Outrage at Mugabe, but what about the rest of the continent?

While Robert Mugabe has been singled out for condemnation, leaders of other autocratic states have largely been able to avoid sanctions and isolation. Many have friends in Western capitals. Or play a strategic role in the war on terror. Or sit on oil.

Ever wonder why we don't condemn more of the despotic states in Africa...there's your answer. We (the West, including the US) are in bed with many of them. Somewhat like how we propped up the Taliban since back then Communism was the greater (perceived) threat.

Or they have oil.

Zimbabwe has really little to offer us (in terms of oil or strategic positioning) so it's "safe" to criticize. But what about nations like this:

But nobody made a fuss when the party of oil-rich Equatorial Guinea's strongman President Teodoro Obiang announced after May legislative elections that it had won 100 percent of votes in many districts and 99 percent in others. The opposition said the vote was rigged by Obiang, who took power in a 1979 coup.

Or:

Other oil producers that have managed to avoid international condemnation include Angola, which hasn't held a presidential election since 1992, and Gabon, whose President Omar Bongo seized power in a 1967 coup and who is the continent's longest-serving leader.

Oh...that's right...they have OIL, so whatever they do is OK as far as leaders like Bush (oddly enough an oil man) are concerned.

It's somewhat hypocritical to criticize African nations anyway, given that our own house is far from clean (Guantanamo Bay). It's not like we are a shining example of human rights at home...

Technorati Tags: Politics, Mugabe, Human Rights, Guantanamo Bay, Oil