Zimbabwe resolution veto.

[Rostov]

Did the China's and Russia's veto against Zimbabwe resolution, put those two countries farther apart from United States and Europe, in ideological or other kind of sense?

[GazB]

It is funny, but the west, and in particular the US seem to think that with the end of the cold war that the Russians are suddenly without personal interests and that everything the US wants that the Russians want too. The Russians certainly don't want a nuclear armed Iran for example and they have said as much, but when the US announced it was going to build an ABM system in Europe the Russians were genuinely shocked. The US was then in turn surprised that the Russians were shocked. The US assumed the Russians would accept such a system, or that it was in fact none of their business.
The Russians on their part seemed shocked that the US was taking a unilateral step that involved strategic weapon systems in Europe.

What does this have to do with Zimbabwe?

I think the US and the west does not understand Russia as well as they think they do and are misinterpreting the Russians not rubber stamping their initiatives as aggression or an attempt to re-establish the cold war.

The US and west came out of the veto session of the UNSC claiming that the Russians had gone against what they promised at the G8 meetings. The Russians claimed that there was no discussion of any UNSC resolution against Zimbabwe at the G8 meeting.

As for the Chinese they have a lot of economic interests in Zimbabwe and I doubt even if the Russians had not vetoed the resolution that the Chinese would have let the sanctions be applied without their veto.

[Rostov]

It is funny, but the west, and in particular the US seem to think that with the end of the cold war that the Russians are suddenly without personal interests and that everything the US wants that the Russians want too. The Russians certainly don't want a nuclear armed Iran for example and they have said as much, but when the US announced it was going to build an ABM system in Europe the Russians were genuinely shocked. The US was then in turn surprised that the Russians were shocked. The US assumed the Russians would accept such a system, or that it was in fact none of their business.
The Russians on their part seemed shocked that the US was taking a unilateral step that involved strategic weapon systems in Europe.

What does this have to do with Zimbabwe?

I think the US and the west does not understand Russia as well as they think they do and are misinterpreting the Russians not rubber stamping their initiatives as aggression or an attempt to re-establish the cold war.

The US and west came out of the veto session of the UNSC claiming that the Russians had gone against what they promised at the G8 meetings. The Russians claimed that there was no discussion of any UNSC resolution against Zimbabwe at the G8 meeting.

As for the Chinese they have a lot of economic interests in Zimbabwe and I doubt even if the Russians had not vetoed the resolution that the Chinese would have let the sanctions be applied without their veto.

It's true that East and West have different interests, and both sides should understand that. But West has made this issue look like a human rights issue (which is understood to be universal), pointing at brutal suppression of opposition. Is this all a farce played by the West, or did the East really disregard human rights over strategic interests, or is there something else to it?

[GazB]

Mugabe is no more brutal to his people than the Saudi Government and the Saudi Secret police are to Saudi people.

I think the US calls it affirmative action where a previously oppressed group is given special treatment because in the past they were discriminated against. It is racist but generally it is accepted to allow that oppressed group take a more fair role in the society they now live in. In the US it was largely coloured people and now women who are demanding special treatment because in the past largely white and largely male people have had an advantage.

In Zimbabwe Mugabe has caused controversy in the west by throwing rich white farmers of their land and dividing it up amongst their black cronies (according to western media).
Most of the rest of Africa sees this as a type of affirmative action... black mans justice.
The west also jumps up and down about electoral irregularities and the huge reduction in food production in Z to the point where an exporter of food suddenly has to import food.

Personally however I don't think the things he is doing are any worse than what the white man has done to Africa, in fact what he is trying to do is reverse the damage done there by the white man. The fact that he was not properly elected... well there are plenty of dictatorships the west has worked with when they thought it was worth it for them. I don't see why they can't work with Mugabe either.

[Masai]

Mugabe is no more brutal to his people than the Saudi Government and the Saudi Secret police are to Saudi people.

I think the US calls it affirmative action where a previously oppressed group is given special treatment because in the past they were discriminated against. It is racist but generally it is accepted to allow that oppressed group take a more fair role in the society they now live in. In the US it was largely coloured people and now women who are demanding special treatment because in the past largely white and largely male people have had an advantage.

In Zimbabwe Mugabe has caused controversy in the west by throwing rich white farmers of their land and dividing it up amongst their black cronies (according to western media).
Most of the rest of Africa sees this as a type of affirmative action... black mans justice.
The west also jumps up and down about electoral irregularities and the huge reduction in food production in Z to the point where an exporter of food suddenly has to import food.

Personally however I don't think the things he is doing are any worse than what the white man has done to Africa, in fact what he is trying to do is reverse the damage done there by the white man. The fact that he was not properly elected... well there are plenty of dictatorships the west has worked with when they thought it was worth it for them. I don't see why they can't work with Mugabe either.


gwad i'n gonna get banned for this, but fakit!

the saudi government is strict but fair and competent.

mugabe is a senile kaffir, who has no grasp of reality.



what do you care about a fvcking sh!thole african country anyway ?

[Masai]

the only reason they veto-ed was to sell them AK's anyway. why do you care about a bunch of people getting killed in a country that has no oil ?

stop being so bloody sensitive

this is the way things have always been in africa.

[GazB]

the saudi government is strict but fair and competent.

Yeah... solving murder cases buy picking up the nearest European tourist and charging them and putting them in jail...

The Royal Saudi family was created last century when Britain and France started to draw lines on the map to divide up various regions based on oil reserves. The Royal families of all the Arab countries largely consisted of the local stooges of the colonial power who basically betrayed their own people for money and power. They are the equivelent of the puppet communist governments in eastern bloc countries during the cold war, or the puppet governments installed by the Nazis in occupied countries in Europe during WWII.

They stay in power with force against internal resistance and by bending with the wind against international resistance.


what do you care about a fvcking sh!thole african country anyway ?

I really don't, but sanctions will not hurt the government, just the little people of the country.

A better question is why has the west even noticed? They went out of their way to ignore much worse things happening in Rwanda.


the only reason they veto-ed was to sell them AK's anyway. why do you care about a bunch of people getting killed in a country that has no oil ?

Russia has very little military sales to Zimbabwe at the moment... they don't have that much money. China has rather more business interests there.

But if the African Union and the countries of Africa aren't interested in doing anything about it and the people of Zimbabwe aren't prepared to fight for democracy why should the world do anything... we have our own problems too you know.


gwad i'n gonna get banned for this, but fakit!

Hope not, I am not offended, and I can understand strong feelings on this matter by people closer to Zimbabwe. There are a lot of white farmers that have come here to NZ to escape the treatment they got in Z. Having said that Britain is largely leading this issue and largely for old boy colonial reasons via the Commonwealth.

[Ironsight06]

the only reason they veto-ed was to sell them AK's anyway.
Pfff we all know embargoes are there to be ignored by Russia and China. Just look at Sudan. :roll:

[Calanen]

Mugabe is no more brutal to his people than the Saudi Government and the Saudi Secret police are to Saudi people.



Think again. Im no Saudi shine boy, but the Saudis dont set up camps of soldiers to rape the opposition parties.




I think the US calls it affirmative action where a previously oppressed group is given special treatment because in the past they were discriminated against.


Killing white farmers and taking their land without compensation is not appropriate, buying it back might be.


It is racist but generally it is accepted to allow that oppressed group take a more fair role in the society they now live in.

And why does having a particular skin colour mean you are automatically oppressed? Does a black man who is born into a middle class family have more or less chance than a white person born into a trailer park? Affirmative action programs should only be on economic need - not skin colour or ***. Some people of whatever colour come from privileged backgrounds, and some from whatever colour come from disadvantaged ones. Only disadvantaged people need assistance. The white guy who lives in a trailer park would be genuinely stunned if he was told that he had all the power in society and ruled over all the other races. He'd be thinking, im on welfare and food stamps..where is this power everyone says I have?



In the US it was largely coloured people and now women who are demanding special treatment because in the past largely white and largely male people have had an advantage.


So instead of focussing on genuine need, you make further prejudicial assumptions about who needs assistance, to counter previous erroneous prejudicial assumptions. What a great idea.




In Zimbabwe Mugabe has caused controversy in the west by throwing rich white farmers of their land and dividing it up amongst their black cronies (according to western media).


That's one of the things he did. The people that then took those farms over could not run them as well as the white farmers, or at all. The bread basket of Africa could not feed itself. He also sent the country bankrupt with hyper inflation and a corrupt government.


Most of the rest of Africa sees this as a type of affirmative action... black mans justice.

They do? You've take a poll? I think they probably don't care.


The west also jumps up and down about electoral irregularities and the huge reduction in food production in Z to the point where an exporter of food suddenly has to import food.

The only reason the west jumps up and down, is because he is perhaps the worst ruler in Africa at the moment. The country is bankrupt. His people are starving. He rigs the elections and his supporters are corrupt. He is engaging in torture, beatings and murders to support the regime. There is nothing good about his government.


Personally however I don't think the things he is doing are any worse than what the white man has done to Africa, in fact what he is trying to do is reverse the damage done there by the white man.

And that's really important isn't it? Judge whatever Mugabe does by some imaginary standard of collective white guilt for people long dead. The left thinks that white people should be born apologising, go through life apologising, and have apologies on their tombstones for the crimes of their ancestors, real or imagined. Western history is a lot more benign than anyone else's. Look at how the Arabs dealt with the places they conquered, or how other Africans treated each other, or how the Mongols treated others when they invaded. The "It's cool to hate ourselves" crowd, believe that somehow Africa was a garden of Eden before the white man, and not the insane warring tribal collective it has always been.



The fact that he was not properly elected... well there are plenty of dictatorships the west has worked with when they thought it was worth it for them. I don't see why they can't work with Mugabe either


Because he is a moron - he cant even run the currency properly - printing more money until its worthless, someone that stupid would be unable to get themselves dressed unaided daily.

[Kaasjager]

This is a pretty interesting, if long read about how Zimbabwe wnet from a food exporting country with a good economy to the hell hole it is now.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200312/power

[Mastermind]

I've been following the Zimbawe story for years, ever since M started grabbing the "White" farms. The hand writing was on the wall from the very day he began ignoring the rule of law. He deliberately destroyed his nation...now, one has to wonder why. I personally believe it was done for two primary reasons. One was to raid the Un coffers under Kofi Anan...the corruption at the UN was blatant and still is and M was determined to cash in on the party while it was still on....but time ran out on him.

Second, he did it knowing that a nation of starving people will do anything the food holder says....and he planned on being the primary food barron...thus he had to destroy the ag industry. Unfortunately, for everyone, M is just not that smart to get all the ducks in a row. He's a petty despot, inthralled with his power, scared to death of a revolution now and extraodinarily dangerous. He has great potential to spill so much blood now to make a last ditch bid for survival. he never counted on this getting so far out of hand...he really expected his buds at the UN to step up and share the wealth. Now, with the UN a compleat stooge house, M is on his own. I feel sad for the inevitable result.

But, the bottom line is, people always get the government they deserve. Short range thinkers, with nothing but greed in their eyes, usually manage to reap their just reward in their own lifetimes. I don't pity them.

[GazB]

Think again. Im no Saudi shine boy, but the Saudis dont set up camps of soldiers to rape the opposition parties.

Mugabe is an Ahole, there is no arguement from me. But there are plenty of Aholes in the world... many are much worse. What makes Zimbabwe in need of world wide attention?


Killing white farmers and taking their land without compensation is not appropriate, buying it back might be.

There are hundreds of white farmers came to live here in NZ (or sent their families). I don't live there however and can't say whether the white farmers have been offered compensation or not, or if they have whether it was anything like the value of the land confiscated.

I recognise it isn't right in Zimbabwe, but then I also recognise shifting thousands of people from their homes in China to make way for the Olympic games isn't ok either. I don't feel like imposing sanctions on either country.


Affirmative action programs should only be on economic need - not skin colour or ***.

Affirmative action programs are hippocrasy. Two wrongs don't make a right. However to accelerate a shift to move an ethnic group that is a significant portion of the population in a country so that instead of 90% of the poor in the country being black skinned, 6% being middle class land owners, and 4% rich and powerful to something that is more balanced can be seen as a necessary evil by some.


The white guy who lives in a trailer park would be genuinely stunned if he was told that he had all the power in society and ruled over all the other races. He'd be thinking, im on welfare and food stamps..where is this power everyone says I have?

Indeed, a poor white man who wants to go to university so he can get a better job to feed his young family might be annoyed to find that the last place available in that university course went to a coloured girl because she was coloured... even though her parents are rich. That isn't fair. But then the fact that that rich girl is the first person in her family ever to get into a university can't be ignored either.


So instead of focussing on genuine need, you make further prejudicial assumptions about who needs assistance, to counter previous erroneous prejudicial assumptions. What a great idea.

I am not saying I agree with it either. But I don't see any international sanctions being put on the US... or New Zealand for that matter. There are plenty of government jobs where brown skin is an automatic pass go card. I don't think it is fair... especially if I am also applying for that job, but I can see why they do it and so I accept it.


The people that then took those farms over could not run them as well as the white farmers, or at all.

Not strictly true. The people who took over the farms weren't mechanised or rich enough to run a large farm... in any case the farms were split up into smaller farms anyway. Most of the new land owners were not interested in working 40-50 hour weeks to feed the world. They were more likely interested in working long enough to produce enough food for their own immediate family and have enough left over to sell in the local market so they can buy other essentials.


They do? You've take a poll? I think they probably don't care.

He is described by some countries in the region as a hero. I doubt that is because they don't care about the economy of Zimbabwe. And I also agree that there will be quite a few countries in the region that don't care or even see a weaker Zimbabwe as a lesser threat.


The only reason the west jumps up and down, is because he is perhaps the worst ruler in Africa at the moment. The country is bankrupt. His people are starving.

No region in the world has had as much money pumped into it as Africa over the last half dozen decades or so. Corruption is a way of life with most of it at government level. Most of the time the west relies on that corruption because it is useful to them in their dealings with the region for mineral wealth.


And that's really important isn't it? Judge whatever Mugabe does by some imaginary standard of collective white guilt for people long dead.

World sanctions are not going to solve their problems. Keeping the white farmers there making all the money is not going to help either. Getting the people of Zimbabwe educated and all working to improve their own lifestyle and standard of living and increasing that lifespan for men and women is what is needed. If the majority of people there want justice who are you or I to tell them that is not OK.


The left thinks that white people should be born apologising, go through life apologising, and have apologies on their tombstones for the crimes of their ancestors, real or imagined. Western history is a lot more benign than anyone else's.

The western record of western history is very benign. Reminds me of something Churchill said. He said "History will be kind to me... for I intend to write it myself." And he did.

Remember Nazism is part of the western record. Those lovely western Germans killed more Russians than even Stalin managed... quite a feat considering what a cnt Stalin was.


Second, he did it knowing that a nation of starving people will do anything the food holder says....and he planned on being the primary food barron...thus he had to destroy the ag industry.

I disagree. I don't think he is smart enough to have foreseen the effect of his little land redistribution... though he certainly should have considering what happened the last time it was done... ie land collectivisation is not new.