Editing Rhodesia (section)

====Impact of UDI====

The years following Rhodesia's UDI saw an unfolding series of economic, military, and political pressures placed on the country that eventually brought about majority rule, a totality of these factors rather than any one the reason for introducing change.<ref name="frontiersmen">{{cite book|last=Clayton|first=Anthony|title=Frontiersmen: Warfare in Africa since 1950|pages=42, 59–69}}</ref> In 2005, a conference at the [[London School of Economics]] that discussed Rhodesia's independence concluded that UDI was sparked by an existing racial conflict complicated by [[Cold War]] intrigues.<ref name="b">{{cite web|author=Dr. Sue Onslow|url=http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CWSC/events/rhodesian_UDI_40_jan_06.htm|title=UDI: 40 Years On|publisher=LSE|access-date=10 November 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071013165015/http://lse.ac.uk/collections/CWSC/events/rhodesian_UDI_40_jan_06.htm|archive-date=13 October 2007|url-status=live }}</ref>

Critics of UDI maintained that Ian Smith intended to safeguard the privileges of an entrenched colonial ruling class at the expense of the impoverished black population.<ref name="c">{{cite web|author=Michael Hartnack|year=2005|url=http://www.theherald.co.za/herald/2005/10/25/cols/hcols.htm|title=40 years in wilderness after UDI declaration|publisher=The Herald|access-date=10 November 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060320101625/http://www.theherald.co.za/herald/2005/10/25/cols/hcols.htm|archive-date=20 March 2006|url-status=dead }}</ref> Smith defended his actions by claiming that the black Rhodesian majority was too inexperienced at the time to participate in the complex administrative process of what was, by contemporary African standards, a reasonably industrialised state.<ref name="SmithGB"/>

At large, UDI further hardened the white population's attitudes towards majority rule and relations with the UK.<ref name="raft"/> A significant majority of white Rhodesian residents were either British immigrants or of British ancestry, and many held a special affection for the British Empire.<ref name="raft"/> However, the UK's refusal to grant them independence on their terms further confirmed their opposition to a political settlement on British terms, and fed their negative attitudes towards British interference in Rhodesian politics at large.<ref name="raft"/> In the years prior to UDI, white Rhodesians increasingly saw themselves as beleaguered and threatened, perpetually insecure and undermined by the metropole, unable to rely on anybody but themselves.<ref name="SmithGB"/> The policy of "No independence before majority rule" transformed the white community's relationship with the UK and increased its suspicions of the British government's untrustworthiness and duplicity in colonial affairs, especially since the latter had adopted NIBMR as a formal policy - the very circumstance UDI was carried out to avoid, and which white Rhodesians had struggled to resist since the onset of decolonisation.<ref name="SmithGB"/>

Black nationalist parties reacted with outrage at UDI, with one ZANU official stating, "...for all those who cherish freedom and a meaningful life, UDI has set a collision course that cannot be altered. 11 November 1965 [has] marked the turning point of the struggle for freedom in that land from a constitutional and political one to primarily a military struggle."<ref name="blackfire"/> It would, however, be several years before the nationalists adopted armed struggle as their primary strategy for obtaining political power.<ref name="blackfire"/> Violent tactics at this time were intended to create opportunities for [[Interventionism (politics)|external intervention]], either by the international community or the British government, rather than seriously undermine the Rhodesian security forces.<ref name="blackfire"/>

Because Rhodesian exports were generally competitive and had previously been entitled to preferential treatment on the British market, the former colony did not recognise the need for escalating the pace of [[Diversification (marketing strategy)|diversification]] before independence. Following the UDI, however, Rhodesia began to demonstrate that it had the potential to develop a greater degree of economic [[self-sufficiency]].<ref name="SmithGB"/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa064.html |title=What's Wrong With Trade Sanctions |publisher=Cato Institute |date=23 December 1985 |access-date=13 October 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120716043831/http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa064.html |archive-date=16 July 2012 |url-status=live }}</ref> After the Rhodesian Front began introducing incentives accorded to domestic production, industrial output expanded dramatically. A rigid system of countermeasures enacted to combat sanctions succeeded in blunting their impact for at least a decade.<ref name="areahandbook"/> Over the next nine years Rhodesian companies, spiting the [[International asset recovery|freezing of their assets and blocking of overseas accounts]], also perfected cunning techniques of sanctions evasion through both local and foreign subsidiaries, which operated on a clandestine trade network.<ref name="areahandbook"/>

From 1968 until 1970, there was virtually no further dialogue between Rhodesia and the UK. In a [[Rhodesian constitutional referendum, 1969|referendum]] in 1969, white voters approved a new constitution and the establishment of a republic, thereby severing Rhodesia's last links with the British Crown, duly declared in March 1970. This changed immediately after the election of [[Edward Heath]], who reopened negotiations.<ref name="racewar">{{cite book|last=Brownell|first=Josiah|title=Collapse of Rhodesia: Population Demographics and the Politics of Race|pages=1–255}}</ref> Smith remained optimistic that Heath would do his utmost to remedy Anglo-Rhodesian relations, although disappointed that he continued to adhere publicly to the original "five principles" proposed by Alec Douglas-Home, now [[Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs|foreign secretary]]. In November 1971, Douglas-Home renewed contacts with Salisbury and announced a proposed agreement that would be satisfactory to both sides – it recognised Rhodesia's 1969 constitution as the legal frame of government, while agreeing that gradual legislative representation was an acceptable formula for unhindered advance to majority rule.<ref name="areahandbook"/> Nevertheless, the new settlement, if approved, would also implement an immediate improvement in black political status, offer a means to terminate racial discrimination, and provide a solid guarantee against retrogressive constitutional amendments.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://kora.matrix.msu.edu/files/50/304/32-130-BDE-84-al.sff.document.acoa000370.pdf |title=Zimbabwe Rejects Sellout! |publisher=American Committee on Africa |date=1 February 1972 |access-date=13 October 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130605054701/http://kora.matrix.msu.edu/files/50/304/32-130-BDE-84-al.sff.document.acoa000370.pdf |archive-date=5 June 2013 |url-status=live }}</ref>

Implementation of the proposed settlement hinged on popular acceptance, but the Rhodesian government consistently refused to submit it to a universal referendum.<ref name="areahandbook"/> A twenty four-member commission headed by an eminent jurist, [[Edward Pearce, Baron Pearce|Lord Pearce]], was therefore tasked with ascertaining [[public opinion]] on the subject.<ref name="historyps">{{cite book|last=Zvobgo|first=Chengetai|title=A History of Zimbabwe, 1890–2000 and Postscript, Zimbabwe, 2001–2008|pages=1–410}}</ref> In 1972, the commission began interviewing interest groups and sampling opinions – although concern was expressed over the widespread [[Political apathy|apathy]] encountered.<ref name="SmithGB"/> According to the commission, whites were in favour of the settlement, and Rhodesians of [[Coloured]] or Asian ancestry generally pleased, while the black response to the settlement's terms was resoundingly negative.<ref name="racewar"/><ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/18/newsid_2530000/2530291.stm |title=1972: Rhodesia's former leader arrested |publisher=BBC |date=18 January 1972 |access-date=13 October 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121215143739/http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/18/newsid_2530000/2530291.stm |archive-date=15 December 2012 |url-status=live }}</ref> As many as thirty black Rhodesian chiefs and politicians voiced their opposition, prompting Britain to withdraw from the proposals on the grounds of the commission's report.<ref name="historyps"/>