. Oh no – not ANOTHER post on the BBC’s coverage of Mugabe! Yes, ‘fraid so. You see until I tuned in to the BBC this morning, I did not fully appreciate that the way for the Zimbabwean tyrant to be toppled from power is to force Waitrose from trading with some small family fishing and agricultural enterprises in Zimbabwe. Peter Hain, that model of financial propriety, was on Today this morning to explain that corporate Britain should be banned from having any trading links with Zimbabwe, regardless of the misery this would have on those denied the chance to export their produce. The BBC interviewer did not demur from Hain’s line of thinking, so absolving African nations from their responsibility to isolate the tyrant and instead putting corporate Britain in the frame.
WAITROSE AND MUGABE
Bookmark the permalink.
Does Waitrose have trade with small independent enterprises in Zim or just with government connected firms? Happy to stand corrected but I would’ve said that the poor sods selling tat by the side of the road in Harare don’t get much business from UK supermarkets.
Unless we’re going to take military action (which we can’t cos we haven’t got any soldiers spare) I think sanctions are the only way forward – UK corporates will get the benefit if Bob & co are removed and the economy can be reinstated. By all means extend these sanctions to other African regimes helping prop Bob up.
The BBC interviewer did not demur from Hain’s line of thinking, so absolving African nations from their responsibility to isolate the tyrant and instead putting corporate Britain in the frame.
Is it not possible that it might be a combination of trade boycotts, African isolation and other leverage which might rid the world of Mugabe?
And do you not think that Hain, the BBC – and everyone else debating this – understand this full well?
Peter Hain? Did the BBC ask him about his Police investigation?
Look forward to the bbc devoting as much time to the ramifications of the police interview of hain, who was of course a serving minister at the time of the alleged fraud, as they did to Mrs Spellman’s alleged 10 year old indescretions of a less significant nature.
This is a new variant of two old leftie games mixed together:
something must be done plus
let’s you and him fight.
It is entirely appropriate that the African Peter Hain involves himself in this.Sadly he does so by proxy and from afar,Should not he and other Africans like Molloch Brown form some kind of International Brigade and put their mouths where the danger is?
With Zimbabwe’s terrible recent record on human rights I expect the Olympics will be in Harare sometime soon
I’ve searched Al-Beed in vain for this story about Hain:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4238390.ece
And as has been pointed out before why hasn’t Harriet Harpie resigned? After all she did the same thing as Wendy Alexander? Will Michael Prick be investigating?
Cockney: Unless we’re going to take military action (which we can’t cos we haven’t got any soldiers spare) I think sanctions are the only way forward.
The implication being if we had spare capabaility we would invade? Surely it would be an illegal war without UN sanction (not in my name, sunshine).
Zimbabwe is in not in breach of (mandatory) UN resolutions as with Iraq, nor has it been used to launch an attack against another country, as with Afghanistan.
Though I do think the idea of collectively punishing through sanctions has been controversial.
OM, was mainly taking issue with what seemed to be DV’s view that sanctions are always detrimental to UK firms. In Zimbabwe’s case I would’ve thought that the prospect of a benign post regime change investment environment in the medium term would be more tempting than a few scratchy and highly risky contracts hanging around now. Appreciate that in some cases (Iraq?) sanctions can help prop up a regime by providing an external bogeyman on which all ills can be blamed, but the general assessment seems to be that in Zim things are so dire economically that it only needs a little push to topple the whole thing.
Regretablly, I think things in Zimbabwe can get a lot worse. There is no artifical bottom of despair beyond which “Bob” would hold up his hands and slink away. The ball is in the International Communities court. It’s not down to UK firms, that’s a BBC distraction.
Hmm. what we need is global leadership, military capability and the BBC critics on-side: step forward the EU Army. What was that? Sorry, slight hitch. Can you hang on a bit longer?
All of Zim’s fuel is imported as is half? its electricity. If the frontline states blockaded the supply of those two things, Zim would fall quickly. History is repeating itself. Just as apartheid South Africa enabled Rhodesia to defy sanctions so will Mbeki’s South Africa let Mugabe survive. But Mbeki’s relacement, Jacob Zuma, who is a rogue at best, has no love for Mugabe. Things are going to get interesting, soon.
Actual sanctions aren’t going to do much to dissuade someone who is already butchering and burning his own people. However, doing something like shutting off fuel supplies and a couple of staples will seriously increase the violence all round, which just might open the way for what the BBC erroneously refers to as “a coup”. With some help from outside forces, even.
Oddly, the BBC seems to give a stern scolding to anyone who suggests anything like a forced regime change. Looks like their collective political analysis and reporting is as other-directed and thoughtless as ever.
Equally ridiculous is that this goes against the usual mantra they gave us about Cuba and Iraq: sanctions only hurt the innocent citizens and further entrench the dictator in power. But now that Mugabe has made another “remarkable comeback”, they have to say anything they can to brush aside suggestions of regime change.
I say take the Beeboids at their word, and enforce a couple of real sanctions. Once actual chaos ensues, they’ll just sit there wringing their hands, wondering where collectivism had gone wrong, and whine when Mugabe is physically removed from office and either strung up from the nearest umbrella-thorn tree, or takes up residence in Idi Amin’s old digs in Saudi Arabia.
The EU army? Wow what an idea.
Lets take a look.
France? They surrender a lot (oh and shoot members of the public when carrying out demonstations of them taking out hostage takers – if only!)
Germany? Not allowed to kill anyone anymore.
Spain? They have an army?
Italy? Ho ho ho
Holland? Hmm.
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bosnia502/interviews_hasan.html
Poland? Ok give you Poland. Some good soldiers
Fact is a piece of dog shit has more spine than the EU armies.
http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page84?oid=212866&sn=Blog%20detail
Only 4 known fugitives from th UK and South Africa?
Are sanctions not ‘collective punishment’? There is also a big difference here as compared with the white regime in SA. When sanctions were imposed on white-SA, there was the nucleus of intelligence which enabled the whites to produce whatever sanctions denied them: Sasol’s fuel-from-coal, armaments, chemicals etc. Zimbabwe does not have that capability so sanctions really would hit the poorest.
Currently the media narrative is this: Mugabe has “turned into” Frankenstein’s monster. This was the line touted by Archbishop Tutu last week.
The BBC and other liberal media organizations turned a blind eye to what Mugabe represented FROM THE START. After he took power in the first election he said, “The only true democracy is a one party state”. No brave BBC reporter ever questioned him on that statement. After all in the Beeb world of “good guys” and “bad guys”, Mugabe was by default a good guy if Ian Smith (white colonial) was the bad guy.
Now Mugabe has shown his true colours and is no longer the darling of the left, media history is being rewritten big time.
Sean Leigh (sp?) reporting from an African summit about Zimbabwe on PM (about half an hour ago) said outright that “in truth”, British intervention would be bad, and that this must be solved by African nations, specifically South African ones. Stated as fact.
In case anybody wonders if there’s an agenda or anything.
Sounds to me like the BBC liberal morons are a wee bit confused.
If Mugabe isn’t a tyrant of the worst order, and if it isn’t clear that Mugabe had committed atrocities, human rights violations and rigged elections, why should any NOT DO BUSINESS with the good people of Zimbabwe. And if Mugaee is clearly in need of having his country “SANCTIONED” into compliance.
Why doesn’t the BBC say so?
Effing hacks.
with all the coverage of mugabe, i must admit i’m starting to have a sneaking admiration for the guy.
unlike our supine political class, this guy seems to have the balls to stand up to the EU and the UN and to tell them , in effect, to go take a hike.
anyone else see his outburst against a Channel 4 reporter this evening?
Yes, he’s quite a man. He’s is “Saddam-esque”. Do you suppose after all the “sanctions” against him, that the BBC’s-military arm will find him bearded and hiding in a hole with tons of American cash??
He stands up to Europeans because European governments are weak tits.
He knows that Gordo Broooon has balls the size of chick peas.
good point gus – note how the Americans are very silent on the issue.
as are the Chinese.
note how the China angle is NEVER mentioned by Al Beeb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China-Zimbabwe_relations
So the BBC hacks need to take a postion.
Mugabe is a CRIMINAL.
Or
Mugabe isn’t a CRIMINAL.
But the hacks at the BBC are both stupid and dishonest.
They criticize Conservatives who have business interests in Zimbabwe, yet they haven’t stated that Zimbabwe’s “STRONG MAN” is criminal.
If there is a reason why people SHOULD NOT invest in business in Zimbabwe, the BBC ass-hats haven’t stated it.
They are trying to play both sides, to protect liberal U.K. politicians, while criticizing Conservatives for investing.
gus:
The hacks at the BBC are both stupid and dishonest.
All those Oxbridge degrees. Worthless.
They criticize Conservatives who have business interests in Zimbabwe, yet they haven’t stated that Zimbabwe’s “STRONG MAN” is criminal.
Blindingly obvious now you mention it. We were all wondering what Mr Mugabe had done to earn such bad vibes and the BBC forgot to tell us!
Thank God for you, gus. Relying on the BBC alone, we’d never have guessed at the terrorising of the population, the encouragement of violent gangs to murder, loot, rape and destroy and the wholesale theft of land from farmers. We’d never have guessed that a once-plentiful country could no longer feed itself nor that its principal export was desperate people!
We had no idea that he’d taken power by ignoring an election result, calling a re-run and then terrorising his opponents out of standing!
What were the BBC thinking?
Gus… while you’re around. Why are people so upset about knife crime? And what did happen on July the 7th in old London town.
You’re our only hope.
Thanks LFJ……or is your proper name the Earl of Douchebag?
I eat liberal fairy boats like you for lunch. And right now, I have heart burn.
Thanks for playing!
Hillhunt with yet another name.
gus:
Excellent.
Just the tone of constructive engagement that David Vance encourages in us all.
i note that LFJ doesnt mention China.
China
LJF is known. He is the silly sea-gull liberal poster.
He flies by, takes a shit on your head, and then is shocked when you shoot him out of the sky.
Clearly LJF is a sissy. He takes cheap shots, and then like a typical liberal cries like a butt pirate.
And he is known every time.
funny how the BBC is keeping mum about China’s wholesale involvement with propping up Mugabe.
gotta have china making the cheap TVs and digital boxes to keep the BBC in business i suppose.
Gaping maw, China is Chic in Socialist circles.
A political perspective on Mugabe, Zimbabwe and Africa which the BBC and the Labour government omit:
(from Lawrence Auster:)
“African Union summit leaders welcome Mugabe with open arms …
.”.. and shocked whites from Texas to Wales to Australia to Denmark are having the global equivalent of an O.J. Simpson acquittal moment–about blacks, about Africa, and most of all about the notion that the West can do anything to improve conditions in Africa. As one commenter at the London Times puts it, we should treat African countries the way the Chinese do–deal with them for our own benefit, e.g., to purchase their resources, and otherwise ignore their internal affairs. The other two alternatives that many commenters put forward are to avoid any contact with Africa, or take it over. The one thing virtually everyone agrees on is that the post-colonial, half-way position of trying to assist and improve and prod Africa toward ‘progress’ without actually having power there has been thoroughly discredited.
Here’s the beginning of the London Times story: ”
[continued in link below]:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010916.html
“So the BBC hacks need to take a postion.
Mugabe is a CRIMINAL.
Or
Mugabe isn’t a CRIMINAL.”
I disagree. The BBC should be reporting accurately (without omission) in order that WE may take a position and use whatever little influence public opinion has left to make plain our views to the snouts-in-troughs who rule us.
“Mugabe to a British journalist: ‘You bloody idiots!'” (video).
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/808841/mugabe-to-abritishjournalist-you-bloody-idiots.thtml