Mad about Mandela

by | Sep 24, 2002

According to a Reuters report filed by Brendan Boyle, South African statesman Nelson Mandela condemned President Bush’s policy on Iraq earlier this month, saying he was “appalled” by U.S. threats of military action. According to the report: “What they are introducing is chaos in international affairs and we condemn that in the strongest terms,” Mandela […]

According to a Reuters report filed by Brendan Boyle, South African statesman Nelson Mandela condemned President Bush’s policy on Iraq earlier this month, saying he was “appalled” by U.S. threats of military action. According to the report:

“What they are introducing is chaos in international affairs and we condemn that in the strongest terms,” Mandela told reporters outside his Johannesburg home.

“We are really appalled by any country whether it is a superpower or a poor country that goes outside the United Nations and attacks independent countries,” Mandela said.

So Mandela is appalled, not by the fact that Iraq lives under a brutal dictatorship, that it refuses to comply with the Gulf War cease fire agreement and allow inspection of its weapons production facilities, or that it may very well be aiding terrorists in their war against the US, but by the fact that the US will not likely seek the world’s permission via the United Nations if it chooses to attack Iraq.

Yet again this speaks to the fundamental problem behind the United Nations concept: that a free nation needs the permission of the world to defend the rights of its citizens. Iraq has proven for many years to be a substantial threat to the interest of the US. The threat that this rouge nation may be building weapons of mass destruction is sufficient reason alone for the US to once and for all topple this dictatorship. The US does not need to ask the permission of any other state before it acts. If the US believes that rights of its citizens are threatened, that is sufficient reason alone for it to take action.

So what then if France, Germany, Libya, Zimbabwe, South Africa, or any other nation has a problem with the US demolishing the Iraqi dictatorship? No other nation has the right to veto US foreign or military policy. If anything, the free, peace-loving world should be glad that the US is finally showing resolve against Saddam Hussein after too many years of pussy-footing around the problem.

Having lived under an authoritarian regime himself, it would have been refreshing to see Mandela support US action toward Iraq. I’ve always found Mandela to be a troubling character to evaluate, often representing both the very best and very worst in a leader, but for to take the side of a dictatorship over the rightful interests of the US, Mandela has forfeited any of the moral credit I once gave him.

Nicholas Provenzo is founder and Chairman of the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism.

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

How The Free World Should Deal with Dictatorships

How The Free World Should Deal with Dictatorships

Dictatorships use their connections to the free world to get unearned respect, steal technology and money, and spread propaganda. The best solution would be to achieve the highest degree of separation possible between the free world and the unfree world.

The Mind of the Dictator

The Mind of the Dictator

The core problem in opposing dictatorships is the moral self-doubt of our politicians and that of other free countries.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pin It on Pinterest