Warming to my theme on how the West probably has made the Zimbabwe problem worse, I think that Clare Short letter in 1997 to Minister Kumbirai Kangai MP deserves a close look from the point of view of professional civil service technique.

So, here goes.

George Foulkes has reported to me on the meeting which you and Hon John Nkomo had with Tony Lloyd and him during your recent visit. I know that President Mugabe also discussed the land issue with the Prime Minister briefly during their meeting. It may be helpful if I record where matters now rest on the issue.

Something just a tad odd about the tone of this, especially the last sentence – who defines ‘where matters rest’?

At the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Tony Blair said that he looked forward to developing a new basis for relations with Commonwealth countries founded upon our government’s policies, not on the past.

We will set out our agenda for international development in a White Paper to be published this week. The central thrust of this will be the development of partnerships with developing countries which are committed to eradicate poverty, and have their own proposals for achieving that which we and other donors can support.

The letter is framing the issues in a 100% London-centric way. We proclaim that we look to the future, not the past! We set out our agenda of partnership with those developing countries which do what we want! Especially if the sweetie-pies have their own proposals!

I very much hope that we will be able to develop such a relationship with Zimbabwe. I understand that you aim shortly to publish your own policies on economic management and poverty reduction. I hope that we can discuss them with you and identify areas where we are best able to help. I mentioned this in my letter on 31 August to Hon Herbert Murarwa.

Too much ‘hope’. I hate the use of the word ‘hope’ in official letters. It sounds weak and rudderless.

I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new Government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests. My own origins are Irish and as you know we were colonised not colonisers.

Aaargh.

What made her put in that Irish line? This paragraph is as wrong as it can be on every level.

Pseudo-pompous firmness ("I should make clear…") and the absurd claim that New Labour "has no links to former colonial interests". Did not Labour Governments preside over the colonies at different points? Plus surely better to play up the positives rather than deny any ‘special’ responsibility on the complex Zimbabwe land issue?

We do, however, recognise the very real issues you face over land reform. We believe that land reform could be an important component of a Zimbabwean programme designed to eliminate poverty. We would be prepared to support a programme of land reform that was part of a poverty eradication strategy but not on any other basis.

How gracious we are! We recognise that Zimbabwe has some ‘very real issues’! Land reform could (sic) be an important component of a Zimbabwe poverty-reduction programme which, as defined by us and only us, may be worthy of our lofty support.

I am told Britain provided a package of assistance for resettlement in the period immediately following independence. This was, I gather, carefully planned and implemented, and met most of its targets. Again, I am told there were discussions in 1989 and 1996 to explore the possibility of further assistance. However that is all in the past.

She is ‘told’. What does that mean? This sneaks in some sort of subjectivity to the core Zimbabwe argument that the UK gave some undertakings in this area which need to be fulfilled. Whatever the substantive merits of those arguments, brushing them aside in this dismissive way is close to rudeness.

Plus it is not ‘all in the past’ if you are an African peering through the fence at a prosperous ‘white’ farm on land which your ancestors used to walk on – a point New Labour might have been expected to take seriously.

If we look to the present, a number of specific issues are unresolved, including the way in which land would be acquired and compensation paid – clearly it would not help the poor of Zimbabwe if it was done in a way which undermined investor confidence.

Again, the letter defines in UK terms alone what ‘clearly’ helps the Zimbabwe poor and what does not. Unwisely put. Any Zimbabwean Minister might think that he knows what the poor of Zimbabwe need rather more accurately and ‘clearly’ than any passing UK wealthy ‘investor’.

Other questions that would need to be settled would be to ensure that the process was completely open and transparent, including the establishment of a proper land register.

Individual schemes would have to be economically justified to ensure that the process helped the poor, and for me the most important issue is that any programme must be planned as part of a programme to contribute to the goal of eliminating poverty. I would need to consider detailed proposals on these issues before confirming further British support for resettlement.

Sigh. We/I define in some detail the terms on which you African ants might get British support.

OK, it is UK taxpayers’ money. They do not want to waste it. But is the tone of this likely to make the reader feel that the writer is trying to engage on a human level with these sensitive issues? If not, why send it?

I am sure that a carefully worked out programme of land reform that was part of a programme of poverty eradication which we could support would also bring in other donors, whose support would help ensure that a substantial land resettlement programme such as you clearly desire could be undertaken successfully. If is [sic] to do so, they too will need to be involved from the start.

Crikey. Was there a crunching typo in this vital letter? And which DFID automaton drafted that first rambling and condescending sentence?

It follows from this that a programme of rapid land acquisition as you now seem to envisage would be impossible for us to support. I know that many of Zimbabwe’s friends share our concern about the damage which this might do to Zimbabwe’s agricultural output and its prospects of attracting investment.

Look out, African small fry. If you defy us, we’ll get our mates to duff you up too.

I thought it best to be frank about where we are. If you think it would be helpful, my officials are ready to meet yours to discuss these issues.

And you succeeded. Frank indeed in delivering a message whose only impact could be – and was – mightily to empower those in the Zimbabwe elite who were arguing that the UK was still living in the colonialist past and needed to be taught a lesson…

Ho hum. Here is Dominic Lawson in 2007:

It would have been hard to construct a letter more skilfully designed to enrage Mugabe – or even a man with a much thicker skin than the Zimbabwean leader. Short’s amazing assertion – that because her family was of Irish stock there was no need to honour a commitment to Zimbabwe entered into by a previous British government – was an inimitable mixture of shamelessness and sanctimony. That friend of mine who knows Mugabe says that Short’s letter sent him into a rage against Britain which has scarcely abated for the succeeding decade.

Who knows, perhaps it was awareness of his own minister’s responsibility for the quite unnecessary transformation of Mugabe from friend to foe which deterred Tony Blair from applying his doctrine of liberal imperialism to Zimbabwe. In any case, New Labour has learnt from its adventures in southern Iraq that it is relatively straightforward to kick the door in: it’s quite another matter to clear up the mess afterwards.

Remember this superb example of old-style diplomacy in action?

What a pity Clare Short did not put a thick line through this calamitous draft letter and write instead something like this:

PERSONAL

Dear Minister,

I know that your government are keen to press ahead with a radical land reform agenda. The British government of course has engaged extensively with Zimbabwe in recent years on this complex and sensitive question.

I have to say that I worry that some of your proposals risk causing unwelcome damage to Zimbabwe’s prospects and reputation. That in turn would make it difficult for us to support you, as I am keen to do.

May I propose that we set up a series of high-level seminars to look closely – and with some speed as I know that your government are keen to move ahead fast – at how best to take land reform forward in Zimbabwe in a way which does aim to correct historic injustices while also improving employment and agricultural productivity? 

A dynamic and effective partnership model for pursuing such changes could be a model for similar reforms elsewhere in the world – an exciting opportunity in the global objective of reducing poverty which our two governments so keenly support.

Perhaps we could have an early word on the telephone to see what might be done?

A letter like that, emphasising a wish to define and tackle the questions in a spirit of intelligent partnership and with very much a warm personal tone, might have saved a whole lot of disaster down the road.

Memo to next government: rediscover the art of fine drafting – and a deft human touch in foreign policy.