U.N. Interference In Central Africa

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29828, 22 May 1962, Page 12

U.N. Interference In Central Africa

Britain’s attempt to rescue the Central African Federation from the complete collapse that threatens it has been made more difficult by the officious meddling of the United Nations’ Committee of 17. The gravity with which the United Kingdom Government regards the present situation in the two Rhodesia* and Nyasaland was shown by the appointment of Mr Butler, the Home Secretary, to be directly responsible for negotiations on the future of the federation. Mr B’ er’s task would be onerous enough without the interference from New York, where Afro-Asian representatives, encouraged by the Soviet Union, are noisily and ignorantly proclaiming the sins of the British. It is an unhappy development, not only because of Britain’s proud administrative record, but because it could embitter indefinitely British relations with the Afro-Asian group in the United Nations.

Nominally, the Committee of 17 was formed to implement independence in colonial territories that are not yet self-governing. In February the United Nations General Assembly authorised it to investigate Southern Rhodesia. The Federal Prime Minister (Sir Roy Welensky) rightly refused it permission to visit Central Africa It then sent a sub-committee to London, where, apparently. it hoped to extort from the United Kingdom Government a promise of universal suffrage for Rhodesia—one man. one vote. Disregarding the fact that Southern Rhodesia is in no sense a “ depen- “ dency ”, the United Nations special subcommittee early •’ is month issued its report elaborating the suffrage theme

“To the extent that “a U.N. report can “ influence a situation, it “ will do evil, not good ”, commented “ The Times ”. By focusing attention unfairly on justifiable British concern for European minorities, the report must hinder the evolution of the truly multi-racial society for which British administrators -in Central Africa have striven. Replying in the House of Commons recently to comment on the report, Mr Butler said: “There is no question “of us giving priority to “ any race or opinion. It is “important for us to be “ absolutely just, to face “ the emerging tide of “ African nationalism with “ fairness, but nonetheless “to face the legitimate “ claims and contribution “of the European com- “ munity ” This, then, is the ideal that Britain seeks to uphold against the reactionary policies of Sir Roy Welensky, the alternate precipitancy and obstructionism of the African nationalists, and the interference of the United Nations. prompted by emotional outbursts such as those of Mr Kaunda, president of Northern Rhodesia’s United Independence Party. The expediency of economic links among the Rhodesias and Nyasaland is undiminished through the failure of constitutional proposals. There is stil] a chance of making multiracialism work, though on a restricted scale. But whereas in the past success depended most upon European enlightenment. in future African moderation and willingness to compromise will determine whether sufficient Europeans will continue to provide the skills and money without which the three territories cannot hope to prosper.