The Mugabe dilemma

Although the American news has neglected to cover it, Zimbabwe is currently in chaos. Over the past few weeks, they have been plagued with a cholera epidemic, and most of the country is in poverty. (The BBC News, though, has not shied away from the horror; they have a story on Zimbabwe almost daily.) Who is to blame for all this? Most fingers are pointing at Robert Mugabe, the current President of the country. Some have even gone so far as to call him “the next Hitler.”

The question I would like to bring up today is this: what, if anything, should we do about this? Mugabe is clearly not good for the country—but is it our responsibility (or the UN’s) to do something about it?

I don’t want this to turn into too much of an imperialism debate, which is why I chose this issue, where “right” and “wrong” are more clearly defined than in other instances such as Iraq. Even so, I will give my opinion, but I will leave it up to my readers to decide for themselves. 

Right now, Mugabe is undoubtedly one of the worst leaders any country has ever had. He has completely ignored the cholera outbreak, and, in other instances, has ignored human rights issues just as easily. Though other nations, such as Kenya, have called for his resignation, the African Union has announced that they refuse to do anything about him.

But what if someone does intervene? If Mugabe’s regime is destroyed, Zimbabwe will be in chaos. Huge amounts of troops will be required to protect the people of Zimbabwe against radical factions who will try to take power after Mugabe’s regime is destroyed. Huge amounts of money will be needed, too, to not only fund the coup but also stop the cholera outbreak. And, of course, it is none of our business to begin with.

What do I think? In this case, I do believe that intervention is needed. Mugabe is clearly a tyrant who needs to be deposed, the sooner the better. But I do not think that the US or the UN should get involved directly. What we need to do, instead, it work through the AU. There is no reason why the West should have to be Africa’s police force, but we cannot simply abandon them. If we work to make the African Union more like the EU, they will be able to prevent dictators such as Mugabe. By giving the AU its own police force and convincing African nations to give them more power, we will not have to get involved in African affairs nearly as much as we do now. Not only will this benefit Zimbabwe, but it will positively affect African affairs as a whole for the next few decades.

However, I leave it up to you. Is intervention justified in an extreme scenario such as this? And do you favor indirect intervention, as I do, or a more direct invasion?