Wikileaks and Democracy In Zimbabwe

OCatenac writes "The Atlantic has an interesting story on the collateral damage of exposing diplomatic communications in Zimbabwe. From the article: 'The reaction in Zimbabwe was swift. Zimbabwe's Mugabe-appointed attorney general announced he was investigating the Prime Minister on treason charges based exclusively on the contents of the leaked cable. While it's unlikely Tsvangirai could be convicted on the contents of the cable alone, the political damage has already been done. The cable provides Mugabe the opportunity to portray Tsvangirai as an agent of foreign governments working against the people of Zimbabwe. Furthermore, it could provide Mugabe with the pretense to abandon the coalition government that allowed Tsvangirai to become prime minister in 2009.' Undoubtedly there are lots of things that our governments hide from us which should not be hidden but it's a shame that no one from Wikileaks could be troubled to consider the potential repercussions of this particular exposure."

Comments

Mugabe

[MightyMartian]

Why exactly some decent Western power has had that vile repugnant monster Mugabe filled so full of holes you could use him as a soup strainer is beyond me. That incompetent tyrant has turned Africa's breadbasket into a ill-run starving madhouse.

Re:Mugabe

[wowbagger]

"Why exactly [hasn't] some decent Western power has had [sic] that vile repugnant monster Mugabe filled so full of holes you could use him as a soup strainer is beyond me.

Because you cannot bring about Democracy by force. Either the people are ready for it or they are not, and the single best test of "are they ready" is that they overthrow the tyrant (bonus points for NOT filling him full of holes, but trying him in a civilized manner).

If "some decent Western power" fills the sovereign leader of a foreign country full of holes, they immediately invalidate the adjective "decent".

Moreover, since the people aren't ready for Democracy, the result will just be the rise of a new tyrant.

Re:Mugabe

[BlackSabbath]

Mugabe doesn't NEED ammo. Do you think he's survived all these years because of legal niceties and the ability to prosecute people on facts? He don't need no stinkin' facts! He's a dictator and dictators have never needed facts to support their case. The fact that this ONE time the facts give him some support is irrelevant. The implication of your comment is that its Wikileaks' fault (specifically "Lord High Julian") that Zimbabwe will now continue to be under dictatorial rule. Bullshit.

He will continue to rule for as long as the people of Zimbabwe do not rise up and thrown the bum out. If the people of Zimbabwe are more concerned at Tsvangirai's connections to Western powers than Mugabe's rape of the nation then that tells you what their priorities are. The western powers are even less interested in Mugabe than they are Kim Jong Il and even if they were - it ain't their job to tell other peoples how to run their states.

Re:Mugabe

[spun]

Sorta like Saddam Hussein and his sons running Iraq. But Jesus, did America catch hell for doing something about it. We still are.

We caught hell for that because we put Saddam in power and supported him for decades. When you have to take out the same guy you put in, it makes the game itself look ridiculous. All the players hate it when you make the game look ridiculous.

If it's one thing I've learned, dictators are protected by larger nations so that they may be used like pawns and creating stalemates in global diplomacy. Nice huh?

We are one of the worst offenders in that regard.

Re:Mugabe

[Abcd1234]

He will continue to rule for as long as the people of Zimbabwe do not rise up and thrown the bum out.

And they are far less likely to do that if the only voice of reform is painted as a western puppet and a traitor.

But yeah, you're right, I'm sure wikileaks is completely innocent... they can't *possibly* fuck up.

Re:Mugabe

[spun]

Assange is to blame as well.

To invoke Godwin's Law, would you have supported a leak of where all the Jews were hiding in Nazi Germany? Only the Nazis would be to blame for what happens next, right?

No, but if diplomatic secrets were given to party A, and party A went to five separate well known and well respected papers to redact those diplomatic secrets, and people were then harmed by unredacted material, I would blame the papers, not the person who went to the papers. You do realize that Assange, responding to criticism that he was not redacting confidential information, made a deal with five venerable papers of record in various countries, and gave them the cables to redact, right? So Assange is still not to blame, the papers are. Nice attempt at deflection though.

Re:Mugabe

[shaitand]

"if the only voice of reform is painted as a western puppet and a traitor"

If the shoe fits. Are you saying it was wrong of wikileaks to expose a western attempt to manipulate a people into overthrowing their leader?

The people of Zimbabwe are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves if they want to live under a dictator there is no need for western govs to manipulate them.

Re:Mugabe

[TFAFalcon]

If all information about Mugabe was free, even his supporters would probably lynch him.

Re:Mugabe

[IICV]

Here's the money quote from the article:

The topic of the meeting was the sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by a collection of western countries, including the U.S. and E.U. Tsvangirai told the western officials that, while there had been some progress in the last year, Mugabe and his supporters were dragging their feet on delivering political reforms. To overcome this, he said that the sanctions on Zimbabwe "must be kept in place" to induce Mugabe into giving up some political power. The prime minister openly admitted the incongruity between his private support for the sanctions and his public statements in opposition. If his political adversaries knew Tsvangirai secretly supported the sanctions, deeply unpopular with Zimbabweans, they would have a powerful weapon to attack and discredit the democratic reformer.

In private, he says "Keep these sanctions up". In public, he says "Down with sanctions you evil western foreigners etc".

When the cables were released, surprise surprise, his opponent capitalizes on the fact that he says one thing in private and the exact opposite in public - and arguably, the things he says in private are detrimental to his country (he was basically saying "USA, it's totally okay for you to keep on penalizing our entire country because one political party refuses to play ball"). The citizenry, now that they know this guy is not necessarily acting in their best interests, turn against him. It's not really their fault that his opposite number is a complete asshole.

Maybe he shouldn't have been a two-faced liar? That would have kept this from happening. Pity integrity is apparently something that happens to other people.

Re:Mugabe

[BobMcD]

Saddam never changed, though. He was an evil, ruthless bastard when we put him in power, we knew how he would act, and we didn't care until he turned against the status quo.

But you know what the real bitch of it is? Poor old Saddam never actually did any of the stuff he wanted us to think he was going to do. There just weren't any WMD's, and really there never were ever going to be any. I think history's final review will show that he was actually the most 'effective' ruler of that province in a very, very long time. Sometimes, like when you're forcing three disparate people to share the wealth of one tiny corner of an otherwise inhospitable province, it really could be that a despot is the best choice.

Re:Mugabe

[angus77]

What you missed was that "by force" meant force by another country. As in, one nation cannot force democracy on another (except nominally).

Re:Mugabe

[ShanghaiBill]

There just weren't any WMD's, and really there never were ever going to be any

I think the thousands of Kurds who died in nerve gas attacks would beg to differ, if they were alive to do so.

Re:Mugabe

[spun]

You do know who sold him that nerve gas, right? The good old US of A. No one was calling them WMDs when he was gassing the Kurds, that phrasing came in the push for war. By the time we started accusing him as opposed to covering up for him, he had none left, so what BobMcD says is arguably true.

Re:Mugabe

[Mr. Slippery]

Wow, must be nice to be able to judge, without reservations, someone in a corrupt, violent, third world country who is trying to weaken a brutal dictator. And to do it from the comfort of your pleasant, suburban existence.

I think that even from my reasonably comfortable suburban existence, I can judge that trying to weaken a brutal dictator via lies and deceit is a highly non-optimal strategy, and gives us reason to suspect that the person engaging in such actions may have their own interests in mind more than the interests of the people living under said dictator.

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend; sometime he's just an asshole of a different stripe. Failing to realize this has been one of the reasons that American foreign policy has been so brutal and stupid.

Re:Mugabe

[flyingsquid]

And Mugabe doesn't need Wikileaks for this, it was merely convenient. Do you think that someone who shoots people because they bother him has any issues lying about people?

You can't have it both ways. Either Wikileaks and Assange are responsible for what happens when they release information, or they aren't. You can't say that they're heroes when a leak promotes democracy, but that when a leak sets it back, they're off the hook. If Wikileaks wants the credit when good things happen, then they also get the blame when bad stuff happens.

Re:Mugabe

[Mr. Slippery]

I see. So for example, Adolph Hitler should have been allowed to do as he pleased with the Jews. Is that what your telling me?

That was, in fact, the policy of the U.S. and other Western powers. We did not go to war with the Nazis to save Jews, we did it because they were invading other nations. In fact, reports of the Holocaust were being downplayed as late as 1943.

There are alternatives between letting a nation engage in genocide without comment or penalty, and invading that nation.

What is so difficult to understand about such a simple concept of "right" and "wrong"?

Apparently, it's difficult for you to understand that "right" and "wrong" are not always such simple concepts.

Many aspects of Hitler's programs were based on American policies like the genocide of Native nations and forced sterilization in the name of eugenics. Should other nations have invaded us to stop our actions? Where do you draw the line?

The question of using deadly force is never a "simple" question, and I fear anyone who thinks that it is almost as much as I fear tyrants and dictators -- for such people are all too likely to foolishly support tyrants and dictators who promise simple, black-and-white solutions.

Re:Mugabe

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Quite frankly, The Atlantic should be bitterly ashamed of itself for that ghastly piece of drivel.

Wikileaks revealed a cable, the contents of which included the fact that Tsvangirai, while pretending to be against sanctions against Zimbabwe while at home, sucking up to the electorate, was in fact in favor of them. The Atlantic says that this is a blow to democracy. Srsly? Do they actually think that "Democracy" is just some kind of game show, where you get to line up and put your little scrap of paper in the box every few years, to decide which of the competing politicians you find more mediagenic? Some kind of variant on "Survivor"; but with more national pride?

Unless your "democracy" is to be a cargo-cult sham, where you go through the motions and get none of the effects, people must be able to(and must be willing to, which might ultimately be the harder part...) vote for positions and platforms represented by politicians, not for politicians-as-characters. The fact that one of the major contenders actually represents the exact opposite of his stated position is, y'know, just a teeny bit relevant...

Now, if The Atlantic holds the view that, since Mugabe is just such a scumbag, his removal is more important than democracy; they ought to say so. It isn't hard: "Hey, Raison d'etat, bitches! Getting rid of an obviously bad dude is clearly more important than a bunch of little people getting to know what they are casting their cute little ballots for. Maybe when they are all grown up and sophisticated, like us, they will be ready for real democracy; but, for now, the important thing is making sure that they get what they need, not what they claim to want." See, that was easy, use it with my compliments.

However, if The Atlantic actually values "democracy" in Zimbabwe, they should be celebrating the fact that the people thereof now know more than they did before about who and what they are voting for. Instead, we get this pusillanimous drivel. Pathetic.

WikiLeaks didn't set back democracy in Zimbabwe

[ConaxConax]

There will be never be democracy in Zimbabwe with Mugabe in power.

I had no idea there was democracy in Zimbabwe

[kaptink]

I had no idea there was democracy in Zimbabwe. I was under the impression that Robert Mugabe bullied his way into power and has fixed it so he never leaves? Is this not right?

But isn't the cable real?

[mosb1000]

If the cable proves that Tsvangirai is working with foreign governments to subvert Mugabe, shouldn't the people of Zimbabwe know that? It seems like it would be in their interest to know.

Re:But isn't the cable real?

[Senes]

It doesn't necessarily mean that what Tsvangirai is doing is illegal or immoral. Mugabe is just misrepresenting information and using it to fuel his own propaganda machine. Wikileaks isn't at fault either; they're not passing judgment on anyone.

It seems like what is happening here is that Tsvangirai is trying to cooperate with 'western' governments, and Mugabe is painting this as an evil action which needs to be stopped.

Re:They're mixing up the terms

[Monkeedude1212]

I don't see how they've managed to call this undemocratic - nothing undemocratic has been done yet. Even though your or I might dislike Mugabe, him gaining popular support is part of the democratic process. It's the exact point of democracy. I am surprised at how they manage to label this as undemocratic when just as bad smear campaigns make the local television stations in the US.

What happened was Anti-American. Not Anti-Democracy. People need to stop using Freedom, Democracy, Liberty, and other similar terms as synonyms for America. Mugabe would be a fool to scrap the democratic process if he had popular support of the people, and any under-handed rigging for the next elections he might set up could be just as possible in the States as anywhere else.

It's funny, as AG he brings up charges against the Prime Minister which might have been, in fact, not in the interest of the Zimbabwe people (knowing how the US likes to exploit developing nations and all that).

However, worse crimes are done by US Officials and the judicial system does nearly nothing about it. I wonder which state is actually more democratic right now.

They wouldn't say that with the roles reversed

[vadim_t]

This case:

Tsvangirai (good) hiddenly supports sanctions against his own country to harm his opponent, Mugabe (bad). That scheme comes to light, possibly spelling doom for democracy. Shame on Wikileaks for screwing it up.

Now let's try in reverse:

Mugabe (bad) hiddenly supports sanctions against his own country to harm his opponent, Tsvangirai (good). That scheme comes to light, possibly spelling doom for the tyranny and opening way for glorious democracy. Glory to Wikileaks for uncovering Mugabe's shady deals.

I don't like double standards. Christopher R. Albon seems to be saying that the end justifies the means, and so long that the end is democracy, pretty much anything goes.

IMO, the problem here is not with Wikileaks. It's one of two things:

A. Tsvangirai isn't all that saintly, and not that much better than Mugabe, so he must to resort to underhanded means to defeat his oponent.

B. The people don't really want democracy. They either like Mugabe for some reason, or he convinced them his oponent is worse, or just don't give a damn. Whatever the issue in such a case should they get this democracy it's unlikely to make things all that much better for them, because democracy requires people who care, and parties willing to represent the will of those people. If the people don't care, or all the choices are horrible, it's democracy in name only.

Re:They're mixing up the terms

[c6gunner]

However, worse crimes are done by US Officials and the judicial system does nearly nothing about it. I wonder which state is actually more democratic right now.

This is the kind of mind-blowing stupidity that make me lose all hope for humanity.

Re:Derp.

[Martin Blank]

What if the internal politics include genocide, or involve practices that involve significant oppression of a given group? Do you keep trading with them (tacit acceptance of their internal policies) or do you stop trading with them (indirect disapproval of their internal policies)? The latter is definitely something that could bring about political change if they need the trade and will not get it unless they change their ways.

BFD

[rainer_d]

As if anybody really cared about Zimbabwe. Mugabe didn't exactly fall out of the blue sky last year.

Re:They're mixing up the terms

[hedwards]

I don't see how they've managed to call this undemocratic - nothing undemocratic has been done yet. Even though your or I might dislike Mugabe, him gaining popular support is part of the democratic process. It's the exact point of democracy. I am surprised at how they manage to label this as undemocratic when just as bad smear campaigns make the local television stations in the US.

I must have missed it in class when they suggested using militias to beat, torture and kill opposition supporters as being a part of the democratic process. Sure he might have won anyways, but don't pass this off as a legitimate will of the people situation. A legitimate will of the people does not require crimes against humanity to be expressed.

Re:Derp.

[sco08y]

But Lord High Julian never made a mistake and ALLL information needs to be free ALL the time.

When it comes to my government once again fucking about in a country it has no business meddling with, absolutely.

Right! We need a way to figure out what is the legitimate scope of what our government can do in the name of national security.

We can't exactly poll the entire American people, but maybe if we had some "representatives" of the people elected by a "vote", those representatives could confer with the elected President to determine a policy that, as best as possible, represented the will of the people...

That is, until, some asshat decides to disenfranchise all 300+ million of us by completely derailing that foreign policy.