The ZIMBABWE Situation Our thoughts and prayers are with Zimbabwe
- may peace, truth and justice prevail.
Back to Index
Back to the Top
Back to Index

This is a full transcript of the statement issued at the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers' meeting in Abuja, Nigeria on 6th September 2001.  We understand that these resolutions are binding, but at the time of sending this message, it is not clear if the agreement has been signed.

 

M R Vowles
CFU Deputy Director (Regions)
 

COMMONWEALTH FOREIGN MINISTERS’ MEETING, ABUJA, 6 SEPTEMBER 2001

CONCLUSIONS

  1. The Meeting of the Committee of Commonwealth Foreign Ministers on Zimbabwe met in Abuja on 6 September 2001 at the invitation of HE Olusegun Obasanjo, President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Ministers from Canada, Jamaica, Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe and the United Kingdom, as well as the High Commissioner for Australia to the United Kingdom representing the Australian Foreign Minister, and the Commonwealth Secretary General attended. The Nigerian Foreign Minister, Sule Lamido, chaired the meeting.

  2. The meeting recognised that as a result of historical injustices, the current land ownership and distribution needed to be rectified in a transparent and equitable manner. It also agreed on the following:

  1. Land is at the core of the crisis and cannot be separated from other issues of concern to the Commonwealth, such as the rule of law, respect for human rights, democracy and the economy. A programme of land reform is, therefore, crucial to the resolution of the problem.

  2. such a programme of land reform must be implemented in a fair, just and sustainable manner, in the interest of all the people of Zimbabwe, within the law and constitution of Zimbabwe;

  3. the crisis in Zimbabwe also has political and rule of law implications, which must be addressed holistically and concurrently. The situation In Zimbabwe poses a threat to the socio-economic stability of the entire sub-region and the continent at large;

  4. the need to avoid a division within the commonwealth, especially at the forthcoming CHOGM in Brisbane, Australia, over the situation in Zimbabwe; and

  5. the orderly implementation of land reform can only be meaningful and sustainable if carried out with due regard to human rights, rule of law, transparency and democratic principles. The commitment of the Government of Zimbabwe is, therefore, crucial to this process.

THE WAY FORWARD

  1. The Committee recognises the need for the adoption of confidence-building measures to ensure the implementation of the conclusions of the meetings. In this regard, the meeting welcomed the assurances given by the Zimbabwe delegation as follows:

  1. commitment to the Harare Commonwealth Declaration and the Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme on the Harare Declaration;

  2. there will be no further occupation of farm lands;

  3. to speed up the process by which farms that do not meet set criteria, are de-listed;

  4. for farms that are not designated, occupiers would be moved to legally acquired lands;

  5. acceleration of discussions with the UNDP, with a view to reaching agreement as quickly as possible;

  6. commitment to restore the rule of law to the process of land reform programme;

  7. commitment to freedom of expression as guaranteed by the Constitution of Zimbabwe and to take firm action against violence and intimidation; and

  8. invitation by the Foreign Minister of Zimbabwe to the Committee to visit Zimbabwe.

  1. The meeting agreed, in the overall context of the statement, that the way forward is for Zimbabwe’s international partners:

  1. to engage constructively with the UNDP and the Government of Zimbabwe in pursuing an effective and sustainable land reform programme, on the basis of the UNDP proposals of December 2000;

  2. to respond positively to any request from the Government of Zimbabwe in support of the electoral process; and

  3. to continue to contribute to poverty reduction programmes for the benefit of the people of Zimbabwe;

and that those partners present (Australia, Canada and United Kingdom), would actively pursue these objectives.

  1. The meeting also welcomed the re-affirmation of the United Kingdom’s commitment to a significant financial contribution to such a land reform programme and its undertaking to encourage other international donors to do the same.

    APPRECIATION

  2. The meeting expressed its profound gratitude and appreciation to President Olusegun Obasanjo for his continuing efforts at finding a durable solution to this problem. It also expressed gratitude to the Chairman, Foreign Minister Sule Lamido, for the excellent manner in which he conducted the proceedings. Lastly, it expressed gratitude to the Government and people of Nigeria for the hospitality and the conducive atmosphere provided for the meeting. The spirit of camaraderie, informality, honesty and forthrightness that was brought to bear on the proceedings of the meeting, was also recognised as being consistent with the best Commonwealth tradition.

  3. Finally, the Committee agreed to convey to President Obasanjo its willingness to hold further consultations, if he so desires.

 
Visit the CFU Website www.mweb.co.zw/cfu
 
DISCLAIMER
The opinions in this message do not necessarily reflect those of the CFU which does not accept any legal responsibility for them.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
Clarence Page is a black liberal from Chicago.  Page hasvisited southern Africa twice, most recently last month andboth times spent some time in Zim. 

-----------------------------------------------------------

PASSING UP A CHANCE TO MAKE OUR CASE

Clarence Page
-----------------------------------------------------------

     So, the United States is getting criticized for walking
out of the United Nations conference on racism in Durban,
South Africa? Look who's talking.

     Among our critics, for example, was the representative
from Zimbabwe.

     This is a country, it is important to note, whose
president, Robert Mugabe, sent troops assisted by North
Korea to slaughter thousands of ethnic-minority Matabele in
his own land in the early 1980s a few years after he came to
power.

     Most regrettably, he got away with it. The world mostly
looked the other way. One big reason: People wanted
Zimbabwe, formerly the breakaway British colony of Rhodesia,
to succeed so as to encourage its larger and more important
neighbor South Africa to end its apartheid system.

     More recently, as Mr. Mugabe clings to power against
growing opposition, he has played the race card to use white
farmers as scapegoats for his once-prosperous country's
economic woes.

     Yet, Mr. Mugabe's mouthpiece has the gall to denounce
the United States for allegedly shirking its duties. The
U.N. conference on racism should have been denouncing Mr.
Mugabe.

     Such is the nature of many of our critics. The United
States and Israel pulled out in a dispute over anti-Israeli
language in a draft document the conference was debating.
Egypt, Syria and Iran led other Arab and Islamic states in
insisting on harsh language that, among other jabs,
described the Zionist movement as "based on racial
superiority."

     Iran's Islamic fundamentalist government knows about
tolerance. Women there are jailed or beaten if they do
something uppity like walk unescorted on the street or
appear in public without being covered from head to toe.

     And just try to give away Bibles in Afghanistan.
Preaching a non-Islamic faith will get you jailed if you're
a visitor and executed if you're a citizen.

     And how about Sudan? Non-Arab and non-Muslim civilians
in the country's war-torn southern regions continue to be
captured and sold into slavery, largely to Arab buyers in
the Persian Gulf region.

     Nor did the United Nations rush to condemn the
imprudence of Moammar Gadhafi when he urged Africans to
drive white people "back to Europe" earlier this year.

     Such is the diversity of leaders with whom we Americans
find ourselves dealing in the international arena. They
didn't write the book on intolerance, but some of them write
new sequels every day. That does not mean we shouldn't deal
with them. It merely means we need to be aware of whom we
are dealing with and act accordingly.

     The World Conference Against Racism was organized to
come up with recommendations for new initiatives to counter
a long list of abuses. They include racism, genocide, ethnic
cleansing, discrimination against low-caste Hindus and
prejudice in Western Europe against migrants and refugees.

     Like AIDS, these are important problems to rally the
world against. Unlike AIDS, they are not easily defined.
Every country defines race and racism differently. This is
how some countries that are non-democratic homelands for
Islam somehow manage to stand with a straight face and
condemn Israel for founding a democratic homeland for the
Jews. Hey, guys, you can't have it both ways.

     Jesse Jackson and other critics of the pullout say the
anti-Israel language was merely a convenient excuse for the
Bush administration to dodge touchier issues closer to home,
like reparations for slavery.

     If so, the Bush administration is hardly alone in its
reluctance to bite into that hornet's nest. Some black
Africans are reluctant, too.

     Senegal President Abdoulaye Wade, for example, noted
with remarkable candor that slavery was an equal-opportunity
industry. Just about every country in the world has
practiced it, included some of Mr. Wade's own ancestors.

     True enough. Questions of race and history are seldom
as simple as black and white. That's why, despite the absurd
positions taken by some of our foreign critics, it is
regrettable that the Bush administration chose to withdraw
rather than to argue.

     If anyone could argue America's positions on racism,
ethnicity and prejudice with moral authority, it is this
nation's first black secretary of state.

     As a visible symbol of the opportunities America
offers, despite its lingering divisions over race, U.S.
Secretary of State Colin Powell doesn't even have to speak
to deliver an important message. His position in this
nation's top national security post says: Yes, this country
has problems with race and prejudice like the rest of the
world does; but, unlike too many other countries, Americans
are making progress.

     Our progress, as long as we keep making it, has a lot
to teach the world, if it is willing to listen.

     Unfortunately, it's hard for the world to listen,
unless we are willing to talk.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
September 07, 2001

A View from the Pan.

Can this really be true - a climb down by Mugabe on the land issue forced by
African leaders acting in concert with major western countries? It's an
astonishing development but there were signs that it was coming. The
statement by Msika on the land issue on Wednesday, a feeling on the invaded
farms that the ground was not so secure under their feet any more, subtle
changes in statements from the state run media in Zimbabwe.  Then there was
the build up - the Queen calling in Mr Blair for a talk on the situation in
Zimbabwe and what to do about Mugabe and Chogum. The Foreign Ministers
meeting in London, the press conference before hand and then the flight out
to Abuja on a RAF jet.

On top of all this the EU suddenly found its voice and was threatening
sanctions. The Commonwealth started to ask if it was not time to suspend
Zimbabwe from its membership. All this following on from the continued
progress in the US of the Zimbabwe Democracy Bill. But in the final analysis
it was not these international efforts that made the difference - they might
have helped but it was the African leaders themselves who engineered the
breakthrough. I can remember Smith saying in 1976 - "I can say no to the
world, but not to South Africa". It's strange that the same coalition of
forces should again be brought to bear on a solution to a political logjam
in Zimbabwe.

Now comes the hard part - how to make Mugabe keep his word, how to hold his
nose to the grindstone over the next few months?  This is the task of the
regional leaders, made easier by this preliminary agreement but still not a
given, when you know how Mugabe has manipulated the regional leadership in
the past. That history now stands against him of course - they know what to
expect from this most slippery of characters.

The text of the agreement is astonishing in its frankness and direct
language. It also goes much further than was expected, Mugabe must remove
the squatters from farms not scheduled for resettlement on a legal basis, he
must go back to basics and start a transparent process of land acquisitions
and settlement on a properly planned basis. He must respect all the ruling
of his own Supreme Court on the issue.

However the agreement is more silent on the wider issues of governance. It
covers respect for the media and is silent on the issue of democracy. We
trust that this oversight will be rectified when the SADC leaders come to
Harare for their summit next week. This would seem to be phase 2 of this
operation. Mbeki has always made this a central point of his own views on
Zimbabwe - its up to the Zimbabwe people to choose their leaders and they
must be given the chance to do so. It is in this area that the next phase is
so crucial. Left to his own devices, Mugabe simply cannot be trusted with
the electoral process. Vote rigging, intimidation of rural traditional
leaders and worse will be the order of the day - and international electoral
supervision of the actual voting procedure is not enough.

What is required is a clear agreement providing for the following: -

1. The appointment of an independent, professional electoral commission with
an adequate budget which will be given the task of running the presidential
election next year. It will take over the process immediately from Mr Mudede
and his collection of goons in the Ministry of Home Affairs and be fully
responsible and accountable to the Parliament of Zimbabwe.
2. Agreement to abandon the hopeless voters roll - at least a quarter of all
voters on the roll are dead and a further 10 per cent have emigrated. Until
we can repair this damage, the presidential election should be held on the
same basis as the 1980 elections - treat the country as one constituency and
allow all citizens to vote where they live.
3. Provide for independent supervision of the state media - perhaps through
the electoral commission and grant equal access to the state controlled
media for all candidates. Lift all restrictions on the international media
immediately.
4. Allow full international supervision of the campaign and voting in the
presidential campaign, such supervision to begin at least three moths before
the date of the election.

Then let the people of Zimbabwe decide who is going to govern this country
next year. They will do the rest and there can be no doubt that the armed
forces and the civil service will accept the outcome. What a shot in the arm
this would be for the African Renaissance.

Back to the Top
Back to Index
 

Zimbabwe Farmers Hopeful

Friday September 7, 2001  11:00 pm

From  The Gruniad [UK]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/breakingnews/International/0,3561,1155997,00.html

HARARE, Zimbabwe (AP) - White farmers were hopeful Friday that an internationally brokered deal to pay them for seized land would end two years of political violence in Zimbabwe.

But there was no public word from President Robert Mugabe, who has reneged on agreements in the past, on the deal arranged by the British Commonwealth - Britain and its former colonies.

Zimbabwe agreed after a day of crisis talks Thursday in Abuja, Nigeria, to ``restore the rule of law to the process of land reform.''

``I think it is very positive,'' said Colin Cloete, president of the Commercial Farmers Union. ``From what I've heard, it is a step in the right direction ... It augurs well for the future.''

But when Nigerian Foreign Minister Sule Lamido arrived in Harare on Friday night to brief Mugabe about the accord, Mugabe was not in the country.

Zimbabwe's Foreign Minister Stan Mudenge said Mugabe would meet Lamido on Sunday, but did not specify where he was in the meantime.

Across Zimbabwe, ruling party militants have occupied more than 1,700 white-owned farms since March 2000, spurred by a government campaign to seize 4,600 farms owned by whites and give the land to blacks. The targeted farms make up about 95 percent of the land owned by whites.

At least nine white farmers and dozens of opposition supporters have died in clashes since June. Mugabe has described the occupations as ``a minor trespass'' and a legitimate protest against unfair land ownership by the white minority.

The often-violent land occupations have disrupted agricultural production in the farming-based economy. International relief groups have forecast severe food shortages by the end of the year.

Under the pact, Britain and other countries agree to bear the cost of compensating white farmers. The United Nations Development Program will work with Zimbabwe's government to pursue ``effective and sustainable land reform.''

In return, Zimbabwe promises to end the illegal occupation of white-owned farms that have not been ``designated'' for acquisition by the government.

The accord also commits Zimbabwe to broader political reforms, including guaranteeing freedom of expression and pledging ``to take firm action against violence and intimidation.''

Mudenge, the Zimbabwean foreign ministers, told journalists the accord meant satisfying white farmers' demands for ``full and fair'' compensation for land earmarked by the government for blacks.

Farmers' leaders said hundreds of farms could be reprieved under the deal.

``At a glance, it looks like a good basis to start from, but there has to be proper implementation,'' an official with the Commercial Farmers Union said on condition of anonymity.

In Zimbabwe's eastern city of Mutare, the country's main opposition leader said land redistribution could only be done by legal means.

``We hope Mugabe will refrain from this violence,'' Morgan Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic Change told reporters.

But some opposition leaders remained skeptical

``It is foolish for the British to think that if you tempt Mugabe with ... pounds he is going to abandon violence,'' said Tendai Bite, an official with Tsvangirai's party.

At the talks in Nigeria, African leaders - fearful that violence in Zimbabwe could spill across borders - condemned Mugabe's land-redistribution program for the first time.

``Africa cannot afford another war, not least a racial war or one with racial undertones,'' Lamido warned.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said: ``Ultimately what we have written on paper is not important ... It depends on how events unfold'' in Zimbabwe.

A Commonwealth leaders' meeting in Australia in October will review how Zimbabwe carries out the deal, Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said.

``It is now up to Zimbabwe to honor and implement the commitments it has made,'' Downer said.
 




Back to the Top
Back to Index

Poverty Turns Voters Against Ruling Party


Financial Gazette (Harare)

via allafrica.com

September 6, 2001
Posted to the web September 7, 2001

Abel Mutsakani
Chikomba

Forty-year-old Josiah Manomano is a bitter man. He has lost his job, he has five mouths to feed and he has no pension to fall back on.

But Manomano's plight is not the only sad story in Chikomba, where ZANU PF's Bernard Makokove is pitted in two weeks' time against Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) candidate Oswald Ndanga to fill the parliamentary seat left vacant by the death of Chenjerai Hunzvi, the late leader of the war veterans' association.


At 35, Manomano's friend Ezekiel Maromo should be at the prime of his working life but he says he has also become redundant because the giant Chitungwiza-based Cone Textiles folded six years ago due to Zimbabwe's harsh economic climate.

"We have become like ticks that continue to suck on a dead dog until they are also buried with the dog," lamented Maromo, now one of the village elders.

Said Manomano: "All of us here agree that life has become unbearable, but some say we should stand by ZANU PF even when things are collapsing like this."

Manomano, like Maromo, also became redundant after the small bakery he worked for in Bulawayo collapsed eight years ago.

With no job and no pension, Manomano has changed from baking bread to moulding bricks to raise money to send his children to school.

Manomano swore that ZANU PF could only win the upcoming parliamentary by-election in Chikomba and next year's presidential election through violence and intimidation.

Even staunch supporters of President Robert Mugabe such as Cecilia Ngoni agree that life has become unbearable in the rural areas.

Ngoni, who said she will vote for Mugabe next year, resignedly agreed that the ZANU PF government could have done more for people in her district in the 21 years it has been in power.

"It was good for the government to build the new schools and clinics for us, but they should have done more to develop the rural areas," Ngoni said.

At independence in 1980, Mugabe's government sponsored several development projects in the rural areas that were the envy of neighbouring countries.

But mismanagement, corruption and lack of vision have destroyed whatever social, educational and health developments the government poured money into.

Zhenje Business Centre, deep in Chikomba communal lands, is one such example of the decay that has set in the rural areas.

The business centre, more than 200 km southeast of the capital Harare, vividly illustrates the dereliction and abject poverty that now pervade Zimbabwe's sprawling communal lands.

While Mugabe and his officials offer various explanations for Zimbabwe's economic woes - including "a conspiracy by British enemies" - poverty and underdevelopment have taken their toll on the thousands of small rural centres such as Zhenje.

It is quite clear to any visitor to Zhenje that the majority of the households that surround it - or in any other rural area in Zimbabwe for that matter - no longer meet the minimum food requirements, even according to the government's own figures.

Officially, 75 percent of Zimbabweans now live below the poverty line, one of the highest such rates in the world.

It is at small business centres such as Zhenje that the effects of Zimbabwe's economic collapse are quite evident. Two of the four grocery shops here have closed down due to lack of business.

Growth points such as Zhenje were built to serve as centres of development in the communal lands. Hundreds of technical colleges and schools were built to equip the rural people with skills and feed these centres.

But failed economic reforms and the current economic crisis have left most of the rural infrastructure dilapidated because the government has no money for repair work. It has also left thousands of trained young peasants with no jobs.

The signs show that the plight of the villagers is only going to get worse.

The MDC, taking advantage of the grinding poverty and economic malaise, is building up its campaign in Chikomba on the swelling public discontent with Mugabe's administration caused by the economic hardships.

"We are explaining to the people how 21 years of ZANU PF mismanagement and corruption have destroyed the economy," said Piniel Denga, the coordinator of the MDC's campaign in Chikomba.

Denga, whose house was stoned by alleged ZANU PF youths two weeks ago, said political violence had forced his party to resort to door-to-door campaigns carried out mostly in the cover of darkness.

"ZANU PF cannot explain to the people why they are poor and it is now resorting to violence and intimidation," he said.

Bright Makunde, ZANU PF's political commissar for Mashonaland East province which includes Chikomba, dismissed the allegations.

"We have told our supporters to wage a peaceful campaign. Those who allege we are responsible for violence only want to tarnish our party's image," he said.

While admitting that people were facing extreme hardships, Maku-nde said ZANU PF would explain how its fast-track land reforms were designed to empower the people economically.

In two weeks' time, it will be proved in Chikomba whether ZANU PF can still convince the people that land reform will address their hunger or whether growing poverty will turn the electorate against the governing party.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
Please note that this article does not necessarily reflect the views of the
Movement for Democratic Change.

August 26, 2001

A View from the Pan.

This year South Africa will have a gross national income of about US$140
billion. Zimbabwe will have a gross income of about US$5 billion. That makes
our GNI 3.6 per cent of the GNI of South Africa. It used to be about 10 per
cent of the GNI of South Africa, but we have shrunk recently due to the
determined efforts of our government to make us all poor.

But as Mugabe shrinks and Mbeki grows, the power of this regional minnow to
inflict real damage to its neighbours seems to increase exponentially!  Just
look at what we have done so far this year - we have pulled the Rand down
from its lofty heights to 8.45 to 1 against the US dollar this past week. In
effect that has cost South Africans US$14 billion in hard currency spending
power in the year 2001 - 2,8 times the total value of the Zimbabwe economy!
South Africa has to aim to grow by 6 per cent per annum to meet the
aspirations of its people and this is thought to be well within their
capacity. In 2001, we will hold down their growth to about half that
target - costing South Africa US$4,2 billion in economic growth. In addition
we have so scared the international investing community that they have
halved the inflow of FDI (foreign direct investment) in 2001, costing South
Africans at least US$2 billion.  The total cost to South Africa of the
Mugabe meltdown programme in this year - US$20 billion or just short of
US$500 for each South African - about 15 per cent of their average incomes
per capita.

Add to that the impact on Botswana - a sharp reduction in tourism, loss of
income from transit traffic and a total withdrawal of FDI due to regional
insecurity.  Then Mozambique - suffering from a 40 per cent decline in
traffic on its railways and through its ports, tourism shrinking and further
investment to continue its recovery virtually impossible to secure. Then
Zambia, much the same but now also blighted by rising prices and further
instability because of its links to Zimbabwe and its proximity to the Congo
and Angola. Taking all of these factors into account, it would not be
difficult to estimate that the Mugabe syndrome will cost the SADC region at
least US$30 billion in the current year - 10 times the total inflow of aid
to the region and exacerbating poverty and inhibiting growth throughout the
region. Not bad for a minnow with a GNI of only US$5 billion!

Its no wonder that an elephant called Tito Mboweni came down to my Pan to
drink yesterday and was in such a foul mood that he beat up an old anthill
with the remarks that enough is enough! How much longer do we have to
tolerate this regional pipsqueak and his nutty mouthpiece?

I listened this morning to the Voice of America - not my usual station as I
find them too much like the propaganda arm of the American administration.
What caught my attention was a programme of 30 minutes duration on the
Zimbabwe crisis. The two professors on the programme - one from Harvard and
the other from a think tank in Washington DC both said that the Zimbabwe
situation was one of transition from the Mugabe era. They also said that
what would follow would be a humanitarian and economic crisis of some
considerable dimensions which would require the full attention of the USA.
It was encouraging to hear such informed debate on this situation and to
hear first hand what the US is thinking. I hope Mugabe was listening or will
get a transcript. The only blot on the programme was a statement by the
person conducting the interview who said, "white farmers own 95per cent of
the arable land". If ever there was a lie that stuck, it is this one!

Just to repeat the situation once more - large scale white farmers in the
traditional sense, farm about 8 million of the 39 million hectares that make
up the surface area of Zimbabwe. They own less than 20 per cent of every
category of land (there are 5 - ranging from 5 - arid to 1 -intensive
agriculture) except for category 2 where they control about 60 per cent of
the land. Black farmers or large agro industrial concerns own the remaining
4 million hectares of commercial land. These white farmers employ a third of
the work force in the country and generate 40 per cent of its exports. Their
staff enjoys a standard of living that is 3 times better than the living
standards in the communal or peasant farming districts. Some 1,8 million
people live on this land - a density of land settlement that is virtually
the same as in the communal areas where the land is said to be overcrowded
and poor. The main difference is productivity.

Government has now designated for compulsory occupation by its own thugs and
thieves, 10,7 million hectares of land - virtually every white owned farm
has been listed. The "settlement" of Zanu thugs and thieves on this land is
illegal, the rights of the owners and their workforce are being totally
ignored and in the process they are being killed, beaten, their wives raped
and the personal property destroyed. The objective, to hold onto power at
any cost, because if Zanu is beaten in the presidential election it's the
end of the road and jail or exile for the majority of this collection of
political clowns.

Do not think they are not clever - the more I see of what they are doing and
how they are looting the wealth of the nation, I am astonished at their
ingenuity. If only they used this capacity for the betterment of the people
and in the pursuit of the real values of humanity, what a power for good
they could have been. Instead they will retire into history as one of the
more shameful episodes of African history, one which will surely encourage
historians to have a little sympathy for the attempt by Smith and his
cohorts to stop Mugabe coming to power in 1980.

Just to give you one or two glimpses into how they are looting ahead of
their demise. The fuel industry is charging up to Z$72 per litre of fuel.
Some Z$36 per litre is an unexplained premium over strictly market factors -
Z$38 000 000 000 per annum. This huge flow of liquid cash is being tapped
off in three ways - hard currency premiums being paid to suppliers which are
being paid into the personal accounts of those in power overseas (US$30 per
tonne at the last calculation or US$44 per annum). The second method is that
they are paying huge premiums on both rail and pipeline tariffs - both
systems controlled in part by Zanu people and then they are accumulating
billions of local dollars in the accounts of the National Oil Company which
are now finding their way into the parallel market in search of scarce
foreign exchange. The foreign exchange they are buying is then being
repatriated abroad. Some of the local dollars are also being used to fund
their political activities and to further expand the economic interests of
Zanu PF in Zimbabwe.

The parallel market for foreign exchange is a deliberate policy initiative
by the government. Despite their protestations, there is growing evidence
not only of their tacit approval of the system but also their use of the
system. Ministers are known to be selling foreign exchange and even Zanu PF
sells foreign exchange purchased at the official rate of 55 to 1 for the US
dollar, on the parallel market when they want some cash.

If you take a very careful look at the tobacco situation you will see how
they are using that industry to support their own interests and key economic
players in the private sector - some of whom are white, but that is another
story!


Back to the Top
Back to Index

Good news ­ but Zimbabwe's troubles are not over

Kaizer Nyatsumba
From The Independent [UK]
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=92921

'Mugabe's behaviour has been an embarrassment to African leaders trying to create a positive image'

08 September 2001

Most reasonable people will be delighted with the breakthrough on Zimbabwe reached at the pre-Commonwealth summit talks in Abuja, Nigeria this week. They will be relieved that, after 18 terrible months during which more than 100 people have died and the country brought to near ruin, there is now the possibility that peace might return and crucial land reform proceed legally.

The deal will be welcomed by democrats who value the rule of law and believe that differences have to be resolved through mature, constructive dialogue. More relieved will be Zimbabwe's neighbours in southern Africa and Africans in general, because President Robert Mugabe's irrational behaviour during this period has been a major embarrassment at a time when African leaders desperately wanted to create a new, positive image for the continent.

In addition to causing further damage to the country's own ailing economy, the widespread harassment of opposition supporters and white farmers also stood to affect other countries in the region. Not only did it impact on neighbouring countries' investment prospects, but it directly affected South Africa's currency, with the rand's woes worsening each time the situation in Zimbabwe got uglier.

Terrible as it has been, the Zimbabwean crisis also offered African leaders an opportunity to demonstrate that they are serious when they talk about a new Africa which values democracy and is intolerant of dictatorships. It was an opportunity to show that they will no longer come to the defence of despots in their midst.

This they have done first by isolating Mr Mugabe at the last Organisation of African Unity summit in Zambia, and then at last month's Southern African Development Community meeting in Malawi, where they set up a high-powered committee of heads of states to liaise closely with Mr Mugabe and talk to all important players in his country with a view to helping restore peace and stability.

But will the agreement stick? Will Mr Mugabe honour the accord, and should the international community's attention now wander off to other trouble spots around the world, with Zimbabwe no longer a problem?

Obviously, Zimbabwe has a serious land problem, and Harare has been right to be concerned about it. There has never once been any question of that. That is why the news that Britain will finally honour its commitment to help Zimbabwe deal with its land problem is most welcome.

What has riled some of us has been the flagrant violation of human rights, the illegal land seizures and the rank opportunism of the Mugabe government, which suddenly remembered the land inequity once a new opposition party seriously challenged for power.

The chances are that the systematic targeting of white farmers will indeed cease following the Abuja agreement. After all, President Mugabe has now won a major public relations victory insofar as he will be able to argue, in the course of next year's presidential campaign, that he managed to force Britain and "other international donors" to finance land reform. He will no doubt boast, probably correctly, that such finance would not have been forthcoming had he not unleashed his "war veterans" on the farmers.

However, the chances of the other important things contained in the agreement being honoured are very slim. After all, Mr Mugabe's real problem has been neither whites nor land inequity. These were merely a sop to black Zimbabweans, most of whom are worse off today than they were at independence in 1980, to create the impression that he was concerned about their plight and was doing something about it.

Instead, the lawlessness of the past 18 months was a direct consequence of the coming onto the scene of a new party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), which seriously challenged for power in a country where Mr Mugabe's Zanu-PF was not used to opposition. That was the real problem. Hence the concerns correctly cited by the Commonwealth – the rule of law, respect for human rights, democracy and the economy – are unlikely to be addressed satisfactorily, especially since there is that crucial presidential poll in which Mr Mugabe will be challenged for the first time since he became president.

The young MDC gave Zanu-PF quite a scare in last year's parliamentary elections, and may even have won had there not been widespread intimidation. Mr Mugabe and his party will once again be tempted to resort to the same tricks to get him re-elected.

In the unlikely event that he tries to comply with all the implied conditions in the accord, Mr Mugabe might actually be hoist with his own petard. There is no guarantee that the so-called war veterans he encouraged to break the law will co-operate when he now tells them to desist from actions he applauded until this week. If he were then to play tough, getting them arrested for intimidating farmers or opposition supporters, they might well turn against him.

The international community, then, should continue to keep a watchful eye on events in Zimbabwe, and definitely send delegations at least three months before the presidential elections to monitor the situation.

Back to the Top
Back to Index
September 07, 2001

Can this really be true - a climb down by Mugabe on the land issue forced by African leaders acting in concert with major western countries? It's an astonishing development but there were signs that it was coming. The statement by Msika on the land issue on Wednesday, a feeling on the invaded farms that the ground was not so secure under their feet any more, subtle changes in statements from the state run media in Zimbabwe.  Then there was the build up - the Queen calling in Mr Blair for a talk on the situation in Zimbabwe and what to do about Mugabe and Chogum. The Foreign Ministers meeting in London, the press conference before hand and then the flight out to Abuja on a RAF jet.

On top of all this the EU suddenly found its voice and was threatening sanctions. The Commonwealth started to ask if it was not time to suspend Zimbabwe from its membership. All this following on from the continued progress in the US of the Zimbabwe Democracy Bill. But in the final analysis it was not these international efforts that made the difference - they might have helped but it was the African leaders themselves who engineered the breakthrough.

Now comes the hard part - how to make Mugabe keep his word, how to hold his nose to the grindstone over the next few months?  This is the task of the regional leaders, made easier by this preliminary agreement but still not a given, when you know how Mugabe has manipulated the regional leadership in the past. That history now stands against him of course - they know what to expect from this most slippery of characters.

The text of the agreement is astonishing in its frankness and direct language. It also goes much further than was expected, Mugabe must remove the squatters from farms not scheduled for resettlement on a legal basis, he must go back to basics and start a transparent process of land acquisitions and settlement on a properly planned basis. He must respect all the ruling of his own Supreme Court on the issue.

However the agreement is more silent on the wider issues of governance. It covers respect for the media and is silent on the issue of democracy. We trust that this oversight will be rectified when the SADC leaders come to Harare for their summit next week. This would seem to be phase 2 of this operation. Mbeki has always made this a central point of his own views on Zimbabwe - its up to the Zimbabwe people to choose their leaders and they must be given the chance to do so. It is in this area that the next phase is so crucial. Left to his own devices, Mugabe simply cannot be trusted with the electoral process. Vote rigging, intimidation of rural traditional leaders and worse will be the order of the day - and international electoral supervision of the actual voting procedure is not enough.

What is required is a clear agreement providing for the following: -

1. The appointment of an independent, professional electoral commission with an adequate budget which will be given the task of running the presidential election next year. It will take over the process immediately from Mr Mudede and his collection of goons in the Ministry of Home Affairs and be fully responsible and accountable to the Parliament of Zimbabwe.
2. Agreement to abandon the hopeless voters roll - at least a quarter of all voters on the roll are dead and a further 10 per cent have emigrated. Until we can repair this damage, the presidential election should be held on the same basis as the 1980 elections - treat the country as one constituency and allow all citizens to vote where they live.
3. Provide for independent supervision of the state media - perhaps through the electoral commission and grant equal access to the state controlled media for all candidates. Lift all restrictions on the international media immediately.
4. Allow full international supervision of the campaign and voting in the presidential campaign, such supervision to begin at least three moths before the date of the election.

Then let the people of Zimbabwe decide who is going to govern this country next year. They will do the rest and there can be no doubt that the armed forces and the civil service will accept the outcome. What a shot in the arm this would be for the African Renaissance.


By M. Ngwenya_______________________________________________________________________
 
ZIMBABWE HUMAN RIGHTS PROTEST

 

Date: Saturday 6 October 2001
Time: 12.00hrs - 14.00hrs
Venue: Zimbabwe High Commission
429 Strand Street
London
(Nearest tube Charing Cross).

The protest is organised by concerned Zimbabweans and supporters, Human rights campaigners, Church groups and organisations, gay rights organisations and environmentalists. Possibly the last protest outside Zimbabwe House before the end of the year 2001. This protest shall coincide with the CHOGM meeting/protests taking place in Brisbane Australia. The protest will focus on:

 
 
Sincerely,
Albert Weidemann
1 Ambrose Road
Ripon
North Yorkshire
HG4 1SH
England
Tel: 01765 607 900

Or

Durani Rapozo
Mobile: 07740 437 667 (UK) 
Back to the Top
Back to Index
Zimbabwe deal to oust squatters
By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor
(Filed: 07/09/2001)

ZIMBABWE agreed to restore the rule of law last night and begin moving squatters off some white-owned farms, after pressure from African leaders.

The apparent breakthrough came after a day of negotiations in the Nigerian capital, Abuja, where Britain promised to provide millions of pounds to help redistribute white farms to black peasants.

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, also promised to encourage international donors to contribute to a land resettlement scheme overseen by the United Nations.

Sule Lamido, Nigeria's foreign minister, described the deal reached by a group of Commonwealth ministers as a "total breakthrough".

But a senior British official warned: "The test of this agreement will be events on the ground."

Malcolm Vowles, deputy director of the mainly-white Commercial Farmers' Union, was similarly cautious after a year and a half of farm invasions and violence. "It sounds encouraging, but we don't yet know any details," he said.

Diplomats said that the communique expressed concern that "the situation in Zimbabwe poses a threat to the socio-economic stability of the entire sub-region and the continent at large".

Under the deal, Zimbabwe has agreed to abide by democratic principles set out by the Commonwealth.

There would be no further invasions of white owned farms and squatters would be moved from white-owned farms not designated for resettlement to land acquired by the government.

In return, Britain promised to provide aid for poverty reduction as well as a "significant financial contribution" towards land reform.

No sum was disclosed but in failed talks last year Britain offered £36 million.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
Straw wins deal to end Mugabe farm seizures

Zimbabwe agrees to end violence by militants
Special report: Zimbabwe

Ewen MacAskill, Andrew Meldrum in Harare and Ian Black in Brussels
Friday September 7, 2001
The Guardian

The Zimbabwean and British governments last night unexpectedly thrashed out an agreement that promises to bring an end to 18 months of bloodshed and mayhem in clashes between white farmers and black supporters of the president, Robert Mugabe.

The ugly confrontation threatened to spill over into neighbouring countries destabilising the whole region, in particular South Africa.

But, out of the blue, the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, part of a Commonwealth delegation, and his Zimbabwe counterpart, Stan Mudenge, achieved a breakthrough after 10 hours of talks yesterday in Abuja, in Nigeria.

A joint communique, signed by both sides, committed Zimbabwe to respect law and order. So far, Zimbabwe police have refused to intervene to stop the violence by Mr Mugabe's supporters as they illegally seized land from white farmers.

Nine white farmers have died and dozens have been injured since the conflict began in February last year. Hundreds of black labourers have been injured or killed. Ruling party militants have occupied more than 1,700 white-owned farms since March 2000, spurred by a government campaign to seize 4,600 farms. The targeted farms make up about 95% of the land owned by whites.

But the question is whether Mr Mugabe will act to restrain his supporters and whether they will listen to him.

News of the deal was greeted with scepticism by some in Zimbabwe. Mabel Mundoza, a Movement for Democratic Change opposition party supporter in Harare said: "I don't trust Mugabe. I don't believe he will keep his end of the bargain. I hope the British government hasn't been hoodwinked."

The scepticism was shared last night by white farmers. One said last night: "I don't know whether to celebrate it or to question it. I don't know if I should believe this."

In a joint statement, Zimbabwe promised there will be no more illegal seizures of land held by white farmers and that it will abide by the rule of law. Zimbabwe promised to "take firm action against violence and intimidation".

In return, Britain said it would honour a commitment to pay £36m towards a programme which will compensate white farmers transferring land to poor black settlers and encourage other countries to help financially.

Mr Straw expressed satisfaction with the outcome of the meeting but he added a note of caution: "The test of this agreement will be events on the ground."

The meeting was the first big diplomatic challenge for Mr Straw since becoming foreign secretary three months ago and British officials had been playing down expectations. Similar talks held in London in April last year ended in failure.

The Nigerian president, Olusegun Obasanjo, played an important part in getting the two sides together. At the end of the talks, the Nigerian foreign minster, Sule Lamido, who acted as chairman, said: "It is a total breakthrough." The compromise gives Mr Mugabe breathing space at a time when international pressure had been building up for sanctions, including a freeze on his personal assets, and possible suspension from the Commonwealth at a summit in Brisbane next month.

If Mr Mugabe reneges on last night's agreement, the international community's efforts to take punitive action against him will be redoubled.

The joint statement said that land reform must be carried out in a "fair manner" and stated categorically that there will be no further occupation of farms.

Some of those who have already illegally occupied land will be required to give it up until other land, legally acquired, is found for them.

Mr Mugabe is uncomfortable with the role of Britain, which he has portrayed as meddling and untrustworthy former colonial power. To get round this, the joint statement switches the onus for reform to the UN Development Programme, which is respected in Africa.

Mr Straw is keen to get away from what British officials see as the simplistic portrayal of the crisis as a battle between Britain and Zimbabwe, a view that suits Mr Mugabe.

Instead, they want it to be seen as primarily an internal law and order problem, one that could spill over and destabilise the region, especially South Africa. Zimbabwe, in the joint statement, acknowledged this, saying that the crisis threatened the socio-economic condition of the region.

The Commonwealth delegation, as well as Britain, included representatives from Australia, Canada, Jamaica and Kenya.

Commonwealth Secretary General Don McKinnon said: "The commitment from the Zimbabwe representatives was very strong. There was very frank face-to-face, hard discussion on everything you have ever read or heard about Zimbabwe," he told BBC2's Newsnight programme.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 08 2001
Mugabe record offers little reassurance promise will be kept
BY JAN RAATH
SHORTLY after Zimbabwe gained its independence in 1980 President Mugabe winked at a group of white farmers and said: “Don’t listen to what I say, watch what I do.”

The farmers chortled knowingly. Mr Mugabe was really on their side, whatever racist threats he uttered. For the next 21 years he continued to give his best assurances, in confidence and in public, broke them soon afterwards and got on with the business of abusing power. And like the farmers, people — some of the best minds and most senior international figures — believed him.

He has lied repeatedly to President Mbeki of South Africa in the past 18 months of state-driven violence, asserting that he would ensure the rule of law would be applied.

On one occasion last year, with Mr Mbeki by his side, he declared that squatters would be removed from white-owned farms they had invaded. The next day he denied he had said it.

In April this year he assured a delegation of the International Bar Association, made up of former Commonwealth Chief Justices and senior barristers, that he would not “pack” the Supreme Court with ruling party functionaries to ensure rulings in his favour. The delegation said it was very relieved to receive the assurance. Two months later he packed the Supreme Court with party functionaries.

On the strength of repeated assurances that he would carry out a legal and sustainable land reform programme, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund provided many millions of dollars in loans. In 1999 the IMF finally caught the Government lying about its expenditure on the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The publication of the agreement in Abuja has brought no outpouring of joy in Zimbabwe. The response has been, at best, a wistful: “Oh, wouldn’t that be nice”, but more commonly it has been derisive laughter.

The widespread opinion in Harare is that Jack Straw has fallen for Mr Mugabe, like many before him. He and the other Commonwealth foreign ministers presented Zimbabwe with a document with no deadlines, vague obligations to “commitment” and which is no more binding than a gentleman’s agreement.

Morgan Tsvangirai, the president of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, has built up a deep longing for political change across the country and Mr Mugabe has unleashed a murderous attempt to crush it.

He has ignored the courts, Parliament, his own Government, most of his party and his Cabinet in their attempts to check him, as well as the outrage of the rest of the world, including fellow Africans.

Violence and fear are the only weapons he has left, and victory by Mr Tasvangirai next year is viewed as a very fragile prospect.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
Zimbabwe agrees to end occupations
 
In return, Britain and other nations approve compensation





 
British Foreign Minister Jack Straw, left, Zimbabwean Foreign Minister Dr. Stan Mudenge, center, and Nigerian Foreign Minister Sule Lamido hold a discussion in Abuja, Nigeria, late Thursday evening. 


ASSOCIATED PRESS

ABUJA, Nigeria, Sept. 7 —  Bowing to pressure from Britain and its former colonies, Zimbabwe agreed to halt the occupation of white-owned farms by landless black squatters and work to end more than a year of violent land conflicts.

IN RETURN, Britain and other countries agreed Thursday to compensate white farmers for land taken from them for redistribution to poor blacks. The United Nations Development Program would work with Zimbabwe’s government to pursue the land reform program.
       In a statement early Friday, Nigeria’s Foreign Ministry said the southern African country had committed to “restore the rule of law to the process of land reform.”
       Across Zimbabwe, ruling party militants have occupied more than 1,700 white-owned farms since March 2000, spurred by a government campaign to seize 4,600 farms owned by whites and give the land to blacks.
       The targeted farms make up about 95 percent of the land owned by whites. At least nine white farmers and dozens of opposition supporters have died in political violence since June.
       The violent campaign had led to fears of rising lawlessness in Zimbabwe and fueled an economic crisis.
       The announcement followed a day of negotiations in Abuja, Nigeria, between foreign ministers from Commonwealth countries, including Zimbabwe.
       The talks saw African leaders — fearful that violence in Zimbabwe could spill across borders — add their condemnation for the first time to that of Britain and other nations over Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe’s controversial land-redistribution program.
       “Africa cannot afford another war, not least a racial war or one with racial undertones,” Nigerian Foreign Minister Sule Lamido said at the session’s opening.
       “The signals coming from the crisis in Zimbabwe cannot and should not be ignored,” Lamido warned.
      
NO MORE OCCUPATION
       In the accord, Zimbabwe promised there would be no further occupation of white-owned farms, and that illegal occupiers on farms that have not been “designated” for acquisition by the government would be removed.
       The deal also commits Zimbabwe to broader political reforms, including guaranteeing freedom of expression and pledging “to take firm action against violence and intimidation.”
       Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo was to issue a formal statement on the agreement Friday. But officials said the release would likely be postponed until after Obasanjo was briefed on the deal’s content.
       Foreign Minister Lamido was flying to Harare Friday to brief Obasanjo, as other Commonwealth participants were also leaving Abuja to various destinations.
       In London, an official from Zimbabwe’s main opposition group, the Movement for Democratic Change, expressed skepticism about the agreement.
       Brian Bako said he was “very cynical about the deal, why it has come at this time after a lot of people have been killed and a lot of people have suffered.”

       But he added that “if this deal is what it sounds like, then we pray to God that it may be effective and be implemented for the interest of the whole population of Zimbabwe.”
       Zimbabwe Land Minister Joseph Made expressed satisfaction with the results of the talks, but said he could not guarantee violence would end.
       “Don’t ask me if the violence will continue. I haven’t perpetrated violence any more than you have,” Made told reporters, saying fighting between opposition and government supporters was not linked to its land policies.
       Commonwealth Secretary-general Don McKinnon, however, was upbeat about the agreement’s prospects.
       “I’m very optimistic about it being able to stick,” McKinnon said. “We believe they (Zimbabwe) are committed to following this agreement through.”
       British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw stressed it had yet to be tested.
       “It is not for me to judge if this is a breakthrough,” Straw said. “Ultimately what we have written on paper is not important ... it depends on how events unfold (in Zimbabwe).”
       The talks came with Zimbabwe under increasing international pressure over the land seizures.
       The European Parliament on Thursday urged European Union governments to impose their own sanctions on Mugabe for policies that legislators said had created “a climate of fear and despair” in his country.
       The 626-member EU assembly urged the 15 member states to freeze bank accounts held by Mugabe, his family and close associates, ban travel by him to their countries, and consider suspension of financial aid to Zimbabwe.
       Lawmakers in the United States have also debated imposing sanctions on Zimbabwe, while the African Union has come out in favor of Zimbabwe’s government.
       Lamido had opened the talks by telling all parties that an agreement was necessary to restore law and order and revive Zimbabwe’s declining economy.
       Cabinet members from the former British colonies of Australia, Canada, Jamaica, Kenya, South Africa were attending the talks.



Zimbabwe agrees to end occupations

In return, Britain and other nations approve compensation

<Attachment missing>
British Foreign Minister Jack Straw, left, Zimbabwean Foreign Minister
Dr. Stan Mudenge, center, and Nigerian Foreign Minister Sule Lamido hold
a discussion in Abuja, Nigeria, late Thursday evening.


ASSOCIATED PRESS

ABUJA, Nigeria, Sept. 7 — Bowing to pressure from Britain and its
former colonies, Zimbabwe agreed to halt the occupation of white-owned
farms by landless black squatters and work to end more than a year of
violent land conflicts.

IN RETURN, Britain and other countries agreed Thursday to compensate
white farmers for land taken from them for redistribution to poor
blacks. The United Nations Development Program would work with
Zimbabwe’s government to pursue the land reform program.
In a statement early Friday, Nigeria’s Foreign Ministry said the
southern African country had committed to “restore the rule of law to
the process of land reform.”
Across Zimbabwe, ruling party militants have occupied more than
1,700 white-owned farms since March 2000, spurred by a government
campaign to seize 4,600 farms owned by whites and give the land to
blacks.
The targeted farms make up about 95 percent of the land owned by
whites. At least nine white farmers and dozens of opposition supporters
have died in political violence since June.
The violent campaign had led to fears of rising lawlessness in
Zimbabwe and fueled an economic crisis.
The announcement followed a day of negotiations in Abuja,
Nigeria, between foreign ministers from Commonwealth countries,
including Zimbabwe.
The talks saw African leaders — fearful that violence in Zimbabwe
could spill across borders — add their condemnation for the first time
to that of Britain and other nations over Zimbabwe President Robert
Mugabe’s controversial land-redistribution program.
“Africa cannot afford another war, not least a racial war or one
with racial undertones,” Nigerian Foreign Minister Sule Lamido said at
the session’s opening.
“The signals coming from the crisis in Zimbabwe cannot and should
not be ignored,” Lamido warned.

NO MORE OCCUPATION
In the accord, Zimbabwe promised there would be no further
occupation of white-owned farms, and that illegal occupiers on farms
that have not been “designated” for acquisition by the government would
be removed.
The deal also commits Zimbabwe to broader political reforms,
including guaranteeing freedom of expression and pledging “to take firm
action against violence and intimidation.”
Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo was to issue a formal
statement on the agreement Friday. But officials said the release would
likely be postponed until after Obasanjo was briefed on the deal’s
content.
Foreign Minister Lamido was flying to Harare Friday to brief
Obasanjo, as other Commonwealth participants were also leaving Abuja to
various destinations.
In London, an official from Zimbabwe’s main opposition group, the
Movement for Democratic Change, expressed skepticism about the agreement.
Brian Bako said he was “very cynical about the deal, why it has
come at this time after a lot of people have been killed and a lot of
people have suffered.”

But he added that “if this deal is what it sounds like, then we
pray to God that it may be effective and be implemented for the interest
of the whole population of Zimbabwe.”
Zimbabwe Land Minister Joseph Made expressed satisfaction with
the results of the talks, but said he could not guarantee violence would
end.
“Don’t ask me if the violence will continue. I haven’t
perpetrated violence any more than you have,” Made told reporters,
saying fighting between opposition and government supporters was not
linked to its land policies.
Commonwealth Secretary-general Don McKinnon, however, was upbeat
about the agreement’s prospects.
“I’m very optimistic about it being able to stick,” McKinnon
said. “We believe they (Zimbabwe) are committed to following this
agreement through.”
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw stressed it had yet to be
tested.
“It is not for me to judge if this is a breakthrough,” Straw
said. “Ultimately what we have written on paper is not important ... it
depends on how events unfold (in Zimbabwe).”
The talks came with Zimbabwe under increasing international
pressure over the land seizures.
The European Parliament on Thursday urged European Union
governments to impose their own sanctions on Mugabe for policies that
legislators said had created “a climate of fear and despair” in his
country.
The 626-member EU assembly urged the 15 member states to freeze
bank accounts held by Mugabe, his family and close associates, ban
travel by him to their countries, and consider suspension of financial
aid to Zimbabwe.
Lawmakers in the United States have also debated imposing
sanctions on Zimbabwe, while the African Union has come out in favor of
Zimbabwe’s government.
Lamido had opened the talks by telling all parties that an
agreement was necessary to restore law and order and revive Zimbabwe’s
declining economy.
Cabinet members from the former British colonies of Australia,
Canada, Jamaica, Kenya, South Africa were attending the talks.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 08 2001
Zimbabwe
Keeping Mugabe to his promises
BY RICHARD BEESTON
THE SUCCESS or failure of the Abuja agreement will depend on the ability of the international community to keep President Mugabe to his promise.

Although the announcement took most diplomats by surprise, preparations were already under way yesterday by the UN to draw up a detailed plan for the peaceful transfer of land to black peasants.

The UN Development Programme prepared a similar document last year, which was rejected by the Zimbabweans, but is now expected to form the blueprint for land resettlement.

“It all depends what happens on the ground,” a UN source said. “If it goes quiet then we can have the opportunity to build confidence between all the parties: the farmers, the Government and the banks. If that works then we can move onto the land reform plan.”

A delegation of southern African leaders is due in Harare on Monday to work out details of the compromise with President Mugabe. Nigeria is also committed to supervising the follow-up process. The Commonwealth is also expected to play a crucial role. If the violence and intimidation does not stop, Mr Mugabe can expect a hostile reception from heads of government when he goes to Brisbane next month
Back to the Top
Back to Index
From the Telegraph (UK)


Zimbabwe kept under pressure despite deal
By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
(Filed: 07/09/2001)


DESPITE last night's agreement on ending the Zimbabwe crisis, political
pressure will be maintained on President Mugabe to keep his promise to
restore law and order.

The deal was announced just hours after the European Parliament voted for
the European Union to impose "smart sanctions" against Mr Mugabe and leading
figures of his regime.

The vote is not binding, but it puts strong pressure on EU foreign ministers
to take a tough line against the Mugabe regime when they meet this weekend
in Belgium.

On Monday five southern African leaders will visit Zimbabwe to discuss the
crisis with Mr Mugabe, land squatters and white farmers.

John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister and host of next month's
Commonwealth summit in Brisbane, has warned Zimbabwe that it faces
suspension from the 54-nation organisation if the violence and intimidation
of opponents do not stop.

Zimbabwe's decision to reach an agreement at yesterday's Abuja talks - in
contrast with the failure of land reform talks in London in April last
year - has come after concerted diplomatic pressure, especially from African
countries.

But previous promises to halt the land invasions - or at least to stop the
violence against white farmers, black farm workers and opposition
activists - have come to nothing.

With presidential elections due in April, few people in Zimbabwe will count
on calm returning to the tobacco and maize fields.

Mr Mugabe will be hoping he has done enough to relieve international
pressure, at least until after the Commonwealth summit.

African leaders have until recent months closed ranks around Zimbabwe on the
"colonial" issue of redistributing white-owned land. They at first blamed
the farm chaos on Britain's supposed breach of a promise to support land
reform.

But to Mr Mugabe's alarm, neighbouring countries have taken an increasingly
robust stance as the Zimbabwean economy has threatened to collapse.

Farming is the mainstay of the economy, and the turmoil has sent Zimbabweans
streaming across the border to South Africa.

The South African rand has dropped to record lows, as international markets
fear that the regional superpower will contract the Zimbabwean "infection".

Only a few weeks ago Mr Mugabe was still trying to woo President Olusegun
Obasanjo of Nigeria, telling him through a newspaper interview: "I learnt
from you the art of fighting the white man."

But at yesterday's conference, Nigeria showed its exasperation. "Africa
cannot afford another war, not least a racial war or one with racial
undertones," said Sule Lamido, Nigeria's Foreign Minister, as he opened the
meeting.

He said: "Government must not give the impression that it directly or
indirectly acquiesces in forcible land takeovers."

Nor should Zimbabwe appear "incapable of enforcing its own laws, thereby
fostering the image of lawlessness and lack of respect for the rule of law
in the country".

British officials said they were surprised by how other African countries at
the table had spoken in the same vein.

Seeking to present itself as conciliatory, Zimbabwe said on Wednesday that
it had accepted a four-month-old offer of 2.5 million acres of land from
white farmers to resettle 20,000 black families.

But Mr Lamido said the move was inadequate. "Had this proposal been given
serious consideration . . . when it was first made, the current disturbing
escalation of violence and forcible seizures of land would have probably
been avoided," he said.

If the Abuja agreement holds, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, will have
scored an early diplomatic triumph. But if the deal turns out to be a false
hope, he will be accused of naivety.

His first task will be to decide whether to support last night's call by
Euro-MPs who demanded that the EU should impose a travel ban on the Mugabe
clan and senior Zimbabwean civil servants, and seize their assets in EU
countries.

Glenys Kinnock, a Labour MEP, who helped to draft the resolution, said:
"Shopping in Harrods will be out, as will visiting their children in public
schools."

In a move similar to proposals in the US Congress, the resolution also calls
for an end to all EU aid passing through the hands of the Zimbabwe
government, and a review of loans by the European Investment Bank and the
World Bank.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
Thursday, 6 September, 2001, 23:57 GMT 00:57 UK
Zimbabwe deal: Mugabe's U-turn
So-called war veterans occupy a farm in Zimbabwe
It is not clear if squatters will be removed from farms
By BBC diplomatic correspondent Barnaby Mason

The agreement reached after Commonwealth talks in Nigeria on how to end the Zimbabwe crisis amount, on the face of it, to an abrupt about-turn by President Robert Mugabe.

In a document made available by officials in the Nigerian capital Abuja, the Zimbabwean Government promises to end illegal occupations of farmland and restore the rule of law to the land reform process.

In return, the UK has reaffirmed its commitment to provide money for the programme and has said it will encourage other donors to do the same.

Black workers packing up
Many farm workers have been left homeless
President Mugabe has consistently rejected criticism that the forcible occupations of white-owned farmland are in breach of the laws of Zimbabwe.

Now, his delegation has made a commitment to restore the rule of law - which implies it has been absent.

The government promises to take firm action against violence and intimidation, implying that it has condoned such abuses in the past.

Another commitment is to freedom of expression as guaranteed by the Zimbabwe Constitution.

That goes wider than the land issue, since the intimidation of journalists is something Commonwealth Ministers have raised.

No opposition commitment

There seems to be nothing specific in the agreement about the use of violence against the Zimbabwe opposition, but the document does acknowledge that the crisis has wider political implications and that it poses a threat to the stability of the whole of southern Africa.

The agreement is the result of heavy pressure from Nigeria and from Zimbabwe's neighbours, who have become increasingly alarmed at the impact on them of the economic chaos, aggravated by the occupations of commercial farms.

President Robert Mugabe speaks at the UN
Mr Mugabe went back on a UN-sponsored deal
The UK has given less ground.

The promise to provide significant money for land reform is no more than a reaffirmation of previous commitments.

International funding will depend on a properly organised programme to be worked out with United Nations development officials - but the failure of a similar plan drawn up in 1998 is not a good omen.

There are other question marks too. Will Mr Mugabe endorse what his representatives have agreed to?

Even if he does, is this simply a temporary phase of conciliation to head off a row at next month's Commonwealth summit?

Mr Mugabe is fighting for his political life at presidential elections due in the next few months, and that is what will dictate events on the ground.

Back to the Top
Back to Index
Friday, 7 September, 2001, 07:03 GMT 08:03 UK
Deal raises peace hopes in Zimbabwe
US activists in Durban South Africa protest in favour of land reform in Zimbabwe
President Mugabe's supporters demand land reform
Commonwealth leaders have welcomed Zimbabwe's promise to take sweeping measures to halt the violent occupation of white-owned farms that has alarmed the international community.

Zimbabwe agrees:
No further occupations of white-owned farms
To restore the rule of law to the process of land reform
To the principle of freedom of expression
To take firm action against violence and intimidation
Voluntary sale of hundreds of white-owned farms
Britain and others to compensate farmers

But Commonwealth Secretary-General Don McKinnon told the BBC that while it was good news in principle, the government in Zimbabwe now had to act on its promises.

Under the agreement, Zimbabwe has been promised funding for its land redistribution programme in exchange for restoring rule of law.

The deal was reached after African nations added their voices to UK and other international concerns about the situation in Zimbabwe.

'End violence'

The Nigerian foreign minister hailed the agreement as a "breakthrough", but Mr McKinnon said: "It is a matter now of ensuring implementation of the deal and that means a greater grip on the rule of law."


The government has had its fingers burned

Opposition MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai
UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said: "Ultimately, whether it represents real progress will depend on events on the ground and that can only be judged in the future."

Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of Zimbabwe's opposition MDC party, said: "I believe that everyone is agreed that land reform is imperative, but under the conditions of law and order.

"The government has had its fingers burned I hope that it has learned its lesson and will refrain from this violence."

Guarantees

President Robert Mugabe's government has guaranteed that land taken from white farmers would be turned over to landless black Zimbabweans.

Britain and other countries have agreed to bear the cost of compensating white farmers for land taken from them.

Zimbabwe has also agreed to allow close monitoring of the human rights situation in the country, and of its presidential election, due for next year.

President Robert Mugabe
Mugabe must face the electorate next year
In addition, it said it would safeguard freedom of expression and the press. Zimbabwe has expelled a number of foreign correspondents, and local journalists have complained of intimidation.

The BBC diplomatic correspondent says that even if Mr Mugabe endorses the deal, a question mark remains over whether or not it is simply a temporary phase of conciliation to head off a row at the Commonwealth summit next month.

Neighbours' concern

Before the agreement was reached, Nigeria's foreign minister had made it clear that Zimbabwe's neighbours were becoming increasingly concerned as the 18-month crisis continues.

"Africa cannot afford another war, not least a racial war or one with racial undertones," said Sule Lamido.

Land Facts
Total population: 12.5m
White population: 70,000 (about 0.6%)
Whites own majority of the best farming land
1m blacks own 16m hectares - often in drought-prone regions
White-owned farms: 4,500
More than 1,700 white-owned farms occupied since March 2000
"The signals coming from the crisis in Zimbabwe cannot and should not be ignored," he said.

Until now, the issue of land reform in Zimbabwe has been regarded by other African nations as largely an internal matter.

Mr Mugabe and his government have been happy to keep it that way, accusing the former colonial power, Britain, of meddling in its affairs and of failing to pay reparations for land taken during colonial times.

Correspondents say the increasing political instability in Zimbabwe, along with rising unemployment and food shortages, is creating acute problems.

The worry now is that the instability could spread across Africa and sour the climate for critical foreign investment.

It is in this light that the Nigerian Government took the significant step of bringing the foreign ministers of Zimbabwe, Britain and other Commonwealth members together ahead of October's Commonwealth heads of government summit in Brisbane, Australia.

Back to the Top
Back to Index

Violence flares up in Byo

Loughty Dube
WAR veterans were on the warpath in Bulawayo yesterday as violence resurfaced ahead of the weekend mayoral election. The election pits Zanu PF’s George Mlilo and the MDC’s Japhet Ndabeni-Ncube.

The latest wave of violence unleashed on MDC supporters comes barely 24-hours after Information minister Jonathan Moyo addressed a rally in the city. It is alleged that the perpetrators of the violence were bused into the province, mostly from Masvingo. War veterans and Zanu PF supporters have set up camps at suburban primary schools, some of which will be used as polling stations.

Two MDC polling agents in Tshabalala were allegedly abducted and beaten by Zanu PF supporters. An MDC youth has since disappeared. — Staff Writer.
Back to the Top
Back to Index

Maize reserves down to 300 000t

Forward Maisokwadzo
THE Strategic Grain Reserve, which is administered by the Grain Marketing Board, currently has 300 000 tonnes of maize, 200 000 tonnes short of the required amount.

Zimbabwe has an annual consumption of 1,24 million tonnes of maize and the available grain is not sufficient to meet the needs of the country.
Despite Agriculture minister Joseph Made’s dismissal of experts’ warnings of imminent food shortages, the country needs to import at least 750 000 tonnes of cereals to avert a self-made disaster.

The Southern African Development Community (Sadc) regional early warning unit has said Zimbabwe, the former bread-basket of the region, must begin maize and wheat imports now to meet a forecast 743
000 tonne deficit next March.

The unit’s food security projections for the 2001/2002 marketing year indicate deficits of 593 000 tonnes for maize (including a minimum of 500 000 tonnes for strategic maize reserves) and 150 000 tonnes for wheat.
“These deficits have to be covered through imports to avoid food shortages in the coming months,” the unit reported.

The country has to fork out about $8 billion (US$90 million) (at the official exchange rate of $55:US$1) for both maize and wheat imports.

Realising the severity of the impending food shortage, government has re-introduced the Grain Marketing Board’s monopoly on the internal buying and selling of maize and wheat.

This was followed last week with a further hike in the producer and selling prices for maize from $7 500 to $8 500 and $9 600 per tonne respectively.
Made last week denied that the country required about 600 000 tonnes of maize, saying only 93 000 tonnes were required to take the country to the next season.

However, Finance minister, Simba Makoni admitted in parliament that reserves had “practically run out”.

Food experts say the country should start importing maize from South Africa now to replenish its depleted reserves.

Experts said the South African railway system could not cope with than 30 000 to 40 000-tonne shipments of grain a month to Zimbabwe. Imports had to commence immediately to avert a crisis.

“In addition, maize imports should begin while the country has some foreign exchange and while the commodity is still available in the country,” said one expert.

This week millers said production capacity had already been affected by a reduced allocation of wheat to their various milling sections across the country in anticipation of a wheat shortfall this season.

Industry sources said Blue Ribbon Foods would be reviewing its production this week while National Foods officials said they would do so next this week.

The early warning unit forecast a 150 000 tonne deficit of wheat.
“Crop production in the southern areas (of Zimbabwe) was hampered by a mid-season dry spell while isolated flooding affected the southern districts.”
Wheat production in 2000 amounted to 250 000 tonnes, a 17% fall that resulted in an increase in import requirements and a rise in the price of flour and consequently, bakery products.

Production in the current season has been further reduced by the disruption of farming activities by the war veterans who have invaded commercial farms in a government-sanctioned land redistribution exercise.

Analysts said bread prices could only be expected to rise, and with the recent legislation making wheat a controlled product, millers had to take short positions.

Wheat prices have increased from $7 700 a tonne in January 2000 to $23 000 a tonne in May.

Exporters were ordered to hand over 60% of their earnings to the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe at the official rate of Zimbabwe $55 to US$1, while the thriving parallel market makes transactions of US$1 to over $400.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
ZIMBABWE: New fuel deal struck

JOHANNESBURG, 6 September (IRIN) - Zimbabwe has clinched credit facilities
worth US $15 million from two international banks for the import of fuel,
according to the ‘Financial Gazette’. Oil industry sources reportedly told
the newspaper that the latest agreements, after a similar lifeline from
Libya, were reached with the Cairo-based Afrexim Bank and the PTA Bank, an
initiative of countries in the Common Market for Eastern and Southern
Africa.

They said the two new deals had been brokered by the Commercial Bank of
Zimbabwe (CBZ), which has been playing a leading role in fuel procurement
since biting shortages hit Zimbabwe two years ago. “They (CBZ) have
succeeded once again in negotiating a US $10 million facility for oil that
has been extended to Zimbabwe by Afrexim Bank in Cairo, a continental
financial institution,” one oil industry executive told the ‘Financial
Gazette’. “Also in the last two weeks, they have succeeded in negotiating
a US $5 million facility with the PTA Bank, also for fuel procurement.”

Although details of the deals were sketchy, industry executives said they
expected the pacts to be signed shortly. Meanwhile, a second fuel
consignment is expected in Zimbabwe this week from Libya, which last month
signed a US $360 million one-year supply contract. The Libyan fuel, the
first consignment of which landed last week, is expected to keep Zimbabwe’
s fuel queues at bay for some time, the newspaper said. Zimbabwe, deprived
of hard cash because of a boycott of the country by multilateral lenders
and because of declining exports, needs about US $40 million a month to
import fuel.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
ZBC on Monday reported Minister of Education, Sports and Culture Aeneas Chigwedere as saying as from next year Zimbabwean history would be made a compulsory subject at O’ level.

This was important so that the youths would have a proper culture and a sense of Zimbabwean identity, he explained. He said the youths had lost their sense of identity because they were studying the history of other nationalities.

There is nothing wrong with Chigwedere’s proposal, provided our history shall be told as it is: the genocide in the Midlands and Matabeleland in the early ’80s; how a revolutionary party was corrupted by a rapacious leadership leading to the Willowgate vehicle scandal in 1988/89; how the ruling party so enjoyed the tastes and power instruments of our colonisers they are loath to repeal the pernicious Law and Order (Maintenance) Act that was crafted specifically to crush the nationalist struggle in this country; and, in a strange metamorphosis, how that same evil instrument is now being widely used by a people’s government to suppress the democracy, freedom of association and freedom to vote, for which
so many Zimbabweans sacrificed their lives.

Our new, revised history must also tell of how public funds were looted under the War Veterans Compensation Act; how our kleptocratic leadership helped themselves to money saved by the poor to buy themselves houses; and how Noczim was milked dry of fuel by those who benefited from President Mugabe’s arcane network of patronage in the country’s many parastatals. Our history would not be complete without a number of chapters devoted to how an otherwise self-sufficient agricultural economy was ruined by a leadership seeking to chalk up votes by decimating commercial farms to buy votes from the landless.

It would be interesting to know who are being paid by both Zane PF and the government to undertake this project. Hope not Chigwedere himself whose research methodologies have in the past been ridiculed by other historians.

Why is comrade Jonathan Moyo still keeping a safe house
in Johannesburg?

The Sunday Times of South Africa this week reminded us Moyo still owns the palatial R1 million in the exclusive Saxonwold suburb which is currently “empty”. This is the house that caused a furore when the Ford Foundation in Kenya was trying to find out how its research funds had been spent.

According to the Sunday Times, Jonathan Moyo doesn’t want to talk about the property. “There is no evidence whatsoever that I own a house there,” Moyo told the Times. “I used to live there two years ago ...the house is owned by a trust and I am not a trust.”

We are sure nobody asked Moyo for “evidence” whether or not the house was his. The question is simple: does he own the house? The trust referred to is of course Talunoza, an acronym derived from the names of Moyo’s children.

While Moyo was carrying on with the charade, his wife Betsy spoke wistfully about the property: “It is a wonderful place and my six-year old misses the house. But we have no present plans to sell ... we will be keeping it.”

It would be interesting to know who the “we” refers to if not Comrade Moyo and his family. And does the discretion to sell or not to sell not suggest that Moyo and Co own the house?

MDC secretary-general, Welshman Ncube, had some useful comments to make. “All we can say is that Moyo has demonstrated that he is one of the biggest hypocrites ... owning a luxurious home in South Africa that he can run to when everything in Zimbabwe falls apart,” said Ncube.

Morgan Tsvangirai, MDC president, observed: “All those people who claim to be patriotic are not patriotic at all ... this shows a very split and divided personality and demonstrates underlying insecurities.”

Moyo quipped back: “I don’t think it makes sense for people to be talking about their properties.” But Moyo is happy to invent stories for the Sunday Mail about NGOs and the MDC being funded by foreigners! Could anything be more hypocritical than that? But he won’t say anything if it is Zanu PF receiving money from either China or Libya.

Did anyone watch the ZBC’s Zanu PF gala in Bulawayo in honour of acting mayor, David Ndlovu? Why the singular honour? When has Zanu PF started accepting that anybody deserves honour except for its leaders and wayward war veterans whose biggest distinction since Independence has been violence?

Of course we knew Ndlovu was only being brought in to try and entice as many people as possible to a Zanu PF mayoral campaign and vice-president Joseph Msika made full use of the event. But in typical fashion, he put his foot in his mouth again. Instead of trying to win people’s hearts and minds, he went for the stick.

He said if a non-Zanu PF candidate won the mayoral contest in Bulawayo there would be no development. We wait to see if this egregious nonsense is going to garner Zanu PF the support it sorely needs. Why should people be blackmailed into voting for a party that cannot sell a convincing programme but uses threats and violence to stay in power?

By the time Msika finished his rigmarole everybody was either dosing off or snoring away, including David Ndlovu himself. We saw Moyo waking up Ndlovu after Msika’s sopori fic speech.

Still on Msika, he must surely have had a foretaste of things to come tomorrow when people refused to come to his rally at White City stadium last Saturday. Billed as a star rally ahead of the mayoral election tomorrow, only about 2 000 people bothered to attend, and that after Msika had waited for nearly four hours and despatching eight buses to the “usual pick up points”!

The following day MDC president, Morgan Tsvangirai and his deputy Gibson Sibanda were greeted by an enthusiastic and cheering crowd of nearly 12 000, according to a Daily News report. By that time Mugabe had steered clear of the embarrassment and flown to far away Libya.

“The government believes that money can be spent lavishly on
unnecessary expenses while people are dying in hospitals,” Tsvangirai told the gathering, in oblique reference to government’s wanton expenditures on petty projects and drama clubs. “We are dealing with a government which has totally failed to prioritise issues.”

Now, this foot and mouth thing, where did it originate from? Apparently there are spirited though futile efforts by Moyo’s media boys to disconnect it from the on-going farm invasions. On Tuesday the ZBC claimed investigations were pointing to some remote area near the border with Mozambique and South Africa.

When the privately-owned press warned earlier in the year that the movement of cattle into Gonarezhou and other animal sanctuaries could result in the outbreak of the disease, this was dismissed with a wafture of the hand as untrue. But we certainly have been vindicated in our fears.
The government, as usual, is trying to blame everybody else, including neighbouring countries, except itself.

Some so-called African-Americans were in Durban this week philippising the entire world on behalf of Mug be’s land-grab project. They proclaimed Mugabe “right” in taking over land owned by whites. But that is a redundant argument. The debate about whether land should be shared or redistributed is exhausted.

It’s unfortunate that Zanu PF’s propaganda is only beginning to filter through to its African-American “cousins” at this late hour. The issue is observing internationally-acceptable norms of behaviour in resolving the land imbalances.

It is easy for these “rented crowds” to chant foolish slogans from a safe distance and knowing that there is the law to protect their rights. It is a different matter here in Zimbabwe where law enforcement agencies have been stopped from doing their duties or have been complicity in breaking the law.

It is quite different in Zimbabwe where a few Zanu PF thugs can raid your private property and you are arrested for trying to defend yourself.
The major issue about the land is compensation for those from whom it is being taken. There is very little that is laudable from a government policy that is patently racist and evil. It’s not every white farmer who inherited land from a descendant of the Pioneer Column.

Some of them bought the land after the government gave them the go ahead. Why should it be the British government that pays compensation to such people?

The African-Americans might want to make a spectacle of themselves in front of television cameras but we are sure they will not be forthcoming with aid when food shortages start to bite here in Zimbabwe. And the hardest hit will be the poor Africans, not the whites who are being hounded out of commercial farms.

Finance minister Simba Makoni had some sobering words on the issue last week. He told a conference in Harare that we cannot build a strong economy by slicing commercial farms into tiny plots for individual villagers, no matter how land-hungry they might be.

He said the villagisation of the economy would not solve our problems and only fell short of telling Mugabe to halt his costly electioneering project.
“We would be the first in the world to achieve a viable economy through this villagisation of the commercial sector,” said Makoni, or words to that effect.

His remarks also referred to efforts to tout the informal sector as the driving engine for growth. While promotion of this sector was laudable, said Makoni, it was foolhardy to believe this would solve all our unemployment problems and curtail spiralling poverty in the country.

Muckraker would rather listen to Makoni than to some overfed so-called African-Americans.
The Herald on Tuesday carried one of its many insipid cartoons on our lead story last Friday revealing the mass displacements of farm workers. Our story highlighted the plight of migrant workers being driven out of commercial farms in the resettlement programme. Most of these people have nowhere to go since they are mostly third or fourth generation Malawians, Zambians or Mozambicans.

Some of them have complained of what they see as “ethnic cleansing” by the government, because they are not being allocated any land after their employer is chased away or the farm is designated. The cartoonist then commented: “Why not try ethnic cleansing to get the US to act.

This has worked in Kosovo, why not here?” This is to completely miss the point. Ethnic cleansing is not an entirely American concept. We had that taking place in Matabeleland and Midlands provinces soon after Independence and no American ever came to Zimbabwe. Secondly, the story was meant to look at the other side of the chaotic land programme, away from the commercial farmers themselves whom the Herald and other papers in the Zimpapers stable have made a point of blaming even when they are the victims of violence.

If reporters at Zimpapers have been instructed not to report on the humanitarian crisis unfolding on commercial farms, we have not and we don’t get our diary of stories from Jonathan Moyo.

Lastly, since our own government is evidently not interested in addressing the plight of displaced farm workers, at least it should let their governments and the whole world know.
Back to the Top
Back to Index