Anthony L. Hall is a descendant of the Turks & Caicos Islands, international lawyer and political consultant - headquartered in Washington DC - who publishes his own Internet Weblog at www.theipinionsjournal.com offering commentaries on current events from a Caribbean perspective

For example, in the immediate aftermath of independence, almost all of them established dominion over their countries by executing nationalization pogroms.  And the key feature of these pogroms was the wholesale expulsion of expatriate professionals – who were typically indispensable employees in critical sectors of national life, including education and law enforcement – and awarding their jobs (as patronage) to typically inexperienced, untrained, unskilled natives.

But throughout the Commonwealth today, such jingoistic and myopic policies are little more than dark secrets in the annals of post-colonial history. Indeed, one would be hard-pressed to get an accurate account of the disastrous legacies they wrought by impeding the sustainable development of these newly independent countries. 

The glaring exception, however, is Zimbabwe - where President Robert Mugabe initiated the belated nationalization of his country’s agrarian economy six years ago.  And true to form, the key feature of this initiative was the expulsion of almost all of the expatriate white farmers who made Zimbabwe’s annual harvest the envy of the entire Commonwealth.  But just as it was decades ago - when other black leaders tried such similar policies and found them wanton - Mugabe’s pogrom has proved disastrous.

But the most salient difference in this case is that – with Zimbabwe about to celebrate its 27th year of independence under his leadership – even the congenitally anti-British Mugabe cannot blame the legacy of colonialism for his country’s demise.

Alas, another more tragic difference is that – unlike his fellow black leaders who implemented aggressive measures to redress the failures of their pogroms – Mugabe seems determined to continue his “sweeping land reforms” come what may. This, even though evidence of the inhumane legacy his jingoistic and myopic reforms have wrought is clear for all to see. 

In fact, here is the dire warning his national security minister, Didymus Mutasa, issued on Monday to the few remaining white farmers whose farms had not yet been seized (and they too expelled):

“Those farmers who do not comply with the orders to vacate the land will be dealt with severely…It's the duty of police to see to it that those who don't abide by the laws are incarcerated.”

Meanwhile, here is part of the lamentation I expressed for Zimbabwe in March 2005:

“Five years ago, Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of sub-Saharan Africa; today, it is a basket case of starving people. Five years ago, there were 4,000 white-owned farms in Zimbabwe; today, there are only 400 - mostly unproductive - farms left.”

But then, in November 2005, long-suffering Zimbabweans seemed to have won a reprieve when the BBC reported that Mugabe had finally agreed to ease his iron-fisted rule after realizing that doling out white farms as patronage to black cronies - who had no experience (or interest) in farming – did not guarantee of his political legacy…or survival.  Never mind  the criminally-negligent death by starvation of hundreds of thousands of his people that resulted from his seizure of white farms; or the rendering homeless of millions more after he bulldozed their homes pursuant to the “Operation-wipe-out-the-trash” phase of his land reforms.

However, notwithstanding that BBC report (which also cited the prospect of Mugabe soliciting many of the 3,600 white farmers he evicted to return to their farms), I expressed doubts about his conversion as follows:

“...my serially-vindicated cynicism compels me to suspect that this mea culpa is just another amoral ploy by Mugabe to elicit sympathy and extract financial aid from Western donors. After all, feigning regret for the suffering they’ve inflicted on their own people has always served Africa’s 'big Dadas' (despotic rulers) well in courting relationships with rich countries (like the United States during the Cold War and China today).”

Therefore, I was not at all surprised when the Washington Post reported this week that –  despite completely destroying Zimbabwe’s economy and presiding over a government that is indisputably the most venal, inhumane, corrupt, dysfunctional and incompetent in Africa – Mugabe remains committed to keeping his country mired in the death throes of genocidal starvation.

What I find utterly incomprehensible, however, is that – given all the international protests being mounted to stop the genocide being perpetrated by Arabs against blacks in Darfur, Sudan – relatively little protest is being mounted to stop the genocide being perpetrated by Mugabe against his own people.  And, in this respect, I am constrained to indict his fellow African heads of state especially for being complicit in his crimes against humanity by their silence...
 
Yes, save Darfur!  But what about Zimbabwe - where for years children have been competing with dogs in scavenging the streets for food...

NOTE:  You can help.  Please register your outrage by contacting your MP or community leaders and asking what, if anything, your government is doing to help save Zimbabwe.

Related Articles:
Zimbabweans pray for liberation from their liberator Robert Mugabe
Political cleansing in Zimbabwe
Mugabe’s mea culpa