 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
May 2, 2000
|
LEFT OUT, AGAINOn the left the picture is, if anything, bleaker. Most of the left wingers who oppose the war will mutate into apologists for Mugabe, arguing that he saved Zimbabwe from the strife of multi-party politics and that land reform was a just cause rather than thuggish economic self-mutilation. The amount of meetings I've sat through since the gulf war when I realised that yet another well meaning organisation had been taken over by one or other Trotskyite cult for the purposes of recruitment is too depressing to recall. I expect to be a minority of one in these meetings, but I usually find myself to be derided as the cause of the adventure in the first place. Britain really needs a peace movement that talks about national interest rather than class war, but I, for one, am not holding my breath. THERE IS NO MORAL IMPERATIVEThe last column I wrote generated, by my standards at least, a large amount of e-mail, most of it hostile. I will not call it hate mail, for they were rational and neatly argued. Those who are either stuck in Zimbabwe or used to live there write in a far more polite and measured tone than NORAID supporting college students from Maine who write en-masse after a column against American intervention in Ulster. Considering who has most to lose this is startling. The fact is that life in Zimbabwe, especially for the ethnic minorities, is terrifying. The terror that is being unleashed against opposition supporters is inexcusable. The betrayal of Rhodesia by the British was a major cause of the predicament that Zimbabwe finds itself. However stating that does not mean that Britain has a moral imperative to interfere again. Wasn't it the previous interference in the sixties and seventies that caused the problem in the first place? Why do people think that it will be better a second time? HOW THIS WILL AFFECT AMERICAThe article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine does not mention American troops. In fact in this election year, I can not see American troops in southern Africa. This does not mean that America will not be involved. In maintaining investor confidence in Africa and in weakening the pro-government forces in Zaire, the interests of America are being met. It only stands to reason that American "logistical" support and "advice" will be called for. There may be a speedy resolution to this, a quick evacuation of British citizens with the British troops stepping in to destabilise Zimbabwe - and call it people power. If the resolution is less swift then it is only a matter of time before American sons, husband and fathers are patrolling the Limpopo. THE SOUTH AFRICAN OPTIONThere is of course another option for Zimbabwe, and that is a South African intervention. Although unlikely, it makes perfect sense for South Africa. The killings and occupations are spreading to South Africa, and any government has the right to intervene to stop disorder spreading in to their own country. Furthermore, the investor confidence in southern Africa is very low and a Government that sees salvation in the capital markets would see this as a reason to intervene. I have little opinion on this one way or the other, as long as Britain is unaffected, more than to say that what the regional superpower does to an imploding rival is little concern of ours. WE MUST NOT GO INIt is still vital that we do not go in to Zimbabwe. There is no reason to go in, no strategic purpose is fulfilled by this. Despite the desperation of the victims of Mugabe, we have no business there and an awful lot to lose. To do nothing is callous; to do something is suicidal. Keep calling me callous. Please Support Antiwar.comA contribution of $25 or more gets you a copy of Justin Raimondo's Into the Bosnian Quagmire: The Case Against US Intervention in the Balkans, a 60-page booklet packed with the kind of intellectual ammunition you need to fight the lies being put out by this administration and its allies in Congress. Send contributions to Antiwar.com or
Contribute Via our Secure Server |
