Comments on: John Howard Interview: ‘Southern African countries let everybody down on Zimbabwe’

By: Deus Tusubira

Deus Tusubira — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:12:56 +0000

the evolution of the nations of Africa is different from the evolution of the various other states and nations.
It is also true that Mugabe has behaved in this rather irational way due to his experience with the British.
The duty of all Africans is to learn on how to participate in humanitarian assistance and reconstruction programmes.
Mugabe is tired and is now responding to his western counterparts irationally like a wounded tiger. we know his past but we shall not defend him for this. We need systems that can mitigate the Zimbabwe question without maintaining him in power.
The Zimbabwe opposition is useless and powerless. It does not address the real problems of zimbabwe. the opposition is glued on a single purpose of apeasing the west while Mugabe attacks.

By: NDUNGE_Tz

NDUNGE_Tz — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:37:14 +0000

In general Britons, Americans, Canadians and Westerners might be different but they seem to think alike in most cases under the so-called Western ideologies. So do Africans in some limited issues but important ones.

And referring to Palestine and India, one would like to ask you this question: Who created those problems in the first place in both countries?

SA & Zim might still be in apartheid to date and whose making would that have been? To be honest I don’t agree with you on that score.

As for you, RFLowings, implying that I’m a racist, maybe I’m or maybe I’m not. It does not really matter, because the issue I raised have nothing to do with me being a racist or otherwise. The fact remains: Western solutions are not always the best solutions for African problems or world problems for that matter. African solutions being what you mentioned above according to your shody observations is a shame on you, and a disrespect for Africans capabilities to solve African problems successfully.

As for generalizations and pop-history as you refer to it. I have observed one thing about history: It seems to repeat itself no matter how much change have taken place over time and don’t see this issue to be handled in a radically different manner from the previous ones.

And all the issues I mentioned did take place.
The Slave Trade, The Invasion of Iraq (reason: Weapon of Mass Destruction, WMD)and Afghanistan (reason: Haven for Terrorists) by the Bush Administrtion with the support of Britain, Canada, Germany and other Western nations without UN Security Council backing. The number of civilians killed in these two invasions far exceeds those killed in Zim. And have any one condemned Bush to go to the Hague for that act of mass murder?

As for westerners being indistinguishable from one another as nations is fact but might be different as individuals. Southern Africans share roots with the rest of Africans and the same can be said about Westerners in terms of ancestry and being cousins of some sort. Therefore, it is inevitable that they will tend have some prejudices and biases that are common to all of the them.

Sure, Africa is a continent geographically-speaking but that does not mean it cannot conceived in the form of a single country with various states who have their own unique system of governments that forms the AU.

I will still state my point as I said before, I think African problems are best solved in an African context with ‘ubuntu’ at the heart of it and with Africans at the forefront.

By: bob's my uncle

bob's my uncle — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:46:45 +0000

“If there’s anything the Commonwealth needs to face up to, it’s that decolonisation in Africa didn’t solve anything;”
So, RFL, shall we assume colonisation shud have remained? or rather, colonisation shud not have happened to begin with?

By: Joseph Davies

Joseph Davies — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:23:44 +0000

I agree with John Howard, but I think that the commonwealth as a whole failed to deal with Zimbabwe, not just southern African members. Austrailia, Canada and Great Britain as well as India, should have backed up, and if necessary, defended, South Africa and not been worried about being branded Imperialists. Imperialist is a word, and when there are human lives at stake, the west should act regardless of petty insults by liberal journalists.

By: RFLowings

RFLowings — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:59:17 +0000

…so if Westernesse intervenes physically, they’re Imperialists, if they intervene verbally, they’re Hypocrites, and if they don’t do anything, they’re heartless and self-centred.

If that were true, India would have dissolved into civil war in 1947, South Africa and Zimbabwe would still be in the midst of Apartheid, and there would be no more Palestinians alive on Earth. From indicators in Southern Africa, the ‘African Solution’ seems to be either denial of problems, blaming the ‘West’, or dispossession to outright mass-murder of opposing tribes, be they white or black.

If there’s anything the Commonwealth needs to face up to, it’s that decolonisation in Africa didn’t solve anything; ignorance, bigotry and racial conflict have shifted their position to the new ruling classes, that’s all.

What we need is more tolerance and understanding, NDUNGE_Tz, not more generalisations and pop-history. If you really believe what you’ve written above, and you’re incapable of distinguishing between a Briton, a Canadian, and an American, you’re as ignorant and racist as those you claim to decry.

Africa is a continent: not a country, and not a culture.

And BMU: If every Terrorist and War Criminal were brought before the Hague, Mr. Mugabe would be sharing a cell with the Israeli, Georgian, and American governments. He hasn’t lost a war yet: that’s the only qualification you need.

By: NDUNGE_Tz

NDUNGE_Tz — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:43:20 +0000

murangira the SADC counttries are not South African countries, rather countries of Southern Africa. South Africa is one of them.

And for the west getting involved in African affairs is no solution at all. The west might be good at preaching human rights over their ever biased media houses and cable news networks, but in practice their record says otherwise. I look at it in this way: They will do anything in their power using everything at their disposal to safe one Westerner’s life regardless of nationality at the expense of any other world races or nationalities.
So Zims dying at the hands of fellow countrymen is no concern of the west, but it provides for good posturing and help boasts their almost non-existent human rights protection records.

African problems require African solutions with ‘ubuntu’ at the heart of it all, not Western solutions engineered in aircon offices in their megacities.

Westerners do not give a damn about the death of Africans, Asians, Indians, Chinese, Iraqis, Afghanis, Palestinians…and History is there to proof it.

By: bob's my uncle

bob's my uncle — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:55:18 +0000

well i’m not sure how you define a terrorist, but I’m yet to see NATO or its allies bombing Zimbabwe for acts of terrorism, let alone the issuing of an international ICC warrant for Mugabe’s arrest…
As I said, humanitarian aid is most welcome, but it shud not be accompanied, hand in glove, with political conditions. Other than that, one shud bugger off.

By: RFLowings

RFLowings — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:26:10 +0000

Absolutely. Why we keep chasing this pointless argument around is beyond me when aid is the only important thing here.
Where has the Commonwealth been during the Malaria, Cholera, HIV/AIDS spread across sub-Saharan Africa? Not doing their job, evidently.
However, it’s the people of Zimbabwe’s call as to who they elect. Should the violent, tyrannical ex-terrorist Mugabe continue to prove an adequate leader then, provided he has a democratic mandate, the Commonwealth should live with it.
I’m deadly serious about the intervention issue. That is what Howard’s comments illustrate. What’s your view, BMU? Should far-away foreign countries intervene when a government in Africa, Asia, Europe or America has devolved into tyranny and chaos? Or is that the job of regional bodies and neighbours? Or, does the principle of National Sovereignty come above all these things? I’m not sold either way. Certainly, if a country elects a tribal/racial/cultural leader with a history of violence to the position on Head of State, they should not expect to get utopia. Are the people of Zimbabwe culpable, therefore, for the troubles, given that Mugabe was the great anti-colonial poster boy thirty years ago?

By: bob's my uncle

bob's my uncle — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 09:37:16 +0000

RFL, do not introduce side issues that serve to weaken your point. It does not require a country in economic and political crisis to have deaths from cholera. South Africa has LONG been suffering from cholera epidemics in many areas where service delivery is low, even way before cholera hit Zimbabwe and made headlines. And yet, as you imply, it is curable. Where was your Commonwealth and humanitarian intervention then? (http://www.hst.org.za/news/20010224)
And my main point has been made, weeks ago: with aid (acceptable) comes conditions (unacceptable) which in the long run makes the entire package unacceptable. Non-conditional intervention is what I’d accept. Do you agree?

By: NDUNGE_Tz

NDUNGE_Tz — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:45:15 +0000

SADC might failed the zim people for various reasons. Africans have had enough of being told by western countries their previous colonisers how to run their own internal affairs. the west seldom intervene in a country unless benfits of some sort, a trend that dates back early history of the human race. The west came to africa to plunder and loot whatever valuables they could find including humans who were considered a very valuable commodity if they can make it alive across the oceans. The middle generations of Africa might have suffered some historic amnesia or something worse but i don’t think the current breed of african leaders do. They would not condemn a country next door simply because the west say so no matter how bad the situation might be. The Africans would rather try and solve African problems the African way. You don’t put out fire with fire because that is madness. The West seems to do that most of the time e.g Iraq, Afghanistan, Middle East and so on.