Why Zimbabwe is fu**ed...

... and The Times is not helping.

The MDC's withdrawal from the run-off election plays right into Mugabe's hands.  He never really wanted the run-off to take place anyway.  That's why he delayed it well beyond the 3 weeks required by the constitution, in order to give his thugs more time to intimidate the opposition and rig the poll in Zanu-PF's favour.  Now he doesn't even have to steal the election: he'll just run it and declare victory, or he won't run it and blame the MDC for giving up on 'Zimbabwean democracy'.  According to John Simpson who is -- miraculously -- still in Zimbabwe, most people there don't even know that the MDC has pulled out, such is the blanket news ban of the opposition.

Sure, there is international outrage and clamour and even South Africa is finally speaking up (though notably it's ANC leader Jacob Zuma, and not President Thabo Mbeki ).  But that will last a few days, a week at most.  Thabo Mbeki will be glad when the election tumult recedes and the situation returns to 'normal' -- 'normal' being the continued rapacious hollowing-out of Zimbabwe's economy, population and soul.  The tragedy rolls on....

So, Zimbabwe is f***ed anyway you look at it.  But if you read the headlines in The Times of London on any given day you would think that Gordon Brown is about to ride in on a white horse and lop off Mugabe's head.  Few organs of public opinion have given Mugabe as much ammunition as The 'colonialist' Times.  Here is a sample of front-page headlines from the past week, including today's:

• "Outrage Over Investment in Zimbabwe"
• "Call for Military Intervention in Zimbabwe"
• "War Crimes Warning to Mugabe"

The Times wears its heart in the right place, but it's ludicrous exaggerations play right into Mugabe's hands by strengthening his only remaining justification for power -- that he is single-handedly fending off Britain's aggression. 

Outrage?  The only people the Times could drum up to complain about Anglo-American's proposed £200m investment in a Zimbabwean mine are LibDem spokesman Ed Davey and Business and Regulatory Reform Select Committee chairman Peter Luff, plus some mildly condemnatory statements from has-beens like William Hague, Peter Hain and David Milliband.

Call for military intervention?  What a great pipe-dream, but the only meat to that article was a quote from LibDem leader Paddy Ashdown that "military intervention in Zimbabwe would be justified." True, but not exactly the sign of an imminent invasion (though Mugabe will certainly have spun it that way).

And if there was indeed an inkling of hope that Thabo Mbeki could negotiate an agreed departure for Mugabe, with a compromise government to follow, surely that idea was put paid by The Times (and Newsnight and others) calling for Mugabe's head in a War Crimes trial.  Giving dictators paid lifetime beach holidays under immunity from prosecution offends me deeply, but if it can stop the misery and save lives it should be considered.

The Times lives in a colonialist la-la land, and one Mugabe has exploited well.  Moral crusades are not the same as the journalistic search for truth.  In a blog post today, Times journalist Daniel Finkelstein rails against the BBC's John Simpson for reporting the facts from the ground: that Tsvangirai has been effectively outmaneouvred by Mugabe.  I share Finkenstein's dismay over the stolen election, but I can't help but feel that in political terms Simpson is summing up the truth, whether we like it or not.

Comments

[girlwithoutawatch]

I very much agree with most of your commentary—save for your dismay at the MDC’s decision to boycott Friday’s election. If Tsvangirai had proceeded to engage in this farce of an electoral process without the protection of international peace keepers, he and most of the other top-ranking leaders of his party (who could potentially replace him in the event of his death) not to mention the hundreds of thousands of innocent supporters, would have surely been slaughtered. Mugabe tyrannical rule solidified. Without the existence of a strong opposition movement/party—one that at least acts as a voice for democracy, one that at least can scream out to the international community to intervene—the plight of Zimbabwe will most certainly be brushed under the carpet and conveniently forgotten by the international community.

Paul Wolfowitz in the WSJ yesterday, mistakenly states that the people of Zimbabwe are not asking for a peace-keeping force. Actually, Tsvangirai called the UN yesterday to specifically ask for a peacekeeping force to be sent as soon as possible. Wolfowitz makes the naïve suggestion (as an alternative to military intervention) that the international community commit substantial financial support (development aid/debt forgiveness) to Zimbabwe instead??? Why in the world would Mugabe care, seeing as he has made it a point to drive the people of his country into abject poverty, whether the international community will forgive Zimbabwe’s debt once he relinquishes power??? Maybe its just me, but I would certainly assume that the international development community would do everything in its power to help restore economic stability in Zimbabwe the minute Tsvangirai were to take office.

What is wrong with everyone??? Sure, Newsnight and others may have increased Mugabe’s fear of being arrested for crimes against humanity, and hence made him less inclined to accept an offer to retire to a secluded beach paradise. But aren’t we beyond promises of a beach house by this point? The case for me is clear. It isn’t about more economic sanctions, it isn’t about the international business community pulling out of the country (Tesco is now being criticised for not closing up shop), or for embassies to shut down, it isn't about the ridiculous promise of development-aid should democracy be re-instilled. This type of international response will only isolate the country into further missery. Military intervention is what is needed and the international community needs to step up to the plate for the sake of the beloved democracy they claim to aspire to. And Mugabe needs to be taken out. Period.

[Max Bleyleben]

Of course you are totally right about what SHOULD happen -- who wouldn't agree? But sadly the prospects of military intervention in Zimbabwe are virtually nil. America has lost both the moral standing AND the appetite for such an adventure. Britain cannot intervene without raising the spectre of its colonional past in the region, which would be too incendiary. The multilaterals (UN, OAS) can't even field a force with teeth in Darfur, much less in Zimbabwe. And none of the neighbors will be prepared to set a precedent for intervention in another country, lest they themselves be the next target. Sure, I can dream: Kenya applies its hard-fought, compromise-democracy to take the moral high ground and intervene. I would love that, but it ain't gonna happen...