Minister of State for Land Reform Flora Bhuka was allegedly marginalised less than a year after her appointment after she conducted a land audit that revealed widespread corruption in the fast-track programme and named several prominent supporters of President Robert Mugabe who had multiple farms.
Not a single person on the list was sanctioned and instead Bhuka was marginalised because of her report.
This was one of the arguments raised by the United States embassy to show that Mugabe had not put in place procedures to receive complaints and bring all those found guilty of malpractices to book as claimed by Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo.
Full cable:
Viewing cable 03HARARE422, OBASANJO LETTER TO HOWARD: FANTASYLAND
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
|
Reference ID |
Created |
Classification |
Origin |
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 06 HARARE 000422
SIPDIS
LONDON FOR CGURNEY
PARIS FOR CNEARY
BANGKOK FOR WDAYTON
NSC FOR SENIOR AFRICA DIRECTOR JENDAYI FRAZER
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/25/2013
SUBJECT: OBASANJO LETTER TO HOWARD: FANTASYLAND
REF: HARARE 206
Classified By: political section chief Matt Harrington.
¶1. (U) The recent letter from President Obasanjo to
Australian PM Howard recommending lifting of Commonwealth
sanctions on Zimbabwe surprised many observers in Zimbabwe,
as many of the assertions on which his recommendation is
based have little basis in reality. Indeed, the Nigerian
president appears to have taken at face value a number of
claims from President Mugabe which can most generously be
described as disingenuous. Much of the letter, in fact,
reads like a press release from the office of Information
Minister Jonathan Moyo, whose reputation for intellectual
dishonesty and vitriolic diatribes against all those who do
not share his views is firmly established. We will defer to
Embassy Abuja for an assessment of Obasanjo’s motivations for
writing such a letter but believe it is important to set the
record straight on some of the document’s more outrageous
statements. Ironically, conversations with Nigerian
diplomats based in Harare, one reported reftel, show that
they do not believe the GOZ line reflected in the Obasanjo
letter. The full text of the letter is contained in
paragraph 2; our analysis is provided in paragraph 3.
¶2. (U) Begin Text of Obasanjo-Howard letter:
Dear Prime Minister,
I am writing to you at this time in continuation of our
consultations and especially to brief you on issues on which
we have been engaged relating to Zimbabwe. This briefing has
become necessary following my recent visit to South Africa
where I had extensive discussions with President Thabo Mbeki,
President of the Republic of South Africa, and then to
Zimbabwe where I was engaged in very useful and constructive
exchange of views with President Robert Mugabe. President
Mbeki seized the opportunity of my visit to brief me on his
recent trip to Britain, including his discussions with Prime
Minister Tony Blair on Zimbabwe.
You may recall Mr. Prime Minister that Zimbabwe was one of
the issues discussed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government
Meeting in Coolum, Australia, in February 2002 as a result of
which a troika was established to follow up on the matter.
Soon afterwards, we had our first meeting at the Marlborough
House in London in March 2002 to consider the report of the
Commonwealth Observer Group on Zimbabwean elections, and it
was also decided, among other things, that Zimbabwe should be
suspended from the Commonwealth Councils for one year and
that we would meet in a year to review developments during
that one year suspension. In spite of the one year
stipulation for meeting, the troika still met in Abuja at
your request. Since then, your government has proceeded to
impose sanctions on Zimbabwe, a decision which of course is
your government’s prerogative. However, this unfortunate
decision would seem to me to compromise Australia’s position
as an honest broker in the Zimbabwean crisis.
Meanwhile, I am sad to note that the unhelpful media war
between Britan and Zimbabwe has not abated, but actually
exacerbated matters thereby worsening the already charged
situation. It was against this background that I concluded
that another meeting of the Commonwealth Troika on Zimbabwe
at this time might not serve any useful purpose. Indeed,
President Thabo Mbeki shares the same view. This position is
further reinforced by the fact of certain critical
developments that have occurred in Zimbabwe and which he must
acknowledged.
In many of our previous meetings, it had been admitted that
the issue of land is at the core of the current crisis in
Zimbabwe and that an appropriate solution to this problem
would go a long way in bringing to early conclusion other
associated issues. Following my recent visit to Zimbabwe, I
have come to realize that the land issue may no longer be the
most serious problem at this juncture as it cannot be
compared to the situation during the Lancaster House
Conference in 1979 or even in the last ten years. It is now
a matter of reality that the Fast Track Land Resettlement
Program, adopted by the Government of Zimbabwe in order to
address the situation that was developing in the country at
that time, has substantially ended since 31st August 2002.
Since then, the Land Reform Program (LRP) has continued to be
implemented in the normal regulatory process. I noted, in
particular, that the land occupation by demonstrators has
ended, while the Government of Zimbabwe has agreed to pay
compensation for any improvement on the land acquired under
the Fast Track Program and the LRP.
I am informed that in the current financial year, the
Government has actually allocated the sum of four billion
Zimbabwe dollars ($4bn) to pay for full and fair compensation
for whatever improvements that may have been made on the land
being acquired. Although this may be a far cry from adequate
compensation, the good intention on the part of a Government
cash-strapped should not be overlooked. However, the
Government still insists that compensation, for the true
commercial value of the land, at today’s prices, must be paid
by the British Government, which did not pay anything when
the lands were taken from the African owners during the
colonial period. Furthermore, the Government of Zimbabwe has
recently been engaged in dialogue with the Commercial Farmers
Union (CFU). Indeed, the Government has again reiterated to
these farmers its readiness and preparedness to provide land
to anyone who wishes to continue farming and has so applied.
Certainly, more work needs to be done in this process and it
is therefore necessary that every encouragement must be given
by all concerned. I emphasize that Government of Zimbabwe
should always keep open the channel of dialogue with the
Commercial Farmers Union who felt a sense of loss in the
exercise.
The results of the Government’s effort in the land
redistribution exercise have been acclaimed a remarkable. By
1998, 74,000 families had been settled under the
willing-seller/willing-buyer basis. An additional 220,000
communal peasant families and 54,000 indigenous commercial
farmers were settled under the Fast Track Resettlement
Program on 11 million hectares of land. Ideally, full
compensation should have been paid as the land was being
appropriated. This program has no doubt addressed, to some
extent, the internal dissatisfaction arising from the skewed
colonial land policy which remained a potential source of
conflict in Zimbabwe. On the other hand, it is reasonable to
except that a major reform on this vast scale would be
attended by some measure of corruption together with
complaints of unfairness.
In response to some of these criticisms, President Mugabe
confirmed to me that he had in place procedures for receiving
complaints, and that all those found guilty of malpractices
have been brought to book.
Moreover, in order to promote transparency, equity and ensure
sustainable utilization of resettled land, as well as
determining the level of uptake, the Government of Zimbabwe
has instituted a land audit that aims to generate confidence
in the whole process. This audit will help in the
identification of any malpractices or corruption which the
Government of Zimbabwe has expressed its readiness to
investigate and redress.
With regard to the criticisms on land given to some officials
but not utilized, it seems that this may not be directly
connected with the Fast Track Program. Generally, the
Zimbabwean Government gave land to those who intended to
utilize it for farming purposes. It is also true that many
of those allocated land need financial assistance from
Government for optimum utilization. Unfortunately, with
priority being given to payment of compensation for
improvements on the land, the Government has only been able
to provide financial assistance to about 30 percent of this
group. This, I believe is an area where the international
community can genuinely provide assistance, not to the
Government but to those genuinely desirous of farming. In is
encouraging that there has been renewed international
interest in supporting the Land Reform Program in Zimbabwe.
Given the progress which I have outlined above, it is
essential that we should continue to look at ways by which we
can get more members of the international community not only
interested but actively involved in the program, only then
can the average Zimbabwean begin to reap the benefits of the
exercise and the country would be helped to cope with the
issue of scarcity of food.
A major concern and perhaps criticism of the LRP by the
international community has been the fate of former farm
workers from neighboring states of Mozambique, Malawi and
Zambia particularly affected by the redistribution program.
I am informed that, of the estimated four hundred thousand
people affected, some have been resettled, while may others
have been re-employed on the 54,000 recently created
commercial farms. In fact, I am assured that the Zimbabwean
Cabinet has taken a decision to the effect that all
foreigners of their offspring from Sadc countries who came as
laborers before 1980 will be entitled to Zimbabwean
citizenship. Accordingly, it is envisaged that by the end of
March 2003, the problem of displaced former foreign workers
will no longer be an issue as they will be entitled, as bona
fide Zimbabwean citizens, to the full benefits of land reform.
Another area of concern and perhaps outcry pertains to the
“Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act
(AIPPA)”. I am assured in this regard the Government of
Zimbabwe continues to make genuine efforts to respond to such
concerns. Indeed, following challenges by the media in the
Zimbabwean High Court, the Minister of Information has
proposed some amendments to the Act. I have been assured
that his will be one of the issues to be taken as matter of
priority when Parliament resumes later this month.
On the issue of inter-party dialogue, the Government of
Zimbabwe remains committed to resuming the talks but feels
that this can only happen after the court’s ruling on the
petition by the opposition Movement for Democratic Change
(MDC). In my separate meeting with Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai of
the MDC, I have brought to his attention the position of the
Zimbabwean Government with regard to negotiations. The MDC
will now therefore have to decide on whether to withdraw the
case from the court so that the negotiations can resume in
earnest or wait until the determination of the case the
court. There is need for Zimbabweans of all parties to
dialogue and reach consensus on good governance, human
rights, stability and general direction of development of
their country.
During my visit to Zimbabwe, Honorable Job Sikhala, an MP of
MDC for St Mary’s, forwarded a petition to me complaining of
breach of fundamental human rights on the part of the
Zimbabwean police and possibly sponsored by Government. I
raised the issue with President Mugabe who confirmed that the
MP concerned had taken the case to court and that the police
admitted with apology that the MP was assaulted. The police
were to take necessary disciplinary action against the
culprit, President Mugabe denied any Government involvement
in such police acts. Allowing the case to be prosecuted in
court must convince people that Government was not behind the
act and would not condone it. From all accounts, it would
appear that violence political or non-political is fairly
pervasive in Zimbabwe. If there are some coming from
Government agencies, there are certainly those coming from
non-government agencies. All stakeholders in Zimbabwe have
to work together to stop the reign of terror and violence.
The Government must be in the vanguard of such efforts.
With the above, it is clear to me that we must concert to
give every assistance to Zimbabwe so that the present crisis
may be speedily brought to an end. It is also necessary that
we should encourage the international community to redeem the
pledges of financial assistance, reaffirmed in our
Marlborough House decision, in order to expedite the land
reform process and bring about the desired improvement in the
standard of living of the generality of Zimbabweans. The
international community and organizations that have
generously contributed to food donations to Zimbabwe must be
commended for the humanitarian gesture which has been of
tremendous assistance to Zimbabwe and the sub-region. The
earlier Zimbabwe can get out of her political crisis,
economic difficulties and food shortage, the better it would
be for the country, the sub-region and the continent. It is
important that we remain positively engaged with Zimbabwe.
We must continue to make good offices available for mediation
between UK and Zimbabwe, a rather unfortunate confrontation
in which rhetoric and media warfare and tend to be
suppressing reason and fair mindedness.
From all the above, together with what I personally saw on
the ground in Zimbabwe, I believe that the time is now
auspicious to lift the sanctions on Zimbabwe with regard to
her suspension from the Commonwealth Councils. This will
represent an appropriate development for the final resolution
of the crisis in that country.
I crave your indulgence to forward a copy of this letter to
President Thabo Mbeki and another copy to the
Secretary-General of the Commonwealth who can use it as a
SIPDIS
basis for re-establishment of contact with Zimbabwean
authorities at all levels. This will be made easier with
Prime Minister Tony Blair already accepting an appeal to
discourage media offensive against Zimbabwe from the UK side
and President Mugabe agreeing to reciprocate in kind. This
should be the precursor to re-engagement between UK and
Zimbabwe. Copies of this letter will also be forwarded to
President Mugabe and Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Please accept, Prime Minister, the assurances of my highest
esteem and consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Olusegun Obasanjo
End Text of Letter.
Comment
——-
¶3. (C) The fact that President Obasanjo spends most of his
letter discussing the Government of Zimbabwe’s fast track
resettlement effort suggests that he has bought President
Mugabe’s contention that land is at the center of this
country’s interrelated series of political, economic,
humanitarian, and social crises, an assertion that was also
accepted in the September 2001 Abuja agreement. Intense and
widespread political repression and serious economic
mismanagement are at the root of Zimbabwe’s plight, although
President Mugabe and his inner circle have, in some quarters,
successfully used their chaotic land redistribution exercise
to distract attention from their misgovernance. Zimbabwe’s
rapid economic contraction began in 1997, three years before
Government-orchestrated land seizures began in earnest —
although the seizures have certainly accelerated this
country’s economic implosion. In addition, the overwhelming
majority of political violence (murders, tortures, rapes,
disappearances) is unrelated to the land seizures, but is
sanctioned by the ruling party in an effort to extinguish any
threat — real or perceived — to its iron grip on power.
The Mugabe regime’s actions are motivated overwhelmingly by
the desire to maintain power at all costs. The following are
point-by-point refutations of some of the factual errors in
Obasanjo’s letter:
–“the land occupation by demonstrators has ended, while the
Government of Zimbabwe has agreed to pay compensation for any
improvement on the land”: Land seizures continue unabated.
Seventy-seven farms have received compulsory acquisition
notices since January 1, 2003. Only 126 of the 4,350 farmers
who have received compulsory acquisition notices have
received any amount of compensation. Of those 126 farmers,
the payments received are far below the appraised value of
improvements.
–“the Government has actually allocated the sum of four
billion Zimbabwe dollars to pay for full and fair
compensation for whatever improvements that may have been
made on the land being acquired”: although the budget was
approved in November 2002, not a single cent of that
allocated amount has yet been disbursed. Even if the GOZ
does disburse this total sum of money, it would amount to an
average payment of U.S.$625 to each of the 4,350 affected
farmers. Given that most of these properties contain large
farmhouses, outlying buildings such as barns and tobacco
curing facilities, roads, irrigation systems, dams, and
expensive equipment, a payment of U.S.$625 as “full and fair
compensation” is laughable.
–“the Government of Zimbabwe has recently been engaged in
dialogue with the Commercial Farmers Union (CFU). Indeed,
the Government has again reiterated its readiness and
preparedness to provide land to anyone who wishes to continue
farming”: The GOZ has trumpeted its new dialogue with the
CFU as a significant breakthrough, although it has offered
nothing of substance in these discussions. Instead, the GOZ
is pressuring the farmers to sell their equipment at bargain
basement prices to the new settlers and to turn over their
title deeds, while telling them to seek compensation from
international donors. Most observers have concluded that the
apparent willingness of the GOZ to engage in dialogue with
the CFU — for the first time in 18 months — was a charade
intended to project an image of moderation during the Cricket
World Cup and prior to an expected decision by the
Commonwealth on whether to renew sanctions against Zimbabwe.
On Government’s repeated claims that no one will be left
without a farm, it is important to point out that a third of
farmers (approximately 1500) who had properties seized owned
only one farm and have not been offered another one. Rather
than leave farmers with one farm, Agriculture Minister Made
has said that dispossessed farm owners would be put on a list
for possible allocation of another farm — a process as
illogical as it is nonsensical.
–“An additional 220,000 communal peasant families and 54,000
indigenous commercial farmers were settled under the Fast
Track Resettlement Program on 11 million hectares of land”:
We have been unable to confirm these figures, which the CFU
believes are significantly inflated. We note that the GOZ,
until recently, claimed to have settled 300,000 peasant
families under the fast track program. In any case, the
220,000 figure is much lower than the number of farmworkers
(estimated between 300-500,000) displaced by this program,
suggesting a net loss for the Zimbabwean population. It is
also important to note that fast track has not significantly
decongested the communal areas — one of the program’s
objectives — as those who have been allocated land move back
and forth between their new plots and properties in their
home areas.
–“President Mugabe confirmed to me that he had in place
procedures for receiving complaints, and that all those found
guilty of malpractices have been brought to book”: This is
simply untrue. A land audit conducted by Cabinet Minister
Flora Bhuka and recently published in “Africa Confidential”
revealed widespread corruption in the fast track program,
including that many prominent members of Mugabe’s regime have
obtained multiple farms. Not a single person on that list
has been sanctioned. Instead, we understand that Bhuka has
been marginalized as a result of her report.
–“With regard to the criticisms on land given to some
officials but not utilized, it seems that this may not be
directly connected with the Fast Track Program. Generally,
the Zimbabwean Government gave land to those who intended to
utilize it for farming purposes”: Only about 30 percent of
those allocated commercial farms under the A2 resettlement
program have taken up their new properties, and only 25
percent of the allocated A2 properties are being farmed.
–“Unfortunately, with priority being given to payment of
compensation for improvements on the land, the Government has
only been able to provide financial assistance to about 30
percent of this group (new settlers needing financial
assistance)”: Since very few farmers have received any form
of compensation, this sentence is misleading.
–“I am informed that, of the estimated four hundred thousand
(former farmworkers) affected, some have been resettled,
while many others have been re-employed on the 54,000
recently created commercial farms”: Fewer than 10 percent of
former farmworkers have been allocated land under fast track.
While we have no reliable estimates of how many former
farmworkers have been re-employed, the numbers are likely low
given that crops are being cultivated on only 25 percent of
A2 farms. Minister of Labor July Moyo recently refused to
authorize an increase in the minimum wage for farmworkers
from 4500 Zimbabwean dollars (U.S.$3) a month, saying such a
raise would make it impossible for the new settlers,
including himself, to hire them and constitute economic
sabotage against the government’s land reform efforts.
–“Another area of concern and perhaps outcry pertains to the
Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA).
I am assured in this regard the Government of Zimbabwe
continues to make genuine efforts to respond to such
concerns”: More than a dozen journalists have been arrested
since passage of this legislation in 2002, all of them from
the independent media. Despite a number of documented cases
of falsehoods published in the Government-controlled media,
not a single journalist from the public media has been
arrested or charged under this repressive legislation. The
Government-controlled Media Commission established by this
law has failed to act on the registration applications of
most independent journalists, which prevents them from
covering Parliament and a range of politically-significant
events. We would welcome GOZ moves to ease the repressive
effect of AIPPA but have yet to see evidence of any
meaningful action in that direction. Indeed, proposed
amendments to AIPPA submitted to Parliament would increase
its repressive nature.
–“I raised the issue (of MDC MP Job Sikhala’s torture) with
President Mugabe who confirmed that the MP concerned had
taken the case to court and that the police admitted with
apology that the MP was assaulted. The police were to take
necessary disciplinary action against the culprit. President
Mugabe denied any Government involvement in such police
acts”: The ZANU-PF Government has used the police as an
instrument of repression against its political opponents, so
Mugabe’s reported attempts to distinguish between Government
and the police are without merit. We are not aware that
anyone has been arrested or charged in connection with the
torture of Sikhala.
–“From all accounts, it would appear that violence —
political or non-political — is fairly pervasive in
Zimbabwe. If there are some coming from Government agencies,
there are certainly those coming from non-government
agencies”: Prominent human rights organizations have
documented many incidences of human rights violations —
including more than 1,000 cases of torture and 58
politically-motivated murders in 2002 alone — and found
that, in the preponderance of instances (more than 90
percent), the victims were supporters of the MDC and the
perpetrators ruling party supporters or government agents.
SULLIVAN
(29 VIEWS)
0 Comments