Queen One, UN Zero

God bless Queen Elizabeth for being one of the few people on the planet actually capable of doing something about Robert Mugabe: she stripped the bloodthirsty tyrant of his knighthood:

A Foreign Office spokesman said: "This action has been taken as a mark of revulsion at the abuse of human rights and abject disregard for the democratic process in Zimbabwe over which President Mugabe has presided."

Mr Mugabe is the first foreigner to be stripped of an honorary knighthood since the Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu in 1989, shortly before his execution.

(Via Glenn Reynolds.)

I'd like to think that as went Ceausescu, so will go Mugabe. The man is a savage.

I hate to sound intolerant, but burning people alive after chopping off their feet just plain sucks.

Richard Fernandez thinks Mugabe is playing a game:

....Mugabe's basis for legitimacy -- and today his sole basis for legitimacy -- is the Colonialism card. On the day the West sticks this card where the sun doesn't shine in Robert Mugabe's anatomy, the way will be open to the obvious: a Zimbabwe free of his tyranny.
As playing this version of the Colonialism card game goes, Idi Amin wrote the script. He even created an award -- the Conquerer of the British Empire -- and bestowed it on himself (as if his equally fraudulent Victoria Cross wasn't enough). Finally, neighboring Tanzania had had enough of Amin, and invaded. Unfortunately, Amin escaped (pausing only to massacre the wildlife in Uganda's Ruwenzori National Park) and was cosseted for the rest of his life by our "friends," the Saudis. Tyrants are assist each other in a sort of mutual admiration society, which is why the UN does nothing about Mugabe.

Yanking Mugabe's knighthood is of course a symbolic gesture. But at least there's some reality (and history) behind the symbolism.

The Queen's symbolism carries more weight than the UN's empty gestures.

posted by Eric on 06.26.08 at 12:08 AM


And the current administration is passive in the face of this gangsterism and thuggery?
I hope that when history looks back at 2008, Bush's inaction on Zimbabwe/Rhodesia's incipient civil/war genocide is not reviled as much as Clinton's inaction regarding Rwanda in 1994. The front page of today's NY Times shows a photo of an 11 month-old baby whose legs were broken by pro-Mugabe teenage thugs looking for the baby's father, an opposition politician.

Jeff   ·  June 26, 2008 11:23 AM

Fine Jeff, let's blame Bush. Because God knows, the UN has done all that is humanly possible. Just as they did in Rwanda. And Sierra Leone. And anywhere else shit is hitting fans.

Steve Skubinna   ·  June 26, 2008 12:37 PM

I can just picture it: Bush sends troops to Zimbabwe to get rid of Mugabe and the very next thing we hear will be Jeff and his ilk screaming "no blood for precious metals." What a hoser - everything is Bush's fault and not a word about the feckless (and baby-raping) UN.

Carol   ·  June 30, 2008 11:12 AM

Just a minor point, but does anyone else find it bizarre and sickening, in a ludicrous way, that Ceausescu and Mugabe were given knighthoods in the first place?

Has Ahmedinejad been knighted yet? How about Kim Jong Il?

Mike   ·  July 1, 2008 7:40 AM

Post a comment

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits