Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Cordova]

Probably because of the legacy of ray-cizm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8547621.stm

SA black-owned farms 'failing'
Some 90% of farms redistributed to South Africa's black population from white farmers are not productive, the government has said.

Land reform minister Gugile Nkwinti warned the land might be repossessed if the farms continued to fail.

Almost 60,000 sq km (23,000 sq miles) have been redistributed under policies aimed at benefiting black people who were left impoverished by apartheid.

The land was bought from white farmers who sold up voluntarily.

The BBC's Pumza Fihlani in Johannesburg says some black farmers are likely to argue that they have been struggling to get the resources and skills to develop their land.

And repossessing the land would provide a whole new problem for the government, our correspondent says, as any move to return the land to its former white owners is bound to be controversial.

Sensitive issue

The government had set a target of 2014 to redistribute one-third of white-owned land back to the black majority.

But Mr Nkwinti acknowledged that the deadline would not be kept.

He said the focus would now shift to helping the black farmers make their land productive.

"The farms - which were active accruing revenue for the state - were handed over to people, and more than 90% of those are not functional," he said.

"They are not productive, and therefore the state loses the revenue. We cannot afford to go on like that... No country can afford that."

At the end of apartheid in 1994 almost 90% of land was owned by the white community, which made up less than 10% of the population.

Land reform is a sensitive issue in South Africa and has been brought into sharp focus by the decline of agriculture in neighbouring Zimbabwe, where many white commercial farmers have been violently evicted

[Olivencia]

So many times when Western nations leave (whether they were "good" or "bad") or have a much more diminished role countries turn to crap.

[Fox]

Nothing is particularly surprising about this. They redistributed land from people with the skill sets to manage it to people who almost assuredly often didn't have the skillsets to manage it. Running an effective farm takes knowledge and comptency, and making mistakes can be costly.

I'm not saying their goal of moving away from 90% of land being in the hands of the white minority was necessarily a bad one, but they would have been much better served approaching it more slowly, and focusing on ensuring the people who received it were competent to manage it. They seem to realize this given the fact that they've abandoned their deadline and instead focused on increasing the competency of the last round of land recipients, and that's good. It's just too bad they didn't have the foresight to realize it earlier.

[nautilus]

Southern africa has some of the worlds most fertile agricultural land. Under white management it produced enough to feed the country and for export, the same goes for zimbabwe.

Two formerly thriving african countries are gradually turning to dustbowls.

The reason is not racism. Its because the new tenants don't have the expertise or the desire to make large-scale operations. The original white settlers arrived with nothing- they hacked those farms out of bush without tractors or the benefits of modern machinery and made them productive. Donating expensive tractors to the new occupants won't suddenly make these farms successful.

Black africans traditionally grow only enough for themseles and their families on small plots- subsistence level. That is the culture ...and it won't change.

[mises]

At least they got their land and dignity back:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1257292/The-Mail-apologises-readers-pictures-speak-eloquently-politician-desperate-plight-starving-people-Zimbabwe.html

[caniff]

^ I rolled off about 25 one-liners in my head before I decided this sh&t doesn't lend itself to sarcastic humor (you're welcome).

The situation is just sad, and apparently bound to get moreso. Throwing money at Zimbabwe isn't going to help, so I suppose the world outta brace itself for more of the same.

[kcs0001]

Viva Diversity
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/7386395/Zimbabwes-white-farmers-plan-to-seize-government-property.html

By Peta Thornycroft in Harare and Sebastien Berger In Johannesburg
Published: 7:00AM GMT 07 Mar 2010

Lawyers for dispossessed farmers believe that on Monday they will be able to start using the law to seize houses in Cape Town which are owned by the Zimbabwean government. Their action, which follows a landmark legal ruling, promises to humiliate Mr Mugabe and embarrass South Africa's president Jacob Zuma, who was on a state visit to Britain last week.

The battle for justice fought by one of the white farmers, Mike Campbell, aged 77, was featured in the documentary film Mugabe and the White African. It was shown in British cinemas this year to great acclaim.


Related Articles
Morgan Tsvangirai must resist Robert Mugabe's bullying
Roberte Mugabe supporters grab one of Zimbabwe's last white-run farms
Zimbabwe assets face seizure after tribunal rules for farmers
Zimbabwean vice-pm orders farm invaders 'off the land'
Zimbabwe land invasion threaten last of white farmers with extinction
Roy Bennett 'to take Zimbabwe cabinet job despite continued farm seizures'The film tells how he fought stubbornly to bring a legal case in 2008 against Mr Mugabe's government at the Southern African Development Community tribunal, based in the Namibian capital Windhoek.

Mr Campbell won a victory when the court ruled that Mr Mugabe's farm takeovers were racist in nature and therefore illegal.

At the North Gauteng High Court in the South African capital Pretoria last month, the farmers successfully applied for the Namibian judgement to be enforced in South Africa.

Lawyers acting for the Mr Campbell and a group of other farmers believe after that ruling they can seize Zimbabwean government-owned property, to recover legal costs from the South African case.

Mr Campbell, who was severely beaten by land invaders in 2008, was too frail to comment yesterday. But his son-in-law Ben Freeth, 41, said: "This is not about revenge. This is about the long arm of the law.

"We hope to expand our actions further and investigate whether we can, in time, sue individuals who were responsible for what has been going on."

Late last year Mr Freeth watched helplessly as thugs burned down his farmhouse in Zimbabwe.

Their representatives have identified at least 11 properties which are owned by the government of Zimbabwe, including houses in Cape Town worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. Unlike properties in Pretoria which are connected to the embassy, the Cape Town properties are thought not to be protected by diplomatic immunity.

The lawyers say it will be a groundbreaking development, as they are not aware of any precedent for government-owned properties being seized in pursuit of a civil judgement.

The timing is awkward for Mr Zuma. This week the South African president called for Western sanctions to be lifted against Mr Mugabe and his cronies, during a state visit to Britain. The EU recently renewed sanctions for another year, although Western officials point out the sanctions hit only only specific regime members rather than the Zimbabwean people as a whole.

The former opposition Movement for Democratic Change went into a coalition with Mr Mugabe's Zanu-PF party just over a year ago, but the agreement has been beset by difficulties. At one point the MDC boycotted cabinet meetings for several weeks, blaming obstructionism by Zanu-PF.

In the meantime seizures of white-owned farms have continued.

The SADC tribunal has yet to set an amount to be paid in compensation, but the lawyers say they are already able to seek the seizures to recover costs in connection with the court hearing in South Africa, estimated at about �12,000.

Willie Spies, the lead South African lawyer in the case, said it would be almost impossible for the Zimbabwean government to appeal against the seizures as it had not contested the North Gauteng court ruling.

The South African government was not a party to the proceedings, he added, and while technically it could apply for judicial review it would be in a "moral predicament" if it tried to do so, as in a separate case last year it had formally agreed to "honour and uphold" the SADC tribunal verdict.

"It's going to be a very interesting test for the independence of our sheriffs and for the South African government," he said.

The ruling has not been enforceable in Zimbabwe.

Senior Zanu-PF officials have sought to dismiss the significance of the legal proceedings. They have claimed that the SADC tribunal did not have jurisdiction over Zimbabwe, even though the nation is a member of the organisation and government lawyers appeared in court to defend it.

At the time of the SADC tribunal ruling, the then minister of lands, Didymus Mutasa, said: "They are day-dreaming because we are not going to reverse the land reform exercise."

Patrick Chinamasa, Zimbabwe's justice minister, could not be reached for comment on the latest developments.

[pkang0202]

You know what they say:

Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Give a man a fishing pole without teaching him how to use it and he starves.

[nautilus]

[caniff]