The land reform in Zimbabwe was a necessary evil?

At independence in 1980 Zimbabwe inherited a highly skewed pattern of land distribution. A small minority of white large-scale commercial farmers owned and farmed most of the better agricultural land. The majority of the national population, made up exclusively of black Zimbabweans, farmed in the lower rainfall and poorer soil areas. This dual structure of land ownership was a result of various pieces of legislation introduced during the colonial era, which resulted in mass expropriation of prime agricultural land by the colonial settlers and the subsequent marginalization of black people into reserves now known as communal areas. The issue of access to land was therefore a major rallying point that led to the war of liberation. After protracted negotiations between the liberation armies and the newly elected Conservative Government led by Mrs Margaret Thatcher, the Lancaster House Agreement

According to Chitsike (2003), Land redistribution was high on the list of priorities for the new Government in 1980. Soon after coming into power the Government established an Intensive Resettlement programme. The specific objectives of the resettlement programme were summarized for the reasons which included the following; To alleviate population pressure in the Communal Areas, To extend and improve the base of productive agriculture in the peasant farming sector, through individuals and cooperatives; To improve the standard of living of the largest and poorest sector of the population of Zimbabwe;  To ameliorate the plight of people who have been adversely affected by the war and to rehabilitate them;  To provide, at the lower end of the scale, opportunities for people who have no land and are without employment and may therefore be classed as destitute;  To bring abandoned and under-utilized land into full production as one facet of implementing an equitable policy of land redistribution;  To expand and improve the infrastructure and services that are needed to promote the well being of people and economic production. To achieve national stability and progress in a country that has only emerged from the turmoil of war. This process was supported by donors who gave initial funding of creation of villages in Nyanga, Hoyuyu, Mushandike and Nyarumvurwe among other areas. The relationship between Harare, London and Washington was very cordial since it was also wiling buyer willing seller.

However under the fast track land reform, the U.S. government repeatedly condemned political violence and the breakdown of the rule of law in Zimbabwe in 2000 and 2001. In addition, the U.S. Congress passed the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Bill , signed by President George W. Bush in January 2002, ordering U.S. representatives to oppose extensions of any loans to Zimbabwe by the international financial institutions and authorizing the president, in consultation with foreign governments, to take action against the individuals responsible for politically motivated violence and the breakdown of the rule of law. The bill set out conditions for these measures to be lifted, including the restoration of the rule of law including respect for ownership and title to property, and commitment to equitable, legal, and transparent land reform consistent with the agreements reached at the International Donors' Conference on Land Reform and Resettlement" of 1998. In late February 2002, following the imposition of E.U. sanctions, the U.S. introduced similar sanctions on the Zimbabwe government, under the terms of the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act. This affected the relations with the  European union and America which turned soar.

The AU Assembly of Heads of State and Government meeting in Lusaka in July 2001 adopted a resolution on the land question in Zimbabwe. Overruling a resolution adopted by the AU foreign ministers preparing for the summit, which had fully backed Zimbabwe in its confrontation with Britain, the summit stated in more moderate terms that it reiterated its demand for Britain to honour its colonial obligation to fund the land resettlement programme in Zimbabwe in accordance with the Lancaster House Agreement and called on Britain to cooperate fully and enter into dialogue with the Government of Zimbabwe with the purpose of finding a final solution to this colonial legacy." The foreign ministers also set up a committee chaired by Nigeria, and comprising Algeria, South Africa, Cameroon, Kenya and Zambia to "coordinate with Zimbabwe at all fora wherever the Zimbabwe land issue is raised. This had an implication of dividing the continent on individual state interest towards fellow African countries. It cemented the relationship among African states like Namibia and South Africa who intended to implement land reform in their respective nations.

Responding to the fast track land reform program, the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) initially took a low key approach. Though President Mugabe was reportedly criticized behind the scenes and urged to end farm occupations, public statements were more conciliatory. A contradictory approach  that the land reform was justified , hence they backed and formed a solidarity relationship with Zimbabwe. As a result of that solidarity it cemented the relationship among Southern Africa Community member states. In April 2000, President Chissano of Mozambique, speaking for SADC, told reporters that “we think the donors, including Great Britain, have to deliver. They have to fulfill their commitments.’’ However in August 2001, in the communiqué following the Blantyre, Malawi, annual summit of SADC, heads of government expressed their concern at the effect of the economic situation in Zimbabwe on the region. The summit appointed a task force comprising Mozambique, South Africa, and Botswana to work with the Zimbabwe government on the economic and political issues affecting Zimbabwe.

The land reform also caused infighting and division within the Southern African Community for instance by November 2001, South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki, with the apparent support of Botswana, was making it clear that he believed the blame for Zimbabwe's troubles lay with the policies pursued by its ruling party. The government reciprocated through the Herald newspaper castigating Mbeki for caving in to Britain's pressure to protect white and colonial economic interests in Zimbabwe. Temporalily there was a war of words between Harare and Pretoria and in January 2002, South Africa criticized Zimbabwean defense force commander General Vitalis Zvinavashe for comments in which he stated that he could only support a president who had fought in the liberation struggle. By December 2002,  SADC foreign ministers appeared to retreat from the position adopted by the heads of state, stating that they opposed the sanctions proposed by the U.S. and E.U, and believed that violence on the farms had reduced significantly and that the few reported incidents were being dealt with under the criminal justice system, and that the government was committed to holding free and fair elections. Nonetheless, Malawian Foreign Minister Lillian Patel stated that "we have reiterated that the bottom line for Zimbabwe is a just and equitable land redistribution, which however must be done in a legally sound and violence-free manner."

 A SADC heads of government summit held in January 2002 welcomed assurances by Mugabe that he would allow independent media to function, respect judicial independence, investigate political violence, allow independent election observers, and respect the right to free assembly; while expressing serious concern over Zvinavashe's warnings. SADC leaders, including President Mbeki, had criticized the international focus on Zimbabwe at the expense of other crises in Africa and have opposed E.U. and other sanctions. In January 2002, Mozambican Foreign Minister Leonardo Simao accused western countries of waging a propaganda war against Zimbabwe. All such support led to Mugabe to be arrogant to European Union and America and this led to the selection of election observers, where those sympathetic to the Zimbabwean plight where the only ones invited leaving most of the western countries and America.

 The implications of the land redistribution of  programe in Zimbawe after year 2000 had various impacts on international relations in organizations like the Common Wealth . This is an organization which has affiliates of former British colonies worldwide. A committee of Commonwealth foreign ministers, including the foreign minister of Zimbabwe, met to discuss the situation in Zimbabwe, in Abuja, Nigeria, on September 6, 2001. The communiqué of the meeting recognized that as a result of historical injustices, the current land ownership and distribution needed to be rectified in a transparent and equitable manner. The ministers also agreed on the following:

First was the fact that Land is at the core of the crisis in Zimbabwe and cannot be separated from other issues of concern to the Commonwealth, such as the rule of law, respect for human rights, democracy and the economy. A program of land reform is, therefore, crucial to the resolution of the problem. Secondly such a program of land reform must be implemented in a fair, just and sustainable manner, in the interest of all the people of Zimbabwe, within the law and constitution of Zimbabwe. Third issue was that, the crisis in Zimbabwe also has political and rule of law implications, which must be addressed holistically and concurrently. The situation in Zimbabwe posed a threat to the socio-economic stability of the entire sub-region and the continent at large; 
 There was the need to avoid a division within the Commonwealth, especially at the forthcoming CHOGM in Brisbane, Australia, over the situation in Zimbabwe; 
and lastly, the orderly implementation of the land reform can only be meaningful and sustainable, if carried out with due regard to human rights, rule of law, transparency and democratic principles. The commitment of the Government of Zimbabwe was, therefore, crucial to this process.

 The major implication of the land reform was the issue that land is a resource that forms the bases of life through production on it since all stake holders had to make assurances and commitments. For example, the Zimbabwe delegation gave assurances that, among other things, there would be no further occupation of farm lands, and that the rule of law would be restored to the process of land reform program. The meeting also welcomed the re-affirmation of the United Kingdom's commitment to a significant financial contribution to such a land reform programme and its undertaking to encourage other international donors to do the same.

Representatives of the War Veterans Association said that they would not be bound by the deal with the Commonwealth. The Commercial Farmers' Union noted an escalation of violence in the context of farm occupations over the following weeks. In December 2001, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG), set up to assess compliance by Commonwealth members with the Commonwealth Harare Declaration of 1991, which commits Commonwealth members to democratic governance, met and considered the situation in Zimbabwe (among other countries). CMAG noted that the Government of Zimbabwe had not agreed to receive a Commonwealth ministerial mission, and reiterated its deep concern about the ongoing situation in Zimbabwe especially the continued violence, occupation of property, actions against the freedom and independence of the media and political intimidation. It agreed that the situation in Zimbabwe constitutes a serious and persistent violation of the Commonwealth's fundamental political values and the rule of law as enshrined in the Harare Commonwealth Declaration.

Following unrelenting pressure from the West, Zimbabwe was forced to terminate its membership in the Commonwealth on the 7th of December 2003. In addition, the IMF and the World Bank, also joined Western countries, and suspended all loan disbursements to Zimbabwe, with effect from 2000. Multilateral Financial Institutions also imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe.