- Britain should have compensated all landowners at Independence and not just given funds to the Zimbabwe Government for "rural reform". (Large amounts of money, substantial in those days, were repatriated to Britain before the second world war which were proceeds of the sale of land - Courtesy of Zimbabwe National Archives and the History Society of Zimbabwe).
It was, at the time, British territory and, after the Second World War, due to the high unemployment situation in Britain, Britons were actively encouraged by the then British Government to settle here, it is thus, that there were many veterans of the Second World War resident here.
Be as it may Smith became racist, the reason for UDI was 'security of tenure of land' and the fact that the then British government refused to discuss same. The then British Government effectively took British land that they had sold and gave it to another government and Smith feared that the land would be taken without compensation as had occurred in Zambia - "The birth of the Land Issue".
Ironically, both whites and blacks had the same complaint, land was the stumbling block, and in a sense were and are on the same side. Had they joined hands and worked together perhaps they could have pressured Britain and averted the 15 years of UDI.
Legally, all compensation should have gone through the "Lands Tribunal" in Britain at Independence and it was insufficient for Lord Carrington to state " Britain takes full responsibility" (extract from the minutes of the Lancaster House meeting).
It should be remembered that there was no official Zimbabwe Government representative at the Lancaster House meetings because a government was yet to be elected and therefore the question of how much compensation or who should be paid could not be formally agreed.(The Smith Government was unrecognised and there was no official interim government as is the case in Iraq)
Whilst that Agreement may be binding on Britain as an undertaking by same in Zimbabwe Law, it cannot be binding on Zimbabwe, a country that didnt exist at the time. Jack Straw, opening the debate on Zimbwbwe, refers to the agreement as binding "because President Mugabe was there". Jack Straw insists that President Mugabe should have imposed the agreement on the Zimbabwe parliament and Zimbabwe, even after the 10 year security of tenure of land agreement had expired, thus advocating "dictatorship" in the name of "democracy". The Lancaster House Agreement, the basis we are told of Zimbabwes Constitution, was in fact imposed on Zimbabwe by Britain.
Note:- Be as it may there was no official representation from the Zimbabwe Government or the land owners in Zimbabwe, it is common cause that the issue of compensation and the land was discussed and that Britain was prepared to address same with the kind assistance of other donors, an undertaking that is binding in terms of Zimbabwe Law, the same Law imposed on Zimbabwe.
- Britain stopped land reform funding. Whilst Britain stopped funding land reform to the Zimbabwe Government for the reason that they didn't like the way it was spent. I know of no law, which governs the way one spends compensation and, in any event, landowners should have been paid directly in terms of British Law.
Note: - It would appear the reason Britain called compensation, money for land reform, was out of the fear that other former colonies would "jump on the band wagon". It is a fact that certain British individuals were compensated directly at independence in Kenya.
- The Blair Government failed to address the issue of compensation prior to elections in Zimbabwe thus leaving Mugabe and Zanu PF facing an election where nothing was happening with land reform, the reason they fought for Independence, their main former campaign promise, due to lack of payment and breach of agreement by Britain.
Note: MDC, the opposition party, also supports land reform.
It was thus that Zanu PF supporters (the ruling political party) took matters into their own hands and lawlessness prevailed resulting in the worst racial turmoil ever known in Zimbabwe.
After, the negligence and blunders of the then British Government at the time of UDI and again at Independence over the Land Issue this has to be the single most piece of under-estimation of the consequences of inaction of any British Government. It is simply not enough to attempt to reinstate funding after the damage is done.
- Blair government effectively disowned their British Nationals for the first time in living British History in statements made before the Select Committee on Zimbabwe by Peter Hain: -
"(Mr Hain) We think there is up to 20,000 people in Zimbabwe who may qualify. We cannot be exactly sure. This is an issue that goes back generations. This enables me to briefly make this point, these are people who want to stay in Zimbabwe, they want to continue to farm the land, to contribute to the country. It is their country, Britain is not their country. I think it is important we keep a focus on that. All of our diplomacy and all of the, I hope, pronouncements and statements of this Committee ultimately will bear in mind that it is in the interests of those people to stay in Zimbabwe and contribute to its future."
What an interesting epitaph to those British nationals in Zimbabwe who were injured, raped or killed holding up the British flag due to the negligent acts and/ or inflammatory rhetoric of their British government.
Shamefully, while labelling the white minority racist, the farmers brutal (without a shred of evidence and, it is beyond belief that if that were the case that the Zimbabwe Government would fail to state same) and stating that he wants to avoid inflammatory rhetoric, he makes the further comment on British Nationals by way of apparent excuse for doing little about our plight: -
(extracted from "Peter Hains examination before the Select Committee" uncorrected version prior to publishing 18/4/2000)
"(Mr Hain) I would not want to speculate or guess on what the total is. I am trying to be as helpful as I can be. Not all of the 14,500 registered British nationals that I referred to are white."
Seemingly we were dumped because Hain didn't want any non-white British Nationals in Britain, I mean what difference should it make when speaking about distressed British Nationals.
The writer a British National, born in Britain without duel nationality, took exception to the above statement where all British Nationals in Zimbabwe had become targets due to his personal lack of action.
Imagine we saw British Naval vessels and a full military operation to take British Nationals out of a West African country with little injury to British Nationals and by contrast, we are told we have effectively lost our British Citizenship and must face the consequences on our own because our British Government doesn't want to pay its bills and because, Blair is not on speaking terms with President Mugabe.
- Blair government failed to pay landowners direct compensation or notify them that funding was available in spite of stating in the house that funds were aside for that purpose. (In answer to the Honourable Member for Burnley, Mr Peter Pike, the reply by the Foreign Secretary on the 11/4/2000 in the House). For the first time the British government had now agreed publicly that there would be two funds, one for rural reform and one to support compensation and, that compensation be fair and not at 'knock down prices'.
However, in Peter Hains examination before the select committee, whilst referring to above, he states that it has to be on the basis of a willing seller. - Loosely interpreted, that means if you are thrown off your property because a former British Government gave your land away, you don't get paid compensation. In those circumstances it was cheaper for the Blair Government to let all the farmers get thrown off their land and do nothing to stop it, which is, precisely, what happened.
So the statement made to the select committee that Britain "stands ready" to pay, effectively meant nothing. Which was, presumably, why under examination he agreed no precise sum of British taxpayers money had even been set aside - they didn't need any!
Its likely the Blair government will state to the next Zimbabwe government "You've got your land so you don't need compensation." Those farmers that have received some payment from the Zimbabwe Government have received less than the value suggested in the House in a devaluing currency for the improvements without, land, loss of business/ livelihood and pain and suffering being taken into account.
Why won't the Blair Government pay the farmers direct compensation? What reasons could they possibly have for not doing it when they supposedly have set aside a fund to support compensation? How much trauma and violence could have been avoided and how many lives saved? It obviously seemed cheaper for Blair to do it the other way and let British Nationals, amongst many others, suffer?
What would happen in UK if your property was compulsory purchased, given to another and you were told that you would only receive compensation if you weren't evicted? The land was, at the time of sale or grant, whichever the case, British Land in British territory. Conversely, those who aren't evicted because the Zimbabwe Government doesn't want their land don't get compensation and are financial prisoners because it is, according to Peter Hain "in their best interests to remain" .
It is doubtful whether any British or International Court would consider the Blair Governments policy "fair" or lawful.
Where people were injured as a result, or died, would not, could not, this be criminal negligence at best and a kind of culpable homicide at worst.
- The Blair government and International media have only addressed the farming aspect of the Land Issue instead of all Land sold by Britain "The Land Issue". Factually any agreement between CFU (The farming community), Zimbabwe Government and British Government concerning land is void because there is a need for all landowners (Commercial, Industrial and Domestic) to be represented. The Blair governments negligence has caused the closure of many Commercial and Industrial organisations and companies.
