[NOTE: We’re experiencing many technical difficulties with this site, which have resulted in articles being posted later than usual and my not being able to properly format images. And my webmaster tells me things will probably get worse…. I apologize for this and beg for your understanding and patience. ALH]
Yesterday, the BBC published an appropriately indignant report on the unconscionable invitation the United Nations extended to President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe to attend a food summit in Rome this week.
But to get a sense of what has to be the consensus opinion about this invitation worldwide, here’s what Australia’s foreign minister, Stephen Smith, had to say about it:
This is the person who has used food aid in a politically motivated way…the person who has presided over the starvation of his people. So Robert Mugabe turning up to a conference dealing with food security or food issues is, in my view, frankly obscene.
And, to reinforce the point, here’s what UK International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander had to say:
I’ll neither shake hands with Robert Mugabe nor meet Robert Mugabe…. This is not a man with any credibility or any contribution to a discussion on international food.
All of which begs the question: Why did the UN invite this genocidal maniac to its summit on food aid? After all, this is rather like inviting Myanmar’s military junta to a UN summit on humanitarian aid….
But never mind Mugabe; because the real shame here is on the UN – since this is not the first time it has invited Mugabe to such a gathering. In fact, I published an even more indignant commentary in 2005 when the UN saw fit to honor Mugabe at a food summit, notwithstanding that he was then in the midst of perpetrating what many decried as crimes against humanity.
Therefore, instead of wasting new emotion on decrying this latest insult to the cause of humanitarian aid, I shall suffice to reprise that commentary for your edification.
____________________
As a number of my previous columns can readily attest, I have a great deal of respect for the maverick President of Venezuela – Hugo Chavez. Because I support wholeheartedly the poverty alleviation programs he has implemented to empower historically poor and disenfranchised Venezuelans.
But, as my columns can also readily attest, I have very little respect for the reprobate President of Zimbabwe – Robert Mugabe. Because I abhor his dictatorial rule and rank cronyism that have turned Zimbabwe from a net exporter of food into one where millions of its people face chronic starvation.
(Indeed, it is noteworthy that Chavez redistributed land from rich aristocrats – who sat on it as their private reserve, to poor farmers – who are using it to grow bountiful harvests. By contrast, Mugabe redistributed land from white farmers – who grew bountiful harvests annually, to his political cronies – who are sitting on it as their private reserve.)
Therefore, I was profoundly dismayed when I saw pictures of Chavez embracing Mugabe at the 60th Annual Summit of the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Rome on Monday. And my dismay turned to cynicism when I read reports about delegates applauding Mugabe as he lambasted Europe and America for supporting agricultural subsidies he claims have crippled the development of agriculture in Zimbabwe. Because every FAO delegate knows that Mugabe’s ruthless confiscation of white farms is solely responsible for his country’s barren agriculture.
Indeed, Mugabe must be painfully aware of his own blame. Because he wasted little time on agriculture but spent most of his speech deflecting blame with rhetorical canards like this:
Must we allow these men [President Bush and PM Tony Blair], the two unholy men of our millennium, who in the same way as Hitler and Mussolini formed [an] unholy alliance, form an alliance to attack an innocent country?
Nonetheless, here are the real rhetorical questions that arise from Mugabe’s wholly inappropriate invitation:
– What does the FAO’s embrace of Mugabe convey to the oppressed blacks of Zimbabwe who look to the UN and latter-day Robin Hoods like Chavez and Thabo Mbeki of South Africa to come to their aid?
– And, what are we to make of the credibility of purported humanitarians and international statesmen who applauded Mugabe’s patently hypocritical demagoguery? (After all, there can be no more pathological example of “the pot calling the kettle black” than Mugabe comparing President George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler.)
NOTE: For the record, the United States donates more food aid to poor countries than any other country by a considerable margin. And I have no doubt that every delegate attending that hunger summit is perfectly aware of this fact.
Therefore, it demonstrates an acute and perverse strain of spite and ingratitude for these delegates to encourage Mugabe’s megalomania; especially since they all know that he has politically cleansed Zimbabweans who dared to oppose his dictatorship, and deliberately consigned others to death by stubbornly refusing food aid from America.
____________________
Also, I warned in a related article that:
…it will take a war – that will make post-election violence in Kenya seem like a school-yard brawl – to wrest power from [Mugabe’s] hands.
And sure enough, even though international observers declared that he lost the March 29 presidential election to Opposition Leader Morgan Tsvangirai, Mugabe refused to concede defeat. Instead, he ordered his loyal goons to exact such violence amongst the ranks of opposition supporters that many of them, and Tsvangirai himself, were forced to seek refuge in neighboring South Africa.
Meanwhile, Mugabe prevailed upon his cowered and compliant electoral commission to schedule a runoff election between him and Tsvangirai on June 27, which, frankly, is nothing more than an opportunity for Mugabe to ratify his theft of yet another election.
ENDNOTE: Since publishing this article in 2005, I have become even more disillusioned with Hugo Chavez than Scott McClellan has become with George W. Bush. And, as longtime readers can readily attest, I have written even more scathing commentaries about Chavez’s betrayal of the socialist ideals he espouses than McClellan has written in his just-published book about Bush’s betrayal of the democratic values he espouses.
Related Articles:
Mugabe makes a dictator’s pitch for reelection
Scott McClellan betrays President Bush
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.