• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

Fury as Zimbabwe sanctions vetoed

Does Zimbabwe present a threat to international security?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#2
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.
 
D

Deleted 20555

Guest
#4
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
in_the_cheapseats said:
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.
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
Wasn't suggesting this invasion or military intervention; neither was that what was being proposed at the UN.

The measures had included an arms embargo and a travel ban for Robert Mugabe and 13 of his key allies.
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
Dread said:
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).
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
in_the_cheapseats said:
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.
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.
 
#13
daviroo said:
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.
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
Dread said:
in_the_cheapseats said:
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.
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
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.
 
#16
A Frenchmen shying away from a fight...how unusual (!)
a life is a life and if we had the manpower then I think it would perfectly justified to oust Mugabe or at least back those that would. fact of the matter is Mugabe and his inner circle are despots and murderers as long as we allow "people" like this to rule unopposed then others will follow the example therefore they ARE an international threat.
 
#17
Scabster_Mooch said:
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.
If UK/US really wanted to punish Mugabe and put things right they should've looked in the charter of the UN first (as Dread pointed out).

If Russia and China would not've vetoed the move UN would've been exposed as acting unlawfully.

And now UK/US effectively gave Mugabe a good reason to say to his critics: Look, even UN disagrees that I deserve punishment!
 
#18
The whole UN Sanction thing,was a useless gesture ,by Bruin at the G8 Summit,to create the notion that 'I'm doing something'.The FO knew that China,at least,would veto it,and the resolution had no chance of sucess.Spin doctoring at it's worst!
 
#19
Domovoy said:
Scabster_Mooch said:
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.
If UK/US really wanted to punish Mugabe and put things right they should've looked in the charter of the UN first (as Dread pointed out).

If Russia and China would not've vetoed the move UN would've been exposed as acting unlawfully.

And now UK/US effectively gave Mugabe a good reason to say to his critics: Look, even UN disagrees that I deserve punishment!
Even if the measure would have arguable breached the UN Charter, it would still have been effective as what you have then is the weight of some of the most powerful nations on earth imposing a weapons and travel ban on Bob and Co.

Indeed, I think it is unhelpful to say that it would have breached the UN charter and therefore is not passable simply because that doesn't reflect reality. If it was passed, then the ban would have been in place. Illegality will be irrelevant, as in often the case in international law, because there is no one to enforce it.

Re giving Bob a chance to rail against other people, he doesn't need an excuse. He rails against the west all the time.

The fact of the matter is the UK has lost the appetite for intervention due to Iraq. In that case, what else can the govt do except to try and reach consensus on imposing sanctions on Zimbabwe? This they did and I do not think they did wrong here.

When I saw Bob jetsetting across the globe to attend a UN conference on, of all things, Food Shortages, my gut told me that this was wrong. At least some attempt has been made to right this wrong. How can anyone castigate the government for the attempt?
 
#20
muhandis89 said:
The whole UN Sanction thing,was a useless gesture ,by Bruin at the G8 Summit,to create the notion that 'I'm doing something'.The FO knew that China,at least,would veto it,and the resolution had no chance of sucess.Spin doctoring at it's worst!
And if no mention was made of this at the G8, then the naysayers would be berating the UK for not even trying to do anything about Bob and Co.

The government cannot win can they?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top