Excerpt: Sixteen years after President Robert Mugabe launched a widely popular land reclamation programme, officials say the exercise is now almost complete. A Cabinet minister says they have no more land to parcel out to new farmers in Zimbabwe, and what is left must be kept in reserve. It was 16 years ago that the land reclamation, led by war veterans, marked the start of the fast track land reform exercise. For More * * * * * * * * * * If some of my other news sources are correct, Mugabe basically took land from a few thousand and redistributed it to a million. Those that were supposed to work with the natives failed to do so and were thrust from the lands. I don't see a problem with this ordeal. Once the sanctions against the country are lifted, more trade can come from Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe produced once food excess and is now a starving country. What do you wanna import from Zimbabwe?
YOU got that right! Land redistribution should require a period to "prove the land" like the American homestead act. Zimbabwe failed because of this matter
I hear this a lot, but the crops that were produced in excess before land reform was tobacco and cotton. The foods that were being exported are now being replaced by other foods. Anywho, if I personally wanted to import anything from Zimbabwe, it would be their precious metals and some of their beans. They should make other alliances with other African countries and do trade there. - - - Updated - - - This isn't necessarily a pro Mugabe thread. I'm acknowledging that even Mugabe can make a good decision every once in a while.
Well a strong support for education leading to high literacy rates is good too. Redistributing land was good too.
His land reform was a desaster. Surely it was a heritage from a supressive colonial era and kind of the Apartheid era that most of the natives had no access to the more fertile regions and soils. What basically happened is that Mugabes terror squads murdered and expelled White farmers and substituted them by the fat cats of his regime. When it comes to "work together with the natives" the poor employees were sometimes murdered too, sometimes their desperation and lack of alternatives abused to let them work under unimaginable conditions, as long as the farms are still running after all. Its euphemistic to say that one injustice replaced the other as it became far worse, but even if I break it down to this, today the land is owned by incompentent regime fat cats who basically are nor farmers after all. Even the comparison to Stalin is wrong. Stalin could surely mess with Mugabe when it comes to brutality, mass murder and torture. But he did not establish an African Kleptocracy. They did not destroy the agriculture, they did not hand it over to party members to queeze the maximum out and ruin it and they had an idea of the volume of the entities needed to cultivate the land hald-way effectively. The whole system turned out as not to be effective enough with respect to the Western rival, but the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe did not starve. Zimbabwe was one of the richest coutries of Africa in 1997 before this reform. Its one of the poorer now.
Not only did the natives not have access to the more fertile regions, they were pushed from their own more productive soil onto barren-like regions and crammed there. Mugabe was compelled to right a wrong when foreigners pushed the natives into starvation by pushing them into these crowded barren lands. Yes, people were murdered, but all of that could have been avoided had Britain not reneged on the promises he made regarding funding for land redistribution. So instead of tolerating what would effectively be an occupation, he dealt with it. I slightly disagree with an injustice being replaced by a worse injustice and whom the land is owned by. Some in his regime only own some of the lands while other arable hectares were given to Zimbabwean citizens. This was a correction, not necessarily an injustice. Moreover, Zimbabwe has plenty of Agricultural vocational colleges, so if any in Mugabe's regime or anyone else for that matter, wishes to know more on farming, there are places available to them. The last two statements contains lots of propaganda. People don't know this, but a lot of the land the Whites occupied were under utilized. They often needed tremendous infusions from the British government to keep their farms going and to get money to buy equipment. Also, the idea that Zimbabweans are/were starving conveniently leaves out the fact that rainfall does not occur on a consistent basis. On some off years, there would be droughts and on the good years there would be a decent harvest. The propaganda also conveniently omits the fact that once the land reform was applied, Zimbabwe had their credit frozen, faced international isolationism pushed by Western countries, and economic, trade, and financial sanctions launched against them. Attacking any country economically will create an explosion in inflation and start them on the verge of collapse. Economic sabotage out of spite. Anyway, despite all this, Zimbabwe has managed to begin recovery: http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex..._gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:ZWE:ERI&hl=en&dl=en
1. Many farms were private property. Many farms simply purchased by people who did not took land from anyone. To label a certain group as an enemy of the state and an occupying foreign force of Great Britain by definition by the colour of their skin as an excuse to murder them is an attitude which brings him applause from many parts of South Africa by Black people. Some people have so much enthusiasm in that that they overlook that he treats non white people who fit in his frined foe pattern the very same. The feeling must be so good that one murdered White farmer seem to make people forget 100 non-White (you call it natives, a status you would deny White people no matter for how many years they have been living there) people murdered. It is consequent and correct to make sanctions against such a regime. 2. Zanu PF fat cats taking courses in agricultural colleges? Are you serious? The only thing these people do is beating the farm workers. And if the yield is not good enough the consequence is beat them more severely. 3. Ah, until the mid 90ies Zimbabwe was a relatively rich country in Africa because there was rain and after Mugabes brilliant land reform sudenly rain stopped, which turned Zimbabwe into a poorer country. Economic sabotage out of "spite". You smeared the British as occupiers above, described murder as the proper way to deal with them and now these evil Britains do not give financial support for that? May I ask you a simple question. Why dont you disown American farmers and give the land back to the natives?
1. It doesn't matter if the occupiers took land from anyone. They acquired it in a fashion that ran contradictory to African land-owning beliefs. Moreover, it doesn't make sense to have foreigners owning the vast majority of productive land while the natives are forced onto barren ones. It was unfortunate that natives got killed during the correction, but the redistribution needed to take place. History dictates that any native, worldwide, having patience with white foreigners yields negative results. It's better to act than to wait til the end of never for them to come around. 2. Yes, I'm serious. If they are lacking in expertise, they should be able to enroll in some courses. Anyway, the vast majority of that redistributed land went to the people. Only a small percentage of households that were connected to the regime received land. 3. You make it sound as if the white presence fed the people. This idea stems from a myth. First off, Zimbabwe was never a "breadbasket," or consistently self-sufficient. It often imported food on drought years and they had many droughts. Second, the best food production came from the smaller farms, not the commercial farms. And, I didn't smear the foreigners. They really were occupiers. History dictates that Europeans respect only force and not agreements or deals. Not giving financial support because they can't run roughshod over the natives is understandable. What isn't understandable is then galvanizing the world against a country because they're mad the foreigners aren't worshipped or able to marginalize the natives. To your question, "Why don't I disown American farmers and give the land back to the natives?" If I had the power, the natives would have a major say in what happens with the land.
Zimbabwe wasn't rich.. The white farmers were rich until droughts became common place after 1982 and they began defaulting on their loans. - - - Updated - - - Quite true that Zimbabwe was never a "breadbasket".. Most production was exported to foreign markets..
You last sentence doesnt answer my question. I dont ask if they should have a say, but if American farmers should be disowned and the land given to the natives. And furthermore now with this statement I hope you are a Native American. Cause if not, according to your logic I must make the conclusion that you are part of an occupying force and the Natives would do best to drive you and your family back into the ocean, purging America from invadors like you. To the rest, your hysterical reactions about the very mild sanctions and the trial to use them as an excuse for the complete failure of Robert Mugabe's regime is ridiculous. Great Britain as well as France may think of themselves as global super powers and maybe some Kleptocrats from Africa like these super powers as an excuse, but beyond that no one gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) about what they wanna dictate the world. He established good relationships to China e.g. which is extremely successfull in gaining control over the ressources in Africa. If you think this will be in the interest of Zimbabwe - you will have your will. I think they are extremely clever in marginalizing (as you call it) the natives, but I guess thats ok with you as long as they are not White. And even if Great Britain was a factor which could alone force alliances and bring African states down, it's Mugabes and Zimbabwe's problem. If you wanna go to war with a country, better make sure you have the high ground. After all you seem to be extremely satisfied with the development of Zimbabwe. Contrary to those who flee from Zimbabwe to South Africa.
Alright, fair enough, let me answer your question directly. Yes. I personally see no problems with giving the ownership of land over to the Indigenous and their descendants. I'm comfortable believing that Natives in America could be like the Zimbabweans in that alien people may own things like companies and apartments, just not the land. One of the reasons the foreigners in Zimbabwe got pushed out was because they were a tiny minority taking control of a significant amount of land. Regarding Mugabe, I'll only defend his decision on land reform...for now. My own personal philosophy sees nothing wrong with this particular decision. This doesn't necessarily mean that I support Mugabe. Another note, I believe that you are grossly underestimating economic warfare. There is a reason why it is in a country's arsenal when they put together diplomatic relations. Economics happen to be a major leverage one or more countries can use to punish a nonconforming country or offer as a benefit for doing business with a country.
Zimbabwe is on the list of countries facing major famine in the next few months, so these 'great land reforms' will be history soon enough. The murders and driving off of white farmers, not just in Zimbabwe but also South Africa and everywhere else is and will responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, if not millions. It's just amazing how many think Killing Whitey is the solution to all their problems, when in fact it is themselves and their own atavistic racism and antisocial proclivities that are the problem and always has been.
This is once again nonsense. They were simply disowned. You can argue if for that fact alone the responsibility lies more on the side of Mugabe or the UK (who guaranteed to pay the farmers off once, but later on refused that under Tony Blair). Whats for sure, it was a punishment for the Rhodesians and for the their employees who were both suspected of being illoyal to ZANU PF and more on the opposition. This particular decision is an illusion. His regime plundered the fonds of the war veterans. Unfortunately this was one of the few groups which were potentially dangerous for his power. He had to cempensate them. He did it in favor of groups he considered to be on the side of the opposition. And no, I dont underestimate economic warfare. You can study the effects in various situations. Zimbabwe is suffering from the typical elements of a cleptocracy.
I won't argue that he wasn't corrupt. I also won't disagree that vets got some land. Vets getting land is a "so what?" issue. Why wouldn't they get any land? Besides, it's not like they got most of it. The vast majority of that land went to ordinary civilians including very poor ones.
You mean poor people like those he created, when he crushed their homes by the hundred thousands when he punished support for the opposition or his 80ies violent campaign against his inner party rival for which a whole region had to face massacres? I dont understand what you give him benefit for. Does he care about poor people? No, he does not give a (*)(*)(*)(*)! Is he motivated by a higher moral or idealistic motivations? No, he does not give a (*)(*)(*)(*)! Does his policy work out fine for his country? No and he does not give a (*)(*)(*)(*) either! This whole land reform was part of of a corrupt regime and not an isolated gesture. If you see it as an isolated step - without violence and state terrorism he used - you could maybe argue if it was up to the UK to compensate the farmers. He has deep hate for the British people and treated them like any other ethnicity he considers hostile (to be precise he still treated them better as his Black opponents as this group was more powerful and his reactions took more considerations; without the political power of the UK in the background they would be all dead) and some people from the outside cheering at that as they think of him as a great liberator for bullying them as they are White people. I dont see any other reason to paint such an idealized picture of his land reform.
Before the droughts began in the 1980s 97% of all arable land was owned by white farmers who exported tobacco, corn etc.. Labor lived in the company store and had no future possibilities. It was unsustainable just like the coal miners who lived in the company story in the US and the lint heads who worked in the textile mills and lived in the company store. When the drought cycles set in the farmers couldn't repay their loans and the IMF was very unhappy... Plus, nothing was ever reinvested in infrastructure or education. I'm not a fan of Mugabe, but in the long term, this will probably yield better results.
I hope nothing in my posting suggested a rosy picture of the whole ordeal. I've acknowledged plenty of times that Mugabe rules by a corrupt standard in other threads on this board. None of that takes away from the one good thing that got done even though the implementation was a bit violent. It makes no sense to me that an alien people come onto some land and push natives onto barren acres leaving them at the mercy of these alien people. If anything, AFAIC, it's better that the natives own the most in their own homeland than for the foreigners, a minority, own darn near all of it. It would be a war if an alien force tried the same shenanigans in Western-European lands. These pro-alien force crocodile tears are invisible to me.
Ironically, still in the late 80ies Robert Mugabe was looking for investors, some of them are now in the very same group you label now as foreign aliens. What to think of a person who tries to gain people who wanna buy land and then 10 years later label them as evil aliens? Who then let his soldiers plunder, rape, torture and kill them? For me it is simply a thief and a murderer. Such an invasions of aliens takes place in Europe and it has taken place in America since 1492. In America the aliens turned out victorious and nowadays lesson other people about evil aliens.
