Why is Robert Mugabe being labelled as a tyrant in the Western World?

[freegeeks]

as I've stated before, the re-distribution of land wasn't well-thought out but it is popular because the land is returning to the hands of the natives. They would rather have it like that than have the former oppressors continue to farm and benefit from it.

that must be the understatement of the century.

Well-thought and Mugabe don't go together. Do you really think he's giving that land because he thinks it's unfair that the white farmers have the best parts. He's giving the land because that's the only way he can stay in power. He does not give a sh*t about anybody but himself and the greedy clan around him. He wants to give the poor some hope about a better future while he transfers his millions (or better Zimbabwe's millions) to an off-shore account.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
So that makes plan B ok then?!

Why don't you try criticising his regime for a change.

I see your point but its not a very good one.

Andy

I did criticize the regime. There should be regime change within the next five years (internal, no doubt). But my interest is the about-face the british and american gov'ts made whent the slaughtering of whites began. I think it's stupid to bring democracy and human rights to the picture now when it wasn't on the table before. It should've been there all along.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: axiom
Source, Link? I've never heard this point that Britain was buying the farms from whites to give to Mugabe. That's sounds asinine.

no, the british promised to compensate the white farmers when re-distribution began. I'll try to find a link. If not, I'll recommend a book or newspaper article to read.

 

[Fencer128]

did criticize the regime. There should be regime change within the next five years (internal, no doubt). But my interest is the about-face the british and american gov'ts made whent the slaughtering of whites began. I think it's stupid to bring democracy and human rights to the picture now when it wasn't on the table before. It should've been there all along.

Nope. Can't see any real criticism in any of your posts.

I agree that there are other examples of countries that have oppressive regimes , which aren't as villified by the western press/governments - but that doesn't make the fact that Mugabe is a tyrant any less valid!!!

You've highlighted one policy (that has been implemented in the most violent way possible), added some assumptions about what the citizens of Mugabe want ( i.e. the farm land) and sidestepped the negative effects of that policy (death, starvation) as being ok as long as the citizens have the moral highground (i.e. own the land).

You completely miss the point that even if they own the land they can only do with it what Mugabe wants because its an autocratic regime. You also assume that legitimate farmers will own the land (and not Mugabe cronies).

Andy

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

did criticize the regime. There should be regime change within the next five years (internal, no doubt). But my interest is the about-face the british and american gov'ts made whent the slaughtering of whites began. I think it's stupid to bring democracy and human rights to the picture now when it wasn't on the table before. It should've been there all along.

Nope. Can't see any real criticism in any of your posts.

I agree that there are other examples of countries that have oppressive regimes , which aren't as villified by the western press/governments - but that doesn't make the fact that Mugabe is a tyrant any less valid!!!

You've highlighted one policy (that has been implemented in the most violent way possible), added some assumptions about what the citizens of Mugabe want ( i.e. the farm land) and sidestepped the negative effects of that policy (death, starvation) as being ok as long as the citizens have the moral highground (i.e. own the land).

You completely miss the point that even if they own the land they can only do with it what Mugabe wants because its an autocratic regime. You also assume that legitimate farmers will own the land (and not Mugabe cronies).

Andy

My main point was very narrow: I focused on one topic and stuck with it. I didn't want to generalize because the generalizations were too obvious.
I never made any assumptions. If I did, prove it.

 

[Fencer128]

as I've stated before, the re-distribution of land wasn't well-thought out but it is popular because the land is returning to the hands of the natives. They would rather have it like that than have the former oppressors continue to farm and benefit from it.

How do you know that they'd rather have it and starve, than let the "white" own it and produce food? - sounds like an assumption to me.

Andy

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

as I've stated before, the re-distribution of land wasn't well-thought out but it is popular because the land is returning to the hands of the natives. They would rather have it like that than have the former oppressors continue to farm and benefit from it.

How do you know that they'd rather have it and starve, than let the "white" own it and produce food? - sounds like an assumption to me.

Andy

you obviously don't know much about zimbabwe to underestimate the popularity of land-reform. the sheer anger of having colonialists continuing to farm your land after the gov't has returned to the natives was beyond the boiling point. THe new gov't waited about 20 years to run the legitimate course. But considering that this was an original promise, things had to come to a head somehow.

 

[freegeeks]

no, the british promised to compensate the white farmers when re-distribution began. I'll try to find a link. If not, I'll recommend a book or newspaper article to read.

here is your link -- GB wants to compensate on the condition that the violence against the farmers ends -- seems reasonable to me.
Mugabe is blocking the compensation not Great-Britain linky


edit: this article is already 2 years old so it's clear that Great Britain is willing to fund the land reforms but Mugabe doesn't move an inch. It's clear he's doing the reforms to please the masses so he can get his greedy paws on state funds.

 

[rufruf44]

The question posed in this thread by Dari is asking why Mugabe is being labelled as a tyrant in the western world. He blames it the most recent brutal reaccusations of the white farmer's land by the blacks. Facts were presented on what kind of tyranic act that Mugabe has performed since he has been president from a few decades back, yet Dari solely concentrate on the reclamation process and defended the act as reclaiming of what originally were the black's and should be theirs again and justified the act, yet nothing was said to counter the argument of Mugabe's atrocities as well as other tyranic act.
So i guess the point is, how the heck can you question why Mugabe is being labelled a tyrant??? Just because the western world doesn't raise its voices right now, doesn't mean he's less of a tyrant.

 

[Fencer128]

you obviously don't know much about zimbabwe to underestimate the popularity of land-reform. the sheer anger of having colonialists continuing to farm your land after the gov't has returned to the natives was beyond the boiling point. THe new gov't waited about 20 years to run the legitimate course. But considering that this was an original promise, things had to come to a head somehow.

I don't know much more about Zimbabwe than I read about from others, having never been there. I suggest that if you have some unique insight (i.e. having lived in Zimbabwe) maybe you should have mentioned this in your first post, so that your arguement could be given more weight. Since you haven't mentioned anything as yet I'll assume you to be a layman as myself.

I realise that there is a large (if not huge) swell of public opinion in favor of land reform. However, I believe it has only come to the present state of affairs because Mugabe wants to be popular - and therefore remain in power. It has nothing to do with helping people (as the current famine atests to). If Mugabe really wanted to help his people (and that includes the white Zimbabwe citizens too), then he could of brought this about peacefully. He certainly would not have arranged violent murders.

"Things had to come to a head somehow". I agree - but NOT like this! He could have done this though an open and free public debate as part of a political process. But that's not the way an autocratic tyrant works.

Andy

 

[MinorityReport]

Mugbwe has done more damage than repair to Zimbabwe.

My brother is in Harrare now for the Cicket world cup and most locals he interacted with say that they rather see posperous Zmbabwe under white farmers than a starving nation under locals.

All said and done, the white populace in South Africa and other african nations contibuted to lot fo wealth and stability, although it was restricted to few .. but majority di enjoy teh benefits, one way or the other.

Read this for a change from a neutral non white or african news views .. real facts not US hogwash or western media lies.


Rediff Article

 

[Matt]

This problem isn't easy enough to paint it into black or white. (No pun intended)
Mugabe did receive support from many western countries and during many years he was regarded as one of the role models for an african statesman.
Zim hasn't had the inherent conflict between the black and the white population since the country during the 80's and early 90's was prospering with white farming contributing to most of that increase in GNP.
Mugabes unsuccessful rule during the last years including the conflict in a neighbouring country put the country into an economic slump. What Mugabe has done is that he has targeted white farmers to win political support. Even with this tactic his support is failing and he needs to rig the election to stay in power.

The question of redistribution of land is a just one. The main problem is in the way it is implemented with violence and improper redistribution of seized property. The black population is entitled to their share of the property. Remember though that the white population of Zim are africans as well with equal rights.
Neighbouring South Africa also needs to address this problem soon. They are anxiously awaiting the outcome of Zim.


/Matt

 

[justint]

Link regarding Fear and Opression in Zimbabwe under Mugabe

from the BBC

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: rufruf44
The question posed in this thread by Dari is asking why Mugabe is being labelled as a tyrant in the western world. He blames it the most recent brutal reaccusations of the white farmer's land by the blacks. Facts were presented on what kind of tyranic act that Mugabe has performed since he has been president from a few decades back, yet Dari solely concentrate on the reclamation process and defended the act as reclaiming of what originally were the black's and should be theirs again and justified the act, yet nothing was said to counter the argument of Mugabe's atrocities as well as other tyranic act.
So i guess the point is, how the heck can you question why Mugabe is being labelled a tyrant??? Just because the western world doesn't raise its voices right now, doesn't mean he's less of a tyrant.

I guess my question should've been "why is robert Mugabe being labelled as a tyrant now...?

Happy?

And as I've stated later on, the fact that he was a despotic tyrant was well-known to everyone from day one. Why now? Care to answer that? It's like the situation with Saddam Hussein pre August 2nd, 1990 and post August 2nd 1990.