At least with subsistance farming the other 2,600,000 people living on farms could have been engaged in productive work including the 1/3 of the adults who are HIV positive and do not have career advancement to look forward to.

I say the farms would be better in the hands of subsistance farmers developing a growing local economy than a multinational agribusiness producing export crops and sucking food out of the economy.

Whether you like it or not, this is a clash between the interests of 4000 white families and 12,000,000 indigenous Zimbabweans. Racism is a core element, especially in the media’s presentation of the issues to the western world.

An English condition of independence was the entrenchment of monority white property rights. This puts all England’s “goodwill” towards Zimbabwe in perspective up to today, as does the fact that these property rights are presently under threat - not by Mugabe who protected intenational capital but by the grass roots of ZANU PF and veterans who in frustration from Mugabe’s resistance to land reform took the matter into their own hands.

Land was not previously distributed or attempted to be distrubuted to the “former holders”. It was distributed to whoever could replicate the original white farmers mode of production for export, that is, those who had access to capital and markets - not the landless peasents.

Never, ever has England conceded anything like native title in Zimbabwe as a basis for land reform.

The following is a link I put on the other thread, a Zimbabwean perspective on land reform. It also deals with the reason why you have been brainwashed to believe that black people cannot feed themselves without white farmers.
http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/opinion318.18126.html

The author of that article also has his own blog which some may find interesting
http://kuthula.blogspot.com/

a/various characatures and demonisations of my position without addressing what I have said.

b/The construction of an illusion about Zimbabwe and the MDC by the MSM in particular Murdoch and the apparent ease with which it has been swallowed by some.

As for my position, it has been clear and unambiguous. Zimbabwe’s political problems are caused by its economic structure, in particular the vast majority of the population being disposessed of land while 4000 white families control Zimbabwe’s productive land.

Also. World bank and debt regimes maintain Africa as a dependent and obedient economy.

Until there is real land reform and Zimbabweans can prosper from their own land then there will be no relief from either poverty or despotism.

Smith, Mugabe and Tsvangarei are all puppets of the money that backed them.

The MDC must not merely accord better with his ideology, they must also be squeaky fucking clean about it. Whereas Zanu-PF may do more or less as they please provided they maintain the rhetoric against foreign influence.

John - at what point (is there any?) does the boogie-man of foreign influence become an “acceptable risk” in the face of self-determined abject misery?

A Zimbabwean perspective
http://zimdialogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/jonathan-moyo-must-be-excluded-from-any.html

It seems the choice, not to be made by the people, is between a unity government of MDC and ZANU PF elected representatives - or an interim government made up of Mugabe advisors and Changarei advisers.

regarding the high principles of MDC…….

There is only one independent parliamentarian, Jonathan Mayo who until recently has aligned himself with Tsvangerai. The MDC(Tsvangerei) backed him against MDC(Mutambara) candidate.

He is Californian educated and held many corporatte positions including head of Ford Foundation in Nairobi.

Mayo (different one to the links on the other thread) was opposed to the Mugabe regime. then he joined it. Then he became information minister 2000-2005 and banned foreign media and repressed local media and constructed Mugabe’s spin.. Then he was expelled from ZANU PF for plotting a military coup (true or not who knows). recently he has ran with the Tsvangerei faction who supported him to re-election. Now he is publically attacking Tsvangeiri for by pulling out of the run-off. He has repeatedly called for foreign intervention.

For Tsvangerei to endorse and support Mayo, a senior member of the regime who had a major role in having Tsvangerei charged with treason and such things shows one of two things, absolute stupidity or absolute opportunism on the part of Tsvangarei. Either way, it shows little adherence to the democratic principles that the blind white commentariate attribute to him and his clique.

Or perhaps this is business as usual in your concept of democratic procedure?

I do agree that “It isn’t only cream that rises.”, but I do not use such a truism to defend the rise of the Tsvangerei clique as you appear to.

Wow!,

You gotta read this.

It is compulsory reading for those who believe MDC is a force for the liberation of women and that it doesn’t engage in political thuggery.

“Male Chauvinism betrays MDC”
[link]

By Sekai Holland

Wow and golly gosh! Different members of the same political party have differences of opinion! Whatever next, John?

Sounds like the Libs and the Nats at last weekend’s Gippsland by-election. The horror!

Seriously though John, I believe that any accommodation or ‘govt of national unity’ or similar will be death of MDC. I admit that MDC’s major strength is that it is not ZANU. But if it enters into any power sharing arrangement it will be unable to root out ZANU loyalists from key positions. That be suicide.

Firstly, an explanation for the real reason that Tsvangarei withdrew from the presidential run off.

The Tsvangerei faction program as of May includes….

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/senate208.14321.html
“(MDC) provide a framework for resolving the national crisis. The Road Map for achieving this is anchored on three pillars, namely, a Political Settlement and Agreement between the MDC and Zanu-PF on the framework of the Road Map, A Transitional Authority to preside over the writing of a New People driven Constitution and the conducting of Free and Fair Elections for all arms of government which are internationally supervised.”

Last weekend…..
http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/mdc238.18421.html
“Tsvangirai told the Sunday Telegraph that he would consider an arrangement where Mugabe remains as a titular head of state.”

Tsvagerei’s willingness to negotiate with the regime is not new as Gabriel Chaibva, a senior leader of the Mutambara faction comments in May……
http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/senate210.14345.html

“THE MDC is shocked and dismayed to learn of the secret plot by Morgan Tsvangirai and company to open talks with Zanu PF and Robert Mugabe’s government.
We are particularly shocked because it is the same Tsvangirai who was busy denouncing us claiming that we were seeking “Unity Accord Number Two” with Zanu PF.”

Interestingly enough, Chaibva yesterday attended Mugabe’s inauguration despite Tsvangerei’s boycott of the event.

And Steve,

you said somewhat sarcastically “The MDC has factions. Who’d a thought that was possible?” They also ran on two seperate tickets and as two seperate parties at the by-elections.

My mistake, the following was written shortly before the election. However in terms of what the link says about anti-Mugabe is different to pro-MDC, as well as the recent backlash to Tsvangareis leadership, in particular their breaking their own boycott and running in the 3 by-elections, then I believe it is still fair to suggest that MDC support is declining.

according to this Zimbabwean commentator…..
http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/opinion307.17703.html

“One key factor to consider is that unlike Zanu PF, the MDC’s electoral success has depended consistently on a large pool of floating voters. The MDC has for a long time been sustained by an anti-Zanu PF sentiment, which is not the same thing as a pro-MDC sentiment.

Zanu PF, on the contrary, has a more solid support base; they have a bigger constituency of core supporters. You only have to check the consistency of its voters in urban centres; they almost always score the same numbers. In sharp contrast, there’s a consistent decline for the MDC with each new election. In other words, the people on the outer concentric circle of the MDC are like loose electrons - they can move on to more attractive options.”

What evidence do you have for stating that white farmers were not members of the ZNAU PF? Party membership is simply a cost of doing business, a passport to dealing with Govt, a way of avoiding harassment from party thugs. It is the Zim Amex card. “Don’t leave home without it”.

The post 1999 land reform also saw appropriations from black commercial farmers.

How can you say that the MDC vote has fallen when for the first time the MDC won control of Parliament (admittedly they are yet to be sworn in!).

Tsvangerai doesn’t have to achieve much to be a success. He must purge the senior ranks of the public service, parastatals, the police, the armed forces, judiciary and ideally shut down the CIO and the state-owned media. He also needs to be somewhat less corrupt than Mugabe. Donor nations will be in a position to require the establishment of an anti-corruption body. Most importantly of all he needs to be a democrat and be prepared to stand down if defeated.

In my opinion, his biggest challenge if he ever takes power, which I doubt, will be an almost certain ZANU insurgency supported by China which will see a ZANU demise as a geopolitical setback.

The MDC has factions. Who’d a thought that was possible? That the MDC may be male chauvinist in a country where polygamy is legal? Wow! If one catalogued the international conventions that Zimbabwe has signed you’d draw the conclusion that Zim was some sort of tropical Sweden. It’s all a sham. Zim’s even had a carbon tax for at least 6 years. Bugger all petrol or electricity but what’s that matter if they’re green?