Sanctions are pretty much worthless. if you cut off any and all trade with Zimbabwe (half the AU would probably still trade with them), Mugabe would be the last person who starves to death.
As for the military, it is amazing how much people will put up with if you give them large amounts of power.
How is that different from the current situation where Mugabe c.s. get everything they want and then some anyway?
Sanctions are pretty much worthless. if you cut off any and all trade with Zimbabwe (half the AU would probably still trade with them), Mugabe would be the last person who starves to death.
The idea is to turn our back on totalitarian regimes that cease to serve our national interests, if that's what this is becoming. That's the extent to which we should intervene and thereafter leave them to sort out their own domestic problems. Better to focus on dictatorships from which we can actually gain something from toppling, if we absolutely must. Otherwise, what's the point?
Sanctions are pretty much worthless. if you cut off any and all trade with Zimbabwe (half the AU would probably still trade with them), Mugabe would be the last person who starves to death.
The idea is to turn our back on totalitarian regimes that cease to serve our national interests, if that's what this is becoming. That's the extent to which we should intervene and thereafter leave them to sort out their own domestic problems. Better to focus on dictatorships from which we can actually gain something from toppling, if we absolutely must. Otherwise, what's the point?
I don't think military interference if the way to do things. But turning your back on a nation because they have nothing to offer doesn't look good either. You end up looking like a rich self serving country(RSSC).
RSSC: Let's spread democracy, and morals to those poor bastards in Iraq.
World: Hey look, there's another fucked up country!
RSSC: Yeah lets ...oh wait, they don't have oil? Um, I guess they are better off without interference.
Sanctions are pretty much worthless. if you cut off any and all trade with Zimbabwe (half the AU would probably still trade with them), Mugabe would be the last person who starves to death.
The idea is to turn our back on totalitarian regimes that cease to serve our national interests, if that's what this is becoming. That's the extent to which we should intervene and thereafter leave them to sort out their own domestic problems. Better to focus on dictatorships from which we can actually gain something from toppling, if we absolutely must. Otherwise, what's the point?
Continued spreading of disease, inaccessible natural resources, not to mention the reality of failing states to destabilize their neighbours "which we can actually gain something from" leap to mind at a cursory glance, and that's not even considering the fact that said line of thinking basically condemns one billion people on this planet to continued starvation, exploitation, and death. If we only care about those nations in the context of what they can provide to us, then it's no wonder the South hates the North.
Sanctions are pretty much worthless. if you cut off any and all trade with Zimbabwe (half the AU would probably still trade with them), Mugabe would be the last person who starves to death.
Well, what they've been applying until now (and strengthening since the latest "election" result) are targetted sanctions that affect the travel and assets of Mugabe and senior members of his government. Assets are frozen over seas, they're not welcome in many countries, along with their families - it's very popular to use one's position to send your children away for an education in Europe or N. America.
Aegis has it right about the privileges afforded the military - I imagine they're the few employed people being paid regularly these days (though with inflation any and all paying jobs are pretty much worthless). I recall a few months ago hearing how price controls were enforced - basically, a store will be reminded by an inspector to sell its goods at the unrealistic price set by the government and ten minutes later trucks will pull up with members of the police, army, ZANU-PF leadership, &c. and their families to clean the place out.
Andrew_Jay on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Sanctions are pretty much worthless. if you cut off any and all trade with Zimbabwe (half the AU would probably still trade with them), Mugabe would be the last person who starves to death.
Well, what they've been applying until now (and strengthening since the latest "election" result) are targetted sanctions that affect the travel and assets of Mugabe and senior members of his government. Assets are frozen over seas, they're not welcome in many countries, along with their families - it's very popular to use one's position to send your children away for an education in Europe or N. America.
General sanctions as a rule fail horribly, but then generalized anything typically has that effect since problems affecting countries vary from one country to the next for various reasons. I've been trying to look for the effectiveness of targeted sanctions like you mention, since I think they've been tried in the past to limited extent.
Realistically in these situations, you'd want the neighbours of any given failing state to exert pressure on the country in question to clean up its act, but the fact that most of the neighbours are in similar straits then it might have to come down to fixing those first.
Sanctions, to me at least, smack of a kind of action akin to watching a fat guy order 20 Chalupas at Taco Bell....and then gets a diet Coke.
Sanctions make it look like something is going on when nothing is. If your country is already starving to death, whether or not the West is willing to sell Nike's to you is a pretty fucking moot point.
It deeply disturbs me that in the 'modern' world these kind of situations still exist, and the 'modern world's' inability to do anything more than shake their finger at it like it's nothing more than a naughty puppy that shit itself on your rug.
Realistically in these situations, you'd want the neighbours of any given failing state to exert pressure on the country in question to clean up its act, but the fact that most of the neighbours are in similar straits then it might have to come down to fixing those first.
I think more than anything that is affecting their stance is Mugabe's personality, and his role not only in bringing black majority rule to Zimbabwe, but leading the frontline states to help bring it about in South Africa as well. The country really has no economic influence left, it's just that a lot of people have trouble opposing the guy who used to be a hero in the region.
It's strange though. On one hand you can say that Zimbabwe's neighbours are also more worried about fixing their only problems, but I'd submit that so many of those problems are in large part created or exacerbated by the situation in Zimbabwe - the anti-foreigner riots in South Africa a couple of months ago just the most dramatic example.
Andrew_Jay on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Realistically in these situations, you'd want the neighbours of any given failing state to exert pressure on the country in question to clean up its act, but the fact that most of the neighbours are in similar straits then it might have to come down to fixing those first.
I think more than anything that is affecting their stance is Mugabe's personality, and his role not only in bringing black majority rule to Zimbabwe, but leading the frontline states to help bring it about in South Africa as well. The country really has no economic influence left, it's just that a lot of people have trouble opposing the guy who used to be a hero in the region.
It's strange though. On one hand you can say that Zimbabwe's neighbours are also more worried about fixing their only problems, but I'd submit that so many of those problems are in large part created or exacerbated by the situation in Zimbabwe - the anti-foreigner riots in South Africa a couple of months ago just the most dramatic example.
That should be incentive enough though to those neighbours: If their problems are being created by Zimbabwe then they should have a vested interest in helping the region fix Zimbabwe.
Regarding sanction literature though: Sanctions and Regime Type: What Works, and When? by Risa A. Brooks seems to be a good starting read.
You don't have to look too far to see why sanctions are not going to do the trick on its own. The white minority regime of Ian Smith (RIP motherfucker) that was the predecessor government* to Mugabe lasted about 15 years despite sanctions, in fact it has been argued that they cemented his rule in many ways. What killed him imo was Mozambique gaining independence then supporting his enemies (Mugabe) and South Africa abandoning him.
*I don't count the Bishop's rule as separate from Smith's.
Sanctions, to me at least, smack of a kind of action akin to watching a fat guy order 20 Chalupas at Taco Bell....and then gets a diet Coke.
Sanctions make it look like something is going on when nothing is. If your country is already starving to death, whether or not the West is willing to sell Nike's to you is a pretty fucking moot point.
It deeply disturbs me that in the 'modern' world these kind of situations still exist, and the 'modern world's' inability to do anything more than shake their finger at it like it's nothing more than a naughty puppy that shit itself on your rug.
I agree that the modern world's inability to do anything is pathetic, but what exactly should the "modern world" be doing to solve this?
It is hard to do nothing more then support them with aid/food/money without it looking like we endorse Mugabe's government.
And if we aren't happy with Mugabe and his neighbours and country aren't willing to pressure him out of office, there isn't much we can do besides sanctions that doesn't boarder on military interference and war.
At what point do you go from a fair election to an unfair election to a dictatorship? And what constitutes justification for forcibly removing a dictator from power? The UN can't agree on anything.
The system does somewhat work, I think international supervision forced a more fair election in Ukraine, but we need to work on things.
It is not fair on the world to have the US police the world as it sees fit. And it is too great a burden on the US to expect them to step up and do something every time a country is fucked up, look at the impact of invading Iraq. The United Nations needs to be able to act. I don't agree with the US invading a country without some sort of UN approval, but security council countries like France using their veto vote to prevent any action gets old quickly.
I think the UN should be able to say, were going in, the election is going to be re-done, our troops will be on the ground, watching. Once the voting is done and the new government is setup, our troops will make sure the new government has control of all non UN military in the country, and then the UN will get their troops home. End of story.
Continued spreading of disease, inaccessible natural resources, not to mention the reality of failing states to destabilize their neighbours "which we can actually gain something from" leap to mind at a cursory glance, and that's not even considering the fact that said line of thinking basically condemns one billion people on this planet to continued starvation, exploitation, and death.
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Bottom line, we can't keep preoccupying ourselves with consequences that "may or may not happen". By assuming preventative measures we could very well end up making things worse.
Mugabe is obsessed with Britain and Britain is obsessed with Zimbabwe. There's much worse things going on in the world right now, but Zimbabwe is what's written about in the press and condemned in the corridors of power. Empire is forgotten very quickly by the imperialists, but not so soon by the colonials. Mugabe is not entirely snatching at shadows when he considers the UK to be out to get him. If any military intervention did ever go down, Britain should stay the hell away, as should other European countries for that matter.
Not that such an intervention should take place anyway. There's vanishingly few models for successful invasions aimed solely at restoring a country to political and social equilibrium; plus the the world's only super-power capable of the logistics of such an operation is at full-stretch elsewhere in the world right now.
What to do? It sounds harsh, but the only realistic hope for a resolution is for things to get worse in Zimbabwe. Already in this past year, that country has reached the tipping point with support for Mugabe - he would probably have won most of his past elections without vote rigging, but now, even with Tsvangarai not even on the ballot, hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans voted for him. That's bravery. The MDC actually won the parliamentary elections, and of course we all know Tsvangarai won the first round of presidential voting with a margin past that required for outright victory.
The only lasting change that will come will come from the Zimbabwean people and the people of Africa. South Africa's stance is finally starting to change and Jacob Zuma * will be in power soon to take a tougher line. The rest of Africa is becoming embarrassed of Mugabe.
* incidentally a colossal shit, but there you are.
Æthelred on
pokes: 1505 8032 8399
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Not that such an intervention should take place anyway. There's vanishingly few models for successful invasions aimed solely at restoring a country to political and social equilibrium;
Sierra Lione: RUF took 500 UN soldiers hostage and stripped them of their military equipment. Few hundred British soldiers get sent there, are willing to take a few casualties (in contrast the the UN soldiers) and the rebel army dissipated. Not to mention the inaction in Darfur and Somalia provide good cases for what happens when we don't intervene (though they have been overshadowed to too much of an extent by what happens when a country intervenes militarily incorrectly).
That said, depressingly I'd agree with the situation getting worse and change having to be initially catalysed within the country/region.
I agree that the modern world's inability to do anything is pathetic, but what exactly should the "modern world" be doing to solve this?
It is hard to do nothing more then support them with aid/food/money without it looking like we endorse Mugabe's government.
And if we aren't happy with Mugabe and his neighbours and country aren't willing to pressure him out of office, there isn't much we can do besides sanctions that doesn't boarder on military interference and war.
At what point do you go from a fair election to an unfair election to a dictatorship? And what constitutes justification for forcibly removing a dictator from power? The UN can't agree on anything.
The system does somewhat work, I think international supervision forced a more fair election in Ukraine, but we need to work on things.
It is not fair on the world to have the US police the world as it sees fit. And it is too great a burden on the US to expect them to step up and do something every time a country is fucked up, look at the impact of invading Iraq. The United Nations needs to be able to act. I don't agree with the US invading a country without some sort of UN approval, but security council countries like France using their veto vote to prevent any action gets old quickly.
I think the UN should be able to say, were going in, the election is going to be re-done, our troops will be on the ground, watching. Once the voting is done and the new government is setup, our troops will make sure the new government has control of all non UN military in the country, and then the UN will get their troops home. End of story.
Exactly. Any successful transistion that has taken place in a country that was ruled by an elite class/dictator/military junta from tyranny to a free and democractic country usually takes place in a few ways: either the people do it, or an outside force comes in and makes it happen.
I definately agree that it is definately not practical (nor fair) to expect the US (or any country for that matter) to come in and take care of the situation in Zimbabwe; it's not only impractical, but I would say it's terribly unfair to expect one country to shoulder the cost in manpower, resources, and time to bail out another country on it's own.
Successful occupations (and any military action would require a lenghty occupation if was designed to actually be constructive in the long run) takes money, resources, and....time. If the UN is to go in, it's going to have to one helluva long stay. You can't just rush in, kill the bad guys, set up elections, then go; Zimbabwe is totaled. Real democracy needs stable institutions to flourish or else some other dickweed like Mugabe is gonna show up again. Building these institutions requires a period of reconcillation, followed by healing the country by rebuilidng everything that's been torn down.
Getting the UN, the AU, and the international community at large to agree to such a colossal undertaking is beyond difficult to say the least, despite the fact that Zimbabwe is almost a text-book example of the kind of tyranny we supposidely agreed to stop when the UN was created back in the '40's.
The fact that the ideals that were set forth after the worst human crisis in history are being regulated to a mere truism is what really disturbs me.
The only lasting change that will come will come from the Zimbabwean people and the people of Africa. South Africa's stance is finally starting to change and Jacob Zuma * will be in power soon to take a tougher line. The rest of Africa is becoming embarrassed of Mugabe.
* incidentally a colossal shit, but there you are.
Zuma is indeed a collosal shit, but he is also a populist (or at least he considers himself one) and would probably love to piss off the old guard of SA and gain accolades by taking out Mugabe unilaterally.
I agree that the modern world's inability to do anything is pathetic, but what exactly should the "modern world" be doing to solve this?
It is hard to do nothing more then support them with aid/food/money without it looking like we endorse Mugabe's government.
And if we aren't happy with Mugabe and his neighbours and country aren't willing to pressure him out of office, there isn't much we can do besides sanctions that doesn't boarder on military interference and war.
At what point do you go from a fair election to an unfair election to a dictatorship? And what constitutes justification for forcibly removing a dictator from power? The UN can't agree on anything.
The system does somewhat work, I think international supervision forced a more fair election in Ukraine, but we need to work on things.
It is not fair on the world to have the US police the world as it sees fit. And it is too great a burden on the US to expect them to step up and do something every time a country is fucked up, look at the impact of invading Iraq. The United Nations needs to be able to act. I don't agree with the US invading a country without some sort of UN approval, but security council countries like France using their veto vote to prevent any action gets old quickly.
I think the UN should be able to say, were going in, the election is going to be re-done, our troops will be on the ground, watching. Once the voting is done and the new government is setup, our troops will make sure the new government has control of all non UN military in the country, and then the UN will get their troops home. End of story.
Exactly. Any successful transistion that has taken place in a country that was ruled by an elite class/dictator/military junta from tyranny to a free and democractic country usually takes place in a few ways: either the people do it, or an outside force comes in and makes it happen.
I definately agree that it is definately not practical (nor fair) to expect the US (or any country for that matter) to come in and take care of the situation in Zimbabwe; it's not only impractical, but I would say it's terribly unfair to expect one country to shoulder the cost in manpower, resources, and time to bail out another country on it's own.
Successful occupations (and any military action would require a lenghty occupation if was designed to actually be constructive in the long run) takes money, resources, and....time. If the UN is to go in, it's going to have to one helluva long stay. You can't just rush in, kill the bad guys, set up elections, then go; Zimbabwe is totaled. Real democracy needs stable institutions to flourish or else some other dickweed like Mugabe is gonna show up again. Building these institutions requires a period of reconcillation, followed by healing the country by rebuilidng everything that's been torn down.
Getting the UN, the AU, and the international community at large to agree to such a colossal undertaking is beyond difficult to say the least, despite the fact that Zimbabwe is almost a text-book example of the kind of tyranny we supposidely agreed to stop when the UN was created back in the '40's.
The fact that the ideals that were set forth after the worst human crisis in history are being regulated to a mere truism is what really disturbs me.
The UN is useless when it comes to getting anything useful done, news at 11
I thought it was only Europeans that believed in the flowery shit pile that is the UN.
The UN is useless when it comes to getting anything useful done, news at 11
I thought it was only Europeans that believed in the flowery shit pile that is the UN.
Also helps that its most influential member harbors the most contempt for it.
Glyph on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
The UN is useless when it comes to getting anything useful done, news at 11
I thought it was only Europeans that believed in the flowery shit pile that is the UN.
Yes, the UNDP, UNEP, World Food Programme, UNRWA, UNESCO, IMF, WHO, and the World Bank were entirely useless creations.
I mean, it's not like the UN is composed as a forum in which its various members have to agree and any reticence on their own part could very well prevent any meaningful progress from happening. No, that would be just crazy.
First, this is not America's problem. The rest of the world needs to learn to handle its own little fuck ups without getting pissed at us for "policing the world" and "standing by while genocide happens."
Second, there is no solution to Zimbabwe, well at least not one people will accept. In addition to rebuilding their infrastructure, we would also need to gut and rebuild their military. Which means locating those in power who would care only for personal gain, and killing them in such a way to discourage anyone else from getting the bright idea of playing dictator.
Done right, it would be an expensive, long term project. Casualties, both civilian and dictator would be high. It would be a political nightmare for anyone involved. This is of course operating under the assumption the government let the military do its job and stop burdening the people in the field with having to try and maintain a good public image in the face of being shot at.
Then after you have killed everyone who would play dictator, you hold elections. With the stipulation that anyone tries to play dictator dies, anyone who fucks with the system in such a way that we have to come back and fix it again, dies. It would be a long, bloody, political nightmare that no one wants to get involved in.
I'm sure there is probably some politically correct route that does not involve lots of death, fear, and teaching people to farm. Unfortunately that usually does work when your only effective means of penalizing the country affect the very people your trying to save far more than the people your trying to get rid of.
The UN is useless when it comes to getting anything useful done, news at 11
I thought it was only Europeans that believed in the flowery shit pile that is the UN.
East Timor?
matisyahu on
i dont even like matisyahu and i dont know why i picked this username
The UN is useless when it comes to getting anything useful done, news at 11
I thought it was only Europeans that believed in the flowery shit pile that is the UN.
Yes, the UNDP, UNEP, World Food Programme, UNRWA, UNESCO, IMF, WHO, and the World Bank were entirely useless creations.
I mean, it's not like the UN is composed as a forum in which its various members have to agree and any reticence on their own part could very well prevent any meaningful progress from happening. No, that would be just crazy.
Fine.
The UN works extremely well when it comes to organizing the charity funds of the world and distributing them.
National sovereignty is precisely what makes the UN useless in this situation.
And fine, I'm being an ass, but the UN has proved useless when it comes to preventing genocide and great injustice around the world. Seeing that people somehow think that it will come in and save the day after sixty years of failure in these situations angers me.
The UN is useless when it comes to getting anything useful done, news at 11
I thought it was only Europeans that believed in the flowery shit pile that is the UN.
Yes, the UNDP, UNEP, World Food Programme, UNRWA, UNESCO, IMF, WHO, and the World Bank were entirely useless creations.
I mean, it's not like the UN is composed as a forum in which its various members have to agree and any reticence on their own part could very well prevent any meaningful progress from happening. No, that would be just crazy.
Fine.
The UN works extremely well when it comes to organizing the charity funds of the world and distributing them.
National sovereignty is precisely what makes the UN useless in this situation. And fine, I'm being an ass, but the UN has proved useless when it comes to preventing genocide and great injustice around the world. Seeing that people somehow think that it will come in and save the day after sixty years of failure in these situations angers me.
The United Nations was created in 1945 as an institution that would help prevent another world war. In that regard it has performed admirably and a world with the United Nations, while hardly perfect, is undoubtedly a lot more peaceful and a lot fewer people die than in a world without the United Nations.
Anyway, obligatory quote I always pull out when someone decides to fault the United Nations for not creating a world of rainbows, unicorns and gumdrops:
The United Nations was created in 1945 as an institution that would help prevent another world war. In that regard it has performed admirably and a world with the United Nations, while hardly perfect, is undoubtedly a lot more peaceful and a lot fewer people die than in a world without the United Nations.
Anyway, obligatory quote I always pull out when someone decides to fault the United Nations for not creating a world of rainbows, unicorns and gumdrops:
Depends on your definition of a World War. Mine is: "a war with soldiers from multiple continents". We have had many of those. If you go by a definition such as "simultaneous battles raging on multiple continents between alliances consisting of multiple countries" then you might have a point. As long as you ignore the Taliban fighting against the Russians or the Americans fighting in Vietnam where one side was heavily supported by another party.
My position is that the UN is hardly a peacekeeping force and should in fact abandon the hope to gain that function. They did a lot of good on the fields of research and charity and the protection of children and western heritage, but getting two countries to stop fighting or getting a dictator to pack his bags are not what they should try to do.
Aldo on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
The United Nations was created in 1945 as an institution that would help prevent another world war. In that regard it has performed admirably and a world with the United Nations, while hardly perfect, is undoubtedly a lot more peaceful and a lot fewer people die than in a world without the United Nations.
Anyway, obligatory quote I always pull out when someone decides to fault the United Nations for not creating a world of rainbows, unicorns and gumdrops:
Depends on your definition of a World War. Mine is: "a war with soldiers from multiple continents". We have had many of those. If you go by a definition such as "simultaneous battles raging on multiple continents between alliances consisting of multiple countries" then you might have a point. As long as you ignore the Taliban fighting against the Russians or the Americans fighting in Vietnam where one side was heavily supported by another party.
My position is that the UN is hardly a peacekeeping force and should in fact abandon the hope to gain that function. They did a lot of good on the fields of research and charity and the protection of children and western heritage, but getting two countries to stop fighting or getting a dictator to pack his bags are not what they should try to do.
See, that's not even what peacekeeping is; that's conflict resolution and negotiation which is what regional actors or specialized NGOs (in the recent case of Kenya) should generally be involved in anyway. Peacekeeping (or peacebuilding) involves overseeing already-implemented peace accords to provide internal security in order to either prevent a return to violence or strengthen a move towards growth and development in a country previously torn by conflict. You need to provide soldiers, civilians, and technical assistance and (so long as countries don't balk at the commitment to support the system) the UN should be the organization tasked with at the very least coordinating these efforts.
See, that's not even what peacekeeping is; that's conflict resolution and negotiation which is what regional actors or specialized NGOs (in the recent case of Kenya) should generally be involved in anyway. Peacekeeping (or peacebuilding) involves overseeing already-implemented peace accords to provide internal security in order to either prevent a return to violence or strengthen a move towards growth and development in a country previously torn by conflict. You need to provide soldiers, civilians, and technical assistance and (so long as countries don't balk at the commitment to support the system) the UN should be the organization tasked with at the very least coordinating these efforts.
See, that's not even what peacekeeping is; that's conflict resolution and negotiation which is what regional actors or specialized NGOs (in the recent case of Kenya) should generally be involved in anyway. Peacekeeping (or peacebuilding) involves overseeing already-implemented peace accords to provide internal security in order to either prevent a return to violence or strengthen a move towards growth and development in a country previously torn by conflict. You need to provide soldiers, civilians, and technical assistance and (so long as countries don't balk at the commitment to support the system) the UN should be the organization tasked with at the very least coordinating these efforts.
Point taken.
I get what peace keeping is, and I am proud Canada supports those missions, as do many UN countries. But are we saying that the UN is not suppose to interfere in other countries or conflicts unless they are invited in? The UN sure seems keen to debate about it and support trade sanctions.
Posts
The idea is to turn our back on totalitarian regimes that cease to serve our national interests, if that's what this is becoming. That's the extent to which we should intervene and thereafter leave them to sort out their own domestic problems. Better to focus on dictatorships from which we can actually gain something from toppling, if we absolutely must. Otherwise, what's the point?
I don't think military interference if the way to do things. But turning your back on a nation because they have nothing to offer doesn't look good either. You end up looking like a rich self serving country(RSSC).
RSSC: Let's spread democracy, and morals to those poor bastards in Iraq.
World: Hey look, there's another fucked up country!
RSSC: Yeah lets ...oh wait, they don't have oil? Um, I guess they are better off without interference.
Continued spreading of disease, inaccessible natural resources, not to mention the reality of failing states to destabilize their neighbours "which we can actually gain something from" leap to mind at a cursory glance, and that's not even considering the fact that said line of thinking basically condemns one billion people on this planet to continued starvation, exploitation, and death. If we only care about those nations in the context of what they can provide to us, then it's no wonder the South hates the North.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Aegis has it right about the privileges afforded the military - I imagine they're the few employed people being paid regularly these days (though with inflation any and all paying jobs are pretty much worthless). I recall a few months ago hearing how price controls were enforced - basically, a store will be reminded by an inspector to sell its goods at the unrealistic price set by the government and ten minutes later trucks will pull up with members of the police, army, ZANU-PF leadership, &c. and their families to clean the place out.
General sanctions as a rule fail horribly, but then generalized anything typically has that effect since problems affecting countries vary from one country to the next for various reasons. I've been trying to look for the effectiveness of targeted sanctions like you mention, since I think they've been tried in the past to limited extent.
Realistically in these situations, you'd want the neighbours of any given failing state to exert pressure on the country in question to clean up its act, but the fact that most of the neighbours are in similar straits then it might have to come down to fixing those first.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Sanctions make it look like something is going on when nothing is. If your country is already starving to death, whether or not the West is willing to sell Nike's to you is a pretty fucking moot point.
It deeply disturbs me that in the 'modern' world these kind of situations still exist, and the 'modern world's' inability to do anything more than shake their finger at it like it's nothing more than a naughty puppy that shit itself on your rug.
It's strange though. On one hand you can say that Zimbabwe's neighbours are also more worried about fixing their only problems, but I'd submit that so many of those problems are in large part created or exacerbated by the situation in Zimbabwe - the anti-foreigner riots in South Africa a couple of months ago just the most dramatic example.
That should be incentive enough though to those neighbours: If their problems are being created by Zimbabwe then they should have a vested interest in helping the region fix Zimbabwe.
Regarding sanction literature though: Sanctions and Regime Type: What Works, and When? by Risa A. Brooks seems to be a good starting read.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
*I don't count the Bishop's rule as separate from Smith's.
I agree that the modern world's inability to do anything is pathetic, but what exactly should the "modern world" be doing to solve this?
It is hard to do nothing more then support them with aid/food/money without it looking like we endorse Mugabe's government.
And if we aren't happy with Mugabe and his neighbours and country aren't willing to pressure him out of office, there isn't much we can do besides sanctions that doesn't boarder on military interference and war.
At what point do you go from a fair election to an unfair election to a dictatorship? And what constitutes justification for forcibly removing a dictator from power? The UN can't agree on anything.
The system does somewhat work, I think international supervision forced a more fair election in Ukraine, but we need to work on things.
It is not fair on the world to have the US police the world as it sees fit. And it is too great a burden on the US to expect them to step up and do something every time a country is fucked up, look at the impact of invading Iraq. The United Nations needs to be able to act. I don't agree with the US invading a country without some sort of UN approval, but security council countries like France using their veto vote to prevent any action gets old quickly.
I think the UN should be able to say, were going in, the election is going to be re-done, our troops will be on the ground, watching. Once the voting is done and the new government is setup, our troops will make sure the new government has control of all non UN military in the country, and then the UN will get their troops home. End of story.
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Bottom line, we can't keep preoccupying ourselves with consequences that "may or may not happen". By assuming preventative measures we could very well end up making things worse.
Not that such an intervention should take place anyway. There's vanishingly few models for successful invasions aimed solely at restoring a country to political and social equilibrium; plus the the world's only super-power capable of the logistics of such an operation is at full-stretch elsewhere in the world right now.
What to do? It sounds harsh, but the only realistic hope for a resolution is for things to get worse in Zimbabwe. Already in this past year, that country has reached the tipping point with support for Mugabe - he would probably have won most of his past elections without vote rigging, but now, even with Tsvangarai not even on the ballot, hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans voted for him. That's bravery. The MDC actually won the parliamentary elections, and of course we all know Tsvangarai won the first round of presidential voting with a margin past that required for outright victory.
The only lasting change that will come will come from the Zimbabwean people and the people of Africa. South Africa's stance is finally starting to change and Jacob Zuma * will be in power soon to take a tougher line. The rest of Africa is becoming embarrassed of Mugabe.
* incidentally a colossal shit, but there you are.
Sierra Lione: RUF took 500 UN soldiers hostage and stripped them of their military equipment. Few hundred British soldiers get sent there, are willing to take a few casualties (in contrast the the UN soldiers) and the rebel army dissipated. Not to mention the inaction in Darfur and Somalia provide good cases for what happens when we don't intervene (though they have been overshadowed to too much of an extent by what happens when a country intervenes militarily incorrectly).
That said, depressingly I'd agree with the situation getting worse and change having to be initially catalysed within the country/region.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Exactly. Any successful transistion that has taken place in a country that was ruled by an elite class/dictator/military junta from tyranny to a free and democractic country usually takes place in a few ways: either the people do it, or an outside force comes in and makes it happen.
I definately agree that it is definately not practical (nor fair) to expect the US (or any country for that matter) to come in and take care of the situation in Zimbabwe; it's not only impractical, but I would say it's terribly unfair to expect one country to shoulder the cost in manpower, resources, and time to bail out another country on it's own.
Successful occupations (and any military action would require a lenghty occupation if was designed to actually be constructive in the long run) takes money, resources, and....time. If the UN is to go in, it's going to have to one helluva long stay. You can't just rush in, kill the bad guys, set up elections, then go; Zimbabwe is totaled. Real democracy needs stable institutions to flourish or else some other dickweed like Mugabe is gonna show up again. Building these institutions requires a period of reconcillation, followed by healing the country by rebuilidng everything that's been torn down.
Getting the UN, the AU, and the international community at large to agree to such a colossal undertaking is beyond difficult to say the least, despite the fact that Zimbabwe is almost a text-book example of the kind of tyranny we supposidely agreed to stop when the UN was created back in the '40's.
The fact that the ideals that were set forth after the worst human crisis in history are being regulated to a mere truism is what really disturbs me.
Zuma is indeed a collosal shit, but he is also a populist (or at least he considers himself one) and would probably love to piss off the old guard of SA and gain accolades by taking out Mugabe unilaterally.
The UN is useless when it comes to getting anything useful done, news at 11
I thought it was only Europeans that believed in the flowery shit pile that is the UN.
Also helps that its most influential member harbors the most contempt for it.
Yes, the UNDP, UNEP, World Food Programme, UNRWA, UNESCO, IMF, WHO, and the World Bank were entirely useless creations.
I mean, it's not like the UN is composed as a forum in which its various members have to agree and any reticence on their own part could very well prevent any meaningful progress from happening. No, that would be just crazy.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Second, there is no solution to Zimbabwe, well at least not one people will accept. In addition to rebuilding their infrastructure, we would also need to gut and rebuild their military. Which means locating those in power who would care only for personal gain, and killing them in such a way to discourage anyone else from getting the bright idea of playing dictator.
Done right, it would be an expensive, long term project. Casualties, both civilian and dictator would be high. It would be a political nightmare for anyone involved. This is of course operating under the assumption the government let the military do its job and stop burdening the people in the field with having to try and maintain a good public image in the face of being shot at.
Then after you have killed everyone who would play dictator, you hold elections. With the stipulation that anyone tries to play dictator dies, anyone who fucks with the system in such a way that we have to come back and fix it again, dies. It would be a long, bloody, political nightmare that no one wants to get involved in.
I'm sure there is probably some politically correct route that does not involve lots of death, fear, and teaching people to farm. Unfortunately that usually does work when your only effective means of penalizing the country affect the very people your trying to save far more than the people your trying to get rid of.
East Timor?
Fine.
The UN works extremely well when it comes to organizing the charity funds of the world and distributing them.
National sovereignty is precisely what makes the UN useless in this situation.
And fine, I'm being an ass, but the UN has proved useless when it comes to preventing genocide and great injustice around the world. Seeing that people somehow think that it will come in and save the day after sixty years of failure in these situations angers me.
Anyway, obligatory quote I always pull out when someone decides to fault the United Nations for not creating a world of rainbows, unicorns and gumdrops:
My position is that the UN is hardly a peacekeeping force and should in fact abandon the hope to gain that function. They did a lot of good on the fields of research and charity and the protection of children and western heritage, but getting two countries to stop fighting or getting a dictator to pack his bags are not what they should try to do.
See, that's not even what peacekeeping is; that's conflict resolution and negotiation which is what regional actors or specialized NGOs (in the recent case of Kenya) should generally be involved in anyway. Peacekeeping (or peacebuilding) involves overseeing already-implemented peace accords to provide internal security in order to either prevent a return to violence or strengthen a move towards growth and development in a country previously torn by conflict. You need to provide soldiers, civilians, and technical assistance and (so long as countries don't balk at the commitment to support the system) the UN should be the organization tasked with at the very least coordinating these efforts.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
I get what peace keeping is, and I am proud Canada supports those missions, as do many UN countries. But are we saying that the UN is not suppose to interfere in other countries or conflicts unless they are invited in? The UN sure seems keen to debate about it and support trade sanctions.