Another more specific african case - where's the UN?

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Another more specific african case - where's the UN?

Posted by Izzy on Oct-28-2002 18:51:

Another more specific african case - where's the UN?

below is an article that was written in our daily university newpaper. i took interest in this case and it only served to infurate me about the corruption of man and the unwillingness to do anything about it.

quote:

The international community stands by as ethnic cleansing under the guise of reparations takes place per the orders of Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe. You won't read this in an American newspaper or hear it from the United Nations. The world has turned a deaf ear to the cries of suffering from Southern Africa, both white and black.

Mugabe came to power in 1981 as the first and only black Zimbabwean president after the end of white apartheid. Since that time, he has molded the once prosperous democracy into a communist dictatorship. His most recent abuses of power include using the military to intimidate opponents at and away from the polls, expatriating the media for his own use, and forcing members of the independent judicial branch to quit. Zimbabwe, once the breadbasket and tourist mecca of Southern Africa, now faces the starvation of more than 6 million of its people, according to Refugees International.

As Zimbabwe's problems emanating from nepotism and mismanagement have grown, so has the Zimbawean people's disapproval of Mugabe. In 2000, as his popularity reached an all-time low, according to iafrica.com, Mugabe turned on the same scapegoats he had used his previous two decades in power: whites. In an attempt to deflect personal responsibility for the country's woes, Mugabe claimed white ownership of commercial farms in Zimbabwe were to blame. He called for reparations in the form of farm seizures from whites to be given to the country's poor, black citizens.

Despite the defeat of a constitutional amendment to allow such action, Mugabe instituted the confiscations through brute force. Reuters reports that armed young militants, under the direction of Mugabe, have repeatedly stormed farm property.

The latest figures from the South African newspaper, the Sunday Independent, show only 400 white farmers remain in Zimbabwe versus 4,500 just two years ago. The effects of the attacks are not limited to Zimbabwe. The violence against farmers has been spreading to nearby South Africa and Namibia.

The Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum says that Mugabe thugs have left hundreds dead, thousands beaten and raped, hundreds of thousands jobless and millions on the brink of starvation. The ugly proof can be viewed at www.africancrisis.org/Photos.asp.

Ironically, the named beneficiaries of the land program are hurt the most. As commercial farms are destroyed, thousands of local black laborers who live and work there lose their homes and livelihoods. In a continent already stricken by AIDS, Zimbabwe's lack of agricultural production has placed the price of food beyond the reach of most. Food aid given by international organizations and other countries to help the starving has been intercepted by the Zimbabwe government, according to the Associated Press. Similar to Somalia in 1993, food is being withheld as a weapon against political opponents of Mugabe.

Those who believe "the end justifies the means" should know even those causing the violence are unhappy. ZWNews.com says the majority of confiscated lands have gone to wealthy political allies of Mugabe. This has angered many of Mugabe's followers, who believed they had terrorized for their own benefit, according to allafrica.com.

Neck-deep in civil rights violations, Mugabe has received international acclaim rather than criticism. Participants in the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development gave a deafening applause after President Mugabe defended his "land reform" program.

The African Descendants World Conference Against Racism this month in Barbados issued this statement: "'Be it resolved that we applaud and support the courage and foresight of President Mugabe for embarking upon the land reform program."

That is not surprising coming from a group that on the same day expelled all non-blacks from its conference hall. U.S. Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, forbidden to enter Britain for inciting racial hatred, counts himself as a Mugabe enthusiast. The Zimbabwe Independent also lists the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America as supporters.

While it is not the job of the U.S. military to "nation-build," if there ever was a use for the United Nations, the situation in Zimbabwe is it. Mugabe is a despot in the tradition of Stalin, Pol Pot and Pinochet. The world and the media must wake up and recognize tyrants of all stripes.

ya i know it was a long read... what do you think should be done? and why is the UN not dealing with this? should the world have a responibility to do something?

more specifically about the UN, what is their purpose in the world if all they do is sit and talk back and forth between the delegates yet not producing anything substantiel to actually do anything. do you belive that the UN should take more aggresive stances on issues?

Posted by JM on Oct-29-2002 03:31:

most of sub-saharan Africa is in a shithole. at least my opinion. c'mon now, if there is a resource it is exploited. otherwise, i dont think that there are many benefits to political leaders to get involved in Africa. just a thought, how many sub-saharan TA's (except South Africans of course) are members on this forum?

>JM<

Posted by CortexBomb on Oct-29-2002 04:56:

Interesting, and sad read.

To answer your initial question of where's the UN? I'd have to say, nowhere. The UN is basically a farce organisation at this point, and you can't expect them to really do anything about anything because individual members can do whatever they please without any fear of repurcussions. (well, at least as long as it doesn't severely piss of a strong majority of the 5 permanent security council members)

I know you were trying to make another point by bringing that up, but the problem with the UN as it stands right now is that it doesn't have any ability to reign in anyone, because no one respects the organisation.

I mean, look at the US for one instance. On one hand they say that Iraq should be attacked for not following US resolutions, but meanwhile Bush is saying that if the UN doesn't go along with the US agenda that he's going to do whatever he pleases anyway.

That kind of action is what makes the UN weak, when individual members aren't willing to bow to international consensus.

On this Afrikan case though, I'd say what's going to be done? Probably nothing. You certainly can't count on a bunch of rich white men to save what they perceive to be a bunch of powerless (and thus, inconsequential) savages.

If the people are *that* pissed off about the government then they should topple the mofo. I think it's sad to see things like this happen, and in a world where the UN actually had the power to enforce it's charter of human rights and freedoms something probably *would* be done, but since that *isn't* the world we live in, I hope that the people down there do something about it themselves.