Aiyar has a lot of truth in his blog. Most of the bloggers here forget the reason why we intervened in Iraq, but stay out of Zimbabwe. Friendly OIL. If Zimbabwe was floating on OIL, we would have either sucked up to Mugabe or been there to 'Liberate the people of Zimbabwe' months ago. So, all the crap about 'humaniterian gestures' and 'moral principles' are just that. BTW, that is the reason why we won't invade North Korea either. Sir Mugabe will never be our problem in any real sense. He's already 84, and will soon be history. Like everywhere, peoples pay the price for being poor or being on the bottom of the totem-pole. This was true a thousand years ago. It is true now, and will always be the same, whether under democracy, autocracy or theocracy. Every religion's God favors the side with the biggest guns and the biggest sticks. Witness the reason why Iran develops the Nukes, and Israel tries to prevent it.

The Swami is a little wacky even though he highlights some points but they are points that don't have much to do with Zimbabwe.

The reason many European countries gave Mugabe the benefit of the doubt back in the early '80's was that they SOOO wanted to believe in him. Many like Sweden had given his organisation huge sums of money.

Zimbabwe is different to Egypt and places like that. They are not systematically killing people with millions flooding their borders trying to escape, like Sudan or Zimbabwe.

To whine about "whites" is silly. The white farmer thing was 8 years ago anyway and most are now in Mozambique or Zambia where they are welcomed with open arms to farm as they know how to farm - profitably.

Black politicians and leaders in Africa are slow to criticise because they want to be able to do the same thing Mugabe does. Especially if their power is threatened. Look at Kenya recently. Black leaders are for the most part corrupt and have Swiss bank accounts and buy military gear to turn on their pwn people more often than not.

Finally, an article that speaks the truth. Thank you. For a minute there, I thought I was the only one that saw the hypocrisy. Never have I seen so many people of European Descent care so much for the people in an African country. Oh, sorry , I mistaken their anger from the recovery of land stolen for caring for the African people. Did someone think we for one moment forgot what this discussion is all about? Did they actually think that we would forget their unbridled anger toward this Man for daring to take back the land stolen under colonialism? Did the media forget the land stolen to drill Oil in Nigeria? How long will the media report surface stuff hiding the real reason there is collective European outcry. How is it that some with ulterior motives can drive this discussion under the guise of caring for the African people? This is a farce and a travesty however, typical and to be expected from this new breed of media. Why did so many African leaders jump in and fall for the media hype as if the outcry is warranted? Now there is this crazy talk about going into another country and interfering with their internal affairs. Violence is wrong if the reports are true. How am I to believe the reports of violence if they are not reporting the whole truth now.

We in American cannot help any country in this great African continent unless each of us can get to a point where we discuss how we got to where we are and stop disregarding segments of history as if it does not matter in this current situation or affect the wealth of these countries in Africa. This will begin the dialogue and prevent history from repeating itself. It is my prayer that each nation in the continent of Africa realizes their great potential and power. It is also my prayer that each nation realizes their incredible talents, strengths and what they have to offer their own country, their continent and the World. These people of color have suffered a lot from internal and external forces and yes one ethnic group was pitted against another ethnic group by colonialist, but it is time out for the continuance of the shedding of blood to right a wrong and past sins or to maintain control over the country due to the fear that the people may forget what happened in the past thus repeat it and give up all that was worked for . Trust your young leaders and teach them to network with each other sharing their talents to build something great. Remember Lord Acton's quote: “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Once you come to power and get a little bit of money, you must never forget that you first order is to take care of the people. Let the young lead while the elders mentor beside them. Must pass the torch less all that you have learned is lost like when the best and the brightest were taken from Africa. We had to on both sides of the world try to remember what we have been taught and pass it to our posterity.

You want to talk about a lack of moral authority? How can South Africa and Mbeki ever condemn anything now?

On the other hand, three cheers for the African leaders who are finally speaking up about the unadulterated evil that is Mugabe. I hope they have the courage to defy both Mugabe and Mbeki and take some real action. Moral hand-wringing aside, the miserable people of Zimbabwe deserve better from all of us.

The US definitely has NO moral authority anymore.

Our beloved Chimperor has seen to that.

The UN could do this. They have the moral authority to go into Zimbabwe and force Mugabe to step down.

The African Union could do this too. Although I hear they have their hands full.

Chimpy's excuse for invading Iraq, after the WMD and 911 excuses got debunked, was that Saddam was a bad man and had to be removed from power.

If the US followed this Chimpy Doctrine all over the world, we would have to remove several dozen despots and would go bankrupt in the process.

And we would have to remove our own despots, because Chimpy has become one.

That's what the UN and the African Union and NATO are for. Let them do it.

It's not just the blood on his hands, it's also the hunger and starvation, and the astonishing bravery of his opponents, who deserve every help we can give them.

Heartbroken ExZim writes: "Swaminathan... Your argument that under many presidents, economies did not do well, legal rights were ignored and some people were murdered. Name one who did it all?"

With all due respect, Heartbroken, the recent history of Latin America is full of names of such creatures who "did it all" and more. Chile's Pinochet (a remarkable product of the US Army School of the Americas --- SOA) was one. You will find their names and an account of their respective feats in Noam Chomsky's, in John Pilger's, in John Perkins' (among others), as well as the identity of those who supported them unreservedly for so long.

@ Jeff:

May I refer you to the Iraq Veterans Against the War? ***

I know, US media seem to ignore their very existence! Yet those courageous people did bear witness publicly.

I invite you to listen only to what some of them had to say (listening to them all is likely too taxing for most of us). Paradoxically, that may make you feel more in tune with whomever you feel insulted both the living and the dead.

***

http://www.warcomeshome.org/node

http://ivaw.org/wintersoldier/media

http://ivaw.org/

Swaminathan, if you have no idea about the subject matter, shut your mouth! You are trying to rationalize that Mugabe, does not deserve the distain; because other leader are not that good either! Your argument that under many presidents, economies did not do well, legal rights were ignored and some people were murdered. Name one who did it all? Mugabe killed more of his people than, Saddam Hussein, Zimbabwe has the highest inflaction rate of any country ever in the world, there is no food in the country and no person has legal rights. He received a country with a future and turned it into hell. He did not turn it into a bad country, he turned it into hell....

While I respect Mr. Aiyar's commentary and even agree with it, I feel that he has failed to address a key issue, one which Mr. Tsvangirai has called for: a UN peace-keeping force.

While the practically unilateral actions of the United States in regard to Saddam Hussein is a lesson that should be written in all history books, the multilateral actions of the United Nations (including the United States) in Serbia and the other former Yugoslavian republics should be remembered as well. By sending in peacekeeping forces into an area riddled by politically-motivated mass murder, assault, rape, and other horrible crimes, the nations of the world helped end the terror that existed there and brought about a reasonable degree of peace (though challenges remain in that region, especially in light of the recent violence in Kosovo).

There are times when the persecuted population lacks the ability to effectively bring about change. At these times, it is appropriate and effective to send in peace-keeping forces to facilitate the civil resolution of problems. Zimbabwe meets the criteria for such an intervention in my opinion. I hope that Mr. Aiyar will write further with an analysis of whether intervention similar to that made in the former Yugoslavia in the mid 1990s would be appropriate.

"America, a cowardly country that FLINCHES from real, one-on-one war. The stinking mass murderers only know how to attack poor, unarmed civilians in Muslim countries. The terrorist white man struts around in Iraq, a poor, destroyed country with NO DEFENCE capabilities, playing HERO, when in reality he is a COWARDLY killer of women and children."
-----------------------
This is a cowardly insult to all the Americans who lost their lives protecting Islamic people in Kosovo and elsewhere. I was against the Iraq invasion from the beginning, but to deny the truth - that U.S. forces have frequently lost their lives in trying not to kill Islamic civilians - is to be the kind of bigoted, hypocritial fool that is part of the problem, not part of the solution. I believe that bigoted hypocrisy severely compromises moral authority.

"Blood on his hands is not a disqualification to rule." "Whew!" sighed Bush with relief.

While saying Mugabe maybe relatively benign when compared to Pol Pot it does not lessen the suffering of the ordinary people to know this. The real issue is not whether Mugabe is bad or not or how he should be dealt with, the real issue is does anyone in Africa have the moral courage to face down an aging tyrant. Instead of proving they are up to the task we get lectured about a neo-colonist attitude that is 30 years out of date and a poor substitute for leadership.

Mr. Aiyar, your views seem to be clouded. Why should we talk about the 20th century dictators and mass murderers in today's times? Simply to use those ghastly incidents and the world's inability to stop then in time as excuses for the international community's - including the UN - ineptness to intervene in Zimbabwe's chaos?

Robert Mugabe doesn't seem to have any biases against only whites anymore. For him anybody and everybody who is opposed to his oppressive ways is an enemy and an impediment in his way to remain clinging to his crown - till he dies, of course.

Yes, economic sanctions and expulsion from the UN should be used as immediate tools to stop monster Mugabe's wild ways in Zimbabwe. That would be perfectly moral. Then depending on the developing situation, further action can be initiated. The United Nations has to play a very crucial role here - and in other disturbed parts of the African continent as well. By the way, where is the African Union? ...

And, also, your equating Chinese establishment with Robert Mugabe is simply unjustified. I am sure, every Zimbabwean would love to be in China anyday, anytime - forever, perhaps.

Muhammad Mallik: the Swami is dead wrong, that's all. It is not "nasty" to say so. And, on the substance of his case, it is very weak. Enough has been said on the thread below to show this. The "arguments" in his favor are not arguments, more like bloodthirsty yowlings. Go well.

I believe Mr. Swaminathan Aiyar is quite right: 1. there have been and still are more odious and bloodthirsty rulers than Mugabe; 2. many if not most of them, we have put in power, then fully supported, so as to ensure they remain our friendly dictators; 3. not only do most UN members have blood on their hands, but all former colonial powers have been, and the current world hegemon remains to this day, soaked in human blood. Hence the difficulty people have, throughout the world, to imagine (let alone accept) that any nation be in a position to legitimately claim to be the world's moral leader.

As a reminder, here is what I see as the (not original, by any means) way out of this predicament: 1. that exist international institutions where all nations are represented, whose mission it is, to be the world's moral leaders; 2. that within those institutions exist bodies made up of people who are genuine human models, and whose moral authority is internationally recognized and acclaimed; 3. that those bodies define international norms of moral conduct (and international laws) all nations must abide by; 4. that those international principles and laws be enshrined in a Charter and an international Code that all nations officially commit to respect; 5. that protocols be defined whereby nations be accountable to the above international institutions on all fundamental matters relating to international law and morality; 6. that on such matters, all nations agree to be bound by, and to comply with, the decisions rendered by those international institutions, if and when found in violation of international law and morality; 7. that protocols exist whereby nations that do not comply be expelled from said international institutions and ostracized by the international community.

As long as the United States of America: 1. will do everything in its power to make such institutions not only ineffective but "irrelevant", 2. will disregard international law, the UN Charter and UN resolutions, 3. will refuse that, together with its representatives and all members of its Armed Forces, it be accountable to the International Court of Justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity --- as long as that will be the case, it is my opinion the dilemma Mr. Swaminathan Aiyar has brought to our attention will subsist, entire and unresolvable.

In that context, notwithstanding the best intentions in the world, any unilateral intervention, by any nation, even against a Mugabe, will only be perceived as is, i.e. totally arbitrary.

It looks that Mr.Saminathan Aiyar has ruffled some feathers of so many of those who have read this article. He has simply told the truth without mincing words. A pot has no right to call a kettle black. But many of those who has taken cutgel against him could not stomach it. The reason must be that they have been brain-washed by the Western media. There is no difference between a die hard religious fanatic who has been fed on some religious teachings a millineum and half old and these reading public who do not want to look beyond the tip of their nose.

Chandar Chugh,

Did not anybody teach you that it is nasty to insult people without provocation?

We are talking about an African country and the suffering of African people at the hands of a ruler who once had done a lot of good for his country, but who, since about 1992 after his first wife passed away, has accumulated governance blunder after worse governance monstrosity. The journalist/global affairs observer who has been invited by WAPO to comment happens to be an Indian of Hindu faith (whether Brahmin or not is immaterail unless you can show credible evidence show that the man has an established record of casteist bigotry), who, like most decent people of the world, resent the war crimes that have been committed by the Bush administration and the neocon idiots who will soon not only be discarded into the dustbin of history, but who might very well have to answer for crimes against humanity.

Now, in a posting yesterday, I made reference to Morgan Tsivangirai's conciliatory offer of a 'negotiated solution' to avoid further bloodshed and division -- an eminently-generous gesture evocative of African values of 'ubuntu'. UBUNTU means "I am thanks to the fact that you are". It is the language of the spirit, one that is in stark contrast with Descartes' language of 'rationality' -- cogito ergo sum, I think therfore I am.

To me, a Muslim African of Indian origin who has been a citizen of the world for nearly forty of my 61 years of life, the spiritual value 'ubuntu' is evicative of the sanskrit "Tat Tvam Asi" -- Thou art that, or, more explicitly, you are enabled to have an existence because everu single thing in the rest of the Universe has an existence, you can be defined only in relation to the lowliest as well as to the most lofty thing that exists in the universe. The West, in the image of the Greeks, have a similar profoundly spiritual value expressed in the phrase Γνωσθέ σάϋτον (gnosthe seauton -- know thyself).

I find great congruence in the notions of 'ubuntu' of Γνωσθέ σάϋτον and that of 'Tat Tvam Asi' -- and all three together are in divinely harmonious congruence with the notions contained in the 99 names of God that the Muslim Sufis recite in a trance while meditating. You can read about that in the writings of the Turkish teacher and Imaam Fethulla Gulen, who has recently been voted the world's topmost living intellectual by Foreign Policy Journal/Prospect Magazine (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4349 and http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10263).

Let me end by praying that President Mugabe has the greatness of heart to decide, overnight, to postpone the elections due tomorrow, and engage his people in consultations to achieve the negotiated solution called for by Tsivangirai and the international community..

This is a gutless writer who betrays his foolish caste-prejudice in reaching a stupid conclusion. Mugabe and his thugs are now killing mainly black people. It is not "Mugabe v. the whites." Yet Aiyar sides with the Mugabe v. "the people" because the ruler is implicitly always of a higher caste than the common man. Well -- advice for this Swami fellow: take your crap home, don't distribute it all over the internet. Nobody needs it. (Including the idiot who has written the garbage below.)

This is a gutless writer who betrays his foolish caste-prejudice in reaching a stupid conclusion. Mugabe and his thugs are now killing mainly black people. It is not "Mugabe v. the whites." Yet Aiyar sides with the Mugabe v. "the people" because the ruler is implicitly always of a higher caste than the common man. Well -- advice for this Swami fellow: take your crap home, don't distribute it all over the internet. Nobody needs it. (Including the idiot who has written the garbage below.)

The Terrorist They Call "president" Is The Enemy Of Humanity!!

The first time I have seen something akin to the TRUTH on Zimbabwe.The author forgot to add that there are many, many, many War Criminals, mass Murderers and terrorists walkig around America FREE. They are American war Criminals who have the blood of Somali, Iraqi, Afgan women, children, and infirm on their stinking hands. These are the people that deserve the most condemnation from the entire world.

America, a cowardly country that FLINCHES from real, one-on-one war. The stinking mass murderers only know how to attack poor, unarmed civilians in Muslim countries. The terrorist white man struts around in Iraq, a poor, destroyed country with NO DEFENCE capabilities, playing HERO, when in reality he is a COWARDLY killer of women and children.

The cowardly westerner will strut around in Iraq, Afghanistan playing soldier among poor women and children. But the well-armed, CRAZY, ready-to-fight North Koreans throw down the gauntlet in the face of the white man, and what does he do? He recoils in horror and stands down like the coward that he is.

This is the wretched record of the white man who lectures us about Zimbabwe and the garbage called "democracy", euphemism for neo-colonialism.

Robert Mugabe, God Bless him, snatched his country back from HELL, from the clutches of a tiny, ruthless, rapacious band of whites who were determined to MILK Zimbabwe for all it was worth while starving the BLACK population, the rightfull owners of the country!!!!
Watch what happens in South Africa where the rapacious white man is eating everything while living the rightful owners of the country, the TRUE sons and daughters of Africa out in the cold HUNGRY and VERY ANGRY.

That's why we have the so-called "anti-immigrant" violence in that wretched country. The people of south africa are properly angry, but they are ANGRY AT THE SYSTEM THAT GIVES EVERY ADVANTAGE TO THE RAPACIOUS WHITE MAN. This anger is CURRENTLy MISDIRECTED by South Africa's INTELLIGENCE services against "foreigners" who in reality are fellow africans who helped save that country from Apartheid.

But this anger will SOOOOOOON find its REAL target and ZERO in on the anti-black system that the white man has set-up in South Africa to serve himself and his few black cronies. Then it will be an orgy of destruction.

Mugabe, thank God, saved his country from such HELL!!!

Jiaming, I totally support you on regarding the inappropriateness of using China as an example. China is actually quite well run by world standards. Sure, China has some problems - the collapsing schools issue is terrible - but it has also had great successes recently in providing a better life for its citizens.

Mugabe is beyond awful. The current case with Mugabe highlights a huge problem with our current world government - there is not real political mechanism for the removal of people like him. Nobody in their right mind thinks Mugabe should stay on as ruler of Zimbabwe. But as people like this Aiyer guy show us, there's a lot of irrational opposition to using the one mechanism we do have for regime change - invasion and occupation.

Invasion and occupation are and should be a last resort. If we are to follow Mr. Aiyer's advice, there are no crimes powerful enough to warrant it. I think that's irrational.

In order for world government to become a reality, we need to have a mechanism for removing from power regimes (like Zimbabwe or Burma or Haiti) whose rulers are destroying them.

The author just can't help bringing up China as the example of dictatorships and oppression. I got news for you, many countries are emulating China for economic reform. Overwhelming majority of overseas Chinese who are not under "oppression" by the government are speaking out for their country. I don't know much about Mugabe, even after reading all these news reports from the Western media. The thing is, I don't trust the Western media a bit when it comes to foreign news, not about the Middle East, not Asia or Africa. This is because the Western media had been caught lying many times while reporting on Tibet. But I do know that Mugabe seized a lot of lands from white settlers who colonized the country decades ago. Based on the long records of the West to side with white rulers in Africa, particularly the Apartheid government in the 80s, this whole media Blitzkrieg on Zimbabwe looks and smells very fishy to me.

Mr. Aiyar's criticism is cheap. Cheap in the sense that it is usually tax payers in Western countries who pick up the bill whenever another delusional dictator impoverishes and starves his own people for political gain. The West's inability to ignore human suffering strikes me as quite unrelated to its racists blinders. Just look at China's aid policy: No questions asked about human costs, ever!

A little factual correction is in order, too.
Land redistribution in Zimbabwe was originally SPONSORED by the British, who made funding available to re-compensate white farmers. Mugabe did not avail himself much of this, suggesting he actually had no interest in correcting a historic injustice. When he decided to have his thugs raid white farms, the only thing on his mind was to cling on to power after the Zimbabwean people showed signs of tiering of his Nepotism. To the very day, much of the disowned land lays barren, contributing to the current economic standstill of the country. The land issue therefore is not the moral cudgel with which to beat away at Western policy that Mr. Aiyar makes it out to be.

I am an African and i am tired of having my continent being looked at through Western eyes!
I am pissed off at Mugabe because he thirst for power is hurting his own people. He does not care who starves so long as HE stays in power till eternity!

In the beginning I was of the opinion that there could be a method to his madness, but right now I am seeing that he is in over his head with his crippling defiance. My thing is that Africa and her leaders need to grow up and realize that only good leader, love of self(as black people - without focusing your energy on hating others) will get us out of the governing and economical mess we seem to be stuck in. Any leader should be appalled when his/her people are starving and the economy is going backwards!!!

Since he has demonstrated that he cant get himself out of his mess and he keeps screaming like a senile adolescent (yeah I know these two words dont go together - but somehow it is befitting).... HE NEEDS HELP TO LEAVE HIS POST. GIVE HIM REFUGEE SOMEWHERE, DONT SHED THE BLOOD OF ANY ZIMBABWEAN POOR PEOPLE. BUT HE NEEDS TO GO!

Evidently, Aiyar's answer is there is never enough misery to justify intervention. Mr. Aiyar has made a case for not intervening in Zimbabwe, but he carefully avoids any rationale that would be grounds for intervention. Given the abyss into which Zimbabwe now spirals, where exactly would Aiyar say enough is enough? How many people must die before Mugabe becomes illegitimate? How much more misery must Zimbabwe face before Mugabe's tenure will end? There must be some limit and some way to enforce it.

Actually, I disagree. For one leader to have the power to take his Nation to devastation paradise, year after long year, while he uses murder and mayhem against them so he is not voted out is more than reason enough to get rid of the him. This is the 21st century, we have, instant communication, we blog for god's sake:)...the World Community needs to take some moral highground when it comes to millions and millions of folks suffering, unnecessarily, because, now, that suffering and devastation is immediately felt by the whole World...it is not just his Countrymen and Women who suffer but ultimatley, all of us...now, I am not saying we start getting rid of all Dictators, but in the case of Mugabe...he has leveled a whole economy, has ruined a EVERYTHING and EVERYONE in his sphere of rule...yes, he sould be the first NUTCASE dictator that the World Community helps to excourt from the table....This is the 21st century not the 2nd....we can do stuff...to help one another rise above...we do not have to sit by and JUST watch one another get pounded into an abyss of hopelessness and starvation because of one nutcase ruler..please, there are ways of getting rid of the man...one doesn't have to Bush/Cheney them with the ole "shock and awe" technique, thanks to them we see how well it DOESN"T work!

The reason Mugabe is being condemned is not because he went after white farmers. Its because his own (black) populace is starving because of his tyranny. The world is watching a once promising country be destroyed. The same cannot be said for China or Jordan. Notice how the author conveniently leaves out examples of Milosovich and Noriega, two murdering dictators militarily ousted without the world whining about it. What an offensive article, this whacko needs to be cleaning gutters instead of writing this garbage.

blacks and/or africans always fear a white conspiracy. this is the result, and always will be, a bucket of crabs...

Robert Mugabe is the reason why nice communists like Salvador Allende get overthrown before they
create too many problems. Too bad there wasn't a Pinochet in Zimbabwe to prevent all this.

As an African-American, I was especially pleased to hear Aiyar's revealing insights. But most convincing was his assertion that Mugabe only became "Public Enemy No. 1" when he decided to "reclaim" lands from the European farmers in Zimbabwe. I, too, strongly suspected something was afoul with the Western media's condemnation (the mainstream media somewhow neglected to mention this so-called "dictator" was knighted!), but I am now utterly convinced of it. Thanks!

Thank you for telling the truth. If the West is so upset by bloodthirsty dictatorships, they should start overthrowing those Arab "royal" families. If a citizen says one word against their venal rulership, he/she will disappear. Rape of men and women in their dungeons is not uncommon. The hypocrisy of the West in attacking Mugabe is sickening.

Exactly right.

Well, if it were me, I'd be (digits deleted) outta there. Sayonara!

Mugabe probably should not be removed through military action by external forces, mainly because that so rarely goes well for the people of a nation undergoing "regime change." However, the proposition that being a tyrant and having blood on one's hands is *not* a disqualifier for ruling a nation is absurd and I am astonished that Mr. Aiyar has proposed this ill-considered notion. By democratic standards, being a murderous tyrant is clearly a set of qualities which render one unfit to rule. That, of course, has not stopped murderous tyrants from being in power throughout history as fitness to rule is quite often trumped by the will to power.

Great !!!
Here we have got Mr. SSA Aiyer, as an astute and ardent follower of- Westphal,the renowned German Philosopher cum Physician of 19th. century.
So our should be assumption- is that, on practicing Westphalian doctrine, we must adapt ourselves to learn how to observe noncommitally " of any one's, Heinous crime perpetrated against his own people inside the house or citadel or domain of his own boundary? Therefore we should observe and keep notes on said person's committed all sorts of crimes, misdeeds, and misbehavior's against his own people who are staying inside the Perpetrators Domain? We see, take notes, keep records and come to the conclusion on makeup that criminal's Persona? and same time that Criminal will continue his habitual criminal activities? Bravo! How great we are.
Next - Mr. Aiyer attempted to mix Westphalian principles with our contemporary Democratic principle? Here we gain further enlightenment on Mr. Aiyer's new autochthonous [original site, or originality] invasion of New doctrine which we call it- "Democratic Westphal syndrome or er Doctrine". If I understood correctly that this new Aiyerian doctrine [Democracy-Westphalian MIX] is telling us that we the democratic people should and must 'Observe, keep notes, make intellectual assumptions only on activities and mental status of a marauding Dictator who is at the moment decimating his own country and his own people? And be allowed to continue his very bad practices without our any protest or action or sanction or impunity to prevent that bad guy from doing so?
Again we the simpletons are about to embark on New brilliant Aiyerian Doctrine. We are blessed.
Note- Perhaps Mr. Aiyer forgot to mention one clause incorporated in democratic principle- that we the democrats must take the responsibility and we are accountable on what we do and practice in the name of sacramental [sacrosanct] Democracy.

Soooo, when a civilian kills an innocent civilian, they should go to jail. However, when a ruler successfully wipes out an innocent populace, his power should be upheld and nothing should be done to stop him from continuing a murderous rampage, we just shouldn't do business with him anymore for no other reason than the fact that there are other rulers who do it too.

I'm glad I read this. I feel much more educated and enlightened now. I guess my mom was wrong, two wrongs do make a right. In fact, just keep doing wrong. Since other people do wrong, they have no moral grounds to stop me.

I'm ouuta there, I can tell you that!

The hue and cry outside Sub-Sahara Africa is valid enough. What most of Mugabe's overseas critics don't understand is that perpetual one-party rule is "defended" (if that's the word..) fiercely by rulers in his environs. Rather than allowing democratic alternation of power, they favor "democratic continuity," that is, the ruling "revolutionary" party always in charge.

For example, talk about South African intervention is ridiculous. Mr. Mbeke and the ANC want nothing to do with displacing a comrade and setting an example for the destruction of their own power continuum. In this, they're very much like Fidel Castro: The "Revolution" won and that's that.

Even dumber is the talk of US intervention, enunciated on Brit Hume's Fox News program the other night by one of the "Beltway Boobs." If anyone should "step up" (rather than "step in"), Britain should take the lead - if not the entire role. She was responsible for the colonial situation that let to today's Zimbabwe and South Africa.

Let the British figure it out. They never consulted the U.S. as they were carving up the world. This applies to the Middle East and Afghanistan, too. The bill was passed to America without Washington's big thinkers understanding what they were getting into.

So, give it a go, lads, and stop passing the buck (or what's left of it..) to the U.S.

D'accord! What amazes me most is that no one talks about all the good things Magubo has done!

India invaded East Pakistan (Bangladesh) in 1971 on similar humanitarian grounds. It's held-up by many Just War Theorists as an example of a just war on the grounds of coming to the defense of a defenseless people. So, wow.

Thank you, your article made sense.

Sure, the most of western powers have little or no moral grounds for justifying an action against Mugabe, but whatever reasons could be invoked Zimbabwen people would appreciate very much if it is freed from such as butcher

You are 100% right. Although Mugabe has blood in his hands, Africans are reluctant to condemn him because they see a bias from West. Zimbabwe is on all front pages simply because of the mistreatment of the white minority. Of course Mugabe's actions should be denounced. However, Africans would like to see the same critique and sanctions against other African leaders who on a daily basis persecute their people. A couple of months ago, protests by kids as young 10 year old suffering from hunger and homelessness in Cameroon were met with government forces armed with machine guns. More than 100 people were killed. I bet that you have not heard about it. Paul Biya, Cameroon's president has been in power for 25 years. He has crushed opponents and with his family plundered the country. I guess as long as he only kills africans everything is fine. This double standard is outrageous. No, we, Africans, will not condemn Mugabe.

I really don’t understand that after all the genocides we have experienced in the past 60 years. The superpowers are more concern where their next dollar is coming from instead of preventing genocides to continue in this world. How much more longer are we going to side by and let this continue to happen?

Chipo Chinhanga wrote: "From the way that Zimbabwe is being treated it is clear that the issue is not about human rights or democracy but the issue is the reclamation of land by black Zimbabweans and the pending indegenisation of mining. Zimbabwe is incredibly rich when it comes to minerals- incredably so. So the fact that Mugabe wants Africans to benefit from their wealth has irked some in the west ,hence the wests' ganging up against Zimbabwe."

Do you have evidence to back this up? Does it explain the gangs roaming the street intimidating those opposing Mugaba? Does it explain the impending food crisis or the hyper inflation? Does it explain opposition figures killed or in hiding? The "west" has a lot to be blamed for, but not this. Mugabe must be held accountable and stop blaming the west for everthing that goes wrong in Africa. If anything was purely made in Africa, it is Mugabe.

Typical lets do nothing hand wringing article. With a twist of blaiming white people again and again...

This article is brilliantly wrote by an intellectual that opposes everything except stay sitting on your ass and do nothing. Mugabe= bad. Overthrow him= bad. Sanctions= bad (worst sanctions that 20 years under the monster's rule,that doesn't exist). Intervene= bad. Not intervene= bad.
The Mugabe kind of leaders don't care if their country rots as long as they can enjoy power.
This is a punctual case that justifies a good missile in the leader's palace.

From the way that Zimbabwe is being treated it is clear that the issue is not about human rights or democracy but the issue is the reclamation of land by black Zimbabweans and the pending indegenisation of mining. Zimbabwe is incredibly rich when it comes to minerals- incredably so. So the fact that Mugabe wants Africans to benefit from their wealth has irked some in the west ,hence the wests' ganging up against Zimbabwe. But Zimbabweans are very well educated and know their history well, they rember well the land husbandry act and the land apportionement act wherein Africans were driven from their land and the land given to White settlers. Don't forget that white Rhodesians killed hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans by bombing refugee camps in Mozambique. Try Mugabe at the Hague? This will not wash. No one tried Ian Smith for killing black Zimbabweans by the hundreds of thousands. The West has to rethink this one.
Morgan is a western stooge and zimbabweans know it. If Mugabe dies, another will rise up.

you say: "Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are autocracies."

But their people are not suffering the way the people of Zimbabwe are suffering. There is a difference.

I am not sure this column is relevant because no one is asking that Mugabe be overthrown by force.

Regardless, the arguments are silly. Mugabe is a monster, killing many, many thousands. There is no "white bias" in opposing him.

This argument is absurd. Has Mugabes actions as ruler qualified him as a ruler? According to Webster;s dictionary, to make him qualified, Mugabe's actions would have had to show him to be fit or competent to rule. Mugabe has been a disasterous ruler, destoying Zimbabwe's economy, it agriculture and endangering its citizens. His actions have disqualified him. To say otherwise is to redefine disqualified.

The mugabe tragedy is indeed deplorable, but as a critical look back into history illustrates, strong democracies are built on conflicts and loss of blood, from the American civil war to the numerous conflicts in France and Britain all lead to the establisment of very strong institutions that have been able to stand the test of times. recently,the East African country of Kenya had its share of political violence that resulted in change of their political system that many now see as stong.back to the Zimbabwe crisis, the international community is doing what it should be doing, pressuring mugabe to step down and when he does,zimbabweans will look back to this period and think critically of the kind of leadersip they want to elect.

Though the article contains eloquent use of the Enlgish language, the author is obviously silly. Economic sanctions as a realistic step... Africa's bread basket is starving and experiencing hyperinflation and he thinks that sanctions would change something! Come on! What Zimbabwe needs is freedom. Freedom not only for Mugabe's supporters, but for all Africans in Zimbabwe, both black and white, poor and rich, and for those of differing political opinions. It is through political discoruse that positive solutions are formed.

Obviously this is not "our" fight, but we suffer from instability in the long run and should support the efforts from our local friends, such as the South Africans, to bring stability to the region.

As a rwandan who survived 1994 genocide carried under UN passive and total negligence, i agree with you. better keep Mugabe till his life ends soon than risk a long civil guerrilla warfare. Mugabe will fade slowly and disappear. Still white farmers will never be back.

Though the article contains eloquent use of the Enlgish language, the author is obviously silly. Economic sanctions as a realistic step... Africa's bread basket is starving and experiencing hyperinflation and he thinks that sanctions would change something! Come on! What ZImababwe needs to is freedom. Freedom not only for Mugabe's supporters, but for all Africans in Zimababwe, both black and white, poor and rich, and for those of differing political opinions. It is through political discoruse that positive solutions are formed.

Obviously this is not "our" fight, but we suffer from instability in the long run and should support the efforts from our local friends, such as the SOuth Africans, to bring stability to the region.

There was one fair election after the departure of Ian Smith's govenment and it was inconclusive. Thereafter the split was cleanly along largely tribal lines and then the ZANU-PF turned upon its allies/rivals and has never relented. The real violence within Zimbwabe is and forever has been black on black and any attempt to equate the unforgivable conduct of Robert Mugabe with freedom fighting against white oppressors evokes a brief and long forgotten chapter in the ongoing grotesque evolution of a black despot that devours his people, defies their will, and sanctions the rape and death of their children. Should some misbegotten white man's guilt complex now prevent the west from protesting the perversion of the will of the majority of a largely black nation and somehow temper our revulsion at Mugabe's behavior? I think not! Although there are a number of candidates for international scorn, Mugabe is indeed a front runner, and the others will have to just wait their turn. In the meantime we do well to keep Mugabe in the cross-hairs. And we must never let our indignation at injustice be tempered by variations in pigment.

It is correct to highlight the inconsistencies and white bias in the Western media. However, the people suffering at the moment from Mugabe's repression are not only white. This is not a black-white issue, it is a human rights issue.

While undoubtedly the US coalition's incursions in Iraq have been disastrous. we must not forget the dangers of the other extreme. The genocide committed in Rwanda is testament to the dangers of your so-called respect for westphalian sovereignty.

It is indeed correct to say that Western news media and governments display high moral grounds and condemn/villainize the despots only if those despots turn against Whites or economic interests of Whites. Classic example is Pakistan. Pakistan has been a ’terrorist state’ since its inception but it was only 9/11 attacks that focused West’s attention on Pakistan being so. Mao’s China killed millions and present day China crushes Tibetan autonomy aspirations ruthlessly but that does not prevent West from ignoring it all and offering mere lip service to Tibetan cause while kowtowing to that economic powerhouse. Let us face it - despite all the public proclamations, West’s support to democratic and freedom principles stops at water’s edge.

The United States regime of G W Bush has 100 times more blood on its hands, with a million victims of its aggression against Iraq.

It speaks volumes for the power of the imperialist mindset of the US media that they can unselfconsciously present their "own" murderous regime as if it's in the position of moral arbiter over other states, although its lawlessness and violence is legendary and it notoriously espouses torture, kidnapping, disappearances, detention without trial, secret prisons, and colonial domination of other states as official policy.

While this article maintains a somewhat rare balance view as opposing the smear campagne western media tend to portray against Mugabe, The issue however is still the same. Mugabe is a drunk megalomaniacal leader. He is drunk with power and needs to go. He has become a curse to Zimbabwe and a looser at all points... A nation cannot be build on the Divide and rule principle.

He first divided the Zimbabween blacks and whites by playing on the sensitive racist corde. He used certain truths to build a case againts white farmers. Then he Now sets ZANU PF against MDC. He is (and pardon me the expression) a jerk..

Well said Swamy. While western media focusses on many issues like this and rightly so, there is a very obvious lack of coverage/discussion on areas when such actions are abetted/aided/condoned by western governments.

But the reason that there is no moral ground, is that we in the west have no moral ground to stand on ourselves. When we intervene, we do it with high words and low motives.
There is nothing in it for us when it comes to removing Mugabe. But to give moral reasons for not doing anything just annoys the living [milk and honey] out of me.

This article is disgusting on so many levels. It is NOT the appropriation of white farms that is causing the world's outrage (that happened 8 years ago), rather it is the despicable sight of watching a nation being systematically exterminated by its own leader. I invite the author to go to Zimbabwe himself and speak to the man who had his penis tied with barbed wire to a pole by ZANU PF's militia and was then forced to try and lift it - all for the "crime" of inviting neighbours to his house to listen to election results on a foreign radio station. Oh, that's right, you can't because he's dead. He was beaten to death with an iron bar when he couldn't lift the pole... Forget the stupid colonial resentment that is so obviously blinding your opinions and start focusing on the fact that a country is being destroyed before our eyes, and ask yourself whether that should ever be allowed to happen. Yes it's happened in the past, but that is no excuse for standing idly by and watching it happen all over again.

You are one hundred percent spot on with this article. Mugabe is the worst kind of Human being, but the main reason he is facing this onslaught is because of the white farmers. Nothing more nothing less.
I hope and pray they get rid of him because he is a Monster, but like you say there are others a lot worse, who nobody is interested in because no white person has been harmed or because there is no oil to steal.

call Mr. Bush and /or Mr. cheney when Zimbabwe strikes oil.

Yes, Mugabe is nothing more than a murderous thug, but after all he has the blood of about 50,000 on his hands whereas George Bush has the blood of more than 500,000 on his. It deplorably weakens any attempt to discredit Zimbabwe's regime.

Robert Mugabe is a smart man, he learned not to give reason for anyone to look for WMD

An exellent article based on moral and justice.The western philosophy of ruling is "let our friend to rule even he is enemy of whole humanity if he serves our interest,and donot let rule to all those who are the best but not serving our interest"This is true in term of all those leaders of thirld world countires which previously were under colonisation of the west.

At the outset, I have been as guilty as many casual readers, of absorbing with superficial understanding, the outcry over the recently rigged elections in Zimbabwe. Mr. Aiyar makes a compelling point that in comparison to the majority of corrupt, undemocratic systems, Mugabe's government represents far less a crisis requiring forceful intervention. When will the dominating political forces on the seat of the UN choose the moral high ground of prioritizing humanitarian crises rather than manipulate public opinion for selfish material interests?

This article is insane. First of all, who gives you the right to judge that sanctions that impoverish people and may not overthrow a regime are a risk worth taking? Sanctions have a notorious history of being unsuccessful and causing more collateral harm than good. Who says that situation is better than a military intervention and occupation? Not Japan and Germany, who benefit greatly from the institutions we helped establish after World War II. Not the Bosnians and Serbs in the Balkans, which is now more stable and less bloody because of NATO campaigns. Not the Iraqis, who suffered greatly under international sanctions but now have the chance to make a new democratic government for themselves.

Second, there is a very real and fundamental difference between stable autocracies or blood-thirsty dictators and failed or failing states. The former, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, by and large are not exporting millions of refugees, facing a huge political crisis, or causing their economies to collapse and starving or killing thousands of their own people. Under such regimes, most people live manageable if not wonderful lives, and some even thrive as in China. The latter, like Zimbabwe, Burma, and Sudan, are. We should be mature enough to recognize this distinction, as well as the need for outside pressure, and if need be military force, to make sure these countries don't collapse or suffer more. These states also do pose a risk to regional security, by burdening neighbors with refugees, drugs, and other problems. We only need to look at Somalia to understand what happens when a state really fails.

agreed, mr aiyar. after all, mr bush has much blood on his hands and still enjoys the comfy chair of presidency. the shock in all this has been the slowness of black african leaders who have withheld criticism of mugabe for reasons of honouring his past as an enemy of european colonialism. i mean, good grief, what a load of nonsense. three cheers for mr zuma and, now, mr mandela (why did it take you so long, nelson? africa needed to hear your voice on this long ago!) who have come out and countered the blathering stupidity of mr mbeki (and by the way, mr mbeki, aids is caused by viral transmission, you silly, silly fool). mr mugabe will be tossed onto the ash heap of history, most probably at the hands of his own people who will, as often is the case, reach a point of suffering so far down the pole that they will no longer care about the bullets, the clubs and machetes and stand up to mugabe's thugs and drag this monster (and his hitlerian moustache) from his palace and send him to prison..if he's lucky

Jake and Mark and all others calling the author stupid: Did you read the article? Aiyar is pointing to the hypocrisy of the west and also stating how difficult it is remove despicable dictators like Mugabe. No one wants the Zimbabweans to suffer, just as no one would say yes if asked whether Saddam should have been allowed to remain in power.

Don't forget that the West did everything to prop up the apartheid government of Botha in SA.

Mr. Ayair misses the point that the attack on white farmers and Zimbabwe's economic disaster went hand in hand. Zimbabwe's large commercial farms represented its only substantial means of generating foreign exchange - it was the only export industry of any size. The senselessness of the racially-motivated attack on white farmers was compounded in that Mugabe actively destroyed the only industry of any note. From an exporter of food, Zimbabwe became a nation dependent on food aid to survive. The world's revulsion had nothing to do with skin tone, its that we decry acts of economic suicide.

Sanctions put pressure on governments and encourage people to pressure governments when: 1) the sanctioned country's economy is integrated with the sanctioners economies 2) people/businesses in the sanctioned country have access to information and can discover the real reasoning for sanctions, and can feel the negative effects of the sanctions 3) the sanctioned country has an economy to hurt. These factors are largely absent in Zimbabwe. It's obvious that simply worsening Zimbabwe's economy will not change Mugabe's mind...this is the worst recommendation ever. Which leaves us at square one --what can and should we do to change Mugabe's grip on Zimbabwe. We obviously have an obligation to do something.

Isn't this a morally bogus argument? Because we can't oust all dictators and because there were blood thirsty rulers historically, we should just let the Zimbabwean people suffer.

To be fair, the current outrage in west wasn't there when whites were getting kicked out other then giving them passports.

The fact of the matter is, we can do something about it and not just because the silly liberals are saying so (They hate Bush, because they didn't give permission - Clinton's Iraq war would have been fine). Zimbabwe is small country with existing political opposition. The turmoil may continue, but it's worth for the international community - ie US - to do something about it. Surely Europeans don't even the military to do anything. And no one else cares.

Ultimately it's about Zimbabwean people. One would have thought Swami Aiyar would have spared a line for those defenseless people in his defense of dictatorship and thuggery. I can just see him writing how well the trains are running when Indira became a dictator in mid-70s.

Well, I am from India and have some respect for the author, so I don't know where to begin.
People want Mugabe to go, not because he killed 'whites', but because he generally destroyed the country (and caused enormous suffering for a majority of the black people).
Mr Aiyar says, that China is a ruthless autocracy-sure it is, but it cannot be said that China's rulers destroyed their country. In fact, their policies brought about massive improvements in the standard of living of the majority of the population, including the very poor. I am not defending China's record, I am pointing out why it is not Zimbabwe.
Aren't there other dictators out there who are equally bad as Mugabe? Sure, and many of them are justly criticized in the world media- and, of course, it is true that many Western countries are ready to wink at atrocious human rights abuses in a third world country if they are committed by allies, but raise a hue and cry when the same abuses are committed by a anti-western dictator.
But the MAIN reason, people in Asia and Africa don't condemn Mugabe or people like him strongly enough is that they still OK with using anti-colonialism as an excuse to justify horrible dictators/rulers and failed regimes in the Middle East and Africa. Many African leaders don't condemn Mugabe, because their politics has developed a vacuous and outdated tradition of anti-colonial and anti-Western rhetoric that they cannot escape- even when it is very shallow.
Look at how India and China tries to coddle Burma, another country with a regime as bad as Mugabe- also, it is unfortunately true, that citizens in many developing countries do not feel as strongly about human rights issues (partly because they may be more preoccupied with bread and butter concerns).
To say that Asians and Africans don't join in the international condemnation of Mugabe because they see through Western hypocricy is fundamentally dishonest. They don't join in because their politics are often based on an anti-Western hatred that is unreasoning. (If America wants someone to go, he must be a good man!)- and because the press and ciizens in these countries don't treat human rights issues with the same degree of seriousness.
Nobody is justifying colonialism or other nasty stuff that happened in Africa in the past, but we are living in the present and the developing countries should not allow horrible dictators in Burma or Zimbabwe to get away with their massive crimes by cleverly exploiting lingering anti-colonial sentiments. My conclusion-any thinking citizen of a developing country should condemn Mr Aiyar's views.

"Blood on his hands is not a disqualification to rule."

Clearly this is true.

After all, gwb is still President.

Furthermore:

For the record, Mugabe sucks. A lot. I sincerely hope he somehow backs down (notta gonna happen) or croaks (he's 84, for Pete's sake). But if somebody were to topple the government, what entity would find it in its interest to fill the power vacuum and police the resulting chaos? The fickle UN? The lousy (sorry, true) soldiers of the African Union, who are already getting their butts handed to them by the janjaweed in Darfur? America, who is already stretched thin over two theaters? NATO, who is trying to hammer out responsibilities already? Sorry, if we're not going to make the effort to tackle Darfur, I'm sure the calculus won't be favorable to Zimbabwe.

He had his opponent's wife burned alive today.

http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Article.php?ID=29109&

If this does not constitute moral ground on which to remove him from office, then no moral ground remains.

Finally a voice of illumination.

Flawed argument. Killing innocents should inflict the ire of the international community, and efforts to depose Mugabe in favor of a leader that values life is overwhelmingly preferable. His economic destruction and destabilization causing rampant hyperinflation is another negative credit to his rule.

Flying for freedom every 4 months over Iraq

To , It's nice to hear another voice of true enlightenment here. It seems your eyes see clearly through the propaganda.

To , you say "The sanctions are not against the people of Zimbabwe - who spreads this nonsense?"
I am sorry you are so ignorant of the truth, I would like you to read the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe's own recent publication on sanctions:
http://www.rbz.co.zw/pdfs/2007mid/im_san.pdf
and before you say the reserve bank is part of the mugabe mob, I would like to also enlighten you that all reserve banks of the world are private and independant of governments (they answer to no one!). Please read it for your own good, but i'm sure you will not have the guts to even read the first 2 pages! Those who do not read and research will forever be blind for they have lost the true ability to think for themselves.

Clever use of examples that can only be described as the "lowest common denominator" argument. "Africa has worst dictators" - and who that might that be Mr. Aiyar? "China is more violent" - more political bravery. And the suggested resolution - "economic sanctions that may spur an internal process in Zimbabwe that ousts Mugabe". I guess Mr. Aivar figures things could get worse in Zimbabwe. I suppose he'll always be able to point to some other atrocity and say "what about that!".

Mr. Aiyar himself is from such an autocratic class as he suggests of Mugabe.
His forefathers participated in land appropriation, violent intimidation, in fact killing and condemning whole generations to the heap of human garbage known as untouchables. He is from the Brahmin community in India who created the caste system to benefit themselves - a system, though diminished, still very much in practice. In fact, education, and hence the ability to write such essays, was only the right of Brahmins and they actively worked at ensuring non-Brahmins stayed uneducated knowing very well the power of education.

Additionally, being from India I can tell you that we play this card of Western double standards very well to hide our own double standards; one perfect example of it being Mr. Aiyar's article.

Even if I agree that all the Western powers, and the media, is so insidious to complain only because he outed White landlords, how does it make it right to not talk against him for the sake of ALL Zimbabweans?

To be rationale also means that agreement/disagreement with a person is issue based. Mr. Aiyar took a potshot at the Bush regime and what the regime did in Iraq in attempts to oust a dictator -- I agree Mr. Aiyar, that was wrong and it will also be wrong to send military forces to oust Mr. Mugabe at this time since the "local mess" created as a result of such action taken cannot be understood - leave alone cleaned up - by "global powers."

The sanctions are not against the people of Zimbabwe - who spreads this nonsense? During the Chimurenga, it was us, the people of Zimbabwe, including Mr. Mugabe, who asked for international sanctions. Those did hurt us, but only in the short term. Today's sanctions are only against the kleptocracy. It is that regime who is denying international Aid to our people. It is time to stop blaming the easy target of the west for our own failures, and it is time to stop looking to them for our solutions.

I love the truth! Dude had issues from the getgo not until he pissed white folks off did he becomes a threat, sounds pretty European to me???

economic disaster and hyperinflation + violent political intimidation through packs of thugs
+ history of land redistribution + history of fomenting ethnic violence + refusal to follow the laws and institiutions of his country = who else??
Let’s ignore the obvious Hitler, Stalin and Mao since we didn’t tolerate……Saudis and most of Middle East wouldn’t apply since they haven’t experienced disaster or breakdown and the autocratic / theocratic “thugs” may be within their defined norms of tradition…..Assad and Saddam would be clear exceptions, Khadaffi yeah, and Nasser maybe too in his day. In the Cold War many of these, and Saddam against the rising Iran were “useful” for a while as pawns. Perhaps Saddam is what you’re getting at but if so somebody (GWB) did redeem that situation, didn’t he?

This whole essay is textbook example of a basic fallacy of moral reasoning. If an action is moral, it is moral even if it has been preceded by a history of immoral actions. "Evil" does not become "good" because it has been going on for a long time. The writer seems to be arguing that taking down Mugabe would somehow be unfair because so many others have gotten away with being evil dictators in the past.

There is also a very disturbing note of condescension here. "Mugabe isn't all that bad compared to some other evil dictators." This is a version of the GEFA syndrome (Good Enough For Africa) which is all too common.

If the prime minister of Canada were acting like Robert Mugabe, you can damn well bet the the U.S. and every other Western nation would be doing everything possible, including armed invasion, to rescue the citizens of Canada from a genuinely evil madman. It saddens and sickens me that the citizens of Zimbabwe are not entitled to the same support and concern.

BTW, it actively disgusts me that Mbeki is Mugabe's chief enabler and apologist. Between his bizzare theories in AIDS and his surrealistic insistence that "there is no crisis in Zimbabwe," Mbeki has a lot of blood on his hands. He could have brought Mugabe down years ago but he did not. South Africa could have led Southern Africa into a new era. Instead it has become part of the problem.

Which of you wants to topple Saudi Arabia? Taking the moral high ground requires that you dish out the sense of justice equally for the actions deemed immoral. How does $40/gallon gas sound for condemning an autocracy? Not so eager now, are we?

What the author is so aptly pointing out here, and most in the comment forum fail to recognize that they are enforcing, is western bias. When convenient, we will condemn certain acts, while ignoring the identical acts committed by our allies. And we are quick to point the finger when it doesn't hit our pocketbooks.

If we choose to look down our noses at what we claim to be the hypocrisy of government, how can we be so blind about our own hypocrisy of racial prejudice?

No one wanted to remove Mugabe until he attacked whites. Now he has become the Saddam Hussein of Africa. Prior to this he was knighted in Britain.

Google the Lancaster Agreement to get the truth of who backed out of the deal to peacefully resolve the land conflict brought about by colonialism.

We call ourselves "enlightened" but are incapable of seeing the injustice of Colonialism which brought this scenario to fruition. It is truly the weak minded who repeat the propaganda of the empire with the most blood on its hands. That empire is not Mugabes.

Nearly every colonized land of this empire has turned into an international mess at one point. Why do you think we are in Iraq right now? Without this empire, Iraq would have developed across tribal lines, naturally, into several states. Instead, colonial powers drew the border lines where the kings and queens of Europe wanted them, causing constant tribal conflict within one country. This scenario of constant conflict allows for the easy rise of brutal dictators.

The exact same mistake was made in across most all of Africa. Now we look down our noses and demonize these countries - even try to overthrow the governments. All the while, ignoring the root of the issue.

Most of us Westerners are weak minded people. We continually chase the "clear my conscious" pain killer instead of seeking the truthful cure.

Sober up.

Let's look at the successes of global intervention in Africa - Charles Taylor in Liberia, and the blood diamond trade of Sierra Leone not to mention the long road of South Africa..and the failures of the UN in Somalia and most horribly in Rwanda. Zaire was a great horrible pit of death and time will only tell if intervention can change it from its anarchic state...Mr. Aiyar you are looking for some footnote in the annals of the NEXT genocide.

"Before the Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia in 1975 and killed approximately 2 million people, Sydney Schanberg wrote positively in The New York Times about the coming regime change, writing about the Cambodians that "it is difficult to imagine how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone (Wikipedia)?. He redeemed himself by writing the KILLING FIELDS based on the survival of his friend and photographder Dith Pran......What will YOU do to redeem your infamy???

so lets see...
economic disaster and hyperinflation + violent political intimidation through packs of thugs
+ history of land redistribution + history of fomenting ethnic violence + refusal to follow the laws and institiutions of his country = Robert Mugabe.

Is there any other autocrat that the West has tolerated that fits this equation?

The title should be "No moral grounds for outsiders to oust Mugabe".

This must be one of the most inflammatory articles I've read.

I realize that this writer is not endorsing Mugabe.

And I understand that he is simply trying to urge us to look at the situation from a rational perspective, as opposed to an emotional one.

That said, I disagree with much of the article.

I disagree not only with some of the different ideas presented in the article, but also with how he prioritizes them.

First of all, as it has been repeatedly said in many comments:
No one has moved to, or I believe even talked about ousting Mugabe by force.
Therefore, his defense against those for Mugabe's ousting seems to have little meaning, and sounds simply like an emotional defense.

Second, the sense of an international frustration towards Mugabe, I believe, comes not from the confiscation of land from white farmers, but comes more from his recent attacks on opposition parties, some of the accounts of which often sound inconceivably barbaric.
There seems to be little - check that - NO hope for a fair presidential election, and Mugabe has outrightly asserted that if he is not elected, he will hold onto power with force.

Lastly, it is not fair or appropriate to simply compare the actions of states from the 20th century to that of the 21st century.
Much of the 20th century was about balance of power, and looking across the globe, democracy was not always (and in some parts of the world never) a priority for governing or diplomacy.
Today, the world in general has a bigger appetite for democracy.
There is more of a consensus that a nation needs democratic governance to be considered legitimate from within and without the state.
Also, international politics today has a stronger focus on the people within the nations, compared to some decades ago.
To summarize, just because it was acceptable in the past, does not mean that it is acceptable, or that it can be trivialized today.

In the end, the author of this article has, probably without meaning to, put such a strong emphasis on the negatives of ousting Mugabe (which no one is even thinking of doing), that the readers feel he has not given enough consideration to the crisis (and I use this word on purpose) in Zimbabwe.

After all, we DO live in a world that values freedom and democracy, you know.

Mugabe is yet another gift from the Carter Administration. Cyrus Vance and Andrew Young both paved the way for the admitted Marxist Mugabe to take the reins in Southern Rhodesia. The fact that Mugabe does not respect democratic rule or common decency is nothing new. He exhibited these character flaws well before Vance and Young made it possible for him to take control. In addition, the Frank Church commission basically disemboweled the intelligence community and made it impossible to displace thugs like Mugabe without committing young lives and immense treasure to effect regime change. What used to take a well-placed operative one bullet to accomplish, now takes billions of dollars, thousands of casualties, and years of pain and suffering for the people under the thumb of these thugs.

it seems to me that it is as good a question to ask why not disqualify Mugabe's rule as why. if a change to the status quo needs to be made, then the change has to start somewhere, doesn't it? after all, this is the 21st century. for better or worse, change is now our collective modus operandi.

to say that disqualifying mugabe's rule is not justified because his methods conform to precedent is in practical effect to discount the value of human progress in favor of the comfort found in known principles of social organization, a pernicious variation of the axiom that the devil you know is better than the one you don't know.

while there is something to be said in not charging blindly ahead in the name of progress, we can no longer cling, as a matter of course, to 'principled' precedent either. so, as zimbabwe currently has our attention, it would therefore seem to be as deserving of corrective measures, if not more so, than any other 'newsworthy' story in our times, no?

When a criminal murders people in many nations, he or she is executed. It would only take one bullet to bring the same fate to the criminals running many nations -- yet no one picks up the gun. Instead thousands and sometimes millions die so the criminal can live and prosper. It boggles the mind. As for the idea that Mugabe should live because other criminals have run nations, the simple answer: 'Two wrongs do not make a right.'
When criminal leaders are brought down (think of the Ceaucescau family), it is sometimes a great good -- not an evil.

The Zimbabwee issue is yet again but another example of Western hypocrisy--particularly Britain and its partners who have decided to go along with it on this imperialistic venture.

There are many autocrats (really dictators), who are friends of the West. Indeed, recently the Saudi king was an honored guest in Britain. Britain still celebrates a queen, who really represents autocracy (dictatorship).

This whole Mugabe issue would not have been an issue had Mugabe been swimming in oil like the Saudis.

Mugabe is an issue because Britain wants to make him an issue.

Britain need to apologize for colonialism and pay reparations for its crimes against humanity. Mugabe's recent treatment of whites pales in comparison to that of Britain.

"ed simon: .... Is India mining some of Zimbabwe mines? Just a question? Bribery and greasing the wheel is the accepted norm to do business in India. ... I know India is growing economically with huge gaps between the haves and have not"

Mr. Simon, the kettle, is indulging in gratuitous attacks on India, the pot.

Bribery and corruption have neither been invented in India, nor just practiced there. Count how many mayors, congresspersons, governors have been caught in these acts recently. Is Kilpatrick still in office in Detroit? Do you know that the mayor of Baltimore is under investigation right now? As is another state senator?

As to the economic gap between haves and have-nots, have you been following how that gap has been growing - in US?

This is a comment in bad taste. You cannot justify horrible crimes against humanity on the grounds that such acts have been left to pass before and that there are some other bad despots out there. He is bad period, and he should be severely condemned, if not destroyed so that he can serve as a lesson to the others like him.

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

You now personally have quite a bit of blood on your own hands.

Prior to Mugabe there was no democracy, blacks were not allowed to vote. Mugabe came into power on behalf of the Zimbabwean people to basically take back the land that was stolen from them. When coming into power he did not force the whites off the land then and there, why not??? instead he wanted a peacefull transition and in the Lancaster agreement with Brittain(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancaster_House_Agreement) he agreed that he will buy back the farms, Mugabe was to pay for the development and Brittain was to pay for the land. When the agreement came into effect the brittish pulled out and said we are not paying. Mugabe went ahead and took back the land that was for his people. Mugabe has and always will be for the zimbabwean people. People need to look at the history before making judgment. Society today fails to read and think, rather they turn on CNN and raise their fists through ignorance. The economic disaster in Zimbabwe is purely because of illegal sanctions imposed on the country which ultimately murders the innocent children first. Shame on those who do not understand what sanctions do to a country.

Swami, I never blinked when Mugabe dispossessed the white farmers. Sure, stealing their land was flagrantly unlawful, but how did the farmers get title to the land in the first place?

What made my blood boil was the way Mugabe stole the election, the way he resorted to open thuggery to keep his hold on power. The same crimes by the junta in Burma, which has never had white farmers, elicited the same response.

Anyone who refers to "President" Mugabe is abusing language. Mugabe is a dictator, a despot. His rule is arguably crueler and less defensible that Saddam's. His overseas bank accounts and those of his cronies and henchmen should be frozen and they should all be barred from leaving Zimbabwe until they stand trial for their crimes.

I thought that the title of your essay was 'No Moral Ground to Oust Mugabe' But your essay suggests several moral reasons for ousting Mugabe. Your obly defense is that in the past these standards have not been used against even more odious tyrants. But that is not a moral argument. Those are legal or conventional arguments. If you think that there are no moral arguments to oust Mugabe then stick to the moral argument but do not confuse positions based on morality with positions based on conventions.

Good observations...

To Mark Ladd, Ed Simons, Tupac Goldstein:

Morons. Please learn to read. The author is not defending Mugabe, his point, Mugabe has *always* been a monster. How was he ever knighted? Is he a monster now because his utility has ceased and/or he has moved against white farmers? I believe so.

Same for Saddam. Same for Musharraf.

I see another post somewhere today, Mugabe is only the second maniac to have his knighthood revoked. The first was Ceaucescu. Ceaucescu was knighted? Talk about British hypocrisy.

I agree with WG. I have yet to see any nation, political party within a nation, or major civil society group, call for any serious action to remove Mugabe from power. The swiftness with which Mr. Aiyar accuses the west of racism is disappointing, more reminiscent of the previous “blame the west” generation of Indian leaders than today’s globally rising India.
The case for removing Mr. Mugabe, if one is to be made, should not be made on morals but on the regional security interests of Southern Africa. Mr. Mugabe’s policies have flooded the region with refugees and made conditions ripe for Zimbabwe to become a failed state. This would have serious consequences on a region that has been the most stable in Africa for the past decade.

Here is F.D.R‘s comment when referring to a Latin American dictator. ”Yes, he is a bastard, but he is our bastard”.

Just as others have noted, it is a specious argument to suggest
nothing can or should be done about Mugabe because other rulers commit the same crimes. We've been hearing this trite assertion since the ouster of Saddam, all those political novices saying, "Why do it in Iraq and not elsewhere."

It's called TIMING. And Mugabe's time has come.

Of Mugabe's many crimes, the one that is apparently unforgivable is that he has confiscated the land of white farmers...

IS THIS TRUE? How horrible, if it is!

Mr. Aiyar,

You argue : " ... since when is that a disqualification to rule? The world has long been full of rulers even more odious and bloodthirsty than he. "

In my book, it has always been an imperative toremove bloodthirsty people in power and it will always be.

The problem is people like you whose blikers allow them to see only "Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, [countries that] are autocracies."

You ask :" Does anybody suggest UN action to topple them?" You further go on to thunder “All the Central Asian republics are autocracies. Does anybody suggest toppling them?”

If, instead of your narrow-mindedness, an opinion was formulated from the deep wisdom regarding world affairs that, say, former Indian Ambassador Bhadrakumar has acquired as a result of his 29 years-plus experience of diplomatic service in Central and West Asia, we would have the benefot of hearing wisdom flowing from your pen in line with Ambassador Bhadrakumar's advice to Indian foreign policy gurus: “Indian perceptions [of the Middle East and Central Asia] narrowly focus on the fringe manifestation [represented by] al-Qaeda. The mainstream Sunni Islamist movement is the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates such as Hamas, which are essentially non-violent movements with a quasi-legal political presence willing to become part of democratic life….. The mainstream Islamists spearhead mass movements that will not fade away. They are there to stay on the political landscape of India's "extended neighborhood". Hamas and Hezbollah have demonstrated that, given the opportunity,
they are capable of making pragmatic political choices. Israel is way ahead of India in sizing up Islamism. With the distinct possibility of an Obama presidency in Washington, India needs to make haste in tiptoeing to the new Middle East. Plainly speaking, there is a lot of catching up to do.” (See Bhadrakumar “India Tiptoes to the Middle East -- http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JF21Df01.html)

In the Middle East and in Central Asia as it has recently been the case with Indonesia where the people surprised the world by enabling a relatively peaceful easing of the country’s control over East Timor (so successful a transition that it encouraged Gusmao to make a moving plea for Indonesia to be given a permanent seat of the UN Security Council) and at the same time settle its Aceh autonomy issue in a stupendously smooth fashion, many enlightened intellectuals are consenting enormous sacrifices to bring about a post-globalisation Enlightenment ( I call it ‘brightenment’ in honour of The Brights movement – you must have read the Foreign Policy Journal/Prospect Magazine list of the 2008 topworld intellectuals, have you not?) in the Middle East and Central Asia as well as the broader Eurasian landmass.

Please, Mr. Aiyar, don’t mislead Indian foreign policy makers. At least familiarize yourself with Ambassador Bhadrakumar’s writings.

As for Zimbabwe, a country in a corner of the world where I was born and have lived for over 30 of my 61 years, even Morgan Tsivangirai has, according to the latest news, called for a negotiated solution.

African "ubuntu', you see, Mr. Aiyar?

Let's not push for Narendra Modi-types of final solution.

Perhaps we could convince Comrade Mugabe to seek a much larger nation to rule, one that befits his grandeur. I suggest India.

This article is SO OFF on so many points?
Where does one start? I'm so angered by this myopic swill that it is difficult to express my thoughts.

An 'economist' describing the spiraling downfall of a prosperous economy that fed southern and central Africa as acceptable is repugnant.

Mugabe's failed government is impacting the entire region--not just Zimbabwe. South Africa has many refugee camps, guess where many of them are from?

As for 'white' Zimbabwe, most of them have fled. I feel for the black and colored masses that are running out of hope.

South and Central America used to be ruled by autocrats, and half a century of work toward democratization has created a continent of democracies. They are not perfect by any measure but South Americans are proud of their democracies.

What is most important here is not Mugabe but his fight to limit the will of the people. Leaders can justify putting down uprisings with violence. But they cannot justify silencing the people's choice for a leader. That is a crime no one should excuse of any leader, bloodied or not.

Mugabe must go. The people's will must be recognized.

This is one of the most pedantic analysis that Newsweek allowed the scribbler to expose his short sightedness. Is India mining some of Zimbabwe mines? Just a question? Bribery and greasing the wheel is the accepted norm to do business in India. May be he is doing the dirty work for Mugabes beneficiaries from India and perhaps China. I know India is growing economically with huge gaps between
the haves and have not. But the author should keep his attitude that because Zimbabwe is majority black they should not be helped morally or otherwise to oust the imbecile Mugabe who is turning his country into ashes.

People are not calling to remove Mugabe for his failed policies. People want to remove Mugabe because he is using state brutality to ensure his continued stay in power. To suggest that someone's inhumane treatment is not that bad because it is not as inhumane as the last ruler's is simply turning a blind eye to the situation. Instead of excusing Mugabe with the comparison to other autocrats, Mr. Aiyar, should be using Mr. Mugabe's example to highlight what is wrong with the world's autocratic leaders.

If moral authority does not exist for Mugabe's ouster, then the concept of "moral authority" does not exist.

Too bad we are tied up around the world, what Mugabe needs is a good dose of Airborne 101.

The author is certainly correct in pointing out white western hypocrisy. However, he is wrong in asserting that immoral, bloodthirsty leaders are morally fit to rule. Such reasoning goes against my faith in a loving God, but so does violence.

What to do?

In it's present state the west is hamstrung by its internal superficiality and classism and by hypocrisy in its international relations. But what if the US and its allies "got religion" so to speak and actually walked the walk when it comes to righteousness and justice?

Unlike now, then they would be morally in a position to call Mugabe and his ilk onto the carpet and back it up.

You see, now China gets a pass because of its wealth and importance to the world economy; but the real difference between Zimbabwe and say China is that Mugabe is doable. It would not be like Iraq, his regime could be overthrown easily and with little or no bloodshed. China's army is too big for this and Russia nuclear stockpile prevents stronger action there.

The key to power is to be able to use the threat of force effectively without actually using it. If a transformed righteous and just US, along with its allies, toppled a few select autocratic and evil governments (not in the Middle east) the mere fact of their acting would change the atmosphere worldwide. Attitudes and regimes would change.

Our problem is that we bit off the hardest pill to swallow first instead of last. Oh, and we failed to fix the mote in our own eye first.

If we do live in a world of dictators and thugs it is more because of the enlightened self-ignorance of people like yourself than Western foriegn policies. What atrocity, what genocide can't be safely ignored if we followed your advice? Mugabe is a dictator and a thug. ALL dictators and thugs should be opposed regardless of history or geography. Just ask someone who has lived under one.

The reason that Mugabe's excesses are getting so much press is not because "white people lost their farms". It's because the oppression is happening now; the blood is still fresh, and also because it was quite recently that Zimbabwe was thriving economically and politically. The failure of Zimbabwe is the failure of a great hope.

That doesn't make Zimbabwe more tragic then other political crises but it certainly does not mean we should ignore it until present atrocities become history footnotes that you could then used to justify non-interference elsewhere.

Swaminathan Aiyar writes, "They know that in the long list of bloodthirsty African dictators, Mugabe does not rank very high."

However, according to the "Failed States Index" released Monday by Foreign Policy magazine, Zimbabwe moved up to the third most unstable country from the fourth position it held in the 2006 Index.

Somalia is ranked first on the Index and Sudan, a country criticized in the West far more than Zimbabwe over the last several years because of the genocide being committed against black Africans in that country's Darfur region, is ranked second.

Mr. Aiyar, you need to go back to the drawing board. Your theory doesn't withstand even the most basic scrutiny.

I agree. We shouldn't remove him. Instead, I advocate air drops of 1000s and 1000s of weapons, and a huge bounty on his head.

Assassination would be an excellent result here.

In other words: "We've seen worse." Indeed we have, and with this writer's attitude, we will no doubt see more.

Too bad we are tied up in Iraq and Afganistan.
Mr. Mugabe and friends could use a good dose of the 101 Airborne.

You can throw down economic sanctions all you want-- the last sandwich in Zimbabwe will be eaten by Mugabe.

The nation is already wracked with poverty. Further economic sanctions aren't going to impress anybody.

So now moral authority is based on past practice. Given that standard another Hitler could emerge and the world should do nothing because there were other leaders with "blood on their hands." This is some standard of moral authority

Uh...who exactly has been talking about ousting Mugabe? I've heard talk of sanctions, but no other serious alternatives except trying to institute a Kenya-style power sharing agreement (and hey, how's THAT working out?) And that's from the gov't. of South Africa, who has been chickensh*t throughout this because the MDC reminds them too much of the SA opposition party.

I agree wholeheartedly.