by Ian Smith
In the lives of most nations there comes a moment when a stand has to be made for principles, whatever the consequences. This moment has come to Rhodesia. I pray — and I hope other Rhodesians will also pray today — that our government will be given the wisdom and the strength to bring Rhodesia safely through.
I call upon all of you in this historic hour to support me and my government in the struggle in which we are engaged. I believe that we are a courageous people and history has cast us in an heroic role. To us has been given the privilege of being the first Western nation in the last two decades to have the determination and fortitude to say: ‘So far and no further.’ We may be a small country, but we are a determined people who have been called upon to play a role of worldwide significance. We Rhodesians have rejected the doctrinaire philosophy of appeasement and surrender. The decision which we have taken today is a refusal by Rhodesians to sell their birthright. And, even if we were to surrender, does anyone believe that Rhodesia would be the last target of the communists in the Afro-Asian bloc?
We have struck a blow for the preservation of justice, civilization, and Christianity — and in the spirit of this belief we have thus assumed our sovereign independence.
God bless you all.
There could not have been many people in the country who did not listen to the broadcast — expectations had been building up for some time. The media were taken aback at the normality of everything that afternoon and over the ensuing days. The people were smiling and getting on with their jobs. I went back home for lunch and, when Janet met me, I told her of my hope for a quiet afternoon and evening with no visitors, and that was how it was.
We were fortunate that no one came round or telephoned. In those days, callers simply drove up the drive, because there were no security people to stop them at the gate. And Janet and I answered the telephone as there were no staff at the residence — there never had been. (Today, it is a veritable fortress surrounded by soldiers with automatic rifles, barbed-wire entanglements, a bullet-proof vehicle in which to travel surrounded by armoured lorries, followed by an ambulance.)
I went to my office next morning, as usual accompanied only by my driver, and there was a fairly sizeable crowd there to greet me. I mingled and talked to them, and there was no security presence. Yet at the UN, members of the OAU were accusing Rhodesia of being a ‘Threat to World Peace’ (a notion which the former US Secretary of State, Dean Acheson ridiculed in an article). Often, when I walked out of the office to my car, on my way to lunch, there would be people standing on the pavement, and I would talk to them, sometimes sign an autograph, and one of the most frequent comments was: ‘In this country we see the happiest black faces we’ve ever seen.’ Also: ‘Everything is so quiet and peaceful.’ I remember being shown statistics by the Police Commissioner that pro rata to population Rhodesia had the lowest crime rate in the world. And as I indicated earlier, the exercise dealing with the break-up of the Federation showed that we had provided better facilities for our black people in the fields of education, health, housing, recreation and cultural facilities than anywhere else in sub-Saharan Africa. And this is what the British were determined to bring to an end — to the extent that they were prepared to break solemn agreements made with us.
Probably the most compelling argument in support of our taking of independence was the recent history of Africa; we were living cheek by jowl with the results. For example, Ghana was the first British country to be granted independence in 1957, and the British government claimed that this glorious example would prove the success of Britain’s colonial policy. Within a couple of years their President Nkrumah had established a one-party dictatorship, half of the Members of Parliament were imprisoned, the leaders of the opposition had been eliminated, the economy was in ruins, and the President had established an external multi-million-pound personal bank account. We could not know at the time that in the following year, 1966, he would be ousted and lucky to get out with his life.
Next in line for independence was Nigeria, in 1960, and we were told that this was a mature country with links with Britain and Europe going back over 200 years. There were big religious and ethnic differences within the country, but the British-made constitution was designed to cater for those. Nevertheless, the country was soon enveloped in dreadful civil war between the Muslims in the north and the negroes in the south. Corruption was rampant and the economy soon in ruins. While our negotiations were at a peak in October 1965 we received reports of hundreds of murders during their elections. In spite of this, preparations for the Commonwealth prime ministers’ conference in Lagos in January continued. At its conclusion Wilson spoke in glowing terms of the great success of Nigeria’s independence, and of how well the other newly independent countries of the Commonwealth were progressing. Britain was proud of the part it had played in bringing all of this to fruition, Wilson said. Within days of the conference ending, their leader and dictator, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, and a number of his ministers, were barbarously murdered.
Then came the Belgian Congo’s independence, also in 1960. The country was immediately plunged into civil war, with deaths running into tens of thousands and the white settlers caught in the middle with murder and rape carried out with impunity. Refugees by the thousand flocked through Rhodesia, and our whole country rose to the occasion to provide assistance. Needless to say, the graphic description of the atrocities to which these poor people were subjected, backed up by medical evidence from our doctors and hospitals, left an indelible impression on our people.
Then, in quick succession, came independence for Tanzania, Zanzibar, Uganda and Kenya. The story was the same: tribal violence and massacres, political opponents imprisoned, coups, streams of white refugees who had been dispossessed of their property and were passing through Rhodesia, rampant corruption and the establishment of external bank accounts by their leaders. In the short period of Zambia’s independence, October 1964, there had been massacres of government opponents, corruption was in full swing, and Kaunda had stated his intention of forming a one-party dictatorship. Yet Britain was more than happy to give them their independence, but not Rhodesia, which had to its credit an exemplary record of over forty years of self-government. How could Rhodesians accept such blatant hypocrisy, and condone such devious double standards, especially when the price was their own future, their own lives?
As I have stated on so many occasions, when British solutions for Africa went wrong — and this has happened in every case — the British were looking in the opposite direction, disassociating themselves from the resultant disaster. When people have to go on living with the decisions they make, they go out of their way to ensure that they avoid such blunders.
The record is clear for everyone to observe: British policy for Africa led to one man one vote — once. Thereafter, dictatorship ensued, with the resultant chaos and denial of freedom and justice. By contrast, we believed that our policy would prove successful. It was one of gradualism in order to ensure that people fully understood the complicated democratic system. From experience they would learn about its pitfalls, and this would assist them to avoid the disasters which we had witnessed in countries to our north. We referred to it as ‘meritocracy’, and tragically the world will never know whether it would have succeeded and proved the exception to the rule — evolution in preference to revolution. It is important to understand that with the introduction of Western democracy into sub-Saharan Africa we were experimenting with a system of government which was foreign to, and unknown in, those parts.
10
The Immediate
Consequences of UDI
Clearly, our UDI would infuriate the starry-eyed liberals and the frustrated communists, but I was placing my faith in the theory that sudden storms are short. Wilson was dashing hither and thither in London, making extravagant statements. Certain African states were demanding an immediate invasion by British forces. If only they could have had a bird’s eye view of Rhodesia, they would have realised
the stupidity of their behaviour, because things there were completely normal and calm, an oasis of peace in an otherwise turbulent continent.
The day after our declaration I visited Government House accompanied by Dupont and Lardner-Burke to clear up Gibbs’s position. He had changed his stance from the previous day when he told me he would go back to his farm in Matabeleland and try to get some more milk out of his cows. Not surprisingly, the British government had asked him to remain at his post, as in their eyes he was still the Governor. In fact, because of the new constitution which we had brought in, his authority no longer existed, and the maintenance of this pretence was of little concern to us. I gave instructions that he should be allowed to continue living in the residence with no pressures placed on him.
Rhodesia dominated the correspondence between the heads of Commonwealth for a few days, with Wilson stating that it was the government’s intention to restore legality and freedom in Rhodesia. Had he been truthful, he would have admitted that there was more freedom in Rhodesia than in any other country in Africa, and that constitutionally the action which we had taken was necessary in order to implement the agreement which we made at the Victoria Falls conference. Wilson also stated that there was no intention to use force, and this came as no surprise because I had heard, through my security channels, that he had received a positive message from his chiefs of staff that any thought of military action would be a non-starter. This was logical to anyone who understood the intimate relationship between the Rhodesian and British security forces, and the great loyalty and dedication which Rhodesia had always shown. In the last war our army and air force units were integrated with the British, and this had continued up to UDI — every year one of our air force squadrons flew to Aden, where they indulged in combined operations with the RAF over a period of one month. We had constant radio communications with RAF Aden, and our crack SAS unit was on call, ready for service with the British army. Nowhere else in Africa did anything like this apply, so any politician in Britain who contemplated a fratricidal war against Rhodesia was living in the dark. The heads of the security forces in Britain were not interested in appeasing the communist aspirations of the OAU. They were more concerned with the qualities of loyalty and honesty and the bonds of friendship which held us together. Just as important were the ties of family and nationality which had preserved the British Empire during times of stress. They had not forgotten the last world war, when together we faced what appeared to be imminent disaster.
We were disappointed at the performance of the Conservative Party which, apart from a few of our staunch and loyal friends, allowed themselves to be taken along by Wilson, offering a few mild suggestions about practising moderation. They let Wilson get away with using, as an excuse for his retaliatory actions, his concern that undesirable foreign powers might exploit our successful defiance as a pretext for gaining a foothold on the continent. The Tories should have immediately pointed out that his recent mishandling of the Rhodesian problem, leading to UDI, was giving a great boost to the communist campaign in Africa, and was in fact aiding and abetting the communists in securing their existing foothold in Africa. Here was incontrovertible evidence that Wilson and the Labour Party were undermining a country which had a worldwide reputation for promoting the concept of Western democracy and the free enterprise system. So it was Wilson, not Smith, who was creating the fertile ground for hostile foreign penetration into Africa. Another pertinent fact given to me at that time was that the communists were supplying arms to their terrorist allies in Africa to carry out their brutal attacks on innocent civilians. And now Wilson was cutting off arms supplies to Rhodesia that should have been used to maintain law and order and to protect our citizens. The only time they had ever been used beyond our borders was to assist Britain in its role as an international peace force. But this was now conveniently forgotten as part of the exercise to placate the OAU and UN.
Sadly, the Conservatives were going through a period of indecisive leadership, and this was not helped by the fact that Wilson was working with a slim majority of three, and was therefore contemplating a general election. Accordingly, the main preoccupation of the Conservative leadership was to keep an eye on their voters and avoid doing anything which might be regarded as provocative. So, if in doubt, the best tactic is to do nothing. This meant that Wilson had an easy passage with his legislation, enabling him to impose sanctions and, although the Conservatives did not like it and were uneasy, they had no real will to oppose. Hansard records that Wilson thanked the Conservative opposition for supporting the government plan and contributing to national unity; in Rhodesian eyes, this was indefensible, if not downright treacherous.
Rhodesians wasted no time in rolling up their sleeves and getting on with the job. The plans of government and its ministries were in place from the beginning, but the most important and encouraging factor was the enthusiastic response from the private sector, which came forward immediately and offered assistance. They set up committees to organise their own sectors, created liaison with other sectors, and ultimately with government. There were leading members of both industry and commerce who were not supporters of my government, and opposed our declaration of independence, but they made it absolutely clear that they were, first and foremost, Rhodesians and in the present circumstances they had only one loyalty. Everyone became a member of the team, and the energy and dedication which came forth were quite staggering. As things developed over the years, I often thought that this single factor contributed more to our success than anything else. It was self-help and free enterprise at its pinnacle. People regarded it as a privilege to be able to participate. Within a matter of days we were receiving approaches from agents representing countries other than Britain, who had sensed that opportunities would be presenting themselves as a result of British sanctions. Such is the force of free enterprise.
In London the British government attempted to intimidate our people working at Rhodesia House into denouncing UDI, telling them the British would offer them employment. But they ran into a stone wall. They tried the same tactics through radio broadcasts to Rhodesia, and these were regarded as great jokes by all but a small number who were British citizens and who decided to return to their homes.
Kaunda of Zambia was under pressure from some of his OAU friends to cut his links with us, but he had enough sense to realise that this would have meant committing suicide, because his transport links to the ports for his exports and imports ran through Rhodesia. The essential coal and coke for Zambia’s copper production, and many of their other industrial requirements, came from Rhodesia. It was one thing for those countries to the north that had no contact with us to preach boycott, since they were thinking only of their own selfish interests, but it would have been quite another for Kaunda
Kaunda, however, did hit on a tactic, probably with Wilson’s connivance: he asked for British troops and an RAF squadron to move into Zambia, on the pretext of it providing protection for Zambia’s power supplies and mines. We had communicated with Kaunda, assuring him of our intention to maintain normal communications and supplies, so it was clear that this was a manoeuvre to placate certain people; both Wilson and Kaunda could point out to the OAU that they were taking the necessary steps to frustrate the ‘evil intentions’ of the ‘wicked’ Rhodesians.
My diary records a number of interesting and comic events associated with this exercise. Air traffic control in Salisbury handled all traffic passing from northern Africa southwards, as there was no other contact. When the RAF squadrons landed at their destination in Lusaka, Zambia, they signed off by saying: ‘Goodbye, and thanks Salisbury.’ Back came the reply: ‘Goodbye RAF, and enjoy yourselves.’ The British, both RAF and army, soon made contact with the Rhodesians on the other side of the Zambezi at Victoria Falls and Kariba and paid regular visits in the evenings to their messes, and on both Christmas and New Year’s Eve joined enthusiastically in the toast to ‘Smith and Rhodesia’. This took place both north and south of the rive
r. So we were not surprised to hear that the RAF squadron commander told Arthur Bottomley that his pilots had made it clear that they would not comply with an order to attack Rhodesia.
On the humorous side, my PPS said, with a smile on his face, that our air force commander had been on the phone with a message from his CO at Victoria Falls, who had received an SOS for help from his RAF counterpart on the northern bank of the river. The message related that Bottomley had waved his farewell, hand towards the Zambians who were attending his departure, saying: ‘There are no more noble creatures on this earth and we have so much in common with them.’ The RAF officers had spent much time trying to work that one out — maybe politicians were more intelligent than airmen, and was I able to help them with their problem? Interestingly, Bottomley was not on his own as another British minister, Cledwyn Hughes, in a farewell speech to the British troops before leaving for home, ended by saying: ‘I wish you all a happy white Christmas’ — snow in tropical Africa, in the middle of summer!
The depths to which the British government were prepared to descend in their vindictiveness were disclosed in their action in stopping the payment of pensions to their British pensioners living in Rhodesia. I responded by making the decision that not only would we continue to pay Rhodesian pensioners living in Britain, but that we would also pay the British pensioners living in Rhodesia who had been forsaken by their own government: ‘Two wrongs do not make a right — we will not descend to the level of the British government.’
The British then resorted to another underhand trick, one which was frowned upon in international circles, and which also had a boomerang effect. They seized our assets in the Bank of England, in spite of objections from the bank, because this action was in conflict with banking principles and reflected on the bank’s integrity. Fortunately, we had moved our gold and assets to other countries as part of our precautionary measures, and so there was only a small amount in our trading account which fell into the hands of the British bank robbers. The more our Ministry of Finance experts delved into the problem, however, the wider became the smiles on their faces. We had been affronted in an unethical manner, and were perfectly within our own rights in defending ourselves against the British plunderers. The list of our financial obligations to Britain was a long one, but those obligations had always been meticulously honoured, although, nowadays this might sound strange, coming from a country in Africa! There was interest and redemption of loans from the British government. Clearly, through their own action they had prevented us from honouring these. There were loans from British banking institutions, there were remittances from rents and dividends from shares to people living in Britain, and we were forced to tell them to look to the British government for their payment as the matter had been taken out of our hands. Our Treasury set up a trust fund into which all these amounts were paid, awaiting the day when we would be free to meet our obligations. The Ministry of Finance informed me that on the balance of payments exercise we stood to gain in excess of £20 million per annum, and on the side of public debt obligations we were over £100 million to the good, a most welcome windfall, thanks to Harold Wilson’s vindictiveness.
