Zimbabwe -- Cathy Buckle -- No one has dared

The debt isn't as bad as the trading arms for natural resources. Gaydamak moved $500 million in Russian weapons into Angola in a matter of a few years. Minin and Klein traded millions in weapons for diamonds in Sierra Leone and Liberia. Ari Ben-Menashe is swapping weapons for diamonds in Zimbabwe (he also stole $7 million in food from Zambia). Everyone is after coltan in the Congo, Rwanda, Uganda area and supporting any warlord who will deliver.

Jackie O's former boyfriend Maurice Tempelsman just tried to bribe the Namibian government with a "loan" of $50 million in return for a diamond monopoly. The game is to destablize the country, then get them into debt buying arms in order to get a lock on diamonds, gold, copper and coltan.

There is a bright side. The U.S. Navy is looking at setting up a base and tax free zone on Sao Tome. That might chase out the Indian traders who are supplying the natives with booze and guns. Perhaps Sao Tome will turn into another Hong Kong and show the rest of the Africa(and those exploiting it) what can be done. There is more profit in trade which benefits both those who sell and those who buy.

If what you are saying is that Africa generally, and Zimbabwe in particular, requires an American-style Revolution in order to advance its people politically, economically, and socially, then I agree with you completely.

If, OTOH, you are complaining that Africa is merely impotent and a victim of Anglo and other slicksters, then I can't agree.

Frankly, your posts seem to show a person of two minds.

The First Rule of War: Don't Lose.

This is what happens when you fail to heed that rule.

Well, you won't see Geraldo Rivera taking his crew to film one of these farm invasions, that's for sure...

Be interested in your view of Savimbi.

"Afrca is indeed "colonized" by the banking system of the G8."

Nonsense.

The nations of Africa have had legions of debt "forgiven" (i.e. paid off by non-African taxpayers) and they've defaulted or threatened to default on most of the rest of that debt.

And even if that debt (which they asked for first, begged for later, and insisted was their right to get in the end) didn't exist, the policies of the Central and Southern African governments would not change a whit, nor would the lot of a single African be improved for more than a year or two.

It isn't the G-8 bankers who are forcing farmers to NOT grow crops and export goods for hard currency, after all.

What we are witnessing in Africa is the complete failure of Communism. It failed in North Korea. It failed in Cuba. It failed in the Soviet Union, and now it is failing in dramatic fashion in comrade Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

Gee, Zimbabwean price controls didn't work. Who would have guessed (well, only the people who had actually paid attention to the fall of the Cuban, North Korean, and Soviet economies, a decidely small minority of "educated" humans, no doubt)?!

Redistributing taxes, foreign aid, and domestic land didn't work in Zimbabwe, either. Who would have guessed that taking resources from the most productive members of Zimbabwe's society in order to give said resources to the least productive members of said society - would have caused their economy to shrink?!

Bankers don't want your economy to shrink. Shrinking economies are NOT the best risk for their loans, after all.

But politicians and ideologues who are insulated from the consequences of their actions may very well have a motivating reason or two to take from one group in order to give to another.

In that light, consider that I've read two recent articles claiming that Mugabe is no longer a Communist.

It seems that there is now a desperate attempt in the media to distance their beloved Communism from the impending failure of Mugabe and his socialist policies...

"Here is the point. Why do they require "hard currency" as you describe it? Because they are participants in "The Game". That's all."

Nonsense. You are talking fantasy-land gibberish.

Bankers want to get their money back. Bankers loan hard currency and they expect to be paid back in kind rather than paid back in Mugabe's wallpaper that he freely prints at will.

It is not in the bankers' interests to see a nation bankrupt itself and default on loans. Those who suggest otherwise have no adult grasp of the situation.

Zimbabwe did not fail because of bankers; it failed in spite of bankers.

The truth of the matter is that Zimbabwe was never credit worthy and should have never been given its loans, but political ramifications (such as Mugabe blaming "racist" bankers for his inevitable shortfall of funds) gave Mugabe access to funds that he did not deserve.

Those loans propped up and perpetuated a flawed system that would have failed far sooner otherwise.

I'm afraid the damage is already done.

If the government changed hands tomorrow and the farmers were allowed to return to their lands, it would cost them a collective fortune to clean up the mess, prepare fallow fields, etc., etc...........IOW, put things back the way they were.

Who would finance that???

Unfortunately, I don't see it. Zimbabwe is going to starve and they have no one to blame but themselves (white farmers aside, of course).

"I clearly pointed out that the real booty is simple - easy access to the country's resources and the real prize, "conflict" that requires billions in arms."

Yes, and here is why you are wrong: Bankers don't get "easy access" to Zimbabwe's natural resources when Mugabe defaults on their loans.

In your twisted world, you imagine that mysterious, evil White bankers want people like Mugabe to be indebted to them to such a point that all of Zimbabwe's natural resources are secretly signed over to them in order to repay those loans.

That's childhood nonsense. Bankers don't get Zimbabwe's natural resources if Mugabe defaults on notes.

Bankers don't WANT Mugabe to default on those notes. No, bankers actually want to get paid back on those loans (gosh, what an amazing business concept).

"You wish to attribute the problems to Mugabe etc etc etc. But the reality is - if the Mugabes of Africa did not exist - they would have to be created."

Rubbish. Western bankers don't want endemic corruption, violence, and bankruptcy to plague Africa or any of their other clients.

Bankers don't want to be in the mining, farming, or any other natural resource business, either.

Bankers want cold, hard cash paid back to them, and you yourself said so in one of your earlier mindless rants.

Until you understand that Zimbabwe's problems are caused by Zimbabweans and NOT caused by outsiders, you'll never understand how the world works, why things happen in the future, or even how to fix blatantly obvious problems.

And I'll give you a clue: imposing an American system on an African nation is NOT going to solve any of their problems.

In fact, I'll even say this although it is bound to go over your head: Zimbabweans are the only people who can solve their problems, and they must do it in their own way.

So long as Zimbabwe is asking for outside food, medical, educational, and monetary aid; so long as Zimbabwe is blaming foreign devil bankers; so long as Zimbabwe is blaming Colonialism (or post-Colonialism); so long as Zimbabwe is looking and lashing at the outside world instead of at itself, then Zimbabwe will continue its path to utter ruin.

Even an imposed American system of government won't stop that path to ruin, either. Such a system is meaningless when those who administer it are corrupt, and the "people" have to buy in to such a system before it has any real power in the first place.

Also, the tribal African cultures generally revolve around the Big Man On Top system of spoils, where those in power (regardless of the type of system in place) get status and favors that are out of reach of everyone else.

In present day Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone, that means that anyone who builds something successful, such as a factory, will have it confiscated and given to those in power. Dig a mine and find natural riches, and your mine will be confiscated by those in power. In fact, various factions will fight each other for your success (leaving you out in the cold).

That's not an environment for Western-style civilizations to flourish, so clearly some other type of civilization is required for Africa.

But it must be done by Africans, not by outsiders.

This could happen in this country as well and nobody would have any more balls to stop it than the farmers in zimbabwe do.

Where is the outrage from the Black Caucus?

I don't view the African "Big Man On Top" culture as being compatible with a Western-style free market.

Even if Africa had no debt, any investor who tries to build a factory or dig a mine is going to risk having it confiscated by whomever is currently in charge of the appropriate African country at the time.

Look at Zimbabwe, even Black farmers are subject to having their farms siezed if they are loyal to the opposition rather than to Mugabe.

I just don't see how you can have Western-style wealth-creation in that sort of culture.

It's got to be done another way. An African way.

Western systems surely aren't going to work over there.

And that's too bad. Western systems are at least proven. We already know that if you loan a farmer enough money to buy a tractor, that the farmer can repay your loan with interest as well as grow vastly wealthier than he would have if he was still tilling and plowing behind an ox.