'A view of the summit': objections to my views

Online readers of the British newspaper, The Guardian, raise objections to my take on the political and economic situation in Zimbabwe.

Background

The British newspaper, The Guardian, runs a popular blog called “Comment is Free (CiF)” on its website, http://www.guardian.co.uk/. On Monday, 20 August 2007, one John M. Morrison wrote an article, “A view of the summit”, based on the summit of the SADC heads of state and government, held in Lusaka, Zambia. Morrison, a former foreign correspondent who was based in Zimbabwe from 1987 to 1990, mainly argued in his article that “African leaders meeting in Zambia proved all too adept at ignoring the ongoing disaster of Mugabe's Zimbabwe”.

My initial response to Morrison was the following: “For a man who is said to have reported from Zimbabwe for three years, it is baffling that Mr Morrision does not know what SADC stands for. Amongst other falsehoods in his article, Mr Morrison writes about ‘last week's Southern African Development Society (SADC)’! SADC correctly stands for the Southern African Development Community. Mr. Morrison must firstly get his facts right before we take him seriously”.

Morrison wasted no time in clarifying this: “I never called SADC the Southern African Development Society. These are minor errors which have crept in during editing. Subeditors (even at the revered Guardian) aren't perfect, as I know because I was a subeditor for many years”. Then followed other responses to my comments, published below as they appeared in the CiF blog.

1. 'SADC stands for Southern African Despots Club'

By DrJazz, Comment No. 769321

Madibeng: You should know that SADC stands for Southern African Despots Club. It does amongst black Zimbabweans. And they only speak of Mbeki to curse him. The economic problems started in earnest in 1997 when Mugabe gave the entire annual take from income tax to war veterans in the form of life pensions. Even war veterans in well paid jobs benefited. I have no idea why he did it, although I do know it was in response to unrest resulting from the elite helping themselves to the secret War Victims Compenation Fund.

2. 'See the facts, you the apologist for Mugabe'

By Sikandarji, Comment No. 769689

Madibeng: well DrJazz did suggest that things started to go badly wrong in 1997 when Mugabe gave the entire tax revenues to the 'War veterans', but presumably you overlooked this. In fact there were ominous signs well before: the Matabeleland massacres in the early 80s which I mentioned, his attempt to turn Zimbabwe into a one-party state in the late 80s when he also combined the offices of President and Prime Minister in one person (i.e. himself) and, yes, the so-called land 'reforms'. What you and other apologists for Mugabe overlook when you bleat on about Britain's failure to pay compensation to farmers for land redistribution is that Britain did fund such a scheme in the 80s', only to terminate it when it emerged that all the land purchased from farmers under this scheme ended up in the pockets of ZANU-PF politicians. Sound familiar?

It should, because of course when the land seizures did get underway in earnest in the late 90s, only a tiny proportion went to the poor and landless. All that has happened is that a wealthy white minority has been replaced with an equally wealthy but far less productive black oligarchy. You can call that 'progress' if you want, but the four million Zimbabweans (almost all of them black) who have been forced to flee the land they love might disagree. Perhaps more than anything else it is this which gives the lie to the feeble pretence amongst African leaders (which you appear to share) that criticism of Mugabe's regime in the West is motivated purely by racist concern for the welfare of the white minority. If that were ever the case, the battle was lost long ago.

There are only about 20,000 whites left in Zimbabwe, and the farming sector has been destroyed. There are at least two million Zimbabwean refugees in South Africa - why don't you ask them what they think of Mugabe's 'reforms', his handling of the economy? If you really think that life in Zimbabwe (where the land has been 'liberated' and 'returned to the people') is better than life in South Africa (where you complain that 80% of the land is controlled by the white minority) then why don't you go and see for yourself? Or even stay there? You might find a lot of people rushing in the opposite direction, but I'm sure the roads leading to Beitbridge and beyond will be pretty free of traffic.

3. 'Mugabe’s critics don’t want to keep land in white hands'

By Gareth100, Comment No. 769747

madibeng, I would suggest that all people in the west would like is for Zimbabwe (and many other African countries) to be run by people who have the interests of all their countrymen at heart, rather than an opportunity for personal enrichment for the leaders and their cronies. Not too much to ask is it? Surely the number of Zimbabweans fleeing into South Africa would suggest that something is gravely wrong? The question of returning the land to the black community is a complex one but surely it benefits no one if it contributes to the collapse of the economy? As for the 2002 elections being "free and fair", even the SADC voiced misgivings over the process, the only country not to voice concerns was South Africa, I wonder why?

4. ‘No country on earth has prospered from a peasant economy’

By DrJazz, Comment No. 770085

Madibeng: I don't want to take punitive action against Mugabe's regime. What I would like is for SADC to ensure that free and fair elections are held in Zimbabwe under a new constitution that doesn't give the President the power to appoint one fifth of parliament.

Zimbabwe went seriously wrong, as opposed to gradually wrong, with the award of unaffordable pensions to 50,000 war veterans in late 1997. They received the whole of the take from Income Tax. How much worse can you get? The ZimDollar halved in value overnight and continued the downward trend as the government printed money and entered the Congo war (so magabe could upstage Mandela, or so he thought). The next turning point was when Mugabe rejected the offer of finacial assistance from the inetrnational community for a transparent and fair land reform programme.

The next major turning point came in 2000 with the referendum on a new constitution which Mugabe lost. It was probably the only free and fair election in the history of Zimbabwe. That's why there was election rigging in the parliamentary elections a few months later which Mugabe narrowly 'won.' There were successful appeals to the courts against some of the results of that election, but the appeal process was allowed to kick in but was never resolved. In the 2002 Presidential elections there was even more rigging.

The critics do not want to keep land in white hands. They want it given to black FARMERS who would contnue to employ the hundreds of thousands of farm workers and continue to produce food and produce for export. Not Mugabe's cronies who can't/won't farm, or landless peasants who can barely support themselves from their small plots. A simple calculation shows there isn't sufficient land in Zimbabwe to support the peasant way of life.

No country on earth has prospered from a peasant economy. Small farmers in Europe have to be propped up by subsidies and second or third jobs.

• Visit the link, http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_morrison/2007/08/a_view_of_the_summit.html,for the full debate on Mr. Morrison’s article.