No-one can criticise the far left for lacking energy. In 2003 the SWC organised one of the biggest peace time rallies in modern British history and it has vociferously expanded its political demands ever since. Its central manifesto of ‘Troops Out!’ has swollen to include ‘Freedom For Palestine!’ and ‘Don’t Attack Iran!’ (slightly lacking in originality that one). Clearly SWC is not a one-issue organisation and it obviously strives to fight for people’s rights in various parts of the world. So what, you may ask, is SWC’s position on that highly topical subject of Zimbabwe? Hmmm, well I’m not quite sure because try as I might I couldn’t find a single sentence covering the events in Zimbabwe on SWC’s website. Nor could I find any stories about the repression in Burma or North Korea. So why the silence over Mugabe? Surely they could knock-up a few 'Free Zimbabwe' placards and bring them on the next pro-Hezbollah march? Now I wouldn’t be so glib as to insinuate that the stoppers don’t care about the plight of Zimbabwe; clearly that is not the case. No the real reason for its embarassing silence is twofold; firstly SWC is a counter culture organisation. It exists only to reflexively criticise the actions of its own Government. As the West is manifestly innocent of any crimes comitted in Zimbabwe the far left has little to say on the issue. Secondly and more pertinently the far left is intellectually bankrupt, (although not financially so, Galloway isn’t short of a penny or two). The far left offers only reactive slogans, (Don’t Attack Iraq! e.t.c.), it offers no positive ideas and hasn’t done since 1989. So the far left can offer nothing positive for Zimbabwe, apart from muttering about the fact that it’s an Arican problem and not much can be done about it. Effectively the far left doesn’t have the faintest what to do with Mugabe and it’ll be damned if it’s going to venture a constructive suggestion.

So it’s a straight choice then either we do something or we don’t. Either we accept that Mugabe is free to bully and to torture and to murder or we try and do something about it. And if we do accept that we are right to try and help Mugabe’s victims then we accept that free people have a moral right to help fellow humans toiling under political oppression. Whether it is a vocal condemnation, the voiding of a knighthood, ecnomic sanctions or military intervention, the principle is the same; free countries are morally right to intervene/interfere to help bring down dictatorships. The practical justification for the extent of that intervention depends on each individual case. Perhaps that is why SWC is so quiet about Zimbabwe and Burma and North Korea; it knows the international community is morally justified to intervene against dictatorships and it cannot offer an alternative way to help the world.

So what’s the answer for Zimbabwe? Clearly we cannot sit back and do nothing. Military intervention would be morally justified but is it the best form of intervention for Zimbabwe? Military intervention by the Viet Cong in Cambodia stopped the genocide of the Khmer Rouge, similarly Tutsi rebels deposed the genocidal Hutu regime. But military intervention is risky and Mugabe’s supporters, the army and the war veterans, would be sure to wage a bloody insurgency campaign. I have much sympathy with the view that military intervention is only justified in cases of genocide. The trouble is how do you define genocide? Hundreds have been killed in the last few weeks; is there a magic number of deaths that legitimises intervention? To my mind military intervention would be morally legitimate but too risky to implement, at the moment. Yet the international community should continue to pile on the pressure. Perhaps an African intervention force could be setup with Western logistical backing; the threat of this force might just be enough to intimidate Mugabe out of power. This is unlikely given Mugabe’s stubbornness and the lethargy of African politicians but surely it is worth a try? If Mugabe remains in power the moral pressure for military intervention may eventually come to outweigh the practical risks.

Having said all that perhaps the SWC are right to ignore Zimbabwe after all, maybe they do actually have one constructive policy. Perhaps if we put Bush and Blair on trial for war crimes, allow the Iranians to develop nuclear weapons and give Hamas a free reign in Palestine then maybe, just maybe there will be peace on earth and Mugabe will step down from power. If not they could always have a quick demo.