There is no easy answer – and no single answer which could apply to every country. If they all followed Australia’s example, the flow of resources might indeed prop up Mugabe. But if only a few did so, then there is a chance that some of the money will reach the people it is intended to help, without significantly helping the President who has dragged his country to famine and cholera.
The picture is muddied, too, by Mugabe’s words of commiseration with Morgan Tsvangirai over the loss of his wife in a car crash (accidental, it seems). Even more striking, Tsvangirai’s son appeared to welcome Mugabe’s words as a genuine expression of sympathy. Given the President’s brutality and agility in clinging to power, it is a reasonable fear that he will turn recent events to his advantage, undermining Tsvangirai with tactical condolences for the tragedy, while making the most of Australian aid.
All the same, the Mugabe years must be drawing to a close. Yes, his exit has been forecast many times before, but Zimbabwe’s collapse cannot go on forever. The best justification for the Australian aid is that it is a humane gesture, which will have some impact on the victims of hunger and disease, while doing little to prolong Mugabe’s tenure, however long that turns out to be.
The easy decision was the one that Australia made months ago: to send aid to cholera victims through aid agencies. But Tsvangirai’s move to join a national unity Government with Mugabe gave other countries a difficult choice. Britain issued a statement, dripping with scepticism, not quite wishing the new alliance ill, but arguing that it did nothing to dispel problems that Mugabe has brought.
That is still true. There is no hopeful course for Zimbabwe that includes a place for Mugabe. There is good reason, based on his actions since he first offered Tsvangirai a role (a concession he took months to make, even though the Opposition won more votes) to doubt that he intends to share real power.
So outside help should remain limited. Tsvangirai has talked about needing $5 billion to counter hyperinflation and 90 per cent unemployment. That will prove an underestimate. But other countries should not get close to those sums while Mugabe’s intentions are in doubt – as they must be.
The Times (UK)
Post published in: News