Zimbabwe, BBC and illegitimate White Control
Posted: Tuesday, November 12, 2002
From: AmonHotep: Dialogue
Printer friendly version
ABSTRACT: BBC Zimbabwe 'diverts food aid'
"Mr Mugabe denies that the food crisis is a result of his land reform programme and blames it on a drought, which has affected much of the region.
But white farmers who are prevented from working their land say that their dams are full of water.
Just a few hundred white farmers remain on their land, out of some 4,000 two years ago.
Our correspondent says that the land has gone to Zanu-PF officials, who often have no farming background, instead of the landless black people who were supposed to benefit.
In Maputo, Zimbabwean Foreign Minister Stan Mudenge repeated his government's argument that former colonial power Britain should compensate the white farmers who have lost their land.
As a result of British colonial rule, whites owned much of Zimbabwe's best farmland.
Britain has refused to pay unless there is transparency in the redistribution of land."
The BBC is currently funded through the UK Licence Fee payment to the tune of £2.4bn. The Licence fee from which BBC is paid is an annual fee that allows people to own and use a television in the UK. If you have any equipment capable of receiving a television signal and receive any programmes, including satellite, you must have a licence. [More from BBC]
Abstract: 'BBC gets anything it wants,' claims Murdoch
by Dan Milmo, guardian.co.uk
Friday November 8, 2002
Rupert Murdoch today launched a scathing attack on the government, accusing it of being too cosy with the BBC and of fostering anti-competitive behaviour on the part of the corporation.
He said the BBC, funded by an annual licence fee payment of £2.4bn, had been protected by successive Conservative and Labour governments. [full article]
ABSTRACT: Carrington backs Zimbabwe farmers
By Andrew Unsworth: London. Sunday Oct 20 2002
"Lord Carrington, who chaired the Lancaster House conference that led to the end of white minority rule in Zimbabwe, has joined in the growing controversy over Prime Minister Tony Blair's government's reluctance to support white farmers who have been evicted from land in Zimbabwe.
In a question tabled in the House of Lords this week, Carrington asked whether the British government was prepared to use money earmarked for land reform more than 20 years ago to help farmers now left destitute.
Speaking to the Sunday Times, he said that funds were available for land redistribution in 1979.
"What we intended to do at the Lancaster House negotiations and subsequently was to help Zimbabwean farmers on a willing buyer-willing seller basis, and to help the Zimbabwean government . . . to make more farms available to black farmers," he said this week. "It all fell down because the Zimbabwean government gave farms to their own cronies and the British government of the day decided the money could not be used on that basis."
He said the government's response to this had been to "waffle" . No specific sum was pledged originally, but £44-million (about R750-million) had been given to Zimbabwe up to 2000. [full article]
South Africa fears terror threat of white extremists
Tuesday, 12 November 2002
From Michael Dynes in Johannesburg
More than 80 extreme right-wing groups are thought to be operating in South Africa. They represent a mixture of military underground cells, such as Boeremag, and an assortment of religious doomsday cults, such as Israel Vision and Daughter of Zion. Farmers, blue-collar workers, professionals, academics and retired military and police officers fill their ranks and they have cultivated the conviction that they are being "oppressed" by South Africa's black majority rule. [full article here or here]
Western Media houses (BBC) are rather slow to highlight the terrorist threats from White extremist groups in South Africa. These Groups represent the general thinking of most Whites who still suffer from superiority complexes and feel they have a divine right to rule all people.
This attitude is at the root of all other forms of Terrorism.
Britain wanted to continue their dictatorship. They wanted to dictate to the Zimbabwe Government who should own the land so that they (Britain) could still maintain control.
The colour of the farmers would have changed but the 'ownership' would have remained the same. White farmers would have been replaced with Black farmers who were willing to be puppets of the British government.
BBC is not impartial in this whole affair.
Other US and UK media houses are being guided by some legitimate concerns muddled with their own prejudices. Their coverage generally lacks the historical perspective coupled with the agreements signed when Zimbabwe won its independence. There are many things wrong with the Resettlement Programme but I would only focus on aspects that pertain to the dishonest media reports.
No one can be against the Zimbabwe government's agents for this headline in their newspapers, "BBC gets more money to step up anti-Zim crusade".
During BBC's latest propaganda report on Television they were referring to the Resettlement Programme as "THE WHITE MAN'S LAND BEING RESETTLED".
1) After how many years does stolen property become the property of the thief?
2) Do inheritors of stolen property become the legitimate owners of the property by virtue of the inheritance?
Land was at the core of Zimbabwe's liberation struggle
British and American negotiators granted independence with the imposition of certain conditions destined to keep the colonial masters in control. One provision stipulated that for a period of 10 years, land ownership in Zimbabwe could only be transferred on a "willing seller, willing buyer" basis. This amounted to further rewarding people who had already profited from ill-gotten gains.
This also retarded the transformation process by ten years during which the British and American negotiators hoped they would have been able to 'install' a government favorable to their indirect control.
In 1992 the Land Acquisition Act was passed notwithstanding the pressures from Britain and the US.
Zimbabwe's government felt it could no longer continue haggling over land reform, and nearing the end of the 1990's, they started moving away from the Economic Structural Adjustment Program (ESAP), which was not adequately addressing the issues of land reform. In October 2001 Mugabe abandoned the ESAP.
The claim that Mugabe did nothing for 20 years is usually made without reference to the Independence agreement that placed restraints on what Mugabe and his government could have done for the first 10 years. It also neglects the years of trying to get the European powers to honor their agreement.
Meanwhile the Western media kept harping about the harm the economy of Zimbabwe would endure because of the land reform. They continually mention that the Zimbabweans who are getting the confiscated agricultural lands do not know about commercial farming. BBC reported that these African farmers do not have seeds and fertilizers.
If these Africans cannot acquire fertilizers and seeds it is only because of trade restrictions or sellers being discouraged from supplying them.
If in their opinion these Africans cannot grow their own food, then they should explain how humans survived in Africa for thousands of years before Europeans. This fraudulent racist position also highlights the fact that for all the years they occupied the land they were not interested in teaching those Africans whom they profited from. They were quite contented to keep them as cheap farm labour.
European superiority complexes are responsible for these statements and conscious people should treat with them accordingly. Apparently they have no problem delivering food aid which keeps the population enslaved, but allowing people to help themselves is a problem.
The unspoken suggestion is that only Whites can successfully run businesses.
MUGABE IS RIGHT!!!
Transparency for Britain means handing the land over to 'mentally enslaved Africans' who would easily 'give' the land to colonial Whites.
The land MUST go to those Africans who support his Land Reform Programme to ensure the land is not given or resold cheaply to the former White occupiers.
BRITAIN IS RUDE!!!
Britain has to pay and must do so through the legitimate government in Zimbabwe. Britain must stop trying to undermine the democratic process in that country for the benefit of a few Whites.
Where on earth could people guilty of a crime retain the right to determine when and to whom they must pay compensation?
BRITAIN wants to remain in control of African lands and her former colonies through remote control. (Through supporting 'mentally enslaved Africans' who pursue British interest first.)
Who gets land or reclaimed farms is a matter for the internal politics of Zimbabwe and is not up to the dictates of Britain. They had already decided to pay and should have continued through the legitimate government in Zimbabwe.
The Christianized, colonized Blacks they keep featuring on BBC (e.g. Zimbabwe Catholic bishop) is destined to give the impression that most Africans are against the return of their lands. In small print below his picture they put, "Archbishop Ncube is a long-time Mugabe critic". Of course he is; he is 'Christianized', colonized and walks around with his White 'Virgin' Mary and White Jesus as was seen in the background when he was leveling his criticisms of Mugabe on BBC's 24hr News Television feature.
Food Aid is being used as a tool to interfere in the political process in Zimbabwe. Many of these agencies get their funding from Europe and America and they are carrying out the dirty works of those who fund them.
Food Aid is also being used to introduce genetically modified seeds into Africa thus corrupting their own food supply. This will make these people dependant on US corporations for seeds. This is one of the ways the West intends to control all people through controlling seeds and by extension food supplies.
Zimbabwe, Mugabe and White farmers
Dr. Chika A. Onyeani, Aug. 22, 02, The African Sun Times
"It seems the height of hypocrisy that the world should be focused on the plight and non-payment of compensation to white farmers, without as much as a mention of the savagery with which the Black African owners were massacred and their lands seized without compensation. The word Bulawayo, the second largest city in Zimbabwe, is an Ndebele word for "slaughter," and it refers to the savagery of the British settlers, including the infamous Cecil Rhodes who had crushed the attempt by the indigenes to fight back, leading King Lobengula to swallow poison rather than be captured. Or should we forget the savagery of the bestial Sir Frederick Carrington, who had publicly advocated that the entire Ndebele race should be forcefully removed or be exterminated.
Or that of profligate Ian Smith, who seized the government in 1965 and unilaterally declared the then Southern Rhodesia independent, when he refused to apologize for the atrocities he committed while he held office. In fact, he even boasted that he had no regrets about the estimated 30,000 Zimbabweans killed during his rule. Said Smith, "the more we killed, the happier we were." [full article]
¤ British Terrorist Assualt on Zimbabwe
¤ Land Issue - Fact Sheet
¤ Zimbabwe Under Siege
¤ 2000 Parliamentary elections: Electorate want change
¤ Mugabe: Zimbabwe will not be a colony again
¤ Stop imperialist intervention in Zimbabwe
Message Board Comments
From: THANDO S
19 October 2002, at 12:18 p.m.
I am writing in relation to your article on Zimbabwe coverage by the British media. As a black Zimbabwean I have found your article to be incorrect to say the least.
Unfair economic practises have indeed contributed to Africa's woes as has the drought. However in Zimbabwe the violence and intimidation which has been used to seize the farms has greatly increased the enormity of the disaster. People who do not support Mugabe whether they belong to the opposition or not have been victimised and the law disregarded in a so called 'democratic and free' country.
'Returning the land to its rightful owners',as the Zimbabwean government puts it is just a way of getting people like you to support them.As a matter of fact seized farms are being given to Mugabe's friends on a permanent bases. The farm labourers are being driven off the land and whether they originated from Mozambique or Malawi they are Zimbabwean and their treatment is unconstitutional. At least the white farmers not only paid them, but provided healthcare, education and housing which by Zimbabwean standards is a 'luxury'. The point of colonial policy is laughable because Zimbabweans fought and died for a free and equal society not just for blacks but for whites as well and whites such as Sir Garfield Todd the former Rhodesian Prime Minister who was imprisoned by the Smith regime in the '70's for supporting the black cause, were also involved in the struggle for independence.
After independence Zimbabwe has been destroyed by its leadership which does not want to step down but would rather kill its own people to preserve its power.
Inasmuch as the British media is biased to an extent in its coverage of Zimbabwe, you should research your facts before supporting Mugabe's draconian tactics.
20 October 2002, at 1:19 a.m.
Anyone can claim to be White or Black on the Internet. Claiming to be Black does not validate your comments. One would think if you had a view that was legitimate then it would not have been necessary to state if you were White or Black as the truth can stand without the colour weight.
Let us hope Mugabe remains smart enough to continue returning the lands to those people who support and lobbied for its return.
Giving farms to his opponents is equal to handing it back to the White farmers. (Mental enslavement)
Yes, it took 20 years and there is much that is wrong with Mugabe and the process, but the UK also took 20 years too long while offering tokenism. The White farmers should have acted without it reaching this stage.
Seeing that you do not support the process then you would have much to condemn and the condemnations are in all other media sources. Repeating them here is to continue the imbalance in the general news coverage.
Although you condemn the coverage you did not present one quote that was inaccurate but instead you choose to repeat the popular ignorant diatribe.
I wonder how many people would take the time to register or write a letter with much of the self-hating comments I see on the Internet.
Victims against a global corporate structure
By Ghifari al Mukhtar
Terms rather than words
I have always encountered problems with my slave tongue which is the English language, the simplistic yet perplex mode of communication latter on as I matured in the world that surrounded me more so became extremely unfathomable throughout the ever declining American revolution or the English evolution, that gave rise to the United States of America Australia to a lesser extent New Zealand and the more Cosmo politic Euro-American Israeli State somewhere in the middle East.
Terms rather than words they are; can only be determined base on the person time and circumstances of use, which is the American-way.
For example we hear of Israeli incursions but Iraqi invasion; targeted (retaliatory) killings against Palestinian children and their parents in response to Palestinian "terrorist" fighting off an invader uniform sometimes not (Settlers); Constructive engagement towards western satellite states as in the case of Apartheid but cluster bombs coupled with a can of GM expired food disguised as it were from Santa Clause 'who the hell is he is any fools 'GUEST' of non-Aryan humanities, collateral damage instead of innocent defenseless people, again-collateral damage as oppose to deliberate and calculated disregard.
Why continue on this ever expanding yet continual deceptive creative language as though the communicative extracts is what I am after rather than its users.
We see and we hear-that politics are bad even though rotten men find the use of politics meaningless and naive do-gooders endeavor to make the instrument useful.
Like politics English have always been used to perfection when coming to telling lies, its omissions as well as its pronouncements as suggestions equals advice for the purposes of deception.
Englishmen (Americans they are) are the masters of it all even the crude Israelis depend on the Americans for this lauded cultural asset.
Native Americans warned humanity; that the white man spoke with four (folk) tongue; ‘no racism intended’.
Today we hear of the other meaning for the word invasion/colonization (INTRUSIVE INTERVENTION).
As if the underlying factor for invasions were usually preceded by way of sanctions then who must invade the United States and the allies of sanctions that resulted in mass murder on the peoples of Iraq and Palestine to name the current victims to say the least, a policy nurtured and engineered by a group of unmatched criminals who's deeds against every form of human decency against their fellow man on any scale globally or infinite throughout human existence will always be remembered even as "Zimbabwe" Africans world over flirt with branded names like Pepsi & Coco cola, GM foods, Addidas, Roebuck and Nike assisted amnesia.
They'd like us not to remember yet be fearful of, so they can keep their charge is just a tacit reminder how twisted are the meanings and use of the criminally "skilled" English usage.
The limitations prove exhausting though on the issue of the International Court of Justice only because the ICJ is a EU child and when the language (immunity) is converted to the varied EU member states languages it just didn't compute then came the evolutionary Word processor i.e. compromise, by way of coercions, arm twisting, economic whitemail and the "santa" Clauses called diplomacy.
History have proved that the last 80 years the deliberate protracted wars imposed on Africa, the subverted economic AID packages the willful spreading of the HIV virus via inoculation the orchestrated droughts throughout many states on the continent the subsequent christianisation, the blackened mainstream "media" bias the WTO WHO the IMF WB HRW are all but policies and entities that out-served the colonialist adventure hence the intrusive intervention threat from the last generation of the final Aryan empire comes at this time.
One needs not look further as the economy is rapidly slipping from the grip of their monopoly.
But invading Africa is surely the groundless pivot where the resurrection of Rhodes will find no ground secure, beneath or above them. Perception though not shared is that while all things must return to its point and place of origin Africa shall be the place where Europe and all her descendants shall be retributed. African soil as such may only occur during their disastrous return to re-colonize the continent, as it's not in her "US" nature to genuinely seek forgiveness while at strength.
Share your views
Send page by E-Mail