Sunday, May 22, 2005
News of the Zimbabwe economy that the NY Times deems not fit to print.
The NY Times on Saturday ran a three-column Page One story on the collapse of the economy in Zimbabwe that is truly remarkable for what it does not say.
It openly enough describes of the collapse of the currency, rising unemployment, hyperinflation, famine .... but there is not one word as to the real reason why all this is occurring. It's all is if, well, it just happened, bad luck...
And not a word of how since then, Robert Mugabe, arguably the worst dictator in Africa, if not the worst in the entire world today not named "Kim", has intentionally destroyed the economy to consolidate all political power in his Marxist, nationalist, regime of thugs. To the point of using induced famine as a political weapon -- since it enables his party to cut off food to those who don't support it.
The Economist is more willing to candidly describe reality...
Is it political correctness gone beyond the pale? Be kind to ruthless, murderous dictators if they are black?
I wouldn't want to think so ... but it brings to mind how Boris Johnson, himself editor of Britain's Spectator, once related a very amusing tale about all the effort involved in getting an op-ed written for the Times past its PC police. Part of which...
Fortunately, elsewhere in the world there are journalists reporting on the Zimbabwe economy who are not so mealy mouthed.
The NY Times on Saturday ran a three-column Page One story on the collapse of the economy in Zimbabwe that is truly remarkable for what it does not say.
It openly enough describes of the collapse of the currency, rising unemployment, hyperinflation, famine .... but there is not one word as to the real reason why all this is occurring. It's all is if, well, it just happened, bad luck...
For years, of course, Zimbabwe's economy has been a chewing-gum and baling-wire affair...... with not a word about how Zimbabwe actually started as a rich African country that was a net food exporter through the 1990s.
And not a word of how since then, Robert Mugabe, arguably the worst dictator in Africa, if not the worst in the entire world today not named "Kim", has intentionally destroyed the economy to consolidate all political power in his Marxist, nationalist, regime of thugs. To the point of using induced famine as a political weapon -- since it enables his party to cut off food to those who don't support it.
The Economist is more willing to candidly describe reality...
Not a ruling-party member? No foodBut it's not just food... it's everything ...
Politics has had a particularly pernicious role in Zimbabwe, which has stopped being a net grain exporter and is desperately hungry...
The invasion of commercial farms by supporters of the ruling ZANU-PF party discouraged farmers from planting and harvesting. Artificially low prices encouraged the hoarding of food, or its smuggling to other countries. With foreign exchange short, importers are struggling to get food to the towns, where shops are bare and malnutrition is spreading...
Making matters much worse, Zimbabwe's government is keeping food from suspected supporters of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change. Physicians for Human Rights, a relief group, says that officials demand ZANU-PF party cards from anyone registering for "food for work" schemes, as well as from those buying cheap maize from public warehouses.
In some rural schools, food is withheld from children whose families are identified as opposition supporters.
[Mugabe's] pensions-grab is almost as daring as his land-grab. Private pension funds are obliged to "invest" 45% of their assets in treasury bills that pay 25% a year. Since inflation is 114%, this amounts to confiscation.Why not a word of any of this in the Times? In a story about the Zimbabwe economy this is a material omission -- in fact, it is the very heart of any good, true story about this economy. To omit any and all reference to such must be an intentional editorial decision.
To recap: an illegitimate government is stealing its people's life savings to keep itself in power, so that it can continue implementing its ruinous policies. It is as if someone took out a mortgage on your house and used the cash to pay thugs to burn it down.
If the intention is to revert to a feudal society, where peasants scratch a mean subsistence and can be thrown off their land at the whim of their political overlords, Mr Mugabe is doing well.
Is it political correctness gone beyond the pale? Be kind to ruthless, murderous dictators if they are black?
I wouldn't want to think so ... but it brings to mind how Boris Johnson, himself editor of Britain's Spectator, once related a very amusing tale about all the effort involved in getting an op-ed written for the Times past its PC police. Part of which...
I had said something to the effect that you don't make international law by giving new squash courts to the President of Guinea. This now read 'the President of Chile.' Come again? I said. Qué?Could this really be it? The Times editorial policy of not saying "anything deprecatory about a black African country" extends to not mentioning anything that might offend Robert Mugabe?
'Uh, Boris,' said Tobin, 'it's just easier in principle if we don't say anything deprecatory about a black African country, and since Guinea and Chile are both members of the UN Security Council, and since it doesn't affect your point, we would like to say Chile.' In the end, I gave way on this, since it was getting cold and I was worried about the battery of my mobile. But my views of the NY Times were starting to evolve.
How craven and mealy-mouthed can you get? Why is a mild insult more bearable because it is directed at a crisis-ridden Latin American country, rather than a crisis-ridden African country?
Is it, heaven forfend, because one country is Hispanic and the other is black?...
Fortunately, elsewhere in the world there are journalists reporting on the Zimbabwe economy who are not so mealy mouthed.
