Today 5 November 2007 is the 10th year since Clare Short wrote a letter to the government of Zimbabwe denying responsibility of the British government towards funding the land reform. And fittingly I reproduce the letter in full.
It is this letter which led to the stand off between Britain and Zimbabwe because the former were refusing to honour their obligations they voluntarily agreed to at the Lancaster House Conference in 1979 as part of the agreement that brought independence to Zimbabwe. [Read letter]...
26 comments:
The British role in land reform
The Zimbabwean - the real facts!
Wednesday, 24 October 2007 15:29
PETER FREEMAN, the first British development agency representative to
Zimbabwe in 1980, gives an insider's view into the workings of the early
stages of the British-funded land reform programme.
THE BRITISH ROLE IN LAND REFORM
AN INSIDER'S STORY
For over a century, in colonial Rhodesia and post-colonial Zimbabwe,
the right to own and occupy land has driven political struggle and dominated
the economy.
For over 20 years, working for successive British governments, it was
part of my life too. As millions of people now go hungry and agricultural
production plummets what happened to frustrate the hopes we had at
independence and to bring about our worst fears? This is what I saw.
In the early 1980's I was the British government's representative on
the committee in Harare that approved resettlement projects that both
governments financed. The cost of land purchase and of the necessary
infrastructure - water, roads, power, clinics and schools - was shared
equally between the two governments. Each scheme was identified and
developed by Zimbabwean officials and the land price was negotiated with the
commercial farmer. They were appraised for economic viability by British
advisers and we visited most of them. Other donors, including the EU and the
African Development Bank, helped to finance infrastructure (though not land
purchase) in other schemes. Independent evaluations showed subsequently that
the great majority of them worked well, enabling thousands of small-scale
farmers and their families to make a productive living. Over 2 million
hectares changed hands in this way.
This programme stemmed from the much-criticised compromises made at
Lancaster House in 1979. ZANU(PF) and ZAPU argued that buying out the white
farmers was something for Britain alone to do, and many farmers would
certainly have welcomed being paid in sterling with a British government
guarantee rather than in Zimbabwean dollars. For a government in London that
was cutting back heavily on public spending at home such largesse to people
who had supported a rebel government, who were often not British citizens
and mostly had no wish to live here, was never a starter. Watching the
negotiations in 1979 from the Zimbabwe desk in the British aid ministry I
remember being surprised at how easily Mugabe and Nkomo settled for pledges
of future assistance for land reform, not even insisting on a figure for the
amount of money.
More fundamental realities also favoured land reform in 1980. The
Muzorewa regime had bought substantial tracts of farmland at cheap rates in
areas where war (the cost of security) during the independence struggle hit
commercial profits, and immediately after independence there were few
alternative purchasers in the market. The planning bureaucracy in the
Agriculture and Rural Development Authority (ARDA) and other government
departments, and the availability of people and machinery to implement the
plans, was also comparatively strong.
However from the start there was a serious problem. President Mugabe
showed no interest, then or later, in solving the complex and sensitive
political issue of land ownership via this negotiated route. In 1981 a
target of 180,000 settler families in three years suddenly appeared, many
times higher than the capacity of the programme that British and Zimbabwean
Ministers had signed up to. To do it would probably have produced the same
dreadful results that we have seen 25 years later. But the announcement had
a political impact. The initial enthusiasm for the joint programme of Mr
Movern Mahachi and Dr Sydney Sekeremayi, the first of many Ministers
responsible for land reform, cooled as they failed to get support from State
House. During the years that followed the flow of new proposals slowed down
and the Zimbabwean capacity to implement them was dismantled.
When we reviewed the programme in 1989 we found that the British aid
funds that had been pledged after independence, which Zimbabwe ministers had
criticised as hopelessly inadequate, had not been fully claimed. The
Ministries of Land and of Finance had not asked for aid money due for work
on approved projects and new proposals were not coming forward. Lynda
Chalker, then Minister for Overseas Development, wrote to Zimbabwean
ministers reminding them of the debts that Britain owed and promising new
money when the post-independence pledges had been used. There was no
response.
This depressing lack of activity continued into the 1990's while the
political pressure built up. Amendments to the constitutional provisions for
land purchase changed nothing on the ground. The practical proposals of the
commission on land tenure, which might over time have revolutionised farming
practices throughout rural Zimbabwe and given renewed impetus for land
reform on a sustainable basis, were brushed aside. And the British side,
finding little pressure from Harare, buried its head and hoped the issue had
gone away.
Shortly after I became responsible for British aid to Africa in June
1996 the Ministers for Land and for Local Government, Kumbirai Kangai and
John Nkomo, arrived unexpectedly in London. They told Lynda Chalker they had
come to reopen the Lancaster House settlement on land. Mugabe had, as usual,
fought the recent election with grandiose promises of land transfer to be
financed by Britain. They wanted the money, would stay as long as it took,
and would be reporting back each evening to their President at his London
hotel.
Three days of discussion followed, during which they were embarrassed
to be given copies of the 1989 letter and surprised to discover that the UK
Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind had researched the colonial Land
Apportionment Acts while at law school in Salisbury in the 1960's. He knew
more than them about the historic wrongs that needed to be put right through
land reform. A memorandum signed by both sides promised a fresh pledge of
British aid for a renewed joint programme. It offered technical help to
develop it. Back in Harare, once again, nothing happened.
The following year Mugabe tried again. He hoped the arrival of a
Labour government would enable him to tear up the compromises he had made,
but never acknowledged, eighteen years before. He wrote to Tony Blair asking
for a fresh start based on the British government accepting full
responsibility for buying out the white farmers and handing the land to his
government to distribute as he thought fit, the position he had consistently
taken. He claimed, wrongly, that a previous Labour government had offered
such a deal twenty years earlier when David Owen and Andrew Young had
proposed a "Zimbabwe Development Fund".
Clare Short wrote a letter in reply that became famous when Mugabe
read an extract to his party congress. The reference to her Irish background
that he held up for scorn was intended to acknowledge that Zimbabwe is not
the only place where land expropriation by the colonial power had had a
negative impact on local people. Her encouragement to look forward, to work
together to design a land reform programme that would meet Zimbabwe's needs
in the 21st century rather than to focus wholly on the past, was either
beyond his understanding or did not suit his political aims.
The part of her letter he did not read out offered a fresh start,
though not the free hand and unlimited budget that he wanted. She offered
financial and technical assistance for an organised, Zimbabwe-led, programme
of land purchase and resettlement in partnership with other donors and
within the context of a British development effort now being focussed
world-wide on eliminating poverty. This was not what Mugabe wanted his
people to hear.
Further efforts by Britain, the UN and the World Bank over the next
two years to negotiate a sustainable rural development programme that would
meet justifiable political expectations were brushed aside. In September
1999 the Bank Board in Washington approved a US$5 million credit that had
been negotiated with Zimbabwean Ministers. It was meant to jump-start the
planning process and to start up a land acquisition fund for groups of
communal area farmers to draw on. I don't know whether anyone in Harare had
dared to tell Mugabe before the announcement. As ever he refused to endorse
it and it was never implemented. Turning his back on the outside world he
acted alone with the tragic results that The Zimbabwean continues to report.
So where did it all go wrong? 25 years ago many of us recognised that
the pace of change, beneficial though it was, could not meet the political
demands in Harare. But over many years attempts by politicians and civil
servants in Harare to reduce the bottlenecks in planning and implementation,
to allocate government funds for sustainable resettlement and to negotiate
foreign aid to support them, gained little or no support in ZANU(PF), in the
Cabinet or in State House
Did Mugabe and his circle all along want to allocate land as a means
of patronage, not as a route to development? Did they see land as simply a
symbolic issue and simply fail to understand its economic importance? Could
a more active British policy in the early 1990's have produced a response in
Harare that might have got a programme going again before frustrations
boiled over? Could the commercial farmers, rather than hoping to stay
forever, have acknowledged their fate and negotiated a phased handover to
productive successors?
These questions and others are unfortunately academic. The gap between
what Britain and other donors were prepared to offer and what Mugabe
demanded proved unbridgeable. Rather than compromise he has produced a
famine.
The British had to cover whatever gap was existing. They started it and promised to clean up their mess. Sure this debate can be academic. 50 000 people died for that land and for someone to come up with philosophising about the deaths of our kith and kin is an insult.
Who is Britain and the said donors? We did not have our brothers and sisters dying so that some obscure "DONORS" and BRITAIN could come and try to debate about our land. Its not a Mugabe initiative, its our initiative. If you want to condemn Mugabe do so. Its your freedom. Afrter condemning Mugabe then come to talk with us, the Zimbabweans and then you will have a better feel of what this land thing is. DONOR!!! WHAT IS A DONOR??
I told you that abusive contributions will be deleted.
The letter that Claire Short wrote was very insulting and demeaning. Belittling the whole government of an independent nation.She should have shown a little bit of respect. I wonder if she would have written the same to a white counterpart. I see the RACE thing in bold words here.
Kuthula.
Thank you for deleting the nonsense posted by so called "anonymous".
I am also vigorousily oppossed to Mugabe's disastrous Policies but i find it insulting for this guy to say you are from a "Pathetic Tribe" and had it been of not Donors your Tribe will be Starving.
To this mystery Anonymous coward,I say why can't you engage on a meaningful and reasonable manner?I can tell by the tone of your language that you are an ignorant,illeterate and miserable Black tribalist from Zimbabwe covering yourself with a White mask and pretending to be from the
West.Shame on you!For your own information-Our Tribe is not "pathetic" as you assert.We are so proud of our background and of who we are.I appeal to you next time to respect and remember that all of us(including you)we are members of this beautiful Human Race.
To my Brother Kuthula,I would like to warn you to guard against despising Donors,Eversince our Independence these guys has done a Splendid Job to the Poor Masses of Zimbabwe.Remember those terrible years of Drought in Zimbabwe.What about those years when Zanu Pf delared a State of Emergency in Matebeleland and used food as a Political weapon to starve innocent Villagers.Donors have been always there for the POOR.
Even South Africa,which is the Continent's economic Powerhouse is recieving Donor Funds and has never despised and shunned them.Remember what Visionless Mugabe said about the IMF and World Bank in 1998 referring them as "two beast whom Zimbabwe can live without their help".What happenned to our beautiful country when the so called "two beasts" vanished?
Let us not allow Politics mingled with Hate and envy blind us to a point that we are no longer Grateful to those who ofer us a Helping hand.Recipients of this kind gesture from Donors have testimonies and i believe they are so Grateful to them.
Nhlanhla.
I say that Zimbabwe should be left alone by donors. Before Mugabe and Zanu-pf the country had a growing economy, providing enough food to feed themselves and to export. Today the majority of the population are sustained by the 'enemy' British taxpayer. What a shame! Zimbabweans 'democratically' elected Mugabe and Zanu-pf - let them fry in their own fat. The 3 million Zimbabweans in other countries should be forced to return to go and sort out their own destiny. 50 000 people died for that land, let them eat that land. Go home Kuthula!
Thanks Nhlanhla. Its a pity that this bigot keeps popping up. He has many lives like a deveil...or he is indeed a devil!
I do not underrate donors. My first degree is in INternational Development Studies. I think I know them inside out and the role they have played in Zimbabwe. Some have really done THE BEST THEY CAN but others have been wolves in sheep skin, working for their principlals. Its not a new phenomenon in Zimbabwe but an established practice that is happening around the world.
In fact in sum, donors have created a mess mmuch more than sustainable assistance. They prioritise humanitarian aid on a hand to mouth basis and would not donate to sustainable projects. Why? Because it serves their commercial interests. And who are the donors? The same capitalists forces that are ripping open the world for their businesses. So I would be cautious about exalting "donors". (of course bearing in mind the poor quality and inadequate aid they provide - refer to UNDP 2005 Report).
That's true, I think we need to go back home and sure we need to go and eat that land. And indeed 50 000 of our brothers and sisters died. We are going to go back and EAT THE PRECIOUS LAND which is a heritage of the precious blood that spilt.
"They prioritise humanitarian aid on a hand to mouth basis and would not donate to sustainable projects" - history shows that only the poor sustains in Zimbabwe
Seems that you are afraid of the REAL flip side! Might as well stop deleting my comments, I will just keep on copying and paste. If you can't stand the heat, close down your blog.
For a guy coming from a nation without capital, you have a lot to say about capitalist! Eish, now how can we take you SIRRIOUS?
THE PRECIOUS LAND belonged to the San people (Bushmen). We stole it from them. We should give it back to them.
So, you want me to invest my capital in Zimbabwe and start a new business. But the Indigenisation and Empowerment Act forces me to give 51% to a local. You think I’m stupid? You think capital grows on trees? You think I trust you? With your dismal track record? Just another brilliant economic plan from that gang down south with zero understanding of investment – little wonder you have no capital.
Witmoer,
I am not afraid of the flip side but do not subscribe to insulting one another. If we have differences let's discuss them rather than insult each other. I am not even going to read anything that starts by an insult or has insults. You can post as much as you want, and I will delete as much as it is necessary.
I will engage all others except you. I will only engage you in deleting your message!!!
Moses Mujati,
If we stole the precious land from the SEN and they come demanding it then we should give it to them and ask to co-exist with them.
Moses...
If we refuse to co-exist with the rightful owners of the land after they have correctly claimed and acquired it, then we must be booted out.
Moses...
If we refuse to co-exist with the rightful owners of the land after they have correctly claimed and acquired it, then we must be booted out.
Listen to yourselves, blabbering on about historical occurences as if they matter. Ok the British said they would pay for land and they did not, that was 27 years ago. Are they going to pay for it today? No. Are they going to wake up tomorrow or at anytime in the future and decide to pay? No. So why do Zimbabweans feel the need to harp on about spilt milk? Zimbabweans are whining about the past while the rest of the world is racing into the future leaving us in their wake.
In any case why are black Zimbabweans concerned with this issue in any case? If Britain decided to pay even one pound that money would go to a White Zimbabwean farmer, not so? Well we have already taken the farms from these white farmers so if anything these white Zimbabwean farmers should be the ones crying about this issue and yet we see many black Zimbabweans shouting about this issue as if they are going to be a recipient of some cash.
For those of you who wanted the land so badly why aren't you back home demanding to farm what is your birthright instead of living in Canada and the UK? Kuthula, why not get a degree in Agriculture? Probably because like me you have no interest in farming just like many of those who were given farms who have left the land unused.
In my little opinion we should have left those white farmers in place but imposed higher taxes on them, this new tax revenue could have been used to send bright Zimbabweans like Kuthula abroad to study and bring back valuable knowledge to Zimbabwe.
Dave,
Had the British paid these white commercial farmers, zimbabwe would not be in such a critical economic situation. UK acted tactically to try and preserve its kith and kin economic previledge on the expense of the black zimbabwean. By not paying these farmers, UK was aware that any move to repossess the farms by the gvt would amount to "abuse of human rights(of the whites of course)", and "no rule of law " the latter refering to unpaid compensation to(the white race of course).
So Dave all the rhetoric you hear about Human rights abuses and no rule of law, should be seen in the context of white farmers. gukarahundi happened and Uk actually knighted mugabe during that era, so suddenly they want to lecture the world abt how bad mugabe is because he has displaced the white race from land which their ancestors stole at gunpoint?? Thats sickening. Uk orchestrated the sanctions and isolation of zim not because the black person was being oppressed in zim but because they have to be seen to be standing by their "own", white supremacy.
Rightly so if the UK had paid the money would have gone to the farmers not the black zimbabweans - you are absolutely right the farmers deserve compensation for all structures and improvements made on the land, that includes any livestock and machinery. Now the reality and the uncomfortable truth is - these farmers were born and raised in a priviledge environment, where they considered themselves superior to the black natives of zim. to them blacks are labourers and cannot and should not own the means of production. with these mentality even getting compensation was not an option, they wanted to remain there, do whatever they were doing, abuse the black farm labourers, break zim`s immigration rules by poaching farm workers from neighbouring countries who would then be abused with nowhere to go since they wld be illegal in zim. i personally think the white farmers actually secretly lobbied the uk gvt to refuse to pay for the land as a way of elbowing any efforts by the gvt to take the land back. given the priviledged life they enjoy in zim and africa in general, they definitely wont be able to cope with a life in the western world, where they wld be equal with everybody else - no cheap labour, no playing golf in borrowdale, no staff quarters for the gardener and house maid and above all no wearing the khaki shorts and those sunny hats!!
I dont have a problem with our zimbabwean white community who have wholeheartedly chose to intergrate with the natives of the country, but the majority live in "a little rhodesia", they have their own schools, own pubs, own sports clubs, own residential areas, surely that is not sustainable. If they cant stomach mixing with the black zimbabweans they should just pack and leave.
You suggest the gvt could have levied them by way of taxes, that again would have been rejected - they simply would have raised discrimination on the grounds of race. So ultimately, if the UK had paid these farmers , the farmers would not be making the noise about lack of rule of law since they would have been adequately compensated. I also think they wld not have been this talk about human rights abuses since the forced removal of farmers from the farms wld not have occurred, the whole process maybe wld have been carried out in an orderly manner.
Its a catch 22, the natives want their stolen land back, the occupiers believe they had nothing to do with colonialism since it was their ancestors who did the evil and not them - the jury is all out on this one!!
Nancy you make some good points but your main assumption that Zimbabwe would not be in this situation if the UK had paid these farmers in 1980 is false.
Let's face it over the 80s and 90s through the growth of Tobacco and other horticultural products these farmers brough in valuable forex which stabilized the Zimbabwe dollar and allowed many of us to live pretty good lives in Zimbabwe. Don't be fooled not all of us black Zimbabweans were farm workers or poor.
Let's suppose the UK had paid these farmers and they all left in 1981, are you suggesting Zimbabwe wouldn't have been in the same position we are in today? The fact is that black Zimbabweans did not and do not have access to capital and foreign markets to farm commercially on the same scale as these white Zimbabwean farmers.
I am not naive, many of these whites were racist and mistreated workers but show me a country where there are no racial problems. Ask any of these workers if they are better off today and see what they say. All we have done today by taking these farmers is replaced one master with another. Are the farm workers being treated any better?
You say that raising taxes on the farmers would have raised problems due to racial discrimination..........do you live under a rock? Do you think this government cares about racial discrimination against whites? Please don't make me laugh, they would have paid it and liked it because as you say where else are they gonna live like that if not in Zimbabwe.
Go and visit your Zim consulate in Canada, one of these days it will be gone.....heh heh heh
Mugabe Government Admits Zimbabwe White Farmers Were Wronged
VOA
By Peta Thornycroft
Southern Africa
12 November 2007
Zimbabwe's lands and security minister Didymus Mutasa has admitted in a
court in Europe that the government wrongfully seized white farms which
belonged to Dutch citizens who considered Zimbabwe their home. Peta
Thornycroft reports that at a hearing in Paris recently, a court is
considering what amount of compensation the Zimbabwe government should pay
to this group of farmers.
Five years after their homes and livelihoods were taken by President Robert
Mugabe's supporters, a group of 10 Dutch citizens who farmed in Zimbabwe
have presented their case for compensation to an international tribunal in
Paris.
Lands and security minister Didymus Mutasa appeared in the Paris court,
despite a visa ban by the European Union on Mutsasa and members of the
ruling Zanu PF.
The ban was temporarily lifted to allow him to travel to Paris to give
evidence at the tribunal ten days ago. The hearings were closed to the media
and the public.
The farmers took their case to the Washington-based International Center for
Settlement of the Investment Disputes calling for the Mugabe government to
admit breaching a bilateral investment treaty with the Netherlands. Mutasa
admitted in court that the treaty had been broken.
The court is expected to present its ruling on the amount of compensation
the farmers should receive before March next year.
If Mugabe's administration fails to pay compensation to the farmers, they
would have the right to seize any Zimbabwe government property outside the
country including loans from the World Bank and export earnings.
There are an additional 50 farmers from Switzerland, Germany and Denmark
whose lands have been seized and who are also preparing to go to the
tribunal to get compensation. All of them come from countries that have
similar treaties with Zimbabwe.
More than 4,000 white farmers and hundreds of thousands of their workers
lost homes and incomes during the land seizures. The land grab began after
President Mugabe suffered his first political defeat in 2000 when he lost a
referendum for a new constitution that same year.
Zimbabwean Bob Fernandes, now living in Britain, is chairman of a group
called AgricAfrica, which helps pay for the farmers' legal fees. He said he
hoped this case would eventually lead to fair compensation for all Zimbabwe
farmers who were evicted from their homes.
A source close to the Dutch farmers, who have now all left Zimbabwe, said
they have claimed about $48 million (33 million euros).
British lawyer Matthew Coleman, who represented the farmers at the tribunal
said in an email: "The Zimbabwean government acknowledged that certain
'deprivations' had taken place without payment of compensation." He added
that it would "pay compensation in full as and when it is able to do so."
Mutasa defended the seizure of white-owned farms citing the colonial era in
which he said the best agricultural land was taken by white settlers, mostly
British.
Most of the nearly 20 million acres seized by the government from white
farmers since 2000 is now lying idle. Less than 10 percent of evicted white
farmers have received compensation in the last seven years at less than 3
percent of the value of the properties.
The collapse of commercial agriculture triggered the dramatic downturn of
the Zimbabwe economy which now has the highest inflation in the world at
nearly 8,000 percent. Once the breadbasket of Africa, Zimbabwe now depends
on international aid to feed at least a quarter of the population.
Dave,
I agree with you on most points there.
You`re quite right that there is no evidence that black farmers are treating their workers better - maybe its worse. But I still believe that if UK had honoured its obligations, then the situation would be much better than it is today. Personally I feel it was necessary to resettle the landless peasant farmers by whatever means and there should be no apology for that. This could even be argued in any court.
The hypocrisy is when the farm is taken without compensation and then allocated to one individual, usually high connected ones. In this case I think the farms should be handed back to its original occupant as there is no moral justification. As you rightly point out, "international markets" are white, so it wld make sense to use our own reformed whites (those without colonial mentality) to penetrate those markets. we now live in a globalised world and whatever heartaches have been caused by these "land grabs" should also serve as a lesson to our white zimbabweans/africans that the onus is also on them to prove that they want to intergrate with the natives of the land. They must conect with the natives. Isolating themselves is certainly not healthy for them. Let us see them in politics, working in public services, having their children attend state schools, lets see our white community attending/sponsoring football matches etc.
But one major problem in zimbabwe is people like you and me do not want to be involved in politics because we consider it a " not cool" profession. We have chosen the cool professions, medicine, law, accountancy etc only to cry when things get messed up. Imagine if you and me were arguing this topic in parliament before the" invasions", we could probably have come out with a better sustainable compromise
Nancy, differences aside I think you have hit the nail on the head. It's unfortuante that in Zimbabwe people don't realize that if we had just had the foresight to work together (whites, blacks, indians and now chinese I guess) we would all be a lot better off. Instead we continue to have these pettey arguments over things that happened in the past, not all injustices can be corrected, just ask native Americans. Don't get me wrong it is important to know what happened in order to have a proper historical perspective on issues but at the same time we should have done what is best for young Zimbabweans. If you look at what is going on with education and healthcare in Zim right now it is very dificult for me to foresee a bright future any time soon.
I agree, with people like us or even Kuthula returning to Zimbabwe and getting involved in politics would probably be a good thing but in reality it probably wouldn't be that easy. Plus, would I really want to leave the US for a place where I have to think about the availability of eggs and milk or even if I will have power to cook? That would honestly be mighty difficult for me.
Interesting. But the bottom line is that ZImbabwe is largely where it is today because the government enacted a policy that threatens Western commercial interests in the wider SADC region should other countries decide to try and fully empower their people.
I agree that Zimbabweans should start moving forward. But then again, how does the country move forward when there are direct and indirect sanctions on it by a Western world which says Zimbabwe is trapped in a time warp and yet they too are stuck in the past? If everyone was serious about moving forward, the West would accept that Zimbabwe has followed an irreversible policy path and leave the country alone.
jordan retro
yeezy boost 350
longchamp bags
air max 2019
vans
golden goose
fila
golden goose sneakers
moncler jackets
golden goose outlet
l4f88s5w42 h3i96e0u73 b7q44x0r50 m0t10s6x45 p8l41t3x40 g4d41z4w38
Post a Comment