taloussaarrosta huolimatta

valehdella.

Valehteleminen on rumaa.

"The international community condemned the UDI. The United Nations Security Council authorised the use of sanctions, targeting Rhodesia at the behest of Britain, beginning in 1965 and lasting until the restoration of British rule in December 1979. The terms of these sanctions forbade most forms of trade or financial exchange with Rhodesia. From 1966 to 1975, the Royal Navy enforced a naval blockade, known as the Beira Patrol, on oil shipments to Rhodesia in the Mozambique Channel. However, not all members of the international community adhered to the sanctions. South Africa, Portugal, Israel, Iran and some Arab nations helped Rhodesia in various ways. In the case of the U.S., the 1971 Byrd Amendment allowed the importation of chrome, ferrochrome and nickel from Rhodesia.[1] Rhodesia evaded sanctions in the short term but few outsiders invested in Rhodesia after the sanctions.[2]
Ian Smith signing the Unilateral Declaration of Independence on 11 November 1965 with his cabinet watching

The Rhodesian government struggled to obtain international recognition and the lifting of sanctions. In 1970 the U.S. government categorically stated that "under no circumstances" would it recognize Rhodesian independence.[3]

Initially, the state maintained its loyalty to Queen Elizabeth II as "Queen of Rhodesia" (a title to which she never consented) but not to her representative, the Governor Sir Humphrey Gibbs, whose constitutional duties were exercised by an "Officer Administering the Government", Clifford Dupont.

In September 1968, the Appellate Division of the Rhodesian High Court ruled that Ian Smith’s administration had become the de jure government of the country, not just the de facto one.[4] In order to support that decision, the Rhodesian Chief Justice, Sir Hugh Beadle, quoted the 17th Century Dutch Jurist, Hugo Grotius (who is sometimes described as the “Grandfather of International Law”). Grotius maintained that there was no way in which a State could rightly claim to be governing a particular territory - if it was waging a war against that territory. Thus, Beadle argued that because of Britain’s economic war against Rhodesia, Britain could not at the same time be described as governing Rhodesia."

Toivottavasti osaat edes englantia...