Bitter Harvest

by Ian Smith

  I thought for a few seconds and then said: ‘I hope your expectations are fulfilled, but I would say to you that I have always been very much a part of Africa, have lived among and have a very great understanding of the people, and I wonder if because of your policy of apartheid you haven’t lost touch with black Africa.’

  There was no immediate comeback, so I continued: ‘I hope you are not going to use Rhodesia as the “sacrificial lamb” in your scheme?’

  He replied: ‘On the contrary, as you know from past experience, South Africa’s policy has been absolutely clear that we have no desire to tell you how to solve your problem. We have been consistent in resisting outside intervention from every quarter, Britain, the UN, the OAU. Our role, in keeping with the wish you have expressed, is to do what we can to assist in bringing the different parties to the negotiating table. Thereafter it is up to you.’

  I was pleased to have that for the record, because there were a few worrying signs that they were trying to do more than that. But I reiterated that we were grateful for their efforts to promote dialogue. There was one more important point for me to mention: there were rumblings in Rhodesia that there were plans to pull the South African police out. Without hesitation Vorster said that was news to him: ‘Let me reassure you that if we have any such plan I will keep you fully in the picture, and I do not believe we will resort to it without your concurrence.’ Again I was thankful for his message, which appeared to me to be absolutely sincere.

  The next thing I heard through my ‘grapevine’ was that Hilgard Muller had been to Lusaka on the détente trail, that Nyerere was supporting Kaunda in uniting the Rhodesian factions under Muzorewa and the ANC, but that there were problems. Nkomo and Sithole were digging their heels in to retain their identity, and Mugabe and a strong band of his supporters were not accepting Sithole as leader of their party. So there were four of them — Muzorewa, Nkomo, Sithole and Mugabe — all claiming to be the leader. That’s Africa. Anyone who does not comprehend that kind of scene does not understand Africa. There is actually a lot of logic, common sense and practical experience associated with it. Even in our small country there are at least half a dozen clear divisions: Matabele, who claim that they are a nation of people, not a tribe, and Karanga, Shangaan, Manyika, Chizezuru, Makorekore, Batonka, each one with their own area of land, on guard against their neighbours because of encroachment, theft of stock and crops, and skirmishes which had gone on over the centuries. They trust only their leader, not someone else whom they do not even know. When you think of it, this is not greatly different from the attitude of the clans in Scotland, of whom my forebears were a part. At one of our cabinet meetings there was a comment: ‘The South Africans do not even understand their own black people, what chance is there of them understanding anything about ours!’

  So, during the early months of 1975 there was much to-ing and fro-ing between Pretoria and Lusaka, and pressure on Kaunda and Nyerere to whip their Rhodesian comrades into line. The South Africans were satisfied that the plan was on course and our people were then brought in to the discussions; the reports were encouraging. There were a few points which we believed were fundamental: first that the talks should take place on Rhodesian soil. It was a Rhodesian problem to be discussed by Rhodesians, and this was agreed — the Victoria Falls on the border with Zambia was the obvious place. Second, there should be no pre-conditions; this was accepted.

  We were constantly pressing for implementation of the ceasefire, which had been part of the agreement when we released the detainees at the end of last year, and we were continually receiving assurances that they were working on it. This was again typical: make an agreement, and while you comply with it, they always have an excuse for not meeting their obligation. And often they do not even worry about providing an excuse.

  Now there was a new suggestion. The terrorist leaders claimed that they were having difficulty in getting their men to accept the genuineness of the ceasefire while the South Africans were continuing with their aggressive attitude of patrolling the border. It would assist if they pulled back a little. The South Africans thought it a reasonable request and were preparing to comply. Our information was that the terrorists on the ground were ready to comply with the ceasefire. They were weary, and short of food and supplies, and were not receptive to political pressures. This ploy of getting the South Africans to pull back was the brainchild of the politicians sitting in Lusaka, and we were unhappy that the South Africans were being taken for a ride, but, we were landed with a fait accompli. The obvious answer was to point out to the leaders in Lusaka that they had failed in their part of the agreement and, at least until they showed some positive signs of complying with the ceasefire, that they were in no position to ask for more concessions. We were convinced that they had no intention of fulfilling their side of the agreement.

  The South Africans tried to placate us by saying that they were pulling back only a short distance; if there was no proof of the ceasefire materialising, their troops would return to their positions on the border. But our people thought differently: they believed this was the thin edge of the wedge, the beginning of the South African plan to pull out, as I had mentioned to Vorster at our meeting last year. Our security chiefs had expressed concern on a few occasions that our ammunition stocks had run perilously low, and that supplies from South Africa were not forthcoming. It became so desperate once that our chief of staff and senior supplies officer flew down to Pretoria. They had always maintained excellent relations with their South African counterparts, and the degree of trust and co-operation was of a high standard and had never wavered. The South African commander took over the problem immediately, and never left his telephone until it was cleared to his satisfaction. He showed great feelings of anger and sorrow over what had taken place, and confided that it was politicians and not the military who were to blame.

  A request came in for me to go down to Cape Town for talks with the South African Prime Minister on the new developments which were taking place. I welcomed the opportunity to make sure that we were on the same wavelength, and that each party was getting the correct message. With the new détente concept in full swing, South Africa was certainly exploring new country, and there were many exciting new developments, with many people trying to get in on the act. To me it seemed the concept was right, but that it was not going to be a quick easy exercise — quite the reverse. I was worried that the South Africans were over-simplifying a deep and complex problem in conducting constitutional negotiations with black nationalist leaders who were dedicated to the Marxist-Leninist philosophy of one-party state dictatorship and committed to supporting the terrorist gangs surrounding them. Once these people had decided on a course, they did not allow themselves to be confused by fact, or logic, or negotiation. The barrel of a gun was far more effective in getting people to make up their minds, or if need be to change their minds. And the principles and basic decisions were not determined by local circumstances, but made in Moscow, and Peking, and Libya, and Dar es Salaam — countries with no links, trade, economic ties or transport routes with southern Africa. If Kaunda expressed an opinion, it was always subject to approval by Nyerere and the OAU in Addis Ababa with its hot-line to Moscow. We spoke from considerable experience — even the British conceded this — but I was not sure the South Africans did. So I welcomed the opportunity for a face-to-face discussion.

  The meeting was laid on for 16 February 1975, and Jack Gaylard, the cabinet secretary, flew with me to Cape Town. We were met by our ambassador, Harold Hawkins, and drove straight to Groote Schuur where Vorster was awaiting me. Hawkins said that from his contacts it did not seem as though there was anything out of the ordinary about our meeting; Vorster simply wanted to keep in contact concerning the détente exercise. How wrong he was!

  Vorster took me through to the side lounge where we had talked previously, and there awaiting us were Hilgard Muller, P.W. Botha, then his Minister of Defence, and Jimmy Kruger, the Minister of Police. This was unus
ual, because on all previous occasions we had met privately, and other ministers were called in only if there was some special information I was looking for. Vorster went straight to the point and said that the South African government had come to the conclusion that there would have to be a dramatic change in their policy towards Rhodesia, and because this was so serious and far-reaching he had brought in three of his colleagues to ensure that he was putting over the message clearly and correctly. For some time now, he and his cabinet had become concerned at reports that their troops in Rhodesia were questioning the justification and morality of asking them to fight for a cause which was in conflict with South Africa’s philosophy and beliefs. As I knew — everybody knew — South Africa’s policy was apartheid, while Rhodesia, by contrast, had a common voters’ roll which would eventually result in majority black rule. Their cabinet had given this matter deep and long consideration, as they were not prepared lightly to accept a departure from the course which they had expressed over the past decade. While Vorster and his political colleagues had no wish to change, obviously they must give consideration to the men on the ground, the people whom they represented, and the signal which they had been receiving for some time now was positive and consistent. He spoke at length and had obviously prepared his case well.

  Muller was then given the nod, and in characteristic fashion he presented his vision of the same theme, smoothly and quietly and with great feeling for their men, who were parted from their wives and families, and were obviously engaged in dangerous work, as witnessed by the deaths of those five who had recently been killed. If their forces no longer had the heart to fight, believing that our cause was no longer their cause, then the South African cabinet obviously had a great problem on their hands, which they had to face up to in complete honesty: ‘We cannot side-step this issue; it would be morally indefensible if we attempted to do so.’

  I wondered how he could talk like this and look me straight in the eye. It had been only a few months ago, the end of the last year, when he had come to Salisbury on that ‘most important mission’, requesting the release of the detainees as part of the détente exercise. He had agreed with me then that there could be associated problems, but made not even a suggestion of the problem we were now discussing, and which the South African cabinet had been considering for some time.

  The next contribution in the orchestrated chorus came from Kruger, and although he talked for some time he did not manage to add anything to what had already been said. Unfortunately for him, his facility for presenting a case left a lot to be desired. Finally, Botha spoke. I wondered what his contribution would be, because we were constantly getting messages through our security network about the dissension and ill-feeling which prevailed between foreign affairs (Muller) and defence (Botha). So I was not surprised when his contribution, while not disagreeing with his colleagues’, was mild, brief and apologetic for the message which he had to convey.

  Vorster then spoke again in an obvious attempt to soften the blow, saying that there was not going to be any immediate action, and if the détente exercise succeeded then of course the problem was solved, but the South African government believed that they should give me the earliest possible warning of the new situation which was confronting them.

  It certainly came to me like a bolt from the blue, and the more they talked the more I was convinced that it was a trumped-up case as part of the campaign to pressurise us into coming to an accommodation with our terrorists. In fact, it was subtle blackmail. I was unable to fathom why it was necessary to resort to these tactics, because I was as keen on détente as Vorster, had encouraged him, and given him our utmost co-operation. What more was expected from us? Certainly they had never criticised our actions, or tactics, or philosophy, and we had always believed that they had accepted that our dealings were direct and honest, and that this feeling was reciprocated. I was at a loss to fathom what was taking place.

  I told them that, in all honesty, the message had come as a shock, and that I would like to clear my mind on a number of points before returning to discuss the changed scene with my cabinet and caucus. I told them that I found it surprising that we had never had an inkling of this new development in spite of the fact that our security forces worked closely with the South Africans, from the level of the general right down to the private troopie. The South Africans had a colonel permanently stationed in Salisbury as a link man to keep in contact with the South African forces and relate to our people any problems which developed. Our Ambassador Hawkins had good relations with the top South African officials and with a number of government ministers, and he had not mentioned this to me. Vorster interjected to remind me that this was a new development, which had come as a surprise to their cabinet, so there had been little time for the message to spread — he wished to put me in the picture at the earliest opportunity. He was changing his ground, because at the outset of the meeting he said that his cabinet had been giving the problem long and deep consideration. I came back saying that probably the most worrying thing was that we had not picked this up in Rhodesia, the source of the problem, and I would certainly want to know from our security chiefs the reason for such a lapse. Vorster immediately pointed out that this was really a matter for the politicians, and he hoped that I would not do anything which would create factions among their troops. Muller interjected, saying that we were dealing in the realms of politics, and as the army was non-political, it would be wrong to embroil them. But they were embroiling the army as a means of covering up their political decision, using their soldiers in a blatant attempt to appease Kaunda and Nyerere. They were obviously feeling uneasy about the way my thinking was developing — not surprisingly, because clearly they were on shaky ground. I assured them that I would be responsible in my action, but that it was a tremendously serious situation for Rhodesia with which I had been confronted, and on the evidence before me, incomprehensible. I simply wanted to get to the bottom of it all, to find the truth, so that we could ensure there was no misunderstanding, no mistake. I was sure it would be the wish of the South African cabinet that Rhodesia should be satisfied that what was taking place was based on fact, on the truth. There was no reply.

  I had always been of the opinion that the South Africans serving in Rhodesia were basically volunteers, and that far from resisting, they looked forward to doing their stint on the frontier. Surely the problem, I argued, could be solved by confining Rhodesian postings to volunteers — after all, this was a system which had been put into practice with the South African forces in the last world war. It was obvious that they had not anticipated such a suggestion. After a while Vorster ventured the opinion that it might cause problems, but that they would give it thought.

  I then reminded him of a point he had consistently made to me over the years, that the further north we could hold the line against communism the better, and that the Zambezi was a far stronger defence barrier than the Limpopo — hence the South Africans welcomed the opportunity to play their part in the battle to hold the line against communist encroachment down the continent of Africa. As I saw it, that position had not changed: we both opposed communism, and we both supported freedom and our democratic way of life. Moreover, South Africa had always proclaimed its opposition to interference in the internal affairs of other countries. Was its new stance not in conflict with these principles?

  They thought for a while, because it was not an easy question to answer. Then Vorster said, speaking very quietly, that he acknowledged the points I had made, and certainly there was no deviation from those principles. But they were now confronted with a new situation, new evidence had been produced, and as practical people they had to face up to it.

  It had become patently obvious that they were being less than honest in the case they had presented to me, so I decided to put it to the test in another way: the problem centred on the fact that our Rhodesian philosophy was not compatible with South Africa’s apartheid — did that imply that if we were prepared to change and come
into line with South Africa’s policy, the problem would be solved? This caused immediate and deep consternation, with all of them shaking their heads negatively. Vorster said that would not help; it would simply create more problems!

  I had proved my point, so I simply made the observation that, in any case, Rhodesians would not be prepared to make the change. Obviously, they were relieved, and Vorster reiterated that it was their hope that détente would succeed, and that would mean that they would never have to face up to making a decision. They were grateful at having the opportunity to meet and put me in the picture.

  I stressed that Rhodesia would continue to act responsibly and co-operate in the détente exercise and specifically in the effort to find a solution to our problem; to the best of my knowledge, the South Africans had never had cause to criticise our efforts in this regard. But I wished to make it clear that decisions affecting the future of our country and its people should be left in our hands, because we would not be prepared to surrender the principles we believed in and had fought for, and even if it meant that in the final analysis we had to go on alone, our history had shown that we would face up to the challenge.

  Vorster was quick to come in and say that, as I knew, and as history recorded, the South African government had consistently stated that the settlement of Rhodesia’s problem was a matter for Rhodesians and that South Africa had no intention of trying to tell us how it should be done. South Africa was constantly trying to get the rest of the world to desist from interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, and if South Africa did not practise what it preached, clearly the rest of the world would accuse it of hypocrisy and double standards.