ARCHBISHOP of York, John Sentamu’s call for the military ouster of President Mugabe in an article published by The Guardian newspaper over the weekend has backfired with over 90 per cent of the comments posted on the website against such intervention.In the article, the Archbishop of York calls for the military intervention of the "international community" to topple President Mugabe.
Below we publish some of the comments posted on that newspaper’s website in response to the article:
COMMENTSduppyconquerorZimbabwe aside, this Bishop should be sacked. Instantly. For advocating war. He is obviously no longer fit for his position
smellthecoffeeDon't you think we should give up toppling governments? It keeps backfiring on us. I don't suppose you'll be in the front line if it does happen.
BristolBoyIs the Archbishop calling for a military invasion of a sovereign country?
whambhamAfter you have done deposing Mugabe can I make a list of equally deserving tyrants?
camera"The time to remove them from power has come."
Who? The UN? The AU? The SADC? The US and UK? The EU? SA?
What about collateral damage as in Iraq and Afghanistan? Does the end justify the means even if civilians will be killed? A call to war is a bizarre proposal from a man of the cloth.
gdog2"We look for leaders of resolution and courage to lead the people of Zimbabwe out of their suffering." Archbishop you are meant to be one. Kindly put up or shut up.
Verlaine76Is the Archbishop calling for a military invasion of a sovereign country? I think (I hope) if he is he means by neighbouring African nations (hence the reference to Julius Nyerere and Idi Amin). I think landing thousands of European/America soldiers in Zimbabwe would be another recipe for disaster (not like the EU and US can afford it anyway). But if South Africa were to send troops to remove Mugabe, it might be very different.
homme10We were friends with Mugabe until recently. Whatever happened? It isn’t like he's doing something now that he wasn’t back then. Ok maybe without as much cash but... the hypocrisy stinks from where I’m standing. Realpolitik indeed.
brenzoneSometimes I wonder if, for some strange reason, God might be smiling on Mugabe. We read that he is 84, an old man, but he still looks in good shape for a guy of his age. He may be bitter and twisted but still seems to have most of his marbles. Is this a case of God moving in a mysterious way? If we apply the generally accepted concepts of good and bad surely Mugabe should have gone years ago, but there he still is, as loudmouthed as ever. I wonder why? Is there something going on beyond human understanding?
cameraFor all the references in this article to Africans to intervene, the Archbishop knows full well that no African country or organisation is willing to overthrow Mugabe. This sounds like a call for the West to intervene once again, but the article is so vague as to who and how Mugabe is to be overthrown, you can pretty much interpret what you want from it.
PoliticusOh great now we got a priest calling for war and regime change. Do the words ‘moral compass’ mean anything to you archbishop? No, because you've lost it, haven't you?
OK let's assume Mugabe is more evil than Ethiopia's Meles Zenawi whose troops commit genocide at home and casually destroy Somalia next door, more evil than Kenya's Kibaki whose troops and cops massacre and rape the opposition when it dares protest election-rigging, more evil than the Yank-backed warlord-president of Somalia Abdullahi Yusuf who directs piracy and ransom-collecting in his home fief of Eyl, etc.
A simple question, then: Where have "we" replaced an "evil one" with something better? Where have "we" not invariably instated a far more evil regime? Kosovo: Serbian sovereignty violated in order to give Albanian drug-dealers and people traffickers their own state. Afghanistan: Taliban-enforced law and order replaced with narco-warlord anarchy. Iraq: Unitary, secular, non-aggressive, terrorist-free state replaced with a disaster zone featuring al Qaeda recruitment and training grounds and Sharia-enforcing militias, etc.
Priests should keep their ignorant, dogmatic, faith-based noses out of politics. Interventionism is dead, priest. Get over it.
monopolyongodTricky question this. Land that had previously been seized now being seized anew. Maybe there are just no identifiable role-models here.
worldpartyUnfortunately many former British colonies have been ruled by violent thugs. My wife lived in post-colonial Ghana during the 1960s and her family knew people who were murdered for criticizing the government. Britain also ruled Sierra Leone and Somalia and the question is whether as a former imperial power it has a morale responsibility to do something when a former colony descends into chaos. In my view Tony Blair did the right thing by sending troops to Sierra Leone, but his policy came a cropper in Iraq. My guess is that most British people have little interest in Africa and wouldn't want to get involved without a clearly defined exit strategy. Many countries have been part of the British Empire and are naturally suspicious of our motives. Many African countries suspect we want to get back into the empire business. I now live in the U.S. and was surprised to hear in an interview with the Anglophile editor of Newsweek that Britain helped out in Iraq because it still had global military ambitions. If the UK sent troops to Africa it could turn into a mess. It's primarily an African problem and South Africa should take the lead in getting rid of Mugabe.
56000xpI would strongly be in favour of leaving Zimbabwe to sort out Zimbabwe's problems, at least until such time as the would-be policemen of this world come up with a completely transparent and accountable system of how they go about regime change. Such a system would be concerned with making certain that at all points the welfare and self-determination of the people of the country are the only concerns and not - say for example - forcing the people to accept a new rape of their country by a new regime more positively disposed to Western interests or even outright corporate exploitation. I fear that the actual welfare of the Zimbabwe people themselves will be just about the last concern on the minds of those working for Mugabe's removal - just as is the case with Iraq, a country being raped by privatisation, Western corporations, a new corruption, cronyism, sectarianism and cultural vandalism.
When Obama comes into power we may see the US taking a stronger interest in Africa in the same way Sentamu seems to be doing here - i.e. this is a bad man, regime change etc, he will be able to argue that he has special knowledge of the situation being a black man of African extraction. One thing i would like to know is this - if Mugabe is so bad why is he still allowed to hold on to that Knighthood?
brenzone"An invasion would require US support". (Tiki) Y'see, kowtowing to that blasted place again. Haven't they done enough damage - far beyond anything Mugabe could ever do? Cannot some of you see beyond your fundament? Which is worse, Mugabe or the rednecks? Already you're beginning to show that not all the cards are stacked against Mugabe. Comments like this lead to dividing the opposition against Mugabe, and he'll end up surviving by default. Militarism. Look where it's got us. Get real! Look at Iraq, Afghanistan! So much for the thoughts of Thomas Aquinas, Victoria, Suarez, et al.
McLeftyHands off Mugabe! We are all Mugabe now!
MantissaRightly or wrongly this will be seen on the African Continent as a Recolonization of a poor country that we have embargoed, then to liberate the country and steal its natural resources, it is lamentable. Lift the food and medicine embargo as well as agricultural equipment. As for the Church the least said the better there’s Chaplains and Priests over the whole of Africa responsible for appalling meddling some of whom are being kicked out. Mugabe is laughing all the way to the graveyard.
SoddballI have enormous respect for Bishop Sentamu. He has battled prejudice to achieve his current position (and I hope he achieves the archbishopric of Canterbury) and is pious, clever, honest and kind.
On this occasion, though, he is wrong. This is not Britain's fight. Zimbabwe is a sovereign nation, which elected its vindictive, deranged leader. We cannot remove him because we will be accused of colonialism. We as a nation have two choices. Either we accept that it is not our place to intervene in other nations, and we scale back our military and act as a minor nation should do. Or we accept our responsibility for the world we - and only we – created (for it is Britain that has shaped the layout of the world's nations for three centuries) and act to crush Mugabe and install a new government.
You cannot be for and invasion of Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Darfur and against an invasion of Zimbabwe, or vice versa. You are either for intervention or against. There is no 'just war' to be found in the world. I do not believe that Britain, as a nation, has the stomach under its present batch of leaders for a war to liberate poor people from an inept tyrant.
dratkinsWatched Brown today on the telly, this time prattling on about Zimbabwe, with the usual thoughts swirling around in my head, “Why is this bastard lying to me?' Similar thoughts to any time I watch the Beeb. Or Ch 4. Or Sky News. Or the Guardian, etc etc
It's a great story. Mugabe is the new Saddam. Brown 'appears' 'prime-ministerial'. Another excuse to legitimize attacking a sovereign state. Another means to condition us to the notion that there is such a thing as 'international community’ that the international community is good, and those against the international community are bad. Funny that I don't remember voting for this 'international community'. Doesn't seem very democratic.
There probably have been more deaths from cholera than the official estimate. However, there have been more deaths from C diff and MRSA in UK hospitals than from the official Zimbabwean cholera death toll. And those deaths are the responsibility of ministers, the DoH, strategic health authorities and local managers systemically mismanaging UK hospitals (so much so that they should be liable for corporate manslaughter, something the SoS for health conveniently ruled out).
Any comments about the leader of the country that allowed this to happen, your Grace? Should this swivel-eyed maniac be toppled? He's responsible for the arrest and intimidation of Opposition MPs and whistle-blowers carried out ignoring the legal advice available, running the economy into the ground, running the currency into the ground, creating a police state and legalising extra-judicial killing by security services of innocents. And he has increased the numbers of state employees allowed by law to enter our homes by force if necessary exponentially. Or is he OK because he's part of the 'international community'?
EnBuenOraHas anyone got any actual idea about what would be done, by whom, and the range of likely consequences? Or is it time again to talk only about the moral sound of doing this, and letting some lesser mortals figure the rest of it out and deal with the outcomes?
56000xpHow do we know that the people of Zimbabwe WANT outsiders to move in and replace their government? Who gives us the information? Big Media and politicians, do we trust them to give us impartial information? Has any impartial study or such been done to assess the opinions of the Zimbabwe people on regime change? Have we even asked them or are we assuming that 'we' just know best? If it is the latter then it is colonialism in its naked form, there is no buttering it up or putting a PR face on it.
In all of history i cannot think of many precedents, where the majority of a people wanted a foreign force to move in and directly affect their domestic political arrangements. The way arguments for 'humanitarian intervention' are being constantly bounced around you would think it was the most common state in the world as opposed to being very unusual.
AlanBstard1I do not for one second believe that removing Mugabe would eventually lead Zimbabwe to prosperity. Time to let Africa solve its own internal problems without us interfering as it will only be met with Mugabe claiming that the colonialists are back and will garner him more support.
garikayi God has a plan for Zimbabwe and the Devil is so sacred, remember the World is going to end very soon and truth will come out from Zimbabwe. Bishop Sentamu and Bishop Tutu are the man of God and Jesus Christ said love your enemy not hate your enemy. I think these two Bishops are now being used by the Devil, they are now praying for human rights instead of praying for peace, love and reconciliation to nations like Zimbabwe. I also want let you know that when you see these things happening like what is happening in Zimbabwe where Western sanctions are using sanctions to force change under cover of darkness then you should know that Zimbabwe’s problems will not be solved by the west. In 1965 Ian Smith declared Rhodesia an independent state and killed 50,000 of black Zimbabweans between 1965-79 but the UK didn’t invade Rhodesia until when Mugabe liberated his people through an armed struggle. The white man didn’t want to give-up on Rhodesia but they were forced by the gun. The people of Zimbabwe were brewed by this war of liberation and they will never surrender to anyone no-matter how powerful, they will fight to the end. If these Bishops are not careful and they misled the world into another war led by UK in Zimbabwe, this might result into another 3rd world war and Africans will not allow UK in particular to re-colonize Zimbabwe.
Charity begins at home; here in the UK there are over 7,500 Zimbabweans immigrants who are living like destitutes in the UK with no papers, why can’t the UK allow these Zimbabweans to work so that they can support their families in Zimbabwe. Roof-top diplomacy will not work in Zimbabwe especially when it is coming from the same people like these 2 Bishops because we know that they just want to protect whites in Zimbabwe. I understand there are thousands of Bishops and Christians praying for Zimbabwe day and night, and I am confident that God will answer their prayers. Thank you.
VincentUkraineZimbabwe is the new Iraq. Why is Britain more concerned about Zimbabwe than Africans? What is Britain's interest there? Why are we all hot under the collar about Zimbabwe and not Congo (5 million dead), Ogaden (Ethiopian near-genocide), Ethiopia (famine and invasion of neighboring country), Somalia (over 10,000 civilians slaughtered, women and girls raped), Egypt (opposition banned, state of emergency imposed for 26 years), etc etc. Anyone with a little common sense knows that all this noise is not because Britain loves Zimbabwe but because it has certain interests there. Democracy, inflation, and cholera are the new WMDs behind which the real agenda is hidden.
For those who are interested, this is one of the ways in which Britain and its allies have contributed to the situation in Zimbabwe today with the aim of regime change:
http://www.swans.com/library/art8/elich004.html
It is worrying that countries like Britain can perpetrate such evil in the 21st century, especially coming so quickly after the mass murder in Iraq.
JeremyinOzAre Guardian readers the most cynical and conspiracy minded of any national newspaper? Or are they so filled with self-loathing for our colonial history that they cannot see past the anti-imperial saws. We have the power and in certain situations it can be moral cowardice not to use it. Britain retains some responsibility for the plight of Zimbabwe and we should do what we think is best to alleviate the suffering there. For all sorts of reasons, forced regime change, through whatever agent, is a dangerous step, but it should not be ruled out simply on the basis of an equation that says, "Western intervention bad, African solutions good."
BitterweedJeremyinOzEven if we hadn't completely blown our credibility on the interventionist front we'd still have the major issue of inadequate resources to make any meaningful interdiction. Our best hope is coercive diplomacy, in my non-expert opinion, and by that mean something different to and more positive than, the sour complacency that infested Whitehall during the serial Balkan wars preceding Kosovo.
whambhamThere are more people starving in South Africa than there are in Zimbabwe - except of course in the army – our soldiers are mostly overweight to obese – our officers are under-trained and unmotivated - the armed forces are under- funded - a motorised force would run out of petrol before it got to Mussina – our air force has neither enough pilots nor enough serviceable aircraft to take on Zimbabwe's air force. Our population would find our meddling ludicrous and there's not a single politician who would chance their career in such an adventure as it would look as if he or she were exporting xenophobia and wasting are resources.
gingingaraThe Guardian has suddenly discovered Zimbabwe. Till now it was too busy trying to solve the I/P problem. With zero success I might add.
AmbientNew Labour, Tory, Thatcherism News Flash. There is no oil or oil pipe in Zimbabwe; let’s look the other way. Shall we?
AmbientMartininEuropeAll for freezing the assets of Mugabe and his cronies, but what about freezing the assets of warmongers too. Blair and Bush are top of my list. As for terrorists, despise them as I do, they are not exporting their terror they are focusing it on their own people. Blair, Bush and Brown however are multi-tasking.
whambhamBear in mind that whatever pan-African get-together Mugabe attends, he is given a standing ovation. Sending white troops to Africa is not an option.
saigonioThis is utter nonsense. If you think we should interfere in foreign countries, we should have moved on Zimbabwe many years ago. If you think we should not interfere, then let's stay away and quarantine the country as much as possible from the outside world. This is a typical establishment response: too little, far too late and relentlessly self-serving.
Rumpole1The Clergy are at it again - Archbishop Tutu and now John Sentamu. It would please me if religious leaders and some political leaders (Condoleezza Rice) would simply shut up. Any help given to Zimbabwe will not be because of Divine intervention or the result of a political speech. If it were the case, then why was help not forthcoming before – it has been asked for time and time again by the brave and dedicated teams of international aid workers not one of whom I suspect would see the point in speeches either from the pulpit or elsewhere.
RedScotIt's time now is it? Well thank you very much for your gracious permission. Following your godly insights, we, the people with the guns, will now invade
Zimbabwe, strike down the devil incarnate and his fiendish followers, and free the people to once more embrace Jesus, and, mercifully thanking god, return the nation to that state of being the agriculturally productive ' bread basket of Africa'. They can then feed their own poor and the poor of all those other benighted countries around them, providing, of course, they embrace Jesus and his mates in the Anglican Church.
I mean, just where do these people get off; thinking that a heritage of supplying the theology to imperial oppressors somehow gives them a special right to tell us what needs to be done in the terrible legacy they have gifted the people of Zimbabwe?
Shame on Sentamu that he has the audacity, nay, the pride, to think that his position in any way has any moral right to even comment on the present situation.
stingwallahGet a madman to get another, so Archbishop, why don’t you lead the charge instead of inciting violence through others, and isn’t God giving you back that dog collar, i.e. not listening to your prayers, Mugabe out, Mugabe out. I think we have a nut loose here in church if England.
billplastererNow, when will people learn that you can't help others to be free? Freedom is a purely personal thing. You win the fight for it inside yourself. Nobody (no human now alive) can help you, in any way.
In practical, thread-pertinent terms, if you kill Mugabe, all you do is kill Mugabe. Nobody in Zimbabwe will be any better off than they were a second before he dies. Unless you can guarantee that ALL Zimbabweans will be better off after you kill Mugabe, you have the moral duty to butt out.
Those who 'toppled' Saddam Hussein are responsible for any subsequent suffering of individual Iraqis, or there own soldiers, etc. There can be no justifiable "collateral damage" in supposedly helping a people, and suffering is carried out on an individual basis. Even if only one person suffers, the 'liberators' must be held responsible for that.
I'm not prepared to make anyone suffer, in order that MY personal idea of justice is satisfied.
rapadioWhat is the legitimacy of a priest to call for a overthrow of a leader of a sovereign country? Is a role for a religious to tell who is better suited to President of a foreign state? The answer to me is clearly negative. Although Mugabe is the most detestable head of country, that doesn't mean we should topple him.
Indeed, that notion that somewhat has European the right to say who's better or worse for a country is just a joke, if not a hypocrisy. Western values don't stand for universal ones. It's just patronising to think we're in some ways the only able to decide if Zimbabweans need any other man for their presidency.
AfricanSnowmanDear John
1) As an African I am fully aware of the role played by Christians and Christian churches in aiding, supporting and abetting slavery, colonialism, imperialism and mass murder in Africa and elsewhere. Your call for military intervention in an African nation must be seen in this context.
2) The recent deaths of an unknown number of people in Zimbabwe is truly sad, and it saddens me greatly. At the same time, I cannot forget that on a daily basis, some 125,000 die from hunger, poverty and easily preventable and curable diseases around the world. These deaths are the direct result of the economic, financial and trading regimes imposed upon militarily weak countries by powerful "democratic" Western nations. So even more sadly, the deaths in Zimbabwe are really just a very small proportion of the needless premature deaths taking place world-wide I have yet to hear you or any other Christian call for the perpetrators of these mass murders to be brought to book.
3) You fairly eloquently refer to
“… this broken land where its people die from eating anthrax-infected cattle or from starvation. Where sewers are open and there is no running water in towns hospitals any longer. A place where there is no electricity to operate the most basic services.”
If you lived in the real world, away from the luxury of CoE HQ you would know that this is the stark reality facing populations in all countries that have been forced to adopt the Anglo-Saxon/U.S.-led neo-liberalism models.
4) In short, given your connivance with cruel institutions, your recent calls for action in just one affected area, have no credibility and should be dismissed as the mere cynical posturing that they really are.
halgeel84Why Robert Mugabe but not Meles Zinawi? Europeans do not never have cared about black people. They love Meles Zinawi even when millions of Ethiopians are starving. In fact they give millions of dollars more for that because he support European by which I mean UK/US agendas whereas Robert Mugabe does not. This is Robert Mugabe's real crime not because he is a bad leader.
halgeel84Prime Minister Brown is a hypocrite. He supports Meles Zinawi of Ethiopia and most despicable criminal warlords such as Abdullahi Yusuf in Somalia. Africa must deal with Robert Mugabe, but the Anglo Saxon colonisers must never be allowed to play with the lives of Africans as play things.
TendaiThe Bishop should know what to say and not. A man of God who advocates war? He should go back to his country where there are countless tribal wars and solve them. I have never heard him speak about where he came from. He promised to put on back his neck tie (religious) when Mugabe is ousted but he is seen wearing it. May the archbishop shut up and leave politics to politicians.
TendaiBishop Satan should go to Iraq and preach in the streets of Baghdad, or pay a visit President Robert Mugabe before he leaves office in 2099.This bishop is evil he wants people dead, why war if people can talk. Is he going to bring back the dead after the war? Another archbishop Tutu echoed the same by calling for war after sipping ground coffee abroad. Should we call for war because three quarters of black South Africans live in slums to wipe them?
VincentUkraineDrJazz“PS. None of my correspondents, all black, have ever mentioned economic sanctions. That's because there aren't any. Economic sanctions were self imposed in 1997 when Mugabe gave the whole of the receipts from income tax in pensions to war vets. It's been downhill ever since.” So what do your "correspondents" think ZIDERA is? Does it have to be explicitly labelled "sanctions" before your "correspondents" recognit it for what it is?
Every kid will tell you that commerce is the lifeblood of every country, and when you block a country's access to international trade mechanisms like ZIDERA does, it is bound to have consequences.
I would not be surprised if your "correspondents" were Rhodesians, in which case they would conveniently overlook it (some have even gone as far as deleting the full text of the ZIDERA legislation from the govtrack website. The only thing left is the summary that speaks of "promoting democracy," but fortunately it is still available in PDF format all over the internet).
ikusbekusI didn't hear Brown saying "enough is enough" over Darfur. ...or when Vorster, Botha et al and had black South Africans in chains.
I didn't hear him squeak a pip when Claire Short and Blair REFUSED to compensate white farmers in Zimbabwe to make the handover of lands a happy reality.
Mugabe is not responsible for Zimbabwe's problems. The slimy Blair and Brown Governments are, plus the greedy white expatriates here and elsewhere who are happy stoking the fires as Zim crashes. This turncoat priest should just shut his face.
aomerQuite unfortunately, the Archbishop of York starts by quoting the Bible. May I turn his attention to the oft-mentioned and belaboured teaching of Jesus recommending turning of the other cheek. If applied in this case it would mean that Mugabe should not only be left alone, but that the reigns of some other country (UK?) also be handed over to him.
Please leave the gospel or its impractical teaching out of this. There is not much that Christianity offers that can be used to resolve geo-political problems.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/....be-john-sentamu 
