h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Apart from the stock answers "there's no oil" and "the Empire can't go back"...

Would an attempt to take out Mugabe and destabilise his regime be of any legitimate good to the country. Is it oversimplifying to look at an invasion of Zimbabwe as a valid course of action; what other factors or relationships with sympathetic or neighbouring states might hinder its potential to succeed?

Surely Sudan/Dafur would be top of the intervention list, or at least ahead of Zimbabwe?

The time for acting on Zimbabwe is pretty much past I think. Mugabe is on his last legs and the jockeying to replace him has begun. There was a meeting of his potential successors in S Africa a couple of weeks ago. These are the guys the UN should be speaking to; getting the bribes and inducements in now in order to influence future policies.

Militarily, Britain could only do it after a full withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. We would need the co-operation of at least Mozambique or S Africa. I doubt that British troops would be welcome in either and if you want an example of a screwed-up oppressive country, Mozambique would fit the bill.

Even an air assault in the manner of Kosovo would be difficult, if not impossible (notwithstanding the fact that such an operation is likely to be as totally ineffectual as the Kosovo one was).

So the question of "should" we do it is moot. We can't and Mugabe has always known it.

Succinctly put SWL, thank you.

That explains why Britain can't do this. But what I should have clarified in my question was what consequences *for Zimbabwe* might proclude an attempt to take on Zanu PF (assuming Mugabe isn't on his last legs, or at a loss for a similarly motivated successor) by an independent team.

A little background on Zimbabwe from this morning's Independent:

http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/dominic_lawson/article2542380.ece

At least Australia had the morality to say our cricket team isn't going there. Our government even fudged that simple catch.

As SWL said - the time for intervention is past - now all we can do is wait for it to implode and get in quick with the aid.

Who does it really hurt not playing Cricket with them? Mugabe has people killed is he really gonna shed tears over a missed match?

If you weren't so rude Azathoth I'd answer that question.

Arnie, if you wish to behave churlishly toward to me that is your choice, but perhaps you could take it to it on my personal space. I think it would be more appropriate than here.

Thanks for the link WA.

Yes Athathoz it is going to hurt him - because it's going to humiliate him on the world stage.

And pride is a biggie amongst dictators.

Why not?
Probably because Zimbabwe isn't a threat to other states or to the Wests economic interests
A case could be made for seeing Saddam as a threat given his record of aggressive wars, desire to acquire WMDs and backing of terrorist groups (personally I think it a weak case but it exists)
I don't believe that the West (or anywhere else) has ever gone to war just to prevent a dictator doing terrible things in their own country. There have always been reasons of realpolitik

None of which answers the question of why Zanu PF should not be removed because of possible implications for Zimbabwe.

"I don't believe that the West (or anywhere else) has ever gone to war just to prevent a dictator doing terrible things in their own country. There have always been reasons of realpolitik"

I think Serbia/Kosovo is a possible example of this. And the British intervention in Sierra Leone - though this was to stop rebels doing terrible things, and supporting the government.

"Yes Athathoz it is going to hurt him - because it's going to humiliate him on the world stage.

And pride is a biggie amongst dictators."

Mugabe is a dictator in all but name, yes.

But does England not playing cricket with a country really send a message that reverberates around the world and makes governments reconsider their relationship with a nation?

Would our not playing cricket have lead to Zimbabwe becoming a sport pariah as SA once was?

Would China really see Mugabe's 'loss of face' as a reason not buy up Zimbabwe's resources on the cheap?

I think it hurts a country's sportsman more than it hurts a regime. And I don't quite know how the government can order against sporting relations with Zimbabwe and not Pakistan.

Though if it is a governments place to decide whom and where it is morally (you mentioned morals) correct to play sport how do justify participation in the Beijing Olympics?

"Though if it is a governments place to decide whom and where it is morally (you mentioned morals) correct to play sport how do justify participation in the Beijing Olympics?"

There is no moral justification for awarding the olympics to China - nor for participating in them.

Serbia/Kosovo and Sierra Leone are both cases where it could be argued that humanitarian reasons were the main reason for intervention although the risk of Islamic fundamentalism getting a hold in Kosovo meant there were realpolitik reasons as well. Sierra Leone was a case of supporting the legitimate government.

2 reasons why I'd be reluctent to support British intervention in Zimbabwe -
1) Is military intervention the best way to solve problems of government corruption?
2) Britain, the former colonial power, is the wrong choice for the job. It should be a UN or African affair if it does occur.

If there was a time to intervene in Zimbabwe it was several years ago when the government was conducting a particularly brutal police action agianst the Matabele, something almost totally ignored by the West.