step in and aid a country in desperate need, thereby gaining a ton of goodwill.  Or we could just save Citigroup. Again.

Or we can do neither. Throwing taxpayer money at either Citibank or Zimbabwe (or GM, or Delta, or Iraq, or any other distressed enterprise where the show will continue to be run by the same old incompetent and greedy executives) is tantamount to flushing it down the toilet.

I’m an internationalist and a Keynesian, but I’m also a realist who expects accountability. I’d rather see the money go to NGOs like Medecins Sans Frontiers and the Red Cross, and to containment and refugee reception efforts in the neighbouring countries.

If the bush administration had “friends” in Zimbabwe you can be damn sure we would be there helping.

Now, not so much.

By the way, from Atrios via CNN,

“PAULSON: “NOTHING IS MORE IMPORTANT” THAN KEEPING BANKS SAFE”

Really?  I actually there are a lot of things much more important.  But, as I said above, when the number one goal of your administration is keep your friends wealthy, then, you get what we’ve gotten.

According to Jimmy Carter, the crisis in Zimbabwe is much worse than he imagined.  http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-mugabe25-2008nov25,0,4864784.story 

We don’t seem to be very good at helping out African countries though, do we?  As convenient as it is to blame Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s problem couldn’t have gotten this much out of control without a great deal of apathy on the part of the international community.  The Bush administration puts Africa way down the list on foreign policy anyway.

I wouldn’t hold out hope on Bush, but, and I can’t believe I’m actually going to write something positive about the idiot, it is my understanding that Bush has provided more aid to Africa than any American POTUS in history (including his predecessor).

I don’t know how true that is, but I do know that Bono, a huge supporter of humanitarian aid for Africa, has praised him for that.

Ah, here’s where I had read that Bush has actually been decent (relative to his predecessors in the White House) in regards to aid in Africa:

Per the Austin American-Statesman:

WASHINGTON—Even as President Bush plumbs the depths of the popularity charts, he is receiving warm praise from an unexpected source. The private group Africare, one of the top non-governmental aid efforts for Africa, today is presenting Bush its annual distinguished humanitarian service award.

Julius Coles, president of the aid group and a Democrat, said he was catching grief for honoring Bush. Coles’s reply: “He’s the one who’s done the most to improve Africa. He’s done more than any other president in the history of our country.”

That as may be, but since at the same time money was diverted away from anyone who dared mention the A word, meaning that family planning services were gutted. 

Support for the abstinence-only approach to HIV prevention also doesn’t help.

That as may be, but since at the same time money was diverted away from anyone who dared mention the A word, meaning that family planning services were gutted. 

Support for the abstinence-only approach to HIV prevention also doesn’t help.

True enough.

And actually, the more I think about it, I really don’t believe it’s so much a case that Bush has been great on aid to Africa, it’s just that those who came before him - including Clinton - were just downrright awful in their records.  We don’t have a very good history of humanitarian aid for that continent, so the increases that Bush made, while relatively large compared to previous presidents, still don’t go nearly far enough, and are way too restrictive in how they are offered.

Sometimes I wish that the entire world had a reset button, instead of just individual nations. Zimbabwe’s problems (like so many other “third-world” nations) aren’t solely the fault of Zimbabweans.

To an enormous extent this is the fault of Mugabe.  His land reform program destroyed the commercial farming sector, which triggered the rest of the situation.  Things were dicey before the land reform (a misnomer since it was more like violent invasion sanctioned by the government), but once the farms were destroyed by splitting them up and handing them over to people who knew nothing about farming the nation could no longer feed itself.

If the SADCC nations had their heads together they would force Mugabe and his cronies out of power, but they won’t do that in large part because Mugabe was a stalwart of the anti colonial struggle as well as the anti-apartheid struggle.  There is too much residual respect and loyalty despite his descent into a caricature of himself.

I doubt that any amount of aid would help (much), since it would be largely looted by the governing kleptocracy. Many African activists seem to recommend halting aid to shut down the govt.

Another choice then would be regime change. That doesn’t seem like a hot idea either. Maybe give assistance to neighboring invasion force? Oh, we’ve tried that somewhere else?

No good solutions I can think of.

Blaming it on Mugabe only prompts the obvious question: where did Mugabe come from? He was a political prisoner for 11 years for arguing that white european rule should end, he fought in a couple of civil wars that included East/West interventions. In short, he wouldn’t be there, and be such a crazy person, except for all the people who tried to play god with the country he lived in.

But now that he’s consolidated such a vicious regime for so long, he and his people are woven into the whole structure of the place. You’d need one heck of a reset button, not just money.

The only way I can see to fix things in a place like Zimbabwe, with a reasonable chance of success, is to send in a massive invasion force and rule the country with a Stalin-esque iron fist for, say, 30 years. In other words, a return of colonialism and a foreign policy similar to the era of the British Empire.

Quite simply, fixing Zimbabwe would probably cost more in blood, treasure, and atrocities than any reasonable person would be willing to spend.

Seriously, the people of that area were so much better off when it was known as Rhodesia.  From the the 1950s up into the early 1970s the nation enjoyed a standard of living comparable to an European nation.  Once the civil war kicked into high gear in the early 1970s things went downhill fast - no surprise.  What is a surprise is the propaganda fed to the outside world about what was going on there during the civil war.

We (the US), along with the Canadians and Aussies, had troops in country supporting the UK and Rhodesians from 1975 to 1980.  Our troops fought against Soviet and Chinese backed insurrectionists.  One of those insurrectionist groups, ZANU, which was headed by Robert Mugabe, was responsible for tens of thousands of civilian deaths.  This murderous approach to reform is what got Mugabe jailed in the first place.  Call that being a “political” prisoner if you like, but he held villages hostage then burned them to the ground anyway.

The 1980 election was fixed by Mugabe, and due to the politics of the day the Brits decided it was best to call it a day. They pulled out their troops - and left many Americans, Canadians, and Aussies to escape on their own.  Most of them ran for South Africa, who welcomed them on the condition they hold off any ZANLA and ZIPRA followers for a time.

There are a number of informative books about the Rhodesian civil war, written by the veterans of the UK alliance.  Try researching the Selous Scouts, and Ian Smith’s autobiography.

Farmboy, you are absolutely correct.  Rhodesia was a thriving country under Ian Smith.  Kipling’s words ring so true:

Take up the White Man’s burden—
The savage wars of peace—
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Mugabe ran Zimbabwe pretty well until the 90s. Only then did he displace white landholders with productive businesses. And he threw blacks out of urban neighborhoods he called “slums” promising to build new housing which was never built. You know a country has hit rock bottom when a flatbed truck with bags of cornmeal on it has to have two guys with assault rifles guarding it, and that’s how Zimbabwe is today.

I’m not saying it’s fair that whites controled a lot of the land as part of the legacy of colonization, but you have to remember that many of these white families had lived there for a few generations and at least the system was productive and stable. Mugabe used to undertand this before he became old and senile.

How to fix Zimbabwe? Drill some new water wells and fix sewage treatment plants in the urban areas.  Import Cuban bioregional farming techniques to at least be able to sustain the population. Figure out who has the sense to make some big money growing cash crops. Don’s give a shit what race they are. There are quite a few whites still there who perceive Zimbabwe as their home and there are quote a few blacks who know how to make money with exports.

If Zimbabwe can just keep its population alive and make a little headway in agricultural exports, the hyperinflation should stop. But first they must survive. Good water and sewer infrastructure is the key to success.

Power behind the throne time.  Mugabe, at one time, was a relatively enlightened and modern leader, at least by African standards.  His wife, Sally Hayfron Mugabe, was his closest advisor and had been a leading activist in her own right during the end of the colonial period in Ghana.  She died in 1992.  After that, Mugabe’s rule became much more unbalanced, both economically and socially.