Zimbabwe -- Beware the U-turn

Despite the arrests of hundreds of whites in Zimbabwe for daring to continue trying to grow crops or even occupy family homes, no one should be surprised if a sudden apparent U-turn is announced by Robert Mugabe's regime on the issue of whites and land.

It would be a gross misreading to interpret this as "readiness to be conciliatory," or a triumph for "quiet diplomacy by African brothers," or surrender in the face of famine and diplomatic pressure.

The fact is that though Mugabe was forced to retreat from imposing a one-party state on Zimbabwe in the 1980s, he has never given up the idea of removing everyone's autonomy by having their family's livelihood depend on the goodwill of himself and his party.

There are already the first signs of a coming announcement that suitably qualified whites will be permitted leases alongside black agricultural graduates for farms that comply with maximum specified holding sizes in the various agricultural regions. Sizes range from a few hundred hectares in the better-watered Region One (near Harare) to over a thousand in the arid west that is generally thought suitable only for extensive ranching.

It will be announced that, as a refutation of detractors who say he was out to ethnically cleanse whites from Zimbabwe, whites will be able to obtain leases on exactly the same terms as black citizens. What could be more reasonable?

As Mugabe put it at the annual Heroes Day ceremonies on August 12: "We shall always welcome and respect loyal citizens or residents who co-operate with government and respect our people, policies and decisions." "All genuine and well meaning white farmers, who wish to pursue a farming career as loyal citizens of this country, need not go without land," he added. Only those who want to "own land for Britain" who would have to pack and go. For them "the game is up."

The key to understanding what Mugabe and his Zanu PF party are up to - for blacks as well as whites - is the word "leases." The ruling party moguls, security force chiefs and 54,000 others getting so-called "model 2" holdings, capable of being farmed on an individual basis, will not be granted the freehold their 5,000 white predecessors had (The first 2,900 seizure and eviction orders fell due on August 9 and scores of whites were detained over the past weekend for defying them, although their constitutional validity is heavily in doubt).

At the first sign of political disloyalty the "new farmers", as Mugabe calls them, will be liable to instant eviction.

"Owning land for Britain" means supporting civil society, or talking to human rights groups critical of Zanu PF, or voting for an opposition party. Mugabe showered praise on his ruling party youth militia, now commonly known here as the "Green Bombers". Their fraudulent claims to be ex- guerrillas from the 1972-80 bush war in Rhodesia were exposed in the early days of farm invasions, after the February 2000 constitutional referendum. It was the crushing defeat of Zanu PF in that referendum that caused Mugabe to unleash country-wide violence under cover of agitation for land reform in order to ensure a semblance of victory in the June 2000 parliamentary elections and the March 2002 presidential poll.

This campaign of terror Mugabe calls the "Third Chimurenga" or civil war. "The Third Chimurenga has yielded a New War Veteran: these young men and women who slugged it out on the farms in support of their elder veterans...We are not apologetic about our national youth service programme...it is mandatory, it is national, it links to the politics and defence of our country…It seeks to and will build a new national cadre who is self respecting, adequate, assertive and patriotic and thus does not apologise for being black," he said.

Mugabe sees his enemy as "White-ism" – the route `"through which the forces of imperialism and neo-colonialism enter."

Mugabe either does not know that it is impossible to run commercially viable farms on the lord-and-vassal system he is imposing, or feels that the economic costs are more than offset by the blessings of "political stability" (i.e. he gets to stay in power until he can hand over to his children).

Commercial agriculture here only prospered by being keenly responsive to world market trends. In the 20 years since the state monopoly, the Minerals Marketing Corporation, was created, millions have been lost through the tardiness of bureaucrats in responding to potential orders – they are paid for loyalty, not for initiative.

Doris Lessing, a founder member of Rhodesia's long defunct Communist party, concedes that her father's Kermanshah Farm at Banket (one of the 2,900 now being seized, although her family sold up 60 years ago) was hopelessly sub-economic at 400 hectares - and those were the days of ox-ploughing.

To maintain competitive edge in an age of mechanisation, farmers need security of tenure, title deeds that can be lodged with financial institutions against loans.

A viable farm here usually needs a proportion of irrigable land (with a sufficient catchment area and its own dam) that can be worked in conjunction with "dry land" crops and grazing.

Agronomists suspect many of the moguls getting a few hundred hectares have no intention of working them commercially. They will be "cellphone farmers" developing retirement homes and weekend retreats where they can run "bush" cattle with 1 to 2 percent annual offtake.

Unlike their urban counterparts who vote for Morgan Tsvangirai's Movement for Democratic Change, many of the moguls are polygamists, and rural holdings are useful dumping grounds for superannuated wives. Without skills or capital, such women scratch a living with no hope of a profit.

Mugabe's "land reform" does not just mean bringing a few remaining whites to heel economically or ideologically. It means a defeat for women's rights and children's rights, a return to witch hunts and intellectual sterility in all aspects of national life.

Good article. Very interesting. I was thinking that Mugabe wants famine in Zimbabwe because that increases his power over people. Many governments in the past have used famine as a political tool to exterminate people in areas that don't support them and to increase the level of control that they can exert over the nation by controling the distribution of food aid.

And, correct me if I am wrong, but the Zimbabwe has one vote in the UN, just like the United States.

A good thing to remember next time we ask permission from the UN to do anything.

And, correct me if I am wrong, but the Zimbabwe has one vote in the UN, just like the United States.

OK, you are wrong. The US has veto power. Zimbabwe does not. The two are equal in the General Assembly, but not on the Security Council. I know that you understand that, and your point is correct, but to state it as you did does a disservice to your argument.

I was thinking that Mugabe wants famine in Zimbabwe because that increases his power over people. Many governments in the past have used famine as a political tool to exterminate people in areas that don't support them and to increase the level of control that they can exert over the nation by controling the distribution of food aid.

Can you say Muhammad Farah Aideed in Black Hawk Down???

I havn't seen black hawk down but I hear he was making money by taking the food aid and selling it. That's why we decided to go after him. It wouldn't surpise me if he was also intentionally starving people as well.

***The key to understanding what Mugabe and his Zanu PF party are up to - for blacks as well as whites - is the word ********************"LEASES********************." The ruling party moguls, security force chiefs and 54,000 others getting so-called "model 2" holdings, capable of being farmed on an individual basis, will not be granted the freehold their 5,000 white predecessors had (The first 2,900 seizure and eviction orders fell due on August 9 and scores of whites were detained over the past weekend for defying them, although their constitutional validity is heavily in doubt). At the first sign of political disloyalty the "new farmers", as Mugabe calls them, will be liable to instant eviction. ***

"OK, you are wrong. The US has veto power. Zimbabwe does not. The two are equal in the General Assembly, but not on the Security Council. I know that you understand that, and your point is correct, but to state it as you did does a disservice to your argument."

ACTUALLY, I suspected that to be the case but was not sure. However, I am one of those wierdos who will post a question without being sure of the answer in order to learn instead of simply to preach. I did not understand about the veto power. Thanks for the response. I'm a seeker with an agenda, not a tyrant! ;-)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.