Here we go again! Seven years after the World Food Programme helped to save Robert Mugabe’s political bacon by unilaterally and unconditionally deciding to feed his starving people, the UN agency is making the same mistake.

At the end of 2001 Zimbabwe’s leader was in trouble. Presidential elections were looming. The consequences of his land grab were becoming clear. After denying that hunger was imminent, Mugabe finally admitted that half a million Zimbabweans faced famine.

At this point the WFP stepped in to feed the country – but without an insistence on minimum conditions, such as an end to the land policy which created the crisis that donors sought to alleviate.

The outcome of the operation was predictable: food aid became institutionalised as the land grab continued. The WFP has fed millions of Zimbabweans and Mugabe has been cushioned from the consequences of his policies.

Seven years later history repeats itself. Mugabe is fighting for his political life. Elections are imminent. And he has been forced to admit that his country is starving. But again, help is at hand from the same source.

In a statement last week the WFP announced that it “plans to complete this month’s food distributions in Zimbabwe earlier than usual to avoid any overlap with the final run-up to the presidential and parliamentary elections on 29 March”. In other words, in time for Mr Mugabe to use the resources of the State to distribute the food as he deems fit.

The WFP claims that it has “zero tolerance for political interference . . . in the distribution of its food assistance,” a claim as pompous as it is hollow. For a start, it should be unacceptable to the WFP that reporters from the very countries who pay for the food should be banned from Zimbabwe. It is also unacceptable that election monitors are similarly proscribed.

No one underestimates the UN agency’s predicament. What if Mr Mugabe responds to a WFP attempt to impose conditions by choosing to let his people starve rather than accept foreign reporters, and the presence of independent monitors?

But there is another question to ask: if Mr Mugabe’s political life is in the balance, could these terms prove the straw that will break his back? If he agrees, the better the chance that democracy prevails on March 29. If he refuses, might this tip the scales towards his overthrow?

Selecting and applying the conditions that should accompany food aid is no easy task. But the record suggests that the naïve and unconditional generosity the WFP has displayed has done long-term harm, whatever short-term good.

Michael Holman is author of Fatboy and the Dancing Ladies

Times Recommends

• Strip away the figleaf and reveal naysayers
• Dave’n’George: there may be trouble ahead
• I do not accept that £64,000 a year for politicians is peanuts