Unbeknownst to the rest of the world, the United Kingdom is at war. This claim by Robert Mugabe, president of Zimbabwe, comes on the heels of intense criticism of Mugabe’s regime and his increasingly dictatorial approach to leading the African nation. Mugabe claims that since the U.K. has sliced aid to its former colony of Rhodesia and murmurs about sanctions against the country of 13 million people, that the U.K. is engaging in an act of war.

On Mugabe’s part, the claim is pre-election hyperbole that will only hurt Zimbabweans during his take-no-prisoners re-election campaign.

Granted, Zimbabwe and its former colonial ruler had a less than amicable breakup in the 1960s. Unlike many other African states who gained independence from European colonial powers at the same time, the U.K. brokered a constitutional deal ensuring that the white minority – largely comprised of farmers of British descent – would still be in control after Zimbabwean independence.

When Zimbabweans wrestled power away from the local white majority, the 1979 free elections produced a new head of state – Robert Mugabe.

During the 1980s, Zimbabwe was considered to be one of the most progressive nations in sub-Saharan Africa, a modest accomplishment considering its neighbors – Angola and Mozambique, both enmeshed in bloody civil wars for over a generation, and South Africa and Namibia, who epitomized white minority rule.

Free elections and term limitations are aberrations in many of the nascent African states, and Mugabe represents a class of leaders who were the first and only heads of state in their respective nations. The freedoms surrendered to Mugabe’s Leviathan include basic access to land, free press, and an impartial judiciary. Many of the large white-owned commercial farms have been invaded by Mugabe supporters – veterans of Zimbabwe’s army – resulting in the death or flight of many of the major agricultural producers in the country. While a program for land reform, including the transfer of millions of white-owned acres to Zimbabwe’s landless poor, was drawn up by the government, the paramilitary groups have Mugabe’s blessing to overrun the commercial farms which produce most of the country’s food.

Mugabe has eliminated the majority of non-government publications, using the national media as his mouthpiece. In 2001, he barred foreign journalists from the country. His policies give impetus to persecuting those who speak or write critically about his government.

This week, an independent journalist shuttling in and out of his native Zimbabwe characterized the pre-election state of the country as “bonkers.”

Evidence of Mugabe’s far-reaching influence include justices who lost their jobs for judgments not perceived as being pro-Mugabe. One of Africa’s most promising states sank into a dictatorship where opposition parties, free speech and due process are a dream.

With March elections just around the corner and the rest of the world pre-occupied with other terrorists, Mugabe may see himself as untouchable. Frozen U.K. and E.U. aid packages give him even more authority within his borders as he blames the state of war with the U.K. for his nation’s woes.

It is critical that international election oversight is in place to gauge how the elections are conducted. Then the international community must be prepared to deal with the results, even if it involves trying Mugabe in an international court. Sanctions are not always a solution for convincing an entrenched dictator to change – Fidel and Saddam are proof of that.

The United Nations monitored free elections in Zimbabwe in 1979.

Until Zimbabwe can establish its own system to ensure a more just government, election oversight there is essential to prevent Zimbabwe’s slide into more tyranny and chaos.

Rachel Faber Machacha is a graduate student in international development studies from Emmetsburg.