My earlier posts: Why we’re not winning1 deals with what’s going wrong in our war against terror, and covers my credentials for writing on the subject; Why we’re not winning 2 offers solutions; Why we’re not winning 3 links the war into Africa; Why we’re not winning 4 illustrates the underlying political attitude in Britain towards the military; and War against terror, Africa, Islam and Nigeria’s oil brings an update on how radical Islam is affecting both Africa and the world’s oil supplies.
On a seemingly lesser economic scale in world terms, we see in Southern Africa’s Zimbabwe and the effect of the 1980 win for terrorists on the people and its environment. Rhodesia’s war against terror from the early 1970’s ended in defeat for the West by Chinese and North Korean trained and backed terrorists led by Marxist, Robert Mugabe in 1980. In fact, this “defeat” was a spectacular “own goal” for the West brought about by British and American sponsored UN sanctions against Rhodesia. Once called the “breadbasket of Africa”, Rhodesia (now called Zimbabwe) has millions on the edge of starvation. Inflation in this once stable country has reached – depending on who you listen to – over 2000%. (At the moment, inflation there is impossible to establish accurately because Mugabe’s government has failed to publish the latest figures.) The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reported inflation at 1,193.5% in May. The effect of this on ordinary people can’t be underestimated – most can’t afford to pay for the basics – see The New York Times report, so people have resorted to killing wildlife for food and cutting down forests for fuel. This is an environmental, as well as a humanitarian disaster that’s getting worse by the day.
That’s sad for the people of Zimbabwe and for the environment in general, but what’s Zimbabwe to the West? Not much at the moment, but it is of importance to China, which is increasing its influence there and elsewhere in Southern Africa. As I outlined in my earlier post Why we’re not winning 3, Africa as a whole is immensely rich in a wide range of strategic minerals, and Zimbabwe is no exception: apart from the more high profile gold, coal and iron resources; Barium, Chromium, Scheelite, Tantalum and Wulframite are just some of the strategic minerals available, but barely exploited there. China is changing all that, and providing arms to Mugabe’s regime in return. Perhaps even more important, Zimbabwe is a gateway to Botswana and South Africa – both of which now have a growing Chinese presence.
That’s why Zimbabwe and the rest of Southern Africa are important to the West.
About the Author:
Peter Davies was a territorial soldier in Rhodesia from 1963 to 1975. Davies’ novel, Scatterlings of Africa, is based on his experience in the war, and personal observations of how terrorist activities impacted Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and its people. See http://www.peterdaviesbooks.com.















2 users commented in " War against terror; Africa, Zimbabwe and the destruction of a nation’s people and their environment – and the ongoing entrenchment of China in Africa "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackWhite Anglos in Southern Africa are largely viewed as a group that is too much pro-white anglo interest in Southern African. Most of us increasingly see “anglos” as irrelavant to the modern post aparthied/ian smith racists dictorship. China looks better. Most white anglos are double talkers and you only interests is a strong association with other white anglo countries ie. New Zealand, Australia, USA. The new paradagm in Southern Africa is largely look east for survavor. Your “white Anglo” interests are becoming too much for the black majority. Africans want to focus on Africans. Your interst in Southern African is “white anglo” interest. You have not convinced the region that you are for southern Africans in Africa, not UK etc…
A comparison:
BEFORE - Zimbabwe’s economy was dominated by mid to large corporations, which were themselves run by whites, and large farms with modern farming equipment dominated the agricultural scene.
RESULT: The nation was an oasis in the desert (in more ways than one). The efficent farms earned Zimbabwe the nickname “breadbasket of Africa”. Tourists flocked in by the thousands. While not a first-world country it’s economy was enviable.
IN BETWEEN - A group of shiftless poor blacks decided the balance of wealth was unfair and staged a revolution with the intention to redistribute land. (in essence, communism)
AFTER - Zimbabwe is run by the surviving revolutionaries and a mentally unstable president - all of them black. Small family farms now dominate with almost no modern machinery or even draft animals.
RESULT: The food surplus is long gone. Record-breaking inflation threatens to turn the currency worthless. And there isn’t a tourist dumb enough to visit the nation. Health care is gone and the military has run ouf of money to even buy rations.
—Let the reader decide who did a better job.
Leave A Reply