it was during this period that Zimbabwe emerged as a highly valued and wellregarded participant in peacekeeping missions around the world. Finally one should note that no parliamentary or public debate took place on fundamental issues of security sector governance and policy on the basis of the 1987 Unity Accords. Other opportunities for transformation of the security sector might have been occasioned by the 2002 constitutional referendum process and although some might argue that this issue was an element in the rejection of the proposed constitution, no changes subsequently took place. Thereafter the elections of 2008 and the subsequent SADC mediation process leading to the establishment of the Government of National Unity (GNU) provided a major opportunity to address security sector governance issues. But neither the mediation process itself, nor the GNU implementation, addressed these issues as the parties to the GNU held widely contested and partisan views on security sector governance and failed to agree on a common approach. On its part SADC was clearly unwilling to press the issue in such circumstances. As previously detailed above, Zimbabwe also missed the continental dialogue on security sector governance and subsequent adoption of an African Union policy as a result of the ‘regime change’ threat and for much the same reasons as had prevented the GNU from productively addressing the issues. Having reviewed the missed opportunities it is necessary to ask whether we have in fact transformed the inherited Rhodesian security sector policies in a fundamental and people-oriented manner and if not, how we might actually move towards a serious national dialogue and process in order to do so. To illustrate this point in a relatively uncontroversial manner let me assess the transformation of border management as an example. Colonial border management policy was designed and implemented to manage and facilitate migrant labour, to supervise and facilitate trade for capitalist industry and commerce and to secure the physical borders and prevent either free movement of communities, as had been possible in pre-colonial times, or criminal activities or threats. What has changed? Specifically what has changed for communities divided by artificial colonial borders or for market women who seek to move goods across the Limpopo River in order to feed their families? Surely a free and independent Zimbabwe could have a more people-oriented border management policy. Finally and on a more controversial note, let me simply repeat my characterization of the freedom component of the liberation struggle objectives I outlined earlier: “Freedom from racial oppression and discrimination; from arbitrary arrest; from persecution; freedom of expression and of course more broadly freedom to till the land, to send children to affordable schools and to have access to the resources and opportunities only available to a minority 10