With all of the turbulence of the past few weeks, we shoujld give the NY Times some credit for keeping their eye on the ball.
Robert Mugabe stole another election in Zimbabwe with a campaign of fear and intimidation, and the NY Times has two editorials on the issue. Kristof’s is particularly good:
The hardest place in the world to be an optimist is Africa.
Much of Africa is a mess, and no country more so than Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. The continent has been held back by everything from malaria to its nonsensical colonial boundaries, but the two biggest problems have been lousy leaders and lousy economic policies – and Zimbabwe epitomizes both.
What makes Robert Mugabe a worse oppressor of ordinary Zimbabweans than the white racist rulers who preceded him is not just the way he turned a breadbasket of Africa into a basket case in which half the population is undernourished. It’s also the fact that he’s refusing to let aid organizations provide food to most of his people. He prefers to let them starve…
If the old white regime here was deliberately starving its people, the world would be in an uproar. And while President Bush should be more forceful in opposing Mr. Mugabe’s tyranny, it’s the neighboring countries that are most shameful in looking the other way.
There’s a liberal tendency in America to blame ourselves for Africa’s problems, and surely there’s far more that we should do to help. We should encourage trade, forgive debts, do research on tropical diseases and distribute mosquito nets that protect against malaria. But some problems, such as Mr. Mugabe, are homegrown and need local solutions, like an effort by South Africa to nudge him into retirement.
Something has to be done.
JKC
I wish it would happen, John. But in the post 9/11 world, the world’s sole remaining superpower is too cowering, too fearful, and to much inclined to gaze at its own navel to offer much in the way of leadership.
Kristoff is right. Africa is going to have to figure out a way to fix Africa’s mess.
paul a'barge
Dude,
Take down the Gweilo Diaries link. It’s hopelessly dead, for weeks now.
Kimmitt
Heh, I can’t decide whether it would be the best or worst thing possible if someone were to discover oil in Zimbabwe.
M. Scott Eiland
Unless GWB is expected to re-create the plot of Frederick Forsyth’s The Dogs of War, I’m not sure what exactly we’re supposed to do about Mugabe–it’s not like his neighbors are inclined to be remotely helpful in an effort to remove him. Maybe the French could threaten to stop treating him like royalty on his trips to Paris unless he leaves office peacefully–that might get his attention. Don’t hold your breath waiting for it.
Kimmitt
Well, he is engaged in massive human rights abuses, so if we actually cared about those, we could depose him by force.
Jorge
I am one of those folks who was very criticial of our second invasion of Iraq and I think it would be very hypocritical to now call for military action in Zimbawe. The Darfur region of Rawanda is another matter. It is in the US’ best interest to remove any government involved in genocide. That is a hawkish foreign policy I could support.
Joe Schmoe
Kimmitt-
You need to realize the following:
1. We can’t solve all of the world’s problems at once. We simply don’t have the ability or the resources. For instance, the People’s Republic of China committs horriffic human rights abuses on a daily basis and is the world’s largest dictatorship. But there’s not a lot we can do about that, becuause they have nuclear weapons.
2. The fact that we can’t solve all of the problems doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t solve a few when an opportunity presents itself.
3. Some problems are insoluable. For exampele, look at how many times we’ve intervened in Haiti, and how much aid has been poured into the place. It’s just as much of a basket case today as when we started. And Haiti is a rare example of where no economic interests or Cold War tugs-of-war influenced our policy. The Russians never made a serious play for Haiti, and they don’t have any resources of any kind for us to exploit. Our foreign policy has therefore been 100% focused on improving the lot of the average person — and it’s been a total disaster.
This is why I, for one, am not terribly interested in getting involved in Zimbabwe. I’ve known several people (including one mercenary and one very high-ranking diplomat) who have worked in the place. They are capable people and I trust their intentions and abilities. Yet they accomplished nothing! Can a change of personnell yield a better result? I don’t see how.
Some tumors are inoperable. The fact that we realize this doesn’t mean that we don’t care. It means that there is nothing we can do.
Kimmitt
2. The fact that we can’t solve all of the problems doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t solve a few when an opportunity presents itself.
Precisely my point. Intervention in Zimbabwe would be swift and nearly costless. The country still has a vaguely functioning government; we could turn it over pretty quickly.
Joe Schmoe
Kimmitt-
Why do you think that we can solve the problem? 50-odd years of foreign aid, World Bank loans, AID block grants, etc., etc., etc. have not done the trick? I have actually met several people who worked in Zimbabwe (see above). They are very nice, dedicated, and competent. Why do you think that replacing them with a couple of new faces will yield better results? I don’t see how.
Kimmitt
Why do you think that replacing them with a couple of new faces will yield better results?
I don’t. I think they’ll do a fine job, or as well as can be expected. The problem is Mugabe. Get rid of Mugabe, and go from there. Zimbabwe is at a place where things could get a lot better or a lot worse very quickly, depending on the leadership. We know that the leadership is murderous. If Bush cared about the brown people, we’d do something — simply because doing something would be so cheap and so likely to yield at least decent results. But he doesn’t, and this, to me, is strong evidence in favor of that.
Zimbabwe, Sudan, the Republic of the Congo, Myanmar — why does Bush choose to ignore these ongoing or impending killing fields?
Joe Schmoe
Kimmitt-
How can you possibly be so confident that replacing Mugabe will accomplish anything? I don’t think it will make any real difference.
We replaced “Doc” Duvallier, the brutal dictator, in Haiti. We followed this with hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, in foreign aid. And again, it is not like our Haiti policy was clouded by self-interest. Haiti has absolutley nothing that we want.
Replacing Duvallier made absolutely no difference at all. None! Haiti was every bit as bad under Aristide — a Catholic priest, for goodness’ sake — as it was before.
And Haiti is hardly an isolated example. Kenya used to be a fairly prosperous nation by West African standards. After Mobotu Sesi Seku’s dictatorial reign finally ended, what happened? democratic poltiical life begin to flourish, economic growth skyrocket, and foreign investment increase? No, no, and no. Nothing happened. Kenya is not really any better off today.
Remember all of the foreign aid that was sent to Ethiopia in the early 80’s? Is Ethopia the jewel of Africa today? No. It’s a shithole. How about Somalia? Ditto.
Foreign aid programs in Africa have been one disaster after another. Given the record of the past 50 years, I can’t imagine why you think that Zimbabwe is poised to make a big turnaround if only Mugabe is sent into exile. That prediction certainly has no basis in history.
That said, I agree that we should continue to send foreign aid to Africa. Even if they waste it, we can’t sit by and let people starve.
But what you are calling for is military intervention! That is crazy! I only want to commit American lives if there is a realisitc chance that we will accomplish something of tangible worth. But I don’t see that outcome as likely. Zimbabwe is far more likely to end up like Haiti than like Iraq.
Aaron
Kimmitt,
1. Bush worked very hard in Sudan to promote a peace in the South. For Darfur, we’ll have to talk some more because we don’t have the resources to invade. Maybe we could start a draft?
2. Our forces are stretched thin. Perhaps the European “allies” who claim to be morally superior and interested in human rights as well could step up to the plate?
3. Are you suggesting in 2008, Hillary should be invading the list you mentioned? Please confirm. And should previous presidents have intervened there as well? Truly curious if your argument is “it’s all about oil” or not. p.s. Sudan has oil. Congo has untild mineral wealth.
M. Scott Eiland
2. Our forces are stretched thin. Perhaps the European “allies” who claim to be morally superior and interested in human rights as well could step up to the plate?
Heck, the French could probably do it just by slipping a hooker a chloroform-soaked rag and a pair of handcuffs the next time Mugabe comes to Paris for one of his little constitutionals–if Kimmitt is right and the problem begins and ends with Mugabe.
Kimmitt
How can you possibly be so confident that replacing Mugabe will accomplish anything? I don’t think it will make any real difference.
I’m not sure, but I think it’s an excellent risk; when things used to be a lot better very recently, one can reasonably conclude that you can at least return to something vaguely resembling the previous status quo fairly quickly.
Our forces are stretched thin.
Again, we’re not talking about a major commitment here, though of course you are quite correct that our thorough failure to plan for the aftermath in Iraq — and our thorough failure to respond to our ongoing needs there — has exposed dangerous weaknesses.
battlepanda
The problem with U.S. intervention is not that we don’t have enough resources. It’s that we can’t resist going one step further than promoting democracy: we want to promote our brand of democracy. It wasn’t enough to get dictators like Duvalier out, we have to get Aristide out too because we don’t like him, even though he’s a democratically elected leader. In the short run, it’s a difficult temptation to resist. In the long run, it undermines the legitimacy of our interventions.
I watch what’s going on in Iraq with interest. I wasn’t in favor of going in in the first place, but now what I’m hoping is that we can redeem ourselves atleast partially by letting democracy take its course and pull out swiftly thereafter.