AHC: Save Rhodesia

[Francisco Cojuanco]

Your challenge, if you choose to accept it, is to have Rhodesia survive to the present day. It can be in either its Rhodesia/Nyasaland Federation or it can be its UDI Republic.

My idea: For the Federation, just have it become a full-fledged Commonwealth realm and have it abolish its racist policies, not unlike what South Africa did in the early 1990s.

Perhaps Sithole somehow retains the confidence of his party, and a year later, Chitepo survives the OTL assassination attempt at the hands of the Rhodesian government. When the Internal Settlement comes, most of ZANU consents to join the settlement and contest elections. Seeing all major parties accept it, when Zimbabwe-Rhodesia is proclaimed on June 1, 1979, the world recognizes its existence as a fait accompli, essentially. Mugabe forms a militant breakaway faction that causes some trouble in the years ahead, but you never asked for a utopia.

 

[Otis R. Needleman]

It's not all one-sided - Mugabe sucks and Rhodesia was okay is a pretty simplistic view to take. This New York Times article presents a pretty balanced view - income inequality did decrease, and there was a strong psychological shift in the country. Well worth reading.

Cheers,
Ganesha

Read the article. Thanks for posting the link. Not impressed. Only took thirty years or so to reach the level described in the article. Wonder how things would be if Mugabe hadn't run the country into the ground.

 

[Weaver]

New York Times is an unbiased source is it?

 

[Weaver]

Rhodesia's best chance was for the Cuban Missile Crisis to go hot, and surviving Europeans head South for some chance of survival long-term. The destruction of the USSR and Cuba would have had enormous implications for the Black insurgents from 1963 onwards.

 

[Marius]

Read the article. Thanks for posting the link. Not impressed. Only took thirty years or so to reach the level described in the article. Wonder how things would be if Mugabe hadn't run the country into the ground.

Zimbabwe was actually doing all right until about 2000, when the first real opposition to Mugabe and ZANU-PF arose, with the MDC.

I've said it before on this site, and I'll say it again.

If Mugabe had stood down in about '95 or so, he would be lauded by the West. He wouldn't be on the same level as Mandela, but certainly in a similar position as Kaunda, Mogae, or Chissano. All the 'nastiness' in Matabeleland in the '80s would have been forgotten.

 

[Ijon Tichy]

Zimbabwe was actually doing all right until about 2000, when the first real opposition to Mugabe and ZANU-PF arose, with the MDC.

I've said it before on this site, and I'll say it again.

If Mugabe had stood down in about '95 or so, he would be lauded by the West. He wouldn't be on the same level as Mandela, but certainly in a similar position as Kaunda, Mogae, or Chissano. All the 'nastiness' in Matabeleland in the '80s would have been forgotten.

Nice to see there are some grown-ups on this board! After the massacres in Matabeleland Maggie Thatcher was asked in parliament if this would affect her relationship with Comrade Bob. She answered, equally directly, that no it wouldn't. So much for the great champion of freedom.

The worst of it all is that there could probably have been land reform without violence and thuggery - there were already pilot schemes in place which seemed to prove that. We'll never know, because that would have had no political capital for Bob.

Another point on the long-term viability of Rhodesia. Patrick Bond in his book Uneven Zimbabwe argues that both Rhodesia and its successor had a peculiar relationship to the world economy, reflected in the fact that its economic indicators, e.g. on the stock exchange etc., showed a real roller-coaster pattern. This instability must have hit the white settler minority both economically and psychologically, encouraging them even more to dig in their heels and make no concessions.

 

[Francisco Cojuanco]

Nice to see there are some grown-ups on this board! After the massacres in Matabeleland Maggie Thatcher was asked in parliament if this would affect her relationship with Comrade Bob. She answered, equally directly, that no it wouldn't. So much for the great champion of freedom.

The worst of it all is that there could probably have been land reform without violence and thuggery - there were already pilot schemes in place which seemed to prove that. We'll never know, because that would have had no political capital for Bob.

Another point on the long-term viability of Rhodesia. Patrick Bond in his book Uneven Zimbabwe argues that both Rhodesia and its successor had a peculiar relationship to the world economy, reflected in the fact that its economic indicators, e.g. on the stock exchange etc., showed a real roller-coaster pattern. This instability must have hit the white settler minority both economically and psychologically, encouraging them even more to dig in their heels and make no concessions.

Part of it was that Britain essentially abandoned its schemes in Zimbabwe when Tony Blair took power - and that included helping finance land reform. So maybe if somehow John Major stays in power we get a somewhat more positive result.

 

[Ganesha]

Read the article. Thanks for posting the link. Not impressed. Only took thirty years or so to reach the level described in the article. Wonder how things would be if Mugabe hadn't run the country into the ground.

Up until the constitutional reform in 2000, the land reform program was slow, based on willing sellers, and financed by Britain. The fast-track land seizures only happened a little over a decade ago, and haven't had time to really fully percolate through the economy yet.

The other factor is that after fast-track land seizures started, the United States and other international creditors put the crunch on Zimbabwe and pulled out investment.

New York Times is an unbiased source is it?

I'd say so. Do you not think so?

Part of it was that Britain essentially abandoned its schemes in Zimbabwe when Tony Blair took power - and that included helping finance land reform. So maybe if somehow John Major stays in power we get a somewhat more positive result.

Why was it that Blair and Labor stopped financing it?

Cheers,
Ganesha

 

[Francisco Cojuanco]

Why was it that Blair and Labor stopped financing it?

Cheers,
Ganesha

There was a feeling that as the British Empire was effectively dead, they had no inherent responsibility towards the former colonies beyond general poverty eradication concerns.

Or as international development secretary Short said:

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.