Yes, the Queen mum herself "stripped Robert Mugabe of his ceremonial knighthood on Wednesday" ... that should teach him a lesson!

And if that's not enough England is also "banning Zimbabwe's cricket team from a tour of Britain" ... oooh, that's gotta hurt.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...ighthood_N.htm

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I just finished reading "We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families" (about the Rwanda massacre) and it left me with a pretty low opinion of the actions of "The International Community" ... the Africans should take care of the situation in Zim themselves and not wait for the UN or the western nations to fix it for them.

Bill

Bill we here in Massachusetts really have Mugabe on the run when the Univ. of Massachusetts recently withdrew his honorary PhD.

Another good book on the subject of the West's inaction to the world's genocides is Samantha Power's - "A Problem form Hell": America in the Age of Genocide which won a Pulitzer Prize.

Biil I read "We Wish to Inform You.." a few years ago. Terribly disheartening, isn't it?

What's Mad Bob going to do now that he's no longer Sir Mad Bob?

"And if that's not enough England is also "banning Zimbabwe's cricket team from a tour of Britain" ... oooh, that's gotta hurt."

Bill - Not really..... if at all - the England cricketers will get a bit of a rest from all the non-stop cricket action in today's circuit. The standard of Zim cricket has been steadily deteriorating since around 2000 or 2001 when most of the talent moved away from the country to live elsewhere. Right now, they are no more competitive than a club team to begin with .......

"... that should teach him a lesson!"

I don't think that's the point.

The BBC reported Lib Dem leader Mr Clegg as saying: <i>&quot;It is symbolic but it is important that we use even symbolic measures to underline our disgust at what Mugabe and his henchmen are now doing in Zimbabwe.&quot;

&quot;He agreed that Mr Mugabe would &quot;laugh it off&quot; but said: &quot;That is no reason not to do it. I think it is wholly inappropriate for a knighthood to be retained by someone who is behaving with such unforgivable brutality.&quot; </i>&quot;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7473243.stm

<i>&quot;He agreed that Mr Mugabe would &quot;laugh it off&quot; but said: &quot;That is no reason not to do it. I think it is wholly inappropriate for a knighthood to be retained by someone who is behaving with such unforgivable brutality.&quot;</i>

That may be so, but why did Britain wait so long to do it? Apparently the last time an Honorary Knighthood was rescinded was in 1989 from Nicolae Ceauşescu - the day before he was executed! Nothing like leaving things until the last minute in case you might offend someone...

Seems like for the West, it's a case of &quot;damned if you do and damned if you don't&quot;. Intervening in Iraq to get rid of a horrendous dictator hasn't won the interveners many friends; not intervening in Zim to get rid of an unspeakable dictator hasn't won the non-interveners many friends.

But I'm ever so slightly encouraged by what SADC has done in the last couple of days. They're about as harsh as any African leaders have ever been towards a &quot;freedom fighter&quot;, calling for Mugabe to step down or at least work for a negotiated settlement. Not that I think either of those things will ever happen, but like Mr Clegg says, symbolic actions do have some validity.

Bill

I think we have ample evidence of what will happen when the African's take care of it themselves - nothing! Mbeki has been the lead on this issue for a number of years, and as seems to be common with leaders on that continent, any number of people's suffering does not match the desire to protect one of the leaders of the struggle. Sub-saharan Africa has a critical shortage of one really important resource, leadership. Read Dark Star Safari by Paul Theroux.

I agree with Napa, it is a resource lacking globally, not just Africa.

<b>Sub-saharan Africa has a critical shortage of one really important resource, leadership. Read Dark Star Safari by Paul Theroux.</b>

Matt, I actually finished this book 3-4 weeks ago ... I agree he paints a bleak picture of the governments and societies, but he also criticizes the aid agencies, mentioning several books (that my library doesn't have) that make the case that these agencies do little long-term good for Africans and actually retard development in some cases. I was surprised at first to read this, then after thinking about it for a bit I can see their point.

So I really don't think Theroux would be advocating intervention.

<b>I think we have ample evidence of what will happen when the African's take care of it themselves - nothing! </b>

I agree that South Africa is the logical 'agent of change' and Mbeki doesn't seem interested. But I don't think the UN or the 'international community' should kick out Mugabe unilaterally.

The &quot;We Wish to Inform You ...&quot; book is still on my mind I guess ... the UN had forces there during the early stages of the massacres (I just picked up the book by the UN commanding officer, Romeo Dallaire, who was very bitter about not being allowed to intervene). Basically they 'observed' even while women and children were being hacked to death with machetes, at times right in front of them.

Then towards the end of the first stage of the conflict the aid agencies set up refugee camps that were filled with Hutu Power supporters (the people who committed the massacres). They set up these camps but didn't disarm the Hutu Power forces, who were able to keep the conflict going for over a year. According to the book (I don't know how accurate or unbiased the book is) the Africans came up with their own solutions to these problems in spite of the actions of the 'international community', which was a hindrance at every step of the way.

So if the Rwandans could do it (and topple the government in Congo) I don't see why Africans in southern Africa can't figure out a solution to Zimbabwe.

Bill