http://www.msnbc.com/news/806174.asp?cp1=1 Nelson Mandela: The United States of America is a Threat to World Peace In a rare interview, the South African demands that George W. Bush win United Nations support before attacking Iraq NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE Sept. 10 — Nelson Mandela, 84, may be the world’s most respected statesman. Sentenced to life in prison on desolate Robben Island in 1964 for advocating armed resistance to apartheid in South Africa, the African National Congress leader emerged in 1990 to lead his country in a transition to non-racial elections. As president, his priority was racial reconciliation; today South Africans of all races refer to him by his Xhosa clan honorific, Madiba. Mandela stepped down in 1999 after a single five-year term. He now heads two foundations focused on children. He met with NEWSWEEK’S Tom Masland early Monday morning in his office in Houghton, a Johannesburg suburb, before flying to Limpopo Province to address traditional leaders on the country’s AIDS crisis. Excerpts: NEWSWEEK: Why are you speaking out on Iraq? Do you want to mediate, as you tried to on the Mideast a couple of years ago? It seems you are reentering the fray now. Nelson Mandela: If I am asked, by credible organizations, to mediate, I will consider that very seriously. But a situation of this nature does not need an individual, it needs an organization like the United Nations to mediate. We must understand the seriousness of this situation. The United States has made serious mistakes in the conduct of its foreign affairs, which have had unfortunate repercussions long after the decisions were taken. Unqualified support of the Shah of Iran led directly to the Islamic revolution of 1979. Then the United States chose to arm and finance the [Islamic] mujahedin in Afghanistan instead of supporting and encouraging the moderate wing of the government of Afghanistan. That is what led to the Taliban in Afghanistan. But the most catastrophic action of the United States was to sabotage the decision that was painstakingly stitched together by the United Nations regarding the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. If you look at those matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace. Because what [America] is saying is that if you are afraid of a veto in the Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries. That is the message they are sending to the world. That must be condemned in the strongest terms. And you will notice that France, Germany Russia, China are against this decision. It is clearly a decision that is motivated by George W. Bush’s desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America. If you look at those factors, you’ll see that an individual like myself, a man who has lost power and influence, can never be a suitable mediator. What about the argument that’s being made about the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and Saddam’s efforts to build a nuclear weapons. After all, he has invaded other countries, he has fired missiles at Israel. On Thursday, President Bush is going to stand up in front of the United Nations and point to what he says is evidence of... …Scott Ritter, a former United Nations arms inspector who is in Baghdad, has said that there is no evidence whatsoever of [development of weapons of] mass destruction. Neither Bush nor [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair has provided any evidence that such weapons exist. But what we know is that Israel has weapons of mass destruction. Nobody talks about that. Why should there be one standard for one country, especially because it is black, and another one for another country, Israel, that is white. So you see this as a racial question? Well, that element is there. In fact, many people say quietly, but they don’t have the courage to stand up and say publicly, that when there were white secretary generals you didn’t find this question of the United States and Britain going out of the United Nations. But now that you’ve had black secretary generals like Boutros Boutros Ghali, like Kofi Annan, they do not respect the United Nations. They have contempt for it. This is not my view, but that is what is being said by many people. What kind of compromise can you see that might avoid the coming confrontation? There is one compromise and one only, and that is the United Nations. If the United States and Britain go to the United Nations and the United Nations says we have concrete evidence of the existence of these weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we feel that we must do something about it, we would all support it. Do you think that the Bush administration’s U.N. diplomatic effort now is genuine, or is the President just looking for political cover by speaking to the U.N. even as he remains intent on forging ahead unilaterally? Well, there is no doubt that the United States now feels that they are the only superpower in the world and they can do what they like. And of course we must consider the men and the women around the president. Gen. Colin Powell commanded the United States army in peacetime and in wartime during the Gulf war. He knows the disastrous effect of international tension and war, when innocent people are going to die, young men are going to die. He knows and he showed this after September 11 last year. He went around briefing the allies of the United States of America and asking for their support for the war in Afghanistan. But people like Dick Cheney… I see yesterday there was an article that said he is the real president of the United States of America, I don’t know how true that is. Dick Cheney, [Defense secretary Donald] Rumsfeld, they are people who are unfortunately misleading the president. Because my impression of the president is that this is a man with whom you can do business. But it is the men who around him who are dinosaurs, who do not want him to belong to the modern age. The only man, the only person who wants to help Bush move to the modern era is Gen. Colin Powell, the secretary of State. I gather you are particularly concerned about Vice President Cheney? Well, there is no doubt. He opposed the decision to release me from prison (laughs). The majority of the U.S. Congress was in favor of my release, and he opposed it. But it’s not because of that. Quite clearly we are dealing with an arch-conservative in Dick Cheney. I’m interested in your decision to speak out now about Iraq. When you left office, you said, “I’m going to go down to Transkei, and have a rest.” Now maybe that was a joke at the time. But you’ve been very active. I really wanted to retire and rest and spend more time with my children, my grandchildren and of course with my wife. But the problems are such that for anybody with a conscience who can use whatever influence he may have to try to bring about peace, it’s difficult to say no.
Batman - Thanks for the article. It's very interesting that Dick Cheney was against the prison release of Nelson Mandela. We know that Cheney did business with Saddam in Iraq, Khadaffi in Libya, and the Regime in Iran up until he was added to the Republican ticket. He lied about doing business with Iraq on national television, and now I find out that Dick Cheney was against the release of Nelson Mandela. I can't think of a politician I have less respect for. Doing business with terrorists in this modern climate IMO is close to treason. Hoping for Nelson Mandela to remain in prison, is... I can't think of words strong enough to describe that kind of indecency.
BJ and FB -- Your smear campaign continues against the Bush Administration... Can't think of a politician you have less respect for? Hmmmm.......how about one that was impeached after lying under oath? How about one that received a bj in the oval office while speaking on the phone with political figures? How about one that pardoned tax-evading fugitive Marc Rich in exchange for large political donations by his ex-wife? Perhaps one that has a history of sexual harrassment accusations against him? Perhaps one that protested against the Vietnam War while in London while American soldiers were dying for the cause? Iraq is in violation of the treaty they signed at the end of the Gulf War since they won't allow our weapons inspectors into the country under our terms. This alone is reason enough to take action. If the UN can't recognize this, that's their fault.
I know I'm a newbie, but IMHO one thing we need on the eve of 9/11 is a celebration of American democracy and discussion. Locking a thread like this is sending exactly the wrong message: that you cannot speak your mind anymore. If we keep saying the rest of the world is crazy, we are going to join a truly horrible club of sovereign powers in history. In that light, listening to Mandela should be anything but a crime, and he in no way references 9/11 in a demeaning or offensive light. Oh, and, hello there, Mr. Ashcroft. How are you this evening, sir?
Trader J, I don't think this is about Clinton, but maybe you guys have been going at it for a while. And from my angle, it's not even about Bush so much. Mandela is talking about decades of foreign policy, including administrations of Dem's and Repub's. As for BJs, I'd rather an administration didn't give them to the defense and petrol industries. But that's just me.
<blockQUOTE>Originally posted by B-Bob The eve of 9/11 is a celebration of American democracy and discussion. Locking a thread like this is sending exactly the wrong message: that you cannot speak your mind anymore.</blockQUOTE>On second thought, you're right. If we lock threads for quoting articles that smear Bush on the eve of 9/11, then the terrorists have won.
Well Bush isn't spotlight during the event of 9/11. This isn't tasteless given the event unless you view upon it as some twisted display of "unpatriotism". As our elected leader, Bush is on call 24/7 for the actions he has or plan to partake upon our country and our world. It is because we Americans have given Bush a blanche carte on any foreign policy that there's such a debate right now.
I don't find the article tasteless at all. However, I don't really think Mandela takes a reasonable position here. Think even a little bit carefully about what he's saying: He wants evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction prior to a coercive attempt to force Iraq to allow inspections for such weapons This is simple. After the Gulf War, Saddam signed an agreement submitting to such searches. Now, he refuses them. If he has nothing to hide, one wonders why. It's silly for Mandela to require Bush to have proof - when Saddam is preventing the gathering of that proof. Pretty transparent. Generally speaking, I favor more international mediation and think the US should respect state sovereignty more. This isn't one of those times, although I'm not sure all out war is a good idea.
Mandela is a tool Send him back to prison where he belongs, how dare he say such things...... GW lock the dude up. What the Hell is the UN ever done anyway...............
http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/action/whyun$.htm The United Nations: A Snapshot of Accomplishments Established in 1945 at the end of World War II, the United Nations has served to meet humanitarian needs and help solve many conflicts. A few of its accomplishments are listed here. Establishing Peace & Promoting Democracy · Ending Conflicts. The U.N. has negotiated 172 peaceful settlements, helping bring about an end to the Iran-Iraq war, the civil war in El Salvador, and withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. · Peacekeeping. In El Salvador, Cambodia, Macedonia, Mozambique, Namibia, Cyprus and Haiti, to name a few, U.N. peace operations have helped uphold ceasefires, conduct free and fair elections, monitor troops withdrawals, deter violence, create free countries, and aid political stability. · Preventing Nuclear Proliferation. The International Atomic Energy Agency has helped minimize the spread of nuclear weapons by inspecting and monitoring nuclear reactors and facilities in 90 countries. The U.N. has also advanced arms control through international agreements such as the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Eradicating Disease & Famine · Ending Smallpox & Polio. A 13-year effort by World Health Organization (WHO) succeeded in eradicating smallpox in 1980. WHO also helped wipe out polio from the Western Hemisphere. · Universal Immunizations. In 1974, only five percent of children in developing countries were immunized against polio, tetanus, measles, whooping cough, diphtheria and tuberculosis. By 1995, as a result of the efforts of United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the WHO, there was an 80% immunization rate, saving the lives of over 3,000,000 children each year. · Alleviating Chronic Hunger and Rural Poverty. The U.N. has provided famine relief to millions of people. The International Fund for Agricultural Development had developed a system of providing economic credit for poor and marginalized groups, benefiting over 230 million people in nearly 100 developing countries and building longer-term hunger relief. Protecting People & Resources · Helping Refugees. In 1997, 22 million refugees, mostly women and children, receive food, shelter, medical aid, education and repatriation assistance from the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. · Environment. Through international treaties, the U.N. leads efforts to protect the ozone layer and curb global warming. Forestry action plans help limit deforestation and promote sustainable forestry practices for 90 countries. The U.N. has helped provide safe drinking water for 1.3 billion people in rural areas, and has on-going efforts to help prevent over-fishing and clean up pollution. · Improving Female Literacy. U.N. programs to help promote education and advancement for women helped raise their literacy rate in developing countries from 36% in 1970 to 56% in 1990.
Don't get smarmy and disrespectful Finn* Dubya knows the right thing to do and will slam Iraq good and proper.
<blockQUOTE>Originally posted by BobFinn* <a href="http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/action/whyun$.htm">The United Nations: A Snapshot of Accomplishments</a> </blockQUOTE>HaHa. That's funny Finn. The UN claims they got the Soviet Union to withdraw from Afghanistan, and they didn't even commit troops there. We took on the Taliban all by ourselves! And nowhere there does it say that the UN helped Free Free Nel.son Man.dela. They could have at least helped promote the song. Yet, he has the audacity to blame Cheney rather than the stupid Dutch for not freeing him!!!
After reading FranchiseBlade's comment about how he can't think of a politician that he has less respect for, I decided to refresh his memory. I don't know if you've missed the past 12 years of news or not, but we've got a serious problem with foreign dependence on oil. While I neither confirm nor deny Bush's preferential treatment towards the petrol industry, I can say that part of the reason why someone would want to promote this industry is due to national security reasons. Oh and in case you've missed the past year of news -- WE'RE AT WAR. Maybe now isn't the best time to be taking things away from the defense industry! GAME, SET, MATCH -- thanks for playing.
If all we are presently doing is cleaning out caves of weak, outdated Soviet era ammunitions, then the terrorists have won. They have escaped the major battles and taken refuge in countries we are not engaging them in. How do you defeat that? All the barbarians have to do is deploy their new recruits and hide in their little cubby holes only moving around at night. I wouldn't be surprised if Bin Laden died of natural causes in his 90s at this rate. I think we've already lost the war on terror...if anything, it's going to get worse when we attack Iraq. And, there is no doubting Bush is going to attack Iraq. He's not going to take no for an answer. The hatred multiplies exponentially, the recruits join up in the terrorists' jihad even moreso than before, and we end up reacting to tragedies more than acting to defeat the enemy. I'm pretty bummed about it. The world is an extremely s-h-i-t-t-y place right now . And, all we can do is "live our lives" and hope we don't end up a casualty. Fun. The Arab nations have one thing we don't have...a void of Americans in their countries for the most part. How many American people do you see walking around Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Malaysia, etc. ? Now, how much faith do we have to put in the freedoms of America and our Arab-Americans that they are who they are and nobody they aren't? I'm not even saying anything bad about Arab-Americans. I am only saying that terrorists take on a nice and neat appearance to appear as a friendly Arab-American who rams a plane into a building. Is it any wonder why Arab-Americans who are our equals in love for our country garner looks everywhere they go now and seem to be lacking the protection and civil rights our very freedoms are supposed to grant them? Not to mention that the lack of Americans in these Arab countries keeps us at a great disadvantage in infiltrating those communities in the fight against terrorism. We depend on the Pakistanis, for instance, to clean up their own country and that is not getting us very far at all due to the balancing act going by Musharaff. What are we going to do...attack every country that harbors terrorists while trying to avoid civilian casualties and minimize anti-American sentiment? Get real; war sucks. I'm not very optimistic about where we are heading. Are you? Surf
And..... the US has a long and better history of solving problems throughout the world, do i need to list them Vietnam Hiroshima/Nagaski Somalia Iran/Iraq conflict Cuba Soviet/Afghan conflict Iran-Contra
Well thanks for bringing me down, Surfguy... The eerie possibility is that we're getting most of our Middle Eastern intelligence from Israel. They have the experience and the contacts. So what happens then when it surfaces that an attack we made was based on Israeli information that might not have been as credible as it could be? Well they buy our F-16s and weapons anyways so it isn't exactly making it easier for a native Arab to tell the two apart...
