The Mugabe and Clark issue

Since the gathering at new years, nothing has made me prouder to be a kiwi than helen clark's stand on mugabe.

America's so gun happy and into killing people everywhere, so why don't they take this cunt out? Mugabe is this millenium's first Hitler.

He's an evil dictator running possibly the most corrupt government on the planet. Did you know he's arming black soldiers coming back from war an telling them to take white farmer's farms? Here's an example of genocide.

Thats reason enough to have outside interferance in Zimbabwe, let alone an illegal election in which nobody but himself will remain leader.

What do you think?

Good idea to have that Yanks take him out, but one minor problem. He's not an Arab! They are too busy making enemies out of the middle east to worry about some tinpot little african nation.

The only hope may be to conjure up some new African 'Triumvirate of Evil' to perk the interest of Dubya. Zimbabwe, Somalia and The Congo maybe?

Sorry, I shouldn't joke over here in Current Affairs, but I do agree with you, but I think Helen's words will fall on deaf ears internationaly. Until it all turns to shit in Zimbabwe, and then her 'I told you so' will get shot down by the media who will accuse her of gloating over the misfortune of others.

Clark's actions may be futile, but its fuckin wicked shes doing it all the same. Filled me with praise of her.

I say full credit to Helen for doing what she's done. NZ's exports to zimbabwe may only be worth $7 million, but Mugabe has to be shown that what he is doing is wrong.

I say the CHOGM leaders piked out when it came to this issue - how can they say "wait until after the election" - they might as well have said, "let a couple thousand more people die"

Yeah, makes me feel sick that the Commonwealth are being so impotent on the whole issue. I've bene foloowing Zimbabwe for the last two years now, and until now it's pretty much been away from the headlines, despite the atrocities going on here.

State sanctioned stripping of private property rights is awful. He's systematically destroyed their economy now. kris_b: Yeah, it turned to shit long ago, as soon as the black youths started ripping into white farm owners, taking their land and bashing them.

Remember the last election? Mugabe stayed in power after that one was rigged too, as far as I remember. What makes it any different this time? Everyone KNOWS that the intimidation continues. The supporters have been taking out MDC candidates and pro MDC journalists repeatedly over the last few months. An election campaign goes much longer than the last couple of weeks before the election that the Commonwealth observers seem to be considering.

On the other hand, I doubt diplomatic pressure will make much difference. Mugabe's dictator-like approach will nullify that, I reckon.

as i see it the zimbabwe situation is all the product of the colonial attitudes of last and the one before century's... so i a sense the 'commonwealth' is responsible for the mess.

Well done Helen Clark.

CHOGM, APEC, G8, whatever they're all shit. Why do we still still pay for people to be sent to these? They are all as corruptly fucked up as one another.

You are right to an extent, although after zimbabwe went to black rule white people stayed there largely because the govt wanted them to. If they had all left the economy would have been a basket case. Also some of these people had been there for generations and would have wanted to stay anyway. Whatever the case what mugabe is doing is screwed and is more of a personal agenda than being done for any good to the country.

I agree that it is a waste of time being part of a group as ineffectual and unimportant as the commonwealth. Ties with england are getting weaker and weaker and soon it will be time to break the last links.

rimu: That's not true at all. Mugabe is just a power crazed guy on a warpath to win an election the only way he can - by appealing to the black underclass majority that is present in Zimbabwe. Unfortunately, he's appealing to them by encouraging lawlessness, infringement of private propery rights, violence and intimidation. He's passed countless unconstitutional laws now, by making it illegal to show disrepect to him (or similar) all to allow him to take resources illegally from white, productive, law-abiding citizens to give to others.

This is not a product of the commonwealth, this is a product of one guy inciting racial violence by effectively legalising it.

So we invade him because we don't like what he does within his own SOVEREIGN BORDERS.

Maybe tomorrow Australia decides they don't like what we do to Somali immigrants. So they invade us.

Maybe America decides they don't like what Australia did to the Aborigines, so they nuke Australia.

Maybe the rest of the world decides that American TV is too evil to exist, so they nuke America

Do you understand? Once you breach sovereignty for some airy-fairy "Human rights" reason, you're on a slippery slope that can lead to invasion for little justification. Sanctions, fine. Suspension from the Commonwealth, fine. But intervention without consent - never. He is the legitimate government of Zimbabwe.

Vadinho - for an intelligent person your posts on sovereignty bear the marks of a crazy man. For a start no-one is saying invade Zimbabwe. The rest just gets back to your belief in state sanctioned murder and isn't worth going into.

Weren't you the one advocating Western (Christian) government in Afghanistan/Israel/place which I can't quite remember?

Sorry, Vadinho, not JAH...

Vadinho your argument doesn't deserve a proper reply - as it didnt when you claimed hitler was correct in killing jews etc in his own borders. Its bullshit.

Rimu - if a crazy, corrupt, evil maori got into power in New Zealand and started killing all the white people, taking thier land and forcing them to leave the country would your attitude be the same? Maybe so. If he then let the economy go beyond shit, so everyone apart from maybe his own quality of life slipped to a shadow of what it is now then your attitude may change. And finally if he would not hold a fair election and stayed in power the same way hitler got to power, I'm positive you'd realise its not right.

Sure, the commonwealth caused a lot of shit in Zimbabwe. Not as much as Mugabe is causing, and two huge wrongs don't make the smallest right.

Who determines WHEN intervention is OK?

I'll state this historical fact before : in 1939, Hitler used the fact that Germans were subject to prejudice in Poland (which was indeed factually correct) to justify his invasion. Under this doctrine of "humanitarian intervention" this would be moral and legal.

I've read screeds on humanitarian intervention and the legitimacy of sovereignty. What is a constant theme is this : humanitarian intervention is a product of compassion, not legality. It is seldom impartial, nor does it meet all humanitarian emergencies in the same way, rather it is used as an excuse for traditional geopolitics (cf. Rwanda with Kosovo)

Human rights are nonsense on stilts.

So it'd be okay for me to take away your freedom, money, and your home if I came into power, and put you in jail for disagreeing with the state? It'd be okay, right? Cause I can do whatever I like within my own border?

If your actions are undertaken under the laws of the land - then yes. If you break the laws, you have done 'wrong'. Understand, when I say the 'leader' 'ruler' I mean the concept of the 'sovereign' who is not the person but the ideal they stand for.

Summed up "You obey the constitution, not the president" but if the president legally changed the constitution to allow abuses e.g. murders, then yes, it would be right.

You blind adherence to what the 'law' says is interesting. Laws are just rules created by whoever happens to be in power. What if those making the laws are not democratically elected, or representative of the populatons views in any way? If a dictator is making laws that are plainly ridiculous, discriminatory and prejudiced - why should they be adhered to?

Laws are meant to be merely standards to allow the fucntioning of society to work more efficiently. They are supposed to represent the moral and social values that human as a whole value. If the law is abused and changed to suit a dictator, it loses its way. Why then should so much respect be paid to it as you claim it should, when it is altered in a way which is illegal itself?

Mugabe just passed unconstitutional laws. Now which laws should be adhered to Vadz? The illegal laws (as says the constitution) he has just passed - or the constitution? What if laws are at odds?

Passing a law does not mean you are entitled to morally get away with anything you like within your sovereign powers.

did u copy that from your text book voice? i agree and there is usually a "law" in any state or government that says pretty much exactly that

The original legitimising law of a state, namely the constitution, takes precedence.

Anyhow - why is it wrong to kill someone? Simply because the laws say so. Understand? There is no fancy schmanzy law of reality that says 'Thou shalt not kill' (unless you are religious, in which case you do have an out... of course there is 'render unto caesar... in that case). Killing is wrong because it is against a law (whether a religious law or a state law)

dana: No, no textbook. That's just what I think.

Vadz: Yes, I agree that the constituion takes precendence. But what if the constitution has been altered. What if the constituion sanctions the desturction of basic human rights?

What if attitudes of constituents change over time so that the constituion is outdated and not in keeping with the true views of society? The consitution (if one exists) is just a set of basic overriding principles that are agreed upon by 'people' that should be core in the passing of /new/ laws. It's not some fundamental truth about humanity, it's just some principles. Just as social trends, demographics and behavious changes over time, the constitution could change too.


You ruling regarding the morality of killing is ridiculous. Killing is wrong because human society (on the whole) has 'decided' that killing is wrong. Upon deciding this, when people have decided to have governments, allowing them to pass laws, the people have concluded that banning 'killing' should be put into law. The law should be just a representative of the views of society as a whole, or 'on average'. The law prohibiting murder is merely a voice for the views of society, setting a standard in order that everyone knows that this is the values that most of society have.

When these values change, different governments are elected, and they pass different laws.

The 'law' does not define what is right and wrong. The 'law' is merely a vessel for which society's views of what is right or wrong is kept. Sometimes it becomes out of sync with the views of the public, and the democratic process has been designed so that these views can be then incorporated into the law over time.

Your argument resembles the argument of a mother telling her kids that "it's bad to steal because it's against the law". That's bullshit. It's not bad because of the law, it's bad to steal because it upsets other people, infringes on their basic property rights, and is contrary to the general values of society. The law merely embeds these values.

vadz - why does every discussion in here lead to your ludicrous views on state sanctioned murder. We all know your views on this and it does get a bit tedious after a while. I have only been on this board for a few months and yet I have seen this exact same topic on at least half a dozen occassions.

so about mugabe and clark.....

its a sad situation, mugabe was once considered one of the great black leaders,fighting for freedom and rights for his people,a hero to many.
now look what he has sunk to.power truly does corrupt.

The classic case of a leader with too much power. Seems to have gone the same way as Haile Selassie. Very few leaders seem to be able to handle that sort of power, with Fidel Castro being possible the only one around at the moment.

There is an article re. Mugabe on one new tonight for those who are interested.

Mugabe, and the state south africa is in, as well as congo and a few others.

This is perhaps a very sad illustration that black africans cannot run countries successfully?

I'm not rascist, but look at the facts. Its all been down hill for all since blacks got into power.

While I see what you mean, that is a very simplistic way to view things. A lot of the problems come about because the western settlers have left leaving countries where the remaining people struggle to keep things running the same way due to lack of money and skills. Also, although South Africa and Zimbabwe are definitely worse for white people now, are conditions any worse for blackc.

Congo 1960

Belgians didn't want to leave. The Congolese did.
Problem? Not a single native university graduate. No infrastructure. Can you blame the Belgians - they wanted to stay, the Congolese and the UN demanded their departure.

Result? 20,000 UN troops.

South African and Zimbabwe are both far worse for blacks now - obviously for whites due to lack of human rights etc.

In south africa the crime rate is such where EVERYONE not just whites have to live in a prison as thier home compared to ours in NZ.

And the economy of each has slipped far, far beyond shit. Blacks who were servants (of which there are still thousands) had better lives than many "free" ones do now. Quality of life has slipped, so has the power of thier currency. Their qualifications have also become not worthy overseas now... the list goes on.

The only people who's lives are better are the few corrupt ones in power.

You may well be right in terms of how life has changed for blacks, but you would need to hear from them to know that. For a start is is better to be free and poor than have apartheid and be better off. Would depend on your viewpoint really. Also, would a white leader have done better in coping with the turmoil created in those 2 countries by the changes that have happened. The issues are very complicated and definitely far too complicated to say that black africans cannot run countries successfully. Lets face it not many white europeans are that good at it either.

"turmoil"?
How come the USSR successfully recovered, withing 20 years, from ww1 which is 10x more traumatic than anything which ever happened to any African nation?
Don't forget as well that many African nations sit on TREASURE TROVES of minerals

test