Mugabe V Elizabeth... Round 2 - Lancaster House Battle

We have established that, the Oppressors, stole the Second Chimurenga's victory, from the People, via Political force. The time and place of the Oppressors' historic second victory was 21 December 1979. The instrument of the victory was the Political, "agreement," that was reached, the Lancaster House Constitution.

Now, did You know that the United Kingdom, one of the biggest exporters of colonial, Oppressive, "ownership," in the last century, do not have a fixed, written constitution. Instead, so far believing governing laws and principles should evolve just as the life of thier country & its people evolve..: (external reference)

A constitution is by definition, a binding legal framework.., Further, in the case of the Lancaster House agreement, the Revolutionaries were talked into accepting that Zimbabwe would abide by by the Lancaster House Constitution for 10 years. In this light, it becomes VERY interesting to ask Yourself, in whose interest was it to bind Zimbabwe's formative years within the parammeters of a rigid constitution..?

Whenever people sit down to negotiate an agreement, which was in this Lancaster House case, a binding, "Constitution," it is safe to assume they do so based on thier interest in the matter being discussed. Because of this fact, it is possible to gain some understanding of exactly who had, and may still have, an interest in Zimbabwe.., simply by looking at the composition of the delegation present at that meeting in 1979. A quick scan of the list of delegates reveals 3 distinct, and evenly represented groups;
a) The Patriotic Front Delegation - (The Revolutionaries) - 21 delegates,
b) Zimbabwe rhodesia Delegation (The Occupying Oppressors & thier Coons) - 23 delegates,
c) The United Kingdom Delegation - (The Indirect Occupying Economy) - 22 delegates; (external reference)

Now, it is obvious why the Revoltionaries, (who fought on behalf of the People,) and the rhodies & Coons, (the settler minority, acting in the interests of self-preservation in the face of the popular revolt,) were well represented at this conference. What is interesting however, is the large UK delegation... The size of this delegation indicates that in 1980, the United Kingdom clearly had very strong interests in the goings on in Zimbabwe. Now, leading from the article on Chimurenga 3, we know that the parties sitting down to the Lancaster House conference were there because of an Economic issue. The People of Zimbabwe were using force in an attempt to reclaim thier basic means to production. So in this light, one must ask themselves, what was the extent of the UK's Economic interest in Zimbabwe, for them to post such a strong delegation at Lancaster House..?

As can be expected, in addition to delegates actually physically present during the 3 month long meeting, such delegates would have also spoken on behalf of the interests of other, non-present, shadow partners. In this respect, in the aftermath of the current ressurgence of Chimurenga in Zimbabwe, an interesting aspect has recently emerged.., This is the alleged crucial, but behind the scenes, role played by the the President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, via his ambassador in London, Kingman Brewster. As reported on the BBC's own website; (external reference)

- The talks headed for failure when the talks' chairman, Mr Carrington, presented the Revolutionaries a draft constitution that completely ignored the key Economic issue of land. Mugabe & Nkomo are said to have been furious. However, by his own account, the then Secretary General of the United Nations, Shiridath Ramphal, secured a promise from Jimmy Carter, that the US government, "would contribute a substantial amount for a process of land redistribution and they would undertake to encourage the British government to give similar assurances." This was a political promise that helped to coax the Revolutionaries back to the negotiating table. In addition, we should not forget the additional pressure the Revolutionaries were under, from the leaders of the frontline African nations. These are the countries whose peoples were directly bearing the great strain, of hosting the military operations of the Revolutionaries. For example, Tanzanian journalist Ben Mabula reports how Tanzania's then President, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, told Mugabe to accept political independence first, and all else would follow..; (external refernece)

Now, is it wise for any thinking man/woman to assume that, since then, somewhere along the line, the very influential Oppressors that were so hard at work during the Lancaster House battle, have now somehow lost thier strong interest in Zimbabwe..? An interest they had been vigourously protecting their since the 1890s, first through military might, and then via political magic..? If one is to judge by the ammount of media coverage the Zimbabwe, "issue," continues to command in the UK & US media, it is safe to say that the fact is this.., the UK & US continue to have a strong interest in Zimbabwe. And, just as it was at the time of the first & second Chimurenga, and as it was at the cunning victory of Lancaster House, the interest of the Oppressor continues to primarily be Economic.

In closing, what all this means is that, at the point of birth of Zimbabwe's supposed, "independence," our Revolutionaries sat in the Oppressors' back garden, and were talked into binding themselves to laws set out in the language of the Oppressor.., Hence like Houdini, in a flash.., the main Economic issue was made to dissapper behind the smokescreen of Politics...