XPost: misc.legal   
      
   This has been puzzling me for years:   
      
   The conditions of independence of Zimbabwe [1980] were set   
   at the 'Lancaster House agreement', in London.   
   After  some years, when the new liberation-leaders had run the   
   economy into the ground, as is normal in sub-saharan africa, they   
   called on some  .   
   I think these assets were the UK government's agreement to fund   
   the take-over of 'white owned farms', but the details are not   
   important, to the report that the UK minister said:   
   .   
      
      
   Supporters of the Zimbabwean stance, point out that a corporation   
   is a jurisic person, and change of ownership/control cannot   
   extinguish it's liabilities and obligations.    So too a nation.   
      
   If the Zimbabwian claims were ungrounded, irrespective of a UK   
   change of government, why aren't the reasons clearly spelled out.   
      
   Little wonder that the golliwogs believe that you should   
   remain president-for-life and avoid a government change at   
   all costs?   
      
   What was the Zimbabwian Lancaster House agreement claim?   
   On what grounds was it refused?   
      
   ==TIA.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)