Wikileaks and Democracy In Zimbabwe 669
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."
Mugabe (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
That is one robust politician...
Unless you meant to throw a "hasn't" in there somewhere. In which case would the relevant Western power still be decent?
Re: (Score:2)
That is one robust politician...
Unless you meant to throw a "hasn't" in there somewhere. In which case would the relevant Western power still be decent?
I think he did, and yes it would. Better though, if it could be done via fair elections. But that was the original problem. The next step would be to bring them about through the pressures brought by sanctions by other nations. But thanks to the leak, that will not now be possible.
The question then becomes, what are the next steps? They're likely to be less pleasant for all.
Re:Mugabe (Score:5, Insightful)
"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: (Score:2, Interesting)
Some people can only be removed by force, and will keep killing until they are killed. Mugabe is one of them. If the citizens don't have the firepower to do it, it is the moral duty of someone who can to do it. I'm all for arresting him and giving him a fair trial, but I also will not shed a tear if he is killed while resisting arrest.
Re: (Score:3)
And as soon as someone with the firepower does this "moral" duty, they get lambasted the world over for interfering, among other things. See the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which has removed a tyrant, but has gotten the U.S. more bad press than anything else. Hell, even if the U.S. just arms some locals, it gets ripped up in the press and then the locals will probably screw us over in the long run.
There's no nice way to go about this. Anyone who does dispose of despots ends up being vilified by the international community. Even still, you can't force an idea that's ahead of its time. See the quagmire that is democracy in Iraq. It's nice, but it needs a lot of help in order to remain upright.
Well, to be fair, part of the blame was that we put the tyrant in Iraq in the first place. Even if you agree that he was bad for Iraq, let's use a car analogy (since this is Slashdot): Your car has a flat tire. You're driving at 15mph, fucking up your rim, but moving slowly towards the repair shop. Someone in a nice shiny SUV swoops in, says, "Hey, your tire (that I sold you) is flat, let me fix that for you," bashes the wheel with a sledgehammer until it comes off (with part of your axle attached), gets
Re: (Score:2)
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
Well I would like to believe in that myth, but I doubt that this is a universal rule and I think the ability to overthrow tyrants depends a lot more on the state of warfare technologies than on the willpower of the people. France, USA, had it easy to revolt at the era of the riffle. At this time, a riffle in a hand was worth another riffle in a hand. Numbers gave victory and thus, military victory was often democratic as well. Nowadays you can exterminate protestors with a few assault tanks [wikipedia.org]. You have to hav
Re: (Score:2)
"
Because you cannot bring about Democracy by force.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn't the USA bring about democracy by force? Removing a tyrant from power and replacing that power with democracy will always require force.
However, I will agree with your assessment that if a 'decent Western power' does the perforation of holes, they do in fact invalidate the adjective "decent".
I suspect that you meant to say "Because you cannot force a country into democracy by waging war on their tyrant of a leader." Although, gauging by the current situation in Iraq, ev
Re: (Score:2)
Germany was ready for democracy, but it took western powers to deal with that tyrant.
It's not an error where you will have to musket opposing groups shooting it out. It's an era where when the people arise, the get squashed with helicopter, bombs, fire, machine guns and tanks.
People also need the tool. Contrary to what you seem to think, it's a complex issue.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Perhaps you can't bring democracy by force, but you can prepare them for it, as the UK proved in India and Hong Kong. We'll have to watch Iraq to see if the original premise is proved false or not.
Well, wait. If we consider the cases of Germany and Japan, actually, they prove pretty definitively that you can bring democracy as a result of bringing force.
Re:Mugabe (Score:5, Interesting)
Guess you missed most of the world shifting to democracy. Shifting to democracy wasn't love, hugs, and cookies. It was violent, unbelievably so. France slaughtered royalty and politicians alike. In the UK they were drawing magistrates in the streets. The US not only fought the British, but threw them out. India's shift was very violent as well, so was pakistan's. Israel's was the same. Oh lets not forget Argentina either.
People can be ready and want democracy. The shift to give people rights beyond what the government(royalty, or dictatorships), was violent everywhere. So yes, you can bring democracy by force. In fact, most of the democratic world was brought into existence by force. It's the erosion of democracy that's silent.
Re:Mugabe (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mugabe (Score:4, Interesting)
Because you cannot bring about Democracy by force.
Hmmmm.....seems to have worked fairly well in Germany and Japan.
Re:Mugabe (Score:4, Informative)
Hmmmm.....seems to have worked fairly well in Germany and Japan.
Indeed, the "you can't force Democracy" trope is just a variant of "violence doesn't solve anything", which is also a pile of manure, as violence has settled quite a bit in human history... especially Germany and Japan.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's certainly worked out well in the past. I'm sure if you look back at history, every time a tyrant was killed, a really nice guy rose up to take his place...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mugabe (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
We caught hell for that because we put Saddam in power and supported him for decades.
Even if that were true, what would be the more rational response:
1. "Alright, you guys finally got smart and decided to remove the bastard! Good job!" .... well?
2. "LEAVE THAT EVIL DICTATOR ALONE!!!"
We are one of the worst offenders in that regard.
Well duh. Larger, more powerful nations nations have more influence around the world - Film at 11!
Re: (Score:3)
But he was an evil bastard when we put him in power, we just don't care. Do you have any idea how many ruthless bastards we have put in power?
Re: (Score:3)
DigiShaman wondered why the US "caught hell" (in his words) for ousting Saddam. I responded that perhaps the world thought we were a bit hypocritical, supporting him when he gassed the Kurds, for instance, but only going after him when he went against the interests of the American ruling class.
The point of that, and my question to you, is that we did not oust him because he is a "bad guy." We fucking well LOVE bad guys if they are on the side of our businessmen and bankers, and will kill some leftists for u
Re:Mugabe (Score:4, Informative)
Myth. Sadam didn't need U.S. help getting into power. There are some things that happen, believe it or not, without the all-powerful USA pulling strings behind the scenes.
Don't get me wrong -- the CIA was all over the Middle East in the mid-to-late 1950s, and they had peripheral involvement in just about everything. But there is no evidence whatsoever that the CIA played any kind of fundamental role in his acendancy to party power.
The "we put Saddam in power" thing is willful disbelief at its worst -- just a trope trotted out by those who can't bring themselves to admit that at least SOME good was done in forcibly removing a psychopathic dictator from power. The only rationalization they can come up with is, "Well, that wouldn't matter if the US was the one that put him there to begin with!" So they believe it.
- AJ
Re: (Score:3)
Well, you are right, it might be more correct to say we strongly supported his rise to power without giving him material aid at the beginning. The aid came a bit later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Rise_to_power [wikipedia.org]
Re:Mugabe (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Citation needed? Conspiracy theory? Are you fucking retarded?! It's in the goddamn Congressional Record! Do two minutes of research, for Christ's sake! Not even real research, just look at the first goddamn page of search results! What the fuck is wrong with you?!
Re: (Score:3)
1. As pointed out above, the US didn't put Saddam in power. This is just something some people WANT to believe. That doesn't make it so.
2. Your facts are wrong, or at least inaccurate. It's true that Saddam was a known thug. But from the mid-1960s through the mid-1970s, Saddam was widely considered by the West to be LESS thuggish than the alternatives. He was, in fact, considered a promising step toward the modernization of the Middle East. He was secular and RELATIVELY progressive; e.g., eliminating restri
Re: (Score:2)
And now that Saddam is gone, Iraq is enjoying democracy in all its glory? I seem to have missed that happening.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org] as late as 1943.
There are alternatives between letting a nation engage in genocide without comment or penalty, and invading that nation.
Re:Mugabe (Score:4, Interesting)
Funny how we shift the blame here. And funny how no mention is made of the fact that all the diplomatic cables were redacted by the five newspapers Assange pre-released the cables to. No, it is not Mugabe or the papers who are to blame here, it is that rapist Assange again. The spin and manipulation seem so blatant to me, so orchestrated, that it amazes me how few people seem to notice the man behind the curtain.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. Don't blame a thug dictator. Don't blame his sponsors.
Pathetic. The man behind the curtain is certainly in the right, isn't he? Ha!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Mugabe (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
That incompetent tyrant has turned Africa's breadbasket into a ill-run starving madhouse.
Call Mugabe anything you want, goodness knows he deserves it but don't call a place a starving madhouse unless you have anything other than hyped up and horrendously biased Western media stories to prove it.
Re: (Score:2)
Do they have oil in that country?
Re:Mugabe (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
"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: (Score:3)
The MDC isn't trying to get the Zimbabwean people to overthrow Mugabe. They want him ousted through legal political means, because that makes it legitimate in the eyes of the people and of the world. The idea behind the sanctions is to get the people to vote a different way, which is a different idea than overthrow -- which is usually violent, or at least backed by armed force.
Re: (Score:3)
"The idea behind the sanctions is to get the people to vote a different way"
It doesn't particularly matter whether you are manipulating the people to something non-violent or violent. It is still manipulation. Foreign governments shouldn't be interfering in the business of the people of Zimbabwe. They are perfectly capable to deciding how to vote (via ballot or force) without external manipulation.
Re:Mugabe (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And they are far less likely to do that if the only voice of reform is painted as a western puppet and a traitor.
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?
Re:Mugabe (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Openness as an inherent good (Score:3)
I think the advocates of Wikileaking are making the following argument:
Openness is a virtue in itself. Hence, it doesn't matter if there any possible negative effects that can be traced to such a leak.
An analogue would be free speech. Most liberals (old sense of the word) believe in free speech as a good in itself. So, while accepting all the benefits of free speech, they disclaim any responsibility for any bad effects.
Otherwise, each application of free speech would be decided on the merits, and not on pri
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But yeah, you're right, I'm sure wikileaks is completely innocent... they can't *possibly* fuck up.
Sure, they can fuck up. But they would have to kill millions of people and subvert dozens of democracies to start to match the misery caused by secret dealings by the State Department and the Executive Branch.
There's some parable involving removing the speck from someone else's eye while you ignore the log in your own, but since most Americans are Christians, they've probably never heard of it.
Re: (Score:3)
All of the cables published on the WikiLeaks website - a little over a thousand the last time I checked - were first vetted and published by one of the five newspapers they partnered with. So it's not "ALLL" information as you state, it's a small fraction of all of the cables that were submitted to Wikileaks.
And if you feel some of what *was* published should not have been, maybe you should take it up with the newsp
Re:Mugabe (Score:4, Insightful)
If all information about Mugabe was free, even his supporters would probably lynch him.
Re:Mugabe (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the money quote from the article:
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
The popular definition of democracy in the West, insofar as it applies to third-world countries, has long been "people voting for the right guys".
Re: (Score:3)
"They've got to be protected; all their rights respected; 'til somebody we like can be elected!"
Re:Derp. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Best red herring I've seen today!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Derp. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
wrong way round (Score:3)
"it's a shame that no one from Wikileaks could be troubled to consider the potential repercussions of this particular exposure."
NO. WRONG.
it's a shame that no-one criticising wikileaks realises that mugabe is an insane criminal and murderer who will take advantage of *anything*.
it takes wikileaks reporting to expose mugabe by "triggering" him to act out his true (insane) nature, for the world to observe how inappropriate a leader he really is.
the days of living in the shadows are over, and the leaders and dictators of the world, as well as the rest of us, need to wake up and realise this.
Yes but it goes deeper .. (Score:3)
These charges [guardian.co.uk] are mostly just to distract the media from Mugabe's involvment with blood diamonds [upi.com], but it's not obviously working. [guardian.co.uk]
We've also got lovely summaries of Mugabe's criminality by U.S. ambassadors [wordpress.com].
Btw, the 'sanctions' being discussed don't hurt people beyond Mugabe's immediate circle.
Re:wrong way round (Score:5, Interesting)
To further that argument, remember that when we uncovered abuse of tortures at Gitmo, we were told that there were terrorists who would now know what kind of interrogation techniques we use and would train their operatives to resist those techniques. We were told that we needed to keep our interrogation processes secret in the name of national security. And to some extent, there's some truth in that - if terrorists want to be arrested and made into martyrs, it helps to know how your captors will deal with you.
I don't know how I feel about this particular incident. I think there's a lot in the latest batch of WL releases that the public deserve to know, while a lot of it is just backroom chatter and face-saving things said behind doors that could've just been let there alone. But I absolutely hate this argument that we can't uncover the truth about things because TEH BAD PEOPLE will use that information against us.
Number one, the bad people will always find something that they can use to fuel their propaganda. You're not going to stop the bad people by keeping these things secret. Number two, if you give people a freedom, then some people will use it for bad purposes. You give people the right to bear arms, then some people are going to get shot. Some people will say that if you ban guns, then only the criminals will have guns, and I sympathize with that argument. I would say that if we don't have information getting out to people about how their governments are functioning, then only the government itself will know how it is functioning.
I want to quote a paragraph from TFA here: 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.
What that paragraph says to me is - Mugabe is still in control, and if Wikileaks hadn't exposed this bit of dirt on one of his rivals, then it still would have happened for the first bit of negative information he could uncover. On top of that, the author of the post isn't talking about a loss of support for the prime minister that's already happened - he's predicting everything that's going to happen in the future, so there's no direct guarantee that the whole coalition government is about to collapse. It's terrible that Zimbabwe could be back in trouble again - not new trouble, just the trouble that was already there and was simmering quietly - but I still find blaming Wikileaks for this trouble to be the equivalent of blaming a pebble for the avalanche.
Re: (Score:2)
Are those sanctions ultimately necessary? Sadly, yes.
Oh really? They didn't work in Iraq and decades of sanctions haven't worked in Cuba.
Maybe it should be up to the people to decide. If the country's best hope for democracy was himself willing to lie to his own constituency and essentially sacrifice them for his greater good, maybe he wasn't all that much of a reformer to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I don't understand your point.. You appear to be equating "turning a blind eye" to requiring that democratic reformers adhere to basic principles of democracy. I don't see the connection.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought that had more to do with South Africa facing a violent uprising. Let's remember their first black president was a terrorist. Nelson Mandela bombed government offices and had planned to start a guerrilla war. If only the people of Zimbabwe would do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
WikiLeaks leaked private communications between a force for reform in Zimbabwe and western nations. Those communications may have irreparably damaged efforts at reform by giving Mugabe and his thugs material to discredit reformers.
You seriously think that a crazed psychopath like Mugabe needs actual, real facts to discredit his opponents?
In any case, what would you think if a politician in your country was conspiring with foreign governments to block trade with your country in order to gain political power? I think I'd be a bit pissed at them, myself.
Re: (Score:2)
Regrettably, other countries have the right to exist and to do things their way - meaning, in a way not pleasing to the United States. Saying that someone has a right to do whatever they want but only if its something you want them to do isn't much of a right.
Either Mugabe is a rightful head of state and should be respected as such, or we should 'honestly' and openly invade. Or declare Zimbabwe to be a vassal state of the US over the (presumed) will of its people. Sure, this is an easy case to point to,
Re: (Score:2)
Regrettably, other countries have the right to exist and to do things their way - meaning, in a way not pleasing to the United States. Saying that someone has a right to do whatever they want but only if its something you want them to do isn't much of a right.
Either Mugabe is a rightful head of state and should be respected as such, or we should 'honestly' and openly invade. Or declare Zimbabwe to be a vassal state of the US over the (presumed) will of its people. Sure, this is an easy case to point to, but when it comes to other people's rights to be different, its worth observing these things in extremis as well as when its easy (similar to the ACLU defending the KKK's right to proclaim their opposition to others' civil liberties).
And in fact, to turn it around, let's say that the Speaker of the House was found to be taking direction from, say, Saudi Arabia. Even if it was designed to result in free oil for everyone for life, wouldn't you, as a citizen, want to know about it? Assuming you're from the US, of course. That's no different than always assuming that what's right for one strong country must therefore be right for other, weaker countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Regrettably, other countries have the right to exist and to do things their way - meaning, in a way not pleasing to the United States.
Jesus Christ, "not pleasing to the United States"? What the fuck is wrong with you? Mugabe's contemporaries are Stalin, Mao, and Hitler. He's not some poor misunderstood soul that the US is out to get. The man is a butcher and a madman.
Either Mugabe is a rightful head of state and should be respected as such, or we should 'honestly' and openly invade.
So those are the only
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, don't be such a dick.
If you don't understand, basically I mean: You disagree with somebody about something. Rather than just make your point, you go on with the "...jackass" "You're a naive, apologist twat. Grow up." Infer the poster live's in him mom's basement, and that's so pathetic, etc. Basically, you just acted like a dick. You showed no respect or manners.
Please don't. It makes the world suck more for no good reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Because I don't think they have?
I don't have this simplistic idea of that democracy automatically fixes everything and must be installed everywhere by any means possible. Democracy is awesome, but people must actually want it. Otherwise, well, just look at Iraq to see how well that goes.
Besides, isn't this democracy in action? Tsvangirai adopted a position that his country considers very unpopular.
Re: (Score:3)
The man can now, quite legitimately, demonstrate that those people fighting for reform in Zimbabwe were, in fact, *supportive* of sanctions that have hurt the Zimbabwean people. Are those sanctions ultimately necessary?
And he was doing it before the leaks, and would have done it without it. What's your point? If people are gullible enough to mistake discussions with foreign powers about how to remove a murderous killer from power with treason, they are gullible enough to believe any lie.
In short, you're a naive, apologist twat. For Mugabe, no less.
Re:wrong way round (Score:4, Interesting)
You remind me of Christine O'Donnell (former US Senate candidate). She said she'd reveal Anne Frank to the Nazis because lying is wrong.[/godwin]
Ellsberg actually redacted diplomatic cables (Score:3, Insightful)
He felt he wasn't doing the world any favors by exposing the murky dealings and backroom pacts that make the globe spin, and may delay his goal of a swift end to the Vietnam war.
Assange has no goal, and that is part of his problem. His treatise is to make the world more open, as if the very nature of classified conversations and secret deals between nations offends him, so he is to bring a giant flashlight to things regardless of what happens.
He has some very large bombshells to drop, such as I believe he has documents which tie Bank Of America to the Feds knowing that CDOs had no accountability, and that most mortage notes didn't have legal basis, and then of course TARP money - much of which is unaccounted for despite being taxpayer money. But like his bombshells that showed US helecopters attacking what may or may not have been journalists in the street, it did nothing. Nothing has changed despite Manning smuggling that video from the Apache gunning those guys down, including wasting their van that had children in it. I don't think it altered the US Army's engagement policy one iota.
Despite all these findings he has, nothing will change and his duress which may cause him to continue to reveal all kinds of things without edit, he simply WILL cause collateral damage. The question is, is it worth it? To see how the bankers and the financiers and the heads of state control the world and the wealth in the world? Will it REALLY help democracy and display capitalism's flaws? Haven't we known that since Marx?
I hope Assange or his followers continues, but does do more selective editing. the truth is not always its' own reward, as we are now seeing.
Re:Ellsberg actually redacted diplomatic cables (Score:5, Interesting)
Assange (or whoever at his organization) also redacts names from the majority of Wikileaks releases, generally except where the names are of public figures.
The question is, is it worth it? To see how the bankers and the financiers and the heads of state control the world and the wealth in the world? Will it REALLY help democracy and display capitalism's flaws? Haven't we known that since Marx?
This is the most cynical, hopeless thing I have ever heard. It's essentially an admittance of defeat. You're saying, we may as well let the government and the corporations operate in secret, because we know that exposing their crimes won't do any good anyway. And the sad thing is, you might be right.
Re: (Score:2)
Poland was our ally and secretly supported us in the Vietnam War (1965-1975)? Wait, what?
Re: (Score:3)
When the media brushes serious incidents under the carpet, most of America is dumb enough to do the same. It is unfortunate, really, but eventually, one of these leaks is going to stick.
If you are a
Re:Ellsberg actually redacted diplomatic cables (Score:4, Interesting)
You are mistaken I'm sure. Whatever you value them as, Assange seems to have very specific ideas and motives behind him as illustrated here:
http://www.mara-stream.org/think-tank/julian-assange-conspiracy-as-governance/
In addition to this, and as has been pointed out elsewhere on Slashdot, unlike the Ellsberg leak, Assange has no actual interest in the US. Rather what he has is an interest in letting the rest of the world understand its influence upon different citizen's countries and how their governments may have interacted or even been pressured into doing deals with the US to further its own interest, often at the cost of democratic values.
The only people I see complaining now are those that are in the US. Well too bad. You made your bed (Cambodia, South and Central America, Africa, the list goes on and on), so deal with it. Its quite possible that the US are not "the good guys" that Americans would like to think and that this rallying against Wikileaks is not against the leaks, but rather a very deeply rooted cultural self esteem which is now threatened. The US is coming out as not very nice at all -- and if it was Russia no one would care, because you'd expect that from Russia, right? But the US? Bad?
Don't believe me? Its very interesting that the nature of the discussion is all about whether Wikileaks should leak, rather than the contents of the leaks themselves. Information is just information after, no? But suddenly everyone is defending Hillary Clinton and who ever else on needing this kind of secrecy to broker "important deals" and keep "security" whatever that means. This is not democratic freedom.
People in the US are probably very good people or bad people within the usual statistical distribution of a Western population. I see alot of people from the US complain endlessly about their "one party" system, and how everyone is in bed with the lobbyists and the corporations and that something should change, but then Wikileaks comes along to challenge this, and everyone complains. Its mysterious. Its important to separate yourself as a citizen from your government which Wikileaks is working against. Stand back objectively and make up your own mind.
Here's an exercise, try and place yourself in the position of any of a number of countries that have been muscled by the US in the last 50 years, and see if you can see the other side. Then understand that its not you, but your government which is responsible for this.
WikiLeaks didn't set back democracy in Zimbabwe (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Good thing that cable was leaked then. Now Mugabe can beat back the reformers again.
I had no idea there was democracy in Zimbabwe (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
But isn't the cable real? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Do you have any idea who Mugabe is? Subverting Mugabe is very much like subverting Hitler or Stalin: the entire world should give you a frickin medal, and the citizens of the country should pay your retirement.
Re:But isn't the cable real? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Did you read the cable, though? Tsvangirai encouraged the 'western' governments to keep up the sanctions as they were putting pressure on Mugabe. Economic sanctions are (supposed to be) great for getting leaders ousted, but they (genuinely) suck for the common people living in the country, too. It came out that Tsvangirai was trying to continue the starvation of the people to further his political goals (which were honorable). Mugabe doesn't have to twist this at all. Tsvangirai did all the damage himself.
T
They wouldn't say that with the roles reversed (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Yes, because when your opponent has a history of murdering people who oppose him, the only acceptable course of action is stand up and oppose him publicly. Nevermind that little red dot on your forehead, just keep giving that speech about the horrors of farm collectivization.
It is exactly this kind of naive and misguided thinking that gets people killed in the real world.
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to have missed the actual case - probably because it lets you uphold your doublethink and blame the problems on everyone but Wikileaks.
C. Mugbage has the military and the police and the courts and virtually 100% political control supporting his dictatorship. That leaves his opponents (those supporting ousting him and restoring democracy) with very few weapons and dependent on foreign support - much like the various Resistance groups in occupied Europe.
From a Zimbabwean (Score:5, Informative)
I think Wikileaks is great. I am sure Zimbabwe would be a different place if the majority of people had access to unbiased information - the vast majority of people only have access to state media check out http://www.herald.co.zw/ [herald.co.zw] and http://www.chronicle.co.zw/ [chronicle.co.zw] for a taste of what that's like!
Re: (Score:3)
Mod parent up.
Seriously, the majority of other posts on this thread just demonstrate what is depressingly wrong with the majority of the Slashdot audience. It's just endless rehashing of opinions without recourse to a) reality b) context or c) TFA.
Half the comments here could have been posted on any Wikileaks thread going. No insight, no relevance, yet modded 'Insightful' and 'Informative' based on how they agree to individuals existing point of view.
Sad.
BFD (Score:5, Insightful)
PsyOps (Score:4, Informative)
Re:They're mixing up the terms (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
What happened was Anti-American. Not Anti-Democracy. People need to stop using Freedom, Democracy, Liberty, and other similar terms as synonyms for America.
Well said, sir. And I believe correct on both counts.
Re:They're mixing up the terms (Score:5, Insightful)
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:They're mixing up the terms (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Your faulty assumption is that every nation we deal with is a democracy.
Zimbabwe is officially a democracy, and reformers were working towards making that more of a reality. Unfortunately, that goal is now set back quite a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Honesty.
Re: (Score:3)
"Do we blame the best friend who tells the stalker where their victim is living? Yes."
if i tell a man where someone is, i'm stupid. if i use that information to hurt someone, i'm evil
do you understand the difference between stupidity and evil?
of course, the friend may KNOW that the information will be used to hurt someone. if they KNOW that, and they share the information, they ARE evil. but if they don't know how that information will be used, they are chumps, dupes, idiots. but they aren't EVIL
apparently,
Re: (Score:3)
Do we blame the best friend who tells the stalker where their victim is living? Yes.
So Mugabe didn't know where Tsangvirai lives?
Do we blame the reporter for telling the mafia where the witness under protection is? Absolutely.
So Mugabe didn't know who the opposition leader was?
Wikileaks hasn't done squat that wasn't already known. Even to Zimbabweans. Anyone who considers Tsangvirai a traitor based on the Wikileaks cables already believed that he is a traitor, and the non-existence of Wikileaks wouldn't have changed squat.
For someone who throws around terms like "moron" and "bad analogies", you sure haven't made sure you aren't living in a glass house.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not wikileaks' job to keep things under lock and key.
It's the responsibility of every thinking, breathing adult to act, well... responsibly.
Or, I suppose if you found out the PIN for your friend's bank card, you'd make sure to post it on Facebook for everyone to see?
Further, it is naive of you to think Mugabe needed this information to achieve his aims.
It's moronic of you to believe it hasn't helped. Reality, with it's actual events and consequences, proves you wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
It's moronic of you to believe it hasn't helped. Reality, with it's actual events and consequences, proves you wrong.
Well it hasn't. This is akin to you living in the country, me reading a list of what you ate for dinner and watched on TV that night, and Mugabe spinning that as atrocious treason worthy of capital punishment. I may have been a jerk, but Mugabe is the one to blame for these actions.
Blame the transgressors. This shouldn't be some fringe extremist concept.