I didn't take his advice. Instead, I left (as the only passenger) on the last train from Bulawayo to Lourenco Marques in newly independent Mozambique, where the bread queues and dilapidation had already begun. The writing, I thought, was already on the wall for Rhodesia: the first casualties of the bush war were beginning to arrive, and I had come to the country in the first place only out of curiosity, to witness a way of life that I already knew to be dying. 

For whites, though, it was still an attractive way of life: Rhodesia for them was something of a paradise. There was infinite space, the sky was magnificently blue, the temperature equable, the servants abundant and seemingly devoted. They relieved you entirely of the boring petty domestic cares of everyday life, so that you could concentrate on socialising and sensory - or other - pleasures.

If, thanks to sanctions, certain consumer goods were in short supply, I experienced this as a liberation rather than as a burden: for no mere choice between inessential trifles could begin to approach the pleasure of spending the hour after dawn on the wide, cool verandah, contemplating the avocado and grapefruit trees, and hearing the cry of the go-away bird while Moses prepared breakfast. 

It couldn't possibly last and I felt guilty at enjoying it while it did. I read up on the Rhodesian land question: how a relative handful of white farmers owned half the land, and the better half of it at that, while large numbers of African peasants scratched a bare subsistence on the rest. The academic experts of the time were unanimous in their opinion: white commercial farming was an inefficient use of the land, which should be distributed to African peasants, who would produce more food crops per acre than white farmers. The export commodity crops grown by the white farmers were irrelevant or worse, since they tied the country to export markets in relations of financial dependence. 

It was all tosh, of course, but it takes years of academic training to become entirely divorced from any sense of reality. Every student of the subject wanted to believe that equitable land distribution was compatible with large agricultural surpluses, so he found the arguments to support the conclusion that he had already drawn. Quite apart from anything else, it was obvious that, if ever the land were redistributed, it would not be according to the recipient's need, but according to his political proximity to the President-for-as-long-as-he-likes. Zimbabwe would then get the worst of both worlds: extreme concentration of the ownership of land without the large agricultural surpluses that were its sole justification. 

The reason this predictable eventuality was not predicted by liberal academics was that recognition of it would have blown apart the claims of the liberation struggle to be anything other than a loot-and-power struggle: precisely what the redneck Rhodesians always said it was. As far as the white-owned land was concerned, President Mugabe held off for longer than I thought he would. Now, of course, he is reacting like a cornered rat: for him, the question has become a life and death one. 

The occupation of white-owned farmland by his supporters is the only diversionary tactic left to him, social justice being the last refuge of a kleptocrat. Is there anything the British Government can do to deter Mr Mugabe from bringing about economic disaster in this way? Quiet diplomacy will hardly mean much to him, while breaking off diplomatic relations will leave Britain unrepresented just when it most needs representation in the country. Economic sanctions, in so far as they would be effective at all, would harm the ordinary people of Zimbabwe, the majority of whom appear to be heartily sick of Comrade Bob. And it is no good warning Mr Mugabe that, in the event of a famine consequent on the land invasions he has fomented and encouraged, no help or relief from Britain would be forthcoming: such a course of action would once again punish those people not responsible for the situation, while leaving those responsible for it completely unaffected. 

For Mr Mugabe is indifferent to the fate of the Zimbabwean people: let the heavens fall, so long as I remain in power. Mr Mugabe is said to have large assets in Britain, and these could be confiscated, but only within the bounds of the law, which might not permit such action. A government that precipitately confiscated his personal assets might therefore find itself in the embarrassing position of having to obey a court order to return them to him. 

Fortunately, this Government has forged a new instrument to deal with the likes of Mr Mugabe: extradition for trial for crimes he has committed against humanity. Mr Mugabe already fits the bill admirably: for there is little doubt that he is responsible for many more deaths than Augusto Pinochet ever was. Moreover, his victims were selected (by his North Korean-trained troops) almost solely on ethnic grounds, because they were Matabele, so he is that worst of all killers - an ethnic murderer. 

The ethicists of the Foreign Office could therefore put Mr Mugabe on notice that, if the land occupations continue and if another farmer is killed, Britain will ask for his extradition as soon as he is overthrown. This should give him pause for thought, since relatively few countries would be left to him as places of asylum, and none in which such an old spendthrift sybarite would wish to live. North Korea might be all right for training troops, but not for residence. Nor would he be able to remain safely in his homeland: his successor would be only too glad to hand him over to justice. 

As our Prime Minister so eloquently put it during the detention of Gen Pinochet, there is nowhere for such people to hide any more. With the arrival of Tony Blair in Downing Street, the world entered an entirely new era. We all know, however, that the extradition of Mr Mugabe will never even be asked for, let alone happen. Why not? Because, notwithstanding the recent land occupations and the death of the white farmer, the great majority of Mr Mugabe's victims have been poor black peasants; and the British Government, being so institutionally racist, couldn't care less about what happened to themoubled neighbour sliding into economic collapse and anarchy.

Home | News index | Perspectives | Contact
Privacy | Disclaimer