What happens in Africa, stays in Africa

The African Union officially asked the USA and the UN to but out of Africa's business and leave to Zimbabwe alone. This was backed by the South African Department of Foreign Affairs.

I know this is a bad spot to be in, but I find myself somewhere stuck in the middle. Firstly, I do agree that the USA should but out of Africa's business, as (1) they first have to deal with their own matters of national security and (2) Zimbabwe is no threat to their national security. As for the UN butting out? I do not think that this a good idea. The AU does not have a good reputation when it comes to dealing with African issues effectively. SADC neither. South Africa has not suceeded to come to a stable resolution for Zimbabwe. So, when it comes to AU and SADC not being able to effectively dealing with Zimbabwe and the Mugabe regime, then the UN should definitely assist. However, will sanctions against Zimbabwe, Mugabe and Zanu PF officials be effective?

In the public Mugabe seems to be of the attitude that he does not care of sanctions or any interference from the neo-liberal, western capatalist world. Unless, that interference comes from Great Britain. Anyhow, this is a topic for another debate.

Here are the facts: South Africa failed to assist Zimbabwe with the elections and diplomatic negotiations. SADC failed to do the same. If the AU fails, then who will come to the aid of Zimbabwe? The USA will breach the fundamental principles of state sovereignty. The UN perhaps? So, how can the UN just sit back and but out of Africa's business? The UN did that in Rwanda and looked what happened. Zimbabwe is not far away from the same atrocity. So who should deal with Mugabe?? That seems to be the million dollar question!