Though i agree with you, I hesitate when It think about giving countries like Zimbabwe a break... or other gay-bashing rulers in Africa. Even though trade is too blunt a instrument to spread human rights, it doensn't feel right to help such people.
And some of the new money will go into the pockets of the old corrupt elite, which will try to sustain it's position- i reckon by war. And there's been enough of that in Africa for the last 15 years.
The same people who want to boycott certain African countries rightly point out the human costs of the UN sanction regime on Iraq in the 1990's.
Strangulating the people is not the way to weaken an authoritarian regime. You need to strengthen the people, and the regime will only be weakened by exchange with the outside world.
You don't have to treat Mugabe like a democrat, just don't institute policies that will make the Zimbabwean people more dependent on handouts from his government. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
The question how to help the inhabitants of countries run by dictators is extremely difficult. When I look at Zimbabwe, I would almost favor regime-change. Almost.
Well, I already crossed that line with Mugabe. I'd welcome intervention. The only reason that 5 million people haven't died is because emigrants in South Africa uphold them with food and money fluxes. And then there are the damn Chineses... Good grief, this subject makes me angry.
