By now is old news that Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, has withdrawn from the final run-off elections in Zimbabwe which would determine the next president of the country.

This comes after at least 70 MDC supporters have been killed. Robert Mugabe‘s answer to the “imperialist West” to the allegations that opposition supporters are being killed by mandate of the government is that the media is once again misrepresenting what is happening in Zimbabwe to justify their interference in the country.

Steve Pierson at The Standard, a political blog, says:

Military action seems to be the only option left. A smart campaign could be conducted relatively bloodlessly but it would have to be led by South Africa, the only country in the region with the standing and the military might to carry out such an action. And South Africa is showing no will to act. [http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2298]

In some respects I agree with Steve. It is obvious that non-violence seems to be a tactic only the opposition are interested in. But I disagree that any military campaign conducted by South Africa against Zimbabwe will be “relatively bloodless.” I also agree that New Zealand should offer its support – but that South Africa should decline. At least initially.

I have it on relatively good authority that should a military incursion from South Africa to assist in a coup d’état degenerate into an all-out bush war (which is likely) then our army will be given a thorough shelacking. We might have the technological upper-hand and superior numbers, but our military has deteriorated significantly over the last 10 years. I would venture a guess that this is due to more pressing concerns at home than keeping a well-oiled fighting machine in reserve.

While I don’t profess to be a military genius, I do not logically see the technological advantage we have counting for much if we’re

1. Fighting in the bush; and
2. Trying to preserve innocent life.

The Zimbabwean army should also not be underestimated. I don’t know about the state of repair of the Zimbabwean air force or armoured divisions but I know that ours leaves much to be desired, mainly due to funding reasons.

Our special forces known as the Recces could be deployed to covertly assist rather than risking open warfare, but our Special Forces Regiments also suffered due to the shift in priorities that came with the changes in 1994. For instance, as part of the “military transformation process,” 1 Special Forces Regiment was disbanded in 1996.

Today I’m not coming up with solutions. The prospects in this situation look bleak. Either people continue to die or live in squalor or we send in our troops to and they die to try and prevent the Zanu-PF from killing more innocents. Today I am saying that whatever the ANC decides to do about this they have to weigh the cost in human life carefully – hardly an easy task and one that will most assuredly be met with criticism no matter which path they take:

• Try to convince Mugabe to buy into a “government of national unity” (maintain status quo). Should this fail it will appear as if the ANC have done nothing but it will likely cost fewer lives. Mugabe is unlikely to give up his seat of power, however.
• Get the AU or SADC to approve the deployment of a peace force. Should we then lose to the Zanu-PF in a bush war at least it would look like the ANC tried but failed. No matter how you slice it, a military campaign will cost more lives. The chances  of the SANDF winning a bush war against the Zanu-PF (ZNA) is unknown.

Regarding the support from New Zealand – it would be great to know that we’re not in this alone, but in the end I don’t think an African nation could accept help to depose another African government from the ‘imperial West.’ This includes funding, arms, and personnel, I think. It’s sick that politics doesn’t seem to have anything to do with making mature, well calculated decisions but with street cred.

So for the initial campaign South Africa should decline help, but once the rebuilding of Zimbabwe is underway I reckon all aid will be welcome again.

Thus ends my reply to Steve Pierson’s post. Below is just a little bit more added for flavour.

In an article on News24 it is reported that Henri Boshoff, of the Institute for Security Studies said that a UN peace mission requires that a resolution to the effect being adopted and this could only happen if the host nation requests it or there is evidence of gross human rights violations. In the latter case (which most everyone is willing to agree on) the UN will still use a regional organisation like SADC or the AU for peace enforcement. According to the article it is very unlikely SADC or the AU will condone the deployment of troops in the region because of their individual policies on interference.

Karin Alexander of the Institute for Democracy in South Africa who is currently in Zimbabwe went so far as to say that deployment a peace force was an unlikely solution because Mugabe’s possible response created risks.

This basically means that a military campaign into Zim is out of the question for the ANC for the time being.

The Minister of Provinial and Local Government, Sydney Mufamadi and Thabo Mbeki’s legal advisor, Mojanku Gumbi are in Harare at the moment to discuss the “goverment of national unity” with Mugabe. I guess we’ll have to see what results our diplomatic efforts and the elections on Friday yield before grabbing our guns.

History has a funny way of repeating itself, though, and Robert Mugabe has shown very little inclination to relinquish his presidency. I guess the question is not if diplomacy fails and Mugabe is re-elected but when? And what will the ‘imperialist West’ do if South Africa, SADC, and the AU disappoints again? Will they risk the repercussions of interfering in African affairs?