NP Rank:
By forcing the opposition to abandon the election, Robert Mugabe has undermined his position (opinion piece)
This is an opinion piece from the Economist.
I'm sure there are many people here who know more about international relations than I do, and I wonder if they agree with the authors of this piece. It is claiming, in the main, that Mugabe has, rather ironically, diminished his power by forcing a one-man election. Also, the author is saying that in doing so, Mugabe has lost the support he once had from the rest of Africa.
Yet Robert Mugabe’s crimes are finally coming home to roost. He will claim to be re-elected president, by default. But he has lost one of the big things that have kept him in power to date: the grudging support of Africa. His brutality and fraudulence have become so plain for all to see that neighbours who once defended him are changing their tune. Just as he is poised to declare himself the winner, almost the entire continent—not to mention the rest of the world—has come to believe that he cannot be allowed to stay in office (see article).
As such, here's how to 'finish him off'.
The first and easiest act is to refuse to recognise any administration led by Mr Mugabe. The European Union, the United States and much of the rich world will ostracise him. Now is the time for Africa, especially the influential regional club of 14 countries known as the Southern African Development Community (SADC), to follow suit. A swelling chorus of other African leaders has condemned the election as unfair. Even South Africa, whose spineless president, Thabo Mbeki, is still refusing to criticise Mr Mugabe outright, has begun to turn against him. Its likely next president, Jacob Zuma, is increasingly exasperated. Its trade unions have called for a blockade of Zimbabwe, symbolic at first but perhaps a harbinger of pressure to come. Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s beacon of decency, in London this week to celebrate his 90th birthday, spoke out against the “tragic failure of leadership in our neighbouring Zimbabwe”.
In short:
Zimbabwe needs help from the West. But most of all it needs its African neighbours to tell the tyrant unambiguously to go—and to snuff him out if he refuses. It can be done.
While the Economist piece argues that ousting Mugabe by force is not an option, a Times columist has other ideas.
Some romantic spirits ask why Mr Mugabe cannot be ousted by force—by Western powers, if not the UN. It would be glorious if he were removed by any method at all. But it remains unthinkable for such an action to be taken without the co-operation—logistical, among other things—of the region’s leaders. Persuading them to collaborate in isolating Mr Mugabe is hard enough. Deploying an international force should not be ruled out in the future, especially if the violence spreads. But other methods, with Africans to the fore, must be tried first.
"Yes, it’s messy, but toppling Mugabe may be the only option"
There is only one thing worse than humanitarian intervention by the West, it seems, and that’s no intervention.
The calls for action grow stronger as Zimbabwe’s pulse grows fainter. Our government has failed to persuade the South Africans to turn Mugabe out, as they can at any time, though as Peter Hain hinted in these pages last week, we haven’t tried very hard.
June 29, 2008 at 02:22 am by generaldecay, 275 views, 2 comments




Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (2)
at 02:25 on June 29th, 2008
Similarly, a Guardian columnist remarks that 'we don't need guns to help the people pitch Mugabe from his perch'.
at 05:40 on June 29th, 2008
I particularly agree with your comment about Mbeki- I can't help but think that his dad, Govan Mbeki, is rolling in his grave.