Ian Smith (and the Rhodesians) saw Mugabe coming a mile away - that's why he locked him up in 1964. Lord Carrington and all supporting politicians, both Labour and Tory, didn't have the faintest idea who they were dealing with, not the remotest idea at all, despite the overwhelming example of Amin and all the others. No - Mugabe spoke eloquently, therefore he was different.

It's a toss-up between Carrington and Jimmy Carter who did the most damage to our country, probably Carter - who reneged on the American promise to support the moderates, in the event of an election endorsed by 64% of the electorate voting in 1978/79.

I don't even know how Carrington can still show his face in public.

John Cowper, Detroit

John B Cowper, Detroit, Michigan, USA

I agree with the majority who have commented so far; a rather poor Pontius Pilot hand washing exercise. I am afraid that you definitely do have blood on your hands and will have to deal with that as best you can.

Morvan, Saulieu, France

The Caucasian colonialists are and were wicked devils who have never had any right to Zimbabwe in particular or the African continent in general.

The whole purpose on the continent was for the rape and pillage of natural resources under the hypocritcal notion of moral authority of so-called "savages".

The history of Britain and all other Caucasian imperialists from Europe and by extension America is stained the the blood of the ingenious popoulations they have plundered!

For years, Britain has worked overtly and covertly to undermine and cripple the economy of Zibabwe as a means to "regime change" while promoting any "oppostion" which will be pliable to their foreign policy objectives.

Britian and America's favority tools are economic war followed by pressured "democracy". The idea is to economically squeeze the target's population so they will beg for Britains choice of government. This parallels the history of America's involvement with Nicaragua and many nations.

John Bazin, Marietta, USA / GA

The answer to the captioned question is yes! I am surprised that Carrington is delusional enough to raise his profile in this issue. I am reassured that there are people around now to give him a sense of the reality of the devious machinations of the British government.

David, Bromley,

For goodness sake England, stop beating yourselves up. I am sure everyone will be jumping all over me for saying something so politically incorrect, but no matter how bad the world views British rule, reality is, Africa was better off with the Brits than without.

As western nations, we had our own bloody pasts. For those of you who criticize the West for aiding leaders into power who turned into despot pigs; we did our best. For those who mock that - well most of us can't get it right in choosing a spouse so I doubt you would have done a better job. If these people want freedom, peace and prosperity; we can't do it for them. They just accuse us of more meddling. They have to get off their backsides and do it for themselves. They have to demand it for their families, friends, neighbours and country just as our forbearers did.

Blaming the West is getting SO old.

marama, Hamilton, NZ

In my opinion the person who is not doing much to pursuade
Mugabe, the Marxist that time is up for him is the Siuth African President. It is shameful. Like evvery other black African leader it is sai d that he has stached fill-gotten funds overseas. Anyway, if no else does anything, the nature will visit this old thug.

Gary Smith, LONDON,

Suave; urbane;feeble. As Foreign Secretary,Peter Carrington was a pushover : out-thought and out-manoeuvred by Mugabe at every turn.He has strong claims to be regarded as the least able Foreign Secretary in living memory.

Robin Kempster, Brighouse, England

Lord Carrington is right that it was inevitable that Mugabe's ZANU(PF) would come to power. The person who made ZANU(PF) inevitable is Ian Smith.

Ian Smith's predecessor as prime minister, Garfield Todd, had started a process of including blacks in the governing of the country. Ian Smith seized power from him, put him under house arrest and declared UDI in 1965. He then started berating blacks by passing several laws such as the Land Tenure Act which seized large swathes of the country and declared them "for whites only", and made it illegal for blacks to be in city centres like Harare after office hours. Thousands were driven from their ancestral homes. Gradually, blacks' view of Mugabe and ZANU shifted from terrorists to saviours. I know because I was there as a black high school pupil.

The achievement of Lord Carrington and the conservative government in achieving a settlement to the Rhodesia problem should not be underestimated. We would be in a far worse situation today.

Charan Muzaya, London, UK

Lord Carrington's point of view is very interesting and while his opinion is very important as to the events that took place in Rhodesia in the late 1970s it does not necessarially address the current issue today. In Britain and the US there were many on the left who baptised Mugabe as the leader of a new Zimbabwe regardless of his positions and declared intent. Many who supported Mugabe remained silent for years. He was black therefore it was ok for him to dispose white Rhodesians of their land, it was ok for him to destory the economy. Now they still remain silent. Mugabe is failure and must go. The voices in the west such as Lord Carrington must declare that loud and clear.

paul, nyc, US

The complete lack at the time of british vision made the Zimbabwe settlement possible and helped in wrecking a beautiful country and indirectly prevented a progress chain of and between countries in Africa.
Mugabe always knew he could do what he liked after the settlement was made; he has outtrumped all of the politicians involved in the , what I call the high treason, end of Rhodesia.
Food for thought at breakfast, and a bitter pill for those who had and have to swallow them daily.

Louis Pascal de Geer, Barretos / SP, Brazil

Lord Carrington's hopes for Zimbabwe will founder, as every ex-colony has, due to the simple fact that the "mother of all parliaments" actively prevented the spread of democracy in the colonies. Britain never introduced democracy to any subject people. The only colonies that turned to democracy were almost wholly populated by ex-patriot citizens who had little or no involvement with the indigenous native populace.
Perhaps if we had taught democracy instead of imposing our rule we might have done a better job. Politics is too important to be left to politicians.
In our colonial history, we behaved as just another conquering tribe, albeit with bigger guns and different skin colour. As a citizen born after the days of empire, and with no wish to associate with such an edifice, my only comment to you as a politician is shut up and live with the it. Stop publicly wringing your hands over the inevitable result of your own machinations.

KR, Stockport,

Lord Carrington is right that it was inevitable that Mugabe's ZANU(PF) would come to power. The person who made ZANU(PF) inevitable is Ian Smith.

Ian Smith's predecessor as prime minister, Garfield Todd, had started a process of including blacks in the governing of the country. Ian Smith seized power from him, put him under house arrest and declared UDI in 1965. He then started berating blacks by passing several laws such as the Land Tenure Act which seized large swathes of the country and declared them "for whites only", and made it illegal for blacks to be in city centres like Harare after office hours. Thousands were driven from their ancestral homes. Gradually, blacks' view of Mugabe and ZANU shifted from terrorists to saviours. I know because I was there as a black high school pupil.

The achievement of Lord Carrington and the conservative government in achieving a settlement to the Rhodesia problem should not be underestimated. We would be in a far worse situation today.

Charan Muzaya, London, UK

As a foreign secretary, what rights do the poor sods who were conned by the UK governments before and after WWII into going to live in Rhodesia?
They were never told that the UK would force them to accept government by a savage heathen some thrity years later!
All they did was try and maintain some sort of civilised government and standards - with no support from successive British Governments.
They could see the total collapse of Africa - why did Britain not help them???
Surely there's a smart legal mind who believes in fair-play that can seek compensation for the families from thepresent UK government for their devious, dishonest and abusive behaviour. I'd certainly chuck in a few hundred quid and I'm sure there are thousands of others!!

Dennis, Johannesburg, South Africa.

When you say you 'condemn the selfishness and folly of the man who brought this about', can you be clear on this. Are you talking about Mugabe or yourself.

Kenny Cameron, Calgary, Canada

From the reform act of 1832 to the attainment of universal adult suffrage in England in 1928 took nearly a century .Any faster would have upset and destabilised the social order,and this in a country that claims to have the mother of parliaments sitting now for nearly 1000 years ,in one form or other. It's just a pity that a similar privilege ,free from outside interference was not accorded to the people of Rhodesia .It would seem that as in most matters Britain opted to side with the seemingly most implacable party as the ones with 'history or inevitability' on their side regardless of moral considerations .This reminds me of Britain's craven betrayal of Czechoslovakia at Munich in 1938 ,a piece of cowardly expediency that essentially solved nothing but amply revealed the rottenness and degeneracy that despite England's 'finest hour' in 1940 is very evident today.

Peter Harley, Felixstowe, England

The Rhodesian Government and nation was superbly well
run, living standards were improving for blacks and whites.
However blacks were economic second class citizens in their
own country. The Rhodesian Army was superbly trained and
brave, one of the best small armies in the world. But it was
gradually growned down by weight of numbers so that by 1979
it could not defend the whole country. Because it was the
marxists that resisted white rule and brought about the beginnings of defeat for it's heroic army, it was enevitable that
they would win power and a disaster for everyone.

If in 1976 when l was there, the Rhodesian Government and
it's army whilst still strong had gone for some sort of power
sharing leading to black majority rule as they did too late in
1979, could things have changed. Probably not...ZANU-PF for the Africans was the virile muscular response to colonialism and it has taken 28 years of misrule for the Zimbabwean people to fall out of love with it.

Frank, Deveon, UK

WHAT FUTURE ZIMBABWE.......Well it may turn out to be a good future. If after Mugabe Zanu-PF changes and abandones
Socialism and the MDC wins power and also runs a business
friendly regime, we could have the makings of a two party
system, rather then the one party ANC South African system.

With international aid, a democratic two party system, the return of the black middle-class and who knows maybe some
white Zimbabweans as well, that wonderful country could finally get on it's feet and again be the bread basket of Africa
and a tourist paradise. I REALLY HOPE SO.

Frank, Deveon, UK

if Lord carrington felt that Mugabe might "leap in the wrong direction" in 1980, why didnt he say so then? If the 'inevitability of his victory' justified surrendering to him why dont we just stop losing our young men and welcome the Iranians into Basra and the Taliban back into Kabul? Its where they'll be in ten years time anyway.

E Skelton, cardiff, Wales

You are right - it is no longer our business. If African States, particularly SA, ignore the dreadful plight of Zimbabwe and the Commonwealth and UN display their usual complete ineffectiveness, we have little option but to let nature take its course. Once a friendly regime is in place then we should be as generous as possible in restructuring the devasted country.

Tony Gee, London,

Why is it that the brits never talk about Uganda`s Museveni? yet he is probably africa`s worst tyrant ,worst then Mugabe.

Ken, London,

When will there be an admission and contriteness about the West putting Saddam in power and an apology to the Iraqi people for the way in which they have been bashed by 'our puppet', and then bashed again for having him as their leader. Any chance we will refrain from creating another dictator there = doesn't seem so when we're helping one to crush political opponents on a spurious excuse.

Paulette, New Cross,

Whites and Blacks in Rhodesia fought to retain law, decency and prosperity for all. We had the vote for all, to qualify one needed to have Std 5 or to own land. Ian Smith maintained that the Blacks weren't ready to run the country and time has proved him right. England turned its back on the same people who fought for her in WW2, rather choosing to listen to left wing bleeding hearts than trusting the judgement of their own people. After all what do English people know about living in Africa ? We had the whole world against us, even the World Council of Churches were sponsoring the "freedom fighters"
Had you just left us alone we had planned power sharing and black empowerment, just on a different time scale. England was so eager to appease the OAU that it rigged the 1980 election and put Mugabe in power. Fine for you, we had to live with the consequences. I know that your karma will come to you when English people become a minority in their own country.

Cecil John Rhodes, Salisbury, Rhodesia

It hardly behoves a failed foreign secretary (who resigned after the Falklands debacle) to try to view history through his rose tinted spectacles.

To the question: "Did we (ie he) put a tyrant in power" the answer is an unqualified "yes". And I hope he remembers the thousands killed as a result.

Mike, Sydney,

All through the 20th century, your governement along with other UK governemts were responsible for placing power in the hand of despots all over Africa. Zimbabwe is and was not alone. This was because of the policies of the colonial governemts in Africa

A Ade, Brockley SE4, UK

I was working for the BBC at the time of the Lancaster House conference and had dealings with member's of 'Comrade' Mugabe's entourage. I never had any reason to doubt that I was dealing with Stalinist totalitarians and power worshippers. It was not a pleasant experience.

However, the leaders of the 'internal settlement' were widely reviled as 'Uncle Toms' and Nkomo's ZAPU increasingly a paper tiger. So, as Lord Carrington suggests, there was a degree of inevitability to Mugabe's triumph.

I would also suggest that, had Mugabe acheived power solely by force of arms, the South African authorities would have formed a tight laager and would certainly never have felt secure enoutgh free to embark on the dismantling of their racist regime.

volov, Auckland, New Zealand

Another politician doing a pontius pilot .The English Govt and the English left wing social set feted Mugabe as a political and racial saviour of Rhodesia when anyone with a little modicum of common sense could clearly see he was just another opportunistic despot to be who has robbed and empoverished his own people (he was a Marxist for goodness sakes !!!) Easing the English conscience by throwing money at Zimbabwe now without some control will only create another set of politicians scrambling to steal Englands bad conscience money .

Claudio Marcel, San Jose , Costa Rica

God you just cant stand it that Britain is whipping boy here. It makes me feel like you like a few lashings. One day you might realise that it is indigineous Britons who need help. And stop looking round the world for someone to prostrate to !

Gerard Melbourne , Sydney, Australia

I'm sorry Peter, but your excercise in obfuscation just will not do.

I too was at Lancaster House, albeit in a less exhalted role than yourself and the other major players but it was well known among those of us doing 'the donkey work' behind the scenes, that the whole point of The Conference was to rid HMG of the Rhodesia/Zimbabwe problem whatever the outcome for the people, both black and white.

To believe that you had not read the analysis and opinions of experts on the region which predicted Mugabes reign of terror, slaughter of oponents and destruction of the the country is frankly not on.
Mugabes character and methods of dealing with anyone who did not fit into his scheme of things was well known to all at the top table.
You know as well as I do that the instruction from above was ' rid us of the Rhodesia problem and damn the consequences' which is exactly what was done. There is blood and misery on the hands of all involved in that piece of world diplomacy.

Chris Fitz, ex-London, England, China

I can't believe you said

"Strictly speaking, this is now no longer our business but a great many of us will feel that we still owe the people of Zimbabwe"

So you think it is O.K to force the country to be handed over to a tyrant and then walk away ?

You are bloody unbelieveable.You sold out the people of Zimbabwe, who had to suffer at the hands of this meglamaniac , and YOU were the ones who gave him that power.

The writing was on the wall from day one.

Remember, Mugabe has never changed from before you handed our country over to him.He ran a campaign of ethnic cleansing, rape, torture and mass murder, during the 70's, during the 80's he stepped up to a knew level, and it has never stopped.

It was all predictable, and yet you continued.You put him in power, and then you say it is no longer your problem.

That is unbelieveable !!

.You funded terrorism, you supported terrorism, and you did nothing to prevent a terrorist from destroying a great country

Gerard Geoghegan, Greensborough,