I hope that children in school studying the origins of wars and the rise of dictators have been made to watch just how monsters happen — not through ignorance or weakness or some brand of mistake, but through deliberate cover-up and self-protection.

I hope they see with the rest of us that there is no mystery to how a tyrant, in the face of the world's media, can kill and bully his own people, destroy his own country, destabilise a continent, make a charade of democracy and be defended and protected by so-called democrats near him and around the world.

As usual, the liberal commentariat got it all wrong. Just as they always do. All those articles saying how mad, how 'imperialist', it would be for the west to intervene in Zimbabwe and advocating 'quiet diplomacy' as a way out of the Mugabe madness are now being hastily re-written saying that 'something must be done' by 'the international community'. Talk of intervention and regime change is in the air in the most unlikely of circles. As we have seen, the democratic process being taken up a dark alley and beaten senseless, it seems even the dullest commentator realises that platitudinous wishes that things will turn out all right in the end, don't mean a damn when dealing with someone like Mugabe.

It seems that the Colonel Blimps may have been on to something after all.

But, of course, in their trendy guilt-ridden way, they can't bring themselves to point the finger at the real culprits who have propped up the Harare junta: no, not former imperialist powers, but free, sovereign neighbouring African states.

First and foremost, Mugabe is their problem. Not Britain's. Not 'the west's'. Without the tacit approval — or at best indifference — of big brother South Africa (as well as other neighbouring countries), Mugabe would long ago have been a forgotten footnote in history.

But anti-colonial brother in arms had to be protected, democracy or no — even when millions of refugees are stumbling over your border.

Last week, liberals tried to cover their backs by citing Nelson Mandela's 'criticism' of Zimbabwe. Except, of course, it wasn't a direct condemnation of Mugabe's dictatorship. Indeed, Mandela didn't even mention Mugabe by name. In an around-the-world-in-80-sentences address to world leaders and celebrities such as Will Smith and Pierce Brosnan, Mandela was "saddened " by the "tragic failure of leadership in our neighbouring Zimbabwe ". That's it. I'm sure Mugabe will be well able to live with Mandela's 'devastating' indictment.

Mandela, like so many of the ruling elites which followed him into power, is still paying his dues to the maniac who funded so much of the anti-apartheid movement. Even as the maniac kills his own people.

Mandela's meaningless blah was worked up by a compliant media into a savage condemnation of what is happening in Zimbabwe. Indeed, those 'in the know' patiently explained to us that Mandela has kept silent for years so as not to undermine the South African government efforts at 'mediation' in Zimbabwe.

But what is there to mediate? Mugabe is a evil tyrant who has made his country a political, economic and moral basketcase. The opposition won the elections, both for parliament and presidency — fair and square, despite intimidation.

And the election was not some one-off little local difficulty, one disputed election. This is not 'hanging chad' country. Mugabe has been a blood-soaked tyrant for years. Zimbabwe has been an economic, political and moral madhouse for longer than the world wants to remember.

And now, with 'the international community' itching to show their revulsion at the UN, South African diplomats actively watered down a resolution explictly rejecting the democratic legitimacy on last week's stolen election — and by implication of the Zimbabwean regime.

Maybe this is what the liberals meant when they were advocating 'quiet diplomacy'.

With such good and unobtrusive neighbours, don't be surprised if Mugabe turns out in the end to be right and we find that only God can remove him from power.