The chaos comes as the economically crippled nation battles food
shortages, looming famine and a cholera outbreak that has killed 575
people, stretched limited resources and seen many flee to neighbouring
nations for medical care. The outbreak has spread to four neighbouring
countries, forcing Mugabe’s government to declare a national emergency
and seek international help. The medical refugees it has spawned join
the vast majority of Zimbabwe’s economically active citizens, who are
in exile fleeing a country with 80 per cent unemployment.
The nation’s Reserve Bank, responsible for record hyper-inflation
thanks to a politically-motivated spree of minting as prices double
every 24 hours, is accused of profiting from illegal foreign currency
deals on the black market. It has instead pointed the finger at four
banks it supervises and sacked key executives.
The catalogue of failures is huge: From agricultural and economic
crises, to breakdowns in basic services, law and order, and political
governance.
These, the Mugabe government argues, are all the result of Western economic sanctions, not failed policies.
To end this crisis, Prime Minister Raila Odinga suggests direct
intervention – the forcible removal of Robert Mugabe, a course of
action also contemplated by Nobel laureate and South African Archbishop
Desmond Tutu.
BLOOD-STAINED
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has condemned President Mugabe’s
regime, saying the embattled president’s departure was long overdue.
Raila’s British counterpart, Mr Gordon Brown says "the systems of
government are now broken" and urged international action to deal with
the food and health crises. Brown was quoted saying he is in talks with
African leaders on "to press for stronger action" in the "blood-stained
regime".
What action that might be is unclear but the Mugabe government has
taken this to mean the British plan an invasion. This, we believe, is
an unlikely scenario.
The argument for military intervention seems persuasive. But with the
list of prime candidates for such action – states whose oppressive
policies cause untold misery to millions – including Myanmar, North
Korea and others, chances of this option finding favour with the
international community are remote.
The appetite for military adventure abroad in many nations has also
diminished with the difficulties facing US-led interventions in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
Brown "hopes" the United Nations Security Council would meet to
consider the situation. A meeting of the UN body, however, is likely to
do little more than issue a resolution seeking action from African
leaders. The West is relying on Africa, particularly Zimbabwe’s
neighbours in the 15-nation Southern African Development Community, to
lead the way in ending this crisis.
Africa needs to consider what tools it has at its disposal to force an
end to the crisis. It must also be realistic as to what means it can
use to achieve such change. Mugabe and Zanu-PF’s failure to establish a
unity government with the opposition Movement for Democratic Change is
a key problem they can address. Such a government’s policies might
alleviate the immediate threats of famine and disease. More
importantly, it would attract more foreign humanitarian and development
aid and end sanctions.
POWER-SHARING
Mere tongue-lashings will do little to end the Mugabe regime’s abuses
of its people. And as the prospect of foreign armies, British or
African marching on Harare is remote, the continent’s leaders –
particularly in South Africa and the African Union – must pressure the
despot into stepping down or accommodating the Morgan Tsvangirai-led
MDC in a power-sharing deal.
While the latter option is clearly an unhappy compromise, it may be the
only realistic option available that allows sufficient change to
address the growing humanitarian crisis.
East African Standard (kenya)
Post published in: News