Britain did not betray its promise on land
The Africa All Party Parliamentary Group (UK) published a report on land reform in Zimbabwe (December 2009). The report concludes that no secret deals were made at Lancaster House .
In the introduction to the report titled Land in Zimbabwe: past mistakes, future prospects, the chair of the Africa APPG writes:
The Africa All Party Parliamentary Group believes that agriculture will remain the main driver of Zimbabwe’s economy for the foreseeable future. We also believe that the British government has a role to play in helping restore the Zimbabwe economy by supporting a land policy that is just, based on law and benefits all Zimbabweans.
We do not think this will be easy. Land in Zimbabwe and throughout much of southern Africa is an emotive issue. Despite the successful transition from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe, there remains much bitterness about the role Britain has played in the country since colonisation – including what many indigenous Zimbabweans see as an illegitimate ‘land grab’ by the European settlers that created a deeply unequal society.
Furthermore, Britain’s failure to prevent the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Rhodesian whites in 1963 and the bitter war for liberation that ensued has continued to make relations between Zimbabwe and Britain difficult.
Recently there has been a growing belief among Zimbabweans and others that during the Lancaster House talks that led to Zimbabwe’s independence Britain and the United States made promises concerning land transfer which were later betrayed. These promises, it is claimed, included specific amounts to buy out white Zimbabwean land-owners and set up black Zimbabweans as farmers, thereby righting a colonial wrong.
British and American versions of events maintain that no promises were made other than to provide substantial funding for agricultural development and land reform. These, they say, were fulfilled until President Mugabe’s government began to pursue what they regarded as unworkable economic policies and allowed land to be seized without compensation. In response, Western donors cut off aid for land reform.
The Africa All Party Parliamentary Group believes that in order to move on and address the challenges of the future, these competing histories must be examined and the areas of contention addressed. We want Britain to be a positive force in the rebuilding of Zimbabwe, but if we are to contribute towards a solution then we must first scrutinise our past and work out what went wrong, where it went wrong and how to ensure that history does not repeat itself.
To this end the Africa All Party Parliamentary Group decided to carry out an inquiry to establish the following:
a) what proposals were made and what commitments were given by U.K. and Zimbabwean representatives at the Lancaster House talks in 1979 and the early years of independence
b) what development assistance for land reform has actually been provided to Zimbabwe since independence
c) what impact did land reform assistance have, and what were the main factors which led to the decline in agricultural production and the continued under-utilisation of the land
d) what land reform and agricultural policies funded by donors and implemented by the government of Zimbabwe would be most effective at increasing food self sufficiency, reducing rural poverty and establishing a vibrant agricultural sector in Zimbabwe today.
These are the report’s key findings:
1) The narrative that Britain ‘betrayed’ its promises at Lancaster House plays not only an active role, but an actively destructive role in the present politics of Zimbabwe.
2) The narrative that Britain betrayed its promise at Lancaster House has no basis as no agreement was reached on land in 1979. During the course of our inquiry the Africa All Party Parliamentary Group received no evidence from any source that behind the scenes at Lancaster House a deal was reached and a sum of money was agreed upon for land reform that Britain later reneged on. The narrative that Britain betrayed its promise at Lancaster House has no basis.
3) Land reform in Zimbabwe has not been a total failure. Between 1980-1985 the Land Resettlement Programme was moderately successful, despite general perceptions that it was failing. Land reform began to stall after 1985 and Britain gave no money to the programme after 1990. When the programme ended in 1996 a total of 71,000 families had been resettled.
4) Land reform during 1980s and 90s failed to address the crucial issue of the dual land tenure system. While the Land Resettlement Programme addressed the needs of the landless poor it did little to solve the increasingly pressing issue of overcrowding in the communal land areas. No policy was put in place to standardise land tenure and abolish the dual system that discriminated against communal farmers.
5) Britain and the international community failed to recognise how vulnerable President Mugabe was to pressure from the war veterans. By 1997 pressure in Zimbabwe began to build against President Mugabe. The hitherto benign War Veteran Association first demanded larger pensions and then, in 2000, land. President Mugabe, unable to extract provisions from Britain or the international community and desperate to remain in power agreed, allowing and even encouraging farm seizures with no compensation.
6) The Fast Track Land Reform Programme was illegal and has been catastrophic for the commercial farming sector, The Africa All Party Parliamentary Group believes that the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP), as the land seizures were officially called, is illegal under international law. The FTLRP has had a deep impact on agricultural production. From 2000 – 2008 agricultural production has fallen by 60% in real terms.
[newsletter]
