6,000 white farmers owned more than half the arable land in 1980. For more than a decade, under the Lancaster House Agreement which held the principle of willing buyer/willing seller, the efforts to rectify this inequity failed (indeed this situation wasn't addressed until 1997). The West, who cries crocodile tears for white farmers now, contributed very little the way of compensation during the Lancaster House regime. The little land that was offered to black farmers was of poor quality. Now, anyone who criticizes the land reform project in Zimbabwe must address these two facts. Land reform was a necessity (especially in an agricultural economy like Zimbabwe), and "voluntary" efforts had failed. White farmers loved Mugabe for 18 years. The West loved him too. They thrived and their profits soared. But then as soon as the land issue is actually addressed, he becomes public enemy #1.

One could also get into the fact that the land white farmers have was illegally seized to begin with, through the Land Commission. The white settlers got 80% of the land and put the African population on a bunch of reservations to supply them with cheap labor. This fundamental injustice needs to be addressed and can't simply be wishes a way in order to demonize Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe in the late 1990s faced a situation of overcrowding in black communal lands, and a situation in which a handful of white farmers still controlled a huge portion of the land. Therefore, a number of farms were designated for compulsory, compensated, acquisition. This process relied on foreign donors for compensation, who subsequently pulled out. By 2000, the situation had become untenable. Landless peasants who had fought for independence against "Rhodesian" rule were growing impatient. They had waited 20 years. Land occupations started to occur. This forced the government's hand. Fast-track land reform took place as a result. Prior to 2000, the government had been forcibly evicting squatters and actively preventing land occupations. A fact frequently forgotten in the rush to crucify Mugabe.

So white farmers had successfully prevented any legal and voluntary method of addressing the problem, and then they complain about consequences of their short-sidedness. Now they complain that payment for improvements on the land is not enough compensation. I'm sorry but you could have had greater compensation had you not dragged your feet for two decades on this issue. Even British reporters "sympathetic" to the "plight" of "Rhodesians" have remarked at how utterly racist they are and how they mistreat black workers. As it is, the level of violence in the fast track programme has been exaggerated. Most of the invasions involved sporadic visits by landless peasants and war veterans, who would then leave for a few days and then come back.

Finally the land that was redistributed was land that wasn't in use or not fully used, or land that exceeded size limitations or land owned by absentee landowners. The idea that land redistribution was taking "efficiently" used land at redistributing to "inefficient" peasants is false, just like most everything else said about Zimbabwe. What is also false is this claim that land was redistributed to 'cronies' of ZANU-PF. In fact the government itself investigated and uncovered the cases of abuse that did occur, and they were not widespread.

I recommend the book - "Strange Liberators" by Gregory Elich.