Zimbabwe

WorldNetDaily has an article today (here) that lays out the history of Robert Mugabe's rise to power and how he wielded that power in Zimbabwe. It's beyond appalling.

Mugabe, a committed Marxist, joined the Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU), which he later left to form the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU). ZANU eventually became Chinese-backed, and with that backing, opposed then-Rhodesia's government (led by Ian Smith). Elections were held, and a bi-racial coalition government was formed. The UK and the US "insisted that Mugabe's revolutionary party be included in future elections." According to the dates listed in the article, this would have been during Jimmy Carter's presidency.

Mugabe was elected in 1980 as Zimbabwe's first prime minister.

"When Mugabe became prime minister, approximately 70 percent of the country's arable land was owned by approximately 4,000 descendants of white settlers. However, he reassured white landowners that they had nothing to fear from black majority rule. Mugabe favored, he said, a 'willing buyer, willing seller' plan for gradual redistribution of land."

With this arrangement, the agriculture industry of Zimbabwe was able to produce enough surplus, that they were the "bread basket" of sub-Saharan Africa. But Mugabe was not content.

"In 2000, a new constitution was drawn up limiting the terms of future presidents – but not Mugabe. It also made his government and military officials immune from prosecution for any illegal acts committed while in office. Also, it allowed the government to confiscate white-owned land for redistribution to black farmers without compensation. It was defeated, after a low 20 percent turnout, by a strong urban vote.

"Mugabe declared that he would 'abide by the will of the people.' But, almost immediately, self-styled paramilitary forces began invading white-owned farms."

I've already posted (here) about the effects of Mugabe's "land reform" policy. Now that Zimbabwe's food surplus has has become a deficit that's producing famine in some areas, he has come up with another policy to decimate his country.

In the last month, Mugabe's "urban renewal campaign" has left 1.5 million people homeless and without food. According to the article, in the process of this campaign, "Mugabe has destroyed 25 percent of the Zimbabwe economy."

The article concludes, "With lack of shelter and food, international observers fear a catastrophe will ensue in the coming weeks, with up to 1.5 million starving and dying of disease."

I know our country can't fix every problem in the world. We can't unseat every dictator or overthrow every toxic government. But where is the outrage?

And where is the UN? Preventing (or cleaning up after) atrocities like this was the United Nation's original puropse. Instead of prevention, we now have countries like Zimbabwe with votes in the UN General Assembly.

If the UN can't be reformed to limit itself to free nations, then the US must pull out and form a new Union of Free Nations. The money we now send to the UN is counterproductive at best. It supports a body that looks the other way when atrocities happen, and too much of our money merely lines the pockets of UN officials and bureaucrats. Our money needs to support an organization that will actually help. And one of the first places that needs help is Zimbabwe.

Update:

Church leaders (Anglican and Roman Catholic) are joining human rights groups to urge Great Britain's leadership to suspend the deportation of asylum-seekers back to Zimbabwe (full story here).

According to the article, "One Downing Street official said that the Prime Minister 'thinks it would be wrong to have a special moratorium for Zimbabwe. The Home Office should continue to assess each case on its merits.'"