by Ian Smith
The month of August was devoted to the continuous battle of trying to motivate our Cabinet colleagues. In all honesty, we never ceased to be amazed, not only at the lethargy of our colleagues, but also at their incompetence, with a few exceptions.
I had had a number of encouraging interviews recently with people from different parts of the world, and a delegation from a world forum with representatives from Europe, Britain and America who were full of praise for what Rhodesia had done, and contemptuous of the response from the free world. Rhodesians had proved themselves to be truly great people, indeed an inspiration to those in the world who still believed in decent civilised standards, and qualities such as courage and integrity. As one of them commented, ‘I still have faith that the free world will return to sanity. We detect that the pendulum is swinging back in a number of countries and one day history will record that Rhodesia played a significant role in the battle against communism on the African continent.’ I hoped he was right, because time was running out, and in the end even Rhodesians grew weary and lost faith in the free world — regrettably, there seems to be a limit to human endurance, with maybe a few exceptions. Nevertheless, it was incredible what Rhodesians had endured: the loss of loved ones, the ruination of farms and businesses, and still they continued to resist, in many cases strengthened and enriched because of what they believed in and for which they had been prepared to make a stand.
It was becoming more and more obvious that the new government was not succeeding — principally for one reason: they were unable to contain terrorism. Our black leaders had not been able to deliver the goods, to fulfil their undertaking that once a black government was installed, the terrorists would come on to their side. There were a number of reasons: the black leaders were competing for support amid the various terrorist groups, and this involved running down one’s opponents, creating uncertainty and suspicion in people’s minds. A united front would have averted this. Moreover, the terrorists were totally successful in intimidating people, using ruthless methods against the poor, innocent rural inhabitants, who had to choose between capitulating or standing their ground with the resultant bullet through the head. The problem was compounded because of the failure of the 1976 Pretoria agreement. Had Vorster complied with the undertakings given in the event of the agreement floundering, the situation would have been contained. The culmination of these events led to the erosion of our security forces, placing us in a position where we had lost half of our effective fighting force, and thus were unable to cover the ground effectively. Because of this, our security forces gradually became less effective, and from a position where they had always been in complete control, with the terrorists constantly on the run, they had to concede that in certain areas their presence was inadequate, and, although the terrorists beat a hasty retreat as soon as the warning was given, for much of the time they were in control.
It was significant that whenever our security forces returned to an area, not only were they given a warm welcome from the local tribesmen, but there was a consistent appeal for them to remain in the area. The locals were on the receiving end of cavalier treatment from the terrorists, who consumed food and used accommodation without any compensation, but most objectionable was their insistence on sexual favours from their womenfolk. Moreover, there was the constant political indoctrination and accompanying inquisitorial investigations of those considered not to be in line. Needless to say, those who were considered guilty, often on flimsy evidence, received rough justice. I made a note of a particular case brought up in a security council meeting that vividly demonstrated the dreadful injustices associated with rampant terrorism. A young man in one of the tribal villages to our north was accused of collaborating with the security forces, and shot by a group of passing terrorists in front of the locals who had been gathered to witness the occasion in order to impress on them what happened to those who sided with ‘the enemy’. Our security forces who operated in the area were puzzled, as they had no knowledge of the man. Investigations indicated that he had won the attention of a local girl in competition with one of the other contenders, who became so bitter and twisted that he decided to exact his revenge by disclosing his concocted story to the terrorists. It was diabolically effective.
As the whole world knew, the main support for the terrorists had come from the communists, Russia and China, but what I found difficult to stomach was that in recent years they were receiving assistance and particularly moral encouragement from Western countries, notably Britain and the USA. Moreover, there was clear evidence that a few religious organisations were working hand in glove with the terrorists. When certain of these people were deported because of their subversive activities, there were the usual howls of anguish and accusations of infringement of rights. I always gave careful attention to complaints, relating to violations of freedom and justice, and listened to the views of our legal experts. However, when one heard the evidence of the barbaric atrocities inflicted upon our innocent inhabitants by the terrorists, almost exclusively against defenceless black people, anyone implicated in these dreadful crimes was clearly associated with treason. It is generally accepted throughout the world that the penalty for treason is death, so such people who were deported should have been grateful for the humanitarian consideration which they received.
Regrettably, it was difficult to avoid the conclusion that we were in a no-win situation. Muzorewa had clearly been deceived by Carter, as he, himself, was ready to concede. The Conservative Party in Britain — our friends — were avoiding a positive decision to comply with the undertaking given in the campaign for the recent general election which they had won. However, our staunch supporters in the party assured us that a British government-sponsored conference in London would provide a just and honourable solution. Although there were some doubts about Carrington, Margaret Thatcher would stand her ground. After all, we had complied with everything that had been asked of us: free and fair elections, which nobody had questioned, a black majority government with a black prime minister: what more did they want? We were committed to the free enterprise system, and were on the side of the free world, so how could Britain and the USA and the other leaders of the free world countries do anything other than give us their blessing? They had pledged themselves to do just that.
So while I had previously resisted any thought of an all-party conference, believing that if we persisted we would gain recognition of our honest and straightforward effort, I was reconciling myself to a change of thought, and my close colleagues in the Rhodesian Front agreed. There were the two main reasons I have mentioned. First, the terrorists were gaining support among the indigenous population, not through convincing argument and appeal, but by using the dreadful weapon of intimidation. Second, the Western leaders would not face up to making a decision which conflicted with the views of the OAU — 90 per cent of whose membership comprised countries governed by communist dictators.
Jack Gaylard informed me that the local British representatives had assured him that their government were supportive of the idea of an all-party conference — they believed the climate was now right for it. To put it bluntly, with Ian Smith now out of the chair, they were satisfied that they could manipulate things their way. And of course, the perfect finale to the Rhodesian problem was for the British government to orchestrate the final act which would enable them to claim the credit for finding the solution to what had hitherto proved to be such an intractable problem.
At first Muzorewa hesitated, and wanted more time for consideration. The two Chiefs Chirau and Ndweni, went along with the idea — they were receiving worrying messages from the tribal areas of the dreadful atrocities perpetrated against the tribesmen by the terrorists. As Chirau said: ‘Intimidation is a terrible thing — they are even killing my supporters.’
On 22 August Muzorewa informed Parliament that he had accepted an invitation from the British government to attend the Zimbabwe Rhodesia constitutional conference in London the next month.
&n
bsp; Five days before the Lancaster House conference opened on Monday 10 September, our forces plunged south deep into the Gaza province of Mozambique, demolishing five major bridges, cutting the terrorists’ supply lines and shaking Machel’s nerve.
Lancaster House was a glorious example of British diplomacy at its very best. If one believes that these affairs should be conducted in the same spirit as ‘no-holds-barred all-in wrestling’, then there should be smiles of satisfaction. On the other hand, if one believes in the philosophy of abiding by the rules of the game as exemplified by British tradition formulated and carefully preserved at Lord’s and the Oval, Twickenham and Murrayfield, Wimbledon, St Andrews, Epsom and Bisley and accepted in their respective fields as typifying the hallmark of fair play and decent conduct, then one would turn away with disapproval, indeed revulsion.
There was the usual build-up of British Foreign Office over-indulgence in unnecessarily extravagant and ornate hospitality — a kind of compensation in advance for what was to come later. They seemed unable to comprehend that treacherous behaviour was inexcusable. We had a warm welcome at our hotel from an enthusiastic crowd of supporters, making it clear that they were pro-Rhodesia and anti-British government. With their placards held aloft, they were constantly in evidence, and we made a habit of exchanging greetings and giving them a progress report on the day’s proceedings.
On our second evening in London we attended a social get-together to enable delegates to meet. A tall, fine-looking black gentleman approached me and shook my hand warmly, saying: ‘For many years one of the things I hoped for was that we could work together in order to build our country, instead of killing one another. This is a happy occasion.’
I asked his name. ‘Josiah Tongagara,’ he replied. Over the short period of the conference we developed a cordial relationship, and he gave me the impression of being a man with whom one could not only reason, but who could also be trusted. We often spoke together when sessions were held, and at social functions, and I was deeply concerned on one such occasion when he confided in me that he was running into strong opposition over his beliefs that they should work together with Nkomo and Smith in order to ensure a successful implementation of the final agreement. Indeed, he said, ‘The position has become so serious that even here in London I have had to make plans to cover my back.’ A desperately alarming situation!
Under the communist system the party is divided into a political wing and a military wing. Tongagara was the head of the latter, known as ZANLA. From what I had heard and read about the man there had been built up in my mind a picture of aggressive ruthlessness. By contrast, I was impressed with his maturity and ability to make reasoned contributions to the problem before us.
The conference dragged on for a month, with the British Foreign Office manoeuvring around the various parties, using their ‘diplomacy’ to reconcile differences. But it was clear to me that every time there was a shift of ground, this was towards Nkomo and Mugabe, and away from Muzorewa and the others representing our government.
At one stage Carrington went to Washington for more than a week, and during his absence no decisions of consequence could be made. On his return I reminded him that innocent people were being murdered in our country every day, and this would continue until we finalised our work — I hoped he would dedicate more time to our mission. He displayed a pretence to being hurt, but I was simply giving him the views that had been expressed by all of our delegates during his long absence.
I enjoyed a stimulating visit from Douglas Bader, the legless RAF fighter ace, and there was no difference of opinion between us on how best to settle the Rhodesian problem. On departing, he asked me to accompany him to his car, as he wished to leave no doubt in anybody’s mind which side he was supporting. His small sports car was parked outside the main entrance, a concession not extended to others — ‘These chaps are very kind to me because of my legs,’ was his comment. It was good to find that there were still remnants of the British character which were not prepared to overlook history and the part played by their heroes. In keeping with the traditional code of people who believe in true freedom, this did not stem from any government ordinance, it came from the heart. Douglas mentioned to me that Max Aitken was confined to bed, so I visited him and we reminisced about old times in Cairo and the western desert. Sadly, while his spirit was still there, his body was failing.
Our Conservative Party friends in London were consistent in their support, and I maintained contact with them. As matters seemed to be moving in the wrong direction, however, I decided to speak to Julian Amery, and took David Smith, Chris Andersen and Rowan Cronjé with me. I expressed our growing concern that we had detected that things were moving slowly but surely in the direction of the Patriotic Front, that Muzorewa was incapable of holding his ground and that while Carrington and his minions were happy to listen to our views, it was clear that they regarded us as of no consequence. Scant attention was being paid to the preservation of standards in the civil service, the security services, the judiciary and attorney general’s office, and all the other essential services necessary to maintain standards of civilisation for our country, whoever the future government. At the commencement of the conference we had been led to believe that these matters would receive priority in order to preserve the confidence of our white population, thus encouraging them to continue playing their part in building our new nation. Our request was for Julian to convey our deep concern to Margaret Thatcher. He listened attentively, put a few questions and then asked each of my three associates individually if they supported the case which I had made. They all replied affirmatively. He undertook to speak to the Prime Minister.
I had a visit from Hector MacDonald, our Chief Justice, who had flown in from Salisbury. He protested in strong terms that the British government was ignoring him, with Carrington unwilling to interview him. ‘After all, I am second in status only to the Prime Minister in our country, and accordingly I am entitled to recognition.’ I have heard that story before, I thought to myself, but as he was expressing strong sentiments, which coincided with my own, I encouraged him to persist in his endeavour to see Carrington. With typical Foreign Office diplomacy, Carrington did see him — he took him in his car to Heathrow on his way to catch an aircraft to the Continent, and in that short space of time he not only had MacDonald eating out of his hand, he had converted him into becoming a disciple of the British cause. That evening MacDonald had a long session with Muzorewa and his colleagues, assuring them of the British government’s good intentions of producing an agreement that would ensure a return to power of Muzorewa and his UANC. The undertaking had been given to him personally by Carrington that very day.
I was well aware of Carrington’s tactic, because he had tried it on me, without success, when I had warned him that the way things were going we would be landed with a Mugabe government. He replied, ‘My dear Mr Smith, I want to assure you that our whole strategy has been formulated to ensure that your prognosis will not eventuate. Quite the reverse. We have no doubt that your next government will be formed by a combination of Muzorewa, Nkomo and Smith. Moreover, should your worst fears materialise with a victory for the external factions, the leader will be Nkomo and not Mugabe. Even Nyerere has confirmed to us that all of them have accepted that Nkomo, as the first leader of African nationalism in Zimbabwe, will be the leader of the first government.’
Firmly but courteously, I pointed out that it was incumbent upon me to inform him that one of the perennial problems we lived with was the agonising fact that the British government in general, and the Foreign Office in particular, were dismally ignorant of African affairs, especially African psychology and their handling of political problems. In my opinion Mugabe, through the use of his machine of intimidation, which was ready to move into top gear when the command came, would win a majority of seats. Carrington replied, ‘But the agreement states clearly that any party resorting to intimidation will be disqualified.’ Once again I had to point out that
the British did not understand Africa — the intimidation was so well organised that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain the necessary evidence. On the question of leadership I had to remind him that Shona-speaking people comprised more than 80 per cent of our population — anybody who believed that they would accept a Matabele as their leader was living in a fool’s paradise.
He had more success, however, in persuading others to his way of thinking. This became clear at the joint meeting of our parties the following morning held under the chairmanship of Muzorewa. I was surprised to see MacDonald sitting at the top table on his right-hand side. We discussed the proposed new constitution, and there was general acceptance, apart from the Rhodesian Front members. Muzorewa raised the question of obtaining the necessary majority in Parliament for the required constitutional change, pointing out that the Rhodesian Front had the necessary members to block such an amendment. Without hesitating, MacDonald intervened, obviously as part of a preconceived plan, saying that he did not believe this created a problem. As everyone knew, our country’s recent history had created a precedent in ignoring our Constitution, and if this government wished to do likewise there was nothing to prevent them. Both Muzorewa and Ndabaningi Sithole were happily nodding their heads in appreciation.
I was absolutely appalled. First, to claim that our UDI had created a precedent, and that there was any similarity between the two cases, was a blatant lie, and MacDonald, because of his position as a High Court judge, was well aware of this. Our case hinged on the fact that the British government had reneged on an agreement which they had made with our Rhodesian government, and accordingly we were satisfied that we were entitled to take matters into our own hands in order to give effect to the contract which had been made. A number of eminent international constitutional lawyers had endorsed this stand, and eventually our case came before and was accepted by the Rhodesian Appellate Division, with MacDonald as one of the judges. We never amended or changed our constitution. MacDonald was recommending something which was totally different. We were now operating under our own new constitution, which we had produced and passed through our Parliament less than a year ago. This was done constitutionally, with the necessary majority for a constitutional amendment. Muzorewa was the Prime Minister, and he had sworn an oath of allegiance to uphold the constitution. MacDonald was the Chief Justice and he had sworn an oath of allegiance, hand on Bible, to uphold the constitution. Moreover, as the Chief Justice of the courts of our nation, more than anyone else he was the guardian of our constitution and our legal system. Now, here he was suggesting that it would be perfectly right and honourable if we violated this very constitution, a classic case of high treason. In any civilised society, this was a crime which attracted the death sentence!
