24 [The Government] is fighting a Third “Chimurenga.” This new “war” is a struggle to achieve economic justice for the black majority. The Second Chimurenga war was fought to liberate the country from the yoke of white minority rule. This armed struggle resulted in the political emancipation of the black majority, but not economic emancipation as after 1980 a tiny white settler community continued to dominate the agricultural and commercial economy. In particular, a small number of whites still owned a huge proportion of the most fertile farmland, with the black majority being relegated to poor quality land. This gross social and economic injustice could not be allowed to continue. Thus when the landless people “spontaneously” invaded white farmland to register their protest against this gross injustice, Government then felt compelled to act. It thus embarked upon its fast track resettlement programme. The new political party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), was formed as a front for the whites to resist the moves towards the redistribution of the economic assets of Zimbabwe. Britain and other European powers are sponsoring the MDC because they wanted to protect the property rights of whites and are vigorously opposed to the expropriation of white-owned farmland. These Governments are also waging a vicious propaganda campaign against Zimbabwe. The Government was justified in taking all necessary measures to prevent the MDC and its Western allies from denying the black majority the economic justice they cried out for. It was perfectly justifiable to use necessary force to overcome resistance to the transformation of the economy in favour of the black majority to achieve economic justice. After all, the colonial regime had violently dispossessed the black majority of their land and had brutally suppressed them for many decades. vii This early indicator was given in a Zimbabwe Broadcasting Service report on 12 January 2000, where it was reported that war veterans had demonstrated over a demand that the draft constitution deal with land redistribution. This was clearly an effort to bolster support for the notorious “fast track” land clause included in the draft constitution. viii See HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH (1994), Easy Prey. Child soldiers in Liberia, NEW YORK: HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH/AFRICA/HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH CHILDREN’S RIGHTS PROJECT. ix See again HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH (1994), Easy Prey. Child soldiers in Liberia, NEW YORK: HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH/AFRICA/HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH CHILDREN’S RIGHTS PROJECT. x See the Zimbabwe Independent, 24 May 2002, ZanuPF militia confront Msika over allowances. xi See Reeler, A P (2003), Who should be sanctioned? [www.zwnews.com ]. xii See Reeler, A P (2003), Who should be sanctioned? [www.zwnews.com ]. xiii Here see Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum (2002), Teaching them a lesson. A report on the attack on Zimbabwean teachers, HARARE: ZIMBABWE HUMAN RIGHTS NGO FORUM. xiv The Daily News, for example, carried stories on the attacks on teachers. On 20 June 2001, the newspaper reported that 32 teachers had been fired and 8 headmen deposed in Buhera by war vets and ZanuPF supporters for supporting the MDC. Later, the same newspaper carried a story on a report from the Progressive Teachers Union of Zimbabwe that teachers forced to pay protection fee, with 107 000 affected, and thousands had been reported kidnapped or raped (Daily News, 5 September 2002). xvxv See Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum (2000), Who is responsible? A preliminary analysis of pre- election violence in Zimbabwe, HARARE: ZIMBABWE HUMAN RIGHTS NGO FORUM; Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum (2001), Who was responsible? A consolidated analysis of pre-election violence in Zimbabwe, HARARE: ZIMBABWE HUMAN RIGHTS NGO FORUM; Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum (2002), “Are They Accountable?: Examining alleged violators and their violations pre and post the Presidential Election March 2002”, HARARE: ZIMBABWE HUMAN RIGHTS NGO FORUM. xvi Here it is relevant to point out that previous research into past epidemics of gross human rights violations in Zimbabwe have shown that the numbers can be frighteningly large. For example, epidemiological investigation of the numbers affected during the Liberation War of the 1970s indicated that 1 adult in 10 over the age of 30 years was a survivor of torture, whilst figures on the Gukurahundi period indicate 5 adults in 10 were survivors. A more recent study, on commercial farm workers indicated that 71% of the sample had suffered from torture: see Amani (2002), Preliminary Report of a Survey on Internally Displaced Persons from Commercial Farms in Zimbabwe, HARARE: AMANI TRUST. xvii A more detailed exposition for this section can be found in Reeler, A.P (2003), Who Should be Sanctioned? [www.zimnews.com]. xviii This is a conclusion supported throughout the many human rights reports on current Zimbabwe, and is additionally supported by the conclusions of the many reports from election observer groups. Hence, it is not a problematic or contentious assertion to exclude the MDC from analysis. xix See here especially, Amani (2002), Beating your opposition. Torture during the 2002 Presidential campaign in Zimbabwe, HARARE: AMANI TRUST. The Perpetrators of Gross Human Rights Violations in the current violence in Zimbabwe.