Rhodesian talks
Sir: In his article on Rhodesian talks, 'Another Conservative' ap- proaches the problem on the basis of two assumptions: first, that those who oppose the withdrawal of sanctions, unless the Smith government makes concessions along the lines of the 'Five Prin- ciples', do so because of 'a sup- posed moral duty to make repara- tion for the backwardness of African civilisation', which duty he holds not to exist since 'black African politicans know perfectly well how to look after themselves ; secondly, that `no British govern- ment need feel more than a normal obligation to regulate relations be- tween communities in hypothetical situations for which it will not have to take the consequences.'
Both assumptions misrepresent the situation. The bluff Palmer- stonian line (`Britain has no eternal friends and no eternal enemies, only eternal interests', that states- man is reported to have said) is all very well when proposed as a retort to the excesses of Great Turnstile, and left-wing commen- tators do often give the impression that they believe that, in foreign affairs, morality is identical with playing to the gallery, if only the gallery be large and hostile enough. However, to suppose that all sup- port of sanctions (or all opposition to the sale of arms to South Africa) proceeds from muddle or malice is to choose an argumentative soft option at the price of unconvinc- ingness. Many Conservatives, like myself, must be at least provision- ally opposed to the abandonment of sanctions as part of the sort of agreement which 'Another Con- servative' advocates. not for the reasons he supposes. Rather, we feel that the present government of Rhodesia is unlikely to treat, is not treating, its black population with justice, and that left to itself, or encouraged in its ways by the success which British recognition would undoubtedly be, it is not likely to . change. A dislike of oppressive and unjust regimes is not peculiar to socialists. Nor-will It do to reply that there are worse states. Albania or Haiti: no doubt there are, but what does that line of defence say about the Rhodes- ian government? Nor to argue that a majority-ruled Rhodesian state would be oppressive to the white minority: I have little doubt that it would be, but the existing Rho- desian regime is oppressive to the black majority in actual fact.
In general, sanctions are worth- less weapons, and many of the late administration's measures in re- gard to Rhodesia were acts of Petty malice rather than statesman- ship: unwilling to take serious political action, or unable or un- willing to admit that it was unable to do so. the Wilson regime vented its spite on private individuals, and imposed a postal surcharge. Economic sanctions are a different matter; they arc feeble weapons at the best of times, but they are the only leverage that the British government has on a situation, which is as serious as it is because (in large part) of the British government's past tergiversations. Our duty at least to try to achieve, not a settlement merely, but a just settlement, in Rhodesia, derives indeed from past colonial relations —not some generalised 'crimes and wickednesses of colonialism'. but from the fact that we annexed and ruled Rhodesia: British im- perialism may be dead, but while it lived, it landed us with moral obli- gations, which we can't respectably shuffle off, in the way that the Labour government shuffled off its obligations to the Kenyan Asians.
Ian D. Brown Corpus Christi College, Oxford
Previous page
