The decision by the UN today regarding Darfur was landmark. It is the fruit not just of a passionate speech by Gordon Brown at the last minute, but more than a year's work lobbying the UN by many individuals, including we are told Desmond Tutu.
Gordon Brown summarised the position into a stick and carrot approach to the government of Sudan. Now some 26000 troops are to be sent into Darfur, mostly from the African Union (7000 of which are already in place). It is to be hoped that the fragmented situation in Darfur will be postively impacted by this initiative. The difficulty may be that with the scale of collapse in government in Sudan substantially more troops will be required before disengagement is possible. If so, this appears to be a common pattern among many similar situations internationally.
In Zimbabwe the parliament opened last week amid a blaze of grandeur, while 80% of people are unemployed. As Martin Meredith has written it appears that Robert Mugabe and his network of chronies simply regard Zimbabwe as their private spoils of the struggle against the Smith regime thirty years ago. It is to be hoped that the situation does not decline further in Zimbabwe into a humanitarian crisis on the propoertions of Darfur where already 200,000 are dead.
Tuesday, 31 July 2007
Tuesday, 24 July 2007
Moral Question on Military Interventino
I have received a fair bit of feedback from people who have read the blog about military intervention in Zimbabwe or the Stephen Glover article.
The heart of the moral question appears to be this:- at what point does a crisis situation in Zimbabwe justify intervention by other nations in order to preserve the lives of vulnerable people in the country?
A related question will be:- what forms of intervention are justified?
I feel that, unfortunately, this is a question (about what is known as liberal internationalism) that the churches have signally failed to address meaningfully in relation to other similar situations, e.g. Somalia, over the years. Often the church is to be heard saying "war is not licit" or "military intervention is not justified" without ever quite stating what policy is licit.
In Zimbabwe the church has more moral force than in Europe. It is therefore a question that should receive attention.
The heart of the moral question appears to be this:- at what point does a crisis situation in Zimbabwe justify intervention by other nations in order to preserve the lives of vulnerable people in the country?
A related question will be:- what forms of intervention are justified?
I feel that, unfortunately, this is a question (about what is known as liberal internationalism) that the churches have signally failed to address meaningfully in relation to other similar situations, e.g. Somalia, over the years. Often the church is to be heard saying "war is not licit" or "military intervention is not justified" without ever quite stating what policy is licit.
In Zimbabwe the church has more moral force than in Europe. It is therefore a question that should receive attention.
Friday, 20 July 2007
Military Intervention
Yesterday (Thursday 19th) Stephen Glover writing in the Daily Mail compared the UK government's policy of military intervention in Afghanistan with Zimbabwe. It is the first time that I have seen a piece that was examining military intervention in Zim. It is actually quite a good article outlining the arguments for this form of action. I am not convinced, but neither do I think his points should be too quickly set aside.
His argument was that Afghanistan has been a graveyard for British forces for over 100 years, which is undoubtedly true. We have no ties nor obligations toward Afghanistan, yet we are committing forces in a spurious war against a concept - terror. In contrast, Zimbabwe was a dependency until 1980. The political system that elected Robert Mugabe as Prime Minister in 1980 was setup by the UK. Even at that time it was clear that Mugabe was guilty of a genocide against the Ndbele people - also true. (I notice that those involved at that time in negotiations with Zim over independence are now seeking to distance themselves from the process that lead to Robert Mugabe's appointment as Prime Minister. For example, time, Lord David Owen who was Foreign Secretary in 1980 has now made it clear he preferred Joshua Nkomo). Therefore since arguably the mess has been created by the UK we may be said to have a moral obligation to sort it out, says Glover.
Glover's argument is that a humanitarian crisis is iminent in Zim and that the correct, moral action may be to intervene to prevent a catastrophe. Intervention would be military in his view, and would need to receive a UN mandate, probably being undertaken by NATO. He points out that the United States have this week suddenly woken up to the existence of Zimbabwe. Glover argues that any force must crucially include South African troops. Indeed South Africa have self-interest at stake because of the growing refugee exodus to SA from Zimbabwe.
Glover points out that the fierce grip Mugabe has on power may mean that he is liable to assassination. If so, the departure of Mugabe may mean that a void is created that results in a destablised country leading to worse problems. Glover therefore is advancing a 'lesser of two evils' argument that military intervention in Zimbabwe is preferable to total governmental collapse.
Glover also argues, more dubiously, that any forces assigned would be welcomed by the people of the country as rescuers. He feels that even forces loyal to Mugabe would soon defect. I somehow doubt that this is a correct diagnosis of the feelings of many ordinary, especially rural, Zimbabweans.
I cannot see any prospect of the UK public being willing to committ troops and fund a campaign in Zimbabwe, especially if it results in the deaths of soldiers (which would be inevitable). As Dame Stella Rimington recently commented in relation to the war in Iraq the UK public will consent to foreign wars only where there is some legitimate threat or at least interest at stake. In Zimbabwe, since independence, there is no threat to these shores and little interest.
However, I feel that Glover's article should not be too quickly dismissed, because military intervention covers a range of possibilities from an invasion (as per Iraq) to much more focused involvements, such as Peace Enforcement (where there is a civil war), Peace Keeping (where there is tension but not an all out shooting war) and may cover an exercise to bring in food supplies under armed guard by a competent authority. My feeling is that the situation in Zimbabwe may yet come to that, given the warnings by Tear Fund this week on the death of children from malnutrition.
In the end, I think it is highly significant that Stephen Glover has raised this issue. He is right to do so, in my view. But I do not think his argument is sound in the end for the following reasons:
His argument was that Afghanistan has been a graveyard for British forces for over 100 years, which is undoubtedly true. We have no ties nor obligations toward Afghanistan, yet we are committing forces in a spurious war against a concept - terror. In contrast, Zimbabwe was a dependency until 1980. The political system that elected Robert Mugabe as Prime Minister in 1980 was setup by the UK. Even at that time it was clear that Mugabe was guilty of a genocide against the Ndbele people - also true. (I notice that those involved at that time in negotiations with Zim over independence are now seeking to distance themselves from the process that lead to Robert Mugabe's appointment as Prime Minister. For example, time, Lord David Owen who was Foreign Secretary in 1980 has now made it clear he preferred Joshua Nkomo). Therefore since arguably the mess has been created by the UK we may be said to have a moral obligation to sort it out, says Glover.
Glover's argument is that a humanitarian crisis is iminent in Zim and that the correct, moral action may be to intervene to prevent a catastrophe. Intervention would be military in his view, and would need to receive a UN mandate, probably being undertaken by NATO. He points out that the United States have this week suddenly woken up to the existence of Zimbabwe. Glover argues that any force must crucially include South African troops. Indeed South Africa have self-interest at stake because of the growing refugee exodus to SA from Zimbabwe.
Glover points out that the fierce grip Mugabe has on power may mean that he is liable to assassination. If so, the departure of Mugabe may mean that a void is created that results in a destablised country leading to worse problems. Glover therefore is advancing a 'lesser of two evils' argument that military intervention in Zimbabwe is preferable to total governmental collapse.
Glover also argues, more dubiously, that any forces assigned would be welcomed by the people of the country as rescuers. He feels that even forces loyal to Mugabe would soon defect. I somehow doubt that this is a correct diagnosis of the feelings of many ordinary, especially rural, Zimbabweans.
I cannot see any prospect of the UK public being willing to committ troops and fund a campaign in Zimbabwe, especially if it results in the deaths of soldiers (which would be inevitable). As Dame Stella Rimington recently commented in relation to the war in Iraq the UK public will consent to foreign wars only where there is some legitimate threat or at least interest at stake. In Zimbabwe, since independence, there is no threat to these shores and little interest.
However, I feel that Glover's article should not be too quickly dismissed, because military intervention covers a range of possibilities from an invasion (as per Iraq) to much more focused involvements, such as Peace Enforcement (where there is a civil war), Peace Keeping (where there is tension but not an all out shooting war) and may cover an exercise to bring in food supplies under armed guard by a competent authority. My feeling is that the situation in Zimbabwe may yet come to that, given the warnings by Tear Fund this week on the death of children from malnutrition.
In the end, I think it is highly significant that Stephen Glover has raised this issue. He is right to do so, in my view. But I do not think his argument is sound in the end for the following reasons:
- I do not think that a re-occupation of Zimbabwe in order to re-establish a competent democratic government will ever receive poliitcal support in the UK. The reason is that political consent for military engagement in the UK requires some threat or at the least an interest at stake. Zimbabwe presents no threat and there is little interest.
- I doubt we have the logistical capability to undertake such an operation. Without South Africa it would be impossible, for sure. With our army under strength and engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan it would be impossible to sustain. The Chief of the Army yesterday made comments about the ability of the army to sustain existing campaigns.
- The same question will arise in Zimbabwe as has arisen in Iraq - how long is needed to establish a stable state? Therefore how long will the occupation be? It is often overlooked that there are still troops stationed in West Germany today 61 years after the end of WW2.
- I am doubtful that UK or NATO troops would be welcomed as liberators. The result may therefore entail sufficient casualties to cause an adverse public reaction in the UK.
However, should Zimbabwe be discussed by the UN? The answer must be 'yes'. Should the logistical issues be considered by NATO - 'yes' again. In the end, if we see a catastrophe in Zimbabwe there may well be a case for humanitarian intervention to feed the populace. At what point must the crisis must have reached when international intervention is licit? I write as a member of the clergy and this moral dimension must be a proper concern for the churches.
Thursday, 19 July 2007
Good on Gordon!
Yesterday a press release sneaked out, spotted by my friend Carl, saying that Gordon Brown will not attend the EU-African Summit in December if Robert Mugabe is there. I hope this is evidence of a firmer line from the FCO over the issue of Zimbabwe. Gordon Brown promised change and maybe we are seeing some in foreign affairs.
Wednesday, 18 July 2007
Mugabe Criticised by US
Today on the television news coverage was carried of criticisms of Mugabe's economic policies by the United States. It has been pointed out that attempts to legislate for price reductions will lead to economic distortions that will create further shortages, either due to hoarding or panic buying of essential goods, such as diesel oil.
The fundamental problem is economic mismanagement. Statistics suggest that there has been rapid decline in each of the three key sectors to the Zimbabwean economy over the last ten years:- agriculture, manufacturing and tourism. Mugabe managed to negotiate a deal with Libya to provide continued supplies of oil, and that relationship goes back at least 7 years til 2000.
Now that the Zim dollar is effectively worthless on the international exchanges the unsurprising result is that essential supplies that have to be imported are escalating in price! Mugabe's response is to try and force a change on the internal price index. It is a short sighted policy that will lead to further economic distortions and greater problems.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Mugabe' regime is economically incompetent. Moreover, the likelihood is the key ministers of government have their assets salted away overseas and therefore the crisis in the economy of Zimbabwe is of comparatively little interest to them, with only minor personal impacts.
The fundamental problem is economic mismanagement. Statistics suggest that there has been rapid decline in each of the three key sectors to the Zimbabwean economy over the last ten years:- agriculture, manufacturing and tourism. Mugabe managed to negotiate a deal with Libya to provide continued supplies of oil, and that relationship goes back at least 7 years til 2000.
Now that the Zim dollar is effectively worthless on the international exchanges the unsurprising result is that essential supplies that have to be imported are escalating in price! Mugabe's response is to try and force a change on the internal price index. It is a short sighted policy that will lead to further economic distortions and greater problems.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Mugabe' regime is economically incompetent. Moreover, the likelihood is the key ministers of government have their assets salted away overseas and therefore the crisis in the economy of Zimbabwe is of comparatively little interest to them, with only minor personal impacts.
Tuesday, 17 July 2007
Quiet
The media coverage of Zimbabwe appears to have gone quiet over the last week or so. The developing tension with Russia over the expulsion of diplomats from London may be the reason for this break in coverage. Sadly Zimbabwe seems all-too-easily to slip down the rankings of media interest in the light of really any other development.
However, there was one piece in the Church Times a week ago about the findings of Tear Fund who are fearing for the malnutrition of children in Zimbabwe. It is worth reading.
In the meantime, I continue pondering what action may usefully be taken to progress the cause of democratic change in Zimbabwe. A new foreign secretary in post may be an opportunity for another round of letter writing perhaps? Similarly a new Prime Minister in office? I am pondering other actions within the Church of England too.
Let me know your views.
However, there was one piece in the Church Times a week ago about the findings of Tear Fund who are fearing for the malnutrition of children in Zimbabwe. It is worth reading.
In the meantime, I continue pondering what action may usefully be taken to progress the cause of democratic change in Zimbabwe. A new foreign secretary in post may be an opportunity for another round of letter writing perhaps? Similarly a new Prime Minister in office? I am pondering other actions within the Church of England too.
Let me know your views.
Friday, 6 July 2007
Article in Church of England Newspaper
Today my piece on what the Anglican Church can usefully do in relation to Zimbabwe appeared in the Church of England Newspaper. It contained one inaccuracy - the date of the Feast of S Bernard Mizeki is June 18th - hardly a show stopper!
It is my hope that by publishing a few initial suggestions about action by the Anglican Communion that this matter might at least be discussed informally among the delegates at General Synod in York, which meets over this weekend. However, there are many very heavy subjects on the list for the GS meeting including senior appointments and the matter of finding a legal formula around the ordination of women as bishops.
I wonder what you feel would be the correct next step towards making a small intentation on a major issue, which is Zimbabwe? Offer a comment to this blog. It is really easy.
It is my hope that by publishing a few initial suggestions about action by the Anglican Communion that this matter might at least be discussed informally among the delegates at General Synod in York, which meets over this weekend. However, there are many very heavy subjects on the list for the GS meeting including senior appointments and the matter of finding a legal formula around the ordination of women as bishops.
I wonder what you feel would be the correct next step towards making a small intentation on a major issue, which is Zimbabwe? Offer a comment to this blog. It is really easy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)