Posted on 09/08/2001 6:09:52 AM PDT by Clive
author/source:Daily Telegraph (UK)
published:Sat 8-Sep-2001
posted on this site:Sat 8-Sep-2001
Article Type : News
The signs are that he has far more to lose than gain by sticking to the agreement
By David Blair
Would President Robert Mugabe's ruthless struggle for political survival be helped or hindered by keeping to the Abuja agreement? On that crucial question hangs the future of the Commonwealth's alleged "breakthrough". If the deal threatens Mr Mugabe's overriding goal of winning the presidential election that must come by April 1 next year, he will not hesitate to toss it aside. The signs are that he has far more to lose than gain by sticking to the agreement.
Moreover, its text runs like a compendium of promises that Mr Mugabe's ministers have already broken. On March 2 last year, barely 10 days after the onset of the farm invasions, Dumiso Dabengwa, then home affairs minister, promised to end the occupations "with immediate effect". Mr Mugabe quickly overruled him and backed the squatters. Six weeks later, Vice-President Joseph Msika repeated the pledge. Once again, Mr Mugabe contradicted his colleague and vowed "never" to remove the squatters, who are blamed for the murders of eight farmers and 28 black workers.
So far, the president has not pronounced on the Abuja agreement and only Stan Mudenge, the Foreign Minister, has signed for Zimbabwe. Mr Mudenge is a skilled diplomat, but his political clout is minimal. His master may yet overrule him. Even if Mr Mugabe publicly endorses the agreement, that is no guarantee he will abide by it. Don McKinnon, the Commonwealth's Secretary-General, knows this all too well. On May 16 last year he met Mr Mugabe in Harare in the run up to parliamentary elections and extracted a promise that a wave of political violence would be curbed. The killings went on. When the president offered his assurances to Mr McKinnnon, supporters of the ruling Zanu PF party had murdered 19 people in the election campaign. By the time polling day arrived, 37 people had been killed.
Even after the votes were counted, the killings continued. If Mr Mugabe keeps the Abuja agreement, he will have to "take firm action against violence and intimidation" and abide by "democratic principles". Yet violence and intimidation are the central props of his regime. A national terror campaign was needed for Zanu PF's narrow victory in the parliamentary polls last June. Without more of the same, he will stand little chance in the presidential election.
Other parts of the deal would require him to eat many of his most passionate words. If he restores "the rule of law to the process of land reform" and abandons the illegal seizure of white-owned farms, the pace of take-overs would slow dramatically. If all legal procedures are followed, it can take one year to acquire a farm. Following his own rules would prevent Mr Mugabe from seizing any more farms before the election unless the landowners concede some properties. This would undoubtedly happen. Yet the president has repeatedly promised to re-possess "the totality of our land" and ruled out the "humiliation" of gratefully accepting limited amounts on the terms of the "white oppressor".
Sticking by the law carries immense political cost for Mr Mugabe. About 1,000 farms have been seized under the "fast track" land reform programme, declared illegal by Zimbabwe's Supreme Court last November. Would the Abuja agreement compel Mr Mugabe to return these properties to their white owners? If so, his shock troops would cry betrayal and turn on him. If not, the commitment to restore the rule of law is hollow. About 4,593 white-owned farms, more than 90 per cent of the total, have been listed for seizure, many in defiance of the government's own criteria for acquisitions. Under these rules, any farmer owning just one property, or cultivating all of his land, is supposedly protected from seizure. In practice, perhaps 1,500 farms on the list should never have been earmarked in the first place. Abuja would require Mr Mugabe to "de-list" them, another move that he would find repugnant.
Britain has restated its willingness to fund land reform and Mr Mugabe will doubtless trumpet this as a victory. He will ensure that his supporters reduce their campaign of violence during the Commonwealth summit in Brisbane next month. Yet abiding by Abuja would dramatically increase the risk to Mr Mugabe of losing power. As the election draws near, this agreement is likely to be torn to shreds, along with all the earlier promises.
David Blair, our former Harare correspondent, was forced to leave Zimbabwe in July.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.