Colonial Prospect
DOMINION OF ZAMBEZIA ?
By R. W. STEEL
SO familiar are we with conferences that break up after weeks in discord or after months with no visible results that a meeting producing unanimous decisions in two days must stand in a class by itself. Such was the recent conference of delegates from Northern and Southern Rhodesia and of Nyasaland that met at Victoria Falls. One almost wonders why there was any need for the delegates to come together, unless it be to advertise to the world that certain far-seeing persons envisage a federation of the British territories in Central Africa that will constitute, they hope, the basis of an eighth Dominion in the near future. But there are several pertinent questions which may well be asked regarding the con- ference and its decisions. For example, for whom were the architects of the new Zambezia speaking and by whom had they been com- missioned ? Are all the parties concerned ready to co-operate in working an arrangement about which they have not been con- sulted ? Why is it likely that the Colonial Governments and the Colonial Office—as well as African opinion in so far as it is able to express itself—will be suspicious of some at least of the decisions so quickly and unanimously reached by these European delegates of the Victoria Falls Conference ? What in fact are the objections to federation, let alone amalgamation, in this part of Africa ?
We can perhaps best appreciate the force of the objections if we first consider the case for federation. The three territories under discussion are adjacent to one another, and all show the same general geographical features of the Zambezi basin. Though all lie within the tropics, they are predominantly plateaux which in places are sufficiently elevated to make possible white settlement, at least in limited areas ; they are all liable to suffer from irregularities of rain- fall ; their vegetation is predominantly open savanna grassland ; malaria and tsetse fly are everywhere common scourges, especially in the lower-lying areas. Thus agriculture, both European and native, faces similar physical and economic problems in all three territories. Mining is important in both Rhodesias—gold, coal, and chrome in the south, and copper in the north—while Nyasaland has large, though as yet unworked, deposits of bauxite. Thus the geographical and economic characteristics of the territories strongly favour the closest possible relationships between the various Governments.
Perhaps the problem that most closely affects all parts of the Zambezi basin is that of access to the coast and to the world beyond that wants its products. Each territory is entirely land- locked and is many hundreds of miles from the coast. Each finds its best and nearest outlets in Portuguese colonies. Southern Rhodesia has a railway to Beira in Portuguese East Africa (Mozambique), a port which is also the terminus of the railway from the shores of Lake Nyasa that crosses the Zambezi by the longest railway bridge in the world. Northern Rhodesia has two outlets, one through Southern Rhodesia to Beira and the Indian Ocean, the other through the southern province of the Belgian Congo and across the plateau of Angola (Portuguese West Africa) to the comparatively new port of Lobito Bay. Thus Anglo-Portu- guese connections must be very close, and it is obviously most desirable that between the various British territories there should be the closest collaboration in all matters of transport.
Questions of labour supply similarly are of interest to both Rhodesias and Nyasaland. The colonies north of the Zambezi can offer only limited opportunities of employment to the African wanting to work for wages. Southern Rhodesia, in contrast, is short of labour for its farms, mines and industries, and receives large numbers of immigrant labourers every year. Thus Nyasaland had i5o,o0o of its inhabitants absent from the colony in 1945, 84,000 working in Southern Rhodesia and most of the remainder in the mines of the South African Rand. These facts explain in large measure the interest of the European employers of Southern Rhodesia in the countries to the north, and Sir Miles Thomas's statement after the conference that he had been particularly impressed by the constant concern shown by the three delegations for the interest of the African population is capable perhaps of more than one interpretation. Clearly it is expedient that there should be the fullest co-operation between the labour departments and organisations of the three territories. It is essential, however, that the movement of labour southward should be most carefully watched and controlled, and limited to reasonable proportions. The interests of European employers and African workers, and of countries short of workers and those with surplus labour, are not necessarily identical.
In fact there is a clash of interest between European and African at almost every turn in the Zambezi lands ; and herein lies the main objection to many of the closer union schemes that have been put forward during the last quarter of a century and the chief reason for the strong opposition aroused by all such proposals in the Colonial Office and in this country generally. Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are committed to a policy of " trusteeship " for the native population. The Southern Rhodesian Government by con- trast, has the avowed policy of encouraging white settlement, and through it can claim much achievement in the field of native affairs, the Africans themselves—either in Southern Rhodesia or in neigh- bouring territories—do not seem to have been greatly impressed or reassured by the minimum wage and welfare conditions for African labour in commerce and industry established by recent legislation.
Many in this country appear to regard the proposal for closer union as a result of war-time experience and post-war conditions and to forget that the whole matter was thrashed out in 1938-39 by the Rhodesia-Nyasaland Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Bledisloe. Others—especially Europeans in these territories —seem to imagine that those who have complained in the past when the dose offered has been that of complete amalgamation will in 1949 readily swallow the federation pill. It is as well to refer to the conclusions of the Bledisloe Commission. Federation (the solution now proposed) is rejected outright because " any attempt at federa- tion between Governments enjoying such different measures of responsibility and in such different stages of social and political development would not in our opinion achieve success." (The differences have tended to increase during the last ten years.) Amalgamation, Lord Bledisloe and his colleagues felt, was the ultimate objective to be kept in view, but immediate amalgama- tion was deemed undesirable because of the wide differences of policy between the three Governments, especially in respect of their dealings with their African populations. It is clear, they reported, that " while Southern Rhodesia, along her own course, has pro- gressed furthest in the provision of certain social and development services, that course is in some respects restrictive, and will, if persisted in, limit the opportunities open to Africans, as they gradually emerge from their present backward condition." Again, the position has not materially altered in ten years ; the situation may indeed have worsened, from the African point of view, as a result of the great increase in European immigration to Southern Rhodesia since the war.
While reporting against federation or amalgamation, the Bledisloe Commission did suggest that immediate co-operation could be achieved by the creation of an inter-territorial council—such as exists now in the Central Africa Council. It went on to recommend the amalgamation of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland " without delay," on the grounds that the two territories were closely related ethnologically and economically ; that they had similar native policies and similar problems of native development ; that the immigration of African labour to adjoining countries affected them both ; and that useful economies could be made by the avoidance of the duplication of establishments. The delay in implementing this recommendation now amounts to nearly ten years. Might not the reopening of the question of federation in a new form by the recent conference be used as the occasion for carrying out a long overdue, and comparatively simple, administrative reform, and also for show- ing the world a most useful and practicable piece of inter-colonial co-operation in a continent that is becoming increasingly important in both international and imperial affairs ?
Previous page
