Tea with Robert

In a sleeper story that hasn't made the impact it deserved to, Sky News in the UK on Monday aired an interview with Zimbabwean President, Robert Mugabe. This is the first 'in depth' interview that Mugabe has given in four years, and Mugabe seems to be in a state of denial about the depths to which his country has sunk, as well as showing breathtaking contempt for the rest of the world.

Interviewer Stuart Ramsay did well to tackle Mugabe on some of the trickier aspects of being a despot. Try these quotes on for size...

On the grossly unfair 2000 election:

STUART RAMSAY: International observers were critical of the election.

ROBERT MUGABE: Which international observers?

STUART RAMSAY: A variety of countries.

ROBERT MUGABE: Which ones?

STUART RAMSAY: Britain obviously was one of them, Australia...

ROBERT MUGABE: Great Britain, you know the attitude of Britain, they will never accept anything as right when it is done by us.


On food aid from the World Food Programme...

STUART RAMSAY: Countries like Britain and the United States having given, what, Britain £51 million in the last 18 months to assist Zimbabwe and yet you only have critical words for Britain and the United States.

ROBERT MUGABE: What is this?

STUART RAMSAY: They give financial assistance to aid agencies directly to bring in food and whatever general assistance is needed here.

ROBERT MUGABE: We have expressed our gratitude to WFP for its assistance.

STUART RAMSAY: The major donors are Britain and the United States.

ROBERT MUGABE: Well yes, sure, so when we say thank you to WFP we were saying thank you to the donors of WFP aren't we?

STUART RAMSAY: Are you saying thank you to Great Britain?

ROBERT MUGABE: We are saying thank you to WFP.


An President Mugabe, the eternal optimist:
ROBERT MUGABE: We are producing it this year, definitely. Our estimates are there and they are showing us we will have enough food for the country and with a surplus.

STUART RAMSAY: 800,000 tons the shortfall is estimated.

ROBERT MUGABE: Why is WFP wanting to feed us when we are saying that...

STUART RAMSAY: Because they don't want people to starve.

ROBERT MUGABE: We are not hungry. It should go to hungrier people, hungrier countries than ourselves. They need the food and we urge it to go and do good work there.


But at least Mugabe has it right on one thing. This is his perspective on the vital role of the Commonwealth:
ROBERT MUGABE: Well the relevance is that it is a kind of club where there is a comradeship and you discuss issues of all kinds, political issues, issues that have to do with the international situation. You discuss economic issues as well but at the end of the day you do nothing about them, you see, except maybe gang together, have a cup of tea and actually, practically do nothing.


There is some hope, thankfully, to come out of the Ramsay interview. At age 80, with no clear successor, Mugabe is close to meeting his maker. This will be the best chance in ages for a more moderate replacement, with a basic respect for democracy and the rule of law. Perhaps it's due to the obsessive focus on Iraq, but Zimbabwe does deserve much more attention that it's currently receiving. Of course, this leads to the perennial problem that faces the developed world in tackling despots - how do you bring down a leader without hurting ordinary civilians. Sanction? Bombs? Nasty motions passed by UN General Assembly? Hmmmm....

Comments

NahumAyliffe said…
How about a pre-emptive strike. No evidence required. Just bang on in there with all your laser guided weapons and create some collatoral damage.
After all, Mugabe is a mass murderer. Two can play at this game. We might even be able to kill at a slower rate than Mugabe, and destroy more stuff! Let's form a mob...

I think the pre-emptive strike is a top idea. I'll provide some of the hatred and indifference if the American army can sustain the loss of life. Sound familiar?
9 June 2004 at 22:55
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Can conspicuous consumption save the news business?

Image
It’s a dire time for the news industry. Readers are flooding to social media for content, advertisers are moving with them and costs are being cut at a brutal rate in a desperate bid to meet falling revenue. It is increasingly clear that business models that depend on amassing large audiences in order to provide a forum for advertising will always struggle against the “niche of one” audience that social media platforms can provide for advertisers. There’s been lots of talk lately about ways to fund public interest journalism. One idea is to tax the online aggregators – Facebook and Google, primarily – that sell advertising against the news content of others to support news organisations. Another is to make news subscriptions or donations to its producers tax deductible.  Both ideas are worth considering, but they do not abrogate the need for news organisations to seek better ways to draw revenue from consumers.  (It is alarming that discussion of efforts to build a
Read more

Thanks for all the fish

After 13 years with Blogspot, I've shifted blogging platform. So (drumroll, please), you can find my new blog here . Ari on the Web will stay online, so you can scroll through the archives for all sorts of embarrassing tidbits. To make it easier to find some of my writing on particular themes, I've grouped some pieces together under a few labels: Cancer Fatherhood Indonesia travels North Korea travels United States travels Undergraduate days   So as they say here in my new home of Japan, so long, and thanks for the all the fish.
Read more

Much in a name

Image
Naming a child is one of the greatest responsibilities a parent has. Short of some dramatic action by its bearer, a person is stuck with a name for life and all the nominative determinist consequences that flow from it. While opening it up to the whims of the democratic process was one option ( Baby McBabyface? ) and engaging the services of a baby name consultant was another, Melanie and I opted to take on the responsibility ourselves. Our criteria? We wanted a name that suited a child as well as the adult she will become. We wanted a name that conveyed both warmth and gravitas. We wanted a name that carried some broader meaning, within our family and beyond it. We wanted a name that was easy to say and easy to spell. And we wanted a name that sounded good, in its entirety and when each part stood on its own. For us, it wasn’t just the given names that needed to be chosen. With Melanie and I each keeping our family names when we got married, our daughter’s family name also
Read more