Did land reform work in Zimbabwe? Has productivity increased 15 times?

[AP]

In the last two weeks there has been an interesting development in Zimbabwe. The government has said thank you to the NGOs for the assistance in the transition year for land refomr, but they won't need food aid next year.

This has made Voice of America and Amnesty and other western NGOs a little apoplectic. They say that there are elections coming up in March 2005 and the only reason that the government is doing this is because (1) they want to starve the opposition and/or (2) they want to claim success with land reform.

I'm not sure those arguments are even compatible. If they don't want to have food, they can't claim land reform was a success. Furthemore, you don't need to force food shortages to use food as a political tool. You simply don't distribute the food aid.

Anyway, here's an article about this:

http://www.insiderzim.com/jun04food.html

Agriculture Minister Joseph Made said in a statement on May 11 that the country had produced 2 431 182 tonnes of maize in the season just ended. Together with sorghum and millet, this should come to 2 805 995 tonnes. This is more than the country consumes. According to the United States Agency for International Development-funded Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS), Zimbabwe requires 1 674 265 tonnes of maize for both human and livestock consumption. It also requires 176 562 tonnes of millet, 341 353 tonnes of wheat and 11 653 tonnes of rice, making a total of 2 203 833 tonnes of grain. Made said new farmers had produced 15 times what they produced last season. Social Welfare Minister Paul Mangwana said since the country had produced enough food, it no longer required food aid.

Ok, so normally this would be good news, right? How is the international community receiving this news?


Donors and the West, it appears, will not hear this. They have opposed the land reform programme since 1997 claiming it was a recipe for disaster. And when the country ran out of food following the 2002 drought, they seemed to have been proved right. The country had been reduced from a bread basket to a basket case. As far as they are concerned, therefore, there is no way Zimbabwe can turnaround on its own without external help.

So there's a political motivation not to accept this statement on face value? Are there any other reasons? Should we follow the money? Who make money from food aid?


While Zimbabwe says it needs infrastructural assistance none of the {foreign} donors is talking about this because this will enable resettled farmers to become self-sufficient. They will not need food aid. This is bad business for the donors because while providing food relief to "starving" Zimbabweans they are also supporting agriculture in their home countries.

In 1992, when the country faced one of the worst droughts in history, Zimbabwe was forced to import 350 000 tonnes of yellow maize worth a staggering US$250 million which it did not need. Though commercial farmers and the Grain Marketing Board had said there was no longer any need for food aid because the country was going to have a good harvest - just like the present case- Zimbabwe was forced by the World Bank to import the maize because "the deal was too advanced" to be stopped.

So, let me get this straight, land reform and infrastructure development (the kind which the international community won't support) makes poor people self-sufficient. This means that governments can't force countries to buy food for the poor through the IMF from western farmers, and it means that large agro-businesses lose control of huge tobacco farms with high profit margins. Interesting.

[On the Road]

1. I Support Land Reform

and Zimbabwe has engaged in legitimate land reform in the past, compensating the landowners and redistributing it to landless farmers.

The farm invasions, however, have been a personal vendetta by Mugabe against whites. They are a very, very bad idea.

I would not be surprised if aid agencies are playing a perverse role in all this. In the forty-some years since most of Africa became independent, aid has helped no country that I know of to become self-sufficient. Eritrea has wisely avoided accepting any aid (at least the IMF version).

Just finished reading Paul Theroux's travel through Zimbabwe in Dark Star. He spent quite a bit of time on the land-invasion issue, including visits with both white farmers and black "farm invaders." Very interesting depiction.

[Dorian Gray]

41. I know some families that were removed from their land.

It was a frightening time for white land owners in Zimbabwe, often meeting up with violent removal from their land.

I'm interested in reading Dark Star. Land reform is one thing, but the invasions were, indeed, despotic and violent in many cases.

[AP]

55. Imagine what a frightening time it was for the black person from whom

the first white owner took the land.

At least the people you know got to live and tell the story.

BTW, I did a search of all the deaths I could find related to these 'invasions' and could only find about 20. Nobody who killed anyone ended up with the land. Most of them were caught and tried. A few of them were probably not even land related, and were just regular property crimes. (One crime was a rape, and had nothing to do with the land, but the British press played it up for two days -- think "Private Lynch"). It's not like you can take someone's land and then evade the authorities. (Unless you were a white colonizer pre-1960 and you had the British Army backing you up.) They'll know where to find you. Ten of the 20 deaths were on both sides of a single battle in which a land owner raised an army and went out looking for a shoot-out and found one.

[On the Road]

80. I Agree That You Have to See the Context

what the European colonizers did was infinitely worse than anything Mugabe has done. It's also true that the land invasions have gotten more publicity and action because white people with money were involved.

At the same time, you can't justify it on that basis. Imagine the president in the US encouraging poor minorities without land to find miscellaneous farm, squat, and take some of the acreage. That's literally the situation. The government is initiating and conspiring in a systematic program of theft and murder.

[AP]

102. I'm not sure I agree with that characterization of what's "literally"

happening.

Seriously, I think fewer than 20 people have been murdered in any context that could be remotely related to the land, and half that number was in one gun fight between a farmer who raised and armed a band of thugs to go after another band of thugs. Most of the murders resulted in trials. Nobody who murdered anyone got to keep land.

Compare that to the number of people who die in any 3 hour period during a Nigerian election which is trying to keep in power a government that promises to be subervient to Shell Oil.

I think that's the context you have to consider.

Imagine what would happen in Nigeria if the government tried to take all the oilfields and transfer ownership from Royal Dutch Shell to 200,000 Nigerians? Imagine what would happen.

[On the Road]

139. You're Putting it in the Context of Multinationals

If a previous government signed a bad contract with foreign corporations under duress or for personal gain, nationalization is definitely an option.

The whites don't control the country any longer and are not part of some multinational. They are one of the most productive parts of the economy -- they employ other Africans, they inject money into the economy, and earn foreign currency, which Zimbabwe desperately needs. Mugabe is systematically driving them out. That cannot be good for the country.

It's common for societies to resent economically successful minorities -- Chinese, Jews, and Indians often come under attack for being more successful. Outside of the human rights issues, it's economically bad to drive those groups away. A lot Indians have left east Africa since the end of colonialism, and for the most part their shops and business have not been replaced.

There are ways to equalize society -- progressive taxation, EEO, quotas, etc. This isn't one of them. Businesses already avoid Africa because of government corruption. The farm invasions make Zimbabwe radioactive.

Castro, on the other hand, nationalized a lot of small- and medium-sized businesses and compensated the owners who stayed. He also unified the country and put the country's resources to work for the population. That's not happening here. It's more like the Bolsheviks, who seized land "for the people" but couldn't make it productive. I don't think these developments bode well for anyone in Zimbabwe.

-----------

It is true that if the land is used for subsistence farming instead of tobacco, food production will increase. It is a worthy goal for Zimbabwe to be self-sufficient in food production, but there are dozens of legitimate ways to pursue that without telling veterans to take their guns and invade other people's farms.

-----------

BTW, I appreciate your starting this thread and being so active in responding. It forced me to find out more about the situation --I've been thinking about it since yesterday. I can't imagine a discussion of this depth on FR.

[On the Road]

75. I Think Paul Theroux is a Pretty Good Source

He lived in Africa for years when he was young and with the Peace Corps (which you know if you read him) and speaks Swahili and some local dialects. He traveled overland, largely by bus and truck, from Cairo to Capetown -- even including places like Sudan, which he liked. He talks with everyone from prime ministers to the poor.

Only one chapter is about Zimbabwe, but the whole book is great. It was finished in January 2004, so it's pretty recent.

[AP]

103. So what does he say?

That it was tough for white people?

[bemildred]

2. I think you've got it.

There are a number of reasons why this won't be accepted.
But whether it is accepted or not no longer matters much.

It has always been perfectly clear that small family farms
are far more efficient and productive than agribusiness, but
politically they are considered undesirable because, as you
point out, the farmers are self-sufficient and thus hard to
manipulate.

Interestingly, one of the consequences of Shrub's adventure in
Iraq has been to accellerate the trend of the 2nd and 3rd World
nations telling the IMF/WTO/WB/G8 hegemonists to go fuck themselves,
politely of course.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. It's a choice between believing Robert Mugabe or Amnesty International

The idea that Amnesty International's motive is support for agro-business is ridiculous and laughable on it's face.

Zimbabwe: Food must not be used as a political tool

Amnesty International today expressed grave concern at the Zimbabwe government's moves to end international food aid distribution, despite independent assessments which predict that millions of Zimbabweans will need food aid in the coming 12 months.

"If independent assessments are correct, the risk is that food will be used for political ends and food supplies will go first and only to supporters of the ruling party", the organization warned.

The government has told international donors that it will not need food aid this year. On 7 May the government stopped a UN Crop and Food Supply Assessment Mission from evaluating the current harvest. This was followed by statements in the state-controlled Herald newspaper, attributed to the Minister for Agriculture, claiming that Zimbabwe has produced more grain than it needs this year.

However, earlier predictions by food security monitors and the United Nations, and a crop survey carried out in March by independent consultants for the German-based Friedrich Ebert Foundation, all suggest that the 2004 harvest will fall far short of national requirements.

Amnesty International visited Zimbabwe in February 2004, at which time numerous sources within the agricultural sector confirmed that food production would fall far short of needs in 2004/5.

Both rural and urban populations will be affected. With unemployment currently at approximately 70% and inflation hovering around 600% it is increasingly difficult for many Zimbabweans to access adequate food in the marketplace.

Amnesty International is gravely concerned that the present actions of the government of Zimbabwe may be an attempt to control food supplies ahead of parliamentary elections scheduled for March 2005.

If the true crop production figures for 2004 are as low as many reliable sources expect then, in the absence of international food aid, a significant proportion of Zimbabwe's population may, later in 2004 and into 2005, find itself reliant on grain controlled by the state-controlled Grain Marketing Board (GMB).

"Political manipulation of food, particularly state-controlled GMB grain, by officials and supporters of the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) has been widely reported over the past two years. ZANU-PF has repeatedly used food as an electioneering tool. Viewed against a history of political manipulation of food the government's current actions are a cause for grave concern," Amnesty International said.

It is unclear how much grain the GMB has in reserve, as there is no independent assessment of GMB stocks. However, it is unlikely to be sufficient to meet the cereal gap of 500-800,000 metric tonnes which independent observers predict for the coming year.

Amnesty International reminds the Zimbabwe government that, as a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICSECR), it has an obligation to uphold the right of all Zimbabweans to food. The UN committee responsible for monitoring the Convention has stated that governments must use all the resources at their disposal, including those available through international assistance. Discrimination in access to food on any grounds, including political affiliation, is a violation of the ICSECR. The committee has also stated that food should not be used as an instrument of political pressure.

Amnesty International further reminds the government of Zimbabwe that all human rights are indivisible and interrelated. Violations of the right to food may impinge on many other rights, including the right to life itself.

Amnesty is calling on the Zimbabwe authorities to respect the right of all Zimbabweans to food and to immediately allow the UN to conduct a crop assessment mission, with a view to ensuring that any possible food aid needs are adequately addressed. Amnesty International further calls on the government of Zimbabwe to take immediate steps to make the operations of the GMB transparent, and open to independent monitoring.

(press release not subject to copyright) http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engafr460142004

Is Amnesty International really a tool for agri-business?


http://www.amnesty.org/results/is/eng?query=zimbabwe


:eyes:

[ShaneGR]

4. I disagreed with land-reform.... but...

I disagreed because I simply don't like "re-stealing" land from people for something their ancestors did. But, you make some good points about the aid program. Don't forget though, food aid provides vital humanitarian missions to a lot of countries that DO need it.

Zimbabwe is a mess though. Food or no food.

[AP]

5. It wasn't restealing. At independence, the colonizers acknowledged that

murdering for land was wrong and they'd give back the land. They had a long term program for doing that. Large, extremely profitable agro-businesses were the last hold-outs. They thought Europe woud jump in and bail them out, maybe rig an election in their favor, maybe assassinate someone.

It didn't happen. (I wonder if the Tories had been in power in the UK, agro-business would have won?)

Zimbabwe may be a mess, but they're definitely on a much faster track for cleaing up that mess now that they're reforming land ownership.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Got a reference for that?

"They'd give back the land"?

[AP]

14. Willing buyer, willing seller. Lancaster agreement.

I know it's a simplifed characterization. But, this was a major concern when Zimbabwe was negotiating with the west at independence:

Mugabe: Well, this is what people who do not live by promises, dishonest guys, do. When we discussed the land issue, the British and those who participated in the talks would know that we were deadlocked on that issue. And the British government was insisting that we accept the full burden of paying compensation to the farmers should we get their land. This is over and above our observation of the principle of willing buyer, willing seller.

We said no. We would not accept the burden of paying the full price for the land unless Britain gave us full funds. The British then said they would give us some funds but the funds may not be adequate.

And we said we could never ever tax our poor people in order to get the funds to buy their land back. It was never paid for in the first place. Those who seized it from them, from our ancestors, never paid for it, they never paid our ancestors.

So we were deadlocked, and there is evidence that the American ambassador in London invited us to discuss it in Sonny Raphael's house {Raphael was then Commonwealth secretary general}. It was Sonny Raphael who extended the invitation to us, saying the American ambassador would want to meet us. "He is proposing something in order to break the deadlock," Raphael said.

...

http://www.swans.com/library/art9/ankomah7.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. So what you mean is that Mugabe says

more money was promised by Britain, but this was never put in writing (although many other things were). That equates to the white farmers promising to give back the land, does it?

[AP]

28. It means that land ownership was a central concern during the negotiations

and the UK and US made a promise to finance it. When they backed out, Zimbabwe engaged in another route which all farmers except a few large agro-business hold outs delayed for as long as possible, but finally gave up after the European-backed MDC lost the last elections before the final eviction orders were executed by authorities.

[On the Road]

107. Are You Kidding?

You really think this is going to help their economy or increase agricultural output? It is transferring some production from tobacco to maize, but it's a completely unnecessary way of doing it.

You can make arguments for land reform from economic or historical fairness. So did the Bolshevics, but their land reform was neither fair nor productive.

These farms are not ConAgra. Nor are they planations. They are mechanized family farms like you have in the US. The farm invasions are no legitimate of helpful there than they would be here.

The whites don't run the country any longer, which is good. But they are being ethnically cleansed by a government whose VP has stated: "Whites are not human beings." (from the Guardian, not usually considered a bastion of neoliberalism).

I guess we'll find out for sure at some point whether this will improve the country. As the farmers are kicked out, many of them are going to nearby Zambia, which is benefitting as a result.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. Human Rights Watch: Zimbabwe: Food Used as Political Weapon

Zimbabwean authorities discriminate against perceived political opponents by denying them access to food programs, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Some international relief agencies in Zimbabwe fail to ensure that access to food is based on need alone and is not biased by domestic or international political concerns.

The 51-page report, "Not Eligible: The Politicization of Food in Zimbabwe," documents how food is denied to suspected supporters of Zimbabwe's main opposition party and to residents of former commercial farms resettled under the country's "fast-track" land reform program. The report examines the widespread politicization of the government's subsidized grain program, managed by the Grain Marketing Board, as well as the far less extensive manipulation of international food aid.

According to the report, government authorities and party officials of the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) manipulate the supply and distribution of government-subsidized grain and the registration of recipients for international food aid. Though international aid agencies, including the World Food Programme, have gone to great lengths to prevent interference, this kind of manipulation remains a problem. International aid agencies must devote greater resources and attention to preventing the manipulation of recipient lists. The report also examines international community's tacit complicity in preventing food from reaching former commercial farm areas resettled under land reform.

"Select groups of people are being denied access to food," said Peter Takirambudde, executive director of the Africa division of Human Rights Watch. "This is a human rights violation as serious as arbitrary imprisonment or torture."

Today one-half of Zimbabwe's population of nearly 14 million is considered "food-insecure," living in households that are unable to obtain enough food to meet basic needs. The international community has spent hundreds of millions of dollars pouring food aid into Zimbabwe, yet thousands continue to go hungry.

Any perceived political adversaries of ZANU-PF or the government encounter difficulty gaining access to food. Known members of the main opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), are top-most among perceived enemies. This category also encompasses teachers, former commercial farm workers and urban residents-groups generally considered to favor the MDC. In effect, without a ZANU-PF party card, a Zimbabwean cannot register for or receive government-subsidized grain.

Often international relief agencies need to rely on local authorities in some cases to determine beneficiary status, which leads to a certain degree of political manipulation. However, some international aid programs are also politicized. According to insiders of the international aid regime, some international donors are opposed to funding aid for those resettled on the former commercial farms that were redistributed under the "fast-track" land reform program. The international aid agencies universally deny that donors' political opposition to land reform is a factor, explaining that they cannot distribute any relief food in these areas until a comprehensive needs assessment has been completed by the government.

"Politically, it is disadvantageous for the Zimbabwe government to investigate need on the resettled farms," said Takirambudde. "If the farms are not productive and people are hungry, the government's land reform program will look like a failure. It seems that the government is manipulating relief efforts, and that the international community is playing along even though people on the resettled farms need food desperately."

Human Rights Watch asserted that the Zimbabwe government has an obligation under international and domestic law to supply food without reference to race, religion, ethnicity or regional origin, or to residence, sex or political affiliation. The government should instruct authorities in charge of beneficiary lists to abide by the principle of nondiscrimination.

The government should impress upon the leadership of all political parties that it is prohibited under domestic and international law for politicians and party supporters to use food to influence or reward constituents or voters. Punitive action should be taken against those who flout this prohibition.

Human Rights Watch recommended that the international community continue to fight the politicization of relief food through its efforts to maintain tight controls on food distribution and to implement all aspects of relief efforts directly or through local non-governmental organizations.

Human Rights Watch also emphasized that international aid should not be based on any factor other than need. In particular, farmers who were resettled under the "fast-track" land reform program should be eligible to receive food aid from all international sources. Donors that have withdrawn support for humanitarian programs in Zimbabwe should reconsider their duty, under international law, to assist those in need.

(press release not subject to copyright) http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/10/zimbabwe102403.htm

The full report: Not Eligible: The Politicization of Food in Zimbabwe

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=africa&c=zimbab

Perhaps Amnesty International AND Human Rights Watch are BOTH motivated by a desire to maintain profits for agribusiness? :eyes:

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Has productivity increased 15 times? No

http://www.sefar.com/cms/en.nsf/PageID/DEC49B3A3324E726C1256E17005D2D80
Million tonnes of maize:

         1995/6 1996/7 1997/8 1998/9 1999/0 2000/1 2001/2 2002/3 
Zimbabwe  2.6     2.2    1.9    1.5    2.1    1.5    0.8    1.9

and this year will be 2.4 million tonnes - 26% up on last year, and almost back to 1995/96 levels. I hope this will make up for tobacco production now being a quater of what it was in the 1990s.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. But you are working on the premise that Amnesty Intl and HRW are lying

and the Mugabe government is telling the truth.


How credible is that premise?

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. I'm giving Mugabe the benefit of the doubt

HRW and Amnesty are probably working off the estimates that Mugabe gave in March:

"The MoARD's maize production estimate is 1,700,000 MT, a figure more than double last season's estimate and similar to the 1990s' average; the estimate is over 30 percent higher than the recent five-year average for maize production."
http://www.fews.net/current/monthlies/report/?submit=y&m=1001212&f=zw

It must indeed have been a bumper year for a 40% increase to occur in 3 months from the estimate to the actual (and 1.7 million tonnes was optimistic, according to the FEWS report). Since the government withdrew cooperation with the UN of the crop assesment, we just have to take Mugabe's word for it.

"The latest announcement follows the cancellation of a planned crop assessment mission by United Nations agencies in Zimbabwe after the government withdrew its participation. The UN assessments are conducted at the invitation and with the participation of the host government."
http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/738ce4e1f513df4e85256e92006dc68c?OpenDocument

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. Why give Mugabe the benefit of the doubt and assume Amnesty Intl is lying?

http://www.amnesty.org/results/is/eng?query=zimbabwe

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=africa&c=zimbab



Why do you find Robert Mugabe more credible than Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International? What possible motive could Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have for lying?


Since the government withdrew cooperation with the UN of the crop assesment, we just have to take Mugabe's word for it.

NO, we don't.

Amnesty is calling on the Zimbabwe authorities to respect the right of all Zimbabweans to food and to immediately allow the UN to conduct a crop assessment mission, with a view to ensuring that any possible food aid needs are adequately addressed. Amnesty International further calls on the government of Zimbabwe to take immediate steps to make the operations of the GMB transparent, and open to independent monitoring.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engafr460142004

Are these unreasonable requests or something?

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. I don't assume HRW and Amnesty are lying

it's just that with Mugabe controlling the flow of information from Zimbabwe so much (another independent paper shut down: 11 June by far the worst violator of press freedom in southern Africa) his are the only figures we can use. Amnesty's calls are not at all unreasonable. They might help Zimbabwe climb above 141 out of 166 in world press freedom rankings.

Perhaps a miracle has happened in Zimbabwe. Mugabe is, after all, a conservative Christian:

"In Zimbabwe, homosexual activity can result in a 10 year prison term. Its president, Robert Mugabe, has criticized any discussion of homosexuality at the meeting. He is a conservative Christian, and said that gays and lesbians are lower than jungle animals. He has commented: "Will not God punish us for such practices?""
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_wcc.htm

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. Either Mugabe is politicizing food like they say, or he's lying.

it's just that with Mugabe controlling the flow of information from Zimbabwe so much his are the only figures we can use.

Stalin also controlled the flow of information during his regime. Does that mean he was always telling the truth? I can't believe you are actually arguing that Mugabe's human rights abuses give him more credibility.

:wtf:



Perhaps a miracle has happened in Zimbabwe. Mugabe is, after all, a conservative Christian

OK :eyes:

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. I think your sarcasm detector has malfunctioned

I'll be explicit next time.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

21. OK, then, why don't you explicitly say what you mean?

What is your point then? Are you trying to engage in an honest discussion, or are you just throwing out sarcastic off-topic comments in attempt to obscure the truth?

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. Sorry, I didn't mean to rile you

I was just pointing out that even if you accept Mugabe's figures, maize production still hasn't got back to the 90s peak figure, and the exportable tobacco has almost disappeared. It never seemed off-topic to me.

[AP]

26. It's only the second harvest after land reform. Maize production will...

...continue to increase, just as it has in SA.

[AP]

29. BTW, why is tobacco output a measure of anyting?

The best land in Zimbabwe was being used to grow tobacco, which didn't help Zimbabwe, and the profits of which went into the pockets of European agro-business.

That tobacco production is down and maize farming is climbing is a sign of success.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Tobacco earned foreign money

needed for oil etc. If Mugabe thought the profits were all disappearing to Europe, he could have controlled the exports to make sure the money stayed in Zimbabwe.

Maize farming has still not reached the levels it did in the 90s. Tobacco farming is less. Both have problems.

What are the European agro-business companies?

[AP]

33. and that foreign money was deposited in swiss bank accounts.

One of the goals of land reform was to use the land for the benefit of Zimbabweans -- to generate wealth that circulates within Zimbabwe first, and to feed people.

It's only the second year of land reform. Apparently there was a jump in productivity in the first and second years, and I bet there will be another one next year.

Decreased tobacco production is probably an indicator of the success of land reform.

http://www.swans.com/library/art8/elich004.html#72

[Feanorcurufinwe]

69. Don't worry, you haven't, and I won't pretend to know your emotional state

I don't think the facts about agricultural production are off-topic.


What I was responding to your post where you said:

I think your sarcasm detector has malfunctioned

I'll be explicit next time.


Which I assumed to be in reference to this comment of yours:

Perhaps a miracle has happened in Zimbabwe. Mugabe is, after all, a conservative Christian

Are you now claiming that it was your post citing agricultural production levels that you meant as sarcasm? :wtf:

[AP]

15. I think this is the point of the article. Foreign, privately financed NGOs

have a motivation to mislead.

Also, you have to look at their logic. Their explanations for why Mugabe would lie don't make sense.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. You believe Amnesty International is a tool of agribusiness?

Really? You trust Mugabe more than Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch?

Their explanations for why Mugabe would lie don't make sense.

Really? Could you explain your reasoning? They make perfect sense to me.


PLEASE ADDRESS THIS KEY QUESTION:
What part of HRW's report (Not Eligible: The Politicization of Food in Zimbabwe) are you disputing, specifically?

Amnesty International (AI) is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights.

AI's vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.

In pursuit of this vision, AI's mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights.

AI is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. It does not support or oppose any government or political system, nor does it support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to protect. It is concerned solely with the impartial protection of human rights.

AI has a varied network of members and supporters around the world. At the latest count, there were more than 1.8 million members, supporters and subscribers in over 150 countries and territories in every region of the world. Although they come from many different backgrounds and have widely different political and religious beliefs, they are united by a determination to work for a world where everyone enjoys human rights.

AI is a democratic, self-governing movement. Major policy decisions are taken by an International Council made up of representatives from all national sections.

AI's national sections and local volunteer groups are primarily responsible for funding the movement. No funds are sought or accepted from governments for AI's work investigating and campaigning against human rights violations.
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-index-eng

About Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/about/

[AP]

25. AI wouldn't show the Chavez movie at its film festiva. They backed down

after pressure from the fascists in VZ.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

72. What part of Human Rights Watch's report are you disputing, specifically?

What part of HRW's report (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/zimbabwe1003">Not Eligible: The Politicization of Food in Zimbabwe) are you disputing, specifically?

[AP]

77. I'm not disputing it so much as I'm saying that this makes sense to to me:

The West and donors have argued that Zimbabwe is in a mess because it grabbed land from mainly white large-scale farmers, but statistical evidence shows that peasant farmers produced 70 percent of the maize crop before the land reform programme.

Made argued that most of the aid to smallholder farmers had been through multilateral and bilateral aid agreements signed by recipient governments and aid agencies. Through this aid, farmers had benefitted from large investments in dam construction, irrigation facilities, machinery and other equipment. They had also benefitted from the transfer of technology, management and organisational skills.

But he pointed out that the problem with donor aid was that the granting of loans depended on macro-economic policies of the recipient country such as a stable political and social environment. "The moment these conditions are perceived by the aid agencies to be lacking, the aid is either suspended or withdrawn, regardless of whether the programmes have been completed or not."

This is exactly what has happened in Zimbabwe. Donors have abandoned the country because of the perceived "breakdown of the rule of law".

But because of his conviction that smallholder farmers can make it, Made is focusing on local investment into farming. The government is encouraging contract farming which enables farmers to get inputs from companies that will buy their produce.

While Zimbabwe says it needs infrastructural assistance none of the donors is talking about this because this will enable resettled farmers to become self-sufficient. They will not need food aid. This is bad business for the donors because while providing food relief to "starving" Zimbabweans they are also supporting agriculture in their home countries.

...

Though commercial farmers and the Grain Marketing Board had said {in 1992} there was no longer any need for food aid because the country was going to have a good harvest - just like the present case- Zimbabwe was forced by the World Bank to import the maize because "the deal was too advanced" to be stopped.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

82. So basically you just don't care if Mugabe starves his political opponents

At least you have the honestly to openly support the practice of support starving families because they oppose Mugabe. Most people would have a pang of conscience about that. My hat is off to you.

:puke:

[On the Road]

90. This I Can Easily Believe"

"While Zimbabwe says it needs infrastructural assistance none of the donors is talking about this because this will enable resettled farmers to become self-sufficient. They will not need food aid. This is bad business for the donors because while providing food relief to "starving" Zimbabweans they are also supporting agriculture in their home countries."

The method of providing aid is generally self-serving, whether from governments or the private sector. Of course, the method of receiving aid is usually just as self-serving -- fungible cash is preferred to grain. There's got to be a better way.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. And that motivation is?

Mugabe could quite easily want to exaggerate the harvest. It implies land reform has worked, while allowing him to control the internal distribution of maize without a lot of NGOs wandering round trying to feed to people he wants to starve, and without a black market developing in maize (if there really is a shortage, who would want to sell on any maize they get, if they have no surplus)?

[AP]

24. The motivation is to protect the profits for the agro-businesses that

underwrite their budgets.

Mugabe could exaggerate the harvest. But if his point is to make it sound like land reform works, doesn't he lose that argument when people are starving because he turned away food aid?

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. What agro-businesses? (n/t)

[AP]

35. "A total of around 2,900 white-owned commercial farms...

were earmarked for redistribution in the latest round of land reform."

http://www.swans.com/library/art8/elich004.html#72

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. And you say they were bankrolling

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, do you? Any proof?

[AP]

38. Oh, lord no. But the agro-businesses in the west were making

money off buying cheap tobacco from them.

Amnesty was convinced by corporate interests not to show the the Chavez movie.

I'm not saying they're corrupt, but they definitely have to balance some interests that contradict each other.

By the way, I'd love to see who serves on the board of directors for AI.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. Amnesty International UK's financial report

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/images/ul/_/_site_www_amnesty_org_uk_Financial_Statement_AIUK_Section_2002_3.pdf
Board members:
Michelle Barons (resigned May 2003)
Tom Hedley
Peter Mills (appointed April 2002)
Karen Williams (appointed May 2002)
Matt Reynolds (appointed April 2002)
Linda Wilkinson
Christine Usher (retired April 2003)
Carol Budd
Liz Robertson (retired April 2003)
Marie Sayers
Peter Wright (resigned August 2002)
Tim Millar (appointed April 2002)
Ruth Valentine (co-opted April 2002)
Mike Parkinson (co-opted October 2002)
Gillian Cleverley (appointed April 2003)
Barbara Lodge (appointed April 2003)
Peter Seger (appointed April 2003)
Luckshan Abeysuriye (appointed April 2003)

Note that individual members are by far the largest souce of their income.

[AP]

47. I wanted to know what the directors do in their day jobs.

It looks like they get 22% of their budget from sources other than membership.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. Amnesty were convinced not the show the film

by threats to the safety of Amnesty workers in Venezuela:
http://www.chavezthefilm.com/html/statement.html

[AP]

46. They wouldn't do what's right because of threats to their operations?

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. Well, the film makers accept it as the explanation

"Unfortunately, this perfectly legitimate decision by AI to protect the safety of their workers has been distorted by some in order to claim that AI dropped our documentary because of its content. This is false.

It would seem that whoever is behind the campaign was determined at all costs to get AI to act in this way, and then to "spin" the story to suit their own purposes.

That somebody would have used the threat of violence as leverage to force AI to act this way we find deeply shocking and disturbing."

[AP]

52. Amnesty has an interesting relationship with corporations.

I've been googling, and what I've found is that only recently has AI cared much about coroporations. Amost all their criticisms are aimed at governments. This is interesting since most of the evil things governments do, they're doing for a corporation. I don't know how AI can do its job without being more critical of corporations.

In 1998 they admitted that it was unusual for them to criticize a specific corporation (and this was in the context of criticizing the less corporation-friendly Labor party, for accepting 15K from Enron). Amnesty has rarely criticized corporations, in the past, their occassional criticism has resulted in repercussions (it looks like the corporation puts pressure on a university sponsor to reduce funding).

I think the bottom line is, if you want to see what governments are doing wrong, go to Amnesty. If you want to know about corporate responsibility for some of the worst shit that's going on, Amnesty is pretty far behind the curve. In Zimbabwe, it's a battle of corporate profits and power, and Mugabe isn't afraid to throw the power of the state around to take corporate profits away and build up power in the people of Zimbabwe. Therefore, Amnesty is particularly ill-suited to giving you the 511, because they'll tell you all day how bad it is to close down the newspaper, but won't speak at all about what happens when you have yellow-journalism acting as a mouthpiece for the interests of foreign-capital.

Here are the links:

September 6, 1998
Amnesty refused to comment on Enron 's sponsorship of the Labour conference, but said: 'It is highly unusual for us to publish a report critical of a specific company. We would have to have extremely serious concerns.'
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,647818,00.html


22 April 2004
Human rights norms for businesses
Although the human rights norms for businesses, drafted by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, faced opposition from some countries, Amnesty International is very pleased to note that the issue of corporate responsibility for human rights is now firmly on the Commission's agenda. In a decision, adopted by consensus, the Commission requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to compile a report setting out the scope and legal status of existing initiatives and standards on business responsibilities with regard to human rights, and to consider the draft norms in this process. Amnesty International continues to be firmly supportive of the norms as a framework for informing the human rights responsibilities of business enterprises and welcomes the Commission's acknowledgement that standards on business responsibilities in relation to human rights need to be strengthened.

http://news.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGIOR410272004

This is one of the rare mentions of Amnesty commenting on corporate responsibility. I'm not sure how to read this statement, however.

Amnesty International is denied routine funding by Kent State Students' Council because it criticizes Coca-Co
http://www.newstrolls.com/news/dev/downes/column000204.htm

So there are ramifications for criticizing corps (although they do it rarely, as they admit -- wonder why?)

Demand Corporate Responsibility for Human Rights

The military, diplomatic and economic power of the United States is often exercised through the actions of multinational corporations with ties to the US government. How multinational corporations conduct business and how and whether the United States holds them accountable are matters of great consequence for human rights.
%C2%94http://amnestyusa.org/business/index.do%C2%94
http://www.amnestyusa.org/uspolicy/summary.do

This last link is interesting. This is from the amensty web site. They have a list of their issues with links to their position papers. The very LAST link is this one about corporate responsibility, and the link to the position paper (unlike all their other issues) is broken. Ie, there's no more detail about how they feel about corporate responsibility than this brief paragraph.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. It's a strange view you have

Amnesty campaign against human rights abuses (illegal detention, torture, the death penalty, deliberate starvation, etc.) which is done overwhelmingly by governments and armed opposition groups, so those are the groups they criticise. Sometimes, when corporations are involved, they criticise them too - and have done for several years. They are now pushing a corporate responsibility line too.

You seem to want to imply that this means they don't tell the truth about corporations. There's no evidence for that at all. Your theory that corporations are behind most of the human rights abuses of governments is controversial, mainly unprovable, and if Amnesty did subscribe to it, they'd spend their time digging in international finance, rather than using pressure to get the abuses to stop. "We were only obeying orders" isn't an acceptable excuse for governments, anyway, even if it's true. And they've never been a press watchdog - they believe a free press is needed for the monitoring of human rights. They're not there to decide which bits of the media are telling the best story.

You still don't seem to understand the criticism of Mugabe. He is not 'building up power in the people' - he's abusing them, witholding food, stopping criticism of his government, confiscating land to give to his family and allies, etc. The Zimbabwean people are his biggest victim.

Here is where the broken link should lead to: http://www.amnestyusa.org/business/index.do
It's just a typo in the HTML.

[AP]

65. They admit in that quote that they rarely complain about corporations.

I think if you're not looking at the corporations post 1972 (in particular) you're missing the big picture. On that page, the only corporation they prominently name is Exxon.

My argument is that if you look at Zimbabwe and say, which government is misbehaving here, it's clearly the Zimbabwean gov't. So, that's AI's strenght. Point out what governments are doing wrong.

But if you ask yourself what's going on in Zimbabwe, it's the same thing that's going on in Venezuela and Haiti, except in one case the criminals are big agriculture, in another it's big oil, and in the other it's big clothes.

I know that in VZ, amnesty criticizes the gov't, but doens't have much to say about the oligarchy. Why? Becaue they are designed to do that. They don't do that. They don't criticize capitalism. They criticize governments.

Look at their position: they say on their web page that they don't take money from governments because it would compromise their ability to criticize governments (yet they took about 2K quid from the National Lottery). They DON'T say they won't take money from corporations. Why? Because criticizing corporations doesn't seem to be on their radar screen.

I presume they don't turn a blind eye to the sweat shops in Haiti in the Philipines, but, honestly, the misdeeds of corporations is THE story of the 21st century, whether in Zimbabwe, VZ, Haiti, Nepal, Nigeria, Honduras, etc. Amnesty is not organized around the notion that human rights are threatened by capitalism run amok.

As for me not understanding Mugabe, I think it looks like land reform is working. Mugabe may be an ass, but the opposition ot Mugabe wants something far worse -- perpetual post-colonialism. The Zimbabwean people were victims of post-colonialism. I think people fear more that land reform is going to work than they fear any of that stuff you listed.

What do you think of Namibia now saying that it looks like accelarated land reform is the right way to go?

(By the way, it's funny that Amnesty has a broken link to that page. Hasn't anyone noticed?)

[theboss]

42. Not if getting people to starve is his GOAL

You are viewing this as if Mugabe is a leader out to do the best for his people. He is out to do the best for his supporters and destroy his opponents. And famine has been the most effective weapon in Africa for most of the last century.

If his supporters are well-fed, he can claim that land reform worked and that he kept out the foreigners. Meanwhile, his opponents are dead. It's a simple formula that has kept many an African Strongman in power.

(Though - typically - the really good strongmen also manage to steal the foreign aid money while they are at it).

[AP]

45. Why even have land reform, if that's his goal? Clearly, the old system was

worth a lot of money to big business. He could have simply threatened land reform and then taken kick backs for not actually doing it. Clearly, that would have made him much more money.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

71. Because the only people he wants to starve are his political opponents.

Duh, his goal isn't to starve people, his goal is maintaining power. Starving his political opponents is a means, not an end.

[AP]

78. I just wish they'd care more about how post-colonialism is designed to...

...starve people just enough so that they work for cheap and help western ag business make huge profits.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

85. I just happen to think withholding food from starving people is wrong.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this point.

[AP]

100. And I think the poverty and starvation caused by post-colonialism is wrong

[Feanorcurufinwe]

104. How about withholding food from the hungry if they are in the opposition?

How do you feel about that?

I'm in favor of feeding the hungry, regardless of their political persuasion. Apparently, you disagree.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/zimbabwe1003

[AP]

108. Do me a favor and cut and paste the specific allegation and the footnote.

Thanks.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

110. Is that supposed to be an answer? Do you think this is a joke?

I asked you what you disputed in HRW's report and you said you didn't dispute anything in it. I've asked you to comment on Mugabe's practice of withholding food from his political opponents but you've done nothing but praise his regime. For about the hundredth time, here is the link: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/zimbabwe1003

[AP]

118. I started reading it, and I just want to know which specific allegation...

...you want me to address.

Just quote it, and provide the footnote.

Thanks.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

121. Withholding food from political opponents.

My original question: What specifically are you disputing in this report?


which specific allegation

It's not about one isolated incident, it's about a brutal regime systematically starving its opponents.

I'm sure it would be easier for you to defend this practice if it were limited to a single specific allegation. It's not. It's widespread and systematic.

http://hrw.org/reports/2003/zimbabwe1003


Do you dispute anything in this report? What, specifically?

I just want to know which specific allegation you want me to address.

Anything at all - if you dispute anything in the report, I'd like to hear about it.

[AP]

130. A note about post 73 above:

>in post 73 doesn't say what F. is claiming it says. It's one
>thing to reward supporters with something of value. It's
>another to deny people of food to the point of starvation.
>
>That cite may prove preferential treatment was given to
>ZANU-PF members. It doesn't say that people were being starved
>to death. In fact there's a logical inconsitency between the
>charge that ZANU-PF is trying to starve people with food aid
>and the fact that the point of land reform is that it will
>increase subsistence maize farming that is increasing maize
>and sorghum production beyond levels of consumption. Even if
>they want to use food aid to reward supporters and punish MDC
>members, Zanu-PF is creating an economic situation which makes
tactic less effective -- they're increasing the availability of food.

>
>Another problem I have with that quote is that source is an
>MDC politician. The CIA and western governments finance the
>MDC. That money has to go somewhere. Also, the newspaper
>source in the Daily News. The Daily News is anti-land reform.
>
>That quote is similar to quoting Rush Limbaugh about the
>Bill Clinton and saying you heard it on Fox News.
>
>I'm completely open to acknowledging that the government is
>brutal, but I really can't take serioulsy things people from
>the MDC say about the government which were published in the
>Daily News.
>
>If HRW were on the ground, and found someone from ZANU-PF
>whose conscience got to them and admitted that they were
>instructed to deny food to MDC members whom they knew were
>starving, I'd believe it in a second. In fact, I'm inclined to
>believe that preferential treatment of a bag of grain was
>given to ZANU-PF members. But I doubt there was a strategy to
>starve MDC members, and that if a family were starving that
>their rural food aid programs weren't denying families food
>they needed. (Where's the family member who says "we couldn't
>get food anywhere because we are MDC"?).

[muriel_volestrangler]

131. Report from Danish Physicians for Human Rights

"The most serious allegations about maize, however, concern denial of supplementary food to children. In one area of Zimbabwe's Midlands, the visiting doctors found evidence of the deliberate starvation of under-fives from MDC families by local Zanu headmen.

In an account disguising the real names of people and places for fear of fresh reprisals, they found children denied maize at a 'central feeding point in YY school'. Three headmen in charge of supplies to the under-fives 'made it clear the food was not for MDC children, but only for Zanu children.'

A representative of the international donor of the food tried to sort out the problem, making it clear that it was for all the villagers. He believed this was agreed, and rode away on his motorcycle. Yet before he had gone 500 yards, 'the local Zanu-PF councillor announced: "Even if stone was to melt, MDC children will not get the food, because it is Zanu food".' "

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,722469,00.html

[AP]

132. Is there a Danish Physicians report or is the Guardian the only source?

And for reasons which the article in the OP should suggest, "representatives of international donors" especialliy with hearing that's so accute at 500 yards aren't exactly trustworthy sources.

I find the 500 yard line especially interesting. Obvioulsy, you want to claim that something happened which obviously wouldn't have happened in front of you, so you put yourself 500 yards away and say you heard it.

[AP]

133. I found this:

It's titled "Extracts from the report by the Danish group Physicians for Human Rights, which documents the politicisation of Zimbabwe's growing food crisis." But it's (c) The Guardian, and seems to repeat the same thing from post 73.

No first hand interviews, cites the Daily News and "first and second hand reports" that seem to come from a representative of the donor community. Were the Danish Physicians just quoting other people, or were there Danish physicians on the ground?

Those who do not carry a ZANU card are not allowed to purchase maize from GMB even if they have the money to do so, and known MDC supporters report having maize stolen from them if they are lucky enough to buy it. The Daily News, 18th March and 25th March, key informant interviews from 8 districts. See also section following. It is also documented, including in the cases in this report, that members of "MDC families" are not able to take part in "food for work" programmes.

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-25-2002-19136.asp

[muriel_volestrangler]

138. For fuck's sake, AP, grow up

You ask elsewhere what you have to do to get people to acknowledge that you don't support Mugabe? Try admitting that someone in the country other than ZANU-FP can tell the truth.

Yes, the doctors were in Zimbabwe.

http://www.phrusa.org/healthrights/word_docs/zimbabwe1.doc

All names of places, organisations, victims and perpetrators are known by us. To protect the communities from being victimised, names have been removed from the following reports. Interviews following are from informants in three districts in Zimbabwe.
...
To verify information about dysfunctional feeding schemes, we personally visited and did interviews in one community repeatedly referred to as problematic in this regard by our contact persons. In the first place we sought general information from key informants and then performed interviews with members of families referred to by key informants as affected by hunger.

"First hand testimony" means the writers of the report interviewed the person it happened to.

For your information, the captions to the photos that acoompany the report:
Photos 1 and 2: Case 1: deep burn wounds on soles of feet
Photo 3: Case 2: 4 month old baby allegedly beaten at 1 week
Photo 4: Case 5: left wrist with handcuff lesion
Photos 5 and 6: Case 9: right arm with lesions
Photo 7: Case 11: ‘candy stripe’ lesion from chain
Photo 8: Case 13: back with long sjambok lesions

[Feanorcurufinwe]

134. People have to actually starve to death before you will condemn this?

And you need to see ironclad proof that a death took place? Your attitude disgusts me, as does your dishonest debate style.


According to you, any facts that contradict your preconceived ideology are invalid, so you use innuendo to smear their sources.


It isn't about ideology, it's about basic human rights.

[AP]

12. Productivity and output are two different things.

Clearly, towards the end, the commercial farmers weren't making investments in the land. In their last year of operation, they definitely weren't trying to keeping up anything that would help the next owner.

In the first year with the new owners, it will obvioulsy be their least productive years.

According to the article I linked in the OP, the subsistence farmers were 70% as productive as the commercial farmers. That means in the first year, the land was 4-5% as productive as the commercial farmers. That makes sense for a transition year, especially during a drought.

Another thing to take into consideration is that the commercial farmers were mostly producing tobacco for export and not maze.

So, your numbers don't really say much about productivity. Although they do say something about maize production.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. And the original post said nothing about productivity

it said the new farmers produced 15 times as much as previously. That means production. That's why I posted the production figures for the country. That's why I said productivity didn't increase by 15 times - those were just your words.

I see you're starting to resort to 'obviously', 'definitely' and 'clearly'. Care to give some proof for your suppositions?

Large scale commercial farms cultivated about the same area for maize and tobacco: 60,000 Ha in 2000/01 for maize, and 67,100 Ha for tobacco.
http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/e9a83b12cbabbf6a85256ccc006b861e?OpenDocument

[AP]

27. Productivity is a measure of output per unit of land. Output is a measure

of total output.

Agrobusinesses controlled a lot of land, and only used a little of it to harvest crops like tobacco.

Now more people are using more land to produce crops like maize. Currently, they're actually less productive than than agro-business was in Zimbabwe. However, I've read that subsistence maize farming is the most productive form of farming there is, so I'm sure they'll continue to catch up as they get more experience and better infrastructure (and this article describes how infrastructure can help subsistence farming).

Even if you can't find any explicit statement of that difference in this article, you do admit there's a difference don't you?

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. Exactly - if production is up only 26%

then for productivity to be up 15 times, they'd have to be cultivating about 1/12 of the land they did last year. I don't believe that - and the article you linked to never claimed it, either. So the answer to your original question "has productivity increased 15 times?" is "no".

Subsistence maize farming may well be more efficient per acre than commercial. That can make it something to encourage. That does not mean that inducing a food shortage by screwing up the agricultural production of most of the country was a good idea. Redistribution of wealth may be a good goal; but an immediate confiscation of all large businesses and breaking them up is not the way to keep the economy going. A progressive tax is a better idea.

[AP]

34. "Made said NEW farmers had produced 15 times...

what they produced last season."

New farmers.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. Yes, so that says nothing about productivity

it's about the total production of 'new farmers' - whether that means two sets of farmers, one for each year, or the same set of farmers, with a variable amount of land, we can't tell.

[AP]

39. They're trying to get more and more "new" farmers.

And the fact that they're doing better year over year is what land reform promissed and what the anti-land reformers said wouldn't happen.

[theboss]

43. That is a meaningless stat

Before the land reform, there weren't any new farmers. If there was one "new" farmer prior to land reform and he produced one ear of corn and then there were 100 new farmers this year and they produced 15 ears of corn, you have fifteen times the prior production. Though you have lost 85 percent of your efficiency.

But this is like arguing the angels on the head of a pin since Mugabe is probably lying.

[AP]

48. It's not meaningless. Subsistence farming was 15 times more productive

in 2003 relative to 2002. That means land reform resulted in an increased production of maize and sorghum.

In one of the articles I listed it had the numbers for new farmers. I think it was 100K in the first year. In another article I saw another number for the total new farmers to date. I think it was about 200K.

And if you want to talk about lying, read the article in the OP. It has the Guardian publishing two different claims about Zimbabwe. In one it says that there was no famine (it criticized the UK gov't for overstating the case). And then they quoted Meldrum saying it had never been worse.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. There's no contradiction

The first article, from Jan 2004, is about the charities exaggerating the famine in Southern Africa in 2002-03. The second article, from May 2004, says the situation has got worse in the past year, ie since May 2003. The articles can fit together well.

And I thought you had agreed that "15 times more produced" does not mean "15 times more productive".

[AP]

53. If there are 2x more farmers, and they produced 15x more, they were

7.5x more productive. That's measuring by each farmer. Measure by land, it might be a little more or less. I think I read somewhere that subsistence farming itself is somewhere in the range of 1.25-2 times more productive than corporate farming, measured by energy input to calorie output, but that is totally from memory, and I wouldn't put money on those numbers. But, when all is said and done, and they're a few years into this, I suspect that they will find that Zimbabwe is producing more wealth and food for zimbabwe than they did at any time pre-92, and, I bet there will come a time when even export farming is more productive by every measure (volume and dollars) than anything that happened ever before.

Stealing land from people, impoverishing people, etc., simply does not promote the sort of competitive economic environment that makes people run on all cylinders.

As for your other point, I'd be surprised if Meldrum wasn't inclduing the 2003 harvest in his assessment of things getting worse, since they would have been living off of that through early 2004.

And whether 2004 is going to be worse than 2003 is the point of this article. If you believe the gov't estimates, things are getting better.

If you believe the other side, they aren't. Now, the other side also predicted that because of land reform, 6 million people would starve to death in 2003. That didn't happen.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. Southern Africa Crisis Appeal was launched in July 2002

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/press/releases/sadec230702.htm, ie after the 2002 harvest.

so Meldrum is talking about the situation a year after that crisis ended. 'The other side' predicted that Zimbabwe, and other countries, needed food aid. They did. They said the land grabs in Zimbabwe had made it worse than it would have been. I think they probably did, and Amnesty and HRW both say Mugabe used the food aid politically.

I agree with you that people aren't "running on all cylinders" in Zimbabwe at the moment. It would be a much better idea if Mugabe stopped impoverishing people.

And I'll leave you with a quote: "Productivity is a measure of output per unit of land". I'm sure you remember it.

[AP]

58. You really think that Zimbabwe would be better off with the vestiges of ..

...colonialism? With a few corporations benefitting immensely from the control of the best land and from an impoverished work force?

Why are you so skeptical that land reform could work?

Why are you so wrapped up in what that '15X' number means?

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. I'm skeptical that Mugabe has the interests of average Zimbabweans

at heart. I think he, and the heads of his party, are out for themselves - power (to avoid prosecution) and money.

Uncorrupt land reform, that proceeds at a pace that doesn't cause food and foreign currency shortages, would be a good idea.

[AP]

61. Muriel, think of the displacement that colonialism caused. It's absurd to

think that getting out of it isn't going to cause a little displacement too.

If you're going to cut the time in half that it will take to get Zimbabwe working from 100 years to 50 years, it's probably worth the sort of displacement experienced in Zimbabwe right now.

Furthermore, all things considered, the displacement experienced isn't all that bad. Compare it to what Nigeria is going through (or Zimbabwe even 10 years ago) which was required to MAINTAIN an inequitable situation.

Furthermore, I think one of many pieces of evidence that land reform is in fact working is that the coverage in the western press has been such obvious propaganda. They're so obviously worried that it will work and that it is working. And, in fact, look what's happening in Namibia. It's the same cycle. They're rational analyzing the economics, they want to embark on it, and the media is starting to get a little hysterical. (Humorously, they don't have a Mugabe to scapegoat in Namibia--maybe they'll create one.)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

76. How does that excuse starving people for political purposes?

http://hrw.org/reports/2003/zimbabwe1003/

No matter what happened in the past, I don't understand how you can use it to justify withholding food from some innocent child, just because he or she belongs to a family supporting the wrong political party.

[AP]

79. Post colonialism is starving more people.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

87. That doesn't explain why it is OK in your eyes for Mugabe to starve people

for political purposes.


We are talking about families. Innocent children.


Why are your really saying it is OK for them to have food withheld from children because their parents don't support Mugabe's political party?


Because of some other wrong inflicted on someone else, at some other time, you want withhold food from hungry children? I don't get it.

http://hrw.org/reports/2003/zimbabwe1003

[AP]

91. Land reform is actually feeding people who were starving.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

94. We're talking about withholding food from families cuz of their politics.

That's what you are defending.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/zimbabwe1003

[AP]

99. What do you call the structural poverty the MDC was trying to impose

on Zimbabwe.

The choice was clear: land reform, or continued structural poverty and starvation to protect the profits of European agrobusiness.

This is a hard call?

You do know what it takes to maintain neoliberalism, right?

Look at Nigeria if you need to see a contemporary example.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

105. I call that an attempt to sidetrack the discussion.

I favor feeding the hungry regardless of their political persuasion. If you want to disagree with me, you'll have to disagree with that principle, because that is the principle I am defending.

I'm sure all your ideals are wonderful -- the problem is that Mugabe is a brutal thug who doesn't care about any of those things.

[AP]

109. In this context, that was the choice.

Structural starvation due to post colonialism or a brutal thug who was suddenly so hated by neoliberals they funded an opposition party only because he wanted to transfer ownership of the land out of the hands of people who were using it to make Europeans rich and Zimbabweans starve.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

114. No that is your bullshit 'ends justify the means argument'

I just don't think the ends justify the means and I don't think two wrongs make a right.


Withholding food from people because of their political persuasion is wrong. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/zimbabwe1003

Beating and killing people because of their political persausion is wrong http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/07/international/africa/07zimb.html?ei=5062&en=49eecfa1130baca1&ex=1087272000&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=all&position=

Closing newspapers because of their political views is wrong http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=10592


And defending a dictator who does these things is wrong, whether it is done out of misguided idealism or not.

[AP]

117. If the MDC governed, what kind of repression do you think they'd need...

...to stop land reform? Psst. Look at Nigeria.

What do you think it will be like in Venezuela if the opposition wins? The last fascist government in Venezuelas slaughtered 2000 people who protested their neoliberal policies.

How about Bolivia? When people protested Bechtel's privatizaiton of the water utility, the government killed six people an injured hundreds, before they gave up and turned the government over to the people.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

124. I think it is wrong to use food for political purposes.

That is what is happening in Zimbabwe. That's why Mugabe wouldn't allow the UN crop assessment. http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engafr460142004

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/zimbabwe1003

[Liberal Classic]

50. Reform? Nationalization is more to the point

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/story.jsp?story=529558

Some how I think it is less about food, and more about power.

[AP]

54. It's definitely about power and whether agro-businesses have it and use

it to make Europeans wealthier, or whether Zimbabweans have it to make Zimbabweans wealthier.

Zimbabwe's number one resource is land. Up until know Europeans have controlled it, and therefore have had most of the power.

This is the same story as Venezuelans nationalizing the oil industry and then harnessing it to create wealth for Venezuelans. And since powerful international corporations are worried about losing power, it's generating the same sort of resistance.

[Liberal Classic]

154. Here's an article about power

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040615-121213-9266r.htm

The government of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has ordered more than $240 million worth of jet fighters and other military equipment from China, renewing concerns of a sub-Saharan arms race in a region with no external threats.

[Yupster]

56. I remember a story from a few months ago

It was about how Mrs Mugabe had finally picked out her farm and had kindly asked the white farm family to please leave.

I thought WTF?

What right does this rich powerful fat cat have to anyone's land? It sure would be nice if you could just walk up to another family's home and say, "I'll take this one. Leave please."

I don't see why she is any more deserving than anyone else.

Is it just the color of her skin?

[AP]

60. Yeah, that was a great story. The woman who wrote that article had ...

... apparently (IIRC) written a romantic novel set in the early 1900s about the plight of white British farmers and their struggles colonizing Zimbabwe.

I think JudiLyn found that piece of information.

I bet there were some BLACK writers in Zimbabwe who might have written novels about the Zimbabwean whom those colonizers murdered in their romantic struggles, who'd have a different perspective on that transaction between Mrs Mugabe and the white land owner.

There are two sides to every story.

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. Or maybe it was this one by Jon Jeter

in the International Herald Tribune/Washington Post.

http://www.iht.com/articles/76677.html

[Yupster]

64. Seems indefensible, but

people right here are defending it. I dont get it?

[AP]

67. This is the story of the 21st century. Do you believe in neoliberalism or

do you believe that people who work for a living should be able to live in countries which put building up their citizens' wealth before creating easy profits for large, multi-national corporations.

[Yupster]

86. Mrs Mugabe works for a living?

She's a millionaire jet setter who's married to the president for life. Tough work if you can get it.

[AP]

92. 200,000 are farming land that had been held by a few thousands.

And those 200,000 are feeding Zimbabweans. Before, the land was growing tobacco for Europeans.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

101. Does Mrs. Mugabe work for a living? Why can't you address the topic?

Was this farm being seized and given to this millionaire dictator's wife an example of 'land reform' ? Or simple corruption?

[AP]

111. Apprently she was once a secretary. But since the black middle class isn't

that big, a lot of those other 200,000 who are farming land now work for a living.

The author didn't bother to talk much about them. But when western reporters do, they usually use talk mostly about how they're too unsophisticated to be good farmers.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

125. Yeah, she was once an embryo as well. So what?

Was this farm being seized and given to this millionaire dictator's wife an example of 'land reform' ? Or simple corruption?

[AP]

66. Nope that's not the one.

But I did think this quote was interesting:


"The Rhodies are disappearing," said one of the Matthewses' neighbors, who did not want his name used because he feared retribution from the government. "Part of it is due to our own arrogance, I suppose. We should have cooperated more with the government and with the blacks who did not have as much. But I think we contributed something to this country."

I think what they contributed was structural poverty for Zimbabweans and a one-way flow of the wealth of that country to consumers and bank accounts in Europe.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

73. How about this one?

This is a pretty interesting quote:

A similar incident took place in Zengeza in Harare in October: 10 and 20 kg packages of mealie meal were sold to supporters who reportedly ‘were asked to submit their names to local ZANU PF branch leaders’ the week before. Proof of eligibility was a ZANU party card. The Kuwadzana by-election was held in March 2003. There, ZANU PF candidate, David Mutasa was widely accused of providing GMB maize to people with ZANU PF cards. Again the MDC complained: “people must not be manipulated by a few bags of election food because of their empty stomachs.” In an interview with Human Rights Watch, one MDC politician stated, “A mayoral election will be held in Gweru later and already maize is stored there. Mike Auret (an MDC politician) is giving up his parliamentary seat in Harare, and already they are selling (grain) via ZANU.”
http://hrw.org/reports/2003/zimbabwe1003/6.htm#_Toc53393944

[AP]

83. And you know how the MDC pols get paid? A check from the CIA.

The MDC party is financed by Europe.

That's the battle here. It's between a heavy handed Zimbabwean trying to take power from Europe and give it to Zimbabweans, and a Zimbabweans who see a pot of gold at the end of doing what Europe wants.

Nixon used to cut a fat Social Security check before the elections.

ZANU-PF gives out food. But, notice, there's no allegation that people are starving, and the result of land reform is that people will have more grain and won't rely on food aid.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

88. I find your sanctioning of this kind of evil practice disturbing,

to say the least.

[AP]

97. I find what the CIA and big business do to protect profits in places like

Haiti, Nepal, Venezuela and Africa for corporations disturbing, and I'm not afraid to take a side when both sides play dirty.

I think I have my priorities in order.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

106. Amazing - you don't even deny you are in favor of withholding food

for political purposes - instead you just try to justify it with some bogus 'ends justify the means argument'.

:puke:

[AP]

112. Show me the quote and the footnote you're referring to.

I can't acknowledge something I don't know for a fact.

But I'm willing to address it when I read it.

I read that report quickly, but I didn't find a specific reference.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

120. Your dishonest response makes me sick.

Just read THE WHOLE FUCKING REPORT. It's ugly and brutal, and it's what you are defending.


If you want to see an example of a specific citation that you already ignored, just see post 73. But that is just one example from a 51 page report, about brutality and repression that you seem to think doesn't matter, just because it agrees with your politics. :puke:

[muriel_volestrangler]

127. You mean Grace Mugabe has taken two farms?

How many does she need?

As a former secretary, do you think she's up-to-date on good farming methods? How does the ownership of farms by Mugabe's wife empower the people of Zimbabwe?

[ShaneGR]

68. After reading through this thread, I've decided....

That I'm depending on the argument of Mugabe to somehow condemn organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch because they are supposedly funded by huge Agrobusiness corporations intent on profits.

But I've seen no real proof of this charge. Only conjecture, unfortunately.

So I'll side with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, who are undoubtedly not funded by Agrobusiness.

[AP]

70. What you should really be thinking about is that from those groups,

you might get a pretty good assessment of what the ideal government should look like, but you're learning nothing about development economics and what's at stake.

And you should realize that it's really hard to find a good criticism of neoliberalism anywhere today.

That kind of criticism strikes much to close to the heart of what's drives everything that goes on in the world: corporate profits.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

74. Reporters Without Borders 2003 report on Zimbabwe

No doubt they are tools of agribusiness as well :eyes:

Zimbabwe - 2003 Annual Report


BTW, just yesterday, the Mugabe government closed another newspaper.

[AP]

81. Actually, alot of those newspapers are tools of big business, not...

...unlike Fox and CNN.

It's a tough situation. They want to change society quickly, and there's a ton of resistance. There's a lot of profit at stake for big business.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

89. You are arguing in favor of government censorship

and using food as a political weapon. Are you sure those are the principles you want to uphold?

[AP]

93. I criticize lying to protect the profits of big agrobusiness, which

is about 70% of what's going on in Zimbabwe. IIRC, Meldurm, the deported reporter in the Guardian story in the OP admitted that he lied in his stories about Zimbabwe.

It's an ugly battle over whether Zimbabwe will escape neoliberalism and post colonialism.

I hope that European business doesn't win that battle.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

96. In reality you are defending government censorship

and withholding food from families because they support the wrong political party.


I'm sure in your mind it is some shiny ideal, in reality it is ugly brutality and repression.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/zimbabwe1003

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engafr460142004

http://www.amnesty.org/results/is/eng?query=zimbabwe

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/07/international/africa/07zimb.html?ei=5062&en=49eecfa1130baca1&ex=1087272000&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=all&position=

[AP]

113. I'd censor Fox's lies for neoliberalism if I could. I know I can't,

so instead I just feel sick to my stomach that voters base their decisions on them.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

116. You've made your support for dictatorship -as long as it is leftist- clear

I guess if you were dictator of the US all our problems would be solved - isn't that what this country needs? A 'strong leader' who will rule by fiat for the benefit of the people? :eyes:

[AP]

119. The arc of human history is long, but bends towards justice. I just see

this one bending to the left, rather than the right.

Just like in Cuba.

I see Haiti bending to the right right now.

I'm not happy with where it's at now, but I thik it's pretty obvious where it's going.

And I'm not one for rewarding the right wing for putting up resistance and saying, look, they're resisting, they have no legitimacy.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

123. Rhetoric can't turn an ugly dictatorship into something beautiful.

Why don't you take your high sounding words, bring them to Zimbabwe, and try feeding them to the children going hungry because their parents don't support Mugabe.

[theboss]

128. You are no better than right-wingers who supporter Batista, Marcos, etc

As long as the dictator occasionally spouts some Marxist-Lenist bullshit, you seem to be accepting of any of their actions.

This is how we end up with the Cultural Revolution and 20 million dead peasants. Oh, well, they were a necessary sacrifice I suppose.

[AP]

129. So how do I support land reform and make it clear that I don't support...

...Mugabe.

That's how I feel, but I do want to be on record as predicting that land reform is going to work.

Back in 2002, I said that 6 million people would not starve from land reform in 2003, and I think I was right about that.

Now I want to be on record as saying that I believe that subsitence maize and sorghum farming will continue to increase, will become more productive than corporate farming was, and will build up the wealth of Zimbabweans.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

137. The noble 'land reform' that you speak of exists only in your mind.

The reality has very little to do with the noble ideal you envision in your fantasy.



Just to be clear, and remind everyone of my original point, this is a case of balancing the credibility of Robert Mugabe against

Amnesty International
Human Rights Watch
Reporters with Borders

along with virtually any other source of information not controlled by the Mugabe government. Gentle reader, ignore AP and I and do your own research and judge the credibility of the two sides of this discussion on your own.

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=africa&c=zimbab
http://www.amnesty.org/results/is/eng?query=zimbabwe
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=6459&Valider=OK
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/07/international/africa/07zimb.html?ei=5062&en=49eecfa1130baca1&ex=1087272000&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=all&position=

[Liberal Classic]

143. Very interesting

Maybe if we censored enough ideas, voters would have no alternative but to make the "right" decisions.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

145. Thank you

I was starting to feel awfully alone standing up for freedom of the press and the right to express yourself politically without fear that the food will be taken out of your child's mouth.

[Liberal Classic]

150. That something so fundamental

Could be so casually tossed aside raised a flag for me. Even if it was a flippant comment, I believe it illustrative.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

84. New York Times: New Wave of Repression Seen in Zimbabwe By-Election

Like scores of opposition politicians in Zimbabwe, David Mpala knew violence firsthand. As he campaigned for this region's seat in Parliament in 2000, 40 government supporters clubbed him so soundly that he was permanently scarred. In 2002, 18 thugs dragged him into the bush, beat him and stabbed him in the back.

Mr. Mpala, 48, died in February, and the government held an election last month to fill his seat. This time, government critics say, it was democracy that got mugged.

In what many here see as a dry run for Zimbabwe's national elections next March, President Robert G. Mugabe's party, the Zimbabwe African National Union-Popular Front, known as ZANU-PF, went to extraordinary lengths three weeks ago to guarantee a win in Lupane.

Independent election observers, journalists and opposition politicians reported a government campaign of beatings, arrests, bribery, fraud and intimidation in April and May, intended, they say, to keep supporters of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change away from the polls and to press citizens to vote for Mr. Mugabe's party.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/07/international/africa/07zimb.html?ei=5062&en=49eecfa1130baca1&ex=1087272000&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=all&position=

[AP]

95. Compare that to what Nigeria did during the elections to protect Shell.

And it's a joke to cite the NYT in any context where you'd expect them to be honest about neoliberalism.

The NYT endorsed the Venezuelan coup in an editorial. They had on staff Ahmed Chalabi's niece. They had to fire their VZ stringer because his connection to the opposition became public knowledge.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

98. Why? Do two wrongs make a right?

Look, I understand that the facts are not going to sway you, I'm just trying to make sure that your false and deceptive propaganda in support of this brutal dictator does not go unchallenged.

[AP]

115. The brutality required to protect neoliberalism is much worse than the...

..brutality that ensues trying to undo it, and often it's caused by resistance from the neoliberals to undoing their hegemony. Cuba is a perfect example. Venezuela is another. I know on which side of those issues I stand.

If the CIA weren't funding the MDC, ZANU-PF, bastards that they are, wouldn't have to fight them.

MDC is a creation of the west -- which HRW doesn't acknowledge in their report.

Criticizing Zimbabwe for being bastards for dealing with them is sort of like rewarding the west for creating them in the first place.

It's a bullshit situation, but I'm not going to reward the neoliberals for resisting change.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

122. No, brutality and repression are wrong no matter what the motives.

People's lives and rights are more important than your dishonest slogans, and off-topic strawmen, imho.

[Aussie_Hillbilly]

126. This is the most frightening post I have yet seen at DU.

AP, you are what the NeoCons were before they went right.

I am thankful you have no actual political power.

You're a fan of Mugabe, I see. What is your opinion of Saddam Hussein, Joesph Stalin and Pol Pot? They, too were corrupt dicators who starved their own people and enriched themselves. But they were "leftist".

[AP]

135. The article in the OP is from a site which doesn't seem to be...

...pro-Mugabe. The last paragraph is a criticism of Mugabe. But it raises important points about land reform and it doesn't make conclusions about whether the core piece of information is trute or false -- ie, whether Zimbabwe does or doesn't have enough food to feed people. But it raises important questions about what motivates the international donor community and what's motivating the press right now when the argue that Zimbabwe does need food aid when they say they don't.

I tried to replicated the tone of that article in my post. Ie, I tried to convey that this is open for debate, so let's discuss it.

It's amazing to me that raising these questions is frightening for anyone. It's amazing to me that you can't defend land reform without being accaused a supporter of tyranny (since the point of land reform is to end tyranny and create probably the ONLY economic situation that can lead to democracy).

[Feanorcurufinwe]

136. Amazed?

It's amazing to me that raising these questions is frightening for anyone.


No one finds the 'raising of questions' frightening. But support for brutality, dictatorship, withholding food aid for political purposes, government censorship -- a lot of people find that frightening, no matter how high sounding the motives.


And of course it is was really just disingenuous to pretend the other poster was frightened because you 'raised questions' when we all understood exactly what was meant.

[Independent_Minded]

140. might get flamed

for saying this, but most NGO's have their own agenda, typically they accentuate the ones that parallel the "host" populaces' needs. this is how they maintain their illusion of being benefactors.

Dont get me wrong, they certainly help people in desperate need, and they serve an admirable function as well. But only where the need and the agenda run concurrent.

Largely they are colonialism-lite in my view.

The "civilized" nations could make a single move that would cut poverty in half over the course of a single year, but they dont.

The vast majority of impoverished nations have a population that are considered "subsistence farmers" the reason they are subsistence farmers is because of the vast amount of subvention that the US and the EU give to its farm industry.

Unlike many of the political issues, there are no real ideological reasons to continue this practice. It runs counter to conservative ethos
of free trade and runs counter to the liberal ethos of poverty relief.

Stated simply, each side is lining their constituents pockets at the expense of the third world's very lives.

It's horseshit, and each party shares an equal level of guilt, as well as the EU's Brussel's Brigade.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

141. All humans have an agenda, that's like saying they have noses.

Or in other words, it is meaningless.

In the case of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, their agenda is to promote human rights in general. Reporters without Borders focuses more narrowly on freedom of the press.



To claim that these are somehow 'colonialism-lite' is completely unsupported by any facts whatsover. If you care to continue to press this false claim, you should be prepared to provide some type of citation or reference to your bizarre opinion which flies in the face of the established facts as well as common sense.



When presented with two contradictory versions of events, one must judge the credibility of those doing the reporting.

The simple question I pose to you is, whose credibility do you trust more: the Mugabe government or Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Reporters without Borders?

[Independent_Minded]

147. to answer your direct question

of course i trust AI over Mugabe, that's a bit simplistic though. Im talking about the larger issue of "relief with strings"

I also think it wise to point out that any organization populated by regular ole people, is not without its shortcomings.

Just like any poorly designed support system, you should use caution that the system itself doesnt perpetuate the problem it is intended to treat.

To make my point clear, in my opinion, a proper prosecution of the problem should be solution oriented and not treatment oriented.(think healthcare)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

151. This whole thread

is about AP's attempt to argue that Mugabe is more credible than AI. Read the initial post. It is an attempt to 'debunk' this AI press release: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engafr460142004


"Relief with strings" is a different issue, worthy of it's own discussion. AP simply raises this as a red herring to confuse the issue and in an attempt to conflate AI and HRW with NGO's that do provide 'relief with strings'. AI and HRW do not provide relief, period. They advocate for human rights.


Since the Mugabe government is refusing international food aid because of the 'string' that such aid should be distributed without regard to political persuasion, I suppose you could say it was tangentally related. IMHO there is nothing wrong with providing food aid to governments with strings attached - depending on the strings. But providing food to individuals only on the condition that they support a particular political party is something abhorrent, and I think AI and HRW are right to condemn it.

[AP]

157. That's not even what the OP is about.

This thread is about whether land reform is working, and the original article cited (which is actually anti-mugabe) sets out an intersting set of facts that should make people think more to this issue than what is apparent from the surface.

If you don't want to have that argument, it's easy enough to demonize Mugabe (he probably is a demon), and it's easy enough to treat this as an either-or situation (either Amnesty is lying or Zimbabwe is lying).

I think anyone who reads the article in the OP will realize there's more to this than that, and just like the article in the OP, you don't have to argue that Mugabe's a good guy to understand that Zimbabw is just one more neoliberal battleground.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

158. Nice try. But just as disingenuous as everything else you've written here

whether land reform is working ?


Yes, you are advancing the same propaganda as the Mugabe government -- that 'land reform' is 'working', therefore, no food aid is needed.


However, all independent reports indicate that this is a lie from the Mugabe government.
Therefore it is a choice between believing Mugabe, or believing those independent reports.

Zimbabwe: Food must not be used as a political tool

Amnesty International today expressed grave concern at the Zimbabwe government's moves to end international food aid distribution, despite independent assessments which predict that millions of Zimbabweans will need food aid in the coming 12 months.

"If independent assessments are correct, the risk is that food will be used for political ends and food supplies will go first and only to supporters of the ruling party", the organization warned.

The government has told international donors that it will not need food aid this year. On 7 May the government stopped a UN Crop and Food Supply Assessment Mission from evaluating the current harvest. This was followed by statements in the state-controlled Herald newspaper, attributed to the Minister for Agriculture, claiming that Zimbabwe has produced more grain than it needs this year.

However, earlier predictions by food security monitors and the United Nations, and a crop survey carried out in March by independent consultants for the German-based Friedrich Ebert Foundation, all suggest that the 2004 harvest will fall far short of national requirements.

Amnesty International visited Zimbabwe in February 2004, at which time numerous sources within the agricultural sector confirmed that food production would fall far short of needs in 2004/5.

Both rural and urban populations will be affected. With unemployment currently at approximately 70% and inflation hovering around 600% it is increasingly difficult for many Zimbabweans to access adequate food in the marketplace.

Amnesty International is gravely concerned that the present actions of the government of Zimbabwe may be an attempt to control food supplies ahead of parliamentary elections scheduled for March 2005.


If the true crop production figures for 2004 are as low as many reliable sources expect then, in the absence of international food aid, a significant proportion of Zimbabwe's population may, later in 2004 and into 2005, find itself reliant on grain controlled by the state-controlled Grain Marketing Board (GMB).

"Political manipulation of food, particularly state-controlled GMB grain, by officials and supporters of the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) has been widely reported over the past two years. ZANU-PF has repeatedly used food as an electioneering tool. Viewed against a history of political manipulation of food the government's current actions are a cause for grave concern," Amnesty International said.

It is unclear how much grain the GMB has in reserve, as there is no independent assessment of GMB stocks. However, it is unlikely to be sufficient to meet the cereal gap of 500-800,000 metric tonnes which independent observers predict for the coming year.

Amnesty International reminds the Zimbabwe government that, as a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICSECR), it has an obligation to uphold the right of all Zimbabweans to food. The UN committee responsible for monitoring the Convention has stated that governments must use all the resources at their disposal, including those available through international assistance. Discrimination in access to food on any grounds, including political affiliation, is a violation of the ICSECR. The committee has also stated that food should not be used as an instrument of political pressure.

Amnesty International further reminds the government of Zimbabwe that all human rights are indivisible and interrelated. Violations of the right to food may impinge on many other rights, including the right to life itself.

Amnesty is calling on the Zimbabwe authorities to respect the right of all Zimbabweans to food and to immediately allow the UN to conduct a crop assessment mission, with a view to ensuring that any possible food aid needs are adequately addressed. Amnesty International further calls on the government of Zimbabwe to take immediate steps to make the operations of the GMB transparent, and open to independent monitoring.

(press release not subject to copyright) http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engafr460142004

[muriel_volestrangler]

142. NGOs typically want US/EU subsidies got rid of

eg Oxfam:
http://www.oxfam.org/eng/pr030902_cancun_sand.htm
"Oxfam’s report insists that rich members of the WTO must stop paying high levels of subsidies to their farmers that lead to surplus produce being dumped onto poorer fragile markets. This export dumping is destroying the livelihoods of millions of poor farmers; ending it is justly a priority for developing country governments. Rich countries must also stop using the WTO to force poor countries to rapidly open their markets, and recognize the need for poor countries to protect vulnerable industries in the face of unfair competition, the report says."

They also support debt relief:
http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/jubilee2000/policy_papers/oxfampov.html
"Well targeted debt relief could make a real difference to the achievement of these goals by releasing new resources for human development. At the same time it would help to reduce dependence on aid."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

144. You're answering a strawman argument anyway.

There is an attempt on the other side of this debate to impugn the credibility of Amnesty Intl, HRW and Reporters without Borders by conflating them with unnamed NGO's who can be smeared through innuendo because they remain nameless -- and then just using the blanket term 'NGO' to describe Amnesty Intl, HRW and Reporters without Borders -- although no actual criticism of these organizations has taken place.

It's dishonest and it's illustrative of the dangers of believing the ends justify the means. Once you've taken that position, you are capable of any evil you can 'justify'.

[noiretextatique]

146. not just their own agenda's, but also steeped in the culture

of the "civilized" nations, which tends to color their views. liberals aren't immune to paternalistic, colonialist and racist attitudes about the third world. just ask me about my tenure at an oh-so progressive publication if you want details.

[Independent_Minded]

148. hehe, im a bit new here

but that's the first post you've made i've whole heartedly agreed with. :)

thanks for illuminating some of my point.

[noiretextatique]

149. thank you for your post

perhaps we will agree more often :hi:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

152. Just what culture is it that sanctions using food for political purposes?

Perhaps it is a cultural thing with me that I don't like to see innocent children denied food because of their parents political beliefs.

So I'm up for learning something new. In what culture would that practice be approved of and would you like to see that culture spread and thrive in the world?

[noiretextatique]

153. OUR CULTURE

we call it "embargo." we call it "poverty" and "homelessness" too.
it is a terrible practice, but "we" do tolerate and condone it.

[Judi Lynn]

155. You're right on that score, absolutely.

Our country's a veteran embargo enforcer, starting a long time ago.

Great little thought for the ages, passed on by John C. Breckenridge, Undersecretary of War, in 1897:

We must impose a harsh blockade so that hunger and its constant companion, disease, undermine the peaceful population and decimate the Cuban army.

Our prime acheivement in embargoes has to be Cuba, which has been condemned world-wide:

The Impact Of The U.S. Embargo
On The Health And Nutrition In Cuba"
-An Executive Summary-
American Association for World Health Report
Summary of Findings
March 1997

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After a year-long investigation, the American Association for World Health has determined that the U.S. embargo of Cuba has dramatically harmed the health and nutrition of large numbers of ordinary Cuban citizens. As documented by the attached report, it is our expert medical opinion that the U.S. embargo has caused a significant rise in suffering-and even deaths-in Cuba. For several decades the U.S. embargo has imposed significant financial burdens on the Cuban health care system. But since 1992 the number of unmet medical needs patients going without essential drugs or doctors performing medical procedures without adequate equipment-has sharply accelerated. This trend is directly linked to the fact that in 1992 the U.S. trade embargo-one of the most stringent embargoes of its kind, prohibiting the sale of food and sharply restricting the sale of medicines and medical equipment-was further tightened by the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act.

A humanitarian catastrophe has been averted only because the Cuban government has maintained a high level of budgetary support for a health care system designed to deliver primary and preventive health care to all of its citizens. Cuba still has an infant mortality rate half that of the city of Washington, D.C.. Even so, the U.S. embargo of food and the de facto embargo on medical supplies has wreaked havoc with the island's model primary health care system. The crisis has been compounded by the country's generally weak economic resources and by the loss of trade with the Soviet bloc.

Recently four factors have dangerously exacerbated the human effects of this 37-year-old trade embargo. All four factors stem from little-understood provisions of the U.S. Congress' 1992 Cuban Democracy Act (CDA):
(snip) (important information follows)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Finally, the AAWH wishes to emphasize the stringent nature of the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba. Few other embargoes in recent history - including those targeting Iran, Libya, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, Chile or Iraq - have included an outright ban on the sale of food. Few other embargoes have so restricted medical commerce as to deny the availability of life-saving medicines to ordinary citizens. Such an embargo appears to violate the most basic international charters and conventions governing human rights, including the United Nations charter, the charter of the Organization of American States, and the articles of the Geneva Convention governing the treatment of civilians during wartime.

American Association for World Health
1825 K Street, NW, Suite 1208
Washington, DC 20006
Tel. [phone] / FAX [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

http://www.cubasolidarity.net/aawh.html

[Feanorcurufinwe]

156. BULLSHIT

No, western culture does not sanction using food for political purposes.


I feel outrage at the idea of using food for political purposes.


I am willing however, if you are not outraged by the practice of using food for political purposes, to accept the proposition that you and I do not share the same culture.


BTW, folks, 'a culture' is not a nation, nor is it a political entity, nor is it a government. Nations and governments can and often do pursue policies that are contrary to the cultural sensibilities of their people.

[gottaB]

159. The report for Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, by Zimconsult

For summary and link to pdf

http://www.kubatana.net/html/archive/foodse/040430fes.asp?sector=FOODSE


For doc

http://www.zwnews.com/issuefull.cfm?ArticleID=9201


Don't know Zimconsult. It appears to belong to a Dr. Peter Brodie Robinson, or Peter B. Robinson, although his name does not appear on this report.

The Friedrich Ebert Foundation is Social Democratic.