Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe is dead. But he will be remembered 100 years from now for liberating the longsuffering people of former Rhodesia.

Before Mugabe’s intervention, the racist white minority government of Rhodesia had perfected plans to enact their own form of Apartheid in the Southern African country.

At that time, the white minority controlled most of Zimbabwe’s land through colonial enablement rather than merit.

As if that wasn’t enough, the racist white minority regime of Lan Smith maliciously stopped black Africans from trying to buy good land by hitting them with unjust laws.

This was not acceptable to Robert Mugabe. And he launched a civil war to end racist white minority rule. For refusing to bow to racism, Mugabe was imprisoned for 17 years. But in 1979, the white minority government was pressured to hand over to democratic majority rule. Mugabe was elected by a landslide.

All seemed to be going well at first: Mugabe launched what would turn out to be Africa’s most effective educational system (Zimbabweans are the most literate people in Africa today).

And Britain had signed the Lancaster House Agreement to partner with Zimbabwe to compensate some of the white farmers who had benefitted from the colonial land grab so that blacks would get a fair share of the land.

But something strange then happened: Britain suddenly refused to implement the compensation agreement. Meanwhile, Mugabe, who had promised his people fair land redistribution felt he had no choice but to continue with it – Britain or no Britain.

But, the moment he started redistributing this land, Britain convinced its allies to impose crippling sanctions on Zimbabwe. They said they wouldn’t go ahead with fulfilling their side of the Lancaster agreement unless Mugabe left power.

Mugabe must have looked at European democracies like France where the president can run for as many reelections as he wants and decided that a diktat that he should leave smelt very much like a neo form of colonialism.

Britain’s allies never insisted on Britain implementing the Lancaster agreement. Rather, they slapped debilitating sanctions on Zimbabwe. Its was as if Zimbabwe was being indirectly punished for daring to throw off the yoke of white racist minority rule.

That reminds me of how Haiti has been punished for centuries for daring to throw of the yokes of slavery. I hope a similar century’s long affliction is not planned for Zimbabwe. The British SAS has the motto: He who dares wins. But it now seems to be: He who dares is punished if he is black.

I listened to the BBC analyse Mugabe’s death. And just as I had suspected, there was no mention of the Lancaster agreement whose non-fullfilment by Britain (together with British-led sanctions) has turned Zimbabwe from the bread basket of Africa to the basketcase of Africa – a place where the price of bread can sometimes cost billions of dollars.

All I could hear were attempts to tie the late Mugabe to the present ills of Zimbabwe. No mention of how the ills scientifically came about.

Americas first African President Barak Obama had a perfect opportunity to persuade Britain to implement the Lancaster agreement and free Zimbabwe.

But in his 8-year administration, he failed to use that opportunity. Well, the situation now calls for a new William Wilberforce, a British leader who will say, “Look, we have to implement the Lancaster agreement, for the sake of all Zimbabweans – white and black.”

Zimbabwe should insist that Britain honours the Lancaster agreement and drops sanctions. Both white and black Zimbabweans have suffered very much because of Britain’s refusal to implement an agreement no one forced her to sign.

Britain said she would implement Lancaster after Mugabe leaves. As unfair as it is, the UK now has the condition it set; for Mugabe has not just left power, he has also left life.

Today in Nigeria, some white Zimbabwean farmers who were displaced from Zimbabwe due to the non-implementation of the Lancaster agreement are flourishing. Britain, if you implement the Lancaster agreement, that could yield one more good thing, a new agricultural linkage between Zim and Naija.
https://www.igbodefender.com/international/2019/09/06/mugabe/

Really

CanadaOrBust:
Really

The time for fairness is now

Is this agreement still necessary when Zimbabwe invited back white farmers to confiscated land?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PApO_Ccb2Ik

Legend

Mugabe "liberated" Zimbabwe into poverty while
Mandela liberated and negotiated a better future for SA
where many Zimbabweans now seek economic refuge.

It is obvious that wisdom trumps might.

I see the OP deliberately gloss over the detail of the Lancaster agreement
which Mugabe unilaterally undermined.

Xisnin:

It is obvious that wisdom trumps might.

I see the OP deliberately gloss over the detail of the Lancaster agreement
which Mugabe unilaterally undermined.

Educate the thread. I dont anything about this agreement. I'm currently skimming on wikipedia and other sources I can find.

Blue3k:


Educate the thread. I dont anything about this agreement besides what im currently skimming on wikipedia and other sources I can find.

The highlight of the agreement is the delayed land transfer in exchange for aid.

Mugabe and other war veterans had agreed to the staggered return of land to the native
in exchange for international aid and developmental projects.

The aid was coming in as promised after the agreement.

Whether it is due to pressure from his fellow revolutionaries or his own ego, no one can really tell. But Mugabe
withdrew from the agreement which automatically means that the minority whites are a fair game to the natives. The action
brought about revenge sanctions against Zimbabwe.

I know that the land belongs to Zimbabweans and it is unfair for settlers to be in charge of lands.
But tricky situations require the application of wisdom for long-term success.

I believe that Zimbabwe would have been on par with SA had Mugabe not reneged.

Xisnin:
Mugabe "liberated" Zimbabwe into poverty while
Mandela liberated and negotiated a better future for SA
where many Zimbabweans now seek economic refuge.

It is obvious that wisdom trumps might.

I see the OP deliberately gloss over the detail of the Lancaster agreement
which Mugabe unilaterally undermined.

You are simply saying what the white imperialist want us to believe. Before Mandela became the darling of the west, Mugabe was the poster boy of western imperialist. Zimbabwe has the best educational system in Africa and the economy was doing fine until he finally listened to the demands of his people that justice be done to land ownership in the country. The western world ruined Zimbabwe’s economy with crippling sanctions for daring to take away lands from white land grabbers.

South Africa that you are praising today is a walking time bomb. The xenophobic attacks that we are witnessing today is basically a result of the unequal distribution of economic resources between white and black South Africans. It is a pointer to the crisis that will soon engulf the country. A time will come when black South Africans will realize that African migrants are not their problem but white South Africans that control over 80% of the country’s wealth. When that time comes, the government of South Africa would have no choice than to pursue an economic redistribution policy that is similar to the land redistribution policy that Mugabe did.

Mugabe’s major mistake as far as I’m concerned was his refusal to quit the stage when the ovation was loudest. He should have handed over immediately after implementing the land redistribution policy. The west were able to blackmail him successfully due to his sit tight mentally.

Blue3k:


Educate the thread. I dont anything about this agreement. I'm currently skimming on wikipedia and other sources I can find.

You can download it here. The file is too heavy to be uploaded on Nairaland.

igbodefendercom:

The time for fairness is now

This below seems to contradict u though:


The three-month-long conference almost failed to reach an accord due to disagreements on land reform. Mugabe was pressured to sign, and land was the key stumbling block. Both the British and American governments offered to compensate white citizens for any land sold so as to aid reconciliation (the "Willing buyer, Willing seller" principle), and a fund was established to operate from 1980 to 1990.

In 1980 the first phase of land reform, partly funded by the United Kingdom, resettled around 70,000 landless people on more than 20,000 km² of land in the new Zimbabwe.

In 1981 the British assisted in setting up a Zimbabwe conference on reconstruction and development, at which more than £630 million of international aid was pledged.

In 1997 war veterans began receiving individual personal payments of ZW$50,000 each for their service in the war, costing the nation's tax payers billions of dollars and depleting government coffers. Then some months later Robert Mugabe announced the forced acquisition of land under Section 8 would proceed, and within 24 hours the local currency had devalued more than 50% and thus began the hyperinflation and demonetisation of Zimbabwean currency and the "Flights of Whites" from the country, most never to return.

In the time since independence, the Lancaster House Agreement was modified and changed more than 27 times according to a Zimbabwe independent newspaper.

seunmsg:


You are simply saying what the white imperialist want us to believe. Before Mandela became the darling of the west, Mugabe was the poster boy of western imperialist. Zimbabwe has the best educational system in Africa and the economy was doing fine until he finally listened to the demands of his people that justice be done to land ownership in the country. The western world ruined Zimbabwe’s economy with crippling sanctions for daring to take away lands from white land grabbers.

Mandela was seen as a terrorist during the struggle, so I know what I am talking about.
Mandela became the darling of the west when he chose forgiveness over revenge because
he understood that the whites had all the experience with the running of critical industry and it will be difficult
to start afresh had the whites been expelled or sidelined.

He also knew the potential economic backlash that could follow such action because the west controlled the world economy.

You don't blame the west, you blame Mugabe who lacks the foresight of revenge sanction for his action.
As an educated statesman, he should have known that the world economy runs on practicality and not morality or revolutionary ideals.
A good leader ignores his people's cry when it is in their best interest.

South Africa that you are praising today is a walking time bomb. The xenophobic attacks that we are witnessing today is basically a result of the unequal distribution of economic resources between white and black South Africans. A time will come when black South Africans will realize that African migrants are not their problem but white South Africans that control over 80% of the country’s wealth. When that time comes, the government of South Africa would have no choice than to pursue an economic redistribution policy that is similar to the land redistribution policy that Mugabe did.

There is no evidence that SA will be better off had they seized all the resources and redistributed it
to the people afterall we have many other African countries with no white citizens as an example.

Even if their government had a change of heart and start the redistribution today, the country will
only grow equal in poverty because of resource redistribution especially among the variable skilled populace
has never worked in practice.

I am not against redistribution but it should be done gradually even in a clandestine manner because
the stakes are quite high.

Poverty in SA is a product of endemic corruption and incompetent government.
The debate about resource redistribution is still raging in SA, it is not a settled issue.
Maybe it will eventually happen but the result will not be that different from Zimbabwe.

While you talk about the ills of SA, you should remember that they have a net positive migration with many African
countries. If it is so bad, no one will migrate there.

Xisnin:

Mandela was seen as a terrorist during the struggle, so I know what I am talking about.
Mandela became the darling of the west when he chose forgiveness over revenge because
he understood that the whites had all the experience with the running of critical industry and it will be difficult
to start afresh had the whites been expelled or sidelined.

He also knew the potential economic backlash that could follow such action because the west controlled the world economy.

You don't blame the west, you blame Mugabe who lacks the foresight of revenge sanction for his action.
As an educated statesman, he should have known that the world economy runs on practicality and not morality or revolutionary ideals.
A good leader ignores his people's cry when it is in their best interest.




There is no evidence that SA will be better off had they seized all the resources and redistributed it
to the people afterall we have many other African countries with no white citizens as an example.

Even if their government had a change of heart and start the redistribution today, the country will
only grow equal in poverty because of resource redistribution especially among the variable skilled populace
has never worked in practice.

I am not against redistribution but it should be done gradually even in a clandestine manner because
the stakes are quite high.

Poverty in SA is a product of endemic corruption and incompetent government.
The debate about resource redistribution is still raging in SA, it is not a settled issue.
Maybe it will eventually happen but the result will not be that different from Zimbabwe.

While you talk about the ills of SA, you should remember that they have a net positive migration with many African
countries. If it is so bad, no one will migrate there.

Implementation of Lancaster Agreement would have made the land redistribution harmonious and seamless.

seunmsg:


You are simply saying what the white imperialist want us to believe. Before Mandela became the darling of the west, Mugabe was the poster boy of western imperialist. Zimbabwe has the best educational system in Africa and the economy was doing fine until he finally listened to the demands of his people that justice be done to land ownership in the country. The western world ruined Zimbabwe’s economy with crippling sanctions for daring to take away lands from white land grabbers.

South Africa that you are praising today is a walking time bomb. The xenophobic attacks that we are witnessing today is basically a result of the unequal distribution of economic resources between white and black South Africans. It is a pointer to the crisis that will soon engulf the country. A time will come when black South Africans will realize that African migrants are not their problem but white South Africans that control over 80% of the country’s wealth. When that time comes, the government of South Africa would have no choice than to pursue an economic redistribution policy that is similar to the land redistribution policy that Mugabe did.

Mugabe’s major mistake as far as I’m concerned was his refusal to quit the stage when the ovation was loudest. He should have handed over immediately after implementing the land redistribution policy. The west were able to blackmail him successfully due to his sit tight mentally.

Mandela was wise, Mugabe was foolish...
If Mandela had behaved foolishly when he became President, south Africa by now will be worst shit hole country in this world....
But he was smart to realize gradual transfer of economy from foreigners to natives is the only way to ensure stability n prosperity of South africa.....

SIRTee15:


Mandela was wise, Mugabe was foolish...
If Mandela had behaved foolishly when he became President, south Africa by now will be worst shit hole country in this world....
But he was smart to realize gradual transfer of economy from foreigners to natives is the only way to ensure stability n prosperity of South africa.....

I think we are not being fair to Mugabe by making it look like he hijacked lands from white minorities immediately he became president.

Mugabe was not foolish. He signed the Lancaster agreement with Britain and implemented it faithfully until Tony Blair reneged and stopped paying. By year 2000 and after enormous pressure from the people of Zimbabwe, his government finally decided to fast track the land redistribution policy. That was 20 years after independence.

Instead of America and other western countries to force Britain to respect the Lancaster agreement, they allied together to impose crippling sanctions on the country.

In Mandela’s case, he only ruled for 5 years after the collapse of apartheid. If Mugabe had ruled for only five years, the west would be celebrating him like Mandela today because he played along with them in the early years of his government.