This statement explains two important facts that: firstly, there is disengagement already between the Party States and, secondly, the apparent quietude by the civilised and legal wise international fraternity partly means the understanding that the disengagement is a straight forward matter and game over between Barotseland and Northern Rhodesia. Factual as this is, however, the question arises - WHY IS ZAMBIA STILL CLINGING ON TO BAROTSELAND, the way it has done? Surely, Zambia should have done better like did others before, for instance our neighbouring Zimbabweans in 1980, after the proclamation of their UDIs. In addition, one wonders why, against it all, Barotseland has been behaving as though we are the signed-up member of UN when actually Zambia is and should therefore be complying and behaving better! Why Barotseland has been Christian enough against Zambia as though we are the self-proclaimed Christian nation when actually Zambia is AND, the defaulting Party and should be doing better toward Barotseland!
Every Zambian, Barotseland national and doubting Thomases reading this write-up need to know that the issues of Barotseland Independence and subsequent disengagement with Zambia are not a fable, wishful thinking or daydream, as scoffed by some enemies of Barotse Change. Additionally, these issues are not future but past by reason of the 2012 BNC and now only needing complete Tripartite Response through genuine political dialogue or other available methods as ultimatum to finalise the separation. Barotseland’s UDI is as immutable and sure as the infallible historic record of the 2012 BNC and Resolution Mandates thereof. Barotseland is therefore, an independent country and only seeking complete disengagement with Zambia to render my country completely independent. As an independent country, it is entitled to certain rights and duties, just like Northern Rhodesia, as LEGAL ACTIONS or ACTIVITIES to do provisioned in international law and politics. Included among these is the right to maintaining military forces. It has been explained before that the concept of government in waiting (BTG)does not mean that Barotse Government is new altogether rather an opportunity given to our once unitary statehood partner Zambia to engage in the logical resolution of our Barotse Change amicably so we can remain delightful neighbours. With the legal right therefore, Barotseland is equally capacitated to defend her boundaries at all cost and would have amply done so in reclaiming our land totally. Some people do not understand why our adopted nonviolence stance and strategy or why separation at all, with Northern Rhodesia.
WHY DISENGAGE OR SEPARATE WITH ZAMBIA?
This is one question that has exited most lips of Barotse Change followers even others. The first response to this question is that THERE IS SEPARATION ALREADY! Zambia ditched us first and in so doing, initiated the gulf of separation (and not a crack), in our 1964 political union and maintained it, against our importunity, for nearly five decades. You can mend a crack but not the magnitude of the gulf created by Zambia’s repudiation and abrogation of the Treaty BA ’64. Conversely, Barotseland became an independent sovereign state and nation primarily owing to the 2012 Barotse National Council (BNC) Internal Dialogue; just as it happened prior to signing of the famous BA ’64 then. In international legal terms this action served to approve the gulf of separation initiated by Zambia on Barotseland – Northern Rhodesia Union Treaty, such that it NOW REMANINS AN IRREFUTABLE AND IRREPARABLE BREACH! Furthermore, our inimical high order compromise and continued political co-habitation with Zambia, without any legal endorsement by both Zambian constitutional and International legal ambits occasioned the disengagement overdue and an exigent priority. Hence the 2012 BNC Resolutions and UDI Mandate. WHAT BAROTSELAND IS SEEKING NOW IS A COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF SEPARATION MARKED BY COMPLETE DEPARTURE AND DISINTERESTED WITHDRAWAL OF ALL ZAMBIAN ADMINISTRATION OFFICES AND PERSONNEL FROM BAROTSELAND.
Given the rights and duties enshrined in international law for emerging states Barotseland would have opted for more vicious ways (now only as ultimatum option) of forcing Zambia to vacate our country, like we did in history. This is what most followers of Barotse Change have been urging Barotseland to do. However, understanding that we are dealing with a rogue and deceitful state, which spent most of Barotseland’s resources in liberation wars for Southern Africa and yet fail to liberate itself from the mad and curse of self-deception for colonial glory over Barotseland, better and logical methods needed to be employed to decisively resolve the political impasse! Painful and lengthy as the process has transpired we need to thank the elders and think-tanks in Barotseland who resolved to honour the struggle for a completely independent Barotseland by peaceful disengagement means with Zambia. IT IS VERY POSSIBLE! This is quite commendable because to start with,
1. Experience is the best teacher: Barotseland is older, therefore, more mature and experienced than the newer Zambia in most terms of state and national governance.
2. Our apparent soft approach is not cowardice but wisdom. If Zambia is peaceful and stronger than us, that has been occasioned by the presence of the same Barotzis being hated, scorned and labelled cowards and the like. But since we fully understand the cost implications, especially on the Zambian side, together with the disengagement anxiety disorders displayed across the border, our political expedience imperatively obliged us to do it the right way as explained further in this article. For instance, when war breaks out between us there will be more wreckage in Zambia (with more infrastructures) than the politically desertified and “sandy” Barotseland. Besides all Zambia is very exposed to Barotseland because we know the whole system and its secrets while Zambia barely knows ours! This explains the GRZ’s frantic efforts in recent past to enroll recruits hailing from Northern Rhodesia only, in order to offset the imbalance of staffing therein.
3. So, fighting Zambia is more like fighting oneself because Barotzis are everywhere in Northern Rhodesia and at home. Unfortunately, despite being the offending party, Zambia has mostly been in the fighting mood as evidenced by activities of littering our country with military hardware and the like, forgetting that it is within our capacity and rights too if we retaliated to do so; whether uniformed, non-uniformed or combination of both.
4. Last but not the least, logic ordains that since there was NO fighting over the signing of the BA ’64, there is therefore, need to effect the complete disengagement now the way it was initiated; through dialogue!
Otherwise, the story of Barotse Change would have long turned violent, given the political intimidation tactics by Zambian regimes over Barotseland, and the fact that we have been making so much noise over the BA ‘64 Treaty that actually got signed but never really got effected in Zambia! We are partly to blame, alongside Britain (initiator and overseer) for the HIGH LEVEL COMPROMISE which contributed to the sustained erroneous Zambianship, since the abrogation and repudiation of the BA ’64 Treaty. Northern Rhodesia on the other hand bears the blame for unilaterally nullifying the tripartite international Treaty of BA ’64 scale.
TUKONGOTE WA MWANA ‘NONGOLO!