May 26, 2005
From the desk of Jane Galt:More on Zimbabwe
This 2003 article from The Atlantic (subscription only) describes Mugabe's radical land reform:
In 2000, about 4,000 large-scale commercial farmers owned some 70 percent of Zimbabwe's arable land. Nearly two thirds of these farmers had bought their farms after independence, and thus held titles issued not by Ian Smith or the British colonial regime but by the Mugabe government. Mugabe had long pledged land reform as a way of redistributing farmland to black peasants and dismantling what many saw as the country's "mini-Rhodesias." But he had delayed action for two decades, generally taking farms only on a "willing seller, willing buyer" basis.Posted by Jane Galt at May 26, 2005 8:08 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksMugabe decided on what he called "fast-track land reform" only in February of 2000, after he got shocking results in a constitutional referendum: though he controlled the media, the schools, the police, and the army, voters rejected a constitution he put forth to increase his power even further. A new movement was afoot in Zimbabwe: the Movement for Democratic Change—a coalition of civic groups, labor unions, constitutional reformers, and heretofore marginal opposition parties. Mugabe blamed the whites and their farm workers (who, although they together made up only 15 percent of the electorate, were enough to tip the scales) for the growth of the MDC—and for his humiliating rebuff.
So he played the race card and the land card. "If white settlers just took the land from us without paying for it," the President declared, "we can, in a similar way, just take it from them without paying for it." In 1896 Africans had suffered huge casualties in an eighteen-month rebellion against British pioneers known as the chimurenga, or "liberation war." The war that brought Zimbabwean blacks self-rule was known as the second chimurenga. In the immediate aftermath of his referendum defeat Mugabe announced a third chimurenga, invoking a valiant history to animate a violent, country-wide land grab.
Initially, the farmers held their ground, but it became clear after several white farmers were murdered that they were too few and Mugabe's regime was too determined. Of the 4,000 large-scale commercial farmers in business three years ago, all but 500 have been forced off their land. Most Zimbabweans (including white farmers) say that land reform was both necessary and inevitable. The tragedy of Mugabe's approach is that it has harmed those whom a well-ordered, selective redistribution program could and should have helped. Generally the farms have not been given to black farm managers or farm workers. Indeed, because of their association with the opposition, more than a million farm workers and their dependents have been displaced, and they are now at grave risk of starvation. In fact, the beneficiaries of the land seizures are, with few exceptions, ruling-party officials and friends of the President's. Although Mugabe's people seem to view the possession of farms as a sign of status (the Minister of Home Affairs has five; the Minister of Information has three; Mugabe's wife, Grace, and scores of influential party members and their relatives have two each), these elites don't have the experience, the equipment, or, apparently, the desire to run them. About 130,000 formerly landless peasants helped the ruling elites to take over the farms, but now that the dirty work is done, many of them are themselves being expelled.
The drop-off in agricultural production is staggering. Maize farming, which yielded more than 1.5 million tons annually before 2000, is this year expected to generate just 500,000 tons. Wheat production, which stood at 309,000 tons in 2000, will hover at 27,000 tons this year. Tobacco production, too, which at 265,000 tons accounted for nearly a third of the total foreign-currency earnings in 2000, has tumbled, to about 66,000 tons in 2003.
Mugabe's belief that he can strengthen his flagging popularity by destroying a resented but economically vital minority group is one that dictators elsewhere have shared. Paranoid about their diminishing support, Stalin wiped out the wealthy kulak farming class, Idi Amin purged Uganda's Indian commercial class, and, of course, Hitler went after Jewish businesses even though Germany was already reeling from the Depression. Whatever spikes in popularity these moves generated, the economic damage was profound, and the dictators had to exert great effort to mask it.
"But [Mugabe] had delayed action for two decades, generally taking farms only on a 'willing seller, willing buyer' basis."
Mugabe's reticence wasn't entirely voluntary: for the two decades in question, the Zimbabwean Constitution gave the white minority an effective veto in the Zimbabwean Parliament. This made it impossible to simply seize the white-owned lands under color of law...as was subsequently done.
One supposes that--in those days at least--Mr. Mugabe maintained "...a decent respect for the opinions of mankind."
Zimbabwe is a rich land, a desirable land for any ambitious, intelligent, hardworking people. It prospered under wiser leadership and guidance. If the current leadership of Zimbabwe can wreck that blessed country, it could wreck any country in the world. What a waste.
Also check out Chapter 17 ("Invading Drummond's Farm") of Paul Theroux's Dark Star Safari http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0618134247/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-2443633-2615915 for a terrific account of the ordeals of a couple of families..
"If the current leadership of Zimbabwe can wreck that blessed country, it could wreck any country in the world. What a waste."
I agree! There should be more focus on the fact that bad government is a (if not the) key cause of world poverty. Bad government can overcome abundant natural resources, while good government can allow people to do a lot with only a little.
Look at Hong Kong - a barren rock, with a nasty climate and no hope of providing food or even water for one-tenth of its population. But the British gave Hong Kong the rule of law and made it a haven for those that wanted to escape the mainland, and it thrived.
People can create wealth if given a chance. What a pity that so few governments are willing to do so. Instead they focus on forced confiscation, as if economic development were a zero-sum game.
Just a few weeks ago, Zimbabwe and Venezuela were both re-elected to the UN Human Rights Commission.
I like your analogy to similar atrocities against minorities. Seems like disproportionate representation of a minority in key economic positions under the rule of a dictator is a recipe for disaster. I wonder if the similarities could be quantified and used to indentify potential places where it is likely to occur.
Minorities can make for easy targets, but they don't have to be ethnic minorities Economic or religious groups can work, also, as long as there's a scapegoat that can be demonized. It's better, of course, if they're rich, because there's more to steal. And there needs to be some plausible story about how you're going after "them, not us", since targeting too many people at once might lead to too much of a backlash.
Another variant is targeting another country. If China starts to crack under the strain, they'll simply invade Taiwan, or fight with Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, or try to force down a US plane, or perhaps go back to building military installations on the Spratleys, since the Philippines is more the size that China prefers to tangle with.
Why fix problems when you can blame them on others?
Ann: for a really good (and screamingly funny) book on that subject, try P J O'Rourke's Eat the Rich. Chapter titles like "How to Make Nothing from Everything: Tanzania," "How to Make Everything from Nothing: Hong Kong," and "How to Have the Worst of Both Worlds: Shanghai." It also has, in the conclusion, what I consider one of the most moving passages on the moral basis of free markets. I almost feel like every economics student should be required to read this book; I highly reccomend.
Jane, didn't you see? According to Amnesty International, Zimbabwean oppression is the United States' fault.
Jadagul - I have that book in the "save for later" part of my Amazon shopping cart. Your recommendation has inspired me to hurry up and get to it, since it sounds great.
If you're looking for a non-humorous but readable and interesting book that really illustrates the problems with communism, I strongly recommend the book "Hungry Ghosts" by Jasper Becker, also on Amazon.
In the Amnesty International report, what struck me most was that "the gulag of our time" is Guantanamo and not, say, the camps in North Korea, where a wrong move by one person lands the entire family, including grandparents, parents and children, into a concentration camp for life. But the infants aren't locked up for life - they're killed outright, particularly if there's a chance that they might have Chinese blood (since the "crime" that dooms the entire family is often going to China to try to get food). Even if people hate the US, why does that excuse the crimes of others?
Hong Kong is always used as the example of how industrious people can create wealth on what amounts to a barren rock. Hong Kong is the perfect high population density example, but the best low population density example is probably Iceland.
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/05/icemen-cometh.html
It also has, in the conclusion, what I consider one of the most moving passages on the moral basis of free markets.Jadagul,
O'Rourke is like that, isn't he? I feel the same way about his chapters on the ADA (a hilarious send-up of the conceits of the legislation) and the War on Drugs (not funny, just an eloquent, moving indictment.)
Oops, I of course meant to say "the chapters ... in Parliament of Whores".
Mugabe has killed hundreds of thousands of black Zimbabweans, and imprisoned many more. Much of Mugabe's violence is committed along tribal and ethnic lines. Rather like apartheid. Compare the miniscule international indignation and economic response to Mugabe with the tsunami of worldwide opposition to apartheid. It seems that race does matter.
Gee, Dallas, what have you been doing all these years to rid the world of mankind's greatest scourge, Robert Mugabe?
Yeah, Dallas! While Mugabe was literally murdering hundreds of thousands of black african countrymen, what were you doing with yourself? I hope you were busy enjoying life, traveling, fornicating, being with friends, drinking fine wine, and fully participating in human existence.
I don't understand. Since when did the plight of non-whites become an issue on this thread?
--Cobra
Think how wonderful for the black majority if Mugabe were to resign and allow the rule of law to return to Zimbabwe. It will take decades for the country to recover from his insane mismanagement.
Cobra,
I don't understand. Since when did the plight of non-whites become an issue on this thread?
Good Lord, Cobra, read the post. Maize production down by 2/3, wheat down by well over 90%. Exactly who do you expect was going to eat the crops that are now longer being produced? You think all that grain was being shipped to Norway or something, where only white people could eat it?
Michelle writes:
>>>Good Lord, Cobra, read the post. Maize production down by 2/3, wheat down by well over 90%. Exactly who do you expect was going to eat the crops that are now longer being produced? You think all that grain was being shipped to Norway or something, where only white people could eat it?"
If Mugabe was confiscating the farms of Black Zimbabweans, this story would be ignored as chronically as the Dafur situation, or the Congo.
--Cobra
Mugabe has also done a fair job of decimating Zimbabwe's health system, such as it was. Life expectancy is reportedly below 40 - -I've seen one report that it is 33 years. A lot of young people are dying in Zimbabwe. Proportion of the population suffering from HIV infection is reported at 25% - estimates range higher. The country is becoming a reservoir of disease and unrest on the continent.
The UN, true to its General Assembly wishes, declines to "interfere in the affairs f a soverign member state". There are 191 member states in the UN. Fewer than 50 are democracies. The others are using UN to protect themselves from world opinion - and world action.
Sickening, isn't it?
Cobra,
If Mugabe was confiscating the farms of Black Zimbabweans, this story would be ignored as chronically as the Darfur situation, or the Congo.
Because no one not black has ever heard of famine or genocide in Africa. South Africa, Angola, Biafra, Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, Liberia . . . these are obviously names I just made up, because there cannot have been any news coverage of any tragedy affecting Black people. The total mess made of Tanzania that I thought I read about is clearly my own invention. The people burned alive trying to collect oil from a burst pipeline in Nigeria are also all in my imagination, as is the entire history of that country and the oil companies, which has gotten very considerable press coverage . . . or, no, it cannot have done, because the press never bothers with this stuff, right?
There were people trying to draw attention to the tragedy of southern Sudan for a long time. They were not all Black; in fact, they were mostly conservative white Christians, and I think that their greatest difficulty in drawing attention to that particular lopsided civil war (totally separate from Darfur, and for the moment in a state of uneasy truce) was that they were Christians, many of the victims were also Christians, and the government in Khartoum doing its level best to wipe them out was and is Muslim.
The Chechnyans are (I think literally) Caucasians, and I don't see a hell a lot of attention being paid to them.
In short, Cobra, I think if "land reform" were turning a country rapidly from a net exporter of food to a country that can't feed even its own people without massive outside help, it would be a news story regardless of the race of the victims.
Mugabe is particularly brutal against members of other tribes. They are being starved into nonexistence, a form of genocide reminiscent of Stalin and the millions of peasant farmers he starved.
Most violent deaths in africa are black on black, tribally motivated killings. That has not changed for thousands of years.
Michelle,
Yep, and no one in America ever heard of Idi Amin, either. :-(
John, while the health care system in Zimbabwe has gone to hell and Mugabe has cut the country off from aid, the data you provided go beyond his responsibility. South Africa and Botswana are experiencing the same high rates of HIV infection and sickening drops in life expectancy.
Comments are Closed.