Should all these go as well?
“A government that fails
to deliver should be out on its ear. There is nothing imperialistic, white,
British or American about it”, writes Bram Posthumus on p26-27. In
that case, should the presidents
below go as well? If yes, why hasn’t the “international community”
been jumping about and getting them
“out on their ear”. Why pick on Mugabe alone for the chop?,
asks Baffour Ankomah.
For the last two years, three
charges have stood out like a sore thump against President Robert Mugabe.
One, he has been in power for too long (22 years). Two, he has mismanaged
the economy. Three, he has a bad human rights and democratic record. And
so, he “should be out on [his] ear”.
The three charges, however, mask the central and chief reason why the
“international community” (read the West) wants Mugabe removed:
his land reform programme that is taking land from white Zimbabweans,
(described by their former leader, Ian Smith, in his autobiography, The
Great Betrayal published in 1997, as “more British than the British,
this was how we were all brought up and taught to live”), and
giving it to landless black Zimbabweans.
Read the full
story in the February 2002 edition of New Africa Magazine
Copyright © IC Publications Limited 2001. All rights reserved. No part of this site may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means or used for any business purpose without the written consent of the publisher. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained herein is as accurate as possible, the publisher cannot accept responsibility for any consequences arising from its use.
Back to the top
Contents
|
