Criticism of Bush & Blair at UN Hunger Forum (1 Viewer)

Comrade nathan

Active Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2004
Messages
1,170
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
ROME – The leaders of Zimbabwe and Venezuela teamed up at a U.N. hunger forum Monday to blame the United States and other wealthy nations for famine, war and pollution, with the African leader calling President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair “unholy men.”



Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe described Blair and Bush as “two unholy men of our millennium,” comparing their alliance in the Iraq war to that of Adolf Hitler and Italian dictator Benito Mussolini in World War II.EFE

“Countries such as the U.S. and Britain have taken it upon themselves to decide for us in the developing world, even to interfere in our domestic affairs and to bring about what they call regime change,” Mugabe said.

“The voice of Mr. Bush and the voice of Mr. Blair can’t decide who shall rule in Zimbabwe, who shall rule in Africa, who shall rule in Asia, who shall rule in Venezuela, who shall rule in Iran, who shall rule in Iraq.”

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, a fierce critic of Washington, accused “the North American empire” of threatening “all life on the planet.” American and British delegates said Mugabe and Chávez made a mockery of the forum, while the verbal attacks generated applause from other delegates at the gathering of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization.

U.S. Ambassador Tony Hall, who protested against Mugabe’s presence at the celebrations, told Reuters it was “very unfortunate” that the Zimbabwean leader had politicized an event that was supposed to draw attention to world hunger.

“I think he chews up his own people and spits them out,” said Hall, who visited Zimbabwe in August. “He has taken a perfectly good country and ruined it.” Blair’s spokesman told reporters: “Nothing that Mr. Mugabe says surprises us or will deflect us from our view of what is going on in Zimbabwe, which is far from a laughing matter”.

According to U.N. estimates, some four million of Zimbabwe’s 12 million people urgently need food aid. Critics say Mugabe’s policies have considerably worsened their plight, though he denies this. Mugabe’s government has seized thousands of white-owned commercial farms since 2000 under a land-reform program critics say has crippled Zimbabwe’s agriculture-based economy and contributed to widespread hunger there.

Mugabe defended the seizures as “redressing the past gross imbalances in land ownership which were institutionalized by British colonialism.” Until 2000, whites farmed 17 percent of the country and earned most of its export revenue.

Recent constitutional changes in Zimbabwe will prevent white owners from recovering confiscated farms and could be used to strip critics of their passports and right to travel.

The European Union has imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe that include banning Mugabe and other government officials from traveling to EU countries. But an agreement between Italy and the FAO allows all delegations to visit the U.N. agency’s headquarters, FAO spokesman Nick Parsons said.

Chávez praised Mugabe’s policies, saying the African leader had been “demonized” and that Venezuela was enacting similar reforms to undo “the unfair structures of colonialism.”

The Venezuelan government has deployed soldiers to occupy dozens of privately owned farms and food processing plants in recent months while authorities investigate the validity of property titles and inspect lands. Chávez also railed against climate change, agriculture trade barriers and Third World debt – all problems he blamed on rich countries. He called on wealthy nations to cancel debt or give poor countries a grace period of at least a year on interest payments.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva urged rich countries to put hunger on their political agendas while calling on developing nations to root out corruption that often diverts aid.

“Poor countries must give an example of honesty, of ethics, so that we truly deserve the solidarity from millions and millions of people who would like to contribute but sometimes are not sure their money will go where it should go.”

The U.N. agency said it signed a deal with Brazil to run food programs for children in developing countries around the world. Paraguayan President Nicanor Duarte denounced “asymmetric protectionism” as the cause of much of the world’s poverty, particularly among nations with emerging economies. “Our peoples don’t need charity. We need fairer international trade (and) globalization in which we all win” with open markets in the sectors in which our countries are competitive,” he said.
By Daily Journal Staff
with AP, Reuters and EFE

http://www.thedailyjournalonline.com/article.asp?CategoryId=10717&ArticleId=200752
 

Calculon

Mohammed was a paedophile
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
1,743
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Hahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhaaaaaaaahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahaha

Isn't that a bit rich coming from the man that resurrected apartheid?
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Comrade nathan said:
Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe described Blair and Bush as “two unholy men of our millennium,” comparing their alliance in the Iraq war to that of Adolf Hitler and Italian dictator Benito Mussolini in World War II.EFE
When in Rome...
 

Calculon

Mohammed was a paedophile
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
1,743
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Comrade nathan said:
Yeah... ok then.
He's reintroduced blatantly racist policies into official government policy. While not strictly apartheid, it is getting there.
 

Comrade nathan

Active Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2004
Messages
1,170
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
Calculon said:
He's reintroduced blatantly racist policies into official government policy. While not strictly apartheid, it is getting there.
By given the majority of people control over their land?

Mugabe began a process of removing racist policies. The White people in Zimbabwe gained their position from aparthaid. It would be pointless to not remove them from that position, that is removing aparthiad by action not by words.

What is different from before if you just leave the old structure, white with power and money? That was the situation before in aparthiad, now they are attempting to remove aparthaid. I don't know how anyone can call that racist. It just shows the attitude of the old colonial powers, they only condemned aparthiad in words. They do not support the real action to remove aparthiad. They do not support independant Black nations.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Comrade nathan said:
It just shows the attitude of the old colonial powers, they only condemned aparthiad in words. They do not support the real action to remove aparthiad. They do not support independant Black nations.
I disagree. The French have played a leading role in Africa since leaving ($, food, health care etc) and have been a real alternative to the communist/anglo-american camp. Also, the push to cancel African debt is being spearheaded by Britian.
Both the US & USSR supported nationalist movements which booted out whitey.
I think the real problem for Africa (apart from tribal conflict, corruption and incompetence) has been the multinats (world bank etc) which have filled the economic void since the Europeans left
 
Last edited:

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
I would have said the real problem lay in the manner of the colonial powers exit which because of its rapidity necessarily left a power vacuum which was filled by whomever would muster enough thugs/warriors.

As far as pulling out the British probably did the best job trying to leave viable countries behind however the Belgians for instance just pulled up stakes and left and the French in general left quite involuntarily (Algeria, Vietnam anyone?).

The deeply regrettable offshoot of the manner of the withdrawal meant that power was often assumed by strong-men rather than democratically elected groupings. Just like any situation like that instabiliti is promoted and the risk of nutters like Mugabe vastly increased.

As far as Mugabe's policies being a legitimate way of redressing the balance between whites and blacks in Zimbabwe. It sounds great in theory but doesn't really work (much like communism;)). As a direct result of Mugabe's policies production of food has dropped substantially and economic activity in general has nosedived.

That aside I think it is concerning when a ruler anywhere holds on to power in the way Mugabe does. That is outright intimidation, rigged elections, press restructions and clamp downs on political dissidence.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
I think the British did all they could. If they wanted to slow down the process and make sure the whole thing wouldnt fall to peices, they'd need to beat an insurgency they could afford to fight and where victory would only entail resentment and later repudiation of good constitutions.
Nutters like Mugabe easily enlisted commie help to oust equally crazy white settlers bent on apartheid (expelled from cmmth, sanctioned against but propped up by S.A)
If Russia were still around, America would probably bother with regime change (to stick it to the pinkos and retain 'stragetic advantage'), but what's the point when they have nothing you want?
More disturbing is the depopulating bucket of shit he's pouring over the poor.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top