Back in December, I penned an article in which my changing attitudes to the War on Terrorism were confronted, explained and analysed. Towards the end thereof, in a brief section devoted to dictatorships of the non-Islamofascist variety, a brief reference was made to “Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF group”, accompanied by a hopeful assertion that regimes such as this would eventually get their just deserts.

I’ve long been of the opinion that Mugabe’s reign of terror in Zimbabwe needs to be brought to a swift conclusion by whatever means possible, but even in my most optimistic moments – of which, believe it or not, there have been one or two – I never envisaged a situation in which the despot would be removed from office via a bloodless and 100%-democratic election. Nevertheless, this ersatz-utopian state of play very nearly came to pass in late March/early April 2008.

I’m forced to say “very nearly” because, although most neutral observers seem inclined to accept that Mugabe did indeed lose the ballot in question, the incumbent President was (perhaps predictably, in hindsight) most unwilling to concede defeat. Indeed, his dictatorial tendencies re-emerged in spectacular fashion following the March 29 poll, with the rival MDC Party’s headquarters being ransacked by government goons while an April 5 attempt on the MDC’s part to force disclosure of the election results, via a judicial order, was stymied by the presence of armed policemen who surrounded Harare’s High Court and blocked entrance thereto.

Matters soon went from bad to worse, with Mugabe successfully forcing a partial recount of ‘contested’ results in 23 constituencies while Morgan Tsvangirai, the MDC leader and presumed electoral victor, left the country in fear of his life.

News stories pertaining to the Zimbabwean electoral saga dominated the British media over the ensuing days and weeks, with speculation over its outcome drawing closer to fever-pitch with every new twist in the tale. Foreign Secretary David Miliband was a vocal critic of ZANU-PF’s procrastination tactics, calling repeatedly for a swift announcement of the results and frequently suggesting that international monitoring squads should be admitted to the troubled country in order to ensure that no chicanery had taken place; hell, even Gordon Brown, Captain Let’s-Wait-and-See, weighed in with his two cents by condemning Mugabe and expressing solidarity with Miliband’s aggressive stance.

I’m sure my readers’ jaws won’t plummet to the ground upon being reminded that no such move was forthcoming. Instead, the wretched saga was dragged out for a further two months; during this time, those responsible for the ‘official’ recount concluded that Mugabe had indeed lost the election, but that Tsvangirai had failed to win the 51% of votes which he needed in order to avoid a run-off. This long-overdue announcement lit the blue touch-paper for a whole set of extremely unpleasant misdeeds on the government’s part, most of which involved vicious suppression of MDC supporters, and on June 22 Tsvangirai took refuge at the Dutch Embassy in Harare, afraid for his safety.

The very same day, the courageous opposition leader withdrew from the run-off which was scheduled to take place five days later on June 27. In pointing out that a free vote was impossible in the climate of fear and oppression created by ZANU-PF and stating that he couldn’t ask his supporters to risk their lives by voting for him, Tsvangirai had made a pragmatic choice which was, in effect, the only one open to him; nevertheless, his decision essentially handed victory to Mugabe, who promptly insisted upon going ahead with the second poll despite his rival’s withdrawal. No-one should be surprised by this ostensibly-odd turn of events, though, as dictators have always flourished in fearful environments such as these and it’s likely that the one-horse race which ensued did not lack any legitimacy in Mugabe’s warped excuse for a mind.

The run-off poll did indeed go ahead as planned, official state media hailing the high turnout as an endorsement of Mugabe’s candidacy without a shred of irony. Non-voters were beaten up by ZANU-PF supporters for failing to participate and those who dared to attempt to cast their votes for a candidate other than Mugabe found themselves on the receiving end of similar treatment. It was, in short, a sham.

When the ‘results’ were announced on June 29, Mugabe was declared the winner with over 85% of the vote. He was promptly sworn in as president once more.

What we’re left with is a complicated situation, to be sure. On the one hand, no foreign power can (or should) intervene in the sovereign affairs of another nation without a damned good reason, and – despite the well-founded cynicism displayed by unbiased onlookers when faced with Mugabe’s excuses for postponing the announcement of March’s results – no such legitimate motive for interference had yet been provided at that stage. On the other hand, existing precedent strongly suggested that the international community had good reason to be nervous even then; indeed, many of the sanctions already imposed upon Mugabe’s regime were originally put in place as a result of previous vote-rigging allegations, this time pertaining to the 2002 presidential election and its violent aftermath, so it seemed almost naïve to expect anything different this time around.

What exactly were we waiting for?

The obvious answer is twofold. Firstly, tangible proof of malfeasance would be required before any action could be taken; secondly, a unilateral decision, opening the door towards decisive action without any of the contentious mud-slinging which tainted the legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, could not be absent on this occasion. Under the aegis of a body such as the UN, such a verdict should have been reached and implemented swiftly, acting to further undermine Mugabe’s reprehensible regime while giving long-overdue hope to the Zimbabwean people.

The first condition was soon met, as described above, but the second was not so readily forthcoming. Lamentably, not to mention disgracefully, the UN Security Council demonstrated its toothless nature once more when, on July 12, a draft resolution which would have authorised further sanctions against ZANU-PF was vetoed. The culprits? Unsurprisingly, China and Russia, whose leaders were no doubt expressing solidarity with Mugabe’s unsavoury methods of governance.

In lieu of this mooted unilateralism, then, what can be done regarding Zimbabwe?

Two recent real-world examples can be used to decide upon the best course of action. One has involved direct, ongoing and controversial intervention, in spite of widespread international uncertainty which occasionally crossed over into outright condemnation; the other has thus far favoured an insouciant and unprincipled approach based upon lackadaisical piety and PC thuggery. The former is, of course, Iraq. The latter is Darfur, where, since 2003, the Sudanese government has participated in a programme of systematic genocide against local rebel groups which has left thousands dead and many more homeless.

We all know the story where the invasion of Iraq is concerned and it would be wholly unnecessary to enumerate it once more. Accordingly, let’s skip that part of the equation and move straight to a brief examination of the situation in Darfur.

In brief, both for reasons of space and because I readily admit that I lack a full grasp of what is, ultimately, a very intricate issue, the situation can be summarised thusly: the Sudanese military, working in conjunction with a(n allegedly government-backed) militia group known as the Janjaweed, has spent much of the past five years engaged in a brutal campaign of violence and intimidation against the aforementioned rebels, whose grievances include both the drought conditions under which they live and the apparent neglect to which they have been subjected by their leaders. There is also an ethnic dimension to the conflict, with black Africans and Arabs each accusing the other ‘side’ of encroaching upon their land, but some expert onlookers have queried the extent to which these factors are playing a tangible role and it seems unnecessary to examine them here in any event.

As is so often the case, there is little consensus to be found when it comes to the issue of casualty numbers; furthermore, thanks to the self-evident involvement of the Sudanese government, in spite of its proclamations to the contrary, the suppression of journalists and tampering of evidence has made it extremely difficult for outsiders to accurately assess the extent of the violence. In general, accepted estimates range from 200,000 to 400,000 deceased with another 2.5 million or so forced to flee from their homes and seek refuge elsewhere.

Needless to say, this state of affairs certainly qualifies as a crisis of epic proportions. What, then, is being done about it?

The answer: when compared to the swift and decisive action taken against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, next to nothing. Oh, sure, there has been plenty of verbal posturing from Western leaders, some economic sanctions have been imposed by the UN and a handful of foreign troops has been sent into the region in a bid to keep the peace, but a wholesale military commitment by the Powers-That-Be has been conspicuously absent. Although Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir has been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court, the process of arresting, detaining and charging the incumbent president – if, indeed, it is undertaken at all – will probably take many months. In the meantime, the sickening situation in Darfur will continue unchecked.

On this analysis, then, it seems as though principled military intervention is the only way forward for the international community as far as the Zimbabwean predicament is concerned. I know that advocating such a course of action will seem controversial to some, especially coming from a so-called liberal, and my invocation of the Iraq War probably serves to further undermine my credibility in the eyes of those who immediately recoiled from their computer screens upon reading the words "principled military intervention". Permit me, if you will, to address these concerns now.

As I've said before, it seems churlish in the extreme to turn a blind eye towards the successes of the Iraq invasion, limited in scope though they have doubtless been, just because one happens to dislike George W. Bush and/or Tony Blair. To begin with, Saddam Hussein is no longer terrorising the Iraqi people with his sadistic and oppressive regime and, although I would rather he were serving a series of life sentences than pushing up the daisies in Tikrit – especially as a result of a flawed trial and a hasty execution which was irretrievably tainted with the acrid stench of vigilante justice – I cannot bring myself to mourn his removal from power.

Furthermore, democratic elections have taken place in Iraq over the past few years, albeit under less-than-ideal conditions, and this too strikes me as a significant step in the right direction for the troubled country. Surely even the likes of Alexander Cockburn, Noam Chomsky et al would find it difficult to paint the deposition of Saddam and the advent of free ballots in a 100%-unfavourable light?

Yes, there have been problems as well and one only needs to pick up a randomly-selected international newspaper, on any given day of the week, to be forcefully reminded thereof. However, both the similarities and the differences between Iraq and Zimbabwe give me cause to hope that a well-planned campaign of force in the latter country would successfully avoid the pitfalls presented by our crusade in the former.

Let's start with the similarities. An attack on Zimbabwe would be justifiable on the same grounds which validated the assault on Iraq in the eyes of the Bush and Blair administrations (and no, I'm not talking about phantom Weapons of Mass Destruction, nor am I attempting to suggest that ZANU-PF had any more or less to do with 9/11 than did Saddam Hussein). It's an unavoidable fact that there is a humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe at present, perpetuated by a barbaric dictator with a long and well-documented tendency to contravene the most basic human rights, and if Dubya can proudly proclaim that the 2003 invasion had humanitarian overtones than he can damn well apply the same epithet to the current dilemma in Zimbabwe.

The analogy with Iraq does not stop there. Like his deceased counterpart, Mugabe has managed to cling to power despite a series of peaceful sanctions imposed against his regime by Western governments; it's safe to say that diplomacy has once again failed to yield the desired results, and to contemplate further appeasement would be nothing less than unconscionable at this juncture.

As with the downtrodden Iraqis, whose spirits were shattered to such an extent that a revolution would have been impossible even without Saddam's band of trigger-happy hooligans and his nationwide network of cowed informants, the Zimbabwean people lack the strength (both moral and physical) to stand up and fight for themselves. They need help, and they need it fast. The events described above have brought the issue of Mugabe's illegitimacy to the forefront of the national consciousness once more, and the righteous anger felt by ordinary Zimbabweans is palpable even from within the UK, but prolonged procrastination on the part of Western leaders would serve only to permit the cooling of the citizens' anger and allow ZANU-PF's cruel business to return to its normal state. If we are to act at all, it must be soon.

That having been said, there are more than a few differences between the situation in Iraq pre-2003 and the present state of play in Zimbabwe and there's every reason to think that these crucial factors will work in the West's favour as, when and if decisive action is taken.

Most crucially of all, the sectarian Sunni vs. Shi'a violence which has engulfed Iraq since the invasion ought to be notable only by its absence in Zimbabwe. As a primarily-Christian country, there is no reason to expect the kind of sickening violence which has long marred interventions in the Muslim world. That is not, of course, to say that Christian violence is unheard-of – only an utter fool would make such a claim – but it's unlikely in the extreme that any Zimbabwean would react to Western military intervention in his country’s affairs by strapping a bomb to his chest and blowing himself up in a civilian area.

Meanwhile, whatever resistance is encountered should be swiftly quashable for two main reasons: firstly, Mugabe has not created a cult of personality which is in any way comparable to that which stemmed from Hussein’s egocentric self-aggrandising, leaving far fewer people devoted to his cause; secondly, those Zimbabweans who are loyal to their leader lack both the training and the (often Western-originated) hardware of their Iraqi counterparts. There is, in short, significantly less potential for outright civil war in Zimbabwe than in Iraq.

There will be fewer accusations of self-interest this time around, as Zimbabwe has no oil resources for alleged Western exploitation and it does not represent a strategic interest for imperialist neoconservative politicians. Although the Ba'athist regime Iraq was officially ostracised by its neighbours in the run-up to the war, some factions in neighbouring Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran have doubtless remained loyal to Hussein's cause; in Africa, Mugabe's regional isolation is growing with every fresh news report which emanates from within his borders. Lastly, the infrastructure for democracy is already in place in Zimbabwe and its citizens know how such a system is supposed to work, whereas in Iraq the very concept of democratic elections seemed both foreign and frightening to most.

Unfortunately, it seems as though such a noble course of action is extraordinarily unlikely in the current climate. Even if the cowardly nature of the UN were somewhat less pronounced, the two administrations which spearheaded the invasion of Iraq are not going to display such barefaced bravado this time around: George W. Bush is now a lame duck leader with nothing better to do than twiddle his thumbs until Barack Obama's moving lorries arrive at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue next January, while Gordon Brown has too many domestic issues on his mind (including yet another embarrassing by-election defeat, this time to the SNP in Glasgow East on July 24) to countenance participation in another war. The liberation of Zimbabwe could potentially do for his premiership what the Falklands War did for Margaret Thatcher's, but we'll never know as he's simply too gutless to find out.

Most damningly of all, it's looking increasingly probably that another war will indeed be fought in the near future... but it won't involve Robert Mugabe. A fracas with Iran has long been on the cards and we may yet see a situation in which Bush's sabre-rattling with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad results in this long-awaited showdown. He may be killing time until his presidency draws to an eventual close, but he still has plenty of time in which to write cheques that the next administration won't be able to avoid cashing come 2009. I'm in two minds about whether a war with Iran is necessary, but this much is for certain: by targeting another Middle Eastern country with rich oil reserves and strategic value while Zimbabweans continue to suffer each and every day, Bush and Brown will make a mockery of their oft-voiced claims to a shared foreign policy based upon humanitarian goals, democracy and freedom.

 

PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN BY YOURS TRULY ON JULY 20, 2008, OUTSIDE ZIMBABWE HOUSE IN LONDON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.