
South Africa – along with China and Russia – recently vetoed the US-introduced resolution to place an arms embargo on Zimbabwe and enact travel and financial restrictions on the nation's president, Robert Mugabe, who recently reclaimed his office by killing his opponents. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman is very, very angry about this:
But when it comes to pure, rancid moral corruption, no one can top South Africa’s president, Thabo Mbeki, and his stooge at the U.N., Dumisani Kumalo. They have done everything they can to prevent any meaningful U.N. pressure on the Mugabe dictatorship.
As The Times reported, America’s U.N. ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, “accused South Africa of protecting the ‘horrible regime in Zimbabwe,’ ” calling this particularly disturbing given that it was precisely international economic sanctions that brought down South Africa’s apartheid government, which had long oppressed that country’s blacks.
So let us now coin the Mbeki Rule: When whites persecute blacks, no amount of U.N. sanctions is too much. And when blacks persecute blacks, any amount of U.N. sanctions is too much.
(emphasis ours)
Real talk!
Thomas Friedman is totally spot on. I usually enjoy reading his essays.
I am trying to start a debate on the not-for-profit website http://www.debatewise.com on the topic 'should African leaders should have condemned Mugabe?' Having read your post I thought it would be great if you could submit some points on the argument.Please email me back and let me know, b
Real talk indeed.