(NEWZIMBABWE) Interview II; Chihombori and Worswick
Interview II; Chihombori and Worswickby Violet Gonda
21/07/2009 00:00:00
SW Radio Africa’s Violet Gonda hosts the second and final part of a land discussion with farm beneficiary Dr Arikana Chihombori and dispossessed farmer John Worsley Worswick:
Broadcast: July 17, 2009
Violet Gonda: We bring you part two of the land discussion with Dr Arikana Chihombori and John Worsley Worswick. Dr Chihombori is an American citizen of Zimbabwean origin who has been at the centre of controversy since her attempt to take over a commercial farm in the Chegutu area. John Worsley Worswick is a spokesperson of the pressure group Justice for Agriculture which has been campaigning for many years on behalf of commercial farmers.
John, there are some people who are saying that as a farming community, you brought the land invasions upon yourselves in the sense that you removed yourselves from participating in national activities like withdrawing yourself from political participation and were seen as being aloof. And also you’ve been accused of acting almost like a nation within a nation and basically looking after yourselves. What’s your response?
John Worsley Worswick: Well first of all one has to go back to 1980 and the political scenario at the time. We were offered the hand of reconciliation and we were encouraged to take that hand of reconciliation and reengage, reconstruct Zimbabwe. But there were severe warnings given even back then that not to get involved in politics but to concentrate on what we do best.
Politics of land, certainly we were discouraged from getting involved in that, and that was a dire mistake when one looks at it from a position now with a 20/20 hindsight. Certainly with regard to the 3.8 million hectares of land that was immediately available for resettlement, we should have monitored that and been actively involved in the allocation process and making sure that it was a success.
But certainly when one looks at it today that, yes, the British government did fund the purchase of those farms, it wasn’t a transparent process, for example where farmers had left the country and were being made offers for those farms that should have been paid in foreign currency outside the country, it didn’t happen. Those farmers ended up with government bonds that over time because of inflation were rendered to nothing, they couldn’t get money outside the country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But that was on the one side, on the other side, those farms went into resettlement and the British funded purchase of farms which we are led to believe was only a third of the funding that was available, the other two thirds of the funding was multi donor funding for the development of these resettlement areas and that was being looted on a wholesale basis to the extent that very little of it was finding its way onto the ground and there was no way they could possibly become a success story given that there was no title transferred with this land. So there was the inability to raise the capital required.
Then you couple that to the fact that a lot of this land did not go to the landless peasants as the beneficiaries, it went to the political hierarchy on peppercorn rentals. I’m referring now to the Margaret Dongo list in the mid-1990s, when that came out it caused a huge scandal and one can’t be surprised today that the donor community, especially the British, were quick to withdraw in the light of the lack of transparency, lack of accountability and the most important issue here was the lack of poverty alleviation relating to resettled land and there certainly wasn’t a meaningful land reform programme by then.
VG: But John…
AC: Can I ….
JW: So yes, we should have been more closely involved and we should have probably become the umpires on the field alongside the British, the British were the umpires on the field and they didn’t blow the whistle and it was a mess, even predating 2000.
VG: OK Dr Chihombori you wanted to respond?
Arikana Chihombori: Yes, I wanted to respond to the comment that John has just made pertaining to being advised to stay out of the political arena. First of all John, who advised you that?
JW: Well the Commercial Farmers Union at the time was warned very strongly to keep out of politics and to keep it, to focus on what we did best which was to farm and to produce for the country. These were warnings, very real warnings that the agricultural leadership at the time were given. I’m not saying that they should have adhered to those warnings they should have ignored them and taken a different line altogether.
VG: John, her question is who advised you to stay out of politics?
JW: Well that would be the government of Zimbabwe. Mugabe himself I believe issued those stern warnings about not getting involved in politics.
VG: And if I might just add another question for you John, wasn’t there a sudden interest though when the constitutional process involved farms being acquired? Isn’t that the reason why the farmers then became interested in national politics?
JW: Well one must understand that the invasion of farms predated the fast track land reform programme of 2000 by two or three years and with the donors having pulled out of funding land reform, the 1999 donor conference was an attempt to reengage and set the terms of reference for that and Mugabe threw that out the window in its entirety to pursue a different programme.
In a time span between that, farmers took it upon themselves to try and engage and to put together a model for meaningful resettlement and this was the Zigiri (inaudible) programme where 50,000 hectares was earmarked on a voluntary submission basis, farmers would relinquish land and not only would they relinquish land, they would provide the capital and the stakeholders were involved in supplying that capitol as well.
But probably the most important part of this exercise was the transference of skills to new farmers and certainly as a pilot project it would have worked because if you look at the fundamentals of production in the Zimbabwe context - no different to anywhere else in the world, land, labour, capitol and one seems to ignore but are included here, the skills.
We certainly didn’t have a shortage of land, there’s never been a shortage of land in Zimbabwe and we would argue also that there hasn’t been a land hunger in Zimbabwe. What we’ve had is a carry over of an historical injustice in Zimbabwe where there’s been a shortage of titled land with the ability to raise capital in more than half the country, in fact we’re talking about the largest part of the country now because it’s being used as a model for the way forward, the communal areas have never had title, so in terms of development, they’ve been severely hamstrung.
So going back to this pilot project, it was a way of forging the way forward and engaging even at the eleventh hour with something that would have been meaningful and would have worked and formed a template for future land reform in Zimbabwe.
Subsequent to that and the chaos that has been involved, the loss of life and the gross human rights violations, the drop of production levels to below 20% of what we are used to in this country in fact we’ve gone back to production levels of the 1940s when we had a population of about two million people and that’s borne out by the fact that 75% of Zimbabweans are facing acute shortages this year. It would have worked and would have formed the basis for the way forward. Mugabe binned it.
AC: I wanted to come in – going back to the issue of, first of all I find it interesting that as Zimbabweans, white Zimbabweans, they were specifically told to stay out of politics. It would be interesting to see why the President did not give the black Zimbabweans also an order to stay out of politics, but be that as it may, it looks like the commercial farmers are in politics big time.
One of the reasons also I was very concerned was because the Commercial Farmers Union, just before Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai left for his tour visiting other nations, the Commercial Farmers Union sent a very toxic letter to the leaders of other nations that the Prime Minister was going to visit with, specifically trying to suggest that I own hundreds of hectares of land which is not true, suggesting that I have displaced hundreds of people which again is false and that the Prime Minister was fully aware of my behaviour which again is false.
That letter which was so false and toxic was circulated to all the leaders that the Prime Minister was going to meet with and it was circulated in advance and the Prime Minister was not notified.
Now, the question I have is these are Zimbabweans and in the letter, the Commercial Farmers Union is advising the other leaders or suggesting that no funding should be given to Zimbabwe and that whatever funds the Prime Minister is looking for he should not be awarded that and that the sanctions should not be lifted. These are white Zimbabweans.
With the environment as it is, difficult as the economy is, understanding how much suffering people are going through, you get a faction that had elected to stay out of politics or supposedly elected to stay out of politics, what’s your position? You are against the President, you’re against the government, now you are going after the Prime Minister who is trying to do something about the current situation, and one has to wonder, the Commercial Farmers Union – what is your position? What do you want for your country? You are Zimbabweans for speaking out loud!
JW: Violet can I come in?
AC: … and the Prime Minister is only trying to do a good thing, he’s trying to sort out a difficult situation and the Commercial Farmers Union circulates such a letter. I can’t understand that
VG: John, can you respond.
JW: Violet, can I comment? Yes we saw the publicity surrounding this alluded to letter. Certainly we have absolutely no knowledge of this letter. First of all I must make it clear we are not the CFU, we are a separate organisation all together, representing not just commercial farmers but we represent the farm workers as well in conjunction with the union for farm workers here in Zimbabwe.
We have consulted with the Commercial Farmers Union subsequent to the publicity surrounding this alluded to letter and they deny categorically that they had anything to do with such a letter and that such a letter exists and that this is propaganda and not based in truth at all.
AC: There’s a communication as well that I forgot which media has it, where Mr Cremer also did state that other governments should not give any funding to President Mugabe and Prime Minister Tsvangirai, it’s in one of the letters of communication from the Cremers, sounds similar to the memo that was circulated to other governments.
JW: I’ve monitored very, very carefully all the publicity surrounding this particular take over of a farm, I’ve been in discussions with the Cremers at length, certainly I have seen nothing they have written with regard to publicity and advising that funds should not be released. I think that’s also fiction in this case. This is a sensitive issue which needs to be answered to by the Cremers and if it’s an issue of the CFU, they need to be given a platform to answer on their own behalf on this one. I can only speak in terms of the consultations I have made and publicity I’ve seen surrounding this
VG: Right it’s difficult because the Cremers are not here but Dr Chihombori, can I just ask you a question as a follow up to the question that you asked John about the commercial farmers trying to sabotage the Prime Minister’s overseas trip.
Now you have said that the Prime Minister is your uncle and if this is the case are you also not on the other hand trying to sabotage his trip by participating in what could be seen as an invasion of a commercial farm, because the Prime Minister is against this?
AC: You keep repeating that. I have not invaded a farm.
VG: But the fact that you were given an offer letter…
AC: What I have is an offer letter, that’s it.
VG: Yes but…
AC: There’s a lot of land in Zimbabwe, a lot of land that is vacant, farmland that is vacant, that needs to be utilised.
VG: So if there’s a lot of land, why are you taking this particular farm if there’s a lot of land?
AC: I did respond to that to say I have no idea why this particular farm. I did call up the lands office and specifically asked the question why this farm? There are many other farms, why this farm?
JW: Hello Violet?
VG: Hold on John.
AC: The response I was given was that Mr Cremer refuses to put in an application so he can be properly allocated that farm.
VG: So you know that your uncle is against this kind of process where things are not done in a proper fashion so what is your next move regarding this farm?
AC: I have to say I agree with you, if a farm is being utilised, is being productive, in all fairness, there is plenty of land in Zimbabwe. There is plenty of farmland for all. The previous offer would have been fine if they had just reallocated a smaller portion of that farm which was vacant.
VG: So you are no longer going to pursue with this particular farm?
AC: Not with the situation as it obtains, no and also with me also understanding the situation on the ground. The more I understand the issue, the more I realise that, you know there are better ways of doing things but at the same time I also feel that the commercial farmers also have a role to play.
The more I understand the situation on the ground, the more I realise that both parties need to move towards the centre. I do believe yes the government needs to take another look at the land reform programme but at the same time the commercial farmers as well, they have a role to play in the failure of the land reform.
They also need to sit down and realise they are Zimbabweans and they need to work towards a common goal. Because until that happens, the problems in Zimbabwe are going to continue and it doesn’t matter who we have in the government unless both parties have a common goal, unless both parties work towards achieving that goal, and undermining the Prime Minister who is trying to do the right thing, is wrong.
And on a personal note, I truly believe that if the two leaders, President Mugabe and Prime Minister Tsvangirai could be allowed to make this particular unity government work, it can work. But it’s not going to work if there are so many other forces pulling in different directions to see to it that the unity government is a failure. Yes presidents are there, prime ministers are there to lead us but they need help from us, we need not work against them.
VG: And so John what can you say about what Dr Chihombori is alleging that some outside forces, like the farming community and other players are determined to make this unity government fail?
JW: Well one’s got to analyse the attack on commercial farmers and what Ms Chihombori has been involved is a lawless situation of jambanja on a farm and an invasion of that farm. Now we’ve got the politics of the situation ruling over the law in a situation where over ten years in Zimbabwe, that has been the case and it has given rise to gross human rights violations and the promulgation of a whole litany of unjust laws in the country.
We have a situation where 4,000 farmers displaced and 500,000 farm workers constituting probably 1.5 million to 1.8 million people, huge mortality in the farm worker community and this continues to happen even today with a unity government in place and an accord signed.
We have the SADC tribunal which has struck down or should have struck down in Zimbabwe, certainly in the SADC region, it’s struck down Amendment 17 which is the most unjust of all the promulgated laws in the last ten years which deprived farmers from the courts.
We’re looking at a citizen issue here, Ms Chihombori highlights this that all citizens in Zimbabwe should pull together on this one and the land is the crux of the issue but we’ve been excluded from being citizens of Zimbabwe, we’ve been alienated by the regime and so have farm workers on the perception that we come from foreign lands and are not citizens of Zimbabwe at all, so that is a major issue that needs to be addressed urgently.
Personally to her, I would say that the situation she finds herself in is a classic one where she’s tried to claim ignorance of the situation on the ground. Nowhere in the world is a plea of ignorance, and ignorance of the facts and ignorance of the law a plea of innocence. The onus is on the individual, given the history and we’re looking at a ten year history on this to do the due diligence that is required of a new owner and to establish exactly what the law says and also align it with international law and what international laws say as to what has happened in Zimbabwe.
Likewise, on a personal note I would warn her very strongly that there will be a turn around and a return to the rule of law in Zimbabwe, but in the meantime she does as an American citizen and she can’t be an American citizen and a Zimbabwean citizen so from the moment she became an American citizen her citizenship of Zimbabwe fell away automatically in the laws of Zimbabwe, she is vulnerable under the Zimbabwe Democracy Act in the United States of America and not just that bit of legislation, there are human rights legislation in the United States of America that allows for an American citizen to be prosecuted for human rights violations in any other country and certainly her ongoing invasion of this farm would constitute that.
VG: You mentioned just now that the farming community has also been victims but there’s a political consideration that the farming community was the backbone of the MDC. Could this have been the reason why you were suddenly targeted in 2000 for example?
JW: No, not at all Violet. This has been the decoy and the smokescreen for the whole exercise. The real targets in this were the farm workers, they comprise 350,000 permanent employees, another 270,000 seasonal casuals, with their dependents we’re talking about close on 1.8 million people but what is of real interest here is how many voters that comprised and it’s about a million voters in an electorate of four and a half to five million people so the attack on commercial farmers was merely a decoy to get the world to focus on them whilst the farm workers felt the real brunt of the attack and every attempt was made through gross human rights violations, we’re talking about beatings, torture, rape, murder even perpetrated by in many cases youth militia to totally, politically re-orientate those farm workers and when one looks at that as a background of perceptions only, the perception was that the commercial farmers were for the MDC and that the farm workers were for the MDC. There’s no basis in fact for that.
VG: Other reports say that a lot of the invasions were disenfranchised workers on the farms. Now could this not have been because of the appalling manner farmers addressed the workers. What can you say about that?
JW: Well certainly our research shows the opposite in terms of the amenities that were made available to farm workers and we would uphold that there’s no basis in fact for that at all. And certainly interviews with farm workers today destroys that as a contention altogether in that the vast majority of them would, their first option is to return to their farms and get back their jobs and their livelihoods and their homes on those farms. Now if the abuse that’s alluded to was there in fact, that certainly wouldn’t be their first prize today.
VG: And a final word?
JW: Well it’s a very unfortunate situation we find ourselves in Zimbabwe at the moment politically in that land is very much the crux of the matter and land has been at the centre of conflict in Zimbabwe for over a hundred years and certainly there’s been a crisis of expectation on this front and that certainly farmers believed that this unity government would focus on the land question and not miss a once in a lifetime’s opportunity to come to terms with it.
Now to do that one needs to actually focus on the issues and be realistic as to exactly what is happening at the moment and commit oneself to a return to the rule of law, a moratorium on the lawlessness on farms and a land audit to be conducted as a matter of urgency especially against a background of humanitarian plight and starvation in the country.
VG: And a final word Dr Chihombori.
AC: Well let me just start by pointing out or rather clarify a few points raised by John. Let me just state this categorically, I have never invaded any farm in Zimbabwe or anywhere else on this earth. He keeps alluding to that. I set eyes on that farm for the first time in May and I passed through for about ten minutes. I have never invaded any farm so point of correction for John. He keeps emphasising that, maybe it makes him feel good to say that but the point is I have never invaded any farm. Period.
Secondly, he’s talking about claiming ignorance. I am not claiming ignorance. The land reform is a fact; it is something that is happening, it’s something that I think should be embraced by both parties, black and white, that is an injustice that must be addressed. Yes I agree, I think we need to agree on how that process should be handled but the land reform is an issue that is definitely calling for discussion, immediate discussion and both parties must approach this issue from a very fair point of view, not a selfish point of view. Not one group feeling that they are more important than others, (and that) they should have advantage over the other group.
So the land issue, ignorance or no ignorance, I’m not going to pay attention to the constitutional amendments that are happening on a daily basis, on a monthly basis, that’s what he does, he represents the commercial farmers so naturally you’d expect him to keep up with those issues. I don’t have to. I don’t need to, so let me clarify that.
As far as the ignorance, yes I don’t claim to know everything. To say if you don’t know anything about anything you are ignorant, well then, that is his position but he represents commercial farmers so naturally I would expect him to be well versed on the issues to do with the constitutional amendments and any laws to do with land in Zimbabwe. I don’t need to do that. I do not need to do that so I needed to make sure I clarified that on his part.
Let me just start by saying or rather conclude by saying that the land issue, if both parties come to the table, clearly willing to do what’s right, clearly wanting to address the matter in a very fair manner, there will be no losers. The unity government demands that we support it. The world must support the unity government. Without the unity government what do we have? Go back again to the way things were? I don’t think so.
So we must support the unity government and unless both parties come to the table and support the unity government, there’s no hope for Zimbabwe. There will be no winners; both parties, black people or white people, farmers, non-farmers.
My last word is the unity government must be supported and yes, I think this is a democratic situation; people must be given an opportunity to participate in the process. The laws are there to be challenged but when we challenge them let us challenge them in a constructive manner, in a manner that we move forward not in a manner that favours one group against the other.
VG: And Dr Chihombori, what about the issue of dual citizenship that John raised?
AC: You know I like to consider myself a child of the world. Yes I’m a US citizen and again this land issue I’m finding it being thrown onto my lap. Prior to going to Zimbabwe in May, I hadn’t been to Zimbabwe in almost two years. So I’m just a fall guy here. The land issue is a much broader issue, I just happen to be, I guess you could call it wrong place at the wrong time - but I’m not so sure why being at the (President Zuma’s) inauguration was being at the wrong place at the wrong time. I’m just a fall guy here.
The land issue is not about me or Mr Cremer. I happen to be an American citizen who applied for land long before I became a citizen, it took almost nine years for the land to be allocated and my sister who is a citizen of Zimbabwe was going to be working the land.
I’m not so sure exactly why John is jumping up and down about. I’m Zimbabwean born, a Zimbabwean, I should be entitled to land just like anybody else. In other words is he going to fault those who have been allocated land in Zimbabwe? White people have been allocated land in Zimbabwe. Is he going to fault those for accepting those offers from the government?
It is my understanding that some farmers have refused to apply for the land and again those are details that I don’t really wish to get into. The point is, John wants to make me the fall guy and I think that’s unfortunate because there are bigger issues out there and it needs to be addressed not by tackling someone who comes to Zimbabwe once every so many years, that’s not the way to handle it.
But I have just one more point to make pertaining to the black commercial farmers and the sabotage that they are getting from their fellow white commercial farmers. I’ll be glad to give you some phone numbers of individuals that you can talk to. The real people who are being put through some very difficult times, all in an effort to make it very difficult for them to be productive on the land that they have been allocated. To me, this is very sad and John cannot try to claim that he’s not aware of this.
Secondly, he also cannot deny a very well known fact by any Zimbabwean that the average farm worker has been abused terribly, including at times, beaten. He can’t deny that. Now for him to really honestly want to get on the airwaves and say he’s not aware of any abuse that the black farmer farm workers receive in the hands of their masters, that’s very sad, he’s just simply being a hypocrite. That is a known fact, it does happen and again until we start being open and having an honest discussion we’re not going anywhere.
John knows it happened, John knows the sabotage that’s going on, John is fully aware of the funding coming from Britain to the white commercial farmers in Zimbabwe and they’re using some of that funding to sabotage the black people, the black farmers by paying the local farm workers much, much higher wages compared to what the black commercial farmers can afford and again those are issues that need to be discussed.
Until we start with a clean slate there’s going to be problems in Zimbabwe, it’s my country of birth and I would like to see things improve. Unfortunately I’m an American now and this is my home. It just saddens me to see things the way they are.
Again I have to sound like a broken record, it’s going to take everybody, everybody coming to the table sincerely and participating in a fair manner. The denials coming from John, they’re just not going to work, that sort of attitude is destructive and is the same tunes have been played for years and they continue to be played but unfortunately, like I said, it is a lose-lose situation, there will be no winners in Zimbabwe unless everybody’s attitude changes and it changes for the better and discussions are held with people who share a common goal.
Feedback can be sent to violet *** swradioafrica.com
Labels: ARIKANA CHIHOMBORI, LAND REFORM
posted by MrK @ 8:27 PM
1 Comments:
JW: Well one must understand that the invasion of farms predated the fast track land reform programme of 2000 by two or three years and with the donors having pulled out of funding land reform,
The donors pulled out of land reform when Tony Blair got into Downing Street, in 1997, as per Claire Short's infamous letter to then Minister Kumbirai Kangai, dated November 1997.
I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new Government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests. My own origins are Irish and as you know we were colonised not colonisers.
Britain, through the Lancaster House Agreement, of course had the specific obligation of funding land purchase (i.e. compensate the white farmers for the market value of the land). When they reneged on that obligation, in effect they annulled the Lancaster House Agreement itself, and with it any obligation the Zimbabwean government had to abide by the Willing Buyer, Willing Seller clause of the LHA.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home