One easy reform, major results. Many more to go.

Recently I was sent a documentary regarding the current situation in Zimbabwe. I have long been interested in that poor nation. It is a country that was doing relatively well until the "president for life" Robert Mugabe decided to plunder the economy for his own benefit. He plunged Zimbabwe into chaos, famine and genocide.

Mugabe has not been the truly elected leader of Zimbabwe for several elections now but he has rigged the vote counting, with the complicity of the South Africa's ruling African National Congress. I won't go into the 30 year history of Mugabe's misrule of Zimbabwe here but mention one policy he adopted a few years ago.

Not long ago Mugabe decided he could pay for everything he wanted by printing more Zim dollars. So he had the printing presses running at full speed churning out more money—much as George Bush and Barack Obama have done. The result was that inflation started to escalate.

Mugabe never takes responsibility for his screw ups (again like Dubya and Obama) so he said that inflation was due to prices rising. Of course, he has it perfectly backwards. Inflation causes prices to go up. And what is inflated is the money supply. As the money supply is expanded the value of each dollar declines. As the value declines it takes more dollars to buy the same thing.

Mugabe responded with wage and price controls. He passed a law saying the price of goods and services couldn't increase. At the same time he was trying to print more Zim dollars driving down the currency's value. So, with a lethal combination of inflationary police with price controls, Mugabe created a shortage of virtually everything. Products disappeared from the shelves. Producers were basically told they had to accept worthless currency in exchange for valuable commodities. In spite of Mugabe's pointless legislation the real price of goods escalated. But wages were frozen and Mugabe was starving his own people to death.

After losing yet another election Mugabe knew he was facing a coup so he allowed the actual winners to be partners in his government. And the Movement for Democratic Change took a rightful spot in government, though they actually should be ruling without Mugabe, who deserves a firing squad. The MDC decided that something had to be done about the shortages. So they legalized the use of US dollars and South African rands in Zimbabwe. That effectively removed the price controls which were in Zim dollars.

Overnight two things happened. Zim dollars disappeared from the market place -- no one will take them. And the markets were flooded with new goods and products. The shortages disappeared instantly. Last year inflation in Zimbabwe reached 231,000,000 percent. In other words, something that cost $1 at the beginning of the year was selling for $231 million at the end of the year. Inflation now appears to be done to about 1 per cent per month or less.

The last time I was in Zimbabwe everyone wanted South Africa Rands or US dollars and that was prior to Mugabe's printing press taxation policy. Inflation is a tax, it is an indirect tax. Instead of taxing your income the government reduces the value of your holdings through the printing of new money. They spend the new money first, before it pushes prices upwards. So they get the benefits of the spending and you pay later with higher prices. Politicians find it easier to steal your wealth through inflation than through taxation—it's less likely that they get the blame. And they will do their best to blame "greedy capitalists" for their own sins. And large numbers of the public are dumb enough to believe them.

Nyoko Nyazvigo is a widow who crosses into Mozambique to clean houses for a living. She is paid in foreign currency and uses that to buy goods. She says she is happy the Zim dollar has disappeared. "With the Zimbabwean dollar, prices changed almost every day — and sometimes every hour. With the US dollar and rands, even with the few (Mozambican) meticals I get, I know I can save for a week and buy something." Inflationary policies punish people who save money.

The East African says that what happened in Zimbabwe is what you expect when you let politicians determine the value of money. I agree. The author noted, "that the US is in debt to the tune of $30,000,000,000,000. May be it might make sense [for the Zimbabweans] to follow the Maasai and stay with cattle [as a currency]." He does have a point.

The US government is actually following Mugabe's lead and inflating the money supply to astronomical levels. Inflation is sure to follow meaning. Jack Puglsey, in his recent newsletter, warns: "There's no telling when—or how severely—price inflation will surge. All we can be certain is that the silent tax [of inflation] will be levied with a vengeance." So anyone holding their assets in US dollars, given the way the Bush/Obama administration is inflating the money supply, is at risk.

But clearly a return to a currency controlled by Mugabe is lunacy. Of course, that is precisely what Mugabe wants. He, and various left-wing journalists, argue that US dollars are difficult for rural Zimbabweans to acquire. But as Garika Chimuka, in the Zimbabwe Telegraph, points out:

Before the demise of the Zim dollar in 2008, rural populace suffered the worst in living memory since they were made to part with their cattle for useless Zim dollars which bought nothing.

That is why in 2008, most rural Zimbabweans were now bartering their livestock for grain, clothes or even school fees With the introduction of currencies like the US and rand which are stable currencies, the rural people can now easily sell their produce or livestock and get money which they can use or save without being short changed.

It also removed the need for barter trading which was heavily skewed against rural populace most who lost cattle for a single bag of maize Therefore to suggest that re-introduction of the Zim dollar will help rural Zimbabweans is the height of idiocy.

The Mugabe- Gono led government will not move from 1 village to another giving the rural populace money for free. They will have to earn it. The rural Zimbabweans are better off selling their goods and services for a currency that works.

In most rural areas, the old men and women value saving their money. Think of how our grandmothers would keep mini-banks of notes and coins sometimes for a number of years only withdrawing it for a rainy day. This is only possible if they have a stable currency not the Zim dollar which Gono and Mugabe are crying for.

It should be noted that the Mugabe regime is speaking of a gold back currency now. But before you get too excited ask yourself a question. How will a bankrupt government purchase the gold necessary to back the new currency? The Zimbabwean government doesn't have the assets worth the gold they need. Chimuka warns that the Mugabe regime "will have to grab the gold" to back the currency and that "will automatically kill all the hopes in mining."

This is not to say that a gold backed currency can't be introduced. I suggest letting the mining companies store the gold and pay employees in script backed by gold. Let the mining companies print the script privately and allow Zimbabweans to use that script just as they use the US dollar and South African rand. Thousands of mine workers could be paid in gold-backed script which they will use to purchase food and other goods. Long term this gold-backed script would be even more sought after than the sinking US dollar, or the rand.

But, given past experience with Mugabe, what he will do would be confiscate gold to produce his currency, and then crank up the presses again issuing script in excess of the gold he has in stock. In other words he would start the inflationary process all over again. Gold backed currencies have been inflated by governments before. Mugabe, I suggest, is just looking for a new way to sucker people into accepting a currency he inflates at will yet again.

It is one thing to allow competing currencies to tame Mugabe's inflation monster. But Zimbabwe needs to restore production and agriculture. That will be much harder. It will require evicting Mugabe and his vampire elite from the hundreds of productive farms they confiscated, in the name of the people, for themselves. It will require putting an end to the systematic legal plunder of Zim's businesses by the government. In other words, it requires the destruction of the ruling elite's ability to interfere in the economy. That will be a much harder task to accomplish.

Meet the new ruler of Zimbabwe, no different than the last.

The Washington Post has verified something that this blog was noting some time ago. In a post on the crisis in Zimbabwe I argued that Mugabe seemed ready to negotiate a step-down. How nice of him considering he lost the election!

But I argued that: “The difficult point in negotiating a retreat by Mugabe will be that he has to bring enough of his military people with him. If too many are left behind, they will resist the settlement.”

In March I wrote that Mugabe’s regime “engaged in some genocide against the Matabeles. It is believed that his troops killed around 10,000 people in that massacre. The result was that the military was firmly committed to Mugabe. They fear that the election of anyone else would subject them to the courts for their executions.”

One of the major deficiencies in the American media is the lack of background for most stories. Journalists, for the most part, are too lazy to do the research. And this means that everyone has concentrated on Mugabe as the leader but ignored the role the military was playing. As I noted the military was firmly behind Mugabe because they feared that an other leader might put them on trial for genocide.

If Mugabe tried to step down, I stated that his problem would be taking his military people with him, into exile. If he can’t do that then the military “will resist” any settlement of the crisis. That was on this blog several months ago.

The new article in the Washington Post now tells us what went on in Zimbabwe, behind the scenes. They report that Mugabe called his “security forces” to his home and informed them that he had been soundly defeated at the polls. Mugabe was finally ready to step down -- as I suspected he might be at time. I also thought negotiations were underway for that step down to take place and assumed Mugabe would hide out in South Africa, where his chums in the ANC would take good care of him.

But all this ended when the top military official, Gen. Constantine Chiwenga, told Mugabe he had no right to make that decision on his own. Chiwenga led the infamouts Fifth Brigade and was trained by North Korea and the Communist Chinese. It was his troops that slaughtered the Matabele from 1982 to 1986. Chiwenga is a cold-blooded killer and he wasn’t going to risk another government coming to power and having to possibly face trial for his crimes.

Chiwenga ordered Mugabe to stay in office and ordered him to refuse to release the election results. Then Chiwenga sent his troops into the country to start slaughtering opposition campaign workers.

Another vocal opponent of Mugabe stepping down was Emerson Mnangagwa. He too was involved in the genocide and was known as the Butcher of Matabeleland.

Of course if you paid attention to this blog you would have aleady had a good idea of the role of the military in keeping Mugabe in power. And it is now clear that they are keeping his as their figurehead and that have taken control of the country. They order Mugabe about these days.

Photo: General Chiwenga, the man now pulling Mugabe's strings.

SA's president covers up for dictator Mugabe again.

This blog has repeatedly warned that the crisis in Zimbabwe is made worse by the support that South Africa’s president, Thabo Mbeki, gives to Mugabe. Mbeki, who was a prominent member of the Communist Party, had regularly played up to Mugabe and supported him. I wrote:

But just as this election will tell us much about Zimbabwe it will actually tell us more about the African National Congress in South Africa. While the West refuses to criticize the party of their "saint" Nelson Mandela the reality is that the ANC is an authoritarian party very similar to Zanu-PF. And South Africa's regime, dominated by the Communist Party, has continued to help keep Mugabe in power and lied on his behalf. The South African government notoriously declared one election in Zimbabwe "free and fair" before the voting actually started -- yet the election was dominated by Mugabe's thugs beating and killing opposition party supporters.

South Africa’s president, the “former” Communist Party member Thabo Mbeki, has come out of the closet and openly defended the thuggery of Robert Mugabe. Mugabe has refused to release election results which are widely believed to have shown he lost the election. This was followed up by attacks on opposition leaders by government goons. Yet Mbeki says there is no “crisis” in Zimbabwe and said: “It’s a normal electoral process in Zimbabwe.”

Mbeki calls his strategy “quiet diplomacy” but what he means is that he goes and meets Mugabe and encourages him to continue to stamp out political freedom. The West is still enamoured with the African National Congress and wants to believe the fantasy that they are modern, liberal and open to a free society. The ANC has always been dominated by authoritarians and that tendency has only become worse in recent years.

The ANC is in a close alliance with the Communist Party of South Africa, a fact the mainstream media in the West tends not to mention. The government is officially made up of three organizations. One is the ANC, the second is the Communist Party and the third is the Congress of South African Trade Unions. Each gets to nominate one-third of the seats in parliament. The SACP nominates their third. Then COSATU, which is controlled by the SACP nominates a third, most of whom are also members of the SACP. Then the ANC nominates a third, many of who are SACP members. Mbeki was a member of the SACP and his father was a prominent leader of the party trained in Moscow.

The African National Congress will NOT condemn the dictatorship of Robert Mugabe -- they admire him for it.

One member of the Mbeki family, however, is not buying into the propaganda of the ANC and the SACP. That is Moeletsi Mbeki, who I had the privilege of meeting in London a couple of years ago. Moeletsi has been a strong advocate of private sector development as opposed to having the State operate the “commanding heights” of the economy. He authored a paper for the Cato Institute on the topic of private development.

Moeletsi’s brother’s government made sure that he (Moeletsi) was banned from appearing on the government owned broadcasting system. The Washington Post reported that the creation of a blacklist which banned critics of the government from the airwaves, “emanated from SnukiZikalala, the top news executive for the agency, a publicly funded behemoth that many fear is reverting to its apartheid-era roots as a tool for government propaganda.”

This is true. The SABC is wholly-owned by the government. And regulations prevented private cable channels from presenting news. The so-called Truth and Reconciliation Committee targeted the private newspapers and raked them over the coals for reporting on the rampant corruption under ANC rule. That was enough to stifle much of the criticism. The reality is that the SABC, at least under the latter days of apartheid, was actually freer than it is today. Critics of apartheid did appear regularly on the SABC before the ANC took power. I know many such people and appeared on three or four television shows myself.

The Post, hardly a “right-wing” publication, noted that nine commentators have been banned by Zikalala, “a former government spokesman who received his journalistic training in Communist Easter Europe.” A report from the SABC itself confirmed the existence of the blacklist. The government then tried to prevent the report from seeing the light of day. The Post describes the new SABC:

Many newscasts are dominated by the pronouncements of government officials. Critical reporting into societal problems remains rare. And controversy often is played down, making the SABC on some days resemble less the BBC than the state-controlled newscasts common throughout much of Africa.

It appears that many on the ANC blacklist were banned from the airwaves entirely over their criticism of Robert Mugabe. Zimbabwean journalist Trevor Ncube has been banned from discussing the situation in his own country. Journalist Elinor Sisulu, Zimbabwean Archbishop Pius Ncube and Moeletsi Mbeki have also been banned from appearing -- all because of their outspoken criticism of Mugabe. Journalist William Gumede was banned for writing a book about President Mbeki. The Post writes:

"The big influence there was the Communist Party," Moeletsi Mbeki said of Zikalala. "The ruling party must control the way people think. That's the school of thought that he came from."

Karima Brown, a former ANC activist is one of the journalists banned from appearing on the air said: “The ANC may have abandoned its socialism, but has it abandoned its Stalinism. I don’t think so.” I believe she has over stated their abandonment of socialism as well since the Mbeki government nationalized all mineral resources not that long ago.

Moeletsi Mbeki has been clear that the Zimbabwean elections have been routinely rigged and that his brother’s government has helped cover this up. The one point I disagree with Moeletsi about is that he believes the ANC regime has a “do nothing” policy in regards to Zimbabwe. I believe they are actively supporting the regime and that includes selling Zimbabwe electricity, on credit, at rates that South Africans can’t get. The purpose of President Mbeki’s policy is to support Mugabe.

More indication that Zim's election is being negotiated.

At the moment, at least, it appears that my prediction regarding how a brokered election in Zimbabwe would go is headed for coming true. I said the first step would be:

The Zimbabwean government will announce bogus returns which show Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party narrowly losing. Thus they will give control to the Movement for Democratic Change but only narrowly to preserve Mugabe’s ego as much as possible.

Exit polls, unofficial results from polling places, and all non-government media sources had Mugabe losing by a two to one margin. Now the BBC reports that the parliamentary vote was a close one with 99 seats for the opposition MDC and 97 for Mugabe’s party. So from losing two to one they amazingly ended up with almost 50% of the seats. I smell a brokered deal.

I suggest that it is possible that these “official” results are Mugabe letting the opposition know that he is serious in working out a face-saving (and neck-saving) deal. This sends a sign to the MDC to agree to the next step in the fraudulent election. Mugabe will lose the presidency but just barely. He will make his grand departure speech fraudulently claiming that he always supported the will of the people -- the people he tortured, attacked, killed and starved.

Part of the deal would require the MDC’s promise not to prosecute the thugs and killers that Mugabe had running the Zimbabwean dictatorship. Mugabe will sit in one of palaces for awhile and then I suspect the South African government will make his some sort of “offer” which requires his presence in South Africa. Mugabe will be off to his new digs where he will live out his retirement free from the prosecution he desesrves, protected by the African National Congress.

If the MDC resists a deal then it is possible that the government will announce the presidential election will go into a run off giving the MDC one more chance to agree to Mugabe's terms. If they continue to resist it is possible that Mugabe will try to steal the run-off but that is dangerous for him. In addition remember the president appoints a large number of seats in the parliament. If Mugabe "wins" the run-off he can appoint enough seats to take away the MDC majority. Do not assume that this is over by any means.

What is happening in the Zimbabwean situation?

Official election results in Zimbabwe are still hard to find. Unofficial returns from polling places themselves indicates that two-thirds of the country voted against Mad Bob Mugabe. But vote counts don’t necessarily translate into won elections. Mugabe has stolen elections in the past and won’t be shy to try it again if he must.

His problem is that he knows that attempting to steal an election which was a landslide against him will create an uprising. And uprisings in Africa are never a clean thing. If the mobs get hold of Mad Bob they will literally hack him to death. If they are feeling generous they might use the favorite killing tactic of the African National Congress, to put a rubber tire doused in petrol around the neck of the victim and setting it alight. The ANC called this “necklacing”. While not diamonds this necklace was also a gift that lasted forever.

Mugabe has to know that the real results show him utterly and totally defeated. Now the BBC reports that representatives of the Mugabe regime and opposition representatives are meeting with South African to negotiate a deal as to how the election will turn out. Welcome to Africa where elections are negotiated not won. Don’t be surprised, even the ANC and the parties in South Africa brokered a deal behind the scenes after the first “democratic” election there.

Mugabe has troops patrolling the streets of Harare. Residents have been ordered to remain indoors by the government. That is a sign that Mugabe knows that any results he announces, which show him doing well will lead to riots. And so far they are claiming that the opposition MDC has 67 seats in parliament to Mugabe’s 68 seats. Those results are highly inflated in Mugabe’s favor already.

Mugabe is not just literally mad, but he’s rather old. He knows his days are limited. The question for him and his generals is how to get out of Zimbabwe alive. The generals and Mugabe’s vampire elite would like to take their ill-gotten wealth and retire to a luxurious life. No doubt Mad Bob would purchase a mansion in the ultra chic neighborhood of Sandton, Johannesburg. It is already a favorite place for the ANC elite to live with their sudden millionaire status since “liberating” South Africa. Of course he might prefer the mansions of Houghton, where Nelson Mandela lives in his multimillion rand home, but Houghton is becoming a center for corporate offices more than residential property. And Sandton has some of the best shopping in the Souther Hemisphere and Mad Bob loves to go shopping. Since he can’t spend hundreds of thousands of dollars at Harrods anymore he might find Sandton City or Sandton Square acceptable alternatives.

The difficult point in negotiating a retreat by Mugabe will be that he has to bring enough of his military people with him. If too many are left behind, and fearful that they will be presecuted for the crimes they commited, they will resist the settlement. Even though the ANC has been kissing Mugabe’s behind for years they might be reluctant to take too many genocidal maniacs at one time. I have little doubt that the ANC would be happy to have Robert Mugabe living in South Africa, his genocidal attacks on the Matabele people never bothered them. They have their own brutality to ignore and what’s a little genocide between friends?

If a deal is worked out here is I suspect we will see the following. The Zimbabwean government will announce bogus returns which show Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party narrowly losing. Thus they will give control to the Movement for Democratic Change but only narrowly to preserve Mugabe’s ego as much as possible. Mugabe will make a sanctimonious speech about how he has always respected the will of the people and how his stepping down, after this loss, proves it. Of course, only the circumstances are forcing him to step down and if he thought he could get away with another totally stolen election he would do so. Mugabe and his vampire elite will then beat a hasty retreat for South Africa making sure that as much of the loot stolen from the Zimbabwean people is transferred to bank accounts there. The ANC will praise Mugabe as a leader for democracy (African style of course) and welcome him with open arms -- hoping that if they are ever put in a similar position that someone will do the same for them one day.

All eyes on Zimbabwe.

All indications have been that the opposition Movement for Democratic Change has overwhelming support from the voters of Zimbabwe. But that doesn't mean they will "win" the election. They have already out-polled Mugabe's Zanu-PF party in the past. And each time Mugabe rigged the election results and announced he was the winner. Adding his percentage at the polls, albeit a fake percentage, to the seats in parliament that he appoints personally has always given him a comfortable majority.

I believe Zimbabwe could be on the knife's edge. Mugabe and his socialist followers have utterly destroyed the country. Even in the districts where his party has dominated the people are lined up to oust Mugabe from power. But there are also indications that Mugabe is planning to commit fraud again, with hundreds of thousands of dead people appearing on the voting rolls and almost an equal number of "extra" ballots being printed up by the government. While an amazing number of deceased are appearing on election rolls equally large numbers of previously registered voters have been told they can't vote for various reasons.

The question is whether Mugabe has enough sanity left to realize that if he defrauds the voters that they may will rise up and remove him violently -- something he well deserves. But Mugabe's sanity has long been suspect, with inside speculation attributing his madness to advanced stages of syphilis. It is questionable whether he can count on the loyalty of the police force or much of the military anymore. He has become increasingly unable to hand them the bribes they want to keep him in power.

It could be that Mugabe realizes he has lost. In which case he will leave the country or risk his life if he tries to stay in one of his many mansions. If he tries to hold on to power revolution could result. With hatred being so widespread he may meet the fate that men like him deserve, unless he flees before the angry mobs can hack him to death. Many Zimbabweans realize that a revolt may take place and are leaving the country.

But just as this election will tell us much about Zimbabwe it will actually tell us more about the African National Congress in South Africa. While the West refuses to criticize the party of their "saint" Nelson Mandela the reality is that the ANC is an authoritarian party very similar to Zanu-PF. And South Africa's regime, dominated by the Communist Party, has continued to help keep Mugabe in power and lied on his behalf. The South African government notoriously declared one election in Zimbabwe "free and fair" before the voting actually started -- yet the election was dominated by Mugabe's thugs beating and killing opposition party supporters.

I remember an old advertisement in a South African magazine some years ago. It was from the Zimbabwean tourist agency encouraging South Africans to come vacation in Zim. This was at the time when everyone was pretending Zimbabwe was the model for reconciliation and successful governance. The headline to the ad said: "Come to Zimbabwe. See your future." And that headline echoes the thoughts of every South African at one time or another. Is the future of South Africa going to be that of Zimbabwe? Hundreds of thousands have answered "yes" to that question and left the country. Millions more would leave if they could. And so far President Thabo Mbeki has only given his people more reasons to worry.

UPDATE: MDC poll watchers have said that their party is winning an overwhelming majority at local polling stations. They said that all the Harare based seats in parliament went to the MDC as well as all the seats in Bulawayo but one. Mugabe's cronies, especially those in the military, are calling the announcement a "coup d'etat" which is a dangerous sign. They are indicating, by this, that they will not respect the vote results. They insist that only the results that Mugabe's regime announces on Monday will be legitimate. But in district after district local counting is showing Mugabe losing and the public is celebrating. If Mugabe tries to steal this election that celebration will turn to rage and Zimbabwe could explode. 

Zimbabwe's crisis.

The New York Times has an editorial regarding the sad situation of Zimbabwe. With elections coming up in a few days the question is how will Robert Mugabe steal another election?

First, some basics. Zimbabwe was a relatively prosperous country when Mugabe took power. The West, including Maggie Thatcher, praised Mugabe as a wonderful leader. This in spite of Mugabe’s open praise for one-party rule and his advocacy of Marxism. If questioned about this problem Mugabe’s supporters assured us that “he didn’t really mean it.” He meant it alright. And the last 28 years proves it.

For much of that time Mugabe felt safe in power so he left a lot of the economy alone. The areas where he was most “concerned” were also the areas he screwed up the worst. He was quite openly raiding the state treasury for his own personal gain and used to commander Air Zimbabwe jets so he could fly to London and spend his foreign aid at Harrod’s on goodies for himself, his wife, his mistress and other members of family.

Unemployment continued get worse under Mugabe’s rule. And he sent his troops into the Congo to pillage mines there promising proceeds to his generals. In addition Mugabe engaged in some genocide against the Matabeles. It is believed that his troops killed around 10,000 people in that massacre. The result was that the military was firmly committed to Mugabe. They fear that the election of anyone else would subject them to the courts for their executions. In addition the goodies that Mugabe was giving them would dry up.

In 2000 Mugabe put a referendum on the ballot which would change the Constitution in ways he found favorable to himself. He was shocked when he lost that vote. Two things were immediately apparent to him. One was that the voters in the major cities were firmly against him. But he knew that. It was his control over the rural areas that kept him in power. But he also lost a lot of votes in rural areas. And he knew why.

A few hundred thousand rural people lived on farms, most farms owned by white people. These farmers provided housing for their employees and their families -- entire villages sprang up on these farms. The farmers also built schools for the children and provided medical care. And these farmers protected their workers from squads of Mugabe’s thugs who would beat people up for voting the wrong way or supporting the wrong party.

Mad Bob had to get his hands on these rural workers. And to do that he had to get rid of the white farmers. All the talk about redistribution of land was so much window dressing. When property was redistributed it went to ZANU-PF (Mugabe’s party) cronies, relatives of Mad Bob and the generals. In very few cases was the land “redistributed” to poor people. When that was done it was turned into a “collective” and the farmers on these collective farms couldn’t even feed themselves -- they required food aid in order to survive.

The “white farmers” were never Mugabe’s target. It was their workers he was after. And when the farmers were destroyed Mugabe unleashed his thugs on the workers who were beaten, tortured and murdered for their disloyalty to Mad Bob.

Next he turned his attention to the urban residents. His troops went through the cities and the massive squatter camps and destroyed tens of thousands of homes. The people were forced back into the rural areas where it was easier for Mugabe to keep control of them. Next Mugabe turned on the educate blacks, business owners, teachers, etc. These people were staunch opponents of Mugabe and he had to break them as well.

One of the worst things about media coverage on Zimbabwe, at that time, was this continual harping about attacks on white farmers. And they did suffer badly. But they were not the targets. Mugabe’s thugs killed thousands and thousands of blacks and only a handful of whites. The media seemed to see this as a racial war. It was not. Mugabe’s racism was the excuse not the reason. Whites were pushed out of the way so he could kill his real opponents -- black voters who had shunned him. After that campaign Mugabe literally stole the election because, in spite of his rampant intimidation, he still lost the election.

The Times calls on “South Africa’s president, Thabo Mbeki” to make it clear that Mugabe’s henchmen will be denied visa and have their bank accounts frozen. Wishful thinking. Mbeki will not do much. The African National Congress has actively worked to enable Mugabe and keep him in power.

If there is one clear sign of the ANC’s authoritarian streak it is Mbeki’s support for Mugabe, and the tactics he has used to stay in power. In my opinion Mbeki’s support is there because he knows in his heart that the ANC would use the same sort of tactics if they were threatened with losing power. The top ANC leaders are happy with democratic elections provided they win. Given a scenario where the ANC would lose you see the same tactics trotted out in South Africa post haste.

Mbeki is leading South Africa down the drain. The country already suffers from rolling blackouts as the electric company is unable to provide power for much of the day. Factories and major companies close down with no notice due to power cuts. Yet as South Africa has been plunged into an electricity crisis the government still provides electricity to Mugabe’s regime -- even though he has been unable to pay for it. Calling on the ANC to do something here is a waste of breath.

Where the Times editorial goes most wrong is that it calls for “generous aid” to the hoped for new government. No! A thousand times, NO! Giving aid to governments in Africa is responsible for much of the harm that is inflicted on the poor. Mugabe sustained himself on generous aid from the West for decades. Foreign aid paid for the weapons used to kill his people. Foreign aid financed his secret police.

I remember one incident that is indicative of the foreign aid lunacy. A demonstration in Harare against the government was broken up by the police. One participant who was attacked by the police was the cousin to Queen Elizabeth. Simon Rhodes is Elizabeth’s second cousin and had spent much of life in Zimbabwe. When he marched for freedom in Zimbabwe the police grabbed him, roughed him up, and then threw him in the back of a Landrover used by the police to round up dissidents. The Landrover was provided as foreign aid by the British government.

Foreign aid does not help the poor. It would be far more useful for the West to fly over the poor villages and just dump cash out out of the helicopter windows. Money that goes to African governments goes to the vampire elite who rape their nations. It does not go to the people. This does not mean that the people of Zimbabwe don’t need help. They do. But it must be provided by private groups to people and villages directly. No such aid should go through government.

I would love to see the opposition Movement for Democratic Change take power. But I wouldn’t shower them with aid -- though I am sure that will happen if they win. Instead empower the people themselves not the politicians. Power in Africa is heavily centralized and that is destructive. Add the tribal rivalries and centralization of power inevitably leads to civil war and conflict as each tribe attempts to gain control of the State in order to prevent their enemies from gaining control of them. Africa needs local power not centralize power. Foreign aid just does more to centralize power in the central government. And it makes loyalty to government the one sure way of getting rich.

All of this exacerbates the problems in Africa. Foreign aid is about the worst thing you can do.

The UN joke of the day.

The United Nations is often ineffective and we ought to be thankful for that. It is often dominated but nations run by thugs and criminals. And depeding on what you think of Bush you might say it is always dominated but such people.

Here is the UN joke of the day. Zimbabwe has been elected to head the UN’s Commission on Sustainable Development.

Let us be clear. The government of Zimbabwe is gang of thugs and thieves that murders and plunders the poor people of Zimbabwe. They don’t deserve UN office, they deserve a noose.

One of the reason that many nations (but not all) in Africa are such hell-holes is because of deranged dictators like Robert Mugabe. There was once a time that Zimbabwe was a prosperous nation and not that long ago. Today there is famine. Mugabe has destroyed food production by through his “collectivization” efforts. He is currently having his political opponents, beaten, tortured and murdered.

Exactly how can this failed nation talk about sustainable development. They can’t speak of any development. Their experience is in destroying development and spreading poverty and misery. Just recently the government of Zimbabwe announced that electricity will only be available 4 hours per day. Food shelves are empty. Several hundred thousand people were forced out of their homes by Mugabe and made homeless. In recent years GDP has shrunk by 35%.

When I was last in Zimbabwe it was a relatively peaceful and prosperous nation, and that was just a few years ago. This destruction and death was caused by the demented Mugabe and now the UN honors this tyrant by giving Zimbabwe a leadership role.

If the UN has such high opinions of Zimbabwe I would heartedly suggest they move their headquarters to Harare. It certainly would improve New York City if they left. I would also think the US should defund the UN, but the reasons for that are legion. At the very least the US should have a junior representative at the UN, ask them to relocate outside the US and end their funding.

For current information on the tyranny in Zimbabwe I suggest reading The Worst of the Worst: The World’s Most Repressive Societies 2007 (PDF) by Freedom House.