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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 HARARE 001099 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR AF/S, AF/EPS, EB/IFD/OIA, L/CID, CA/OCS/ACS 
 
¶E. O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: CASC ECON KIDE KSPR EINV EFIN ZI
SUBJECT:  2003 INVESTMENT DISPUTE AND EXPROPRIATION REPORT - 
ZIMBABWE 
 
REF:  A. SECSTATE 83098 
      ¶B. 02 HARARE 01597 
 
1.(SBU)  Summary: This year's Expropriation Report updates 
some claimants detailed in the 2002 report, and adds some 
claimants whose property remains in limbo.  As in last 
year's report, the only claimants are American citizen 
(Amcit) owners of Zimbabwean real estate, both farming 
property and rural/wildlife based property.  All seven of 
the identified Amcit-owned properties are threatened by the 
ongoing Land Resettlement Program, with several owners 
already off their land and several attempting to hold on. 
No compensation has been paid to any Amcit property owner 
for real property which has been seized and settled.  End 
Summary. 
 
------------- 
The Situation 
------------- 
 
¶2.  Under the ongoing GOZ Land Resettlement Program, almost 
all farm or wildlife property owned by non-indigenous 
landowners has been targeted for compulsory acquisition.  As 
a central tenet of the program, the GOZ has consistently 
maintained that no compensation will be made for land 
itself, but that compensation will be made for improvements 
to the property.  Because of the disarray this program has 
imposed on the value of rural land, as well as the ongoing 
economic chaos, there is no absolute value for any claim, 
although values predating the current situation range from 
US $200,000 to more than US $2,000,000.  To date, no owners 
have been compensated for property acquired by the GOZ under 
this program.  Post continues to track the situation 
concerning seven separate properties owned by American 
citizens, all of which have received either Preliminary or 
Final Notices of Acquisition from the GOZ. 
 
¶3. Because of the current judicial and political chaos, it 
is difficult to state when (exactly) any landowner was 
legally dispossessed; many landowners continue to press 
claims and challenges to acquisition through Zimbabwe's 
courts.  Further, even in instances where Zimbabwean courts 
issue favorable rulings to such challenges, the police and 
District Land Administrators usually refuse to enforce the 
rulings.  However, all claims arise out of the GOZ's Land 
Resettlement Program, which was embarked upon in 2000.  It 
is accurate to state that the majority of Amcit landowners 
continue to be threatened with acquisition, and most already 
have been denied control, possession and use of their 
property.  Individual sitreps are provided below. 
 
------------- 
The Claimants 
------------- 
 
¶4. As detailed in last year's Expropriation Report (ref b), 
Claimant A continues to be denied access to or use of his 
rural wildlife-based property.  The property is located in 
the district of Mangwe, in the vicinity of Bulawayo. 
Currently the property is occupied by two large-scale Zanu- 
PF-connected beneficiaries, and other small claimants 
continue to graze livestock on the property.  Claimant A has 
received relief through a Zimbabwe High Court ruling. 
However, when he attempted to have his local authorities 
enforce the order, he was told by his local land 
administrator, "you may have won in the courts, but you have 
lost politically..."  Ambassador Sullivan has protested this 
expropriation both through a Diplomatic Note and through 
various meetings with GOZ representatives, to no avail. 
 
¶5. Claimant B, whose situation was also reported (ref b) 
last year, has now been completely dispossessed of his 
agricultural property.  The property is situated in the 
district of Salisbury, in the vicinity of Harare.  The 
property has been "pegged" into eighty-four separate A2, or 
"new commercial farmer," plots.  At last review, 
approximately twenty-one plots were occupied by settlers. 
Claimant B has also pursued a claim through the Zimbabwe 
courts and has received no relief.  Ambassador Sullivan has 
protested this expropriation through a Diplomatic Note and 
through personal communications with GOZ representatives. 
 
¶6.  Claimant C, the final Amcit detailed in last year's 
report (ref b), awaits some resolution on acquisition of his 
small-holding agricultural property through Zimbabwe's 
chaotic legal system.  The property is situated in the 
district of Goromonzi, in the vicinity of Harare.  A 
"delisting" form was initiated and signed by the Provincial 
Governor of Mashonaland East, but the two other required 
signatures -- those of Minister of Local Government Ignatius 
Chombo and Minister of Lands, Agriculture and Rural 
Resettlement Joseph Made -- have never materialized, nor are 
they likely to.  In the interim, Claimant C has entered into 
a sales agreement with a relative of the Chief Justice of 
Zimbabwe's Supreme Court, and hopes to cut his losses should 
the sale go through by year's end.  Although there are 
currently no settlers actually residing on or farming the 
property, Claimant C has left the farm due to personal 
security concerns.  Ambassador Sullivan has protested this 
expropriation through a Diplomatic Note and through personal 
communications with GOZ representatives. 
 
¶7. Claimant D, who had previously twice managed to get his 
property "de-listed" after receiving initial notices of 
acquisition (Section 5 notices), received a final notice of 
acquisition (Section 8 notice) in January, 2003 -- well 
after the GOZ formally announced that "the land resettlement 
program is complete" in August 2002.  The property 
(supporting photographic and hunting safaris) is located in 
the district of Kwekwe, which lies between Harare and Gweru. 
Claimant D is protesting the acquisition through Zimbabwe's 
courts.  The property consists of 7,618 hectares dedicated 
as a wildlife conservancy, and is home to a number of 
endangered black rhino.  Claimant D purchased the property 
in 1985 after the seller offered it to the GOZ and received 
a "certificate of no present interest," and has since 
received several Zimbabwe Investment Center (ZIC) 
certificates indicating formal approval of the conservancy 
as a wildlife development investment.  Claimant D is 
currently attempting to file for South African residency and 
has expressed no hope of being allowed to stay on his 
Zimbabwean property, into which he has invested the majority 
of his retirement savings -- close to US $1 million. 
Ambassador Sullivan has protested this expropriation through 
a Diplomatic Note and through personal communications with 
the Governor of that province. 
 
¶8. Two other Amcits, Claimants E and F, each face complete 
dispossession, although Post has not received enough details 
from the property owners to register a formal protest. 
Claimant E's rural wildlife-based property (supporting 
photographic and hunting safaris), which was transferred 
from a Zimbabwean spouse to a trust benefiting the couple's 
two Amcit children, is located in the district of Wankie 
(Hwange).  The property has reportedly been allocated to an 
A2 settler from the Hwange area.  Claimant E has only been 
allowed to visit the property under police supervision to 
remove personal property.  Claimant F has two separate 
pieces of rural wildlife-based property, both in the 
vicinity of Bulawayo, one of which was ceded to the GOZ for 
resettlement and one of which is reportedly occupied by 
settlers.  Claimant F resides in the US, and her affairs 
have been complicated by inheritance issues.   She is unable 
to realize any revenue anticipated from the two properties. 
 
¶9.  One final Amcit, Claimant G, has received a Section 5 
notice but is still in possession of the property.  The 
property (supporting photographic and hunting safaris) is 
located in the district of Bikita, in the vicinity of 
Chiredzi.  This property is dedicated to a 26-farm wildlife 
conservancy containing both black and white rhinos, and the 
GOZ has repeatedly stated that it will address "true" 
conservancies (meaning those owned by multiple owners in a 
cooperative venture) with a long-promised policy on wildlife 
concerns.  The policy has yet to be articulated.  In the 
meantime, Claimant G continues to engage in dialogue with 
the GOZ along with other Conservancy spokesmen, and hopes 
for some resolution for the Conservancy as a whole. 
However, the GOZ has made some indications that it expects 
conservancies to "take on partners," which is widely 
interpreted as a demand that well-connected beneficiaries be 
paid off in order for the conservancies to continue to 
operate.  As with the first four claimants, Ambassador 
Sullivan has protested this attempted acquisition through a 
Diplomatic Note and through personal communications with GOZ 
representatives. 
 
¶10.  We will continue to monitor the situation of these 
Amcit property owners, and will continue to offer whatever 
support we can.  Any subsequent developments will be 
reported as they occur. 
 
Sullivan