Was Ian Smith vindicated?

[rebel23]

Ian Smith, the former Prime Minister of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) died this week, his white regime was often derided but he argued for a gradual process of black majority rule rather than the "big bang" that usually followed in former colonial countires.

in 1965, following disagreements with Wilson's Government, he made a Unilateral Declaration of Independence and he and his country faced 15 years of sanctions and marginalisation by the international community

here's an article from the Mail's Stephen Glover looking back at a once pariah yet very much better regime than the current mess that black majority rule has produced for the people of Zimbabwe, which Ian Smith ironically warned of.

-----------------
Badly flawed, yes, but Ian Smith's sins pale beside Mugabe's
Stephen Glover

Tuesday saw the death of Ian Smith, once the most hated man in Britain.

It was an article of faith in the liberal media from 1965 until 1979 that he was a racist bigot presiding over a near fascist state in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) that practised apartheid, or separate development.

The BBC yesterday gave his corpse a final kick.

If the insane Robert Mugabe has ruined Zimbabwe, where there is starvation and an inflation rate of several thousand per cent, the fault is Mr Smith's, whose reactionary policies allegedly paved the way for this monster.

In death, Mr Smith is demonised as he was in life.

Before I first visited Rhodesia in 1978, I believed much of the anti-Smith propaganda.

I had been travelling around Black Africa for several months, having my camera stolen by a customs official in one country and being threatened by soldiers in several others, before arriving in Salisbury (now Harare), the capital of Mr Smith's supposedly evil, white-ruled regime.

Black immigration officials welcomed me at the airport.

I found a well-ordered, very British place which, despite having been subjected to international sanctions for 13 years, was much richer than any of the independent African states I had visited.

There were many black guests in my hotel, and no evidence of apartheid.

After a few days it began to dawn on me that my liberal preconceptions were at least partly misplaced.

The moment the scales fell from my eyes came, oddly, at an agricultural fair.

A white farmer showed me a new type of high-yielding wheat seed developed by a Rhodesian scientist.

He could as easily have been at an agricultural fair in Shropshire or Wiltshire, but he was in the middle of Africa.

I realised then that, whatever might be said against Rhodesia, it had a sophisticated civilisation that was worth preserving.

Of course, I was not blind to its faults. Out in the bush I was shocked by the way a white farmer treated his black workers.

Nevertheless, it was a country with an advanced infrastructure and first world standards, and it was surely highly desirable that these things should be maintained as it moved towards black majority rule, which came two years later in 1980.

Where is my white farmer now with his revolutionary wheat?

His farm will have been confiscated by Mr Mugabe some years ago; there are no white-owned farms left in Zimbabwe.

Very likely it will be occupied by one of Mugabe's henchmen, and have run wild.

A country that exported maize, wheat and tobacco 25 years ago does not produce nough food to feed half its population.

Why can't Mr Smith's critics admit they got things at least partly wrong?

Everything he said would happen has come about - only worse.

When he spoke out against black majority rule, he cannot have foreseen that within 25 years millions of Zimbabweans would be fleeing their country, and that many of those who stayed would be starving.

Life for the poorest black under Ian Smith was incalculably better than it is under Robert Mugabe.

It is true that Mr Smith ran a pretty ruthless police force, but nothing it did compares in sheer scale with the torture, illegal imprisonment and intimidation practised against black Zimbabweans by President Mugabe.

The liberal media and those Left-wing politicians who welcomed Mugabe's election in 1980, and for years pilloried Mr Smith, got things badly wrong.

Yet far from admitting their mistakes, their bien pensant successors claim that if only Mr Smith had not gone it alone in Rhodesia in 1965 - when it rejected the British government's plans for black majority rule - the monster Mugabe would have never emerged.

Really? A quick look at other first generation African leaders following independence hardly inspires confidence.

There were the genocidal maniacs (Emperor Bokassa in the Central African Republic, Idi Amin in Uganda, Joseph Mobutu in Zaire); the corrupt tyrants ( Jomo Kenyatta in Kenya and almost anyone you care to mention); and the socialists who ruined their countries (Julius Nyere in Tanzania, Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana and a host of others.)

Some of these monsters may even surpass Mr Mugabe in their sheer awfulness. They all emerged without any help from Mr Smith, and it is a fair bet that Mr Mugabe, or someone like him, would sooner or later have seized power in Rhodesia if Mr Smith had stepped down in 1965.

Where he was undoubtedly at fault, however, was in not encouraging the growth of a moderate, educated, black middle-class with democratic values.

In the late Seventies, when he was increasingly menaced by terrorists led by Mr Mugabe, he belatedly turned to moderates such as Bishop Abel Muzorewa.

The truth is he did not believe that even moderate Africans were capable of governing themselves, and in this he was wrong.

Some African countries - such as Botswana and Mozambique - are at last being properly governed, and, in case no one has noticed, doing remarkably well.

Britain and other colonial powers were no less culpable than Mr Smith. They did not create free institutions in their African colonies to act as a counterweight to arbitrary power.

In the mid-Fifties, Britain thought it would be governing Kenya until the end of the century. It cut and ran within ten years.

Faced by the rise of independence movements, all the colonial powers scuttled.

When Belgium left the Congo, a country the size of western Europe, there were fewer than 50 African graduates.

Mr Smith should take his share of blame for not promoting an African middle class, but he did not create Robert Mugabe.

That monster, if he was created by anyone, drew his succour from supporters in the West with their Marxist claptrap, and their hatred for the British settlers in Rhodesia who did not want to desert the country they had helped to develop.

Even in death, the BBC cannot forgive him.

Yesterday morning, Radio 4 news quoted the Zimbabwean Information Minister who, not surprisingly, said Zimbabweans would not mourn Mr Smith's death.

Perhaps not - but how they will rejoice at Robert Mugabe's!

Nor did I did hear the BBC mention that as a young man Ian Smith volunteered to serve in the RAF, there being no conscription in Rhodesia.

On one occasion he was shot down; on another his Hurricane crashed, leaving him with such severe injuries that his face had to be surgically re-built.

Ian Smith could not understand how the mother country he had served could turn against him.

He was a man out of his time, holding beliefs that would have been standard in the previous generation in Britain. Without doubt he was somewhat narrow and stubborn: from his point of view, he should have accepted Harold Wilson's offer in 1966, which foresaw majority rule being postponed until the end of the century.

When I was last in Zimbabwe a few years ago, I went to see him in his suburban house in Harare, which might have been transplanted from the Home Counties.

He claimed that most black Zimbabweans who could remember his regime much preferred it to Mr Mugabe's.

I later tested this proposition, and it turned out to be true. It was almost impossible to find anyone who did not prefer Smith to Mugabe.

Yet even now in Britain the fiendish Robert Mugabe is spared the degree of vituperation to which Mr Smith was once subjected.

But then Ian Smith allowed the BBC to report on Rhodesia, whereas Mr Mugabe has banned it.

Will the truth ever filter through? Ian Smith helped create a deeply flawed but prosperous country.

Robert Mugabe has made a wasteland.

[Doctor Troy]

I went to Zimbabwe in 2004, the country is a complete mess. I don't know much about Ian Smith but I think even if he tried he couldn't destroy the place as much as Big Bob Mugabe.

[lifetime fan]

Originally Posted by rebel23 Ian Smith, the former Prime Minister of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) died this week, his white regime was often derided but he argued for a gradual process of black majority rule rather than the "big bang" that usually followed in former colonial countires. in 1965, following disagreements with Wilson's Government, he made a Unilateral Declaration of Independence and he and his country faced 15 years of sanctions and marginalisation by the international community here's an article from the Mail's Stephen Glover looking back at a once pariah yet very much better regime than the current mess that black majority rule has produced for the people of Zimbabwe, which Ian Smith ironically warned of. ----------------- Badly flawed, yes, but Ian Smith's sins pale beside Mugabe's Stephen Glover Tuesday saw the death of Ian Smith, once the most hated man in Britain. It was an article of faith in the liberal media from 1965 until 1979 that he was a racist bigot presiding over a near fascist state in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) that practised apartheid, or separate development. The BBC yesterday gave his corpse a final kick. If the insane Robert Mugabe has ruined Zimbabwe, where there is starvation and an inflation rate of several thousand per cent, the fault is Mr Smith's, whose reactionary policies allegedly paved the way for this monster. In death, Mr Smith is demonised as he was in life. Before I first visited Rhodesia in 1978, I believed much of the anti-Smith propaganda. I had been travelling around Black Africa for several months, having my camera stolen by a customs official in one country and being threatened by soldiers in several others, before arriving in Salisbury (now Harare), the capital of Mr Smith's supposedly evil, white-ruled regime. Black immigration officials welcomed me at the airport. I found a well-ordered, very British place which, despite having been subjected to international sanctions for 13 years, was much richer than any of the independent African states I had visited. There were many black guests in my hotel, and no evidence of apartheid. After a few days it began to dawn on me that my liberal preconceptions were at least partly misplaced. The moment the scales fell from my eyes came, oddly, at an agricultural fair. A white farmer showed me a new type of high-yielding wheat seed developed by a Rhodesian scientist. He could as easily have been at an agricultural fair in Shropshire or Wiltshire, but he was in the middle of Africa. I realised then that, whatever might be said against Rhodesia, it had a sophisticated civilisation that was worth preserving. Of course, I was not blind to its faults. Out in the bush I was shocked by the way a white farmer treated his black workers. Nevertheless, it was a country with an advanced infrastructure and first world standards, and it was surely highly desirable that these things should be maintained as it moved towards black majority rule, which came two years later in 1980. Where is my white farmer now with his revolutionary wheat? His farm will have been confiscated by Mr Mugabe some years ago; there are no white-owned farms left in Zimbabwe. Very likely it will be occupied by one of Mugabe's henchmen, and have run wild. A country that exported maize, wheat and tobacco 25 years ago does not produce nough food to feed half its population. Why can't Mr Smith's critics admit they got things at least partly wrong? Everything he said would happen has come about - only worse. When he spoke out against black majority rule, he cannot have foreseen that within 25 years millions of Zimbabweans would be fleeing their country, and that many of those who stayed would be starving. Life for the poorest black under Ian Smith was incalculably better than it is under Robert Mugabe. It is true that Mr Smith ran a pretty ruthless police force, but nothing it did compares in sheer scale with the torture, illegal imprisonment and intimidation practised against black Zimbabweans by President Mugabe. The liberal media and those Left-wing politicians who welcomed Mugabe's election in 1980, and for years pilloried Mr Smith, got things badly wrong. Yet far from admitting their mistakes, their bien pensant successors claim that if only Mr Smith had not gone it alone in Rhodesia in 1965 - when it rejected the British government's plans for black majority rule - the monster Mugabe would have never emerged. Really? A quick look at other first generation African leaders following independence hardly inspires confidence. There were the genocidal maniacs (Emperor Bokassa in the Central African Republic, Idi Amin in Uganda, Joseph Mobutu in Zaire); the corrupt tyrants ( Jomo Kenyatta in Kenya and almost anyone you care to mention); and the socialists who ruined their countries (Julius Nyere in Tanzania, Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana and a host of others.) Some of these monsters may even surpass Mr Mugabe in their sheer awfulness. They all emerged without any help from Mr Smith, and it is a fair bet that Mr Mugabe, or someone like him, would sooner or later have seized power in Rhodesia if Mr Smith had stepped down in 1965. Where he was undoubtedly at fault, however, was in not encouraging the growth of a moderate, educated, black middle-class with democratic values. In the late Seventies, when he was increasingly menaced by terrorists led by Mr Mugabe, he belatedly turned to moderates such as Bishop Abel Muzorewa. The truth is he did not believe that even moderate Africans were capable of governing themselves, and in this he was wrong. Some African countries - such as Botswana and Mozambique - are at last being properly governed, and, in case no one has noticed, doing remarkably well. Britain and other colonial powers were no less culpable than Mr Smith. They did not create free institutions in their African colonies to act as a counterweight to arbitrary power. In the mid-Fifties, Britain thought it would be governing Kenya until the end of the century. It cut and ran within ten years. Faced by the rise of independence movements, all the colonial powers scuttled. When Belgium left the Congo, a country the size of western Europe, there were fewer than 50 African graduates. Mr Smith should take his share of blame for not promoting an African middle class, but he did not create Robert Mugabe. That monster, if he was created by anyone, drew his succour from supporters in the West with their Marxist claptrap, and their hatred for the British settlers in Rhodesia who did not want to desert the country they had helped to develop. Even in death, the BBC cannot forgive him. Yesterday morning, Radio 4 news quoted the Zimbabwean Information Minister who, not surprisingly, said Zimbabweans would not mourn Mr Smith's death. Perhaps not - but how they will rejoice at Robert Mugabe's! Nor did I did hear the BBC mention that as a young man Ian Smith volunteered to serve in the RAF, there being no conscription in Rhodesia. On one occasion he was shot down; on another his Hurricane crashed, leaving him with such severe injuries that his face had to be surgically re-built. Ian Smith could not understand how the mother country he had served could turn against him. He was a man out of his time, holding beliefs that would have been standard in the previous generation in Britain. Without doubt he was somewhat narrow and stubborn: from his point of view, he should have accepted Harold Wilson's offer in 1966, which foresaw majority rule being postponed until the end of the century. When I was last in Zimbabwe a few years ago, I went to see him in his suburban house in Harare, which might have been transplanted from the Home Counties. He claimed that most black Zimbabweans who could remember his regime much preferred it to Mr Mugabe's. I later tested this proposition, and it turned out to be true. It was almost impossible to find anyone who did not prefer Smith to Mugabe. Yet even now in Britain the fiendish Robert Mugabe is spared the degree of vituperation to which Mr Smith was once subjected. But then Ian Smith allowed the BBC to report on Rhodesia, whereas Mr Mugabe has banned it. Will the truth ever filter through? Ian Smith helped create a deeply flawed but prosperous country. Robert Mugabe has made a wasteland.

Stopped reading there.

[Mendoza]

i think he made a mistake returning to Neighbours after all those years.

[Hermes]

Ian Smith was considered to be a racist. Obviously Mugabe is not.

[rebel23]

Originally Posted by Hermes Ian Smith was considered to be a racist. Obviously Mugabe is not.

it's a shame he couldnt have hung on a bit longer and then maybe found some moderate sensible groups to hand power over to, instead his regime was bullied and threatened by the international community who forced him to hand over to that thug Mugabe

[Redexile]

Originally Posted by rebel23 it's a shame he couldnt have hung on a bit longer and then maybe found some moderate sensible groups to hand power over to, instead his regime was bullied and threatened by the international community who forced him to hand over to that thug Mugabe

Ian Smith was sold out by South Africa, Rhodesia could not hold out against sanctions without the support of Vorster and his pals. When SA realised they needed all their own resources in their battle against the "swart gevaar: they pulled the plug on their support for Rhodesia.
It is very very sad what is happening up there with thousands of Zimbabweans flocking in SA for work and food and yet many African states openly praise Mugabe. We recently had the plug being pulled on the Nelson Mandela Invitational Charity golf tournament because of Gary Players involvement. It turns out in 2001 GP built a golf course ifn Burma for the government and NMI didn't want to be tainted by the link. The fact that the SA gov does currently billions in trade with Burma was sort of overlooked as is the human tragedy unfolding on the northern border of S. Africa. It is very sad that it appears many African states overlook the lip service paid to human rights in some countries in Africa because it is black on black.