was Ghana right when its parliament called for military intervention in Zimbabwe? This is what must first be taken into consideration...
Mugabe is very astute at skirting the lines of the Geneva conventions and of the UN accords to the extent that military intervention there is not an option. In order for the UN forces or AU forces to do anything there genocide, ethnic cleansing, and/or war crimes must be clearly evidenced. This is not the case in Zim.
Mugabe has the support of Mbeki and this will not likely change even after the S.Africa elections because:
1. S. Africa leases their electricity from Zimbabwe and if not for that they would be in dire straights with their massive energy shortages.
2. S. Africa is one of the only countries that is selling anything to Zim, right now.
3. A distant third is the fact that Mbeki feels a moral indebtedness to Mugabe because of the liberation struggle that you documented from 20 + years ago.
The SADC (Southern Africa Development Community) is like a baby or a toddler in comparison to ECOWAS. Thus, the SADC does not have a military apparatus like ECOWAS’s ECOMOG, with which to dispense help to the Zimbabweans.Before international bodies use interventionist strategies in Zimbabwe they would first have to adjust the guidelines for intervention, based upon the fact that although Zimbabwe is in an extremely severe situation the necessary legal tools that would allow for military intervention are not available. This would likely set a legal precedent for future cases, as well.
So there are some, like myself, who would argue that morally Ghana is probably correct. However, legally they are probably not. Are there any thoughts?