[johan neeskens]

Originally Posted by Matt Clark

Wow, you're setting new standards of mis-reading someone else's posts. I've made no attempt whatsoever to argue that the realities of Zimbabwean life are a "redemption" of Mugabe's regime. Neither has Rick as far as I can see. A thread full of "God, that Mugabe, what a shit, eh?" "Yeah, I hear ya. What a wanker". "Someone should do something". "Yeah, someone should do something, he's, like, a total asshole" ... well, it's a bit jejune, don't you think? As is the strange reluctance here to consider the ongoing realities of Zimbabwean daily life, as though the awfulness of the regime should blank out all other forms of reality.

We all agree that he's a git and that what he's doing to the country he has illegally stolen from all other Zimbabweans and we all agree that African nations, led by South Africa, should do all they can to bring his regime to an end.

I'm not saying that you are trying to redeem Mugabe's regime, I'm saying that that's how your and Rick's posts can be (mis)read. And I again wonder if that's the type of comments you two would post if this was a western regime, I mean would you even think it noteworthy to comment about Albania x years back that while a dictatorship, the country was at least still functional in a discussion about undemocratic elections? It seems to me that we (the west) indeed ARE often post-colonial in how we approach Africa but in a different way than the Africans themselves think. We're patronising! It's time to let the region sort itself out, they've clearly got nowhere with our government 'help' over the past forty years or so. Let NGOs and private initiatives deal with helping the region but without political input.

[Matt Clark]

Originally Posted by johan neeskens

I'm not saying that you are trying to redeem Mugabe's regime, I'm saying that that's how your and Rick's posts can be (mis)read.

I honestly don't see how. Condemnation of Mugabe is, as I've said, surely now beyond something everyone needs to explicitly sign in to on any thread on Zimbabwe? The virtual equivalent of putting a "Me Too" badge on as you come through the door?

The point that Rick and I chose to address within this broader discussion was related to the ongoing realities of life in societies that, to the inured Western observer, seem beyond the point of collapse. That sort of discussion can take place in an entire value-neutral sense, relative to "Mugabe is a Shithouse".

And I again wonder if that's the type of comments you two would post if this was a western regime, I mean would you even think it noteworthy to comment about Albania x years back that while a dictatorship, the country was at least still functional in a discussion about undemocratic elections?

I don't get the point you're trying to make. This all started with Rick specifically addressing dannytoone's ill-informed and (to those of us with experience of sub-Saharan Africa) obviously false depiction of Zimbabwe as a society that has, effectively, ceased to function at every level we westerners can comprehend. What have hypothetical discussions of Albania to do with that?

It seems to me that we (the west) indeed ARE often post-colonial in how we approach Africa but in a different way than the Africans themselves think. We're patronising! It's time to let the region sort itself out, they've clearly got nowhere with our government 'help' over the past forty years or so. Let NGOs and private initiatives deal with helping the region but without political input.

Well now that's a big issue. That goes right to the heart of the global relationships of every nation on earth, right to the heart of the nature of humanity, in fact.

Leaving aside the obvious practical impossibilities of doing this, what of the moral dimensions? Do we let Darfur "sort itself out"? The Rwandan genocide of the early 90's "sorted itself out" if you want to be brutal about it: they just ran out of people to kill. Things like that "sort themselves out" in the same way that the Black Death "sorted itself out" in medieval Europe. The current (miserably ignored) famine crisis in the Horn: do we leave that to "sort itself out" by just assuming Oxfam and the rest of their chums will be able to feed upward of 1 million starving, homeless, itinerant desperates, without any international help?

Those are just the most gruesome issues that our "patronage" seeks to address. As you can see, it's a fraught issue long before you even get around to starting to tackle tinpot dictators like Mugabe.

[johan neeskens]

Originally Posted by Matt Clark

Leaving aside the obvious practical impossibilities of doing this, what of the moral dimensions? Do we let Darfur "sort itself out"? The Rwandan genocide of the early 90's "sorted itself out" if you want to be brutal about it: they just ran out of people to kill. Things like that "sort themselves out" in the same way that the Black Death "sorted itself out" in medieval Europe. The current (miserably ignored) famine crisis in the Horn: do we leave that to "sort itself out" by just assuming Oxfam and the rest of their chums will be able to feed upward of 1 million starving, homeless, itinerant desperates, without any international help?

Those are just the most gruesome issues that our "patronage" seeks to address. As you can see, it's a fraught issue long before you even get around to starting to tackle tinpot dictators like Mugabe.

First of all let me say that I obviously think that the west should've acted in Rwanda. That was a pretty unique situation though. As for Darfur, I know my government has pumped millions in the region, and I'm sure other western governments have done the same. It's not working though as the money isn't getting where it should get. As you perhaps know, the Dutch have relatively one of the biggest development aid budgets in the world. The government policy for aid to Africa is the following: there is one crisis budget (for earthquakes, civil wars, other disasters) and one structural aid budget, with money given only to African countries with proven non-corrupt leadership (and with the willingness to open their market for Dutch exports but that's another discussion altogether). This policy has been in place for over 10 years and even with all the potentially good intentions behind it, it's not worked one, single, bit.

I know it sounds harsh and very cruel but again, what with all the billions the west has thrown at Africa, things have got worse and not better. I have a feeling, and again this will sound harsh, that Africa over the past four decades has been conditioned by the west in the knowledge that when they screw up, the west will come to the rescue. Time for some tough love I reckon.

[Matt Clark]

Originally Posted by johan neeskens

First of all let me say that I obviously think that the west should've acted in Rwanda. That was a pretty unique situation though.

What - tribal warfare in which government-backed militias battle other armed groups and all sides routinely massacre the civilian population? That's so everyday in Africa (today and throughout its history) that it barely warrants mention. As proven by the ongoing mess in places like North Kivu, The Chad, Angola, the Nigerian delta ...

Don't confuse scale with uniqueness.

I know it sounds harsh and very cruel but again, what with all the billions the west has thrown at Africa, things have got worse and not better. I have a feeling, and again this will sound harsh, that Africa over the past four decades has been conditioned by the west in the knowledge that when they screw up, the west will come to the rescue. Time for some tough love I reckon.

You appear to think that this is fresh or unusual insight. Google "aid dependency" and pay particular attention to the sheer volume of material that exists which supports precisely that view. People have been banging on about "Africa standing on its own feet" since before the colonial withdrawals began in earnest in the 1960's.

Problem is, you're basically funding a Catch 22. It's impossible for Africa to help itself whilst the majority of its governments are not in it for the general betterment of their nations. And it's impossible to end corruption without active and direct engagement (through aid and aid infrastructure) because the continent's vast mineral reserves ensure that a kleptocratic elite will exist irrespective of whether we throw aid at them or not. Leaving them to their own devices just makes it a more feral, lawless game. Look at what happens in those areas that are already no-go areas for NGO's, like the borderlands between Rwanda, the Congo and Uganda. The absence of outside help doesn't encourage a benevolent self-sufficiency, it just begets entirely unchannelled and unrestrained war, brutality and theft.

What you're proposing isn't cruel or unusual. Just ineffective.

[johan neeskens]

Originally Posted by Matt Clark

You appear to think that this is fresh or unusual insight. Google "aid dependency" and pay particular attention to the sheer volume of material that exists which supports precisely that view. People have been banging on about "Africa standing on its own feet" since before the colonial withdrawals began in earnest in the 1960's.

Problem is, you're basically funding a Catch 22. It's impossible for Africa to help itself whilst the majority of its governments are not in it for the general betterment of their nations. And it's impossible to end corruption without active and direct engagement (through aid and aid infrastructure) because the continent's vast mineral reserves ensure that a kleptocratic elite will exist irrespective of whether we throw aid at them or not. Leaving them to their own devices just makes it a more feral, lawless game. Look at what happens in those areas that are already no-go areas for NGO's, like the borderlands between Rwanda, the Congo and Uganda. The absence of outside help doesn't encourage a benevolent self-sufficiency, it just begets entirely unchannelled and unrestrained war, brutality and theft.

What you're proposing isn't cruel or unusual. Just ineffective.

I know this isn't a new insight, it's just only now that I've come to agree with it, I used to think like you but I've changed my mind. I seriously believe now that in the long-term the continent would be better off without the west interfering politically. What you're basically saying is that unchanneled wars and brutality are better than channeled war and brutality - I disagree. If the west stops interfering, Africa can finally, for the first time, look in the mirror and ask itself how much its own leaders are to blame. I know I'm oversimplifying but that's basically my view.

What would be an interesting exercise is to compare how Africa benefits from western (political) support to how Africa benefits from (a-political) Chinese investment.

[Matt Clark]

Originally Posted by johan neeskens

I used to think like you but I've changed my mind.

You don't know what I think. All I've said is that completely withdrawing from Africa will be a disastrous failure.

I seriously believe now that in the long-term the continent would be better off without the west interfering politically.

Quite possibly. But you're conflating political and humanitarian "interference" in most of your posts.

Plus, it's not all about aid and it's not all about "the West". Who's the biggest investor in Africa?

The Republic of South Africa.

Who's the biggest external investor in our current focus, Zimbabwe (and also the Congo)?

The People's Republic of China.

Who's the largest investor in Nigeria?

It's the UK, but it's not aid, it's trade. Oil, to be precise,

What you're basically saying is that unchanneled wars and brutality are better than channeled war and brutality - I disagree.

That's not what I'm saying, so you're disagreeing with the wrong thing. Fundamentally, your view of the situation is about 20 years out of date. The days when ex-colonial powers used Africa as a staging ground for broader geo-political machinations that served their own interests, rather than Africa's, are long gone. The stuff going on in Africa now is African in origin, African in focus and has African motives, with African perpetrators at the top and African victims at the bottom. The principal outside factor is not "the West", but China. Only in Nigeria and parts of the Horn can you make a credible argument for the idea that outside political pressure from ex-colonial masters or the US is the predominant feature of the goings-on in any given African nation.

What would be an interesting exercise is to compare how Africa benefits from western (political) support to how Africa benefits from (a-political) Chinese investment.

See above, partially covered. But my God, you're naive if you classify Chinese investment in Africa as non-political or not politically motivated.

[Matt Clark]

[youtube]V7MljJu-Vk4[/youtube]

[Rick B]

Originally Posted by johan neeskens

I'm not saying that you are trying to redeem Mugabe's regime, I'm saying that that's how your and Rick's posts can be (mis)read. And I again wonder if that's the type of comments you two would post if this was a western regime, I mean would you even think it noteworthy to comment about Albania x years back that while a dictatorship, the country was at least still functional in a discussion about undemocratic elections? It seems to me that we (the west) indeed ARE often post-colonial in how we approach Africa but in a different way than the Africans themselves think. We're patronising! It's time to let the region sort itself out, they've clearly got nowhere with our government 'help' over the past forty years or so. Let NGOs and private initiatives deal with helping the region but without political input.

Oh come on Johan, thats just rubbish. I live here, I won't justify myself on a thread about Zimbabwe by putting 'Mugabe is horrific' on every post. I don't have to and you are more than intelligent enough to read past that simplistic rubbish.

The fact is this isn't a Western regime, we are talking about somewhere I have a hell of a lot of experince and any 'old hand' will know a lot about and understand. On the matter of leaving Africa to deal with Africa - I assure you as Matt as said, Rwanda is not unique. There are 20 other examples and Matt is right when he says scale is the only difference. Just look at LRA in Uganda for example.

Back to day to day matters - the country seems to be very calm right now, everyone is wondering what the AU summit will say. People are getting back on with their lives as they did before. The rate today is 28 BIllion to $1 US which is slowing down. Rumours are that no more cash is being printed which will obviously mean a cash crisis and short term problems, but is needed in the long run. We'll see how long it lasts..........................

[nicephoras]

Originally Posted by Rick B

I don't have to and you are more than intelligent enough to read past that simplistic rubbish.

Rick, please do not assume things we don't know to be true.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Matt Clark

You don't know what I think. All I've said is that completely withdrawing from Africa will be a disastrous failure.

Yet staying there is not much help either. Frankly, I have no idea what the better answer is, except that countries making a go of it, such as Ghana or Bostwana maybe deserve more help than places where any aid goes down the drain.

Colonialism ended a long time ago. It is now nothing more than a boogeyman. Maybe the best we can hope for in most of Africa is enlightened despotism, but despotism of any kind usually ends up very unenlightened.

So in the end, I throw up my arms, cry to the heavens. I have no answers.