The ongoing Sudanese crisis has been the subject of considerable debate, particularly among critics who argue for concerted international intervention to prevent ethnic cleansing from sweeping across the largest country on the African continent. The United Nations has responded by appointing a commission to determine whether genocide is taking place, while the U.S. Congress has forged ahead to label the ongoing atrocities as such and has committed more than $350 million in aid. Sharpened by past images of Hutu and Tutsi blood dripping from rusted machetes, the world1s gaze has turned to Darfur amid whispers of 3never again.ý
Meanwhile, a few thousand miles south of the Sahara, perhaps the worst humanitarian and economic tragedy of the past decade marches onward under the feckless leadership of Robert Mugabe, bereft of the media attention bestowed upon the Sudanese. In light of today1s heightened attention on African security and politics, perhaps it is finally time for Zimbabwe to pierce the global conscience.
It is easy to dislike Mugabe, whom some have likened to a modern-day Stalin. After coming to power in the wake of colonial rebellion against the British, the self-styled 3Comrade Bobý has maintained absolute power in Zimbabwe for more than 20 years. His increasingly corrupt governance and alliance with other regional despots led to Zimbabwean involvement in the Congolese civil war in the late 1990s, needlessly costing thousands of lives and helping propel his country into economic decline.
In the aftermath of rising inflation and unemployment, Mugabe pointed the finger at the white farmers of Zimbabwe and initiated his controversial 3land reformý program, pitched as a means of redressing historical inequities by placing more farmland in the hands of black Zimbabweans. Most of the seized farms were eventually doled out to members of Mugabe1s Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front, while the rest were laid to waste. The combination of inexperienced farming and a severe drought then crippled the agricultural sector almost overnight, and Zimbabwe soon went from being 3Africa1s breadbasketý to a country ravaged by famine.
After facing domestic criticism, Mugabe shut down rival non-government newspapers, labeled captious journalists and editors as enemies to the state and deported most foreign correspondents. At the same time, he chose to ignore the burgeoning HIV/AIDS epidemic, which was killing (by World Health Organization estimates) more than 3,000 Zimbabweans per week. Confronted with mounting unpopularity during his last bid for presidency, Mugabe pursued a campaign of state-sponsored intimidation -- threatening, arresting or killing hundreds of his detractors while disenfranchising millions of other voters. Unsurprisingly, Mugabe won the 2002 election by a decisive margin.
It is clear that more could -- and should -- have been done to stop Mugabe. The United Kingdom reacted by suspending Zimbabwe1s membership, while the United States responded with economic sanctions that likely did more harm than good. Most African leaders have been content to ignore Mugabe, while French President Jacques Chirac extended him an open greeting at the Franco-African summit in 2003. One can only wonder how bad the situation in Zimbabwe must become before it joins the ranks of Sudan and Rwanda.
Fortunately, there is hope. If Mugabe chooses to obey his own laws (of which there is no guarantee), he will be unable to run again for re-election in 2008, providing the opportunity for a fresh start in a country that requires nothing less. But fresh starts of this magnitude need planning, investment and oversight from the international community, all of which suggests that we should start thinking about the future of Zimbabwe now, while there is still time to ensure a peaceful, productive post-Mugabe transition.
Currently, however, no blueprints exist for rebuilding Zimbabwe, although there have been periodic calls for Mugabe to voluntarily step down or be forcibly removed. As recently noted by Geoff Hill, author of The Battle for Zimbabwe and correspondent for The Washington Times, the bulk of regime change proposals tend to focus entirely on Mugabe1s removal. Hill, who has spent the last four months interacting with members of various international think tanks (including the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the International Institute for Strategic Studies), finds little further thought has been put into the issue: 3What happens after Mugabe? Nobody knows and nobody seems to care.ý
I submit it is high time to start caring, lest we find ourselves a decade later dealing with another Mugabe -- or someone worse.
Jason Lott is a first-year student in the School of Medicine from Anniston, Ala. Whole Lotta Love appears on alternate Mondays.
