Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditIn the latest issue of Time magazine, Samantha Power -- the author of A Problem from Hell and a former adviser to Barack Obama -- proposes a radical solution for the crisis in Zimbabwe. Her solution needs a thoughtful reply, because in my opinion it's dangerously misguided.
Power rose to fame by proclaiming the importance of preventing genocide in failed and failing states, and her book (subtitled "America and the Age of Genocide") is focused on that hellish problem. But she wouldn't be so important were she not a formative adviser to Obama's still-evolving worldview. Her book has lengthy chapters on Cambodia and Rwanda, among others, but its real focus has been the shattered remnants of Yugoslavia, where President Clinton and NATO intervened with force in the 1990s.
In her Time essay, "Saving Zimbabwe," Power counterposes what she calls two extremes: "hand-wringing ... multilateralists" who want to use diplomacy and "constructive engagement" to deal with Robert Mugabe and "consequence-blind militarism by zealous moralists who call for regime change by force." Thus, she neatly sets herself up as the Goldilocks of the happy middle.
In a nutshell, Power's plan is for the Zimbabwean opposition to "set up a government-in-exile and appoint ambassadors abroad -- including to the UN." That would force the United Nations to choose between Mugabe's rep and that of the opposition of Morgan Tsvangirai. She wants to challenge the world to take sides between countries that support the March 29 vote that was won by the opposition and countries that accept the rigged, June 27 action by Mugabe to perpetuate his rule.
One by one, those African and Western leaders who claim to be disgusted with Mugabe should announce that they bilaterally recognize the validity of the March 29 first-round election results, which showed the opposition winning 48% to 43%, though the margin was almost surely larger. The countries which do would make up the new "March 29 bloc" within the U.N. and would declare Morgan Tsvangirai the new President of Zimbabwe. They would then announce that Mugabe and the 130 leading cronies who have already been sanctioned by the West will not be permitted entry to their airports. ...If "the U.N." is disaggregated into its component parts, Mugabe's friends will be exposed. "June 27" countries will be those who favor electoral theft, while "March 29" countries will be those who believe that the Zimbabweans aren't the only ones who should stand up and be counted.
Sounds good, right? But here's the problem. Not every country in the world is ready for an all-in showdown over Zimbabwe. Many countries in Africa, including South Africa, are worried about the political, economic, and military consequences of forcing the issue. Just yesterday, at the G-8 meeting in Japan, Western leaders foudn themselves pitted in direct opposition to African leaders over Zimbabwe. Here's the Toronto Globe and Mail on the subject:
Group of Eight leaders yesterday pushed the heads of African nations to take strong steps toward forcing Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe out of power, exposing divisions between major developed countries and Africans, who raised fears that tougher action might tip the volatile country into civil war ....African leaders expressed frustration with the situation in Zimbabwe, but also called for caution. Last week, a split African Union conference opted not to censure Mr. Mugabe.
The union's leader, Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete, told reporters that the Africans believe the solution is a government that includes Mr. Mugabe and the opposition.
I'd say that Africans' fears of civil war (and close-to-genocidal bloodletting that could follow) are realistic. And it's by no means clear that Russia, China, and other world powers who are suspicious of US and Western efforts to topple regimes they don't like would go along with Samantha Power's plan. So her plan to carve up the world into "March 29" countries and "June 27" countries is a recipe for disaster, and it could result in creating animosity, division, and bloc vs. bloc rivalries that could undermine the possibility of diplomatic solutions for the war in Iraq, the showdown over Iran's nuclear program, the North Korea issue, and others.
Power says correctly that the situation in Zimbabwe involves "ruthlessless and savagery." But it hardly rises to the level of genocide. (That doesn't stop Nat Hentoff, a libertarian, human rights activist who writes for the Moonie-owned Washington Times from calling Mugabe "the Hitler of Africa" and describing him as "satanic.") If her idea works for Zimbabwe, why not apply it to a couple of dozen other countries around the world? What if the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood declared itself a government-in-exile for Egypt, Syria, and Jordan? Why not back the Cuban-American National Foundation as government-in-exile for Cuba? Why not apply it to the 'Stans, to Russia? Why not back efforts by revanchists in Taiwan to declare themselves the legitimate government of China? (Oops, we tried that for a while, didn't we?)
Though Samantha Power is motivated not by imperial designs but by a moral imperative, her solution for Zimbabwe is the perfect example of democracy promotion run wild. The long-suffering people of Zimbabwe will eventually get justice. Mugabe is in his mid-80s and won't be around forever, and when he dies the military gang around him is likely to disintegrate. In the meantime, perhaps Thabo Mbeki of South Africa and other African leaders can damp down the violence by persuading Mugabe and Tsvangirai to accept a coalition government. Til then, let's not make things worse.
Nothing will be done if left to the UN....govts in exile....great history of govts in exile takimng actual power only AFTER other countrys invade and install them...See France, Poland, ect in WW2...and with Africas history?...forget it.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/08/2008 @ 11:18am
Hi Robert,
You essentially propose doing nothing but wait until Mugabe dies and "hope" that his military gang around him dies rather than appoint a successor.
You also don;t seem to understand that it takes leverage to persuade Mugabe to accept a coalition government, and you don't seem to advance any ideas on how to create such leverage.
At least Samantha's plan would create a lot of leverage, and perhaps has a better chance of bringing Mugabe to the bargaining table to form a coalition government.
We tried your approach of waiting until a dictator dies, like in Cuba, and this only created Raul.
You simply can't tear down someone else's analysis without preferring a viable alternative of your own. Granted, Samantha's solution would create division in the world among those who support legitimate democratic results and those who don't, but given our history of coddling dictators because they advance some US corporate interest, this may not be a bad starting point in forming a consistent and coherent foreign policy.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/08/2008 @ 11:19am
I start with the premise that the United States can't fix the world's problems, and when we try we tend to make them worse. A bloody civil war in Zimbabwe could not only cause many deaths there but spill over into neighboring countries. So maybe it's best to do nothing.
I agree that we've coddled dictators "because they advance some US corporate interest." We've also coddled them because (during the Cold War) it was viewed as prudent to back our thugs over their thugs.
But I ask you now: are we suddenly pure? Are we overthrowing dictators willy-nilly because America has seen the light? Or might it be that, now that the Cold War is over, we're suddenly toppling dictators (like Saddam) because that, too, serves corporate interests?
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 07/08/2008 @ 11:27am
I'd say Ms. Power's place is in an Ivory Tower, NOT as an advisor to anyone of consequence!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/08/2008 @ 11:40am
Setting up governments in exile is an old ploy for overthrowing govts of which some other nations don't approve.
Both East & West have played that game.
A very dangerous practice.
In this case, the looter Mugabe was backed for decades by the US & UK, knowing full well his thieving ways.
And it was the UK & its last Gov. Gen. the bumbler Christopher Soames who made such a cock-up of Rhodesia, that it fell first to the white supremacist Ian Smith, then the gangster Mugabe.
Posted by sloper at 07/08/2008 @ 12:17pm
I'm sorry to say. But if he is not actually committed genocide we need to leave it alone. Africa is always a brush fire waiting to happen. Unless you go in there with full military capability and a plan to actually take action you can't go in at all. It's been proven what happens when you go into Africa with a half-assed attitude to oust a dictator without actually going in with a full strike plan. Even the might of America felt the bite of that continent.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/08/2008 @ 12:34pm
<i>Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 07/08/2008 @ 11:27am </i>
Though I'm not entirely sure I disagree with the article's specific claims about Zimbabwe,I'm somewhat confused by the more general advocacy in this post because it seems to rely on making the perfect the enemy of the good. I think it's beyond reasonable dispute that the US is incapable of solving all problems that the world confronts. I don't understand, however, that this automatically means that any US action will make a situation worse. The empirical record alone seems to indicate at least some cases where precisely the opposite is true; the US was able to help revitalize Europe by way of the Marshall Plan (regardless of what the motives were), and when the US refused to take meaningful action in Rwanda, genocide resulted.
I don't think that acting against heinous abuses requires complete purity either, any more than the very existence of legitimate state power requires governmental actors to be morally infallible. Virtue can be a dangerous cloak for self-interested action, but but taking this too far can be problematic. One, I think we should be reluctant to assume that all action defended with moral rhetoric is merely a cloak for self-interest, as the "the military is just a tool for corporate interests" line of argument often seems to suggest. People and institutions can act for good reasons, even if they don't always do so. Two, I think we should be wary of using fears of tainted action to rationalize toleration of vast abuses. To slightly adapt Peter Singer's example, wouldn't a man who saw a toddler drowning nearby but chose not to act because he was afraid his motives were impure still be considered morally responsible for failing to act? Along this same vein, who WOULD be justified in intervening by this standard?
I would apply here the same moral framework that I applied in another thread. If morality is understood as something that is actually meaningful, moral actors with the capacity to do so have a responsibility to act against grievous injustices, a principle that the Genocide Convention certainly recognizes at least to an extent. Allowing genocide, or vast human rights violations, cannot be understood as a morally neutral act. It may not always be possible to stop a genocide or to prevent massive human rights violations, but to sit back and refuse to act because we are insufficiently pure or because we simply don't think it's our responsibility seems morally untenable. We should take our limitations seriously, and not jump to impose a poorly-thought-out solution that will make circumstances worse, but this caution should be used to temper intervention rather than categorically dismiss it.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/08/2008 @ 12:35pm
Glad to see you now oppose an interventionist policy, HAPPY.... uh, who are you voting for again??? Posted by Maskbeta at 07/08/2008 @ 12:26pm
Nah it's ok to intervene when oil and money is involved. There isn't enough of a monetary reason to intervene there.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/08/2008 @ 12:37pm
Posted by Thrawn at 07/08/2008 @ 12:35pm
I cannot agree more with everything you just said Thrawn.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/08/2008 @ 12:46pm
Quite elegantly said also I have to admit.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/08/2008 @ 12:47pm
>>>I start with the premise that the United States can't fix the world's problems, and when we try we tend to make them worse. A bloody civil war in Zimbabwe could not only cause many deaths there but spill over into neighboring countries. So maybe it's best to do nothing.
I agree that we've coddled dictators "because they advance some US corporate interest." We've also coddled them because (during the Cold War) it was viewed as prudent to back our thugs over their thugs.
But I ask you now: are we suddenly pure? Are we overthrowing dictators willy-nilly because America has seen the light? Or might it be that, now that the Cold War is over, we're suddenly toppling dictators (like Saddam) because that, too, serves corporate interests?
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 07/08/2008 @ 11:27am <<<
Hi "Robert,
Your first premise is correct - the US cannot (and should not) solve all of the world's problems unilaterally.
What Samantha was suggesting in her Time article was a way to ensure world consensus concerning the legitimacy of a particular government, and this is MUCH different than Bush's unilateralism cloaked by "a coalition of the willing" of nations bribed or duped by the US or who have their own axe to grind.
It is also worth noting that using the UN to form a world consensus does NOT necessarily lead to "regime change" military action, and even you acknowledge in your article that Samantha was positioning her analysis in the middle of the two extremes of militarism and engagement with the illegitimate government.
The goal is "real" world consensus and leverage on the illegitimate government, as this has the best prospect of bringing about substantive change.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/08/2008 @ 1:56pm
There is an interesting dichotomy developing on this thread. There appears to be two camps of bipartisan agreement;
Those who feel that Mugabe needs to go and go soon; and those who are willing to let things be in some hope that they will one day change.
I join myself with those who feel action is needed.
I detect some levels of racism on letting things be; although that is not all inclusive as CCC has joined with the leave them alone crowd.
Why is it though that many Americans, liberal and conservative, suddenly find less urgency when it comes to Africans who are oppressed?
As someone who fell in love with the African people from my time over there, it both saddens and disappoints me that Americans don't have the same concern for Africans as they do Europeans for example.
The people of Zimbabwe deserve their freedom and control of their own destiny. The fact that other African nations are hesitant to see that realization for Zimbabwe does not speak well of them nor should it determine the fate of the people of Zimbabwe.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/08/2008 @ 3:03pm
Glad to see you now oppose an interventionist policy, HAPPY....
Posted by Maskbeta at 07/08/2008 @ 12:26pm
Not in all cases......
Zimbabawe still has a large allowance for UN Resolutions, a couple of unused credits for attacks on its neighbors, at least one attempted assassination of a retired US POTUS....probably a few more `chips' it can auction off on eBay!
IF it has meaningful oil, HALVE all its unused chips!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/08/2008 @ 3:08pm
Why is it though that many Americans, liberal and conservative, suddenly find less urgency when it comes to Africans who are oppressed?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/08/2008 @ 3:03pm
I don't really believe the bi-partisan agreement to (generally) not intervene is based on race.
It's what Thrawn dances around without boldly pointing the middle finger at the main culprist for us doing nothing.......the anti-war types have raised the bar so high on any interventions where those who advocate for it, has to guarantee a utopia result or suffer endless derisions......who needs it? People die everywhere every day, for unjust reasons.....even just taking showers.
If Kosovo's ethnic cleansing is today, highly unlikely either the Right or Left would want us to intervene.....it's strictly up to no one or at most, Old Europe or New Russia.
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/08/2008 @ 3:18pm
The people of Zimbabwe deserve their freedom and control of their own destiny. The fact that other African nations are hesitant to see that realization for Zimbabwe does not speak well of them nor should it determine the fate of the people of Zimbabwe. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/08/2008 @ 3:03pm
I see your point LVL. I also do not fault you it. The reason I say leave it alone is because I do not consider America to be the world police. I didn't think we should have gone into Iraq. I don't think we should go to Africa. We have no understanding of the subtle political implications of an action that we take. If we act brashly we may end up doing more damage than good.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/08/2008 @ 3:29pm
On another note though LVL. I am not completely against going into Africa. I just think that if we do it, we can't do it half assed. It can't be done with sanctions and no fly zones. If we are going to oust a dictator we have to do it right. Time has shown that half assed action when it comes to Africa will show it's stupidity and lax attitude very quickly.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/08/2008 @ 3:30pm
The US will not address the Zimbabwe issue until either a) Zimbabwe has much greater direct economic and strategic importance to the US specifically or b) some sort of international issue emerges that drags the US into the fray.
I personally believe Powers' notion of attempting to turn Mugabe into a lightning rod for criticism at the UN is never going to happen because most countries are probably even less excited than the US about tackling Zimbabwe and Mugabe, having much less spare time, money, and (possibly) ammunition to go dealing with domestic crises in impoverished African nations.
Also, quite frankly, until the Iraq situation is somehow resolved - and that is going to take a long time - security crises in Africa outside of Somalia, Egypt, etc. will be placed in the priority list of any president somewhere between sex tourism in Asia and humanitarian aid to Outer Mongolia.
Posted by Zero at 07/08/2008 @ 5:00pm
I agree with Thrawn on the moral imperative for action. I think it's also important to realize that there may be limits to what we can accomplish with non-violent means.
Having said that, the potential for abuse inherent in the idea of armed humanitarian intervention is considerable enough that it should be limited to recognized crimes against humanity (i.e., ethnic cleansing and genocide). "Mere" oppression as a casus belli would open up a huge Pandora's box.
As for Mr. Dreyfuss's concern about a civil war in Zimbabwe, how is that any different from the wholesale violence going on there now? Perhaps one can raise tactical questions about Ms. Powers's proposed methodology but the idea of isolating the Mugabe regime the way the apartheid regime in South Africa was isolated is a good one.
Posted by brunowe at 07/09/2008 @ 11:13am
......the potential for abuse inherent in the idea of armed humanitarian intervention is considerable......
Posted by brunowe at 07/09/2008 @ 11:13am
"the potential for abuse" exist in every situation, armed or unarmed, by the US or anybody else! Why? We're are humans!
The Libs' denial of the badness/impulsive part of humanity is the reason you're never HAPPY and nobody outside your circle, really wants to take up your causes. Why should we subject our military to your condemnation when a few bombs land off-target or by mistake and a few soldiers invariably kill some civilians, by mistake or murder, or can't control their dick?
Even in nations at peace w/the US Military present, shit happens. Even based in our own coutry, our military personnel aren't all saints. In war/conflict zones, you Libs just go stir crazy when `shit happens'. I say absolutely NO interventions based on humanitarian grounds without every single Liberal sign a blood oath to forever hold their tongues once the idea of intervention is `authorized'.
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/09/2008 @ 12:11pm
"The Libs' denial of the badness/impulsive part of humanity is the reason you're never HAPPY and nobody outside your circle, really wants to take up your causes. Why should we subject our military to your condemnation when a few bombs land off-target or by mistake and a few soldiers invariably kill some civilians, by mistake or murder, or can't control their dick?"
There is a big difference between a few abuses and a top-down policy authorizing torture, a difference you seem more than HAPPY to try to pretend doesn't exist. Further, the abuse of which I was speaking was using, for example, the oppressions of Saddam Hussein as a pretext for going into Iraq when it was about the oil and a establishing permanent bases, a fact you seem quite HAPPY to overlook.
Posted by brunowe at 07/09/2008 @ 1:45pm
...it was about the oil...
Posted by brunowe at 07/09/2008 @ 1:45pm
I won't waste my time going beyond the few little things other than oil....
Even limiting (ie accepting) your world view it was only for oil, ignoring how many hundreds of thousands of genocide victims Saddam was `credited' (BTW, didn't you say earlier, Genocide qualifies for moral intervention?), we did give Saddam almost 20 Resolution allowance and 12 years to dick w/us.
Tell us how Zimbabwe is doing in year 2020, and we'll see how morally imperative (by then) it is for us to intervene. My heart bleeds......really!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/09/2008 @ 2:31pm
We did intervene to stop Hussein's massacres in the 90s, or does the phrase "no-fly zone" mean nothing to you?
Posted by brunowe at 07/09/2008 @ 4:46pm
"no-fly zone" mean nothing to you?
Posted by brunowe at 07/09/2008 @ 4:46pm
"no-fly zone" just meant Iraqi air force & helicopters can't fly....didn't prevent his draining the southern marshes and slaughtering a few Shiites! You can call it "oppression" with some casualties....I'll call it Genocide!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/09/2008 @ 4:56pm
A self-serving definition 2HAPPY. The Marsh Arabs (who were probably beneath your notice until you could use them for polemical purposes) were displaced but are still a political force in Masayan Governorate.
Posted by brunowe at 07/10/2008 @ 11:05am