Welensky Charges Broken Pledges

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30059, 18 February 1963, Page 11

Welensky Charges Broken Pledges

(N.Z. Press Assn.—Copyright) SALISBURY, Feb. 17. The Federal Rhodesian Prime Minister (Sir Roy Welensky) yesterday repeated his Government’s assertion that the British Government had broken valid pledges it had given by allowing Nyasaland to secede from the Federation. In a formal reply to the British Government's White Paper published last Wednesday, Sir Roy Welensky accused Britain of "quibbling” and described some of its assertions as "absurd.” Ha said the whole case put forward in the 1 British White Paper “founders upon the rock of absurdity.” “The British Government concedes that the dissolution of the Federation or a territory could not occur as the result of the review without the consent of the four Governments.” (This was a reference to the review conference which must, in the terms of the Federal Constitution, be held between IMO and 1963.)

“But it contends that without any breach of the pledges, at any other time—for instance, during a period when the conference is ad-

journed—the British Government could unilaterally dissolve the Federation or allow a territory to secede.” Sir Roy Weleneky agreed that as a proposition of law. it was incontrovertible that the. United Kingdom, having created the Federation, could end its existence, and that British legislation would be indispensable for this purpose. But he contended that the British Government in 1953 gave pledges that it would not act in this way without the consent of all four Governments in the Rhodesian Federation. Statements made in the House of Lords last December by the Marquess of Salisbury. Viscount Chandos, Lord Boyd, Lord Coiyton and Lord Malvern indicated that they all agreed this was so, he said. Lord Malvern, a former Federal Prime Minister, had said that without these pledges he would not have signed the draft Constitution. Sir Roy Welensky said there was nothing remarkable in the contention that if consent of all the Governments was required before any one State could secede, each of the territorial Governments was given a per-

manent veto whereby any one at them could Insist on the indefinite perpetuation of the Federation regasdleas of the wishes of the other Governments. A select consnittee of both Houses of the British Parliament had held that the Federal Government of Australia had the power to veto the secession of soy of the States of Australia, be said. Dealing with the British Government’s "untenable assertion’’ that its responsibility for the inhabitants of Nyasaland remained unimpaired by the eatehiiehmsnf of the Federation. Sir Roy Welensky said: ‘'Tbe'reaponribUity of Her Majesty s Government was of course impaired to the extent of the functions taken over by the Federal Government. "The British Government now sought to justify its breach of its pledges by reliance on an alleged new circumstance, namely the expressed view of the majority of the tohahatanti of Nyssaland to withdrew from the Federation,** Sir Boy Welensky said. "» is merely qulbbling to suggeet this te a new "It te well known that the vast majority of the African inhabitants who were capable of txpr easing a view on the matter were opposed to the iaduaion of their territory from the outset.”