Globusz^® Publishing 

If you look at it at the media’s propaganda of view, you will see yourself hating Robert Mugabe even if you are not Zimbabwean. You will probably be telling yourself, what a stupid man he is. But then ask yourself, ‘why do I hate Robert Mugabe? Is it because he took away the white Zimbabweans farmer’s land and offered to distribute it so that the indigenous Zimbabwean farmers can also partake in commercial farming? When you look at Zimbabwe now, you think Mugabe has really ruined the country. There are food shortages fuel shortages inflation is at record high. Prices of goods are increasing rapidly all the time. The people there are actually finding life very hard. But then, how does distributing farmland bring about fuel shortage and all these other problems? Some will argue that because commercial farms were taken away from white Zimbabweans, Zimbabwe lost its major export industry and thus there arose a shortage of income and thus inflation. Really? Is this Really true? So what are we saying now? Black Zimbabweans can’t farm? Black Zimbabweans can’t run commercial farms? Well who do you think has been running the farms all along? It’s the black Zimbabweans. They did all the labor; the white Zimbabweans just pocketed the money. So the white Zimbabweans become richer and the black Zimbabweans remained the same, maybe just a little bit better or a little bit less but nothing more. The black Zimbabweans never acquired wealth because they were never given that opportunity in the first place. If you looked at Zimbabwe before the farm takeovers, most of the white Zimbabweans were well off while most of the black Zimbabweans were poor. Is that what Robert Mugabe and all the liberators of Zimbabwe, were fighting for? Where they fighting for Zimbabwe to gain independence so that the black Zimbabweans can remain poor? Is that what all those who died during the struggles for independence, die for? So then ask yourself, what was wrong with distributing wealth. Because that is what those farms are, wealth. Is it wrong for black Zimbabweans to partake of the share of commercial farming so that they can also afford the luxuries of life? With shared wealth, it means equal opportunities for all Zimbabweans regardless of race or color. It means that the white Zimbabweans won’t have to look at the black Zimbabweans as nobodies, as just gardeners, servants, poor people etc. With shared wealth it means that the white Zimbabweans will respect the black Zimbabweans. They will look at the black Zimbabweans as people who can contribute something for the betterment of their welfare. Will look at black Zimbabweans as intelligent people, as leaders, as friends and most of all as one of them, as fellow Zimbabweans. And thus there won’t be any racial discrimination. Black and white will both live in harmony. They won’t fear each other or be intimidated by one another. Even if one black person does something wrong, they won’t think of it as all black people are alike. They won’t have any negative feelings towards black Zimbabweans and they will judge each black person as an individual, just like an individual white person. And that person has his own thoughts, feelings, good and bad behavior.

The black Zimbabweans will also be empowered and they won’t be intimidated by the white Zimbabweans or think of the white Zimbabweans as a better or superior race. They will regard or white Zimbabweans as Zimbabweans and will not regard the negative view of one white person as the view of all white people. They will treat the white Zimbabweans just like one of them and both groups will live happily together, eating together, playing together, and living together as one people. And the difference in colors won’t mean different in citizenship or difference in quality of life.

So, what is the real cause of the problems in Zimbabwe? Well the problem begun ages ago, though they have just come out. When the British first colonized Zimbabwe. They didn't distribute the country’s wealth among all the inhabitants living there. The blacks were neglected. The indigenous people’s welfare was not included in the colony’s policy. The whites were favored and acquired great wealth, while the blacks were looked down upon and left to be laborers. And this went on even after the British left and white Zimbabweans took over. They followed the same principles and maybe even harsher. So when Zimbabwe gained independence, the country was already in a mess. Mugabe was left with a country in shatters in terms of indigenous people’s conditions of living. The blacks were so overlooked that it would really take a long time before black lifestyle can reach the standard of the Western Countries. The British enforced a policy on Zimbabwe that was designed to make it hard for the blacks to live a modern standard way of life. A few black people have achieved that, but the majority is still suffering. And as for white Zimbabweans, they lived a standard comparable to the one in the Western world and maybe even better because they had maids, cooks, garden boys and very cheap labor in form of black Zimbabweans. If the white Zimbabweans and the British had thought of the black Zimbabweans as one of them, the situation in Zimbabwe and many parts of Africa would not have happened. And now Mugabe, who had to inherit a country with unequal opportunities, a country with policies that messed up the black people’s lifestyle, a country full of poor uneducated black people must be blamed for trying to improve the lifestyle of black people? Can someone who is trying to empower black people, trying to provide better conditions for the black people, trying to bring equal opportunities to a country that was developed on unequal opportunities, be blamed for Zimbabwe’s mess? Absolutely not! If there is anyone to blame it should be the British government and now the American government.

The British and American governments have called for sanctions to be placed on Zimbabwe. Seriously what would sanctions do to a country, which is already in shatters? Instead of the British accepting blame. They put the blame on Mugabe and the Zimbabwean government. If the British government was unhappy with Mugabe trying to re-distribute land, then maybe they shouldn’t have unfairly, unjustly, denied the black Zimbabweans commercial land. All the best arable land was distributed among themselves. If they shared the wealth, provided equal opportunities and worked to the betterment of the lives of both the white and black Zimbabweans, this could not have happened. The British government made a mistake and instead of apologising, their trying to cover it up by shifting the blame on Mugabe. Even if Robert Mugabe didn’t take away the farms from the white Zimbabweans, someone else would have. The black Zimbabweans would not just have sat back and watch the white Zimbabweans getting richer while themselves remain poor. There is enough wealth in Zimbabwe for both the whites and the blacks to live a modern, acceptable standard way of life and even better than the Western countries. But first trade must be restored. Sanctions must be lifted and a better way of dealing with the land distribution issue can be found without having to impose suffering on the Zimbabwean people. Robert Mugabe is an elected president and Zimbabwe a sovereign state. If Mugabe should be removed from his Presidency, it should occur through the ballot box without outside influence. They Zimbabwean people can choose their own president. They don’t need to be persuaded indirectly by outside nations. The Zimbabwean people have not been given all the information about why a beautiful country is in such a mess. A lot of attention has been put on blaming the government and the government is forced to defend itself. The presidency is an institution. And it needs to be defended at all costs even if it means people must suffer for a while. If the government collapses, the whole country collapses.

Zimbabwe is in that situation because of sanctions and not because of the seizure of the farms. No country can survive without trade, not even the mighty USA. If sanctions were imposed on the USA, it would be in the same situation as Zimbabwe is now, probably even worse.

Zimbabwe is not in its current situation because of bad governance. It’s in it current situation because the government decided to re-distribute land. An idea, which the British, American and Australian governments didn’t like because they were scared it might spread to their countries.

The British government was scared that a large number of refugees, who weren’t happy with the Zimbabwean government decision, will flow into Britain and the British government will have to allocate them. This would cost Britain a lot of money and also there is not much space in Britain.

America and Australian governments were scared that once the indigenous people of those countries saw what was happening with the black Zimbabwean taking back their land, they might also start demanding the same. And in order to stop this from happening by imposing sanctions, they made the Zimbabwean people believe that their government was incompetent.

With sanctions the Zimbabwean economy quickly went down and the people started believing the American, British and Australian propaganda that Mugabe is a bad leader and he should be disposed off quickly. And in return Mugabe defended himself and the presidency from falling into colonial indirect rule. Any president in Robert Mugabe’s situation would have done the same as his doing. Only a coward president would have easily given in to Western pressure. African countries should never have agreed to sanctions being imposed on Zimbabwe. There are much better methods to solve something without having to ruin a country and make the people suffer.

African countries should learn to stand together against the West. That is why Africa should be self reliant, so it doesn’t have to keep asking for peanut aid which comes with stupid conditions and isn’t payable. Which makes Africa keep relying on foreign aid.