KEY POINTS:
The Prime Minister struck the right note in her forthright comments on President Robert Mugabe's campaign of violence and intimidation in Zimbabwe. Nothing but the strongest condemnation could suffice following Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai's decision to withdraw from the run-off for the presidency because of the loss of
life among his supporters. This was nothing less than the triumph of state-sponsored terrorism over Tsvangirai, who had won the first round of presidential voting and whose party, the Movement for Democratic Change, had secured a parliamentary majority. It is, as Helen Clark suggested, "a disgraceful, horrific thing that's going on there".
Similar harsh words were heard from other Western leaders. The United States said it would go to the United Nations Security Council to look at additional steps that could be taken. There were even murmurs from African leaders who Mugabe would once have counted among his strongest allies. Angola's Eduardo dos Santos, a fellow liberation fighter, urged the Zimbabwean President to "embrace a spirit of tolerance and respect for democratic norms". Zambia's Levy Mwanawasa, who chairs the Southern African Development Community regional bloc, conceded that "what is happening in Zimbabwe is, of course, of tremendous embarrassment to all of us".
Most significantly, however, there was no condemnation from South Africa. Its President, Thabo Mbeki, clings to the notion that tepid diplomacy will fashion some sort of compromise, perhaps a unity government. Any such illusion, and any rationale for appeasement, has surely been shattered by Mugabe's demonstration that he will do anything to cling to power. The UN's hands are tied because China, one of the despot's few remaining allies, has a Security Council veto. It therefore falls to Zimbabwe's neighbours to, at the very least, ensure free and fair elections. South Africa holds the key because of its economic muscle, and the criticisms of other African leaders were calculated attempts to put pressure on Mbeki to orchestrate change.
The South African President is loath to act because of Mugabe's support for the African National Congress in apartheid-era South Africa and his willingness then to shelter its leaders. Mugabe has also been cunning in stressing Zimbabwe's sovereignty. He painted the election run-off as a contest against Western colonial interests, for which he said Tsvangirai was a puppet. Doubtless, the South African Development Community would be portrayed similarly if it were to agree on regional action.
More fundamentally, Mugabe is playing on a reluctance of world leaders to breach the sanctity of national sovereignty. During the 1990s, the Clinton Administration returned an elected leader to power in Haiti, and Nato ended the war in Bosnia and stopped a campaign of terror in Kosovo. But such humanitarian intervention relies on sound judgment, and the notion was dealt a crippling blow by the US-led invasion of Iraq. One consequence has been inaction over Myanmar, both during the junta's suppression of protesting monks and in the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis. Myanmar's neighbours did little, worried no doubt that any challenging of sovereignty could expose themselves to harsher scrutiny.
Totalitarian governments are the beneficiaries of this reticence. In Zimbabwe, it appears an octogenarian President will be able to steal an election. Matters will change only if the neighbours of this once-prosperous nation place the welfare of the Zimbabwean people above their own self-interest. They have a responsibility to intervene, and should have recognised as much a long time ago. If they do nothing, further bloodshed is inevitable.
