by Ian Smith
On 11 November 1965, everyone was present on time in the cabinet room. I asked if there were any more contributions. There was a general expression of approval that I had insisted on delaying a decision the previous evening, because, as one of them said, ‘This will probably be the most important decision we will ever make in our lives, so it is right that we took more time and now apply fresh minds in order to be absolutely certain that the decision which we now make will reflect our considered opinion and most serious judgement.’
I allowed time for thought and discussion. It was clear that there were no further contributions necessary. I was about to bring matters to a head when once more my PPS entered to say that Wilson was on the phone. I had a gut-feeling that this was just another attempt at a delaying tactic, an effort by Wilson to establish himself as not being the one responsible for the breakdown. My office had been informed the previous day that the British High Commission were aware of the fact that we were about to come to a conclusion, and the ‘hot line’ to 10 Downing Street was working to capacity to keep Wilson completely in the picture.
My assumption was correct. When I picked up the receiver, he was most courteous, even condescending in his tone, and commenced by saying that he believed we should appoint the Royal Commission forthwith, as the differences between us now were minimal and could easily be resolved. If we were prepared to say ‘Yes’, now, he would put it to his cabinet, and if they agreed he would put it to the heads of Commonwealth, and this, of course, would be subject to Britain’s sovereign right, to accept or reject. But, as I pointed out, we had told him before his departure from Salisbury that we accepted the commission, so why had this not been processed? The clear answer was that he was attempting to introduce changes to accommodate his friends in the OAU. He was trying to hedge his bets, in such a way that whatever happened he was going to win, and he added nothing which gave me any hope.
I told him that I had come down from a cabinet meeting to take his call and that I would now convey his message to them, but it would not be right if I did not say that the feeling of my cabinet was that this thing had gone too far. We were sick and tired of never-ending British prevarication.
He concluded by saying that, on a number of occasions, he had made the point that he was convinced I was negotiating in good faith, but that he could not say this was true of some of my colleagues. He hoped that I would be able to influence them. I assured him that there was no substance in his accusation. My cabinet team was cohesive, and on the question of our independence there had never been any serious difference of opinion.
I slumped back in my chair for a few minutes to contemplate the situation. I was overwhelmed by a feeling of absolute frustration. There was within my whole system a very strong desire to preserve my links with the history and tradition and culture that I had been brought up to respect and believe in. But over the last half decade this had taken a tremendous battering. When one looked at the composition of the current Commonwealth, the whole character of it had changed. Within Britain itself, we were landed with a socialist government, hell-bent on appeasing the cult of Marxism-Leninism, at the expense of the old traditional values of the British Empire. This was never part of my tradition and culture. But most important, and above all else, was the treatment to which we had been subjected: the breaches of agreements, the double standards, the blatant deception and blackmail with which we were confronted. To put it crudely, we had had an absolute bellyful. Rhodesians simply wished to be left to lead their own lives. And in all honesty it had to be admitted that the Conservatives were as much to blame as Labour. They had had opportunities on a number of occasions, but had lacked the necessary courage, and their treachery after the Victoria Falls conference could never be forgiven. Now came this final episode: the last two days waiting, and this morning, the third day, still anticipating the simple reply: ‘Agreed, we are setting up the commission.’ After all, it had been their suggestion, not ours.
I retraced my steps upstairs to the cabinet room with a heavy heart. How could anyone recommend a change of course? My colleagues were waiting anxiously, and I took time to recount the conversation which had taken place. The general tenor of the response was that they could not detect any change of heart, and they were correct. There was no sudden, impulsive rejection. There were questions and a general discussion: if we accepted this, would we not yet again allow ourselves to become embroiled in more inconclusive wrangling that would play on the uncertainty and ebbing confidence of our people, stimulate the terrorism in the tribal areas — where innocent people were being murdered — and give new hope to the agitators? We could foresee acrimonious wrangling, starting with the composition of the commission and continuing with these other additional concessions which Wilson was trying to extract from us. I could see that these anxieties were overwhelming.
There were no more questions or comments, so I said quietly, deliberately avoiding emotion, that it seemed as if we were ready for a decision, in which case I believed each member should give me his individual answer. Do we declare our independence — ‘Yes’ or ‘No’? I went around the table, and each one, quietly but firmly, without hesitation, said: ‘Yes’.
I suppose it should have been a very dramatic occasion. In fact it was not. We had been on the edge of the precipice for so long, had resolved ourselves to making the decision so many times, that our steel had been tempered; we were ready for it. Moreover, our consciences were clear; we had gone to the absolute limit in trying to avoid it, and so how could any reasonable, honest man fault us? My stand had always been straightforward and consistent: we came to an agreement with the British government at the Victoria Falls conference, they repudiated the contract, we were asserting our right to implement the contract.
One of the most persistent accusations hurled at us over the years was that we took this action in order to ensure permanent white minority rule. History proves conclusively that this is a blatant lie. It was, of course, a continuation of the campaign of the communists, who had all along been trying desperately to frustrate our legitimate objective. Now that they had lost, they embarked on their misinformation campaign, trying to besmirch our motives. The only way they could succeed was by twisting the truth and, as everyone knows, the communists are world-beaters at that game. What is so sad is the gullibility of the free world: the vast majority allowed themselves to be hoodwinked.
Let us examine the facts, the truth. Going back to the original Rhodesian constitution of 1923, there was no racial connotation to the franchise, and from that date there have been people of every race, colour and creed on the voters’ roll. The next step came forty years later with the 1961 constitution, and this embodied the addition of a ‘B’ roll with a debased franchise qualification especially designed to cater for our black people. The normal roll, or ‘A’ roll as it was now called, remained open to all irrespective of race, colour or creed. So this new constitution, far from trying to entrench our white people, did the reverse, and facilitated and encouraged the participation of our black people. The constitution was accepted by, and carries the signatures of, representatives of the British government, the Rhodesian government, and the black nationalist leaders. It enshrined the principle of ‘unimpeded progress to majority rule’ and the British representatives involved in drawing up the constitution estimated that it would culminate in a black majority government within ten to fifteen years. If this is the manner in which white Rhodesians attempted to perpetuate their rule of the country, their incompetence, not to say stupidity, was most remarkable.
It was this same 1961 constitution that we agreed with the British at the Victoria Falls conference would be our independence constitution — no changes were requested. In all the post-Federation discussions with both the Conservative Party and Labour Party, no changes were requested. The five principles laid down by the British strengthened the position of our black people, and these were accepted by our government. The first one was clear and concise: ‘1. The principle and intenti
on of unimpeded progress to majority rule, already enshrined in the 1961 Constitution, to be maintained and guaranteed.’
In Wilson’s letter to me of 29 March 1965 he said: ‘What the British Government wish is a peaceful transition to majority rule, the principle of which is enshrined in the 1961 Constitution.’ This was exactly what we had been urging since the Victoria Falls conference.
On the final day of our talks with Wilson in London on 10 October, we had discussed the suggestion made by the Conservative Party leaders of an internationally backed treaty to provide an additional guarantee that the 1961 constitution would in no way be breached, and this received the full support of the Rhodesian delegation.
Wilson’s visit to Rhodesia later in October had culminated in his proposal for a Royal Commission, and once again we were in full support of the implementation of independence on the basis of the 1961 constitution in which was enshrined the principle of unimpeded progress to majority rule.
One could go on, providing more examples of evidence proving conclusively that at no time in the history of our country was there any attempt to interfere with free access to the voters’ roll and the principle of unimpeded progress to majority rule. But right up to the present day one still comes across articles accusing Rhodesians of trying to perpetuate white minority rule — such is the power of the communist propaganda machine.
Returning to the scene on 11 November in the cabinet room, where we had just made our fateful decision: I asked Gerald Clarke what came next, and he left the room to check. We had set up a committee to prepare the declaration, and they had studied many previous similar occasions. Obviously the most appropriate was the American declaration. A suitable form had been arranged and printed. Clarke returned to say that everything had been arranged in the nearby conference room; the photographer was on his way. We went along; each member of cabinet signed the proclamation of independence, and the official photograph was taken. The proclamation was a handsome document and well laid out. The annexure was the existing 1961 constitution which, as shown clearly above, guaranteed majority rule, irrespective of race, colour or creed. The Act conferring it on Rhodesia was part of British legislation, passed by the British Parliament at Westminster.
I went to Government House to inform Humphrey Gibbs. His staff had already heard the radio announcement that I was to broadcast to the nation at 1.15 p.m. He simply said: ‘So this is it.’ I replied: ‘Yes.’ He said he was deeply sorry, for he had hoped that we could avoid it. I assured him that I had hoped likewise and, as he knew, I had worked incessantly to prevent it. Sadly, in our judgement, the time had come. He accepted my words philosophically and said: ‘I will return to my farm and try to get more milk out of my cows.’ It was a sad occasion for both of us, as we had been friends for many years. We shook hands and parted.
I then went to the broadcasting studios to record my message to the nation. I began by reading the proclamation:
Whereas in the course of human affairs history has shown that it may become necessary for a people to resolve the political affiliations which have connected them with another people and to assume among other nations the separate and equal status to which they are entitled:
And whereas in such event a respect for the opinions of mankind requires them to declare to other nations the causes which impel them to assume full responsibility for their own affairs:
Now therefore, we, the Government of Rhodesia, do hereby declare:
That it is an indisputable and accepted historic fact that since 1923 the Government of Rhodesia have exercised the powers of self-government and have been responsible for the progress, development, and welfare of their people;
That the people of Rhodesia, having demonstrated their loyalty to the Crown and to their kith and kin in the United Kingdom and elsewhere throughout two world wars, and having been prepared to shed their blood and give of their substance in what they believed to be a mutual interest of freedom-loving people, now see all that they have cherished about to be shattered on the rocks of expediency;
That the people of Rhodesia have witnessed a process which is destructive of those very precepts upon which civilisation in a primitive country has been built, they have seen the principles of Western democracy and responsible government and moral standards crumble elsewhere, nevertheless they have remained steadfast;
That the people of Rhodesia fully support the request of their Government for sovereign independence and have witnessed the consistent refusal of the Government of the United Kingdom to accede to their entreaties;
That the Government of the United Kingdom have thus demonstrated that they are not prepared to grant sovereign independence to Rhodesia on terms acceptable to the people of Rhodesia, thereby persisting in maintaining an unwarrantable jurisdiction over Rhodesia, obstructing laws and treaties with other States in the conduct of affairs with other nations, and refusing assent to necessary laws for the public good, all this to the detriment of the future peace, prosperity, and good government of Rhodesia;
That the Government of Rhodesia have for a long period patiently and in good faith negotiated with the Government of the United Kingdom for the removal of the remaining limitations placed upon them and for the grant of sovereign independence;
That it is the belief that procrastination and delay strike at and injure the very life of the nation, the Government of Rhodesia consider it essential that Rhodesia should obtain without delay sovereign independence, the justice of which is beyond question;
Now therefore we, the Government of Rhodesia, in humble submission to Almighty God, who controls the destiny of nations, conscious that the people of Rhodesia have always shown unswerving loyalty and devotion to Her Majesty the Queen and earnestly praying that we the people of Rhodesia will not be hindered in our determination to continue exercising our undoubted right to demonstrate the same loyalty and devotion in seeking to promote the common good so that the dignity and freedom of all men may be assured, do by this proclamation adopt, enact, and give to the people of Rhodesia the Constitution annexed hereto. God save the Queen.
I then went on to say:
Today, now that the final stalemate in negotiations has become evident, the end of the road has been reached. It has become abundantly clear that it is the policy of the British government to play us along with no real intention of arriving at a solution which we could possibly accept. Indeed, in the latest verbal and confidential message delivered to me last night, we find that on the main principle which is in dispute the two governments have moved further apart. I promised the people of this country that I would continue to negotiate to the bitter end and that I would leave no stone unturned in my endeavours to secure an honourable and mutually accepted settlement; it now falls to me to tell you that negotiations have come to an end.
I stressed how hard we had tried to reach an accommodation with the British. The decision, I said, was the product of deep heart-searching and ceaseless conference. I had learned the lesson of the Federation and could not
permit this country to drift in the present paralysing state of uncertainty … In that case matters were permitted to drift and plans for action were formulated too late to prevent the destruction of this noble concept of racial harmony. However, Rhodesia has not rejected the possibility of racial harmony in Africa. The responsibility for the break-up of the Federation was Great Britain’s alone. Their experiment failed and they are now trying to foist the same dogma on to Rhodesia.
I expressed my determination to prevent a repetition of that process. I stressed, however, that the proclamation did not signal a departure from principle. It did not mean that the constitution would be torn up and the protection of the rights of all peoples abrogated. There would be no diminution of African advancement and prosperity. Indeed, it was the government’s intention to bring the Africans into government on a basis acceptable to them. I reminded my audience that we had never asked for anything other than independence on the basis of the constitution, adjusted
only where necessary to fit an independent country. MPs, judges, civil servants and the members of the armed forces and police would continue to carry out their duties in terms of the constitution, and current laws would continue to operate. The proclamation did no more than to allow the government to assume the powers given to British ministers. There was no intention to quarrel with either Rhodesia’s neighbours or with the British people with whom Rhodesians had fought the common enemy in two world wars. I reaffirmed our loyalty to the Crown, the Union Jack and the national anthem.
I acknowledged that, while many had longed for UDI, there were others who had reservations. We could not, however, continue as we were because the British-declared intention was to hold another conference to change the constitution. Furthermore, there would be no solution to the racial problem as long as the African nationalists believed they could, by fomenting trouble, induce the British to hand over the country to them. The uncertainty had to be ended if the essential prosperity was to be achieved that would allow the improvement of the standard of living of all the people. Sanctions were threatened, but I expressed my belief they would be overcome by the natural resources of Rhodesia and the enterprise of its people. And I did not believe that the rational world would combine to destroy the economy and so hurt the very people for whom they were invoking sanctions.
I concluded:
