|
EM,
For those who don't know Christopher Hitchens, the
man is a British-born, U.S.-domiciled, former leftist writer whose gradual
metamorphosis into a right-wing apologist was completed after 9/11. From
embracing progressive causes, he has lurched in the opposite direction
and now espouses U.S. militarism and unilateralism, part of the
problem, as the most appropriate answer to international terrorism.
Hitchens' commentary on Mandela's most recent
attack against Bush basically weaves together strands of disparate historical
events in a crafty attempt to illustrate that the former South African
president was stupidly off the mark.
I wouldn't mount a spirited defense
of Mandela, not because he is indefensible, but because it would merely
bolster Hitchens' intent to divert our attention from the reckless
sophistry inherent in the Bush administration's foreign
policy.
But, on second thoughts, I'll humor the
ex-socialist.
1. So, Hitchens wants Kofi Annan to denounce
Mandela for alleging that he (Kofi) is a victim of racism? Why doesn't he,
a writer of note, put the question to Mr. Annan directly, to find out
what the husband of Nane actually thinks?
There are a few realities that Hitchens either has
forgotten or wilfully ignored, such as, that;
a)-Racism is only one of the many sectarian
tools in the arsenal of imperialists and opportunists of all stripes.
b)-The U.S. leads the pack of rogue states
including Iraq and Korea in its determination to bypass, gut,
manipulate, subvert, and use the UN and other intrenational institutions to
advance its narrow interests. Much of the world understands this, which
is why, however incoherently or discordantly, there is a rising chorus
of voices eschewing a new war in the Gulf. Mandela's is one of
them.
c)-Based on a) and b), it shouldn't be difficult to
explain why in the history of modern imperialism, quarrels among
hegemonists (e.g. English vs Boers, French vs Germans,
or English vs Spaniards,) and their plenipotentiaries does not
disprove the fact that individually or as a class they have and still do
engage in racist practices that have, not infrequently, led to genocide.
2. Hitchens charges, "Not content with
describing this confrontation as a "holocaust"..." -- No, Mandela's exact words
were: "... a president who has no foresight, who
cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a
holocaust."
Not exactly the same thing, but oh well, for the
sake o argument....
3. Hitchens accurately cites the fact
that Gen Dallaire's fax "landed on Kofi Annan's desk (he was then a deputy
to Boutros-Ghali) and stayed there. Madeleine Albright later vetoed any further
action to forestall the mass slaughter of Tutsi by Hutu."
What he doesn't mention is that subsequently,
the subservient Annan was the U.S.'s, not Africa's candidate as U.N.
Secretary General. Before Annan and Noriega ever appeared on the scene,
the United States perfected the art of using and dumping Third World
stooges to achieve its objectives. Racism can be a reason to
ignore/sideline a lackey who has outlived his usefulness or unexpectedly become
non-compliant. This can be done without a qualm because banana republics
don't/can't typically stand up to the multi-ton gorillas of the jungle that
world politics often are.
But I suspect, amnesiac Hitchens can't refresh
his memory because he made a bonfire of his collection of the
tomes of people's history just before he donned the mantel of Naked Power's
gigolo.
4. Hitchens asks, "Are Peruvians white or
black?" Susana Baca is black, Alberto Fujimori is yellow (of Japanese
origin to be precise), Alejandro Toledo is red (i.e. indigenous), and Javier
Perez de Cuellar is, of course, white. But from the lofty heights
of Manifest Destiny (a nefarious ideology whose seeds were brought from
Hitchens' Britannia on the May Flower to the Americas), they all have
something in common: a Third World origin and mentality.
Not to forget that, though all four of the above
are citizens of the same country, Susana Baca catches the most hell because
of her race. So, in the world that Bush is valiantly defending from the
menace of the swarthy other, race not only counts, but is the friction surface
on which it has sought traction.
5. Hitchens asks, "Does Mandela suppose that
weapons of mass destruction are no matter?" C'Mon
Hitchens. Asserting that hypocritical oil junkie America should
not invade Iraq under shamelessly skimpy pretexts isn't the same
thing as saying that Saddam should be free to acquire VX or some other
forbidden poisons that the lilly white bullies of this world
have decided, quite undemocratically, only they can be trusted
with.
Mr. Hitchens, from the hell we come from, you can
forgive us if we err on the side of paranoia. But to ask us to trust
Mullah Bush against our instincts honed over centuries of slavery,
colonialism, and neo-colonialism?
Never.
vukoni
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 6:19
PM
Subject: ugnet_: MANDELA'S VIEWS
Race
and Rescue
Nelson Mandela's odious views on
Iraq.
By
Christopher Hitchens
Posted
Saturday, February 1, 2003, at 12:28 PM
PT
It's a strong field in which to compete, but the contest for the most
stupid remarks about the impending confrontation with Saddam Hussein has
apparently been won by Nelson Mandela. Not content with describing this
confrontation as a "holocaust" and attributing every administration motive to
the greed for oil, the first president of liberated South Africa said that contempt had been shown
for the United Nations because Kofi Annan was black, and that such things
never used to happen when U.N. general secretaries were white. (This is the
second time in six months that Mandela has said this and the second time that
Kofi Annan has had no comment on the suggestion.)
Where to begin? And what to say when Nelson Mandela plays the race card? I
can remember when the secretary-general was Boutros-Ghali, an Egyptian Coptic
Christian married to an Egyptian Jew, and I can remember when he said that the
West cared about Bosnia only because Bosnians were white. I didn't know how to
begin on that occasion, either, because the fact was that the West at that
stage didn't give a damn for the Bosnians. But if it had followed
Boutros-Ghali's advice and let Bosnia slide, we would certainly now be hearing
that nobody cared for the Bosnians because they were Muslim.
In the same period an urgent fax was received at the United Nations HQ from
the French-Canadian commander in Rwanda, Gen. Romeo Dallaire. It warned that
plans for genocide were about to be made real and begged for a small increase
in the U.N. military presence in Kigali. The fax landed on Kofi Annan's desk
(he was then a deputy to Boutros-Ghali) and stayed there. Madeleine Albright
later vetoed any further action to forestall the mass slaughter of Tutsi by
Hutu. I can think of many reasons to condemn Annan's culpable inaction, but I
would hesitate to assert that he lifted no finger to save fellow Africans
because he was by birth a Ghanaian but married to a Swede (who, incidentally,
is a direct descendant of Raoul Wallenberg).
During the last round with Saddam Hussein, the secretary-general of the
U.N. was a listless Peruvian named Javier Perez de Cuellar. He also conceived
it as his job to ask for "more time" (without ever specifying more time for
what) and incurred much American criticism for doing so. Are Peruvians white
or black? Or neither? Does the epidermis count in such matters?
The Burmese U Thant was a ditherer par excellence as
secretary-general, but he enjoyed wide respect for his philosophical bearing
and manner. Kurt Waldheim basked in support from all factions during his
period of pointless jet-setting but was then discovered to have been a raging
Nazi and is now, because of the brown-ness of his former shirt at least,
forbidden even to set foot in the United States. That's racism for you. The
only secretary-general to have been really hated by the leading Western powers
was the pale Scandinavian Dag Hammarskjold, and there are to this day those
who believe that his plane crash in Africa was no accident. He had devoted
himself to the saving of the post-independence Belgian Congo and to the
prevention of Katangese secession: an important cause that Nelson Mandela as a
young man would have followed closely.
In other words, there isn't even any metaphorical truth in what one of the
world's moral heroes has just said. And a pool of embarrassment has formed
around his remarks: Not even Cynthia McKinney is likely to want to push it
this far. I doubt that Jacques Chirac, whose fondness for Africans and for
abrupt interventions in Africa is sans pareil, will want to take
advantage of this rhetorical opportunity, either.
A further question arises. Does Mandela suppose that weapons of mass
destruction are no matter? South Africa is the country most often cited as
exemplary in its decision to destroy the nuclear devices that it built under
the foul old regime and to demonstrate (indeed, to volunteer) clear and
precise compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In the very week that
Iraq declines contemptuously to do the same, Mandela speaks as if the U.N.
were being insulted only by those who sponsored the disarmament resolution.
And to this he adds the accusation that those who disagree with him are guilty
of racism! There were those who said that South Africa disarmed itself only so
that nukes would not fall into the hands of blacks. Does Mandela now think
that they were right?
The grand old man has made crass remarks before. In a speech in Kenya a few
years ago he said that critics of then-President Moi were motivated by
colonialist nostalgia. The Kenyan voters recently and overwhelmingly dismissed
the candidate of the discredited Moi regime. Mandela also praised Col. Qaddafi
and Maximum Leader Fidel Castro for their help in assisting the revolution in
South Africa (which is true enough in the case of Cuba). But he said this
while defending his policy of uncritical friendship with both leaders. A man
of ordinary moral courage might have gone as far as saying that he wished they
had been elected, as he himself was (by a probable majority if not plurality
of "white" votes as well as black, Indian, and "mixed" ones). What could he
have been afraid of? But political courage and moral and physical courage are
not axiomatically linked, and Mandela has a surplus only of the last two.
I have never in my life kept a photograph of myself with any politician or
celebrity except the one I have of my meeting with Mandela. I can remember
sitting and drinking several times with his successor Thabo Mbeki, in the
latter's student leftist days. Nothing can take anything away from the
imperishable movement that they and others led. But this latest garbage is a
very timely caution against our common tendency to make supermen and stars and
heroes out of fellow humans. Iraq is not Saddam any more than Zimbabwe is
Mugabe, and being on the right side of history once is no guarantee that the
subsequent fall will not be from a very great height.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2078003/
Dear
Brother: Attacks of this kind should never be left to go unanswered. As far as
this kind is concerned, any attack on their race no matter how justifiable is
call to arms. Africans must learn to defend their own as well; Even if we
disagree with Pa Mandela, Africans must rise up to defend him against such
irrational entrenched attacks as this. Please champion. Olusesan
The
Mulindwas communication group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in
anarchy"
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus
Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.449
/ Virus Database: 251 - Release Date:
1/27/2003
|
