For more than a decade, governments have grappled with the dilemma of when and how they should intervene in the affairs of nations that violate human rights. It was the war in Bosnia and the world's refusal to get involved that first led to a rethink. The inviolability of borders was declared subordinate to the pursuit of international law. The response to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda provided the most vivid example of this new abhorrence of inaction. From that point, people across the political spectrum, in many countries, galvanised themselves on behalf of the abused and dispossessed. Until the disaster of Iraq, the fourth anniversary of which has just been marked, that coalition largely held. It has now foundered, at a time when common action is sorely needed.
The crisis in Zimbabwe has entered a dangerous stage. The charge sheet against President Robert Mugabe is comprehensive. In two decades, life expectancy has dropped from 60 to 38 years. The IMF predicts in its regional economic outlook that Zimbabwe's inflation could exceed 4,000 per cent by the end of this year. Four in five people have no job. Two million have fled to South Africa. Hundreds of thousands are homeless since Operation Murambatsvina began demolishing entire neighbourhoods in 2005.
In recent weeks, political violence has increased. The severe beating of Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, the shooting dead of the pro-democracy activist Gift Tandare and the arrests of dozens of others have confirmed (not that it needed confirming) the reputation of Mugabe's regime as one of the most repressive in the world.
What should be done? Britain is in an awkward place. Our colonial legacy has allowed Mugabe and other African leaders to portray our complaints, particularly those about evictions of white farmers, in terms of race. We should not desist from criticism, but we should devote our efforts to agitating for international institutions with more clout to take a tougher stand. The power relationship has changed.
It is Africa that must take the lead. The signs are that Mugabe is coming under pressure from his neighbours. As Rageh Omaar points out on page 20, the ANC government's refusal to impose sanctions from South Africa is chillingly reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher's refusal to do the same against the apartheid regime in the 1980s. The Southern African Development Community finally seems to be gearing up for action. Statements criticising Mugabe have buttressed behind-the-scenes diplomacy involving Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania and Zambia.
In a report issued on 5 March, the respected non-governmental International Crisis Group listed a series of measures that should be taken by African states in conjunction with Europe, the US and others. In 2002, the EU imposed an arms embargo, travel ban and assets freeze on Mugabe and his henchmen. These measures should now be widened to include family members and business leaders. The International Criminal Court should investigate the atrocities. We hope that one day Mugabe will face trial at The Hague.
The next few weeks will be crucial in Zimbabwean domestic politics. With his term due to expire in 2008, Mugabe has been seeking to extend his tenure to 2010 by a constitutional amendment that would harmonise presidential and parliamentary elections that year. Amid signs of a tentative alliance between dissident factions within Zanu-PF and the MDC, he so far has not had it all his own way. A meeting of Zanu-PF's ruling central committee on 28 March could provide the turning point. If Mugabe is resisted, one can expect more state violence, but - as is often the case - this could mark the denouement of the struggle.
Ultimately the main responsibility, and the main scrutiny, will fall to what used, in apartheid times, to be called the front-line states. Press comment from Botswana to Uganda and beyond is calling on Africa's leaders to break free of the prism of post-colonialism and to use economic and political levers to force Mugabe from office.
This is a big moment for South Africa and for Africa's self-determination.
Keeping our rubbish on hold
Was there once a time when public servants saw their role as moulding policy to the needs of the community? If so, when did it become the duty of citizens to trim their habits, physical dimensions and even rubbish disposal to the needs of government?
We were merely amused a few months ago when Transport for London engaged in talks with Mothercare to encourage the company to design pushchairs to suit its buses. (We had foolishly imagined it more appropriate for pushchairs to be designed to suit young children, and buses to suit pushchairs.) But at least TfL didn't call on parents to rear only carrier-bag-sized babies. This appears to be the policy of train companies, which have satisfied the urgent need to fit more bums on seats by (glaringly against the physical evidence) offering less seat per bum.
And so to the wacky world of rubbish disposal. As evidence mounts that we create more and more rubbish, local authorities are to collect it less and less often. But, we are told, fortnightly collections are good news. "Research", according to the environment minister Ben Bradshaw, has found no evidence that halving collections will cause health problems, provided dustbin lids are fixed tight and rubbish neatly wrapped.
Is Bradshaw's rubbish collected in the real world? A further piece of "research" might be instructive. It is certainly compelling. It shows a 40 per cent increase in demand for the services of pest controllers.
