by Ian Smith
Fortunately there was no emotion attached to the decision, as the question had been thrashed out so many times in recent months. I was elected to take over as leader; this came as no surprise, as I had been forewarned. It was recommended that Ian Dillon, as Chief Whip, should convey the message to Field, but I said that, as his Deputy, and now successor, I believed I had an obligation, no matter how painful, so the two of us went together. Nobody would have enjoyed doing it, but once a decision is made in life, then one must face the consequences. One saving grace was that Field had been forewarned and so was expecting our message. He made one request: arrangements had been made for him to attend an air force day in the Midlands on Sunday 12 April, which he would like to keep. Obviously I agreed. The meeting was cold and unpleasant. I walked back to my office with a heavy heart. Fortunately, there was never any unpleasantness between us afterwards, and whenever Winston attended our caucus meetings he always conducted himself with great dignity, and was accorded due respect by the members present.
It is interesting to reflect on the pros and cons of declaring independence at that time, as many of our members had advocated. A cold analysis indicates that there would have been a number of distinct advantages. First, we would have been faced by a Conservative government in which the majority of Conservative MPs were openly sympathetic to our cause and were ready to support our independence on the existing constitution. On the other hand, as far as the Labour Party was concerned, there was not a single one of its MPs who would do likewise. Second, British government officials were given an extra eighteen months to work out further arguments and plans against us. Third — and of great significance — it gave all our deadly enemies this extra time to marshal their forces and plan their strategy.
They passed resolutions at OAU meetings. Meetings are held regularly for want of other things to do. There is a plethora of meetings of the British Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Commonwealth finance ministers, Commonwealth foreign ministers, Commonwealth prime ministers, all have annual conferences, and every now and again some other kind of ministers will find an excuse for a conference. These grow in popularity by the day. We live in a world which suffers from conference-itis, for obvious reasons: every delegate is not only treated to super-class travel and accommodation, but there is also a handsome financial allowance paid in foreign exchange. All Third World countries are deficient in this commodity, so they eagerly grab anything that is offering, paying scant attention to the fact that they are using their taxpayers’ money. These political leaders, ministers and MPs, are unconcerned that the vast majority of those whom they represent are in the low wage-earning bracket, from countries which are among the poorest in the world, with large sectors of their communities receiving inadequate basic facilities. An unacceptably high number of these poor people are suffering from malnutrition and starvation, often leading to death. If the money, recklessly frittered away through these conferences, were to be diverted to constructive and humanitarian use, much suffering could be prevented, and many innocent lives saved. It is a well-known and proven fact that 90 per cent of these conferences achieve nothing of consequence. Many of the participants are aware of this, but are nevertheless prepared to condone this abuse of power.
It is sad to record that the once highly respected British Commonwealth, which stood for the principles of democracy, justice, human rights and the free enterprise system, is now a total fraud. Today, the majority of African countries enjoying membership of the Commonwealth are either one-party dictatorships or military dictatorships. Whether their philosophy is communism, fascism or Nazism is of no consequence, because there is no difference between them. The people who use these techniques do so for two main reasons: power and money. Power to keep themselves in office, and money to line their own pockets. Under a dictatorship it is so easy: any opposition of consequence, other than minorities which can be handled as a cat handles a mouse, is simply eliminated. And when you control the communications media of your country, as they all do, the truth is kept away from the people. Money comes easily too, from those who wish to buy favours. On my overseas visits to North America, Britain and Europe, I am frequently asked by people in the financial and business world: ‘Do you know of any political leader in sub-Saharan Africa who does not operate a numbered banking account outside his own country?’ As I live in sub-Saharan Africa, obviously I do not reply, not in public, at any rate!
Perhaps one should not blame these countries for being members of the British Commonwealth, because benefits do flow from it; the lion’s share of the organisation’s support comes from the British taxpayer, and there are always special favours for ‘developing countries’. But surely the older founding members of the Commonwealth, which believed in those old-fashioned qualities of freedom and justice and parliamentary democracy, should not condone the double standards which now dominate this once venerable organisation?
It would be so simple to lay down the code of principles governing membership. In fact they are already there, and those countries which do not comply should be requested to leave. This would involve more than half the present membership. What a breath of fresh air that would be! There must be many members of the free world society who join me in condemning dictators who suppress freedom of thought, speech and action. What is truly amazing is the number of political leaders who condone such behaviour and turn a blind eye to it.
Following the same line of thought, there is another world organisation deserving of examination: the so-called Non-Aligned Movement. It was formed by countries that claimed to be non-aligned to the two superpowers, the USA and USSR, after the Bandung Conference of 1955. India headed the Movement, Fidel Castro was head of the NAM for a long period of its history, and Mugabe was a chairman. Prominent among its members are Afghanistan, Angola, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iraq, Libya, Nicaragua, North Korea — all in the former USSR’s sphere of influence at one time or another — so to claim non-alignment is a blatant deception. The majority of members represent impoverished Third World countries. But one would not believe that when witnessing one of their conferences, as we did in our country in 1986. Executive jets fly in from the four corners of the globe, and delegates take over the most expensive hotels and live like kings, eating caviar and drinking champagne and Scotch whisky. The talk of the town was: go down to the conference centre and you will see more new Mercedes Benz motor cars than you would at the factory in Germany! And what do they achieve? One of the doyens of the NAM in answer to this question said: ‘In all honesty it must be conceded that so far we cannot point to any success, and clearly NAM has to make greater efforts.’ It is sad to report, however, that all these years later there has been no change. Every item on their agenda, year after year, falls within the purview of the United Nations. It is an incongruous situation, where the majority of their members are among the strongest supporters of the United Nations, yet their discussions and resolutions are tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the UN, taking it upon themselves to perform, presumably more efficaciously, the functions of the UN. I have never been one of those who considered the UN to be one of the success stories of our generation, but if there was to be an assessment of the most useless organisations of our time, pride of place must go to NAM. Of course, with the demise of USSR there is now only one superpower, so perhaps the message will get through in the next decade or two. Meanwhile the holders of office are wallowing in extravagant luxury.
It would not be so tragic if they were not frittering away their taxpayers’ money, diverted from productive channels which could be providing better education, health, food, recreation, and general advancement for the people they purport to represent. Truly a classic example of criminal abuse of power — but dictators can get away with it.
The Premiership in 1964
It did not take long for the British government to react to the change of leadership in Rhodesia. There were expressions of alarm at the takeover by ‘extremists’, and they commenced a propagan
da campaign to this effect, warning the rest of the world of impending irresponsible action. On the contrary, it was clearly necessary for me to go through all the actions of trying to reach agreement with the British. Obviously this was our first choice, with the alternative of unilateral action as a last resort, and only after we were satisfied that all other possible avenues had failed. I would have to be personally satisfied that there was no alternative. Caucus supported me to a man, contrary to public opinion, which had been stirred up by the liberal, left-wing media. There was no suggestion of any impetuous, ill-considered action.
The first thing for me to do was to make personal contact with the British government to see if it was possible for me to succeed where Field had failed. The British were gradually getting the message that this was more than the normal change of one PM for another. The entire character of the scene had been altered. For the first time in its history the country now had a Rhodesian-born PM, someone whose roots were not in Britain, but in southern Africa, in other words, a white African. Unlike his predecessors who, when they talked about ‘going back home’, were thinking about Britain, his home was Rhodesia. This was something which the British had not previously come face to face with, and our information was that they were apprehensive about dealing with this new situation.
For my part the last thing I was aiming to do was to create an impression of unreasonableness and inflexibility. But I believed it would be wrong to mislead anybody, particularly the British, into believing that there was any chance of getting us to accept a solution which was not in the best interests of Rhodesia. Any attempt to use us as a pawn in the game of international politics to appease the OAU and their fellow-travellers was a non-starter. We would allow ourselves to be influenced only by what was in the best interest of Rhodesians, all of them, black and white. How could any fair-minded person fault such thinking? So it was important to send out a clear signal: the time for shilly-shallying had come to an end. There had been more than enough prevarication, and we wanted to know where we stood. Not only was I satisfied that my caucus was solidly behind me, but I also knew that this was the mood of 90 per cent of Rhodesians, who were convinced that justice was on their side. They were sick and tired of political double talk.
I sent a message to Alec Home suggesting that we get on with the business, reiterating our claim for independence based on the new 1961 constitution which we had recently signed with the British government. This had been sold to the Rhodesian electorate on the basis of a future independence constitution if the Federation should break up. In Rhodesian eyes it was not an ideal arrangement, but in exchange for securing their future Rhodesians were prepared to compromise on something which was workable. Moreover, as my predecessor had stressed more than once, our participation at the Victoria Falls conference was contingent upon the British accepting the principle of our independence on this basis. If the British were not now prepared to comply with this agreement, we would like to have the reasons spelt out. In replying, once again, the British government equivocated: could we not initiate a move which would give our blacks greater representation in Parliament? But that was exactly what we had done only two years ago, with our new constitution. The British government had concurred. Why were they now going back on this?
For some time we had been planning a trip for members of the Chiefs’ Council to visit a number of countries to put over their case. Twenty-nine Chiefs departed on 1 June visiting India and Pakistan, and thence Europe on their way to Britain. They were pleased to have a meeting with the Pope in Rome, but were resentful of the fact that in London they were shunted off on to Sandys and denied access to Home. The Chiefs were the true representatives of our black people, but were now running into problems from black politicians who were trying to eliminate a system which would deny them total power in a future government. The Chiefs particularly resented the fact that these politicians were resorting to intimidation among the simple unsuspecting tribesmen in order to turn them against their traditional leaders, the Chiefs and Headmen.
In the years after the confrontations of 1893 and 1896–7 a strong liaison had developed between the Chiefs and government, and there was great and mutual respect and trust. Before the arrival of the white man, Chiefs were autonomous in their own areas, and differences were not always settled in a peaceful manner. Indeed confrontation between Matabele and Shona was always violent. The Matabele, who stemmed from the militant Zulu nation, were the more aggressive and better disciplined, and over the years they had gradually extended their territory eastwards, taking over land from the Shona-speaking people. It was the arrival of the pioneer column in 1890 which saved the Shona.
In June 1893, there were reports from Fort Victoria that Matabele raiders had made incursions into the area, murdered a number of the Shona men and abducted maidens and cattle sufficient for their requirements. This was further east than the Matabele had previously ventured. The authorities in Salisbury concluded that this could not be tolerated, and a force was organised to ensure that the decision was conveyed. They had a few skirmishes once they penetrated deep into Matabeleland, but had no problem entering Bulawayo and restoring law and order.
Sadly, there was a tragic event associated with this operation, which earned for itself a memorable page in Rhodesian history. Major Alan Wilson and his patrol were on the right flank of the advancing forces, and they ran into a strong contingent of Matabeles. Heavy rain was falling, and when they came to the Shangani River it was in full spate, and blocking their forward passage. They defended themselves valiantly and accounted for a large number of the enemy, but there was no let-up in the rain, and eventually they ran out of ammunition. They sent a couple of their men on horseback to obtain supplies and reinforcements from the main column, but by the time they returned it was too late. The majority of Wilson’s men could have extricated themselves, but they were not prepared to abandon their wounded colleagues, and remained with them to the end. Alongside Cecil Rhodes’s grave on top of the famous ‘World’s View’ in the Matopos Mountains is a magnificent memorial to Alan Wilson and his men, with the inscription: ‘There were no survivors’. The Matabele warriors who fought that battle against them are recorded to have paid them the tribute: ‘They were men, and their fathers before them were men too.’
This episode brings to mind a strange anomaly. Most of the criticism of the white man and his history in Rhodesia comes from Shona politicians as opposed to the Matabele. Clearly, had the white man never arrived, there is no doubt that the Matabele would have systematically extended his territory until he had pushed the Shona over the border into Mozambique.
Gradually, once peace was restored, the Chiefs’ activities were co-ordinated, first at the level of provinces, with Provincial Chiefs’ Councils, and above that an overall National Chiefs’ Council. When I took over as PM the chairman of their council was a Matabele, Chief Umzimuni, a massive man, six feet four inches tall and weighing 260 pounds. Sadly, he died of heart problems, and was succeeded by Shona Chief Chirau, a strong man who was not prepared to allow the post-1980 black government to deflect him from his beliefs and principles. He died suddenly while in his prime, from what the government reported to be natural causes, but his family and friends assured me that they were very unnatural. An aggravating factor was that the new PM, Robert Mugabe, was born and educated and grew up in Chirau’s country, and as a tribesman from that area traditionally owed special allegiance to Chief Chirau. Obviously there was a clash, and those who came to power through the barrel of the gun were going to stay there by the same means.
A few months after assuming office, I suggested to the Minister of Native Affairs that I should join the Chiefs at a meeting of the National Chiefs’ Council, as a gesture of my respect and interest in their affairs. He agreed. Next day he came to see me in company with his top civil servant, one of the doyens of the ministry, who had dedicated a lifetime of service to understanding the people with whom he was working, and learning their culture and traditio
ns. He gave me a comprehensive briefing, a tactful lesson in their system, the tradition, the respect and dignity associated with it. His advice was that the initiative should not come from me, but that the invitation should come from the Chiefs, confirming the authority which they enjoyed in their own field. Of course, I readily acquiesced. He said he would simply think aloud in the presence of some of the Chiefs, and he was sure they would react favourably. The plan worked and I was invited to the next meeting of the council. It was an impressive affair, conducted with efficiency and dignity with the president of the council, Chief Umzimuni, in the chair and everyone, including the Minister and Secretary of Native Affairs, deferred to his authority. This gave the lie to the story which was being propagated by the black nationalist politicians and their Marxist-Leninist collaborators that the Chiefs were stooges of the government and retained their positions at the convenience of government. In fact Chiefs are appointed for life through the system of their tribal structure, and this has never been interfered with. There have been cases where Chiefs have been removed from office because of serious violations of the accepted code of conduct, but this decision has always been made by the Chiefs’ Council, and not government.
There was no excuse for Alec Home’s refusal to give the Chiefs a hearing during their visit to Britain. Clearly, he was pandering to black politicians who were attempting to undermine the Chiefs. Their resentment was fully justified. As a result their distrust of the British government increased, and there was a growing realisation that their only hope was to work with their own government.
