Zimbabwe cholera outbreak threatens regional stability

[Adsos Letter]

Source: Christian Science Monitor

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa and HARARE, Zimbabwe - Few calamities signal a society under stress like an outbreak of cholera. So when Zimbabwe reported cases of cholera – a disease that spreads when raw sewage enters the drinking water supply – it was an admission that the country and its government had ceased to function effectively.

As Zimbabweans flee their country, and its overstretched hospitals, the epidemic has now spread to neighboring states. This week, the South African government declared the border area with Zimbabwe to be a disaster area. Zambia, Botswana, and Mozambique too have seen cholera cases increase in recent weeks.

"We are at a point where things are getting out of control," says Mr. Tungwarara.

Combined with chronic malnutrition, rampant inflation, a cash shortage, and now-constant strikes by unpaid workers – including riots by Army soldiers – Zimbabwe's bout with cholera puts increased pressure on neighboring countries to act, if only to protect the health of their own citizens. To date, Zimbabwe's neighbors have been reluctant to intervene in Zimbabwe's affairs, pleading for the on-again, off-again power-sharing agreement between Zimbabwe's two rival parties to take effect. But with a UN-estimated 783 deaths and 16,000 infections, time and patience seems to be running out.



Read more: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1212/p25s24-woaf.html

[ohio2007]

1. Zimbabwe: Cholera introduced by West ( proof of the wests use of WMD !!!)

HARARE, Zimbabwe – The Zimbabwean government on Saturday accused the West of deliberately starting the country's cholera epidemic, stepping up a war of words with the regime's critics as the humanitarian crisis deepened.

The state-run Herald newspaper said comments by the U.S. ambassador that the U.S. had been preparing for the outbreak raised suspicions the West had waged "serious biological chemical war."

Zimbabwean officials often blame their country's troubles on the West. Their stranglehold on most sources of news to which ordinary Zimbabweans have access makes such rhetoric an important tool for a regime struggling to hold onto power.


snip

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081213/ap_on_re_af/af_zimbabwe;_ylt=Ah4HchGL.YFkFvovhAhiRUXqGL8C


yes, it all makes sense :crazy:

[Odin2005]

3. It seems that Mugabe is not only a paranoid tyrant, he has become a...

SENILE paranoid tyrant.

Why haven't the surrounding countries, South Africa especially, gotten rid of this evil buffoon? Is South Africa afraid of pissing off the supporters of that Mugabe wannabe (and rapist) Jacob Zuma?

[antinano]

6. But Congo and Darfur is Worse...

What makes Mugabe a priority? Is it his land seizure?

[eilen]

9. That is what his supporters maintain.

I listened to AA yesterday and there was a discussion about him. One congressman in NY (I think from Harlem-- I know it was downstate) is a big Robert Mugabe supporter and he feels it is all about the land. He was a bit militant and defensive at any mention of inappropriate behavior from the Mugabe administration so I listened more to someone from a human rights organization who talked about torture camps for supporters of Mugabe's political opposition but also explained that there were positives and negatives to Mugabe but basically, he has been in power a very long time and there are pitfalls for one political party to dominate for so long. After listening to it all. I concluded that we should just stay the hell out of Africa in general, and while we're at it, get out of the Middle East and South America as well.

It's not that I am so much an isolationist, I believe NATO , the UN and NGO's should be the players there, and we can participate in that as little or as much as we can afford. Certainly we should be concerned about any immigration, imports and tourism if cholera is spreading. Medical and food aid are one way to help. But ultimately the US is overextended now and have our own problems. Frankly, I am still haunted by the events in Somalia, Beirut etc. Perhaps it is a generational thing but I grew up in a time that was punctuated by horrible things happening to Americans trying to "help" in the ME and African countries. My friends from Greece, Germany and GB all tell me that the world would prefer if America stopped it's brand of "do-gooding" -- and this was prior to 9-11.

[antinano]

10. Your isolationism is impractical...

Your isolationist mindset will be practical if 13% of Oil imports are not from Africa or Coltan, used in military weapons is from non other than from Congo. Isolationism is impractical and is definitely not a purnishment from misbehaving foreign nations. It will be more of a loss for America.

In view of that, either your pursue fair and sensible engagement with others, or you continue along the path of reckless engagement. Race cannot be a key component of foreign policy and that is what we see in our dealing with Zimbabwe. We are deceiving ourselves if we claim we are concerned about those black people dying. We are more outraged by whites being knocked off privileged positions in Zimbabwe. And this is held by Liberals as well as convervatives.

A sensible foreign policy will look for where the serious issues are, like Congo and Darfur, not places where we feel our dycks are being laughed at like Zimbabwe. That is how we build good will, and operate in an independent world.

[eilen]

12. Is it isolationism to work with the UN and NATO?

I don't think that race should factor in any decision of whether or not to assist. I was just naming areas of hostile unstable revolving crisis. I don't know about "misbehavior" necessitating American decsion-making. I think that the US has (had?) significant influence in international organizations and could best work with negotiating help from there. We should be weaning off the oil within the next 50 years.

[Odin2005]

19. The UN is a joke.

China and Russia threaten to veto anything, they don't want a precedent of ousting tyrants that might be used against them.

[Posteritatis]

13. Volume, really

I agree that Darfur and, good lord, Congo are worse, but Mugabe's particular crazy is hooked up to a better sound system so we notice it more easily.

[Odin2005]

20. Yep, he's constantly spewing crazy conspiracy theories, it's pathetic.

[proud progressive]

2. U.S. checklist: at stake - lives; people - black; U.S. value - none; oil - none; decision - fuck 'em

[Odin2005]

4. But if we did interviene many DUers would be yelling about "US Imperialism".

Or that's the feeling I got when I said NATO troops should go in and help the Movement for Democratic Change get rid of Mugabe. :eyes:

[antinano]

7. In Africa, Congo and Darfur is more important

To demonstrate military intervention. Mugabe's greatest sins hardly outmatches the atrocities in Congo and Darfur.

[Odin2005]

17. Very true.

It's pathetic. After the Holocaust we swore "NEVER AGAIN!", yet we let it happen again and again and again. :grr:

[Posteritatis]

21. I'm convinced by now that most peoples' definition of 'genocide'

...means "the attempted extermination of the Jewish population of central and eastern EUrope by Germany between 1938 and 1945 in industrialized death camps."

That way, none of the other ones really count, you see. "Rwanda wasn't a real genocide, there weren't gas chambers!" etc.

&*(@$!#&*($!.

[Posteritatis]

16. This one wouldn't, though he'd still be nervous about how it was implemented (nt)

[Critters2]

5. Yeah. We HAD to go into Iraq, because he killed his own people.

Zimbabwe, not so much. :grr:

[jzodda]

11. South Africa is perfectly capable of intervening

They can force this loony out of power in a matter of days probably. They are in a far better position to act and unlike us, this impacts them directly.

So the question is. Why haven't they done more?

[Posteritatis]

14. Because most countries still think there's things you just don't do

Sure, they could go off and throw him out, and it probably - well, more certainly - would improve things. In doing so, though, they'd be pulling a similar stunt to what the US did in Iraq. They actually have a bit more cause than that, to be certain, but it'd be one more instance of "I can unilaterally invade another country if I don't like that they're doing." Junior and middle powers have much more to lose when that mindset becomes popular ("if I do this to my neighbor, why can't (great power) do it to me?") than the great powers do, so it makes sense that they'd be more scrupulous about sovereignty unless there were some pretty compelling reasons or international consensus about it.

It gets a bit fuzzier when South Africa has a history of throwing their weight around in the region; right or not, I can understand their being cautious about doing so again without good cause. If the AU or UN or some other major body puts its support behind getting rid of him, that's vastly different from South Africa or any of the other neighbors deciding to do it, and it would make the process much easier when it did happen.

I think a decent chunk of the African Union actually is talking about pressuring or forcing Mugabe out of office. They certainly want him gone and are saying so openly. That means, though, they're doing so through correct channels based in international law, which has started to accept the idea that in some circumstances that sort of thing is a legitimate course of action based on the responsibility-to-protect movement.

Personally I think he's long past his expiry date. (Personally I think quite a few leaders are, but that's the world we live in, sadly.) He's gotta go, but he's gotta go properly, since there are enough problems in that region as it stands.

[Odin2005]

18. I wonder if it's because of fear of pissing off the supporters of Jacob Zuma.

Zuma gives off a lot of bad mojo, I fear he might become a South African Mugabe. Saner heads have broken away from the ANC and forned a new party to get away from Zuma.

[eilen]

8. "unpaid worker" = slave

just doing my part to help clarify things.

[Posteritatis]

15. Even the paid workers might as well be

The black market rates for Zimbabwean dollars were, I wish I was exaggerating, thousands of trillions to the US dollar at points in the last month or so. If someone's getting paid, say, ZWD200 billion a month for labor, and that can buy a pencil on the unofficial market, it's safe to say that whether someone's receiving currency or not, they really aren't being paid at all.