Hm, you see this is the problem with interfering in the internal politics of foreign countries, you set a dangerous precedent.
I think it is very silly to use the argument that if the US can invade the middle east then why not just invade everyone else? Western powers have
learned a very hard lesson in both Africa an South America that most of the time interference in third world politics only causes greater problems.
The West has been lambasted countless times, regardless of whether their intentions were benign or not, for disrupting the natural healing and
developmental processes of the third world, which are needless to say fairly complicated.
So the US and Europe has now made a firm decision not to meddle in the internal affairs of developing nations, especially one as unique as Zimbabwe
which is being ruled by the political organisation that liberated its' people from a colonial power. ZANU
and Mugabe are historically liberators from oppression and injustice by British colonial empire.
But what the west has relied on in their unwillingness to interfere, is the ability of developing African nations to solve these problems themselves,
which they should at this stage be more than capable of doing. And in my opinion they have taken the correct stance by this policy.
So what happened with Zimbabwe is that after the fraudulent elections which the opposition MDC clearly won, a resolution was required by either
Zimbabweans themselves, but also the rest of the neighborhood, in particular South Africa.
Our ex-president Thabo Mbeki was charged with the role of mediatorship and completely incorrectly assumed that things would just somehow sort
themselves out, when obviously, they wouldn't. The second agent in charge of assuring a solution to this problem is/was
, who actually, were the ones charged with, or burdened with, the
Yet was has transpired is a complete and utter failure of this 'African solution'. SADC and Mbeki have been pathetic mediators and have refused to
put any significant pressure on Mugabe to do what the rest of the world knows must be done; a signed letter of resignation.
It is interesting to note than many people immediately assume that the only solution the problem is a military intervention!? Why? Even in this thread
the only assumption as to a deposition of Mr/ Mugabe is by force. I guarantee you that no such intervention was necessary, if both SADC and the South
African government cried foul and demanded Mugabe to step down, he would have been forced to do so.
Yet what has happened is a classic symptom of Southern African politics; a cronyism and allegiance to 'comrades' of struggle regardless of the
consequences of this allegiance. We have seen this within the ANC itself, members convicted of corruption charges sent to prison, convicted
criminals!, being marched to prison in solidarity by the ruling party. When the leaders of southern Africa should in fact be pledging their allegiance
to justice and righteousness, rather than merely 'comrades'.
So now the West is in a precarious position. They have a responsibility to avert and respond to gross human rights violations. But they had hedged
their bets on the assumption that Southern Africa could, and would be able to solve this problem on their own.
But they have failed, and what now? Condo Rice is starting to say that enough is enough, and something must be done! Archbishop Desmond Tutu has
called for an aggressive deposition of Mugabe. The president of Nigeria has made these same calls... yet the South African government and SADC stand
around like idiots.
What is the west to do?