Our Ambassador in Zimbabwe Andrew Pocock has had a confrontation with the Mugabe regime when he and some senior diplomatic colleagues went to have a look at what is now happening in Zimbabwe beyond the capital.

Thus the dilemma of diplomats in a country run by gangsters and heading for disaster. The basic story is clear and well understood by capitals. What else to do?

Staying in the Embassy and/or talking to sensible local people who want democratic change does not achieve much. But you also know that going around to see for yourself evidence of the regime’s brutality also will make little difference other than to annoy the regime and make it even less likely to engage with you personally.

Mugabe and his senior clique have basically prevailed, for now at least. They held an election, lost it, and are simply staying on in power as world attention ebbs in despair at the stupidity of it all.

Of course in a way Mugabe has a point when he denounces Western focus on Zimbabwe as ‘racist’. Were it not for the presence in Zimbabwe of a significant post-colonial ‘white’ population his cruel corrupt manoeuvrings would not attract much international attention at all. Zimbabwe would be just another hopeless African country among many sinking under the weight of calamitous mis-government.

In such a situation we run out of words to describe the situation. Thus the Guardian:

Since he lost control of parliament, Mr Mugabe and the rump of Zanu-PF have been playing for time. The delay allowed them to chase 40,000 farm workers from their homes, kill at least 22 people and torture 900 others, according to the Zimbabwe Association of Doctors for Human Rights … Mr Mugabe can not be sure that he has yet bludgeoned enough of the opposition into submission … Another major task for Mr Mugabe is to find more than 200,000 votes, if he is to overturn the results of the first round. There is, still, all to play for if the run-off is held promptly.

The expression “there is still all to play for” contrives to make this sound like a cricket match played to respectable rules, not a violent power struggle in which the regime is counting on the opposition’s decency and restraint to continue brutalising them.

If we see a neighbour whipping his child or starving his dog to death in the next door garden, do we not have a moral and maybe even legal obligation to intervene?

What is the difference in today’s Global Village when thousands or even millions of people are being whipped or starved by their own leaders?

Let’s talk about it, very earnestly. But above all, actually do nothing.