U.S. Calls for Arms Embargo on Zimbabwe

Again America poises itself to take on the roll of hero trying to be the world's policeman. The U.S. is among several entities that have called for an international arms embargo on Zimbabwe. Political unrest mounted in this land-locked African country after the disputed March 29^th elections. While Zimbabwe churches warn that the situation could become a genocide, the government denies that there is a problem. So just how serious is the violence across the country?

BBC News has reported that "contributors say they have come across credible reports of intimidation and violence but not anything amounting to war or genocide." Reading these experiences it is clear that while there is violence, it appears to be contained. The police have made arrests and the capital is peaceful enough. The tensions are high and refugees have fled into neighboring Mozambique more out of anticipation than anything. For now, Zimbabwe and the rest of the world await yet another recount. The situation is highly reminiscent of the Florida recounts in the U.S. presidential election many years ago.

The question is: Was the U.S. justified in calling for an arms embargo? Or did they perhaps react a little too quickly and too drastically? Surely the U.S. had to know that a Chinese manufacturer was Zimbabwe's arms supplier. Chinese-owned companies have been supplying arms to militants and governments in Africa increasingly over the past decade. And it is certainly no secret that China holds claim to a large portion of the U.S.'s $9 trillion deficit. Now more than ever the world's view of the U.S. is sinking. You would think that the nation's leaders would not be so quick to react impulsively. Apparently the poster girl for diplomatic relations has not had much of an effect. In one swift move the U.S. has alienated yet another African nation and annoyed a powerful rival. Smart move.

I cannot agree that an international arms embargo on Zimbabwe is warranted at this point in the tensions. Any number of alternatives would have had a more positive effect. Think about a manager with several employees beneath him working in a customer service position. One employee comes to the manager saying that he is having a problem with a customer. The customer has become rude and started yelling. You have trained your employees to handle difficult situations. As the manager what action do you take? Do you immediately run off to handle the problem yourself, thinking that this employee cannot possibly handle the situation? Or do you look at the employee and say I know you are capable of handling this situation, but if the problem escalates I am here to help you? Which option do you think would be the most effective in the long run? In the first option you are not teaching the employee to handle problems themselves. "Bring a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for life."

This analogy applies to this situation. A more appropriate and effective response from the U.S. might have been: "While the United States does not support political violence, we have confidence and trust in the abilities of the Zimbabwe police force to control the situation at hand. If the situation does escalate we are prepared to offer assistance as needed."