omg! it looks like the UN is playing politics over human rights!

been there done that.

This comes as a surprise? Still, the leftoids and liberals either can't get it, or refuse to get it.

How long will it take before it's said that it's all the fault of the US?

If the US does something, it's an imperialist warmonger.

If they don't, they are heartless genocide enablers.

Hence my login.

Judas Priest. Saddam lite.

I've been engaged in a raging email debate over the war with a socialist friend. I used Mugabe as an example of a brutal motherf*cker we'll ignore because he poses no threat to us.

It wouldn't break my heart to be proven wrong.

Is there no end to evil?

The Zimbabwe situation is absolutely depressing. This could and should be a most properous nation and had enormous potential. The U.N. solve the problem or positively contribute? A bad joke.

I think it's make or break time for the African nations in this area (particularly S. Africa) to help reign in Mugagbe. I don't think they are up to the task.

On a more positive note, I think I read somewhere that Mozambique was beginning to recover after a long civil war and natural disasters. Can anyone contribute to or confirm this?

For most Americans, Africa is simply a wild wonderland filled with lions, tigers, elephants and those colored folk that just can't seem to get along.

They have no concept of the political situation, nor the racism and barbaric depravity of the governments. More enjoyable to watch the fascinating creatures getting it on than to read about atrocities.

Evil lives and it must be utterly destroyed; UN multilateralism be damned.

The first step is simply admitting that evil exists. That this is so difficult for some people is absolutely baffling.

The U.S. do something about it? Not involving force, you can bet on that. There are no particular U.S. interests in the region and Zimbabwe isn't a threat.

I am not willing to see Americans fight and die to free people from a hellhole of their own design, with absolutely nothing to gain from it.

Some of Mr Mugabe's opponents say they have been forced to have sex with their children. ...

I had to rub my eyes when I came across that one. When it comes to dreaming up depraved ways of tormenting and degrading other people, there is no bounds to (in)human inventiveness.

It's ignored not because of ignorance, per se, it is ignored because it is Black violence. In other words, it is politically incorrect to point to the rather obvious problem these people have in governing themselves.

Although this is the way in which they lived and treated one another for eons before the European Colonialists arrived in Africa, the violence we see there every day now is blamed on these Colonialists. Never mind the fact that far less of it went on during the colonial rule of these areas.

And before you jump on me, think about it, real hard. I'm fully aware of the wars that the colonialists waged in Africa and elsewhere. The level of violence and how it was directed was nothing like this. The only thing that even comes close was the Boer War, Englands attempt to subdue the White Dutch farmers was fairly horrific in nature, yet pales in comparison to what goes on every day in Africa now.

Its unbelievable already. Has anyone seen Claudia Rosett's article today about the secretive "OIL FOR KICKBACKS AND CONTRACTS" program......

The UN is such a pathetic corrupt despotic joke that its beyond a farce already.

Orwell's book could not do the UN or its Human Rights Commission justice. If you made a movie about it based on the Orwell premise it would be too Hollywoodish to display the irony, it would look overdone!

WHY DOES THE US ALLOW THIS HYPOCRISY?
WHY DON'T THEY TRY AND EXPOSE IT THROUGH THE MEDIA AT LEAST INSTEAD OF ROLLING OVER TO IT?

#11. I think you answered your own question re: the media. The problem IS the media. This is a hot potato they're not willing to touch. I'd like to see Fox tackle it, though. The problem may be getting coverage, though. I think it would be much more dangerous for any reporter to try to go to Zimbabwe to cover the story than it has been for our imbedded soldiers. As horrible as it is to say this, I really don't want our soldiers there.

I think that journalists,in general, have a literacy problem with the word "evil". Or perhaps their problem is more one of psycho-linguistics. Perhaps too many of them are only ignorant ignorant dumbshits collecting a check and feeling important while being told what to do,say and write.

#10 Robert is exactly correct. There is no tradition of large scale, liberal democratic government in Africa. Violence that occurred during colonial times was always less than that which has been occurring continuously since the end of Empire in the region. For that reason, short of reestablishing colonialism, there is nothing to be gained by going there to do anything about it.

That said, it is certain that as soon as the Left can figure out a way to do it, it will be blamed on the US.

Also,

In response Michael Ancram, Britain's shadow foreign secretary, called on Tony Blair and Jack Straw to bring a new UN resolution. "The UN cannot turn a blind eye to the abuses of Robert Mugabe," he said, "and nor can South Africa which is beginning to be affected financially and politically by what is happenin

there is NO chance of the UN doing anymore about this than they did about Rwanda.

Scores of young women have been rounded up and raped by the Green Bombers. "Jane", 16, said she was beaten and raped by eight different militia commanders in a 12-hour ordeal. Her crime, she was told, was her father's suspected support for the MDC.

The Left love Mugabe because he is a Socialist. See ROBERT MUGABE - THE MAN OF 2001. This piece is admittedly old, but the ideas expressed still apply.

Even better, see Cynthia McKinney Is Robert Mugabe's No. 1 Fan where you will the full text of McKinney's statements in opposition to a bill that imposed sanctions against Zimbabwe in SPEECH OF HON. CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY OF GEORGIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, December 4, 2001. This is a "must read". In the last paragraph she says;

* When we get right down to it, this legislation is nothing more than a formal declaration of United States complicity in a program to maintain white-skin privilege. We can call it an "incentives'' bill, but that does not change its essential "sanctions'' nature. It is racist and against the interests of the masses of Zimbabweans. In the long-run the Zimbabwe Democracy Act will work against the United States having a mutually beneficial relationship with Africa.

. I am very glad that she is gone.

It has always been a tenet of the left that the end justifies the means. As long as socialism triumphs, it is of no consequence that people are killed, mutilated, raped, beaten and tortured.

Evil never stops.
Satan never sleeps.

#14 Photios:

I agree, and it is a positive note for the voters in the city of Atlanta that they voted that anti-semetic racist bitch out of office. And her father lost his bid for re-election as well last term as I recall, almost certainly for the same racist rhetoric that killed her chances.

She was vehemetly (sp) racist and im glad she's gone. The left's typical argument:
1) Cry Racism if the US interveens.
2) Cry Racism if the US does nothing.

I saw a statistic somwhere that 75% of sub-sharan Africa is HIV/AIDs positive. Even though Bush jr. just commmited large sums of cash to that problem it wont be enough. They are going to thin themselves out forthwith. Sad but true.

#7 aphex jim: That's because that's how Africa is reported by our "fair, objective, professional" press and portrayed in the entertainment industry. Every African person and institution is noble, kind and wise. We're not allowed to criticize anything that goes on there, until the body count and abuses reach mountainous proportions, at which point the press flips the switch and starts the shrill accusations that "we didn't try to do anything!"

My honest thought from another thread? There's a good chance France is actively behind this. A little conspiratorial, I'll grant you, but who's been cozying up to Mugabe? Who's been trying to block US food shipments to Zimbabwe? Who's been colonizing Africa by stealth? Who's been trying to tie up resource deals there? Then who has Mugabe been railing against getting involved? The US and Britain. I picture France wanting the crisis and bribing Mugabe to bring it about. Then France steps in militarily and siezes control.

Oh c'mon guys, this is OUR FAULT! They're just acting on their rage and trying to express themselves. It's just a manifestation of Post Traumatic Colonial Disorder. Just as you can't be racist if you are not white, it can't be a murderous oppressive regime if it is non-western or non-white: Mugabe is just a little misguided and doing the best he can. Sending him a few billion in aid via a #'ed Swiss account will help the people.....I mean......we need to do more.

When will you save us, Mr. Bush?

Are you listening? Is ANYONE listening? I'm talking to you, A.N.S.W.E.R. I'm talking to you, UN Commision on Human Rights. I'm talking to you, you who scream "PEACE at any price!" and mean "by PEACE I mean TYRANNY!"

Oh, that's right, you're too busy trying to "Free Palestine" and protect Ba'athists and their kin worldwide.

I'm talking to you, US government. It IS in your best interests to create a vastly free globe. It IS in your best interests to foster peace worldwide, and you DO this by getting rid of maniacal dictators and repressive regimes around the globe, one way or another.

The new age lefities got one thing right: it IS an interconnected world, and we cannot risk allowing the greatest nation on earth to live among homicidal and suicidal nutjobs.

I'm an insanely selfish person, but the suffering of the truly innocent, especially for political reasons, will always affect me. Tyranny will always play on my heartstrings, and consequently bring me to a rage.

But...good God. What can we do? What can we do?

Black_Flag: I'm sure that statistic can't be right. Or if it is, the population of the continent is gone as surely as if the whole of it sub-Sahara was neutron bombed. Maybe that was some projection or something, but there's no doubt AIDS is ravaging the place.
----------
For what it's worth, Republicans had a large hand in getting rid of McKinney. They voted in the Dem primary (legally) to get her opponent to win the Dem nomination. Seems the Dems were relatively content in letting McKinney continue to be their representative.
------------
Anyone who still suffers from illusions that the UN is an institution that improves relationships between nations and helps in human rights issues should be keelhauled on a Nimitz class carrier. We've got to change the institution, or get the Hell out, and not just for our own benefit. We've already seen them jump to the aid of Saddam at the expense of Iraqis. Now watch as a black socialist from Africa is treated. When you can call yourself "worse than Hitler" and still be shielded by Kofi and the crew, we're talking institutional evil.

The test will be seeing what our liberals say and do. Yeah, I know, there's no such thing as too many starved, tortured or murdered Brown People for them, even Jesse, Al, the CBC and NAACP if it means a chance to stick a thumb in Bush's eye.

JulianneTheWise (#19)

I posted that link, and others, over here. I encourage you to read all of the links that I posted. (scroll down)

#18 spidly

Post Traumatic Colonial Disorder

Hmm, how about Post Colonial Traumatic Societal Disorder. The beauty of it is that it excuses all manner of depravity.

...it can't be a murderous oppressive regime if it is non-western or non-white: Mugabe is just a little misguided and doing the best he can.

With PCTSD, a murderous oppressive regime is not only accepted and excused, but expected as a natural consequence.

OTOH, the JDAM is a wonderfully simple device, not nearly so messy as a MOAB.

Model4 (#17)

My honest thought from another thread? There's a good chance France is actively behind this. A little conspiratorial, I'll grant you, but who's been cozying up to Mugabe? Who's been trying to block US food shipments to Zimbabwe? Who's been colonizing Africa by stealth? Who's been trying to tie up resource deals there? Then who has Mugabe been railing against getting involved? The US and Britain. I picture France wanting the crisis and bribing Mugabe to bring it about. Then France steps in militarily and siezes control.

Ya think? ;-)

Meanwhile, Mr Mugabe has carefully cultivated new friends and old allies.

"France has a long history of associating with African dictatorships," Mr Ndlovu said.

JulianneTheWise: What we can do is shame the international community again through the UN. Show that they're unwilling to even lift their voices to condemn this, much less a finger to act. If that doesn't give us cause to abandon the UN, I don't know what will. Then we'll be able to act more freely and swiftly with purer motives than if facing vetos from The Three Cynics and trying to wrangle votes out of Cameroon.

Then what? Well, I don't know. That was painful to say. Sure, we could go in and remove Mugabe and some of his thugs, but what follows? If we haven't transformed Zimbabwe into Illinois withing a month of this, we'll be a failure. Not only that, but all the damage done to the country over the last several years will magically become our fault. And who takes charge? Africa has much less a history and culture of modernity, intellectual development and human rights than even the Middle East. Wrap your head arount that.

Sorry, I'm not for any more Somalias. No pissing away aid on people who are delighted to kill eachother. No losing our troops only to have the peace they'd bring thrown away over an endless succession of warlords and thugs. And a definite and frank dialog about the role of the strong countries in the world. Are we going to fight proxy wars over the third world and do Abysinnia all over again? Is the US going to be chastised for not doing everything all over the globe all the time (unacceptable), or are we going to have real partners militarily and economically in promoting human rights and security?

I say we get some impartial observers throughout the continent, not UN liberal assholes who look at every dictator through rose-colored glasses and see America as a great evil. Freeze all aid money and set up payments subject to be given out based on willingness to play ball, subject to review every six months. Country A has a good record this time, they get aid. Country B has a poor record? No aid. You get your allowance as you show real efforts to make your country a place worth living in.

It's no secret that Mugabe has friends in Moscow, Paris and Ottawa (suprise, suprise..). They play the "need to check the resurgence of Western Imperialism" card every chance they get as an attempt to justify Mugabe's actions.

In fact, Cretien especially went out of his way to defend Mugabe (.."he not dat bad, he is my friend"...), when Britain campaigned for the Commonwealth support to impose sanctions. Then again, I'm sure Cretien would have gone to Stalin's defence during the man-made Ukranian Famine if given the opportunity....

#24 Model4

What we can do is shame the international community again through the UN.

If only that were possible... the UN has no shame, especially when it comes to Africa. Rwanda is the perfect example. They, like their good friend Clinton, dithered and argued over the definition of "genocide" while one million innocents were butchered. No, the UN has been a worthless ship of fools for a long time, and all lingering doubts were washed away with blood in 1994.

[Link: www.eastandard.net...]

Africas future in four letters-AIDS. A self solving problem of incredable proportion, behavioral in nature, defiant of educational solutions,in search of a mythical political vacine.

We wouldn't want to stop it though, right? I mean freedom comes from within and all. We'll never impose freedom.

*GACK*

Sad, but I'm sure there's a crapload of New Generation liberals citing the prime directive right now as to avoid responsibility and excuse the massacre...uh....genocide.

The US can raise more money to fight the war on terrorism by turning the UN building into affordable condos for the babyboomers who are going to retire soon.

gymnast (#27)

Africas future in four letters-AIDS.

If you're interested, check out the links in this post.

#7
Sorry, tigers are not native to Africa. To be sure, a minor point.

A great editorial on tyrants by the always great Claudia Rosett is here. She always hits what she's aiming for.
--------------
Right though you are, my Spiny friend, you miss a distinction. We shame other countries through the UN ;) Make a plain-stated case of what's going on, and when some block action, let the populations, press and other countries heap shame upon the enablers and the processes used in the UN. I'd be delighted to push the button on the implosion charges when that house of horrors in NY is finally disbanded.

Surely some reporter somewhere is fishing for quotes and footage of the conference in Johannesburg where Mugabe was cheered, Powell was booed, and EUnichs and UNichs fought to keep US food aid out of Africa. The moral and intellectual rot in the left is barely short of demonic.

Here's a superb short essay on Mugabe's destruction of Zimbabwe by Doris Lessing. Highly, highly recommended.

A 'coalition' won't be arriving in Zimbabwe soon because they're nothing to do with supporting terrorism.

The list of completely evil leaders goes on: Pol Pott, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe....

Like Saddam, we may only find out their true crimes against humanity once they are gone. If Mugabe is 79, let's hope that will not be too long.

Two major elements that are destroying Africa:

1) Overpopulation.
2) Mismanagement (corruption) of natural resources especially clean water.

I wonder what "mr kryptonite" thinks about this situation?

#30, Zulubaby. Thanks for the pointer. In the mid 80s I got the chance to see A Nigerian, Prof.,Dr.,George can't remember his last name, supposedly the original green monkey theory AIDs man in action in the Magic (there are no cases of aids here) Kingdom. He was a total syncophant, put in charge of the colleges research section, whose mission in life was to torment the non Muslim, US educated Nigerian faculty. I believe Georgie Boy, as he was by some of us who had his number, was another distinguished product of the London School of Tropical Medicine. He just sort of "dysappeared" after a couple of years. No one would say why.

#35 Alf

Zimbabwe
11 million people in 390,000 km^2 (28/km^2)

Denmark
5 million people in 43,000 km^2 (116/km^2)

India
1 billion people in 3,000,000 km^2 (333/km^2)

Overpopulation ain't the problem.
(#1)mis-use of resources and people by brutal dictators "keeping order", (#2)ethnic/tribal/religious hostilities fueled by #1, (#3)famine and disease fueled by #1, #2 and #3, (#4)ignorance fueled by #1, #2 and #3.........

NC (#33)

Thank you so much for that link. Fantastic.

Meanwhile farms that had already been acquired by the government were not being turned over to the poor blacks; that happened only at the beginning. They were being acquired by Mugabe's greedy cronies.

I had forgotten to mention that in any of my posts, but it it important. Mbeki refuses to condemn Mugabe because he believes in Mugabe's redistribution of land ideal, yet Mugabe has done nothing of the sort! He has thrown the farmers off the land and kept those farms for himself and his sycophantic henchmen. The people in Zimbabwe are getting poorer while Mugabe is gathering wealth (sounds like he's taken a leaf out of Saddam's book in that regard). They can't even afford to feed themselves. The focus seems to constantly be on the white farmers being thrown off their land, but what about the black people that lived and worked on those farms? They are homeless, jobless, and whatever skills they may have attained while working on those once prosperous farms, are all for nil. What use are those skills to them now? Nobody's farming.

A friend of mine, meeting a former friend, black, a Mugabe crony, in the street, was told, "We never meant things to get out of hand like this"—this was spoken casually as if about some unimportant failure. "The trouble is that Robert can think of nothing but Tony Blair. He is convinced Blair wants to ruin him, even kill him." It is true that Blair has been critical of Mugabe, but, as my friend said, "I doubt whether Tony Blair thinks of Mugabe for as much as half a minute a week." "Ah, but Robert would not like to believe that," was the answer.

Ha! So Mugabe thinks that Tony Blair is trying to kill him. If only...

#32 Model4

The moral and intellectual rot in the left is barely short of demonic.

No kidding! The Left is so reflexively anti-American and anti-Capitalist that anything proposed by the US is immediately denounced, no matter how sensible it might be or who might benefit from it. The UN used to be a forum for the Cold War "tug-of-war" between the US and the Soviets. With the USSR on the ash heap, her erstwhile allies and supporters are left holding the end of the rope and continue to pull on it with all their strength because they don't know what else to do.

Photios (#14)

Cynthia McKinney's speech is hilarious. This part really had me going:

Zimbabwe is Africa's second-longest stable democracy. It is multi-party. It had elections last year where the opposition, Movement for Democratic Change, won over 50 seats in the parliament. It has an opposition press which vigorously criticizes the government and governing party. It has an independent judiciary which issues decisions contrary to the wishes of the governing party.

Moron. I know it was from 2001, but still... Who does she think she's kidding, besides herself? Leave it to her to defend a brutal dictator. She is a nasty little racist of a woman. I'm just grateful she didn't blame it on the J-E-W-S, yet.

If anyone wants an idea of how screwed up the Africa of today is, read V.S. Naipaul's novella "In A Free State". It was written in the early 70's but a lot of it still applies.

#40, Spiny Norman (Great handle, BTW):

It's not so much that the left is anti-American, it's that it's anti-Republican. Imagine if it had been Clinton that had gone into Iraq in 1998. The left would have been wetting itself about what a great thing it was. Saddam would have been portrayed as a right-winger, and had Clinton actually allowed the military to do the job right, the liberation of the Iraqi people would have been seen as a great victory for the forces of progressivity.

This is a link to what is really happening in Zimbabwe.

Real Zimbabwe news

#41 zulubaby

Yes, I noticed that too. If she were still in Congress, I'm sure that she would be saying the same thing. As far as she and the rest of the Left is concerned it is all the fault of the J-E-W-S and us white people (particularly white males).

It is possible for people such as her to have more predictablilty in their positions? (answer - no)

I am glad that you are here to give us perspective. I would love to know more about your life in Africa. Your comments re: Mugabe, Mbeki, Mandela, et al. are enlightening. I am always amazed that Desmond Tutu gets away with being viewed as a holy man.

Tutu in a spin over Iraq

And, from FrontPage magazine.com UPenn's Commencement Speaker is an Anti-Semitic Leftist. This one has lots of quotes.

Tutu:

"The Jewish lobby is very powerful": "People are scared in this country [the U.S.], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful--very powerful"

Tutu accused Jews of exhibiting "an arrogance--the arrogance of power because Jews are a powerful lobby in this land and all kinds of people woo their support,"

Has he been talking to David Duke?

If not for the weight of this Jewish power in government and media, and the most powerful foreign policy lobby in the world: the Israeli Lobby, we would not be on the brink of this crazy, stupid, costly, anti-American, pro-Israel war.

The left-wing media analysis group FAIR tries to deflect blame away from Mugabe. [Link: www.fair.org...]

Some stats on AIDs in Africa.

"National HIV prevalence rates vary widely between countries. They range from under 2% of the adult population in some West African countries to around 20% or more in the southern part of the continent, with countries in Central and East Africa having ates midway between these. However, prevalence rates do not convey people's lifetime risk of becoming infected and dying of AIDS. In the eight African countries where at least 15% of today's adults are infected, conservative analyses show that AIDS will claim the lives of around a third of today's 15 year olds.

Sixteen African countries south of the Sahara have more than one -tenth of the adult population aged 15-49 infected with HIV. In seven countries, all in the southern cone of the continent, at least one adult in five is living with the virus.

In Botswana a shocking 38.8 % of adults are now infected with HIV
In South Africa 20.1% of adults are infected with HIV. With a total of 5 million infected people, South Africa has the largest number of people living with HIV/AIDS in the world."

Taken from avert.org. All of the other stats I have seen are fairly similar to these.

It's really depressing how much support other countries are giving to Mugabe.

First Iraq, then France, then the entire African continent?

What happens in Africa is all Israel's fault. You see, Israel borders Africa. Also, Israel cononizes things, so obviously they charge like a herd in all directions. Remember the hotel in Africa that blew up? There were Jews in there. That's why it blew up. This is gonna happen to the rest of Africa because of the Jews. The Jews are also the most advanced medical scientists in the world, and AIDS is the most advanced desease. There's obviously a connection. Furthermore, the US is covering up for Israel because the US is it's puppets. You see, they are sending billions of fake dollars to Arfica to hide from condemnation, but let's not be fooled.

I don;t have to write "sarcasm off" because instead of writing sacasm I adopt the frame of mind that these consipracy theorists/lefties have. Then jot it down and look at how stupid it looks. If you think I am going too bezerk, there are many people to talk like this ALL the time, and try to influence as many people as possible with stuff they make up because they wanna believe it themselves.

#38 spidly

I don't know about those other countries that you listed but I know a bit about Africa. I was there. Look at Kenya for starters. But before we put square miles/person into the equation, we need to consider whether that square mileage contributes to providing elements to keeping a population alive.

Yes, tribalism, territorialism and government corruption are also factors.

Spidly, thanks for the feedback. I must take my leave for this evening. See you around on the blog

Involvement in Africa is a no win situation for us. We can liberate them all we want to and here is what will happen, based upon history-

We liberate them, let them pick a "President" and the minute we leave, the corruption and genocide will recommence all over again. Just look at Haiti.

If we stay to enforce the "law" we will be accused of colonialism. Even though the Dutch were in South Africa 200 years before the Hottentots and then the Zulus showed up, they were considerd racist Colonialists.

The Jews are hated because they swapped weapons technology and training for South african diamonds and gold when no one else would publically trade with the Boars. That hatred will last forever.

Sooner or later the scenario will play it self out. Just as in Europe during the middle ages, they will kill each other until their borders reflect tribal connections- nothing we can do will change that. It seems to be a process that every continent must go through.

AIDS is to Africa what Bubonic Plague was to Europe. We have no cure for it, neither did they. Drugs only prolong the enevitable, and in Africa will most likely result in more people getting it- once they are on the medicine and feeling better, they will simply go out and spread it some more. I know- sounds terribly racist, but this is an accurate prediction based on past behaviour in that part of the world.

To tell you the truth, I sit in amazement that Africa and the Far East have not succumbed to some dread disease in the past. History teaches us that over crowding will produce just this scenario, yet they have escaped it. While the West was visited twice by killer disease- numourous out breaks of Plague, and then the Great Flu epidemic. They never have. In modern times this is most likely due to Western technology, both medicinal as well as agricultural. We did save China from starvation by the introduction of genetically modified rice which is designed to give them their protein needs. Without this, China would have been in dire straits.

So enter the AIDS epidemic. It is running very quickly in China as well. They also have SARS to deal with, and it appears China (surprise surprise) has been lying about how many cases they actually have, not to mention how many deaths there really are.

Here in minnesota, 66 new cases of AIDS from recently (last year) immigrated Africans have shown up. That will become a 15 million dollar drain on taxpayers over the next 10 years. We no longer screen immigrants (thanks to bill and hitler clinton) for communicable diseases, we used to, and if they had them, we sent them back to their home countries.

Our best bet is to close the borders. Save our resources for attacking those that represent a threat to us and let the world take care of it self.

The number of straw men floating around here is astonishing.

#14 says "the Left loves Mugabe because he is a Socialist". As proof of that he links to an article on Mathaba, a Libyan newswire, and a single speech by a former congresswoman.

Counter that with the human rights groups and aid organizations (several of them favorite targets of conservative bashers) that have been trying to draw attention to Mugabe's tyranny, and South Africa's shameful defense of it:

Human Rights Watch
Amnestry International
AdBusters
Lawyers Committee on Human Rights
Southern Africa Human Rights NGO Network
Danish Doctors for Human Rights

As to what the UN is doing:
- The World Food Programme is distributing emergency food aid to over 1.5 million people;
- UNICEF and the FAO are getting seeds out to farmers whose crops have been destroyed, and giving AIDS treatments to thousands of patients.

I do not know of a single person, anywhere, who has blamed either the US or Israel for the suffering in Zimbabwe. At most, you hear criticisms that the US has not intervened, or even paid it much attention. As for Israel, this site is the only place where I've heard its name and Zimbabwe's in the same sentence.

#26 says the UN ignored the genocide in Rwanda. That is true, but to a large degree it was the US that insisted the UN ignore the crisis. It was the US that sponsored an SC resolution pulling peackeepers out of Rwanda. This was with the full support of both the Clinton administration and the Republican Congress. The administration went so far as to instruct State Department officials to avoid using the word "genocide" in press conferences, even when asked about it point-blank.

Whenever a problem in Africa is raised, there always seems to be someone (#10 and #14 here), who raise the old paternalistic canard that maybe Africans aren't really capable of governing themselves, and maybe the colonial days were better off for all. Hogwash. If you look at virtually every indicator (infant mortality, literacy, life expectancy etc.) progress in Africa since independence is an order of magnitude higher than it was in colonial days. Even the most corrupt regimes have still done better than the colonial powers did.

Besides, the notion that colonial days were some kind of foreign-imposed peaceful idyll flies in the face of fact. Germany completely massacred the Herero people of Namibia around the turn of the century. Half of Belgian Congo's population was killed in labor camps during that time. Forced labor, land appropriations, and segregation were the norm throughout the continent. And have you forgotten France's barbarities during the Algerian war of independence, or Britain's in Kenya in the 1950s?

No leftist I know of tries to blame Africa's problems entirely on a colonialism that ended forty years ago. You people are attacking a stereotype of leftist opinion that has little connection to reality.

I can think of one reason for us to do something about Mugabe and Zimbabwe, but it involves a bit of "what iffing."

If Zimbabwe, already unstable, is allowed to continue on its present track, it will become an attractive outpost for Islamic terrorists. It will have all of the necessary elements - widespread corruption, a complete breakdown of centralized law and order, a "government" desperate for hard currency (compliments of the Saudis), an enraged and desperately poor population ripe for conversion to Islam (what religion are the people in Zimbabwe, anyway?) and an excuse to cast blame somewhere, anywhere but on their own rulers.

All the extremists would have to do would be to pay Mugabe enough for him to turn a blind eye to the establishment of terrorist training camps, chemical weapons labs, etc. away from prying Western eyes.

Africa is going to be the next major battleground, and we're not doing anything to win hearts and minds.

Tyrone,

#14 says "the Left loves Mugabe because he is a Socialist". As proof of that he links to an article on Mathaba, a Libyan newswire, and a single speech by a former congresswoman.

The Left was in love with Mugabe in the 1970's during his war with the white-minority Rhodesian government. That is undeniable. They ignored (as they always do) his avowed Marxism, his vicious persecution of Zimbabwe's minority groups, and the fact that his terrorist groups murdered Christian missionaries for sport. The Left can never find fault in such 'liberation heroes' until their atrocities reach such a scale as to become undeniable. Fidel Castro has recently provided us with yet another convenient example of this. The moral preening and international condemnation from NGO's, human rights organizations, and the chattering classes rings hollow to conservatives. This quote from a recent Washington Post editorial sums it up nicely:

Robert Mugabe was once a hero, leading his country's struggle for independence. Today he stands as a representative of all that is wrong with postcolonial African leadership: a self-centered, power-hungry dictator who has lost the support of his people, yet clings to the trappings of office through the help of the mob, the gun and a demagogic political appeal to the worst kind of human emotions. Zimbabwe would do well to be rid of him.

The Left's smug self-righteousness is always worth a laugh. Millions are now in danger of starvation in Zimbabwe. An entire economy has been devastated. The stage is been set for an exodus of biblical proportions. Only now does the Left tepidly oppose a man whom they were once so intoxicated with. Those of us on the Right have always known the character of men like Robert Mugabe and Fidel Castro. Zimbabwe's tragedy comes as no suprise to us.

Does anyone know what happened to Muzorewah (sp)? He seemed pretty reasonable. But NO, Jimmy Carter et al had to install this thug.

I can only speak for Zimbabwe, Tyrone, but it is a *fact* that before Mugabe they were exporting grain and feeding half of Africa. I know this as I am a farmer in the U.S. and have watched world markets my whole life. Now, thanks to the land 'reparations', millions would be starving without food aid. This is *not* because of drought as the left says because that country has always been dryland farm-type. The drought began before the reparations and the white owned farms did fine. They may not have had record yields but they could feed the people. None of the black *skilled* farm workers received land, combines and tractors were burned, etc. If you wanted to starve a country that was feeding most of the neighbors, you couldn't go about it any better than Mugabe.

#53, Tyrone. It has occured to me that Bill Clinton has exibited far more simularities to Cecil Rhodes than has the current President. What is your opinion?

As I stated elsewhere, Time to pull out the chain-whips and tire irons for old Bobby and his cronies

Well there ya go, pack up the UN with their lobster lunches, Moen, gold plated flatware, and ship them off to Zimbabwe wher they can set up their HQ and do some sort of "good." What ever that could be, beats me.

#53

Tyrone

At the risk of a 15 yd penalty for piling on, the stuff about the NGO's doing yoeman's work in the service of human suffering is baloney, too.

HRW, AI, et al. so often reflexively bash the United States about its supposed human rights violations that when it comes time to shine the light of truth on the Mugabes, Khaddafis and the Assads of the world people are justifiably skeptical that the sky is falling. But don't take my word for it. Go to the first link you yourself provided. In the three press releases dated this year only one nation is cited specifically on the home page. Oh, yeah, the US. To read about the Mugabes and Khaddafis and the Assads you have to link to the next page.

Besides which these monsters, or their hand-picked representatives, are just as likely to be sitting on, if not chairing, the Council on Human Rights of the left's much beloved United Nations. This condition is no accident. No, it is a direct consequence of the Leftist/Marxist/Stalinist cabal's propsensity for tweaking the nose of the US in general and Republican administrations in particular by way of sucking up to the despots of the world.

Which explains why the US was voted off the UNCHR three years ago and why we now see it populated with such custodians of human rights as Libya, Algeria, Cuba, Sudan, Pakistan and--you can't make this stuff up--Zimbabwe! Chretien may feel like a grown up when he laughs off the glare of the US and blows smoke rings with his favorite bad-boy Fidel, but does he not bare some of the culpability when an emboldened Castro jails journalists for the high crime of being journalists. Tyrone, does the left not wince just a little bit at the current state of affairs?

Strawmen? Belive me, any strawmen the right conjured up would pale in comparison to the reality that the left serves up daily.

#43 Guy Smilee (thanx BTW :^)

It's not so much that the left is anti-American, it's that it's anti-Republican.

I would certainly agree -- up to a point. If, in the unlikely event that Clinton would have committed ground forces to Afghanistan and Iraq (not inconceivable as he is a slippery eel who runs whichever way the political wind blows), the Left would have turned on him soon enough. His cruise missile attacks in 1998 were low risk, both to American personnel and his political capital. There was not enough run up and the bombing campaign against Serbia too short for more than small, disorganized protests.

#53 Tyrone

This was with the full support of both the Clinton administration and the Republican Congress.

Bzzzt. Wrong answer, try again. In April, 1994 the US Congress had a Democrat majority. And perhaps you missed this part of my post:

They, like their good friend Clinton, dithered and argued over the definition of "genocide"...

I was most definitely NOT letting Clinton off the hook on this one. Far too many Congressional Republicans have to check which way the "politcal wind" is blowing before making any kind of commitment, but trying to pin the blame for inaction regarding the Rwandan genocide on the US as a whole is utter nonsense. Clinton was kowtowing to the EU (France and Belgium primarily) on this issue. If you would check the link I posted you would also note that the Africans themselves do not blame the US, but the UN.

Photios (#45)

Ugh! Don't even talk to me about Tutu, his name is like nails on a chalkboard to me. How anyone has paid attention to him, let alone considered him holy, is something I will never understand. Everywhere I look there's another putz holding a Nobel Peace Prize. I think my intense dislike of Tutu is well-documented at this point.

zulubaby #64
Sorry to cause you discomfort. I mentioned him because his name is so often left off of the lists of leftist evildoers. I also have a particular beef with him. Being an Orthodox Christian, I have been distressed by direction taken by the Anglican Church under such as he and Spong and others. I am not Anglican, but have many Anglican/Episcopal friends who are having serious troubles as the result of the work of guys like Tutu.

I know that that is not really and issue for LGF, but that is why I wanted to include him in the discussion.

In fact your dislike of him is well documented. I got my first hint (struck by clue x 4) that he is not as he seems from you (thanks).

You are right, Nobel Peace prize winners are a real bunch. Tutu, Arafish, the World's Greatest Monster (Carter), the worthless Kofi Annan, Nelson Mandela, Le Duc Tho (?!?!?). Granted, there are some worthies there, but so many lovers of leftist tyranny.

Tyrone (#53)

I do not know of a single person, anywhere, who has blamed either the US or Israel for the suffering in Zimbabwe. At most, you hear criticisms that the US has not intervened, or even paid it much attention. As for Israel, this site is the only place where I've heard its name and Zimbabwe's in the same sentence.

Evidently sarcasm whizzes right over your head.

If you look at virtually every indicator (infant mortality, literacy, life expectancy etc.) progress in Africa since independence is an order of magnitude higher than it was in colonial days. Even the most corrupt regimes have still done better than the colonial powers did.

I don't understand that statement. Which African countries are you talking about specifically?

As to what the UN is doing with regards to Zimbabwe, a big, fat nothing to stop Mugabe and his reign of terror. The man is sick and evil and must be removed. I don't care about the details, only that he is stopped. He is murdering his own people, starving those that don't support him to death, turning Zimbabwe into a wasteland. For the third time now, I will link to this story.

The United Nations' World Food Program is drastically scaling down its food deliveries to Zimbabwe — from about 60,000 tons a month to 30,000 tons — as the first of the year's harvests begin to trickle in. But it will continue to supply the people of Chitsungo with handouts of corn, the staple food, said official Luis Clemens.

Photios (#65)

No need to apologize, I was just ranting a little bit :-) What kinds of problems are your Anglican/Episcopal friends having because of Tutu and the like?

(By the way, it's so nice having you around again. I did miss you).

#55: In the 1970s, Mugabe wasn't the villain; the white supremacist Rhodesian government was. Without ZANU's guerrilla fighting in those years, the old racist system could have endured for a long time. Mugabe's large-scale killings began after independence, in the Matabeleland massacres of 1983. I know of no leftist who approved of that. Nor of his suppressions of labor unions and student protesters beginning around that time. Nor his refusal, despite rhetoric to the contrary, to allow the ANC to use Zimbabwe as a base against the apartheid regime in South Africa.

#57: No disagreement. Nobody, on either the left or right, is defending Mugabe anymore. At most, they are repeating the telltale phrase "lack of strategic interests in the region..."

#58: There isn't much difference between Clinton and Bush on Africa policy. During the 2000 campaign, Bush said that Clinton had done "the right thing" in Rwanda. And on other issues like debt relief, structural adjustment, agricultural subsidies, aid, they are about the same.

#59: You're being conveniently selective. Four of the first six headlines on HRW's Zimbabwe page are specifically criticizing the UNHCR for its failure to take action on Zimbabwe and others.

Conservative media seldom report what human rights groups say or do, unless they say something critical of the United States, which then gets repeatedly hyped as an example of how "anti-American" these groups supposedly are. The dozens of reports and actions about other countries issued by HRW or Amnesty are virtually ignored.

#63: My point is that congressional Republicans were in agreement with Clinton's Rwanda policy. And yes it is true that Africans blame the UN, but the UN is composed of its member states, and the US was as isolationist as any of them. The fact remains that it was the US that introduced and lobbied for the resolution withdrawing UN troops from Rwanda. It is simply not true that the US tried in any way to stop the genocide and was stymied by European opposition. All the Western states did their best to wash their hands and ignore what was happening.

And why? I remember reading a column by Charles Krauthammer arguing that Rwanda would not be neglected like that if it were not a black African country. It is hard to disagree with this, especially considering the almost daily front-page stories about the war in Bosnia, in which a quarter as many people died in three years as perished in Rwanda in less than three months. But Bosnia is located in Europe, and westerners will pay more attention to one of their own than anywhere in Africa.

a4b
#55: In the 1970s, Mugabe wasn't the villain; the white supremacist Rhodesian government was. Without ZANU's guerrilla fighting in those years, the old racist system could have endured for a long time. Mugabe's large-scale killings began after independence, in the Matabeleland massacres of 1983. I know of no leftist who approved of that. Nor of his suppressions of labor unions and student protesters beginning around that time. Nor his refusal, despite rhetoric to the contrary, to allow the ANC to use Zimbabwe as a base against the apartheid regime in South Africa.

#57: No disagreement. Nobody, on either the left or right, is defending Mugabe anymore. At most, they are repeating the telltale phrase "lack of strategic interests in the region..."

#58: There isn't much difference between Clinton and Bush on Africa policy. During the 2000 campaign, Bush said that Clinton had done "the right thing" in Rwanda. And on other issues like debt relief, structural adjustment, agricultural subsidies, aid, they are about the same.

#59: You're being conveniently selective. Four of the first six headlines on HRW's Zimbabwe page are specifically criticizing the UNHCR for its failure to take action on Zimbabwe and others.

Conservative media seldom report what human rights groups say or do, unless they say something critical of the United States, which then gets repeatedly hyped as an example of how "anti-American" these groups supposedly are. The dozens of reports and actions about other countries issued by HRW or Amnesty are virtually ignored.

#63: My point is that congressional Republicans were in agreement with Clinton's Rwanda policy. And yes it is true that Africans blame the UN, but the UN is composed of its member states, and the US was as isolationist as any of them. The fact remains that it was the US that introduced and lobbied for the resolution withdrawing UN troops from Rwanda. It is simply not true that the US tried in any way to stop the genocide and was stymied by European opposition. All the Western states did their best to wash their hands and ignore what was happening.

And why? I remember reading a column by Charles Krauthammer arguing that Rwanda would not be neglected like that if it were not a black African country. It is hard to disagree with this, especially considering the almost daily front-page stories about the war in Bosnia, in which a quarter as many people died in three years as perished in Rwanda in less than three months. But Bosnia is located in Europe, and westerners will pay more attention to one of their own than anywhere in Africa.
306

Tyrone: I was going to rebut some of your points, until running across your accusations of "savagery" levied against Israel. It always seems to come back to that.

It is time the rest of the world put aside their sympathy for this rogue state and recognized it for the bloodthirsty, fanatical killer that it is rapidly becoming.

You'd really think there wouldn't be any "Palestinians" left if your view of the world were accurate. Unless ineptness is to be added to the various libels heaped upon the Jews. We should all be thankful that these well-armed bloodthirsty, savage fanatics are such poor shots, eh?

You sicken me.

zulubaby: We'd be lucky if the UN was doing "nothing" regarding Zimbabwe. Instead, it has been actively trying to block condemnations of Mugabe's human rights abuses, as well as US food aid.

Model4 (#71)

Yes, with Mbeki championing the way. They make me sick.

I happened to stumble upon this commentary by "Muckraker". Lots of sarkiness in this article. I got curious so I googled around and found this, also by "Muckraker".

Note to Model4: Read the second link. I think you'll enjoy it. Some choice bits:

We liked Mark Doyle’s piece on the BBC about the pecking order in Paris during the Franco/African summit.

French body language is very explicit, he pointed out. Particularly President Chirac’s. Most African leaders on arrival at the Elysée palace got three kisses — right cheek, left cheek, right cheek.

But some favoured leaders got four while those less esteemed got two.

"Up for four kisses," Doyle reported, "were special friends of France or countries that for one reason or another fitted the French view of the world."

Under this heading came the democratic leaders of Senegal and Ghana. The King of Morocco, despite a lack of democratic credentials, also got four plus a firm squeeze on the shoulders. The ruling dynasty is a particular friend of France.

Further down the scale the despotic leader of Equatorial Guinea only got two kisses. The Rwandan head of state got none at all. Just a very stiff handshake. The current regime in Kigali has publicly blamed France for permitting the massacres of 1994 and is now committed to a policy of using English as an official language.

With President Mugabe the approach was only slightly different. Chirac’s right hand shook Mugabe’s, but in a limp sort of way while the Frenchman kept his head firmly back. No question of a peck there, Doyle pointed out.

"The body language was completed by Chirac using his left hand to usher Mr Mugabe along, out of camera shot as soon as possible," Doyle said

Masterful diplomatic stuff, heconcluded. France thereby expre-ssed concern about human rights in Zimbabwe while leaving the door open to negotiation with Africa.

This placed African leaders firmly behind Chirac’s diplomacy on Iraq — exactly where the sly old French fox wanted them. Another boot in la derriere pour Blair!

zulubaby #67

No need to apologize, I was just ranting a little bit :-) What kinds of problems are your Anglican/Episcopal friends having because of Tutu and the like?

The answer to your question requires some nuance and some history. If you were to email me from my web site, I can answer fully. Short answers such as what are possible here can be easily misunderstood.

On a range of issues, Desmond Tutu is in opposition to orthodox Christian belief. (Note the small "o", many Anglicans are orthodox in their belief.) These include areas which are defined by Holy Scripture or Holy Tradition (as opposed to the "traditions of men" aka custom). The distinction between Holy Tradition and tradition requires some explaination.

In short, the issues range from the ordination of a female clergy (about which there is a lot of legitimate discussion), the ordination of an actively homosexual clergy, the repudiation of the miracles of Christ, the denial of his divinity and even of his bodily resurrection. This is a large topic area.

It has created so many problems for Anglicans/Episcopals that many entire parishes in the US have converted to the Orthodox Church. It has been a disaster for them.

Anyway, that is enough for now. Feel free to email me if you would like. Discussion of these issues here is too far OT and would burn a lot of Charles bandwidth in heated controversy.

In the 1970s, Mugabe wasn't the villain; the white supremacist Rhodesian government was. Without ZANU's guerrilla fighting in those years, the old racist system could have endured for a long time.

Very telling. So a white supremacist government and its 'old racist system' represents a greater evil than a avowedly black-supremacist government and its 'new racist system.'

Mugabe's large-scale killings began after independence, in the Matabeleland massacres of 1983.I know of no leftist who approved of that. Nor of his suppressions of labor unions and student protesters beginning around that time. Nor his refusal, despite rhetoric to the contrary, to allow the ANC to use Zimbabwe as a base against the apartheid regime in South Africa.

The Left's moral preening does not constitute an achievement, but an indictment of its own shortsightedness. Robert Mugabe had a very brutal record prior to taking power. Ian Smith and the minority whites and many blacks who opposed Robert Mugabe were right down to the last word about what was going to happen when he took power.

I haven't read all the comments, but the question was asked: Where's the United Nations?

The current chair of UN Human Rights is Libya's Gaddafi.

Mr. Mugabe has borrowed heavily for Libyan oil against cash crops from the productive farms looted from white famers. Essentially, Mugabe stole the farms from the white owners and gave them to Gaddafi. Perhaps another payment is due.

Tutu's position on Israel and Jews isn't new. Tutu came to Detroit in the late eighties, and when he was asked why he was so critical of Jews and Israel, replied that he expected more of them because they had suffered. His people have suffered but his standards for them don't seem to exacting.

Meanwhile, we LGFers can help Zimbabwe. Let's just start the rumor that Mugabe is secretly Jewish and his bully boys have been trained by the Mossad, and they're equipped with Uzis and American-made weapons. We could get the Israeli UN delegation to start lauding Mugabe and bombard Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton with letters signed by obviously Jewish names, demanding full US support for Mugabe.

Significant UN action would be forthcoming in days.