True..Iran made such painful shift a couple of decades ago and the West has hated them since...

Posted by: Ali | Jul 21 2012 17:38 utc | 1

Zimbabwe suffered hellish pressure, sanctions and threats for this "painful shift of wealth"

Posted by: claudio | Jul 21 2012 18:03 utc | 2

No pain, no gain. :) On a serious note, in science reactions have an activation energy. That is even favorable reactions do not start until a large amount of energy is first put in to over come the resistance to the reaction. We can use the term Activation Energy of social/political change. The entrenched interests will fight hard, and why should we be surprised about that, to get the change going. So with a lot of hard work and sacrifice change comes and things get better for many more. But not for everyone and when change is suggested to try to bring the benefit to even more the resistance by those who gained in the first change is now formidable. Will the poorer majority of Zimbabwe get a boost up sometime later? Odds are against it.

Posted by: Khalid Shah | Jul 21 2012 18:26 utc | 3

The Empire and all its transnational corporate power is the sworn enemy of land reform, wherever it occurs; just the self-sustainability and dignity of the people is the chief obstacle to creating the feudal arrangement preferred by the 1%.

Posted by: Copeland | Jul 21 2012 18:27 utc | 4

I suspect that there is an even better story underneath this one: the story of tens of thousands of Zimbabweans growing their own food, of the nation achieving food security and of the idiocy of an international trade in staples tailing off.

This story has immense resonance in South Africa, where the same underlying condition, (which is that the foreign capitalists seized the land and turned peasant communities into landless proletarian masses) and in places like Ethiopia where corrupt rulers have been piecing off the people's land and selling it to foreign investors.

Africom is designed to make sure that land reform doesn't happen.

Posted by: bevin | Jul 21 2012 18:48 utc | 5

White Man is going to ease restrictions on "aid" to Zimbabwe.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/eu-ease-restrictions-aid-zimbabwe-diplomats-151741678--business.html?

If I were them I would be wary.

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jul 21 2012 19:41 utc | 6

I suppose that here the questions are: 1) To whom was the land given? Was it only the supporters of Mugabe?

2) How does present-day production compare to production under the whites?

I would have no objection if it were a simple transfer from whites to blacks. If it is a transfer, as it seems, from whites to supporters of Mugabe, who then waste the land, it's not so good.

Posted by: alexno | Jul 21 2012 20:24 utc | 7

PS to 7

I could imagine that the situation would be better, if an open transfer of land had been made, to those who needed it.

My Anti-Apartheid friends from the 80s were very opposed to Mugabe. it's unwise to excuse him now.

Posted by: alexno | Jul 21 2012 20:39 utc | 8

the Brits have reversed course, the New York Times piece probably is part of it

"One of the earliest manifestations of the coalition’s more sensitive and pragmatic foreign policy was Myanmar, where Britain has moved steadily towards engagement and away from confrontation. Another concerns Zimbabwe, a pariah state ever since President Robert Mugabe unleashed his programme of farm seizures at the turn of the century.

For the past decade, almost every measure short of military invasion has been taken to isolate the Zimbabwe president and his Zanu-PF supporters. Aid has been suspended and heavy sanctions targeted at senior members of the regime, while Zimbabwe was forced out of the Commonwealth in 2003. Last week, that British policy was reversed.

In a statement in the Commons, Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt announced that Britain now wants many of the sanctions on Zimbabwe to be lifted. Burt’s speech has hardly been reported, but that does not mean it was unimportant. British policy towards Zimbabwe has taken an entirely new turn. Rather than seeking to drive the country out of the comity of nations, Britain is now endeavouring to bring her in.

As the former colonial power, Britain’s new understanding has already changed many minds in the European Union, and the US may well alter course too. Eventually, so long as mishaps do not occur, Zimbabwe is likely to return to the Commonwealth. This change of stance was received with dismay in the Commons. "

http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/summon-the-courage-to-bring-zimbabwe-in-from-the-cold-1.1051899

it would be connected to this here

China and Mugabe set to benefit from Zimbabwe's 'blood diamonds': Gems back on sale after international ban lifted

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070951/China-Mugabe-set-benefit-Zimbabwes-blood-diamonds-Gems-sale-international-ban-lifted.html#ixzz21IJ4xqpZ

and generally to this

Mugabe thanks China for support

President Robert Mugabe yesterday thanked his Chinese allies for helping defend his rule against Western countries that he says want to topple him.

Speaking during a meeting with the visiting vice chairman of the standing committee of the National People's Congress of China, Zhou Tienong, hailed the strong bilateral relations between Zimbabwe and China that he said was Harare’s foremost ally and supporter in the international community.

“The imperialist countries of Britain, Europe and the US have continued to undermine our country. This is because of our resources but we are grateful to the stance China has always taken in defending our sovereignty," said Mugabe, who received crucial military and other support from Beijing during Zimbabwe’s 1970s liberation war.

Zhou, leading a four-member delegation that arrived in Harare on Monday, called for greater cooperation between Zimbabwe and China, labeling the southern African country a “trustworthy friend of China”.

"The Chinese people will stand by Zimbabwe as they did in the past," said Zhou, who also rejected external interference in Zimbabwe’s internal affairs.

China has emerged as one of Zimbabwe’s most important political allies and trading partners since 2000 when Mugabe adopted his ‘Look East’ policy

http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/news/zimbabwe/54505/mugabe-thanks-china-for-support.html

Posted by: somebody | Jul 21 2012 21:21 utc | 9

that "return to the Commonwealth" stuff must be an inside joke

Posted by: somebody | Jul 21 2012 21:23 utc | 10

alexno

1) economically it does not matter who gets the land - it was split amongst a larger number of people than possessed the land before
2) quite likely production under the white owners was higher, must have been as they could farm large areas with very cheap labour, however the economic effect this had would have been much smaller as they would not spend as much locally as the higher number of owners does

Mandela was the nice guy and Mugabe the reverse racist rob-the-rich hardliner, however Zimbabwe got a land reform which South Africa did not

JOHANNESBURG—South Africa's land-reform program is sputtering, and that has so angered some politicians here that they are urging the African National Congress-led government to seize white-owned farms. Such a policy shift would spark clashes between whites and blacks not seen since the beginning of democracy in the country 17 years ago, some observers warn.

At a conference over the weekend, ANC Youth League President Julius Malema condemned the government's current model of land redistribution based on "willing buyer, willing seller," and said white farms should be confiscated without payment.

"You can never be diplomatic about willing-buyer, willing-seller. It has failed. You have not come with an alternative," said Mr. Malema, criticizing the government. "We are giving you an alternative; we must take the land without payment."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304887904576397413655326924.html

Posted by: somebody | Jul 21 2012 21:37 utc | 11

Al-Qaeda Linked Group Claims Responsibility for Burgas Terror
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/158091#.UAsijI4gJiZ

No Iran, no Hezbollah.

Posted by: Antifo | Jul 21 2012 21:48 utc | 12

""You can never be diplomatic about willing-buyer, willing-seller. It has failed. You have not come with an alternative," said Mr. Malema, criticizing the government. "We are giving you an alternative; we must take the land without payment.""

THAT is the crux of the Mugabe 'problem' as well

Originally Britain was suppossed to compensate the White Farmers NOT the Zimbabwean Gov't - THAT was the deal made between Britain and Zimbabwe at the time of independence.

But of course the Brits stalled/reneged on paying the White Farmers, refusing ot live up to their agreed obligations made at the time of independence - so Mugabe got tired waiting around and just said "screw it, we're taking the land whether it's paid for or not"

So that is why the Brit media have been demonising Mugabe - because he foolishly expected, and waited for, them to live up to their side of the bargain, and when they didn't just went ahead and did what needed to be done anyway

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jul 21 2012 22:18 utc | 13

"...quite likely production under the white owners was higher, must have been as they could farm large areas with very cheap labour..."

The question is "production of what"? If a 500 hectare plantation owned by a British immigrant's son produces 100 tons of tobacco, for the international market that is one thing. Compare it with the same 500 hectares now held by former guerrillas, producing 20 tons of tobacco for the international market and thousands of tons of food which never gets close to the market but which is eaten by the local people.

Suppose also that, instead of importing fertilisers, GE seeds, herbicides and other inputs the new farmers husband the land organically. bourgeois economists will say these are failures, much less money in involved, whereas, in fact, the land is now providing for many families who, previously, lived the precarious life of casual labourers on land which had been their people's since time immemorial but which the imperialist had stolen less than a century ago.

Posted by: bevin | Jul 21 2012 23:05 utc | 14

I certainly was not concerned that Mugabe violated the sanctity of British colonial property rights for white people. That land was stolen from the natives in the late 19th century. However, after 2000 the immediate result was the collapse of the Zimbabwe economy and currency. This caused terrible hardship for the entire people. If their agricultural economy is now recovering then more power to them. I would like to sing their praise but one year's successful crop is not yet a measure successful economy.

Posted by: ToivoS | Jul 22 2012 0:53 utc | 15

a grudging admission by the paper of record...the editorial staff must have suffered the tortures of the constipated

Posted by: brian | Jul 22 2012 1:11 utc | 16

This caused terrible hardship for the entire people. If their agricultural economy is now recovering then more power to them. I would like to sing their praise but one year's successful crop is not yet a measure successful economy.

Posted by: ToivoS | Jul 21, 2012 8:53:27 PM | 15

not very well informed are you...ever hear of a thing called SANCTIONS?
http://gowans.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/us-senator-comes-clean-on-zimbabwe-sanctions/

dont blame zimbabwe..blame the white masters angry that their black servant isnt doing as he should

Posted by: brian | Jul 22 2012 1:14 utc | 17

BRAVO MUGABE....BRAVO ZIMBABWE!

For those not very well clued in on zimbabwe, this is a good source of alternative journalism on zimbabwe:
http://www.raceandhistory.com/Zimbabwe/

its all there

Posted by: brian | Jul 22 2012 1:16 utc | 18

Posted by: bevin | Jul 21, 2012 2:48:59 PM | 5

Mugabe promised land reform but was hampered by the Lancaster Accords....by later 1990s he began land reform and moved away from IMF model, for the brits this was an act of war...its then the UK backed MDC was formed to take out this, to the brits, infamous president...

'The 1997 launch of a new phase in the land reform program, in which 1,471 farms were listed for compulsory purchase, triggered British intervention in Zimbabwe. The jettisoning of ESAP four years later, coupled with the statement that sectors of the economy would be placed on a socialist path, only increased the sense of outrage among Western leaders.

The establishment of a new opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), in September 1999, found instant support from Western leaders. Significant funding from Western sources enabled the party to rapidly grow to the point where it won 57 out of 120 seats in the June 24-25 2000 parliamentary election, less than one year after its creation. Ostensibly based in the labor movement, the program of MDC reads like a call for a return to ESAP.

http://www.swans.com/library/art8/elich004.html

Posted by: brian | Jul 22 2012 1:23 utc | 19

'President Robert Mugabe yesterday thanked his Chinese allies for helping defend his rule against Western countries that he says want to topple him.'

he says???? in fact thats what theyve been doing....MDC by the brits was founded to do just this

Posted by: brian | Jul 22 2012 1:24 utc | 20

gulf news:
'Another concerns Zimbabwe, a pariah state ever since President Robert Mugabe unleashed his programme of farm seizures at the turn of the century.

For the past decade, almost every measure short of military invasion has been taken to isolate the Zimbabwe president and his Zanu-PF supporters. Aid has been suspended and heavy sanctions targeted at senior members of the regime, while Zimbabwe was forced out of the Commonwealth in 2003. Last week, that British policy was reversed.'

the Unspin Dictionary tells us:
'farm seizures' = land reform

thers no such thing as targeted sanctions...
http://gowans.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/us-senator-comes-clean-on-zimbabwe-sanctions/

Posted by: brian | Jul 22 2012 1:27 utc | 21

'My Anti-Apartheid friends from the 80s were very opposed to Mugabe. it's unwise to excuse him now.

Posted by: alexno | Jul 21, 2012 4:39:05 PM | 8

your (white?)anti-apartheid friends have done zip for land reform in south africa....Black south africans who rot in the slums of Johannesburg look with envy at zimbabwe.

VIVA MUGABE!

Posted by: brian | Jul 22 2012 1:29 utc | 22

Brian it sounds like you are more knowledgeable than I am about Zimbabwe and I think your arguments have merit. But having acknowledged that there is no doubt that Mugabe's actions resulted in the collapse of their economy after 2000. It is irrelevant if part of this collapse was caused by international sanctions led by the ex-colonial power Great Britain. Being a leader means that one cares for their people. If Mugabe enraged Western imperialism then he has to be held responsible for enraging them. Just like Saddam Hussein must be held responsible for enraging Western imperialism and causing them to invade and destroy his country. Sorry Brian but this is the world we live in -- the US is the hegemon and it will use its considerable power to maintain that status. Most of the victims of their revenge have no idea what is going on and only want to complete their lives. Their local leaders should know better.

Posted by: ToivoS | Jul 22 2012 1:54 utc | 23

no Mugabes action did NOT result in the collapse of the economy..youre only echoing the MSM. and the actions of the Evil Empire are never irrelevant..not to the victims.

The world u live in is dominated by the Empire and its indentured media servants...they depend on people like you knuckling under and performing your assigned role..their willing executioners

Posted by: brian | Jul 22 2012 2:00 utc | 24

Brian thinks he has a unique handle here: The world u live in is dominated by the Empire and its indentured media servants.

And the world you live in is not? Sorry poor boob but that is the world we both live in. Us poor peons muddle through the best we can but do not think that you some how live outside of that world. Our problem is how to #1 survive in that world and #2 (for those of us who care beyond our immediate needs) how to change it for the better. I live in the US and the options for making this world a better place are limited.

Posted by: ToivoS | Jul 22 2012 2:33 utc | 25

There's no excusing the US sanctions on Iraq, there is a clear victim. You cannot blame the victim for getting bitchslapped when refusing to go down on the opressor.

Posted by: Alexander | Jul 22 2012 2:57 utc | 26

Or are you suggesting every smaller country should bend over for US hegemony ambitions?

Posted by: Alexander | Jul 22 2012 2:59 utc | 27

no TOivoS....we have a choice...you fan believe what you are told by the Mpire...or you can ignore them....just use discernment if you have any

Posted by: brian | Jul 22 2012 3:29 utc | 28

The debate on zimbabwe seems to go back about as far as the old whiskey bar. Apart from alexno support has always been for the anti-imperialists.
england and amerika have always lied about this issue, just as they have lied about the real reasons whitefellas are told to dislike burma, modern tibet, and north korea.

The reason england reneged on its deal to buy out the whitefellas was simple. The land that had been stolen was the most fertile and productive land in africa. There are some whitefella economists, particularly those in densely populated countries, who tell their governments that a '3rd world' nation with under-utilised fertile land is a much better 'steal' for the empire than any ‘failed state’ sitting on billions of barrels of oil. A country like england which cannot produce sufficient to feed its current citizenry, much less their projected 2062 population, has been jealously eying up potential food producing areas for centuries.

The englanders had always planned on grabbing the land back, but prolly intended running the scam more closely to the way that northern hemisphere whitefellas are trying to grab all the productive land in Aotearoa (release the land to locals esp indigenous population then create the correct conditions to force the landowners to on-sell to foreigners - banks are complicit in this rort). The reason it didn't go that way in Zimbabwe is prolly connected to the land's current role in tobacco production.

That made the land's initial price too high to run the 3 card trick and still get out ahead of the game (sufficient return from the final food production value to enable the 'donors' who bought out the whitefellas to get rich on).

It is also worth noting that the greedheads who are trying to grab fertile land in less populous nations are equal opportunity oppressors. They are happy to play on white colonial racism to get their way, but a white local is considered as much of an obstacle to their land grabs as any unwhite landholder. It is taking too long for many of the racist scum in former colonies to wake up to this uncomfortable fact of life.

That said, this claim is bulldust "Black south africans who rot in the slums of Johannesburg look with envy at zimbabwe".
There are around 1.5 million Zimbabwean migrants living in South Africa's slums. That is approx 10% of Zimbabwe's population! They consider South Africa a ‘much better bet’ than Zimbabwe.

One of the mistakes many whitefellas make when looking at these issues is lumping all the unwhites together into one job lot, as if they all share the same situation, aspirations and history.
When the white colonial massas ran big labour intensive agricultural operations on Zimbabwean land, they imported labour from other parts of africa where people were being driven off their land by other white thieves for all sorts of greed driven reasons.
The colonists claimed the locals were too lazy to work, the truth was rather different. The locals still considered the land to be theirs and had no intention of quietly acquiescing to theft, they were pushed off the land at gunpoint & foreign workers were bought in to do the graft.
It was those displaced indigenous Zimbabweans who formed the core of Zanu PF, but of course englander newspapers have never bothered to educate their readership about this, which is why those fishwraps cranked up englanders into making such a big deal after Zanu moved the black farm workers as well as the whitefellas.
england claimed that there was some sort of 'favouritism' going on where land was being given to party faithful ahead of who the english media claimed were the 'original inhabitants' , the imported farmworkers who had been living on the land for just 2 or 3 generations.

So some of the Zimbabweans living in South Africa are those displaced rural workers, but they are by no means all of the 1.5 million.
Prolly most of the 1.5 mill are indigenous Zimbabweans; in the main former urban dwellers who had been educated and trained to work in the public & private sector bureaucracy, as well as teachers and nurses looking for a living wage, as sanctions have destroyed Zimbabwe's health and education infrastructure.
The migration to South Africa is likely to be another reason why englanders have decided to sidle back up to the Zanu PF dominated govt. The vast majority of these migrants are likely to be supporters of the neo-liberal ass-kissers, Morgan Tsvangirai's Movement for Democratic Change, meaning that its remaining core of support remaining in Zimbabwe is pretty much confined to the minority Shona tribe.
If the political parties are defined by tribal allegiance once more, Zanu, which has always had a significant Ndebele alignment, will always win cause Ndebele comprise a much larger chunkof the population.

p.s. eyes buggered - spelling & typos an inevitable consequence

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jul 22 2012 9:54 utc | 29

That said, this claim is bulldust "Black south africans who rot in the slums of Johannesburg look with envy at zimbabwe".
There are around 1.5 million Zimbabwean migrants living in South Africa's slums. That is approx 10% of Zimbabwe's population! They consider South Africa a ‘much better bet’ than Zimbabwe.

what a pity you dont investigate this, debs is dead....whhy do these zimbabweans choose to rot in south africa....perhaps they miss the white mans rule, when they could feast on the crumbs offered them.

Your hatred for free zimbabwe shows us your racist character. You want zimbabwe to return to white rule.

and no the claim is not bull dust...why not ask the south africans who rot in the slums

Posted by: brian | Jul 22 2012 10:18 utc | 30

re 22

your (white?)anti-apartheid friends have done zip for land reform in south africa

don't discredit them; Apartheid might not have fallen without them. In any case they're the last generation. People can't go on eternally.

Posted by: alexno | Jul 22 2012 11:30 utc | 31

it is not that simple anyway, what I heard from South Africa is that the new elite got corrupt very fast, same would apply for Zimbabwe.
http://www.sokwanele.com/thisiszimbabwe/category/economy/corruption

all said GDP in South Africa is higher with not that much of a GINI difference so as with all economic data there are many ways to look at it.

Posted by: somebody | Jul 22 2012 11:54 utc | 32

/Off Topic + Unconfirmed

A blast has hit the builing of Saudi intelligence service in Riyadh, killing deputy of the newly-appointed intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan, according to reports. The explosion took place on Sunday when Bin Sultan’s deputy was entering the building, Yemen's al-Fajr Press quoted eyewitnesses as saying.

Saudi media have so far refrained from showing any reaction to the blast.

Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/07/22/252166/blast-hits-saudi-intelligence-building/

Bandar Bin Sultan (AKA Bandar Bush) was appointed Saudi Arabia's intelligeance chief on Thursday. Why this story stoked my interest was that on Thursday when the news was announced the Angry Arab wrote this:

By the way, the appointment of Prince Bandar as head of Saudi intelligence is a sure sign that King `Abdullah is not charge. `Abdullah hates Bandar (read David Ottaway's book on Saudi-US relations and the story of the documentary that really pissed off `Abdullah) and the appointment is an indication that Salman (or his sons and other Sudayris) are now in chrage and shuffling the deck quickly.

Source: http://angryarab.blogspot.ie/2012/07/king-salman-of-saudi-arabia.html

Could this be Palace politics in Saudi Arabia? Bandar was thought to be one of the few royal figures who was actually effective in foreign policy (he was aggressively pushing the Free Syrian Army) but was stigmatised because he was the son of a concubine. If his appointment was a power struggle between Crown Prince Salman's faction and King Abdullah's faction could this bombing be Abdullah's retaliation?

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Jul 22 2012 12:12 utc | 33

@brian #30 - I didn't detect a hatred of free Zimbabwe in DiD's post ... maybe my antennas are malfunctioning?

Posted by: claudio | Jul 22 2012 12:45 utc | 34

Colm O'Toole,#33, I guess Saudi has a problem :-))

Saudi Calls for Extraordinary Muslim Summit

www.naharnet.com/stories/en/47441

Saudi Arabia has called for an extraordinary summit of Muslim leaders to be held next month to address risks of "sedition" threatening Muslim countries, state news agency SPA reported on Sunday.

Saudi King Abdullah has called for "an extraordinary Islamic solidarity meeting to ensure... unity during this delicate time as the Muslim world faces dangers of fragmentation and sedition," SPA quoted Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal as saying.

King Abdullah wishes to convene the summit in mid-August in a bid at "unifying the ranks" of Muslims, the report said. There were no further details concerning the agenda of the meeting.

But the announcement comes amid a spike in deadly violence across Syria, where more than 19,000 have been killed since an uprising erupted in March 2011 against the regime of President Bashar Assad.

Saudi Arabia and the other energy-rich Sunni nations of the Gulf have repeatedly voiced support for Syrian rebels against the regime of Assad, a member of the Alawite community, an offshoot of Shiite Islam.

In a separate statement, SPA reported that the Saudi monarch has called for launching a campaign to raise funds "in support of our brothers in Syria" starting on Monday.

"The donations will be from all the kingdom's regions" urging all Saudis "to participate in the campaign."

Saudi Arabia hosts the headquarters of the 57-member pan-Muslim body -- the Organization of Islamic Cooperation which is based in the Red Sea city of Jeddah.

Posted by: somebody | Jul 22 2012 13:15 utc | 35

these are the member states
http://www.oicun.org/3/28/

Libya still known as Jamahiriya ...

Posted by: somebody | Jul 22 2012 13:19 utc | 36

Anyone see that report of Shrillarys motorcade being shot at in Israel?It was reported by Reuters and INRA and Veterans Today had it on its web site,(unsure if its still there)but the MSM have not said a thing.I wonder why?Ha.Probably wacko settlers,but the whole crazy nation is wacko.
Imagine the blowback from the confused sheeple,if true.And what about the Knesset member tearing up the New Testament in the Knesset?Ha,sheeple,you've been had.
As far as Mugabe,the serial liars hate him,so he must be not that bad,if evil hates you.

Posted by: dahoit | Jul 22 2012 13:56 utc | 37

A favorable piece in the corporate media on the Zimbabwe land transfers is extraordinary. There must be some explanation like the Brits changing course in their foreign policy.

Of course, the NYT describes the former occupants of the land as 'whites' rather than as 'colonists' to preserve the meme that blacks are eager for irrational revenge and 'reverse discrimination'.

Posted by: Watson | Jul 22 2012 14:03 utc | 38

Saddam implemented a major land reform.

It was pointed in several directions at once - end of feudalism and distribution of land to the farmers, plus modernization and mechanization with some ‘collectivization’ thrown in, I don’t remember all the details, but iirc that was mostly about sharing equipment. He ‘offered’ free courses to farmers. The FAO was quite excited and started some experimental agri. stuff in Iraq that they could not do anywhere else, again, iirc.

Iraq had a good public/private seed distribution system and was self-sufficient for many -almost all- food products. The reform was very successful.

The Iran-Iraq war and Western sanctions, notably oil for food, (oil goes out and food comes in!) put paid to it; climate (drought) also played a role I’m sure. Irrigation in dry lands is very vulnerable to any kind of disruption and generally requires Gvmt. supervision, control, funding if needed, and like, a harmonious, collaborative spirit.

The 2003 invasion - which included ripping up plantations and destroying the vital water system, not to mention electrical and other energy delivery which is an essential input to modern agri completely smashed any kind of independence, particularly for wheat (Australia wanted to export wheat. The US as well.)

-> from memory

here is one article from GRAIN that shows the complexity of these matters and how hard it is to judge without being an expert:

http://www.grain.org/article/entries/150-iraq-s-new-patent-law-a-declaration-of-war-against-farmers

So it is very welcome that small-holders in Zimbabwe can earn money from tobacco crops. But that is just, to put it very mildly, a small beginning.

Posted by: Noirette | Jul 22 2012 18:49 utc | 39

Sort of on topic -- BBC reported on study by the Tax Justice Network which reports that the super rich have up to $21 Trillion dollars hidden in off-shore accounts. Well, not really surprising, but nice to have it quantified.

Or maybe it's more like $32 Trillion....

The figure is equivalent to the size of the US and Japanese economies combined.

The Price of Offshore Revisited was written by James Henry, a former chief economist at the consultancy McKinsey, for the Tax Justice Network.

Tax expert and UK government adviser John Whiting said he was sceptical that the amount hidden was so large.

Mr Whiting, director of the Office of Tax Simplification, said: "There clearly are some significant amounts hidden away, but if it really is that size what is being done with it all?"

Mr Henry said his $21tn is actually a conservative figure and the true scale could be $32tn. A trillion is 1,000 billion.

Mr Henry used data from the Bank of International Settlements, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and national governments.

Mr. Whiting's reaction is actually sort of cute. And so predictable for a Tory.

Romney will probably say nothing, no wishing to bring yet more attention to his roll in building up this total.

Posted by: jawbone | Jul 23 2012 3:29 utc | 40

Those 2000 white farmers created the bread basket of africa.
Those 60 000 black tobacco farmers are all hungry.
They are not surviving there. All the Zim tobacco goes into cheap black market cigarettes which are banned here in SA (?). The painful transfer of wealth has crippled everyone except brown nosers who always thrive in a dictatorship. Not to mention the constant political interference, torture and random arrests. There is no reliable water or power in most of the urban centres, and hospitals are empty.
Yay africa :(
The only thing such a scenario is good for, is for holding on the reigns of power at ANY cost.
b, you're wrong here, USA desperately wants a base there, that's all.

Posted by: david | Jul 23 2012 9:15 utc | 41

2000 white farmers did not create the bread basket of africa..not for black africans
they stole black african land and paid not a penny to the owners:

' In 1888, representatives from Cecil Rhodes' British South Africa Company induced Lobengula, king of the Ndebele people, to sign an agreement allowing the company to mine gold. This agreement granted the company "the complete and exclusive charge over all metals and minerals" in the region, as well as "full power to do all things that they may deem necessary to win and procure the same," which the company was to interpret as permission to seize land. Unable to read the document he had signed, a dismayed King Lobengula sent a protest letter to Queen Victoria in which he objected that he was deliberately misled by British negotiators. "A document was written and presented to me for signature. I asked what it contained, and was told that in it were my words and the words of those men. I put my hand to it. About three months afterwards I heard from other sources that I had given by that document the right to all minerals of my country." Lobengula declared that he would "not recognize the paper, as it contains neither my words nor the words of those who got it." The unsympathetic response from the Queen's Advisor to Lobengula was that it was "impossible to exclude white men." (1)

It soon became apparent to the British South Africa Company that little gold was to be had and the company's outpost in Mashonaland found itself in financial straits. Land seemed a more promising venture, and in October 1893 British troops and volunteers crossed into King Lobengula's core territory of Matabeleland. The entire region rapidly fell into their hands as they inflicted heavy casualties on the Ndebele. Under terms of the resulting Victoria Agreement, each volunteer was entitled to 6,000 acres of land. Rather than an organized division of land, there was instead a mad race to grab the best land, and within a year 10,000 square miles of the most fertile land had been seized from its inhabitants. White settlers confiscated most of the Ndebele's cattle in the process, a devastating loss to a cattle-ranching society such as the Ndebele. The large tracts of land now run by relatively few white settlers required workers, and the Ndebele became forced laborers on the land they once owned, essentially treated as slaves. The Shona also saw their cattle confiscated by white settlers, and were driven into poverty through the imposition of onerous taxes by the new British rulers. (2) The inevitable uprising by the dispossessed Ndebele and Shona in 1896 was finally crushed over one year later by the British at the cost of 8,000 African lives. The region was established as a new colony in the British realm and named Rhodesia in honor of Cecil Rhodes.'
http://www.swans.com/library/art8/elich004.html

its called Grand Theft

Posted by: brian | Jul 23 2012 9:44 utc | 42

brian ... everything bad in africa was brought by the british imperialists, who mugabe holds quite highly, he even prevented cecil rhodes' body being moved.
The handover from white to black power was successful, and the country had started to thrive, until mad bob went mad of course. This has got nothing to do with the colonial past, which ended in the 1960's, but the dictatorial insanity that an over concentration of power brings. Never forget that when a (southern african) black says socialist, he means tribal, there is a vast difference between those 2 concepts. A tribal leader leads for life, and any "opposition" is brutally dealt with. Look into the prime minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, and exactly how high the price he has paid is.
Whatever you may quote or say on the matter, why is south africa FLOODED with immigrants, legal and illegal from zimbabwe? Why are the well qualified Zimbabwean blacks not living and working in their own county, preferring to live in Joburgs cesspit slums to their own land? Please explain why this is so? Please also explain why mugabe does his shopping in south africa, and his doctor's visits in Hong Kong?
Please would you also explain why every single state department except the military has stopped functioning. There is no more Air Zimbabwe (only 1 plane which is usually commandeered by mad bob) they owe Eskom millions for unpaid (but delivered) electricity. Sure, they've got everyone growing tobacco, but there are no schools, no hospitals, no shops, etc.
Funny how a small group of people white and black are making millions of US$ in the midst of this "redistribution".

Posted by: david | Jul 23 2012 14:42 utc | 43

David,
That was a load of undiluted rubbish. I was recently in Zimbabwe again and saw plenty "schools hospitals shops". I travelled extensivly and spoke to many people most of whom are very grateful to Mugabe for dumping the white robbers. There are problems Mugabe can solve. Meny countries have problems. You are part of theirs. Accept your defeat. Before anyone listens to you say that you agree that Mugabe was right to take back the land and that the UK must compensate white colonists as they promised.
He is determined that the revolution can not be reversed,the land is safe and the copper diamonds ETC benefit local people.
Your fear is that the South African blacks will see that they got 4% of land back while Bob Mugabe succeeded in 100% . They must, AND WILL, take all white Colonists (Dutch and English) land for the Blacks and pay the same compensation the Whites paid the Blacks. You know the trouble Whites caused Zim by sanctions and refusal to give loans which most countries get. The US and UK are huge borrowers.

Posted by: boindub | Jul 26 2012 11:15 utc | 44