International pressure is the leitmotif of the agreement reached in the Nigerian capital Abuja between Zimbabwe and a group of Commonwealth countries on the land reform crisis there. Zimbabwe has agreed to call off illegal occupations of white-owned farms by political militants in return for British co-funding of an orderly transfer of farms to landless groups. While acceptable in principle, all concerned agree that everything will depend on how President Robert Mugabe implements the agreement. Only continuing international pressure will ensure he does so.
He has been coming under remarkable economic tension as a result of the collapse of international confidence in his handling of their land reform crisis. There is a severe fuel shortfall, a ruin on hard currency and a collapse of trade which threatens many of the developmental achievements made since independence. His determination to hold on to power has driven the policy of land seizures, as he faces presidential elections next year. But economic collapse would jeopardise his chances of winning, as well as undermining the livelihood of millions of Zimbabwe's citizens. The possibility that formal sanctions might be applied against him and his government has clearly affected his willingness to reach this agreement.
That pressure must be kept up if it is to be properly implemented. There can be no quarrel with the overall objective of land reform in Zimbabwe, where the overwhelming majority of commercially viable farms are owned by white farmers, most of whom secured them under British or Rhodesian rule. Nor can one argue with the proposition that the United Kingdom has a responsibility to assist in funding the transfer of land. Both of these principles are affirmed in this agreement. So is the principle that individual farmers are entitled to compensation for such an orderly transfer.
What is at issue in Zimbabwe is the methods used to effect these changes by using ruling party militants to force farmers and farm workers off the land. Hundreds of thousands of black workers and their families have suffered as a result, although international attention has focussed disproportionately on the white farmers. When this approach is combined with authoritarian attacks on political and media opposition it becomes easier to understand the depth of hostility towards Mr Mugabe, for which he tries to compensate by populist gestures.
It is a confusing picture, made more so by his evident motive in presenting this agreement as progress, when he has little intention to implement it honourably. It will be up to the British government to move promptly to provide the funding and to the Commonwealth authorities to ensure it can be properly channelled to its intended beneficiaries as the agreement is put in place. Unless there is such reciprocity, along with continuing international vigilance, Mr Mugabe is unlikely to adhere to it.