Zimbabwe and Some Hypocrisy

Africa again. Don't fool yourself thinking I'm obsessed with the continent, this is just the second of a two parts reflection on three major issues currently affecting Africa. If I devote this entry entirely to Zimbabwe, it's not because I think it's the most important of the three, actually, I think it's the least important, because even though it's responsible for a fair deal of suffering, it is not causing as many deaths, easily avoidable deaths, as in Sudan and Niger.

Zimbabwe, as you probably know, is in the hands of a tyrant, a man with a sweaty mean-looking face who looks like a black Hitler, because of a small piece of square hair under the nose. He doesn't only try to look like him, he also tries to act like him, by harshly repressing his people, wiping out opposition party and taking away the freedom of speech from the press. He is a dictator and his country is under a dictatorship, no doubt about it. However, he did one thing that I cannot condemn and when, on television, people, officials or others, express shock at what has been happening, I can't entirely feel the same. I'm talking about taking the land from the white farmers and giving it to the black farmers.

Certainly it was hard for these white farmers, and it's probably been done in an unfair and expedetitive way, perhaps also the people who will receive the farms are corrupted like the government is, but these white farmers, did they never think of what they were doing here ? How come, they, a minority of white people occupied the richest lands of a country of black people who, for many of them, are poor ? Did they never think of that, of their right to be here and keep that land ? The truth is, they had no right to be here in the first place. They might have a paper saying this land is theirs - that history gave them, not people - but in the end, this land was not theirs and should not remain theirs. So, I cannot feel sorry for these people, actually, I think they should consider themselves lucky not to have been murdered instead.

Unsurprinsigly, this affair and others Robert Mugabe's (the Hitler impersonator) actions have draw harsh criticism from the international community. What I find more surprising though, is the attitude of the leaders of the Western countries, UK especially, with sharp comments from the Secretary of State Jack Straw. Several times I've heard this kind of threatening tone and they seem keen to keep an eye on him. I can't help thinking they feel much more concerned by Mugabe's dictatorial arrogance than by the massive number of deaths in Sudan and Niger. And this makes me all pensive.

Of course, as usual, it's a lot of talks, reprobative looks and index finger shaking, rarely followed by reprisals. But it's still a wonder how a single man's defiance does seem a better way of stirring politics than innocent people dying. Like for Saddam Hussein, politicians are more concerned about his evil persona than about his doing, it's almost like a conflict of characters. Plainly put, they don't like this guy and his actions justify it, not the contrary. Removing him from power becomes a compulsive obsession they are desperate to accomplish. Recently, he's been destroying some ghetto houses in order to wipe out the slums, leaving many people homeless. The reaction to this from Western leaders was strong, global and immediate, covering the absence of rumpus surrounding the Darfur's genocide and Niger's tragedy.