Laziness in blogging is defined as examining the attitude of the United Nations or any other NGO in regard to some humanitarian crisis caused by your common garden dictator. Easy and rich pickings. For this particular example, let us take Robert “Gay Gangster” Mugabe as an egregious example of dictatorial excess and the World Food Programme as your normal international bureaucracy.
In reality, “Mad Bob” has ruined his country, urinated on the poor and used food aid as a tool of oppression and death. In UNWorld, Comrade Bob is a welcome member of the international community. As James Morris, ‘United Nations Special Envoy for Humanitarian Affairs for Southern Africa’ (such a big title for an oh-so important man), stated recently:
Mr Morris said the President told him that Zimbabwe welcomed assistance that was purely humanitarian.
“We have had a very positive discussion with President Mugabe. We have had a very good working relationship for several years. The President said he welcomed food assistance that comes with humanitarian commitment,” said Mr Morris.
He said Zimbabwe and the World Food Programme (WFP), a UN agency, had a good working relationship stretching over several years.
Mr Morris knows that this is the case because Comrade Mugabe is committed to agricultural reform.
The UN envoy said it emerged during his talks with Cde Mugabe that the President was committed to the development of agriculture and ensuring food security in Zimbabwe.
“I thank the President for his commitment to agriculture,” said Mr Morris.
The website of the World Food Programme is slightly better (or worse, if you think that a chink of reality can be damned by faint praise). Their “In Brief” on Mr Morris’s visit to Zimbabwe notes many contributing factors, but the state is not given the starring role it deserves:
Food production in Zimbabwe is affected by several factors, including erratic rains, shortages of inputs such as fertilizer and inadequate tillage.
It is also affected by the spread of HIV/AIDS, which commonly afflicts people in their most productive years.
Moreover, the centralized pricing structure for maize in Zimbabwe creates a disincentive for production above subsistence levels.
However, a key reason for food shortages this year will be drought.
The commercial farming sector, which declined as a result of land reform, previously provided an important stabilising factor in maize production, particularly during years of erratic rains, as the crop was mainly produced by irrigation.
While communal farms traditionally produce the greater portion of food, they are largely dependent on rainfall.
This post is the product of laziness or the United Nations is a turkey shoot! Take your pick!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mugabe_(24).jpg
’nuff said, really.
The thing that irks me most about Mugabe is that this was all absolutely and entirely predictable. At the time Mugabe was handed the keys by Fatty Soames, as he greasily extricated himself from the wreckage of Rhodesia, there were plenty around who knew precisely what was going to happen and said so.
One of them was the Telegraph’s veteran Peter Simple, who raged against Mugabe and has been proved absolutely and entirely right about this typically African Marxist thug.
It’s at times like these I wish there were some form of committee before which the ‘great and good’ who supported the Mugabes of this world could be hauled to explain themselves.
I would dearly like to see televised sessions during which those politicians (from all three UK parties – they all had their quislings) civil servants, academics and media agitators who so sang the praises of this monster tried to explain their support for him.
Even better, I’d go along and watch, tossing my hat in the air with glee, as they were hanged in public – but that’s another fine old English pastime they’ve banned.
As for James Morris and his ilk, as any London cabbie (or Private Eye founder) would tell you: “‘anging’s too good for ‘im!”
“I thank the President for his commitment to agriculture”
I choked on my breakfast when I read that snippet. Only the UN could possibly commend an oppressive dictator for his terrorism of white, and black, farmers in Zimbabwe.
GC, it wasn’t ‘Fatty’ Soames who supervised the transition of Rhodesia to Zimbabwe, it was his father under orders from Carrington. I doubt very much that Nicholas Soames would have allowed that sort of thing to occur.
Julian Taylor writes:
“GC, it wasn’t ‘Fatty’ Soames who supervised the transition of Rhodesia to Zimbabwe, it was his father under orders from Carrington. I doubt very much that Nicholas Soames would have allowed that sort of thing to occur.”
I know it was. I should have said Fatty Soames I. Curiously enough, the father had the same nickname as his son.
I wonder why?
Any excuse to bash the UN, eh? Even when they’re saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, apparently.
The reality is that the World Food Programme knows that millions of people in Zimbabwe need food aid because of the collapse of agricultural production (which they do quite clearly put a significant part of the blame for on the government), and their aim is to get that food aid to them.
They know that Mugabe is a capricious tyrant who puts the welfare of his people pretty far down his list of priorities.
So they know that if they want to get that aid to ordinary Zimbabweans, they’re going to have to pretend to like Mugabe and release press statements saying what a fine bunch his government are.
So they do that, and it works. The food aid gets in – to four and a half million people in 2004, and mass starvation is averted.
Job done, I would have thought. But what do you do? You attack them for toadying to Mugabe. If the WFP did it your way, they’d attack Mugabe in the press, he would petulantly refuse to let food aid in, and millions would go hungry and even die. Is that what you would prefer?
I have a good friend who came to London with his family after being kicked off his farm in Zimbabwe about 5 years ago. I told him what Mr Morris had said but, oddly enough, he was not very impressed.
“…have to pretend to like Mugabe and release press statements saying what a fine bunch his government are.”
Of course, words of praise alone accomplish little. You have to bribe the Mugabes to get in.
So here is the moral dilema: is it ok to bribe Mugabe, thereby propping up his regime – to save (maybe) some people from starvation ?
And then, usually the UN hands the food to Mugabe’s government – that being their condition for letting the food in. They distribute it directly to Mugabe’s supporters and army, or sell it on the black market, so that little of it, if any, feeds ordinary people.
Is that worth doing (supplying food this way)? I don’t know. Is there any other way help can be distributed? I don’t think so.
“Is that worth doing (supplying food this way)? I don’t know. Is there any other way help can be distributed? I don’t think so.”
How about from the back of a British Army truck?
Jim writes:
“Any excuse to bash the UN, eh? Even when they’re saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, apparently.”
Alternatively: there goes the UN again, supporting one of its own kind – a murderous, thug of a dictator.
Sooner or later the people of Zimbabwe are going to have to rise up and deal with this bastard. Your way – the UN’s way – is just prolonging the agony and increasing the final death toll.
Amen, GCooper.
The UN’s refusal to deal with reality has resulted in its global irrelevance.
“Sooner or later the people of Zimbabwe are going to have to rise up and deal with this bastard. Your way – the UN’s way – is just prolonging the agony and increasing the final death toll.”
The only logical interpretation of your remarks – and I realise that may be imposing on them a burden of rationality they can’t bear – is that the UN should withold food aid in the hope that the Zimbabweans who don’t starve to death as a result rise up in revolt against their heavily-armed oppressors.
Which strikes me as a bit crazy.
Jim:
I don’t know if I agree with GCooper’s comments about a rebellion, but there’s already been experience with food aid prolonging the agony in a famine. We saw 20 years ago how the ghastly Mengistu regime in Ethiopia used food aid as a weapon in the civil war — and what Mugabe’s doing isn’t much different.
There’s a simple solution to the famine in Zimbabwe, which is to go back to the policies in effect before Mugabe’s vile and politically motivated land “reform” program. UN food aid will only give Mugabe breathing space to continue implementing a programme which is leading to famine. Should the international community be contributing actively to this?
No, Jim – what’s crazy is an organisation of largely undemocratic, unrepresentational kleptocracies whose representatives (many of whom have blood on their hands) are swanning around in New York, spending other peoples’ money to keep their pals in power and themselves in luxury.
What you are doing is perpetuating the rule of a murderer who flattens orphanges on a whim.
Now that’s crazy.
Ted,
“UN food aid will only give Mugabe breathing space to continue implementing a programme which is leading to famine. Should the international community be contributing actively to this?”
I agree that UN aid may be making life easier for Mugabe, but it may also be making life easier – making it possible, even – for millions of Zimbabweans. This is definitely not a perfect situation, but since withdrawing food aid would probably not have a major effect on Mugabe but probably would have a major effect on the people who rely on it, I think it’s the least worst solution.
As to whether the food aid is being stolen like it was in Ethiopia under Mengistu, if that is indeed happening on a large scale that shifts the balance of costs and benefits back towards the point where the policy does more harm than good. But is there any evidence this is happening on a large scale? Jacob (see above) says it’s happening, but I need to see a bit more evidence.
The situation could be quite like that in pre-war Iraq, where millions relied on the free food rations funded from the Oil for Food programme. That programme was exploited by Saddam, and you could argue that it sustained him in power, but it also saved vast amounts of lives as mortality rates dropped steeply (until the war, that is). If I’m reading him right, GCooper thinks those lives should not have been saved because by doing so we were helping Saddam. Well, I disagree.
GCooper,
“What you are doing is perpetuating the rule of a murderer who flattens orphanges on a whim.”
I’ve supported the oppostion in Zimbabwe and protested against Mugabe’s destruction of peoples’ homes, so that slur is as inaccurate as it is stupid. As I’ve made clear, I think the food aid policy is the least worst solution. Maybe if you weren’t so blinded by ideological hatred of the United Nations you’d see that the world isn’t black and white, and and complicated problems don’t usually have simple solutions.
Jim writes:
“I’ve supported the oppostion in Zimbabwe and protested against Mugabe’s destruction of peoples’ homes, so that slur is as inaccurate as it is stupid.”
Yes, and your magnificent achievement does you credit. We see the evidence of it daily.
“Maybe if you weren’t so blinded by ideological hatred of the United Nations you’d see that the world isn’t black and white, and and complicated problems don’t usually have simple solutions.”
Here’s a simple solution that would work and which, if the UN were not stuffed with fellow dictators, could be implemented in a month. Invade the damn place and hang Mugabe high enough to command the attention of those who regard him as a role model.
My contempt for the United Nations isn’t just born of an ideological view but also the long observation of its malign influence, its root and branch corruption and the suckering of well-intentioned people, too naive to see the evidence that would be searing their eyeballs if their brains hadn’t been rotted by propaganda.
Anything short of the simple solution (deposing the thug) simply leaves him keeps in power, thus condemning more to death. Like those of most well-intentioned Leftists, your faux compassionate solution causes more problems than it solves. He uses the aid to remain in power and starve his opponents.
In the face of repeated evidence that this is almost inevitably the case with UN programmes of this kind, one can only conclude that the real object of the exercise is not to provide real solutions to real problems, but to make liberals feel good about themselves.
And yes, you’re quite right about my reaction to Oil For Food. Indeed, I was going to mention it earlier. It was another classic case of the UN perpetuating the career of a psychopath so that Saddam’s supporters could sleep contentedly and liberals could tell themselves that something positive was being done. In other words it was just more humbug.
“Yes, and your magnificent achievement does you credit. We see the evidence of it daily.”
Charming. Maybe we should tell the opposition not to bother with the politics and wait for you and George Bush to invade. Oh wait, that’ll never happen. Must be the UN’s fault somehow.
“And yes, you’re quite right about my reaction to Oil For Food. Indeed, I was going to mention it earlier.”
So you would have preferred all those Iraqis to have died instead of being saved by the Oil for Food programme, just because it might also have been sustaining Saddam’s regime (even though his power didn’t seem to be any weaker in the years before OfF, bu don’t let that put you off). Glad you’ve made that clear.
I wonder, though. You’re obviously willing to put the lives of millions of Iraqis and Zimbabweans on the line for your principles, and that’s really very noble and everything. But if you’re so sure that a military solution is the best way forward, what are you doing about it apart from sneering at people who think it might be a good idea to feed the hungry? Put another way, why don’t you put your theories into practice and head off to Zimbabwe with a gun? I only wish I could watch the results.
Jim writes:
“Must be the UN’s fault somehow.”
Indeed it is. The UN and all the rest of the ragbag Leftie-tranzi crowd that screams blue murder at the very thought of military intervention for any reason, anywhere.
I’m sorry you aren’t able to understand the really quite simple concept that sometimes direct military action is a more humane solution to the problem caused by failed states, than continuing to salve Western consciences at the expense of the people suffering in those countries.
The paranoia is strong in this one. And why didn’t you answer my question about putting your own life on the line instead of everyone else’s?
But the point remains. There is no actual prospect of any military action actually taking place, but nevertheless you still seem to think that we should cut off food aid, because apparently doing nothing would be better than doing something imperfect but still life-saving for a lot of people. The end result would that a lot more Zimbabweans would die and the those that remained would be no closer to a solution. Yeah, great idea that is.
Firstly it is not the fault of the UK or other western nations if people in Zimbabwe are dying. That is a horror entirely of Mugabe’s making.
Secondly the options are not between give aid and people live and don’t give aid and people die. Rather, it is between give aid and some people live in the short term but generally continue to die, or stop aid and make Mugabe’s life hell and things get worse in the short term, but eventually a corrupt dictatorship collapses. The second option may seem heartless, but if a malevolent dictator is not to be propped up indefinitely it is the only option. If we don’t bargain with terrorists why is it different if they call themselves a head of state?
Why is it that so many supporters of the UN have no compunction whatsoever about telling anyone who will listen that they can not and will not support the tyranny of the evil George Bush; yet expect everyone else to understand the logic of the need to tiptoe obeisantly round the likes of Saddam and Mugabe? Seems lefties put significant percentage in dictatorial thugs. Bush, take note.
“Firstly it is not the fault of the UK or other western nations if people in Zimbabwe are dying. That is a horror entirely of Mugabe’s making.”
Absolutely. But we’re in a position to reduce the harm by giving some food aid, and I think we should.
“Rather, it is between give aid and some people live in the short term but generally continue to die, or stop aid and make Mugabe’s life hell and things get worse in the short term, but eventually a corrupt dictatorship collapses.”
It’s not clear that stopping food aid would make Mugabe’s life “hell”. If his life hasn’t been made hell by the misery of his countrymen and women so far, how would this change things? I can see that it might mean the country would descend into complete anarchy as starving mobs roam the countryside being gunned down by soldiers guarding food stores, but I don’t see that as a particularly desirable outcome.
“The second option may seem heartless, but if a malevolent dictator is not to be propped up indefinitely it is the only option.”
I really don’t think it’s food aid that’s keeping Mugabe in power. The cowardly acquiesence of his neighbours in Africa have a lot more to do with that.
Remembering Jim’s comments, I couldn’t help a smile when I read the following from George Trefgarne in today’s Telegraph:
“And I am also struck by how many sensible people lose their minds over Third World aid.”
Of course Mugabe benefits from UN aid. Why else do you think he’s made himself so agreebale to the UN’s canting hypocrites, like James Morris?
And I repeat, the reason why there is no prospect of military action to depose Mugabe is the fuss people like you make whenever that option is chosen.
I wonder if I would be correct in guessing that you have taken part in anti-war protests?
Even if I did support military action against Mugabe, it still makes no sense to cut off food aid to his people, which is the point I’m repeatedly making and which you’re repeatedly dodging. How is cutting off food aid going to hasten a positive resolution to the whole thing? It isn’t, in fact it will make things worse, but as you’ve already said the welfare of the Zimbabwean people is not high on your list of priorities. In fact the only benefit I can see the halting of food aid having is that it would make you feel better about yourself, and frankly that’s not very high on my list of priorities. In fact, I’m starting to enjoy the thought of you going incandescent with rage when you read about the UN feeding hungry people in Zimbabwe.
“the reason why there is no prospect of military action to depose Mugabe is the fuss people like you make whenever that option is chosen.”
That’s classic. Bush and Blair didn’t let the biggest political protests of all time stop them invading Iraq, but now they’re holding back from doing the same to Zimbabwe because they don’t want to piss me off? Priceless. No, the real reason why there is no prospect of military action to depose Mugabe is that most countries, including the US, don’t care, and most of those that do are his African neighbours who for their own nefarious reasons are happier to have him in power.
Jim writes:
“…as you’ve already said the welfare of the Zimbabwean people is not high on your list of priorities.”
And there we have the tranzi-Left at its finest. If the facts don’t fit, invent them.
Perhaps you would like to quote where I have said what you claim?
If you can’t, I shan’t bother to respond. Arguing with the misguided is one thing, arguing with liars is just a waste of time.
In fact, as anyone who can actually read will have seen, what I have been saying is that UN aid is a bad idea precisely because it harms the welfare of the Zimbabwean people, who are being starved and murdered by Mugabe and his thugs, a state of affairs your “aid” is simply prolonging, thus adding to the eventual death toll.
Well, let’s see. You said you opposed Oil for Food even though it saved Iraqi lives because it, in your opinion, bolstered Saddam’s rule, and you didn’t mind me drawing the comparison with Zimbabwe. You advocate withdrawing food aid from people who need it not because it will hasten Mugabe’s end but because you don’t think the UN should be giving food aid to Zimbabwe while he’s in power.
If you can’t follow your own thoughts to their conclusion, looks like I have to do it myself: you think political appearances are more important than people having enough food to eat. And your fantasies of a lovely war in Zimbabwe don’t suggest much concern for the welfare of the people there either.
Jim writes:
“And your fantasies of a lovely war in Zimbabwe don’t suggest much concern for the welfare of the people there either.”
Blah blah blah. In other words, you lied.
Have fun in your fantasy universe, Jim.
I like the way you’re stealing my lines now, it’s very cute. Anyway, I’d quite like to terminate this incredibly tedious argument, but I would also like a straight answer from you on this point:
Do you or do you not advocate withdrawing food aid from people in Zimbabwe who need it?
Jim wrote:
My conclusion is that the people of Zimbabwe aren’t going to have the food to eat regardless of whether we give them food aid. Any food aid will end up in the hands of Mugabe and his cronies; people who support the MDC will be left to starve. If that’s the case, why should we give Mugabe the food aid?
“Any food aid will end up in the hands of Mugabe and his cronies; people who support the MDC will be left to starve. If that’s the case, why should we give Mugabe the food aid?”
If that was happening, then I’d agree with you. Is there any evidence that it is happening?
“If that was happening, then I’d agree with you. Is there any evidence that it is happening?”
What evidence would satisfy you? The UN would not provide such evidence, as it would upset Mugabe, and any other source, even eyewitness testimony, can be dismissed as “more neocon BS.”
One would think that the fact that people are starving in Zimbabwe, in spite of the fact that the UN is currently distributing enough for every person in Zimbabwe to recieve one ton of food every two months, would at least be highly suspicious. But there is no ignorance as invincible as studied ignorance.