The Press SATURDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1965. The Conservatives And Rhodesia

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30937, 18 December 1965, Page 14

The Press SATURDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1965. The Conservatives And Rhodesia

The “New York Times'* possibly overstated the position when concluding that " Britain’s Con- “ servative Party has given the world the impresston “ that it has deserted Prime Minister Harold Wilson “ in his effort to smash the white revolt in Rhodesia Mr Heath and his “ Shadow Cabinet ” had breached bipartisanship, the newspaper said, “ by attacking the “Labour Government for supporting the United “Nations’ call on all countries*to break economic “ relations with Rhodesia ”. If at times a little forced, the unity the House of Commons has preserved through the Rhodesian affair persists, though there are increasing signs of strain, which might become intolerable if oil sanctions were enforced. The “ Guardian ” said last week that “ the “ Conservative Opposition has succeeded in reducing “ -he question from one of principle—do we believe “ in majority rule and racial equality or do we not?— “ to one of detail about which sanctions are justified “ and on what terms negotiations with the rebels can “be resumed ”. Actually, the Conservatives are in no position to encourage, or indeed to allow, the issue to depart from principle, as a Blue Book on Rhodesia (Command, 2807) published on November 12 last must remind them.

An extract from the record of a meeting held at 10 Downing Street on September 7, 1964, with the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, Mr lan Smith, includes “two comments” which the British Prime Minister, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, “felt bound” to make about “ the much publicised threat of a “ unilateral declaration of independence ”.

He [Sir Alec Douglas-Home] must make it wholly clear to Mr Smith that, quite apart from the serious economic consequences of such a declaration, two constitutional results would inevitably follow. In the first place the United Kingdom Government would have to maintain that the declaration had no legal validity, and that they were not prepared to recognise it Second, they would have to emphasise that the Government of Southern Rhodesia would be in revolt against the Crown.

In a message dated February 22, 1964, the Commonwealth Secretary, Mr Duncan Sandys, told the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, Mr Winston Field, of the British Government’s awareness that world opinion would strongly condemn unilateral action:

International reaction would be sharp and immediate. The issue would be raised at once in the United Nations; and we, of course, would not be able to offer any justification. The whole Commonwealth would be deeply disturbed and the attitude of the newer members would be extremely antagonistic.

The vital question of principle was emphasised by Mr Sandys on December 7, 1963, in a message to Mr Field; and Sir Alec Douglas-Home, in a message to Mr Smith on May 20, 1964, explicity underlined this passage:

The Impression seems to have been created that the British Government wish to lay down conditions for Southern Rhodesia's independence which are more exacting than In the case of other territories As you know, that is quite incorrect The present difficulty arises from your desire to secure independence on the basis of a franchise which is incomparably more restricted than that of any other British territory to which independence has hitherto been granted.

From the foregoing it is clear that the Conservatives in office began the process of explaining the illegality of U.D.L as a “revolt against the “ Crown a term some Conservatives are now condemning Mr Wilson for using. They foresaw and warned Mr Smith of the inevitable reaction in the United Nations and in the Commonwealth. And they explicitly defined their objective in Rhodesia (longterm, as is Mr Wilson’s) as majority rule. The record leaves no doubt about the Conservatives’ obligations to preserve British solidarity in this matter. The only change since they took their stand on an unexceptionable principle is that any hope of Rhodesia’s future being kept as a domestic matter within the Commonwealth has now receded. It is a world issue fraught with far graver potential dangers than many were prepared to admit when Mr Smith and his associates went deliberately and wilfully into “ revolt against the Crown ”.