|
Zimbabwe: Dancing to the tune without knowing why
2007-03-29 09:33:30
By Ben Mabula
Sometime in the year 2002, the writer of this article went to Harare, where he stayed for a few days and also managed to visit some localities near the capital city of Zimbabwe.
This was precisely at a time when widespread land seizures had taken place in Zimbabwe, to a major outcry from the foreign press, which was understandably, firmly on the side of the white settlers.
Being a daily watcher of news here in Dar es Salaam, I was constantly watching the foreign news correspondents reporting from Zimbabwe on daily basis about the ``total breakdown of law and order in Zimbabwe.``
So while being driven around the nearby countryside, I would persistently ask my hosts as to where the total breakdown of law and order was, as I could see people going around with their day to day business in Zimbabwe in a peaceful manner.
``You know,`` replied one of my hosts, ``these BBC people sometimes exaggerate these things.``
On my last day in Harare, I had an opportunity to have lunch with a friend at Meikles Hotel in Harare. The restaurant was full of customers, most of whom were whites.
I asked a friend of mine about the exodus of white settlers which was being so much reported about.
``You see,`` said the friend, ``when the land seizures began, many whites went to Australia and attempted to settle there. However, most of them have found the going hard and are returning to Zimbabwe in droves.``
I could see that the interaction between the whites and blacks was normal.
I flew back to Dar es Salaam in the late afternoon.
Once at home, I was watching a BBC stringer broadcasting from Harare at 8.00 of the same day.
His report: ``You can sense the tension in Harare, where there is a total breakdown of law and order.``
I had been to Harare on the same day, yet this professional journalist from a civilized society was telling a deliberate lie for consumption by the whole world.
Years later, after the Zimbabwe government had formalized its land reform programme, through which white land owners who owned more than one farm were deprived of the rest and remained only with one farm so as to avail land to the black majority, as white farmers owned over 80percent of arable land and the black population was congested in rocky areas after their ancestors were thrown out from their ancestral land by Cecil Rhodes.
From then onwards, the demonisation of the government of Zimbabwe, especially President Mugabe, began to take root.
The political opposition and the civil society began receiving millions of dollars from their patrons in Britain, who were eager to reverse the land reform drive.
All kinds of bankrolled political activists sprang up and began singing the popular calypso of Mugabe bashing, which continues to be fashionable up to this day.
Many of the people who yearn for freedom and democracy around the globe have been prejudiced by this campaign because most of them have no idea of Zimbabwe’s contemporary history, or whether the whole outcry centres around the issue of land, which is not so simple a matter.
For one to understand Zimbabwe and form a judgement on its current political state, it is vital to go back to the Lancaster House Agreement.
The background to the Lancaster House Agreement was the realization by both Britain and the minority regime of Rhodesia led by Ian Smith that the battleground had been lost to ZANU guerillas, who were now striking targets in Salisbury (now Harare) at will.
The leadership of ZANU was now in the hands of Robert Mugabe, a brilliant and astute strategist, after he was freed from ten years detention without trial for fighting the racist minority rule.
A meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government which took place in Lusaka from August 1 to 7, 1979 paved way for the belligerent forces in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) to meet in the UK for negotiations.
Indeed, the Lancaster House Conference took place and agreement was reached after 40 plenary sessions.
The three-month conference almost failed to reach agreement due to disagreement on land reform. Mugabe who headed the ZANU delegation under the ZANu umbrella did not trust that a peace deal transfer of land to the majority would take place once he had placed his signature on the dotted line, and time had proved him right.
However, Robert Mugabe, who was the key stumbling block, was eventually pressured to sign by the frontline state leaders, especially Mwalimu Nyerere, who told him to accept political independence first and all would follow.
It was reported then that Mugabe was staying with a British friends during the talks, and he was almost in tears when it became inevitable that he had to sign the agreement without securing a foolproof arrangement for land transfer.
It was said that he even refused to take his supper because he suspected that Britain would renege on the agreement at some stage. Indeed, this is what is happening even now.
So the Lancaster House Agreement was signed on December 21, 1979. The agreement ended white rule under Ian Smith.
The conference was chaired by Lord Carrington, the UK secretary of state for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
It was signed between the Patriotic Front consisting of ZAPU and ZANU, and the Zimbabwe Rhodesia Government represented by Bishop Muzorewa and Ian Smith.
The conference reached agreement on the following issues:
*The Independence Constitution
*Arrangements for the pre-independence period.
*A ceasefire agreement
Those who signed the agreement were Lord Carrington, Sir Ian Gilmour, Robert Mugabe, Joshua Nkomo, Bishop Muzorewa and Dr S.C. Mundawarara.
The agreement provided that the Independence Constitution should not be changed for 10 years and 20 percent of Parliamentary seats had to be reserved for whites during that period.
Mugabe, who became the new leader, was tied up by the agreement as the Constitution barred him from undertaking any land reforms during the first ten years. He abided to the Independence Constitution for all those ten years.
To facilitate the Agreement, both the British and American governments offered to buy land from white farmers on willing buyer/willing seller basis for re-distribution to the majority blacks.
This did not happen for all those 10 years. It was only the first phase of the programme in the 1980s which was faintly accomplished after Britain partially funded the settling of 70,000 landless people.
When Tony Blair took over, his government refused to accept its Lancaster House obligations and the foreign cooperation minister Clare Short wrote a no-nonsense letter to the government of Zimbabwe disclaiming any responsibility for funding the land reform.
Mugabe told Britain that he would take over the land by force and this is what he did. Soon after the land seizures began, trade union leaders in Zimbabwe soon became the darling of the British government and took a radical political tone.
These are the ones who formed the purely foreign funded and controlled MDC, which is enjoying full Western media support.
The battle in Zimbabwe is between the old oppressive system of the settlers and those who brought the change through armed struggle.
Several leaders and top advisers of the MDC belonged to the racist Selous Scouts special armed regiment, which was responsible for a lot of atrocities committed against black people, including poisoning wells and infecting communal water sources with viruses of epidemics like cholera.
These are now the heroes of democracy in Zimbabwe and are fighting to bring about regime change by hooks and crooks.
Ian Smith, the renegade who said that no black man would rule Rhodesian in 100 years, is a force behind the so-called civil society in Zimbabwe.
Smith is widely seen by the foreign press as a fighter for democracy in Zimbabwe while Robert Mugabe is the demon, the enemy of the people of Zimbabwe and a man who cannot read the signs of the times!
|
