This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS HARARE 000280 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR AF/S AND AF/EX 
NSC FOR SENIOR AFRICA DIRECTOR JFRAZER 
USDOC FOR 2037 DIEMOND 
PASS USTR ROSA WHITAKER 
TREASURY FOR ED BARBER AND C WILKINSON 
DEPT PASS USAID FOR MARJORIE COPSON 
 
¶E. O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ETRD EFIN ECON ZI
SUBJECT: White Farmers Remain Divided 
 
Ref: a) Harare 239 b) Harare 267 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary: Justice for Agriculture (JAG) 
representatives told us they strongly lament the 
willingness of the Commercial Farmers Union (CFU) to 
engage the Government of Robert Mugabe on fast-track land 
reform.  JAG remains committed to dialogue with the GOZ 
only after the restoration of rule-of-law.  End Summary. 
 
¶2. (SBU) JAG reps recently updated Amb. Sullivan on their 
campaign against Mugabe's land reform.  JAG says around 
300 members have joined its ranks, which usually entails 
resigning from the more moderate CFU.  The organizations 
differ more on tactics than assessments of fast-track 
land reform. 
 
¶3. (SBU) JAG takes issue with the CFU's restarting a 
dialogue with the GOZ, analyzed in refs a-b.  JAG members 
feel the GOZ is merely using talks with the CFU as a 
means of persuading Western governments that a) white 
farmers now approve of land reform and b) it is time to 
lift sanctions and support resettled farmers.  JAG 
refuses to speak with the GOZ, which it considers 
illegitimate. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Comment: The split among white farmers reflects 
diverging interests.  JAG members have mostly lost farms 
and wish to pursue title claims indefinitely in the hope 
of restitution or compensation; CFU members are often 
still trying to hold onto all or part of their farms.  If 
a successor government one day comes to power, JAG's 
strident line could prove an impediment to revamping land 
reform.  While we agree that land reform has been unjust 
and devastating to Zimbabwean agriculture, we do not 
believe a future government could completely reverse it 
or pay full compensation.  The only way to make sense of 
the senseless may be a negotiated deal that returns white 
farmers to a portion of their farms, in exchange for them 
relinquishing title to the other portion and assisting 
new farmers.  As time wears on, however, such an 
agreement becomes less and less feasible and we do agree 
that GOZ dialogue with the CFU to date has been mostly 
for show with little or no serious effort at compromise. 
 
Sullivan