Why the hypocrisy on Zimbabwe ?

[Shaggy Alfresco]

I should also point out that the USA has always supported miltary dictatorships in Pakistan even well before 9/11......so the argument that Musharraf is being supported because he is the best option because of these these troubled times doesn't really hold much water.

That was because India aligned itself with the USSR during the Cold War, so the US sided with Pakistan. Which is pretty similar to what's happening now, as Musharraff >>>> Islamic Fundamentalists, like Military Dictators >>>> Communist Dictators.

 

[Salamuddin]

A more appropriate question is why Howard/Blair chose to intervene in Iraq but have done nothing in relation to Zimbabwe, a country they have closer ties to via the Commonwealth.

As for China, isolationist policies or confrontation havent worked before and there's nothing to suggest they'll work now.

Things are improving, albeit slowly and exposure to the world has something to do with that.

As for the Olympics, the decision to award the Games is made by big business through its' stooge the IOC

Australia's withdrawal would barely cause a ripple with the people of China.

However, it could prove devastating to our relationship with that Country (and all the bilateral trade that it entails) and, as such, it would take another Tiannamen for it even to be considered.

1) You seriously believe the situation is improving in China....respected organisations such as Amnesty would beg to differ. And let's ask the Tibetans if there is any hope of autonomy any time soon amongst the "economic miracle" that is China ?

2) There was nothing to lose in confronting China during the 50's and 60's as their ecomony as still regulated and centrally managed. However the stakes are much higher in the 2000's.

3) You're effectively saying that Australia's economic status with China is more important than showing any sort of affiliation with human rights activists in China or Tibet ?? Yet in Zimbabwe, its human rights that is of the utmost concern ? Why the inconsistency ?

 

[Salamuddin]

That was because India aligned itself with the USSR during the Cold War, so the US sided with Pakistan. Which is pretty similar to what's happening now, as Musharraff >>>> Islamic Fundamentalists, like Military Dictators >>>> Communist Dictators.

India was never a security threat to the United States during the Cold War even if they were on good terms with the Soviet UNion.
The point i was trying to make was that the USA needed Pakistan's support to fight the war in Afghanistan.......they were perfectly happy to endorse a dictatorship because it meant they would get what they wanted.

 

[Matt79]

Or is the cosying up to China more likely to be a case of economic convenience ? We all lknow that Western companies want to take advantage of China's lower labour costs.....from Boeing moving its construction plants to the likes of Microsoft instituting their research centres in Beijing and Shanghai. With so much money invested there, surely human rights details pale into insignificance.
China has showed no sign of giving up Tibet or renouncing its claim to Taiwan. It continues its arms buildup at an alarming rate and has sought to build bases and influence throughout SE Asia and the Pacific.
Amnesty International itself has admitted that China, despite increased globalization has not resulted in any great improvement in press freedom or basic human rights if at all.
You'd be seriously deluded if you think China's character has changed simply because they have de-regulated their economy.

As for Pakistan, dude I'm Pakistani myself......if you seriously think Musharraf is the only possible good ruler Pakistan can have, you don't know very much about Pakistan I'm afraid.
Pakistan is basically run by MUsharraf and his set of cronies who have economic and personal interests invested in Western countries such as the UK and the USA. the USA needs Musharraf in place so that Central Asian gas can flow from the Uzbek and Kazakh republics to the ports of Gwadar and Karachi. In return, they guarantee the safety of his interests.
So in effect, you have a "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours". situation.
Democracy, or the lack of it, is completely irrelevant to all parties concerned.
The whole "Pakistan is a religious tinderbox" issue is seriously overplayed by the media......most of those ultra-religious parties have very little real influence despite their rhetoric.
Real Power in Pakistan remains in the hands of the select few.....
I should also point out that the USA has always supported miltary dictatorships in Pakistan even well before 9/11......so the argument that Musharraf is being supported because he is the best option because of these these troubled times doesn't really hold much water.

Re: Pakistan, I'm just going on what I've been told by people who live there. I'm happy to admit I'm by no means an expert, although some of those people I've spoken to are. I doubt Musharraf is the only 'possible' good leader, but at the moment, any of the likely alternatives seem worse from here.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

they were perfectly happy to endorse a dictatorship because it meant they would get what they wanted.

Well yes, that makes sense. I'd prefer Musharraff to OBL.

 

[Salamuddin]

Well yes, that makes sense. I'd prefer Musharraff to OBL.

lol....i don't think that's quite what they had in mind.....
Doesn't quite explain why they were best of buddies with Zia ul Haques regime though....no big bad rival to take Zia's place back then.

 

[Matt79]

A more appropriate question is why Howard/Blair chose to intervene in Iraq but have done nothing in relation to Zimbabwe, a country they have closer ties to via the Commonwealth.

Two main reasons:
1) The Americans were going into Iraq, but not into Zimbabwe. The Brits and certainly not the Australians don't have the kind of manpower to successfully stage an occupation. The Americans do (albeit they've totally ****ed it up in Iraq). And both the UK and Australia are keen to demonstrate that they are good, loyal, friends of the US.

2) Howard, for an absolute fact, believes that terrorists pose a threat to the security of Australia, and also believed at the outset of the Iraq adventure that somehow booting out Saddam would reduce the likelihood of terrorists striking Australia, its interests abroad and the interests of our friends. Now the logic as to how (a) would lead to (b), and whether its had the intended effect is obviously extremely doubtful, but Howard definitely believed that to be the case at the time, and I'd say still believes it to an extent now. From what I've seen Blair is much in the same boat. and the problem is now that the coalition has so thoroughly damaged Iraq now that it could turn into exactly the kind of failed-state, haven for terrorists that used to exist in Afghanistan - so they may have actually created a self-fulfilling prophecy... idiots!

Obviously from that point of view, what happens in Zimbabwe is irrelevant, because no Zimbabweans have flown a plane into a building or blown up a subway.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Doesn't quite explain why they were best of buddies with Zia ul Haques regime though....no big bad rival to take Zia's place back then.

India was pro-Russia. America didn't want a big pro-Russian India dominating South Asia. So it supported Pakistan. This is why they also supported dictatorships in the Americas and Africa.

If Pakistan had also gone over to Moscow, there would have been a Russian fleet in the Indian Ocean, bad bad bad news for strategic planners.

 

[Poker Boy]

Nothing changes - if you go back to apartheid SA there was the Soviet bloc in Europe and nobody boycotted them. But personally I don't think a country should be forced to go in fear of its cricket being bankrupted. When apartheid SA was playing Test cricket, India, Pakistan and WI never played them (and I'm sure SA's Governmant would have let them in for the publicity) because as non-white countries they felt more strongly about apartheid than England, Australia and NZ did. If the ICC was run then the way it is now they would have been bullied into playing them to satisfy an international fixture list - is that fair? if a country doesn't want to go for moral reasons, it should be respected. If I was Howard and CA, I'd take the ICC to a real court. Would the punishment stand up? Just a thought, if it was Zimbabwe coming to Australia, the Government could just refuse to give them visas (as NZ's did in late 2005) and there would be no ICC fine. I just wish Australia had shown such backbone in 2004 - if Australia and England had both said "no" then - (and refused to pay fines) would the ICC have DARED to expel both England and Australia?

 

[Salamuddin]

If Pakistan had also gone over to Moscow, .

ANd there was next to zero chance of that in any case......Communism never really found much appeal in the Islamic world, guys like Gamal Nasser, Khomeini and Zia all shunned Communism and the Americans knew that.....they also knew that India despite being fairly friendly with Moscow was never going to turn Communist (Communism never found much favour in India beyond thge states of Bengal and Kerala) and were never a threat to AMerican interests so they didn't really care

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

ANd there was next to zero chance of that in any case......

Of course.

Then where did Egypt and Syria buy the military equipment to fight Israel? That's right, the USSR! Most of the Arab world was firmly in Moscow's pocket due the the US' support of Israel.

 

[Salamuddin]

Nothing changes - if you go back to apartheid SA there was the Soviet bloc in Europe and nobody boycotted them. But personally I don't think a country should be forced to go in fear of its cricket being bankrupted. When apartheid SA was playing Test cricket, India, Pakistan and WI never played them (and I'm sure SA's Governmant would have let them in for the publicity) because as non-white countries they felt more strongly about apartheid than England, Australia and NZ did. If the ICC was run then the way it is now they would have been bullied into playing them to satisfy an international fixture list - is that fair? if a country doesn't want to go for moral reasons, it should be respected. If I was Howard and CA, I'd take the ICC to a real court. Would the punishment stand up? Just a thought, if it was Zimbabwe coming to Australia, the Government could just refuse to give them visas (as NZ's did in late 2005) and there would be no ICC fine. I just wish Australia had shown such backbone in 2004 - if Australia and England had both said "no" then - (and refused to pay fines) would the ICC have DARED to expel both England and Australia?

IF the ICC exclude Zimbabwe on cricketing grounds, I would have no issue with that.
But if they were to do so on moral grounds, it raises some potentially tricky questions.....what if India then say we will not play Pakistan the next time a flare up occurs over Kashmir ?
Or heaven forbid, Sri Lanka refuse to tour Australia due to the fact they don't agree with Austrlia's treatment of Tamil dissidents ?

 

[Salamuddin]

Of course.

Then where did Egypt and Syria buy the military equipment to fight Israel? That's right, the USSR! Most of the Arab world was firmly in Moscow's pocket due the the US' support of Israel.

And despite that, they were clearly not interested in converting to godless Communism.
Purchasing military equipment off the USSR was a case of convenience not one of identifying with the idealogy of the USSR.

 

[Matt79]

The last scenario isn't likely given how pleased the Sri Lankan government was that those two guys got arrested... Or did you mean not pleased because we don't lock more of them up?

 

[Salamuddin]

The last scenario isn't likely given how pleased the Sri Lankan government was that those two guys got arrested... Or did you mean not pleased because we don't lock more of them up?

the last bit Matt.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

And despite that, they were clearly not interested in converting to godless Communism.
Purchasing military equipment off the USSR was a case of convenience not one of identifying with the idealogy of the USSR.

"Going over to Moscow" doesn't have to be "converting to godless Communism". Most of the Middle East was very pro-Russian as well as India, but it didn't mean they were communist.

 

[social]

3) You're effectively saying that Australia's economic status with China is more important than showing any sort of affiliation with human rights activists in China or Tibet ?? Yet in Zimbabwe, its human rights that is of the utmost concern ? Why the inconsistency ?

Im saying that much of the world turns a blind eye to Tibet etc because of economic ties

Australia has a so-called "One China" policy (effectively recognising Tibet and Taiwan as part of China) but also antagonises China by maintaining informal diplomatic ties with the Dalai Lama and the Taiwanese Government

It's basically an each-way bet designed to maintain dialogue between the parties

Having visited China on a regular basis for nearly 20 years, I can guarantee that straight out confrontation or sanctions against China will NEVER work

 

[social]

Two main reasons:
1) The Americans were going into Iraq, but not into Zimbabwe. The Brits and certainly not the Australians don't have the kind of manpower to successfully stage an occupation. The Americans do (albeit they've totally ****ed it up in Iraq). And both the UK and Australia are keen to demonstrate that they are good, loyal, friends of the US.

2) Howard, for an absolute fact, believes that terrorists pose a threat to the security of Australia, and also believed at the outset of the Iraq adventure that somehow booting out Saddam would reduce the likelihood of terrorists striking Australia, its interests abroad and the interests of our friends. Now the logic as to how (a) would lead to (b), and whether its had the intended effect is obviously extremely doubtful, but Howard definitely believed that to be the case at the time, and I'd say still believes it to an extent now. From what I've seen Blair is much in the same boat. and the problem is now that the coalition has so thoroughly damaged Iraq now that it could turn into exactly the kind of failed-state, haven for terrorists that used to exist in Afghanistan - so they may have actually created a self-fulfilling prophecy... idiots!

Obviously from that point of view, what happens in Zimbabwe is irrelevant, because no Zimbabweans have flown a plane into a building or blown up a subway.

Unfortunately, I'm far more of a cynic

The world is a better place without Saddam but there is nothing in any evidence to suggest that his regime was a threat to Australia

IMO, it was emotionally and economically motivated

As for Mugabe, the fact that he still enjoys the support of neighbouring black countries and that his country is economically barren was sufficient incentive to do nothing

 

[Sanz]

That was because India aligned itself with the USSR during the Cold War, so the US sided with Pakistan. Which is pretty similar to what's happening now, as Musharraff >>>> Islamic Fundamentalists, like Military Dictators >>>> Communist Dictators.

India didn't aligned with USSR, India was one of the leaders of NAM - Non Aligned Movment.

 

[Sanz]

Having visited China on a regular basis for nearly 20 years, I can guarantee that straight out confrontation or sanctions against China will NEVER work

Yeah and boycotting a Zimbabwe tour is really going to work, isn't it ?