"Last month in Zimbabwe, thugs from Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF party locked relatives of an opposition politician in their house and lit the place on fire. A six-year-old child and his mother were burned to death — the mother 18 weeks pregnant. In another case, a ZANU-PF hit squad abducted the wife of an opposition official and chopped off her hands and feet. The men then threw the woman into her hut and firebombed it, burning her alive. Then there's Abigail Chiroto, 27, who was abducted, along with her four-year-old son. The child survived, but will live out his years remembering the sight of his mother being led into the bush by ZANU-PF enforcers, who then smashed in her head so severely that family members had difficulty identifying her corpse.

Multiply these stories by several orders of magnitude, and you get a sense of the bloodthirsty depravity into which Zimbabwe has fallen under Mugabe: By one count, about 100 suspected opposition figures (or their relatives) were killed in Zanu-PF pogroms this Spring, and 10,000 wounded — all so that Mugabe could retain his hold on power. Amidst this heart-wrenching brutality, there is but one grim shred of consolation: Given the scale of Mugabe's atrocities, the man's Western apologists can no longer assault us with the wretched lie that Zimbabwe's president is actually a glorious freedom fighter being persecuted by a racist, neo-colonial West.

Except one. Here is what columnist Rick Salutin had to say in Friday's Globe & Mail about Stephen Harper's decision to join other G8 leaders in censuring a regime that burns women and children alive: "In the century since [the Boer war], Canada gradually adopted [the] posture [of] honest broker between the old rulers and ruled, known today as the developed and developing nations. This rested on a sense that Canada could identify with both sides, because it had been a colony, too. Stephen Harper shows no such sensibility … He joined in piling onto Zimbabwe ('We've added the G8's powerful voice') for its 'fraudulent election' and 'illegitimacy.' He showed no sense of perspective: that the U.S. held a fraudulent election in 2000, or illegitimately tortures in Guantanamo, and that his own government continues to permit the Americans to practise on Canadian Omar Khadr."

Ah yes — "no sense of perspective." Who among us does not remember those pitiful scenes from the 2000 U.S. election, when Republican stormtroopers went door-to-door in Florida's left-leaning counties, burning alive the children and wives of Democratic activists? Or Al Gore's pitiful concession speech in which he pled (unsuccessfully) for Dick Cheney to spare the lives of DNC election observers being held at those South Beach concentration camps? For that matter, how could anyone with "perspective" not see the disputed incarceration of several hundred terror suspects as the exact analogue of Mugabe's eight-year campaign of pogroms, murder and torture against political opponents? Why, just change the word "Mugabe" to "Bush" in the G8's communiqué, and the shoe fits perfectly. It's eerie!

I also love the obligatory chestnut about Canada's role as an "honest broker" — which always gets trotted out when any Canadian leader refuses to gladhand with a terrorist group like Hezbollah or the Tamil Tigers, or, in this case, a rogue dictator. Salutin's Canada is one that "could identify with both sides": Yes, there's the guy who got his family burned by the Zanu PF — we all feel sorry for him. But what about the guy who lit the match? Doesn’t he have feelings. Doesn't he have a story to tell? That's what listening to "both sides" means, right. After all, as Salutin reminds us, "Canada was once a colony," too.

The column gets even better when Salutin starts slamming Harper's opposition to the admission of India and China into the G8 — which marks Harper, apparently, as not only an "imperalist," but also "the Gunga Din of post-9/11, carrying water (and oil) to his masters, along with the white man's burden."

This is where I admit to getting confused. How exactly are we "carrying oil" (for the United States, or anyone else) unless you define "carrying" as selling the stuff at the exorbitant rate of $150 a barrel? And who is the dark "master" commanding Harper to censure Mugabe and perform other unspeakable acts or racism? And how is it "imperialist" to keep China — a nation that truly does act as an imperialist in Tibet — out of the G8?

If you asked Salutin these questions, would he even know — or care? I doubt it. After 17 years as a Globe columnist, one suspects, Salutin apparently has gotten to the stage where he simply throws a bunch of buzz phrases in the air — imperialism, Guantanamo, oil, Omar Khadr, "honest broker" — and lets his readers write their own column.

Though it doesn't show here, I have a soft spot for Salutin. He has, in the past, invited me to lecture his media class at the University of Toronto — and has taken the time to offer me encouragement in the rare instance when I wrote a column that he happened to agree with. I should also say that, back in 2000, we spent a perfectly civilized evening eating Serbian pizza together with my mother (with whom he was a UT classmate) at a downtown Toronto restaurant. But the muzzle fastened to one's jaw by the force of social nicety can take the strain of only so many bad — and, at his worst, even nauseating — columns before bursting. And this last one was the limit.

At his best, Rick Salutin can be a talented wordsmith, and he will no doubt continue to make a living in letters till the end of his writing days (may they be long). But the era in which the man had anything defensible to say about politics and world events seems to have come to an end."

An international mining conglomerate is poised to honor a $400m deal which will bolster an African dictator currently visiting murderous violence upon his people. Said dictator is following through with a sham election which the opposition, as a result of grotesque intimidation, has been forced to pull out of. The conglomerate is headquartered in a democratic country governed by a party affiliated with the Socialist International; said government has urged companies not to conduct business with the dictator. But the mining conglomerate is defending its position by pointing to the economic benefits of the deal, neglecting to mention that, as a result of the dictator’s abuses, inflation is so off the charts that not even the IMF can track it anymore.

Now the question: what should the left do?

As most of you will have worked out, the above isn’t a hypothetical. The dictator is Robert Mugabe, the country is Zimbabwe, the conglomerate is Anglo-American and the left is…where, exactly?

The question is put by my comrade Ben Cohen.

Sensible answers are welcome. The usual evasions about "smearing the left" are unwelcome.

Consider the following scenario:

An international mining conglomerate is poised to honor a $400m deal which will bolster an African dictator currently visiting murderous violence upon his people. Said dictator is following through with a sham election which the opposition, as a result of grotesque intimidation, has been forced to pull out of. The conglomerate is headquartered in a democratic country governed by a party affiliated with the Socialist International; said government has urged companies not to conduct business with the dictator. But the mining conglomerate is defending its position by pointing to the economic benefits of the deal, neglecting to mention that, as a result of the dictator’s abuses, inflation is so off the charts that not even the IMF can track it anymore.

Now the question: what should the left do?

As most of you will have worked out, the above isn’t a hypothetical. The dictator is Robert Mugabe, the country is Zimbabwe, the conglomerate is Anglo-American and the left is…where, exactly?

One would be correct in thinking that all the elements are in place for an energetic public campaign led by the left. You’ve got the profit motive, you’ve got one of the beneficiaries of those profits using them to step up repression against democracy activists and trade unionists, you’ve got a proud tradition of solidarity with Africa on the left, best exemplified by the campaign against the former apartheid regime in South Africa.

But, so far as I can tell, that campaign doesn’t exist. Anglo-American has been targeted in the past by activists and NGOs protesting its international operations, from The Philippines to Alaska, but I cannot find a mention of Zimbabwe.

More to the point, whatever individual protests might have taken place are hardly a substitute for a coherent strategy which targets Mugabe and those doing business with him.

Yet that coherent strategy does exist in the case of another country. Those pushing this strategy have made it so well-known that it can be recognized by an acronym - BDS (that’s Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, for those of you not with the program.) One company in particular - Caterpillar , which produces tractors and bulldozers - has been the object of sustained protests, even inside its Annual General Meeting.

Again, no prizes for guessing that the country I’m referring to here is Israel. And no, I’m not trying to get into a debate about whether Mugabe is worse than the Israeli government, because it should be evident to anyone with a moral compass that he is.

I am raising a different issue. I am asking why the left refuses to elevate Zimbabwe to Palestinian levels of importance. I am asking why the left does not devote its time and its resources to making the streets shake with outrage over the Anglo-American deal, as happens when George W. Bush flies into London or Paris or Rome.

There will be many answers, most of which I am familiar with. The most obvious one is that the “anti-imperialist” paradigm which determines who is worthy of solidarity precludes a country like Zimbabwe and, more broadly, any country with a historically progressive reputation that happens to be repressing its own people. It is a viewpoint which is common among activists and in UN circles - for example, the former Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories, John Dugard, who identified “apartheid, occupation and colonialism” as the greatest offences a state can commit, but didn’t mention genocide or systemic denial of democratic rights.

How much longer can the left (more accurately, large parts of it) identify with these politics? I ask this now not as someone who writes about, among other things, anti-Zionism, but as someone who believes that Zimbabwe has reached a stage where mass protests - the sorts of protests like those under the slogan “Don’t Attack Iraq! Freedom for Palestine!” - are sorely needed.

Where are you, comrades?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Mmm... National Post, eh? That bastion of human values...

---

The empire of light and good should step-up the genocidal blockade until their stooge is handed the reins of power. Shame on Russia and China for not going along with the the vicious empire and coalition of coerced thirdworld capitalist nations.

[ 12 July 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
The people being criticized as undemocratic in Zimbabwe are the same ones who brought universal suffrage to Rhodesia.

The empire of light and good should step-up the genocidal blockade until their stooge is handed the reins of power. Shame on Russia and China for not going along with the the vicious empire and coalition of coerced thirdworld capitalist nations.

[ 12 July 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonest factum:

Good example of what Cohen, Kay and Glavin are talking about. Tow the party line to absurdity.
Forget about the "class struggle" the man is a fascist murdering scumbag.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Almost as excellent as "bait and switch" eh?

---

[ 12 July 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Look around the world. The U.S. and UK and Canada et al aren't running the show any more. That's why it's a lovely day. And that's why the trolls are braying (or whatever noise they make).

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[note to self: idea for a new thread - Is "camel droppings" a racially insensitive term?]

---

quote:

---

black hole
in astrophysics is from 1968, probably with awareness of Black Hole of Calcutta, incident of 1756 in which 146 Europeans were locked up overnight in punishment cell of barracks at Ft. William, Calcutta, and all but 23 perished.

---

quote:

---

Fair play for Mugabe
Opposition to African leader is rooted in the same colonial attitude that supported the racist regime of Ian Smith
MOHAMED ELMASRY, Freelance
Published: Thursday, July 03

Poor are the Africans. For the last 500 years they have been victimized, oppressed, enslaved and exploited by European colonizers and still are today.

Why there's so much attention in the U.S. to Zimbabwe, when the average American does not know if Zimbabwe is a country or a river?

Why did President George W. Bush lead the charge that last month's election, won by Robert Mugabe, was a fraud?
Robert Mugabe smiles as he is sworn in for a sixth term in office this week.View Larger Image View Larger Image
Robert Mugabe smiles as he is sworn in for a sixth term in office this week.
Why so did many Western media outlets, including Canadian ones, send their own correspondents to cover an election in a poor faraway African country of about 13-million black people?

The answer is that Mugabe is hated by the British now as he was hated in 1980 when he was elected the first president of free Zimbabwe, after 90 years of British colonization under the name of Rhodesia (reference to the land Cecil Rhodes and his men grabbed from the black African natives).

The country had to fight a long and bitter war of liberation.

The British government made no secret then that it hoped the winner of the first free election would be Bishop Abel Muzorewa; Muzorewa was prepared to share power with the white minority that controlled the nation's economy. But Muzorewa, tainted by collaboration as a prime minister, with Ian Smith's racist Rhodesian regime, was hooted out of office, and his rival, Mugabe swept the polls.

Mugabe was trying to implement a land reform; to redistribute the land of about 5,000 white farmers to his country's poor black people. And that is a great sin. So he was and still is in the West called a dictator, an arrogant, aging autocrat who has run the economy into the ground, fanned racial hatred and abused his power to suppress political foes, the courts and media, etc. etc.

Western media seldom report that Mugabe was and still is popular especially in the rural areas; his land reform has won him support among his own people. When Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980, 70 per cent of the country's farm land was in the hand of 5,000 European settler landowners.

In a 2004 poll conducted by the popular monthly magazine New African, for the most influential African leaders of the 20th century, Mugabe came third after Nelson Mandela and Ghana's Kwame Nkrumah.

Following the presidential elections in March this year the opposition claimed Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of Zimbabwe's opposition Movement for Democratic Change was the winner with 50.1 per cent of the votes. The government claimed it was a tie.

Mugabe decided to hold a run-off election last month. But Tsvangirai pulled out and sought refuge in the Dutch embassy, which to some observers is a proof that he is a stooge of Western powers.

Back in 2002, Mugabe defeated Tsvangirai at the polls; Mugabe secured 56 per cent of the vote, Tsvangirai 42 per cent.

Zimbabwe was once among the most promising economies of Africa. The country is rich in mineral resources and has the second-largest deposits of platinum.

But thanks to Western sanctions the country's economy is in ruins. High inflation, high fuel costs and high unemployment are crippling the economy. Opposition to African leader is rooted in the same colonial attitude that supported the racist regime of Ian Smith
MOHAMED ELMASRY, Freelance
Published: Thursday, July 03

Millions of Zimbabweans have fled their country for economic reasons, 3 million to neighbouring South Africa.

Mugabe is no worse than many leaders in the developing world. Because he is challenging 100 years of soical injustice in his county (albeit, in a clumsy way) sanctions are imposed on his country by the rich and powerful nations including Canada, so the poor African blacks suffer some more.

Today, as it was years ago under the colonialists, it does not pay to be African, black and poor.

Mohamed Elmasry is national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress.

---

From a more politically "correct" source

[ 12 July 2008: Message edited by: nonest factum ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by no factum:
Mugabe decided to hold a run-off election last month.

---

Mugabe decided nothing of the sort. Zimbabwe's constitution requires that presidential leaders win a solid majority of at least 51%. MDC won 100 seats to Zanu-PF's 99. And even though Zanu-PF won the popular vote 45% to 42%, the obsolete FPP Westminster system distorted seat results.

Compare this close election result to accusations of election rigging in U.S. client state Ethopia in 2005. 200 were massacred and thousands imprisoned.

[ 12 July 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Other places are bad too? So? America and even we support other gangs of thugs-in-government? So? Economic patriacide and oppression of white farmers gets more attention in the West than ethnic massacres -- at least when the massacres were in the 80s? So? Once upon a time, Mugabe was with the Good Guys? So?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robespierre:
I think that Rick Salutin is psychotic...

---

If you're a psychiatrist and have examined and diagnosed Mr. Salutin, I hope you have a signed waiver from him releasing you to breach his confidentiality.

quote:

---

I apologize for the source but the message is right on.

---

quote:

---

Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF party locked relatives of an opposition politician in their house and lit the place on fire. A six-year-old child and his mother were burned to death — the mother 18 weeks pregnant.

---

The writer of the NP article supports the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, does he not? So in Afghanistan, a wedding party of 45, including 38 women and children, and more then likely some of the women were pregnant, were incinerated by US forces while celebrating. Multiply that story by several orders of magnitude, and you get a sense of the bloodthirsty depravity into which the West has fallen under Bush.

But where is Johnathan Kay's outrage? Masked, is it not with all sorts of excuses, apologies, and rationales, no?

At least the victims of Mugabe are human. In Afghanistan and Iraq they are collateral damage.

Or there is a report, today, I posted it on this site, of a 14-year-old Iraqi boy who was arrested by British troops for stealing. He was beaten, stripped naked, and forced to perform oral sex on the boys with whom he was arrested.

Where is Kay's outrage? Defending these atrocities as examples of "bad apples"? Explaining the need for the war on terror to crush militant Islam by sexually abusing boys?

Where is the outrage?

What is sickening, to me, is that pressitutes like Kay can use the talent of composing words, and make a good living at apologizing for serious tyrants, the tyranny of war and violence, pretending much of the violence in the service of Western civilization doesn't occur at all, but then can turn into such a defender of human rights, and justice and all that's good in the world as soon as his ideological masters point him in the direction of this week's designated madman and bad guy.

It is as tiring as it is predictable.

[ 13 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

Memo to nonest factum: you're not allowed to post full articles here. You post a relevant paragraph or two and link to the rest. You want to violate copyright, get your own web site and do it there.