GLOBAL ELDERS? OR THE AGENTS OF K.A.O.S? Last month we read the headline: Nelson Mandela launches Elders to save world

Global Elders [from left]: Peter Gabriel, Muhammad Yunus, Mary Robinson, Kofi Annan, Nelson Mandela, Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Sir Richard Branson

In the Telegraph article, we were treated to the following bold and enthusiastic declaration:

"The Elders can become a fiercely independent and robust force for good, tackling conflicts and intractable issues, especially those that are not popular," said Mr Mandela.

The group will "speak freely and boldly, working both publicly and behind the scenes, working wherever our help is needed".

He added: "This group derives its strength not from military, political or economic power, but from the independence and integrity of those who are here." [emphasis added]

Needless to say, nothing has been heard from Mandela or his group since--probably because the group is following the sage--and convenient--advice of Archbishop Tutu:

One of the ways to be effective is that no one gets to know precisely what we have done," he said.

Contrast the initial splash--and subsequent silence--of The Global Elders with the open letter signed by 51 Nobel Prize Winners including Elie Wiesel and the Dalai Lama:

We, Nobel Laureates, deplore the shameful decision by the University and
College Union to boycott contact and exchanges with Israeli educators and
academic institutions. We also deplore a similar move by Unison and its 1.3
million public service employees, as well as the boycott of Israeli goods by
Britain’s National Union of Journalists. Not only do such boycotts pander to
hardliners. They also glorify prejudice and bigotry. The cherished principle of
academic freedom must not be undermined.

Of course, since the topic is Israel--at a time when negotiations for a Palestinian state are again being discussed--one is not surprised to see that the reaction of Mandela, Carter, Tutu, Annan, and Robinson to the boycott is no reaction at all.

James Kirchick writes in Commentary Magazine's Contentions that the fact that Mandela's name is missing from the open letter is consistent:

Mandela has long been a friend of tyrants, from Fidel Castro to Muammar Qaddafi to Yasir Arafat. In the current issue of Azure, I explore the theme of Mandela's support for these autocrats within the larger context of the troubling direction in which his political party—the African National Congress—is taking South African foreign policy.

A similar statement could be made about Mandela's buddies such as Carter, Annan, Tutu, and Robinson--but Mandela in particular is held to be on a higher level than the others, especially considering his history and what he has gone through. Kirchick knows this, but notes:

no one is immune from criticism, not even someone who spent 27 years of his life languishing in prison for the ideals of non-racialism and democracy. And if that's the standard for sainthood, why are figures like Armando Valladares (who spent 22 years in a Cuban gulag suffering conditions far worse than those Mandela faced), Vladimir Bukovsky, and Natan Sharansky not given the same hagiographic treatment as Mandela? One cannot help concluding that the nature of the regime behind the imprisonment—whether a right-wing authoritarian one in the case of South Africa, or a left-wing totalitarian one like the Soviet Union or Cuba—affects the attention paid to the prisoner. And so I am left asking the same question Nat Hentoff posed four years ago, regarding Mandela's silence in the face of Robert Mugabe's destruction of Zimbabwe: "Where is Nelson Mandela?"

Perhaps attending another photo-op with his friends?

Technorati Tag: Israel and Mandela.