WI: Britain Accepts 1971 Internal Agreement with Rhodesia

As the title says, what if Britain agreed to the Rhodesia agreement the Foreign Secretary, Alec Douglas Home made in 1971 with the Rhodesian PM Ian Smith? Which laid out policies for Rhodesia to follow in exchange for recognition of the UDI?
 
Bumping this up back to view.

This agreement is often overlooked when it comes to the history of Rhodesia.
 
Wasn't the main issue that the Bishop organised Black opposition to the deal, which stymied international acceptance. How do we butterfly that?
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
This article was helpful in formulating my answer, and is a good context for those out the loop.

The issue here is circular; the Native Africans of Rhodesia aren't going to accept the agreement because the negotiations didn't involve them. The negotiations didn't involve them because Ian Smith didn't want them to be in the loop. Heath couldn't force him to involve the Africans, so Smith didn't. And thus, because Smith didn't have to and didn't want to have the Africans involved, they didn't agree to the negotiations they weren't represented at, and thus rejected the agreement.

For the agreement to work, you need to have Smith either be forced or agree to bring Africans along with him, so they are part of the agreement and can accept it. You also need Heath to be able to project power to enforce the agreement, which in 1971 he couldn't do; Heath couldn't intervene because of the weakness of the military, and because of the opposition to intervention from Third World States and Commonwealth members. So, responsibility of the working of the agreement must lie with Smith inviting and bringing African representatives to the agreement, and had he done so, would have been able to nip the War in the bud.
 
This article was helpful in formulating my answer, and is a good context for those out the loop.

The issue here is circular; the Native Africans of Rhodesia aren't going to accept the agreement because the negotiations didn't involve them. The negotiations didn't involve them because Ian Smith didn't want them to be in the loop. Heath couldn't force him to involve the Africans, so Smith didn't. And thus, because Smith didn't have to and didn't want to have the Africans involved, they didn't agree to the negotiations they weren't represented at, and thus rejected the agreement.

For the agreement to work, you need to have Smith either be forced or agree to bring Africans along with him, so they are part of the agreement and can accept it. You also need Heath to be able to project power to enforce the agreement, which in 1971 he couldn't do; Heath couldn't intervene because of the weakness of the military, and because of the opposition to intervention from Third World States and Commonwealth members. So, responsibility of the working of the agreement must lie with Smith inviting and bringing African representatives to the agreement, and had he done so, would have been able to nip the War in the bud.

That article is really useful, thanks!

The main thing, though, is that once Britain, the country Rhodesia declared it's independence from recognizes it, I'm sure the US and other will as well.

Let's say, though, that somehow the Africans are rightfully included. What happens then? We know (at least I think, it was in the deal, after all) Britain will approve it, recognize RD, but what after that? What will happen to the country following it?

I really hope one of the forum experts on Rhodesia sees this thread, they would know more about those questions than I.
 
Top