The Cold War and Zimbabwe's Liberation Struggle
Great power Interest and the Land Struggle in Colonial Rhodesia
May 11, 2009
Throughout the colonial history of Zimbabwe (Rhodesia as it was called) the interests of great powers have been decisive factors in shaping the nature and direction of the struggle to end colonial rule and land excision. The main stake holders in this struggle were Britain, US, the Frontline States the Organization of African Unity (OAU), UN and Commonwealth.
Containing the Spread of Communism into Southern Rhodesia
What made the liberation struggle in Rhodesia very significant was the effect it had on shaping the politics of the cold war particularly in Southern Africa. This explains the massive involvement of great powers represented by Russia and China on the one hand, and the west led by US and Britain. American and British involvements were defined by what researcher Sean Gervasi describes as “western strategy in Southern Africa”.
This strategy was inspired by economic, strategic, ideological and political considerations all wrapped up in a policy of containment. This containment aimed at preventing communist incursion into Southern Africa. “Throughout the cold war,” notes political scientist Alex Thompson, “US officials marginalized human rights concerns hiding behind notions of state sovereignty… in order to capture the more coveted prize of global containment.”
Containment however faced great challenges in Southern Africa. Portugal lost her grip on Angola and Mozambique in 1975 and thenceforth, white regimes became very unpopular throughout southern Africa. In Zimbabwe, the liberation struggle had entered its radical phase and the nationalists received substantial aid from communist countries like China, Russia, Cuba and North Korea. America was therefore forced to join Britain in seeking a quick solution to Zimbabwe’s crisis.
Reconciling Settler Interests and the Demand for Independence, Britain’s Dilemma
As the colonial power in Rhodesia, Britain bore the odium of a rising Africa nationalism whose first enemy was the white settler population drawn largely from Britain. According to Gervasi, out of the 106.000 whites present in British Central Africa in 1946, 82.000 were found in Southern Rhodesia. Though Britain claimed that her policy towards Rhodesia was aimed at steering Africans towards majority rule, historical evidence proves the contrary.
London was consistently called upon by Frontline States to assume her decolonization responsibilities particularly after the breakup of CAF- Central African Federation in 1963. Britain refrained from using force against the Unilateral government of Ian Smith on grounds of avoiding a political row. “Instead,” says Thompson “London was more active in quietly pursuing its economic interests in the post colonial era.”
Under British colonialism, Southern Rhodesia reflected what Gervasi describes generally of Southern Africa as “… an enclave of several million wealthy whites who functioned as well paid overseers in a kind of world plantation system. The poor, the laborers, the vast mass of the population have little or no prospect of escaping the harshest kind of poverty."
This harsh poverty fuelled by land deprivation was the main force behind the war of liberation. Even after the protracted liberation war, Britain still insisted on the protection of private property through the “willing seller-willing buyer” clause of the Lancaster Constitution. Mugabe’s denunciation of this exploitative clause sparked conflict with Britain.
Russia and China in the struggle for Zimbabwe’s Liberation
Russia and China both played a decisive role in shaping the outcome of Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle. These eastern powers took it upon themselves to challenge western capitalism in Africa. “Moscow,” notes Thompson, “was also keen to assist liberation struggles against white minority governments of Southern Africa.”
China followed along Russia’s footsteps. Both communist powers offered training to Zimbabwe’s liberation forces in different capacities. China also made its presence felt in Southern Africa through the construction of the TAN-ZAM railway line which gave Zambia access to the sea without need to pass through apartheid South Africa. This Sino-Soviet assistance was decisive in forcing Ian Smith to the negotiating table.
Africa and the Struggle in Zimbabwe
Because of the continent-wide hatred for colonial rule, (the only exception being apartheid South Africa) all independent African countries sympathized with Rhodesia nationalists. The OAU formed in 1963 established a liberation committee which supported the fight against colonialism. Also, the independence of Angola and Mozambique in 1975 released resources for the struggle in Zimbabwe.
The Frontline States (Zambia, Angola, Tanzania, Mozambique and Botswana all offered assistance and bases to Zimbabwe’s liberation forces. In 1973 General Yakubu Gowon, raised the Zimbabwe question in his capacity as Chairman of the OAU. This consistent support from Africa greatly boosted the moral of Rhodesian fighters.
The UN and Commonwealth in Zimbabwe Struggle.
The UN became involved in the Zimbabwe struggle when it became clear that Britain was not willing to help Africa. From 1967, Joshua Nkomo made repeated appeals to the UN, but every UN action was blocked by Britain. The UN, however, condemned Smith’s government in 1966 with Resolution 2024 (xx) and followed suit with sanctions. These sanctions were openly flouted by Britain, US and European countries.
The Commonwealth on its part also exerted pressure on Britain to assume its decolonization responsibilities. The Commonwealth also rejected the lifting of sanctions against the Muzerewa regime at the Lusaka Conference of 1979 on grounds that it would weaken the bargaining power of the nationalists.
Without doubt therefore, the land crisis in Zimbabwe is a crisis triggered by the conflicting interests of great powers. Understanding these interests is key to understanding the controversy that followed these reforms.
Sources:
Gervasi, Sean. “Rhodesia and western Strategy in Africa” in E.S Wilmer, Zimbabwe Now, 1974.
Kariuki, Samuel M. Can negotiated land reforms deliver? A case of Kenya’s, South Africa’s and Zimbabwe land reform policy debates, 2004.
Richardson, Craig. Property Rights, land reform and the hidden Architecture of Capitalism, 2006.
Thompson, Alex. An Introduction to African Politiics, 2000.
