Hi all,

Just want to put out there that ONCE Barack is sworn in as President it will be the first time in over 2000 years that someone of colour, an African has led a world power of it's time. Even longer if someone doesn't consider Cleopatra African.

Does this mean that once Barack is President that all will be well for the continent and it's descendants? Of course not, but a major step will be taken that can lead to major changes in how we deal economically with Africa in not just aid but more importantly trade and conflict handling. Many Africans are strong with the spirit of entrepreneurship and I myself try to spotlight that on my website's online tv station (SleepinGiant.net) playing parts of the documentary "Africa: Open For Business".

My main concern with how the US deals with countries is the tactics of influencing a population and it's economy to change it's leadership to a more "acceptable" government of the west while sustainably demonizing a head of state to the international community to sway other countries to join with them to "help" with the situation. I would point to just a couple examples one is Bolivia where the US is starting to support anti-governmental groups to where the US ambassador to Bolivia was expelled for actually meeting with the groups and a General of the Bolivian Military is making statements to a head of state without seeking consultation from his boss the President of Bolivia hinting at a division between Bolivia's Military and it's President further hinting at a US backed future military coup to depose the democratically elected Evo Morales government. The second is Zimbabwe where after the 10 years that the "Lancaster House Agreement" (1979) stipulated to be a period where the Zimbabwe Government's acquisition of land would be on a "willing buyer, willing seller" principle where the British Government was to fund, this was part of an agreement to become independent from a colonial foreign power and agreed for 10 YEARS not to just boot the descendants of the white invaders that occupied 70% of the most fertile land, were 80% of the upperclass but never being more than 6% of the population of Zimbabwe. Where when the "The Land Acquisition Act" of 1992 removed the "willing buyer, willing seller" clause land redistribution sped up but of course with little British funding that was promised, the IMF/World Bank sponsored structural adjustment programs implemented in the early 90's that forced funding for healthcare and especially excessive fees on secondary and college education which was previously free, with the fact that the Ian Smith Administration (the last white administration) acquired most of the debt that by 1997 was forcing Zimbabwe to spend seven times more on debt-servicing than on education and healthcare which lends to the possibility of something sinister.

Not only the IMF and Worldbank put the squeeze on Zimbabwe because Zimbabwe wanted to put Black Zimbabweans back into fertile lands but then Clair Short (Britain's then Secretary of State for International Development in 1997) sends a letter to the Zimbabwean Ministry of Agriculture stating:

With the letter ending with a threat:

Two years later 1999: September IMF suspended all financial support, October the IDA (International Development Association) stopped all loans, credits, and guarantees to Zimbabwe. 2000 all previously approved loans to ongoing projects were frozen.

Ok, Britain and Zimbabwe are in a bad position from the get go they are working through an incredible situation involving colonialism, classism, racism among other complicated aspects, after the 10 years of the "willing buyer, willing seller" clause (where not one acre of land was taken by the government without a willing seller in those 10 years) Britain found it necessary to stop funding the land acquisition of the Zimbabwean government for whatever reason they chose to stop funding, don't agree with it because "The Land Acquisition Act of 1992" started a process that went through a system of committees to determine an amount to pay white land owners but at the end of the process the land would have to be transferred.

Well the Zimbabwe government would have to pay for the land acquisition themselves but resulting in a lower offer for land, did the British government not want to pay the amount paid to white land owners because it was too excessive? Did they care that leaving the land buying amounts to Zimbabwe lead to lower amounts paid for land, could more negotiations be done between the British government and the white land owners to give up the land possibly with special financing being given for land located in Britain or even other European countries getting involved to possibly allowing them to relocate to their lands or some kind of alternative path before Short's letter to Zimbabwe's Minister of Agriculture would have ever been needed to be sent?

Being an American citizen of colour no matter how you would have looked at it it was a tough situation and would have been a very difficult situation to be involved in, but involved is what we were instead of trying to mediate the situation recognizing and convincing the British that they should own up to the problem they put themselves in historically in Zimbabwe and look to go out of their way to right the situation for Black Zimbabweans but also for the White population to come to terms that they were on land that should be giving back to Black Zimbabweans instead we got involved by passing the "Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001" pretty much validating everything that international institutions did and were doing to the Zimbabwean Economy, Healthcare services and Education while demonizing the Zimbabwe government in the media with Mugabe in the center. I can just imagine how a straight thinking mindful leader like Barack would have handled the situation differently and how he will handle situations involving African countries when he's President.

The sad part of all this is the suffrage the children incurred when I believe didn't have to happen both black children suffering because of the sanctions hindering their healthcare and education but also the white children of the land owners that suffered because of the EU and the US did not think things through and at the foundation the rights of Black Zimbabweans to lands forcibly taken from them and I applaud them for having restraint to attempt to make a structured transition of stolen lands.

The US has done this to many countries and regions like South America fearing the spread of "Socialism" when we are about to nationalize a good portion of our own economy! Crazy. I'm looking forward to seeing an Obama/Biden administration paying special attention to Africa and helping the African Union help solve the problems on the continent but also educating the populations in the west (especially people of colour) on how to get involved in helping Africa flourish like through the AU's ECOSOCC (Economic, Social and Cultural Council) which is an arm of the AU inviting cetizen groups not only within the continent but also in the diaspora to actually be apart of the AU. I'm predicting that within the next 10 years after Obama is sworn in there will be a United African Central Government starting with the consolidation of agriculture by the AU, with a leader like Obama and African countries being able to speak and soon trust him they will agree to give the African Union more power and continue Africa's growth God willing.

Bless all,

SleepinGiant .net

Do you know that Mugabe's new house including furniture cost more than the entire Zimbabwe health and education budgets combined?

I'm not a big believer in sanctions but in the case of Zimbabwe the countries problems are entirely the result of Mugabe's mismanagement of the country.

If you want to go with the word "entirely" then I might as well throw out there that most of the problems today in Africa are ENTIRELY the result of the European "Scramble for Africa" during the 19th century in turn ENTIRELY the fault of Europeans. How does that sound?

Zimbabwe's situation is a very complicated issue but the more people try to push this as just Mugabe Mugabe and the more time that goes by more and more people figure out that it's more complicated than that, more complicated than people who have pushed this "it's all Mugabe's fault and that's it" will slowly continue to lose credibility but it won't be because of just the facts but because people will feel like they have been taken for fools because they were not thought of as smart enough to be told the whole story.

SG

First of all - what has all this got to do with Obama?

Second - What has this got to do with a unified Africa, something that will not happen in the next 100 years?

Third, many of your facts are extremely false. For instance, - sanctions were very very very limited (almost totally limited directly to the Zim governmeent) and ineffectual. thereason is that Zim's major trading partners are the Afrian nations, none of which imposed sanctions against Zim. South Africa is by far Zim's biggest trading partner, and there are no sanctions between the two neighbours.

Zim's major source of income. They took the farms, which were showing huge profits, and feeeding large parts of sub-saharan Africa, away from the experienced famrers, and gave them to people (almost all of them government cronies, defnitly all of them memebers of the ruling party) with no experience at farming (a difficult thing in this harsh climate), with no support, no training, to help and no money.

In just one year Zim's famr production morethan halved. Wihin 5 years Zim changed around from a net exporter of foodstuffs to a net importer (and not due to sacntions, there is nothing to export).

Tehre is one country to blame for Zim's economic crisis, and it is Zim. Causing infaltion by printing more money? I have high school economics, and I know this will only case more inflation. Lining your own pockets with state money, building palaces all over the place, sending your wife on a 300 000 American dollar shopping spree for something nice to wear before the AU bnaquet whilst your own people are starving, is criminal.

I hate colonialism. I do. I also think the UK hould admit their mistakes, as they did go back on their word on Zim's indepedence, no doubt about that. But Mugabe and his 'goverment' are 110% to blame for the woes of his people, which is why they did the brave and honourble thing of voting him out, now if only he wouldaccept it!

AH

Let's go over this again, after almost 10 years of Britain reneging on the agreement of funding Zimbabwe's acquisition of land Zimbabwe was threatened, 2 years later the IMF suspended all finacial support, the IDA then stoped all loans, credits and gurantees and in 2000 all previously approved funds for ON GOING projects were frozen. With a little talk from London the US then passed the "Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act" in 2001 calling for Zimbabwe to be indefinetly spurned by all international lending institutions as well as for any corporations and businesses doing business in Zimbabwe. This was the cause of Zimbabwe families first seeing bread start to cost over Z$100 a loaf when 2 years earlier it cost less the Z$1.

Let's be real and call it for what it was, Britain was not happy with Zimbabwe acquiring lands from white land owners even though it had a process, didn't want to pay the cost while losing interests within the Zimbabwean economy. Instead of saying 'Hey, we did have a large hand in causing this let's just do what we can get as many land owners either out of the lands and/or out of the country' they decided to play tough and try to strong arm Zimbabwe with not funding the the land acquisition using the white land owners as pawns in their game.

Didn't quite work as they thought so they did what has caused the domino effect of suffering with conspiring with the IMF, Worldbank, IDA along with talking the US into pulling all international lending bodies the US was a member of to stiff arm Zimbabwe.

This was beyond just disagreeing, withdrawing from the agreement to fund the land acquisition and just publically stating their reasons, they have used international institutions that needed to be neutral in country to country situations especially when there is an agreement and mediating systems to try to deal with the situation.

Is this the white land owners fault? Of course not, but the process when in place by the laws of Zimbabwe all the land owners needed to have was just understanding.

Which would not have been as big an issue if the international financial bodies were not involved. It WAS a Zimbabwean problem untill the international lenders and financial bodies were involved the blame shifted to the world powers that pressured them i.e. Britain and the US.

Land owners should of course blame Britain and other European nations for not doing whatever it took to make a smoother transition of land ownership but the land owners also made their decision by not taking advantage of the 10 years to get the best offer they could get for stolen lands (An African country paying to get back stolen lands, INCREDIBLE).

.

It IS disgusting how the international community has treated Zimbabwe in their effort to transfer stolen lands to black Zimbabweans CAUSING the government to be in a situation that the smallest of bad decisions become much larger problems, you haven't remissed because your economics education isn't up just maybe to don't (or refuse) to see the bigger picture.

If you do see ANY fault with the UK, international financial bodies, the US, international lending institutions or anything or anyone else other than Mugabe and/or the Zimbabwe government than your 110% blame is ilogical your problem may not be economics but mathamatics. (just a joke, just a joke)

As much pull as the US has in the world we can do so MUCH more good and have used our pull on the world to do good but in situations like this we haven't stepped up and did the right thing.

Obama is of colour "African" has personal connections to Africa has looked out for the underprivledged disadvantaged discriminated against taken advataged of standing by their sides while they were having trouble and Obama will not be scared to voice his positions which makes him African in every sense of the word and will stand up for Africa and it's peoples.

African leaders will see this and appreciate his stance, Obama will be able to articulate the need for an unified Africa small at first in his first term as President where agriculture can be consolidated and negotiated through the African Union but by close to the end of his second term he will make a passionate call for a United African Central Government that African countries will make the final move to make it happen and it will.

God willing, Bless,

SG

Need for a united Africa? that is for to decde ys? African countries as it is have problems because of different goups being thrown in toggether. You knw how small Rwanda is, right, and Burundi? You know they have been fighting for a while now, as the two tribes thee do not want to live and work together in peace.

Now you want a huge continent as Africa, with 52 states, 100's of tribes, cultures and languages to come together as one, in 10 years, and be in peace and harmony? Impossible.

Africa is not a homogenous place with a homogenous culture.

Also, you want a country like south Africa, with a relavly strong economy, exchange rate etc. to throw in their low with the DRC, Swaziland etc. some of the poorest countries in the world, and Zim, with it's 10 000 000% inflation rate? Would not happen,

and that brings us to Zim. It seems you are ignoring a lot of things. For insance - you state that taking profitable farms from farmers, and giving it to uneducated family members of the president (get this straight, the famrs where not given to the people of Zim, they were not given to the poor hungry masses, but to the rich and powerfull party cronies) who has let the farms rot, is not a big issue. Wow. Explain that one please? Obviously, looking at the massive and huge case of starvation in zimbabwe (a country that fed sub-saharan Africa, now can not even feed itself) it is a bit of an issue, I would say.

I am not fan of the IMF, World Bank etc. Not at all. Not even close. But to blame them for some very very very bad economic decisions, fueled by the corruption of anincapable government headed by a cruel dictator is just not on in this instance.

He's cruelty is not only directed to white people, btw. which is why he is called cruel, all suffer under his ilegal and oppresive regime.

but a few things:
1. His people are poor, he is extremely rich
2. Zim was a relativly rich country, not nearly as dependent on IF loans etc. The colapse of Zim is directly taken to the collapse of the farming system. Leading to the collapse of their forgeign income. And as you have gone silent on sacntions, I guess you know now this was not caused by sanctions.
3. The people did not benefit from the farms, the party did
4. The farms where not taken from thieves, but from hard working Zimbabweabs who were feeding the continent. Their great-grandfather may have taken the farms, but form SA's history I know the word steal is used a bit strangely sometimes, something you buy is not stolen,. but can't say for a fact how it worked in Zim.
5. To wrongs do not make a right. Your grandfather stole from my grand father, so i am stealing from you, costing my family their jobs and throwing me ino starvation is just a silly approach.
6. Strangely Zim never took recourse to the international boards for her grievance about the UK regressing on Lnchester. The international court, the UN, all those avenues ot used.
7. Willing seller willing buyer is the best possible system, and working in other African nations, like Namibia and like South Africa.
8. Train farmers first, then give them farms, the other way around does not work.

AH

What proof do you have that this isn't how the British did it? Did the first British farmers just happen to know how to farm effectively in the African climate? No, it probably took them many many moons to get things right, ofcourse they were probably hosted by a native African farming family where they were noting how to farm in the country while being fed before they took the land.

It's none of anyone's concern how the land was being distributed but to the majority of the voters of Zimbabwe, it's especially to no concern to those that thought they could hold on to the land in hopes of a government overthow so they can stay on stolen land but when the land goes through the process where terms are set and the land was transfered these farmers decide to damage as much farm machinery as possible to hinder it's productivity.

No it's not an issue for YOU or me, it's none of our or the whites that have been removed from lands considered stolen's business how Zimbabwe land is handled, it's up to the laws that are created by the Zimbabwean government that was put in power by the Zimbabwean people.

For good or for bad Zimbabwe has the right that every other nation on this Earth has which is to government itself, to set it's own laws and be respected for it but it seems that doesn't resinant with the British and more more it seems Europeans in general don't care.

Just say what you really mean, that you feel black Zimbabweans aren't capable of governing themselves even though Europeans have stolen their land brutalized the population marginalized them and when they finally come into power they use the IMF, Worldbank and other international institutions to hinder it's recovery just to make it look like black Zimbabweans can't make it and they NEED white people to maintain, it's Dirty European Chess.

Mugabe and the Zimbabwe government have handled situations badly but the more and more people study the situation it's obvious it stems from actions of how Britain handled the situation in the late 90's

The British caused the food prices to sky rocket through the IMF and IDA, the move was telegraphed in a threat by Clair Short's letter to the Ministry of Agriculture in Zimbabwe. Come on keep up Bloke.

I believe the country is still rich in other aspects but how economies are conducted in many countries in this day and age is many aspects are Credit based economies meaning short and long term loans are normal in a Capitalistic framework. Small businesses sometimes need short term loans to pay for employee's paychecks ahead of having a time period's forecasts profits and that loan is based on that projection, same for larger businesses including super mega corporations on a much larger scale.

This style of economy does work, it has worked for the US and other countries for a good while now. But since it's based on future profits bubbles are created and if not put in check creates a problem as is happening now in the US.

Ok a VERY LARGE bubble was created with these bad mortgages in the US so large VERY LARGE corporations started folding and had to be bailedout by the government, imagine a country like Zimbabwe that before the Mugabe administration came into power hinting at a more Socialist type government (more controled more governmental type economy) with alot less chance of risky bubbles that could develop but came into power with a Capitalist inherited breathing bubble that would range in it's size depending on many factors but a bubble none the less from the Ian Smith administration. Now imagine all of a sudden everything freezes financially.

One of many definitions of Sanctions: Sanctions are an economic or political penalty, such as an embargo, used by one or more countries to force another country to cease an illegal or immoral act.

1: The IMF and IDA cutting off financial support effected the economy.
2: It was to change Political views (more socialist style government and land aquisition) of the Zimbabwean Government

Here's the problem it was NOT illegal because it was apart of Zimbabwean law to be able to acquire land that was considered stolen through a process, it was to change (here's where the real problem is at) what THE BRITISH CONSIDERED AN IMMORAL ACT later what THE US CONSIDERED A IMMORAL ACT (in the "Zimbabwean Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001). The insinuation that taking white farm owners land back when there is a historically known act by Britain in the 19th century of illegally settling on land forcebly taken from native Africans of the time as immoral is hypocritical to say the least and spits in the face of common sense.

Of course they were sanctions.

Continue on next post

Continued from last post

Again, this is an issue for Zimbabwean voters as is probably a big reason the recent election was close but Zimbabwean self governance has not been internationally respected, the current law allows the government to acquire and redistribute these lands.

This is the great tragedy of all this, you have as you have said hard working white Zimbabweans that had nothing to do with what their great-grandparents have done but the fact is they are still in the same top notch fertile land their predecessors took and still reaping the benefits of those illegal acts now the burden should have fallen on the main charactor of these beggining acts that actually still exist i.e. Britain Government more so because it represents a monarchial "Crown" to do what ever needed to be done not only for the decendents of the British that were still there but had the opportunity to try to right a wrong and what has ended up being is the "Crown" didn't have the moral will to do it and continues dispite land owners recieving alot less than if Britain would have continued funding the land acquisition till every white land owner was bought out and moved to a European country or stayed in Zimbabwe showing they themselves have made a sacrifice for Africans earning them maybe to be looked at in a better light amongst black Zimbabweans and possibly Africans in general.

But at the end of the day self governance and what the law is at a given time needs to be respected especially internationally.

Understood VERY silly and cruel IF there was never a process from an agreed upon law by a government of the time representing the majority of a country's population! Which has not been respected by Britain, US and the international financial instituations.

In many people's eyes Zimbabwe and it's people have bent over backwards to first ALLOW the 10 years of "willing seller, willing buyer" period then when the period ended the Zimbabwean Government created a process to determine a price to PAY THE LAND OWNERS TO ACQUIRE THE LAND.

Only recently after all the continued sanctions (yes sanctions) that has practically distroyed the Zimbabwean economy causing dispare have some see attacking land owners and in a non procedual way take land as the way, But most of the citizen lead land seizures are non violent and I don't blame them.

They probably felt like forget Britain they don't care about their own people we'll just offer whatever we can. That must of really pissed Britain off so they decided go out of their way stepping over the line by sabbataging Zimbabwe's economy using the IMF, Worldbank, IDA and convincing the US to do the same which pretty much involved the rest of the world's financial institutions.

That was the move that puts all this on Britain's head.

The best possible system is a system that the majority of a population agrees upon through the government that represents them, anything less will eventually lead to violent revolt in most other parts of the world and would have happened in many parts of southern Africa if there didn't exist 99.99% pure hearted Africans in Africa or southern Africa would have been purged of Europeans in a matter of months from the first declaration of independence from a foreign European power occupying them on the continent.

If Britain hadn't multiplied the hurt the Zimbabwean economy would have felt from a bad plan in transfering land ownership to Africans the pain of poor Zimbabweans would have been just a fraction of what it is now, but hold up that seems like it was Britain's whole plan all along, you see? WOW!

Bless,

SG

I will not answer all toy half truths repeated things, for one reason - You react to my showing the half truths in your argument by calling me a racist. Calling me a racist is not based on any thing I have posted in this thread, or anywhere else. It is extremely insulting to me, insesitive and just, sit, plain wrong.

I love my continent, and work to make it better. Where are you by the way? And have you been to Zim? I have. I have seen what that dictator does to his people. I have seen the proof you so wildly ask for. As for the voters? They could not speak, as he would kill or torture them, but the brave people came out, and they spoke anyway, just for him to ignore them. Close? HE CHEATED AND STILL LOST!!! That's not close, it was probably a landslide, but now we will never know, will we.

Also, just one note, another half-truth. The landgrabs where against the law, and against the Zimbabwean constitution. the courts (the Zimbabwean ones, and the SADEC court) found it to be so. What did your great democrat do? Changed his power (wit out a mandate from the people) so that he can suspend parts of ths constitution, and then allowed his cronies(lots of proof, for instance, Question - who was the first person to get a farm. A 25 year old lady called Grace. Her last name happen to be Mugabe, and she happens to be married to the president, and she is defnitly not one of the poor starving masses!!) to take the farms, which they often ten burned and pilaged, whilst the good ordinary Zimbabweans suffer (and it is for them that I weep, ALL zimbabweans, white and black). And even then the brave judges still found it all ilegal, as it is not in the law f Zim.

But do not let facts stop you, retort by insulting me again, by all means sir.

I am proud to live in Africa, and calling me a racist is just not on.

AH

The way Britain and many others have treated Zimbabwe does hint at racism with the overall careless attitude toward African countries' livelyhood.

You echo their same arguments and don't care to hold them accountable in any way which include the plight of the white land owners which are also being used as pawns by Britain, you want to push it back on Zimbabwe with:

You are not very thorough in your replies by giving details on court decisions with when, what court, statutes, sources ect. but I understand, it is continuously looking like your grasping for air on your rebuttals and maybe I've given you an out by being overly sarcastic which you chose to throw out a defensive stance but if you refuse to at least acknowledge the possibility that Britain was capable with the timeline of events I've shown (which I see as being more than probable and a no brainer) could be added up to be a possible conclusion of calculated sabatage even if it's remote in your mind with everything that happened just being coincidential to you, than you might not want to reply to me (don't forget YOU replied to me) because I will tell you how I see things and will pull no punches.

No I don't think YOU are racist but you insist on defending the actions taken by Britain and others by not also condeming them along with bad decisions made by the Zimbabwean Government you keep pointing out while ignoring allocating fault to actions taken by Britain and others that have lead to where Zimbabwe is today.

Check......

Good day,

SG