


A bloody crackdown

Worsening repression inside Zimbabwe

See article

Readers' comments



Deep Throats comments admirably illustrate the pointlessness of trying to achieve anything constructive in southern Africa. So, the British are to blame. The British left years ago and the Smith regime handed over a country that was a net exporter of most things except oil. Mugabe is merely an extreme example of the way most African countries are run. South Africa seems to think that there is little wrong with his methods. Most other Africa nations have no problem with it either. Africa seems to be a consumer of everything and a producer of nothing. The more cash that is sent there the more piles up in offshore banks in accounts owned by the governments du jour. The Chinese have no interest in rights other than those that can be obtained by force. They are the natural new colonists of Africa, as the democratic apparatus that was left by the old powers has failed in nearly all countries.

Zimbabwe is Africa's problem, which means South Africa. If they haven't the ability to deal with it, which is apparent, they should ask China to go in and reconstruct the fabulous agricultural base that Mugabe has destroyed. Maybe the Chinese should send not just weapons, but the people who can use them, so that they can achieve what the South African cannot be bothered to attempt.

RJ Wells

DT, I think Zimbabwe is getting all the attention simply because of how bad things have got there. I also think it's unfair to say that the international attention is zeroing in on Zimbabwe, you specifically mention China, and the massive attention on Tibet has even spilled over into this thread. In terms of misreporting, can you clarify? Supposing that the British did have some role to play in the land crisis. That still does not explain why the Zimbabwe govt. would enact such incompetent policies. It's one thing to try and undo damage done by foreigners--taking for granted that some way, I'll trust you. It's quite another thing to do it in such an incompetent way that you literally destroy your nation.

Deep Throat

As an Africa from a country directly sharing borders with Zimbabwe, I am concerned with the current state of affairs in that country.On the other hand, as a journalist with enormous international exposure, I am more concerned about the end-of-an-empire kind of reportage I am seeing, especially in this particular publication.The Economist's stories on Zimbabwe are so skewed that they sound like essays written by one of the farmers whose land was grabbed. Accuracy is not important when reporting Africa.The story does not need to be balanced in order to be published. If it vilifies the common enemy, Robert Mugabe in this case, it is good enough. If this publication had to write an accurate story on Zimbabwe I can promise everyone on this forum that your opinion will shift, and your perception will change.Here are the questions that remain an answered:What role did the British play in all this land crisis in Zimbabwe? (Instead of being apologist for the British mischief, the Economist should write an accurate story, answering this question).Why is Zimbabwe so much getting international attention? Why not China or Saudi Arabia where human rights clearly do not exist?Why wasn't Mugabe isolated in 1983 when he killed 20, 000 of his people who killed 40 white farmers after invading their farms? Instead he was patted on the back by the British. Is what is called Western civilization?If you answer those questions you will sound like journalist and not charlatans. Intellectual dishonesty is what is more dangerous in today's world rather than a president of a small country in Africa who is trying to do the best for his people.

RJ Wells

On Tibet: I think you should be careful about believing what CCP sources (eg, Chinese media) tell you about the Dalai Lama, the history of Tibet, and so on. Much has been misrepresented. I honestly don't think the US is doing enough to ensure that human rights in Tibet are respected. My own view is that Tibet should have the same sort of relationship with China today that it had before the Chinese army invaded in the 1950's. Throughout history Tibet was nominally part of China but very much autonomous and sovereign. That's quite like the way Hong Kong today is: Nominally a part of China, but very autonomous, under the "two systems, one government" formula. I think that sort of structure would be appropriate for Tibet as well, and actually, if you go and find out what the Dalai Lama is really asking for, that is what he wants. He is not asking for Tibet to be separate from China; he is asking for Tibet to have the same sort of relationship that it always had with China in history, which is the one Hong Kong has with China now.If you are honest many oppressive things have been done to Tibetans by the Chinese government, and most Chinese people speak about the issue without showing any real understanding of how Tibetans feel about it, or even caring how Tibetans feel about it.

RJ Wells

Christian: I think it's quite ethical to support the democratic and sovereign govt. in Taiwan, to ensure that it is not militarily subjugated by the undemocratic government in Beijing. The correct long-term outcome is for Beijing to adopt democratic reforms so that the Taipei and Beijing can be unified peacefully, but Beijing is simply not yet advanced enough for that to happen, and in the meantime it's important to ensure that the PLA does not try and accomplish that unification by force. Really at the moment China has two separate competing governments so it's hard to say we should not deal with one just because the other says not to.

African Pilgrim

Military Democrat, we have down this road before about where the blame lies for Zimbabwe's economic situation. I was not aware of Gono's award - thank you for drawing my attention to it (maybe he is not so incompetent after all?). I am sure you will at least concede that there are a number of the RBZ and Zanu economic policies are at best short-sighted, at worst economic suicide? Even if one accepts that there are "unofficial sanctions" by EU/US, it is accepted fact that RBZ has been printing money furiously to (i) buy foreign currency to pay off IMF arrears (ii)exchange on the black market for personal gain (you know just how wealthy the Zanu insiders are) (iii) pay Zanu insiders disproportionately high packages (iv) fund Mrs Mugabe's infamous shopping sprees abroad (v) pay "war veterans" bonuses which are not budgeted for etc. Zanu has also sought to "outlaw inflation" by making it illegal to raise prices on certain goods. All of this with massive brain drain (1/4 of the best have left), no tax receipts coming in given the 80% unemployment!

As I said, I am not an economist, but I am sure anyone with a basic grasp of economics will agree that RBZ/Zanu has grossly mismanaged the economy! Please at least concede that, we can argue about "sanctions" some other time.

Regarding Tsvangirai, I am not a fan and often cringe when I listen to him. But how sad it is that despite his obvious shortcomings, people are prepared to vote for him just to get rid of Mugabe! But for Mugabe, Tsvangirai would never stand a chance of winnning over the urban vote.

Christian Sun

Wells: I confess that what you have just said are mostly true. And your anger can be understood. However, such "double standards" is not a Chinese exclusive. Just take a look back on what US did to China. Let me take a well-known example to clarify. Tibet, the eternal part of China, its sovereignty has been challenged by US again and again. Monk Dalai, the so called "Tibet exiled spiritual leader", has been constantly supported by the US government. This guy is capable of doing nothing but a mass of troubles, violences, and even massacres within Tibet. You may argue that US has never call themselves a "non interference" government, yes it's true they did not. But such kind of move can be so harmful to Chinese people and may eventually kill, albeit indirectly, thousands of lives.

Despite those facts mentioned above, (Even no need to mention Taiwan affair)however, do you really think US is pursuing a real peace for Tibet? Frankly speaking, US did those things just for political needs and national interests, so did China. The only difference between them is just the diverse mask they wear. The universal truth to all the nations is that never, ever believe in any political guarantee or word, those just are tricks which may blind your eyes.

In addition, I do not intend to persuade you. In this realm, no one can be persuaded. The only thing that never change is the change itself. However, the only thing that matters between countries is not the matter itself, but whether the matter matters to them.

African friend

I know and love Zimbabwe. I have just been to Rwanda. I hope that the African nations don't let another Rwanda happen, recovery takes decades for those who remain, the human cost of those let down by the west and their African neighbours sits heavy on the heart. It is time to build not destroy, unfortunately there is no "bob the builder' in Zim.


What is happening in Zimbabwe is both regrettable and sad. It's obvious that things would come to a head more quickly if Zimbabwe’s neighbors were more critical of the current regime and imposed sanctions to rid the country of this corrupt and ineffectual government.

One possible explanation I’ve heard for Thabo Mbeki’s apparently strange position with regards to the situation across the border (problem, what problem?) is that if SA were to officially recognize the political reality in Zimbabwe, they would be forced, by various human rights charters, to normalize the status of refugees and provide asylum. It is estimated that 25% of Zimbabwe’s population has fled the country, the vast majority choosing SA because of its relative prosperity. To witness, In 2007 SA was deporting more than 4000 refugees per week, a 40 percent increase over 2006.

If the G7 countries united to support SA with its impending refugee obligation, would that not free SA to become a harsher critic of the regime? One thing is for sure, a peaceful and democratic resolution to Zimbabwe’s political crisis seems a much more remote proposition at this juncture.


The situation in Zimbabwe brought about by Mugabwe is far more serious for the millions of Africans who have either fled or who cannot leave, than Separate development or Apartheid, EVER was.Mbeki the S African leader, is despicable in the way he allows his fear or friendship with the Zimbabwe despot, to permit the horrors that are being meted out to the poor residents of this once great African domain.China which now exersises so much power and influence with African leaders is more than happy it seems to me,to encourage Africans to kill each other in Darfur,Congo and Zimbabwe for example and ship arms to grotesque "governments" to help this to happen.Double standards all round

RJ Wells

Kevin, Christian: It's not the volume of arms that China ships, it is WHO China is willing to sell them to. It is not the case that if China didn't sell arms to Zimbabwe that the US would. China has in fact often been the only country willing to sell to extremely murderous regimes. The Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia comes to mind: It's pretty well recognized as being one of the most murderous regimes ever to exist on this planet, and China was its primary backer. China also arms Sudan in Darfur, arms Myanmar, arms North Korea, and now obviously is arming Zimbabwe. These are places that other countries don't sell weapons to, even if overall they sell a lot of weapons. The biggest bit of hypocrisy is that China goes about saying that it has a policy of "non interference" while being the sponsor of extremely oppressive forces around the world.

African Pilgrim

Military Democrat, re Zim bad governance - I am no economist, but what would you label installing a former tea boy with no tertiary qualifications to run your national reserve bank, whose only response to inflation is to print more money? Even Tsvangirai (with his limited intelligence)would have the sense to appoint a technocrat with the relevant expertise and would at least realise the you do not deal with inflation by knocking off a few zeros from the bearer cheques!

Secondly, about fighting in Zimbabwe - l hope I would have the courage to do the right thing when the circumstances called for it - it is easy to make bold assertions in the relative comfort of the UK so I will refrain from doing so.

Separately, i think you underestimate the military rank and file's support of your former President (I think that under the constitution his term has officially expired now?), you forget that under Mugabe's "sovereignty" they too are enjoying 160000% inflation and do not have the massive riches the generals have looted under Mugabe.

savoheleta - agreed - I do find SA's double standards disappointing - oppression by the white man is a deplorable evil requiring African solidarity and Western intervention, but oppression by the black man is an internal matter requiring dialogue!

Christian Sun

If China did not, US would do the same, Russia would do the same, EU countries would do the same. So tell me why you guys picked such a challenging picture as the cover of this? Is that because of your ignorance? If it is so, then it will be excusable.


It would be absurd if Mbeki continues to mediate between the ruling regime and the opposition in Zimbabwe. Mbeki proved over and over again that he’s biased towards the Zimbabwe’s dictator and will do anything to help him.South African insistence on using “quiet diplomacy” to end Zimbabwe’s problems is also absurd. When the United States and Britain used “quiet diplomacy” to pressure the apartheid regime in South Africa in the 1980s, Mbeki and the ANC said this was unacceptable. Mbeki and the ANC insisted that apartheid was not an internal problem and the world had to pressure the regime with sanctions and disinvestments. Now Mbeki insist that Zimbabwe is an internal problem and outsiders should not pressure Mugabe to do anything. How pathetic!SAVO HELETAAuthor of "Not My Turn to Die: Memoirs of a Broken Childhood in Bosnia"

African Pilgrim

I am sick of the rhetoric from South Africa about "Zimbabwean solutions for Zimbabwean problems" - was Smith's government not brought to its knees by South Africa's withdrawal of support? Was it not international sanctions (and the resultant pressure from South African big business) that brought the apartheid government to the negotiating table? South Africa conveniently forgets that the armed struggle in South Africa was a collosal failure (remember Rivonia?) & ultimately change was brought from without not from within.
What can South Africa do? Firstly, stop selling electricity at below market rates to Zim (in fact why continue to sell electricity at all in midst of a South Africa power crisis?); Zimbabwe is landlocked - threaten to stop fuel and other cargo reaching Zimbabwe. We have seen how successful a concerted effort by labour and civil society was in preventing the Chinese arms reaching Zim. Finally - didn't SA troops intervene in Lesotho following a military coup? If as many commentators are speculating, Zimbabwe is now being run by a military junta (a quick survey will show that many key government posts are manned by military personnel) then a case for military intervention can be made.


china is indeed spreading weaponary across the world, but its share of the world total weaponary trade is minor, too minor comparing with these of US, Russia, and many others.

US was, is and will be sending kinds of weaponary to Taiwan province, part of China, which is recognized by most world members.

china could do anything that other countries could do.

before arguing what china is doing, please see what US, Russia and many other countries are doing across the globe.

only doing this way, fairness, justice could be ensured.

RJ Wells

Doomze, I appreciate your point that it is "too early in the day" for South Africa to "meddle" in the affairs of Zimbabwe. That leads to this question though: Given a regime that will cook the election results so that a vote against the government winds up being one for the government, how exactly are the people of Zimbabwe supposed to ask for help? And while you say that it may be "too early", it seems to me that we are already at a point where people in Zimbabwe are confronting starvation, or if not, at least extreme levels of suffering. In any normal situation you would think that we could send in aid to help the starving without supporting the government, but in Zimbabwe it's widely known that any aid will simply end up lining the pockets of various officials, who will steal it, so that no real benefit to the needy results. In such a situation it's difficult to know what to do. I agree that South Africa ought not to take military action unilaterally, but I think it could be making a stronger diplomatic case, and I think the whole international community bears some responsibility for not mounting some sort of credible response. While no individual country ought to unilaterally intervene directly in Zimbabwe, all should be outspoken, and collectively there ought to be a way to properly authorize an intervention (potentially via the UN).Of course nations like China with much to be ashamed of in their own home territory (Tibet?) will veto any attempt to alleviate the suffering of Zimbabweans. In fact, China continues to arm their oppressors. China will selfishly oppose any effort to help here out of fear that a precedent would be set under which help might next be delivered to Tibet.

RJ Wells

I can't believe Chinese here are trying to deny that the ship contains weapons. The CHINESE GOVERNMENT FILED PAPERS STATING THAT IT WAS WEAPONS.You guys are in denial. Your country's idea of "non interference" is pretty bizarre--shipping in guns to oppressive regimes so they can kill people is not "non interference" in my books.Note that China was the regime that shipped in guns to Cambodia, to the Khmer Rouge, enabling them to kill 1.5 million Cambodians all the while saying that China didn't want to "interfere" with what the Maoists were doing. Apparently training, supplying, arming, and funding murders is "non interference" in Chinese government terminology.Their definition of "non interference" plainly differs from what the rest of us would understand "non interference" to mean.


The picture is no doubt misleading, but mislead in vain. I was thinking if Chinese weapons are all over that country and all the brutal things are triggered by rifles made in China when i see this astonishing photo. But ONLY ONE LITTLE PARAGRAPH of malnutrition is trying to testify that photo and the unsuccessfully Chinese shipment.You feel fooled and frustrated when you are presented with such a short episode & such a huge picture at the same time.OK,it's not me or you should feel frustrated but the one writing the highlighted story. VAINLY IMPLICATION.That's it. Guess next time when you try to imply something, find some nutrient proof. Lurid exaggeration is little use in these days. Never underestimate the IQ of the earnest readers of ECONOMISTS all over the world.

Hops Barley


"Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu on Tuesday defended the shipment, saying she hoped there would be no attempt to "politicise" the arms cargo, although she hinted that China may be forced to take it back.

"This is normal trade in military products between the two countries. The relevant contract was signed last year and has nothing to do with the situation in Zimbabwe," she told reporters in Beijing.

The ship, the An Yue Jiang, was carrying three million rounds of assault rifle ammunition, 3,000 mortar rounds and 1,500 rocket-propelled grenades, according to its inventory, published by a South African newspaper."


The ship manifest had to be submitted for approval since the weapons must be shipped over South Africa's land. Someone leaked the document to the press, that is how people knew what the cargo was. I am not saying that China shipping weapons was right or wrong, just giving you a heads up on how people know the contents.


Explore trending topics

Comments and tweets on popular topics

Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Retroviruses: Koala killer
Babbage 31 mins ago
Daily chart: The long haul
Graphic detail 1 hrs 33 mins ago
The Economist explains: Who invented crosswords?
The Economist explains December 19th, 23:50
Monetary policy: Sneaky stimulus
Free exchange December 19th, 17:47
The People's Bank of China: Open Weibo Operations
Free exchange December 19th, 16:24


Products & events