If you believe the British media, Morgan Tsvangirai will be the next president of Zimbabwe. Not bad for a man who is yet to clearly say who will fund his land policy. Baffour Ankomah writes.

We’ve seen a lot of, and heard a lot from, Morgan Tsvangirai in the British media these past few weeks. Perhaps I have to declare my hand early: Morgan frightens me to death. If what we’ve heard from him so far is any guide, God have mercy on black Zimbabweans.

Morgan went to South Africa and sat in a joint press conference with the South African Chamber of Commerce where a blockage of investment in Zimbabwe was advocated. From there, he flew to London, and the next we saw was a short letter to The Times, published on 14 April, calling on “the Zimbabwe authorities to enable free and fair elections to be held”.

The letter was signed — surprise, surprise? — by Carrington, R.A.C Byatt, Chalker of Wallasey, John Collins, Chester A. Crocker, Evelyn de Rothschild, Geoffrey Howe, Douglas Hurd, Tony Leon, Richard Luce, Robin Renwick, Malcolm Rifkind, Mary Soames, Helen Suzman [and last...and fittingly the least] Morgan Tsvangirai.

As an African, my heart sunk when I saw the “next president” of Zimbabwe cowering like a small boy behind a line of Western heavyweights to demand a simple thing as “free and fair elections”.

Morgan has “demanded” or said worse things about Mugabe, in Zimbabwe, than free and fair elections. And nothing happened to him! Why must he now go and hide behind other people to demand something as simple as free and fair elections?

In any case, couldn’t he have written the letter alone? What impression is he leaving with his wider African continental constituency? A pathetic puppet?

It may seem as impertinence on my part, but I would sincerely want Morgan to know the following (since his actions and pronouncements so far show him not to know):

First, in Britain (which is behaving like his main foreign backer), no ethnic minority group is allowed to own nearly 50% of all land in the country. The people of Britain will never ever allow it! Some time ago, Kuwait owned 20% shares in British Petroleum, a publicly listed company. It was deemed not to be in Britain’s “strategic interest” for a foreign country to own that much of BP. So the British bought the Kuwaitis out.

Second, in Britain when the opposition attacks government’s policies, they always offer alternative policies. Morgan, tell us clearly who will fund your land policy? Who are these “donors and stakeholders” you mention in your manifesto? How much will it cost anyway? Will you compensate land owners? Will it take Zimbabwe’s “strategic interest” into account?

Third, if you ask the Americans, they will freely tell you that land reform is a central plank in the development of nations like Zimbabwe where minorities own more than their fair share of the land.

In Japan and Taiwan (two of the post-1945 economic miracles), America sent its men (led by General McArthur) to go and sort out the skewed land tenure systems in those two countries as a necessary motor for wealth creation and economic prosperity for ALL (emphasis on for all). Now the results in Japan and Taiwan are there for all to see.

Fourth (and very important), no British opposition leader goes abroad and sits in a press conference where a blockage of investment in Britain is advocated, no matter their disagreements with the government.

Fifth, you should be worried — very worried indeed — that the British media and government appear to be fighting the Zimbabwean election for you. According to them, your face and voice are the only ones deserving to be seen and heard in favourable light in the UK. In short, they are making you look like a helpless puppet. Be sure of one thing — it will cost you continental African respect. It’s a simple matter of which (or is it whose?) side you are on.

Now let’s turn to other matters. The British media have called Mugabe a lot of names — despot, tyrant, thug, oppressor, totalitarian, the Hitler of Africa.

But let’s look at the facts in the face. As I write, there is a big contingent of British and other foreign reporters in Zimbabwe, and as their stories have shown so far, they are free to go anywhere and write anything about Mugabe. As I write, nothing has happened to them. And Mugabe is a despot!

Ian Smith whose regime caused so much sorrow to black Zimbabweans is free to live in Harare and own farms and black servants. General Pinochet would love to exchange places with him. Compare Zimbabwe to Chechenya and the destruction of Grozny by Vladimir Putin’s rampaging Russian army. How many British or foreign reporters were able, or allowed, to go to Chechenya when Putin’s men were reducing Grozny to rubble? And Putin is not a despot.

Putin even comes to London and have tea with the Queen! And Tony Blair, during the same parliamentary question time in which he condemns the “violence” in Zimbabwe (where at the time fewer than 10 people had died), says “the best way to register those concerns is by engaging Russia and not isolating Russia”.

Now tell me why Mugabe shouldn’t likewise be “engaged”? Is it because he has no nuclear weapons? Is it because he wants his white citizens to give excess land to his landless black citizens? Mugabe, again, is accused of “playing the race card and encouraging anarchy” for political gain. But it is the British media that first played the race card by drawing a line in the sand and said “these people are white, they are our people, and we will support them regardless of the facts”.

As regards Mugabe not respecting the “rule of law”, it is time we called a spade a spade. The man has been driven to utter frustration by the landowners who have spurned his every legal move in the past 20 years to peacefully resolve the land issue.

In any case, in November 1965 when Ian Smith declared UDI and the UN Security Council passed a resolution calling on Britain “to quell the rebellion of the racist minority and to take all other appropriate measures which would prove effective in eliminating the authority of the usurpers and in bringing the minority regime to an immediate end”, Britain stuck up two fingers in the face of the rule of law by declaring that it would not use “military power” to quell the rebellion.

Ian Smith and his followers were white (in fact they were more British than anything else), so Britain flatly refused to use “military power” to kill its own people. Instead London concocted a series of ineffectual economic sanctions all aimed at buying time for Ian Smith & Co.

Now when Mugabe plays the same card by refusing to send his black policemen to go and quell the “farm invasions”, and possibly kill his own people, he is accused of encouraging anarchy and not respecting the rule of law. That is what Britain did in 1965 — protecting its own people.

It is regrettable that Zimbabwe’s landless people now have to resort to violence out of sheer frustration. The government must stop the violence and killings now. It does no favours to the good cause of land reform. That said, part of the blame must squarely be shouldered by the landowners. They have been greedy and insensitive.

To the neighbours watching on (in Namibia, South Africa etc), where white minorities occupy more than their fair share of the land, Zimbabwe offers a salutary lesson. Peaceful land reform is always better than driving the majority to frustration.

Back to the top
Contents