Supertaal: Koeitjies & kalfies

Tuis » Algemeen » Koeitjies & kalfies » Seniele Mandela

Wys: Vandag se boodskappe :: Stemmings :: Navigasie

Seniele Mandela [boodskap #82355]

So, 17 Augustus 2003 00:57

Willem-Jan Markerink
Boodskappe: 331
Geregistreer: Mei 1999

Karma: 0

Senior Lid

Een al wat ouder bericht, maar nog niet zo achterhaald als de racist
Mandela himself:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2078003/
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.

--
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand

[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]