Zimbabwe’s Mugabe: Another Left-Wing Icon Turns Murderous

by | Mar 17, 2001

Who remembers Ian Smith? Unless you are a graybeard, you may not know that Ian Smith was the (white) prime minister of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) when the country was a British colony. In 1964, Smith led an independence rebellion against Great Britain when it became apparent that the British were going to betray the white […]

Who remembers Ian Smith? Unless you are a graybeard, you may not know that Ian Smith was the (white) prime minister of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) when the country was a British colony. In 1964, Smith led an independence rebellion against Great Britain when it became apparent that the British were going to betray the white settlers and turn the country over to Marxist Robert Mugabe, who has proved to be even more of a thug than Smith predicted.

British, European and U.S. economic and political pressures forced Smith to cave in and hand over the government to Mugabe in 1980.

Among African lands, Zimbabwe was stable and prosperous by comparison. Mugabe inherited a rule of law, a successful agriculture, a manufacturing base and hard-currency export earnings. Mugabe has succeeded in destroying them all.

Mugabe unleashed murderous armed bands on the white farmers. Many were murdered. Their wives and daughters were raped. Farms were stolen, and agriculture collapsed. Mugabe not only ignored Zimbabwe Supreme Court rulings against the illegal land seizures but also ordered the entire Supreme Court into forced retirement.

Mugabe’s extraordinary attack on the rule of law angered blacks as well as whites. Widespread opposition almost toppled him, but he held onto power by using intimidation and force to steal the last election. Opposition candidates were murdered by being doused with gasoline and set on fire. Mugabe’s government recently bombed the independent newspaper and deported foreign correspondents.

Mugabe has committed as many atrocities against Zimbabweans as Milosovic is accused of committing in Kosovo in Serbia’s attempt to hold on to the breakaway province.

A person might think that Mugabe would be a prime candidate for being bombed into submission and put on trial for human-rights abuses. Relatives of the murdered members of the opposition have filed suit in federal court in New York against Mugabe for crimes that violate international law.

Mugabe responded by demanding diplomatic immunity from the U.S. Department of State on grounds that he is the head of state. The relatives of Mugabe’s victims are outraged that the U.S. government is considering granting Mugabe’s request.

You can bet your bottom dollar that the British will not seize Mugabe and attempt to put him on trial the way they did Augusto Pinochet of Chile. Like Castro, Mugabe is protected by his icon status among left-leaning American and European intelligentsia.

Once again, we see the ideological application of human-rights laws. The laws are applied to the political right, but not to the political left. Mugabe, like Castro, will live out his life committing atrocities against his people.

Liberals need to come to terms with their dysfunctional approach to human rights and the rule of law. If “human rights” is to have real meaning, it must be more than a weapon wielded by left-wingers against politicians they dislike.

The left can get away with political murders because of the presumed morality of their goals. The ends justify the means as long as the policy — land redistribution, for example — meets with the intelligentsia’s approval.

If the policy does not meet with the left-wing’s approval — such as Pinochet’s privatization of Social Security and socialized industries — the “human-rights” weapon is unsheathed.

The two-faced nature of “human rights” deprives the cause of credibility.

When Britain and the United States handed Rhodesia over to Mugabe, many assurances were given that democracy was replacing minority white rule. This rhetoric was misleading, because Rhodesia was ruled by a rule of law. White Rhodesians were merely a vehicle for the rule of law.

Mugabe substituted personal rule for the rule of law. “Majority rule” existed only as long as Mugabe had no opposition. Once Mugabe was faced with a black opposition party, majority rule bit the dust along with the rule of law.

Under Ian Smith, blacks had jobs and were protected by “the rights of Englishmen,” but blacks were considered to be oppressed. Under Mugabe, blacks have no jobs and no rights, but they are considered to be liberated and free.

The white Western politicians who put Mugabe in power are still around. As he is their man, they will continue to make excuses for him. With so many enablers covering his butt, don’t be surprised if you read that Mugabe had the two white, two black and one Asian member of the Zimbabwe Supreme Court doused with gasoline and set on fire.

Paul Craig Roberts is the John M. Olin fellow at the Institute for Political Economy, research fellow at the Independent Institute and senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.

Have a comment?

Post your response in our Capitalism Community on X.

Related articles

Are the Democrats betraying Israel?

Are the Democrats betraying Israel?

Both Biden and his predecessor, President Barack Obama, promised that they had Israel’s back, but it now appears that they are painting a target on its back at a time of its greatest vulnerability.

Memorial Day: What We Owe Our Soldiers

Memorial Day: What We Owe Our Soldiers

To send soldiers into war without a clear self-defense purpose, and without providing them every possible protection, is a betrayal of their valor and a violation of their rights.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pin It on Pinterest