Intervention in Zimbabwe: Humanitarian and Otherwise
| July 2nd, 2008 | Crossposted from The Blog and the BulletPauly blogs a rebuke to the BBC’s Sir Ronald Sanders argument for intervention in Zimbabwe:
Take Sanders’ own Great Britain, for example. As James Fiorentino points out in Socialist Worker, British banks have been investing heavily in Zimbabwe, extending credit to members of Mugabe’s inner circle. Additionally, the British mining company Rio Tinto has been heavily involved in the diamond industry in Zimbabwe. Far from asking his government to intervene, Sanders should demand that his countrymen get the hell out.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Seems like something of a straw man argument. If you feel that Both actions would be good but one would be more effective why would you argue for the less effective action?
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:42 am
well the point is not that divesting might me more or less effective than invasion, it’s that the British government’s opposition to the regime (and others) is totally disingenuous whilst they have nothing to say to British companies profiteering on Zimbabwean misery.
This comment was written by jack r.Report this comment to the moderators