Eerst enkele feiten over Margaret Thatcher:
She opposed the release from prison of Nelson Mandela, the leader of the African National Congress who later became South Africa's first democratically elected president, referring to him as a "terrorist." In 1984, she reversed longstanding British foreign policy by hosting a state visit by white South African president P.W. Botha. And although she defeated Argentina's military junta in the Falklands war, Thatcher befriended the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet — even inviting him to her home in England when he was under investigation for human rights atrocities.
Welnu, Lara de Brito, jij hebt nog steeds geen antwoord gegeven op mijn vraag waarom je in de Volkskrant getergd het volgende schreef:
Na de bekendmaking dat Margaret Thatcher overleden was, volgden de voorspelbare hardvochtige oordelen uit linkse hoek over the Iron Lady. Ironisch, want hardvochtigheid is precies wat haar voortdurend verweten wordt...
Feit is dat Thatcher wel heel veel vrouwen heeft geïnspireerd om ambitie te hebben en een (politieke) carrière te claimen. Dat is pure winst. Als vrouwenemancipatie het hoogste doel is zouden we dat moeten waarderen.
Je stelt je voor als een 'freelance journaliste en Fractievoorzitter GroenLinks Wageningen.' Welnu, als journalist/schrijver stel ik jou nu de vraag waarom voor jou Margaret Thatcher een rolmodel was gezien het feit dat zij tegen de vrijlating van Nelson Mandela was en als vriend van Pinochet tegen een juridische vervolging wegens grootschalige mensenrechtenschendingen was van deze Chileense dictator? Ik begrijp uit jouw bewoordingen dat je links niet ziet zitten, maar kun je mij toch uitleggen waarom je de Britse actrice en volksvertegenwoordigster Glenda Jackson het recht niet gunt om gefundeerde kritiek op Thatcher te geven en te verklaren dat voor haar Thatcher geen rolmodel was? Even voor alle duidelijkheid: Pinochet verdreef via een militaire staatsgreep in samenwerking met de CIA de democratisch gekozen president Allende, waarna een schrikbewind volgde. Nelson Mandela kreeg in 1993 na meer dan een kwarteeuw gevangen te hebben gezeten vanwege zijn strijd tegen het racistische blanke apartheidsregime de Nobelprijs voor de Vrede. Ik verwacht een antwoord van je. Of heb je domweg geen antwoord en is jouw afschuw van links de voornaamste reden van je onbesuisde reactie in de Volkskrant?
8 juli 2008 publiceerde ik op deze weblog het volgende bericht:
The Axioms Of Evil
Mandela is no longer suspected of 'terrorism' - a term so politicised it is largely useless.By Waleed Aly08/07/08 "The Guardian"-- - Nelson Mandela was 44 years old when he was arrested in 1962, and subsequently imprisoned for leaving South Africa without a passport. Two years later, while serving this sentence, he was infamously convicted of sabotage and conspiracy to launch violent revolution, and spent his prime in prison as a result.These facts are frequently rehearsed. More rarely noted is that Mandela's arrest was made possible by the CIA, which effectively handed him over to the South African security police by revealing his whereabouts and blowing his disguise. Mandela was a villain then. His anti-apartheid activism had a vaguely communist hue, and threatened to undermine a friendly South African regime. Thus was he condemned. As a terrorist, no less. That much was made official during the Reagan era when Mandela and his party, the African National Congress, were added to the US government's terror watch list.Now, with Mandela on the brink of his 90th birthday, the scenery could not contrast more starkly. These days, the Queen meets him and London celebrates his milestone with a rock concert. Yet he officially remained a terror suspect until last week, when the US government finally removed his name, and that of the ANC, from its watch list. It rectified an absurdity that Condoleezza Rice said she found "embarrassing".But serious questions emerge from this. For example, precisely what is so "embarrassing" about Mandela's inclusion? Was his inclusion always so ridiculous, or did it only become so when the political winds blew apartheid to the ground? Margaret Thatcher did not seem remotely abashed in declaring the ANC terrorists in 1987, signing up to the prevailing Reaganite orthodoxy. Yet today, David Cameron sees a need to repudiate that stance. Mandela is "one of the greatest men alive", he wrote two years ago in the Observer. A terrorist no longer, he saved South Africa with his "leadership, his humanity and generosity of spirit".Who was right? At the heart of this is a lack of clarity on what we mean by the term "terrorist". Mandela, you will recall, founded and led the ANC's armed wing. In that role, he launched bombing campaigns on government and military targets. Is that terrorism? He took care to ensure no people would be killed in the attacks. Does that change your answer? It makes no difference under American or British law, where political violence qualifies as terrorism even if directed against property alone. Is that right? Lees verder: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20249.htm
Lara de Brito uit Wageningen, Margaret Thatcher-bewonderaarster.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten