Robert Mugabe and British Defence Policy

gavp

New Member
Being a rather clever site i was wondering who could help me in the right direction on rather hard question i am trying to answer....?

What shall we do with Robert Mugabe, Evaulate Zimbabwe in the context of British Security Policy...

Any takers on this topic...

All points and view appriciated

Gav P
Military Professional
 

Izzy1

Banned Member
What shall we do with Robert Mugabe, Evaulate Zimbabwe in the context of British Security Policy...
I've said this here before - I will say it again. This is an African problem that demands an African solution.

Whitehall granted, should actively hinder all direct economic activty the Mugabe regime has in the UK and support broarder efforts with our EU/NATO and Commonwealth partners. Our intelligence capability should be made available (which I am sure it is already) to the African Union. We should also fully support all democratic dissident efforts within Zimbabwe with our fullest endevours.

But God forbid we intervene directly.

First, we have too many other commitments already - Iraq and Afghanistan; and the logistics of any operation in Zimbabwe would be complex.

Secondly, 'colonialism' comes into play here, something Mugabe's horrible regime already gains propoganda points from when blaming the UK and the west for the problems it has created.

South Africa is the key here. Lets do this right and encourage a local effort.
 
Last edited:

gavp

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
You bring up a valid argument towards the ever growing problems in Zimbabwe, and the obvious and best solution is to let them fight it out by them selfs, as with all the commitments the British are in at the moment, we dont have the time or man power to evaluate or bring a solution in a military fashion, which would cause problems with in the UN and so... But being british we must take into account who put Mugabe there in the first place..!
 

Izzy1

Banned Member
In all fairness, I don't think the UK or any other nation at that time, could have forseen Mugabe's eventual total disregard for democracy and the misery that his regime has pilled on Zimbabwe.

I certainly would have no objection to UK military forces supporting logistically an African Union force to remove Zanu-PF and bring its leadership to justice. I also would not have a problem if the UK assists the effort financially. But British troops on the ground there is an other matter altogether and any AU plan must consider the repercussions and guarantee a long-term comittment.
 

contedicavour

New Member
Let's just wait for ZANU-PF to implode... there's a race going on to replace the old dictator as soon as he's to sick to govern or as soon as the economy collapses beyond repair.
S. Africa could have done more in the past, when the MDC was still a united opposition and the economy still stood a chance to survive.
Today the only way to survive is to emigrate... :rolleyes:

By the way, Izzy, you have access to army and air force encyclopedias ; what are the most recent data on Zimbabwe's military arsenal ? I remember a few J7s and Hawks and a few T55s on the ground. If the situation turns into a nasty fight between the bulk of the armed forces and urban civilian population, it's interesting to know the updated data on this.

cheers
 

Izzy1

Banned Member
By the way, Izzy, you have access to army and air force encyclopedias ; what are the most recent data on Zimbabwe's military arsenal ? I remember a few J7s and Hawks and a few T55s on the ground. If the situation turns into a nasty fight between the bulk of the armed forces and urban civilian population, it's interesting to know the updated data on this.
Jane's World Air Forces 2007 lists their current inventory as:

9 x CAC F-7 IIN in the Air Defence/Ground Attack role.
3 x Mig 23 in the Air Defence/Ground Attack role.
13 x Reims Cessna FTB337G Lynx in the Counter-Insurgency role.
2 x Cessna O-2A Skymaster in the Observation role.
11 x EADS CASA C-212-200 in the Transport role.
5 x BNG BN2A Islander in the Utility role.
8 x Aermacchi SF-260TP Armed Trainers.
6 x Aermacchi SF-260F Armed Trainers.
6 x BAE Hawk Mk.60 Armed Trainers.
5 x BAE Hawk Mk.60A Armed Trainers.
12 x NAMC K-8 Armed Trainers.
12 x Aermacchi SF-260M Trainers.
5 x Aermacchi SF-260W Trainers.
2 x GAIC FT-7BZ Trainers.

6 x Mil Mi-24/35 in the Attack Helicopter role.
7 x Agusta Bell AB412SP in the Utility Transport role.
11 x Eurocopter AS532 Cougar in the Utility Transport role.
23 x Aerospatiale SA316 Alouette III in the Light Utility role.

However - serviceability is judged to be extremely low, with 2007 reports indicating that only one C-212, one Alouette III, two Agusta-Bell 412s and two Cougars in airworthy condition, along with a handful of F-7s and maybe one Hawk.

EU and US sanctions have forced the Air Force of Zimbabwe (AFZ) to cannabilise spares and thus reduce numbers (the Hawks and Cougars being heavily affected). Zimbabwe's general economic collapse has also forced chronic shortages of aviation fuel, drastically reducing flight hours and pilot profficiency. Losses judged to be due to pilot error have been high since 2001.

Janes also states that in 1999, the pilot-corps of the AFZ being whole-sale 'promoted' and shifted to desk jobs before their replacements had worked through the training system. Thus by 2004, the AFZ had virtually collapsed as an effective military formation. Long delays in the Air Force's bureaucratic system and a lack of long-term planning are also cited as issues.

Its combat losses by mid-2002 during operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are known to have included three Hawk Mk.60, two Mil Mi-24/35 Hinds, two Alouette IIIs, one FTB 337G Lynx and one 'macchi SF-260.

In the event of civil war, I think it is safe to say the Air Force could at best muster a handful of aircraft. How effective they would be must also be brought into question given an apparent lack of training, poor pilot profficiency and clear logistical issues.

I will have a look at what Janes says about the Army soon.
 

contedicavour

New Member
Thks a lot Izzy for this information !
I had forgottent that the ZAF intervened in Congo/zaire. Interesting to see they suffered losses. Hawks and SF260s were certainly used for COIN operations and must have been fired upon with basic SAMs.

cheers
 

Izzy1

Banned Member
Before I go any further into Zimbabwe's Ground Forces (the ZNA) and Zim's Armed Forces as a whole (the ZDF), if the following is the case, its an absolute tragedy.

From Janes World Armies - Zimbabwe 10 Oct 2006.

HIV/AIDS

HIV/AIDS is also believed to be an enormous problem in the ranks of the ZNA, and one that the Zimbabwe government has been much less active in addressing than its regional counterparts. Testing is not compulsory but a survey by UNAIDS in 1999 found that some 55 per cent of ZDF personnel were infected with the HIV virus that causes AIDS. This is about twice the national average rate. Given this incidence rate, thousands of soldiers must be expected to be absent from active service or well below necessary fitness levels at any one time.
We all know Africa has huge problems with regard to HIV/AIDS, even in such a developed country like Zimbabwe. But I admit, that percentage came as a bit of a shock when I read it today - especially given its a UN-sourced estimate. If that estimate translates over to the general population as a whole, then I have to change my mind.

Intervene - quickly.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
We all know Africa has huge problems with regard to HIV/AIDS, even in such a developed country like Zimbabwe. But I admit, that percentage came as a bit of a shock when I read it today - especially given its a UN-sourced estimate. If that estimate translates over to the general population as a whole, then I have to change my mind.
Well, that number would translate to ~27.5% in the general population.

South Africa - another "developed country" in Africa, and one usually considered "more developed" - has a HIV infection rate of around 21% in the overall population (5.5 million people infected), according to the latest UN numbers (and that one's not an estimate!).

Sadly, it's not that rare.
 

Izzy1

Banned Member
Well, that number would translate to ~27.5% in the general population.

South Africa - another "developed country" in Africa, and one usually considered "more developed" - has a HIV infection rate of around 21% in the overall population (5.5 million people infected), according to the latest UN numbers (and that one's not an estimate!).

Sadly, it's not that rare.
Kato, those figures are simply frightening. And I don't doubt them now for a second.

Dare I say the time has come for 'containment'?

Granted, that is a horrible word and the context here could be abused by politics, circumstance and history - but given those figures, what is worse - terrorism or nature?
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
We all know Africa has huge problems with regard to HIV/AIDS, even in such a developed country like Zimbabwe. But I admit, that percentage came as a bit of a shock when I read it today - especially given its a UN-sourced estimate. If that estimate translates over to the general population as a whole, then I have to change my mind.

Intervene - quickly.
Hmmm, been following this debate with some interest. Didn't want to write in saying the obvious (that any intervention would be portrayed as "colonialism" by certain countries, that it would cost the UK hundreds of millions of pounds as presumably they would pay for the peace and rebuilding etc, that South Africa's "consent" and assistance with rebuilding would be needed (and they are relucant to confront RM for some reason - maybe they fear millions of refugees), that the UN needs to be involved, that sensitivities with Chinese business dealings and resource contracts might be an issue, that the UK isn't like France, who still keeps an eye on its former colonies, whereas the UK has simply walked away from them (or to be fair, the UK has supported independence and associated rights and treaties steming from the post-WW2 agreements with the UN on countries to decolonise) etc.

However from what you are saying about the aids crisis, the UN (WHO, Security Council etc) should do the right thing and seek a consensus to intervene, if even from a world health perspective. (Easier said than done of course, because of the geopolitics of the Security Council). So it's back to GavP's initial post, that of the UK leading the charge, but realistcially it would have to be part of a coordinated effort with the UN and there needs to be broad consensus etc. For the UK to do it all on its own would be like the analogy of sticking your finger in the dyke to hold the mass of water at bay (it's way too much for one country to take responsibility for).
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Recce K1 your comment about the UK walking away from its former colonies is absolute rubbish; you forget the Commonwealth group of nations and the fact that Britain remains the number one European donor of aid to Africa.

Zimbabwe is a basket case, the country used to export goods globally supported by a strong economy. RM and his cronies have through mismanagement and endemic corruption completely screwed the country up.

Britain cannot invade unilaterally because it will be branded as a colonialist aggressor, it needs the support of South Africa, both politically and militarily. Unfortunately SA will never support military action. The ANC has common roots with RM’s revolutionary party. The leaders (Nelson Mandela not included) used to be known collectively as KFC guerrillas, because they would sit in London KFC outlets talking revolutionary rubbish whilst their troops died in the field fighting against the white minorities in Rhodesia and SA.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Before I go any further into Zimbabwe's Ground Forces (the ZNA) and Zim's Armed Forces as a whole (the ZDF), if the following is the case, its an absolute tragedy.

From Janes World Armies - Zimbabwe 10 Oct 2006.

We all know Africa has huge problems with regard to HIV/AIDS, even in such a developed country like Zimbabwe. But I admit, that percentage came as a bit of a shock when I read it today - especially given its a UN-sourced estimate. If that estimate translates over to the general population as a whole, then I have to change my mind.

Intervene - quickly.
Botswana has a similar rate (24%), despite being one of the best-governed & most prosperous countries in Africa. Coping better than Zimbabwe, though: infection rate is dropping, it's managing to provide drugs for 95% of those with AIDS (i.e. sick, not just HIV-positive) & 54% of pregnant women (probably just about all those identified as infected or at-risk), & running massive & unremitting public health campaigns to try to induce the behavioural changes needed. Has knocked life expectancy down from about 70 to 42 - and it dipped below 40 for a while. Zimbabwe is about the same, having been over 60. Zimbabwe is treating only 15%.

Uganda almost hit those rates before starting a Botswana-style (indeed, Botswana has learned from Uganda) campaign, which has been tremendously successful despite Uganda not having much money. HIV infection is down to 6.3% & dropping. Life expectance is back up to just under 50 (still less than pre-Aids), slightly less than South Africa (60+ pre-Aids). Senegal had the sense to launch the campaign before the disease took hold, & has managed to keep its infection rate relatively low - 0.8%. Swaziland life exectancy is ca 37 - 34% HIV-infected. Lesotho 23%, Zimbabwe 19%, Namibia 18%, S. Africa 17%, Zambia 16%, Malawi 13%. All for 2005.

Source: WHO online database - http://www.who.int/whosis/en/index.html
All
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Recce K1 your comment about the UK walking away from its former colonies is absolute rubbish; you forget the Commonwealth group of nations and the fact that Britain remains the number one European donor of aid to Africa.

Zimbabwe is a basket case, the country used to export goods globally supported by a strong economy. RM and his cronies have through mismanagement and endemic corruption completely screwed the country up.

Britain cannot invade unilaterally because it will be branded as a colonialist aggressor, it needs the support of South Africa, both politically and militarily. Unfortunately SA will never support military action. The ANC has common roots with RM’s revolutionary party. The leaders (Nelson Mandela not included) used to be known collectively as KFC guerrillas, because they would sit in London KFC outlets talking revolutionary rubbish whilst their troops died in the field fighting against the white minorities in Rhodesia and SA.
No not rubbish at all actually - I'll explain in a mo. (And maybe a case of misunderstanding the intention of my sentence. Couldn't agree more that by establishing the Commonwealth, the UK done a great thing and that this has been largely a great success as it is not simply based on military ties, but instead improved goverance, social, economic, educational ties from the top end, down to reducing travel restrictions and allowing working holidays for the younger generations and so on. Perhaps all the other great powers should take note).

What I meant in a haste was the difference betwen France (more likely to militarily intervene in her fomrer "colonies" affairs v UK (not likley at all to intervene militarily but apply diplomatic pressure). In most respects, this is actually a good thing hence my comment that the UK followed early UN obligations (to all the great powers) to decolonise which they have done (and on the other hand we in Oceania are fully aware that the French still rule their territories - they aren't called colonies down this way).

Now on the other hand and in some instances but not all of course, in the UK's haste to decolonise, it "walked away" from some country's before proper systems of independence good goverance could be put in place. Perhaps we could be talking about Zimbabawe or possibly even Pakistan for that matter, but for those of us downunder I'm thinking say, the Solomon Islands for example, where after many years of bad goverance, corruption, murder and laundering, Australia, NZ and other Pacific states sent in over 2000 troops and policemen in to restore order back in 2002 (there is smaller military/ploice presence there even today and fortunetly the mission includes rebuilding the government and civil service, health and education etc). Here's a link to an article on the background to this breakdown in society once the Union Jack came down the flag pole for the last time http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=3511263

Anyway couldn't agree with you more on your reasons why SA won't intervene against RM. These old comrades were brothers in arms many years back (not literally, I mean against "colonialism") and even SA today wouldn't necessarily want UK/Commonwealth/UN/US whatever troops on their back doorstep in Zimbabwe because they could interpret that as they may be next if their own country starts to unravel. Cripes this HIV timebomb is a disaster in the making and even President Thabo Mbeki didn't (or still doesn't?) believe it's an issue even in SA. You know, it could be in SA's "interests" to wait until RM passes away and before they act so I don't see SA supporting any western intervention soon.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Got a few minutes up my sleeve for another post. In case some are thinking, I'm not at all knocking the UK nor France, simply pointing out some observations (and as my father emigrated to NZ in the 60's, I'm half a pom myself and always look very favourably towards our "mother country")!

For those with time up their sleeve too, here's some articles on:

Council on Foreigh Relations on French intervention in Africa http://www.cfr.org/publication/12578/

Zimbabweans wanting British intervention http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article2010591.ece

Former PM Blair ruling out British intervention in Zimbabwe? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/02/wblair102.xml

Compassionate Conservatives’ Blog on Zimbabwe (more deaths there than Sudan etc) http://thedifferencemagazine.blogspot.com/2007/07/military-intervention-in-zimbabwe.html#About

A Wiki link to the UK MOD and further links to MOD Policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom)

Background on British Foreign Policy http://www.britainusa.com/sections/index_nt1.asp?i=41012&d=10

Perhaps GavP needs to post again to clarify whether he means current UK policy would or should allow the removal of dictators (as UK Defence Policies are written towards protecting threats to UK interests - is RM really a threat and if so how?) as generally speaking western countries now days don't invade to remove dictators (and invading Iraq wasn't in the pretext of over throwing Saddam Hussain). Maybe the wider issue is, if Zimbabwe was invaded by the UK and/or UN/AU etc, how does this sit with the need to over throw other dictators elsewhere (and what about the likes of Burma and North Korea etc)? Is somesort of threshold needed and if so what is it?
 

gavp

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #16
In response to Recce.K1 i was relating to the general history of the defence policy but mainly now due to the economic decline facing Zimbabwe what effect will it have upon us a military force

GavP Does that help you out....
 

contedicavour

New Member
If at long last Zimbabwe's dictator falls or dies, then I guess a good topic would be who would intervene to run peacekeeping operations (dangerous as some elements of the country's army would certainly oppose any attempt to reestablish a real democracy).
The 1st candidate is obviously South Africa. But aren't its regiments already overstretched trying to uphold peace around the continent ?

cheers
 

Izzy1

Banned Member
If at long last Zimbabwe's dictator falls or dies, then I guess a good topic would be who would intervene to run peacekeeping operations (dangerous as some elements of the country's army would certainly oppose any attempt to reestablish a real democracy).
The 1st candidate is obviously South Africa. But aren't its regiments already overstretched trying to uphold peace around the continent ?
I would hope that by then, the African Union had got its act together and finally sorted out a viable Peacekeeping capability, such as that promised.
 

jshandos

New Member
Armageddon

You can't take credit for what he has done since his decisions were based on anti-colonialist views. The only person responsible for Mugabe is Mugabe. For such an aged man he has little repentance for himself and the people which have been oppressed by him. I find this unusual since the mellowing effects of age have done little to influence his stance on the Zimbabwe election. Only after pressure from the west was this issue resolved. Note Gog(USSR) and Magog(China) refused to place sanctions on them.
 

jshandos

New Member
I think 1/2 a million chinese should be able to do the job. You thought the Brits/Mugabe were bad. That would be funny.
 
Top