quote:

Originally posted by PWN375:
David

I stand by this comment:

I doubt if Morgan Tsangarai is going to be the savior of Zimbabwe. First he is out of his depth intellectually and lacks the dynamic, forceful personality necessary to succeed as the leader of a rapidly declining country.

The unfortunate white farmers who supported Morgan are the ones who have paid the greatest price in terms of loss and hardship. Sailing on that faultering ship has cost them everything they ever worked for and invested in. I can certainly understand human nature in failing to admit a wrong choice, but to expect him to rise to the occasion in the current climate is a dream. The guy has had over eight years to show the leadership needed to win the day and has completely failed to do so. He and his supporters are going to take their beatings and slink off again to whisper about what might have been if things had been different. Hope springs eternal I suppose, but is wasted on that failure.

Perry

Perry

And I stand by my comment - you are completely incorrect. For your information, Morgan Tsvangirai has never slinked off anywhere. He has stood faithfully and fearlessly by us (the people of Zimbabwe) through the most terrible times, and continues to do so.

All I am saying is that we shouldn't be too cynical before he has had his chance. The one thing that nobody can deny is his determination and bravery. I would rather face a wounded dagga boy unarmed than take on what he has.

Dave

Hear Hear Dave. Morgan may not be the very best, but he has not wavered from his desire to repair his home country.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by David Hulme:

quote:

Originally posted by PWN375:
...The unfortunate white farmers who supported Morgan are the ones who have paid the greatest price in terms of loss and hardship....Perry

Perry

And I stand by my comment - you are completely incorrect. ...
Dave

Dave,
look mate, demanding someone is "completely incorrect" is both a tough thing to prove and tantemount to calling the man a liar. Very few people are entirely incorrect, and in this case, Perry has some valid points. It is his conclusion that you have issues with.

Here's the thing, its his opinion based off facts, and that is difficult to be "wrong" as everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Do you think Morgan is going to restore the farms to the whites? Why, then, Perry is correct a little, isn't he?
jeffe

Just for clarification, saying someone is completely incorrect is not even in the same sport as calling them a liar.

smarterthanu,

Thanks for clarifying that. I was certainly not suggesting that anyone was a liar.

jeffeosso,

Look mate, for your information the comment by Perry which you cut and pasted is completely incorrect. Truth is, the white farmers who supported Morgan have not paid the greatest price. I should imagine that most of them are still eating fairly regularly. Nobody in this country has paid a greater price than anyone else - everyone but the elite has suffered. Bearing in mind that I come from a long line of Zimbabwean commercial farmers, and that my father and three uncles have all lost their farms in the last few years.
In response to your question, I don't think Morgan is going to give all the white farmers their farms back, and neither should he because it will just cause more resentment. There is talk of cash compensation for those who have left the country and that seems a good idea. Most of them would take that option anyway, given the choice. Should Morgan win, I have no doubt that displaced commercial farmers still in Zim shall soon be farming again. All we can cling to is the hope that he prevails.

Dave

An afterthought...

Perry,

I apologize if my response to your post seemed too harshly worded. It certainly wasn't meant to be insulting and I hope you didn't see it as such. I'm just a little on edge - sorry.

Dave

Dave,
You are a true gentleman, thank you sir, I salute you.
jeffe

With the "war vets" out marching today, if wonder if the Green Bombers can be far behind?

Interestingly, although the results have not been released, the BBC reports:

quote:

Zanu-PF secretary for administration and cabinet minister Didymus Mutasa told the BBC's Network Africa programme: "We know them [results], there is a stalemate."

He said the party was prepared for a run-off and would be "galvanised" by the election results.

Mr Mutasa also said that Zanu-PF had won the Senate elections, the results of which must be announced before those of the presidential contest.

So far, 10 of the 60 Senate results have been announced, with each party on five seats.

From Yahoo! and Reuters:

quote:

HARARE (Reuters) - Zimbabwe's ruling ZANU-PF party on Friday decided President Robert Mugabe should contest a runoff vote against opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai if neither wins a majority in a presidential election....Announcing the ZANU-PF decision, party administration secretary Didymus Mutasa said parliamentary votes would be recounted in disputed areas.

Earlier, liberation war veterans -- a potent force backing Mugabe -- attacked the opposition for claiming victory. "These are all provocations against us freedom fighters," veterans' leader Jabulani Sibanda told a press conference.

He said the veterans would repel any attempt by white farmers to reclaim properties seized by Mugabe. "It now looks like these elections were a way to open for the re-invasion of this country (by the British)," he said....

A statement by civil society organizations in Harare said they had "reliable knowledge" that Mugabe intended to extend the interval before a runoff "using disputed and autocratic presidential powers."

The statement read by human rights lawyer Lovemore Madhuku expressed "gravest concern at the unacceptable delay in the release of poll results."

David,

I was never insulted by your statements. My profession has given me skin thicker than and elephant. I disagree with you, but happen to appreciate your passion for and trust in your candidate. Someday I certainly hope I have to buy you beer and tell you I was wrong. Morgan, for all his weaknesses will certainly be a major improvement over Mugabe...but first he must assume the office and remain in power long enough to effect changes. I don't see either of those events happening.

Answer these questions:

1. Why has Mugabe permitted Morgan to live?

2. How many violent protests has Morgan lead?

3. How does Morgan support himself and his family?

4. Will the military support Morgan? If not, will he be able to raise and lead a rebel force?

5. Why was he choosen to lead the MDC?

6. Why has he remained the leader of the MDC?

Perry

I am really saddened by this current news. I always had suspisions that Mugabe would not go down without a fight. It is clear what is going to happen, there are going to be beatings and lots of intimidation, together with a bit of time to rig votes for the government elections and you are home and dry. The general concensus has always been that it is Zimbabwe's problem and their own people must sort it out. However, I think that the people are powerless over the situation and have been for a long time. This is a case where there needs to be external intervention in my mind, but I do not see the West or any other African countries jumping in any time soon to help out. I do not think that they could guarantee the safety of UN peacekeepers in Zim either. Other countries have enough of their own worries and wars to be involved in another one. Everyone knows what happens when any opposition parties demonstrate, and that is why the people of Zim are so reluctant to speak out or do anything. Also, where do you start?

A big problem lies with the big army officials, as already suggested. I have been a bit out of touch with things lately, but I do know that many army officials have been given houses and farms, I don't see them wanting to give them back in a hurry, especially when they are in charge of all the firepower. If there is a change in government, the army will remain, but again when it comes to giving farms back, taking weapons away from people who are not willing to do so, and when you do not have any firepower yourself....you could end up with a situation. If the army generals are not willing to support Morgan, then there will be problems. Corruption has also crept in so far and wide within the country from the ruling party that un-doing it will take a massive revamp and is not something that can happen overnight either. I just hope for the best, and know everyone else feels the same.

quote:

big problem lies with the big army officials, as already suggested. I have been a bit out of touch with things lately, but I do know that many army officials have been given houses and farms, I don't see them wanting to give them back in a hurry, especially when they are in charge of all the firepower. If there is a change in government, the army will remain, but again when it comes to giving farms back, taking weapons away from people who are not willing to do so, and when you do not have any firepower yourself....you could end up with a situation. If the army generals are not willing to support Morgan, then there will be problems. Corruption has also crept in so far and wide within the country from the ruling party that un-doing it will take a massive revamp and is not something that can happen overnight either. I just hope for the best, and know everyone else feels the same.

Reports yesterday were that MDC had offered written guarantees to the generals that they would get retirement packages if they did not want to continue under MDC and that no farms would be taken back unless they had more than one or the land was not being utilized.

Our Zimbabwean friends on the board would certainly know better than I, but from what I've read in the news I would guess that a foreign military presence would not be well-received, even if only in a peace-keeping capacity.

quote:

Originally posted by wihntr:
I would guess that a foreign military presence would not be well-received, even if only in a peace-keeping capacity.

I'd call that the understatement of the year.....

Even it was considered, getting the troops and equipment into Zimbabwe wouldn't be easy to say the least. I'm sure the neighbouring countries wouldn't even begin to consider sending their troops in and that only leaves the UN. - and you can bet your life that ain't gonna happen. Even if the logostical problems didn't prevent it, political correctness and the UNs lack of testicular fortidude sure as hell would.....

quote:

Originally posted by PWN375:
David,

I was never insulted by your statements. My profession has given me skin thicker than and elephant. I disagree with you, but happen to appreciate your passion for and trust in your candidate. Someday I certainly hope I have to buy you beer and tell you I was wrong. Morgan, for all his weaknesses will certainly be a major improvement over Mugabe...but first he must assume the office and remain in power long enough to effect changes. I don't see either of those events happening.

Answer these questions:

1. Why has Mugabe permitted Morgan to live?

2. How many violent protests has Morgan lead?

3. How does Morgan support himself and his family?

4. Will the military support Morgan? If not, will he be able to raise and lead a rebel force?

5. Why was he choosen to lead the MDC?

6. Why has he remained the leader of the MDC?

Perry

Perry,

Let me try and answer your questions to the best of my knowledge.

1. I think Morgan is too much of a personality, locally and abroad, to knock off. His demise would spark off much outrage in this country. I believe many journalists here have survived for the same reason - they are well known public figures. Furthermore, maybe Morgan has been convenient for mugabe. I mean, he has never really believed he would lose an election so why not have a 'powerless' contender in the background, to look semi-democratic, by African standards that is. I don't really know why he hasn't been knocked off, because he has certainly asked for it.

2) Morgan has led no violent protests but he has led a number of peaceful ones which have been broken up violently. Morgan has always encouraged passive resistance.

3) I have no idea how Morgan supports himself and his family, but I reckon he has a great many friends and benefactors both here and abroad. Many millions of people have remained hopeful through the darkest days because of Morgan Tsvangirai.

4)I should imagine that, should he win the presidency, most of the army and police force would support him. They are also salaried employees, like everyone else fortunate enough to have a job.

5)I have no idea why Morgan was chosen to lead the MDC, but guess it was because he appealed to the people. Because, finally, someone stood up for them. He was a trade unionist and pro Mugabe at one stage. Then he saw what was going on around him and formed the MDC. I think I am correct when I say he formed the MDC with a few other like-minded guys.

6) Morgan has remained the leader of the MDC because the majority of his supporters, including me, want him to remain there. And we are most pleased to see that the MDC rival faction has been fast to throw in their lot with Morgan, giving the opposition a reasonable majority in parliament.

I have never been interested in politics and I know my views may be naive and idealistic, but I cannot lose hope in this country righting itself one day. Especially since so many others who have so much less than I continue believing. Bottom line is that I'm sure Morgan has many weaknesses, but all we see at this stage are his strengths.

This latest development is extremely worrying. There is no doubt what is to come in the weeks ahead. I would say that most Zimbabweans would welcome a peace-keeping force with open arms at this stage. They also know that it won't happen.

We are most grateful to the foreign press who are doing a fantastic job of keeping us in the spotlight at this time.

I have just heard on the enws that Zanu PF are accusing the MDC of bribing the electoral commission!!!! God, there is no end to it, is there?

Best regards

Dave

Trade this munt for that...
I just hope THE PEOPLE are given an opportunity to fair better over the next twenty years than they have over the past 20.
Brian

The latest from Yahoo! and the Associated Press:

HARARE, Zimbabwe - Zimbabwe's ruling party said Friday there will be a presidential runoff election between President Robert Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai.

ZANU-PF party secretary and Minister of State Didymus Mutasa also charged that the opposition bribed electoral officials and said his party would contest results of 16 parliamentary seats — enough to win back its majority.

Mutasa spoke at a news conference after a party politburo meeting, the first since elections results showed it has lost its control of parliament. The opposition claims to have won the presidency, but official returns in that race have not yet been released

David,

Thank you. Keep up the good fight. At least you, like my friends, didn't take the gap when you could have.

Cheers,

Perry

quote:

Originally posted by David Hulme:
In response to your question, I don't think Morgan is going to give all the white farmers their farms back, and neither should he because it will just cause more resentment. There is talk of cash compensation for those who have left the country and that seems a good idea. Most of them would take that option anyway, given the choice. Should Morgan win, I have no doubt that displaced commercial farmers still in Zim shall soon be farming again. All we can cling to is the hope that he prevails.

Dave

Dave,
Where will the compensation money come from? Doesn't seem like there is money to give...

I sure wish that I had half the courage that Morgan Tsangarai has shown so far. I am surprised that he is still alive.

It never ceases to amaze me the folks in Zim just keep moving forward, as one said in her last e-mail, "just one foot in front of the other".

quote:

Originally posted by DPhillips:

quote:

Originally posted by David Hulme:
In response to your question, I don't think Morgan is going to give all the white farmers their farms back, and neither should he because it will just cause more resentment. There is talk of cash compensation for those who have left the country and that seems a good idea. Most of them would take that option anyway, given the choice. Should Morgan win, I have no doubt that displaced commercial farmers still in Zim shall soon be farming again. All we can cling to is the hope that he prevails.

Dave

Dave,
Where will the compensation money come from? Doesn't seem like there is money to give...

DPhillips,

The Britsh Government has always maintained that it would fund an organized, willing seller/buyer land redistribution program in Zim. But there have always been reasonable conditions attached and, being the unreasonable, dishonest person that he is, mugabe has never managed to meet those basic conditions. In layman terms the conditions were that corruption could not be part of the process. No mystery why things fell apart.

I don't know if the British Government would address the compensation issue with a new Zimbabwean order, but at least the displaced farmers case would be heard. It must be remembered that these displaced white commercial farmers are some of the proudest, most capable and resilient people on earth. None of them have curled up and felt sorry for themselves, even though many lost everything. They have got on with life and are rebuilding, wherever and however. Whether they end up receiving compensation or not, there is no doubt that they shall maintain their dignity, work hard and succeed in whatever they end up doing. Obviously, it is much more difficult for some, for example, the elderly.

I do hope that the farmers are compensated for their suffering and loss, and in an ideal world they would be. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

I probably shouldn't comment too much on this subject. It is all extremely close to home, you know.

Best regards

Dave

quote:

I do hope that the farmers are compensated for their suffering and loss, and in an ideal world they would be. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

I recently had a chance to spend time with a guy who owned an ostrich and game farm in the Kwe Kwe area in the 90's. It was taken over early, somewhere around 2000. He said that he lost his life's savings but would not change a thing as it was his dream, and the times they had there were worth every penny. Oddly enough, he did not seem too interested in the prospects of getting it back, or receiving compensation. Perhaps he has put it behind him.

Of note is that there were some 50 people working on the farm, and living there in permanent structures. He had a store built, and made sure the kids all went to school and had access to the clinics. He figured there were some 500 people living off of the farm in one way or another. Of course, when it was taken over, all of this came to an abrupt end.

Thanks for your perspectives Dave, and good luck over the next few weeks.

Zimbabwe opposition barred from court



By ANGUS SHAW, Associated Press Writer 28 minutes ago

HARARE, Zimbabwe - Armed police prevented opposition lawyers from entering Zimbabwe's High Court on Saturday to lodge an urgent suit aiming to force the publication of presidential election results.

Opposition lawyer Alec Muchadehama said a senior police officer wearing a ruling ZANU-PF shirt gave the orders, amid increasing signs of a clampdown.

"No one is going to enter. They say they are going to call the riot police," Muchadehama said. Journalists waiting outside the court also were ordered to disperse.

The Movement for Democratic Change wanted the High Court to force the electoral commission to publish results of the March 29 presidential election.

Official results for the parliamentary elections showed the ruling party lost its majority in the parliament. Independent observers projected that MDC candidate Morgan Tsvangirai won most of the votes cast in the presidential contest but not enough for an outright victory over longtime ruler Robert Mugabe.

The ruling ZANU-PF party announced Friday it was endorsing Mugabe in a runoff election.

But Tsvangirai told a news conference Saturday that his party was reluctant to take part in a runoff because of the risk of violence, and said he feared Mugabe was preparing a "war against the people" in his bid to continue his 28-year rule.

The law requires a runoff within 21 days of the first elections. But diplomats in Harare and at the United Nations said Mugabe was planning to declare a 90-day delay to give security forces time to clamp down.

Earlier, the opposition asked the United Nations to intervene during the runoff campaign.

Nelson Chamisa, spokesman for the opposition, pointed to signs of a coming clampdown, including a march in Harare by war veterans loyal to Mugabe who have beat up opponents in the past, a raid on opposition party offices and the detention of foreign journalists by armed police in full riot gear.

"They are trying to intimidate people, they are trying to set up the context for unleashing violence. The vampire instincts of this regime are definitely going to come out," Chamisa charged.

Zimbabwe needs the assistance of the international community, he said.

"The U.N. has to make sure that there is no violence in this country. ... They should not (wait to) come when there is blood in the street, blood in the villages."

But South African President Thabo Mbeki said Saturday that international intervention is not needed.

"I think it is time to wait. Let's see the outcome of the election results. If there is a re-run of the presidential election let us see what comes out of that," Mbeki said.

Full story here.

International intervention was needed long ago.

some interesting comment

Did we put a tyrant in power? - Lord Caarrington
The Times
April 5, 2008

The former Foreign Secretary remembers how Mugabe became president of Zimbabwe
Peter Carrington
If you want to understand this week's events in Zimbabwe, a little history might be helpful. For it demonstrates how the responsibility for what has happened in that country over the past two decades lies firmly with Robert Mugabe and the decisions he has made.

The past terrible few years raise questions about how President Mugabe came to power. Was the Lancaster House agreement - which brought an end to the civil war in Zimbabwe and allowed for the victory of Mugabe - a mistake? I am convinced that it was not.

When I became Margaret Thatcher's Foreign Secretary in 1979 the Rhodesia/Zimbabwe problem was near the top of my in-tray. It had bedevilled successive governments ever since Ian Smith unilaterally declared independence in 1965 and set up a white-minority government. It had soured Commonwealth relations and damaged our relationship with some of our closest
allies. The election of 1979, under a constitution that gave disproportionate power to the whites, which brought Bishop Abel Muzorewa to power was not recognised as legitimate by any other country, except South Africa, because Joshua Nkomo and Mugabe, the main rebel opposition leaders, were not allowed to take part.

Towards the end of 1979, however, the situation had changed. Nkomo felt that time was not on his side. He wanted a settlement as soon as possible. The Muzorewa Government and the whites in Rhodesia were fighting a war against the rebels that was draining the economy and which could not be sustained for much longer. The South Africans, who were supporting the Muzorewa
Government, were finding the burden too great. The frontline states surrounding Zimbabwe all had reasons for wanting a solution; Zambia was the host to Nkomo's army, an imposition which they wished to end.

However, there was one person who did not feel it necessary to press for a settlement - Robert Mugabe. He felt that his Zanu guerrilla group was winning the war and that he would become Zimbabwe's leader.

Despite this, it seemed that it was worthwhile to have at least one more try to settle the problems at a conference to be held in London. I did not think it likely at the time that the Lancaster House conference would succeed.

There were a number of difficulties to be solved. There was the constitution, the elections and perhaps the most difficult of all, the land question. There was no way in which the whites in Zimbabwe would be prepared to accept the compulsory purchase of their farms. What was agreed to in the end by all parties was that willing sellers should be paid a fair price for their land and that the British and Americans would be prepared to finance this.

As the conference was reaching its end, it became clear that, albeit reluctantly, Nkomo and the Muzorewa/Smith Government would be prepared to accept the agreement on the table. Zanu, the Mugabe party, was not prepared to do so. He thought that, since they were bound to win power, election or no, success would be theirs without an agreement.

Presidents Nyerere of Tanzania and Machel of Mozambique pressurised Mugabe to accept. Privately, President Nyerere made it plain to me that he would not accept the result of any post-settlement election unless Mugabe won it.

In the event, as was wholly predictable, Mugabe won the 1980 election easily. The prospect of a Mugabe Government was worrying, since he was known to be a Marxist and had made incendiary remarks about what would happen if he gained power. The quietly spoken Mugabe worried me: he was secretive, seemed not to need friends, mistrusted everyone. Devious and clever, he was
an archetypal cold fish.

Christopher Soames, a man of great good sense and the Governor of Southern Rhodesia, developed a close working relationship with Mugabe. A big and friendly man, Soames was able to persuade Mugabe that an orderly transfer of power and a tolerant attitude towards those who had been his enemies would be the right way forward. Mugabe's Government started tolerably well. Having seen food shortages while in exile in Tanzania and Mozambique, he knew it would be counterproductive to seize the well-managed farms of the whites. Nonetheless, we were never certain which way Mugabe would jump; I just had a dreadful feeling that he would leap in the wrong direction. In the end, Mugabe has proven to be a textbook example of Acton's dictum about how power corrupts.

If there had been no agreement in 1979 the war would have continued, many more people would have been killed, and Mugabe would, in the end, have won both the war and the presidency. Economic devastation would have come much earlier. There can be no doubt that the election of Mugabe in 1980 reflected the majority opinion in Zimbabwe. For all that has followed we did the right thing, the only thing that could be done back then.

So much for history. Now the future beckons. It will take a long time to restore the prosperity which that beautiful country once enjoyed. Yet the people of Zimbabwe are resilient. It says a great deal for them that, despite threats and intimidation, the recent election seems to have overthrown the Zanu-PF majority in Parliament.

Strictly speaking, this is now no longer our business, but a great many of us will feel that we still owe the people of Zimbabwe, who have been through such desperate times, all the help we can give them. Although Mugabe tries to paint Britain as a colonial foe, we should feel no embarrassment for our role in Zimbabwe's recent past nor about doing all we can to assist its
people today. And those of us who remember the country as it once was can only condemn the selfishness and folly of the man who has brought this about.

Lord Carrington was Foreign Secretary, 1979-82, and chaired the Lancaster
House conference

Another politician heard from. CYA.

Of relevance to readers of this forum, note that the vast majority of travel insurance policies do not cover war, civil unrest,insurrection etc. Most now cover terrorist attacks but only if the US govt defines the event as a terrorist attack. My reading of the current situation is that the term "Dangerous Game" is going to take on a new dimension in Zim in April/May. Talk to your PH before getting on the plane. Avoid the cities as well as the roads if you can. I doubt any of this will be directed at foreign hunters or even at whites in general, but when African blood boils things get unpredictable fast.

Mugabe asks for recount as election stalemate deepens

HARARE (Reuters) - Zimbabwe sunk deeper into political stalemate on Sunday, with the opposition going to court to get election results released and President Robert Mugabe's ruling party asking for a delay and recount.
ADVERTISEMENT

Tensions between the two sides have risen sharply since the elections last weekend, fueled by opposition suspicions Mugabe's ZANU-PF is preparing to rig the outcome of the hotly contested March 29 presidential poll.

The stakes were raised on Saturday when Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, declared victory over Mugabe in the presidential race and accused the veteran 84-year-old leader of "preparing a war on the people."

Mugabe's supporters struck back hours later when state media reported that ZANU-PF had asked election officials to defer release of the presidential poll results and conduct a recount and audit of all materials, including ballots, used in it.

The ruling party cited "revelations of errors and miscalculations" as the basis for its request, according to a report in the state-run Sunday Mail.

The High Court in Harare is scheduled on Sunday to hear Tsvangirai's application to have the results issued immediately, His MDC supporters say they will show the former union leader won an absolute majority of the votes.

Independent observers, however, say the MDC leader outpolled Mugabe but did not win enough votes to avoid a run-off.

Let me translate what Lord Caarrington said.

In the late 1970's "we" being consummate politicians figured out the best thing for us was to Throw all the people of Rhodesia to the wolves. We knew at the time that Mugabe was a remorseless ego maniacal murder and that once in power would never relinquish it.

On the other hand it would not have looked good at home if any one thought that we were not on the side of the black Marxist liberator and when it comes down to votes versus honor; being the spineless cowards that we are we chose to back Mugabe. We knew at the time what was going to happen but what the hell we have lived our well cared for lives for the last twenty eight years and frankly we don't care what happens to the people of Africa.

Reminds me of Neville Chamberlain and the Germans. Look what that got the world.

quote:

Originally posted by els:
Let me translate what Lord Caarrington said.

In the late 1970's "we" being consummate politicians figured out the best thing for us was to Throw all the people of Rhodesia to the wolves. We knew at the time that Mugabe was a remorseless ego maniacal murder and that once in power would never relinquish it.

On the other hand it would not have looked good at home if any one thought that we were not on the side of the black Marxist liberator and when it comes down to votes versus honor; being the spineless cowards that we are we chose to back Mugabe. We knew at the time what was going to happen but what the hell we have lived our well cared for lives for the last twenty eight years and frankly we don't care what happens to the people of Africa.

Yep!







-Bob F.

So according to Carington Mugabe was quite honest all along: He appeared the "wannabe murderous tyrant", and then became one.

To me the biggest lie lay with the Western Promise:

quote:

What was agreed to in the end by all parties was that willing sellers should be paid a fair price for their land and that the British and Americans would be prepared to finance this.

Many are the Rhodesians/Zimbabweans still waiting for this promise to be kept.

Hello Stephen Palos,
To begin with, this entire post should be in the political forum(Elections in Zim??)I would think, but
I am not sure who promised such financing, but as to financial aide, you will find upon researching the facts, the United States is a very large, if not largest donor of financial aide and medical assistance all over the Continent of Africa. Several years ago I had the opportunity, good and bad, to travel top and bottom of the place and could never see anywhere our money did any good but get bled off to those in power and the people/natives saw very little of it and the same exists today. All of the self proclaimed "independent" nations in Africa have been so for some 4 or more decades now and the truth of the matter is they are going to have to go it on their own now and for the future. The fact that many of us hunt or would like hunt in Africa is not the "real world" but sport and play time for those able to do so.
Does anyone really think that with the possible demise of "bad bob" things will really change for the better. His replacement will not be able to counter the greed and power seeking members of the present government and the "folks" have not a clue to what is required and have no means of changing if they did want to do so. Noticed someone in Zimbabwe moving on while he can and would imagine others have already done so, just not discussed it openly. Who in the world would not move on or travel to the damn place such as it is today and probably for months/years to come. Quite frankly people of these so called liberated countries have very clearly demonstrated a total inability to self govern in any way shape or form. Tribal disputes, wars, genocide, etc. are well practiced but not civilization as most of the world knows it. If we indeed did break a promise of financing re-purchase of land in Zimbabwe, I for one am glad we did so. Any and all problems Zimbabwe might have, and they are many, can best be laid at the feet of the residents.

dsiteman,

What we have been discussing here is the compensation of displaced white commercial farmers by the British. This is an entirely different ballgame to pouring unlimited amounts of cash into the coffers of despotic African regimes. I wouldn't have thought anyone with a semblance of conscience would agree with the funding of the many African dictatorships that currently exist, but some obviously do because it is happening as we speak.

Dave

Hello David Hulme,
I certainly understand your response, but the gentleman from South Africa makes reference to promise, supposed breaking of same, of the United States to finance such real estate transactions and as evidence that would have been a very risky thing to do is the situation which exists in Zimbabwe as we speak.

To try to clarify matters with a quick thumbnail sketch......

The British promised to give considerable aid to Zimbabwe to enable the Zim Government to pay the white farmers for their land on a willing seller willing buyer basis...... but the Brits quite rightly insisted that the money be used for what it was supposed to be used for and not to bolster RMs pension fund etc.

As soon as it became apparent that this wasn't going to happen, they witheld payment..... eventually RM took the stance that if the Brits won't give us the money they promised to pay for the land that was taken from us, we'll just take the land back anyway....... this of course, was a vote winning strategy for him and a 'fuck you' to the Brits as well.

The history leading up to independance is very complicated and far too complicated to go into here, but suffice to say the Brits let the White Rhodesians down very badly indeed..... but it should be remembered that whilst the Brits were to blame, so also were a lot of other western countries, including the USA, who were putting the UK under pressure to give in to what we now call political correctness.

I wish the news were better:

Militants invade white farms in Zimbabwe

HARARE, Zimbabwe - White farmers in Zimbabwe say militants loyal to President Robert Mugabe's ruling party have forced three cattle ranchers off their land.

A fourth is holding out with about 50 militants threatening to break down his farm gates.

The land grabs, revealed Sunday, come as Mugabe and his party confront massive elections losses and an expected presidential runoff.

Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe since his guerrilla army helped overthrow white minority rule in 1980.

His popularity has been battered by an economic collapse following the often-violent seizures of white-owned commercial farms since 2000.

The story from Yahoo!

Jimmy Carter has as much or more to do with Mugabe's reign than the Brits.

Yes, the Brits viewed Ian Smith as a traitor and were going out of their way to make Rhodesia pay the price. The US jumped on the anti-colonial bandwagon with a vengence.

In April 1979, 64 percent of the black citizens of Rhodesia voted in perhaps their first election. Two-thirds of them voted for Abel Muzorewa, a bishop in the United Methodist Church. Muzorewa replaced Ian Smith as PM.

Despite this decidely fair election, the Carter Administration refused to lift sanctions against Rhodesia and continued to push Robert Mugabe. When Muzorewa flew to Washington to meet with Carter, Carter refused to meet with him. Carter wanted Mugage at the helm, despite overwhelming evidence of his Marxist beliefs and his Chinese connections.

Mugage was touted as a savior for Rhodesia by the Carter Administration and in the US press. The US would not lift sanctions, and would use its position in the UN to encourage other nations to keep sanctions in place, until such time as Mugabe was in power. Andrew Young, Carter's UN Ambassador, was particularly taken with Mugage. So great was Young's love of Mugage, that he gushed to the press:

"I find that I am fascinated by his intelligence, by his dedication. The only thing that frustrates me about Robert Mugabe is that he is so damned incorruptible."

Amazing. And flabbergasting. The US and the UN refused to recognize the new Muzorewa government, and the sanctions stayed.

With pressure from Carter, Rhodesia held a second Presidential election about a year later, this time with Mugabe on the ballot. A blind eye was turned to Mugabe's tactics in the process, and. with full support of Jimmy Carter, Mugabe was elected.

The irony is that Carter is the self appointed guru on free elections. Yet with Zim, he did everything in his power to upset the results of a free election because it did not produce an outcome with which he agreed.

Jim is quite right - I was just too polite to refer to the USA by name! - .......... and will now amend my post accordingly!

Carter, IMO, pushed Mugabe because M is a Marxist -- Carter always has been a traitorous SOB, and there will be a VERY long line of people waiting to piss on his grave...