Why has Zimbabwe fix taken so long?

Sep 08, 2001

Britain and its former colony have at last come to an understanding

By John Nagenda FRIDAY, momentous news came of a major breakthrough from a meeting at Abuja, Nigeria, of Commonwealth Foreign Ministers called to discuss the dreadful impasse in Zimbabwe regarding White-owned farms. The government wanted to relocate them to indigenous citizens. A solution had been long overdue; from the time the land had first been forcibly taken from the Africans and given to white foreigners more than a century before. The bitter wars which finally ushered in true Zimbabwean independence under Robert Mugabe were fought largely to right the wrong of a tiny band of white farmers owning most of the best land, while the majority blacks had to be satisfied with scraps of unproductive soils, if at all. This clearly was an untenable situation but how would it be resolved? The colonial power, Britain, under whose guidance the situation had first arisen, did mostly nothing. Indeed, by their inactivity, it was clear that they considered the status quo to be just. When Ian Smith as Prime Minister of Rhodesia made his famous remark that in his lifetime (or was that in over 200 years?) there would be no change, no doubt he was emboldened by Whitehall’s attitude. But the moral bottom line had to be that Britain, as originator of the injustice, had to find the necessary funds to solve the matter. Probably this would mean buying good farming land from willing farmers; if not enough came forward, then other legal inducements would be found. Who could doubt the sagacity in all this? Well, various official British mouths said that now that Zimbabwe was a sovereign state, the matter was off British hands. It was dangerous nonsense, and a direct source for the way President Mugabe has sought to resolve the matter recently. This column has stated in plain terms the wrongness of Mugabe’s approach. As the leader of a country, and therefore its chief upholder of law and order, you do not encourage sections of your citizenry to flout the law as you choose. For one thing, how do you pull “the dogs” back? I never forget what Museveni said when I visited the bush and advised that as we took each town a list of the worst “baddies” should be drawn up, and they should be liquidated. “Who decides the list, and picks the liquidators? And who deals with those afterwards?” I was done with my nonsense from that day to this. And who can forget the damage which lack of proper sense has visited upon all the people of Zimbabwe, of whom the whites are a very small minority? We know the story of the genie who cried to be rescued from a bottle at the bottom of the sea, promising great rewards. But his frustration and wrath grew by the day, so that when in the end a sailor released him he turned on the man and demolished him. Clearly genies can make for capricious beings! During John Major’s premiership, Britain did agree to find funding to solve the Zimbabwean problem. Since then, nothing. Zimbabweans, especially the veterans, put more and more pressure on Mugabe, as you might expect. Something had to give, and did. Major headed a Conservative government, not the first Party you think of when it comes to care for blacks. He was succeeded by Tony Blair, and his Labour Party, down the years the more sympathetic to African causes and independence. How times change! At the Munyonyo Smart Partnership I approached Lord Craig, one of the leaders from England. An Air Marshal, he had been Chief of General Staff of the combined forces. In his speech he had actually quoted a Luganda saying (in Luganda!) from this column. That was enough for me to shake him by the hand and give him a small task. “Surely you can get this Labour government off its bum, to play its part on Zimbabwe; starting with funding.” I am sending him an e-mail to find out whether he complied! At any rate Foreign Secretary Straw (obviously not a man of) has announced, among others, that funding will be found. Zimbabwe has reciprocated by saying there will be no more forced taking-over of farms. Why in God’s name did it have to take so long? * * * Your intrepid columnist turned up at the British High Commission to find out at first hand about the Visa section. The head, Helen Rawlins, a woman of firm handshake and beliefs to match, bade me welcome and with Deputy High Commissioner Skilton in tow, took us all over her domain. My questions were delivered with the usual keenness, and were answered without evasion. The main one was why weren’t people given numbers to come back another time? It had been tried and found wanting. This year they expect 14,000 applications, and “numbering” would clog the system into collapse. But they had asked for more staff. They would get the guards to better inform people in the queues; it is preferred these start at 7am, not earlier. If you had been to UK in the last two years, there is a fast lane through selected travel agents and airlines. In the queues, if you have a genuine urgency, or are physically handicapped, they do their utmost to help. They have improved on the quality of waiting rooms. They agreed they are not perfect, that visa sections the world over can be taxing, but that they are trying. I believe them, as did most of those in the waiting room. Their cry was for more staff. With that I was whisked off by the amiable Skilton to a good lunch at Mamba Point. But, Reader, I had already made up my mind.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});