BECHUANALAND CHIEF

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 70, Issue 126, 13 March 1950, Page 3

BECHUANALAND CHIEF

REPORTED PLAN FOR RETURN V GOVERNMENT’S RULING MAY “ BE DEFIED (N.Z.P. A.—Copyright) LONDON, March 11. In spite of the British. Government’s clear decision that Seretse Khama must not re-enter his country for five years, he is determined to go, according to the “Sunday Dispatch.’ '

Seretse, Chief-designate of the Bamangwato tribe of Bechuanaland, said: “I must go back to care for my wife. I must go back to my tribe, who want me as chief. I have asked permission to return, but if that is refused I feel I must go. lam not a hothead nor an agitator. I just can’t understand why I can’t go back to my own country.”

According to the “Evening Standard,” the Seretse Khama Fighting Committee, formed in London last week, is planning to fly him to Bechuanaland in secret and drop him in the territory.

Sir -'Evelyn Baring, British High Commissioner in South Africa, is on his way to Serowe for a tribal council on March 13. He will explain the British Government’s decision to the tribesmen. Meanwhile a bodyguard paces up and down outside the bungalow where Seretse’s .London-born wife lives. Police from two other British protectorates are arriving to help keep order at the council. No violence is expected, but the tribesmen are determined to show whom they want as chief.

“Difficult as the problems raided by Seretse Khama’s marriage to an Englishwoman are, it is impossible to endorse the decision which the Government has reached,” says the “Spectator.” “The House of Commons was profoundly disturbed about the whole matter, and it is certain that the last has not been heard of it. The question is how far-reaching and detrimental the reactions will be.

No Representations “The statement by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. P. Gordon-Walker) that no representations of the matter had been received from the South African Government must, of course, be accepted, but in fact none was necessary because the views of the South African Government on the question of the colour bar are already notorious. / “Whether Seretse was ‘enticed’ here is not worth quarrelling about, adds the “Spectator.” “He came here in all good faith, and he has now formed decisive conclusions about British good faith. So will the whole black population of Africa. That is a far more serious matter than any consequences that might ensue from allowing Seretse to return in the ordinary way. *■ “Mr Churchill spoke Qf a ‘very disreputable transaction.’ At least it is an action to which that frequently misused term ‘un-English’ applies.” Reuter’s correspondent in Cape Town says that the Johannesburg newsppaer “Die Transvaler,” which supports the South African Government, to-day rejected the claim in the House of Commons by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations that in banning Seretse Khama from Bechuanaland for five years the British Government had not been influenced by the attitude of South Africa and Rhodesia. The newspaper said that there was no other reason for the British Government’s decision than Seretse’s marriage to Miss Ruth Williams. It added that the reason given by Mr GordonWalker was “pure diplomatic eyewash.”

The “Capo Times” said that Mr Cor-don-Walker had advanced no single argument to show that the decision was justified. “The British Govern ment has courted an unfriendly reception for its decision, not only by its lack of frankness in announcing it, but by its apparent lack of candour in its personal relations with Seretse.”

EARLY STATEMENT LIKELY CLARIFICATION OF DECISION (Rec. 9.5 a.m.) LONDON, March 12. Mr Attlee’s Labour Government, fearing for its precarious six-seat majority in the House of Commons, is likely to make an early statement clarifying its decision to exile Seretse Khama and his white wife from Bechuanaland, political quarters said in London to-day. Some Labour members are deeply concerned by the human and political issues the decision has . raised, and they are expected to force a debate on the affair. They fear that emotions aroused by Seretse’s exile may obscure the fundamental issues involved.'

It is generally felt that the public has not been givn enough the facts on which to base judgment. Many consider it inconceivable that the Government did not have sound reason for its decision. «

Some parliamentary quarters, though reserving criticism, are concerned lest Government atcion be interpreted overseas as implying some subtle change in British colonial policy. They say there is no justification for this view, but recognise that the Bamangwato affair may have caused anxiety elsewhere in the British Commonwealth.