I have two articles for you to compare, gentle reader. Both are short, but they are very revealing as to the current situation in Zimbabwe. The first details the progression of the power sharing negotiations in Zimbabwe. It is not a very in depth look, because it deals with events that occurred just an hour earlier. It says the same thing that thousands of other articles said just a few hours ago: Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai have agreed to being power-sharing negotiations. It is easy to consider this hopeful news. Maybe if Mugabe is willing to negotiate this whole thing can be resolved peacefully.
Unfortunately, Mugabe’s actions tell a different story altogether. This BBC article, published shortly before the agreement on negotiations was made, tells a story of continuing dread and violence for the MDC opposition party. Even as Mugabe enters power-sharing negotiations, he continues to persecute the opposition, and his Zanu-PF militias have been targeting members of Parliament in particular. It would be a mistake to think that Mugabe is moving to do anything but cement his own power. The only question that remains is his strategy. Will he delay the negotiating process until he feels the country is under his control? Will he attempt to isolate Tsvangirai in a figurehead position? Unless Mugabe has just now started to care about international condemnation, he will do anything he can to keep himself in dictatorial power.
Welcome to the War on Terror. It might be hard to make the mental leap to include Mugabe in this overarching conflict we have devoted ourselves to since the attacks of September 11, 2001. He bears no resemblance to the Al Qaeda operatives we are familiar with: he is no religious extremist, and he poses no threat to the United States. Yet he is every bit as much a terrorist as Osama Bin Laden. His countrymen who oppose him were legitimately elected by the people of Zimbabwe, and then he illegitimately intimidated his opponents into submission. What are we to do? Continue to condemn? Pass UN sanctions (if Russia and China cooperate)? Intervene? The last option is one that lawmakers are reluctant to pursue (read: haven’t even considered), considering the success of our last intervention, but the conditions of Zimbabwe are much different from those in Iraq. It would be relatively simple thing for a multinational force to subdue the militias and protect and oversee a fair election. The nations involved would agree not to dispute the results of that election, and they would stay until the new regime took power. It would be short, with hopefully very little bloodshed. But it has not even been suggested within the US government. Why? Because a. The specter of Iraq looms over us b. an intervention is not directly in our interests and c. We’re a bit low on troops. Nevertheless, the United States is a world leader and this is a popular issue. Would it hurt to try?
