2 December 2008
editorial
Kigali — Words - anguish, chaos, confusion, pain, suffering or death can never sufficiently describe the misery the people of Zimbabwe are going through.
The citizens of this once prosperous nation have had to deal with one crisis after another.
The highest inflation in the world, running into several billions of percentages; shortages of everything necessary for human survival, cash, bread, milk, education, health care. Urban scavengers roam the streets.
Cholera is the latest scourge to hit this God forsaken nation. People are dying not in ones or two's, but in their hundreds. Those who braved the harsh economic and political life; remaining inside the country, as thousands fled, keeping the fragile fabric of that society together are now under siege.
As if their woes are not enough, cholera has in recent weeks claimed at least 3,000 lives, of the speculative statistics reported so far. Zimbabweans have taken to burying their relatives, privately.
Morgues are full and cannot contain any more bodies.
The cynical solution meant to ease the suffering and the cost of cholera deaths has been the suggestion by those in charge that affected families receive free coffins and burial ground.
Soldiers and civilians run amok as they scramble for the remaining worthless local currency left on the streets. We are also starting to see in earnest the flipside of the international community's policy towards Zimbabwe.
It is common cause that key donors who can assist Zimbabwe, save lives are withholding aid until a power sharing deal between the ruling Zanu PF party and the two formations of the Movement for Democratic Change is finalised.
Notwithstanding that such a deal only rewards the authors of the above crisis. Not taking into account the loss of human life or the suffering Zimbabweans have to endure, while their political elites figure out which position will suit them best in a new reformed Zanu PF and MDC led government.
Zimbabweans let down, are paying the price of their leaders political expediency, at national and regional levels. They are paying the price for an international community that gets the kicks in screaming the Z word, but when it comes to real action, which can save lives and the little left of a battered country - all they get is inaction.
The shouts and screams from the so called pro-democracy and pro-human rights governments and movements are just hollow sounds. We are witness to the unfolding of yet another human tragedy.
Ultimately history will be the judge of who stood where and did what at this time of Zimbabwe's need!
Read comments. Write your own.
Copyright © 2008 The New Times. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
Save your pathos soaked rhetoric for sunday school: what you really want is "regime chantge."
If that is what you want, you are wasting time posting herein: go to Harare, and do "regime change" there.
Actually.. 57% of Zimbabweans said they also want "Regime Change" in the only election recognised as free and fair by both the SADC and AU. I guess he's in the majority then.
Was "regime change" good for Lumumba's Congo? Siad Barre's Somalia? Selasie's Ethiopia? Hussein's Iraq (where nearly a million innocent Iraqi have died or been dislocated)?
So, dear innocence, 57% want 'regime change'.
I can do a survey that would show that more than 57% LOVE the land of maZimbabwe, LOVE Cde Mugabe, want NO talk of 'regime change' and want treasonous Tsvingrai to be executed.
Beware of surveys: Garbage in, garbage out.
What about Obama? Will that "regime change" be good for the USA? You cant say "regime change" is a bad thing. Its a natural thing for a democratic country. All democratic countries have regime change on a regular basis.
What you are saying is that a Dictatorship is safer. But you can see what a Dictatorship has done to Zimbabwe over the last 28 years. Look at the state of it. Dont you think its time to give someone else a go?
How bad does it need to get before you realise that Zimbabwe, under Mugabe is f'ed?
You give 3 examples of where "regime change" has been bad. What about the change from Ian Smiths government? What about the change from Aparthied in SA? I could give you hundreds of examples where regime change has benefitted a nation. But you only have 3 where it hasnt.
The only way you could do a survey of Zimbabweans to get 57% saying they LOVE Mugga is to threaten them with violence before hand, like you did before the run off election.
I am away that one should be aware of surveys, but when the 57% of people come from the official (and I suspect flawed) election results then they must be taken more seriously than a simple survey.
Its because of blind people like you that Zimbabwe slides further into the pit. Wake up!
This post was deleted because it contravenes AllAfrica's commenting guidelines.
Is the change from a Labour Government to a National Government in New Zealand a regime change? Is it a bad thing? I think you are the one that needs to understand what a change in regime is.
Apparently you do not understand what is entailed in "regime change". You may have noticed that the rapes, torture, killings and plunder did not stop in Iraq with the murder of their democratically-elected, popular leader Saddam Hussein. As experienced in Africa when murderous Europeans moved in, their entire political ideology, social structure and their culture/traditions including religion and language - are also targeted for elimination/ change.
And of course the women are raped - to plant a new breed of half-people that will be beholden to the western country/race of the masters - as was the case when the Spaniards embarked on "regime change" in South America.
For instance, if the Africans embarked on a "regime change" in UK the project would not stop with the elimination of the top leaders: The entire political and social setup will have to be changed. Their icons will be targeted for elimination as well - including their BBC, tower of london and "big ben". And the kids in kindergartens will have new heroes and childhood rhymes. And that is just a sampler.
And those snooty English yokels may yet love to talk and wax leaned in isiZulu.
See all comments (63).
If other countries should go in and violently end the existing regime in Zim, that would be considered 'interfering' in the autonomy of the country; if other countries stay out of the battle being fought there for how long now, they are attacked for a so-called 'don't care' attitude. The world out there HAS tried: has spoken out against Mugabe , boycott Mugabe, Mbeki has tried hard to help the parties settle peacefully, South Africa is bearing part of the brunt too ( in terms of refugees, now cholera patients that need medical care), people of faith have been praying for years for Zim, etc. But of course Mugabe ignores all but his own self interest! What other leverage does the world have now but try sanctions/witholding aid? More handouts will merely allow Mugabe to continue his devilish rule - the easy way out.