Earlier Internal Settlement (Zimbabwe-Rhodesia)

OTL, 11 November 1965, the white-minority government in Salisbury issues the Universal Declaration of Independence of Rhodesia. The next day the UN Security Council condemnes the "illegal racist minority régime".

But despite NIMBAR the door for compromise was still open during the 1960s and Mugabe, etc. hadn't yet as much political influence as after the war. So, what if Ian Smith is replaced by someone, who is less determined to maintain the entrenchment of white minority rule in the constitution at all costs, but someone who realises that Southern Rhodesias demographics make a whites-only government impossible in the longterm.

So instead of fighting a long war Rhodesias new PM negotiates a power-sharing constitution with moderate black leaders and includes them in his new government. Maybe something like Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, with two distinct electoral rolls and a large number of seats reserved for whites and maybe additional generous minority rights. Together with the economic advantage the white population had and the fact, that most of the black population lacked any formal qualification, that would have secured white dominance for a long time.

Would such a settlement have been accepted at this time? I think yes, as the Rhodesian government was at a much better bargaining position in the 1960s than they were in 1979. And Britain was eager to release responsibility for this embarassing situation. So Rhodesia becomes an independent Commonwealth Realm with a black prime minister but politics and economics are still dominated by whites.

As this isn't a strict one man one vote solution, some kind of nationalist insurgency will probably still arise. However, international and internal support will be much lower.

But will this arrangement be stable? More influence for black politians will certainly mean more expenditures for black education, etc. but when they realise that the white will be unwilling to give up their privileged position for real there most definitely will be a backlash. More radical politicians get elected who will challenge the power-sharing agreement which privileges the white population. The insurgency will become more intense, though still not reaching OTL levels. But it still means a strong military presence, and a predominantly white officer corps.

So Zimbabwe-Rhodesia gets a quite radical prime minister, who excludes whites from his government and instead invites the insurgency parties. He introduces policies of land redistribution, declares his intention to change the constitution to remove white privilege, ec.. Remember, we're still during the Cold War, so the Soviet Union is most eager to use the opportunity to gain a new ally and supports his new government financially. Naturally, that doesn't go well with the white population and a military "anti-communist" coup ousts him and installs a white-led military government. Some token black ministers are included, but martial law is declared, democracy is swept away and policies are designed to provide for the white population first.

Could this be a realistic timeline? And how would the foreign relations of this regime be? If it avoids to be overtly racist and considering that the USA supported Pinochets coup against left-wing Allende, how would the western world react?

But more interesting: How would such a scenario influence the policies of apartheid South Africa? The crippling sanctions came only at the end of the 70s but apartheid policy created strong international backlash even before. Would the contrast of a more democratic and stable Zimbabwe-Rhodesia intensify the international condemnation? And would it influence the internal policies of South Africa?

Of course, South Africa will support the white-minority military dictatorship. Considering the different timeline they are not convinced that Rhodesia is doomed to fail, and instead of using it as a bargain for themselves, they try to secure its existence as an important buffer state.

How plausible is this time line and what would be the long term consequences. I appreciate your comments.
 
Apparently Sir Alec Douglas-Home negotiated a settlement with the Rhodesian government when Foreign Secretary in the early 70s which was shot down by Heath (or someone else - I'm not quite sure of the details: if any of you have access to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography website it's mentioned in Douglas-Home's article). That could be your starting point.
 
Apparently Sir Alec Douglas-Home negotiated a settlement with the Rhodesian government when Foreign Secretary in the early 70s which was shot down by Heath (or someone else - I'm not quite sure of the details: if any of you have access to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography website it's mentioned in Douglas-Home's article). That could be your starting point.
Thank you. I'm seeing where I can find more info about this.
 
Could this be a realistic timeline? And how would the foreign relations of this regime be? If it avoids to be overtly racist and considering that the USA supported Pinochets coup against left-wing Allende, how would the western world react?

But more interesting: How would such a scenario influence the policies of apartheid South Africa? .

Very hard to say. Off hand, during a TL Nixon's term, such as it could be, he was known to write sub Saharan Africa off as a British sphere of influence (ignoring the obvious French interests). Maybe it was Chromite, but one mineral or another was fairly strategic. Otherwise, Rhodesia was not in the US interests (although due to the racist overtones, Rhodesian help in the Vietnam War was reluctantly refused by an eager South Vietnam, due to heavy US pressure. A later field hospital was accepted.)

There were quite a few Black voters in Rhodesia (about 20% of the voting rolls if memory serves), as voting was based upon income, not race. Gerrymandering I believe was also common, to near total white dominance. Restrictive compacts were widespread everywhere in the country, as was the norm in many places in the US til the 1965 federal law prohibiting these clauses. Many an chain of title abstract I have seen in the US South said, in effect, no drinking/alcohol manufacture or sales on future land owners land, no Blacks, no Hispanics, usually in land for smaller towns, up til that date.

The 1970's US press like Time/Newsweek occasionally raked Rhodesias policies over the coals, despite the mere 10 years or so since the same was in place all over the US (in the movie Mamie, one of the main characters out of spite builds a New York jewish refugee home across the way from a restrictive gentile enclave, and I have met some one (chinese) whose ex husband grew up in one of those places in New York city areas.

What we see is an indifference to how recently local battles in the US/Europe casually being transferred to other lands. From what was in news reports after the becoming Zimbabwe, refugees to South Africa were profoundly conservative compared to the South Africa white population. Also be advised that South Africa pretty well decided to change due to the fall of communism, the price of gold, and the boycotts in that order. It was a steady policy of 15 or more years, accellerated by DeClerk but not initially initiated from him.

Also of interest was Kissinger's comment of meeting with Ian Smith 1976, saying that Smith was personally likable, but there was nothing that could be done (thrown to the wolves) in the chess playing of the global east/west conflict in the cold war, to which Smith was down hearted to hear. And that Smith apparently was the only leader of any country to have been a flyer in WWII Europe, a Spitfire pilot. (Bush Senior was a flyer, but in the Pacific, no others that I can think of.) In fact, his was one of the more active participations of any future leader involved in that conflict, on par or beyond that of Kennedy's and most certainly Bush.

Probably, the media would simply continue whipping on Rhodesia, to less effect but fairly constant. I have no idea what end that would make for the country's progress or lack of the same.

Good luck, and be sure to post the Home interview if you can find it.
 
Rhodesians Rejected Formula? (Which Rhodesians?)

This might be what was referred to, which this news article claims
Rhodesians rejected the offer in a vote or something like that.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/uk_confidential/1711382.stm

Documents released under the 30-year rule reveal how much the British Government was willing to compromise with Rhodesia's white majority ruler Ian Smith in an attempt to guarantee land rights and majority rule within the country.

In 1965, Ian Smith declared independence illegally to prevent a move to rule by its African majority. In 1971, the Prime Minister at the time, Sir Edward Heath and the British Foreign Secretary, Alec Douglas-Home were in talks with Smith to organise a legal settlement that would ensure the equality of land rights between Africans and Europeans.
_1711382_iansmithrhodesia.jpg
Ian Smith declared independence illegally


The files reveal that following several months of secret diplomacy, Douglas-Home finally signed a settlement with Smith, but only after the British government was forced to compromise on certain principals of land tenure.

A secret telegram from Alec Douglas-Home to Ian Smith reveals just how much Douglas-Home was prepared to compromise and how difficult his dealings with Smith were:


"I must again ask you to consider some re-allocation of land in favour of the Africans. If the multi-racial state to which we both attach so much importance is to become a reality, it is essential to avoid the built-in inequality that springs from the allocation from the start, and in perpetuity of almost 50 percent of the land to what is now one twentieth of the population and will inevitably over the years become an even smaller fraction."



Ian Smith: A controversial leader
1948-1953 - Served in the Southern Rhodesia legislative assembly
1962 - The Rhodesian Front won in Southern Rhodesia elevating Smith to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Treasury
1964 - Became Prime Minister of Rhodesia
1965 - Smith unilaterally declared Rhodesian independence
1970 - Smith consolidated white rule and declared Rhodesia a Republic
1980 - Rhodesia becomes Zimbabwe with black majority rule

Compromise
Douglas-Home goes on to try and coax Smith in to agreeing to his conditions:

"If you could make some positive movement on this we would be justified in dealing with future legislation on the use and acquisition of land in the Declaration of Rights, on the lines of the draft on discrimination which was put forward by our side and slightly amended in discussion. Even then we should be criticised but we could wear it."

The settlement was rejected the following year when it was put to the Rhodesian people. A civil war broke out which lasted until 1979 and cost around 30,000 lives.
 
The details will change but the result by 2011 may not be radically different from OTL. Perhaps Mugabe could be butterflied but really the difference is not as great as you would think. Mugabe has behaved the same as most post independent African rulers did in the 60's and 70's, it's just that HE IS STILL HERE.

Black Africans will not accept continued White ownership of the best land. They will not accept white political influence after independence and the Black population would never accept a capitalistic liberal democracy before the Soviet collapse forced them to turn to the West as THE ONLY source of aid. Now with China emerging dictatorship has found new allies.

South Africa is shown to be different but in South Africa the White population is still too large and important to neutralized totally. But what happened in Zimbabwe could happen in SA if the ANC feel that they could lose an election.
 
Top