation, the last one-party state in Europe, Belarus, has been put forward as a candidate to the UN Human Rights Council by the East European group. The council is the successor to the discredited UN Human Rights Commission which was wound up last year.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article2510914.ece

SensEye

4 May 2007, 09:04 PM

In a decision which will deal a further blow to the UN's reputation...Not possible in my opinion. The UN has zero credibility in my book already. I never pass up an opportunity (like this one) to call for its complete dismantlement. It is beyond fixing and by allowing it to continue as the sham organization that it is, it acts as an obstacle to ever allowing an effective international organization to take its place (if such a thing is even possible).

immortalmack

4 May 2007, 09:15 PM

What I find interesting is when many of these African countries have problems, the former colonizer is somewhere close. I've seen enough to know that Zimbabwe is not having this problem all by itself. The former Colonizer is causing some of the unrest obviously.

Yea the UN is a nickel that is fastly loosing it's shine.

demagogic_schizoid

4 May 2007, 11:46 PM

Lateralus

6 May 2007, 06:08 AM

:confused: what do you want Britain to do?
The best thing Britain can do is to leave them alone. Freedom cannot be imposed.

It may take generations for the impact of European and American imperialism to dissipate. There are generations of people who have been racially subjugated. It's not a problem that's going to fix itself overnight. It may be that those currently living in countries like Zimbabwe will never see peace.

darlets

6 May 2007, 07:38 AM

dubbeltop

6 May 2007, 10:24 AM

UK tries to stop Zimbabwe chairing UN commission

If the UN is no longer important then why does the UK want to prevent Zimbabwe from heading it..

I think the UN is very important and also very unsuccesfull because it has the wrong leaders just as many countries have right now.......

If the UK wants to adress this leadership issue it has every right to do so because the UK firmly believes in the UN and its mission...( :grin: )

http://quotes.zaadz.com/topics/diplomacy

Diplomats are my favorite assasins......:ph34r:

Anyway why does the game civilisation include diplomats ,because without diplomats there would be no civilisation!!!!..

http://www.2kgames.com/civ4/home.htm

meshou

6 May 2007, 10:35 AM

I know the country has little credibility, but is there some reason the man himself is not qualified...? I mean, the literal country is not the one chairing this comission, and the only criticisms I've seen are of the literal country and not the man himself.

I mean, yeah, it's like making the Americans the chair of The Council For Not Being Fat and Loud, but that doesn't mean in this entire country, we can't find an expert on not being fat and loud, right?

OK, bad example.

dubbeltop

6 May 2007, 10:46 AM

demagogic_schizoid

6 May 2007, 03:02 PM

The best thing Britain can do is to leave them alone. Freedom cannot be imposed.

It may take generations for the impact of European and American imperialism to dissipate. There are generations of people who have been racially subjugated. It's not a problem that's going to fix itself overnight. It may be that those currently living in countries like Zimbabwe will never see peace.

Freedom was imposed in Germany, in Japan, in South Korea (which had previously been an opressed, backwards colony, but due to good government which didn't use it's past as an excuse, is now a rich country). Zimbabwe's current problems are Mugabe's fault, not Britain's. I don't think we should invade, but we should oppose him as much as possible. When you say freedom can't be imposed, what you mean is that attempts to impose it often fail, or that it shouldn't be imposed, however, saying that a country can't be made more free by external force is historically inaccurate. I might agree with you that on balance it's a bad thing, but we should be honest too.

Also, when we say Britain should leave zimbabwe alone, what are we referring to? I thought we were talking about Britain opposing Zimbabwe being given this position of authority in the UN, which is surely fair enough as the whole point of the UN is supposed to be that countries meet there and try to resolve problems. When we say in this context "Britain should leave Zimbabwe alone", what we mean is that Britain should have no opinion on the running of an organisation of which it is a paid-up member.

I don't know if it's right for Britain to interfere in Zimbabwe's domestic affairs, but it's perfectly right for us to oppose a government which has no idea about sustainable development from being made chair of a commission on sustainable development. It would be pretty irresponsible if we didn't.

demagogic_schizoid

6 May 2007, 03:04 PM

Lateralus

6 May 2007, 03:28 PM

Is the UK the only nation against this? What about the other members of the Security Council?

Does anyone else find the term "Security Council" to be as ironic I do?

meshou

6 May 2007, 09:19 PM

erm, he'd be a representative of Robert Mugabe...This is true.

Ferrus

6 May 2007, 09:29 PM

Is the UK the only nation against this? What about the other members of the Security Council?

Does anyone else find the term "Security Council" to be as ironic I do?
Its relations with the US and France are poor too, the US I believe recently imposed harsher sanctions on the country when the police roughed up the opposition leader, whilst the French have, in co-ordination with the rest of the EU imposed EU sanctions on the country. Russia and China are ambivalent, both need Zimbabwe for economic reasons. Interestingly China and Venezula have expressed sympathy with Mugabe, due to shared antipathies, which is rather ironic given Mugabe's prediliction for capturing and torturing Communists in his country.

Whether or no there should be interferance is an interesting question however - would those stating that Zimbabwe should be left alone argue that exactly the same should have applied to apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) under Ian Smith's UDI government, both of which were sanctioned?

tinribz

6 May 2007, 10:47 PM

This is a country that routinely imprisons and tortures journalists, gives permission for opposition rallies then imprisons anyone that turns up and tortures them. Even the opposition leaders. At election time gangs are sent out to beat within an inch of their life anyone they suspect might vote the wrong way. In response to the well published beating of the opposition leader by police Mugabe's response was:

In a wide-ranging magazine interview he also defended the recent beating of opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, saying "these things happen" and warning that others will meet the same fate if they provoke the police.

"If America wants a man like (US ambassador to Harare) Christopher Dell to remain here, then he's got to behave because we will not brook further nonsense from him," he told the London-based monthly New African magazine.

"We have read them the riot act," he said, referring to western ambassadors accused of interfering in Harare. "If they continue to do that, we will certainly kick them out of the country. It doesn't matter who it is.You might ask why anyone native would bother opposing him, the reason is they are starving, the country is in melt down inflation is 1000%, unemployment 80% mostly as a result of kicking out all the white farmers (the ones not raped and murdered) over the last 20 years, and wrecking the economy. Shanty towns (one of the fall-outs of mass unemployment) were bulldozed by the army last summer, survivors shipped off and dumped in remote regions of the bush.

The only jobs left are the police and civil service and now it's getting to the stage the wages aren't worth the paper their written on. In desperation Mugabe has started threatening bishops and locking up any professionals that have not already fled.

All this is of course somehow Britain's fault according to Mugabe even now. I don't really think he has any beef with Britain anymore, he just remembers how well the anti British freedom fighter rhetoric went down in the revolution and can't come up with anything original.

Anyway, great example for chairing the UN then.

Lateralus

6 May 2007, 11:19 PM

Oh, I'm certain the US doesn't have good relations with Mugabe, at least on the surface. The guy is a mass murderer. But what goes on behind the scenes? Who is selling him arms? He has to be receiving support from somewhere. The British are responsible for creating the environment that allowed Mugabe to come to power, and someone is responsible for giving him what he needs to keep his grip.

I can't help but think that behind the scenes the US is being hypocritical here. That wouldn't be out of character for this government. We're doing something. We have our hands everywhere. And 99.999999% of the time, it's for the benefit of one of our international corporations. I guess my point is, there's too much that we don't know. I wish we knew the whole story.

meshou

6 May 2007, 11:24 PM

I can't help but think that behind the scenes the US is being hypocritical here. That wouldn't be out of character for this government.Which is precisely why the UN Comission For Not Being Hypocites and Perhaps Not Selling Arms To Mass Murderers Headed by US Ambassador to the UN Alejandro Daniel Wolff was created! That'll keep us in check! :highfive:

demagogic_schizoid

6 May 2007, 11:32 PM

The British are responsible for creating the environment that allowed Mugabe to come to power, and someone is responsible for giving him what he needs to keep his grip.

Pretty much every country has been conquered at some time, every single person in the world inherits imperfect circumstances that shape what we do. But there comes a time to stop blaming those circumstances. The British did not force Mugabe to do what he's doing. At many times since Britain left Zimbabwe, there have been choices entirey in the hands of Zimbabwean rulers about what to do, and they have almost always chosen the wrong course of action from the point of view of their people. Not every post-colonial society goes through the hell Zimbabwe has gone through, and just because someone inherits a bad situation doesn't mean they have no choice in shaping their own future destiny.

Yes Britain cotributed to shaping modern Zimbabwe but why does this mean that Britain should not be part of the global community which condemns Mugabe today? It's not as if the same people are still in charge. However much I hate the current British government, the truth is they had nothig to do with colonising Zimbabwe, and for them to sit back and let Zimbabwe walk all over the UN out of guilt makes no sense.

Wrongs were done to Britain in the past, you may not realise that Britain was decimated by the Nazis. Does this mean that Germany has no right to ever criticise Britain? Does that mean that if the British government uses them as an excuse to screw the Brtish people, German's are somehow being honourable towards those same British people if they refuse to condemn this, out of a sense of guilt?

I can't help but think that behind the scenes the US is being hypocritical here. That wouldn't be out of character for this government. We're doing something. We have our hands everywhere. And 99.999999% of the time, it's for the benefit of one of our international corporations. I guess my point is, there's too much that we don't know. I wish we knew the whole story.

I just can't believe that on a thread about Zimbabwe and Britain we get people finding a way to blame the US. How do you think finding a way to blame the US is more helpful to the people of Zimbabwe than actually taking the time to learn a little about their current grave problems, and thinking of actual solutions they could implement? I mean, let's look at a similair situation - there is curretly a bad situation in Sudan, and China hs close commercial links to the Sudanese government. It's true that they do deserve critcism for ths. however, if on a thrad about Sudan someone turned it into a thread cricising China with only the vaguest allusion to actual events in Sudan and no apparent interest, wouldn't you start to question their priorities? A lot of people may be implicated in Zimbabwe, but the prime culprit for Mugabe's crimes is, believe it or not, Mugabe!

I can't get my head round tis line of thinking at all. I can see how "anti-imperialists" can be fooled by some third world nationalist dictators who appear at least to be industrialising their country or implementing welfare programmes or making the country less dependent on the foreign "exploiter", but I don't see how anyone can find one single reason to criticise international opposition to Mugabe. He's completely destroyed that country. Sure, criticise our opposition to Mugabe for being half-hearted and criticise the rich countries for turning a bind eye most of the time just because he doesn't affect them, but for someone to say that Britain is too hard on Mugabe just astounds me.

meshou

7 May 2007, 12:01 AM

Because seeing the splinter in someone else's eye is easier if you remove the plank from your own?

To put it in practical terms, selling arms to (or selling arms to people known to sell arms to) mass murderers and then acting like we're totally committed to the prevention of atrocities is... yeah.

Contradictions like that tend to create a leetle bit of skepticism as to what we actually want.

tinribz

7 May 2007, 12:06 AM

Oh, I'm certain the US doesn't have good relations with Mugabe, at least on the surface. The guy is a mass murderer. But what goes on behind the scenes? Who is selling him arms? He has to be receiving support from somewhere.That would be China and North Korea probably.

The British are responsible for creating the environment that allowed Mugabe to come to power, and someone is responsible for giving him what he needs to keep his grip.What dem said then some.

I can't help but think that behind the scenes the US is being hypocritical here. That wouldn't be out of character for this government. We're doing something. We have our hands everywhere. And 99.999999% of the time, it's for the benefit of one of our international corporations. I guess my point is, there's too much that we don't know. I wish we knew the whole story.Can't see the logic here.

demagogic_schizoid

7 May 2007, 12:19 AM

To put it in practical terms, selling arms to (or selling arms to people known to sell arms to) mass murderers and then acting like we're totally committed to the prevention of atrocities is... yeah.

Contradictions like that tend to create a leetle bit of skepticism as to what we actually want.

I'm a powerful local businessman. I sell guns to lots of local psychos, and like everyone else in the town, I'm self-interested.

One local psycho is particularly menacing and terrorises the block regularly. You live on that block. You come to me with a petition asking me to condemn him. It won't make much difference, but you are running a campaign against him, and the gesture would give your campaign a certain authority.

I'm ambivalent to the petition as it doesn't affect my interests much either way, but if my family pressure me to do what you ask, I will do it.

However, they don't, they do the opposite, telling me I'd be a hypocrite to sign it, because I sell guns to other psychos. So I don't sign it. What would you think of my family then?

meshou

7 May 2007, 12:32 AM

However, they don't, they do the opposite, telling me I'd be a hypocrite to sign it, because I sell guns to other psychos. So I don't sign it. What would you think of my family then?No one's saying nothing should be done. All that's been said is that he is skeptical of the motives of countries whose actions have been incongruent with their stated motives in the past. Which is a sane position.

Lateralus

7 May 2007, 12:41 AM

Pretty much every country has been conquered at some time, every single person in the world inherits imperfect circumstances that shape what we do. But there comes a time to stop blaming those circumstances. The British did not force Mugabe to do what he's doing. At many times since Britain left Zimbabwe, there have been choices entirey in the hands of Zimbabwean rulers about what to do, and they have almost always chosen the wrong course of action from the point of view of their people. Not every post-colonial society goes through the hell Zimbabwe has gone through, and just because someone inherits a bad situation doesn't mean they have no choice in shaping their own future destiny.

Yes Britain cotributed to shaping modern Zimbabwe but why does this mean that Britain should not be part of the global community which condemns Mugabe today? It's not as if the same people are still in charge. However much I hate the current British government, the truth is they had nothig to do with colonising Zimbabwe, and for them to sit back and let Zimbabwe walk all over the UN out of guilt makes no sense.

Wrongs were done to Britain in the past, you may not realise that Britain was decimated by the Nazis. Does this mean that Germany has no right to ever criticise Britain? Does that mean that if the British government uses them as an excuse to screw the Brtish people, German's are somehow being honourable towards those same British people if they refuse to condemn this, out of a sense of guilt?
You make a lot of assumptions here. I am sorry I don't fit into a neat little political box for you to dissect. I never criticized the British for criticizing Mugabe. I asked if anyone else was criticizing this decision, or are the British standing alone in this? I believe the British have every right to criticize this decision. To state that the British had a hand in the current political situation is to simply state the truth.

I just can't believe that on a thread about Zimbabwe and Britain we get people finding a way to blame the US. How do you think finding a way to blame the US is more helpful to the people of Zimbabwe than actually taking the time to learn a little about their current grave problems, and thinking of actual solutions they could implement?
Oh please, nothing we do here is benefits anyone in Zimbabwe. I find your outrage to be disingenuous. To imply that the US is involved in this situation is not reaching, by any stretch of the imagination. We are the world's lone superpower. We have our hands everywhere.

I mean, let's look at a similair situation - there is curretly a bad situation in Sudan, and China hs close commercial links to the Sudanese government. It's true that they do deserve critcism for ths. however, if on a thrad about Sudan someone turned it into a thread cricising China with only the vaguest allusion to actual events in Sudan and no apparent interest, wouldn't you start to question their priorities? A lot of people may be implicated in Zimbabwe, but the prime culprit for Mugabe's crimes is, believe it or not, Mugabe!
Bad analogy.

I can't get my head round tis line of thinking at all. I can see how "anti-imperialists" can be fooled by some third world nationalist dictators who appear at least to be industrialising their country or implementing welfare programmes or making the country less dependent on the foreign "exploiter", but I don't see how anyone can find one single reason to criticise international opposition to Mugabe. He's completely destroyed that country. Sure, criticise our opposition to Mugabe for being half-hearted and criticise the rich countries for turning a bind eye most of the time just because he doesn't affect them, but for someone to say that Britain is too hard on Mugabe just astounds me.
More assumptions. Who is fooled? Huh? I never said Britain was too hard on Mugabe. Did you actually read my post?

Thank you for characterizing me, though. I appreciate it. It says far more about you than it does about me.

Lateralus

7 May 2007, 12:51 AM

No one's saying nothing should be done. All that's been said is that he is skeptical of the motives of countries whose actions have been incongruent with their stated motives in the past. Which is a sane position.
We should question everything. I'm amazed when people are criticized simply by asking for more information. Maybe I shouldn't be.

demagogic_schizoid

7 May 2007, 01:00 AM

No one's saying nothing should be done.

The best thing Britain can do is to leave them alone.

Well said.
Sad but true. :(

Express skepticism all you like meshou, I aree with your skepticism of your own government and it's healthy, but you'd have more credibility if you were ever prepared to direct some of that skepticism at people like Mugabe.

Also, you say that you're not saying "nothing should be done". OK then, what should be done? And if you think something should be done, why have you spent the entire thread arguing with the people who say something should be done rather than with the people who say nothing should be done?

Lateralus, you characterise yourself when you jump into a conversation about Britain and Zimbabwe by trying to find a way to turn it into a criticism of th US. You say you don't fit into boxes, but every post of yours so far has been a cliche and I have chatted with countless people who'd say the exact things you are saying. So I'm putting you in a box with them. I don't see how this is unreasonable. In fact this post could easily have been a parody:

I can't help but think that behind the scenes the US is being hypocritical here. That wouldn't be out of character for this government. We're doing something. We have our hands everywhere. And 99.999999% of the time, it's for the benefit of one of our international corporations. I guess my point is, there's too much that we don't know. I wish we knew the whole story.

And btw, is anyone else tired of people who constantly keep telling us what they don't think rather than actually take a stand on something? Seems like a pretty clever way to push an agenda without ever being held to anything specific IMHO.

demagogic_schizoid

7 May 2007, 01:07 AM

We should question everything. I'm amazed when people are criticized simply by asking for more information. Maybe I shouldn't be.

You haven't asked for more information from anyone, not once on this thread. you've come to a conclusion that the US is guilty without any evidence, and then you put your conclusion out there as if the burden of proof is on anyone who disagrees.

If you wanted more information on the topic, you'd have asked someone like tinribz, who has posted quite a lot of information, to tell you more about Zimbabwe. But you didn't.

If your attitude was genuinely of wanting to learn more, people would have obliged but that's not been your attitude at all.

Lateralus

7 May 2007, 01:11 AM

My comment...

The best thing Britain can do is to leave them alone.
...was in reference to another poster's comment about the British influencing Zimbabwe politics. It had nothing to do with their stance, in the UN.

The origin of my post was this comment.

What I find interesting is when many of these African countries have problems, the former colonizer is somewhere close. I've seen enough to know that Zimbabwe is not having this problem all by itself. The former Colonizer is causing some of the unrest obviously.

Then you replied with...

what do you want Britain to do?

So...it had nothing to do with the UN comments. Again, I have not criticized the British for their UN comments. Do I need to spell it out any clearer?

And btw, is anyone else tired of people who constantly keep telling us what they don't think rather than actually take a stand on something? Seems lie a pretty clever way to push an agenda without ever being held to anything specific IMHO.
Please elaborate.

meshou

7 May 2007, 01:12 AM

Express skepticism all you like meshou, I aree with your skepticism of your own government and it's healthy, but you'd have more credibility if you were ever prepared to direct some of that skepticism at people like Mugabe.Mugabe is a mass murderer. There's not much I can do about it. My government says they will do something about it. But I am extremely skeptical of what my government proposes to do about it is 1) effective and 2) the same as what they're actually doing, since they aren't always truthful.

I'm very sorry, I'm not impressed by lots and lots of words about what could and should and ought to be done. I want something done. I'm extremely skeptical that, if we DO do anything, it'll actually improve the situation. It's not as simple as just assuming acting against The Forces of Evil means the results'll be preferable.

This is a horrible idea, but lemme compare it to Iraq:
1) Removing a violent, mass murdering dictator? Good idea.
2) Removing a violent, mass murdering dictator without any viable alternative and creating a clusterfuck power vaccum? Bad fucking idea.

Good intent ISN'T enough. Until you can convince me doing something improves the situation, I'd rather nothing be done.

Lateralus

7 May 2007, 01:13 AM

You haven't asked for more information from anyone, not once on this thread. you've come to a conclusion that the US is guilty without any evidence, and then you put your conclusion out there as if the burden of proof is on anyone who disagrees.

If you wanted more information on the topic, you'd have asked someone like tinribz, who has posted quite a lot of information, to tell you more about Zimbabwe. But you didn't.

If your attitude was genuinely of wanting to learn more, people would have obliged but that's not been your attitude at all.
Well, you are wrong, again.

I guess my point is, there's too much that we don't know. I wish we knew the whole story.
That's my way of asking for more information.

meshou

7 May 2007, 01:19 AM

That's my way of asking for more information.What are you, some kind of Communist?

Lateralus

7 May 2007, 01:22 AM

What are you, some kind of Communist?
Oh no, libertarian. A libertarian who unfortunately voted for Bush in 2000.

As for my tone, I respond to hostility with hostility. Maybe I'm part INTJ! ;)

meshou

7 May 2007, 01:24 AM

As for my tone, I respond to hostility with hostility.Understandably.

Was jokin. :)

Lateralus

7 May 2007, 01:29 AM

Understandably.

Was jokin. :)
Well, I need to work on that. I'm not a very good Buddhist...

meshou

7 May 2007, 01:30 AM

Well, I need to work on that. I'm not a very good Buddhist...Hahahah, I'm also a terrible Buddhist. We should start a sect. :highfive:

demagogic_schizoid

7 May 2007, 01:34 AM

Mugabe is a mass murderer. There's not much I can do about it. My government says they will do something about it. But I am extremely skeptical of what my government proposes to do about it is 1) effective and 2) the same as what they're actually doing, since they aren't always truthful.

I'm very sorry, I'm not impressed by lots and lots of words about what could and should and ought to be done. I want something done. I'm extremely skeptical that, if we DO do anything, it'll actually improve the situation. It's not as simple as just assuming acting against The Forces of Evil means the results'll be preferable.

This is a horrible idea, but lemme compare it to Iraq:
1) Removing a violent, mass murdering dictator? Good idea.
2) Removing a violent, mass murdering dictator without any viable alternative and creating a clusterfuck power vaccum? Bad fucking idea.

Good intent ISN'T enough. Until you can convince me doing something improves the situation, I'd rather nothing be done.

Do you or don't you want something done?!? Anyone can say they want something done, it's akin to saying you want world peace...the question is what do you want done? Do you think we're right to oppose Zimbabwe at the UN? Should we step up our opposition? Do you think we should fund the opposition? Should we impose sanctions? Should we pull all our troops out of every foreign country and give Mugabe lots of aid and hope that out of goodwill to us Mugabe will stop opressing Zimbabweans? Help me out here, I'm asking your opinion...if you want mine, it's that we should fund the opposition and oppose him at the UN. I'm not sure about sanctions...

meshou

7 May 2007, 01:40 AM

Do you or don't you want something done?!? Anyone can say they want something done, it's akin to saying you want world peace...the question is what do you want done?How do you imagine I, a layman, have enough information to make the decision you're asking me to make?

Bad information has been passed in the recent past to people who ought to have known better, and they fucked up as a result.

I want more information. I want to be reassured that proposed action will have intended result, and I want to hold the people who are responsible to that standard.

Unlike you, apparently, I do not think an ineffective something is any better than an ineffective nothing. In fact, it can very often turn out worse.

Lateralus

7 May 2007, 01:43 AM

Freedom cannot be imposed. Only oppression can be imposed. I would like to think we could keep our nose out of their politics. If they are ever going to be free, they are going to have to earn it themselves.

meshou

7 May 2007, 01:45 AM

For the most part, agreed.

demagogic_schizoid

7 May 2007, 01:46 AM

That's my way of asking for more information.

Right...asking for information about US involvement, to back up the unsubstantiated concluson you've already come to:

I can't help but think that behind the scenes the US is being hypocritical here. That wouldn't be out of character for this government. We're doing something. We have our hands everywhere. And 99.999999% of the time, it's for the benefit of one of our international corporations

Well, you probably could find some way to blame the current Zimbabwe situation on the US. I could probably find some way to blame it on the EU or China. In a globalised world, there is probably not one country which is not in some way implicated in the affairs of every other country in the world. All the while, nobody says anything about Zimbabwe itself.

I get the feeling that the topic of this thread is of little consequence to you and that you don't know much about it and haven't bothered to learn, and all you're interested in is criticising US foreign policy even when yo have no idea how to relate it to the topic at hand. If so, go ahead and make a thread about US foreign policy where you tell us what you think and provide your evidence.

meshou

7 May 2007, 01:51 AM

Jesus Christ, DS, can you give it a rest just once? Can someone express any skepticism toward the current reich without you getting your little Republican panties in a twist?

Hint: Criticism of a gubment is not the same as excusing its enemies. Really.

Lateralus

7 May 2007, 01:55 AM

Right...asking for information about US involvement, to back up the unsubstantiated concluson you've already come to:
Based on the information I have right now, this is a valid conclusion.

Well, you probably could find some way to blame the current Zimbabwe situation on the US. I could probably find some way to blame it on the EU or China. In a globalised world, there is probably not one country which is not in some way implicated in the affairs of every other country in the world. All the while, nobody says anything about Zimbabwe itself.
Haha, ok. Ignore the fact that I have called him a mass murderer in this thread.

I get the feeling that the topic of this thread is of little consequence to you and that you don't know much about it and haven't bothered to learn, and all you're interested in is criticising US foreign policy even when yo have no idea how to relate it to the topic at hand. If so, go ahead and make a thread about US foreign policy where you tell us what you think and provide your evidence.
More assumptions

demagogic_schizoid

7 May 2007, 02:07 AM

How do you imagine I, a layman, have enough information to make the decision you're asking me to make?

Well, you seem to have enough information to dismiss my proposals out of hand as ineffective.

I want more information.

http://www.zwnews.com/

If you really want more information, it's not that hard to find.

Look, I'm not a hypocrite and I won't lie to you. I'm apathetic. I don't do much to help those less fortunate than me. I don't do enough to inform myself. I'm a lazy complacent westerner. But at least I have the decency not blame it all on the federal government or teh korporations.

The ones to blame for this mess in Zimbabwe are plain old humans like us, and the ones who could solve the mess are plain old humans like us. There is no grand conspiracy. You and I could pressure our governments to take practical steps against Mugabe, like arm the opposition, like pressure US-friendly governments in the region to get much tougher on him and help out he opposition more, etc. These are practical step which would weaken him. They may not get rid of him, but FFS not every action is assured of success from the outset.

We don't do these things because we can't be arsed, not because we're helpless. So can you please drop the helpless citizen act, because it's obvious that despite complaining that you really do want the Zimbabwe problem solved, but that nothing gets done because the powers that be withold information, it's clear that you've never really bothered to research the information that is out there. Despite complaining that any action by you would be ignored by the powers that be, it's clear that you've never actually enquired as to what you can do in the first place. And that's fine, I'm the same, but let's cut the self-victimising BS.

Anyway, back to the OP - nobody's given a good reason why the UK should not oppose Zimbabwe being given this position.

demagogic_schizoid

7 May 2007, 02:10 AM

Based on the information I have right now, this is a valid conclusion.

Let's see the information then

Haha, ok. Ignore the fact that I have called him a mass murderer in this thread.

Well done! You stated an undisputed fact. Saying that is akin to stating that Zimbabwe is in Africa. Great in depth commentary on the current state of affairs in Zimbabwe.

More assumptions

Yes, I made an assumption just like you did. Unlike you, I have evidence - ie your entire contribution to this thread in which you've turned a conversation about Zimbabwe and Britain into a conversation about US foreign policy without one shred of evidence about US involvement in Zimbabwe. Until you can provide that evidence, I see no point in continuing this conversation.

demagogic_schizoid

7 May 2007, 02:17 AM

OK lateralus I'm going to go back on my word, because I just saw someting...you said it again!:

Freedom cannot be imposed.

But, wait, on this thread I already said:

Freedom was imposed in Germany, in Japan, in South Korea (which had previously been an opressed, backwards colony, but due to good government which didn't use it's past as an excuse, is now a rich country). Zimbabwe's current problems are Mugabe's fault, not Britain's. I don't think we should invade, but we should oppose him as much as possible. When you say freedom can't be imposed, what you mean is that attempts to impose it often fail, or that it shouldn't be imposed, however, saying that a country can't be made more free by external force is historically inaccurate. I might agree with you that on balance it's a bad thing, but we should be honest too.

You really don't come across as the open-minded, inquisitive, willing-to-learn person which you try to paint yourself as. You come across as extremely closed minded and oblivious to the concept of evidence.

meshou

7 May 2007, 02:29 AM

Where's a jackoff emoticon when I need it?

Lateralus

7 May 2007, 02:43 AM

Let's see the information then
The modus operandi of the US is to support dictators who are on favorable terms with US corporations. Do you dispute this? If you'd like an example, look at United Foods in Guatemala and the overthrow of Arbenz.

Well done! You stated an undisputed fact. Saying that is akin to stating that Zimbabwe is in Africa. Great in depth commentary on the current state of affairs in Zimbabwe.
And you said that I didn't make any such statement, so I disputed your false claim. I am being forced to defend an assault on my character because you disagree with my stance on an issue.

Yes, I made an assumption just like you did. Unlike you, I have evidence - ie your entire contribution to this thread in which you've turned a conversation about Zimbabwe and Britain into a conversation about US foreign policy without one shred of evidence about US involvement in Zimbabwe. Until you can provide that evidence, I see no point in continuing this conversation.
What is this evidence you have provided?

You want links showing US involvement in the affairs of Zimbabwe? Here you go. The Byrd Amendment.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0047-1607(197224)2%3A4%3C46%3AWOCSCA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L

That shows the US going against the consensus of the international community and importing chromium from Zimbabwe (at the time, Rhodesia).

Lateralus

7 May 2007, 02:55 AM

Freedom was imposed in Germany, in Japan, in South Korea (which had previously been an opressed, backwards colony, but due to good government which didn't use it's past as an excuse, is now a rich country). Zimbabwe's current problems are Mugabe's fault, not Britain's. I don't think we should invade, but we should oppose him as much as possible. When you say freedom can't be imposed, what you mean is that attempts to impose it often fail, or that it shouldn't be imposed, however, saying that a country can't be made more free by external force is historically inaccurate. I might agree with you that on balance it's a bad thing, but we should be honest too.
I'll admit that you're right, here. But the situations where it can be imposed are very special cases and I don't believe those conditions exist anymore, at least as far as the US is concerned. So in effect, the US cannot impose democracy.

demagogic_schizoid

7 May 2007, 03:27 AM

You want links showing US involvement in the affairs of Zimbabwe? Here you go. The Byrd Amendment.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0047-1607(197224)2%3A4%3C46%3AWOCSCA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L

That shows the US going against the consensus of the international community and importing chromium from Zimbabwe (at the time, Rhodesia).

I don't see the connection here to Mugabe. I could take an educated guess at what you're insinuating, but you'd accuse me of making assumptions, even though I have little doubt that my assumptions will be proved correct. However, I don't want to be the one doing all the work here while you just sit back and deny everything, because in fact the burden of proof lies with you here. So I'll just keep asking questions.

Firstly, what does this have to do with the Byrd Ammendment (described below)?

Secondly, what are you trying to prove by providing this link? That the US had some implication with a government which preceeded Mugabe? This in itself is not amazing or some kind of "smoking gun". So why is this of great importance to the discussion we're having about the future of Zimbabwe? How does it influence you views on future policy towards Zimbabwe? Do you have evidence that the US in particular was a strong influence in Rhodesia? I'm not demanding you trawl for links for hours, that would be unreasonable; your own words are fine.

Byrd Amendment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Byrd Amendment is also known as the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA). The act is American legislation closely associated with its chief sponsor, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. The act changed the disposition of funds raised from duties on imports that the US government has determined to be subsidized or otherwise unfairly priced. Prior to the act, those funds were incorporated into the US budget. The Act specifies that the funds be distributed to the US companies that file pricing complaints. In short, this meant that non-US firms which sell below cost price in the US can be fined, and the money given to the US companies who made the complaint in the first place. The act has since been repealed.

[edit] World response
The European Commission and seven other countries ? Brazil, Canada, Chile, India, Japan, South Korea and Mexico ? filed a formal protest with the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The European Commission claimed that since 2000, US companies had received $1 billion in anti-dumping fees redistributed to them under the Byrd Amendment. The WTO eventually ruled the Byrd Amendment wholly illegal in 2002. It said that the European Union (EU) and the other countries could introduce measures which penalize the US for up to 72% of the monies raised and distributed through the Byrd Amendment.

On April 4, 2005, now with the permission of the WTO, the EU announced plans to implement limited sanctions on a selection of US goods, charging a 15% levy on U.S. paper, farm goods, textiles and machinery from May 1, 2005. This was in light of the continuing failure of the United States to bring its legislation in conformity with its international obligations. Also, on May 1, Canada imposed a 15% surtax sanction on US imports of cigarettes, oysters and live swine. On September 1, 2005, the Japanese government introduced 15% retaliatory duties on U.S. steel imports.

[edit] Repeal
For years, US President George W. Bush had claimed to desire the Act's repeal, however with little progress. Eventually, after growing pressure on multiple fronts, the US Congress in December 2005 and January 2006 repealed the amendment. However, the act's provisions will stay in place until October 1, 2007 and money will continue to be redirected to companies during this time.

Lateralus

7 May 2007, 03:37 AM

The Byrd Amendment contributed to the environment that led to Mugabe's ascension. The Byrd Amendment of 1971 allowed the US to import chromium from Rhodesia, despite UN sanctions.

As for evidence of US involvement with Mugabe, right now, I'll call the CIA tomorrow and ask them for some help. I'm sure they'll be very helpful. :grin:

demagogic_schizoid

7 May 2007, 03:54 AM

demagogic_schizoid

7 May 2007, 06:21 PM

Where's a jackoff emoticon when I need it?

do you know what a jack-off would do? he would demand "more information" on something (implicitly blaming othr people for his own ignorance, as if it's up to them to provide information and never one's own responsibility to educate oneself), and then not be interested when someone gives them more information.

maybe you should take the advice which you yourself gave to INFP's, because we don't really need another thread where you jump in with a strong, unsubstantiated claim which is not related to the original topic, then keep moving the goalposts and contradicting yourself when someone deals with your argument, and finally respond with personal insults when you can't justify your argument any further.

Lateralus

7 May 2007, 07:04 PM

I'm not asking you to prove it with evidence which would stand up in court, just to give me an overview of what you think the US's role has been. To justify turning a thread about Zimbabwe into a thread about US foreign policy I think most reasonable people would ask for more than one example about uranium imports 30 years go.
The objective of the US is always money. It would be in the best interest of the US (in a strict financial sense) for Zimbabwe to be unstable. Arming Mugabe and his opposition would ensure that the country is never stable, and resources, such as chromium, are cheap. I never said anything about uranium.

When you consider my stance, you have to realize that I was a typical gun-ho American for a significant portion of my life. Now, I feel betrayed, so I view this government as completely untrustworthy, just as you would a girlfriend who has cheated on you. So where there is a lack of information, it's easy for me to assume the worst because when cases where that lack of information has been relieved, my assumptions regarding this government have proven true. I don't claim to be perfect. Even logic is vulnerable to perception.

demagogic_schizoid

7 May 2007, 07:25 PM

The objective of the US is always money. It would be in the best interest of the US (in a strict financial sense) for Zimbabwe to be unstable. Arming Mugabe and his opposition would ensure that the country is never stable, and resources, such as chromium, are cheap. I never said anything about uranium.

Instability in a region pushes up the prices of resources, because supply is threatened. Note how the Iraq war pushed up oil prices.

Also, this whole thing that the USA is only interested in money - what does it actually mean? Money for who? And why should the US government be more interested in money than anyone else? Are you saying Bush personally benefits from instabilty in Zimbabwe? Or is it the "corporations"? But wait, that doesn't work either, because different corporations compete with each other, they do not present a united front of interests, and they are not loyal to just one country. They will deal with whoever has the money, and they will adapt to the environment govt's create in order to make money (giving the impression that the government creates that environment for them to make money, however, this isn't true, it's just that the corporations which survive are the ones that suit their environment - conspiracy theorists turn this on its head and claim that if the envirnment suits a coporation, then it must have been created to suit them, rather than intuit that perhaps the corporations not suited to the environment simply disappeared).

Again, if the US is arming Mugabe, then there will be evidence. If not, and the US doesn't support him above and beyond the average country, I see no reason fo this thread to be about the US above aand beyond any other government which han't done enough to oppose Mugabe - ie all of them.

When you consider my stance, you have to realize that I was a typical gun-ho American for a significant portion of my life. Now, I feel betrayed, so I view this government as completely untrustworthy, just as you would a girlfriend who has cheated on you.

Looks like you've swung from one extreme to another. I don't see how this is upposed to strengthen your case. It rather suggests that you're motivated by resentment over reason.

Lateralus

7 May 2007, 07:53 PM

I didn't turn this thread into a discussion of US foreign policy. I made a comment and you just can't let it go. You could have let it go long ago, but you just have to keep picking at that scab. I'll keep answering as long as you keep prodding. It won't change anything.

As for your other comments, I disagree. There are instances where instability allows for cheaper prices. When a company has a monopoly on resources that political stability would threaten, that company would prefer instability. Your ideas are based on the idea of a "free market". I am not a socialist (I'm actually libertarian), but I believe the concept of a truly free market is an illusion. There are always external forces manipulating the market, no matter how hard we try to eliminate them.

I thought you were done with this thread last night. How many more times are you going to say "you're done" before you really are done?