Fury as Zimbabwe sanctions vetoed

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by frenchperson, Jul 12, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Link to this here:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7503135.stm

    Would anyone like to explain in more detail the "threat to international security / stability" that Zimbabwe poses?

    I understand Iran are test firing missiles that could hit Israel, but what have Zimbabwe got up their sleeves?
     
  2. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    Several million people escaping the country and putting neighbouring countries under severe pressure in their attempt to look after them is a good enough reason for me. Certainly creating stability problems in SA if you haven't noticed

    Attacks on immigrants in SA

    Doesn't do it for you Franchie? No surprise.
     
  3. But, where's the threat to 'international security'?
     
  4. Schaden

    Schaden LE Book Reviewer

    Fury?? lol I doubt if anyone is feeling "fury" - no one really gives a shit what happens in Zimbabwe in particular and Africa as a whole.

    People would be more pissed off if some of those nice elephants and gorilla type things were having a hard time of it.
     
  5. I am surprised that the archetypal students’ union politician Miliband is surprised that the Chinese vetoed the proposition. After all, it is China and China alone that has bankrolled Zimbabwe for the last 15 years. They are desperate for all the natural resources that Zim has and have the world’s largest supply of USD (outside of America) with which to pay it.

    As for Russia, I suspect they vetoed it for two simple reasons:

    1. It is not the business of the UN to interfere with the internal problems of a country, no matter how severe.
    2. To pish off Gordon Brown after the cycloptic one tried applying pressure on Russia last week (with the same skill as a thalidomide banjo player).
     
  6. Actually it doesn't do it for me either. I recommend that you read the charter of the UN and discover what its limitations are (I was a UN diplomat for a short while).

    The only role for the UN in this case is to send support to the neighbours of Zimbabwe. This can be in material aid, or military aid to protect the borders. It cannot extend to nipping into Zim to give Uncle Bob a kicking, no matter how satisfying that would be. Oh yes: and all the neighbours would have to ask for assistance and the entire Security Council would have to agree unanimously. Is that going to happen? Never in a million years.
     
  7. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    Wasn't suggesting this invasion or military intervention; neither was that what was being proposed at the UN.

    As one shipload of Chinese arms has already being turned away by all Zims neighbours, I'd suggest that the surrounding countries are pretty keen for a formalisation of an arms embargo.

    I do not believe the UN is as toothless as you suggest; simply national interests and petty differences are stopping a common sense decision being made.

    Watch for the continued destabalisation of the region by the mess that is Zimbabwe.
     
  8. Yet another Foreign Secretary who hasn't got a fcuking clue - remember Jack Straw and the shaking hands with Mugabe because he didn't know who he was debacle?

    Politicians ... oxygen thieves - end of.
     
  9. Every time I read a story about an issue that the west supports being vetoed at the UN it is always Russia and China. You would think we had done something to urine them off in the past or something. :roll: These two are the reason the security council is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.
     
  10. The only reason countries like RSA turned the weapon shipment away was because the world was watching and there was a huge amount of political pressure leveraged against them.

    The weapons are now in Zimbabwe having been delivered to the Angolan port of Lobito and flown to Harare. Clicky
     
  11. China is without any doubt engaging in discussions with the MDC and have been since the MDC started making waves. They take the long view with Africa, and whatever the situation in Zim, they'll be in with the winners when the dust settles. This veto was to prevent their existing investments from being torched by Bob.
     
  12. What utter ineptness. Shows up this lot for the bunch of useless student politicians they actually are.
     
  13. Yes. How cynical. You wouldn't catch Britain or America behaving so disgracefully, would you?

    Or would you?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Un_security_council#Veto_power

    Since the Security Council's inception, China (ROC/PRC) has used its veto 6 times; France 18 times; Russia/USSR 122 times; the United Kingdom 32 times; and the United States 81 times. The majority of Russian/Soviet vetoes were in the first ten years of the Council's existence. Since 1984, China (ROC/PRC) has vetoed three resolutions; France three; Russia/USSR four; the United Kingdom ten; and the United States 43


    Britain 10 times, the US, 43 times since 1984, note.....

    whereas China 3 and Russia 4
     
  14. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    It wasn't the politicians that wanted to turn the shipment away. They eventually had to act as it SA dockmen that had the balls to refuse to offload the boat. The boat eventually left SA waters as the politicians realised they had misjudged both the international and national disgust at their inaction.
     
  15. TBH, I am not sure why there is so much ridiculing of Milliband for trying to punish Mugabe.

    Of course he has to express 'surprise'. It is the polite and the politic thing to do. What would people have him do? Express 'a lack of surprise as this is what the chinks always do'? Whether or not the proposal was ever likely to succeed is not relevant at all. After all, why get into politics if not to get a chance to put things right (apart from the very generous remuneration, network of lucrative directorships, corruption, etc). Even if this move has failed to materialize into concrete action, at the very least, it is now known that the UN security council, less Russia and China, utterly disapproves of the Mugabe way of doing things.