Post by mongobeti on Dec 11, 2006 13:34:50 GMT 3
Yesterday i met the immediate former President of the republic of Tanzania, who is visiting my city. During the exchange, delivered to an audience of the extended EAfrican citizens, he talked about a range of issues confronting Africa and the East African region. And yes he gave us a background of the Zimbabwean crisis.
After a sustained armed struggle the Brits in Zimbabwe were forced to concede power to the Blacks. Indeed the active American diplomacy {Kissinger} had forced the hand of the Brits give up the last vestiges of the colonialism. What followed was the constitutional conference at Lancaster House ( this must sound very familiar to Kenyans!). The talks were deadlocked on two issues; one: the disproportionate representation in the new Parliament of the 400,000 whites (being given 20 seats) against 80 seats for the Africans out of a total black population of 8 million. The second deadlock was on the re-distribution of land to the black Africans. At that point the talks were deadlocked and the nationalists said they were ready to go back to the bush, because the whole point of the armed struggle was land and freedom. However at the intervention of several African heads including Nyerere Mugabe and his team agreed to the issue of 20 seats as part of transition, and constitutions are not written in stone anyway.
As to the land question the Americans and the Brits agreed that the whites will farm the lands for the next 10 years, at the end of which UK and US governments was to provide money to compensate the white farmers and the land would revert to the Africans. thus the Lancaster conference ended and Zimbabwe was born...
10 years later, in 1990, Mugabe went asking with the promissory note in hand, for the money and the return of land. The Brits went cold: we dont have any money. Americans, same story.
Mugabe was ready to seize the white farms in 1990 had it not been for another unveiling history in the south Africa: there were real prospects for the release of Mandela and end of the apartheid. the frontline heads of state, including Mkapa himself, had to restrain Mugabe, because of their belief that the changes happening in South Africa was good for the whole region and time was not right to start new tensions in the region. So Mugabe held on.. and Mandela and the New South Africa was born
So Blair comes to power in 1997, and Mugabe can no longer hold back his impatience. The new UK labour govt refused to give money and tells Mugabe to his face that they will not honour an agreement reached by Conservative govt of Thatcher in 1980s.
The stage was now set for the farm seizures. Britaine and America had disowned the agreement, so what was Mugabe to do? You may not agree with his methods but he was seeking historical justice. Obviously the West responds by cutting foreign aid, strangling the economy. But the western media only knows how to condemn Mugabe, while conveniently forgetting the real cause of the problem. and our local African media follows suit.
This is a new perspective to the Zimbabwean crisis that i found interesting.
caution: I'm not here trumpeting Mugabe's democratic credentials or leadership. I'm just saying i understand why he acted in the way he did. It also helps to explain why no African head of state, even, Mbeki, ever condemns Mugabe.
After a sustained armed struggle the Brits in Zimbabwe were forced to concede power to the Blacks. Indeed the active American diplomacy {Kissinger} had forced the hand of the Brits give up the last vestiges of the colonialism. What followed was the constitutional conference at Lancaster House ( this must sound very familiar to Kenyans!). The talks were deadlocked on two issues; one: the disproportionate representation in the new Parliament of the 400,000 whites (being given 20 seats) against 80 seats for the Africans out of a total black population of 8 million. The second deadlock was on the re-distribution of land to the black Africans. At that point the talks were deadlocked and the nationalists said they were ready to go back to the bush, because the whole point of the armed struggle was land and freedom. However at the intervention of several African heads including Nyerere Mugabe and his team agreed to the issue of 20 seats as part of transition, and constitutions are not written in stone anyway.
As to the land question the Americans and the Brits agreed that the whites will farm the lands for the next 10 years, at the end of which UK and US governments was to provide money to compensate the white farmers and the land would revert to the Africans. thus the Lancaster conference ended and Zimbabwe was born...
10 years later, in 1990, Mugabe went asking with the promissory note in hand, for the money and the return of land. The Brits went cold: we dont have any money. Americans, same story.
Mugabe was ready to seize the white farms in 1990 had it not been for another unveiling history in the south Africa: there were real prospects for the release of Mandela and end of the apartheid. the frontline heads of state, including Mkapa himself, had to restrain Mugabe, because of their belief that the changes happening in South Africa was good for the whole region and time was not right to start new tensions in the region. So Mugabe held on.. and Mandela and the New South Africa was born
So Blair comes to power in 1997, and Mugabe can no longer hold back his impatience. The new UK labour govt refused to give money and tells Mugabe to his face that they will not honour an agreement reached by Conservative govt of Thatcher in 1980s.
The stage was now set for the farm seizures. Britaine and America had disowned the agreement, so what was Mugabe to do? You may not agree with his methods but he was seeking historical justice. Obviously the West responds by cutting foreign aid, strangling the economy. But the western media only knows how to condemn Mugabe, while conveniently forgetting the real cause of the problem. and our local African media follows suit.
This is a new perspective to the Zimbabwean crisis that i found interesting.
caution: I'm not here trumpeting Mugabe's democratic credentials or leadership. I'm just saying i understand why he acted in the way he did. It also helps to explain why no African head of state, even, Mbeki, ever condemns Mugabe.