Who is behind the coup in Zimbabwe, if it is not America?

[GoranZ]

Things are getting interesting, seems like China and Russia have divided spheres of influence. Russia is taking Middle East while China is taking large chunk of Africa, and they are both pushing out the Americans. Europeans are already out thanks to their idiotic support for US.

Prime Zimbabwe investor China denies involvement in military coup

[waauw]

I don't think any foreign power needed to back a coup in Zimbabwe. The same régime remains in power, minus Mugabe.

Russia's influence sphere in the middle east is limited to the Iranian influence sphere, of which I'm sure you're aware it's being threatened by Saudi-Arabia currently.

[aad0906]

I've been there, I know a thing or two about the country.

There will be no regime change. The Army supports the previous vice-president who was fired by Mugabe, who then went and appointed his own wife, who is not very popular with the rest of the ruling party, as the new vice-president. So the Army took temporary control in pretty much a bloodless coup.

Sad to see what happened to Zimbabwe, it was once one of the most prospering countries in Africa, and beautiful. Very nice people as well.

This has nothing to do with the US or China.

[MnrToti]

Sad to see what happened to Zimbabwe, it was once one of the most prospering countries in Africa, and beautiful. Very nice people as well.

Think you have them confused with South-Africa. But yes when it was still Rhodesia it was very prosperous.

[DoomYoshi]

So here's something really strange to ponder. According to U.S. Foreign Assistance Act, the U.S. government is required to curb foreign aid when a country undergoes a coup. What happened in Zimbabwe is that military men in fatigues took over the State media at 4 AM and announced that Mugabe was under house arrest. Furthermore there was military control of key roads and government buildings. Ben Cardin (a democrat from Maryland) said "We obviously don't like coups". (https://www.voanews.com/a/united-states-lawmakers-react-apparent-mugabe-ouster/4117649.html).

So, here's the crazy thing. According to the State Department, it's not a coup and government funding won't be stopped. I guess this has happened before:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/07/03/law-says-the-u-s-is-required-to-cut-aid-after-coups-will-it/

There's so much crazy going on here I can't even begin to unpack it. First of all, did you know that American tax dollars were directly going to Mugabe? Second, isn't there some kind of oversight to determine what is and isn't a coup? Third, there should be a check in place. For every country that receives foreign aid, if after a coup, you would be willing to call it not a coup because the leader was so corrupt that everyone is glad to see him gone, then you probably shouldn't have given him foreign aid in the first place.

This gets even more balls-to-the-wall crazy when apparently Trump already tried to cut foreign aid to Zimbabwe back in August. Why he isn't able to do so now is beyond me, I think the career politicians are starting to wear him down.

Either way, this is a dangerous precedent to set. The United States have routinely ignored that law, yet it is one of the most sensible laws in the books. If I was Joe Zimbabwe, I'd start a class action lawsuit against the US.

[Dukasaur]

So here's something really strange to ponder. According to U.S. Foreign Assistance Act, the U.S. government is required to curb foreign aid when a country undergoes a coup. What happened in Zimbabwe is that military men in fatigues took over the State media at 4 AM and announced that Mugabe was under house arrest. Furthermore there was military control of key roads and government buildings. Ben Cardin (a democrat from Maryland) said "We obviously don't like coups". (https://www.voanews.com/a/united-states-lawmakers-react-apparent-mugabe-ouster/4117649.html).

So, here's the crazy thing. According to the State Department, it's not a coup and government funding won't be stopped. I guess this has happened before:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/07/03/law-says-the-u-s-is-required-to-cut-aid-after-coups-will-it/

There's so much crazy going on here I can't even begin to unpack it. First of all, did you know that American tax dollars were directly going to Mugabe? Second, isn't there some kind of oversight to determine what is and isn't a coup? Third, there should be a check in place. For every country that receives foreign aid, if after a coup, you would be willing to call it not a coup because the leader was so corrupt that everyone is glad to see him gone, then you probably shouldn't have given him foreign aid in the first place.

This gets even more balls-to-the-wall crazy when apparently Trump already tried to cut foreign aid to Zimbabwe back in August. Why he isn't able to do so now is beyond me, I think the career politicians are starting to wear him down.

Either way, this is a dangerous precedent to set. The United States have routinely ignored that law, yet it is one of the most sensible laws in the books. If I was Joe Zimbabwe, I'd start a class action lawsuit against the US.

+1

[DoomYoshi]

Here are some articles that update the situation. I don't understand how anyone can not love African politics.

Basically, Mugabe insists, despite any evidence to the contrary, that he is still the leader of his political party and therefore still the leader of Zimbabwe. That boy's got balls.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/heartbreak-harare-mugabe-fails-resign-171120054046184.html
https://www.voanews.com/a/zimbabwe-mugabe-faces-impeachment/4126104.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/zimbabwes-ruling-party-dismisses-mugabe-as-its-leader-in-another-blow-to-his-presidency/2017/11/19/6a0d52d8-ccb1-11e7-b506-8a10ed11ecf5_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_zimbabwe-810a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.b8747ead35ce

Apparently, the country is deliberately claiming this is not a coup because they might lose support from the AU and SADC. Which once again leads to the question: what exactly is a coup? Mugabe himself seems to think that it's not a coup because he is still "in power".

Best quote of the lot:

“This is not instant coffee,” said Tendai Biti, a lawyer and opposition member. “We can’t sacrifice our constitution to get what we want.”

I would love to know which ritual book includes sacrifice of instant coffee. I have lots of it.

Here's an older article which stresses that the not-a-coup stance originated with the very military that did the takeover:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/14/564237707/tensions-increase-in-zimbabwe-as-troops-reportedly-patrol-the-capital

Of the hundreds of opinion pieces this weekend, the following is the best of them all:
http://africanarguments.org/2017/11/15/zimbabwe-coup-or-not-this-is-the-end-of-an-era/

[mrswdk]

So, here's the crazy thing. According to the State Department, it's not a coup

Second, isn't there some kind of oversight to determine what is and isn't a coup?

Erm helloooo why don’t you just ask them?

Zimbabwe army insists ‘this is not a coup’

http://metro.co.uk/2017/11/15/zimbabwe- ... s-7079951/

[DoomYoshi]

He resigned. No way, turns out it wasn't a coup after all.

[Dukasaur]

He resigned. No way, turns out it wasn't a coup after all.

Doncha hate a quitter?

[GoranZ]

He resigned. No way, turns out it wasn't a coup after all.

Yup the same thing was said by the military men on national TV... it wasn't a cup