Britain should invade Zimbabwe

In 2003, Britain did rule out sending troops, but there are growing calls for the UK to take military action. I have to say, I am surprised by the numbers on the Left who call for British action. Exiled groups living in the UK believe that Britain has a morale duty over its former colony and its people.

Back in March this years, bloggers in Zimbabwe turned up the heat on the regime by calling for action. Including a call for Britain to invade them and remove Mugabe. The press in the UK, lead by the Times, pointed out that we should intervene and it was our right to do so. Our government has, and still is, putting pressure on South Africa to basically "pull the plug" on Mugabe and Tony Blair is to visit Africa this week. It will be interesting to see what happens. The South African Republic provides endless amount of aid to Mugabe, which is basically keeping him in power. Denying him that, would collapse his government. (Many members of his own administration do not support the dictator.)

The European Union has taken huge action on Zimbabwe, banning government officials from entering Europe and imposing direct sanctions against Mugabe's administration. But it's not enough.

Of course, any military should be taken by the Commonwealth of Nations (the former colonies of the British empire) due to the nature of this. Zimbabwe is suspended from the organization in 2002. I went to school with a kid from Zimbabwe, his stories about the Country was heartbreaking. The torture and beating that goes on and the oppression to anyone who doesn't agree with the government. It's a sad reflection on a country that has so much promise and so much potential. The once bread basket of Africa, that was the Zimbabwe we remember.

Britain demanded the World to go into Kosovo to protect the citizens from being massacred. We made a mistake with Iraq, but we can help make a change by doing SOMETHING GOOD. People talk about British imperialism and our bad history on slavery, we can help heal the scars in Zimbabwe by giving them what they wanted. FREEDOM. Thats why Zimbabwe became independent from us, the people wanted freedom.

It's still our right to give them that freedom.

mod edit: corrected title

[edit on 16-9-2007 by UK Wizard]

Sadly though it would be the right thing to do, it will make a martyr of Mugabe and end up a mess like the one which removed Saddam.

Originally posted by sy.gunson
Sadly though it would be the right thing to do, it will make a martyr of Mugabe and end up a mess like the one which removed Saddam.

I don't think it will.

The people and his own government officials barely support him. Parts of the Army are even turning to mutiny against him.

Majority of Zimbabwe laws are democratic, just the Presidential office holds too much power. The office of Prime Minister was removed. Their parliament could easily take control of the country within a matter of days and remove the constitutional changes made by Mugabe.

Tackle Zimbabwe, archbishop urges

news.bbc.co.uk...

South Africa and other African Nations are failing to help the people of Zimbabwe, ignoring Mugabe as well.

I'm not the one to call for war or invasion of another country, but for the people of Zimbabwe, the poorest nation on earth, where the average life expectancies in the mid-30s, we should do something to remove the government.

[edit on 16-9-2007 by infinite]

Originally posted by sy.gunson
Sadly though it would be the right thing to do, it will make a martyr of Mugabe and end up a mess like the one which removed Saddam.

I'm not so sure. This would be a wholly different conflict, for different reasons (you haven't got a Sunni/Shia/Kurd rift for a start). Besides, hopefully the UK has learnt lessons from the (big) mistakes that were made in Iraq immediately after the invasion.

Realistically, any invasion would require at least tacit cooperation from South Africa. An attack could be mounted through Mozambique (which may be willing, given that it's a Commonwealth member), but it would be much harder because of poorer infrastructure. Other key Commonwealth players (particularly Australia and Canada, and preferably India, New Zealand and other African nations too) would also have to be on board.

If you gave them freedom, then you have to let them live or die by that choice really (unless they bring their problems to you).

Not much to it, but I have little sympathy for those who seek for others to do what they should do themselves, ESPECIALLY with the internal rot they have.

The only weapon that would really aid them in my mind, would be knowledge. A few guns to the right folks wouldn't hurt either, but direct intervention would make you more like old England than like new England (both had their points, but internationally old England is like new America).

Leave them be. You can't be nursemaid to the world.

I fully agree that the UK should take some course of action to remove Robert Mugabe but is there the will in Government to do something.

How many of the current Government and the Labour party campaigned against the Ian Smith Government and supported the independance movement?

Will getting involved be seen as a failure of the policy of independance?

On a practical point, do we have the resources to mount an operation in Southern Africa with current operations in the Middle East. Yes I think we can relay on help from South Africa and other countries but I see this as getting us landing rights and not ground forces. I can not see the other major members of the Commonwealth that ste2652 mentioned as wanting to come on board.

The UK created this problem and I think we should be man enought to resolve it.

Yes, there will some Governments that will call any action as unwarrented and that we should left things to the people of Zimbabwe but for how long can we continue to let a Commonwealth country fall apart.

China appears to have a large stake in Zimbabwe and has helped the Mugabe Goverment. Could that be part of the reason for the lack of action?

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Leave them be. You can't be nursemaid to the world.

Indeed not, but this is a problem that Britain played a large role in creating and we have the capability to resolve it. The British Empire ended long ago, but the UK still feels a kind of maternal connection to its former colonies - like a mother whose children have grown up and left home. We still care what happens, and I think we should too; the Empire benefited Britain greatly, so the UK should ensure that its former colonies should have the same chance to flourish wherever possible.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Yes I think we can relay on help from South Africa and other countries but I see this as getting us landing rights and not ground forces. I can not see the other major members of the Commonwealth that ste2652 mentioned as wanting to come on board.

I'm not so sure South Africa would be quite as cooperative, though I do think Mozambique would give us permission to use their territory. It does throw up some difficulties, though, namely (as I mentioned before) poorer infrastructure which means aircraft carriers will be required and it's likely the Royal Engineers will have to significantly improve road access so that firstly the armed forces can get what they need into Zimbabwe, then humanitarian supplies can be delivered (food, drinking water, medical supplies and eventually materials and engineers for reconstruction).

As for other Commonwealth nations getting on board, I think it's very possible that Australia would, and probably Canada as well. Both nations have similar armed forces to us: relatively small but very capable and with experience of nation building (the Aussies have been active in East Timor and helped with recovery from the tsunami in 2004, and both Canada and Australia have forces in Afghanistan).

I think we do have a moral duty and responsibility as the former coloniel ruler. A Catholic Archbishop in Zimbabwe has even called for the British to invade the country and remove Robert Mugabe.

Heck, even the Church of England!

The army of Zimbabwe would be no match, and may even stand down. Plus, I highly doubt the local population will take up arms to fight for Mugabe.

We could easily go in, remove him and his administration, put in place a bare-bone administration to introduce democratic reform.

Get the EU and UN in to hold free elections.

Could be done in months.

I would have to ask, if we the UK did invade Zimbabwie, what would we invade them with, after all our armed forces are overstretched are they not. We simply do not have the manpower to go into another conflict at the moment.

Unless the Gov brings into legislation, i.e. drafting. I do not see any gov doing this.

Question is, Is the UK ready for another conflict???

I do not think the UK Population is ready for another one. With the failures off the two we are already involved in.

Who would we ask to help us out if we did. Our Nato allies wont get involved, heck most of them dont help us in afganistan. So what makes us think they would help us out here.

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
I would have to ask, if we the UK did invade Zimbabwie, what would we invade them with, after all our armed forces are overstretched are they not. We simply do not have the manpower to go into another conflict at the moment.

Well, Zimbabwe is land-locked, so the Navy won't be used.

But, airpower would be a huge advantage for us. We wouldn't need a large force anyways. Much different from Iraq.

The UK population would support justify us removing a government that has raped it's country. Oddly enough, the media is running numerous specials on Zimbabwe now. Sky, BBC, ITV and Channel four having been airing numerous programs regarding the country.

[edit on 22-9-2007 by infinite]

LOL!

First Britain on an imperialistic binge invades half of Africa for slaves or resources to supply the mills in Manchester. Then they treat the natives as dirt and then when the natives revolt. They just wash their hands of the problems they created and leave. Now that is one big mess they thing they can go back and set thing right again!

Doesnt this sound totally illogical ??

If the British try and invade and Mugabe leads the resistance against the British, he will become imortal in Zimbabwe as the man who's standing up for the locals against the foreign invaders. Not to mention the British getting slaughtered left right and center if they did venture to do something as foolish. What does England think it is? America ??

Originally posted by IAF101
What does England think it is? America ??

England?

There hasn't been a country called England since 1707, please understand the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom

And, if you've read through the thread, voices in Zimbabwe have even called for Britain to invade and remove Mugabe. Understand the present situtation instead of resorting to historic colonial examples in future.

Do you really expect the world to be knowledgeable about the intricacies about a smattering of lands called this and that. Most people know what I mean when I say England.


Also, I'm sure there are "voices" from other parts like Pakistan, Palestine, India etc why hasnt England(or Britain if your prefer) gone to their aid before? Many Palestinians think that England pulled away too quickly, why doesnt England try and 'attempt' to invade Israel or Kashmir ? If Englands wants to "solve" problems I'm sure there are bigger problems in the world that it has walked away from.

Originally posted by infinite
Well, Zimbabwe is land-locked, so the Navy won't be used.

I think all three forces would be essential. You mention the air force... where are they going to launch from? Most likely the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers, flying over Mozambique (there's no time to build a fully functional airfield suitable for the RAF to use immediately), especially if South Africa didn't play ball. Also, transport of heavy equipment and humanitarian supplies would probably be best done via the Navy, or at least shipped to Africa and then flown in from a nearby port. I know that since the fall of the Empire the Army has become the 'primary' branch of the British armed forces... but the Navy still plays an essential role in ways you don't immediately think about.

Originally posted by IAF101
Do you really expect the world to be knowledgeable about the intricacies about a smattering of lands called this and that.

Of course not - what we expect is that you don't get the name of an entire country wrong (a country, I might add, that played a central role in the birth of the United States and is apparently it's primary ally). Hardly an unreasonable request, is it?

A disproportionate number of Americans get this wrong for some reason. I can't work out why. Given this site's motto (Deny Ignorance, which is what getting the name of a country wrong is; ignorance) let me give you a quick run down of the difference between Britain/England and try to link it with the US system (since you're probably familiar with that ).

England is basically the equivalent of a single US State (for example, Texas/Florida/Oregon/Alabama). This is also true for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In the UK, instead of being called states, they're referred to as the Home Nations.

The United Kingdom is the equivalent of the United States - it's the name of the country under which each individual state is governed.

The terminology is also roughly equivalent. Examples:

"I am American" is equivalent to "I am British".
"I come from America" is equivalent to "I come from Britain".
"I live in the US" is equivalent to "I live in the UK".

So when you say 'England' and actually mean the whole UK, it's the same as if I say Texas and mean the US in its entirety. It sounds silly when I put it into the context of the US, doesn't it?

By the way, you might see Great Britain thrown around to... this is just the collective name for England, Scotland and Wales. It doesn't equate to the entire UK, however, since it misses out Northern Ireland.

I hope that helps - I know I've derailed the thread a little with this, but if you've got any questions about it then drop me a U2U and I'll do my best to answer them.

Onto your other points.

Originally posted by IAF101Also, I'm sure there are "voices" from other parts like Pakistan, Palestine, India etc why hasnt England(or Britain if your prefer) gone to their aid before? Many Palestinians think that England pulled away too quickly, why doesnt England try and 'attempt' to invade Israel or Kashmir ? If Englands wants to "solve" problems I'm sure there are bigger problems in the world that it has walked away from.

Well, for a number of reasons - things have changed a lot, and to be frank the UK doesn't have the capabilities that it had when it was an Empire. But is military intervention the solution in the first place? Going round invading everywhere doesn't solve problems all of the time - I agree that sometimes it's necessary, but in many cases it's not appropriate. Diplomacy and discussion is definitely the way forward in the cases you mention; India/Pakinstan and the Middle East. With India and Pakistan there is nuclear war at stake... force is thus not a rational option to use. With the Middle East... well, if the US can't pacify one nation (Iraq) in the region, how can Britain hope to tame more? Besides which the Middle East has seen enough violence and bloodshed. More would not be helpful.

Originally posted by IAF101
Do you really expect the world to be knowledgeable about the intricacies about a smattering of lands called this and that.

Yes, because our country is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It's not hard to call a country by it's correct name. Everyone else in the world can, why can't some Americans?

If you post in the UK section on ATS, we do kinda expect you to get the name of our country right

And, btw, your views on British colonalism are extremely vague. Britain lost its influence in the Middle East and other parts of the Empire because the United States did everything to undermine British power i.e why the United States pushed the UN on decolonialism.

[edit on 22-9-2007 by infinite]

Thats pretty ironic considering that we are #2 in numbers of overseas territories (behind the UK). And if anything the UN seems to bug us about ours a heck of alot more then they bug the UK about "decolonization".

I understand the right to self determination and what not but if the people of territory A vote that they want to remain a territory of country B then let it be. The people of Puerto Rico have stated several times now that the vast majority of them wish to remain part of the US (98% favor either statehood or territory/commonwealth status vs 2% favoring independence as of the last vote - and the percentage that favor independence gets less and less each election). I know there have been similar votes in Gibraltar and the Falklands and still the UN is causing problems where there is no problem.

Would it be worth threatening trade deals and cutting aid to surrounding countries to try and work an African solution to Zimbabwe? Obviously, South Africa is going to be the hardest to sway, and the most important, but I would be more hopeful for a successful resolution if neighbouring states were involved to some degree.

Originally posted by Kaliayev
Obviously, South Africa is going to be the hardest to sway, and the most important, but I would be more hopeful for a successful resolution if neighbouring states were involved to some degree.

Thats why the United Kingdom should refuse to allow any home nation to take part in the 2010 FIFA world cup. It would hurt South Africa so much in the UK teams boycotted the event.

The UK population would support justify us removing a government that has raped it's country. Oddly enough, the media is running numerous specials on Zimbabwe now. Sky, BBC, ITV and Channel four having been airing numerous programs regarding the country.

Do you really think the UK Population would support the Gov if they decided to go ahead and invade Zimbabwie, with what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan? I really do not think the British Public would be so supportive this time around. The Gov would have a tough time selling this to the British Public.

[edit on 29-9-2007 by spencerjohnstone]