The truth about Rhodesia - a warning to liberals of the AABC countries

Rhodesia’s story isn't what you've been told! Today, it's barely mentioned at all. You would be hard-pressed to find, in the AABC countries (America, Australia, Britain and Canada), anyone under the age of 60 who could tell you what or where Rhodesia was. 

For 15 years (1965-1980), the world poured its energy into erasing Rhodesia from the map. But once it was gone, silence! Zimbabwe, like so many "decolonised" African nations, soon collapsed into chaos. Under Comrade Robert Mugabe, the dictator who ruled from independence in 1980 until he was deposted in a coup in 2017, and his successor Emmerson "E.D." Mnangagwa, the country was brought to ruin. Watch this video and ask whether the Rhodesians were really the villains history says they were, and what happens if people of that stripe come to power. FAFO!

Walt first visited Rhodesia, as it then was, some 57 years ago. As the narrator of this video says, the handwriting was on the wall, even then. When I returned to live in Zimbabwe (as Rhodesia had been renamed) in the 1990s, there were still many Africans (as black people like to be called) who said that things were better in the days of Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith. 

After independence, Zimbabwe quickly became a basket case, destroyed by the corruption, ignorance and incompetence of the Marxist government of Comrade Mugabe. One of Walt's agents, who left the sinking ship at about the same time, and now resides in the Disunited Kingdom, returned in January to attend to some legal matters. She reports that things have not got any better in the quarter-century since we left. It is not wrong, she says, to regard Zimbabwe as a failed state, which has hit bottom and can never rise again. What a pity.

Why Hong Kong's "Umbrella Revolution" matters

Walt Whiteman's World is "unavailable" in the People's Republic of China, unless a would-be reader can find a way through or around the Great Firewall of China. Freedom of information, freedom of speech, freedom of association, even freedom of thought, are not allowed to the 1.4 billion people under the thumb of the Communist emperor.

I say "emperor" because, 65 years (and a day) ago, the Communists established an autocratic regime as bad or worse than anything China knew in the 1000s of years of imperial rule. The people of China are subject to totalitarian control that demands they bend their individual inclinations and welfare to that of the all-powerful state. And that's why Hong Kong's "Umbrella Revolution" matters, not just to the Hongkongese, not just to the Chinese, but to the whole world.

Back in the bad old days, when Hong Kong was a British colony, its people enjoyed the freedoms we take for granted. And, under the deal made between Britain and the Communists for the handover of HKG to China in 1997, they were to continue to do for another 50 years. Hong Kong's existing social system was supposedly guaranteed, along with the rule of law, until 2047.

Even better, the "one country, two systems" deal provides that the Hong Kong "Special Administrative Region" would become a full democracy. Under the British, there was an elected Legislative Council, which was to continue (and has), but the people were not entitled to vote directly for the "Chief Executive Officer" who would replace the British governor.

In the new fundamental law which governs the Hong Kong SAR, the Communists promised to institute a system of "one person one vote". When the present CEO, Leung Chun-ying -- "C.Y. Leung" to the Western press -- was "elected" in 2012 (by a committee of 1200 "representatives of the people"), Beijing said that "next time" (in 2017) there would be a direct election in which everyone could vote.

Too bad that the people of Hong Kong took that to mean that they could nominate and vote for whoever they pleased -- even (gasp) a non-Communist. (Mr. Leung is not officially a Communist, but it is thought that he keeps his party card in his other wallet -- the one he takes on his regular visits to the imperial capital.) As it turned out, what was really meant was that voters could choose among up to three candidates vetted and approved by Beijing.

Not much of a choice, then. Martin Lee, one of the founders of Hong Kong's Democratic Party, told a rally, "What's the difference between a rotten orange, a rotten apple and a rotten banana? We want genuine universal suffrage, not 'democracy with Chinese characteristics'."

That's a part of what the protests are about, but only a part. The greater battle is for the heart of Hong Kong -- its institutions and legal system -- as bequeathed to them by the British, whose ideas about the governed having a voice in how they're governed date back 799 years.

Let us support those who are risking arrest, injury or worse fighting for democracy in Hong Kong. As we do so, let us bring to the front of our minds the freedoms we take for granted, particularly the freedom to vote for (or against) whoever we like.

The next two months will see elections taking place in most American states and Canadian provinces, for offices ranging from senator down to dog-catcher. The people of China would love to have the freedom of the ballot. Some are prepared to die for it. If you have it and don't use it, don't be surprised if one day you lose it.