Zimbabwe Government Passes Law On 51% Black Ownership

Prime Minister Tsvangirai has rejected the law and intends to meet with Mugabe and his cronies to discuss it.

www.newzimbabwe.com...

Tsvingirai seems intent on pursuing his own policies and try to attract investment into Zimbabwe.
He also seem determined to face up to Mugabe.

I sincerely hope he get's the backing and support that he deserves from Zimbabwe itself, it's African neightbours and Western governments.

reply to post by halfoldman


Very interesting insight my friend.

reply to post by Freeborn

I don't have exact numbers but there are very few whites left in Zimbabwe. The whole land reclaiming stunt was an orhastrated spectacle to cover the oppression of the MDC opposition. So while the media focused on the plight of the farmers, there was even more vicious suppression of the black opposition going on. The West played into Mugabe's hands by portraying a back vs white scenario. As in SA the race-card and playing on anti-white sentiment only arises when the ruling party wants to deflect a scandal, or cover up its failures by appealing to a radical faction. Tragic and violent as the land invasions were, very few individual farmers were killed. In the same period several hundred white farmers were killed in SA. Although the farm murders in SA are often accompanied by anti-white slogans (left as grafitti, often in the victims' blood), the ANC insists these are non-political crimes. However, ANC liberation songs like "One settler one bullet", or "Kill the Boer, the farmer", as well as the disbanding of white self-defense commandos imply a tacit sympathy with driving away the white farmers.
The West so far must consider the attitude of Zimbabwe's neighbors (George W Bush called Mbeki his "lead-man" on Zimbabwe). While attitudes to Mugabe are mixed in SA, if any outside force had to attack Mugabe the Africans would band together against the invader.
Mugabe runs on a pretence, or thread of legitimacy. There are elections and MDC members in parliament (of course the elections were never free or fair). Africanists would also claim that Zimbabwe is not a threat to its neighbors and hasn't invaded anyone. If the West won't intervene in Tibet (which was invaded and colonized by China), then it won't intervene in Zimbabwe (which has good relations with China).
Anti-Western sentiments already abound, and the US is seen as a far greater threat to states (since the invasion of Iraq) than Mugabe or other African dictators.
There's a notion in SA that Zimbaweans are pathetically timid, and that they should go back and fight their own struggle if they don't like Mugabe.
So intervention by the West, which is already seen as neo-colonialist, hypocritical and threatening, would not be regionally welcome.
In fact, the more the West complains, the more support Mugabe seems to get. He is in fact exploiting anti-Western sentiment.

So the West might have intervened if SA was willing and eager to go that way. But SA has its own scandals with farm murders that it doesn't want highlighted, and Mugabe is an ex-liberation leader.
Now the damage is largely done, but fortunately the white farmers are largely re-settled elsewhere.

Those who supported the so called Liberators of the People by there own choice have gotten what they deserved in spades . As for those who saw Mugabe for the tyrant that he is if any of them are still living in Zimbabwe I hope they can get out soon if they wish to . IMO regardless of the outcome of Mugabe latest ploy to keep the people under his rule poor and starving the course for Zimbabwe has been set . After Mugabe dies of natural courses or is assassinated another henchmen will fill the role of dictator of Zimbabwe .

"A law that demands that any business in Zimbabwe with assets of a value over $500,000 dollars must be 51% black owned within 5 years."

Well will there be any business with assets in excess of $500K left within 5 years I wonder?