Overthrowing Mugabe?

by Editor · January 7, 2009

For those truly exasperated by Robert Mugabe�s ruinous misrule of Zimbabwe, the vision of military intervention to effect regime change in Harare seems an attractive proposition. One such critic is Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who in late December called for military action to force Mr Mugabe from office.

While the idea certainly has visceral appeal, it must be entertained with caution. It is probable that most Zimbabweans would welcome liberation from the Mugabe regime by almost any means. But before military intervention could be considered, it must be established that such action would indeed be embraced by most Zimbabweans. But how can this be measured accurately when voicing support for military intervention would attract charges of treason?

Many other complex questions would need to be addressed. A military incursion into a sovereign state should require international support through the United Nations. Would the international community, including China, arrive at a consensus? How would an external military force be composed? How long would it need to remain in Zimbabwe? And at whose cost? South Africa can ill afford to divert funds to costly military exercises.

Moreover, those who advocate military force must outline precisely what this would involve, and weigh up the hazards in such a venture. It is imprudent to imagine that Mr Mugabe exercises such vast power as to coerce the acquiescence of unwilling henchmen. Indeed, there is traction to the notion that the army is in control of the regime, with Mr Mugabe serving as a complicit figurehead. Rumours have it that Zimbabwe�s army is hosting foreign advisors (government opponents claim to have spotted North Koreans in those ranks).

If so, Zimbabwe�s troubles will not be solved by removing a lone tyrant� �� indeed, it may well aggravate them by creating a precarious power vacuum. But how far would a purge of Mugabe loyalists need to go, and what would be done with them after their expulsion from power? And would those replacing them be qualified to govern and rebuild an entirely devastated country?

It is clear that the diplomatic means to solve the Zimbabwean crisis have yet to be exhausted. The South African government of President Kgalema Motlanthe has undercut its brief outbreaks of tough talk by continuing Thabo Mbeki�s dismal accommodation of Mr Mugabe�s regime, even in the United Nations.

The Catholic bishops of Southern Africa rightly observed that �no effort must be spared in ensuring that a political solution to the current impasse is found�.

Before military intervention can be considered, the South African government must be persuaded or obliged � by the people it is serving and by the international community � to take unambiguously tough action to force out of office the man who has routinely humiliated and taunted South Africa by breaking every promise and undertaking he has made to Mr Mbeki, and his collaborators in the crimes against Zimbabwe�s people.

South Africa has the diplomatic and economic means to throttle the Mugabe regime. Targeted sanctions, or the threat thereof, against the more pragmatic functionaries within Mr Mugabe�s Zanu-PF and the Zimbabwean army might well provide sufficient incentive for a palace coup. The process could be expedited by closing the border and cutting the supply of electricity and petrol to Zimbabwe, as proposed by the bishops.

There is no immediate need for military action against Mr Mugabe and his foul regime. There is, however, an acute need for Southern African governments (and the international community) to muster the political will to fix the mess they have helped to facilitate over eight years of feeble diplomacy.