The recent elections in Zimbabwe sparked a firestorm of criticism of that government and its leader, Dr. Robert Mugabe, who was re-elected winning 56 percent of the vote. Dr. Simbi Mubako is Zimbabwe�s ambassador to the U.S. After working for two years as a journalist, he went to Lesotho for university studies, and then on to the University of South Africa where he studied law, before obtaining several other degrees from the University College Dublin, the London School of Economics, Harvard University, Knightsbridge University, U.K., and the University of Oslo. Dr. Mubako discussed the political situation in his country with Final Call White House correspondent Askia Muhammad.

Ambassador Mubako (AM): Certainly it is correct that there have been some dissenting voices, critical voices about the election. (They were) notably the British Commonwealth, the British government, the United States government and some people here. But of the monitors themselves, those who were critical were the Norwegians, the Commonwealth and a parliamentary group. The majority of the observers were in fact positive. I�m talking about the South African delegation, the Nigerian delegation as you have said, the Tanzanian delegation, the Zambian delegation, Iran, Russia, China, the Southern African Development Community, and the ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) delegation. They all said that the elections were "free and fair," or "legitimate."

Of the United States and Britain, we think those are not to be taken seriously because they had made up their minds before the elections. In fact, they imposed sanctions before the elections were conducted.

AM: Yes. There are quite a number of areas. Generally in the last three or four years, we have tended to have a lot of violence in our body politic, generally. Because of competition between the parties, there is a lot of intolerance. It worries me that we cannot argue our political differences peacefully without fighting. And we want to eliminate that as much as possible.

It�s fair to say that if you compare worldwide, it�s not yet at the alarming rate. We�re not talking here of Israel, or even India, what is going on right now. We think that at the moment it�s simply because the British government is against Zimbabwe, against Mugabe, mainly because of the land question. They believe Mugabe is taking away land from White people and giving it to Black people.

AM: That was the "Catch-22" situation in which the government found itself. When we got independence, the main issues of our war of independence were political power; independence itself; and land. Of course, we got political independence. And then people were promised that we would use this political independence to give them the land back. That was raised at Lancaster House during the (peace) negotiations in 1979.

The British realized that there was a problem in Zimbabwe: "Your government when it comes into power will have to buy the land." (Our) leader said: "No, we can�t buy the land. First of all, we don�t have the money to buy the land. Secondly, anyway it is our land. That land was taken from Africans by the British government at gunpoint, and there was no compensation paid to the people. They were just driven away. Now that you agree that was wrongful, we should get the land back, you can�t expect us to buy our own land back."

So, those were the two principles on which the land question was debated in London, and I was part of the delegation. We said then: "The only way we could buy the land is if you provide the money." In other words, do the same thing as you did in Kenya. Provide the money. Give us the money. We�ll use that money, your money, to get the land back.

They said, the problem in Zimbabwe was too big. They could not follow the Kenyan model.They did not have enough money.

The conference broke down for two days, until President Carter came in and assured (us) that American money would come to help the British finance the transfer. The American government then, was anxious that there should be a settlement in Zimbabwe.

It was only because of that assurance that the conference resumed and succeeded. � When President Reagan came in, he didn�t want to hear about land in Zimbabwe. That is the beginning of the problem. That is the source of the problem. That�s why the crisis started. That�s why (in 1997) the ex-combatants were demonstrating. Although the acquisition was slow, at least some land was coming. No land had been coming at all, and they threatened to invade the territories themselves and acquire the land.

Government tried all manner of methods to stop the invasions of land by the ex-combatants. In 2000, it happened. There were invasions of more than 7,000 farms.

FCN: But your critics suggest that the government has been in collusion with these former combatants as a ploy in order to create political turmoil, that they are your allies and that these lawless acts were fomented by the government.

AM: They don�t understand the history. Or, they�re just being malicious or mischievous. I think the British are malicious. They know there have been pressures. The ex-combatants were actually threatening the government. Blaming the government for delaying the process.

There was no way the government could ignore that and remain in power. So, it is not true that the government sent the ex-combatants, or instructed them to do what they did. It is the other way around. The government was trying to stop the illegality, and they have now stopped the illegality, and have now brought the whole acquisition process into a legal framework.

AM: They were illegal throughout, and the government said so. No one is allowed to resettle themselves. The government regarded the invasions as a "demonstration." It was a demonstration, which the government realized was justified. The government accepted the claim and then said: "Fine. Let�s now do something about it." This is what the government has now done: removed the invaders from the farms which they seized, and then resettled them on farms which the government had legally acquired. There are now no farms which are illegally occupied, because the ex-combatants have been taken away. The government resettled them properly in a faster process, a "fast track" settlement program. It�s two-pronged. One is more-or-less peasant farming still. People who are landless are given small plots of 20 hectares (approximately 50 acres) or less even, and are allowed to build their small huts and start tilling. That is called "Model A." Within the two years, 150,000 families have been resettled. Altogether now under that program, 230,000 families have been resettled.

Then there�s the second program. The government feels that it�s not right to take all the farmland and parcel it up on these small plots. We also want commercial agriculture to continue through the commercial scheme, which is called "Model B." Under Model B, the government resettles Black farmers who do commercial farming. They have now given farmland to 55,000 families. So you�ve got 230,000 and 55,000 families who now have got land.

AM: Yes. That is what the Whites fear most. That�s why South African Whites and the South African press have joined the criticism. That is why the British government and the American government are afraid. They think that if the reforms in Zimbabwe succeed, that will be an incentive for the Blacks in South Africa to do likewise.

In South Africa, more than 75 percent of the land is in White hands, whereas the Blacks who are many more in South Africa, have only 25 percent of the land.

So clearly they are right about that. Because independence in Southern Africa�in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Namibia in particular�was given with the understanding that the Blacks would merely take the political power. They would leave the wealth in the hands of the Whites.

Now, what�s happening in Zimbabwe is not just the land, really. It is the question of the wealth of the country generally, and land is the starting point. They now see that compact, which they felt was going to remain, is no longer there. The Blacks want everything. They want political power as well as the economic wealth of the country.

That�s what is happening in Zimbabwe. It�s a revolution really that is taking place, beginning with land. That�s bound to happen in South Africa. It�s bound to happen in Namibia. They might as well come to terms with it. There�s no point trying to pretend that Blacks in South Africa will continue only with political power and leave the whites to run the whole economy�the banks, the mines and so on. The Blacks want to control everything in their own country, together with the Whites who are there.

There should not be any division anymore on racial grounds: that the Whites should remain with the wealth while the Blacks only have got the political power. That�s no longer going to be the case. You are quite right. This is what they are afraid of.