Saturday, March 24, 2007

"I have been following the recent BBC news concerning events in Zimbabwe. Why is the British Government so shy of taking firmer action?"RP

The other night I received this email from a friend who was brought up in Africa. He sent this to all his friends (I assume in a state of despair) . This is my reply.




No oil in Zimbabwe.

"Outrage" Headlines about British troops being killed saving "foreigners" (i.e Black people) from torture, murder and oppression.



"Outrage" Headlines when innocent civilians are accidentally killed during any military action while trying to save them from torture, murder and oppression.

nuf said?

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

John, your friend can rest assured that Britain is taking very firm action - how else to describe draconian economic sanctions including denial of humanitarian aid to assist the Zimbabwean people to overcome drought? An article published the other day in the US political magazine Counterpunch gives a different take on the geo-polotical forces at play in Zimbabwe:

http://www.counterpunch.org/gowans03232007.html

John Gray said...

"different take", you're not joking! However, I don't think anyone takes the racist and anti-Semitic "counterpunch" seriously. Except elements of disRespect I suppose. Anon - I think you are actually just trying to "wind me up".

Anonymous said...

I asked my pal ***** at the *** (ex-dept of War Studies, Harare University) about this and the reasons are (in no particular order).
1. We have no strategic lift capability and so cannot project any force at all into the continent.
2. Mugabe is following a 'Look East' policy whereby he engages with the Chinese trading minerals for political and monetary support. This means the Commonwealth has no influence. The French are also meddling, which further reduces the influence of the Commonwealth.
3. The South Africans don't want to intervene because they fear a radical (like Zuma) will call for land seizures in South Africa too - this is a real danger.
4. The BBC has rather shot its bolt over Iraq. Their appalling anti-war bias and subsequent high dudgeon over the Hutton report means that the government is simply not listening to them (quite rightly so, in my humble opinion). The political price extracted for the Iraq war by the BBC and The Guardianistas means that no democratic government can afford an expeditionary foreign policy - hence the people of Darfur will also die because of liberal cowardice.
5.The government fear accusations of racism - Zimbabweans are mainly black, while British troops are mainly white. More liberal cowardice.
6. Without overwhelming force being deployed, things will just get worse for Zimbabweans.
7. The BBC are arseholes - have you heard a single one of them own up to supporting Mugabe all those years ago? James Robbins, I think, was one of hs main supporters.

Hope this answers your query. I weep for the place, honestly. If it was up to me I'd just assassinate the bastard - but then I'm not in charge. And if I did, the BBC would probably get the conniptions again. Just look at the way the bastards have behaved over Saddam's hanging.