The situation in Zimbabwe is reaching breaking point. Over 80% of the population is unemployed and there is little access to even the most basic necessities. The facts are clear, yet there is a deafening silence and fear among people on the left of talking about Zimbabwe. This is often because people who speak out against human rights abuses are faced with a barrage of imperialist rhetoric.

Mugabe has created a situation where he would have people believe that Zimbabwe’s crisis is caused by the west trying to show its strength against Africa. He constantly rolls out the buzz words of colonisation and imperialism. These words have a powerful effect, not only on African communities, but also on progressives in the UK who, instead of supporting the people of Zimbabwe, turn their heads.

There is no doubt the British government has a responsibility towards Zimbabwe. Our histories are intertwined and actions taken by past British governments have had a direct impact upon the Zimbabwe of today.

Years of land seizure in Zimbabwe meant that, by 1982, 42% of the land was owned by 6,000 white commercial farmers. In 1979 the newly-elected Thatcher government negotiated the Lancaster House Agreement, which protected white farm owners for 10 years, allowing land only to be purchased on a ‘willing seller, willing buyer’ basis. By 1990 only 71,000 out of the 162,000 targeted resettlements had taken place; the Lancaster House Agreement was a key factor in this slow process, and has understandably caused serious resentment over the years.

However, the Zimbabwean government is not without blame. By 1992 land was being expropriated and given to cabinet ministers and close allies of the Mugabe government. The farm invasions that were so widely reported in the west were not just targeting white farm owners: the worst affected during these farm invasions were often the black farm workers who lost their jobs and homes. This left Mugabe in a position to claim that Britain only cared about white farm owners and that he was returning the land to those it was stolen from. In reality the land was not given to landless Zimbabweans but to government ministers, war veterans and other Mugabe allies.

The fact that the UK, and the west as a whole, have a responsibility towards Zimbabwe should not be ignored. Land issues, structural adjustment programmes and other forms of interference over the years have contributed to the current situation in Zimbabwe. But that does not detract from the fact that it is the Mugabe government that is conducting atrocities against Zimbabweans. It has overseen the collapse of the economy and created an environment where women can only expect to live to 34 and where HIV/AIDS claims over 3,000 lives a week. The constitution has been amended to prevent free and fair elections, communications are now legally monitored, the media is seriously oppressed and people are beaten and tortured for participating in peaceful protests.

In response to the crisis, there are a number of things that progressives can do. First, pressure must be put on the international media to keep Zimbabwe on the news agenda. Second, organisations, such as trade unions, that are trying to build up civil society in Zimbabwe must be supported in solidarity. Third, we must agitate to ensure EU travel bans are maintained on Mugabe and top ZANU-PF officials and that Mugabe is not invited to the African Union-EU summit in Lisbon this December.

The case must also be made to persuade the British government to allocate significant funding for a major land reform programme, once democracy is restored to Zimbabwe. This would result in the large scale transfer of productive land with adequate infrastructure to small scale black farmers.

We can not stand by and be silent while the people of Zimbabwe suffer. The left is constantly being called on for support and solidarity and the silence speaks volumes. Wherever human rights abuses are taking place, we have a duty to speak out.