NationStates Jolt Archive

[I had to write a 100 word commentary on any subject for my Journalism 2 class, so the teacher could get an understanding of our writing style. I wrote this up pretty quick, but I decided I didn't want just the teacher to read it(Too much time spent on it), so I decided to bring it up for discussion. The Mugabe part isnt very detailed, but I didn't want to spend an hour of research on zimbabwe, so any factual errors = meh]

The African Problem

In Africa today, as is widely known, there is great poverty. The numbers of dead daily, monthly, yearly are staggering. Many have recently asked, especially since the Live 8 concerts, what can be done to help the people of the continent. The biggest arguments seem to be based around economic policies, and the lack of aid to the suffering people there. However, quite possibly the biggest problem is the leadership of the country.

In Zimbabwe, President Robert Mugabe leads with an iron fist. Liberated from Britain in the 1980's, Mugabe lead a Chinese-funded army to "liberate" the people of Zimbabwe from the previous leader, Ian Smith. Successful, Mugabe rose through the ranks, becoming the Prime minister, and then Executive president of Zimbabwe.

With a hatred for Whites, Mugabe lead to re-organize power, which was held by the white minority during british rule. In the 90's, he took away parlimentary power from Whites. In the last ten years, he has constructed a reorganization of property, taking away vast amounts of land from whites, and giving it to blacks.

Zimbabwe, in Mugabe's hands, has fallen from bad to bottom. Their constant disdain for the constitution they have, for basic rights such as property rights, and simply bad policies, economic and otherwise, are leading to a bad state. And yet, Mugabe could be considered a good african leader. He isn't involved in a war at the moment, something many african heads of state can't boast.

A huge problem in Africa is corrupt, or purely inept leaders. However, this is only identifying a problem, not a solution. However, there are few solutions that are possible. There is the choice of doing nothing, but that satisfy's few. Quite possibly, the only real alternative is to break the African military.

This would be possible, as long as the money was put into it. Quite simply, if the strongest nations of the world were dedicated, they could do the job. First, they would need to demand for african disarmament, which would be an unreasonable claim. This would be backed up by the fact that any african nation who disarms will be under international protection, and anyone who refuses is open game for military action.

Next, the use of air power to destroy military infrastructures. First, one nation would have its offensive military(Armour, Artillery, Aircraft, etc) destroyed. This would show that the international community was serious. After a sufficient time passed, to let anyone afraid previously to disarm, widescale destruction of offensive military equipment across africa would occur.

This would serve two purposes. One, it would quite simply end war in Africa. Any ongoing conflicts would be brought to the UN security council, who would decide on the fate of whatever the cause of conflict was. The second purpose would be to allow oppressed peoples to overthrow governments. While this could normally be attempted, a nation with too much military power could prevent it. In a nationstate with only defensive military(Infantry, Anti-tank weaponry, etc), a majority of people would have a good chance of overthrowing the government, allowing democracy to flow through the region.

This would not fix Africa immediatly, but instead it would permit the continent to begin the process to western-style capitalism and democracy. The International community would have to take a key position as a watchdog in africa, helping to prevent wars, and to help legitimate governments deal with problems, be they violent warlords, criminal problems, or what.

However, this is unlikely to happen. People look too much into the short term, and don't like the idea of the many who would die in such a campaign, regardless of how many would be saved in the future.

sounds like a continental-sized iraq to me.

the best way to free the poor from poverty is to do what the NGOs are already doing, small, local, low level projects based solely on making the peoples lifes easier. this means digging wells, replanting trees, educating them etc, at village level. this directly benefits the people, whereas throwing money does not.

i could accept your idea more if it was a humanitarian force, which would operate with blue helmets, and only fight in self defence.

sounds like a continental-sized iraq to me.

the best way to free the poor from poverty is to do what the NGOs are already doing, small, local, low level projects based solely on making the peoples lifes easier. this means digging wells, replanting trees, educating them etc, at village level. this directly benefits the people, whereas throwing money does not.

i could accept your idea more if it was a humanitarian force, which would operate with blue helmets, and only fight in self defence.
Though I disagree with the original post about getting involved in yet ANOTHER war this has to be said: blue helmets failed last time in Rwanda. 800,000 Rwandan civilians dead. What makes you think they would do any better in Zimbabwe? Article (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Heroes/Gen_Romeo_Dallaire.html)

Im not stating a war, or an occupation. This is utilizing airpower and such to destroy militaries, and only getting involved in real fighting when asked to(for things like internal help), or to help in conventional warfare situations.

Though I disagree with the original post about getting involved in yet ANOTHER war this has to be said: blue helmets failed last time in Rwanda. 800,000 Rwandan civilians dead. What makes you think they would do any better in Zimbabwe? Article (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Heroes/Gen_Romeo_Dallaire.html)

im not for military intervention at all, i did say 'i *could* accept [chellis'] idea *more* if...'. rwanda was about stopping a genocide, whereas the un may have more sucess if the mission was a long term one to eradicate poverty. but id much rather it was a mission free of any politics.

And we would pinpoint these targets in lush canopy how? Satellite photos only take you so far. We still need humanint on the ground.
What about Russian/Chinese-made SAMs? Or man-portable SAMs? What about the fact that some nations are not above ARMING CHILDREN to guard checkpoints and structures of a military nature with lesser importance? How long before such children will be forced to stand guard near important military structures as a form of human shields?

Would PMC's (Private Military Companies) be allowed to participate if hired? What of other mercenaries operating in Africa, some of whom are American, British and Russian nationals?

im not for military intervention at all, i did say 'i *could* accept [chellis'] idea *more* if...'. rwanda was about stopping a genocide, whereas the un may have more sucess if the mission was a long term one to eradicate poverty. but id much rather it was a mission free of any politics.
I would totally agree with you if the U.N. would PLEASE redefine self-defense for the Peacekeepers.

Im not stating a war, or an occupation. This is utilizing airpower and such to destroy militaries, and only getting involved in real fighting when asked to(for things like internal help), or to help in conventional warfare situations.

i think if the west started destroying african countries militaries, then youd probably find yourself involved in a war pretty soon. and lots of the poorest people on earth would die.

And we would pinpoint these targets in lush canopy how? Satellite photos only take you so far. We still need humanint on the ground.
What about Russian/Chinese-made SAMs? Or man-portable SAMs? What about the fact that some nations are not above ARMING CHILDREN to guard checkpoints and structures of a military nature with lesser importance? How long before such children will be forced to stand guard near important military structures as a form of human shields?

Would PMC's (Private Military Companies) be allowed to participate if hired? What of other mercenaries operating in Africa, some of whom are American, British and Russian nationals?

Human intelligence, im guessing, already exists. A combination of satelites, human intelligence, and reconnaisance aircraft would be used to find targets. It wouldnt get everything, but it would take out large numbers.


SAMs arent a real threat. I don't believe any aircraft were downed by enemy SAMs in operation iraqi freedom, and maybe not any in the gulf war. As for the children, thats on them, not us.

As for PMC's, they would be idiots not to flee if they weren't working for the international community, helping them in their goal.

i think if the west started destroying african countries militaries, then youd probably find yourself involved in a war pretty soon. and lots of the poorest people on earth would die.

They would be given a chance to peacefully disarm. If any of them wanted a conventional war, they would get their asses kicked. Since the goal would only be to destroy conventional forces, there would be no need for occupation. Therefore, such a war would be quick, desicive, and easy.

They would be given a chance to peacefully disarm. If any of them wanted a conventional war, they would get their asses kicked. Since the goal would only be to destroy conventional forces, there would be no need for occupation. Therefore, such a war would be quick, desicive, and easy.

this 'ass kicking' is what worries me. beating somewhere into submission is not what the 'civilised' west should be doing, there are more humane ways.

i wonder if south africa would be forced to disarm, or is it too westernised?

http://www.warchild.org/

The best thing that could happen to Africa, which on the whole is incapable of looking after itself, is for the old Colonial Powers to retake power. The Africans have demonstrated their corruptness, tribalism and lack of ability to run their countries humanely and properley.

[snip]

What the hell are you talking about? You think destroying these countries conventional militaries would STOP war?
1. these countries are flooded with weapons from the times that the US and USSR used them as pawns in their global power plays. Often rebel groups are as well armed as the armies, adept at guerilla warfare...they would not be a pushover.
2. the moral justification sounds alarmingly similar as that for colonisation, which sowed the seeds of most of the problems in the first place.
3. 'liberate' the people of Zimbabwe? why the apostrophes? If some minority in your country controlled all the wealth and more than 80% of the land what would be your reaction - or is it only whites that are allowed self-determination? Do you use apostrophes to describe Mandela as a liberator too? Mugabe turned into a nutcase later, but the fact remains his forces liberated Zimbabwe.
4. Do you not watch the news? Never heard of IRAQ???

The solution for Africa is a changing of leaders and mindset, a departure from ethnocentric and religious identification in order to promote greater unity. For that to happen first of all the poverty problem must be addressed. People cannot think of great universal ideas like peace for all when they are fighting for food, and their governments steal oil money to build private palaces. None of this can be done overtly from the outside though - again, Iraq. Financial support should be given to grassroots organisations with both a humanitarian and politically egalitarian mission. Socialism may bring the answer, and it certainly won't be neoconservative privatisation programs which leave the majority poorer and more discontented.

http://www.brokenpromisesmovie.com

I am keeping a close eye on this movie as it relates to the UN.

The problem with Africa is the massive failure of the governments throughout the continent. They are very corrupt and the first way to reduce the current problems that plague the continent, is by attacking the corruption. Zimbabwe actually had a pretty sizable industrial sector that was wiped out by gross mismanagement by Mugabe. Zimbabwe was once the breadbasket for the region producing more then enough food for itself, and enough to export... now it must import food and food shortages have been reported. This all falls back on bad government. Nothing else.

We cannot go around attacking the various militaries throughout the region. That would be kind of pointless and making things worse.

First off the starter of this thread then cites the UN to help. Absolutely not. They have made the situation worse by broken promises. The movie that I mentioned is one i'm keeping an eye on because it expose the UN for what it really is. A pile of bureaucratic morass that is totally useless.

"Socialism may bring the answer, and it certainly won't be neoconservative privatisation programs which leave the majority poorer and more discontented. "

Socialism may bring the answer? HELL NO. It'll make the continent much worse and any attempts at it (Kenya with Kenyatta) have made the situation more dire. It is definitely NOT the answer and would screw over the people more. There needs to be a society built up, where private industry does exist. This would provide jobs.

The answer is cleaner government that allows foreign investment.

Foreign investment? Stick a price tag on everyone and sell them to the lowest bidder in the global marketplace? All it will do is bring in a pittance while exploiting their labour to make multinationals richer. These people have few transferrable skills and will mostly end up in sweatshop conditions. What is needed is socially owned industry e.g. co-operatives, guaranteeing decent living wages, and investment in education to bring the skills needed for industrialisation. It is ultimately the nurturing of home industry, not the wholesale of people and natural resources to outside companies, that will bring development. Keynesianism I can back if done with a suitably social element, but neo-liberal economics bring poor countries ruin.

Foreign investment? Stick a price tag on everyone and sell them to the lowest bidder in the global marketplace? All it will do is bring in a pittance while exploiting their labour to make multinationals richer. These people have few transferrable skills and will mostly end up in sweatshop conditions. What is needed is socially owned industry e.g. co-operatives, guaranteeing decent living wages, and investment in education to bring the skills needed for industrialisation. It is ultimately the nurturing of home industry, not the wholesale of people and natural resources to outside companies, that will bring development. Keynesianism I can back if done with a suitably social element, but neo-liberal economics bring poor countries ruin.

There is no point to arguing with someone who has no idea or sense of what economics is. Let me point out some facts to you: If there is no foreign investment then there will be no infrastructure built up. If there is no infrastructure built up there will be no jobs. How much more simple is it then that? There needs to be schools built, and colleges that help with specific skills. Socialism is BS. Total and utter nonsense. It doesn't help at all. Cooperatives are nonsense. There needs to be an open market and the government needs to tax it accordingly, so it can put it towards public infrastructure (health and schools). I propose a plan that may work but with how much corruption there is I doubt anything would work. In fact the corruption is so deeply ingrained there is no point.

And for one get real. Your ideas have been tried all over the continent. And they all ended up in total failure.

There is no point to arguing with someone who has no idea or sense of what economics is. Let me point out some facts to you: If there is no foreign investment then there will be no infrastructure built up. If there is no infrastructure built up there will be no jobs. How much more simple is it then that? There needs to be schools built, and colleges that help with specific skills. Socialism is BS. Total and utter nonsense. It doesn't help at all. Cooperatives are nonsense. There needs to be an open market and the government needs to tax it accordingly, so it can put it towards public infrastructure (health and schools). I propose a plan that may work but with how much corruption there is I doubt anything would work. In fact the corruption is so deeply ingrained there is no point.

And for one get real. Your ideas have been tried all over the continent. And they all ended up in total failure.

ever heard of neo-colonialism? its the result of allowing western TNCs to exploit oppertunities in LEDCs. and it is years of this, after the fall of empires, which i believe to be the main contributing factor to poverty in LEDCs.

(also, socialism is absolutely not bullshit, and it pains me to hear it described as such.)

I didn't want to spend an hour of research on zimbabwe, so any factual errors = meh
Coming from a propsective future journalist as it does, this statement causes me great distress, although hardly any surprise. :(

[I had to write a 100 word commentary on any subject for my Journalism 2 class, so the teacher could get an understanding of our writing style.

Personally I consider the writing style you use here in your brief introduction to be more pleasent than the slightly stilted and overly formal style that you use in the actual piece.

For example...

Zimbabwe, in Mugabe's hands, has fallen from bad to bottom.

...'bad to worse' would be more common.

Their constant disdain for the constitution they have

...why not 'for their constitution'?

, for basic rights such as property rights, and simply bad policies, economic and otherwise, are leading to a bad state.

...repetition of the word 'bad' both from the previous sentence and from the phrase 'bad policies'.

And yet, Mugabe could be considered a good african leader. He isn't involved in a war at the moment, something many african heads of state can't boast.

...should that be 'something of which many...'


________

To say nothing of the fact that when asked for a 100 word piece, you have produced 612 words.

Your plan is far too flawed to work, wholesale murder and destruction could only incite people like that to fight more and remember that no true military general believe air-power alone can win a war (or at least no good ones I've heard of).
Also destroying the standing army wouldn't do a lot because when being invaded countries usually have the annoying habit of going into Guerilla warfare mode, where armed militants begin to bomb and shoot people discreetly near towns etc. Hit and run attacks...you know the drill.
It doesn't matter if yur their to help, they view you as an invader, that said I can't think of an actual solution to Africa's trouble, they are in pretty deep.

I cant believe one of, if not the primary cause of the present day conditions in Africa, is being vaguely redressed and suggested as a solution.

The problem with Africa is that it is barely post-Colonial. Further Imperialism is not likely to solve the problem it created.

As far as the paper, I'll assume that Journalism 2 is highschool, in which case I'd say that your writing style are developed enough. A few flaws, but nothing that a couple more years worth of teachers screaming at you about conjugation and throwing English books at you won't fix.
As far as the idea? I'd say, no. Africa needs to be left alone to sort out its problems, no aid, no investment, no debts. Current non-African government property in Africa should be auctioned off to the highest bidder, debts forgiven, and a hold should be put on foriegners buying African land (though buying African products is just fine).
Finally, governments should leave Africa to its own devices involving war, provided that non-African thingies are left on their own. Yes, many people will probably die and it may well take centuries for everything tro resolve, but when its over Africa will (hopefully) have gotten over its silly season that it was sent into by excessive foriegn involvement.