By Martin Plaut
BBC Africa analyst
The key role played by the United States ahead of Zimbabwe's independence in resolving the sticky point of land redistribution has just come to light.
The land issue has always been emotive in Zimbabwe - as can be seen with the current crisis sparked off by the government seizure of mainly white-owned farms in 2000. More...
3 comments:
I'm sure there are many ways to look at this but from the article I get the impression that the deal was actually working until the distribution of land stopped going to the people and instead began going to insiders as is the case today. Seems to me that vwestern powers kept up their part of the bargain until corrupt practices surfaced.
It seems odd that the British would go to the US for help on the Rhodesia/Zimbabwe issue. Why would the US be responsible when most of the farmers were of British origin? The article also does not say if the US ever paid even 1 cent towards this program.
You are not entirely correct to suggest that "the distribution of land stopped going to the people and instead began going to insiders as is the case today".
People have benefitted from the land reform. If you still think that its the insiders then you are demonstrating that you are out of touch with current events on the grounds.
The Carter government was determined to make the talks a success and as a result committed themselves to paying for the land. But of course, you never know what was under their sleeve...you never know with the US.
What surprises me about this article is as if this information was top secret and had not been known before and the BBC has just discovered it.
When I said land went to insiders I was merely quoting the article. If I doubt one peice of the article then I would be forced to doubt the whole article.
Plus I know for a fact that the best and largest farms have gone to ZPF big wigs. Let not be naive.
I fail to understand why you think it was so important for the Carter administration to have success at these talks. If it were would they not have made their contribution more public?
Post a Comment