I often write about Mugabe telling the whole world that the United Kingdom has reneged on their side of the Lancaster House Agreement – at least in so far as the land reform program is concerned.

 

In my book “Without Honour” I state, categorically: “History must show that the only people that kept their word were the Rhoesians. And for their part, they were consigned to the pages of history.”

 

I have yet to find a full copy of the Lancaster House Agreement, but once I have secured it, I will make it available on the internet.

 

I received an email today which put much of what I have said about the UK handing money to the Mugabe government which he has failed to account for and overlooks when making his regular accusations.

 

From that email which I am hugely grateful for – if for nothing more than it assists in proving my point…

 

The email was headed “Is Professor Mutambara a Deluded Clown?” - but I have used the information therein in a slightly different manner.

 

“It seems that Mutambara, similar to some other leading ZANU PF crooks that have earlier been exposed to western cultures, have easily renewed adjusting to the local pre-historic jungle mentality.

 

Mutambara has failed to mention that relevant Civilized Western Diplomats involved at Lancaster House deny any commitment to fund following ZANU PF looting of land and private assets.

 

True to his denial agenda, Mutambara forgets to mention that ZANU PF reneging of the Abuja Agreement on Zimbabwe Land Reform, as dated 6 September 2001.

 

He also forgets that:-

 

After 1992, Britain made funding for land acquisition conditional on transparency and the implementation of controls to ensure that acquired white commercial farms ended up in the hands of the ‘landless poor’. Mugabe failed to react.

 

The British Government indicated that land reform issue was initiated in 1996 when the Zimbabwean government was asked to submit proposals for the three million pound United Kingdom land resettlement grant.

 

“The UK government will work with a future administration that upholds the rule of law, respects democratic principles and promotes sound economic policies,” was stated.

 

On June 5th 2004 - Minister for Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement John Nkomo said that all land, from crop fields to wildlife conservancies, would soon become state property.

 

Farmland deeds would be replaced with 99-year leases, while those for wildlife conservancies would be limited to 25 years.

 

Kleptomania by ZANU PF solidarity comrades has actually been in place since 1980!

 

More Facts:- No provision was made in the Lancaster House Agreement for a specific fund to support land reform.

 

At a Zimbabwe Donors Conference in March 1981, £17-million (about R240-million) was raised for development in Zimbabwe, including land reform.

 

Between 1980 and 1985, the UK provided £47-million for land reform: £20-million as a specific Land Resettlement Grant and £27-million in the form of budgetary support to help the Zimbabwean government’s own contribution to the programme.

 

By 1988, the Land Settlement Grant had been largely spent.

 

The then UK Overseas Development Agency fully endorsed the resettlement, which had taken place and suggested measures for further improving the UK-funded programme.

 

The Zimbabwean government did not respond to these proposals and the grant was closed in 1996 with £3-million unspent.

 

In 1998, the Zimbabwean government hosted a land conference in Harare, involving international donors and multilateral institutions. Both the UK and Zimbabwean governments endorsed the fundamental principles agreed at the conference: transparency, respect for the rule of law, poverty reduction, affordability and consistency with Zimbabwe’s wider economic interests.

 

Quote – 2004/05/07 - Lancaster House - The Facts (Nick Sheppard, British High Commission Pretoria)

 

“We keep hearing that the UK failed to honour commitments made at Lancaster House to finance land reform in Zimbabwe. This was repeated in the letter, Quanta simply states the obvious (May 4).

 

Here are the facts.

 

There was no commitment to fund the land reform process in its entirety. The UK promised to donate funds, and to galvanize other donors, making clear we could not be the only contributor.

 

We kept our promises more than R6bn in bilateral support, plus more than R570m specifically for land reform.

 

Far from being “unwavering in their pursuit to resolve the land question”, it was not a priority for most of the 24 years of ZANU PF government.

 

Despite attempts by the United Nations Development Programme and others to devise a land reform strategy, Zimbabwe showed little enthusiasm.

 

Until, under pressure from impending elections, they decided the UK was a useful scapegoat for Zimbabwe’s economic problems. And despite commitments made by Zimbabwe in 1998 and 2001 to implement a fair and sustainable land reform programme, illegal farm occupations and violent land grabs continued.

 

It is not the British government that has reneged on commitments.

 

It is simplistic to blame Zimbabwe’s problems on the failure to reform land.

 

Is land to blame for human rights abuses and political violence?

 

Or corruption and economic mismanagement?

 

Or rigged elections and lack of press freedom?

 

The UK has not abandoned Zimbabwe.

 

We continue to supply food aid more than R940m since September 2001. And we remain willing to re-engage on land.

 

But we can only work with the Zimbabwean government when the rule of law and representative government are restored and with a land reform programme that makes a sustainable improvement to the lives of all Zimbabweans.”

 

On June 10th 2004 British embassy spokesperson Sophie Honey said:-

 

“The UK has not reneged on commitments (made) at Lancaster House. At Lancaster House the British government made clear that the long-term requirements of land reform in Zimbabwe were beyond the capacity of any individual donor country.

 

Since independence we have provided 44 million pounds for land reform in Zimbabwe and 500 million pounds in bilateral development assistance.

 

The UK remains a strong advocate for effective, well managed and pro-poor land reform. Fast-track land reform has not been implemented in line with these principles and we cannot support it.

 

In September 1998, The ZANU PF government called a donors conference in Harare on land reform (LRRP II); 48 countries and international organisations attended. The objective was to inform and involve the donor community in the programme. The donors unanimously endorsed the land programme, saying it was essential for poverty reduction, political stability and economic growth. They particularly appreciated the political imperative and urgency of the land reform, and agreed that the “inception phase” covering 24 months should start immediately.

 

In 1998, Mugabe arranged a three-day ‘donors’ conference in order to raise $ 6 billion for land acquisition. Some 22 donor countries attended the Harare conference and pledged financial support on stringent conditions, requiring Mugabe to formulate a policy that met transparency and poverty-alleviation criteria.

 

Land acquisitions were also to be on a willing “buyer seller” basis at market-related prices. Mugabe failed to implement the necessary mechanisms and received no donor aid.

 

The IMF also delayed the release of a multi-million US dollar aid package until Mugabe explained his farm-acquisition policy, and provided details of his government’s funding of its Congo involvement. Mugabe ignored the IMF and funding was consequently frozen.”

 

Mutambara has accused the West of practicing double standards.

 

2005/09/22 - Quoting Chinamasa “All title deeds of the farmers have been cancelled, with the British government having sole responsibility to compensate the evicted farmers.”

 

On 2006/03/03 Mutambara claimed that the British government reneged on the Lancaster House agreement, while white farmers “were guilty of resisting land reform” (otherwise known as wilful uncompensated grand-asset theft).

 

He didn’t mention the £44 million that was disbursed from 1980 to 1996 for land redistribution or what happened to the 1998 donors’ conference plan.”

 

This all makes the most interesting reading and reinforces to me the ability that Mugabe and his followers have of reforming the truth to suit themselves.

 

Take care.

 

‘debvhu