"Dissing Mandela"

[Carl Remick]

[From the current NY Press.]

The London Desk

Dissing Mandela

By Charles Glass

Nelson Mandela came to town last week, and New Labor couldn’t find time for 
a parade. Mandela may not be Mike Tyson, for whom Britain’s ascetic home 
secretary, Jack Straw, waived restrictions on admitting convicted felons in 
time for one of the feeblest matches (sic) in boxing history on Rupert 
Murdoch’s Sky Television. But Mandela is a recognized brand. Prime Minister 
Tony Blair usually attaches himself to big names. Remember his appearance at 
Princess Diana’s funeral and his attempts to hijack the Queen Mother’s 
upcoming 100th birthday? I expect to see him on Coronation Street, the 
country’s longest-running soap opera. It’s not like Tony to pass up the 
chance to "get down" with an African folk hero.

Mandela is hard to beat: the years in prison; the suffering to topple a 
brutal state; the good grace he showed his former persecutors; his emulation 
of the father of African nationalism, Tanzania’s Julius Nyerere, in standing 
down at the end of his term, when he could have served for life. He’s like 
Pope John Paul II, a man of global stature. No one, apart from Blair’s 
mentor Bill Clinton, could beat Tony to a photo-op with Mandela or the pope. 
Or Oasis’ Liam Gallagher.

Something went wrong, however. Mandela made himself persona non grata with 
the New Hawks of New Labor the way the pope does when he disparages 
capitalism for its injustice and vulgarity. If the pope visited Britain and 
launched into one of his anti-capitalist epistles, Blair would ditch him 
faster than he did his paymaster-general, Geoffrey Robinson, when the press 
got hold of his financial statements.

Mandela should have read a New Labor script: "Thank you, Brother Blair, for 
your courageous stand against Apartheid. When the chips were down, you 
didn’t drink KWV Cabernet with your Boerewurst." They’d have given him an 
honorary knighthood and sent him home with Downing Street matchbooks. But 
Mandela blew it. He castigated the guardians of the new world order. In 
London, Mandela told his biographer, Anthony Sampson, that "I am resentful 
about the type of things America and Britain are doing. They want now to be 
the policemen of the world, and I’m sorry that Britain has joined the U.S. 
in this regard." Wrong, wrong, wrong. If he’d checked with Blair’s crack 
flack, Alastair Campbell, the New Labor version of Mandela’s pronouncement 
would have been, "We in Africa are very grateful that our traditional 
benefactors, the U.S. and British, offer aid to the weak and oppressed. We 
black folk, like the Arabs and Slavs, rest easy knowing the B-52s are 
overhead to protect us." Instead, he was ungrateful for Anglo-American 
largesse: "They [the U.S. and Britain] must persuade countries like China or 
Russia who threaten to veto their decisions at the UN. They must sit down 
and talk to them. They can’t just ignore them and start their own actions." 
Of course, they can and do ignore the UN and start their own actions. Look 
at Kosovo. Look at the prolonged starvation of Iraq and the American 
browbeating to keep the UN in line.

Mandela realizes that Tony doesn’t give a damn what he or any other retired 
Third World head of state thinks about Kosovo, Iraq or anywhere else. When 
he wants Mandela’s opinion, he’ll ask Bill Clinton to give it to him. 
Mandela may be 81, but that’s no excuse for Isaiah-like gloom at the 
Anglo-American Millennium Table. Good thing Mandela went off to Dublin after 
his speech at the London School of Economics. The Irish, with their 
neutrality and traditional sympathy for the world’s poor, were more 
sympathetic. (Ireland, unlike Britain, enforced sanctions against white 
South Africa while Mandela languished on Robben Island. When I was there in 
1992, the Irish gave more per capita to outside charities than any other 
country in Europe, and donations were not tax-deductible. That may be 
different today: Ireland is becoming richer than Britain and rising 
house-prices make people more jealous of their incomes. Woe betide the 
prosperous.)

Mandela had the effrontery to condemn the American and British bombardment 
of Iraq. "The message they’re sending is that any country which fears a [UN] 
veto can take unilateral action," Mandela said. "That means they’re 
introducing chaos into international affairs: that any country can take a 
decision which it wants." Blair’s foreign secretary, Robin Cook, has jumped 
forth to defend British policy in bombing and starving Iraq. He came under 
attack in a television film by the left-wing Australian journalist, John 
Pilger. Pilger’s film, Paying the Price, accused Britain of preventing 
Iraq’s children from receiving vital medicine. Cook vented his spleen on 
Pilger in The New Statesman, the Labor weekly owned by the former 
paymaster-general whom Blair pretends not to know, "There is nothing to 
prevent Iraq from ordering more medicine." Cook is telling the truth. Iraq 
can order all the medical supplies it likes. Britain, however, will not 
allow them to be delivered.

Pilger, in his own New Statesman column, responded to Cook’s claim that 
Iraqi propaganda "fabricates claims of death and destruction." He wrote, "In 
one five-month period, 41 per cent of all strikes resulted in civilian 
casualties. The targets included fishermen’s wharves, villages and 
livestock." He added that the UN humanitarian coordinator had verified the 
killing by allied bombers of a shepherd and six members of his family, one 
of many such examples.

Although Pilger demolished Cook’s arguments one by one, Cook is in power, 
with the U.S. backing him. Pilger is a mere hack. Mandela is a retired 
senior citizen, and Blair is getting ready to welcome one of his real 
heroes, the Butcher of Chechnya, Vladimir Putin.

[end]

Carl

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com