----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 9:56
PM
Subject: Re: ugnet_: MANDELA'S
VIEWS
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
