Will he or won't he? The question is tearing Belgium apart. Some say King Albert II should definitely visit Belgium's erstwhile colony of Congo to congratulate president Kabila for holding democratic elections and forming a new government. Not so fast, others say, let's wait and see... We don't know yet whether Kabila is really building a clean government.
Hogwash! Both sides of the argument are wrong. First things first: king Albert shouldn't go anywhere because the monarchy should be abolished without any further delay, the jolly old chap should be given a handsome pension (even hardline Republicans can't find anything wrong with Albert) and be allowed to travel as an ordinary citizen wherever he wishes to go.
Second, Belgian politicians should stop lecturing the Congolese about what they should or shouldn't do. Just shut up. The Holocaust of the Congolese perpetrated by Leopold II and his ilk is worse than the Holocaust of the Jews.
Third, why would a Belgian king visit Congo again, not Tanzania, or Zambia, or Kenya, or Cameroon?
Fourth, those who favor a royal visit say Albert could deliver a message of "good governance". Surely not his own message, but one drafted by the prime minister. Why do we need the king to deliver the message, can't the prime minister do that? At least his forefathers don't have that much blood on their hands.
Fifth, opponents say, you shouldn't reward Kabila with a royal visit before he proves to be any better than Mobutu. Playing colonial games again: we, the white men, know what's best for the niggers.
The liberals (pro) and the socialists (contra) are all wrong. Albert II should stay away from Kinshasa for ever, never mind what Kabila proves or doesn't prove to be. Let the proud people of Congo decide their own future. Without the meddling of the Belgians.
No comments:
Post a Comment