Comments on: That bastard Mugabe

By: James O

James O — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:57:00 +0000

The Ian Smith regime acceded to black majority rule on the basis of a promise that the property of the white minority would be protected, as it was. On 17 April 1980 Mugabe declared to a crowd an international crowd:

'If yesterday I fought you as an enemy, today you have become a friend. If yesterday you hated me, today you cannot avoid the love that binds you to me and me to you.' (Cited in D Smith et al, 'Mugabe', Salisbury, 1981, p210)

The constitution adopted following Independance gauranteed that there would be no forced expropriation of white-owned farms for 10 years, of course this lapsed in 1990 but the Mugabe government showed no interest in redistribution of land for several more years, until the crisis brought about by the IMF 'structrual adjustment' led to opposition and the founding of the MDC. Similarly, the conservative Foreign secretary Carrington secured a commitment that the government would not be possible to seize white-owned property. The small amount of redistribution that did take place in the 1980s was largely 'illegal' and driven from below.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 05:27:00 +0000

No, the Lancaster House Agreement guaranteed a limited degree of specifically white political representation (20 seats in a house of 150). It also installed a 'willing seller, willing buyer' solution to the land problem, underwritten by Britain. Over the next 10 years Britain would pay for any farm bought by the Government. Any farm sold had to be offered on a first refusal to the Zimbabwean Government.

The arrangement stopped when it became clear that any redistribution was from poor British tax-payers to rich Zimbabwean politicans.

By: James O

James O — Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:20:00 +0000

the Thatcher government was involved in the negotiations to end the white minority regime and bring Mugabe to power for the reason that he committed any post-independance regime to leave the white farms intact for 15 yrs. Some of the elements in the liberation army refused this deal and continued a struggle against the new government, which was one of the factors leading to the Matabeland massacres in the early 80s.
From the perspective of the Thatcher government this allowed them to preserve British/settler economic interests and end a long-running political problem for Britain.

By: Jimmy Doyle

Jimmy Doyle — Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:25:00 +0000

Er, no.

By: mouse

mouse — Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:16:00 +0000

CMIAW, but wasnlt Mugabe chosen (by Thatcher?) as Zimbabwe’s post-independence leader specifically to avoid any left-wingers getting into power? The typical centre-right "better to have a fascist than a socialist" idea?

By: Squander Two

Squander Two — Wed, 15 Jun 2005 04:35:00 +0000

No, still true. The word you're looking for is "violation", not "crime".

By: dsquared

dsquared — Wed, 15 Jun 2005 02:24:00 +0000

Not true in the case of human rights crimes I’m afraid.

By: Squander Two

Squander Two — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:07:00 +0000

Hence the phrase "in my experience".

Most of my observations about the Left aren't from the opposite end of the political spectrum, as they're drawn from my time as a Socialist. Ironically, it was the principles I leart from the Left, and which I still hold dear, that caused me to abandon the Left. Economic policy is the only thing I really changed my mind about, and that's not so important.

Dsquared,

For a crime to be committed, a law needs to be broken.

By: Larry

Larry — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:52:00 +0000

in my experience, most left-wingers are [very fond of inherited guilt]

You'll excuse me for taking any sweeping generalisations about what "most left-wingers" think with a large pinch of salt, doubly so when they come from a hostile voice at the opposite end of the political spectrum.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:18:00 +0000

slavery reparation movement

Whatever the merits of the other cases, the claim for slavery reparations has nothing to do with inherited guilt, since the claim is almost always made against legal entities (companies and governments) which have continued to exist as continuous entities between the time the crime was carried out and the present day.