Al Jazeera English: VIDEO: Zimbabweans' perilous journey

[SealLion]

Here's something interesting, I think.

Every month, thousands of economic migrants flee Zimbabwe and cross the border into South Africa in search of a better life

I had a look around to find out a little bit more of this country and it seems that this country is highly plagued by a corrupt administration run by ( You've probably heard of this person before) Robert Mugabe.

Here's probably one of the many reasons that people are flocking to find a better life in South Africa:

The downward spiral of the economy has been attributed mainly to mismanagement and corruption of the Mugabe regime and the eviction of more than 4,000 white farmers in the controversial land redistribution of 2000........

Basically, he can't run his own country. Even after having revalued his country's currency a few times over in the last couple of years.


Here's another reason probably why so many people might be leaving Zimbabwe:

.....widespread deforestation is potentially disastrous for the tourist industry

WEll, that's true. Who want's to look at a desert when you'd rather see trees and some animals. Isn't that what brings in the tourist dollars for some countries??

Inflation rose from an annual rate of 32% in 1998 to an IMF estimate of 150,000% in December 2007, and to an official estimated high of 231,000,000% in July 2008 according to the country's Central Statistical Office. This represented a state of hyperinflation

so can you imagine the money that must have to be spent on buying food to support your family and kids. ...to buy clothes with too??

.....as well as the country's 80% formal unemployment rate

Link for all the above quotes:

LINK

No wonder people are flocking to leave the country.

The sad thing is that unscrupulous people take advantage of some of the people from Zimbabwe and rape some of the women there.

However, many become victims of rapists and robbers waiting on the border.

Here's the link:

Al Jazeera English - Africa - Zimbabweans' perilous journey

[saebrtooth]

Zimbabwe is going thru a process of reformation whether the outcome be good or bad will depend upon its leaders and its people to a smaller extent.

In the past most of Zimbabwe's furtile land and natural resources were occupied and used by foreigners, whom, although emplyed Zimbabweans but did not give back to the country they used in any adequate way, so Zimbabweans remained poor, except of course the corrupt in power. If you're corrupt and have no ability/power you cant do much harm.

When the foreigners were occupying the land at least the Zimbabwean ecconomy was flourishing and people were fed, they were even net exporters of food, however, evidently, as can be witnessed by massive food shortages and starvtion, the general populace failed to learn the trade once dominated by the foreigners. Just because there is a Coup d'état how does that make the land immediatly infertile?

I personally believe that Mugabe was too quick to dismiss and throw out the foreign business people, not that there was a slow way of doing it either. Probably, initially that is, he did these thing out of loyalty towards his country, but he is doing a bad job now at governing. Maybe he has the skill to rally the populace and follow him in the overthrow but not the skill and demeanour of a statesman to rule a respected and flourishing country. If however, hee steped aside for a person of greater ability to rule the country he would have gone down in history as a saviour to the country rather than a tyrant grasping staws holding onto power.

Many countries and large corporations actually do the same thing to poorer nations but those countries have not joined in the revolution. Many 1st world, so called developed nation call out China as being a wanna be colonial force, however they fail to advertise that China unlike the IMF and World Bank and some corporations builds road, bridges, power plants, buildings, homes, hospitals - infrastructure in the country that they are a guest in, as a partal payment for the land they lease and material they aquire. These entities (IMF etc) see China as a threat to their dominance because the poorer countries are becoming more and more independant and less in debt.

But nor am I saying China is a saint not really when you consider their weapons trading. Im sure you may have perused some news that China is connected to weapons in Darfur and the US rightly chastises China for this. But the US is the biggest seller of weapons and they also sell to war torn countries where rape and pillage is the norm.

Its true that the IMF and World Banks provide massive injections of money to the poor and needy but they are loans that the poorer natiions cannot offord because they have not the agricultrual or manufactoriing capacity to pay the loans back, and do you think the Bankers know this? They are not dumb of course they know these things that the poor country cannot pay back. So the poor natons are always in debt and always under their thumb or rather toe.

[SealLion]

Very well said. I do have to agree with you about the fact that the white landowners were made to leave Zimbabwe. I recall that from a few years ago too.

Yes. The white farmers did have the knowledge and the expertise to manage the land of which, unfortunately not many black Zimbabweans did. As the land was redistributed, of course, the fortunes for Zimbabwe went down.

as for the re-valution of the Zimbabean dollar, I think that may have also contributed to the economic instability of that country. I would tend to believe that it demonstrates that Zimbabwe can not manage it's own financial standing ( what there is of it to begin with, that is. And even then, that would'nt be much considering it's economic state as of today. Due in part of the land redistribution event. ), and as such, the world bankers not only see this, but do manage some advantage of their own doing, over this.

Many of the Western states call for the removal or 'stepping-down' of Mugabe. It might seem as preferable from an ethical and moral perspective, and I would agree.
I also would like to see at least one more of the African states flourish.
But I think that as long as he's in office, not only will his country suffer the long-term effects of his actions and rule ( and probably for some time as well even should he step down), but so also will, like you suggest, the income for the IMF and other international banking corporations.

[slikrapid]

that this country is highly plagued by a corrupt administration run by ( You've probably heard of this person before) Robert Mugabe.

looks like this president is one of the more controversial ones, as the western media & governments tend to be highly critical or actively against him (the capitalist position), yet he gets support & admiration from countries like venezuela or cuba (the socialist/communist position), so the truth probably lies somewhere in between as usual

Basically, he can't run his own country. Even after having revalued his country's currency a few times over in the last couple of years.

The white farmers did have the knowledge and the expertise to manage the land of which, unfortunately not many black Zimbabweans did.

now, Zimbabwe has an adult literacy rate of approximately 90% which is amongst the highest in Africa, so i'd say if any country in africa has the potential or ability to pick up on this 'expertize', they would be the ones

but imo its not a question of who knows how to run these productions - the question is who wants to import goods from zimbabwe in the first place and who wants to invest in this country at all - i would say that their difficult economic situation is primarily caused by the foreign economic embargo - sort of a revenge for the eviction of white farmers (anyone asked how these 'farmers' got that ~70% of zimbabwe's land in the first place? through colonialism) & mugabe's over-confidence considering self-sustainability - the western countries & international bankers don't like independence, so they used this incident to justify sanctions on multiple levels - i would like to see any country with the smartest individuals try to survive (or more adequately, try to prosper or even hold status quo) under international sanctions

some examples of the damage done:

Between 2000 and December 2007, the national economy contracted by as much as 40%; inflation vaulted to over 66,000%, and there were persistent shortages of hard currency, fiat currency, fuel, medicine, and food. GDP per capita dropped by 40%, agricultural output dropped by 51% and industrial production dropped by 47%.

Direct foreign investment has all but evaporated. In 1998, direct foreign investment was US $400 million. In 2007, that number had fallen to US $30 million

Critics point to the so-called "Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001" signed by Bush in 2001 as an effort to undermine Zimbabwe's economy. Soon after the bill was signed, IMF cut off its resources to Zimbabwe. Financial institutions began withdrawing support for Zimbabwe. Terms of the sanctions made it such that all economic assistance would be structured in support of "democratisation, respect for human rights and the rule of law." The EU terminated its support for all projects in Zimbabwe. Because of the sanctions and US and EU foreign policy, none of Zimbabwe's debts have been cancelled as in other countries.[11]

Other observers also point out how the asset freezes by the EU on people or companies associated with Zimbabwe's Government have had significant economic and social costs to Zimbabwe.[12]

and the United Nations World Food Programme stopping its food aid due to insufficient donations from the world community, has forced the government into borrowing from local sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Zimbabwe#2000.E2.80.932008

an anti-colonialist but also socialist point of view on today's zimbabwe:

Zimbabwe and Pan-African Liberation

The effects of the illegal and immoral sanctions are evident. I refer to sanctions as “war without guns or bloodshed.” Only the imperialist powers have the ability to enforce sanctions and are therefore always exempt from them. Because of this reason sanctions are always immoral. It’s a blatant lie that the sanctions are confined to travel and financial assets of government officials.

claims of an atmosphere of repression and volatility that are propagated by British and U.S. media are pure lies. From what we saw, life is relatively peaceful. The police don’t even carry guns, as they all do in the U.S. What kind of dictator or repressive government is it when the police don’t even carry guns? In fact, we barely saw any uniformed police presence in the cities we visited.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3168

The sad thing is that unscrupulous people take advantage of some of the people from Zimbabwe and rape some of the women there.

sounds quite similar to the UN refugee camps in congo


it is also quite possible that zimbabwe may be among next usa targets (notice also the same line of politics from obama & bush in 2001.):

President Obama leads US drive to topple Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe

Mr Obama and Dr Rice are also understood to be anxious that Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, does not agree to a power-sharing deal with Mr Mugabe that has been under negotiation for weeks.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12062

[saebrtooth]

Although I dont think that Mugabe is a fit ruler however, that is only my personal opinion.

Having said that somehow regime change forced by external forces does not sit well with me. I beleive its bettter for a country to have internal upheval instead and naturally change from there.