Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Ian Smith Vs. Robert Mugabe


Brit Blogpal the Huntsman has a piece today bears reading, occasioned by the death of Rhodesia's Ian Smith, the country's last white leader. In ` Smith And Mugabe: Who Is The Better Man?' the Huntsman examines the question in detail. Here's a slice:
"The commentators and obituarists all opine that without Ian Smith, who died yesterday, there would have been no Robert Mugabe. Yet a close observer of Rhodesia, Judith Todd, daughter of one of Smith’s predecessors and no friend of Smith, when asked if events had not proved him right, admitted: “You have to say they called it right.” I beg to differ with the said observers and suggest that their proposition is a lot of arrant nonsense. There was no Ian Smith in Uganda, yet it was reduced to penury by a bloody dictator, former Sergeant Idi Amin. There was no Ian Smith in Rwanda yet it too ended in a bloody genocide. There was no Ian Smith in The Congo and yet it has had a string of kleptocrat dictators. There was no Ian Smith in the Central African Republic, yet it brought forth one Jean-B├ędel Bokassa who had a penchant for storing choice pieces of his opponents’ cadavers in the fridge before eating them. The examples of former colonies moving smoothly from colonialism to independence to bloody dictatorship without an Ian Smith to hold up the process are too frequent in their occurrence to sustain this accusation. {....}

Now Mugabe has ensured, as Smith predicted, that its people starve, reduced to a state of penury remarkable even by the egregious standards of post-colonial Africa. Its infrastructure lies utterly destroyed, with inflation at something like 10,000% per annum, its currency and economy utterly debauched by a kleptocrat clique of genocidal gangsters and torturers. Just today Mugabe has set about destroying the platinum and diamond mining industry, the last element which brings in any sort of benefit to the economy. He and his clique of criminals will not suffer of course and he cares not a jot at the misery and suffering the people of Zimbabwe are forced to endure.
Was Smith so wrong in trying to prevent that happening?"


Read the whole thing here

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

RIP, "Good old Smithy". Some of us knew you were right all along.

B.Poster said...

The world was a much better place when the British empire was dominant. Also, the world was a much better place when America was unafraid to excersize its power to represent its interests. Now America, Britian, and the rest of the free world lack the moral confidence in their civilization to properly represent their interests. They are afraid of being labeled as "imperialists." Anyone who tries to aggressively fight for the interests of America, Britian, or the free world will be labeled as "imperialists" and viciously attacked by the media and the bureacracy. Meanwhile people like Mugabe are allowed to run roughshod over the interests of the free world with impunity. Anyone daring to oppose Mugabe and his ilk will be labeled as "imperialist" and viciously attacked by the media and the bureacracy.

Geoffrey said...

Todds were people who actively encourged and assisted the terrorist Mugabe to power, with the aid of people like Carrington, Soames, Carter, Owens, Thatcher. Had 9/11 happened in 1975 Mugabe would never have got close to power. Yes Smith was right and thats what all his critics cant handle. They were wrong and he was right. Sad story.