For Mugabe is in Rome at the invitation of the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization, which is holding a conference on the international food crisis. He is also in Rome despite the fact that he has been formally forbidden from traveling to Europe by the European Union, which considers him persona non grata: For the past several years, he has beaten and murdered his political opponents in Zimbabwe so blatantly that even the Europeans noticed.
The root of Burma's humanitarian crisis is a political crisis. The root of Zimbabwe's humanitarian crisis is a political crisis, too. But because the United Nations was never set up to deal with political crises, it can't really address these humanitarian crises either.
Nevertheless, it seems that the Italians can't prevent Mugabe from being there this week. Since the summit is a U.N. event, U.N. rules take precedence over European or Italian border rules. This is not the first time Mugabe has taken advantage of this little loophole, either: He attended a U.N. food conference in Rome in 2002, during which he stayed at a five-star hotel on the Via Veneto, sent his wife out shopping and bragged about how his "land reform" program--i.e., the wholesale theft of land from white Zimbabwean farmers and its redistribution among political supporters--was going to enrich his nation's food supply.
It hasn't. According to Oxfam, 80 percent of Zimbabwe's population now lives on less than $1 a day, thanks to Mugabe's policies, and lacks access to basic foods and clean water. Inflation is at 100,000 percent, this year's harvest was poor, and Zimbabweans are fleeing their country in large numbers. Meanwhile, Mugabe is notorious for using food aid as a political weapon, distributing it only to those who reliably vote for him. Thus does his presence at a U.N. food summit contain layers of troubling irony. Stephen Smith, the Australian foreign minister and one of Mugabe's more vocal critics, put it less delicately: "Robert Mugabe turning up to a conference dealing with food security or food issues is, in my view, frankly obscene."
And the timing couldn't be worse: The United Nations is still (or should be) smarting from its recent failure to persuade Burma's generals--also notorious for using food aid as a political weapon--to accept any outside help. As a result, a month after Cyclone Nargis hit the Burmese coast, a quarter of a million or so Burmese are still not receiving a steady supply of food and water. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon did, after much wrangling, visit Burma, and the generals did, after much stalling, agree to allow a few foreign aid workers to enter the country. But even the highest-ranking U.N. food relief official recently conceded that " urgent work remains" to be done there. Translation: The regime still refuses to let relief workers travel to the afflicted region, still refuses to let others into the country, still refuses to let foreign ships land on the coast with aid.
In fact, the root of Burma's humanitarian crisis is a political crisis. The root of Zimbabwe's humanitarian crisis is a political crisis, too. But because the United Nations was never set up to deal with political crises, it can't really address these humanitarian crises either. Officially, the United Nations has to respect the decision of the Burmese government not to feed its people. Officially, it has to invite Mugabe to Rome, despite the E.U. ban. Indeed, one U.N. official justified Mugabe's presence on the grounds that the United Nations is "about inclusiveness, not exclusivity" and besides, the food issue is so serious and this week's food conference is so significant that "the rest is irrelevant."
That, of course, is nonsense: In this case it is "the rest"--the vicious dictatorship, the manipulation of agricultural policies for political ends, the fear and violence--that matters, not the rise in international commodity prices, the mass planting of crops for biofuels, or drought. To their credit, European leaders have tried to address "the rest" and put pressure on Mugabe by restricting his movements, shunning meetings he attends, seeking to demonstrate that his behavior is unacceptable. Though not especially effective so far, this isn't a pointless policy: Mugabe clearly cares how Europe treats him or he wouldn't go out of his way to defy its ban.
The European boycott might work better, however, if the United Nations didn't help the Zimbabwean leader flout it. Indeed, the United Nations should join it. If this really is a serious food conference, after all, then an egregious abuser of his own country's food policy has no place at the table.
Anne Applebaum is an adjunct fellow at AEI.