A Failed State or a Rogue State

The ultimate question for any foreign policy is, when should one nation invade another. Christopher Hitchens at Slate.com, in seeking to make the case that Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe must be deposed, helpfully distinguishes between failed states and rogue states.

A failed state is one which cannot or refuses to provide for its own people. On a sin-ravaged Earth, these abound. A rogue state is one which has a severe destabilizing effect on other nations. For the sake of simplicity, the choice to invade a failed state is a moral question. The choice to invade a rogue state is a question of self-interest.

Hitchens offers four reasons to invade, one moral and three for stability:

One is genocide, which, according to the signatories of the Genocide Convention (the United States is one), necessitates immediate action either to prevent or to punish the perpetrators. Another is aggression against the sovereignty of neighboring states, including occupation of their territory. A third is hospitality for, or encouragement of, international terrorist groups, and a fourth is violations of the Nonproliferation Treaty or of U.N. resolutions governing weapons of mass destruction.

However, he notes how easily these categories blend. Failed states, with no source of legitimate income, often turn to weapons traffiking. Genocides usually cause refugee migrations, which destabilize neighboring nations. Iraq, he says, qualified according to all four criteria.

Zimbabwe is quickly becoming one of the most dangerous places in the world. And, with Mugabe continuing to withhold medical treatment for the cholera outbreak he created, he is endangering the welfare of all southern Africa. I agree with Hitchens -- to the best of our ability, we must make sure that Mugabe is removed from power and arrested.

Read the whole thing and pray that Zimbabwe might be freed from tyranny.