Mr Smith Explains Rejection Of H.M.S. Tiger Document

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31248, 21 December 1966, Page 27

Mr Smith Explains Rejection Of H.M.S. Tiger Document

The reasons for the rejection by the Rhodesian Cabinet of the " orking Document, drawn up at a meeting aboard H.M.S. Tiger between Mr Wilson, Prime Minister of Britain, and Mr lan Smith, the Rhodesian leader, were explained in a statement issued by Mr Smith in Salisbury on December 6.

Mr Smith first made it clear that the Working Document not an agreed document The British Prime Minister, he said, laid down the terms contained in that part of the document involving the dissolution of Parliament and the surrender of the powers of government. He was adamant in his refusal to consider any proposal other than his own. I made it quite clear to Mr Wilson that this was unacceptable to me, but, nevertheless, I undertook to take his demands to my colleagues for their critical and unprejudiced examination. Major Issue

“The major issue that caused us to reject the Working Document arises out of the British Government’s insistence on their proposals for a ‘Return to Legality’ involving as they do the dissolution of Parliament and the surrender of powers of Government to an unrepresentative interim government

“I may say that the British Government’s general attitude in discussions is not to negotiate in the accepted sense of the term—that is, to accommodate different points of view—but to prescribe conditions with which we are expected to comply. . . . The tenor of the negotiations carried out by the British representatives was one of aloof condescension.

“The next major factor was that although the broad principles of a future independence constitution were acceptable, the details of that constitution would still have to be determined, and its acceptability would still have to be tested. This means that we were being asked to abandon our present constitution and set sail into uncharted waters without any assurance that the constitution suggested would become the constitution in fact.

“In retrospect, it really is not surprising that Mr Wilson

exhibits on all sides a lack of understanding of Rhodesia, tou must remember that he first set foot on Rhodesian soil in October last vear, when he spent a few days in Salisbury confined to the grounds of Government House.

“He believes that by detaining people here in Rhodesia we are guilty of a terrible crime, yet he was unable to answer my question as to why it was necessary for Britain to detain over 100 people in Aden during the recent disturbances there. The fact that some of our detainees have been responsible for murder, intimidation and sabotage is something we are expected to tolerate and to live with, provided Britain is not affected and does not have to live with such monstrous crimes. Again, he does not believe that the chiefs are Africans. Rather, he believes they are the stooges of the white man, simply because the chiefs support the present Government in their determination

to suppress extremists in their campaign of intimidation and their attempts to destroy law and order in the tribal areas.

Commission Suggestion “We in Rhodesia have always been prepared to seek the opinion of the people as a whole regarding the acceptance or rejection of the new proposals. Why should Mr Wilson deny us this? He seems to think there can be no full and free test of public opinion so long as this Government is in control in Rhodesia. What could be more reasonable than to ask that the proposed high-powered commission, consisting of distinguished people of the highest integrity, make this assessment themselves? I think they would find there was no impediment to the full and free expression of views in Rhodesia. However, if I am wrong, they would not hesitate to give their verdict We have agreed that they would be free to go anywhere and see anyone and that we would remove censorship. “Mr Wilson’s difficulty is

that he has made so many commitments to extremist elements that I believe he will never be able to see the Rhodesian problem in its true perspective. This is what has bedevilled the issue between the two countries all along, and will continue to do so unless or until some unbiased person or influence can be brought to bear. “It is my hope—albeit a forlorn hope—that the British Government will come to appreciate that we cannot tamely submit to dictation and surrender our lives and our futures unconditionally to their demands. I hope that they will come to see how impossible this is, and that they will appreciate that the issues between us can be resolved without loss of dignity or face on either side. “An unbiased and uncommitted commission could solve this problem—of that I am convinced. And let me make it clear, as I have said so many times in the past, that I will never shut the door to constructive discussions with anyone at any time.”