Murdering Mugabe [Jamie Kirchick]

First off, many thanks to Andrew for letting Hilary, Greg, Steve and me post on his blog this week. I'm honored to be included amongst such an impressive cast of writers. I've been reading Andrew's blog  since I was in high school and its surreal to be posting on his site. I work for The New Republic (where you should read the best political blog, The Plank) and write a column for The Washington Blade. Hopefully, we will be able to keep your attention while Andrew delivers his matrimonial vows and takes a much-deserved honeymoon.

While we're discussing such good tidings, what to make of the prospects for murdering Robert Mugabe? That's what the British human rights activist Peter Tatchell thinks ought to be done. Tatchell has suffered beatings from Mugabe's bodyguards on multiple occasions for attempting to perform "citizens' arrests" on the Hooligan of Harare. Now, he says, the murder of Mugabe may be justified:

The prospects for democratic, peaceful change seem to be closed, in the same way as in Nazi-occupied Europe," he says. "In all normal circumstances, I'm against violence. All violence. But in the extreme situation of a dictatorship where tens of thousands, if not millions, of lives are at stake, there may be a moral and ethical case for the people of Zimbabwe to kill Mugabe."

Tatchell's right that the Zimbabwean people "may" have a "moral and ethical case" to kill Mugabe. But given how long Mugabe has been ruining his own country and how loyal the military is to him, this will not happen anytime soon. Last month, I weighed the pros and cons of foreign intervention to remove Mugabe, which a Zimbabwean Catholic archbishop recommended.

P.S.: As an umpteenth example of the United Nation's utter fecklessness, the world body has decided that the millions of Zimbabweans who have fled to neighboring South Africa over the past several years are not entitled to refugee status, and thus won't receive any of the U.N.'s enormous largesse. Apparently because only a limited number have applied for political asylum (a limited number due to the fear of being caught and deported to a land where they will starve and/or be tortured) these poor people will continue to languish in penury, ignored by the international community. Meanwhile, the grandchildren of Palestinians who fled during Israel's 1948 War of Independence have a unique status--conferred upon them by the U.N.--among the world's refugees.

Remind me, again, why the U.N. matters?