TANDI, ZIMBABWE: A white Zimbabwean farmer evicted by gun-wielding police and a mob associated with the ruling party has returned to a hero’s welcome, in a sign that the new president is charting a path away from predecessor Robert Mugabe on an issue that had hastened the country’s international isolation.
With a military escort, Robert Smart made his way into Lesbury farm about 200 kilometers (124 miles) east of the capital, Harare, on Thursday to cheers and song by dozens of workers and community members.
Such scenes were once unthinkable in a country where land ownership is an emotional issue with political and racial overtones.
“We have come to reclaim our farm,” sang black women and men, rushing into the compound.
Two decades ago, their arrival would have meant that Smart and his family would have to leave. Ruling ZANU-PF party supporters, led by veterans of the 1970s war against white minority rule, evicted many of Zimbabwe’s white farmers under an often violent land reform program led by Mugabe.
Whites make up less than 1 percent of the southern African country’s population, but they owned huge tracts of land while blacks remained in largely unproductive areas.
The evictions were meant to address colonial land ownership imbalances skewed against blacks, Mugabe said. Some in the international community responded with outrage and sanctions.
Of the roughly 4,500 white farmers before the land reforms began in 2000, only a few hundred are left.
But Mugabe is gone, resigning last month after the military and ruling party turned against him amid fears that his wife was positioning herself to take power. New President Emmerson Mnangagwa, a longtime Mugabe ally but stung by his firing as vice president, has promised to undo some land reforms as he seeks to revive the once-prosperous economy.
On Thursday, some war veterans and local traditional leaders joined farm workers and villagers in song to welcome Smart’s family home.
“Oh, Darryn,” one woman cried, dashing to embrace Smart’s son.
In a flash, dozens followed her. Some ululated, and others waved triumphant fists in the air.
“I am ecstatic. Words cannot describe the feeling,” Darryn told The Associated Press.
Smart’s return to the farm, facilitated by Mnangagwa’s government, could mark a new turn in the politics of land ownership. During his inauguration last month, Mnangagwa described the land reform as “inevitable,” calling land ownership and management key to economic recovery.
Months before an election scheduled for August 2018 at the latest, the new president is desperate to bring back foreign investors and resolve a severe currency shortage, mass unemployment and dramatic price increases for food and household items.
Zimbabwe is mainly agricultural, with 80 percent of the population depending on it for their livelihoods, according to government figures.
Earlier this month, deputy finance minister Terrence Mukupe traveled to neighboring Zambia to engage former white Zimbabwean farmers who have settled there.
The Commercial Farmers Union, which represents mainly white farmers, said it plans to meet the lands minister.
“I am advising our members to be patient and give it time. But I do see many of them going back into farming,” said Peter Steyl, the union’s vice president. “The government seems serious about getting agriculture on track but how it is going to achieve this, I don’t know.”
The firmness with which the government ensured Smart’s return signaled resolve.
At the farm, a soldier sat quietly in a van that acted as an escort for the family. His services were not needed. The people gathered at the farm share deep social bonds with the family, away from the politics of race and elections.
“I have known this boy since day one,” said 55 year-old Sevilla Madembo. “He was born here. I took care of him when he was young. He is back to take care of me now that I am old.”
She was born at the farm, which also was home to her parents and grandparents.
“We are part of one family. We belong to the Tandi people. That’s why we are going to perform a traditional African ceremony before we start on production,” Darryn said, going through the farmhouse.
Locks to some rooms had been changed by the “new owner,” a cleric with close ties to Mugabe’s family. Other rooms had been ransacked and most property was missing.
Left untouched on the walls were a portrait of former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and a photo of Zimbabwe’s last colonial leader, Ian Smith, officiating at an agricultural fair.
Peter Tandi, the local chief, led efforts to lobby Mnangagwa’s administration to allow Robert Smart to return to the farm. “He voluntarily gave up his estates to the community when the land reform program started. He continued helping us with technical knowledge, equipment and other inputs,” Tandi said.
“That man supported the guerrillas during the war. ... He gave us a place to hide from colonial government soldiers,” said Gift Maramba, a war veteran and local ZANU-PF official.
Smart and his son held back tears while greeting familiar faces. Others were keen to get on with business.
“Hey Darryn, I want us to talk about my beans I stored in your warehouse,” one villager said.
“We can discuss that later, man. Come on, for now let’s just be happy to be with each other again,” Darryn replied.
1st white farmer gets land back under Zimbabwe’s new leader
1st white farmer gets land back under Zimbabwe’s new leader
UK veterans break silence on ‘barbaric’ killings in Iraq, Afghanistan
- Unlawful executions ‘became routine,’ ex-special forces members tell BBC
- Veteran: ‘Everyone knew. There was implicit approval for what was happening’
LONDON: British special forces allegedly carried out a pattern of war crimes going back more than a decade to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, former members have told the BBC.
Breaking years of silence to provide eyewitness accounts to the “Panorama” investigative program, multiple veterans reported that their colleagues had killed people in their sleep, executed detainees — including children — and planted weapons to justify the murders.
The two units at the center of the reports are the British Army’s Special Air Service and Royal Navy’s Special Boat Service, the country’s top special forces units.
One SAS veteran who served in Afghanistan said: “They handcuffed a young boy and shot him. He was clearly a child, not even close to fighting age.”
The eyewitness accounts relate to allegations of war crimes that took place more than a decade ago, far longer than the scope of a public inquiry into the allegations now being carried out in the UK, which is examining a three-year period.
The SAS veteran told “Panorama” that the execution of detainees by British special forces “became routine.”
Soldiers would “search someone, handcuff them, then shoot them,” before “planting a pistol” by the body, he added.
British and international law only permits deliberate killing when enemy combatants pose a direct threat to the lives of troops or other people.
An SBS veteran told the program that some troops suffered from a “mob mentality,” causing them to behave “barbarically.”
He added: “I saw the quietest guys switch, show serious psychopathic traits. They were lawless. They felt untouchable.”
The “Panorama” investigation includes witness testimony from more than 30 people who served with or alongside British special forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Another SAS veteran said: “Sometimes we’d check we’d identified the target, confirm their ID, then shoot them. Often the squadron would just go and kill all the men they found there.”
Killing became “an addictive thing to do,” another SAS Afghanistan veteran said, adding that some soldiers in the elite regiment were “intoxicated by that feeling.”
He said: “On some operations, the troops would go into guesthouse-type buildings and kill everyone there.
“They’d go in and shoot everyone sleeping there, on entry. It’s not justified, killing people in their sleep.”
One veteran recalled an execution in Iraq, saying: “It was pretty clear from what I could glean that he posed no threat, he wasn’t armed. It’s disgraceful. There’s no professionalism in that.”
Awareness of the alleged war crimes was not confined to individual units or teams, veterans told “Panorama.”
Within the command structure of the British special forces, “everyone knew” what was taking place, one veteran said.
“I’m not taking away from personal responsibility, but everyone knew,” he added. “There was implicit approval for what was happening.”
In order to cover up the killings, some SAS and SBS members went as far as carrying “drop weapons,” such as Kalashnikovs, to plant at the scene of executions.
These would be photographed alongside the dead and included in post-operational reports, which were often falsified.
One veteran said: “We understood how to write up serious incident reviews so they wouldn’t trigger a referral to the military police.
“If it looked like a shooting could represent a breach of the rules of conflict, you’d get a phone call from the legal adviser or one of the staff officers in HQ.
“They’d pick you up on it and help you to clarify the language. ‘Do you remember someone making a sudden move?’ ‘Oh yeah, I do now.’ That sort of thing. It was built into the way we operated.”
The investigation also revealed that David Cameron, UK prime minister at the time of the alleged war crimes, was repeatedly warned about the killings by then-Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
He “consistently, repeatedly mentioned this issue,” former Afghan National Security Adviser Dr. Rangin Dadfar Spanta told the program.
Gen. Douglas Lute, a former US ambassador to NATO, said Karzai was “so consistent with his complaints about night raids, civilian casualties and detentions that there was no senior Western diplomat or military leader who would have missed the fact that this was a major irritant for him.”
In response to the gathering of new witness testimony by “Panorama,” the UK’s Ministry of Defense said it is “fully committed” to supporting the public inquiry into the alleged war crimes. It urged all veterans with knowledge relating to the allegations to come forward.
US, China agree to slash tariffs in trade war de-escalation
- The United States and China announced Monday an agreement to drastically reduce tit-for-tat tariffs for 90 days
GENEVA: The United States and China announced Monday an agreement to drastically reduce tit-for-tat tariffs for 90 days, de-escalating a trade war that has roiled financial markets and raised fears of a global economic downturn.
After their first talks since US President Donald Trump launched his trade war, the world’s two biggest economies agreed in a joint statement to bring their triple-digit tariffs down to two figures and continue negotiations.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent described the weekend talks with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng and international trade representative Li Chenggang as “productive” and “robust.”
“Both sides showed a great respect,” Bessent told reporters.
US President Donald Trump had imposed duties of 145 percent on imports for China last month — compared to 10 percent for other countries in the global tariff blitz he launched last month.
Beijing hit back with duties of 125 percent on US goods.
Bessent said the two sides agreed to reduce those tariffs by 115 percentage points, taking US tariffs to 30 percent and those by China to 10 percent.
In their statement, the two sides agreed to “establish a mechanism to continue discussions about economic and trade relations.”
China hailed the “substantial progress” made at the talks.
“This move... is in the interest of the two countries and the common interest of the world,” the Chinese commerce ministry said, adding that it hoped Washington would keep working with China “to correct the wrong practice of unilateral tariff rises.”
The dollar, which tumbled after Trump launched his tariff blitz in April, rallied on the news while US stock futures soared. European and Asian markets also rallied.
The trade dispute between Washington and Beijing has rocked financial markets, raising fears the tariffs would rekindle inflation and cause a global economic downturn.
The head of the World Trade Organization, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, praised the talks on Sunday as a “significant step forward” that “bode well for the future.”
“Amid current global tensions, this progress is important not only for the US and China but also for the rest of the world, including the most vulnerable economies,” she added.
Ahead of the meeting at the discreet villa residence of Switzerland’s ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Trump had signalled he might lower the tariffs, suggesting on social media that an “80 percent Tariff on China seems right!“
However, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt later clarified that the United States would not lower tariffs unilaterally, saying China would also need to make concessions.
The Geneva meeting came days after Trump unveiled a trade agreement with Britain, the first with any country since he unleashed his blitz of global tariffs.
The five-page, nonbinding deal confirmed to nervous investors that Washington was willing to negotiate sector-specific relief from recent duties.
But Trump maintained a 10 percent levy on most British goods, and threatened to keep it in place as a baseline rate for most other countries.
UK’s Starmer says net migration will fall significantly
LONDON: British Prime Minister Keir Starmer promised net migration would fall significantly by 2029 as he announced policies to boost skills and training.
“It’s (...) a white paper that deals with skills and training, and one of the reasons that we’ve had stagnant growth chronically in skills and growth,” he said on Monday.
India great Virat Kohli retires from test cricket
- Kohli, 36, announces retirement only days after Rohit Sharma stepped down from test cricket as well
- He scored 9,230 runs including 30 centuries and 31 half-centuries at a test batting average of 46.85
NEW DELHI, India: India great Virat Kohli retired from test cricket Monday after playing 123 matches in his glorious 14-year red-ball career.
“As I step away from this format, it’s not easy — but it feels right,” Kohli posted on Instagram. “It’s been 14 years since I first wore the baggy blue in Test cricket. Honestly, I never imagined the journey this format would take me on. It’s tested me, shaped me, and taught me lessons I’ll carry for life.”
The 36-year-old Kohli’s retirement comes only days after Rohit Sharma stepped down from test cricket, taking two senior batters out of selection contention for India’s tour to England.
Kohli scored 9,230 runs including 30 centuries and 31 half-centuries at a test batting average of 46.85. He also led India in 68 test matches and was India’s most successful captain with 40 test wins.
Kohli said the traditions and ebbs and flows of the five-day format were special to him, including “the quiet grind, the long days, the small moments that no one sees but that stay with you forever.”
“I am walking away with a heart full of gratitude — for the game, for the people I shared the field with, and for every single person who made me feel seen along the way,” he wrote. “I will always look back at my test career with a smile. #269, signing off.”
India’s diplomatic ambitions tested as Trump pushes for deal on Kashmir
- India wary of third-party mediation, sees Kashmir as integral part of its territory
- India’s clout on global stage has risen with its rapid economic growth
NEW DELHI/ISLAMABAD: India and Pakistan have stepped back from the brink of all-out war, with a nudge from the US, but New Delhi’s aspirations as a global diplomatic power now face a key test after President Donald Trump offered to mediate on the dispute over Kashmir, analysts said.
India’s rapid rise as the world’s fifth-largest economy has boosted its confidence and clout on the world stage, where it has played an important role in addressing regional crises such as Sri Lanka’s economic collapse and the Myanmar earthquake.
But the conflict with Pakistan over Kashmir, which flared up in recent days with exchanges of missiles drones and air strikes that killed at least 66 people, touches a sensitive nerve in Indian politics.
How India threads the diplomatic needle — courting favor with Trump over issues like trade while asserting its own interests in the Kashmir conflict — will depend in large part on domestic politics and could determine the future prospects for conflict in Kashmir.
“India ... is likely not keen on the broader talks (that the ceasefire) calls for. Upholding it will pose challenges,” said Michael Kugelman, a South Asia analyst based in Washington.
In a sign of just how fragile the truce remains, the two governments accused each other of serious violations late on Saturday.
The ceasefire, Kugelman noted, was “cobbled together hastily” when tensions were at their peak.
Trump said on Sunday that, following the ceasefire, “I am going to increase trade, substantially, with both of these great nations.”
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, for his part, has not commented publicly on the conflict since it began.
India considers Kashmir an integral part of its territory and not open for negotiation, least of all through a third-party mediator. India and Pakistan both rule the scenic Himalayan region in part, claim it in full, and have fought two wars and numerous other conflicts over what India says is a Pakistan-backed insurgency there. Pakistan denies it backs insurgency.
“By agreeing to abort under US persuasion ... just three days of military operations, India is drawing international attention to the Kashmir dispute, not to Pakistan’s cross-border terrorism that triggered the crisis,” said Brahma Chellaney, an Indian defense analyst.
For decades after the two countries separated in 1947, the West largely saw India and Pakistan through the same lens as the neighbors fought regularly over Kashmir. That changed in recent years, partly thanks to India’s economic rise while Pakistan languished with an economy less than one-10th India’s size.
But Trump’s proposal to work toward a solution to the Kashmir problem, along with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s declaration that India and Pakistan would start talks on their broader issues at a neutral site, has irked many Indians.
Pakistan has repeatedly thanked Trump for his offer on Kashmir, while India has not acknowledged any role played by a third party in the ceasefire, saying it was agreed by the two sides themselves.
Analysts and Indian opposition parties are already questioning whether New Delhi met its strategic objectives by launching missiles into Pakistan on Wednesday last week, which it said were in retaliation for an attack last month on tourists in Kashmir that killed 26 men. It blamed the attack on Pakistan — a charge that Islamabad denied.
By launching missiles deep into Pakistan, Modi showed a much higher appetite for risk than his predecessors. But the sudden ceasefire exposed him to rare criticism at home.
Swapan Dasgupta, a former lawmaker from Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, said the ceasefire had not gone down well in India partly because “Trump suddenly appeared out of nowhere and pronounced his verdict.”
The main opposition Congress party got in on the act, demanding an explanation from the government on the “ceasefire announcements made from Washington, D.C.”
“Have we opened the doors to third-party mediation?” asked Congress spokesperson Jairam Ramesh.
And while the fighting has stopped, there remain a number of flashpoints in the relationship that will test India’s resolve and may tempt it to adopt a hard-line stance.
The top issue for Pakistan, diplomats and government officials there said, would be the Indus Waters Treaty, which India suspended last month but which is a vital source of water for many of Pakistan’s farms and hydropower plants.
“Pakistan would not have agreed (to a ceasefire) without US guarantees of a broader dialogue,” said Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, a former foreign minister and currently chairman of the People’s Party of Pakistan, which supports the government.
Moeed Yusuf, former Pakistan National Security Adviser, said a broad agreement would be needed to break the cycle of brinksmanship over Kashmir.
“Because the underlying issues remain, and every six months, one year, two years, three years, something like this happens and then you are back at the brink of war in a nuclear environment,” he said.
