Mr Sillah,

Thanks for your comments. I never said that I agreed with all that Mugabe said or did. I opened my piece with: "I've always taken Mugabe's side on this issue...", meaning the land issue.

You wrote: 

>...I agree that the whole issue is basically
> economic interest but we also have to admit that
> Mugabe had 20 good years to act on this land
> re-distribution issue and he didn't.

Are you sure? If my memory serves me right, The lancaster House Agreement contained clauses that made it impossible for Mugabe to make a move on the land issue for 20 years? So Mugabe made the move on the land issue exactly 20 years after that agreement (the expiry of the grace period) which was the agreement that led to Zimbawean independence. So how can you say that he is not really interested in the land issue?

Regards,

Kabir.







Ebrima Sillah <[log in to unmask]> wrote:



> Amadou Kabir,
> 
> Your points on Zims and Mugabe are indeed very
> interesting. I agree that the whole issue is basically
> economic interest but we also have to admit that
> Mugabe had 20 good years to act on this land
> re-distribution issue and he didn't. Look at what
> Mugabe is doing to his own people...state sponsored
> thuggery and terrorism. Look at the ZANO-PF thugs
> burning down people's houses, beating pregnent women
> and disabling independent media houses. Infact i want
> to believe that Mugabe is still not intersted in a
> fair land re-distribution in his country. The fact of
> the matter is that the guy is losing and he is using
> every measure to cling to power including building
> controversy over the land problem. Indeed the fertile
> lands in Zims have to be redistributed but at whose
> expense because 80% of the farms forcibly seized are
> not utlized or managed properly. Rather than spend
> large sums of money maintaining an army in a usless
> war in the DRC, Mugabe colud use that money to help
> resettle the poor farmers on the newly acquired lands.
> But he will never do that. Instead he will be happy
> harassing poor people for a problem that is his own
> making. so let Mugabe act. But you know what he will
> not because the commitment is not there. I want to
> believe that for Mugabe he will more at ease to have a
> chaotic and  strangled democratic institutions so that
> he can remain in power. Whenever his thugs kill an
> oppenet(a citizen of Zim) he is not bordered. But
> whenever those same people even organise a mare
> political meeting he confortably sends his police with
> orders either to maim or kill. This the everyday
> predicamet for the already over-stretched ordinary
> Zims. Mugaabe's madness is a dergerous trend for
> Africa because any dictator can just do the same thing
> and the by time the world acts it is already too late.
> Let the land issue be resolved...but let Mugabe also
> gives and accepts the rights of his opponents to life
> and political divergence.  I am always very upset when
> i see African governments peddle this nonsense of
> development at the expensive of people's rights. Zims
> could have been a better place now had Mugabe acted a
> long time ago. If he is to continue blaming people for
> the same problems happening 20 years ago then his
> leardership credentials are questionable!
> 
> E Sillah
> 

<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>

To view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>