- The vicious conflict (1964-79) that brought Robert Mugabe to power in Zimbabwe - Expert coverage of the war, its historical context, and its aftermath - Descriptions of guerrilla warfare, counterinsurgency operations, and actions by units like Grey's Scouts Amid the colonial upheaval of the 1960s, Britain urged its colony in Southern Rhodesia (modern-day Zimbabwe) to grant its black residents a greater role in governing the territory. The white-minority government refused and soon declared its independence, a move bitterly opposed by the black majority. The result was the Rhodesian Bush War, which pitted the government against black nationalist groups, one of which was led by Robert Mugabe. Marked by unspeakable atrocities, the war ended in favor of the nationalists.
Wars have dominated politics since history began. In the modern era most of what the media reports on foreign conflicts comes from a small band of war correspondents. As the furore over the Iraq, Afghan and now the Libyan wars demonstrates, Western governments and militaries often collude to keep their voters in the dark about the causes and the conduct of wars waged in their name. In this entertaining and unspun account of modern war reporting, the authors ask whether the media itself drives democracies to war. Or does it serve to constrain evil, ignorant and messianic leaders? Are the heirs of William Howard Russell, the first modern war reporter, watchdogs or lapdogs? In the age of Wikileaks and corrupt media empires, what is the political impact of war correspondents? Are they the heroes or harlots of their profession?
As the literature on military-media relations grows, it is informed by antagonism either from journalists who report on wars or from ex-soldiers in their memoirs. Academics who attempt more judicious accounts rarely have any professional military or media experience. A working knowledge of the operational constraints of both professions underscores Shooting the Messenger. A veteran war correspondent and think tank director, Paul L. Moorcraft has served in the British Ministry of Defence, while historian-by-training Philip M. Taylor is a professor of international communications who has lectured widely to the U.S. military and at NATO institutions. Some of the topics they examine in this wide-ranging history of military-media relations are: – the interface between soldiers and civilian reporters covering conflicts – the sometimes grey area between reporters' right or need to know and the operational security constraints imposed by the military – the military's manipulation of journalists who accept it as a trade-off for safer battlefield access – the resultant gap between images of war and their reality – the evolving nature of media technology and the difficulties—and opportunities—this poses to the military – journalistic performance in reporting conflict as an observer or a participant Moorcraft and Taylor provide a bridge over which each side can pass and a path to mutual understanding.
African Nemesis is the first book to provide a detailed analysis of all the wars in southern Africa since 1945 - the conflicts against colonialism and the battles waged by the frontline states against apartheid as well as the civil war inside South Africa. This provides the backcloth to a controversial study of South Africa in the 1980s. Paul Moorcraft spent more than a decade investigating the turmoil in the region as a journalist, university teacher, author and documentary film-maker. The result is a comprehensive and authoritative account of military power in the region that also discusses political, economic, social and psychological issues where they are directly relevant to the military conflicts. Then the book takes a dangerous leap into the future by describing likely scenarios until the year 2010. Moorcraft outlines a series of both optimistic and chilling options for the future. (publisher's advertisement).
A truly satisfactory history of Rhodesia, one that takes into account both the African history and that of the whites, has never been written. That is, until now. In this book Luise White highlights the crucial tension between Rhodesia as it imagined itself and Rhodesia as it was imagined outside the country. Using official documents, novels, memoirs, and conversations with participants in the events taking place between 1965, when Rhodesia unilaterally declared independence from Britain, and 1980 when indigenous African rule was established through the creation of the state of Zimbabwe, White reveals that Rhodesians represented their state as a kind of utopian place where white people dared to stand up for themselves and did what needed to be done. It was imagined to be a place vastly better than the decolonized dystopias to its north. In all these representations, race trumped all else including any notion of nation. Outside Rhodesia, on the other hand, it was considered a white supremacist utopia, a country that had taken its own independence rather than let white people live under black rule. Even as Rhodesia edged toward majority rule to end international sanctions and a protracted guerilla war, racialized notions of citizenship persisted. One man, one vote, became the natural logic of decolonization of this illegally independent minority-ruled renegade state. Voter qualification with its minutia of which income was equivalent to how many years of schooling, and how African incomes or years of schooling could be rendered equivalent to whites, illustrated the core of ideas about, and experiences of, racial domination. White s account of the politics of decolonization in this unprecedented historical situation reveals much about the general processes occurring elsewhere on the African continent."
This edited volume examines the complexities of the Cold War in Southern Africa and uses a range of archives to develop a more detailed understanding of the impact of the Cold War environment upon the processes of political change. In the aftermath of European decolonization, the struggle between white minority governments and black liberation movements encouraged both sides to appeal for external support from the two superpower blocs. Cold War in Southern Africa highlights the importance of the global ideological environment on the perceptions and consequent behaviour of the white minority regimes, the Black Nationalist movements, and the newly independent African nationalist governments. Together, they underline the variety of archival sources on the history of Southern Africa in the Cold War and its growing importance in Cold War Studies. This volume brings together a series of essays by leading scholars based on a wide range of sources in the United States, Russia, Cuba, Britain, Zambia and South Africa. By focussing on a range of independent actors, these essays highlight the complexity of the conflict in Southern Africa: a battle of power blocs, of systems and ideas, which intersected with notions and practices of race and class This book will appeal to students of cold war studies, US foreign policy, African politics and International History. Sue Onslow has taught at the London School of Economics since 1994. She is currently a Cold War Studies Fellow in the Cold War Studies Centre/IDEAS
What did the future hold for Rhodesia's white population at the end of a bloody armed conflict fought against settler colonialism? Would there be a place for them in newly independent Zimbabwe? PIONEERS, SETTLERS, ALIENS, EXILES sets out the terms offered by Robert Mugabe in 1980 to whites who opted to stay in the country they thought of as their home. The book traces over the next two decades their changing relationshipwith the country when the post-colonial government revised its symbolic and geographical landscape and reworked codes of membership. Particular attention is paid to colonial memories and white interpellation in the official account of the nation's rebirth and indigene discourses, in view of which their attachment to the place shifted and weakened. As the book describes the whites' trajectory from privileged citizens to persons of disputed membership and contested belonging, it provides valuable background information with regard to the land and governance crises that engulfed Zimbabwe at the start of the twenty-first century.
