Another naive liberal

Posted by Guest Blogger on Tuesday, 20 September 2005 06:49.

Malcolm Fraser is a former prime minister of Australia. He is a member of the “conservative” Liberal Party, but likes to declare himself at every turn to be a very compassionate progressive liberal.

One of his legacies is the handing over of Rhodesia to the political rule of Robert Mugabe. His biographer Philip Ayres wrote in 1987 that “The centrality of Fraser’s part in the processes leading to Zimbabwe’s independence is indisputable. All of the major African figures involved affirm it.”

Ayres also quotes Mugabe himself as saying, “I got enchanted by him (Fraser), we became friends ... he’s really motivated by a liberal philosophy.”

What does Fraser think now of his role in handing power to Mugabe? In 2002 he published a book, Common Ground, in which he spends 250 pages trying to demonstrate what a fine progressive liberal he is. He is especially concerned to show that this is not just a recent stance, but something which has motivated him consistently throughout his political career. In this context he writes proudly,

“The attitude my government showed to apartheid, to racially based government in Rhodesia, to human rights more generally but especially to human rights within Australia, where progressive legislation was put through the parliament and put into effect, is consistent with views I have expressed in recent times.”

In other words, Fraser is still boasting about his Rhodesia policy and including it as part of his liberal “human rights” CV.

But what exactly does Fraser have to be proud of? Last weekend one of Robert Mugabe’s cabinet ministers, Didymus Mutasa, declared of the remaining 400 white farmers in Zimbabwe that,

“Operation Murambatsvina (“Clean out the trash”) should also be applied to the land reform programme to clean the commercial farms that are still in the hands of white farmers. White farmers are dirty and should be cleared out. They are similar to the filth that was in the streets before Murambatsvina.”

So the last 400 of the formerly 4000 white farmers are about to be cleared out of Zimbabwe as “filth”.

Events in southern Africa are showing as clearly as anything could the inadequacies of the liberal politics of men like Malcolm Fraser. He personally has lost credibility, and so too should the political tradition to which he belongs.

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by Braveheart on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:27 | #

Mugabe said in New York that there is enough food in Zimbabwe, only people cannot eat “what they prefer” he argues. Potatoes enough he claims. Reminds me of Marie-Antoinette…

International aid organisations claim that 4 million out of 11,6 million people face starvation in Zim, see http://www.news24.com/Die_Burger/Nuus/0,,4-75_1772783,00.html (in Afrikaans)

And hundreds of people who flee to South Africa are send back to “paradise” Zimbabwe each day again (Mugabe says that people are so happy in Zim).

Mugabe cannot admit that the problem is THE PRICE of food.

Flanders,

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:07 | #

Don’t knock Marie Antoinette, a much maligned Queen.

Mugabe is one of those occasions, of which there were several, on which Maggie failed to show any measurable backbone (her destruction of the City being the worst such, at least if you’re British not ex-Rhodesian). Rhodesia hd a perfectly good black government in 1979, led by Bishop Muzorewa, with Ian Smith’s backing. The correct course would have been to supply that government with the materiel and advice needed to suppress Mugabe’s Communist terrorists. Maggie had promised to do that in her ‘79 election campaign, but didn’t do it—she got railroaded by Carrington and the Foreign Office, with huge help from the ghastly Fraser at a Commonwealth Conference.

Geoff objects when I go misty eyed about Reagan (but geez guys, compared to the present incumbent…)

My eyes however remain fairly dry about Maggie, except the manner of her going, which was a disgrace (but partly her own fault, for not promoting Ridley and keeping Tebbitt as her designated successor—his health was obviously perfectly OK for the job, since he’s still around and active.)

Posted by John S Bolton on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 01:12 | #

It appears that Fraser had a hideously evil function in Africa; he was the equivalent of a safe for children label on a bottle of poison. The circus of retarded aggression which that country has become, leaves much blood and abject dishonor on the name of M. Fraser. What defilement is upon his name!

Posted by Mark Richardson on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 01:22 | #

Nicely put John S Bolton. If I’m around when an obit is needed for Fraser, I might borrow what you just wrote.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 05:38 | #

In re: Martin’s comment of 9/20, 3:07 PM, I remember being very impressed with Lord Carington( * ) when he first burst on the scene but within a year or two I began to see he was the epitome of the “pragmatist” and didn’t really act according to deeply-held principles. Once I saw that in him I lost all interest in the man: he’d become a big yawn for me. On the going-misty-eyed-for-Reagan thing, I plead somewhat guilty to proneness to that vice but how can one argue with it? Together, the Gipper and Maggie standing shoulder-to-shoulder brought down Soviet Communism and its whole menacing Eastern-European red empire without firing a shot! Crashing down it came, what had been the nightmare, the terror, of the West for eighty agonizing years and this pair did it with help from nobody, nobody! Without their common sense, decency, sure instincts, and iron will it never would’ve happened. About the shameful manner of her ousting: I vividly remember the disgusting, back-stabbing way the Tories went about it led by that sickening lefty Tory opportunist, Heseltine. The guy made my skin crawl, I remember. Maggie of all people deserved better than to be treated like that, my God! It was sad for her at the end. (Of course she was badly mistaken in backing Major but that’s another story and I frankly think what clouded her judgment might have been shell-shock at how she was ousted: stunned, she was uncertain, couldn’t think straight.)

John Bolton, I agree with GW just above: that bit about Fraser’s Rhodesian role was very well put.
______

( * Incidentally, didn’t his family spell it with just one R? I’m pretty sure they did ... but after a time following his accession to household-word status he got tired of pointing that out to journalists and other people and just went with the flow, acquiescing in the double-R version for public consumption).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:40 | #

Erratum:

“John Bolton, I agree with GW just above: that bit about Fraser’s Rhodesian role was very well put.” (—me, above)

Of course that should have been, “I agree with Mark Richardson” (not GW).