September 4th discussion item

Here we have an example of national mismanagement on a grand scale: Zimbabwe (Rhodesia, formerly Southern Rhodesia).

Setting aside my personal vested interests about this case, let us just put this forth as an example applicable to several countries. The post-colonial government was overturned and a single-party system rose to power on the back of the forcible elimination of any and all meaningful rivals. That government has run things for over 20 years, and has run the country into the ground. Epic population dislocations, hyperinflation, utter desolation of the means of production, and no small amount of kleptocracy have occurred. Finally, an opposition party formed (against all means and efforts by the ruling regime) and has become politically meaningful again. The opposition contested one "election" and gained a little traction, but also brought reprisals down on their supporters. They waited and regrouped, and contested a second national-level "election" that actually may have been a real election, and by all investigations, won a broad victory. That was partly overturned by semi-legal acts, and an even more vicious round of reprisals came between that contest and a "run-off" for the Presidency. Said reprisals were so devastating that the opposition chose self-protection rather than to stand in the run-off, leaving the party holding sole power uncontested and thus on paper returning their "leader" to the office of the President. All efforts to negotiate a solution have been half-hearted, or biased. As of now, the situation looks like *this*.

It is also a remote nation perceived (wrongly) by many as unimportant to the World's Economy or Society. The fact that it has been overtaken by a stridently Communist regime is also considered to be of little importance. It is certainly land-locked and only a handful of neighboring nations have significant border length with it.

So...

Open Ground: Is this, or is this not, a case for R2P (Right to Protect) intervention? If so, upon which country or countries does the obligation of R2P fall? In the case it is not a suitable R2P case, is it in the vested interest of any nation to take illegitimate action or sponsor such as an "ends justify the means" sort of political decision?

The goal in this discussion is to look at a really hard situation, and make a reasonable case for some action (or no action). It is the making of the case that is the intent, not any specific political outcome for Zimbabwe (Rhodesia).

Very well, have at it!