Thursday
The Economist posted an article about Zimbabwe this week reporting that Zimbabwe is 'at the end of its tether', with the news that the vile regime of Robert Mugabe has introduced price fixing as a means of legislating away the rampant inflation that has left Zimbabwe banknotes worth less then toilet paper.
Instead the president, who famously despises “bookish economics”, has decided to outlaw inflation. Price freezes have only been enforced through the arrest of scores of businessmen who are accused of profiteering. The result: shops are bare of basic goods, as businesses refuse to sell more than a minimum of flour, sugar, maize and other items at a crippling loss. There has been panic buying all over the country. In Harare, the capital, crowds wait outside supermarkets ready to rush in and grab whatever they can. Where basics such as cooking oil are available they are rationed by shopkeepers. Fuel is in short supply, with long queues of cars reappearing outside Harare’s petrol stations. As factories prepare to close operations their owners, in turn, are being arrested and forced to keep operating.
Some have expressed the hope that the oncoming economic collapse might presage a political upheaval that will remove Mugabe and restore a democratic government in Zimbabwe. There is no doubt that there is a great upswelling of discontent in the country. It has few friends internationally and those are of dubious repute.
But there is faint hope to expect the end of the regime as long as Mugabe has the strength to kill his domestic enemies and hang on to power. There is the dreadful example of Communist Kampuchea as an example of how low a country can go before it becomes extinct. Things in Zimbabwe are going to get much, much worse.
Given that he used to be a teacher I should think he can read.
Posted by Julian Taylor at July 12, 2007 07:33 PM
"Instead the president, who famously despises “bookish economics”, has decided to outlaw inflation."
Ah yes: the famous attempt to ignore economics. Unfortunately economics seems rather loathe to ignore him...
Posted by Cleanthes at July 12, 2007 07:44 PM
"Communist Kampuchea as an example of how low a country can go before it becomes extinct".
But will the other African states or the West allow this to happen? Seems to me like Zimbabwe could provide an excellent opportunity for the US to demonstrate that it can in fact help build / repair nations. No one can deny the need for foreign intervention in this case. Who, even amongst the white liberal "we are all hezbollah" crowd could say that Zimbabwe should be left alone or interfering would cause more harm than good.
Posted by WalterBoswell at July 12, 2007 08:03 PM
With all our technology - aren't we able to take out this madman?
Posted by Spruance at July 12, 2007 08:12 PM
Although its very tragic, the best way to allow a degraded regime like Mugabe's die is to just ignore it. In the end Mugabe is going to run out of things to pay his cronies and goons with.
Ideas of foreign intervention should not be entertained. I am mighty sick of nationbuilding after the past two decades of disasters that have come from such idealism.
Posted by Martin at July 12, 2007 08:14 PM
"With all our technology - aren't we able to take out this madman?"
Out to dinner? I'm not sure he'll fall for it but if he did we could get him drunk and then beat him to death with our blackberrys and mobiles. I like your thinking.
Posted by WalterBoswell at July 12, 2007 08:33 PM
I have met a few dissidents from Zimbabwe who escaped with their lives in danger. Things are indeed as bad as advertised, and they are helping to support an opposition to Mugabe. They cannot foresee an ample time to confront the regime, however, for several years, from what I have been told.
Posted by KNAB at July 12, 2007 09:04 PM
Things may indeed get more difficult in Zim, but it's hard to see how it can end. All corrupt governments have the get-out clause of taking over everything (national unity, people's welfare, suppressing malcontents, halting external interference... you choose the sales message here) and once owning it all, they can cheerfully paper over the cracks as long as they want.
We can all be assured of one thing though with the likes of Mugabe: the people at the top still manage to live decent lifestyles while keeping enough lackeys to make sure no one else does.
Posted by freeman too at July 12, 2007 10:09 PM
I am actually reading "Atlas Shrugged" right now, and I think we should leave Zimbabwe to rot in its own juices. They elected that nutter for President, they should suffer the consequences of their stupidity. Its not as if Mugabe is as much trouble as Saddam was, so ignoring him is not going to endanger us. Maybe something good will come out of it: it should serve as an example to others why Socialism does not work; considering some of the stuff I hear in the US news about nationalized Health Care and similar, I believe they are due for it.
Posted by Frederick Davies at July 12, 2007 10:14 PM
No doubt the Islington set of Guardianistas would wish there to be aid to help Zimbabwe. They would not acknowledge yet another example of the failure of interventionist/statist/socialist policies.
Assistance would be a big mistake and merely prolong that poor nation's agony.
Ultimately the only people who can make any lasting changes are the people of Zimbabwe themselves. It will not be easy and will, I believe, involve a lot more blood and sacrifice.
Heinlein wrote: (he may have been quoting someone else - I do not know) "You cannot free a slave. Only the slave can free himself."
Posted by 6th Column at July 12, 2007 10:38 PM
To end the Mugabe regime, it requires the government of South Africa to either turn the power off (Zimbabwe is subsidised by South Africa in various ways) or to simply send in the army and remove Mugabe. Sadly, though, much of the government of South Africa sees Mugabe as a comrade in arms in the struggle against imperialist aggresssion (or something). It speaks badly against them that they put ideology over lives.
But they do.
Posted by Michael Jennings at July 13, 2007 12:21 AM
Just what we need: another country to govern. Their country can be fixed if and only if their people figure out what the hell the problem is. At that point, they won't need us.
One way or the other, they have the right to suicide in their own way. If they choose not to, so much the better.
Posted by Rich Paul at July 13, 2007 12:33 AM
We don't have to govern it. But we could easily stop supporting Zimbabwe (via South Africa, who as someone else pointed out are disgraceful in their ongoing support for this murderer).
I find it fascinating that there are still people who will pretend the hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq are there to 'build democracy' but completely ignore the need for probably 50 Navy Seals/SAS to dispatch Mugabe and his cronies into the next life and give the people of Zimbabwe the chance they need to take power back.
Posted by Patrick Bateman at July 13, 2007 12:46 AM
I am not sure that turning the power off would be another country choosing to govern. The scandal is that at the moment Mugabe essentially has the support of the government of South Africa. Withdraw that and he would fall. That support is what is so contemptible.
If South Africa were to choose to invade, it might be a matter of another country choosing to govern, but it couldn't possibly worse than what exists now.
Posted by Michael Jennings at July 13, 2007 12:59 AM
'If South Africa were to choose to invade, it might be a matter of another country choosing to govern, but it couldn't possibly worse than what exists now.'
I remember hearing such talk about Iraq four years ago.
Posted by Martin at July 13, 2007 01:16 AM
Whatever the White Imperialist Devil (TM) does, people will scream. I prefer to listen to the screams while sitting with a good book and maybe some Bass Ale. Why should we work to get screamed at when we can just sit and do nothing?
Posted by Dr. Ellen at July 13, 2007 01:52 AM
Given that he used to be a teacher, can any of his fromer pupils read?
Posted by pietr at July 13, 2007 02:53 AM
I remember hearing such talk about Iraq four years ago.
Even if you accept that the occupation of Iraq is a colossal screwup (which I do) and an immense waste of resources (which, once again, I do), is Iraq now genuinely worse off than it was under Saddam Hussein? I can't really believe that it is.
Posted by Michael Jennings at July 13, 2007 03:15 AM
the people I really feel sorry for are the white pensioners with no supporting family. Their pensions are now worth nothing, they worked for 40 years as mechanics, civil servants etc. A real example to watch out for governments anywhere.
Posted by tranio at July 13, 2007 04:50 AM
Spruance-
In WW2, the Allies had numerous occasions to take Hitler out, but decided that the best thing, since the war was already raging, was to leave him in charge and let him bear all the blame for bad leadership when the Germans lost the war. If he had been replaced by someone competent, they might have lasted much longer.
I imagine that if anyone were thinking about 'putting Mugabe on a permanent diet' (how's that for a euphonism for assassinating him!), they would realise that he would then become some sort of martyr, and whoever replaced him might be even worse. Can you guarantee that his likely replacement would run the place properly?
Posted by nick g. at July 13, 2007 05:59 AM
The Green Left rag in Aus is saying that Zimbabwe's woes are caused by "free market policies".
On another note, I guarantee you that somebody, somewhere is blaming this on global warming and Israel
Posted by Tex at July 13, 2007 06:48 AM
Given that he used to be a teacher I should think he can read.
Indeed. A recent article in Prospect suggests that one reason he has survived so long is because he has provided "intellectual leadership" among his fellow presidents-for-life: "There is still a project of decolonisation."
If Mugabe's crude anti-colonialist rhetoric and the brutal bricolage of his policies have really counted as philosopher-kingship in Africa all these years, then the continent is in worse shape than it is easy to believe.
Posted by guy herbert at July 13, 2007 07:12 AM
tranio,
Why the white ones, specifically? How are they harder done by than, say, former farm workers who have been driven off the land and their tied cottages burned?
Posted by guy herbert at July 13, 2007 07:19 AM
'The Green Left rag in Aus is saying that Zimbabwe's woes are caused by "free market policies".' They are wrong! Everyone knows Zimbabwe's problems are caused by the...
Sorry, I wanted to say something funny there, but I can't: some things are just so stupid and ridiculous they cannot be bettered.
Posted by Frederick Davies at July 13, 2007 08:20 AM
The overpowering question regarding Zimbabwe is probably, as Michael Jennings stated, when is South Africa going to switch off the power. Zimbabwe has no national grid generation facilities of its own and its sole power generating capability is limited to 6 thermal power stations and the South Kariba hydro power utility, thus all its power is bought/donated from South Africa. Given that in 2010 South Africa is hosting the football World Cup I don't think they need to embarrassment of a state like Zimbabwe that close to their doorstep at such a time, so that gives us a timescale.
Posted by Julian Taylor at July 13, 2007 09:43 AM
All this talk about removing Brother Bob as the source of all of Zimbabwe's problems is a typical Western-developed-world response.
What most folks fail to grasp is that Mugabe is not the problem, but the symptom. Zimbabwe is akin to many another third world state which has collapsed into thug culture - where the entire mechanism of the state and people's everyday lives is now so completely based on violence, ignorance and corruption that the specific identity of the nominal figurehead is barely-significant.
Eliminate Mugabe today, and tomorrow, he will be replaced by another thug. cf Liberia, Ghana, Mozambique, Uganda, Congo, Nigeria, and the list goes on. This is now close to being the default status for sub-Saharan Africa.
Talking about removing the nominal figurehead, along the lines of a Parliamentary vote of no-confidence and then we'll move on with stable government, is just pi**ing in the wind. As another poster here has been known to opine, the only retaional response is "Let Africa sink", because only by sinking can it be brought up again. The one certain thing that can be said about Western intervention - be it aid, or military force - is that it is absolutely, positively guaranteed to (at best) do absolutely no good and (at worst) to do great, unanticipated harm. Africa's just like that.
llater,
llamas
Posted by llamas at July 13, 2007 11:04 AM
can't we just take him out...
Well, sure "we" could. It's not a question of ability - it's simply not in anyone else's national interest to do so. Which is the major sticking point with most African politics when viewed from the outside - while the governments of the continent may be extremely good at inflicting terrible suffering among and upon themselves and their own people, these actions do not really amount to much more effect than heartrending media stories to the rest of the world. And as such, there is no "justifiable" reason for any outside nation to expend the blood and treasure to "do something" - much less "something" that may have uncertain consequences.
Cold, and callous, to be sure - however, this is a "problem" the locals must solve themselves. It will be ugly, brutish, and messy - resluting in many more heartrending media stories, to be sure. In such matters, the Hobbesian model is most likely the correct one - much to the dismay of the enlightened, progressive west.
Until the Zimbabwean people decide it's time for him to go, he'll be left intact, and his cronies won't be drug through the streets and torn limb from limb. They've gotten to the point they're asking someone else to come take care of them - well, sometimes, one just has to take matters into their own hands. And for Zimbabwe to come out on the other side as anything resembling a functional society, that is a lesson they must learn for themselves.
Posted by Wind Rider at July 13, 2007 11:40 AM
One way or the other, they have the right to suicide in their own way. If they choose not to, so much the better.I don't understand this at all, there are millions of Zimbabweans who do not supprt Mugabe, in what sense are they committing suicide? Rich Paul type liibertarians first tell us they don't believe in democratic concepts of legitimacy, then they claim that other nations have the *right* to create whatever government they like and base it on democratic arguments even, or especially, when there are no genuinely free elections. (Rich Paul has even claimed that other countries have the *right* to conifscate the property of British citizens, specifically Putin and Nasser have been given his seal of approval). I can see strains of Rousseau in this sort of argument, perhaps a touch of Hegel, but nowhere a genuine regard for liberty or, indeed, any basic human decency. I guess that is the way with ideologues, the specifics change but the stench is always the same; tenner says Rich Paul used to be a fairly extreme socialist
The only people Rich Paul has ever expressed concern about, and this he does with both great regularity and passion, are arabs and their liberty to beat their wives and blow up Jews without western interference. This seems to be what American libertarianism has become. How sad.
Posted by Gabriel at July 13, 2007 12:03 PM
I seem to remember this article from some time ago - but then the "Economist" has a habit of repeating stories as if they were new - which I would not mind if it updated articles but it does not. If it makes an error, (such as forgetting to say it was Richard Armitage, not Lewis Libby, who leaked certain information) it will just repeat the error again and again in later articles.
Still back to Zimbabwe.
Yes Comrade Bob can read, in fact he is well educated - that is the problem.
He was taught that it is the basic duty of government to provide various "public services" (education, health care, welfare and so on) and so he tries to (in a country which is much too poor to provide all this stuff - even in the short term) and so makes things worse and worse.
In this Comrade Bob agrees with the "Economist" which supports "public services" (even in third world countries that can not possibly afford them). Just as the "Economist" supports "land reform" - although it then denounces the consequences of it in countries like Zimbabwe (if the "Economist" were in charge the consequences of the land reform would be quite different - accept they would not be).
Lastly Comrade Bob is far too educated to think that printing more money is inflation. He reminds me of a publication that no longer gives money supply stats any more - and the name of that publication is.....
Posted by Paul Marks at July 13, 2007 02:56 PM
I think we should leave Zimbabwe to rot in its own juices. They elected that nutter for President, they should suffer the consequences of their stupidity.
Harsh. I also favor non-intervention *by the government* (by every government, everywhere and at all times), but I applaud anyone who wants to go to Zim and help the folks out there. The idea that "They" elected Mug and therefore 'they' *deserve* to suffer is hopelessly collectivist.
Read that Rand a bit closer next time.
Posted by Susan Hogarth at July 13, 2007 09:52 PM
I think that A.N.C. South Africa would object if we tried to remove Comrade Bob.
So would the "Economist" (after the body bags started comming home) - remember how they switched sides on Iraq.
Of course Zim-Rho had a black Prime Minister before Comrade Bob.
But the British government (against the desire of Mrs Thatcher - so much for her being a "dictator") refused to recognise the Bishop back in 1979.
Thus we humilitated him in the eyes of his tribe (the great majority of the population) - so they voted for another mamber of the tribe (Comrade Bob of ZANU P.F.) at the next election.
Any old Africa hand could have told you how the locals would vote.
Indeed an old Africa hand did tell us - Ian Smith, but nobody listened to him.
Posted by Paul Marks at July 14, 2007 08:52 PM
