Zimbabwe - Page 6

July 20, 2008, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piedmon

The US breaks international law to deal with terrorists and militants generally, not to oppress its own people and torture those who vote the wrong way. I'm sorry, but the comparison is invalid.

This means you admit that you know the reason behind why they break international law, and that also means you admit that if they have a "good" reason to break international law, then they might be excused from such an act. But because "good" is subjective, anyone can say they had a "good" reason to break international law and get away with it. I'm sorry, but that's just bullcrappy.

Quote:

That, and we're not talking about the US, but the UN, which should protect human rights on an international scale.

Do we always know why a murderer does what they do? Does our lack of understanding of their exact motives stop the police from taking action, and stop them from being prosecuted? No. They are locked up or executed if found guilty, regardless of any motives except direct self-defence.

No, that's according to the laws and customs in your country that you are accustomed to, but this is not necessarily universal to any other country, or you need not assume this to be the case. I'd prefer to have the murder made clear and the motives understood before doing anything about it. To do otherwise and jail people just because they killed someone is ignorance.

Although before you go on, what exactly does "we" imply when you say "we must do something about..."? Are you speaking of people from other countries, people from your country or what?

Quote:

Oh, and it isn't selfish. Not only is it enforcing the law, but it is liberating the Zimbabwean people from an oppressive regime. Regardless of motives, the ZANU-PF militias are raping, murdering, mutilating, etc, in broad daylight, under the direct orders of the party.

But there is no such thing as "the" law; there are different laws for different countries, and not all of them are shared. To enforce your own ideals of your own laws upon others who maintain different laws is selfish. You may not agree with them, but they might not agree with yours or necessarily understand your own. What if the converse were true? How would you feel then?

Quote:

Some people's minds cannot be changed, and some people are total scum who should be wiped from the face of the Earth. Some people actively revel in pain, suffering, and death. They should be destroyed or imprisoned, for the sake of everyone else. It should apply to anyone who commits such inhumanities.

I know their minds cannot be changed, but while this is fact, it is still opinion that you view certain people as total scum, and it is also opinion that you believe they should be destroyed. But your opinion is not a fact necessarily, and is a problem best dealt with the kind of people who do understand these people's minds best; not people who like to point fingers.

A side note: This opinion does sound a bit like that of Light's from Deathnote, in that he wanted to destroy all the criminals in the world and believed them unworthy of living the same way your opinion is stated.

Quote:

The people are generally too afraid to speak their minds because of what will happen. Do they want that sort of oppression? Though the masses of refugees who have fled from Zimbabwe paint a big, ugly picture of what they think of Mugabe's regime. The brave people who do say something speak for the rest of Zimbabwe. We can see the daily suffering of the Zimbabwean people.

Well of course; they wouldn't say anything nice about it, wouldn't they? If they liked their country, they wouldn't have any reason to leave it--so how do you know which one it is? You simply jumped to the conclusion they didn't like it simply because you see them as "suffering". Well, there are people, regardless of what country they're from, who will remain in their country, no matter how bad it becomes. They simply love their land so much that they would not leave it, no matter what happens. And since such people exist, you can't suppose that everyone in Zimbabwe would want to leave. Humanity is too complex for that.

Another consideration: if these refugees voiced support for Mugabe, they wouldn't receive aid. The international opinion of Mugabe is already low enough that they wouldn't help anyone who supports him.

July 20, 2008, 12:20 PM

Okay, now that the drama has died down, I'm going to jump back in to this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karl Friedrich Gauß

This means you admit that you know the reason behind why they break international law, and that also means you admit that if they have a "good" reason to break international law, then they might be excused from such an act. But because "good" is subjective, anyone can say they had a "good" reason to break international law and get away with it. I'm sorry, but that's just bullcrappy.

Actually, whether the United States breaks international law for a "good" reason or not, those responsible SHOULD be prosecuted. Unfortunately, the United States is part of the P5 in the UN security council, and thus holds a considerable amount of power. That means that any international laws that they do happen to break go largely "unnoticed" and thus unpunished. I think this system is largely flawed and should change. However, I would be very loath to accept the comparison of the United States to any of the recent perpetrators of international law, Zimbabwe included. Is the United States guilty of war crimes? I would say yes-- Abu Ghraib being an example. Was such an action ordered by George Bush? No. All of the atrocities that are happening in Zimbabwe can be linked to Mugabe. There should be no excuses for breaking international law-- ESPECIALLY when it comes to war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I do think that things are changing. There was an absolute international outcry over Abu Ghraib, and those who were responsible were prosecuted. Hopefully, we will one day reach a point in time when breaking international law is unacceptable, whether the offender is a world power or a small third world nation. Regardless, while justice in this field is not applied evenly, does that mean that the UN should stand back and do NOTHING while others suffer? I think that's an insufficient argument, quite frankly.

Quote:

No, that's according to the laws and customs in your country that you are accustomed to, but this is not necessarily universal to any other country, or you need not assume this to be the case. I'd prefer to have the murder made clear and the motives understood before doing anything about it. To do otherwise and jail people just because they killed someone is ignorance.

Um, no. You'll find that what Mugabe is doing is abhorrent in every culture. Oh, and quite illegal under international law. When it comes to crimes against humanity, which Mugabe is guilty of, it IS universal because it is a threat to human security.

Quote:

Although before you go on, what exactly does "we" imply when you say "we must do something about..."? Are you speaking of people from other countries, people from your country or what?

It's called the United Nations, comprised of 192 nations.

Quote:

But there is no such thing as "the" law; there are different laws for different countries, and not all of them are shared. To enforce your own ideals of your own laws upon others who maintain different laws is selfish. You may not agree with them, but they might not agree with yours or necessarily understand your own. What if the converse were true? How would you feel then?

Um. No. Again, while it is a relatively new concept, international law is quite real. This isn't a case of western imposition on a different culture because we don't agree with their politics. The United Nations is not a play-thing of America's. To think of it as such is, quite frankly, ignorant and insulting. The United Nations is interested in promoting and protecting human security from various threats. When such threats materialize, the United Nations uses whatever means they can to ensure that people-- no matter what their nationality-- are not harmed. I've said this many times before, but genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes are NOT acceptable in ANY culture. The government exists to protect its people, not to threaten their security.

Quote:

I know their minds cannot be changed, but while this is fact, it is still opinion that you view certain people as total scum, and it is also opinion that you believe they should be destroyed. But your opinion is not a fact necessarily, and is a problem best dealt with the kind of people who do understand these people's minds best; not people who like to point fingers.

A side note: This opinion does sound a bit like that of Light's from Deathnote, in that he wanted to destroy all the criminals in the world and believed them unworthy of living the same way your opinion is stated.

Okay, when a leader of a country is committing crimes against his own citizens, he is violating international law, and sooner or later, it is safe to say that the United Nations will seek to remove him from power and prosecute him. It's not a matter of "he's scum and he needs to be destroyed." It goes beyond that. He is threatening the well-being of his citizens, causing civil strife, and lowering the standard of living for his citizens. No one profits when a dictator is in power-- except for the dictator, of course. Here's a TERRIFIC example right out of the headlines: "Zimbabwe: Inflation 'highest in the world'" Mugabe is DESTROYING Zimbabwe.

Quote:

Well of course; they wouldn't say anything nice about it, wouldn't they? If they liked their country, they wouldn't have any reason to leave it--so how do you know which one it is? You simply jumped to the conclusion they didn't like it simply because you see them as "suffering". Well, there are people, regardless of what country they're from, who will remain in their country, no matter how bad it becomes. They simply love their land so much that they would not leave it, no matter what happens. And since such people exist, you can't suppose that everyone in Zimbabwe would want to leave. Humanity is too complex for that.

Another consideration: if these refugees voiced support for Mugabe, they wouldn't receive aid. The international opinion of Mugabe is already low enough that they wouldn't help anyone who supports him.

Um, or it could be that fleeing a country is not as easy as you'd like to imagine. When the Rwandan genocide was occurring, you think that the Tutsis WANTED to stay in Rwanda and get slaughtered because they were just such great patriots? Hell no. They simply couldn't finds means to flee into surrounding countries. I'd also like to point out that many of these people are so impoverished that they cannot afford to eat. Where are they going to magically get the money to flee the country? You think people like Mugabe? Really? The unemployment rate is over 80% and, as you can see from above, their inflation rate is currently the highest in the world. He blocks aid (read: FOOD) from reaching those in need, and only gives it to those who can prove that they will vote for him. He has his cronies kidnap, beat, rape, torture, and murder his own civilians. Yeah, under his guiding hand, Zimbabwe is just doing so well

It has been empirically proven that when the UN intervenes, conditions improve. Look at Rwanda: it is now one of the more stable countries in Africa. The countries that once composed Yugoslavia are also doing much better (Bosnia and Herzegovina are up for membership in both NATO and the EU). El Salvador and Nicuragua no longer suffer from civil war. Whom does this benefit? THE CITIZENS of these countries. Their security is no longer threatened, and their countries are much more stable.

July 20, 2008, 12:46 PM

The question, in my mind, comes down to this.

Do we have the right to interfere?

If we interfered to protect "Human safety" throughout history, the world wouldn't be where it is at. We would have prosecuted the founding fathers of the US, China wouldn't be the industrial power it is today. Britain would never have had an empire. The romans could never have tamed the Germanic region...

What makes some people think they are SO intelligent and SO special, that they can see into the future, and know that invading another country will turn out for the best?

If they took their same morals and applied it throughout history, their country would no longer exist.

Sorry to say it, but civil war is NOT "abhorrent to every culture" And anyone who thinks it is clearly has NO grasp of history *at all*.

Power struggles are a part of life in many countries, from tribal warfare all the way up to rebel armies and guerilla fighting. To suggest that just because you don't like that, it's suddenly wrong, is incredibly arrogant.

How can we trust an organisation, whose biggest supporter here ADMITS is corrupt enough not to do what it should do against its members, to make decisions about what to do about countries which are NOT it's members.

Quite clearly this proves that the members of the UN will twist "international law" To meet their own needs, so how can we trust it to uphold ANY law, if the very nations which comprise it don't follow those laws itself?

So I ask again, Should we have prosecuted the founding fathers? If you answer no to that, but yes to mugabe, then you are a hypocrite. If you answer YES to that, and yes to mugabe, then you clearly have no understanding of the effects your chosen course of action would have.

So the question remains, Who is arrogant enough to believe that they are intelligent enough, and know enough about zimbabwe, to decide on the correct plan of action? Hands up who has lived in ximbabwe, who has personally spoken to large portions of the zimbabwean people, hands up who has studied ximbabwean culture for years. If your hand isn't up, what makes you think you know best for those people besides arrogance?

That is all.

July 20, 2008, 1:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decado

So I ask again, Should we have prosecuted the founding fathers? If you answer no to that, but yes to mugabe, then you are a hypocrite. If you answer YES to that, and yes to mugabe, then you clearly have no understanding of the effects your chosen course of action would have.

So the question remains, Who is arrogant enough to believe that they are intelligent enough, and know enough about zimbabwe, to decide on the correct plan of action? Hands up who has lived in ximbabwe, who has personally spoken to large portions of the zimbabwean people, hands up who has studied ximbabwean culture for years. If your hand isn't up, what makes you think you know best for those people besides arrogance?

That is all.

I'll answer this first. You say that war is not necessary, and yet you justify civil war and rebellion, seemingly.

No, maybe YOU should take history into context. Britain DID intervene, to protect its interests.

There was no UN, or human rights legislation(as far as I know) in ages past, and people believed that slaves were sub-human. Now we know better. Today, slavery is considered an abomination by the global community. Slave traders are prosecuted under national and international law.
I think that we DO have enough knowledge and understanding to see what is going on in Zimbabwe. It's not arrogant to have confidence in that which is supported by evidence. We have strong evidence that Zimbabwe is in a sorry, sorry state thanks to Mugabe.

Also, how can we prosecute the founding fathers? Who would prosecute them? It's history, not the present! Long past history. Cultural perceptions of morality and what is considered acceptable change with time.

With all respects, law is LAW. You cannot simply say "we have no right to prosecute this murderer, because there are corrupt individuals in our establishment! We would be hypocrites!" No, those individuals would be hypocrites. That's not how law works, I'm afraid.

July 20, 2008, 2:41 PM

I'm going to build on the lovely post by Piedmon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decado

The question, in my mind, comes down to this.

Do we have the right to interfere?

Yes, and in this post, I will argue why. I'd also like you to keep in mind the "we" that I refer to is the United Nations, not the United States. I am not advocating unilateral action. Instead, I advocate a collection action against a human rights aggressor.

Quote:

If we interfered to protect "Human safety" throughout history, the world wouldn't be where it is at. We would have prosecuted the founding fathers of the US, China wouldn't be the industrial power it is today. Britain would never have had an empire. The romans could never have tamed the Germanic region...

To be honest, this point is irrelevant. No one can say what the outcome would have been had a UN-like organization existed and interfered on behalf of human rights. You do not know for a fact-- or have any proof-- that things would have turned out worse. At the same time, we do not have any proof that they would have turned out better. In any case, it is ludicrous to make this argument because it is inherently an argument against progress. I would also point out that the violence of which we speak is not tied in any way to economic progress. In Zimbabwe, it is politically, and to some extent, ethnically fueled. In other countries, it was generally ethnically fueled as well.

Quote:

What makes some people think they are SO intelligent and SO special, that they can see into the future, and know that invading another country will turn out for the best?

It is NOT an invasion of the country. The United Nations does NOT invade countries. Invasions are fueled by state interests. The United Nations is not a state. Its primary interest is human security, and when human security is threatened by leaders, the UN gets involved to protect civilians.

Quote:

If they took their same morals and applied it throughout history, their country would no longer exist.

Your history argument is, again, invalid for the reasons previously stated. We cannot definitively know what the outcome would have been had the UN existed centuries ago. I would also like to point out that humans have the wonderful ability to evolve and make progress as time goes on. Recently, we have seen a great deal of this. Take Europe for example. For centuries, European nations were constantly warring with each other-- now they have formed one of the most powerful political and economic alliances in the world. For centuries, monarchs held complete power over a nation. This, in almost every nation, is no longer the case. Thus, to argue that because it did not have a place in history, it is not legitimate in the present is wrong.

Quote:

Sorry to say it, but civil war is NOT "abhorrent to every culture" And anyone who thinks it is clearly has NO grasp of history *at all*.

I didn't say civil war. I said crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes. Have they happened in almost every culture? Yes, I would say so. But that doesn't make them any less abhorrent. Do you think the cultures that have experienced these atrocities look back at the period in which they occurred with fondness? They certainly do not. They occur because those who commit them have the power to do so. That does not mean they are not abhorrent.

Quote:

Power struggles are a part of life in many countries, from tribal warfare all the way up to rebel armies and guerilla fighting. To suggest that just because you don't like that, it's suddenly wrong, is incredibly arrogant.

Power struggles are one thing, crimes against humanity decidedly another. When civilians are kidnapped, beaten, tortured, or murdered by their own government, it's beyond power struggles. And to help such people is arrogant? I would really beg to differ.

Quote:

How can we trust an organisation, whose biggest supporter here ADMITS is corrupt enough not to do what it should do against its members, to make decisions about what to do about countries which are NOT it's members.

You may want to check your facts. Zimbabwe IS a member country of the United Nations. And since you constantly ask for sources:

http://www.un.org/members/missions.shtml#z

Why would you not trust the UN? I'm confused about that. What do you fear they would do? The United Nations is not the United States. They aren't interested in putting a military base in Zimbabwe, nor are they interested in playing the imperialist. The United Nations is interested in protecting human security. Yes, I do know that the UN is flawed. But because they don't interfere with citizens of the members of the P5, does that mean they shouldn't interfere at all? Quite frankly, I think that's a weak argument. While I am CERTAINLY not saying that the United States is completely innocent of any crimes, I do not think any crimes committed since the establishment of the UN are on the same level as what has occurred in Zimbabwe, or any of the other nations I have mentioned in previous posts. As I said in my previous post, many nations in which the UN has intervened have since prospered. This is empirical evidence to support intervention. I don't think that anyone needs to be wary of the UN except for Mugabe-- and only because he has committed crimes.

Quote:

Quite clearly this proves that the members of the UN will twist "international law" To meet their own needs, so how can we trust it to uphold ANY law, if the very nations which comprise it don't follow those laws itself?

They cannot twist something that is written down for all to see. I also want to make clear that I'm only concerned with the human security aspect of international law in this thread. That said, the P5 DO follow those international laws. While I would say they are not punished as harshly, those who break these laws do not escape punishment completely. Example: Abu Ghraib. The army personnel responsible were prosecuted. The recent case of the soldier who raped and murdered a young girl in Iraq: he was prosecuted. The case of My Lai during Vietnam: they were prosecuted. While I am critical of the current system, do not think that citizens of the nations belonging to the P5 can do whatever they please without consequence. And though I know some would definitely argue, I'd say that the leaders of any of the nations of the P5 are not dictators who commit crimes against their own civilians.

Quote:

So I ask again, Should we have prosecuted the founding fathers? If you answer no to that, but yes to mugabe, then you are a hypocrite. If you answer YES to that, and yes to mugabe, then you clearly have no understanding of the effects your chosen course of action would have.

Again, I'd state that this type of argument is irrelevant. We cannot apply today's morals to crimes that occured centuries ago. Why? Because the human race is constantly progressing and morals change with the times. In the 1700s, slavery was socially and morally accepted (by many, not by all). Today, it is certainly not socially or morally accepted. And maybe what Mugabe is doing would have been acceptable several centuries ago. The simple fact is that at present times, it is not acceptable. The laws that exist reflect this. Just as someone cannot be tried for something they did that was not a crime at the time that they did it, to try to apply modern laws to a crime that occurred several centuries ago by way of argument is misguided. The fact is that the concept of human security did not exist, nor did any sort of organization that remotely resembled the United Nations.

Quote:

So the question remains, Who is arrogant enough to believe that they are intelligent enough, and know enough about zimbabwe, to decide on the correct plan of action? Hands up who has lived in ximbabwe, who has personally spoken to large portions of the zimbabwean people, hands up who has studied ximbabwean culture for years. If your hand isn't up, what makes you think you know best for those people besides arrogance?

That is all.

This is not a question of culture or language. That's an extremely valid argument against the invasion of Iraq, but not here. You want to talk about what is best for these people? Let's talk about how these people VOTED for Morgan Tsvangirai. He won by a landslide, but Mugabe used the power and connections he already has to assure that he retains power. CLEARLY these people do not want Mugabe in power. That much is reflected in the voting results. The United Nations doesn't want to enter Zimbabwe, pull down a statue of Mugabe, and then wait for democracy to suddenly materialize. I think that's a misconception you have. What the United Nations wants, ideally, is for Mugabe to step out of power and for the man whom the Zimbabwe citizens RIGHTFULLY elected to take power. Or would you also argue that Zimbabwe citizens don't know what they want for their country either?

July 20, 2008, 10:34 PM

You're neglecting to mention one vital fat though eryth.

The UN isn't just one nation, it's not just the US. But if the US says no, the answer is no. All it takes is one of the 5 "veto" nations to say no, and it doesn't happen. Which makes your arguement insanely pointless, because anything the UN does has to be AGREED upon by those countries you are saying "oh it's not just them"

You see the problem with your argument? Those countries are still the countries that make the decision. The US still breaks international law, and the US DOES decide what happens in Zimbabwe, in that if it doesn't like the idea, it just says no to it.

So lets drop all the "UN" stuff, and just examine the moral implications etc of assassinating Mugabe, or invading zimbabwe etc, shall we? Since none of the countries who would make the decision on zimbabwe (and yes, it will be COUNTRIES which make that decision) are free of skeletons in the closet. Russia and China have fucked up human rights records. Britain was the biggest slave trading empire ever, The french are... well... french. The US still hasn't ratified rights for women and children.

And THOSE are the people you trust to make the decision... You can sit and say "oh but the US isn't making the decision" No, all 5 of those countries are, and they're pretty much all as bad as the other. It's not unilateral. It's what those 5 an agree on. The other countries don't even matter. If those 5 say yes, it's yes. If one of them says no, it's no.

You said yourself that morals change, so what makes you think that yours are any different? You said "oh you can't apply todays morals back then" In case you hadn't noticed, different countries haven't "evolved" their morals as far as the west has, yet you want to apply your morals to THOSE people via the UN, but not to your own leaders when their morals were similar? I smell hypocrisy

July 21, 2008, 6:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decado

You said yourself that morals change, so what makes you think that yours are any different? You said "oh you can't apply todays morals back then" In case you hadn't noticed, different countries haven't "evolved" their morals as far as the west has, yet you want to apply your morals to THOSE people via the UN, but not to your own leaders when their morals were similar? I smell hypocrisy

But we western countries supply them with; aid, medicine, weapons, industrial material. The west has created most of the problems in Africa.
We caused a 30+ year long Angolan Civil war.
If we are going to trade with them, and treat them as our equals, why not apply our morals.
People are being murdered and tortured, perhaps if this was a ruthless dictator who was doing good for the country, it would be a little more acceptable(many African authors have said that a dictator wouldn't be a bad thing, as for sources, they are in books, I'll name one Anthills of the Savanna by Chinua Achebe) but obviously Mugabe isn't.
Zimbabwe/Rhodesia was once one of the richest countries in Africa now that a $100bn note.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7515823.stm

Quote:

And THOSE are the people you trust to make the decision... You can sit and say "oh but the US isn't making the decision" No, all 5 of those countries are, and they're pretty much all as bad as the other. It's not unilateral. It's what those 5 an agree on. The other countries don't even matter. If those 5 say yes, it's yes. If one of them says no, it's no.

That is a criticism of the security council, but the US and Russia don't get along all that well. With the US installing its missile shield in E.Europe and Russia threatening Georgia, they are unlikely to just agree without serious consideration.

Also the general assembly does have power. They do vote for The Secretary-General(true the choice can be vetoed, but that didn't work with Boutros-Boutros Ghali). They also decide on the budget, and America pays for over 20% of that, so they aren't powerless.