• 
• 

History keeps repeating itself these days, especially when it comes to those living in a culture of impunity. Strong words, even when they come from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), do not count that much any more. The case of Zimbabwe will once again make the world community look like a paper tiger because it was unable to take any concrete action in the face of the atrocities and human suffering going on there. Why is that?

President Robert Mugabe is an extraordinary leader in the South African context. He was a freedom fighter who led his country to independence. He is also a tyrant who kills and kills to remain in power. He has annihilated the opposition or anyone who dares challenge his reign. Mugabe knows full well that if he insists on his right to rule and remains adamant, nobody can do anything to challenge him, especially when he counts other African leaders among his friends and admirers. It is a shame that other African countries have turned a blind eye to the situation in Zimbabwe and Mugabe's behaviour. Only a handful of leaders have had the courage to criticise him.

Yesterday, Nelson Mandela finally pointed his finger at Mugabe and said it was his tragic failure as a leader that has led to the violence and chaos now in Zimbabwe. His criticism was short but sharp and it will have far-reaching repercussions. For years, South African leaders, including current President Thabo Mbeki, have refused to scrutinise their neighbour. Mbeki has been a Mugabe supporter even though his colleagues in his party have condemned Mugabe. Millions of Zimbabweans have left the country over the years and the majority have gone to South Africa. This has led to tension and conflict among local communities and immigrants. The violence has already tarnished South Africa's image and its status in the international community.

In the world today, tyrants and dictators understand well that the international community, including those countries on the UNSC, cannot do much because they lack sufficient political will. Worst of all, these powerful countries' national interests are sometimes intertwined with local politics. Deep down in their hearts, they also fear that these developments could expose them and portray them as sycophants.

Mugabe knows that he has to proceed with his election, which is scheduled for Friday, otherwise he might be perceived as weak. His refusal to loosen his grip on power could further worsen the political situation inside the country. Already, the international community has been unified in its universal condemnation of the Mugabe regime. When Rwanda's genocide occurred, no country acted. When actions came, they were too little, too late. The crisis in Zimbabwe represents a huge dilemma because it is all about domestic politics, even though all concerned parties realise the consequences of inaction. The principle of responsibility to protect, passed by the UN General Assembly in 2005, has not helped at all. UN members are not comfortable to invoke this principle, even though it is essentially about governments that refuse to protect their own people and kill them instead.

Something is very wrong in the present international system. For one thing, even though we know that a tyrant is killing his own people, nothing can be done about it. The principle of non-interference prevents outside intervention. Interestingly, it is rare for the international community to agree on one thing without much argument - in this case that Mugabe is a tyrant. Therefore, such a broad international consensus must be at least useful in the effort to change the dreadful situation in Zimbabwe. Otherwise, what use are the UN and its charter when people are killed in front of the grouping's eyes and it continues discussion on the very same situation?