Posted on 08/30/2002 8:01:50 PM PDT by Clive
IT'S been almost a year since the United States pulled out of the United Nations conference against "racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance" in Durban, South Africa.
Dominated by such renowned champions of human rights as Fidel Castro, Yasser Arafat, and Algerian president Abdelaziz Bouteflicka, the conference demonstrated - for those who hadn't already caught on - that "the UN has, in effect, become a union shop for the third world, most Islamic countries and the few remaining communist regimes", columnist Barbara Amiel noted at the time in London's Daily Telegraph.
In fact, the real two-part agenda of the conference was to condemn Israel for continuing to exist (which constitutes "racism" against the Arabs who have tried to conquer the tiny nation three times - or is it four, now - since 1948) and to demand reparations payable by Europe and America to Africa for the slave trade (which, of course, depended on the complicity of African sellers in the first place, and was ended by 19th century abolitionist movements based not in Africa, but in Europe and the United States.)
"It is ludicrous for countries that still practise xenophobic intolerance, from Zimbabwe to Syria, to condemn the West, which not only stopped such practices but provided the sole basis for the third world's idea that these things are wrong," Amiel noted. "If the first world hadn't discovered that xenophobia was bad, would the third world know it?"
But the crowning absurdity of the South African conference on "racism" had to be the stage it provided for Robert Mugabe, president of Zimbabwe to address the topic "landlessness as a form of racism".
In keeping with the underlying theme that only rich folks from the first world can be "racists" what Mugabe clearly meant was that it was "racist" for farms in his country to continue under the ownership of white families whose ancestors settled and developed them more than a century ago, while the remedy for such "racism" was for Mugabe's thugs to seize them from the owners and "redistribute" them to his political cronies - who all happen to be black.
Well, Mugabe has now had a chance to put his widely applauded plan of racial justice into effect. How's it working out?
After more than two years of what is politely dubbed "political unrest", during which 186 Mugabe opponents (including 11 white farmers) were killed, the government finally targeted 95% of white-owned land for "redistribution", ordering 2,900 white farmers off their land in a first wave of mass evictions on August 8.
About 60% refused to comply, and nearly 200 have been arrested in the past week, facing fines and up to two years in jail for contesting the legality of their eviction orders. Despite government promises, most farmers received no compensation.
On Tuesday last week, Justice minister Patrick Chinamasa urged black settlers allocated land on contested farms to move onto them, despite the court challenges.
That statement and bail terms that forbid many arrested farmers from living on their land while awaiting trial indicate the fix is in: the bail conditions are "a prejudgment of the validity" of the eviction orders, warns David Hasluck, director of the Commercial Farmers Union, who represents the white farmers.
Many now plan to leave the country.
"We tried to coexist and cooperate but it didn't work," Roy Fuller (60) told Angus Shaw of Associated Press, recalling threats and intimidation from ruling party militants who have already occupied parts of his land in the Selous district for the past two years.
Fuller is abandoning his 2,900-acre farm - he will move to neighbouring South Africa to work on a vineyard. Sixty thousand dollars worth of tobacco in his fields will probably rot. His 130 head of beef and dairy cattle were moved to a neighbour's land, where: "They will have to be sold or slaughtered; there isn't enough grazing for them." The farm's 70 black employees and their families will eventually have to leave, whereupon they face "a gloomy fate", reports AP. "Local officials asked (Fuller) to pay them severance packages."
The land seizures have disrupted farm operations, causing widespread food shortages that relief groups say threaten half of Zimbabwe's 12.5 million people. Despite the shortage, white farmers are being forced to abandon crops - including irrigated wheat - that need constant attention, says Hasluck of the CFU.
"By the time they go to court throughout September, the crops will be dead, exacerbating an already critical food situation."
Which will bring more calls for African aid from the first world, of course.
And to what will the United Nations attribute blame for this developing crisis? They've already let the cat out of the bag, actually:"Drought".
Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
The conservative understands the concept- "creation of wealth" and simply wants the gov't out of his life so he can get on with it.
The liberal cannot grasp "creation of wealth", the concept makes no sense to him. Economics is a zero sum game- wealth is static and must be appropriated in some form or another. Rich people by this logic must have seized their wealth from others and were it not for them hoarding it all to themselves- the rest of us might be enriched. Therefore their seized wealth must in turn be seized and "equitably redistributed". Then we will all be rich.
This is exactly what is happening in Zimbabwe. The lefties are getting their wish. Exactly the way they want it to happen- thus is it happening. In two years, since their theories must of course be correct- Zimbabwe will be a thriving society and laugher and singing will be heard from Mutare to Bulawayo.
Hold the lefties to it. When you argue with them about their political goals- the eventual seizure of wealth of the rich (or simply the slow extortion of taxation to fund social programs aka redistribution)- make them put their money where their mouth is. Have them place a bet on whether or not their system will work. If Zimbabwe succeeds they will get a nice sum, if Zimbabwe fails- they must give up liberalism and accept the facts of life, even if they don't properly understand them.
But they'll always go for their familiar "out"--- "Well, of course these types of fundamental changes could take generations to pay off. Of course this generation must view their hardships as a sacrifice for their grandchildren." They render (or hope to render) your argument moot by placing the bar of "mission accomplishment" to a point in time when this generation's critics will be in their graves. Capitalism enriches immediately. Freedom and the respect of private property produces gratification for today's people and puts food into the bellies of contemporary Africans- no need to wait for some future generation.
No excuses. Either their system works or it doesn't. If Mugabe can't deliver, I call on the liberals to admit that their philosophy is a farce and that if they can't grasp simple economic concepts to get the hell out of the policy making business. People should be uplifted by a philosophy- not enslaved forever by instilling a dependence on the government teat and certainly not run off their land and starved in the millions by it.
I hate it when that happens
1. How do flush toilets adversely affect the environment?
2. What's the alternative to flush toilets?
3. How would the alternative be more beneficial than flush toilets?
To the purge foe you!!!
More precisely, the white, straight, patriotic, Bill of Rights defending American male.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.