I may surprise Jim by welcoming the opportunity of criticising Peter Hain, former anti-Apartheid campaigner and now campaigner for a new order in Africa.
But the thrust of this passage of Jim's overseas round-up column seems to be on the Republic of the Congo. I do not see anything progressive in Mugabe's intervention there. What *is* just, is the unwrapping of the colonial land settlement and opposition to threats from global finance capital.
Since the election it is reported that 25 more white farms have been occupied apparently without reports of violence. It is better for the unity of people in Zimbabwe that this is without violence and that younger supporters of ZANU and of the MDC can work together for a more democratic economic and political future.
Chris Burford
London
>'I think the outcome is a complete vindication of the strong position
>that both I and Robin Cook took', said British Foreign Office minister
>Peter Hain. Hardly - the Zimbabwean people returned ZANU-PF to power in
>the biggest turnout since ever in Zimbabwe's history, despite the
>British Foreign Office's crass attempts to demonise President Mugabe and
>his supporters, whilst openly backing supporting Morgan Tsvangari (who
>failed to get elected). On the eve of the election Foreign Minister
>Robin Cook charged that Mugabe was set to ignore the election result. In
>the event it was the British Foreign Office that ignored the will of the
>Zimbabwean people, making it clear that their campaign to oust Mugabe in
>favour of Tsvangari would continue.
>
>Former colonial rulers the British have made three charges against
>Mugabe: that he is anti-gay, that he sanctioned massacres of Matabele in
>the eighties, and that he ordered the occupation of white farms. But
>none of them are the real reason for the destabilisation attempt. First,
>Mugabe's sexual conservatism is hardly surprising. Did Britain imagine
>that his Jesuit education would enlighten him, or perhaps his later
>Maoist ideological training? For a man of his generation and background
>Mugabe's views, while illiberal, are not news. Second, Britain was well
>aware of the repressive policy in Matabeleland and supported it while
>Mugabe was seen as a trustworthy ally. Third, Britain imposed a
>protected status for white farmers who have monopolised African land in
>the Lancaster House agreement - an agreement which Mugabe supported. The
>drive for land reform today is one that the President has held off as
>long as he could.
>
>The real reason for Britain's campaign against Zimbabwe is Mugabe's
>intervention in the Congo War. Britain and America backed the overthrow
>of President Mobutu by US agent and now Rwandan president Paul Kagame.
>Kagame's mainly Tutsi army occupied the Congo, put a Congolese stooge,
>Laurent Kabila in power, and set about slaughtering Hutus taking refuge
>there. But Kabila turned on his Rwandan backers and sought help to rid
>the Congo of the Rwandan occupation. Mugabe's contribution of MiG
>fighters and troops tipped the balance of power. Kabila's Congolese
>forces, with Zimbabwean backing rounded on the Rwandan troops in the
>Congo valley, who were rescued at the last minute by US helicopters.
>
>Mugabe's Congolese adventure was a useful distraction from difficulties
>at home. But Britain was never going to forgive Mugabe for his
>disruption of the new order that Washington and London were constructing
>in the Horn of Africa. Attempts to overthrow Mugabe will continue.