Mugabe Interviewed in Abuja

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

• Tweet

He has ruled Zimbabwe for over 35 years.

[RVtitem]

He has ruled Zimbabwe for over 35 years.

Nigerian negro has no shame with its bigger problems than those in zimbabwe.

Mugabe managed to single handedly free his country from the hands of western infidels and the Nigerian negro is brave enough to spite the liberator of Zimbabweans. So disgusting to watch that kind of shit happening in Africa in this century.

[Omollo]

This was harassment and heckling by some crook calling herself a journalist. She asking if there are term limits in Zimbabwe. Does n't she know? Why ask?

[RVtitem]

This was harassment and heckling by some crook calling herself a journalist. She asking if there are term limits in Zimbabwe. Does n't she know? Why ask?

It looks like they are paid goons. Even river road trained journalists can do better than that.

[gout]

given the euphoria that was in Nigeria (kawaida of elections in corrupt nations when one gang is taking over from another) the journo did well ...

Mugabe should have been able to defend himself as AU chair and having been elected by a clear majority....
am waiting when uhuru is confronted by hard questions on westgate, mpeketoni, alshaitan ..... I want to see his look in the foreign press when hard/awkward questions around this are thrown

[Omollo]

Mugabe did the unthinkable: He dared the white farmer and took back the land they stole. The Western media has been singing "White Owned Farms" for the last 18 years. The fact that one can not own stolen property has been overlooked.

Mugabe pointed out that he first targeted land where the Africans were kicked off as late as 1978 - the year of independence - and whites settled on it. This was a  question of recovering and restitution. But the white media would hear none of it.

They started stories about Mugabe enriching himself on white people land. They produced no proof of any ownership by Mugabe or his wife. But that was just a minor detail.

Then they sponsored Morgan Changirai to dislodge Bob. After Mugabe agreed to power sharing and they took over Finance, etc, they resorted to corruption and the ensuing anger saw the MDC nearly wiped out. Not that there were no claims of "rigging" this time from the BBC.

I would not be surprised therefore if the silly "reporters" were not paid by some white farmers to insult Mugabe.

given the euphoria that was in Nigeria (kawaida of elections in corrupt nations when one gang is taking over from another) the journo did well ...

Mugabe should have been able to defend himself as AU chair and having been elected by a clear majority....
am waiting when uhuru is confronted by hard questions on westgate, mpeketoni, alshaitan ..... I want to see his look in the foreign press when hard/awkward questions around this are thrown

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Mugabe did the unthinkable: He dared the white farmer and took back the land they stole. The Western media has been singing "White Owned Farms" for the last 18 years. The fact that one can not own stolen property has been overlooked.

Mugabe pointed out that he first targeted land where the Africans were kicked off as late as 1978 - the year of independence - and whites settled on it. This was a  question of recovering and restitution. But the white media would hear none of it.

They started stories about Mugabe enriching himself on white people land. They produced no proof of any ownership by Mugabe or his wife. But that was just a minor detail.

Then they sponsored Morgan Changirai to dislodge Bob. After Mugabe agreed to power sharing and they took over Finance, etc, they resorted to corruption and the ensuing anger saw the MDC nearly wiped out. Not that there were no claims of "rigging" this time from the BBC.

I would not be surprised therefore if the silly "reporters" were not paid by some white farmers to insult Mugabe.

given the euphoria that was in Nigeria (kawaida of elections in corrupt nations when one gang is taking over from another) the journo did well ...

Mugabe should have been able to defend himself as AU chair and having been elected by a clear majority....
am waiting when uhuru is confronted by hard questions on westgate, mpeketoni, alshaitan ..... I want to see his look in the foreign press when hard/awkward questions around this are thrown

Mugabe did the unthinkable in order to hang onto power.  People can do the right things for the wrong reasons.  As a result he ended up screwing up country. 

[RV Pundit]

I share Omollo admiration for what Mugabe managed to do in Zim.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I share Omollo admiration for what Mugabe managed to do in Zim.

He fumbled.  He should have done it in a more organized way.  But he did it to hang onto power.  3 million Zimbabweans in South Africa as a result.

Even if he had to forcefully take the land, he could have done that without killing innocent people.  Doing it to bazungu showed even worse judgment.

[Omollo]

Termie

By 2000 Mugabe was not at all threatened by any politician. You have to know the difference between Mugabe and any other political leader. Mugabe came to power using the age old system of communist grass roots organization. You can only get rid of Mugabe by killing him or waiting until he drops dead, becomes senile and is pushed aside etc. But a coup can't work, he can't lose an election and you can't sanction him out of office.

Mugabe did what he did to preserve his constituency. As long as his constituency understood what was happening he cared nothing about The West. The army composed of veterans guaranteed that Changirai would not govern even if he pretended to win elections. The army was not just loyal but supportive.

Look at Zim's tribal math and see just how impossible it is to dislodge a shona even using another shona as Blair did.

Mugabe did the unthinkable in order to hang onto power.  People can do the right things for the wrong reasons.  As a result he ended up screwing up country. 

[RV Pundit]

There was no other way. Mugabe came to power in 78 and all incoming British PMs kept lying to him and pushing the deadline. Mugabe had been patient for more than 20yrs. When Blair reneged..that broke the camel back.

^{In the late 1990s, Prime Minister Tony Blair terminated this arrangement when funds available from Margaret Thatcher's administration were exhausted, repudiating all commitments to land reform. Zimbabwe responded by embarking on a "fast track" redistribution campaign, forcibly confiscating white farms without compensation.[4}

South Africa I believe will have to do the same....they are postponing not solving the problem.

He fumbled.  He should have done it in a more organized way.  But he did it to hang onto power.  3 million Zimbabweans in South Africa as a result.

Even if he had to forcefully take the land, he could have done that without killing innocent people.  Doing it to bazungu showed even worse judgment.

[RV Pundit]

Blair is entirely to blame for mess that happened in RSA. No wonder he is desperate to come to Kenya and act as his advisor. Blair terminate a deal similar to how kenyans acquired land back from British leave Mugabe with no option except to forcefully seize land. There was no way that 60% of arable land could be own by 2% of the population.

Look at Zim's tribal math and see just how impossible it is to dislodge a shona even using another shona as Blair did.

[MOON Ki]

There was no other way. Mugabe came to power in 78 and all incoming British PMs kept lying to him and pushing the deadline. Mugabe had been patient for more than 20yrs. When Blair reneged..that broke the camel back.

It is true that the British did not stick to their end of the deal, and to that extent one may argue that something had to be done and Mugabe did it.   But if the idea was to help Zimbabweans, then the final question has to be whether or not they have they have actually benefited.

Sure, they have the land.   And it is being used for?   Sure, it made for good "heroics" to see a "tough" black Africans tell the "imperialists", "neo-colonialists", and their "running dogs" to fwack off.    And the Zimbabweans are better off how?

[RV Pundit]

There is no way Zim could have fared any better  economically considering the British influenced US and EU to enact sanctions against them. The logic that a thief who had stolen your property was using it better than your ever did is pathetic.

Maybe Zim farmers will never match the white farmer in productivity and output...but the land belong to them. Of course we know with the right tools [loans,fertilizers, training,machinery] they will.

Isn't it why we all fought for independence...despite evidence that white settlers were better managers.

Mugabe remain a hero who has transferred more than 10M acres of farms from small white elite to majority poor zim.

It is true that the British did not stick to their end of the deal, and to that extent one may argue that something had to be done and Mugabe did it.   But if the idea was to help Zimbabweans, then the final question has to be whether or not they have they have actually benefited.

Sure, they have the land.   And it is being used for?   Sure, it made for good "heroics" to see a "tough" black Africans tell the "imperialists", "neo-colonialists", and their "running dogs" to fwack off.    And the Zimbabweans are better off how?

[Omollo]

Moonki

There is a misconception here. Restorative justice required that land grabbed at "midnight" by the Smith regime be handed over. Mugabe was patient and even allowed the previous owners to live in slums and reserves. Such land was never meant for commercial farming. Refer to your own treatise to me on ancestral land for greater understanding.

The whites had a different lifestyle. They were favored by age-old trade agreements with the west where they provided raw materials for value adding be it in south Africa or Europe. For example surplus milk was preferred by whites in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK etc. They rejected better quality milk from Kenya and Botswana. You may notice a slight tincture of racism.

Thus even if the white world hadn't imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe, the black farmers were screwed.

The matter of transfer of the farms could not sustain continuity. It was disruptive. It has however been improving slowly and may well fully recover.

The irony is that the west violated all the UN imposed sanctions as they supported fellow whites. The same countries went overboard in enforcing unilateral sanctions.

Finally as far as I am concerned stolen land was handed back to the owners. Had Kenyatta done that the constant tribal clashes over land would have been avoided. Instead he stole the land and sent off the owners to later aroundbthe country

[MOON Ki]

There is no way Zim could have fared any better  economically considering the British influenced US and EU to enact sanctions against them.

I can't say, especially given that all sanctions followed from Mugabe's being a bone-head.

But isn't Kung Fu one of their great friends?   I thought that in Africa Kung Fu was supposedly more than a match for the US and the EU.

The logic that a thief who had stolen your property was using it better than your ever did is pathetic.

This shows unhelpful emotion.   And it is that sort of emotion that leads people to believe that owning land that is not being put to its full use is better than benefitting from productive use of the land by others.   At the end of the day, the real question out to be "how is the land benefitting the people?", not merely "who owns the land?".   

Maybe Zim farmers will never match the white farmer in productivity and output...but the land belong to them. Of course we know with the right tools [loans,fertilizers, training,machinery] they will.

Why can't they match the white farmer?    If it is a matter of the "right tools", why can't they get those from Kung Fu?

Isn't it why we all fought for independence...despite evidence that white settlers were better managers.

Is that so?  I sometimes wonder why we fought for independence.    We continue to yell that we are sovereign and independent and capable of taking care of our own affairs while at the very same time begging endlessly and insisting that the rest of the world has a moral obligation to take care of us until we are "ready".

We own the land, but we beg for food that the former colonial masters have grown on their own land.

And here's another important point: The Sovereign & Independents are willingly supporting a land-grab that is really no more that a version of colonialism.   You can find some of my views here:

http://jukwaa.proboards.com/thread/7351

One of the curious aspects of that business is this: People say that they fought to get back their land.    They then sign off on 99+ year leases for other people to use that land while they themselves starve.  (In some cases, they are lucky that the foreigners who own the land also agree to give some food to the locals.)

The issue of African land and how its use can benefit Africans ought to be discussed without the injection of random emotions.    The links I provided in the Jukwaa thread ought to give a start on the fundamental issues. We need to carefully consider the situation where others are feeding themselves on African land while we starve and brag that we fought and got back the land.

Mugabe remain a hero who has transferred more than 10M acres of farms from small white elite to majority poor zim.

To whom?   

Once we get past the emotions, the basic questions can be answered objectively.  For example: in exactly what concrete ways are the majority of Zimbabweans better off on the basis of Mugabe's land policies.    And, presumably, the question can be answered without appeal to 1960s-1970s rhetoric that had its time and place.

[MOON Ki]

Moonki

There is a misconception here. Restorative justice required that land grabbed at "midnight" by the Smith regime be handed over. Mugabe was patient and even allowed the previous owners to live in slums and reserves. Such land was never meant for commercial farming. Refer to your own treatise to me on ancestral land for greater understanding.

Here is the misunderstanding: I have absolutely no issues with the owners of the land getting it back.   My question is whether the manner in which it was done has been beneficial to Zimbabweans.    I really can't give a complete answer to that, since I am not one of them.  But to the extent that anyone else claims that it was great, I think it is not unreasonable to ask for some objective basis. 

Finally as far as I am concerned stolen land was handed back to the owners. Had Kenyatta done that the constant tribal clashes over land would have been avoided. Instead he stole the land and sent off the owners to later aroundbthe country

Interesting.   And one has to keep in mind that Kenya is frequently held up as model of how these things ought to be done (or have been done).   

Kenya is actually a good study in the problems with the "we fought to get our land back and now we have it" emotional approach, the danger of that approach being that it has no room for objectivity.

What really happened in Kenya is this:

(a) Quite a few wazungus kept whatever land they had.

(b) Some other land went from a few white wazungu to a few newly-installed black wazungu.   

(Even when Kenyatta & Co were dishing out little bits of land to their "our people"--RV and Coast---it was only leftovers once they had grabbed the good stuff.)

(c) As far as land goes, the average "native" still got f**ked, if that had been his prior state.

(In the RV and at the Coast, they remained largely shafted, but did the end of colonialism really change land ownership elsewhere---Nyanza, Western, Eastern, etc.?)

So, as with Zimbabwe, when Kenyans say "we fought and got back our land", I say: really?  where? how?   what did the average Kenyan get out of this land transfer?

Beyond the past, there's the point of the Jukwaa thread: the real colonial land-grab is taking place right now.   

The first land-grab wasn't all "here's a gun in your face; your land or else".   There was plenty of con: "these shiny bits of glass for those zillions of acres of useless land".   And now it's another con: people signing over land for longer periods than the colonialists had the land in the first con while smugly insisting that it is theirs because they fought for it, blah, blah, blah.

Alarm bells are going all over the place, but do the sovereign are independent care?

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jan/28/africa-land-grabs-food-security

[MOON Ki]

P.S. to last "posting" & same article:

in 2009 Saudi Arabia received its first shipment of rice produced on land it had acquired in Ethiopia while at the same time the World Food Programme was feeding 5 million Ethiopians.

Similarly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, China has acquired 7 million hectares for palm oil production and yet millions of people in the DRC are dependent on international aid for food.

Africans need to rethink this issue of land-ownership, and the re-thinking ought to be in terms of effective (as opposed to nominal) ownership and who really gets what from what.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Even if I like what Mugabe did, I can't ignore the impact on a country that was one of the most prosperous in Africa for whites, definitely.  But also for blacks, including the landless. 

Even if the Brits reneged on their end of the deal, Mugabe is ultimately responsible for the well being of Zimbabwe.  And with due respect to Omollo's argument, he did it for short term politics. 

He could have been smarter about it.  But this had never really been his goal until it was too late to regain power without something drastic.

How can anyone say it's good because now even though people are starving they have land?  Zimbabweans never used to leave their country in numbers until that happened.

[MOON Ki]

Zimbabweans never used to leave their country in numbers until that happened.

You should see them in the UK.   An endless number of people desperately doing anything and everything to avoid a return to Zimbabwe.