NYT Recites Litany of Excuses in Report on Mbeki and Mugabe

Photo of Tom Blumer.

Robert Mugabe continues to take Zimbabwe into utter ruin. A former breadbasket when it was colonial Rhodesia, it is now a starving, rotting basket case.

The latest development in the ongoing nightmare: A sham "runoff" election where Mugabe is the only candidate, thanks to "violence against .... opposition members," whose candidate dropped out of the race less than a week ago.

For nearly a decade, we've been told, "Don't worry, (South African President Thabo) Mbeki will handle him."

In an article carrying today's date, the New York Times's Celia W. Dugger and Barry Bearak continue to make excuses for Mbeki. More on that shortly.

Meanwhile, the downward spiral has continued to the point where the country of roughly 13 million is now in a dire humanitarian crisis:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Two million children face starvation in Zimbabwe, according to a personal account of the unfolding tragedy in the country by a young church leader published in an attempt to force further action by the international community.

..... half the population, including close to two million children, (are) "facing starvation", according to the account on the World Council of Churches (WCC) website on Thursday.

Given that reality, the report by Dugger and Bearak is a near-complete cop-out, from its the headline to its final word, as it indulges in the fantasy, at least based the track record, that Mbeki has the power and the will to do something:

Complex Ties Lead Ally Not to Condemn Mugabe

(In April 2000) President Robert Mugabe’s enforcers had already begun to rampage across Zimbabwe, beating his political opponents, when television cameras captured a startling image of Mr. Mugabe holding hands with the smiling South African president, Thabo Mbeki, a professed champion of African democracy.

..... Eight years later, in April 2008, much the same scene repeated itself. ..... Again, the despot and the democrat genially clasped hands as Mr. Mbeki declared that there was no political crisis in Zimbabwe.

The complex relationship between these men, stretching back almost 30 years, is crucial to fathoming why Mr. Mbeki, picked last year by regional leaders to officially mediate Zimbabwe’s conflict, does not publicly criticize Mr. Mugabe, nor use South Africa’s unique economic leverage as the dominant nation in the region to curb his ruthless methods despite years of rigged elections.

..... Mr. Mbeki’s policy, typically called “quiet diplomacy,” is built on the staunch conviction that his special bond with Mr. Mugabe can resolve the crisis in Zimbabwe through patient negotiations, his colleagues and chroniclers say.

Mr. Mbeki’s biographers, his colleagues, even his brother debate why he has stuck with his approach despite years of bad faith by Mr. Mugabe. Mr. Mbeki’s consistency is variously attributed to a hubristic resistance to admitting failure, a worldview deeply suspicious of Western interference in African affairs, a hard-nosed calculation of political interests and a realistic assessment of the limits of South Africa’s power when confronted with an unrelenting autocrat.

..... While Mr. Mbeki had no illusions about Mr. Mugabe, Mr. Gevisser and others say, he felt a kinship with the hero of Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle against white supremacist rule.

Zimbabwe became a separate, non-"white supremacist" nation 28 years ago.

How is it that the Times, or for that matter the rest of Mbeki's apologists, never entertain another very real possibility: that the South African President is serving as Mugabe's personal human shield, deflecting critics with his false "I'll solve it" promises, while in reality being sympathetic with Mugabe's totalitarian tactics? Is it because that would force a question as to whether Mbeki and his African National Congress might like to take South Africa to a similar place? And does anyone think a mediator trying to persuade an undemocratic right-wing regime to reform would get a decade's worth of slack from the media?

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

South Africa

Well it's a good thing they got rid of aprtheid, after all according to all the liberal media and hollywood liberals of the 80's and 90's it was the root of all evil.  Never mind that they kept the rogue african states in check and the crime and murder rates of the area were miniscule compared to todays figures.  What matters is that black africans are ruling black africans and not having to bother with White Africans meddling anymore.

Not saying Apartheid was a

Not saying Apartheid was a good thing but most of these former states that were once jewels and breadbaskets were turned over to a bunch of racist socialists that didn't believe in racial healing but reversing the racist policies towards white Africans. Now these former "jewels" are corrupt, crime-ridden and disease infested.

So far it's worked out great for them. -sarc

Heres a great site that chronicles Southern Africas downfall.

http://www.africancr...

 "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "

                   - Ben Kenobi on  Liberals, and the MSM.

                               " The Cake is a lie."   

No interference

"deeply suspicious of Western interference in African affairs"

But hey, keep sending us money and food.

Don't go there. Please.

At the risk of being called a race baiter, let me ask that no one here try to excuse apartheid. No matter what has happened in the years since apartheid fell in South Africa, there can be no doubt that apartheid was an evil system that existed to propogate white supremacy and subjugate the black citizens in that nation. No matter how much apartheid dominated South Africa "kept the peace", it was a "peace" bought with the blood of a subjugated MAJORITY in that nation.

As for Mbeki and Mugabe, they are two peas in a pod. The ANC has long trended toward authoritarian rule, and has not been above attacking their political enemies (see their use of the "necklace") to retain power. Why would he actually try to stop Mugabe, when he would do the same if he could?

No matter how much

No matter how much apartheid dominated South Africa "kept the peace", it was a "peace" bought with the blood of a subjugated MAJORITY in that nation.

   These countries are still composed of subjugated majorities.  The main difference now is the oppressors are black so Western media and governments are not so eager to interfere.  Black on black violence is only moderately denounced no matter where it occurs in the world, even in the US. 

Actually, MidAmerica

Actually SA is now being run as basically a one Party state dominated by the ANC. The political minority is being subjugated by the ruling Party, not by a racial minority as was the case during apartheid. Furthermore, the ruling Party is not doing their subjugating on racial/ethnic grounds but, like every other one Party state, they are doing it to consolidate their power and take all the wealth they can grab.

Your missing the point.

You’re missing the point. The citizens of several African countries (South Africa included) are still being subjugated by those in power. It doesn't matter who is subjugating them, the "majority" (as if they’re really the majority! In reality their just as much a minority as the pervious rulers) or the pervious “minority“, nor does it matter about the motivations behind that subjugation (imposition of racial supremacy or imposition of party supremacy to name but a few), the fact remains that the same people who were supposed to be helped by a change in the ruling governments are being harmed by their replacements, and in ever increasing numbers. In other words: S.S.D.D, only it‘s more prevalent and more destructive now than in the past. It's that subjugation that is wrong and needs to end, not the reasons behind it.

You see, it's not racism, or any other demographic intolerance, that's the problem. It's totalitarianism that is the problem and totalitarianism is not limited to a particular belief or ideal. It reaches across all racial, political, social, and religious barriers to inflict harm upon all who are enslaved by it.

On liberals and tranny

The liberals and the leftists have treated Mr. Mbeki with kid gloves because they realize that “there but for the Grace of God go they.”


“..... Mr. Mbeki’s policy, typically called “quiet diplomacy,” is built on the staunch conviction that his special bond with Mr. Mugabe can resolve the crisis in Zimbabwe through patient negotiations, his colleagues and chroniclers say.”

Endless “diplomacy” (= pointless and spineless jawboning) with tyrants is one of the hallmarks of liberals and leftist. All right, so Mr. Mbeki’s policy towards Mr. Mugabe is not very effective (well OK, maybe you can, or should, just call him an enabler); blah; blah; blah. Let’s [not] get serious now: when it comes to tyrants and authoritarian dictators, does anyone really expect leftists and liberals to have any conviction, show any resolve, have any backbone? Think: Neville Chamberlian’s approach to Hitler, or a certain inexperienced brain trust extremely popular with the Democrats presently and his avowed approach with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Nancy Pelosi’s faux peace mission with Syrian President Bashar Assad, the world endangering negotiations of Clinton, Carter and Madeleine Albright with Kim Jong-il, etc. One can fall back upon the implicit day in and day out faith of Leftists and Liberals in the United Nations to settle and resolve any and all world affairs to fully flesh out this list of wretched examples. Heaven help us whenever someone actually does have the resolve to deal with a tyrant or an authoritarian dictator the only way that actually works; Think: George W Bush and Saddam Hussein. That is when one sees the “resolve” of leftists and liberals.

Liberal like to posture as if they favor democracy and oppose tyranny, but their deferential attitude and behavior with respect to tyrants and authoritarian dictators considerably weakens, and in fact practically upends, their case. They have other related traits which are just as dark or darker, but that would take us off the topic.

Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.

SOUTH AFRICA and 'occupied' Rhodesia

The individual who commented that Mbeki has the intention to follow Mugabe's path is right on the mark....already there is a sytematic murdering of rural Afrikaaners across the former Transvaal province and the Orange Free State. About 3,000 farmers and their spouses or children have been murdered since 1994. Most of the murders were extremely gruesome and most were not motivated by robbery. In recent days the chair of the ANC Youth League has openly called for murder of whites as policy and there was only muted objection to this.

Also the national parliament is considering an expropriation bill that would not allow challenge in the courts except on the issue of the taking price. South Africa, after 125 years oas a food exporter to

Africa and the world is only 3-4 years away from becoming a net importer. It is a disaster in the making WAY BEYOND the

situation in occupied Rhodesia (or Zimbabwe). Beleive it or not the level of violence against whites in occupied Rhodesia since 1999 was relatively muted...this will not be the case in South Africa over the next number of years...already 1.0 million whites have left South Africa. Those who do not leave will face extreme hardships if not outright genocide. South Africa is not ruled by a democratic system even if there are elections. The ANC is a dedicated revolutionary movement with totalitarian aims and the current leadership is not the most radical

I am helping the children of poor Afrikaans families come to the USA for schooling..it is a small private charity and we have 8 children here and hopefully more to come.

I am not Rhodesian..I am a Yank ..who lived in Rhodesia as a boy from 1960-1964 and then from 1972 till 1980 and lived in South Africa from 1980 through 1988 ....SOuth Africa was always a more violent place than Rhodesia/Zimbabwe...many more differnt tribal nations esp the Zuluz and Xhosas who dispise each other..it is going to be very bloody...it is an economy which is stalling under incompetent leadership except in terms of the national accounts..

high unemployment...incredible corruption...widespread AIDS and TB...

Keep your eyes open...the Zimbabweization of South Africa has begun!!!!

 

Paarl of Rhodesia

 

Thanks for the info ....

.... it is as I unfortunately suspected.

Mbeki is also the one who

Mbeki is also the one who stated that white women should be turned over to negroes. Zimbabwe has fallen apart and South Africa is following closely behind, can't  wait rule obama to rule the US.

Slickster

I'm seeing that Mbeki wants white women to no longer be a protected class, but I don't get the connection to being "turned over."

A link would be useful, or perhaps a private e-mail.