Mugabe: It’s Not Me, It’s Colonialism!

President Robert Mugabe, who has presided over the destruction of his nation’s economy during the past two decades, waved the flag of colonialism to excuse away his own brutality and incompetence. He was pleased that the European Union-African Union meeting next week will allow him to attend event though Great Britain has indicated it will not be present if the pseudo-dictator is allowed to attend. Twenty years ago Zimbabwe was considered among the most prosperous nations in Africa, but under his tutelage it now has an 80% unemployment rate and inflation that has reached 8000%. Mugabe claimed Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s denunciation of his actions as president was merely a reflection of “our former colonisers” to make decisions concerning Zimbabwe. He ignored the brutal campaign being conducted in his own country to deny food for those who oppose his regime or the beatings and torture of political opponents. The president warned political foes they must campaign “in an atmosphere of peace” because he would crush any violence.

There are too many examples of thuggish African leaders who brutalize their own people and justify behavior on grounds all problems are the cause of having once been a colony. Waving the bloody flag of colonization will not bring food to people nor will it provide jobs. Gordon Brown wants the African Union to take action and protect the people of Zimbabwe, but they prefer hiding from reality.

  • Algonquin J. Calhoun

    I can’t agree more, Mugabe has reduced the “breadbasket of Southern Africa” to a basket case and, unfortunately, South Africa is following suit. Attacks against white farmers there are following the same pattern used in Rhodesia and, over time, will have the same result. Thanks, Jimmy Carter.

  • Fred Stopsky

    I agree he has misused the talents of white farmers, but his own people are the ones suffering.

  • hiraethin

    His official role is that of elected president of Zimbabwe… so all Zimbabweans are his people, whether white or not. And they’re all suffering, white or not. Viewing white Zimbabweans as separate from, or to be treated differently from, black Zimbabweans is what was wrong with the Rodesian regime. Mugabe’s claims of colonialist interference are the traditional cries of an incompetent dictator whose mismanagement of his country’s affairs has brought it low.

  • Capitalist Infidel

    Wow, you’ve figured out what the rest of us knew 20 years ago.

  • BlacquesJacquesShellacques

    Mr. Infidel, don’t be mean to the silly leftist boy, just be grateful he shows some signs of growing up.

  • Chief Clancy Wiggum

    Hmmm, are you implying that Communism doesn’t work, or Mugabe just isn’t doing it right?

  • Fred Stopsky

    I have no idea what you are talking about. How did “communism” get into anything I wrote about Mugabe? By the way, he has never claimed to be following communist ideas.

  • Fred Stopsky

    The mistakes of Mugabe do not validate the existence of colonial rule as epitomized by the government of Rhodesia. In South Africa, Nelson Mandela and President Mbeki have worked closely with all people in their society and never resorted to seizing property of white Europeans. It is sad that someone uses an incompetent leader to justify the existence of colonialism. India was colonized for over a 150 years and is the world’s largest democracy. Of course, we could discuss capitalist governments in Nigeria or Egypt that are dreadful.

  • Vincent

    Like most of the mainsteam Western media, the author of this blog is not being completely honest.

    How can a country have 8000% inflation without a war or extreme natural disaster?

    Yes, Mugabe has his problems. He even has blood on his hand, but the economic collapse in Zimbabwe is not just the result of unfair elections or mismanagement. It is the result of Western (British, American) sanctions that deny the country access to international monetary resources.

    An act passed by the US Congress (called ZIDERA) is the main culprit.

    The Western media (CNN, BBC) keep banging on that the only sanctions existing are “targeted” as Mugabe and his cronies, yet ZIDERA explicitly blocks ZImbabwe’s access to all international funds.

    One of the reasons stated in ZIDERA is lack of “democracy” the other is Zimbabwe’s involvement in the Democratic Republic od Congo…

  • Vincent
  • Fred Stopsky

    Perhaps, Mr. Vincent might consult those opposing Mugabe concerning the causes of their nation’s economic collapse. Perhaps, Mr. Vincent might explain the refusal of Mugabe to give donated food to those opposing him. Perhaps, Mr. Vincent, can explain to those who were beaten and tortured by Mugabe thugs how everything is the fault of British colonialism. Or, consult the 1,500,00 people who have fled the disaster caused by Mugabe. Sorry, it is people like you who excuse away brutality and incompetence by citing some conspiracy that never existed.

  • Gekk

    Right Vincent.

    I’m sure driving off all the people who knew how to run the farms, while giving them to friends who can’t run them didn’t lower production.

    I’m also sure price caps and “outlawing inflation” while forcing people to sell goods under cost isn’t damaging to the economy.

    Heck, I bet if those sanctions weren’t there, people could run large farms and machinery without any training at all, and you could make a great profit selling goods under cost.

    Damn Western nations for blocking illogical proposals from working.

  • Vincent

    Mr. Stopsky,

    I never said Mugabe was a saint, I never said opponents were not beaten up, etc.

    I merely provided a fact (backed by a text of the sanctions act) that is a major contribution to the economic crisis in Zimbabwe.

    I do not care whether Mugabe is God or Satan, what I am asking is why are media outlets deliberately lying about this fact and claiming “targeted” sanctions?

    I never mentioned colonialism, but the fact is that the British are not helping the situation.

    The Lancaster Agreement that ended colonial rule explicitly requires Britain to finance a land redistribution program but the British never did (after looting Zimbabwe’s resources for 100 years, this is the least Britain can do).

    Mugabe is using the land seizures for his own political goals, but he was able to do that because Britain had 20 years to fulfill its obligation but failed to do so…

    Everywhere I look, all I see is people claiming Zimbabwe was better under white apartheid rule, that Mugabe “stole” land from white farmers. Never mind the fact that the white farmers stole the land while committing genocide against the local population, built their wealth on the back of the forced labor of the able-bodied locals, and drove the non-able-bodied into concentration camps…

    The solution in Zimbabwe is simple: Britain should finance land redistribution or let the locals take their land back. They should be left to deal with their own problems without a debilitating economic sanction ruining their lives.

    If they want to hang Mugabe or keep him, it is their problem as long as they do not come to Britain or America to beg for help.

  • Vincent


    So ot is OK to starve an entire country with sanctions simply because their leader made a wrong decision?

    Why add to the problems?

    So ot is OK to deny the country access to international markets and financial institutions simply because they do not know how to operate commercial farms?

    Why not let market conditions show them their mistakes so they can invite the white farmers back?

    No, the sanctions are there because they dared to take their land bank from 4,000 white farmers (some of them members of the British parliament) who controlled most of the country’s best arable land while millions of blacks remain landless.

    The problem in Zimbabwe is not about democracy or rule of law, it is because Mugabe dard to threaten the economic intersts of Britain and (British) white farmers…

    There are worse dictators than Mugabe in Uganda, Ethiopia, Libya, Egypt, Gabon, equitorial Guinea, etc. There are flawed elections in Nigeria and many other African countries, but nobody imposes sanctions on them because they are not threatening the economic intersts of the West (Libya was left off the hook when it backed down, but the dictatirship remains).

  • Gekk

    When a country turns from a net food exporter to a net food importer; the problem is a problem of production, not a problem of trade.

    Fixing a trade issue, or removing sanctions won’t produce more food. Having productive people running farms produces food, not relations with foreign countries.

    When you drive all the people who have the knowledge to run a modern farm out of the country (or kill them outright) then you’re going to have production issues.

    Although you’re right… now the natives own the arable land. Too bad they don’t know what to do with it. you can take back the land, but the knowledge of how to productively use it doesn’t come with the land; it left with the people.

    But at least they drove off or killed the white men (the raping and killing by the rioters and Government squads were significant, but go ahead and ignore that if you want). And Britain should trade freely with a Government that kills off British citizens?

    Interesting prospect. If beating a nation’s citizens, raping them, and killing them isn’t worthy of sanctions from that nation what would be?

    I have to say, when a nation accepts as public policy, the goal of beating and killing nationals (by Government approval, and using Government troops in this case), I’m going to vote for sanctions against that nation.

    Call me parochial if you like, but that doesn’t seem out of bounds. I’m not surprised that Britain (and their allies) aren’t interested in trade with a country who approved a policy of beating and killing British citizens.

    Although I guess we could make it fair. We could approve trade, but kill off any Zimbabwe citizens we find in U.S. and Britain. Does that policy meet with your approval, or does killing off foreign nationals seem a bit inappropriate?

  • Vincent

    Here are some facts for those who remain in denial about the real situation in Zimbabwe (Mugabe is bad, but the main cause of the problem is Western efforts to protect white farmers and their economic interests) :

  • Vincent


    You don’t get it.

    The sanctions do not mean that Britain and USA are refusing to trade with Zimbabwe. They are blocking its access to international financial institutions and markets.

    It is like someone blocking all your bank accounts and cancelling all your credit cards simply because you have a problem within your own family.

    The white farmers and Britain had 20 years (since independence in 1980) to solve the land problem. As I said, Britain undertook in the Lancaster Agreement to finance equitable land redistribution — based on the princle of willing buyer, willing seller.

    Britain refused to fulfill this agreement, the white farmers refused to sell…

    The West are picking on Zimbabwe not because of democracy and human rights (as I said, 50% of the governments in Africa are worse than Mugabe’s) but because his land seizure affected their economic interests and the interests of white farmers…

    You repeated another lie that most former white farmers like to perpetrate: Zimbabwe was a net food exporter and the bread basket of Africa.

    What has this got to do with white farmers and their land? White farmers cultivated mainly tobacco for export and not maize (which is the staple diet of Zimbabweans).

    Anyway, my point is that there are economic sanctions against Zimbabwe (people should stop lying that they do not exist) and Mugabe’s management alone is not the reason for 8000% inflation (even Congo that has been in war for more than 10 years does not have 8000% inflation).

  • Gekk

    Ok, so if you were head of a country, and another country beat and killed your citizens living there, you’d be ok with it? No sanctions, no problems?

    Fine, can I hope you never get elected to anything?

  • Fred Stopsky

    The main opposition parties in Zimbabwe are led by black Africans, not whites. Their leaders have been beaten and intimidated. There is no question Mugabe withheld food from people who opposed his rule-so what does Great Britain have to do with such horrible actions? Over 1,500,00 people have fled Zimbabwe– and they sure ain’t all whites. Frankly, I’m confused why anyone would defend an ignorant, savage thug who oppresses his people and blames it on colonialism. The world was furious at the military junta thugs of Myanmar, and what was their response– the exact same as Mugabe– all of Burma’s problems were caused by “outside elements.” No one denies Europeans stole land from Africans, and no sensible person would oppose land reform which gave land to African farmers. But, that is NOT what happened in Zimbabwe. Mugabe gave the land to his cronies and political allies, none of whom knew anything about farming. The people who really are suffering are Africans who lost their jobs when Mugabe wrecked the farm system. Anyone who focuses on white farmers and ignores the plight of Africans raises issues concerning what is important in their life– self righteous indignation at evil whites or ensuring the people of Zimbabwe have a democratic government run by Africans which works with all people of Zimbabwe to ensure prosperity.