South Africa's President, Thabo Mbeki, did not receive a very warm welcome at the UN yesterday as Ban Ki-Moon and Gordon Brown condemned Mugabe's efforts to manipulate Zimbabwe's election results.

I'm very interested by Mbeki's handling of the current Zimbabwe situation. I believe his lack of strong action regarding the matter compromises South Africa's position as a regional political leader in the eyes of the world. To some extent, Mbeki's refusal to strongly condemn Mugabe makes sense. After all, Mugabe was a huge player in African states independence and led Zimbabwe to independence after a history of atrocities against black Zimbabweans in Rhodesia. But following the disintegration of Zimbabwe's political and economic systems, as well as heightened executive oppression, Mbeki's silence has gone on for too long and discredits South Africa as a regional leader.

I think I must respectfully disagree with the previous assessment of "racist" European countries who readily feel free to intervene in African affairs, but consider their own problems "internal". It seems to me that European countries intervene (admittedly politically, diplomatically and financially and not with military troops for the most part) in other European countries all the time. I suppose I'm thinking of this in the sense that in order to join the European Union there are certain benchmarks set in regards to currency, human rights standards, etc. Countries have actively changed their own policies regarding these issues in order to join this organization. Even just due to geography, unemployment in Poland has repercussions in Britain, and British politicians address such issues through diplomatic means. Additionally, to look at Eastern Europe, it was European countries with NATO that intervened in the Balkans in the 1990's. Now admittedly, all of these issues are complex, but I think they are good enough examples to disprove your assertion that all European problems are deemed internal.

Now, if you were to label European countries "racist" for not intervening in African countries in the midst of oppressive governments and genocides I may be more inclined to see your point, although I'm not sure if I would entirely agree with you. The fact is, Gordon Brown may criticize Mbeki's handling of the Zimbabwe issue -- but there is no way he or the U.S. would ever commit troops (in my opinion) to help quell the violence. In fact while Gordon Brown criticizes Mugabe, if there was ever a call for troops to be committed to this situation as in Sudan currently or Rwanda in the 1990's-- European leaders would be the first to label the Mugabe problem as "internal" to southern Africa.

Additionally, I would be the first to agree with Samston that Rhodesia was a horrific regime that brutally oppressed black Africans. Indeed, Mugabe played a major role in seeing to the end of this colonial presence in what is now Zimbabwe. However, I believe your anger which surrounds colonialism and "racist" European countries clouds your current assessment of Mugabe. His rule has resulted in a Zimbabwe that is no longer able to feed its people and inflation is rampant. What was once the bread basket of southern Africa is now a net importer of food. Just yesterday, the New York Times recognized the waves of humans fleeing the violence in Zimbabwe.

So while I recognize your anger at the atrocious practices that were apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia, I think you are failing to recognize Mugabe for what he has done economically and politically to the Zimbabwean people-- and the harm that his failure to respect the vote will further cause.