There Shouldn’t Be An Invasion Of Zimbabwe… December 9, 2008
Posted by bensix in Uncategorized.trackback
I think it’s revealing that today’s Times leader, which calls for an invasion of Zimbabwe by the African Union, makes no mention of the practical considerations of such an act. It claims that Mugabe has “forfeited legitimacy” and become “the head of an outlaw regime“, and it notes that “good men” such as Desmond Tutu and John Sentamu advocate removing him, but it never details how an invasion would be planned or carried out. Indeed, it never lays out how it would ameliorate the situation.
I disagree with the article, and instead of rambling on in my typical rhetorical haze will set out some points against its argument…
An Invasion Probably Won’t Happen
- The only African leader that publicy supports an invasion – and whom the Times prominently cites – comes from Kenya, which doesn’t even share a border with Zimbabwe.
- Botswana, which does neighbour Zimbabwe, has declared that the region should shut its borders against the country, and even that brought a heated denunciation from Namibia.
An Invasion Shouldn’t Happen
- An invasion would probably have the undesired effect of uniting citizens and state. After all, fighting would necessarily take place on people’s land, and many, naturally, would defend it. There would also be those who, having seen Mugabe’s accusatory rhetoric richly justified, would rally round the leader.
- The aid workers, who are already subjected to intimidation, would be a) taken hostage, b) killed or c) kicked out on their respective asses. Thus, the condition of the truly desperate would only be worsened.
- Mugabe’s supporters – doubtless aided/joined by those deleteriously affected by the invasion – would be spread out over a sizeable area, and would form an intimidating insurgency. Surely we’ve had enough of those.
- The protracted violence, poverty and illness really wouldn’t be conducive to elections. Thus, an “interim government” would have to assert power for a considerable amount of time, allowing them to impose an economic strategy, and letting grievances fester.
- The fighting and the fallout would only be likely to exacerbate political and economic instability.
I respect your analysis,while retaining the thought that even the misery subsequent to an invasion may still have to be considered. However, there are almost certainly better options. I’m working on a proposal based on the work of Jeff Schubert
[http://www.jeffschubert.com/index.php?s=home] whose book suggests insights into how historically change came from within to depose tyranical rulers.
If invasion isn’t the answer, what is?
I’m with leon in the sense that sometimes, you have to get your hands dirty and sitting by, doing pretty much nowt hasn’t worked so far.
Daniel & Leon,
Sure, I agree that nations should take every opportunity to help the Zimbabwean people (giving aid, and aiding those border countries that are taking in refugees), but I think that an invasion – by anyone – would only exacerbate the situation. The aid relief workers wouldn’t be able to tend to the desperate, and citizens that might oppose Mugabe could potentially unite with the state against what they perceive to be an aggressor.
Tudor,
I’ve come to that opinion as well (after being mired in some very dodgy interventionist stuff). As I said here*, I think that there is still a hope of an uprising, especially as Mugabe struggles to pay the armed forces.
* http://backtowardsthelocus.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/could-there-be-a-revolution-in-zimbabwe/
We’ve got to a point where even an insurgency would be preferable to the current state of affairs (see – http://www.sokwanele.com/thisiszimbabwe/archives/2864). Over 50% of Zimbabweans have voted for the end of the Regime. We must help them accomplish this.
Yeah, I agree that Mugabe uses the UN declaration for toilet paper, but I can’t see military intervention doing anything but exacerbate the situation. It’s unlikely to do anything but worsen the spread of the cholera, for example (the invasion of Iraq actually led to a cholera epidemic*).
If the regime change is worse than the current regime, however horrific that may be, then surely inaction is preferable?
Great blog, by the way.
Ben
* http://tiny.cc/Upfqn