Why Idi Amin Expelled The Asians

Seawall

Registered User
I agree with Mugabe's action also, but i dont trust Mugabe's intention either. You wait 30+ years to do so??

To tell you the truth I dont think the santions are because the farmlans but because of the new ownership rules he is setting into place. 51% ownership rules and the likes,
Zimbabwe Delayed Land Reform to Save South Africa From Prolonged Apartheid
November 13, 2012 |


Mugabe’s benevolence lead to SA’s freedom
Zimbabwe delayed carrying out its land reform programme to avoid scarring White South Africans at a time the country was negotiating the end of apartheid, former SA president Thabo Mbeki has revealed.

Mbeki made the disclosure at the inaugural Zimbabwe Diamond Conference on Monday where he also defended President Robert Mugabe’s reforms as successful.

Under Zimbabwe’s constitution adopted at independence, the government was prevented from seizing White owned commercial farms for a period of 10 years from 1980.

“As an outstanding act of African solidarity, the government of Zimbabwe decided on this delay expressly to facilitate the then on-going negotiations in South Africa, from 1990 onwards, concerned that nothing should be done in Zimbabwe which would so frighten the White South African population that it would oppose our own country’s transformation,” Mbeki said.

He said when the violent land invasions began in 2000 regional leaders were “convinced and argued this with President Mugabe, that, rather, Zimbabwe should indeed confront the matter of the land question, but address it through a process of reform rather than through revolutionary means”.

But Mbeki who was the Southern African Development Community (SADC) mediator in talks that led to Zimbabwe’s coalition government said despite the skepticism, the reforms were a success.

He called on Mugabe’s government to empower the new farmers with inputs for them to contribute to the revival of the economy and carry out a land audit to verify claims that the process was marred by corruption.

“Of course, this must also include addressing the untoward practice which occurred during the necessarily enormous upheaval of the agrarian revolution, which led the government of Zimbabwe to take the important decision to conduct a land audit to ensure that those who had nefariously acquired land are not allowed to benefit from such practice,” Mbeki said.

Western analysts blame the country’s economic collapse that began in 1997 on the land reforms and other policy missteps by Mugabe’s government, not on Europe’s illegal and crippling sanctions.

Mbeki also accused Western countries of using the land reforms as an excuse to topple Mugabe in power since Zimbabwe’s independence in 1980.
 

Seawall

Registered User
Mugabe: Villain Or Hero?
Roy Agyemang, a British-born Ghanaian, has become the first “Western” film director to have close access to Zimbabwe’s president Robert Mugabe. His film, five years in the making and controversially titled Mugabe: Villain or Hero?, was premiered on 15 December 2012 at the British Film Institute in the heart of London where it received a prolonged standing ovation at the end of the screening. Here, Roy Agyemang tells how he got to make the film, and how he saw Zimbabwe and its longstanding leader while working on the project.


Having spent the last five years making a film on Zimbabwe’s president, Robert Mugabe, many of my friends said I was crazy to have a preview screening at the British Film Institute in London, a notoriously tough audience. My Zimbabwean colleague, Garikayi Mushambadope, warned that the anti-Mugabe campaigners would pelt me with eggs and flour for the title alone, Mugabe: Villain or Hero?

Thankfully I came away unscathed. I was honoured to get three standing ovations from a very mixed audience.

I was in Zimbabwe between 2007 and 2010 when the economic catastrophe was at its height. Western governments were rubbing their hands with glee, as Mugabe’s grip on power appeared to be loosening. I thought I was going to witness the ousting of one of Africa’s longest serving leaders. Mugabe survived but only just.

In 2007, live on British television, the Archbishop of York, Ugandan Bishop John Sentamu, cut his collar up with scissors to protest against Mugabe being in power. He said he would only replace his collar if Mugabe were removed.

Mugabe’s reputation in the Western media as an “evil madman” is well documented. Based on the information available and from what I could see prior to arriving in Zimbabwe, the case against Mugabe was overwhelming.

But what aroused my curiosity was the fact that Mugabe had not been eliminated by the West and still remained in power, which is no mean feat, especially during the trigger-happy era of George W. Bush and Tony Blair.

Was there more to Mugabe and Zimbabwe than what was being shown on our television screens? What was the true extent of Mugabe’s support inside the country?

The question of how Mugabe has remained in power is of vital importance to anyone trying to understand his country’s past, and its future direction.

As the first “Western” filmmaker (though born to Ghanaian parents) to gain access to Robert Mugabe, I wanted to understand the answer. Together with my UK-based Zimbabwean producer, Garikayi Mushambadope, we worked our way through the corridors of power, probing the cultural, economic, and historical factors at the heart of the “Zimbabwean crisis”.

We travelled to all corners of the country with President Mugabe, trying to build his trust in the hope that he would give us a rare interview. It took almost two years to get the first interview. I ended up travelling as part of his delegation on foreign trips, which was even a surprise to the Zimbabwe Foreign Ministry that handled my British passport. The fact that I stayed in the country and lived through the hardships like the rest of Zimbabweans seemed to help, also being of Ghanaian heritage worked in my favour. The Zimbabwean authorities were very suspicious of a film crew coming from the UK. They felt Western governments were using the media to induce regime change in Zimbabwe. That made my work incredibly difficult.

The security personnel did monitor us from time to time but most of our harassment came from ordinary Zimbabweans who were fed up with the negative portrayal of their country in the Western media.

I lived in Harare where many of my friends were supporters of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party. I would sit in their living rooms watching the international news, and they would literally berate the television screen, dismayed at the reports. One of the friends turned to me and said: “Why do they portray us as animals, we are not like that.” Another said: “I am in favour of the demonisation of Mugabe, but the Western media have gone too far, to the detriment of my country.”

These comments were not exclusive to black Zimbabweans. I remember relaxing by a lake in Mazowe with young white Zimbabweans. They were equally perturbed by the negative reports on their country: “We in Zimbabwe will never become united if the likes of CNN, BBC and Sky continue to broadcast the worst of our country,” they said.

The disturbing news reports on Zimbabwe almost put an end to the production of my film. My executive producer, Neville Hendricks, who was financing the project, ordered me to come back to London because he did not want to be responsible for my death.

I managed to explain to him that although the situation in the country was dire, the biggest killer was hyperinflation. Not once did I see people running around displaying machetes or holding AK47 rifles. There were pockets of violence that surrounded the presidential run-off election in June 2008 but this was not a Kenya 2007 situation where over 1,300 people were killed in post-election violence in December 2007 and January 2008.

As the only “Western film crew” that was legally allowed to roam freely in the country, we had a huge responsibility to report accurately what was actually going on. It makes for fun viewing the Western news reports and juxtaposing what was happening on the ground to what was being said by the British and American governments.

Those that believe Mugabe’s survival in power is merely down to his authoritarian rule are mistaken. There is no doubt the former schoolteacher is a disciplinarian. But that is not the sole reason he has clung on. Despite everything, a significant number of Zimbabweans support his pro-African policies. It took Mugabe 20 years to deliver on a promise he made during the war for liberation to redistribute land from the wealthy white minority, to the black majority. Mugabe is aware that he will not live forever, so he is wasting no time ensuring black Zimbabweans get a fair deal for their natural resources with the introduction of an Indigenisation Law.
 

Seawall

Registered User
“Zimbabwe is for Zimbabweans,” I heard him say. “It cannot be for the British, it cannot be for the Americans, if you want to be friends with us, fine. You stand there and I stand here, we shake hands but remember, the gold in my country is mine.”

The relationship between Africa and the West in the last 50 years has seen little in terms of development. Mugabe believes his people are fighting a war for economic independence in Africa, a war far greater than the one for political independence.

“They are clever not to give us that aid,” he said of the West, when he finally gave us that interview. “If they gave us aid to make us economically independent, then they would not have this lever, the leverage which they now have to control how we run our things.”

I would often rigorously quiz Mugabe’s supporters as to why they would support a man that has presided over one of the worst economies in history. Each time they would say “it is not the old man’s fault”. They believed the country was being punished for Mugabe’s policy of taking land from “white people”.

Since Zimbabwe’s land redistribution policy began in 2000, Western governments have not supported the newly resettled black farmers, but have chosen instead to impose sanctions on the country.

Western hypocrisy has not gone unnoticed in Zimbabwe though. At the time Mugabe received his knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II in 1994, on the recommendation of then Prime Minister Sir John Major, there was no meaningful land reform taking place in Zimbabwe, and Mugabe was accused by some of his own people of protecting white farmers.

Worse still, some years earlier in the 1980s, Mugabe authorised the country’s North Korean-trained Fifth Brigade to put down armed dissidents who were threatening to destabilise Zimbabwe. The operation was codenamed Gukurahundi. Atrocities were committed. Mugabe later acknowledged that it was “a moment of madness”.

Yet, as these atrocities were being committed by the Fifth Brigade, Western institutions were rewarding Mugabe with honorary doctorates. So now that he has redressed a colonial imbalance, Mugabe’s supporters would argue, his former friends have become his enemies.


Being on the road with Mugabe, I saw little of the myth of a “dictator” disconnected from his people. Quite the opposite, Mugabe has managed to hang onto power because of his support amongst the grassroots.

Before going to Zimbabwe, I had an image of a “dictator” sitting on his throne barking orders and unable to take criticism. I was surprised to see a man who was not afraid to get his suit dirty and be amongst the people. I was in many meetings where villagers openly criticised Mugabe for food shortages and lack of development in their area. Listening to stories of people going hungry would have affected the president: his legacy was being eroded. But in typical Mugabe style, he was able to rally his support, blaming the suffering on the sanctions imposed by the West. “Your sanctions will in future demand reciprocation from us,” he would cry about the West. “When we reciprocate, we will hit your companies here.”

Once you get through the security personnel and government ministers, what you see is a very smartly dressed, dignified gentleman. He was witty, charming and always had the sharpest mind in the room. There were times I thought Mugabe was napping in meetings, but he had me fooled. I was in many forums where he would sit with other African presidents, and he was always one step ahead of them.

To this day, it amazes me how Zimbabweans managed to survive the most challenging period since their independence. I call them magicians. A young businesswoman said to me: “If any other country had experienced what we went through, there would have been a civil war.” The greatest weapon Mugabe has given his people is education.

My experience in Zimbabwe goes beyond just making this unprecedented film. I learned a lot about myself and what it means to be an African. Thus I have reconnected with Ghana in a way I have never done so before.

I had a conversation with President Mugabe, which left a lasting legacy with me. He called me by my surname – Agyemang – and said to me: “I understand Ghana has found themselves a bit of oil.” And I replied: “Yes, Your Excellency. Ghana should be pumping oil for the next 150 years.”

To which he replied: “What are you, as a British-born Ghanaian, going to do to help develop or benefit from that resource?” I was silent. Soon after that conversation, I went to Ghana and purchased a bit of land, which one day I hope to develop, and from which Ghanaians and my children will benefit. But now I understand the feeling of empowerment. It is strange to say that I owe this to Mugabe. And it is strange to say that so many of his Zimbabwean and African compatriots feel something similar. But it is, perhaps, part of why he has held on for so long. And it is part of why he shows no sign of going away.

Since my film was premiered on 15 December 2012 in London, it has been selected to screen at the prestigious Pan African Film Festival in Los Angeles, USA. The festival runs from 7 to 18 February 2013.

Interestingly, after a radio interview with the BBC recently, the producer asked me if I was afraid that the British establishment would not want my film to be screened in Britain and elsewhere in the West. If I thought getting to Mugabe was difficult, distributing this film will be an even greater challenge.

(Readers can see a trailer of Mugabe: Villain or Hero? at: Mugabe Villain or Hero)
 
N

NaturalBornRidah

Guest
So by this logic Indigenous/First Nations People should expel everyone who is NOT from North, South and Central America?
Idi Amin had the power to do so and he did. I don't agree with his decision, but I am more in favor of Mugabe's reclaiming of the land in Zimbabwe. However, similar issues with land ownership and who controls the resources exists all over Africa. The move the sanction Zimbabwe (by the Western powers) for their actions against the white farmers was meant to send a message to other African states.
I agree with Mugabe's action also, but i dont trust Mugabe's intention either. You wait 30+ years to do so??

To tell you the truth I dont think the santions are because the farmlans but because of the new ownership rules he is setting into place. 51% ownership rules and the likes,
I am sorry but you guys obviously do not know the story of Mugabe acquiring the farms from white land owners in Zimbabwe,
If Mugabe just wanted to seize lands he would of kicked the whites out of the country right as soon as the war ended with Ian Smith's charade prior to the ZANU ascension into administration.Mugabe did not just decide to apprehend and acquire all the farm lands in Zimbabwe, he was very lenient and cooperative to the whites in Zimbabwe unfortunately they didn't return the favor.Its not like they aren't a few white land owners left even today.
 

Oneshot

where de crix
SMH

How was he going to do the same thing when WHITES and INDIAN basically CONTROLLED the ECONOMY during a time when the country was only a DECADE REMOVED from COLONIAL RULE??
You dont need to expell people to take over firms, or change the rules of operation.

nationalize a company some people might be vex like the shareholders, but the talented company employees still get paid to run the company.
 

Oneshot

where de crix
I am sorry but you guys obviously do not know the story of Mugabe acquiring the farms from white land owners in Zimbabwe,
If Mugabe just wanted to seize lands he would of kicked the whites out of the country right as soon as the war ended with Ian Smith's charade prior to the ZANU ascension into administration.Mugabe did not just decide to apprehend and acquire all the farm lands in Zimbabwe, he was very lenient and cooperative to the whites in Zimbabwe unfortunately they didn't return the favor.Its not like they aren't a few white land owners left even today.
what favour? did they fail to return?
 

VINCYPOWA

Registered Member
You dont need to expell people to take over firms, or change the rules of operation.

nationalize a company some people might be vex like the shareholders, but the talented company employees still get paid to run the company.
So basically, you are going against your own IDEOLOGICAL BELIEF of a FREE MARKET SYSTEM with your call for NATIONALIZATION.

That said; it still would not have ELEVATE the LIVES of the Black Ugandans back in the 1970's, because they still would have been at the bottom of the ladder.

In other words, the Whites and the Indians would still ran the economy as they are now doing in South Africa, even after the end of Apartheid.
 

Seawall

Registered User
You dont need to expell people to take over firms, or change the rules of operation.

nationalize a company some people might be vex like the shareholders, but the talented company employees still get paid to run the company.
you seem to forget that there's a backlash to nationalization. Even the threat of nationalization gets the capitalists west fuming. Remember Mosaddegh in 1950's Iran, Castro, Lumumba, Burnham, Chavez, and many others.
 

Seawall

Registered User
I am sorry but you guys obviously do not know the story of Mugabe acquiring the farms from white land owners in Zimbabwe,
If Mugabe just wanted to seize lands he would of kicked the whites out of the country right as soon as the war ended with Ian Smith's charade prior to the ZANU ascension into administration.Mugabe did not just decide to apprehend and acquire all the farm lands in Zimbabwe, he was very lenient and cooperative to the whites in Zimbabwe unfortunately they didn't return the favor.Its not like they aren't a few white land owners left even today.
Read the article i posted. BTW, South Africa is worst off in terms of land distribution. This is one reason that I'm not a big fan of Mandela and the ANC. Finally, the whites in Australia, Britain, Canada, France, and the US aren't going to sit idly by while Africans take back their land and resources. Anyone that soes not do their bidding is a candidate for a coup.
 

Seawall

Registered User
You dont need to expell people to take over firms, or change the rules of operation.

nationalize a company some people might be vex like the shareholders, but the talented company employees still get paid to run the company.
Look at Aristede, he couldn't even get a few more dollars for the sweatshop workers. Any talk of wealth redistribution is poison to the capitalists. Now their building sweatshops and resorts to further exploit workers in Haiti.
 
N

NaturalBornRidah

Guest
what favour? did they fail to return?
Willing Buyer ,Willing Seller kind of agreement. These hoarding white Zimbabwean farmers were intent on British Finance institutions financing the purchase of these lands on their behalf(even though the white farmers stalled because they could of paid it themselves).Mind you these white farmers were supporters/RF members of Ian Smith and shouldn't of had jack,being actual war criminals.They ZANU administration even thwarted to pay for the land but they only recieved support from AU bank and a few african countries.

The ZANU administration later made purchases of other lands to cultivate and and to develop, white farmers had audacity to be content at the move, as if whites were the only ones entitled to land ownership,this was called the ''Land Accquisition Act''. The ZANU planned on making the communal lands for these people.Keep in mind many of these white farmers were faltering on their public facilities and crop production, impeding the Zimbabwe economy in the process.

So you see you guys do not have the full story , it cannot be paralleled to what Idi Amin did in office.
you seem to forget that there's a backlash to nationalization. Even the threat of nationalization gets the capitalists west fuming. Remember Mosaddegh in 1950's Iran, Castro, Lumumba, Burnham, Chavez, and many others.

You actually put Burnham in the same sentence with Mossaddegh,Castro,and Chavez?huh

First of all Burnham was a bicth and ran to the UK to suspend the constitution during election times ,Castro and Chavez who fought their battles without the help of US or UK.Burnham was a UK B!TCH ,even though he screwed around with Castro and other so called leftist elites,he always made sure his masters were happy.


Burnham even allowed Bookers to briefly operate and when the stores and sugar owned estates were eventually nationalized , Burnham needed money to operate and finance the Bauxite,Rice,and Sugar Cane production he got lines of credit from IMF, he also did this to compensate the Booker owners of sugar field instead of just taking it.


Read the article i posted. BTW, South Africa is worst off in terms of land distribution. This is one reason that I'm not a big fan of Mandela and the ANC. Finally, the whites in Australia, Britain, Canada, France, and the US aren't going to sit idly by while Africans take back their land and resources. Anyone that soes not do their bidding is a candidate for a coup.
You still are not understanding it, that article has very little to do with the full story of Zimbabwean farm owners.

Its not about land distribution to the people, its about keeping it in good hands and putting it to good use. The whites in Zimbabwe did neglect the lands and they also were flustered when other plots of farms were being acquisitioned besides the ones were hoarding away.

Also African politicians are becoming smarter, you say anyone not doing their bidding is a candidate for coup, yes that may be true , but have Mugabe,Dos Santos of Angola or Chavez been deposed? Now they have contenders but they play their cards right and they have solid grounding with the plurality. They are /were still there!

Saying South Africa is bad off with land distribution umm... well yes and no... but peep this ... even land ownership is even slipping out the hands of white owners in SA. When you get the time, check up on it.
 

Oneshot

where de crix
Look at Aristede, he couldn't even get a few more dollars for the sweatshop workers. Any talk of wealth redistribution is poison to the capitalists. Now their building sweatshops and resorts to further exploit workers in Haiti.
I disagree here, India, China, amongst other coutnries have tight operating rules. If you want to open a business usually you have to partner with a local one. In some case you the international entity at most can have 49% or 51%
 

Oneshot

where de crix
So basically, you are going against your own IDEOLOGICAL BELIEF of a FREE MARKET SYSTEM with your call for NATIONALIZATION.

That said; it still would not have ELEVATE the LIVES of the Black Ugandans back in the 1970's, because they still would have been at the bottom of the ladder.

In other words, the Whites and the Indians would still ran the economy as they are now doing in South Africa, even after the end of Apartheid.
no i am not going against my beleif of free market capitalism.

i am giving another route he could have taken. free market capitalism can only operate in an arena when the state has very little to do daily operation of businesses. The colonial overhang of the laws made that almost impossible.

Had he nationalized key industries - I am not taking about mom and pop stores. He could set up official apprenticeship programs within those firms. Or setup mandotary training regimes. That way the average man learns a skill.

you seem to forget that there's a backlash to nationalization. Even the threat of nationalization gets the capitalists west fuming. Remember Mosaddegh in 1950's Iran, Castro, Lumumba, Burnham, Chavez, and many others.
to be fair, the fuming had little to with "nationalization", in terms of the entire capitalism / socialism debate. This was case that Non European powers would now own and control strategic assets. During the same time, and even continuing till now a lot of European assets are owned or controlled by proxy by the state in the "Western" world.

However, back to your point. Lets look a Botswanna, similar case. But different outcome.

Look at Aristede, he couldn't even get a few more dollars for the sweatshop workers. Any talk of wealth redistribution is poison to the capitalists. Now their building sweatshops and resorts to further exploit workers in Haiti.
These "sweatshops" are providing jobs that the people did not have before. Aristede exploited his own people, arming young men for drug trafficking.
 

Seawall

Registered User
Willing Buyer ,Willing Seller kind of agreement. These hoarding white Zimbabwean farmers were intent on British Finance institutions financing the purchase of these lands on their behalf(even though the white farmers stalled because they could of paid it themselves).Mind you these white farmers were supporters/RF members of Ian Smith and shouldn't of had jack,being actual war criminals.They ZANU administration even thwarted to pay for the land but they only recieved support from AU bank and a few african countries.

The ZANU administration later made purchases of other lands to cultivate and and to develop, white farmers had audacity to be content at the move, as if whites were the only ones entitled to land ownership,this was called the ''Land Accquisition Act''. The ZANU planned on making the communal lands for these people.Keep in mind many of these white farmers were faltering on their public facilities and crop production, impeding the Zimbabwe economy in the process.

So you see you guys do not have the full story , it cannot be paralleled to what Idi Amin did in office.



You actually put Burnham in the same sentence with Mossaddegh,Castro,and Chavez?huh

First of all Burnham was a bicth and ran to the UK to suspend the constitution during election times ,Castro and Chavez who fought their battles without the help of US or UK.Burnham was a UK B!TCH ,even though he screwed around with Castro and other so called leftist elites,he always made sure his masters were happy.


Burnham even allowed Bookers to briefly operate and when the stores and sugar owned estates were eventually nationalized , Burnham needed money to operate and finance the Bauxite,Rice,and Sugar Cane production he got lines of credit from IMF, he also did this to compensate the Booker owners of sugar field instead of just taking it.




You still are not understanding it, that article has very little to do with the full story of Zimbabwean farm owners.

Its not about land distribution to the people, its about keeping it in good hands and putting it to good use. The whites in Zimbabwe did neglect the lands and they also were flustered when other plots of farms were being acquisitioned besides the ones were hoarding away.

Also African politicians are becoming smarter, you say anyone not doing their bidding is a candidate for coup, yes that may be true , but have Mugabe,Dos Santos of Angola or Chavez been deposed? Now they have contenders but they play their cards right and they have solid grounding with the plurality. They are /were still there!

Saying South Africa is bad off with land distribution umm... well yes and no... but peep this ... even land ownership is even slipping out the hands of white owners in SA. When you get the time, check up on it.
African politicians were smart from the beginning, but the most independent ones fell to Western backed coups. The ones ruling their countries now are mostly puppets. There's no longer a Soviet Union to play against the West, the non align movement is pretty much non-existant, and now with Chavez gone, the left winged nations are even weaker. And Obama has been using Islamic terrorism to further militarize Africa. Sad, these countries even can't defend themselves. As for the Chinese, I'm wary of them.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lo4FHakmoIk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

EloquenceInc

Get your passport & come !
LOL

Killing is never okay.

But it was still right to remove them. No matter what is done, the racial hierarchy would still exist and no programs can ever replace social perceptions. Look at the United States fifty years after the civil rights movement. Blacks who try hard will succeed but no one can deny that it is harder and that people are shocked when they see a Black person in a top position. I am speaking from personal experience.
It makes sense what he did and his reasons but i don't know if it's morally right...can never happen in Jamaica cause our motto is based on having every ethnicity under the sun except maybe pacific islanders...it would be un-Jamaican to kick them out...and our other ethnicities think of themselves as Jamaican, whether they have ties to people back in their parents' or grandparents' home country(ies) or not...they have Jamaican passports...i think he should have only kicked out any who did not opt for a Ugandan passport at the time they had a choice...
 
N

NaturalBornRidah

Guest
African politicians were smart from the beginning, but the most independent ones fell to Western backed coups. The ones ruling their countries now are mostly puppets. There's no longer a Soviet Union to play against the West, the non align movement is pretty much non-existant, and now with Chavez gone, the left winged nations are even weaker. And Obama has been using Islamic terrorism to further militarize Africa. Sad, these countries even can't defend themselves. As for the Chinese, I'm wary of them.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lo4FHakmoIk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Which African politicians, why do you use sweeping generalizations about African politicians? Many of these African political figures in the past received their ascension due to their cuthroat deceitfulness and their backing by the west.How ever some have been very diligent and wise to evade the western forces, ie Julius Nyeres .

You seem to not know how countries gain autonomy. No country or no one is going to FIGHT YOUR BATTLES FOR YOU. This is what I tried to explain to some of yall in thread where Venezuela was vying for the Essequibo. Shit is not that simple were you can not just think you are going to run to the UK and have them do your bidding, you don't think them white boys going to know what you up to.

Chavez was a factor in challenging the balance of Western power but I wouldn't say he was major contender to the west. He was able to align certain nations that opposed the west but Chavez was not a heavy weight.Also Russia may not be communist but it is not pro Western, infact there is a new ''Cold War'' in action. China is the major reason why power is shifting, if you think they are going to be the big brother to non align western countries you are badly mistaken.Do for self.Ghana,Botswana,Brazil,Argentina,Chile,Malaysia,Signapore all are countries that have not relied on the west and are not in chaos because they fell victim to western trips. No reason to have a defeatist attitude.
 
Top