Anotated Bibliography – Charlesworth

Annotated Bibliography

Harare. (2010). In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved November 25, 2010, from Encyclopedia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/254859/Harare Harare, formerly Salisbury, capital of Zimbabwe, lying in the northeastern part of the country. The city was founded in 1890 at the spot where the British South Africa Company’s Pioneer Column halted its march into Mashonaland; it was named for Lord Salisbury, then British prime minister. The name Harare is derived from that of the outcast Chief Neharawe, who, with his people, occupied the kopje (the hill at the foot of which the commercial area grew) at the time the Pioneer Column arrived and seized the land.

Lamb Christina, House of Stone, 2007, Chicago, Happer Collins Publishers. Land had not being the main aim of the first white settlers when they left Cape Town for Mafeking in April 1890 to gather in a long line of ox wagons behind a Union Jack and head off across the Limpopo or Crocodile River for Mashonaland. Stories of hills of gold, even more dazzling than the Rand, the great gold ridge of Johannesburg then making many fortunes, had spread through the Cape Colony and Europe. It was known that there had been gold mines in Mashonaland in the time of the African rulers who traded with the Portuguese. Runours abounded that Mashonaland was the site of King Solomon’s mines or the fable land of Ophir referred to in the Bible, and the 200 members of Cecil john Rhodes’s Pioneer Column had each been promised fifteen gold claims. (p.9)                                                                                    Lobengula, king of the Ndebele, had been tricked by Rhodes into granting British rights for mining and colonization of these lands.  In 1888, Rhodes sent three emissaries led by Charles Rudd to king Lobengula’s krall in Matabeleland to request a monopoly on prospecting rights, but the illiterate but highly intelligent King wavered over Rudd’s request. He was finally persuaded by the arrival of Rhodes’s special emissary, Dr. Leander Starr Jameson. Encouraged by Jim as he was known, Lobengula put his mark to the so –called Rudd Concession in return for a pension of 100 pounds a month, 10,000 rifles, 100,000 rounds of ammunition and a gunboat on the Zambezi. The king later claimed the document had been deliberately mistranslated. The missionary who read it to him had assured him that the British would not bring more than ten white men and ‘would abide by his laws and be as his people’.  Lobengula sent two envoys to London with a letter of protest to Queen Victoria, all to no avail. Despite the method by which the concession was obtained, Rhodes was granted a royal charter to make treaties, promulgate laws, establish a police force, and award land throughout Mashonaland and Matabeleland, an area of 175,000 square miles – about three times the size of England. Initially known as Zambezi, the name was changed to Rhodesia in his honor.  (P…9-11)

Lamb Christina, House of Stone, 2007, Chicago, Happer Colins Publishers.

There were gold rushes all over the land, including in the hills around Chivhu, but

Instead of the imagined quartz reefs studded with lambs of gold they found malaria and

Famine. So they turned to the next available prize – land. Each settler was awarded 3,000

Acres for just sixpence – the price of a British South Africa company revenue stamp – and farms were pegged out regardless of whether there were people living there. (p.13)

Lamb Christina, House of Stone, 2007, Chicago, Hipper Collins Publishers. However, as Lamb, Meredith and other authors noted ‘the land distribution was undoubtedly unfair, with most of the productive land still in white hands. But the 5,000 commercial farms produced most of the food for the nation, were the country’s biggest employer and responsible for 40 percent of its export earnings. (p.xxi)

O’Neil H. Patrick. (2010, 2006, 2004) CASES IN COMPARATIVE POLITICS 3^rd Edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Like South Africa, Zimbabwe (formerly known as Rhodesia) is a former British colony in which small white elite once dominated the black majority. Just as the African national Congress (ANC) fought a guerrilla campaign against the South African government, in Zimbabwe, a movement known as Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), led by Robert Mugabe, struggled to end white rule. After years of violent conflict, the Smith regime agreed to open elections in 1980, which ZANU won.  As in South Africa, the transition from white rule was predicated on allowing the white minority to maintain its economic domination over the country. . (O’Neil:525)

Meredith, H. (2002, 2003, 2007). Power, Plunder, and the Struggle for Zimbabwe (19-20.) Cecil John Rhodes’s private commercial enterprise, the British South Africa Company, declared the occupation of Mashonaland in 1890 in the name of Queen Victoria. The land was a reward for the role the Jesuits had played in accompanying the Pioneer Column of white settlers that Rhodes had sent across the Limpopo River to search for gold and extend the realms of the British Empire. Like all the land that Rhodes handed out to the white settlers, the land at Chishawasha Mission – some 12,000 acres – was acquired by dispossessing the local population.

Meredith, H. (2002, 2003, 2007). Power, Plunder, and the Struggle for Zimbabwe (113.) “Within ten years of the arrival of the Pioneer Column, nearly 16 million acres – one – sixth of the entire land area of 96 million acres – had been seized by whites.”

Meredith, H. (2002, 2003, 2007). Power, Plunder, and the Struggle for Zimbabwe (118-119.) The guerrilla war of the 1970s – the second Chimurenga, as the Shona call it – was fought principally to overthrow white rule and gain power, but land grievances and landlessness, the idea of winning back “lost” lands, provided much of the  rhetoric and motivations behind it. Throughout the war, Mugabe promised that, “When whites were defeated, every African would be given land.”

Meredith, H. (2002, 2003, 2007). Power, Plunder, and the Struggle for Zimbabwe (118-119.) During the he Lancaster House negotiations, the land issue was one of the most difficult to resolve. The whites backed by the British insisted that land rights were entrenched in a Bill of Rights in a new constitution”.

Meredith, H. (2002, 2003, 2007). Power, Plunder, and the Struggle for Zimbabwe (170-171.) On March 17, the commercial farmers Union (CFU) obtained a High Court Order declaring the land invasions to be illegal and instructing the police to evict the invaders within twenty- four hours. Hunzvi defied the Court Order saying, “We cannot accept the humiliation of being told by a Whiteman to pack our backs and leave our land.”

O’Neil H. Patrick. (2010, 2006, 2004) CASES IN COMPARATIVE POLITICS 3^rd Edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Mugabe turned to the white landowners, who controlled most of the farmland in Zimbabwe and encouraged his supporters to seize white-owned land. (O’Neil:525) Like many others, Lamb says ‘she could not believe that Mugabe was really serious about seizing all the white –owned farms’ (p.xxi).

Meredith, Martin. (2002, 2003, 2007) Power, Plunder, and the Struggle for Zimbabwe, New York, Public Affairs. “We can never have peace in the country unless the peasant population is satisfied in relation to the land issue,” he had declared in 1981. Meredith asserts that Mugabe whipped support over the land issue saying “It makes absolute nonsense of our history as an African country that most of our arable and ranching land is still in the hands of our erstwhile colonizers, while the majority of our peasant community still live like squatters in their God – given land.” The author also notes that two days after a white farmer Henry Ellsworth was killed in an ambush near his farm, Mugabe said, “This country is our country, and this land is our land, the white man is not indigenous to Africa. Africa is for Africans. Zimbabwe is for Zimbabweans!”(Meredith, 2002:121).

(Miller: 166-167).

Chua sees Mugabe as a key reason for the economic collapse of Zimbabwe and points out that “President Mugabe has encouraged the violent seizure of 10 million acres of white – owned commercial farmland,” and asserts that during the land invasions one Zimbabwean explained that, “The land belongs to us. The foreigners should not own land here. There is no Black Zimbabwean who owns land in England. Why should any European own land here?” Whilst Mugabe himself was more explicit, “Strike fear in the heart of the white man, our real enemy!”

(Miller: 166-167).

In her celebrated article “The Spread of Global Free – Market Democracy,” Professor Amy Chua looks at the impact of the land invasions in Zimbabwe, and explains that “Watching Zimbabwe’s economy take a free fall as a result of the mass land grab, the US, the UK, and the EU together with dozens of human rights groups urged President Mugabe to step down, calling for free and fair elections” (Miller: 166-167).

Lamb Christina, House of Stone, 2007, Chicago,  Happer Colins  Publishers In the 1980s Zimbabwe seemed a true Garden of Eden and the roads which people travelled passed through a patchwork of lush green fields of tobacco, cotton and maize. They looked like model farms with combine harvesters gathering up neat bundles, long greenhouses full of neatly spaced roses, and rainbows playing through the water sprinkling from sophisticated irrigation systems.                                                                                                                                                 Today Zimbabwe looks as if a terrible scourge has swept through. Some of the most advanced farms in the world have been reduced to slash and burn. The fields are charred and spiked with dead maize stalks or overgrown with weeds; the equipment has been plundered and stripped; and what little ploughing still goes on is by oxen and donkey. The country, which used to export large amounts of food and called the bread basket of Africa’ cannot even feed its own people. The destruction of the farm has left more than half of Zimbabwe’s 12 million populations on the edge of starvation and life expectancy has plummeted to around 30. The money became so worthless, with a loaf of bread costing 90,000 Zim dollars that the country is got to a barter economy (Lamb: xxii –xiii)

Hill Geoff, WHAT HAPPENS AFTER MUGABE? Can Zimbabwe Rise From the Ashes? Cape Town: Zebra Press, 2003.                                                                                                             By 2004, average life expectancy, which stood at fifty six years in 1975, had slipped to just thirty-three, the lowest in the world. A quarter of the adult population  was HiV positive or suffering from  full – blown AIDS, 70 percent lived below the poverty line, with almost as many not having enough to eat, and the state allocated just 3 percent of its budget to health, while more than twice that figure was spent on defense. It is indeed, an unpalatable fact that public health is rarely regarded as a political priority by developing country governments. Planning to improve health is not integrated into development or economic planning, or vice versa. In 2004, the government bought army vehicles and jet fighters from China for $200 million, while in some rural clinics nurses didn’t even have soap to wash their hands. In the face of wholesale emigration by doctors and nurses and lack of funds for basic care, the British medical journal had ranked Zimbabwe as having the worst health system in the world as far back as August 2001, placing it at the bottom of a World health Organization list of 191 nations. And AIDS is another problem.                                                                                                                                                 For example, figures published by UNICEF suggest that 25 percent of Zimbabwean teachers are HIV- positive, and that by the end of 2010 some 38 000, or just over a third of the current staff, will have died (Hill: 32). And unless billions have been spent on the country’s health system, there will be little help for patients afflicted with a headache, let alone HIV/AIDS. But there is another problem – cholera. Water treatment has suffered because foreign currency was not available to import chlorine and other chemicals, and gastro-internal diseases are common. Outbreaks of typhoid and cholera are annual events; waste disposal is erratic, and when people get sick, they are hard pressed to find help. On average, developed countries have 320 doctors per 100 000 people. In Africa, it’s only twelve, (IOM) and Zimbabwe falls near the bottom of that list, with just six. (United Nations Development Report, 2004, quoted in The Zimbabwe Independent, 8 October 2004.) By 2005, in rural areas government introduced ox- drawn ambulances because fuel and spare parts couldn’t be found for the vehicles that used to transport patients to hospital. The cost of seeing a doctor was more than the average monthly wage. One witness in Zimbabwe is a horrific mix of the AIDS pandemic and an intense political and economic crisis. The medical infrastructure in the country is limited to begin with. Add to that a situation in which one in three adults have HIV and no access to antiretroviral, and the result, at the ground zero level, is unimaginable human suffering. Patients with medical complications of HIV are packed into run-down wards. The morgues are full to capacity and the coffin industry is booming. (Hill: 37)

O’Neil H. Partick. (2010, 2006, 2004) CASES IN COMPARATIVE POLITICS 3^rd Edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. For example, as Zimbabwe’s government under Robert Mugabe slid  deep into authoritarian rule over the past decade, Nigeria supported the country’s suspension from the Commonwealth of Nations, and both Obasanjo have been openly critical of Mugabe’s dictatorial rule.(O’Neil :563)

“The land is ours. We shall feed all. Even the stooges and puppets will have enough. No Zimbabwean should die of hunger”                        

Robert Mugabe, August 2002.

Chan, Stephen. Robert Mugabe; a life of power and violence: Michigan: the University of Michigan Press, 2003. Of course, the broad figures of land ownership could only support Mugabe’s social justice perspective. Since independence, the government had purchased 3.3. Million hectares (8.15 million acres). In 1992, 4500 mostly white farmers owned 11.5 million hectares. This was one third of the entire country. 7 million peasants lived on 16.4 million hectares of ‘communal’ farmland. Having said that, despite the controversy surrounding it, The Land Act proposed to purchase only another 5.5 million hectares. The status quo, certainly in productive terms, would have still been biased towards the white farmers and, politically, if this redistribution had taken place the issue would have been, for some time finished. (p76)

Lamb Christina, House of Stone, 2007, Chicago, Happer Colins Publishers.

Nehanda, the woman from Mazowe inspired the 1896 uprising of the Shona against the white settlers when they realized they had been cheated out of their land by the strangers. The pioneers were taken by surprise by the revolt of natives they had seen as placid and submissive as the cattle they herded, and whom they had thought welcomed their arrival as protection against the raiding parties of the Ndebele. But the Shona were angry that not only had they lost their land, but were also expected to pay hut tax which meant losing their menfolk to the mines and farms of the strangers.” (p.41)

Chan, Stephen. Robert Mugabe; a life of power and violence: Michigan: the University of Michigan Press, 2003. The second Chimurenga, the War of Liberation that ended with independence in 1980, was a victory over the political structures imposed by generations of settler government and culture, but not over the land ownership structures of the almost century long settler era. As outlined above, Mugabe had, from the beginning, regarded land as a great unfinished issue, but there were never the funds to purchase huge amounts of white land and, as the international community – Britain very much included – became disinclined to help, Mugabe’s rhetoric became shriller. The War Veterans who unveiled themselves as the squatters and invaders of farms in 2000 were echoing the unfinished nature of the Chimurenga, and Mugabe, himself as its spiritual heir was disinclined to discourage them. In Britain, commentators were inclined to condemn the farm invasions. (p.148)

Lamb Christina, House of Stone, 2007, Chicago, Happer Colins Publishers.

When he was elected Prime Minister in 1964, Smith had no intention of being the next victim of what Harold Macmillan called ‘the winds of change’ sweeping through the continent. Rhodesia was more complicated because although the whites numbered only 220 thousands, compared to almost 5 million blacks and went back at most three generations, they considered themselves just as indigenous.  The Rhodesian leader also pointed out that, unlike other colonies, this country had a sophisticated economy based on mining and agriculture with its own merchant banks and stock exchange. If it was to be independent, he wanted it under  continued white minority rule to safe guard all this (p.22) , and on 11 November 1965, found themselves the first white settlers to rebel since the Boston Tea Party in 1776 (21), with Smith signing the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) from Britain.

Lamb Christina, House of Stone, 2007, Chicago, Happer Colins Publishers.

More than 400,000 people, almost a third of the black population, were evicted from their villages between 1945 and 1955. In 1969, Prime Minister Ian Douglas Smith announced the Land Tenure Act so that the division of land – good to the whites and bad to the blacks would be fixed for all time.”((p.14)

Chan, Stephen. Robert Mugabe; a life of power and violence: Michigan: the University of Michigan Press, 2003. In April 2000, Mugabe was still saying that (p.150) “no white farmer would be chased from Zimbabwe, provided he or she wanted to stay in the country and share land with the landless peasants.” Herald (Harare), 8 April 2000.  Mugabe rushed through his 16^th Constitutional Amendment providing that if Britain did not pay compensation for nationalized land it could be nationalized without any compensation at all. The Justice Minister speaking on the amendment in Parliament charged that ‘the current British government has reneged on the issue of paying compensation on land acquired for resettlement.’

Chan, Stephen. Robert Mugabe; a life of power and violence: Michigan: the University of Michigan Press, 2003. In the last days of February and beginning of March 2000, thousands of surprisingly urban attired ‘squatters’ occupied 70 white –owned farms. Ten days into March, 500 farms had been occupied. (p.147)

Chan, Stephen. Robert Mugabe; a life of power and violence: Michigan: the University of Michigan Press, 2003. By October, Mugabe was giving speeches about the return to socialism, and espousing a revolutionary rhetoric from decades before. He fended off the EU and Commonwealth call to an end of violence; Europe began talking of sanctions as Mugabe began talking of socialism p.174).

Chan, Stephen. Robert Mugabe; a life of power and violence: Michigan: the University of Michigan Press, 2003. “The white farmers have two options: to handover the land and leave or to stay and see what land we leave them. The whites are foreigners, they are British! They should go back to Britain.” (Guardian, 20 April 2000). ZANU –PF placards rubbed in the official discourse: ‘Zimbabwe will never be a colony again’ (p. 156).

Lamb Christina, House of Stone, 2007, Chicago, Happer Colins Publishers.                                    Christina lamb looked more closely at the impact of land on economic sanctions and concluded that “Each settler was awarded 3,000 acres for just sixpence – the price of a British South Africa company revenue stamp – and farms were pegged out regardless of whether there were people living there.”

Lamb Christina, House of Stone, 2007, Chicago,  Happer Colins  Publishers Lamb asserts that the history of Rhodesia started with the arrival of the whites to civilize warring kaffir tribes and ‘the whites came and drove out the black people to the hills and mountains and barren land and took away the good land. As Ian Smith’s later described in his memoirs, “As for the white settlers taking the best land, because of the primitive agricultural implements used by the black people which were wooden as opposed to the iron used by the white man they were concentrated on the  light sandy soils which they found easier to work”.(p.40-42)

Lamb Christina, House of Stone, 2007, Chicago, Happer Collins Publishers The Comrades recalled Nehanda on the hangman’s block and promised, “We will give you back the Whiteman’s land!” (p.71)

Chan, S, (2003). ROBERT MUGABE: a life of power and violence. Michigan:  University of Michigan Press. The roots of the land problem had grown from settler seedlings. The appropriation of land, by Cecil Rhodes’s British South Africa Company at the end of the nineteenth century, was not gentle. In 1896, a huge uprising of both Shona and Ndebele people killed some 400 settlers. This was the first liberation War, Chimurenga, of modern Zimbabwean history. The settler’s response was even more brutal than the uprising, and ‘native” modes of self- organization were destroyed. The formalization of white hegemony over the land   came in the 1923 Constitution, which entrenched native reserves, and in 1930, with the Land Apportionment Act, whereby Rhodesia was largely divided into land privately owned by white settlers (by far the majority of land, and the best), and what came known in the Smith era as the “tribal trust lands”, a kind of peasant –farmer extended reservation. The second Chimurenga,  the war of liberation that ended with independence in 1980, was a victory over the political structures imposed by generations of  settler government and culture., but not over the land  ownership structures of the almost-  century –long settler era. As outlined above, Mugabe had, from the beginning, regarded land as a great unfinished issue, but there were never the funds to purchase huge amounts of white lands and, as the international community – Britain very much included – became disinclined to help.  (P.148)

Lind Nancy Sand Tamas Bernard I. (2007). Controversies of the George W. Bush Presidency. London: Greenwood Press. P.118- 119. On March 6, 2003, President Bush declared economic sanctions against Zimbabwe. The United States cited several clear undemocratic practice of the Mugabe regime, the lack of respect for human rights, and the rampant violence throughout the country as reasons for his step. By issuing this executive order, the president advanced his administration’s stand on furthering the spread of democracy and the upholding of human rights in the region, both were seen as essential for achieving long-term stability. The European also decided to impose sanctions on the Zimbabwe government by freezing assets within the country. Some surrounding African leaders were puzzled by the actions taken by the United States and the European Union. Leaders such as Tanzanian president Benjamin Mkapa as well as the Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo questioned the alleged human rights violations and reminded both powers to the democratic ideals upheld in Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwean government strongly condemned the sanctions. Although the sanctions were put in place in 2003, they continue to be enforced today (Lind and Tamas 118- 119).

Herbst, Jeffrey State Politics in Zimbabwe, Berkeley; University of California Press, 1990. In his controversial but generally celebrated book, State Politics in Zimbabwe Herbst, Jeffrey points out that “by 1990 there were in fact two conflicts over land: the government and the white farmers, and the rise of squatters – unilateral takers over land.”

 Meredith M, (2002, 2003, 2007). Power Plunder, and the Struggle for Zimbabwe: Mugabe, New York: Public Affairs.                                                                                                     Thus after independence in 1980 the pattern for land ownership remained much as it had been  for most of the twentieth century: white large scale  commercial farmers, numbering 6000 , held 39 percent of the land; black small- scale commercial farmers, numbering some 6000, held 39 percent of the land; black small-scale commercial farmers, numbering 8000, held  4 percent. Most productive land was held by the whites; three quarters of all peasant land  lay in areas where droughts occurred frequently and where …(120)” 

Chan, Stephen. Robert Mugabe: A Life of Power and Violence. London: Tauris, 2003. “The white farmers have two options: to handover the land and leave or to stay and see what land we leave them. The whites are foreigners, they are British! They should go back to Britain.” The book notes that ZANU –PF placards rubbed in the official discourse: ‘Zimbabwe will never be a colony again.’ (156)

Lamb Christina, House of Stone, 2007, Chicago, Happer Colins Publishers A crowd of people arrived at the gate of a white couple Claire and Nigel Hough, waving a letter demanding the farm. ‘This is not Rhodesia anymore!’ shouted one man. ‘Go back to your own people’. One woman who had worked for the Hough’s’ as their maid and much- loved nanny to their children had joined the chanting crowd. ‘Get out or we’ll kill you!’ she spat at Nigel, eyes rolling with hatred. ‘There is no place for whites in this country!’(p.xx)

Chan, Stephen. Robert Mugabe: A Life of Power and Violence. London: Tauris, 2003.                                    Mugabe had built an entire policy rationale and personal raison d’être on restoring white land to the majority black people. Now he accused the opposition of planning to give that land back to the whites; and Tsvangirai was. However, the issue may be addressed by pointing to food shortages: ‘There is need for land resettlement in this country but we also have to deal with a very serious food deficit’.  In short, the growing hunger is inextricably linked to Mugabe’s policy of land seizures. These had radically affected agricultural production, and been compounded by drought. “We believe,” he said, we can find a lasting solution, a more equitable solution, by creating space for the landless and at the same time also recognizing that commercial agriculture is important for the long –term economic stability of the country.”Guardian, 28 February, 2002.   These things begged the question of how the squatters and war veterans were to be removed from the land they had occupied, or how non- squatters and veterans who had been assigned seized land under the legal processes Mugabe had instituted – might be persuaded to move; or to where they might be moved, what land they might be instead be given.  (p.200)

Hill Geoff, WHAT HAPPENS AFTER MUGABE? Can Zimbabwe Rise From the Ashes? Cape Town: Zebra Press, 2003. In February 2000, Mugabe offered his people a chance to alter the constitution through a referendum. Under the new deal, vast tracts of fertile land owned by Zimbabwe’s 4000 white commercial farmers would be seized and redistributed among landless blacks. A plan to spread ownership more evenly had been drawn up after independence and was funded from London, until it emerged that farms bought from whites were being given to black government ministers and their families. Britain and other donors withdrew from the scheme, but now the government would take the land without compensation (p.16).

International Crisis Group (Brussels), 2004. Zimbabwe’s land reform program has achieved neither fairness nor productivity. Instead, it has virtually destroyed agricultural capacity while simply rewarding senior ZANU – PF, military and business circles with a windfall of land they often neglect. International Crisis Group, Brussels, 2004.

Lamb, C (2007). House of Stone, 2007. Chicago: Happer Colins Publishers.

Shortly after we saw Smith’s soldiers, guys from the bush, Mugabe’s recruits began to appear, vanamukoma, – the boys. They referred to the war as the Second Chimurenga after the unsuccessful 1896 uprising of the Shona against the white settlers.