fatvegan

I just went a discussion on Zimbabwe with a fellow from the church in Zimbabwe. I've been curious about that country for a good while, and I've wanted to know what the deal was. Some of the papers I read say it's being screwed by white people, and the rest say that white people are all just trying to save it from Mugabe. There isn't a lot in the middle, and I don't know who to believe. Part of the difficulty is that the countries that I think white people really have been trying to screwing look very similar to countries where the leadership wants us to think white people have been screwing them.

I think Cuba and Nicaragua really were getting shafted. Zimbabwe looks a lot like them in many ways. Much of the discussion today was about the inevitable "transition to democracy" which sounds a lot like the rather despicable Cuba Transition Project funded by USAID. It also sounds quite a bit like Cambodia under Pol Pot, except I think that Mugabe is a sane and capable leader, whereas Pol Pot was certainly not sane and totally ignorant.

We left the talk with that warm feeling in our stomaches that if only the international community would engage all Zimbabwe's problems would go away. I found that fascinating, because I suspect that a lot of people in the room would be opposed to the invasion of Iraq. I actually suspect the guy who spoke was relatively accepting of the Iraqi invasion, but not particularly enthusiastic about the success of an equivalent in Zimbabwe. Which flips the conventional left-wing preferences around. I'm not sure why that is. It's not like Saddam was any easier to like than Mugabe.

One similarity to Cambodia is the amount of support Mugabe has from the people. It's not broad-based support, but it's enough that he doesn't really have to worry about being overthrown. There are a sufficient number of people willing to turn in potential usurpers, that a coup appears to be unlikely. Perhaps that comes down to charisma as well. Pol Pot managed to persuade many of the people close to him that he was the only man for the job. Then no one knew who was still loyal to him, so nobody dared speak out or attempt to form alliances. A commitment to secrecy could be the other explanation. In that sort of environment, having all the information really is the decisive factor. I'm not sure how much of his support is unqualified or not dependent on special treatment. The militias get treated better than everyone else (like Cambodia), and maybe you only need the support of the people with guns.

Mugabe obviously thinks there are plenty of people he needs to persuade. There's a lot of propaganda, both for locals and foreign countries. He spends a lot of money trying to persuade people he's legitimate. He still holds elections, even though many people clearly aren't convinced. I guess all dictators need to be liked by someone.

I would like to go to Zimbabwe. The woman who came with the church fellow said that before the opposition movement developed a following in 1999, things were much less violent and the economy wasn't so bad. You never know who to trust. Maybe the MDC would be better than Mugabe, but maybe they'll be overrun by free-market thugs and finance (if they aren't already). The US have a history of throwing money at whoever is the least communist party. I reckon their success rate with that policy has been decidedly mixed. So I find myself distrusting any organisation or government that gets money or encouragement from the US. Maybe some of them are OK. I can't think of any off the top of my head.