[There is no doubt in my mind, that as in all things done by our Govt, it is preceded by a propaganda campaign. It is quite common for Govt officials to deliberately mis-state facts – which is just a civilised way of saying that they are lying. This article from the Transvaal Agricultural Union corrects many misconceptions, and points out the true facts. Jan]

THE MEDIA AND LAND REFORM

The subtlety with which the phrase œland reform is promoted by most of the media is worrying. It is as if South Africa will never survive without the transfer of 30% of its productive agricultural land to what are euphemistically called œemerging farmers by the year 2014. The opposite of course is true. The question is whether South African agriculture will survive the government™s wholesale transfer of this land, with all the ills which accompany this transfer “ bogus land claims, endless legal wrangling, and the lengthy and often non-settlement of claims which leave farmers paralysed to improve, capitalize or even sell their farms.

Exacerbating this debilitating situation are the activities of foreign-funded œaction groups which exhort squatters and others to harass farmers; the inability or unwillingness of the government to protect agriculture against the vagaries of fluctuating markets; the lack of support during drought and flood periods; and the parlous state of the country™s transport services when emergency feed cannot be delivered to distressed farmers.

Agence France Presse (AFP) reports are often quoted in South African newspapers as local news items. Written for foreign consumption, these reports quote government spokespersons who perpetuate old untruths and myths. Mr. Tozi Gwanya, South Africa™s chief land claims commissioner, informs readers that black ownership of land has only increased from 13% at the end of apartheid to 16% today. This refers to the purported 87% white / 13% black land apportionment, which is incorrect

Mr. Gwanya also declares the government is reviewing the œwilling seller, willing buyer principle, and that the government is thinking of setting a ceiling on farm prices. He says the land transfer programme is hampered by the œlack of farming expertise among blacks because Africans were deskilled for 50 years under apartheid, as white farmers feared competition, and we have to transfer skills anew. The AFP report replays the œblacks were shunted into homelands under apartheid story, and avers that current SA government policy is to be commended because it is the œrestitution of land to blacks who were forcibly evicted from their ancestral domains.

Other SA media stories refer to the œgood farmland of SA which is œin white hands, and that the pace of land reform paints œa bleak picture. The Nkuzi Development Association, a foreign funded activist group, is quoted as declaring that œexpropriation needs to be used to redress the inequities of history.

Why does the SA media print this warped baloney? Firstly, the use of the word œreform is disingenuous. The dictionary says œreform is œto make better, to restore to a better condition. What the government is doing to South African commercial agriculture under its land œreform policy is nothing short of culpable destruction. Where the agricultural component in the United States is 3% of the population, in South Africa it is a tenuous 0,01%. Around 45 000 commercial farmers feed 45 million people.

œThe best farming land is in white hands is a deviant version of the truth. When whites came to South Africa, there was little or no farming land, and certainly nothing more than a subsistence version of such. This œbest land wasn™t œbest to start with. It was made œbest by the skill, hard work and resilience of this country™s first world farming sector.

South Africa™s blacks were not œdeskilled during the fifty years of apartheid. On the contrary, they were assisted beyond all logic by the old National Party government to develop the agricultural potential of their indigenous and historical homelands. (They were never forcibly removed from these œancestral domains, as Mr. Gwanya says).

Millions of rands, skilled technological assistance and mentoring teams were transferred to these areas, many of which were far superior in climate, rainfall and soil to most other areas of South Africa. (Only 12% of South Africa™s total land area is arable). Large and expensive agricultural projects were started, and every assistance was given to kick-start these fertile areas into becoming what they could have become “the breadbaskets of Southern Africa.

South Africa™s blacks could never have been de-skilled of skills they never had. There is no history of black South Africa supporting itself and others through commercial agriculture. At best, there was subsistence farming when the population was half what it is now. Why whites would want to œde-skill blacks is a mystery. Why would the commercial farming sector want to de-skill a group it must now skill at great cost to itself? History shows that whites did everything they could, through their taxes and their know how, to assist black farmers to become self-sufficient.

So claims that land œreform is at an unfortunate standstill, that transformation is œtoo slow and that the pace of land reform is œbleak are a complete perversion of reality. The truth is if land redistribution continues along the path designated by the SA government, hunger will stalk the land. Telling the world that this policy is vital to the future security of South Africa is a dangerous and dishonest distortion.

Source:
SOUTH AFRICA BULLETIN
from the headquarters of
TAU SA

www.rights2property.com

Tel (43)+ 27 12 804 8031 Fax (43)+ 27 12 804 2014

Date: 9 May 2005