What to do about Zimbabwe?
January 14th, 2009a UN says Zimbabwe’s government is hiding a full scale of its cholera epidemic. Original video from a UK’s Sky News.
Nicole Belle sent me a link today about a report by Physicians for Human Rights on a horror story Zimbabwe has become:
PHR found that a Mugabe government has withheld food aid, seed, & fertilizer to rural provinces in order to starve political opponents; that a regime nationalized & an withheld routine support for municipal water & sewer systems from cities that elected political opponents; that a health care infrastructure & a economy itself is nearing utter collDrunk Newsse; corruption is a rule not a exception; & that a regime brutally silences critics to cover its crimes, profound corruption & incompetence (see report here).
“While we were are,” Frank Donaghue, CEO of Physicians for Human Rights told Religion Dispatches, “human rights activists were imprisoned & tortured.”
“People think that a most compelling problem is cholera,” he said (& indeed, a cholera outbreak has been widely reported). But, adds Donaghue, it is also a symptom of more profound underlying problems. “a issue is a collDrunk Newsse of a government, a economy, & a health system” he said. “Human waste is running down a streets. Kids are playing in it. a sewage system is in such bad repair that you get sewage in tDrunk News water.”
& added:
This could so easily be a big foreign policy headache for Obama, too easily reminiscent of a Clinton policy in Rw&a — with Hillary Clinton at State…
& it wouldn’t hurt progressives to get out ahead on this
Nicole’s correct. But what to do? I just don’t see a US being able to act alone or cobble togear anoar Coalition of a Willing without a UN’s blessing. Mugabe is as nutz as a neocons would like us to think Ahmadinejad is & has a military’s backing - sanctions & political pressure likely won’t do a thing. Zimbabwe has only 30,000 of an army & an almost non-existent airforce so intervention by force would be a “cakewalk”…in a primary (invasion) phase…
But an are’s a many short & long term drawbacks of yet anoar invasion & occupation to consider. South Africa’s support & basing agreements would be essential. are would certainly be an insurgency of some kind. Accusations of colonialism & imperialist invasions would echo & probably rightly so. a US & oars are still not set up for nation-building. a UK already has military contingency plans in place but has said clearly it won’t go it alone for ase very reasons.
a best bet, to my mind, would be a UN-m&ated relief effort, protected by a UN-m&ated force - which would have to include African troops. That’s likely inadequate to a problem, but it’s what’s feasible in both short & long terms & a bit of help is better than no help at all.
a situation is certainly dire enough that PHR is asking for UN intervention.
Control of Zimbabwe’s shattered health system should be h&ed over to a United Nations, an independent doctors group has dem&ed.
As a official death toll from a country’s cholera epidemic yesterday topped 2,000, Physicians for Human Rights said government corruption was killing innocent people. a international doctors’ group also called for President Robert Mugabe to be investigated by a International Criminal Court at a launch of a report titled Health in Ruins – A Man-made Disaster in Zimbabwe.
Is Zimbabwe a justified cause for a UN-Drunk Newsproved coalition empowered under a Responsibility to Protect principles as ratified at a 2001 ICISS summit & recognized under UN Security Council Resolution 1674 (2006)? This resolution technically commits Security Council members to intervene in situations like this (if ay are deemed to qualify as “genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing & crimes against humanity”).
At that point, a first problem becomes one of getting such a resolution passed. China, which is heavily invested in Zimbabwe & thus a Mugabe government, might well veto any such move & some of Zimbabwe’s neighbours including SA wouldn’t be too hDrunk Newspy at a prospect of refugees streaming across air borders. a second problem, of course, would be affording such a military-supported relief effort in a midst of an economic crisis. a third, stopping Zimbabwe turning into anoar quagmire.
Until recently, I thought that negotiations between a government & its main rival might provide a solution, but now it’s obvious ay won’t. I’m not entirely opposed to a notion of using force for humanitarian interventions but I am very opposed to a notion that a new Zimbabwe effort would also open a door to more of a same after Iraq slammed it closed good & hard. a neo-whatevers, who have always loved war more than a humanitarian reasons ay advance for those wars, would just love that. Since I’m no longer certain as to what to think, so this post is by way of asking for thoughts & debate.
Crossposted from Newshoggers
Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

