|
The Zim Question
by Chiwenda
I HAVE heard that the African Union, AU, will discuss a report on Zimbabwe. The AU had sent a mission to Zimbabwe and the mission is now ready with the report.
I understand that Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe condemned that report while some AU officials feel strongly for the report. What I do not know is how many of the AU commissioners know the background behind the current conflict in Zimbabwe. I do not know how much of the events and issues on Zimbabwe some people have followed.
As part of the discussion on the current Zimbabwe question involving the politics of land and governance, I would like to share my humble observations. It is important that our leaders have as much background information as they can get from those of us who lived in the period when the events were being formed. It may be interesting to listen to those of us who participated in finding solutions to the difficulties created by the settler element in Zimbabwe.
I have at other times referred to the fact that the British government wanted to create another South Africa in our region. They tried to bring together Northern Rhodesia, now called Zambia, Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), and Nyasaland (Malawi), into the Central African Federation. This was imposed against the will of the black people of the areas.
We opposed the Federation because it was meant to entrench benefits of the white settlers at the expense of black persons. Remember that Godfrey Huggins, actually knighted as "Sir" Godfrey Huggins, said of partnership between the whites and blacks as like one that exists between "the rider and the horse." Who, in Africa, can fail to understand that this described the European as the rider and the African the horse?
In that Federation, we lived like in times of slave trade. Blacks were doing the dirty work while the whites were enjoying. Sadly, in 1953, the Federation was imposed. Because of our fight against the Federation, in 1963 the British government was forced to have it dissolved.
However, while in 1964 Malawi and Zambia went on to majority rule and political independence, in Southern Rhodesia the "slave", "master," and "rider" situation continued. And in Rhodesia, Ian Douglas Smith took over as prime minister. Smith said that Rhodesia would have no black government "in my life time," and not even in a thousand years.
In November 1965, Ian Douglas Smith and white settlers forced a "Unilateral Declaration of Independence," UDI, declaring an independent state, ruled by the whites. In this action, Ian Smith, through treason, took over authority from the British government. And soon afterwards, Ian Smith arrested and locked up the Zimbabwe nationalists who had been peacefully fighting for genuine independence and freedom. The British government was passive on these developments.
However, governments of the Nordic countries were more critical and supported the African struggle.
While Britain was not actively stopping the Rhodesia rebellion, South Africa, run under the official racial policy of "apartheid," moved in to support what they thought should be a white person's country. Meanwhile, unhappy about the Rhodesia situation and apartheid in South Africa, we in Zambia, working together with the freedom fighters and people of those countries, and with support from concerned people in various parts of the world, used various opportunities to fight racism in southern Africa.
You may know that before Zambia's independence, the headquarters of all liberation movements was in Tanzania, which was led by that great hero of Africa, Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere. After Zambia's independence in October 1964, the liberation movements shifted to Zambia. Later, Tanzania's president Nyerere, president Milton Obote of Uganda, and I worked together, through what we called the "Mulungushi Club," to support these liberation movements. Later, with more states in the region becoming independent, the Club transformed into the "Frontline States."
We also worked closely with the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), the Commonwealth group of nations, Non-aligned Movement, and the United Nations.
We reached out to various solidarity networks. In support of liberation movements, we campaigned, and got support from all over the world.
When the struggle for Zimbabwe was getting hot, the leaders of the freedom movements were still locked up.
At some point, I realised that the British government was not in control of Rhodesia and that South Africa had much control there. South Africa regarded Rhodesia as a buffer against advancement of South Africa's liberation movement. Support to Rhodesia was their way of fighting South Africa's liberation movement at a distance. To contribute towards solving the Rhodesia problem, I reached out to Johannes Vorster, sometimes called John Vorster, who was then prime minister of apartheid South Africa. We eventually met at the Victoria Falls bridge, on a train, and I asked him to remove the 14 military helicopters South Africa had sent to support Ian Smith's regime in Rhodesia. These helicopters had been maiming and killing Zimbabweans and those, like Zambians, who supported the Zimbabweans freedom fight.
I also asked Vorster to tell Ian Douglas Smith to release the Zimbabwean freedom fighters. That meeting with Vorster lasted three nights. I think Vorster took ill and he had to leave. But that dialogue with Johannes Vorster achieved a lot. Thank God, through that meeting, the 14 helicopters were removed and the leaders of the freedom movement were released. Robert Mugabe, Joshua Nkomo, Ndabaningi Sithole, and their comrades were now free to help their movements put pressure for genuine independence and an end to the Rhodesia UDI. We can see that apartheid South Africa and its system of racism had definite relation with racist Rhodesia. In 1979, using the Commonwealth summit that I was privileged to chair right in Lusaka, the centre of the liberation movement, independence for Zimbabwe was agreed. Britain's prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, who had been reluctant to get the Commonwealth heads to resolve the Rhodesia question, agreed to a Zimbabwe meeting at Lancaster House, L ondon. Rhodesia was now back to the authority of Britain and moving towards independence.
A short while later, while we were in Havana, Cuba, at the Non Aligned Movement summit, Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo came to see me. They had decided they did not trust the British prime minister and would therefore not go to the London talks. It would be a waste of time. They would continue with the armed struggle.
Right in Havana, I called and briefed my two comrades and colleagues Julius Nyerere and Samora Machel of Mozambique. And, thank God, we persuaded our two brothers Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo to think again over going to London. They accepted our advice and decided to go to the Lancaster House talks. Because of tension at the Lusaka meeting, Margaret Thatcher asked me to fly to London and stand by just in case something might disrupt the conference and help was needed. So I flew to London, not to attend the conference but, as I had chaired the Lusaka Commonwealth summit, to sit on standby in case it was required that I should help.
Lancaster House ended with agreement for a programme for the independence of Zimbabwe. However, in the agreement, the freedom fighters had been persuaded not to touch the land question for some ten years.
I know that the land question started when Cecil Rhodes led a British team of settlers in removing Africans from fertile lands and making them go to hills and difficult lands. Even after Cecil Rhodes, blacks were again displaced from their land. This is an important part of the current conflict in Zimbabwe. So, at Lancaster House, the British government promised that the land question would be put right.
Then in April 1980, Zimbabwe became independent. But it still had its settler-created problems with it. But the liberation leaders still stuck to the Lancaster House agreement about the ten-year period on the land issue.
I understand that the Margaret Thatcher government in Britain started working on the British part in supporting the agreement over the land issue. Then John Major took over office and I understand even his government was committed to settling the land issue.
But I understand that when my fellow socialists, led by Tony Blair, took over government in Britain, the British role came to a halt. They did not pay much attention and, in the end, they withdrew from their role. With the British withdrawal, confusion set in.
Some people have argued that corruption amongst officials in Robert Mugabe's government made it difficult for Britain's Labour government to proceed with the arrangement. But I do not see this as good excuse for not doing the right thing. This concern could have been handled with president Mugabe. The cost of the British withdraw has proved very high.
The path the British took was far more destructive than the corruption they cite. Of course, I believe that wherever corruption shows its ugly head, all must fight it. The British Secretary of State and president Mugabe's government could have found ways of dealing with any corruption involving land.
After that great path worked out at the Lancaster House conference and the land issue got lost, it is difficult for things to go right. What has been almost a miracle in that land situation has been that there is no civil war, or wars at various levels, in Zimbabwe.
In the 1980s, when president Robert Mugabe invited me to a state visit, I made a public statement to the effect that Mugabe was a great person. He kept Ian Douglas Smith in Zimbabwe. He did not grab land from Smith. He allowed Ian Smith to shout insults at him. Yes, some terrible things have happened in Zimbabwe. Who can say all there is well now? I believe that what is required is not to demonise Robert Mugabe.
What is required is to help Mugabe work out a good land reform policy and help him to implement that policy. Going by the experience we had in Zambia when in 1991 a former union leader took over from us, some people would be cautious of Morgan Tsvangirai, a union leader who has held press conferences under the patronage of Ian Douglas Smith, taking over political office in Zimbabwe.
I believe that the African Union should not concentrate on condemnation of Robert Mugabe but help support a good land reform programme in Zimbabwe. In this situation, condemnation is not the best way. Let us put our heads together.
I know that our Nordic colleagues have had some understanding of Africa's freedom struggle and the fight against poverty. To other governments of Europe, I want to make a strong, and genuine, appeal. What is happening in Africa today comes from far back. Let us consider what slave trade, colonialism, and apartheid did. We must consider what poverty is still doing to Africa. These are legacies that still have powerful influence on us in Africa.
How many times, for example, was our presentation of the terrible things taking place under apartheid South Africa defeated at the United Nations, by major western powers? But we are not bitter. We say: do not forget or ignore where Africa is coming from.
On the recent breaking of houses by the Mugabe government, the problem is seen as involving the point that many of the people in these places may have voted for the opposition MDC. But it is not good to destroy the houses. How do those who do not accept the government approach handle the matter? I believe that these are issues we should be talking to president Robert Mugabe about.
Public condemnation of the Robert Mugabe government will not help solve the situation. What methods should be used to solve the situation? I am appealing to our leaders in Africa to handle this Zimbabwe situation, a situation of great depth, in ways that will lead to peaceful solutions.
Back to Home
|
