A NY Times op-ed contributor apparently had a recent 2.5-hour interview with Robert Mugabe. The result is this shatbit-crazy editorial.
Sure, he's plunged his country into poverty and is directly responsible for the starvation of millions. But why not engage him? Why not try reasoning with him.
Keep right on thinking that way.
Posted by Matt Bruce at April 1, 2008 06:11 PMKeep right on thinking that way.
What's worked so far, though? If assassination were desired by people with access, someone would have done it already; no one's going to invade Zimbabwe; South Africa's turning a blind eye; economic sanctions aren't working, and don't have much future when Mugabe's shown he's perfectly happy to destroy the economy on his own.
Everyone is saying that the way out is to get Mugabe's party and Mugabe himself to agree to step down somehow, like Pinochet. Making this loon feel as if he's respected may be the only way to make that happen.
What else is on the table, really?
Posted by: M.S. at April 2, 2008 05:56 AMOh, I don't know, anything other than selling the opposition movement up the river at the exact moment when it appears that either a) it finally won an election or b) the election will have been even more blatantly rigged than usual.
But I suppose this isn't *quite* as bad as the U.S. government's bad habit of wink-nudge encouraging insurrections then reneging on the implicit promise of support.
Posted by: me at April 2, 2008 11:13 AM