Mbeki and China accessories to Mugabe's bloodshed

As despicable as Robert Mugabe's despotic machinations are to cling to power, steal and prop up his blood thirsty cronies, whilst bulldozing the bodies of ordinary Zimbabweans into the dust, a close second comes to his buddy - Thabo Mbeki - not an appeaser but a partner in the crimes against Zimbabwe. Mbeki by rights, should be persona non grater in international circles. However, South Africa at the moment chairs the UN Security Council, which doesn't particularly surprise me. After all, when Libya gets selected to go on the Human Rights Council it confirms the moral vacuousness of the UN, which has the moral heights of its lowest member.

.

The UN, after all, including the People's Republic of China, repeatedly condemned apartheid as an hienous system - not hesitating to comment or pass resolutions regarding the internal affairs of South Africa - but not Zimbabwe.

.

So Gordon Brown's call for "the world" to stop Mugabe stealing his election finally shows some backbone, supported by France. China regards this as an "internal matter", but then again China is far from the world's repositary of moral authority. Mbeki chaired the UN Security Council meeting where Brown made this call, and did not mention Zimbabwe. Mbeki despicable betrayal of Zimbabwe seen by his reported "snub" of Brown afterwards and condemnation of "loud diplomacy". Of course loud diplomacy was fine under apartheid - but Mbeki presumably supports the halving of life expectancy, the murders, the electoral fraud, or he insanely believes his wealthy thug of a friend that it is all a conspiracy. This may explain it, given Mbeki's retarded views on AIDS and HIV, he may simply be an idiot who is friends with a bullying fraudster.

.

Mbeki's role as "mediator" for Zimbabwe is completely ridiculous. It would be like appointing Mussolini to mediate between the Nazis and the Jews. Morgan Tsvangarai has called for Mbeki to stand down in this role - it is critical that this gets widespread support. Mbeki is known for believing AIDS isn't caused by HIV, but by poverty. This ludicrous notion has undoubtedly killed many South Africans who believed that, with HIV, they could act with impunity.

.

He says claims of serious violent crime are exaggerated, apparently 50 murders a day - the second highest rate in the world, isn't bad enough for Thabo Mbeki. Perhaps 100 a day, well apparently Zimbabwe's death rate isn't an issue. He is a quiet man who not only is in denial about his own countries biggest problems (AIDS, crime and now electricity shortages), but is an accessory to murder and a constitutional coup by Mugabe and his Zanu-PF thugs. South Africa's post-apartheid moral leadership of the continent has been lost because of its siding with one of the continents biggest living kleptocratic thugs. It is complete evasion to claim, as Guardian columnist Blessing-Miles Tendi does that this is about South Africa respecting state sovereignty and non-intervention - South Africa is intervening, it choses to let constitutional law in its neighbour to proceed. It treats and warmly embraces the man undertaking it - Thabi Mbeki is embracing a murdering tyrant, and that makes him only one step better.

.

Meanwhile the latest step is China - as it seeks to claim the moral highground over the Olympics- is now shipping arms to Zimbabwe, as a Chinese ship has docked in Durban South Africa for transhipment to Zimbabwe. If you wanted another reason to oppose the Beijing Olympics, then enjoy noting that while Zimbabweans starve, Zanu-PF, the army and the police can put them out of their misery with Chinese made arms. Of course, South Africa wont stop the arms shipment will it?

Helen Clark defends Winston Peters?

So the PM thinks that it is notable that Winston Peters doesn’t trust National. Well that’s hardly a surprise, but she selected a man who leads a racist party to be Minister of Foreign Affairs.

What would immigrants, particularly Asian ones, think of how cozy Clark is being with Peters?

and more importantly, why should anyone trust the Prime Minister when she has to deny the tactic promoted by Mike Williams - Labour Party President - member of various government boards - to use the public sectors' resources for political campaigning?

Greens oppose competition for government companies

Green MP Sue Bradford in the typical "Nanny State knows best" fashion of the Greens has said in her press release against privatisation that despite John Key's decision to have a privatisation policy to the left of the British Labour Party..
.
"Key's assurances say nothing about opening up state assets to private competition"
.
So the Greens now believe that state owned enterprises should actually be monopolies? She witters on about ACC - the only example in the world of a state monopoly for personal injury by accident cover, and as a result one with the worst payouts. If you're a student doctor and have injuries that prevent you ever being a surgeon you'll get compensation equivalent to you pay as a student - not what you would have lost. You can't sue of course, because that's not allowed in the happy socialist world of "no fault", even if someone drove drunk into you.
.
Bradford's view presumably means she thinks that NZ Post should have a statutory monopoly again (the Alliance did vote against it), Air New Zealand surely should have domestic routes to itself, and private companies shouldn't be selling electricity, so bye bye Contact Energy and Trustpower. We know the Greens aren't friends of privately provided health and education, so presumably private hospitals and independent schools should go. Banking is more complicated, because presumably Kiwibank shouldn't have to face private competition.

.

So in other words it's ok for the state to rip you off, provide poor service and shut out competitors, because competition is "bad" unless it is the evil private sector facing it. Presumably if you get bad service from the "people's" hospital, you should complain to your MP who will fix it - you know how effective that has been.

.

The Greens don't like monopolies except ones that you, the taxpayers have to fund, and which are owned by the big brother state they want to control and grow.

Auckland local government?

It doesn't matter how you want to slice the Auckland local government cake - it is still cholesterol laden and tasteless. It's too big. Arguments about the best structure avoid the first point - what should local government do? Labour and the Greens believe it should have the power to do just about whatever it wishes, this means running businesses, supplying housing, regulating and planning as much as it can get away with. I believe that, at the most, it should provide a transitional role in defining property rights, administering public space and divesting itself of activities that could be done by the private sector and voluntarily.
.
What does National believe?
.
It could start by restricting local authorities to only being custodians of arms length commercially or cost recovery run water, sewage, stormwater, rubbish collection and public parks, with planning authority only to enforce private property rights. It could transfer roads to companies with adjacent property owners owning the shares and paying access fees. However, most of all local government needs to be limited. The current review of Auckland governance ignores this, and attributes blame for Auckland problems on the wrong arrangement of councils - when the real blame is the meddling of councils and their inability to carry out well some of the functions they are entrusted with. The poor turnout at local body elections show what little interest many people have in local government and how poorly representative it is of "the community".
.
So first decide what local government should or shouldn't do. What do YOU think? Would Auckland be worse off if Auckland Regional Council was abolished?

Labour's Zimbabwe election tactics?

If anything should justify universal outrage about Labour it is the report in the NZ Herald that it plans to sidestep the Electoral Finance Act, by using YOUR money through the once politically independent state sector. These come from confidential strategy notes apparently distributed at the Labour Party Congress.
.
According to the NZ Herald "in a private session on the election strategy, run by president Mike Williams, delegates were advised to distribute pamphlets on KiwiSaver produced by the Inland Revenue Department and on Working for Families produced by Work and Income. They were also advised to tell voters when handing out the pamphlets that National voted against both measures."
.
So Labour wants to use taxpayer funded leaflets about government policy to campaign - how very convenient. Of course all public servants are expected to declare to the Chief Executive their political affiliations - all such public servants should simply not be permitted to remove from their work large numbers of publicity material for political purposes.
.
This, of course, was always the problem with the nonsense about "buying elections" with private money. The incumbent government can always "buy elections" with the resources of government departments directly or indirectly, and it is compulsorily funded by taxpayers whether they support them or not.
.
So will Nicky Hagar write a book about Labour's strategy to buy the next election? Oh no, that's right, that "journalist" wants Labour to win. Meanwhile, watch Labour's blogging lackeys deny it, say the Herald is a rightwing rag or claim that it's been misinterpreted. Anything for power right?