CEDAW – trashed? courtesy mejillahyde/flickr

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women – shortened to CEDAW – celebrates its 31st birthday in September 2012 (counting from when it entered into force). If you happen to be in New York City before March 2012, you have the opportunity to experience ‘international law as art’ at Croatian artist Sanja Ivekovic’s exhibition, “Sweet Violence“, at MoMA.

Where does CEDAW fit in? For the exhibition, Iveković has produced Report on CEDAW U.S.A., an installation based on a communiqué drawn from Amnesty International’s literature on CEDAW. As of May 2011 the United States is still among the minority of countries, including Iran and Sudan, that have not yet ratified CEDAW. Women’s rights are discarded on the floor ‘like trash’, until visitors pick them up and read them – and then perhaps discard them again. The MoMA website describes the installation as “Iveković pressur[ing] us to respond and take responsibility for society’s progress, or lack thereof, in eradicating persistent forms of gender violence.”

Situations of crisis often lead to an increase in sexual and gender-based violence, and unsurprisingly, it is women who bear the brunt. New York University’s Robert F Wagner Graduate School of Public Service have a podcast examining the phenomenon. Part of their ‘Conflict, Security and Development’ series, the speakers assess whether there is a connection between such violence and access to food and water in crisis situations – shifting perspectives from raising awareness (hopefully this has been achieved) to helping examine root causes so we can move toward prevention.

On a more lighthearted note, artist Jocelyn Grivaud has taken what some consider to be a symbol of impossible (Western) feminine beauty – Barbie – and created imitations of famous classic paintings; Barbie as “The Girl with the Pearl Earring“, or the “Venus de Milo“.

Members of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces

Things have gone from bad to worse for Egyptian civil society since I last blogged about the bleak short term outlook for the sector back in October. This week, the government shut down the Cairo offices of seventeen international human rights and pro-democracy NGOs, which the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces has accused of fomenting the country’s recent unrest. According to the official MENA news agency, “The public prosecutor has searched 17 civil society organisations, local and foreign, as part of the foreign funding case. The search is based on evidence showing violation of Egyptian laws, including not having permits.” As was the case under Mubarak, government regulations concerning NGOs are vague and convoluted enough that it is always easy to find a pretext for the prosecution of any organization.

International condemnation has been swift and emphatic. After the Konrad Adenauer Foundation was shut down, Germany summoned the Egyptian ambassador in protest, while UN high commissioner for human rights spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani described the shutdown as “unnecessarily heavy-handed”, and “clearly designed to intimidate human rights defenders who have long been critical of human rights violations in Egypt, including under the previous regime.” U.S. officials have publicly and privately voiced similar complaints. “Suffice it to say we don’t think that this action is justified,” said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. “We want to see the harassment end,” she added, calling the raids “inconsistent with the bilateral cooperation we’ve had over many years.” Another senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that in private channels, the United States had sent an even stronger message: “This crosses a line.”

The SCAF has accused foreign NGOs of attempting to provoke a “conflict between the military and the Egyptian people”, but the Egyptian military is clearly less worried about outside interference when it accepts $1.3 billion in annual military aid from the United States. In reality, the SCAF sees the emergence of a strong civil society as the greatest threat to its control over Egypt, and the foreign interference argument is merely a convenient pretext for shutting down a number of “pesky” organizations.

It is still unclear whether or not the strong internal and external condemnation — particularly from the U.S. — will influence Egyptian policy, but the revolutionary slogan, “the people and the army are one hand” has been shattered for even the most optimistic veterans of Tahrir Square. Any illusions that the SCAF would impartially usher in a new, free, and democratic Egypt have been thoroughly dispelled. Inclusion is not part of the SCAF’s modus operandi, perhaps most evidently demonstrated by its repeated attempts to marginalize women in the Egyptian political scene — including through the use of vile tactics of intimidation and humiliation like the so-called “virginity tests”.

In the US and throughout the West, the pressing question about Egypt has long been, “what will the ascent of the Muslim Brotherhood and other more extreme Salafi groups mean for the future of Egyptian politics?” But perhaps the better question is, “will the military actually cede power and allow a democratically elected civilian government to rule in any meaningful sense, regardless of its composition?”

The WIIS Switzerland Board plus speakers at the 2011 launch event

The field of foreign policy has been described as a ‘city of men’- but as can be imagined, it is not the only discipline where a gender imbalance has been noticed. I asked Patricia Moser, President and one of the founders of WIIS Switzerland, about the situation with respect to international security and security studies.

1. A few months back, there was an article on foreignpolicy.com which called the foreign policy sphere, ” A City of Men“. I’m going to hazard that the field of international security is similarly populated?

The reality described in the article is also true for the field of international security. Women who made it to the top leadership positions in organizations in the security policy field – be it in  government, academia or the private sector – are still regarded and celebrated as exceptions. If we look at Swiss-based organizations working in the security policy sector and the Swiss government for example, women are in the minority on management boards or in leadership positions. The Federal Council is a rare exception as women are currently in the majority – leading to the Council often being cited as an example of equal representation. However, one exception should not be confused with balanced representation more broadly: women are still a minority in parliament.   

2. You are President and one of the founders of Women in International Security (WIIS) Switzerland – what prompted you to take action?

The idea of founding a branch of WIIS in Switzerland is actually a few years old. It came up after one of my WIIS colleagues met a representative of WIIS Germany at a conference. The motivation to found WIIS Switzerland this year is mainly based on personal experience gained from years working in a security policy environment. The field is male-dominated, not only when it comes to those with influential voices but also in a day-to-day work environment. Only a few outstanding women have been able to establish themselves in Switzerland – Barbara Haering, Micheline Calmy-Rey or Heidi Tagliavini for example.

There are, however,  many other capable and enthusiastic women outside of this prominent circle. So last year we joined forces with interested colleagues from Geneva in order to build up a Swiss affiliate of WIIS with the express aim of connecting and promoting women (and men supporting our cause) in the field. A network holds immense power and can help effect change. We aim to attract and also promote younger experts in the field, allowing them to break into the established circle and improve the environment. Being a female expert in the security field should not be viewed as a rarity anymore.

3. Is the underrepresentation of women in Switzerland tied up with ignorance do you think (on both sides), or does it go deeper than that? (and why?)

In this respect, my arguments are very much in line with the reasons explaining the gender gap outlined in the article City of Men. We at WIIS Switzerland strongly believe that underrepresentation cannot and should not be blamed on either men or women. And it definitively goes deeper than ignorance. The situation could be characterized as a combination of, in order of priority: a close-knit network of well-established men; a still-traditional allocation of roles in Swiss families and, potentially, a certain reluctance on the part of women to immerse themselves in the field of security studies. The work of WIIS Switzerland (and the WIIS network more generally) hopes to alter this (im)balance, encouraging and supporting women in their chosen career path.  

4. Are women congregating in specific areas of (international) security policy and practice?

This is very difficult to determine, as this has not been reliably assessed as of yet. My initial reaction would be to suggest that women tend to predominantly work in the ‘softer‘ areas of security policy like development or human rights. This suspicion is based on the belief that the social and cultural system is steering women to the more  “female” areas of security. It could, however, very well be that the talented women tend to go unnoticed in more male-dominated fields like homeland security, as Heather Hulbert argues in her reply to ‘City of Men’. I am convinced that if we took a closer and unbiased look at women working in the security field, we would reach surprising conclusions.

6. WIIS Switzerland is one branch of the transnational WIIS network; can these informal setting really hope to effect change in the field?

Certainly. I honestly think that it is a necessity for initiating change in the field of security – and policy and academia can only gain by also including women’s’ voices. As mentioned, networks can hold a lot of power and bring lasting changes. WIIS Germany is currently working on connecting the international affiliates more closely; new affiliates are continually being founded in various countries (Israel, Sweden). While the work of each affiliate is country-specific due to cultural and political reasons, the international network helps transfer knowledge and lessons learned. It is then the task of the national WIIS organization to adapt them to local circumstances. The transnational nature of the global organization combined with the freedom given to national affiliates is of key importance to its success.

7. In one to two sentences, how would you like the field of international security to change in the next ten years?

I personally would hope for the field to shift towards a balanced representation of men and women in leadership positions, at conferences, as voices in the media etc. On the other hand, I would also wish for the field to become more interdisciplinary and interconnected so that findings and recommendations from related social sciences – as well as less related but still relevant areas such as neuroscience – are acknowledged and used to improve policy and academic work.

8. Do you have any advice to women hoping to “break into” international security?

If we had a handbook providing a step-by-step guide, an organization like WIIS would not be needed. My advice would be to be open-minded, learn from one’s own experience as well as from colleagues and superiors, and grow based on these lessons and from knowledge gained. Of equal importance is not being afraid of taking risks, being open to taking on responsibilities, and believing in one’s own capabilities. Being a young manager myself, one key lesson I learned a few years ago is to be always true to myself and remain focused on my goals, which is especially difficult for a woman in a male-dominated field. Finally, to ‘break into’ international security, as you term it, people have to become engaged and take action. A first step towards establishing oneself is connecting with like-minded people in organizations such as WIIS.

So, instead of spending Thanksgiving weekend watching the Macy’s Parade, eating turkey and shopping (my usual Thanksgiving activities), I was in Amsterdam and London for meetings on fighting human trafficking. Human trafficking, or modern day slavery, is an enormous global criminal and human rights problem. It’s worth setting out the basics. “Human trafficking” is an umbrella term for the issues of forced labor, sex trafficking, bonded labor, debt bondage among migrant laborers, involuntary domestic servitude, forced child labor, child soldiers, and child sex trafficking. Human trafficking can happen anywhere, including the US. Estimates of how many people are trafficked each year vary from 2.4 million to 25 million, and it’s a business worth more than $50 billion a year. For more, see:

http://tinyurl.com/d266fy5

Now over 15 years later, and as the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton again made a compelling case for women’s rights. This time she was speaking at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Women and the Economy Summit in San Francisco, and this time she was addressing the importance of women to global growth and innovation. To read more, go to

http://tinyurl.com/63zz644

Afghan Taliban Fighters, photo courtesy of isafmedia/flickr

This past fortnight seems to have been full of surprises – Australia, for example, introduced a third gender category for passports, beyond the tradition male/female dichotomy. And fittingly, there have also been two stories in the media that demonstrate that subversion of this “either/or” set-up isn’t limited to the West: women in Afghanistan and Libya are also pushing against the boundaries created to constrain them.

Former mujahedin Abedo is the 70-year-old leader of a militia in Helmand, Afghanistan. She has nine children and protects her district again the Taliban. Held in high esteem due to her experience and skill, she presents a stark contrast to the typical image of an Afghan woman, shrouded head-to-foot in a burqa. Speaking like a veteran, Abedo notes that, “Modern-day youngsters in the police and army don’t have experience, and it’s easy for them to get killed in combat because they don’t know how to fight.”

In Libya, it is these boundaries and set expectations that enabled a woman – codenamed ‘Nomidia’ – to play a key role in helping NATO support the Libyan rebel forces in their fight against the Qaddafi regime. She passed on vital information on weapons depots and bases in Tripoli even though this meant the regime would hunt her and her family down. She understandably still does not want to reveal her identity. As Nomidia tole Reuters, she felt less conspicuous “…it was almost impossible [for Qaddafi loyalists] to think that a girl was doing all of this.”

First up, Caitlin Boyce is heavily critical of the process surrounding rape trials in her article on the recently dismissed Dominique Strauss-Khan case. As she notes, the person bringing the rape charge is very often subject to character assassination – but as she then highlights, “When a robbery is reported, one can’t imagine the police waiting to investigate until they have established whether your past boyfriends have ever been in trouble with the law, or whether you’ve ever lied on an insurance application form.”

Next up is a BBC article that looks into the claim, “I’m not fat, I’m pregnant!” It may seem to be at the ‘fluffy’ end of the news spectrum, but also serves to highlight the huge disparity in maternal health care; while women in the UK are told not to be so greedy, expectant mothers in South Africa are simply aiming to survive.

With Gaddafi in the headlines as the rebels take Tripoli, it is very easy to caricature and lampoon the man with the traveling tent. In an audio interview, Jane Kinninmont of Chatham House, and Nabila Ramdani, a freelance journalist, discuss the (future) role of women in Libya – pointing out that while Libya has the highest female literacy rate in North Africa, respect is still lacking.

As the US Presidential Race gathers momentum, focus is on Romney, Newt, Obama and Huntsman – what about the whirlwind of the last election, Sarah Palin? She has reporters devoted to her every move but has not yet declared herself… will she? Should she? The members of the ‘Palin Industrial Complex‘ care a lot. Should you?

…and finally, just for the title: “Turkmenistan: Famous Melons Named for President.” Available here.

Last week I was one of around 300 people who attended the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation’s event on “Violence against women – an obstacle to development”. The audience was a mix of parliamentarians, interested members of the public, and activists and members of civil society organizations from the African Great Lakes region – with an (impressive?) gender balance. Speakers – including President of the Swiss Confederation, Micheline Calmy-Rey, and Navanethem (Navi) Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights – discussed violence against women in an international context, as well as within Switzerland.

Mrs. Calmy-Rey noted that equality does not automatically occur as society develops, but requires the implementation of specific measures and enabling conditions to ensure that women are not seen as ‘victims’ but as a valuable part of society: UN Security Council Resolution 1325 is a step in the right direction, she stated, but we cannot afford to become complacent. She argued that “the face of poverty is the face of a woman” – with women and girls often excluded from land ownership, inheritances and education. Furthermore, she noted the damaging erosion of society as women are ejected from their social networks and communities after being raped – and stated bluntly and wonderfully that silence on this issue only helps the perpetrators: “We need to call a spade a spade, and call out the perpetrators.”

Switzerland has seemingly come a long way in this field: it is easy to overlook the fact that women in Switzerland only gained the right to vote in 1971. Only in the 1980s was domestic violence gradually no longer considered a ‘private affair’, and it was 1991 before the cantons were required to set up shelters and help those suffering such abuse. What still shocks many is that Switzerland is the only European country where prostitution by minors has not yet been criminalized, though moves are underway at the federal level for this to be changed.

Navi Pillay highlighted the feminization of human rights over the past decade, with a redesigned framework which has moved to include more of a focus on sexual exploitation, trafficking, traditional practices and discriminatory labor practices. The legal foundation is being continually strengthened – from the 1994 Inter-American Convention, to the 2003 Protocol of the African Charter, to the 2011 Council of Europe Convention. Encouragingly, there has been a shift towards it being the state’s duty to ‘prevent and protect’ where previously, communities were reliant on NGOs.

It is easy – and indeed easier – to think that serious abuse and violence against women is something that ‘happens in Africa’ and not in Europe or the Americas. As one speaker pointed out, 1 in 5 children in Europe are exposed to some form of sexual violence; in Europe, more women aged 16-44 die as a result of violence than from cancer or car accidents. Calling for this to be remembered should not however detract attention from the much-needed and incredibly heroic actions of those working to protect women in areas affected by conflict, such as women’s rights worker Justine Bihamba. Her speech last week was the most moving – and disturbing.

Active in the North Kivu region of the DRC, Justine herself was warned by Human Rights Watch to be careful as they had discovered she was on the “Wanted” list of a powerful General; her eldest child had their teeth knocked out in retribution, and her second child was violated with a knife put up her anus; her co-workers have been raped. Sadly, this passes for normality in a region where there are over 16800 (recorded) victims of rape.

The main message of the evening can be distilled into a few simple sentences:

Helping others is not easy – and talking about human rights in a state of war even more difficult. But, there needs to be an end to indifference, impunity, and the devaluation of women. Echoing Micheline Calmy-Rey: Silence on this issue means we all suffer.

Well, some think so. The question has generated quite a bit of controversy; here’s my blog post on the topic:
http://stepheniefoster.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=319&Itemid=54

Farishta, Patricia McArdle’s first novel, is a compelling and readable book about the challenges faced by soldiers and civilians stationed in Afghanistan.  For my review, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephenie-foster/farishta-a-compelling-nov_b_870080.html?ref=tw

http://stepheniefoster.com/administrator/index.php?option=com_content&sectionid=-1&task=edit&cid[]=261

Paul Biya has been the President of Cameroon since 1982.  He is being challenged this fall by Kah Walla, a dynamic woman who previously served as a city council member in Douala, Cameroon.  Ms. Walla has been recognized by the World Bank as one of seven women entrepreneurs in Africa working on business environment reform and by Vital Voices for her leadership in public life.  Her firm, STRATEGIES!, works for multinational firms as well as development organizations.   Ms. Walla was detained on May 20 in Cameroon, and released later that day.  Here is a link to her account of what happened:

http://stepheniefoster.com/index.phpoption=com_content&view=article&id=255&Itemid=54

Yemen Observer: http://www.yobserver.com/culture-and-society/10021143.html

Yemen Peace Project: http://www.yemenpeaceproject.org/wordpress/?p=308

I did attend an event at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs on April 14, which brought together five experts to discuss the implementation of the US Department of State’s Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (or QDDR).   The speakers, with years of experience, talked about how to best insure that development assistance reaches women.  The speakers were all smart, compelling and provocative, and the packed room was engaged in the conversation.

Caren Grown, the Senior Gender Advisor at USAID and a professor of economics at American University, kicked it off. Other speakers were Leigh Carter, from Fonkoze, the Haitian microfinance organization; Nilufar Ahmad from the World Bank; Winnie Tay from Plan International; and Anju Malhotra, from the International Center for Research on Women.

The discussion was lively.  The key questions, of course, are what works and what doesn’t?  But also, what don’t we know?  The speakers made six key points:      

First, public investment, particularly in jobs and infrastructure is important.  Public sector jobs are critical for women.  Nilufar Ahmad outlined data showing that increased employment in both traditional and non-traditional jobs decreases poverty for women.

There was also a lot of discussion about infrastructure as a gender issues.  Good infrastructure reduces the cost of doing business, increases the possibility of further investment and can make everyone more efficient.   And, as Leigh Carter from Fankoze said, “business would be better for women if there were better roads.”   At the same time, the panelists recognized that women and men use transportation differently: Women tend to use public transportation, while men use (and own) private transport.  Anju Malhotra noted that she haw women using Delhi’s metro in large numbers as it is inexpensive, safe and also has cars reserved for women.

Second, asset ownership is fundamental for women to build their livelihoods in a sustained way.  Property can be used to obtain credit, build a business and create jobs.  The panelists discussed whether it is better for women to own property that is jointly titled (with her husband) or titled individually.

Caren Grown outlined the key steps to ensuring that women have access to title: good legislation; harmonization of national laws and treaties like CEDAW; judicial capacity to enforce tenure rights; and strong legal literacy so women and men know their rights.  Caren also talked about the importance of recognizing the influence of parallel legal systems such as religious or traditional systems.  But interestingly, “ownership” isn’t always clear.  There are various ways to define ownership: looking to (1) legal title; (2) alternative titling by asking people who owns property or (3) alternative titling by asking people what rights that have to use property.

Third, the need for better sex disaggregated data.  Despite all of the work that has been done in development, in many arenas, we still don’t have as much solid information as we need to make smart decisions.

Fourth, there is a need for schools that can reach girls.   Winnie Tay talked about the BRIGHT Schools in Burkina Faso that have increased enrollment as well as test scores.  Less than half of Burkina Faso’s girls attend primary school due to a lack of schools within walking distance of their homes, household chores, and early forced marriages.   This program began to construct “girl friendly” schools equipped with separate bathrooms for boys and girls, food for school cafeterias, and day care centers for students’ siblings. The program also includes a community awareness component and take-home food for girls who achieve a 90 percent attendance rate.

Fifth, the need for women to be involved politically.  The panelists discussed studies showing that women elected officials bring up different issues than men, as well as different perspectives on issues.  For example, if we know that women and men use transportation differently, then having women in the policy discussions can change the dynamic of what polices are implemented.

Sixth, innovation and technology that can make a difference in people’s lives and then be scaled up purposefully.  Anju Malhotra from ICRW pointed out how advances in family planning had given women more control over the size of their families.  She also talked about the innovative use of mobile phones for banking and health information, as well as the development of alternative energy sources.

It was a good tutorial, and gave us a framework for how US development assistance can be the most effective.

AMONG the many dictators who must be watching the uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa with dismay is Robert Mugabe. The Zimbabwean President has been in power 31 years and despite recently turning 87 is pushing for another five year term.

While other despots have responded to the revolutionary mood by granting economic and political concessions – whether handing out billions as done by the Saudi king or sacking the government as in Yemen and Syria, Mugabe has arrested people simply for watching video recordings of the protests.

The last few months has seen arrests and beatings of hundreds of human rights activists and anyone suspected of not supporting Mugabe. Ministers from his own power-sharing government have been incarcerated on trumped up charges of corruption and “public violence”.

To those of us who have followed Zimbabwe for years, Mugabe’s intransigence comes as no surprise. Back in 2005 he said he would only leave power in a coffin. Close aides say he followed closely what happened to Liberian leader Charles Taylor who agreed to go into exile then was arrested. Mugabe vowed he would not make the same mistake

In almost two decades of reporting on Zimbabwe, I’ve learnt not to underestimate Mugabe. I have watched him go to any lengths to stay in power, from repeated rigged and bloody elections, to bulldozing peoples’ homes and training an army of young thugs – the Greenbombers, who run rape camps of young girls.

He has literally destroyed his own country to stay in power. When I first went to Zimbabwe in 1994 it was one of Africa’s most affluent nations. It had traffic lights that worked, pothole-free roads, cappuccino bars and book cafes. Throughout the country were neat red brick schools attended by children in uniform proudly swinging their book bags.

The roads on which I travelled passed through a patchwork of lush green fields of tobacco, cotton and maize. They looked like model farms with combine harvesters gathering up neat bundles, long greenhouses full of evenly spaced roses watered by the latest irrigation systems, and they boasted some of the highest yields in the world.

Today Zimbabwe looks as if a terrible scourge has swept through. Mugabe’s campaign of farm seizures has left fields charred and spiked with dead maize stalks or overgrown with weeds; the equipment has been plundered and stripped; and what little ploughing still goes on is by oxen or donkey.

The country, which used to export large amounts of food, cannot even feed its own people. More than half of Zimbabwe’s 12-million population is on the edge of starvation and life expectancy the lowest in the world. The World Bank described its fall in living standards from 1999-2005 as “unprecedented for a country not at war”.

Saddest of all most of those neat red brick schools are now empty, the teachers having fled. “The biggest mistake we made was educating the population”, one of Mugabe’s ministers once told me.

Ripe for a revolution one might think. But Mugabe has survived because huge numbers of Zimbabweans have left the country – at least 3m, a quarter of the population. The rest are cowed down and trying to survive on what little food they can obtain.

For those at the top Mugabe has created a web of patronage bringing in army generals, judges, even bishops – the country’s brave Catholic archbishop told me he doesn’t even know which of his own bishops he can trust (he was then discredited by state run media) in a sex scandal.

I got a vivid taste of Mugabe’s attempts to divide his nation through what happened to a white family called the Houghs and their black maid Aqui, a story I tell in my book House of Stone.

I first met the Houghs in winter 2002 on their farm Kendor at the height of the farm invasions. The farm was in Wenimbi Valley in the rich tobacco-growing district of Marondera, only an hour’s drive outside Harare, and its fertile red soil had made the area one of the main targets of the government’s violent land-grab campaign. To get there had involved negotiating a series of roadblocks manned by youth militia adorned with Mugabe bandannas, their eyes bloodshot from smoking mbanje.

For the previous two years, neighboring farms all around the Houghs had been invaded and seized. The first murder of a white farmer had happened only a few miles away on 15 April 2000. Since then many farmers had been badly beaten: some had been hacked to death. Most had been either kicked off or fled.

Kendor farm had also been invaded. When I arrived, war veterans had been living at the bottom of the garden for months. Every night the family tossed and turned to their drumming and chanting, listening to the windows rattle and wondering when they might decide to break in. The next morning they would find carcasses of the cattle that the intruders had slaughtered.

The Houghs had thought about leaving. But the 1400-acre ostrich and tobacco farm and eight-bedroom house with its sweeping view over the balancing rocks and canopy of msasa trees was their dream. They had worked hard for the farm and sunk all their money into it. They wanted their children to grow up as they had and could not imagine starting all over again. Other white farmers who had moved abroad had ended up driving mini-cabs and living in poky council flats. Besides, it was not only them. On the land they had a factory producing bags and shoes from ostrich skin and they employed 300 people as well as running an orphanage for children whose parents had died in the AIDS pandemic.

We sat on the terrace talking about the situation. The setting was surreal – as we sipped our tea and ate slices of madeira cake, it was impossible to ignore the wood-smoke rising from the huts of war vets beyond the swimming pool.

To my surprise, the Houghs invited their maid Aqui to join us. She was refreshingly candid as well as stunning in her red and white polka dot uniform and green headscarf, and her great big laugh.

I wrote an article about the farm in the Sunday Telegraph. In it, I described Nigel Hough as “a model white farmer” for all his involvement with the local community and pointed out that to take his farm would expose the fact that the government was clearly not interested in helping its people.

A week later, to my horror, the farm was seized.

Some time afterwards Nigel came to London. We met in a coffee shop, cold rain pinging on the windows. As we warmed our icy hands on the steaming mugs, he said: “It was Aqui you know.”

I looked at him in confusion. “What do you mean?”

“It was Aqui who took my farm.”

I could not believe it. Aqui and Nigel had seemed to have such a good relationship.

“You know it’s almost the worst thing,” he continued, “worse than losing the farm. She was spitting and yelling at me: ‘Get out or we’ll kill you! Whites have no place in this country!’ I just keep seeing her face twisted with all that hatred.”

He shook his head like a cat with wet whiskers as if trying to remove the memory.

“I trusted her with my children, paid for her children’s education and medical care, gave her chickens to take to her mother in their village”, he said. What she had done seemed the ultimate betrayal.

At that time, like many, I could not believe that Mugabe was really serious about seizing all the white-owned farms. The land distribution was undoubtedly unfair with most of the productive land still in white hands. But, the 5,000 commercial farms produced most of the food for the nation, were the country’s biggest employer and responsible for 40 percent of its export earnings.

Today, nine years on, less than 300 white farmers remain on their farms.

Any western leader who criticized Mugabe played into his hands as he would retort that the white colonial masters couldn’t stomach a successful black leader. Yet it was never really a racial issue. Those of us in the Western media played into Mugabe’s hands by focusing on white farmers like the Houghs, perhaps because they seemed people like us. But Aqui too was kicked out and now survives on money sent by a daughter working on minimum pay in a care home in England. The real victims were the hundreds of thousands of farm workers like Aqui who lost their homes and jobs. With nowhere else to go, they fled to rural villages where they now struggle to survive on baobab pods, wild fruits and fried termites.

Once a liberation hero, Mugabe has become an African Macbeth for whom staying in power has become synonymous with survival. In order to maintain his grip over different tribal factions in his party, he has named no successor. Despite much speculation about his health – he is said to have prostate cancer – he seems intent on living for ever. At his 87^th birthday celebration in February he told the nation “my body may get spent but I wish my mind will always be with you”. His mother lived to nearly 100.

Christina Lamb is the author of House of Stone; A True Story of a Family divided in War Torn Zimbabwe (Chicago Review Press)