Why Is Bush Bailing Out Mugabe?
The nation of Zimbabwe, formerly
Rhodesia, is reaping the fruits of its
liberation from the travails of white supremacy by
that hero of the people, Robert Mugabe, in 1980.
The metaphor of "reaping the
fruits" is both ironic and a mere figure of speech, of
course. The literal truth is there are no fruits to
reap. The metaphorical fruit that Zimbabwe is reaping is
mass starvation.
Zimbabwe faces starvation mainly
because the Mugabe regime is confiscating the land of
the
white farmers who once fed not only their own
country but also most of Africa. Hundreds of white
farmers have had their lands stolen by mobs of black
thugs instigated by the government.
Often the stolen land winds up in
the hands of Mr. Mugabe`s
cronies; even more often, it ceases to
produce any food at all as soon as the white owners
who knew how to run the farms are kicked out (if they`re
lucky; not a few have simply been slaughtered, as have
many of their black workers).
State Department African Affairs
official
Mark Bellamy says that food shortages in Zimbabwe in
the next six months could leave as many as five million
people facing starvation. The United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization warns that more than 94 percent
of Zimbabwean farmers lack the cereal seeds to plant
crops for the next growing season. There`s virtually no
domestically produced food now, and there`s little
prospect of any in the near future either.
As for foreign food,
private relief organizations say Mr. Mugabe directs
food into the hands of his own supporters, while
opposition leaders note that "Food has been
politicized, [Tribal] chiefs have been
politicized. All the food distribution system is in the
hands of [government party] officials."
But never fear. The U.S. government
has a plan to save Zimbabwe from the consequences of its
own folly. As the Washington Times
reported this week,
"The
United States is considering delivering aid directly to
millions of starving Zimbabweans in defiance of
President Robert Mugabe",
according to State Department
officials. [“U.S.
eyes end run around Mugabe”, By David R. Sands,
Washington Times, November 2, 2002]
That may sound swell to some
people, but in fact it`s merely a covert aid program to
bail the African dictator out of the famine his own
policies have created.
The Bush administration cannot even
pretend to like the Mugabe regime, since it has
bludgeoned not only whites but also any
black opponents who might pop up. Mr. Mugabe`s tame
legislature has passed laws curtailing
press freedom, political opposition and rights of
assembly, even as the government also stole the land and
engineered murderous
mobs to enforce its will. Assistant Secretary of
State for African Affairs Walter Kansteiner in the State
Department told the Times that the United States
refuses to recognize Mr. Mugabe as the
"democratically legitimate leader of his country"
because of the
obvious fakery of the last election.
And because the administration
can`t pretend to approve of the Mugabe tyranny, it can`t
give aid to it in the normal, open way. It therefore has
to give the aid covertly and indirectly.
But the result will be the same,
regardless of how the aid is given.
The result will be the preservation
of the Mugabe regime from the natural consequences of
the economic and human destruction its own policies have
spawned.
"There is a remedy in human
nature against tyranny," Samuel Johnson
said, "that will keep us safe under every form of
government."
The remedy Dr. Johnson had in mind
was assassination, revolution, coup d`etat,
etc.—but for the natural remedy to be applied, the
disease of tyranny has to be present.
By contriving to sneak food to the
people and circumvent the Mugabe government, the
administration would be relieving the misery that alone
can brew the "remedy" of which Dr. Johnson spoke.
Why would anyone wish to revolt in
Zimbabwe when tyranny is no threat to the full dinner
table?
Mr. Bellamy of the State Department
even went so far as to say that Mr. Mugabe is
"holding his people hostage the way Saddam Hussein is
holding his people hostage." Then why didn`t the
government arrest Mr. Mugabe when he showed up at the
United Nations in New York in September to defend his
genocidal policies?
The Bush administration is not
serious about getting rid of the Mugabe regime, no
matter how criminal it is. It didn`t utter a peep when
Mr. Mugabe showed up in New York, and it`s barely
uttered a peep about his policies for the last few
years.
And if it were serious, instead of
thinking up ways to correct the results of his misrule
and helping his escape its natural consequences, it
would be doing everything possible to help the people of
Zimbabwe, white and black, give their leader a strong
dose of the natural remedy that all tyrants eventually
have to swallow.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS
SYNDICATE, INC.
November 07, 2002


