On Safari With Secretary Clinton

After urging African youth to use their skills with the new potentials of the Internet to expose corruption and other endemic sins of politics in the Dark Continent and spewing vague promises of support to the Transitional Federal Government in the geographic entity known as Somalia, the fast-stepping SecState donned her pith helmet and jetted into South Africa. In Pretoria, Ms Clinton dove into the deep end of Southern Africa's liberation mythology and its political implications.

Other than perusing the archives of Nelson Mandela, and "seeking better relations" with Pretoria, the former senator from New York sought to get the effective cooperation of South Africa in bringing stability, economic recovery, and governmental transparency to Zimbabwe. In the process of schmoozing the country's new foreign minister, Maite Nakoana Mashabane, Ms Clinton made all the requisite noises about South Africa being, along with China, India, and Brazil, one of the world's "major and emerging global powers."

She will make the same soft, soothing, and stroking noises when she meets with the new president Jacob Zuma tomorrow. It does all sound good and it is correct--in principle.

But, not so in practice. While a far cry from the nearly failed state of Zimbabwe, South Africa is facing a host of major problems. Most of them made by the majority rule based government. It may not be politically correct to write that, but the statement does have the simple virtue of being accurate.

Emblematic of the problems besetting South Africa is the pending strike against the national electric company, Eskom. The country's largest union is in the final stages of negotiations. If these fail, the strike will further paralyse South Africa's mining industry. Production of both platinum and gold have already been adversely effected by rolling brownouts caused by the failure of the government to budget for long necessary infrastructure improvements and repairs.

The big money makers for South Africa are minerals, gold, platinum, and chrome. Diamonds may be the most famous export, but the dollars--or rands--are in the minerals. The US takes a lot of these, accounting for nearly twelve percent of the South African exports.

Any further curtailment of mineral production such as would necessarily result from a strike against Eskom shakes the country's economy--hard. The gap between the union's demands (fourteen percent pay hike) and the company's offer (eight percent) as well as the current inflation rate of 6.9 percent makes the probability of a strike very high.

Another union has already hit the national telecommunications company. The communications workers hit the bricks in four of South Africa's nine provinces. In addition, the union representing the platinum miners rejected an 8.5 percent wage increase, holding firm at 15 percent, so the threat of layered strikes is high. While the rail workers called off their 28 July strike, the state rail company, Metrorail, is not likely to meet the 12.5 percent increase the union wants. Strike three!

Not surprisingly both the rand and the South African stock market tottered more than a little.

With beaucoup strikers added to the large pool of previously unemployed people, the economy is likely to shake, rattle, and roll even more than it has in recent months. This can easily lead to political problems for President Zuma, who was elected on promises to end inflation and unemployment alike. He has not been able to pay off on the promises with the result that street demonstrations blasted across the country last month. More are in the offing.

While it is customary to put the onus for South Africa's current problems on the residue of the ancien regime, it has been more than a decade since majority rule became the rule. Since then the indigenous governments have shown a remarkable willingness to benefit their supporters rather than make proper investments in the common political and economic weal. While no where near so extreme as in, say, Zimbabwe, there has been a propensity to shower goodies on the Alte Kampfer of the liberation movement to the detriment of the country as a whole.

For years the nature of the global economy allowed this short-sighted, ethnocentric approach to government. But, the events of the past couple of years brought the flow of cash and goodies to an end. The dues collector is at the door.

Since South Africa's mineral riches and impressive (white developed) industrial infrastructure and agricultural equivalent has made the country the largest economy in Sub-Saharan Africa, any sort of major spasm there will echo throughout Africa. The spasm will happen unless the government can focus on efficiency even at the expense of liberation mythology.

The very heavy hand of this myth rests on President Zuma as it did on his less-than-impressive predecessor Thabo Mbeki. Mbeki was so anti-white, anti-West that he was in a state of constant denial about the realities around him including the high HIV infection rate in South Africa. This attitude coupled in a synergistic way with the Bush/Cheney regime's unique ability to either ignore or insult countries which were not in total tandem with its policies to sour bilateral relations.

Ms Clinton is aware of the Bush/Cheney delinquency but seems totally oblivious to the power of the liberation mythology. Zuma no more than Mbeki will be able to step out of the shadow of the myth to pressure liberation "hero" Mugabe next door in Zimbabwe. This, in turn, means that Zimbabwe will remain a running sore. The refugees will continue to flock to South Africa and other neighboring states. Additional costs will be imposed on South Africa at a time when the country cannot afford them.

Additional costs will couple with continued alienation among Zuma's base with destabilizing effects. A tipping point may be reached with results which will be devastating to the country. Any increase in white flight from South Africa will do the country no good. And, white flight can be stimulated quickly by any move by the government to expropriate or otherwise take wealth, land, or businesses from white owners.

The unfortunate history of post-colonial Africa has shown time and time again that when economic conditions are such as to breed unrest among the lower socio-economic segments, governments respond by seizing property from the white minority regardless of the longer term consequences. Governments, particularly new ones, live in the shortest of short terms.

This potential is the unmentioned T. rex at the meetings between Secretary Clinton and the South African ForMin and President. It is not the sort of thing that anyone likes to mention--particularly if one is a progressive, a believer in multi-cultural diversity as the touchstone of an "enlightened" society and polity.

The potential of social dislocation bringing ill-advised government seizures and white flight is real enough, close enough, that failing to get a grip on this brutal ground truth will spell ruin to the well intentioned effort to build a new relation with South Africa. It also will spell the difference between South Africa as a "global and emerging" nation and South Africa as the next African basket case.

Israel And The Zimbabwe Model

In a world of perfect justice, the Arabs would prevail in the conflict over Palestine. Or, in this hypothetical just world, there would be a secular state in the region in which adherents of all religions could coexist in political and economic harmony.

The impossibility of a Jewish "national homeland" existing in an Arab context was well understood by the founders of the Zionist Movement more than a century ago. Regardless of public pronouncements over the decades preceding the independence of Israel, the private position was clear: Only a clear and permanent Jewish majority could assure the permanence of the Jewish state.

And, make no mistake about it, despite the European socialist background of the first generations of Zionists and Israelis with its post-Enlightenment legacy of the secular oriented, multi-religious state, the goal was always the formation of a Jewish state in which the levers of power would remain for all time firmly in the hands of Jews. Adherents of other religious traditions would be tolerated but kept firmly in a minority position.

As David ben-Gurion wrote (privately) some seventy-five years ago, there were two problems which would confront the Jewish state in perpetuity. The first was the numerical inferiority of the Jewish population in comparison with the Arab Muslims of Palestine and surrounding areas. This problem would exist even if every Jew in the world returned to the Homeland--a clear impossibility then or now. The second problem was the "violent nature of Islam."

Ben Gurion correctly identified the ground truths of Islam. It was a totalistic belief system governing every aspect of human existence both personal and collective. It was immune to compromise except in the most narrowly defined tactical manner. Finally, it calls for violence against the non-believer generally and the Jew in particular.

Of course it would have been impolitic in the extreme to have made this position in a public forum. Ben Gurion and others of the founding generation relied on the Arabs to do the job for them. To reject compromise as in the myriad partition plans. To resort to violence whether in the riots of the late Twenties and Thirties or in the military misadventure of the Arab states upon Israel's declaration of independence.

It was not surprising that the Zionists and Israelis alike resorted to a form of ethnic cleansing. Before 1948 this was accomplished through the purchase of land and the removal (with the full cooperation of the British Mandate authorities) of the tenant farmer population. With the coming of the War of Independence, violence and threats of violence were employed to remove Arabs from the territory of the borning state.

With a degree of stupidity and arrogance which almost boggles the mind of the retrospective observer, the Israeli efforts at population removal were encouraged and assisted by the various Arab States which assumed without any basis in reality that their forces would speedily drive the Jews into the sea and the displaced population could return. The Arab leaders were wrong and thus share responsibility in creating the Mother of All Palestinian Problems--the fate of the refugees and their descendants.

None of this was just or fair or ethically justified in an absolute way. But, history shows to a nauseating extent that neither fairness nor justice are often observed conditions in the human experience. It is also fair and accurate to say that the two problems highlighted by Ben Gurion still exist.

Israeli Jews still hold the short end of the demographic stick. That end would be made even shorter should Israel agree to some sort of "law of the return" for either the refugees of the earlier wars or their descendants. Likewise it would be shortened if Israel were to reestablish an occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Israelis do swim in a very hostile sea.

The hostility is not only that of Arab nationalism which rose in parallel with the Zionist movement in the wake of the dismantlement of the Ottoman Empire. Arab nationalism is and has been alive and well for nearly a century now. And, the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are in no way immune to its inherent appeal.

Arguably nationalism is not the only or even the most important force at work in the irredentist position of the Gaza and West Bank population. The pride of place rightfully belongs to where Ben Gurion put it--Islam.

Ben Gurion was right on both of his points. And Israelis, even those of the most peace and justice loving persuasion know it. They are perfectly well aware of what would happen even in the event of a peaceful solution to the current hostilities.

Admittedly the probability of a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resides closer to the realm of myth than the cold world of reality. But, assume for the moment that it comes to pass, that a plan along the lines of that put forth by Saudi Arabia on behalf of the Arab League were to be put in place.

The Saudi plan includes a "right of return" clause. Now assume that a fraction of those eligible under its provisions come back to homes and lands in Israel.

Reside in Israel. Work in Israel. Vote in Israeli elections.

That's where the Zimbabwe model comes into play.

Consider it for a moment or two.

When Robert Mugabe and his guerrilla force outlasted the political will of the isolated white minority regime in Rhodesia and took power, the economic base of the country was the export oriented, white owned agricultural sector. For nearly two decades the efficient agricultural sector and the equally white agricultural support businesses kept Zimbabwe in both food and foreign exchange.

But, finally, to keep his kleptocratic hands on the levers of power and depending upon the "democratic process," Mugabe ousted the white farmers. The result was both obvious and immediate.

White flight. Loss of agricultural productivity. Loss of foreign exchange. Finally, in just a handful of years Zimbabwe went from plenty to poverty. Starvation stalked a land which had formerly been a net food exporter of note.

The early Zionists were scared to death of democracy. They feared and resisted any move to place the original Palestine Mandate with the United States in accurate apprehension that the US would insist on installing a reasonable form of democracy which would of necessity assure that the Arab majority would hold power.

That fear is just as alive and well today with the Israeli population. If anything the frightful example of events of the past decade in Zimbabwe have stoked the fear. It is utterly inconceivable that Israel will ever accept any sort of peace which dilutes the Jewish majority.

This means that the Arab population of both the West Bank and Gaza Strip have few options beyond accepting that they have been (as they continuously and loudly and correctly) assert the recipients of injustice. The injustice is inherent to the efforts not simply of the visionaries of the Zionist movement and the guilt over the Nazi slaughter afflicting the West in the aftermath of World War II.

It exists as well as a result of the overly ambitious nationalism of Arabs throughout the region. It exists as well as a direct result of the basic tenets of Islam and the interpretations placed upon these by a vast and terrible legion of clerics.

Just or not, fair or not, the reality remains, Israel will not go away. It is a large, potent and determined "fact on the ground." In a real sense, the people of Israel have no choice. They are not about to get on boats and leave. They will not sit with folded hands and allow themselves to be slaughtered.

Neither will they commit a slow suicide by democracy in action, allowing an Arab majority to vote for a local version of the Zimbabwe model. The combination of demographics and democracy has been seen too well and too long to be allowed. The Saudi initiative is and always will be dead on arrival.

The Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip have to decide if they have killed and been killed enough so that nationalistic ambitions powered by Islamist rhetoric have run on too long and with too little result beyond blood in the streets. They will have to decide if the better course of action for themselves and their children is a Forever War or a peace which will allow some sort of future better than martyrdom operations without success.

The Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip will have to decide which parts of the Quran should be observed more fully. The verses which celebrate life and progress or those which focus on death and killing.

No one else can make the decision. No Syrian, no Egyptian, no Iranian can make the choice. Neither can any Israeli. Not even President Obama can make the choice. Only the men and women of Gaza and the West Bank are able to decide.

Suffering from the historian's occupational disease--cynicism--the Geek bets hair they will make the wrong one.

Time For South Africa To Play Up!

Zimbabwe's Kleptocrat-in-Chief, Robert Mugabe, is at it again! He is now on record saying that "Zimbabwe is mine."

Hey! At least the dude is honest. Not since Louis the Whatever who famously declared of France, "I am the state," has a boss of all the bosses been so up front and blunt.

Of course, who in their right mind would want Zimbabwe? Not only is the economy beyond mere disaster, the place has become Cholera Central. Malnutrition is standard (unless a person is in the army or one of the Kleptocrat's Thug Squads.)

Mugabe appended a challenge to his Declaration of Sole Ownership. He averred that no African country had courage enough to topple him.

His estimate of the situation seems bang on. With the exception of Botswana, which is a military Pygmy, none of the South African Development Conference states has made peep one about the necessity of ridding the world of Mugabe.

In part, Mugabe is depending upon his long tarnished reputation as the premier "Freedom Fighter" in southern Africa. He is willing to bet that no other African leader will risk the consequences of seeking his overthrow by force of arms.

There is another, more realistic, explanation for the unwillingness of South Africa and other countries to enter the cockpit of Zimbabwe. The place is such a mess that an involvement (read occupation) would be a very lengthy and expensive effort. The probability of failure would be high. So would the possibility of blowback.

The reluctance of South Africa (and the African Union) to rise to the challenge of imposing stability on Zimbabwe may be overtaken by events. Cholera is not noted for respecting international borders. The stream of refugees from pestilence, poverty, and murder is going to grow in the days and weeks to come.

The combination of a folk migration and disease against the backdrop of a global economic crisis will give neighboring countries few choices. Self-interest will compel intervention regardless of longer term risks.

It is not improbable that Mugabe and the SADC countries are playing a game of chicken. Each is betting that external actors either will or will not take on the burden of intervention under the color of "humanitarian crisis." The humanitarian crisis is real.

That reality does not imply that external entities such as the UN, the EU, or the US are or will be willing to send (in the words of Warren Zevon) "lawyers, guns, and money." The proof of reluctance is found in the Congo, Darfur, and Somalia.

The UN "peacekeeping" effort in Congo is less than noteworthy in its effectiveness. The EU has jawed about sending troops but has taken no action. Nor is it likely to. The US is overstretched militarily, and the public appears to be disinclined to take on more "nation building" missionary efforts. Current global economic realities also serve as a strong disincentive for adventures in healing the sick, feeding the hungry, and planting democracy in foreign, hostile soil.

What this all means is simple. South Africa has to take the lead. It has to, in cricket terms, "play up."

The alternative is for that country to accept the refugees, the spread of disease, and other unfortunate consequences of the further collapse of Zimbabwe. The leaders of that country (and the rest of Zimbabwe's neighbors) have to get a grip on a basic fact.

Zimbabwe is not the "White Man's Burden." This time around, the load has to be carried by the Africans themselves, even if they carry it alone, uncompensated, and unappreciated.

It's time for South Africa and other countries to call Mugabe's bluff. They, and only they, can save the people of Zimbabwe.

Susan Rice Scares The Geek

"Say what, Geek! You sure get a case of the knocking knees right easy."

Yeah, it is easy to say that. Very few people get an anxiety attack over a UN Ambassador--particularly before the person takes office.

To err on the side of candor this is a first for the Geek. He has been able to yawn his way through every previous naming ceremony--even that of John Bolton.

Not this time. This time is different. Come along with the Geek as he lays out his case.

President-elect Obama often promised (before the appropriate audiences only) that he would put a new emphasis on the United Nations and assure that the US played a constructive role in that institution. He has made good on that particular campaign promise--at least symbolically--by restoring the UN Ambassador to cabinet rank.

Without passing on the merits of Obama's decision, suffice it to say that the PR will have a greater, more direct influence upon critical foreign policy decisions than would have been the case had the office been left at its sub-cabinet position. The enhanced influence of the PR on the making and execution of foreign policy undoubtedly will cheer those who seek a greater harmonization of US and UN policy.

The High Minded advocates of greater global cooperation under the blue UN flag will be quite happy with the restoration of the PR's "lost" status. They would be even more gratified if the reality of the next months and years is the PR being not only the American ambassador to the international organization but the UN's ambassador to the Oval Office.

These considerations in and of themselves do not cause the Geek undue apprehension. However, the elevation of the PR to cabinet rank is a necessary part of the context producing the Geek's current anxiety attack. Another contextual factor is the presence of the High Minded, who would be ecstatic should the UN gain greater leverage on American foreign policy,

Another key component of context is the radical shift in the orientation of the UN at both the Security Council and General Assembly levels in recent years. The "mission creep" exhibited by the ever-more-ambitious UN has changed much in the way the outfit operate. It has also served to alter the way in which the organisation views itself and its role in world affairs.

It must be recalled that the primary reason invoked for the creation and maintenance of the UN was the preservation of international peace. The UN was presumed to be both the deterrer of aggression and the punisher of aggressive war when it occurred.

Although often prevented from executing its primary function by the dynamics of the Cold War and the use of the veto by one or more of the five permanent members of the Security Council, the UN did punish aggression at least twice, once in 1950 and again forty years later. The potential, let alone the actuality, of the UN operating to promote effective collective action against an international aggressor gave the organisation legitimate claim upon the support of the American government and people.

The UN provided other useful services to the global welfare over the years. Its attempts to maintain international peace through monitoring and "peacekeeping" forces were meritorious even if rarely effective. Similarly, its efforts at ameliorating the human misery attendant upon both war and natural disasters have been commendable, if, again, less than spectacularly successful.

Starting in the waning days of the Cold War and proceeding at an ever escalating rate, the UN has sought to carve out a new role for itself which is only tangentially related to its original functions. That role can be best described as intervening in the affairs of distressed or collapsing states.

The UN Charter was carefully crafted to prohibit the organisation from interfering in the internal affairs of member states. This principle of non-interference has two champions on the Security Council: China and Russia.

Despite both the strictures imposed by the Charter and the self-interest of at least two Great Powers, the UN has involved itself in more and more internal operations. The involvement has normally been covered by either the declaration of a "humanitarian" crisis or the invocation of a compelling consideration such as "genocide."

From Somalia fifteen years ago to Darfur and the Democratic Republic of Congo today, the UN has sought an interventionary role. It has gained strong support for this species of mission distorting creep from those in the European Union and the US who see national boundaries and national sovereignty as obsolete or at least obsolescent barriers to the full protection and expansion of human rights.

What this means is both simple and alarming. Should a US administration become convinced for whatsoever reason that the situation in a distressed or collapsing state had progressed to an unacceptable level of bloodshed, it would find a ready and willing collaborator in the dispatch of armed force to protect lives, restore stability, and insure the exercise of human rights

Who could object to such fine, noble, and altruistic sentiments and objectives?

Certainly not Susan Rice. And, here comes the reason for the Geek's trembling.

Ms Rice when she was a staffer on the Clinton National Security Council experienced an epiphany. She saw the aftermath of the bloodletting in Rwanda. She was on the killing fields. She smelled the stench. She saw the death.

And, apparently, she vowed, "Never again." Or, at the least, she has maintained publicly, repeatedly, that she "would go down in flames" in the effort to stop mass killing in the future.

Mass killing is not stopped by simply asking the killers to cease and desist. Wholesale murderers are not famed for their readiness to stop. It takes force to stop force.

It takes killing--and dying--to stop the killing.

Before the peace can be kept, it must exist. It must be imposed. Imposed impartially by an outside military force of high competence, high firepower, high levels of training, high levels of command and control, high levels of discipline. The record of the past several decades demonstrates that such force is possessed by few countries, most of which are located in Europe and North America.

It takes a significant number of troops and a fair risk that some of these will be killed to provide the sort of stability oriented peace imposition mission for which Ms Rice would be willing to go down in flames. Back during the Clinton Administration the US showed both an unwillingness to send enough force or to take casualties when our military was tasked with the "humanitarian" mission in Somalia.

Apparently, Ms Rice missed that. Or, the memory of what happened after a poorly planned and executed Special Forces operation ended in both American deaths and the televised desecration of American bodies. Or, the memory was wiped away by the tears shed for the dead of Rwanda.

Then there is another set of problems which may have eluded Ms Rice in her passionate commitment to assuring more Rwandas do not happen. Sufficient force, sufficient killing and dying can assure that internal violence is halted, domestic peace restored. It can even serve to arrest those suspected of crimes against humanity.

But that is all the outsiders can do. Their guns cannot do more than silence the guns of the killers within. Guns can arrest putative evil doers. Those are the limits of force.

What happens next? What will be done once the killing stops? What other than feeding and housing and caring for the wounded, the fugitives, the fearful?

Will the UN and its member states build a new nation-state in the wreckage of the old? Who decides what type of nation, what variety of state, what form of government, what sort of economy will be erected on the rubble?

How long will it take? How much will it cost? Most importantly, will it work? Is there any realistic chance that a viable entity can be created for the benefit of the residents by the well intentioned High Minded outsiders?

Ms Rice would be very well advised to take a good, cold look at the consequences of the invasion of Afghanistan. Before eagerly sending American and other troops off to Darfur or the Congo or Zimbabwe or Somalia or any of the other states which are or shortly will be distressed, Ms Rice should smell the air of Afghanistan, walk the streets of Afghanistan, smell the dead of Afghanistan.

Ms Rice would be well advised to ask herself if there was any realistic probability that the well intentioned efforts of progressive High Minded folks would result in any better state of peace for the locals than the adventures of the neocon ninnies of recent memory.

Will Ms Rice do any of these things? The Geek is willing to bet hair that she will not. And, that is why her appointment scares him. Ideology, whether of the Right or the Left, does not serve the interests of the US. It doesn't even serve the UN well.

The Democracy Fetish Takes One More Hit

This time in Zimbabwe. The Geek always expected one of two outcomes for the practice of democracy in the former British colony of South Rhodesia. One would be the death of any challenger to the one man rule of the post-colonial regime, Robert Mugabe. The other would be the prudent withdrawal of the challenger before the bullet hit the back of his neck.

Events went the second way as Morgan Tsvangirai showed discretion is better than heroism.

More importantly, the course of the past two months in Zimbabwe demonstrated once again that democracy is more, much more than the mere casting of ballots. To be real, a democratic country must be under a regime that is willing to accept the peaceful transition of power from the incumbent to the opposition.

As in other nations, African included, the obscene behavior of Robert Mugabe shows that the country he has driven to bankruptcy, starvation, mass emigration and episodic violence is not one which meets the single, basic criterion for democracy. Mugabe states that "God" placed him in power and only the deity can remove him.

Kind of a strange perversion of the ancient Latin cliche, "Vox populi. Vox dei."

The collapse of even the thin charade of democracy in Zimbabwe under the boots of Mugabe's Patriotic League of Thugs and Terrorists raises another question. One that is of supreme import for the countries bordering Zimbabwe. All of which at least pretend to be democratic republics.

What are they going to do about the dictator in their midst?

Admittedly, Mugabe has long enjoyed a high level of prestige among the sub-Saharan African population for his leadership of the long insurgency against the White minority regime of Rhodesia following Ian Smith's 1965 Unilateral Declaration of Independence. The resulting war was very long, very nasty and ultimately won by the insurgents through the progressive reduction of the White population and government's political will and material capacity to continue the war.

Importantly, the Black majority forces did not win because of any particular political or military brilliance on the part of Mugabe. He was a factor in the Black success, but only one among many. Other factors including the economic sanctions imposed by the Commonwealth, European and North American nations were more important. Also more important than Mugabe was the constant and ready support offered by surrounding states.

Mugabe was a hero by convention only. His personal contribution to the toppling of the White minority government was (and is) greatly magnified.

Mugabe's actions of recent years have been minimalised by the very same people and governments which have boosted his reputation as the Hero of the Liberation. Starting with the politically popular but economically and nationally self-destructive act of "redistributing" land owned and operated to the national advantage by White farmers, and continuing through the years of systematic repression of any emergent opposition or even criticism, Mugabe seemed to have been bent upon two interlocking goals: maintaining his personal power and status, destroying Zimbabwe.

He has succeeded in both as of today. He is in power. He is the paramount chief. And, Zimbabwe is a complete wreck. A collapsing state filled with corpses, starvation and hopelessness.

Some hero.

When are the other folks in the neighborhood going to notice? When will the governments of South Africa, Mozambique, Zambia, Botswana individually or collectively say, "Enough is enough!"

Zambia had "free and fair" elections two years ago. Or so says the CIA which the Geek has found generally reliable on such matters. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/za.html

South Africa, which has borne much of the violence and economic meltdown refugee flood, is widely hailed as a pillar of democracy. It's chief of state, Thabo Mbeki, has been heavily and ineffectually involved in trying to broker an end to the chaos in Zimbabwe. Is it not time for South Africa to take the gloves off and let the aged autocrat next door know that the time for graceful retirement is now?

Mozambique underwent what CIA terms "a delicate transition" in December 2004 which allowed the country to continue sound economic policies and keep on rebuilding a nation shattered by decades of insurgency. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mz.html President Guebuza should think long and hard about the impact of a continuation of the refugee flow from Zimbabwe as well as his country's diplomatic leverage.

As much as South Africa and much more than Zambia, Mozambique has the leverage necessary to put a convincing argument before Mugabe that he should step down. Move out of the way before the turbulence in Zimbabwe endangers the neighbors even more than it has already.

It would be naive in the extreme to expect the African Union to exercise a constructive role in the Zimbabwe chaos considering that organisation's record to date with failing states across the continent. The African Union, not unlike its nomenclatural predecessor the Organisation of African States, is long on slogans, demands against the West and glitzy top-dollar diplomatic extravaganzas.

The AU, like the OAS, is very short on positive results for all its rhetoric, demands and heads-of-state meeting in upscale conflabs.

What about the United Nations? Secretary of State Rice has stated the US intends to put the implosion of Zimbabwe on the UN Security Council Agenda next week. Her demarche has already been overtaken by events. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7601194

United States, which is this month's president of the Security Council, has accused Mugabe of turning Zimbabwe into a failed state that threatens its residents and the stability of southern Africa.
When asked whether she thought the United Nations was prepared to go beyond passing a resolution on Zimbabwe, Rice said, "We believe that unless the Security Council acts, it stands to lose credibility."

Mugabe has already spent weeks (well, years actually) blaming all of his country's problems on the "colonial" powers in which he (no surprise here) includes the United States along with the United Kingdom. It's no stretch to add France to the list of offenders.

It must be remembered that both Russia and China tend to oppose the Security Council mixing itself up in what might be seen as the domestic political problems of any member state. The reasons are obvious. Russia and China face violent internal political unrest.

South Africa also opposes the Security Council move. Rightly. The neighbors, members of the SADC, have been complicit in the collapse of Zimbabwe. The same neighbors have the duty--and the self-interest involvement--to end the chaos and restore at least a semblance of democratic order.

Starvation is a part of life for millions of people in Zimbabwe. Mugabe has made that fact come into existence. Starving people are desperate people.

You don't need a PhD to figure that one out.

The borders of the neighborhood are porous. At best. In order to protect themselves, their less than robust governments, economies, societies, neighboring countries--South Africa and Mozambique in particular--have to intervene with diplomacy, aid and, if all else fails, force.

Mugabe has said that only God will remove him from power. He might consider that God can have many faces and take many forms.