Originally posted by Bosse de NageAt least Israel's "unilateral" independence came after the UN approved the 1947 Partition Plan. Rhodesia's unilateral "independence" in 1965 was the proclamation of a white minority government, and was widely considered a "treasonous" move against the British Crown, which had the support of the UN against Smith and his apartheid policies. Zimbabwe's actual independence finally came in 1980 when it was granted by the UK and free elections were held.
Self-proclaimed sovereign entity. Rhodesia also declared unilateral independence. Lack of powerful friends saw it sink. Too bad.
Originally posted by demonseedI won't agree. Israel was reinstated by international agreements not by any self-proclaimed goverment.
Europe used to be made up of more than 300 separate entities. What's your point? That it would be okay to move in now and re-establish one of these dead states.
It wouldn't. And it wasn't right to resurrect Israel either.
And most of those States in Europe were connected to contemporary countries so they are alive nowadays.
Originally posted by SuzianneFree elections in Zimbabwe?? WTF!!
At least Israel's "unilateral" independence came after the UN approved the 1947 Partition Plan. Rhodesia's unilateral "independence" in 1965 was the proclamation of a white minority government, and was widely considered a "treasonous" move against the British Crown, which had the support of the UN against Smith and his apartheid policies. Zimbabwe's actua ...[text shortened]... ndence finally came in 1980 when it was granted by the UK and free elections were held.
Sure, as long as you vote for Mugabe and Zanu PF.
1 edit
Originally posted by demonseedThis, from the Wikipedia entry on Rhodesia:
Free elections in Zimbabwe?? WTF!!
Sure, as long as you vote for Mugabe and Zanu PF.
Following the conference held in 1979-1980, Britain's Lord Soames was appointed governor to oversee the disarming of revolutionary guerrillas, the holding of elections, and the granting of independence to an uneasy coalition government with Joshua Nkomo, head of Zimbabwe African People's Union. In the free elections of February 1980, Robert Mugabe and his Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) won a landslide victory, and Mugabe has won every election since, although most elections have not been considered "free and fair" according to international standards, with intimidation of voters and harassment of opposition members alleged.
And later in the same article:
Ultimately, Mugabe and Nkomo held peace talks that saw a return to calm and the reunification of the Patriotic Front. Clemency was given to those who had committed atrocities on both sides. The peace accord in 1987, resulted in PF ZAPU's merger (1988) with ZANU Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF).
Edit: My point was that the independence of Rhodesia claimed by Smith and the white minority in 1965, which BDN was comparing to the independence of the State of Israel in 1948, was a "sham" independence, and was rightfully denied any international recognition, whereas the independence of Zimbabwe in 1980 was the true independence of Africans in the region (whether ZANU or ZAPU) and did garner international recognition. My point, briefly, is that BDN should not be comparing the independence of Israel in 1948 to the supposed "independence" of Rhodesia in 1965, when real independence did not come to the region until 1980.
Originally posted by SuzianneOh please!!
This, from the Wikipedia entry on Rhodesia:
Following the conference held in 1979-1980, Britain's Lord Soames was appointed governor to oversee the disarming of revolutionary guerrillas, the holding of elections, and the granting of independence to an uneasy coalition government with Joshua Nkomo, head of Zimbabwe African People's Union. In the free elec ...[text shortened]... ce accord in 1987, resulted in PF ZAPU's merger (1988) with ZANU Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF).
Mugabe is in the same vein as Amin and other petty African despots.
The Zanu party would not know how to contest a free election if it jumped up and bit them on the butt!!
😛
Originally posted by lordhighgusI'm not debating that Mugabe is a pleasant chap. Or that he didn't employ questionable means to stay in office. What I am saying is that any government of Africans over Africans is preferable to any government of whites over Africans. True independence in Africa is not achieved by having the whites controlling the government. Ask South Africa. The Africans should have the same right to screw up their own countries in whatever way they see fit as we enjoy in the West.
Oh please!!
Mugabe is in the same vein as Amin and other petty African despots.
The Zanu party would not know how to contest a free election if it jumped up and bit them on the butt!!
😛
But apartheid is sooooo last-century.
Self-rule is the basis of any real independence. Choosing the right person(s) to rule is an art that we in America haven't seemed to quite master yet either. We're just a bit more high-tech about the way we steal elections. 🙂