Well, we knew it would happen - Robert Mugabe has somehow received a landslide mandate to govern Zimbabwe for another five years.
Amid the West's impotent hand-wringing today, there's what amounts to a call-to-arms from Bishop Desmond Tutu, who advocates international intervention, by force if necessary.
Compared to Tutu's words, Nelson Mandela's condemnation of the regime last week was distinctly mealy-mouthed. Still, it's not every day a man of the cloth advocates military action (not these days anyway) and Tutu's world status as a man of courage and conscience is second-to-none. So, the questions for your politics or ethics class are
1) would military intervention in Zimbabwe be justifiable and 2) is there such a thing as a just war?
It's interesting that the recent aid crisis in Burma (or Myanmar, if you prefer) prompted similar public calls for armed intervention as the only remaining option when faced with a corrupt regime. My first reaction to both calls-to-arms was "Yes!". In our frustration at being unable to change an evil world by diplomatic or economic means, we may be driven to think that 'violence is the only language they will understand'.On reflection though, there are ethical pitfalls. Don't get me wrong, I will dance in the streets the day Mugabe falls from power, but didn't Britain and the US invade Iraq in order to "liberate" its people from an evil dictator?
Sadaam may be gone, but British-made cluster bombs will be blowing up Iraqui children for years to come. What has Operation Iraqui Freedom given the Iraquis? Abu Ghraib prison!
How many invading forces in history have done so under the flag of "liberation"? From an ethical point of view, as soon as it's ok to invade a country if you're "liberating" it, then anything goes. The Generals can continue to "liberate" Burma, China can continue to "liberate" Tibet and the US can "liberate" just about any country where they'd like more influence.
Excuse me while I pop next door and liberate the silverware.






