Soldiers contra diplomats: Britain’s role in the Zimbabwe/Rhodesia ceasefire (1979–1980) reconsidered

Abstract

This article reexamines part of the literature on Britain's role in the December 1979 to March 1980 Zimbabwe/Rhodesia ceasefire. The ceasefire ushered in an era of peace after a protracted internal war and it was an integral part of the transition from colonial white minority rule, towards black majority independence. Scholars present Britain's success in brokering and monitoring the Zimbabwe/Rhodesia ceasefire as the result of its judicious and accordant management of the road to peace. However, this article argues that in fact deep internal divisions plagued the British managers of the ceasefire. Internal divisions centered on authority struggles between diplomats and military actors, conflicting personalities, discordant approaches to and goals in the ceasefire, and inter-institutional rivalry between the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence. The article concludes that Britain only managed the ceasefire effectively because its military's independence, political nous and competence ultimately prevailed over the injudicious views and machinations of diplomats.

Multilateral Naval Exercise Komodo: Enhancing Indonesia’s Multilateral Defence Diplomacy?

“…Institutional rivalry between the Defence Ministry or military, with other foreign policy actors, such as Kemlu, has commonly occurred in many countries. Tendi (2015) highlights the rivalry between the UK Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in claiming success over the ceasefire in Zimbabwe/Rhodesia. Meanwhile, Waseda-Hida (2012) observes the presence of institutional rivalry between the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the War Ministry in the context of the Manchurian incident, which resulted in the failure of Japanese policy.…”