Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Lancaster House Agreement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Minister G Pincus was murdered

[edit]

Minister G Pincus was murdered after being thrown off a balcony. No information available on this ?? Question - has any fact come to light on who and why ?? The South African Military Intelligence has detailed files on this and the Lancaster House Agreement Talks - which include telephone transcripts and references to this between Lords Soames and Carrington as well as a few other "interested parties". I bet they don't know where their files are right now ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsrcrgrieve (talk • contribs) 20:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lancaster House Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hints that the Lancaster House Agreement failed - why?

[edit]

I first heard about this agreement here: https://www.herald.co.zw/land-reform-domino-hits-south-africa-inevitably/ :

"In Zimbabwe, the liberation struggle was fought over land and the Lancaster House Agreement that led to Independence in 1980 recognised the centrality of the land question and set up mechanisms to resolve it. There was going to be a 10-year moratorium on land acquisitions, the land would be sold on the willing seller/willing buyer model and that the international community led by Britain and the US would help Zimbabwe with funds for the exercise, particularly with compensating farmers whose properties would be acquired for redistribution and amenities in resettlement areas. That was meant to work.
Well, in the end it didn’t, quite, thanks to the folly of one Tony Blair and his New Labour government that took power in Britain at the turn of the century.
A situation developed that led to the inevitable war over land as the people of Zimbabwe, starting with ordinary peasants, reclaimed their land, the land of their ancestors, which Government of the day only moved to regularise in what came to be known as the Fast Track Land Reform Programme. "

So (1) what did Tony Blair do to mess things up? This article needs to explain it. (2) What is the FastTrack Land Reform Programme that supplanted the Lancaster Agreement and how did it work.

Thanks to anyone who can add explanation here Lehasa (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to add in something about that, as I'm fixing up the article right now and adding in some sources. Historyday01 (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://pparnet.com/journals/ppar/Vol_2_No_1_March_2014/5.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 08:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe this source can be added back into the article... as the source looks good, but it needs to be incorporated correctly. Historyday01 (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Later developments

[edit]

Did anyone actually read the sources cited for the claims in the Later developments section? Some of the claims being made are not even mentioned in the citations, and other claims are cherry-picking, and omitting additional contextual information.

Specifically the claims re: the land reform impacts on the broader Zimbabwean economy are so broad, unsupported and dubious. None of the sources are claiming that war veteran payouts, or land reform policies were the cause of Zimbabwean hyperinflation.

Further, the claim that the land reform process was condemned by the international community, while true, is omitting that the source cited for this claim opens with "The international community does not come with clean hands to the current fast track land reform process." and additionally states that "The Commonwealth, which brings together both rich and poor former colonies of Britain, has been more outspoken. However, African countries have refused to endorse sanctions against the Mugabe government introduced by the European Union and United States in response to political violence and restrictions on election observers."

Further context in the source, but not cited in the claim that the international community condemned the land reform policy:

The Organization of African Unity

"reiterated its demand for Britain to honour its colonial obligation to fund the land resettlement programme in Zimbabwe in accordance with the Lancaster House Agreement"

Southern African Development Community

"we think the donors, including Great Britain, have to deliver. They have to fulfil their commitments."

To summarise this in the sentence "In 2000 and 2001, the U.S. and British governments, and the European Union, would condemn the new land reform program, as did other organisations." is egregiously disingenuous. Either that should be removed entirely, or the broader context of the decrying of colonial injustice from other African parties should be included. GxJackson (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who edited/improved this article a lot, if you'd like to draft new language for some of those sources, that would be great. I will say it can be a challenge to find sources about the land reform that aren't anti-Zimbabwe and anti-Mugabe, but if you'd like to propose some new language and sources/improvements, that would be great. Historyday01 (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lancaster_House_Agreement&oldid=1217561817"