The lion who didn't roar
- added June 12, 2008
- 2 responses
-
-
-
- smorrisey
- added this
-
-
- related topics
-
- Africa (1037)
- Zimbabwe (301)
- Robert Mugabe (72)
- Old People (53)
- Nelson Mandela (35)
- Op Ed (29)
- Slate (20)
- Christopher Hitchens (11)
Why hasn't Nelson Mandela spoken out against Robert Mugabe?
The scale of state-sponsored crime and terror in Zimbabwe has now escalated to the point where we are compelled to watch not just the systematic demolition of democracy and human rights in that country but something not very far removed from slow-motion mass murder a la Burma. The order from the Mugabe regime that closes down all international aid groups and humanitarian nongovernmental organizations is significant in two ways. It expresses the ambition for total control by the state, and it represents a direct threat—"vote for us or starve"—to the already desperate civilian population. The organization CARE, for example, which reaches half a million impoverished Zimbabweans, has been ordered to suspend operations. And here's a little paragraph, almost buried in a larger report of more comprehensive atrocities but somehow speaking volumes:
The United Nations Children's Fund said Monday that 10,000 children had been displaced by the violence, scores had been beaten and some schools had been taken over by pro-government forces and turned into centers of torture.
While this politicization of the food situation in "his" country was being completed, President Robert Mugabe benefited from two things: the indulgence of the government of South Africa and the lenience of the authorities in Rome, who allowed him to attend a U.N. conference on the world food crisis—of all things—despite a five-year-old ban on his travel to any member of the European Union. This, in turn, seems to me to implicate two of the supposed sources of moral authority on the planet: Nelson Mandela and the Vatican.
By his silence about what is happening in Zimbabwe, Mandela is making himself complicit in the pillage and murder of an entire nation, as well as the strangulation of an important African democracy. I recently had the chance to speak to George Bizos, the heroic South African attorney who was Mandela's lawyer in the bad old days and who more recently has also represented Morgan Tsvangirai, the much-persecuted leader of the Zimbabwean opposition. Why, I asked him, was his old comrade apparently toeing the scandalous line taken by President Thabo Mbeki and the African National Congress? Bizos gave me one answer that made me wince—that Mandela is now a very old man—and another that made me wince again: that his doctors have advised him to avoid anything stressful. One has a bit more respect for the old lion than to imagine that he doesn't know what's happening in next-door Zimbabwe or to believe that he doesn't understand what a huge difference the smallest word from him would make. It will be something of a tragedy if he ends his career on a note of such squalid compromise.
It is the silence of Mandela, much more than anything else, that bruises the soul. It appears to make a mockery of all the brave talk about international standards for human rights, about the need for internationalist solidarity and the brotherhood of man, and all that. There is perhaps only one person in the world who symbolizes that spirit, and he has chosen to betray it. Or is it possible, before the grisly travesty of the runoff of June 27, that the old lion will summon one last powerful growl?
The scale of state-sponsored crime and terror in Zimbabwe has now escalated to the point where we are compelled to watch not just the systematic demolition of democracy and human rights in that country but something not very far removed from slow-motion mass murder a la Burma. The order from the Mugabe regime that closes down all international aid groups and humanitarian nongovernmental organizations is significant in two ways. It expresses the ambition for total control by the state, and it represents a direct threat—"vote for us or starve"—to the already desperate civilian population. The organization CARE, for example, which reaches half a million impoverished Zimbabweans, has been ordered to suspend operations. And here's a little paragraph, almost buried in a larger report of more comprehensive atrocities but somehow speaking volumes:
The United Nations Children's Fund said Monday that 10,000 children had been displaced by the violence, scores had been beaten and some schools had been taken over by pro-government forces and turned into centers of torture.
While this politicization of the food situation in "his" country was being completed, President Robert Mugabe benefited from two things: the indulgence of the government of South Africa and the lenience of the authorities in Rome, who allowed him to attend a U.N. conference on the world food crisis—of all things—despite a five-year-old ban on his travel to any member of the European Union. This, in turn, seems to me to implicate two of the supposed sources of moral authority on the planet: Nelson Mandela and the Vatican.
By his silence about what is happening in Zimbabwe, Mandela is making himself complicit in the pillage and murder of an entire nation, as well as the strangulation of an important African democracy. I recently had the chance to speak to George Bizos, the heroic South African attorney who was Mandela's lawyer in the bad old days and who more recently has also represented Morgan Tsvangirai, the much-persecuted leader of the Zimbabwean opposition. Why, I asked him, was his old comrade apparently toeing the scandalous line taken by President Thabo Mbeki and the African National Congress? Bizos gave me one answer that made me wince—that Mandela is now a very old man—and another that made me wince again: that his doctors have advised him to avoid anything stressful. One has a bit more respect for the old lion than to imagine that he doesn't know what's happening in next-door Zimbabwe or to believe that he doesn't understand what a huge difference the smallest word from him would make. It will be something of a tragedy if he ends his career on a note of such squalid compromise.
It is the silence of Mandela, much more than anything else, that bruises the soul. It appears to make a mockery of all the brave talk about international standards for human rights, about the need for internationalist solidarity and the brotherhood of man, and all that. There is perhaps only one person in the world who symbolizes that spirit, and he has chosen to betray it. Or is it possible, before the grisly travesty of the runoff of June 27, that the old lion will summon one last powerful growl?
-
A Response to this article from a South African blog:
As an ardent critic of Mugabe I’d be the first to say that any efforts to focus the mind of the Zanu-PF is worthwhile but in Madiba’s case it is no longer prudent to expose him to this kind of pressure.
Unless Hitchens is suggesting that Madiba be asked to condemn a country that gave safe passage to many of his comrades without being briefed in full about the situation there. It is that extremely onerous briefing which could prove far too taxing for him at this point in time.
In the Sunday Independent (UK) in 2000, Madiba’s attack on the tyrants of Africa was recorded and left little doubt about his feelings for those who won’t hand power over to those selected by their people. Here is part of that article:
South Africa’s revered former president, Nelson Mandela, yesterday attacked African “tyrants” who cling to power. Although he did not name Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe, he said: “Everybody here knows who I am talking [about].”
Giving a speech in Johannesburg for Unicef, the children’s charity, Mr Mandela departed from his text to talk about “leaders in Africa who have made enormous wealth, leaders who once commanded liberation armies”. They had come to “despise the very people who put them in power” and “think it is their privilege to be there for eternity”.
Some of these leaders wanted to keep power for life to avoid retribution for their crimes in office: “We have to be ruthless in denouncing such leaders.”
This of course has not stopped commentators like Nat Hentoff and human rights activists Peter Tatchell from asking the same questions.
Of course there are even those who believe that Madiba should speak up but in this case for Robert Mugabe, who faces the forces of evil who are trying to undo the revolution. This I would respectfully suggest, in light of what he has said previously about tyrants that cling to power, is not going to be happening soon.
What is happening in Zimbabwe is a tragedy the scale of which we’ll only find out in years to come. That it is costing this country billions of rands which could best be spent elsewhere and occasioning human suffering to the people of Zimbabwe and in exile here, there can be no doubt.
While I appreciate the magnitude of the humanitarian disaster we are witnessing, until someone advises otherwise, I don’t believe that Madiba is able to digest the full picture, should not be pressurised into doing it because of his health, and in light of the fact that we were given the role of mediators, our efforts should be concentrated on those selected to deal with it.
Madiba, deservedly and with our highest regard, has left the building. -
Madiba has suffered enough. I know that there must be others to stand up for injustice. We cannot hold Madiba to fight every fight, especially in the face of his own. Please let him live out his days in peace.
Login/Registration is required to add a response.
