Long back, the land of our grandfathers was just taken. People now want the soil. They want the land. Why should we pay for what is already ours?

-Japfumaneyi Masuko, a farm laborer

[President Robert Mugabe] is almost a caricature of all the things people think black African leaders do. I am shattered because Mugabe is one of the most highly qualified and most able leaders. One just wants to weep. It's very sad.

-Archbishop Desmond Tutu

Perhaps it is an economy in chaos, or a changing Zimbabwean electorate, or simply an aging nationalist who considers that his impeccable liberation credentials should keep him both distant from criticism and securely in power. Whatever it is, Robert Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe, has unleashed those long-standing Zimbabwean and African issues, race and land, and in so doing has placed before Zimbabwe and the international community the tension between economic justice through land and a just community beyond race.

As the Zimbabwean economy has declined and criticism of Mugabe rose dramatically, Mugabe has become increasingly erratic and heavy-handed. In January 1999 his military arrested and allegedly tortured a local editor and journalist. When Supreme Court justices ordered their release, Mugabe's government refused, and when the justices then asked Mugabe to declare his government's commitment to the rule of law, he called upon them to resign, declaring that they had nor right to give instructions to the president on any matter. In February he viciously attacked the independent press in Zimbabwe, leaders of the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace and a human rights activist. As the year progressed, Mugabe engaged in further verbal attacks on white Zimbabweans and encouraged the seizure of the land of commercial farmers (overwhelmingly white farms) without compensation, to distribute those large holdings to veterans of the war of liberation.

Land Redistribution

No one denies the need for land redistribution. The white settler population in Zimbabwe these days is miniscule-there are 4,000 white farmers among a population of 7.5 million-yet their land holdings are enormous, one-third of the nation's productive land. It is indeed, as the Anglican Diocese of Harare declared recently, "a justice issue, and land should be redistributed equally." But the way it came about, early in 2000, has prompted grave concern. In the context of a flawed process for constitutional reform, Mugabe's government called for a referendum in February, which if approved, would have led to greater presidential powers generally and would have given the government the right to seize the large commercial farms without compensation. Surprisingly-certainly to Mugabe-voters decisively defeated the referendum, propelled especially by anger about the economic crisis. It was a warning to the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) government as they approached parliamentary elections in the next few months.

This led to the elections, which were eventually held in late June, a period characterized by government-encouraged occupation of over 1,400 commercial farms by "war veterans"-some true veterans, some not. Violence often followed. Mugabe's police ignored court orders to remove the "squatters" occupying the farms, and many remain there to this day. Mugabe's also stepped up his atttacks upon white Zimbabweans, declaring them to be "enemies of the state."

This led to the elections, which were eventually held in late June, a period characterized by government-encouraged occupation of over 1,400 commercial farms by "war veterans"-some true veterans, some not. Violence often followed. Mugabe's police ignored court orders to remove the "squatters" occupying the farms, and many remain there to this day. Mugabe's also stepped up his atttacks upon white Zimbabweans, declaring them to be "enemies of the state."

In this tense period between the referendum and the parliamentary elections, land redistribution remained very much on the ZANU-PF agenda. Following the referendum defeat, Mugabe went ahead with legislation allowing for land acquisition without compensation, and his government published a list of more than 800 farms to be acquired by compulsion.

It became difficult for anyone outside ZANU-PF's political future. "What is happening is not chaos," wrote the Amani Trust in Bulawayo. "It is carefully orchestrated; it is State Organized Violence…The Government [shifts] its targets over time, from peaceful occupations of farms, to violence on farms, first against the farmers themselves, then against their workers. The violence is designed to look like the spontaneous uprisings of land-or resource-hungry peasants, but is in fact reported as being overseen by a hard line army [and] police…headed by and answerable to the President."

Under these difficult circumstances (at best), the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) secured 57 of the 120 parliamentary seats being contested in the June elections, a dramatic rise from a parliament with only three in opposition. ZANU-PF's
Strength remained in rural areas; the MDC, in urban areas and in Matabeleland (where violence and human rights abuses by the government in the early 1980s are still vividly remembered). However, the MDC leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, failed to gain a seat. Moreover, the Mugabe government is permitted to appoint an additional 30 seats, so ZANU-PF's parliamentary control remains secure.

During the continent-wide struggles for independence after World War II, the settlers in Southern Rhodesia tried desperately-with all sorts of subterfuge-to establish a claim to independence while preserving their minority rule. It was clear by the early 1960s, however, that their efforts were failing. However, the white settlers, under the leadership of Ian Smith, declared Rhodesia to be independent of Britain. Many have speculated that if Prime Minister Harold Wilson had acted decisively from the moment of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) in November 1965, the tragic war for independence that dragged on for the next fifteen years would never have happened. By 1980 the African majority had prevailed. Negotiations ensued, and Britain transferred power to one of the key liberation leaders, Robert Mugabe, who has remained as president of the new nation of Zimbabwe to this day. His inauguration speech provided a powerful message of reconciliation-"we are all Zimbabweans" was its essence-and Zimbabwe entered into independence in the midst of real hope. People, both within and outside of Zimbabwe, looked toward good things to come, and for awhile they did, with an impressive government commitment to universal education and development.

What fueled the change is open to debate. In the mid-1990s Zimbabwe's economy was booming: Mining was profitable, tobacco exports were strong, tourism was growing, debts though high were manageable (and the country had never defaulted on a payment), and its work force was the most literate on the continent. No doubt mandated "economic reform" by the international financial institutions affected Zimbabwe's economic well-being, but the ZANU-PF government clearly made matters worse when Mugabe chose to send 12,000 Zimbabwean troops to fight alongside the Kabila government in Congo. Earlier he suddenly announced an immense and immediate compensation payment to Zimbabwe's war veterans, creating a run on the national currency. Mugabe's economic pragmatism of earlier years simply seemed to disappear, and the result was economic chaos: An inflation rate reaching 70 percent, the percentage of Zimbabweans living in poverty rising from 40 percent to 63 percent, massive rises in food prices, fuel shortages, and default on government loans.

And there was the continuing resentment toward white Zimbabweans and their large land holdings to capitalize upon. Never mind that funds from Britain and the United States had been available for compensation in earlier years, yet the Mugabe government did little about resettlement for years. Or, that a halt to British support of land redistribution efforts came about because of evidence that a number of farms for which compensation was paid were simply handed over to government cronies.

Faith communities in Zimbabwe have spoken forcefully about the recent events. The Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace condemned the violence of the past year, and urged "a culture of tolerance, an acceptance that differences in opinions creates unity in diversity." In their Easter message, the Catholic Bishops' Conference remarked that "no part of our society must be allowed to settle their grievances by violence. Even verbal violence must be avoided. Threatening, insulting and racist language can not be tolerated…The courts of law must be respected."

Where does this leave us? Despite the historic racism of colonialism, we need to be a voice for peace and reconciliation, and that means that we need to join with people of faith in Zimbabwe in refusing to accept racial attacks, from any direction. And, despite the tragedy that has resulted from violent land occupations-and the undermining of the rule of law that they imply-we need to join in a continuing call of a just and lawful program of land redistribution-a land reform process characterized by equity, transparency, and fairness.

Sister Janice McLaughlin, whose ministers in Zimbabwe, wrote a touching tribute to a white farmer, Martin Olds, killed in this year's political violence, a man who had engaged actively in a post-19890 program for former refugees and ex-combatants. "It is," she wrote, "a tragic sort of irony that a white farmer who accepted the hand of reconciliation and went out of his way to embrace change should be the target of politically motivated violence. I mourn for him his wife and children, and for those Zimbabweans who believe that the land issue and political differences can be resolved through dialog and negotiation rather than by confrontation and violence." With those sentiments we need to stand.

Written by Leon Spencer of the Washington Office on Africa.

Suggested Actions:

The U.S. government has, according to the Department of State, approached the Government of Zimbabwe at all levels "to express our deep concerns over the violence and erosion of the rule of law." The Clinton administration suspended its support for Zimbabwe's land reform and redistribution program.

The Senate has passed the Zimbabwe Democracy Act of 2000 (S.2677), which restricts U.S. assistance-including debt relief-and requires U.S. representatives at multilateral lending institutions to vote against any benefits to Zimbabwe until the Mugabe government is back on the democratic path. The bill is now before House committees.

Write your Representative, asking him or her to support democracy and peace in Zimbabwe. Express your concerns, however, about the Zimbabwe Democracy Act of 2000, which withholds assistance and debt relief until certain political measures are achieved. Ask your Representative and Senators to offer more positive solutions to encouraging stability and democracy in Zimbabwe.

Earlier the House of Representatives passed a resolution (H.Res.500) and the Senate introduced a resolution (S. Res. 314.IS) expressing concern about "the violence, the breakdown of rule of law, and troubled pre-election period" in Zimbabwe.

Address:

Honorable_________
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Honorable_________
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510

For more information on the situation in Zimbabwe, go to the BBC news website.

General Assembly Guidance:

In its 1994 statement on "The Year with Africa," the 207th General Assembly called on congregations to reach out to African communities in their need. The 211th General Assembly in 1999, responding to social and civil strife in Africa, "focuses heightened attention, advocacy, and compassionate response appropriate to the gravity and magnitude of the situation in Africa. These efforts will include resources of intercessory prayer, study, and education, publicity, public policy advocacy, pastoral care, and generous dedicated giving."