African Reactions to the Rhodesian Crisis
| Author | R. C. Pratt |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070206602100203 |
| Date | 01 June 1966 |
| Published date | 01 June 1966 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
African
Reactions
to
the
Rhodesian
Crisis
R.
C.
Pratt*
Informed
observers
can
hardly
be
blamed
if
they
have
become
sceptical
about
the
reactions
of
African
states
to
the
illegal
seizure
of
power
by
the
Smith
regime
in
Southern
Rhodesia.
African
states
have
been
intemperate
and
extreme
in
their
demands,
inept
in
their
diplomacy and
irresolute
in
their
actions.
This,
along
with
the
marked instability
of
several
major
African
powers
could
well
lead
to
the
assessment
that
the
reactions
of
African
leaders
to
the
Rhodesian
crisis
are
neither
profound
nor
important,
and
that
a
negotiated
settlement
of
the
crisis
in
Southern
Rhodesia
can
and
possibly should
be
sought with
Mr.
Smith
without
serious
regard
to
the
views
of
these
leaders.
It
is
therefore
important
to
understand
in
some
detail
the
reasons
for
these African
reactions
and
to
assess
the
likely
consequences
of
any settlement
which
ignores
them.
Mr.
Smith's
unilateral
declaration
of
independence
is
under
stood
in
Africa
to
constitute
a
seizure
of power
by a
settled
white
minority
seeking
to
perpetuate
its
monopoly of
power.
No
African
leader
of
any
consequence
has
accepted
the
Rhode-
sian
regime's
argument
that
it
agrees
that
African
rule
must
come
eventually
but
that
it
rejects
a
too
rapid
advance
to
majority
rule.
Rather,
African leaders
regard
the
declaration
of
independence
as
an
ill-concealed
attempt
to
consolidate
white
control.
If
African
reactions
are
at
all
to
be
appreciated,
it
is
essential
to
realize
that
the
evidence
for
this
judgement is
powerful.
The
privileges
of
the
European
minority
do
not
rest
solely
upon
competitive
advantages
which
are
due
to
its
wealth
and
skills.
They
depend,
in
addition,
upon
a
framework
of
discrmnimatory
legislation
in
four
crucial
matters.
This
legislation
assures
Euro-
pean
predominance.
1
Department
of
Political
Economy
Umversity
of
Toronto.
1
An
earlier
version
of
the
next
several
paragraphs
appeared
in
the
Canadian
Forum,
Vol.
XLV
No.
542,
February
1966.
The
argument
[footnote
continued
on
next
page.]
To continue reading
Request your trial