Update: South Africa - Zimbabwe in Slow Motion

Here is a video on the violent farm deaths happening in South Africa that I covered earlier this year here. One expert interviewed claims that the murders are suggestive of a genocide of White farmers in South Africa. So it is not just South Africa's quiet acceptance of Zimbabwe's violence against it's people that the South African Government needs to account for, but also their treatment of their own people.

------------------

Link - Farm murders in South Africa Part 1 of 2
------------------

More than 1,500 white farmers have been murdered over the past decade of peaceful majority rule in South Africa. - BBC

------------------

Link - Farm murders in South Africa Part 2 of 2
------------------

Video was found at Theo Spark here.

Previous Post:
South Africa - Zimbabwe in Slow Motion - 23 Jan 08
------------------

China Supplying Zimbabwe with a Shipload of Weapons

As if there weren't already enough reasons to protest the Olympics being held in China already, it now comes out that China has sent a shipload of weapons to Robert's Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

A Chinese cargo ship believed to be carrying 77 tonnes of small arms, including more than 3m rounds of ammunition, AK47 assault rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, has docked in the South African port of Durban for transportation of the weapons to Zimbabwe, the South African government confirmed yesterday. It claimed it was powerless to intervene as long as the ship's papers were in order.

Copies of the documentation for the Chinese ship, the An Yue Jiang, show that the weapons were sent from Beijing to the ministry of defence in Harare. Headed "Dangerous goods description and container packing certificate", the document was issued on April 1, three days after Zimbabwe's election. It lists the consignment as including 3.5m rounds of ammunition for AK47 assault rifles and for small arms, 1,500 40mm rockets, 2,500 mortar shells of 60mm and 81mm calibre, as well as 93 cases of mortar tubes. - Guardian UK

Once again this makes the Chinese look really bad, especially since they approved the shipment long enough after Zimbabwe's election to know that Mugabe was killing the election results, results which still have not been released.

The An Yue Jiang is seen anchored outside Durban harbor, South Africa on April 17, 2008. Photograph: AP - Guardian UK

The news of this shipment broke when the ship arrived in South Africa to be unloaded. This is because Zimbabwe is a landlocked country with no seaport of its own. So you might think that South Africa would prevent the shipment from transiting through their country considering that Mugabe appears to be getting ready to stay in power after losing the election, and has a proven track record of using force. But with this being morally bankrupt Africa, the President of South Africa, sees not problem in giving an assist to a person committing crimes against humanity:

CAPE TOWN, South Africa: South Africa will not intervene to stop a shipment of Chinese-made weapons from reaching Zimbabwe, even though the political situation in the neighboring nation is "dire," a government spokesman said Thursday.

Spokesman Themba Maseko said as long as administrative papers are in order, South Africa cannot intervene to prevent weapons being transported through its territory to its landlocked neighbor, despite concerns about mounting tensions in Zimbabwe. - International Herald Tribune

This is par for the course for South Africa turning a blind-eye to the actions of its neighbor. At least there are others in South Africa with a sense for right and wrong and they are in a position to at least delay this shipment:

Union refuses to unload Zim arms ship - DURBAN - Opposition to a shipment of arms being offloaded in Durban and transported to Zimbabwe increased on Thursday when South Africa’s largest transport workers union announced that its members would not unload the ship.

SA Transport and Allied Workers Union (Satawu) general secretary Randall Howard said: “Satawu does not agree with the position of the South African government not to intervene with this shipment of weapons.

“Our members employed at Durban Container Terminal will not unload this cargo neither will any of our members in the truck driving sector move this cargo by road.” - The Citizen

In addition a team of lawyers are in court arguing that South Africa is wrong to have approved the movement of these weapons to Zimbabwe. South Africa's President has gotten lots of criticism for not doing more to end the crisis in Zimbabwe, mainly by ending his shielding of Mugabe. Now, he has been flushed out as an active accomplice. Serves him right for playing such an irresponsible game.

This shipment should truly impress on everyone that Mugabe needs to go, perhaps by force if necessary. (He seems to have no problem with using force himself.) The man has run his country into the ground and appears ready sacrifice everyone to stay in power.

So far there has been no criticism of China but there certainly should be. China is the main power defending the criminal regime in The Sudan as they commit genocide in Darfur. In addition to standing up for the Sudan in the UN's Security Council, China is also Sudan main weapons supplier. Surely, the world is not interested in China following the same path with Zimbabwe. China is looking to showcase what a wonderful country it is by its hosting of the Olympics. How did they ever expect to accomplish that while playing host with blood on their hands.

Previous:
South Africa - Zimbabwe in Slow Motion - 23 Jan 08
Iraq, Zimbabwe, Mexico and Venezuela - 8 Jan 08
Anchor Countries - 27 Sept 07
Iraq, Zimbabwe and Mexico - 21 Sept 07
Why is the UN Pleading for Food for Zimbabwe? - 2 Aug 07
Zimbabwe photos - Land reform - 22 Aug 06

-----

South Africa - Zimbabwe in Slow Motion

Everybody knows what a disaster Zimbabwe is. Many who can flee the country already have, with a good portion of them going to South Africa. What most people do not know, is that South Africa is headed down the very same path:

As probably the whole world knows by now about Robert Mugabe and the White Farmers in Zimbabwe, probably very few know that the exact same thing is happening in South Africa. The only difference is that the practise of seizing farms is on a much smaller scale, and the media keeps relatively quiet about it, and so does the Government. - Anamnesis

It is not easy to find stories about land reform in South Africa, other than a couple of them that heap praise on the process, which it very well might deserve, as long as your comparing their process to how land reform being done in Zimbabwe. But I did find this one story confirming the violence:

More than 1,500 white farmers have been murdered over the past decade of peaceful majority rule in South Africa. - BBC

And they aren't just being murdered; They are often first tortured and then butchered to death. This story and others have comments from blacks encouraging South Africa to speed up the 'reform' more along the lines of how Zimbabwe has proceeded. Seeing how well that has worked for Zimbabwe, it makes me wonder just how smart the Government of South Africa really is. Sure Apartheid is over, but it makes no sense to destroy an industry in the spirit of 'reform'. What kind of reform is it anyway? In almost all cases, the land is lost to all practical farming use once it is taken away from the professional farmer. Often the recipient often does little to farm the plot. Even if some do, they are only working a small piece of the original farm and they will produce little more than what is needed for home use. Land 'reform' is also destroying businesses that were providing employment and salaries to local workers and turning those workers into new slaves, tied to the land that has been given to them.

Africa can be great, but first they need to stop looking back constantly. While something has to be done to help lift the black populations of 'colonial' Africa out of poverty, it makes no sense to punish the whites in the process and by that I mean that they should not dismantle the farms. Instead they should try to build on their success. How about starting more farms with the workers being shareholders of them? (How about making the mine workers shareholders of the mines they work.) How about more vineyards? Along with that there is a need to build up an education infrastructure. Land does not make a person a farmer. Education, knowledge and experience does.

Previous:
Why is the UN Pleading for Food for Zimbabwe? - 2 Aug 07
Zimbabwe photos - Land reform - 22 Aug 06

More links:
Land Reform, Africa - Wikipedia
South Africa, Agriculture - Wikipedia

Iraq, Zimbabwe, Mexico and Venezuela

This is an update to my original post titled "Iraq, Zimbabwe and Mexico" where I argued that both Zimbabwe and Mexico are worse off than Iraq despite those countries not being in war zones.

Now comes news that Venezuela is also worse off than Iraq.

Venezuelan Politics blog reported that an average 33 Venezuelans were murdered each day last year, which comes to 1000 murders per month.

Iraq’s and Venezuela’s populations are roughly comparable: 27.5 million versus 27.7 million. In the last three months, there have been 1498 civilian fatalities in Iraq. During this same time, roughly 3000 Venezuelans have been murdered. - Gateway Pundit

So, according to this report, for every person killed in Iraq, two are being killed in Venezuela. It is just not news because the US did not invade that country.

Dictators like Hugo Chavez depend on the press to concentrate their efforts elsewhere. So far it has been working. One can hope for change once President Bush has left office, but maniacs like this will find another reason to hate/blame the US for their problem, especially if a Republican becomes the next President.

The UN should be taking the lead in pushing these countries to develop for the better. Unfortunately, the UN is led, in part, by these very countries which pervert any attempt at pushing change back onto the third-world. This is pretty much a fatal flaw that the UN suffers from. It is designed to maintain 'stability' of the current world situation. So you almost never see any change for the better coming from it. The UN literally has the foxes in control of the henhouse. You need not look any farther than the now-neutered UN Human Rights Council for proof.

Anchor Countries

One dream, especially in Europe, is of the future society, a Modern Society. Part of getting there, for them, was the formation of the European Union. The EU would fulfill many goals for getting to this Modern Society, including fostering a healthy growing economy, standardization of all sorts of things, facilitate free trade and eliminate the threat of wars with the eventual benefit of not needing military forces.

The United Nations was also setup for many similar reasons. While maybe not including the Modern Society, surely for the advance of mankind in the lesser-developed parts of the world, which in itself helps the rest of us advance even farther.

The world can easily be on the path to a modern society with the United States around. Most likely, the US will be a major contributor of what is required to get us to the level of a modern society. For all the criticism, the US does way more good that bad. The good being the norm and the bad being the exception. Even with the bad, the US goes to great lengths to correct any wrongs its responsible for.

Then you have these countries here listed below. They are examples of what is wrong with this planet. Some of them are bad actors. Others are taking advantage of the situation by protecting them from sanctions. Nonetheless, the result is Governments that really have no place in a modern society. Good lucking reaching a Utopia with them guys around. So here is a short list on the countries I believe are preventing the World from evolving into a much better place.

The Bad States:

Zimbabwe - Total self-destruction
Venezuela - Actions that will take it down the similar path that Zimbabwe took
Cuba - Communist oppression
Sudan - Genocide
North Korea - Communist oppression, State-sponsor of terrorism
Iran - State-sponsor of terrorism
Syria - State-sponsor of terrorism
Mexico - Exporting its population

Then you have the countries that Should Know Better:

Spain - Backing Cuba's human rights abuses. Support of Venezuela, ......

China - Backing of Sudan, Burma's Myanmar Government and North Korea. Lack of human rights.

Russia - The Russian mafia is infamous for its ruthlessness. Now we have Putin's Russia acting like mafia thugs. Executing unfriendly media. Sending assassins abroad. Using energy supplies as a weapon. Ignoring their responsibilities to clean up the nuclear waste in their own backyard, instead leaving the West to pay for it. This attitude goes back to the foundation of the post-communist Russia, when they demanded that Poland pay the expense of withdrawing the Russian Army from Poland. Providing Iran with nuclear technology and weapons.

South Africa - Demands that African countries alone should deal with African problems yet does nothing to stop Zimbabwe's downward spiral other then demand that other nations not act.

Two of the countries listed above are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. When the UN fails to adopt a resolution against a 'rogue' state, it is normally one of these two that stopped the UN from acting.

Putin and Ahmadinejad - Each the other's most Useful Idiot

Speaking of the United Nations:

This is the one entity that was supposed to help lift the world towards the modern society. Instead, it is helping countries drift down to the lowest common denominator. This is the Organization that protects the 'rights' of the countries listed above to abuse their own populations (In violation of UN Conventions) as well as abandon them while the leadership sucks the country dry of assets. This is great for the UN, which can then better reinforce its own need by assuming the responsibility to provide for these people, through the World Food Program and UN Development Program. This may even give those causing the tragedy another income source if the aid agencies pay bribes or facilitation fees to get aid to those they wish to help. Worse, a good portion of the aid may never reach those they intend to help, instead being diverted, again to Government authorities.

United Nations Human Rights Council

This council knows of no human rights violation on this planet other than those claimed to be committed by Israel.

The council is so problematic that even the new UN Secretary General has criticized its work.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon joined Western nations on Wednesday in criticizing the world body's own Human Rights Council for "picking on Israel" as part of an agreement on its working rules.

The European Union, Canada and the United States have already attacked the deal reached in Geneva on Monday under which Israel's actions would become a permanent item on the Human Rights Council's agenda.

A UN statement said: "The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world." (June, 2007) - Haaretz

Now these anchor countries claim that positions like mine above are typical of the Western Nations meddling in their internal affairs while at the same time blaming the Western nations for any problems they might admit to having. Yet as bad and imperialistic as it sounds, the world would be a much better place, if these third-world countries would be a little bit more like the United States. (Or Canada, or Australia, or New Zealand, or the UK, Ireland, Estonia...)

And finally, lets not forget the International Press, which in many cases completely fails to investigate the countries above, or fails to report information damaging to these rogue state. Take this one recent example during an interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad:

When an Israeli journalist asked him something, he just smiled and said: "Next question."

Then the wife of an Israeli soldier abducted by Hizbullah got up and asked Iran to cooperate with the Red Cross to discover his fate. But her question was ignored, and she was drowned out by more questions. - Guardian (As spotted at LGF)

There would far fewer problems in the world if the press reported the news fairly and accurately, instead of distorting stories and sitting on others. Of course, they would not get such a free pass if it were not for all the moonbats parroting their false messages. The Israeli soldiers held hostage by Hamas and Hizbullah is a perfect example.

We have a far way to go before we reach that Modern society as long as these parties listed above have anything to do with it.

Iraq, Zimbabwe and Mexico

Lets compare the refugee problems of a couple of troubled countries:

Iraq: (Population: 28,993,000 )

UNHCR estimates that more than 4.2 million Iraqis have left their homes. Of these, some 2.2 million Iraqis are displaced internally, while more than 2 million have fled to neighbouring states, particularly Syria and Jordan. Many were displaced prior to 2003, but an increasing number are fleeing now. In 2006, Iraqis had become the leading nationality seeking asylum in Europe. - UNHCR

That comes out to less than 7% of the population fleeing the country and with 14.5% of the population displaced both inside and outside the country. That is understandable considering what is going on in the country. So how does that compare with some other countries, not at war:

Zimbabwe: (Population: 13,349,000)

Zimbabwe is spiralling out of control with real inflation running at 13,000 per cent, four out of five of the population live in abject poverty and four million others having fled to neighbouring countries, the report said. - The Independent, UK

Almost 30% of the population of Zimbabwe has fled the country, with the US Military nowhere to be seen. There are however calls for the UK to invade. Most likely there will be some foreign intervention within the next year due to the complete destruction of most everything there. (Might this be one reason they are reducing their operations in Iraq?)

Mexico: (Population: 106,535,000)

There were an estimated 8.5 million illegal alien Mexicans in the US in 2004.

That comes out to almost 8% of all Mexicans deciding that it was better to live in the US illegally than to stay in Mexico. The total percentage is much higher as some studies state that for every Mexican living in the US illegally, there is one living her legally. That would make the percentage of Mexicans living in the US 15% of the total population. (I think the generally accepted number is 10%, which again is higher than Iraq, and no small feat considering that amounts to about 30% of Iraq's total population in comparison.)

So despite enduring a war and years of instability, Iraq has less of a migrant/refugee problem than Mexico. How bad is it in Mexico? Bad enough for Illegal aliens who give up on living in Florida to flee north to Canada instead to returning to Mexico.

Over the past three weeks, 45 families and 31 individuals -- approximately 200 people -- entered Canada at the Detroit River crossings and applied in Windsor for shelter and social assistance after filing refugee claims with the Canada Border Services Agency. Municipal agencies dealing with the sudden influx of mainly Mexican refugee applicants are renting out hotel rooms and bracing for predicted thousands more to come.

"We don't have the means, ability or capacity to deal with this additional cost. We are not able to deal with this potential crisis locally," Francis wrote Harper. - Canada.com

They are expecting thousands more in the coming months. There is a simple solution to this problem. Deny them entry into Canada. They will then be detained as they return to the US border and then shipped back to Mexico. Too heartless? How about speeding up the review process from the current 14 months of taxpayer-supported welfare before an application is rejected. Instead of giving the money away as aid, how about shifting it to employ more resources to quickly deal with the applicants.

Population by country - Wikipedia

- -

Why is the UN Pleading for Food for Zimbabwe?

We all know that Zimbabwe, once a breadbasket in Africa, is now a complete and total disaster.

However, the disaster part is only just starting for the population, as there is now an impending food shortage ready to strike the population. This has brought the UN's World Food Programme rushing to the rescue. And they need your help:

The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) is asking donor countries to fund an expanded aid operation in Zimbabwe.

The WFP says a poor harvest and the country's worsening economic situation means hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans are running out of food. It says it will have to provide assistance to more than three million people over the coming months.

Without additional funds, UN food stocks will be completely exhausted by the end of 2007, the agency says. According to the WFP an estimated 3.3 million people will need assistance during the peak hunger period between November and March. It has appealed for $118 million dollars (£58 million) in aid from international donors. - BBC

Why is the Government of Zimbabwe not doing the begging for food aid?

Why aren't they paying for the food?

Why do they appear completely uninvolved?

The simple answer is that they really don't give a crap about this problem or their people.

Considering their previous actions against the white farmers in the countryside and the poor in the capital, maybe they just figured that starvation is a lot simpler way of thinning the population without having to worry about charges of genocide. Having thugs go about killing people, like they did when they forced the white farmers out, leaves lots of evidence.

Sure, letting the UN's World Food Programme come into your country to feed your population is going to interrupt those plans, but as a side benefit, their entry into the country provides two immediate benefits:

1. Relieves them of the responsibility of caring for their population


2. Provides a new stream of revenue for the Leadership

As cold-hearted as it sounds, it is not the UN's responsibility to care for Zimbabwe's Citizens. If their Government is willing to kill off its own population, then that is their problem. It is an internal matter.

If the International community has a problem with this, then they should act through the UN, through 'dialog' for whatever good that might do, and through the sanction process. Then, if there is failure to act to solve the problem, then their leaders should be hauled before the International Court for crimes against humanity. In a worst-case situation, the country might have to be occupied.

The UN should not accept the responsibility for feeding another country's people. All it does is let the 'host' government off the hook, leaving no incentive to solve the problem. As far as the government is concerned, the UN is solving the problem by stepping in. This goes for a number of UN member states that require perpetual aid.

Having the WFP relieve the immediate suffering also acts as a pressure relief value against pressure for the Government to reform itself. After all, it is not the World Food Programme's mission to force change on the Government of Zimbabwe. That would be contrary to their mission. They really need to make sure that they irritate Government officials as little as possible so that they are not told to leave the country. You could even say that the population has become hostages of their own Government, forcing those coming to their aid to conform to Government requirements in order to get access to those people. This leads to bribes, payoffs and diversion of the aid itself. (It is possible that in North Korea, all 100% of UNDP Development Aid was diverted from its intended purposes!) There is no reason to expect any different outcome from Zimbabwe.

The situation there is so desperate that the United States has decided to provide a massive amount of food aid through the US's USAID. You would think that the Government would be grateful, but like I said above, these people just don't care:

[Zimbabwe's] Information Minister Sikhanyiso Ndlovu accused the U.S. of meddling in its affairs and supporting opposition leaders. And he says the U.S. food aid is part of that support, a trick to turn the people of the country against its government. - Marketplace

While he is at it, why not just blame the US for the famine itself?

Of course they are going to accept the food aid. After all, their cronies need to eat as well and it's hard to get aid workers to pay you off when you refuse to allow them access. However, once large numbers of the population starts dying, they can always blame the US for not giving enough food.

However, with their attitude, maybe the US should just sit this one out. Of course the Government should be pressured, perhaps through the UN, or through the African Nations that are currently resisting the EU's attempts to sanction Zimbabwe. Currently, a number of African countries refuse to participate in EU meetings if Zimbabwe is not invited without restrictions. Well, if they want to accept responsibility for Zimbabwe, then let them, starting with answering the call for food aid.

As leaders of a country, they have a responsibility to the people they rule over. If they neglect that responsibility, there is always sanctions against them as well as sending them to the International Criminal Court to face charges for crimes against humanity. This responsibility extends to those countries that defend these criminal states.

Sadly, this crisis was seen coming already a year ago when I had written:

This is essentially an internal matter for Zimbabwe. However, at some point the rest of us will have to pay for the criminal activity of the current Government there, while at the same time being on the receiving end of complaints that the destruction of the country was somehow really OUR FAULT and not the fault of the President of Zimbabwe, President Robert Mugabe. - FFI

We will need to keep paying as long as we are willing to keep paying.

So before you get pissed off at me for saying that we should just let these people die, do understand that they are dead already as long as the current Government remains in power. So in reality what I am suggesting is to not interfere in a way that only delays the inevitable outcome for the majority of the population. (Look at North Korea. They were near total collapse after the collapse of the Soviet Union, until the US, and others, came to their aid.)

Sending aid only delays the outcome as nothing is done to fix the source of the problem. This problem will never be solved as long as their own Government does not consider it a problem. For the moment, they don't.

I am not alone in calling for a hands-off approach concerning Africa's problems. There are growing calls from Africans to stop giving aid to them as it is the aid itself causing much of Africa's problems:

The Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati, 35, says that aid to Africa does more harm than good. The avid proponent of globalization spoke with SPIEGEL about the disastrous effects of Western development policy in Africa, corrupt rulers, and the tendency to overstate the AIDS problem.

SPIEGEL:Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa...

Shikwati: ... for God's sake, please just stop.

SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.

Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.

SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox?

Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.

SPIEGEL: Even in a country like Kenya, people are starving to death each year. Someone has got to help them.

Shikwati: But it has to be the Kenyans themselves who help these people. When there's a drought in a region of Kenya, our corrupt politicians reflexively cry out for more help. This call then reaches the United Nations World Food Program -- which is a massive agency of apparatchiks who are in the absurd situation of, on the one hand, being dedicated to the fight against hunger while, on the other hand, being faced with unemployment were hunger actually eliminated. It's only natural that they willingly accept the plea for more help. And it's not uncommon that they demand a little more money than the respective African government originally requested. They then forward that request to their headquarters, and before long, several thousands tons of corn are shipped to Africa ...

SPIEGEL: ... corn that predominantly comes from highly-subsidized European and American farmers ...

Shikwati: ... and at some point, this corn ends up in the harbor of Mombasa. A portion of the corn often goes directly into the hands of unsrupulous politicians who then pass it on to their own tribe to boost their next election campaign. Another portion of the shipment ends up on the black market where the corn is dumped at extremely low prices. Local farmers may as well put down their hoes right away; no one can compete with the UN's World Food Program. And because the farmers go under in the face of this pressure, Kenya would have no reserves to draw on if there actually were a famine next year. It's a simple but fatal cycle.

SPIEGEL: If the World Food Program didn't do anything, the people would starve. - Spiegel (GO READ THE REST. It is an eye-opener)

Then, take this recent behavior of another African leader:

Last February, I wrote about the expensive tastes of Daniel Sassou-Nguesso, the ruler of the desperately poor African nation of Congo and the president of the African Union. In a September 2005 stay in New York, the man who keeps demanding Western aid also demanded a lot of room service. He dropped over $190,000 in cash as a down payment on a $326,000 bill for a week's stay during a UN session for Sassou-Nguesso and his entourage. Now the Times of London reports that Sassou-Nguesso ran up another bill in 2006 which belies the abject poverty of his subjects:

IN two short visits to New York last year the leader of one of Africa’s poorest countries spent $400,000 (£207,000) on hotel bills as members of his entourage drank Cristal champagne and charged tens of thousands of dollars of room service to accounts paid by the Republic of Congo’s mission to the United Nations.

Detailed hotel bills obtained by The Sunday Times showed that a Waldorf Astoria suite occupied by Congo President Denis Sassou-Nguesso, chairman of the African Union, recorded £12,000 of room service charges during a five-night stay last April that cost his country £73,000.

When he returned to the same hotel during the UN general assembly meeting last September, almost £14,000 of room service was added to his bill during another five-night stay. His entourage, including several members of his family, occupied 44 rooms which together ran up a bill of £130,000 — comfortably more than the £106,000 that Britain gave the country in humanitarian aid last year.

The latest revelations about Sassou-Nguesso’s lavish travel habits have appalled anti-corruption campaigners and embarrassed the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Last year they agreed to a large debt relief package on the grounds that the country — known as Congo-Brazzaville to distinguish it from its neighbour, the Democratic Republic of Congo — was too poor to meet its financial commitments.

At least Sessou-Nguesso is consistent. He continually runs up bills higher than the foreign aid that the West has granted his nation. I suppose we could just ask the World Bank and the IMF to just simply transfer the aid directly to the Waldorf-Astoria, and cut out the middleman.

In a five-night stay in April, the entourage ran up $23,000 in room-service charges, or around $4,600 per night. That amounts to over three times the GDP per capita of his nation. In September on another visit, the room-service bill ran to $27,000 for a trip that lasted five days and included 44 people. And bear in mind that this just calculates what Sessou-Nguesso spent at the hotel. Who knows how much cash he dropped in New York restaurants and other entertainment destinations?

The Western industrial nations have been pressured to forgive debts of African nations, including Congo. France pressured the World Bank to implement its debt-relief package for Sessou-Nguesso after the revelations of his earlier stay in New York caused Paul Wolfowitz to suspend the deal. Now we see how that aid gets used -- to entertain a Marxist dictator while 70% of his citizens live off of one dollar a day or less.

It behooves us to give struggling nations in Africa a helping hand, if not for humanitarian reasons, then at least to keep al-Qaeda and other terrorists from exploiting the people and resources of nations struggling to survive. George Bush rightly limits that assistance to nations which have reformed their political systems in order to ensure that the aid does not prop up dictators and kleptocrats. Sessou-Nguesso provides a brilliant example of why we need to follow that wise policy. - Captains Quarters

We (the West) allow them to not care. It is time to stop. Unfortunately, some will die in the process, but I suspect that it will be many less lives lost than if we keep excusing these leaders for neglecting their citizens.

Africa is rich in resources. Gold, diamonds, iron ore, oil, fisheries and human labor. They can fund their own development. What they are missing in terms of technical know-how and equipment they can pay for, like everyone else.

Zimbabwe photos - Land reform - 22 August 2006
The UN Cannot Save the North Koreans (So Stop Trying) - 1 Feb 2007

Zimbabwe photos - Land reform

Zimbabwe has been in the news for all sorts of bad reasons, most recently for the hyperinflation of its currency. Zimbabwe's decline really started when the Government started taking commercial farms from ('native') White landowners and distributed them in pieces to native blacks for subsistence farming. Thanks to satellite imagery, we can now see the damage that has been done to the country's agriculture industry as a result of this program.

Land reform begun in Zimbabwe in 2000 was supposed to redistribute land from predominantly white-owned commercial farms to much poorer black farmers who toiled on communal lands. Proponents argued that the redistribution was necessary because commercial farms occupied the most fertile lands, leaving only dry, dusty land for communal use. This rationale reflects confusion about cause and effect regarding land ownership and land quality. In the "Before" photo below, the dry communal lands on the left are sharply delineated from the green private farms dotted with lakes and ponds on the right--so sharply that soil quality and rainfall are unlikely to explain the difference. Now click the arrow to see what happened after land reform. The dams and irrigation systems on the private farms collapsed, making them look more like communal lands, to the detriment of all. - Center for Global Development (Click to read more.)

So not only did the blacks working on the farms lose their jobs when the land were seized, but thanks to poor planning, they are also losing the land itself as it begins it's transformation into desert.

Notice how all the bodies of water are gone. This is essentially an internal matter for Zimbabwe. However, at some point the rest of us will have to pay for the criminal activity of the current Government there, while at the same time being on the receiving end of complaints that the destruction of the country was somehow really OUR FAULT and not the fault of the President of Zimbabwe, President Robert Mugabe. (As an aside, Zimbabwe has banned the movie "THE INTERPRETER" which is claimed based on Zimbabwe. See here.)

This is just one more failure of the International Community (the UN) to have any positive effect in countries governed by maniacs. And yes, I think we should interfere in cases like this when countries are on the path of self-destruction. If nothing is done, Zimbabwe will experience a civil war within the next year or two.

Zimbabwe used to be an exporter of food products. A bread basket of Africa. Sadly, it is now an importer of food aid. That's how Africa defines progress.

Scorched Earth in Zimbabwe: Before and After Satellite Photos - Center for Global Development

More photos - Center for Global Development