Not black and white
Sir: Marian L. Tupy deserves thanks for his excellent article (‘Mugabe is the Mobutu of our time’, 22 March), despite one seeming inaccuracy and an omission. Tupy says, ‘It was 1980 and Zimbabwe had just gained independence from Britain… the first ever multiracial election gave Mugabe’s Zimbabwe African National Union a majority.’ To the contrary, a universal franchise election in 1978 brought a coalition of Ian Smith’s Rhodesian Front and Bishop Muzorewa’s Democrats into office. Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo had been invited to take part but refused. Some 70 per cent plus of the electorate participated, with a significant majority voting for a dual system of government in which Muzorewa and Smith would alternately occupy the position of prime minister. The election was declared free and fair by the world press. Britain funked recognition because Commonwealth democrats such as Presidents Kaunda of Zambia (of Chinsali massacre fame) and Nyerere (the despoiler of Tanzania) objected, threatening continued provision of insurgent sanctuaries in their countries. It was Britain’s last opportunity to ensure continuance of democratic government in Zimbabwe–Rhodesia.
Tupy goes on observe, ‘In 1982, Mugabe turned on his once comrade-in-arms, Joshua Nkomo…, and unleashed his special forces trained by the North Koreans on Nkomo’s supporters in the Matabeleland, killing some 20,000 in the process.’ He could have added, for the edification of readers, that shortly thereafter our then spineless government procured a state visit by Mugabe to Britain, with the Queen suffering the indignity of having to invest Mugabe with a knighthood and, furthermore, invite the tyrant to spend a night at Buckingham Palace.
Tupy is certainly correct in describing Mugabe as the Mobutu of our time. It is worth remembering, however, that we put him where he is — but it is the people of Zimbabwe, black and white alike, who are paying the price.
R.L. O’Shaughnessy
Ipswich, Suffolk
Under cover
Sir: With the cartoon on the cover of your issue of 22 March you plumbed the same depths as those that were familiar to readers of Der Stürmer from 1923 until the end of the second world war. Its publisher, Julius Streicher, would have found your picture familiar since, although intended as a hate-filled portrayal of an Arab, it could equally well be caricaturing a Jew. Both Jews and Arabs are Semitic peoples and this anti-Semitic cartoon should be offensive to both. You have not served your readers or this country well by publishing this cartoon and I hope that you never repeat such a piece of obscene propaganda.
Navin Sullivan
London N2
Noble Deedes
Sir: Peregrine Worsthorne’s compelling review of my biography of W.F. Deedes (Books, 22 March) strikes a discordant note in the final paragraph when it suggests that Bill spoke of ‘his last colleagues’ at the Daily Telegraph as ‘a stinking mob’. Bill used that phrase after the sacking of his friend Sue Ryan, and it referred specifically to the management of the company, as is made clear in my book. Bill would never have referred to journalistic colleagues in those terms.
Stephen Robinson
London NW1
A princely plongeur
Sir: It seems that Prince Charles kept more secrets from Diana than we suspected. She was quite wrong to claim (And Another Thing, 22 March) that he had ‘Never, never, never’ done the washing up. I have myself stood next to him at the capacious scullery sink of a rather grand country house in Aberdeenshire, drying while the Prince plonge-d with enthusiasm and a skill that suggested considerable practice. (True, he was a teenager at the time but it isn’t a skill easily lost.) No doubt he kept his experience quiet in order to allow Diana freedom to indulge her own pleasure without feeling that she was depriving him.
Charles Barron
Aberdeen
Why they fought
Sir: Despite what Charles Moore says (‘Lessons from the miners’ strike’, 22 March), Muslims did not fight against the Ottoman empire because they felt respected and secure with the British. They fought because we had promised them independence. They still remember their subsequent betrayal.
Robert Davies
London SE3
Eggs is eggs
Sir: Alex James’s comments about painted eggs should be taken with a pinch of salt (Slow life, 22 March). The answer to his question, ‘Who in Witney wants to buy a decorated egg?’, might surprise him — 5,000 people in Witney alone have bought such an egg in the past five years. These real eggshells look fantastic in a glass bowl as the centrepiece on the Easter table. Individually, they also make a cracking Easter gift, with a less fattening centre.
The last time a celebrity took an interest in these eggs was in the 1970s when Romania’s dictator Nicolae Ceausescu banned the craft, saying that the motifs were subversive. The fact that this art form has not only survived, but grown, is a tribute to the creativity, enterprise and determination of the rural women who have learned the art from their ancestors. I visited Romania a few years ago, and met several of the women who practise the art. One, Paula Omania, has built her new house on the sales proceeds of the 9,000 decorated eggs. Paula has applied that essential skill that James rightly points to — marketing.
Trevor Lucey
Witney, Oxfordshire
What Tesco does
Sir: I think it was the late Alan Coren who neatly summed up the purpose of Tesco and Sainsbury’s et al (‘Tesco, I hate you’, 22 March). They keep the riff-raff out of Waitrose.
Gavin Peck
Basingstoke, Hampshire
Comments