The UN is not the Holy See

28 June 2008

The Spectator on intervening in Zimbabwe

So what is required is something that encourages African countries to see this issue through the prism of democracy and human rights. The best long-term hope of achieving this proposed thus far would be a League of Democracies, an idea currently championed by the Republican presidential nominee, John McCain. This idea has been predictably denounced as a neocon plot to undermine the UN and allow America to do what it wants, when it wants. But the idea can actually be traced back to the Clinton administration with Madeleine Albright and Václav Havel’s push for a Community of Democracies. A League of Democracies would also — by definition — be a check on American power. At the moment, the US can bypass the UN — as it did over Iraq — because it is clear that there are so many circumstances in which the UN simply will not act. But having invested large amounts of diplomatic capital in a new global organisation on the premise that the collective moral judgment of democracies is superior to that of autocracies, it would be embarrassing in the extreme for America simply to ignore it. This proposal would lay the basis for a new, realist multilateralism and deserves a more intelligent hearing than it has thus far been granted.

For now, the best that can be done for Zimbabwe is to make African nations face up to their responsibilities and the consequences of inaction. A private message should be delivered by all democratic donor nations to every sub-Saharan Africa nation that their attitude towards Zimbabwe will be taken as a test of their commitment to good governance. If they flunk it, then the donors would conclude that development aid, as opposed to humanitarian aid, is pointless as Africa is incapable of policing the necessary standards of good governance. Such an ultimatum might just force southern Africa — and South Africa in particular — to recognise that Zimbabwe deserves to be part of Africa’s future rather than the bloodied captive of its past.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3

Dwight Vandryver

June 27th, 2008 12:30am Report this comment

The situation in Zimbabwe is reprehensible, as all would agree. It's a hateful thing to have to say, but Zimbabwe has no strategic importance, either to the West or the East. Apart from gems and platinum, Zimbabwe does not possess the mineral wealth that most desire: oil. If it were a significant producer of oil, then long before now, it would have been declared part of the "axis of evil" and the troops would have rolled in to achieve "regime change". The Spectator may express high ideals about what should be done by other African states: however, the bottom line is that there is no "dollar value" in it.

leonard

June 29th, 2008 4:31am Report this comment

white man domination is coming to an end.

Roy

August 6th, 2008 10:37am Report this comment

Words, words, and more words, summing up and more summing up. We can almost recite, off by heart all that is said here. Once a country is handed over (like a daughter in past centuries) you take pot luck in how she is handled. A good essay could be written on how different could have been Britain's handing over of its responsibilities with this country, but no help would it be. Without the USA or a determined Britain, restoring order by intervention is out of the question. So we just wait and watch, decrying the uselessness of the UN, and the truculence of China and Russia. Mugabe will eventually pass away and new hope will arise. It will mainly be up to South Africa as the strong (hopefully friendly) neighbour in how that situation will correct itself.

Post comment