The situation in Zimbabwe is intolerable: on that all decent people can agree. Robert Mugabe has turned the breadbasket of Africa into a wasteland. He has set his militia, his army and his police to beat, rape and kill his own people. He respects neither the results of any democratic ballot nor the norms of human decency. Neither pregnant women nor children are exempted from the brutality of his thugs.
The conclusion that something must be done is obvious. The question of what, precisely, is much trickier. The reports coming out of Zimbabwe have been so awful and the world’s response so feeble that there is an increasing clamour for Britain and America to intervene directly. We can sympathise with the sentiment behind this thinking — but a British- or American-led action would play into Mugabe’s hands. It would, sadly, justify in the eyes of many Africans his assertion that what is at stake in this election is Zimbabwe’s independence, and that the country’s problems are the result of a colonial conspiracy. It is, in any case, hard to see how Britain and America could mount an invasion of a landlocked country without the support of some of Zimbabwe’s neighbours. And Britain and America are already overstretched militarily, immersed in two conflicts that will entangle both nations for some time to come.
Equally, though, sanctions alone are not the answer. Economic penalties have no effect on a regime that has already scandalously squandered its country’s wealth and despises its citizens. ‘Smart’ sanctions targeted at the individuals perpetuating this reign of terror are a morally appealing option. However, they are only effective if these people leave Zimbabwe: the impact upon the relatives of Mugabe’s henchmen living overseas is a minor calculation.

Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in