Leading article: The Archbishop is on the right track

Monday 17 September 2007 19:00 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Does the Archbishop of York know something we don't? How else to explain his apparent confidence that the Prime Minister is preparing to make "some kind of response" to the fast deteriorating situation in that country. An announcement could be made as early as this week.

The tentative way in which the news came out suggests ground being carefully prepared. The Archbishop, John Sentamu, disclosed that he had had a conversation with the Prime Minister about Zimbabwe and urged him to lead an international campaign against President Mugabe's regime. All the signs are that, far from exerting unwelcome pressure, Dr Sentamu was knocking at an open door.

We hope that he was, and we hope that his tentative prediction about a toughening of British policy turns out to be true. As Southern Rhodesia, Zimbabwe was, after all, a British colony. We oversaw the – delayed – transition to majority rule, and we helped establish the institutions that Robert Mugabe has so successfully subverted.

There was a time, before Zimbabwe was expelled from the Commonwealth in 2002, when British ministers and diplomats deliberately held back from criticising Mr Mugabe and the increasingly autocratic way he ran Zimbabwe. They feared, not unreasonably, that their condemnation would be held up as an example of "imperialist" interference and perversely help to keep Mr Mugabe in office.

In those days the preference was for a Commonwealth solution – in which Britain would be just one member of an international collective urging change. This policy foundered, however, when Mr Mugabe failed to change his ways. And the downside of Zimbabwe's expulsion was that the Commonwealth lost any leverage it had previously had.

Thereafter, an African solution was preferred. The particular hope was that the South African President, Thabo Mbeki, would be persuaded to constrict Zimbabwe's economic lifeline. Regrettably, his sense of African and anti-colonial solidarity trumped his sense of justice. While South Africa now shoulders much of the refugee burden from Zimbabwe, Mr Mbeki must also share blame for the dire straits in which the country finds itself today.

The argument against tougher action, including stricter sanctions, was always that it would be Zimbabwe's poorest who would suffer most. Now, as the Archbishop of York argues, it is hard to see that sanctions could make daily life any worse for ordinary Zimbabweans. Sanctions targeted against the elite – including, for instance, restrictions on the number of diplomats in Western capitals, as Dr Sentamu suggests – would be a start. It is high time that Britain took a stand.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in