Return to: Home | Blogs | The God Blog

6 comments from readers

mrblobby
14 September 2009 at 16:59

There is some evidence that the archbishop was not entirely serious since here he is with the offending garb in full view as of the 12th sept 2009:

http://www.archbishopofyork.org/2519

His fellow cleric, Mr Tutu, went beyond such sartorial theatrics and even advocated full-scale invasion by several regional powers. Whatever Mr Mugabe's alleged crimes may have been I can't help feeling that it was sensible not to follow the martial Tutu into yet another central African bloodbath.

ExplodingBadger
15 September 2009 at 09:31

I am not doubting any accusations about Mugabe but it does seem than the man is demonised without any substantial facts. It seems to be just assumed the man is evil. For example in your Independent article you mention

"economic ruin, torture, killing and starvation."

But what actual evidence is there that Mugabe is directly responsible for these things ? I would be interested in seeing it especially evidence of torture and killing.

mrblobby
15 September 2009 at 10:30

UPDATE:

Rather disturbed by your allegations I decided to undertake some googling of the international media in an attempt to get to the bottom of Mr Mugabe's crimes. I was somewhat surprised.

The first surprise turned out to be the volume of media coverage - there were reams of the stuff from the UK but almost none from elsewhere in the world.

The second surprise was in the nature of the UK media coverage. Almost all of it was unremittingly hostile almost rabid in many cases and invariably intemperate in its use of language. These crimes of Mr Mugabe I mused must be heinous indeed.

My third surprise came when I came to try and identify the exact nature of the charges levelled at Mr Mugabe. All I could find in the UK media after lengthy and indefatigable digging, was the central charge of 'economic mismanagement'.

Well, I ask you, in the current climate is that to be taken seriously?

Is Mr Brown, Mr Bernanke also to join Mr Mugabe in the dock?

Also quite accidentally I uncovered some possibly mitigating circumstances re: Mr Mugabe's handling of the economy. In 2001 the US passed the following bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s107-494

This bill I decided after careful perusal constituted a legal basis for the US economic intervention in Zimbabwe aimed primarily at 'regime change':

Leaning on the international banking system to squeeze credit to Zimbabwe

Refusal to restructure debt by the IMF/World Bank & withdrawal of future funding

Bankroll domestic opposition groups & subversive media

You could say that the Zimbabwean 'credit crunch' differed from our own in that it was engineered by outside interests with a particular economic and political agenda in mind. But although these economic measures were bound to hurt the Zimbabwean people, as with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the likelihood of their removing the offending regime was much less assured. Still as the argument goes it was Mugabe who brought this down upon himself and his country by his obstinate refusal to quit and, of course, by his attempt to seriously implement land reform.

Unlike his African neighbours none of whom have dared yet to follow his example - I wonder why?

Attrition47
15 September 2009 at 11:16

Zimbabwe's president shows no sign of going. How does this "devout Catholic" square his crimes with his faith?

Probably the same way that Blair does - with sophistry and large amounts of other peoples' money.

Ignatius
16 September 2009 at 20:30

Mr. Byrnes,

Although I realize it has been widely reported that Mugabe was educated by the Jesuits, I am curious to know where and when that education took place? Was it the mission school you refer to? Was that school run by Jesuits or some other order?

particularalien
22 September 2009 at 13:30

mrblobby's comment is spot on.

Canadian commentator Stephen Gowans has written some very good articles on his blog "what's left", extremely perceptively analysing the totally distorted representation of Zimbabwe's situation in the US/UK media: http://gowans.wordpress.com/category/zimbabwe/

When people speak of Mugabe's sins, what about those leaders in countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Gabon, Angola, Israel? They are regarded very differently by the US/UK despite their own human righs violations, disregard of women's rights, oppression and lack of media freedom, because they are considered to be client states of the Us. However, it does not mean that one agrees with Mugabe in order to point this out.

What the Atlantic powers are really scared of is that other African nations might start similar programms of land reform. I bet Hillary Clinton during her recent tour of African countries was trying to ensure that this won't happen. The biggest problem (and perhaps the bigger crime or sin) is the unequitable distribution of land and wealth and although this is sometimes acknowledged in rhetoric, in reality the current politics just aims to ensure that the status quo continues.