Zimbabwe's White Farmers Hope for End to Violence

Friday May 12 6:31 PM ET - By Darren Schuettler

HARARE, Zimbabwe (Reuters) - Zimbabwe's white farmers are waiting nervously to see if black militants obey an order from President Robert Mugabe to end violence on hundreds of occupied white-owned farms.

On Friday Mugabe denounced the violence that has claimed at least 19 lives, including three white farmers, and announced a process for the transfer of white-owned farmland to landless blacks.

But he said the self-styled liberation war veterans leading the farm invasions would not leave until a start had been made on redistributing land.

``The agreed position, which is a position we hope can be sustained, is that there should continue to be peace and nonviolence prevailing and that acts of violence must be denounced by us all,'' Mugabe told a news conference after day-long talks with veterans and white farmers.

Veterans' leader Chenjerai Hunzvi agreed with the call for peace, but he said the reallocation of land would have to begin before parliamentary elections due by August.

``Violence is caused by delays in implementing land distribution,'' Hunzvi, who has not kept previous promises to rein in his men, told Reuters after the talks.

``The people must have their land before elections because politicians tend to forget these things and go on a long honeymoon.

``I don't expect elections to be held in the next three weeks, which is why land must be distributed in that time,'' he added.

Mugabe said a land committee -- including representatives of government, the war veterans' association and the mainly white Commercial Farmers' Union (CFU) -- would be set up to manage the redistribution of what he called ``identified land'' within a short period of time.

The government has identified 841 of the country's 4,500 commercial farms for redistribution. But Mugabe said last week he wanted to redistribute half the white-owned land to blacks.

To Sign Constitutional Amendment

The 76-year-old president, in power since the end of white rule and formal independence from Britain in 1980, said he expected to sign a constitutional amendment into law next week allowing his government to seize white-owned farms.

He said the government would compensate farmers for improvements to the land, but not for the land itself, which he and the war veterans say was stolen under colonial rule.

Britain has said it will contribute up to 44 million pounds toward land reform, but only if violence ends and farms are given to landless peasants rather than to government ministers.

Mugabe has repeatedly endorsed the land occupations launched by veterans of the 1970s liberation war and had refused until now to condemn violence against white farmers.

While he avoided criticizing the veterans, who have beaten hundreds of black farm workers they suspect of being opposition sympathizers, he said the veterans should let farming continue.

``They should be as peaceful as possible and not disturb the day-to-day activities and operations of the farm,'' he said.

Opposition critics accuse Mugabe of using the invasions to intimidate opposition supporters ahead of the undated parliamentary polls. Presidential elections are due in 2002.

Commercial Farmers' Union chief negotiator Nick Swanepoel cautiously welcomed the committee ``because all the stakeholders are there and they are participating and will have their input.''

Pressure for a deal has intensified since another farmer died Monday after being severely beaten -- the 19th person killed by suspected war veterans and supporters of Mugabe's ruling ZANU-PF since the crisis began in February.

A memorial service will be held for farmer Alan Dunn in Harare Saturday, while a peace rally is also scheduled for the country's main sports stadium in the capital

Mugabe Orders Violence Stopped, Land Reform

By Manoah Esipisu Friday May 12 3:30 PM ET

HARARE (Reuters) - Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe on Friday ordered for the first time an end to the farm invasion violence that has claimed 19 lives, and announced the creation of a committee to distribute white-owned farmland to blacks.

He told a news conference that independence war veterans who have occupied hundreds of white-owned farms since February would not leave until a start had been made on redistributing land earmarked for landless blacks.

But he said after day-long talks with representatives of the war veterans and white farmers that violence should end. At least 19 people, including three white farmers, have died in the invasions.

``The agreed position, which is a position we hope can be sustained, is that there should continue to be peace and nonviolence prevailing and that acts of violence must be denounced by us all,'' he told the news conference, which was closed to Western media.

He said a land committee including representatives of government, the war veterans' association and the mainly white Commercial Farmers Union (CFU) would be set up to manage the redistribution of what he called ``identified land.''

``I hope we shall start on the exercise of making land available through the new instrument within a short period,'' he said.

War veterans' leader Chenjerai Hunzvi also called for an end to farm violence, but warned the redistribution of land would have to begin soon.

``We are discouraging violence. We do not want robberies. We want peace in areas liberated by war veterans,'' Hunzvi told Reuters after the meeting.

``Land should be distributed in two to three weeks. If conditions are not conducive, we will create appropriate conditions for such things to happen. Any delays could cause violence on farms,'' he said.

Mugabe's government had previously identified 841 of the country's 4,500 commercial farms for redistribution. But Mugabe said last week he wanted to redistribute half the white-owned land to blacks.

To Sign Constitutional Amendment

He said the government would compensate farmers for improvements to the land, but not for the land itself, which he and the war veterans say was stolen under colonial rule.

``The price of the farm itself can only be paid when funds are made available by the former colonial power,'' he said.

Britain has said it will contribute funds toward land reform, but only if violence ends and farms are given to landless peasants rather than to government ministers.

Mugabe has repeatedly endorsed the land occupations launched by veterans of the 1970s liberation war and had refused until now to condemn violence against white farmers.

While he avoided criticizing the war veterans, who have beaten hundreds of black farm workers and several white farmers, he said veterans should allow farming to go on.

``They should not disturb the farmers. They should not touch the property at all. They should be as peaceful as possible and not disturb the day-to-day activities and operations of the farm,'' he told reporters.

Opposition critics accuse Mugabe and his government of using the invasions to intimidate potential opposition supporters and voters ahead of parliamentary elections expected in June.

Presidential elections are not due until 2002.

Cautious Welcome From Cfu

Commercial Farmers' Union chief negotiator Nick Swanepoel cautiously welcomed Friday's accord.

``I think the land commission is the way forward because all the stakeholders are there and they are participating and will have their input,'' he told reporters.

Police Inspector Bothwell Mugariri said another white farmer was shot and wounded Thursday night, but he told Reuters the attack was criminally motivated and not political.

The CFU said five more farms had been invaded overnight, while farmers and farm workers said there were further reports of widespread intimidation of farmers.

Commonwealth Secretary General Don McKinnon said Thursday he had appointed General Abdulsalami Abubakar, the former Nigerian head of state, to lead a team of observers for the elections.

McKinnon said he would visit Harare Monday and Tuesday for talks with Mugabe and would be accompanied by an ``advance team'' from the observer group.

Mugabe Orders End to Zimbabwe Farm Violence

Friday May 12 1:23 PM ET HARARE, Zimbabwe (Reuters) - President Robert Mugabe Friday issued his strongest comments to date on the farm invasions that have left 19 people dead in Zimbabwe, ordering an end to the violence and the creation of a committee to redistribute white farmland to blacks.

Mugabe made the announcement after meeting representatives of 4,500 white commercial farmers and black veterans of the country's independence war who have occupied hundreds of farms.

``They (the war veterans) should not disturb the farmers. They should not touch the property at all. They should be as peaceful as possible and not disturb the day-to-day activities and operations of the farm ... no violence,'' the president told reporters.

``We are pledged to avoiding any instances that disturb the life of the farmers and tend to interfere with the day-to-day operations on the farm.... Where there has been this disturbance ... normalcy must come to the farms,'' he said.

He announced the creation of a land commission made up of government officials, war veterans and white farmers to carry out a program of ``land redistribution and land reform.''

``I hope we shall start the exercise of making land available through the new instrument within a short period,'' Mugabe said.

War veterans from the 1970s struggle against white rule were not prepared to leave the farms unless land was redistributed, Mugabe said.

``We want harmony and peace in this country.... There is rule of law in this country, much more than there is in other developed countries,'' Mugabe said.

``The agreed position, which is a position we hope can be sustained, is that there should continue to be peace and nonviolence prevailing and that acts of violence must be denounced by us all.''

Opposition critics accused Mugabe and his government of using the invasions to intimidate potential opposition supporters and voters ahead of parliamentary elections expected in June.

Many of those killed have been overt supporters of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), which represents the biggest challenge yet to the 20-year rule of Mugabe and his ZANU-PF.

Africa's Silence on Mugabe

Zimbabwe's leader can sustain his politics of racial confrontation because other leaders refuse to criticize their brethren

PRANAY GUPTE - Newsweek International, May 15, 2000

Some months ago, President Robert Gabriel Mugabe of Zimbabwe traveled to the Namibian capital of Windhoek for a regional economic conference. He attended seminars on globalization and technology. When I asked Mugabe about his country's tottering economy, the response was forthright. "I'm here to learn," Mugabe said. "Africa's leaders can teach others about building peaceful societies. But they must also learn more from others about how to build their own economies."

Last week a more combative Mugabe was on display when he unveiled an election manifesto for his Zimbabwe African National Union for voting that must be held by July. Mugabe seemed to be accelerating his relentless drumbeat against the country's whites, whom he has accused, among other things, of conspiring with a surprisingly strong opposition party that's posing a threat to his presidential tenure. The 76-year-old Mugabe, a lifelong Marxist, attributed his country's woes to economic sabotage by capitalist powers. He blamed "neocolonialism" for social tensions in his nation of 12.5 million, mostly poor tribal people. He vowed to seize half of Zimbabwe's arable 12 million hectares from some 4,000 white farmers who currently hold about 70 percent of such land—and "redistribute" it to peasants. Mugabe reiterated that he would not evict armed black squatters who'd been occupying nearly 1,000 white-owned farms since February. (More than 20 people have been killed in violence related to this issue.) He demanded that Britain, the former colonial power, should compensate his government for undertaking land reform—a demand that was met with scorn in Whitehall.

The reaction from Zimbabwe's 70,000 whites as well as much of the non-African international community was one of deepening alarm. At the weekend, the Australian, British, New Zealand and U.S. embassies were reporting long lines of white applicants for permanent visas. On Saturday a U.N. Security Council delegation led by U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke was scheduled to make a detour from a crisis mission to Congo and meet with Mugabe—the same day that Zimbabwe police briefly detained Mugabe's main foe, Morgan Tsvangirai, and four members of his Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).

On Friday, President Thabo Mbeki of neighboring South Africa linked up with Mugabe at a Zimbabwe trade fair in Bulawayo; the meeting had been scheduled well before Mugabe's tirade. Mbeki surely had reason for concern. The South African rand hit a new low of 6.98 to the dollar on Friday, partly in reaction to the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe. But there was also worry among South African whites that Mbeki hadn't sufficiently distanced himself from Mugabe's anti-white moves. Indeed, Mbeki said that South Africa would not adopt a "counterproductive holier-than-thou attitude" toward Zimbabwe, although he added that "this important matter [should be] dealt with in a cooperative and nonconfrontational manner among all the people of this sister country, both black and white."

Mbeki wasn't alone in his refusal to engage in plain talk with Mugabe. Not one African statesman—including U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan—has publicly criticized Mugabe. Why? It isn't necessarily because of any great admiration for his accomplishments. In his 20 years of power since Britain formally granted Rhodesia independence at the Lancaster House talks, Mugabe has steadily run his economy to the ground through profligate government spending and governance that's negligent about poverty alleviation and delivery of social services.

Part of the reason Robert Mugabe has been able to sustain his politics of racial confrontation is that it's long been traditional for African leaders to willfully overlook the follies of their brethren. The Organization of African Unity actively discourages internal criticism of its 53 member states. Uganda was once a showcase for a multiracial society in postcolonial Africa until military dictator Idi Amin Dada seized power, threw out the mercantile Asian community and murdered tens of thousands of his fellow blacks. No condemnation was forthcoming from African leaders—until the then President Julius K. Nyerere of Tanzania unilaterally dispatched his troops to topple Amin. In sympathy for Amin's plight, the Saudis gave him sanctuary.

If there's some prospect of greater social stability in Africa, it may lie in the recent determination of donor countries to link aid and investment to better governance and transparency in policymaking. Mugabe can thunder about white hegemony and neoimperialism, but without hard currency and technical expertise from the non-African world, Zimbabwe's future will be bleak. Even his most rabid followers are unlikely to savor living in an impoverished society riven with racial tensions. That also doesn't augur well for Mugabe's political longevity.

Gupte is editor and publisher of The Earth Times (earthtimes.com).

Zimbabwe farm battles go deeper than politics
Posted at 12:00 a.m. Pacific; Wednesday, May 10, 2000

by Charlie James
Special to The Seattle Times

Europeans came to Zimbabwe in 1890, in the person of Cecil Rhodes of the British South Africa Company. He had a charter from Britain to colonize the land, and he named it Rhodesia, after himself. Because of superior weaponry, he defeated the major African tribe, the Ndebele, and ran the country like his personal fiefdom.

The African tribes were kicked off the best land in the nation and it was divided among white farmers. Twenty years after independence, approximately 4,400 white farmers still control 32 percent of the best land in the nation. One million black families farm 38 percent.

Most of the land owned by white farmers is in fertile areas, while the black farmers own land primarily in drought-prone regions.

You hear all kinds of reasons why some of the veterans of the war for independence have now taken over and homesteaded land owned by white farmers. But basically they are saying that it's time for the land to be redistributed back to its original owners who were never compensated.

Many of the current white farmers bought their land from other whites fleeing the country after independence. They are using the argument that they had nothing to do with the sins of the past and this impasse has turned into mini-wars that have led to the death of people on both sides.

Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's only president and one of the leaders of the war for independence, is siding with his old comrades, and some people believe that he is behind the entire thing to distract from his mounting opposition within Zimbabwe.

But I am amazed at how this story is being told in the West. It's as though these white farmers bought the land fairly and now are under attack by some black thugs. It's completely told from the white farmers' point of view and clearly anti-Mugabe.

I will be the first to say that Mugabe has outlived his usefulness as president. Knowing when to get out of the way is the most difficult thing for any leader to recognize. Especially if you know that once you are no longer in power you may end up assassinated or forced into permanent exile.

Mugabe's volatile personality would make it impossible for him to sit quietly by and allow someone else to restructure the nation he has controlled for so long. Great revolutionaries rarely make great leaders but Mugabe got close. But that does not make Mugabe wrong when he says that it's time for the white farmers to give back the land. It is.

The smart thing would have been for the white farmers to concede portions of their land back to the indigenous tribes. Instead, they have taken a hard line about their right to the land. It's a clash of more than just law. It's a clash of cultures.

Individual ownership of land was not a concept widely practiced in Africa. Most West African societies believe the gods owned the land and they were its caretakers. Europeans believe in individual ownership that it is passed down through the family for eternity.

It's difficult for black Africans to accept the notion that whites still control and own their ancestral lands years after independence has been gained. Mugabe did not invent these sentiments even though he is obviously exploiting them.

A New World Order is in the making, but the Old World Order, represented by slavery in America and colonialism in Africa (and other Third World countries), still plays a major role in the lives of people of color. Will the British still buy the tobacco being grown in Zimbabwe after the whites are gone? If not, what does that do to the economy?

These issues go to the heart of the relationship between Europeans and Africans as we go into this new millennium.

Our history goes back a long way, starting in 705 A.D. when the Moors invaded and occupied Spain and Portugal for 800 years. We have been at each others' throats ever since.

A lot has happened in the last 1,300 years. We have enslaved each other for hundreds of years at a time. Africans have invaded and occupied Europe, and now Europeans have invaded and occupied Africa. In between all of that we have both made significant contributions in creating the most powerful country the world has ever seen. This nation is playing, and will continue to play, a major role in the fate of both Europe and Africa.

But our policy must be balanced and we must be willing to import cash crops from Zimbabwe regardless of the color of the farmer.

This land battle can only end up one way and the whites will eventually lose. Their numbers are too small and their history in Africa too unsavory for it to be any other way.

But whites can still determine how they lose and may even be able to negotiate a different kind of relationship if they act quickly. Black Africans are determined not to end up with the same fate as indigenous people in Australia and the Americas. They have won their nation back, but they still don't have control of the land and that's intolerable for a people who worship the land they live on.

That doesn't have anything to do with Mugabe's politics - his days are numbered. That's just the story of a people and their land. How America responds to majority rule in other countries will have a major impact on Zimbabwe's view of democracy, as well as greatly define our power and influence as a nation.

Charlie James is publisher of the African-American Business & Employment Journal and can be contacted by e-mail at aabej@seanet.com

Zimbabwe Land Strife Puts Food Supply at Risk
By Russ Oates, nationalgeographic.com

The turmoil over land ownership roiling Zimbabwe may prove to be the least of that country's worries.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said Friday that Zimbabwe is teetering on the edge of a serious food crisis. The issue of land reform is only one of the contributing factors.

When the world was transfixed on February's flooding in Mozambique, little attention was paid to the flooding in its neighbor to the west, where extensive crop damage was inflicted on Zimbabwe's eastern and southern provinces.

To add to its woes, Zimbabwe, a nation of 11 million, also has been suffering from a fuel shortage due in part to its foreign debt burden, which it struggles to repay. The country has difficulty in borrowing more money. And as if all that was enough, Zimbabwe has been sucked into the regional and civil war in the Congo putting even more strain on its financial resources and deepening the government's unpopularity with the voters.

For the last two months, black squatters have been invading large white-owned farms. They are frustrated by broken land-reform promises made by the government over the years. The government, in turn, blames the former colonial power, Britain, which it says must pay for meaningful redistribution of agricultural land in Zimbabwe. As much as 70 percent of Zimbabwe's most fertile land is still in the hands of about 4,000 white farmers—two decades after the country won its independence at the end of a bruising war of liberation.

Many of the squatters invading the white farms are veterans of the war. They say they have not seen the benefits of their victory.

Britain has agreed in principle to give Zimbabwe financial assistance for land reform. However, talks between the British and Zimbabwe governments in Britain last week did not yield any progress. Britain insists that before it hands over any money the illegal invasions of the commercial farms must be stopped, and it wants the Zimbabwe government to call free and fair elections which are now due.

Britain also is anxious to see that its money is used for distribution of land to deserving people and to broaden the ownership of the country's agriculture. Previous land-distribution programs have largely benefited the political supporters of the president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe.

In an atmosphere of rising tension, violence has erupted and a number of people, whites and blacks, have been killed. Crops have been burned in fields and stores.

"This has created a climate of fear amongst the farmers," said the FAO, "many of whom have abandoned their farms and left their livestock unattended and fled to the relative safety of urban areas. These events are taking place at a time when the farmers should be harvesting, processing and marketing their crops, particularly maize, the country's staple food, and tobacco, the top foreign exchange earner.

"It is also the time to start preparing for planting the wheat crop in June/July, a crop that is almost entirely produced by large-scale commercial farmers under irrigation.

"There is, therefore, growing concern that if the violence continues, there will be a serious drop in food production and supply, jeopardizing national food security."

IMPACT WILL BE FELT NEXT YEAR

While the impact of the disturbances on the food supply situation may be significant this year, says the FAO, it may be felt more severely next year.

The FAO points out that since independence in 1980 after a century of colonial rule, Zimbabwe has made impressive progress in the agriculture sector, being a net exporter of maize mainly to neighboring countries. But now "these gains are likely to be compromised by the disturbances and the deepening economic problems."

� National Geographic Society

Mugabe's White Scapegoats

Saturday, 13 May 2000

3�May 2000 / Neue Z'rcher Zeitung, 29/30�April 2000

A specter haunts Africa: the specter of the white man pursued by black hordes and fearing for life and limb. Is there no longer any place for whites in Africa, as a concerned reader writes to the Pretoria News? Has the time come when another, final wave of decolonization will sweep the whites out of Africa? That dark scenario is nourished in good measure by the lawlessness of former guerrillas and unemployed individuals in Zimbabwe who are squatting on white-owned farms and have not hesitated to use violence and firearms. There are also the many white farmers who have been murdered in the "new South Africa," as well as people like the Kenyan parliamentarian who the other day reminded his countrymen that foreigners still hold large parcels of land in Kenya while many blacks remain landless, "just as if the Mau Mau uprising had never happened."

There certainly is still a place for whites in Africa. Not all white farmers in Zimbabwe have been affected by squatters on their land, nor are those actions a warning of the fate of whites throughout Black Africa. Mozambique continues to receive white farmers with open arms, as does Zambia. The occupation of farms in Zimbabwe is only superficially about racism and a racist-motivated dislike of whites. The real motivation behind it is election politics and power. At stake is the political survival of the governing Zimbabwe African National Union - Patriotic Front (Zanu-PF), which is being called into question less by the country's whites, who make up not even 1�percent of the population, than by the black majority itself.

After 20 years of uninterrupted rule, aside from a strong expansion of the primary school system and some improvement in health care the Zanu-PF has little to show for itself that would justify its remaining in charge of the government and might prompt voters to give it yet another chance in the forthcoming parliamentary elections. The regime of President Robert Mugabe has failed, especially in the economic realm. The average income of Zimbabweans is less today than it was 20 years ago, nearly half the working-age populace is unemployed, and there is not enough hard currency in the country to purchase much-needed imports, resulting in repeated bottlenecks in the supply of imported goods. Government finances are a mess, and in recent years there has been a noticeable lack of political will to straighten out the state-run enterprises which continue to operate with high losses. In addition, the government plunged into an expensive military adventure in the Congo, driven by Mugabe's thirst for great-leader status and the greed for booty on the part of high-ranking officers. In the referendum on a new constitution designed to broaden his powers, President Mugabe was handed a long-overdue setback in February. Voters rejected the new constitution, marking Mugabe's first-ever political defeat. At a stroke, there was improvement in the opposition's prospects of defeating the governing party in the upcoming parliamentary elections and thus of toppling Mugabe from his throne.

The Zanu-PF reacted promptly - with the occupation of white-owned farms. Nominally, the campaign is being led by an association of former bush fighters, but all indications point to top government officials and Mugabe's party pulling the strings behind the scenes. Declining production in the crucial sector of commercial farming, danger to people's lives, the ignoring of court orders for squatters to vacate the occupied farms - all these things count less in the Zanu-PF's reckoning than the dance around the golden calf of ostensible necessity to correct, here and now, the historic injustice of racially imbalanced land ownership. With their smaller numbers, their envy-provoking prosperity, their political defenselessness and their different skin color, the white farmers are ideal scapegoats whom the government can blame for all its own omissions, mistakes and failures. The transparent, indeed blatant diversionary tactic is clearly intended to channel the ruling party's disillusioned supporters in a new direction. It also is a convenient tool for intimidating the political opposition. The farm squatters are beating suspected and proven supporters of the opposition, including black farm workers who remain loyal to their white employers.

Of course, the appeal of the civil war veterans for a forced redistribution of farmland could never have had such a strong, mobilizing impact if there had not been a genuine hunger for arable land in Zimbabwe. The great majority of the 11.4 million Zimbabweans live crammed together on over-used and relatively unproductive land held as communal property, while approximately 4,000 farmers share more than half of the best agricultural land. Not even the Farmers' Union denies the need for land reform, though for years it fought against the government's program of forced purchases of land for the purpose of redistribution. The problem is not, as Mugabe claims, a lack of funds with which to buy farmland. Zimbabwe's government is sitting on hundreds of thousands of hectares of undistributed land which could be made available to needy peasants. Yet, between 1980, the year of independence, and 1995, only 71,000 families were resettled on newly redistributed farmland - not even half as many as Mugabe said, during the first five years of his rule, that he wanted to help find a new livelihood.

It was not so much high land prices and the refusal of white farmers to sell that kept land reform down. A much larger obstacle was the high follow-up costs: expenditures for preparing the land for planting, for new housing and communal facilities, for training, for the purchase of farm implements and seeds, and for the creation of marketing organizations. Actually, even the funds to do all that would have been available if the government had not squandered them in corruption and mismanagement. Nothing illustrates this better than the assignment of dozens of farms - land which the state had purchased for the purpose of distribution to the needy - to cabinet ministers and other high officials, often at extremely low rentals.

Another possibly crucial obstacle to Zimbabwe's land reform efforts has been the method of land assignment. Resettled peasants have been given neither long-term leases nor title deeds, merely permission to work the land assigned to them. Without deeds of title, no commercial bank is willing to provide credits for operating the farms. Mugabe's regime shares with many other African governments an aversion to individual ownership of real estate, deriving from the tradition of "African socialism." Land is seen not as an economic but rather a political and social resource. Control over access to this resource guarantees a political following.

Zimbabwe's farm crisis reveals a dilemma of modernization which also faces other African governments. Population pressure makes better land utilization and higher per-acre production absolutely necessary - which can be achieved only through an agriculture that is characterized by private ownership, modern farming techniques and market orientation. But it is precisely that sort of agricultural practice which is hampered by consideration for old traditions and traditional institutions, that of communal property primary among them. President Mugabe may succeed in the short-term goal of winning elections with redistribution of land, but that will not be enough to generate lasting development.

Anton Christen

3�May 2000 / Neue Z'rcher Zeitung, 29/30�April 2000