Zimbabwe election
 

I'm just someone who spent a while in Zim in the early 90s, and has good reason to love the country and the people. Returned 1996; not been back since.

Can anyone tell me why the international community has let this go on for so long?

No oil - that's one factor.

So the US won't be interested, and so far after colonial times the UK is out of the frame too. So do we turn to South Africa to do something?

Rhetorical question but it would be interesting to get your views, assuming that is, that the "animal watchers" care about anything else.

Toppping in the hope that the animal watchers know what an election is.

I will give you my answer.

I think it is pathetic that both South Africa and Botswana have not done anything. Both countries have more then enough power to do something and sit back and let it all continue. Being born a Pom, spending most of my life in S.A., considering myself a South African, I have become embarrassed because of this scenario (and of coarse the fact that we do not have enough electricity and plenty of crime and BEE and………)

What do you want the international community to do?

Well, let's see, Gritty ..

The international community acted in Kosovo to stop bloodshed.

Tne International communtiy acted (debatable) in Iraq and Afghanistan. Though, of course, that was not out of principle, it was to protect America's interests.

What I want to know from you, is why the USA isn't sending in the troops to Zimbabwe?

What in your opinion makes Zimbabse different from Irag?

Sounds like a perfect project for the UN...time to put on the blue helmets and step up to the plate.

Simplistically, there are stated differences between Iraq and Zimbabwe. Bush/Cheney/etc. claimed to be going into Iraq because of WMD's (now, whether that's pretense of not is, of course, a subject for history to decide). As far as I've read, Zim does not have WMDs (ie, nuclear weapons), so is not a threat to the US or its neighbors. So, there's one major difference between Zimbabse and Irag.

The better question is why South Africa, a regional power, has not done anything in Zimbabwe, nor has the African Union. So long as they continue to treat Mugabe as royalty (as a hero who overthrew the colonial powers), he will remain in power.

And, my suspicion is that Mugabe will have again stolen the recent elections.

I would say that Zimbabwe is a threat to Africa as a whole....not from a military standpoint point, but a mindset.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/wo...mp;oref=slogin

Opposition is claiming victory -- let's see what happens.

So, afterall, it appears that you favor a military solution from your earlier statement. How would you carry it out? Get rid of one man? If so, what about the military, which has stated that they will not accept leadership from anyone other than Mugabe?

Who will carry out this plan? The United States? It appears they're busy right now, for better and worse. I can't speak much about the UK, but I would imagine that they may not want to get involved; after all, it was Rhodesia that unilaterally declared independence from Great Britain, was it not? If the UK is the old colonial force, why would they want to get involved and thus be invariably labeled as neo-colonialists?

The Southern Africa Development Community effusively praised Mugabe and called for the lifting of sanctions against Zimbabwe following their emergency summit in 2007. It appears they're not going to spearhead any efforts to change.

As you know, this problem has been going on since 2000 or so. I've yet to hear the UN do anything substantial. If you or anyone else has more information about this, I'd be glad to hear it.

So, it appears the big players are out for the time being. I'm sincerely curious to hear your suggestions. Since this a travel board, may I suggest that this topic be moved to the forum lounge? I think this is a more appropriate place to discuss this in more detail.

I think that you will find that there are many here who do care about Africa's people and express it in many different ways.

The lack of results at this point has me concerned that Mugabe is not playing fair. Hope I am wrong.

Well, I fear the worst.

The longer it takes for the "official" results to come through, the more likely it is that Mugabe will be declared the "official winner". And we all know that the longer it takes the more likely it is that the results are rigged.

So what's to be done?

I don't like military solutions (cos they are rarely "solutions"). And, thankfully, right now the US doesn't have Zim in its sights (no oil). I wouldn't want the US going in there, would you? That leaves the UN (not going to happen); or the EU (unlikely)

Now the way I see it, SA is the power in the area. And if Africans should control African affairs, then it's up to SA. Either they sort it out or they admit to being not quite ready for that kind of responsibility, and call on help from elsewhere.

Diplomatically SA must seem to be in control. They have smart people. Time for them to stand up and do something.

Don't you think?

I find it interesting that every remark about the US on this site is followed by....a negative remark..ie oil.

How about this....

The US (who has given millions and millions of dollars to fight AIDS and Malaria in Africa) has decided not to intervene in the elections of Zimbabwe. The US is looking towards the United Nations or South Africa to stand up and make sure the elections are performed fairly.

This is sort of like sitting down with the family before calling the police (USA).

afterall--thank you for clarifying your ideas. It appeared earlier that you favored military options through your earlier examples of international interventions (i.e., Kosovo, Iraq, etc.).

I agree that SA (and others in the region) probably are best suited to changing the situation. Are you familiar with Mbeki's strategy of "quiet diplomacy?" The consensus is that it does not appear to have worked, unfortunately.

I also seem to recall reading that the US is relying on SA to settle this affair rather than intervene more directly.

May I politely suggest that one reason why the US may not have Zimbabwe "in its sights" is due to our lack of historical colonial involvement in Africa? I would assert that the US just doesn't have the experience that France, Britain, Portugal, Germany, and Belgium have had in the region (did I leave anyone out?).

Of course, I cite this as one of a plethora of possible reasons. I do think the absence of oil is not a primary reason. There isn't any (known) oil in Somalia, but the US was militarily involved there (for better and worse). Conversely, Nigeria has lots of oil, and the US did not militarily intervene during any of their civil uprisings.

My bad...how could I forget the Dutch?!?! My apologies for temporarily forgetting those of you with Dutch heritage.

Mugabe is in talks with the MDC over the prospect of stepping down

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7325286.stm

Chinua Achebe - (part 3)

All I know is that he should get a proper ousting!

Not all those who choose not to participate in travel board threads about the current political situation and election in Zimbabwe have no awareness of or knowledge of the situation.

If I was judged only to care about those things that I discuss on internet boards it could be said that I care about very few things indeed!

I am keeping my fingers crossed about the election results but sadly, I suspect that Mugabe will simply not allow a result that isn't favourable to him. Whether he simply announces that he has won regardless or whether he has his minions rig the ballots, who knows.

:(

I think most of the information coming from Zim is still patchy - given that there isn't adequate media coverage and complete lack of accurate information.

Kavey - I hear what you are saying. But would you agree with the following statement?

"99% of people who post on the Africa board really have no idea where they are going. They are just going to see "the animals". Don't care, don't know, anything about the countries they are visiting, except they want to see a lion."

Yes, No??

Afterall, you may be right, you may be wrong, about those posting here. As Kavey so rightly points out, the little piece of ourselves that we show here is only a little piece.

I've studied African politics a little bit (about 50-60 graduate credit hours worth), and lived in SA, and I have a few modest and partial answers about why African governments are the way they are, and why the "international community" responds to Africa the way it does. But I don't especially want to discus them in a context that assumes that oil is the only factor in US foreign policy, for example.

Many books have been written about the nature of African politics, by people who have done serious study of the topic. Anyone who really wants to understand the present Zim situation can find more useful answers by looking there, rather than here.

<<99% of people who post on the Africa board really have no idea where they are going. They are just going to see "the animals". Don't care, don't know, anything about the countries they are visiting, except they want to see a lion.>>

Frankly, I (and you) have absolutely no basis to make that estimation, and your self-righteousness, that you are the only person concerned with Zimbabwe, is off-putting. This is, afterall, first and foremost, a travel forum -- there must be other forums dedicated to a discussion of the Zimbabwe, and other, political situations. But, afterall, banter on a forum is free -- maybe on those other forums, the forums dedicated to political discourse, you can offer practical advice, instead of cheap remarks.

No I absolutely would not agree with that statement. As Thit_Cho says and as I was trying to indicate in my previous post, it's impossible to judge knowledge on non-travel issues since this is essentially a board about TRAVEL and not politics (or other issues) within Africa and so most posters, whether they know very little or lots and lots on those various non-travel topics, won't be posting about them here.

Thank you, Celia, Kavey and thit_cho, for your posts.

For my two cents -- No, I don't think that "99%" statement is true, and frankly I find it insulting. I don't care about or know anything about African countries just because I don't choose to talk politics on a travel forum? That's absurd.

While this isn't a political forum, when you travel anywhere, politics manages to sneek in.

Only weeks ago there was thread-upon-thread about the political upheaval in Kenya and how it did or would impact current or future travel to this country or anywhere in Africa.

Every few months there's a thread asking about the Travel Warnings to any number of countries.

We've discussed the bombings in Egypt and the safety of travel to this country. Also, ealth and safety for travel anywhere on this continent.

So why not Zimbabwe which has been under control of a maniac for years, taking a once thriving and beautiful destination to the brink (if not already there); a place that many ask "should we" or "not travel here?"

I would agree that some people travel to Africa, whether for culture on only animals, and have very little knowledge of their destination, nor care to know. But that can be said about many different places around the world.

Plenty of threads about "traveler" or "tourist" - personalities of visitors, attitudes, quirks, behavior, attire, food, and on and on. So, again why not politics about a continent many of us feel very close to.

It's doubtful we'll have the answers or could snap our fingers and make it all better, but nothing wrong with opinions and thoughts as long as it doesn't get nasty and become a hissy match!

You're absolutely right, Sandi -- no reason not to discuss politics on a travel forum, because you definitely can't separate the two.

The part of this thread that annoyed me was the assumption that if everyone doesn't jump into the discussion on a particular thread, it means either they don't know anything, or they don't care.

Agreed. I've seen political topics discussed here in limited scope before. I enjoy reading political opinions (when presented respectfully), and it appears that other Fodors forums may discuss politics more than this one.

In this thread, I thought I would see if afterall had anything particularly insightful to say, regardless of her misguided view of the people of this forum. At the very least, I thought I might be able to learn something from her.

However, it appears that all she wants to do is continue to mischaracterize us rather than "get our views."

So, I apologize for feeding this troll.

It's not that it's not appropriate to discuss politics here, should people wish to, especially when it relates to decisions concerning travel to that destination.

Personally I am happy enough to see the topic discussed as I've certainly been following the news closely.

It's more the erroneous conclusion that was jumped to; that those who hadn't posted about Zimbabwean politics (or the politics of any other country, for that matter) had no knowledge, no interest or simply didn't care.

Kavey, sandi, and thit_cho. I very much agree with your posts.

I think if anyone would bother to search this forum, you'll find lots of posts where well meaning, thoughtful, and reasonable travelers are struggling with the question of whether a visit to Zimbabwe would help or hurt the people.

I don't see any posts of the "to heck with the locals, point me at the lions" variety.

Afterall,
You are certainly not the only person on this board who has lived in, or cares about Zimbabwe. I did my PhD research in Zim and have spent several stretches of up to a year there over the last two decades. I have lots of opinions on the international community/elections/human rights abuses/economic meltdown etc. but this is a travel board.

If you had asked this question in a less pompous, hostile manner perhaps you could have generated a wealth of information and opinion but that doesn't appear to be what what you were aiming for.

When Mugabe says he'll allow a runoff election, he really means the opposition should run off before they're arrested or killed.

welltravelled et al,

You are right. My original post, and follow ups could have been more temperate, but if they had been, I don't think we'd be having this discussion.

Grateful to those of you who do think politics can't be divorced from travel.

Re oil - just a pot stirrer. Agree that USA has no OVERT history of interest in the African continent. Not generally recognised as a "sphere of influence". BUT let's not kid ourselves that there weren't battles for hearts and minds going on between the US and the USSR during those years.

Of course there were. And now, on a more general front, the battle is likely to be between China and non-China.

Re millions of dollars spend on AIDS and malaria. Whoever said that has obviously overlooked the fact that the Bush Govt's favoured response to AIDS is to abstain from sex. I do salute Bill Gates' contributions to malaria research.

It's looking very nasty. And sure as sure can be, the majority of the Zimbabean nation want to get rid of Mugabe. So what happens next?

I honestly don't know who will step up to prevent a disaster. But someone must.

to be something of a devil's advocate - it does seem that travel to Africa is more animal viewing based so to speak, although I feel that that is due to how the trips are structured. I am mentally composing an email to our TA to ask if we can spend a little time in some villages on our way from point A to point B on our safari, to get a feel, however small, for the human side of Botswana. A flying safari does not give one a chance to see the rest of the country, besides the parks and concessions. Luckily ours is part flying, part driving.

Mugabe is a destabilizing influence in southern Africa, agreed, but how much power does SA have? From what I read, and the arguments that I've seen on this board, there are enough problems internally in SA that they might not be able to influence anyone else.

Afterall -

How about a perspective from someone who is preparing to take his family on their first ever safari in August?? While game viewing is certainly a priority for our trip, we also sat down (wife and 2 teenagers)and discussed what else we wanted to learn/see from our trip. A the top of the list was.."what can we learn about the culture, and is there anything, no matter how small we can do to help the people??"

For this reason, we decided on a 4 night stay on the Zim side of Vic Falls. While this was in no way a decision driven by "politics", it was a decision made to help the people of Zim in some tiny way (whether or not we're helping I do understand is a point of great debate). Given the current political climate, we may or may not ultimately be able to visit Zim in August, however, at least in our family, there is a definate desire to take home more than just "photos of a lion".

Since election day, our family has learned more about the plight of the Zim people than I would have ever imagined. My kids are beginning to develop a compassion for a struggling people/nation.

In my opinion, that's a far more important life lesson than simply marking animal sightings in a safari journal.

first of all: i could not and would not argue on the percentage of tourists to africa who are simply not interested in anything else except animals. i believe this is the question in view to all destinations not simply africa.

regarding mugabe's destabilisation of southern africa:

as long as NAM, BOT and foremost mbeki from RZA supports the ZIM government simply based on former comradeship there won't be space for a solution. especially the people of ZIM feel betrayed by these southern african governments for not helping.

in view to RZA:
i don't think south africa has reached its peak of destabilisation itself! as far as i can see - i am in south africa on a more regular basis and don't simply stay in fancy lodges but also speak to "joe average" - the black majority's disappointment is growing and if ZUMA is going to become the next president things are going to change to the worse, not only for the whites but also for the black underpriviliged.
in case they convict zuma of several charges (16 in the pipeline from illegal wappen trade and rape to money laundring) the country might face severe trouble.
just one figur:
in 1996 the number of people living below the povertyline were 1.5 million. in 2006 this figure rose up to 4.5 million!

I would have posted a relevant reply. But you have to drag the US and UK into it. And your snide remark about "animal watchers" put me off. Maybe you should take this question to the "Lounge" where posters will bash anything without any constructive suggestions and unrelated to facts.

regards - tom

Tom - shame you don't feel able to comment. But with respect, the UK and and US have to be dragged into it. That's really the whole point. Zimbabwe is being allowed to operate as if in a vacuum - hands off - WHY?

Momliz and jgoebels - appreciate your contributions.

And JG, I agree, totally, and more than I can say, with your comment:

"In my opinion, that's a far more important life lesson than simply marking animal sightings in a safari journal".

That, I suppose, is what I'm getting at. 90% or more of posts on this board are about, for instance; where to see a wild dog; sightings of lions, and elephants, and, etc, etc. ...; and which is the best "camp" to stay at?

Sort of demonstrates the interest people have in the countries of the continent. Which is basically nill, as long as they get those photos.

And this is exactly the sort of thing I mean:

http://www.fodors.com/forums/threads...p;tid=35121197

After All

I have previously not posted to this thread as I do not believe that political discussion belongs on a TRAVEL forum.

Whilst I appreciate that everybody is entitled to have a view on this matter, I find it objectional that a thread started on matters relating to TRAVEL is cited as being a good example of people that do not care for anything but animals.

I have friends that live in Zimbabwe both black and white, and I have been unable to contact them for some time.