Robert Mugabe: Yea or Nay?

[hellhathnofury]

Robert Mugabe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Robert Gabriel Mugabe (born February 21, 1924) has been the head of government in Zimbabwe, first as Prime Minister and later as first executive President, since 1980. He has been accused of being an autocratic ruler. Because of his controversial policies, Zimbabwe was suspended from the Commonwealth of Nations and he himself is banned from entering the European Union.

snip

When Mugabe became prime minister, approximately 70% of the country's arable land was owned by approximately 4,000 descendants of white settlers. However, he reassured white landowners that they had nothing to fear from black majority rule. At the time, Mugabe favored a "willing buyer, willing seller" plan for gradual redistribution of land.

The white farmer population had largely come to Southern Rhodesia in the century since the establishment of the British colony, which was named after British financier Cecil Rhodes, whose company, the British South Africa Company, violently seized the land from the indigenous Matabele and Mashona people in the 1890s. Many members of the white community had supported the Unilateral Declaration of Independence regime of Ian Smith, which had taken over the government in the mid-1960s and broke with Britain over proposals for eventual black majority rule. Though Mugabe as prime minister spoke of the need for some form of land reform, little was done in his early years in power. This changed in the 1990s.

Mugabe's major push to seize those lands in the 1990s has proved deeply controversial. To its defenders, it is seen as Zimbabweans are taking back what they consider had been seized from them unjustly. Critics argue however that the seizures have little to do with fair and adequate distribution of land, and is all about the consolidation of Mugabe's increasingly controversial rule through the distribution of land to supporters of his movement, with many of the "war veterans" claiming land not being war veterans at all. During the seizures, violence erupted, resulting in some deaths on both sides.

snip

Whatever the arguments over the reasons behind the redistribution, the productivity of the land has been greatly reduced, as large, intensively farmed tracts have been subdivided into uneconomic holdings that lack even basic farm machinery, a problem made more severe by the destruction by the "war veterans" of much of the farm machinery owned by whites, through mass burning of farm outbuildings. The scale of the drop in farm output has produced widespread claims by aid agencies of starvation and famine. However Mugabe's expulsion of the international media has prevented full analysis of the scale of the famine and the resultant deaths. What is not in dispute is that a country once so rich in agricultural produce that it was dubbed the "bread basket" of Southern Africa, is now struggling to feed its own population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe

I apologize for the 5 paragraphs, but balance demanded it.

Edit: Not sure option.

[Virginian]

1. Yea or nay on what? Should he be President? - Nay, too corrupt n/t

[hellhathnofury]

2. Basically-approve or disapprove.

[hellhathnofury]

3. Clarity kick.

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. Too bad this result doesn't kick his ass out

[hellhathnofury]

5. I'm amazed the source hasn't been attacked yet.

It's a little hard to defend Mugabe.

[arewethereyet]

10. its impossible to defend that slime

[buycitgo]

6. Adolf Htiler: yea/nay?.......Jesus HW Christ: yea/nay?

jesus christ......give it a rest, already

[hellhathnofury]

7. It was made at the same time.

;)

[hellhathnofury]

8. kick

[AP]

9. I vote neay in this one. But that's not the choice. It's about land reform

George Shire: Well, uh, first of all, that, uh, I think we need to, as a matter of record, say that for the, between the 23 years of Mugabe's presidency, two-thirds of that time, Robert Mugabe was everybody's best customer indeed. Went and received all sorts of international accolades for the way in which he led Zimbabwe. The crisis in Zimbabwe begins at that moment in which the land distribution program begins to emerge in earnest because it touches on the interest of modern national commercial farmers and the international community, and so on. Now, everybody can see that. The other thing to say is that, you know, what is happening in Zimbabwe now is uh, comes out of a facilitator's framework which is, produced a five-point plan: One, much of the acknowledgement is spent on two political parties in Zimbabwe and to do so requires Morgan Tsvangirai on the one hand, and Robert Mugabe on the other. To recognize themselves, each other, as leaders of political institutions. So this is not about Robert Mugabe personally, it's to do with the respect of political institutions in the country.

Jones: Let me just put your first point to Dr. Formunyoh, though: That, when President Mugabe addressed the colonial legacy, if you like, the land question, then the problems began, which suggests that it is not just leadership, there are broader issues at stake.

Fomunyoh: Obviously there are broader issues at stake. But, you know, part of leadership is the ability to be able to address the issues that you are confronted once you are elected into public office. Leaders do not choose their problems in advance, they, however, are tested; the mettle of leadership is tested in the way in which they address these problems. Obviously, land reform is the number one issue in Zimbabwe. And my sense is that every Zimbabwean, black or white, ruling party or opposition party, agrees on the need to undertake serious land reform. The problem is, the question then is, how do you get there? Is land reform synonymous with one individual sticking to power at all costs? And here we have President Mugabe, who served his country well in the past, and I agree with that, who led a liberation movement, and who is going to be remembered, most likely, not for what he did to liberate Zimbabwe, but for the way in which he has brought the country down because of the electoral dispute.

Shire: But, Robert Mugabe will be remembered for having delivered, at last, the land question, which has dominated Zimbabwean politics for the last hundred years. Which is still pivotal to understand ideologically how the region works. So, he'll become a symbol of that. Robert Mugabe has not been working in isolation as an individual, he's been working with others. And if you look at successes, they far outweigh the minuses. He's not an angel, but he certainly is not the devil.

http://www.ndi.org/front_page/fomunyoh_bbc.asp

[Virginian]

11. AP In response to your last comment on the other thread.

"We gave their land back but it was all crappy land."

They owned it all, from sea to sea. I'm sure there is more land somewhere that hasn't been returned to the Native American.

As far as land deals go, In my limited knowledge, Native Americans were paid for Manhattan. The settlers can keep that island. The rest, let's just call it rental property.

Unless a title search can go back to a purchase from a Native American, the land must have been stolen by white settlers. So the arguments regarding land that is "owed" to Japanese Americans or to African Americans was never "owed" to anyone because it was never purchased from the original owner. The government, in selling land to settlers, was selling stolen property. Anyone who has bought land is in posession of stolen property. So, AP, unless you are Native American or live in Manhattan, you can't own your own home in the US. If a Native American wants your home, you have to walk away from it and give it to him.



(For those of you just joining us: The premise that I am presenting is that what's right for the goose is also right for the gander. "AP" had a poll on another (locked)thread suggesting that the White Farmers of Zimbabwe should turn over their farms to the Original Inhabitants. I drew a parallel that White settlers in the US also deprived the original inhabitants of their lands and if we are for land reform in another country, shouldn't we apply the same standards here at home? I think we have reached the point where it is a clash of the cliches "Practice what you preach" or "Do as I say do, not as I do." There IS a difference, AP is right on several things, but the debate may not get that far.)

[AP]

12. True. The point I was trying to make...

...is that nobody disagrees seriously with the idea that you can't have clear title in stolen land, so we (claim to) give it back, and (claim to) make reparations, but the devil's in the details.

The land Indians got back isn't the land the Indicans lost, and even when the US puts billions in a trust fund, people rob it blind. 20 years ago white farmers promissed to give back the land they stole and then tried to weasel out of keeping their promise for two decades (or, at least, 500 of them did).

[Virginian]

14. We probably read different resources, but here it is from my perspective.

The major difference as I see it is Who is in control. To the conquerors go the spoils of war.

Part one: The colonists in Zim defeated the indigenous people and took the land. The white government sold the land to white farmers who improved the land and made it into family businesses.

Part two: The indigenous people fought and won the next war, getting majority ruled government in 1980. At that time, they could have confiscated the farms, but they did not. They designated most of the farms to be turned over on a schedule. Those first farmers were paid for their farms. Everything was to be orderly. I am not sure of which reasoning was behind it, but the early Mugabe government did not want the white farmers to flee at that time. I believe some of the farms may have never been on the schedule for resettlement at all.

Part three: Mugabe starts having popularity problems, so he declares a fast track land reform. The country's budget can't accommodate the promised payments to the farmers for their homes, property and livelihoods. Outside nations try to assist with the money problems, but the money is not getting to the displaced farmers, so the outside money stops flowing in. Men (some claiming to be veterans but too young to have fought in the war for independence) start squatting on the land to drive off the farmers. Even farms that were not slated for resettlement are taken over by squatters who don't know the first thing about farming. The workers, who have grown up on the farms, who are indigenous people, are beaten (some were even killed) by the squatters to encourage them to leave. They have no skills other than farming, so they become unemployed city dwellers. Those people, the farm employees, could have, and maybe should have been the ones to get ownership of the farms, but by this time, the only ones getting the farms are friends of Mugabe.

Sure, the white farm owners had agreed to give up their farms, their homes and their livelihood, but they hadn’t agreed to be destitute.
Many of these farms had been in the same family for several generations. Many farmers were born on their farms, their parents were born there, even their grandparents were born there. They were supposed to get some payment to help them start a new life. They may not have expected the full value of their property, but they expected something. After all, they had been promised payment by the Mugabe government. Where do you go when you have nothing but the clothes on your back? How do you support yourself when you know no other occupation? One white farmer even begged to be a sharecropper, but was told he had to leave.

[AP]

15. The white farmers werent' destitute (or they have no excuse if they were)

they had property and labor in a market in which both were valued way below any reasonable market value (thanks to the fact that the land was purchased with blood and because the labor market was made of thousands of people impoverished by the fact that their land was stolen without compensation).

These people were then able to turn around and sell the fruit of the land in European markets at prices that didn't reflect their owns costs of production, but reflected the price the market was willing to bear (I know in the US that retail food prices have gone up up up in the last 20 years despite the fact that farmers get less and less -- I presume the same is true in Europe).

Also, it's not clear that these people had an reasonable expectation of being able to keep that land. It was pretty obvious that it was stolen (or purchased with blood). Anybody who thinks that's clear tiltle in the 20th centurty needs a reality check.

I'm sure few did. I'm sure most saw the situation for what it was: as getting the most money they could before they knew the gravy train was going to be derailed.

The outrage over this issue is mostly driven by racism and not be economic or political or even legal reality.

[Virginian]

21. Once they are forced off their farms with only the clothes on their backs

they will be destitute. The deal was the government gives compensation, the farmer gives land. The government isn't holding up it's side of the contract, so why should the farmer?

The farmers didn't kill people, soldiers and police and mercenaries did the killing in the name of war. That is the nature of war. People get killed. Wars beget wars. That is why they can never be won and must be stopped. At some point you have to stop the vengeance and say what is, is and go forward from that point in time.

The situation in Zim is the same as the conflict in Ireland. There the population was divided by their church affiliation rather than the color of their skin. The Protestants had conquered the Catholics and had taken the land. In the US the Europeans conquered the Natives and took the land. Land is one of the spoils of war.
The people who are now running farms in any of these countries had nothing to do with killing anyone, so don't blame them for something that was done before they were born or I will have to hold you personally responsible for the "Indian" massacres and the trail of tears.

Why are you so angry? What is your connection to all of this?

[Zynx]

13. To hell with him. Literally.

[arcos]

16. Mugabe is a MAJOR ASSHOLE...

I can't believe 6 people here voted for him.... :puke: :puke: :puke:


Mugabe to Root Out Gays

President Robert Mugabe, embarrassed by allegations of homosexuality levelled at members of his administration, has ordered a witch hunt to flush out gays and lesbians in his government, The Standard has learnt.

Official sources told The Standard last week that Mugabe, who caused outrage among homosexuals worldwide—including gay rights activist Peter Tatchell—by describing them as "worse than dogs and pigs", issued the order for the crackdown on "sexual perverts" two weeks ago.

"The president made it clear that the world would see him as a hypocrite if he attacked British Prime Minister Tony Blair for having a cabinet full of gays when these very same people are said to be in his administration. He indicated that Mugabe had long been advised that everyone who wined and dined with him was of the ‘right’ sexual orientation," said the sources.

Mugabe has, in the past few years, openly paraded his deeply entrenched hatred for homosexuals attacking them relentlessly over a practice he considers repugnant.

http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/zimbabwe/zinews29.htm

[AP]

17. And Mbeki in South Africa things Aids is a myth, or somethink like that,

but it's no reason for the US to send mercenaries to Zimbabwe to further the interests of fascists.

[arcos]

18. who said the US should send mercenaries?

did I say that in my post?

I didn't think so.

[AP]

19. Just trying to present a little perspective in light of today's events.

[arcos]

20. hehe... sorry, I overreacted...

:hi:

[not systems]

22. Nay unless these volk are the alternative...

http://flagspot.net/flags/za%7Dnaz.html#awb

If it is then keep Mugabe.

[T_i_B]

23. A thousand times Nay!