The Myth of a New Cold War

Rising Russian power has caused many to suspect that a new Cold War is developing. This international situation with Russia and the West is not a Cold War, rather the rise of multipolarity in global politics. The US and EU countries do not want to see a new international order. NATO continues to expand in Eastern European nations with involvement across the world. The Cold War of the 20th century was a different political situation. This was a struggle between two competing economic and political systems. The world of the contemporary era is more complex. Russia, China, India, and possibly South Africa as well as Brazil are rising powers. The United States has to comprehend the political reality that it will no longer be the sole superpower. Alliances and power relations will change. Commentators and foreign policy analysts fail to realize this shift in global affairs. The phrase a new Cold War becomes nothing more than a call for mobilization against Russia. Instead of realizing that Russia could be of political assistance on some common international issues, antagonism has become official policy. The only way the world can maintain stability or reach some level of peace is through cooperation. The new Cold War myth is designed to continue conflict, instigate future hostility, and maintain relevance for a dated military alliance. 

      The Cold War has to understood in a historical context. Otherwise, this term which is a misnomer will induce irrational trepidation. The Cold War was a geopolitical struggle between the United States and Soviet Union. The defeat of fascism left a power void, which these two nations would fill. When World War II ended it was a radically different world. The U.S. and the U.S.S.R would fight wars of proxy around the world. The Iron Curtain divided Europe, while the former colonies of France and the British Empire fought for independence. The world was now divided in a bipolar political power structure, with a Non-Aligned Movement between communist East and Capitalist West. The Non-Aligned Movement never favored any superpower, but found themselves swept up in Cold War tension and conflict. Indochina, Korea, and Afghanistan would become major battle zones of the Cold War. The US chose a policy of being against both anti-colonial movements and communist governments. The Soviet Union would align itself with anti-colonial movements or nations if it suited its interest. While it preached anti-imperialism it refused to extend this message to the peoples of Central Asia, the Baltic states, or Eastern Europe. Since the 19th century, Russia had extended its imperial power into Central Asia at the expense of Tatar and other Asian peoples. The reason Eastern Europe came under a sphere of influence was to make it a barrier to future invasion. Joseph Stalin believed that Germany and Japan would rise again. He was not convinced that the West would come to the aid of the Soviet Union if another World War were to break out. The failure of the victorious Allied nations to keep the wartime alliance going caused the Cold War.

There could have been genuine efforts for a sustainable peace. This did not happen due to the differences over ideology and economics. The military industrial complex had become too powerful and gradually arms production became a major part of the US economy. Constant warfare was the only way to sustain this model of economic production. Neoliberal capitalism requires new markets to conquer to remain relevant. This explains why the US was more concerned about maintaining strongmen in particular nations. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was brought back to power by the US and UK, after the removal of  Mohammad Mossadegh  in Iran. Cuba had been under US domination until Fidel Castro deposed the Fulgencio Bastia regime. The year 1953 was a during point after the CIA intervention in Iran. The US would continue to overthrow both democratically elected governments, communist ones, and others which simply disagreed with its policies. The problem with US policy was that it saw communism as a monolith. This was not the reality, because many socialist and communist states developed their own political versions. Broz Tito's Yugoslavia and Enver Hoxha's Albania did not pledge complete loyalty to the Soviet block. Mao Zedong 's version of communism was a mix of populism, Chinese nationalism, and his own theories about revolution. China and the Soviet Union during the Khruschev period had strained relations. The African socialism of  Kwame Nkhrumah and Julius Nyerere combined Pan-Africanism   with Marxist philosophy. Gamal Nasser's socialism was tailored to Pan-Arab nationalist thought. Not all the Eastern block nations were completely  submissive to the dictates of Moscow. Nicolae Ceausescu the general secretary of Romania condemned the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia and refused to let Soviet troops cross over through Romania. The reason he was not challenged was because he played both the West and the East against one another using both. Romania had more independence compared to other Eastern block nations. 

International politics was just as complicated in the Cold War past as it was today. There was more danger due to nuclear arms races and destabilization campaigns through covert action. The possibility of nuclear annihilation was high. Both superpowers were doing nuclear tests and were building massive arsenals. The Cuban missile crisis was a demonstration of nuclear brinkmanship in which both powers would test the limits of each others endurance to pressure. President John F. Kennedy made the error of attempting to overthrow the Castro government with Cuban exiles. The Bay of Pigs invasion resulted in failure,but also made Fidel Castro seek protection from the Soviet Union. To deter another invasion Fidel Castro and Nikita Khruschev decided to erect nuclear installations. Kennedy's response was to impose a blockade. This was the closest the world ever came to nuclear war. An agreement was reached in which the US would dismantle its installations from Turkey and the U.S.S.R would do the same for Cuba. There was the possibility that if Kennedy had lived there would have been peace and eventual normalization of relations with the Soviets. If Khruschev did not fall from power, and Leonid Brezhnev did not become General Secretary the Soviet Union might have followed a different course. Unfortunately, the series of events took another route. Lyndon B. Johnson became president and expanded the US role in Vietnam. Full scale war came by 1965 and continued until 1973. While the Truman Doctrine proposed containment, the Kennedy Doctrine went to expand that to preventing communism anywhere in the western hemisphere. Working from these two policies Johnson wanted it to be eliminated militarily. The reason the Dominican Republic was invaded and involvement in Indochina continued was that simple containment was not enough. The United States was seeking elimination of communism as a global force. This however was not possible unless there was war with the Soviet Union itself. Richard M. Nixon realized he could exploit the Sino-Soviet split as means to solve the problem of the Vietnam War. The US became victim to its own policies and South Vietnam collapsed in 1975. The Nixon Doctrine wanted to hand responsibility for security over to allies rather than the US providing assistance. After the loss of Vietnam the US was damaged in national and psychological sense. While America Suffered a major defeat, the Soviet Union was having economic and political challenges of its own. 

          The close of the Cold War marks a significant turning point in history. The world would see new countries emerge, but the US would remain the sole superpower. Like most powerful nations it would abuse weaker nations around the world. The US continued to intervene in various nations including Iraq and Somalia. The NATO alliance was not dismantled, but became more belligerent in countries in Europe and Asia. Yugoslavia  was attacked, specifically Kosovo and NATO since 2001 has been on extended mission in Afghanistan. The world was gradually becoming more complicated. The United States found itself in a world in which there was no opposing force to balance its power. This posed a problem. The reason was that there would be no justification for maintaining a military industrial complex or keeping NATO relevant. The 9/11 attacks gave a justification for perpetual warfare. The US was then embarking on a war of terror, which was in reality a method of  enforcing regime change and imposing particular political systems globally. Terrorism has existed in various form throughout human history, but it is unlikely that small armed groups would defeat the US by force. The United States wants to be the hegemon of the world and formulates its foreign policy to  prevent rising powers from being competitors. Russia and China are seen as threats, when they may not be. The Cold War was a struggle between two superpowers. The current situation is that the US has a war on  international  multipolarity political power system. The response from the US-EU block is a violent one. A better course would be to resolve issues through negotiation with Russia, rather than belligerence. This is not possible, due to the fact the US needs an existential threat. Without one, the military machine and the identity of the country suffers. The end of the Cold War may not have been a triumph. The result has created more instability and crisis spanning multiple continents. 

         The US and Russia tension does have roots in the Cold War past, but the current situation is far more complex. Vladimir Putin is not seeking rival of the Soviet Union, rather he is attempting Pan-Slavic revival. This former movement developed in the 19th century when the Slavs were under Austrian and German domination. It was this ethnic nationalism that was causing the decline of  the Austro-Hungarian Empire. There has been a divide between East European and Western European. The tension is based on that past memory of West European presence in traditional Slavic lands. The rise of Yugoslavia and the experiment with Soviet communism, Pan-Slavism  declined in terms of having ideological and political influence. There were obvious conflicts between Slavic peoples. Russia and Poland have had a bitter history between invasions and partitions. This explains why now Poland has become closer to the United States and NATO. The Putin presidency is seeking some form of Pan-Slavism , but not through forceful conquest. Russia maintains close relationships with Belarus and Hungary. These nations unlike their neighbors do not want the follow the political and economic system of the European Union. Vicktor Orban and Alexander Lukashenko will most likely be drawn closer to Russia out of objection to EU policies. Vladimir Putin's Pan-Slavic revival involves developing long term strategic partnerships with particular Eastern European nations. The current problem is Ukraine in which the US has influenced since its independence.  

The US AID organization was involved in funding opposition parties. Ukraine became unstable under Vicktor Yanukoych and it was clear the West wanted a leader more in line with their orbit. Russia saw that the sudden protests were a pretext for intervention. Yanukoych was not removed by legal means, but by mobs from far-right extremist elements and pro-EU factions. Ukraine, if it had a competent leader could have acted as a fulcrum to both West and East Europe. The divide became even worse with the sanctions placed on the Russian Federation. This was a major error in the Obama administration, because it cause a sudden surge in tension. This began prior with NATO's invasion of Libya. Russia supported the UN resolution under the context of responsibility to protect. There was a belief that there was not going to be a change in regime in Libya. When this happened, Russia felt betrayed in a way. US behavior in both Ukraine and Libya demonstrate differences in the ideology of foreign affairs. The United States still wants to do whatever it wants to any nation without repercussion. Neoconservative doctrine has become the foreign policy of the US. 

Nation building, aggressive war, and regime change have caused the image of the US to be damaged around the world. The rhetoric of promoting democracy or human rights is designed to mask the vicious contest of the US attempting to maintain hegemony. The reality is that Russia, China, and more countries possibly from the Global South will be world powers. A campaign that is designed to prevent nations from developing peacefully will only result in mass resistance to the oppressor power. This resistance can take many forms. It could either be armed conflict or sabotage. Russia most likely hacked the DNC as a form of revenge in response to US interference in Ukraine. There is evidence that the Trump campaign  had contact with Russian individuals associated with the  federation government. President Putin denies that such cyber espionage occurred, however both the US and Russia have done this. There is the idea that Vladimir Putin favored Trump rather than Clinton. Whoever is in office a general anti-Russian sentiment will be present. Many times Donald Trump has been accused of being a puppet of Vladimir Putin. This is an exaggeration. Donald Trump has not been able to improve US-Russia relations or reach a common consensus. Trump continues to have the US more involved in Syria and has become more bellicose in regards to North Korea. These issues will certainly put the US and Russia in conflict with one another. Removal or attacks on either Kim Jong Un or Bashir Al-Assad will result in a Russian military response. Russia has been assisting Syria in fighting armed groups aligned with the US and ISIS. Syria is one of Russia's important allies in the Middle East. Donald Trump wants to counter this by arming Saudi Arabia and Israel to act as possible attackers against Syria and Iran. Regional conflicts are attracting major world powers who then escalate them into possible mass global conflict. Donald Trump is not capable of brokering a peace nor understanding the intricacies  of Middle Eastern politics. One can conclude that US-Russian relations will never reach  cordial status.   

         Another reason the myth of a new Cold War is being promoted is due to the mass media and Clinton aligned Democrats. Mainstream media outlets almost imply that Hillary Clinton lost due to Russian meddling or espionage in the 2016 election. Donald Trump won because of  racism, hate, and an uneducated section of the population that voted for the first time. The Democratic Party cannot come to terms with the fact that they chose the wrong candidate. Bernie Sanders had brought more younger voters into the party and  the party did not aggressively go after them for the cause of Clinton. Similar to the Cold War there has become more anti-Russian rhetoric on US media. Putin is demonized almost made into a Saddam Hussein like figure. The way Russia is discussed it parallels the anti-communist rhetoric of the McCarthy era. The difference is that we are not living in a world of bipolar international politics. The international stage has become open to other states to rise. This gives the United States a feeling of inadequacy and insecurity. Economic struggles and  internal strife cause the US to search for a scapegoat. The blame is either placed on Russia, China, liberal politics, or the entire Middle Eastern region. The unfortunate element is that the American public has such little knowledge about Russia or Europe, they will believe anything presented on mainstream media. The section of American conservatives who hate the media do so for the sole reason they believe it is part of a "left-wing conspiracy." Such accusations are false seeing as the majority of  American news outlets are either pro-war or favor some form of American exceptionalism. The conservative argument is anger that is directed at people who do not share their values or convictions. CNN and Fox News both present Russia as a threat to international peace. The Russia -US tension has extended into media, with the US government wanting Russia Today to register as a foreign agent. RT is just like any other 24 hour news channel, yet it is now shown as some form of propaganda arm of the Kremlin. This simply is not true. RT America has employed former CNN anchors such as Larry King and Ed Shultz. This makes a viewer question the channel's credibility of being different from other media. These facts a ignored to promote a simple narrative that the US is fighting a Russian takeover of the world. 

           The US is not in conflict with only Russia, but multipolarity as a system of international affairs. The United States since the end of World War II acted as a successor to the collapsing British Empire. The military interventions at some stage will cause economic decline in the US. The Cold War had more of a balance of power between the two superpowers and the Third World. When the Soviet Union fell there was a wave of instability in the world. The United States did not have another power to restrain it. This meant it could abuse its sole superpower status. The Iraq War became a turning point and other nations took notice. The Russian Federation chose a path of regaining its past military strength, while simultaneously becoming more involved in the Global South nations. Russia continues to reach out to Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, China, Greece, and Germany. The relationship with Germany is especially important. Chancellor Angela Merkel  understands that having business ties to Russia can maintain a functioning economy. The other European nations like the UK and France may not associate with a country that the US has tensions with to complicate their own alliances with America. Germany has in effect had its competitors removed from investment in Russia. This will  only increase Germany's power and it may become one of the major leading powers on the European continent . Russia and China have become closer in terms of economic and military collaboration. The world is not divided between a free world and a communist east. There continues to be a divide in foreign policy. Russia wants a Pan-Slavic revival and the US still wants to maintain a neoconservative world view. There is limited possibility for peace unless some perspectives change. If  Russia-US relations are to improve, NATO build up must cease and there has to be an agreement on both Ukraine and Syria. The myth of a new Cold War is nothing more than an excuse to initiate possible conflict with the Russian Federation. Such a conflict would be devastating and the world would not recover. The Cold War ended comparatively peaceful, but the nature of this US-Russia tension could result in a wider conflict.            

            

   

   

Zimbabwe Under Siege

Zimbabwe is undergoing a major political crisis. The military has appeared to have launched a coup and placed President Robert Mugabe under house arrest. This may have been temporary, because President Mugabe made a public appearance. There has clearly been an increase in political factionalism within ZANU-PF. Questions still remain about a successor to the 93 year old president and what the future of the nations will be. President Mugabe has support, yet some citizens took to the streets to call for his resignation. It is unclear just how many approve or disapprove of his rule during the current situation. The West and the mass media are already showing their jubilation and bias, hoping to see Zimbabwe collapse. The lugubrious fact about the crisis is that was internal. There is no evidence entirely to suggest that China, the US, or Zimbabwe's traditional adversary the UK had involvement. The military insisted that this was not coup even though soldiers were taking over public spaces and media outlets in the country. The reason for this explanation was probably an attempt to avoid sanctions from the African Union. It could also be that the military was attempting to stop Grace Mugabe from taking the presidency. The First Lady's rise has caused much tension and disarray in the political landscape in Zimbabwe. President Mugabe's refusal to name a successor also added to the current crisis in the country. It will be only a matter of time before the EU countries use this as an excuse to intervene, possibly with the force of NATO. South Africa is in a way preventing such an event by playing a mediating role between President Mugabe and the military. As the crisis progresses it is obvious that Zimbabwe is under siege by both domestic and foreign enemies. The President should be allowed to finish his term as designated by the constitution. If he is to pass on during his service in office, a successor will serve until elections are held. A leader should not be removed by an armed force or by street demonstrations. This promotes a political culture of mob violence and military rule. If President Mugabe is to be impeached there should be a legitimate reason under the law to do so. Arguing this legally would be a challenge. Robert Mugabe is one of the last leaders of the liberation struggle era and one of the few African leaders keeping Pan-African ideology alive. This new attack on Zimbabwe and its leader is a way to reverse the progress made from independence. 

           The heart of the problem is rooted in the dismissal of  two important political figures. Joice Muju was vice president serving from 2004 to 2014 and was in many regards a good candidate for a successor. However, the political ambitions of Grace Mugabe targeted officials that were close to President Mugabe's inner circle. She wanted to be the president of Zimbabwe and attempted to ruthlessly remove obstacles in her way. This calculated plan to seize power resulted in one fatal error. Removing Emmerson Mnangagwa as vice president sparked outrage among the military. He had been a veteran of the Rhodesian Bush War and earned much respect from the military establishment. Grace Mugabe does not have the same stature or support. While Grace built up a base of followers, many in the military establishment despised the idea of a Grace Mugabe presidency. She was head of the Women's Wing of ZANU-PF and has been First Lady since 1996.When Muju was removed this marked a point in which Grace Mugabe became more politically powerful. She almost began to resemble a Lady Macbeth like figure with in Zimbabwe's political system. It appears that after the military incident in November of 2017, that Grace has lost most of her political power. Her whereabouts are unknown, but there is indication she could still be under house arrest. There is a possibility that she may flee the country seeking asylum. Emmerson Mnangagwa currently has been in South Africa since his removal from the vice presidency. 

There is a power struggle for the presidency when a post-Mugabe Zimbabwe emerges. There remains uncertainty about who will run the country then. The ZANU-PF party is split among members who still support President Mugabe and other who believe that there should be transition to a successor. What must be avoided is a possible civil war that could emerge in a rapidly changing landscape. 

          President Robert Mugabe has become embattled. His fight is not just for the presidency, legacy, or  preservation of power; it is is for Zimbabwe's national sovereignty. Zimbabwe had to fight a long war of liberation against the British and white minority rule. The Ian Smith regime with its abuses, left many Zimbabweans in fear. Rape, torture, and murder by colonial settlers was common place. These were not the only crimes committed, but also the theft of land. During the 1960s  land was stolen by whites by means of force. The UK and the white minority government realized that they could no longer hold onto Zimbabwe. The Lancaster House Agreement was designed to redress the issue of stolen land. Years passed with limited action. The UK did not uphold its part of the agreement. This was when President Mugabe decided to retake what was rightfully property of the citizens of Zimbabwe. The year 2000 marked a decline in UK- Zimbabwe relations under Tony Blair. The US imposed sanctions over the controversial 2002 election. While that election had irregularities, the US was doing this for another reason. This was the early stages of America's new era of the War on Terrorism. This policy of aggressive war was targeting any stage that challenged US hegemony. Under a neoconservative foreign policy direction the US would attempt nation building projects and impose their version of a democratic system around the world. Zimbabwe became another target just like Cuba, Iran, Libya, and Iraq which would be invaded by 2003. Robert Mugabe had relations with various countries that the US either started conflicts with or was attempting to attack or undermine. Zimbabwe maintained close relations with the People's Republic of China and Iran. Zimbabwe was a close ally of Libya under Qaddafi. During the NATO invasion Robert Mugabe condemned the military action and called the death of both Muammar Qaddafi and US ambassador as tragic. Robert Mugabe's solidarity with Global South Nations made him unpopular among the EU-US block nations. When a nations refuses to submit to a more potent nation, it faces retaliation. If it were not for China's bilateral economic agreements, the economy of Zimbabwe would have been in an even worse condition. It should be remembered that when Zimbabwe was economically stable, whites controlled most of that wealth. Zimbabweans were excluded from the market place and were merely laborers in the colonial system.  

Zanu-PF was attempting to undo the damage caused by colonial rule. This meant giving the land back to the people and increasing productivity. Zimbabwe was making progress in tobacco production. The country continued to look for other countries to boost investment. Iran was one of the nations in which Zimbabwe wants to do business with. Robert Mugabe met with Hassan Rouhani to discuss trade agreements and possible long term political and cultural exchange. The conflicts occurring in the Middle East and the tension with Iran cause those who associate with it to be caught up in an expansive international conflict. Iran has been alienated by its Arab neighbors excluding Oman, Qatar, Syria, and Iraq. Zimbabwe realized that the oil rich nation could be helpful in terms of investment. Even though the two countries are on different political trajectories, this does not mean they cannot collaborate on common goals or concerns. 

Zimbabwe has an immense amount of natural resources, which include coal, chromium ore, platinum, gold, nickle, copper, iron ore, and diamonds. A Mugabe presidency will not allow Western countries to forcefully take such valuable commodities. The reason the West wants to see President Mugabe fall is so they can get access to those natural resources. They also want to prevent a strong alliance between African and Asian nations with could challenge the US-EU block. Although the European colonial empires are gone, the behavior and attitudes of  these nations has not disappeared. The UK, US, France, Italy, and Germany still believe they have the right to rule and subjugate people of color around the world. Robert Mugabe represents that older generation that took freedom from imperial oppressors. His life and actions have inspired many to continue to fight for the African continent and undermine neo-colonial projects. Some wonder why did he continue to run for president for so long. The more negative answer is that he is a power mad tyrant or authoritarian. This is an image that has been presented by the mainstream Western media, but fails to remember that there was a time in which there was power sharing with the Movement for Democracy. Zanu and Zapu were once harsh competitors, but formed one party under the framework envisioned by Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe. Other leaders are not so accommodating on the African continent. Yoweri Museveni, Idris Deby, and Omar Al-Bashir fit the description of true authoritarians. Robert Mugabe hardly falls into that category. Robert Mugabe continues to lead mainly, because he fears that Zimbabwe will revert back to its colonial past. The trepidation comes from a more belligerent US and a UK that is more xenophobic than ever. The fear of losing what was fought for is a real possibility. If Zimbabwe cannot solve its own internal problems, it invites foreign intervention. This thought has probably came to President Mugabe, who is determined to finish his term. 

        There has been international responses. South Africa wants to see a Zimbabwe which is stable and may not be entirely willing to see a transition occur. A swift change from an old to new administration could mean a large amount of refugees. South Africa under President Jacob Zuma has faced economic and social turmoil. It may not have the capacity to deal with such a large influx of refugees. This could lead to more xenophobic violence outbreaks. This has happened before in South Africa and at this moment Jacob Zuma  may not have the ability to address the the crisis. There has been discussion of the Mugabes going into exile. If this were to happen it may either be Angola or Namibia. Such a proposal would cause more of a controversy,because it will strain relations among the nations of the Southern African Development Community. The African Union must do all that it can to prevent violence or European interference. The street protests have thus so far have been peaceful, but are problematic. It is probable this will be used as a pretext for a US or UK invasion. The responsibility to protect has been used to abuse countries who do not follow Western foreign  policy  objectives. A forced Mugabe exit would certainly cause shock waves across Africa. Uganda, Chad, Sudan, South Sudan, and Mauritania would most likely become more oppressive thinking that there could be some form of continent wide regime change. Africa has been under siege and Zimbabwe is another nation under attack. The rise of Africom  and the NATO strike at Libya is evidence of  neocolonialism. Zimbabwe is already under sanctions from most EU countries. African nations still have normal relations with the country, while South Africa has its strongest support. Zimbabwe if it does not solve its own political crisis could become an area of proxy war between China and the United States. The US wants to stop China's advancement in Africa, by means of  military force and support from collaborator governments. It is unlikely that China would come to Zimbabwe's aid if the situation became violent. They did not come to Libya's aid and voted for UN resolution 1973. Unfortunately, internal instability will attract other world powers. The solution to this crisis may not even be President Mugabe himself. 

        Political factionalism has been a constant struggle for Zimbabwe since independence. ZANU-PF factions are fighting one another. This political party was formed out of two liberation organizations during the 1980s. ZANU and ZAPU were rivals. The Dissent's War  between 1982 to 1987 had the two liberation organizations at war to control the country. Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe reached a power sharing deal ending internal strife. The internal division is also related to ethnicity. Shona and Ndebele are still in a state of suspicion of one another. The one party state was established and modeled on a Tanzanian system to avoid possible ethnic conflict. Even with the unification of two liberation organizations there were problems with opposition groups. The Movement for Democracy became a major opposition party in the 2000s. Morgan Tsvangirai was seeking to win the presidency in 2013, but Mugabe got 61% of the vote. There was violence that broke out between MDC and ZANU-PF supporters. Another power sharing deal was reached preventing possible war. Zimbabwe may not be able to function on a Western style multiparty system. A imposed or forced removal of President Mugabe will result in a wider deterioration of the state. Political factionalism will escalate to open warfare, if there is no reasonable solution. The military is apparently seeking a means to govern while presenting a facade of civilian rule. Similar to how the military establishment functions in Thailand or Myanmar generals would still have massive influence in government. There also could be division in the military establishment of Zimbabwe. However, the National Zimbabwe War Veterans Association seems to have turned against President Mugabe. This sudden reversal began around 2016 and continued to erode a pivotal part of his base. The youth of the country are becoming restless and they are the future of the country. What should have been done was to mentor the youth wings of the party. The old guard should have molded new leaders that did not think in the same manner. The emphasis should be on unity, socialist principles of the party, and Pan-African ideology. These are values that should be presented to the public and youth to ensure a stable and prosperous Zimbabwe. Sadly, the country has descended into hostility and conflict. 

       The pathway to a peaceful solution has to involve several procedures. President Mugabe must finish his term. Removing him by military force or street protest encourages a future of unstable power transition. Power transition has been a challenge for African states since independence. When a longtime leader is removed or leaves office there is a level of disorder. A standard procedure and following the constitution will prevent mob violence or civil disturbance. If there is an issue with a president being in office too long, then term limits should be imposed. The number can vary, however it should be respected. If there remains a problem with electoral fraud, then there should be supervision under the African Union. Yet, national sovereignty must be observed. Other African nations should not interfere with the internal affairs of states. It could be that South Africa will have more influence in a weakened Zimbabwe. There is also a probability that Zambia and Mozambique may send troops with South Africa for stabilization efforts. This must be avoided. A civil war in Zimbabwe could escalate to a level similar to the Second Congolese Civil War. If there is to be an abrupt power transition, Joice Mujuru should be the successor. A  Grace Mugabe presidency would actually be authoritarian and oppressive. She should have no political future for inducing the political crisis that has developed. Emmerson Mnangagwa  would not be a suitable choice either.His military connections would surely mold the country in a junta type of government. If President Mugabe is able to avoid impeachment or removal from office, he should finally decide who will be his successor. This has been delayed for decades and it is time to make that choice. Zimbabwe's future seems uncertain, but it can have a positive one if citizens decide to make it so. Zimbabwe must be ready to fight, because its existence will be under attack.