“New Clarity” In Commonwealth

Press, Volume C, Issue 29466, 18 March 1961, Page 11

“New Clarity” In Commonwealth

LONDON, March 17. Newspapers throughout the world today continued to comment on South Africa’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth and speculate on its effects.

“The Times” said that South Africa’s departure showed the Commonwealth was an association of substance and meaning, with real influence in the world. "With a new clarity, the partnership is regarded as something positive and real,” it said. The "Daily Telegraph” said it was to be hoped that the shock of withdrawal would provide “a catalyst which will set going in South Africa a reaction against present policies and produce in time a change for the better as we see it. . . . “It is understood that next only to apartheid itself, Dr. Verwoerd had valued the British connexion as it existed through the Commonwealth link. “That particular link may be gone, but the connexion, though damaged, endures. If it is ever damaged any further. it will be his fault and his alone." it said. The “Daily Telegraph” quoted a headline from the "Hindustani Times’ on South Africa's decision: “Good Riddance.” The headline summed up widespread feeling in India, the “Daily Telegraph” said. In Nairobi, the “East African Standard” spoke of the entirely unexpected manner in which the South African decision was made. "The Times" said Never let it be forgotten, the "Standard” said, that the severest critics of South African policy were often those knowing least about its applications. and who were ignorant of the great material advantages. such as welfarespending on the country's black population. The editorial argued that irreparable damage had been done by the use of the word apartheid which, like Mau Mau. had caught the imagination of the world. It ended by wishing that Jan Smuts were alive today, and said: “What a difference he could have made." The Rhodesia “Herald” "Saw the hands of America in the attack on South Africa.” “The Times” said. The “Herald” said the attack was spearheaded by the Canadian Prime Minister, who found himself as powerless to escape American influences as had his predecessors The Prime Minister of the Rhodesian Federation (Sir

Roy Welensky) described the South African move as "shattering.” In Rhodesia the feeling among many Europeans in Salisbury was that the AfroAsian Commonwealth Prime Ministers had taken over the running of Mr Macmillan's multi-racial “club.” Nigerians were jubilant. The National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons called for economic sancticns against South Africa. In the West Indies the Jamaican Premier (Mr Norman Manley) was applauded by the House of Representatives when he said he had cabled “support of the stand of the African Prime Ministers.” In Nairobi, the Kenya African leader, Mr Tom Mboya, welcomed the decision, and said Kenya delegates would press for further action against South Africa at next week’s meeting of the AllAfrica People’s Congress in Cairo. In Moscow, the Tass newsagency’s London correspondent said there Was only one discordant voice over the decision—"that of the British Prime Minister. Macmillan.” Moscow Radio told its home listeners South Africa was “thrown out" of the Commonwealth. “The Union of South Africa, an offspring of the British Crown, raised on the blood and brutally suppressed Boers by the British imperialist, a cut diamond of the money bags of the London city, will no longer be a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations,” it said. “No Occasion To Gloat” LONDON, March 16. South Africa's withdrawal from the Commonwealth “is no occasion for rejoicing.” the former Bishop of Johannesburg, Dr. Ambrose Reeves, said today. “None of those who. like myself, believe that the racial policy in South Africa is not to be tolerated within the Commonwealth, have any cause to gloat,” he said. He added that because of the stand of the Prime Ministers. “the Commonwealth has become a much more worthy community of nations ”