Thursday, December 17, 2009

How does it feel to be told off by Robert Mugabe?

The positive I take from the climate change conference at Copenhagen is that it has exposed in all its naked ugliness the avarice of the third-world dictators who hide their despotism behind sham democracies.

How laughable it is to read about Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe chiding the West from the podium in Copenhagen for what he charged was a double standard under which it fell short on addressing global warming while taking developing countries to task over human rights. He’s concerned about our “double standard.” I’d be satisfied if this ruthless despot had a single standard that could bear scrutiny by any standard of civilized conduct.

To take a measure of this man, one need only to read the report by Stephen Lewis’s Aids Free World in which Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party is accused of engaging “in the systematic violent rape of women who supported the opposition in the widely discredited second-round presidential poll in 2008.”

And that is the sort of man who gets to the podium at Copenhagen. Mugabe said that because the developing world would be called upon to clean up the mess left by the industrialized West, it deserved ample climate-related funding. “We who bear the burden of healing the gasping earth must draw the most from the global purse for remedial action,” Mugabe declared pompously.

Why was Mugabe even allowed to speak at the conference? His deplorable record on human rights and general issues of governance should have disqualified him from preaching to civilized nations. Denmark and the 26 other European Union states have barred Mugabe from travel within their territory, but since this is a U.N. gathering he is allowed to be there.

I hope Elizabeth May is correct when she says the Copenhagen climate conference is a “dismal failure.” I fear success will not be measured by how much real action is promised to influence greenhouse gas emissions, but rather by the amount of Western taxpayers’ money that is shipped off to countries like Zimbabwe and their wretched leaders.

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.


  1. Why was he not arrested and tried at the Hague for his crimes?

  2. I will try to be fair in my assessment in the Copenhagen climate conference.

    In my opinion, the conference is as much about economics as it is about the environment. It's about who pays and who benefits from changes in industrial production. It's easy to state that all countries should cut back on CO2 pollution. The hard part is when some countries want to either cut back slower than others or increase their CO2 levels for a period of time until they become more industrialized. There is also the issue of transferring money from industrialized countries to poorer ones. In theory, this is to help poorer countries become less pollution. Problems occur when leaders like Robert Mugabe may decide how money his country would receive should be spent. How much will go to himself?

    I have commented on my own blog that Stephen Harper has very little to gain or lose politically within Canada if he does not sign a new environmental agreement. Environmentalists are unlikely to support his party in the next election if he should sign a satisfactory agreement. On the other hand, if Harper signs an agreement and unemployment goes up, his party may lose a lot more votes. Finally, Harper does not need to win the support of a majority of Canadians based on his actions at the climate conference. He just needs the support of about 35 to 40 percent of Canadians thanks to Canada's First-Past-the-Post voting system.

  3. It is entirely consistent for Mugabe to address a UN conference. After all, the UN put Zimbabwe at the head of their 'Sustainable Development' program a few years ago.

    Next up: Qadaffi at a UN human rights conference.

  4. Mugabe Chavez are not there for the common good of their people but themselves alone.
    They have abused the wealth of their country for their own personal use, military etc; leaving their people in distitute and hungry.
    Once a wealthy country with every resources you can think of lay at the feet in venezuela bringing in wealthy people from around the world to live there. The wealth flowed but it turned into greed and disaster for the innocent people. the value of the $Bolivar reduce to pennies.
    Now that the wealthy have taken their money out of venezuela into foreign banks; the so call economy is reduced to a trickle, leaving of course Chavez in a dilemma.
    Hugo,begged the wealthy to return their wealth to help venezuela financial crisis but he was meant with cynicism and fury.
    Chavez has his personal people to pay and since no money is comming in he then resorts himself to the world for help by using the 'climate change problems as a scapegoat in order to suck money from other country like canada.