REMOVE UNJUST AND RACIAL ECONOMIC SANCTIONS ON

ZIMBABWE 03/11/09

Black Zimbabweans’ Human Rights Violations by The Western

Countries Exposed.

Today let us look at human rights violations by Britain, America, European Union and
their allied countries on the peaceful nation of Zimbabwe.
Why is it that the question of human rights only receives world wide media coverage
when African countries embark on agrarian reforms to correct the unjust and racial
colonial agrarian structure?

In Zimbabwe’s case, Britain through her former secretary of state for international
development, Clare Short, wrote a letter to the liberation government leadership of
Zimbabwe through the then minister of agriculture and land, Cde Kumbirai Kangayi.
Britain disowned her colonial responsibility for land reform in Zimbabwe as was agreed
at Lancaster house.

On the 5th of November 1997, a letter that defined the new era of current stand off
between Zimbabwe and Britain, America and their client states dotted around the world
was authored. Here is the letter:-
Dear Minister, George Foulkes has reported to me on the meeting which you and Hon
John Nkomo had with Tony Lloyd and him [self] during your recent visit. I know that
President Mugabe also discussed the land issue with the prime minister briefly during
their meeting. It may be helpful if I record where matters now rest on the issue. At
the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting [in Edinburgh], Tony Blair said that
he looked forward to developing a new basis for relations with Commonwealth
countries founded upon our new government’s policies, not on the past. [Comment:
this was the beginning of a long and protracted land dispute as reflected by Claire Short’s
first few words on her letter to the minister of agriculture.]

We will set out our agenda for international development in a White Paper to be
published this week. The central thrust of this will be the development of partnerships
with developing countries which are committed to eradicate poverty, and have their own
proposals for achieving that, which we and other donors can support.

I very much hope that we will be able to develop such a relationship with Zimbabwe. I
understand that you aim shortly to publish your own policies on economic
management and poverty reduction. I hope that we can discuss them with you and
identify areas where we are best able to help. [Comment: this promised help did not
happen as the British never liked the land and poverty reduction policies formulated by
the Zimbabwe government. Instead the British government created an opposition political
party called MDC 1999 to circumvent the Lancaster house constitution which provides
for the British government an obligation to fund land reform by way of compensating
those white commercial farmers whose farms would have been acquired for the purposes

1
of resettling the black majority. They did not want to allow for the implementation of
Zimbabwe government land redistribution policy, this policy was mandatory as enshrined
in the Lancaster house constitution, that give the Zimbabwe government power and
authority to acquire land for resettlement of Zimbabweans ten years from the date of the
signing of Lancaster house agreement. It acknowledges that, from the period 1980 until
the end of the first ten years (which was 1990) after independence there shall be a wily
seller wily buyer system of acquiring land by the Zimbabwe government. However, after
ten years the government of Zimbabwe was no longer bound by the policy of willing
seller willing buyer concept.] I mentioned this in my letter of 31 August to Hon
Herbert Murerwa. I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a
special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new
government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests.
My own origins are Irish, and as you know, we were colonized, not colonizers.
[Comment: contrasting what Claire Short said, one finds it disturbing as it was clear in
the mind of Claire Short that, although Rhodesian government of Ian Douglas Smith was
a colonial set up, the Zimbabwe government is a democratic government, Rhodesian
government left behind a huge debt amounting to some millions to be precise
US$700,000,000.00 of United States of American dollars which Zimbabwe government
inherited. International Law binds a government coming into power to inherit financial
obligations left buy the out going government, in Zimbabwe’s case, the Rhodesian
government left a huge debt which we are still struggling to clear. Therefore, it is
incumbent upon the Labour government to swallow its pride and meet its international
colonial obligations left bind by the Conservative government, as these two political
organizations in Britain are not immune to international law.

Here are some of Rhodesian debts that the Zimbabwe government inherited in 1980
which continue to cost the nation of Zimbabwe:-

Rhodesian debt inherited by Zimbabwe in 1980 at independence US$700,000,000.00

Government debt Private sector debt Debt servicing % on export
annually earnings
US$98, 000,000.00 US$594, 000,000.00 US$65,000,000.00 35%
US$5, 000,000,00

The debt which comprise of developmental commitments, was also used to purchase
lethal military weapons and hiring of external mercenary contingent of proportions
exceeding 2000 mercenaries. These were used to decimate black Zimbabweans by
Rhodesian Front. How then does the British government reconcile this position where on
one hand they accept settlement of Rhodesian debt by the Zimbabwe government and on
the other hand they say they will not owner colonial obligations? A scenario where
Zimbabwe government is obliged to pay for the atrocities committed by Britain’s kith
and kin against the innocent sons and daughters of black Zimbabweans.]

2
We do, however, recognize the very real issues you face over land. We believe that
land reform could be an important component of a Zimbabwean programme
designed to eliminate poverty. We would be prepared to support a programme of
land reform that was part of a poverty eradication strategy but not on any other
basis. I am told Britain provided a package of assistance for resettlement in the
period immediately following independence. This was, I gather, carefully planned
and implemented, and met most targets. Again, I am told there were discussions in
1989 and 1996 to explore the possibility of further assistance. However, that is all in
the past. [Comment: here Claire Short, she exposes the real intentions of the new Labour
government, thus resistance to change from colonial domination of black majority and
continued plundering of our strategic resources and heavy exploitation of poor blacks.]

If we look to the present, a number of specific issues are unresolved, including the way
which land would be acquired and compensation paid. Clearly it would not help the poor
of Zimbabwe if it was done in a way which undermined investor confidence. Other
questions that would need to be settled would be to ensure that the process was
completely open and transparent, including the establishment of a proper land register.
Individual schemes would have to be economically justified to ensure that the process
helped the poor and for me the most important issue is that any programme must be
planned as part of a programme to contribute to the goal of eliminating poverty. I would
need to consider detailed proposal on these issues before confirming further British
support for resettlement. [Comment: the government of Britain started scouting for
opposition groups which they would finance through Ford Foundation to shutter the
dream of the black majority of access to the means of production which included land. In
1998 an international land conference was held in Zimbabwe at Rainbow Towers
international conference center. Western donor countries were represented the main
agenda; land reform programme in Zimbabwe. Physical land assessment was conducted
which presented its findings, where it was reported that there was urgent need for land
redistribution in Zimbabwe as twelve million black people were crammed in over
crowded semi arid land when compared to their fellow white people numbering 4000
who occupied over 75% of the prime agricultural land.] I am sure that a careful worked
out programme of land reform that was part of a programme of poverty eradication
which we could support would also bring in other donors whose support would help
ensure that a substantial land resettlement programme such as you clearly desire
could be undertaken successfully. If is [sic] to do so, they too will need to be involved
from the start. [Comment: donor countries made some pledges to help speed up land
reform in Zimbabwe. However, Britain had already taken her position of creating an
opposition political party MDC in total defiance of her earlier pledges she made at the
land conference. In 2000 Britain and the local white community once again blocked the
constitutional referendum by sponsoring a no vote; because of some clauses which dealt
with land reform, even though many viewed that document as the best. The land and
black disempowerment opposition political party opposed land reform until this day].
It follows from this that a programme of rapid land acquisition as you now seem to
envisage would be impossible for us to support. I know that many of Zimbabwe’s
friends share our concern about the damage which this might do to Zimbabwe’s

3
agricultural output and its prospects of attracting investments. (See New African
summer 2007)

Claire Short wrote this on the 17th year of Zimbabwe’s independence, at this same period
a less than four thousand white people of British origin were occupying more than 75%
of arable land in Zimbabwe compared to a population of more than twelve million living
on less than 25% arid land. This also happened on the background where the wily seller
wily buyer policy yielded negative results as the white commercial farmers did not
subscribe to this policy, hence there were no any wily sellers who existed although wily
buyer was readily available to buy. This attitude is also being reflected clearly in Claire
Short’s demeaning letter to the government of Zimbabwe where she suggested that the
issue of land should follow non other than the British policy pronouncements. However,
it is important to note that the land question was the main cause of the liberation war
which was wagged against the imperial Rhodesian government. The people of Zimbabwe
did not fight the war of liberation in order to change towns and street names or to elect
black led government without the control of Zimbabwe’s strategic resources. The living
and the departed fought the liberation war for the total economic emancipation. We did
not fight the war in order to reward the erstwhile colonizers with our sweat for the
colonizers’ continued domination in all meaningful socio-economic, political and legal
environments; rather, we wanted to change the colonial state of affairs to reflect the
quantitative composition of Zimbabwean’s population and accommodate all racial groups
in Zimbabwe on all spheres of development. We call for the removal of unjust and racial
economic sanctions. We did not chase the white farmers from our country; they left the
country on their own accord simply because they did not want to compete with black
commercial farmers for racial reasons. No body chased them; they left on their on accord.
The sanctions they campaigned for across Europe and America are tailor made to destroy
black Zimbabweans just as they attempted to decimate us with various weapons of war
included biological weapons such as anthrax which they used for ethnic cleansing by
poisoning our sources of food and water even our clothing.

During the same period, Britain was pre-occupied by the fact that Rhodesia was
unilaterally independent from Britain. Therefore, their involvement in Rhodesia after
1965 was not to protect the majority black Zimbabweans, but it was an attempt to wrestle
the country back to the British rule. The western countries did not call for the respect of
human rights of the black people; in man cases United States of America supplied
Rhodesian Front with countless mercenaries to kill women and children for our chrome,
and other precious mineral resources such as diamonds, platinum, gold, nickel and many
others such as land. After United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions on
Rhodesia for unilateral declaration of independence from Britain, USA, a UN Veto
holding power country enacted a law in 1969 called Byrd amendment act to circumvent
the UN sanctions against Rhodesia. This was done on the pretext that Rhodesia was their
source of strategic resources such chrome. America then sided with Rhodesia to violate
black people’s human rights sponsoring a racial war providing weapons and manpower in
the form of mercenaries. One then ask the pertinent question, why is it that USA (United
States of America) is on all occasions found to be undermining the freedom of black
Zimbabweans and in the same manner standing with white or white sponsored oppressive

4
elements all the time? If USA was a cradle of democratic institutions in the whole world,
why is it that when it comes to black Zimbabweans she is found on the side of our
oppressors and also sponsoring stooge political parties in Zimbabwe?

During the era of Ian Douglas Smith there were black people who were sharing the same
trenches with the Rhodesian Front, fighting and killing their brothers and sisters in
Zimbabwe, Zambia and Mozambique. Americans participated in this racial and ruinous
war against black Zimbabweans. Today, the Rhodesians have regrouped, now with the
support of Britain and their usual accomplice, the United States of America and the
former black Rhodesian Front military personnel who constitute today anything called
MDC-T or MDC. The EU, Britain, Australia, and United States of America all have
imposed economic sanctions against black Zimbabweans to re-instate the Rhodesian
ruminants spread around the world and some who are in Zimbabwe occupying top
decision making positions.

Call for the removal of these racial economic sanctions.

Respect black Zimbabweans’ human rights.
Let the people of Zimbabwe enjoy their God given natural resources.
Zimbabwe is a peaceful country in the world
She is rich with mineral resources endowed in her. Please; Britain, America and your
allies respect black Zimbabweans’ rights
You cannot be seen to respect our human rights only if we shut our eyes when you do
what you like with our raw materials. There must be mutual respect between our
respective countries. As you are guarding jealously you mineral endowments, Zimbabwe
is no exception, we are jealously guarding our mineral endowments as well. We want to
trade with all countries, we proud of what we can offer as Zimbabwe to the world
markets. We want to compete with other countries, not to receive donor aid. We call for
global support on our quest of getting racial economic sanctions removed as they are
violating black Zimbabweans’ human rights.

Zimbabwe is a sovereign country on the continent of Africa south of the Sahara, sharing
her borders with Zambia, Mozambique, South Africa, and Botswana. Zimbabwe is a very
peaceful country with hard work people. There is no incidence of violence in Zimbabwe
as one can experience in many countries in the world. Zimbabwe’s tourism industry
offers unique opportunities for all her visitors. Our main tourist resort areas are as listed
below:-
 Victoria Falls
 Great Zimbabwe
 Hwange National Park
 Gonarezhou National Park
 Manna pools
 Matopo Hills
 Kami Ruins
 Best hospitality
 Nyanga Eastern Highlands

5
REMOVE UNJUST AND RECIAL ECONOMIC SACTIONS ON ZIMBABWE PROJECT