A GAME OF COPS AND ROBBERSAuthor(s): JACK HALPERNSource: Africa Today, Vol. 9, No. 2 (March 1962), pp. 12-15Published by: Indiana University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27821934 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 02:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Africa Today.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.68 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 02:24:07 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Federation Trouble

I. A GAME OF COPS AND ROBBERS

By JACK HALPERN

ff qir roy welensky. is a large man who calls for

periodic shrinking treatment." So said a lead ing British newspaper in December of the Prime

Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasa land, but there has been no sign since of the shrink ing treatment being applied either by the British

Government, which is constitutionally Welensky's boss on the world stage, or by the United Nations, with which he has been engaged in an impassioned exchange of accusation and counter-accusation over

the ex-Belgian Congo. The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland has, in

Northern Rhodesia, a common border of L200 miles with the Congo's secessionist province of Katanga. The UN has repeatedly accused Sir Roy of allowing arms and mercenaries to reach Katanga's President

Tshombe from the Federation, and Sir Roy, angrily denying these accusations, has in turn accused the UN of committing atrocities in Katanga and of wag ing a propaganda war against the Federation.

Before the Congo crisis, Sir Roy Welensky was barely known outside of Central Africa and Britain. Out of the Congo's agony he has emerged onto the world stage, apparently a large man.

But how large is Roy Welensky? How powerful is he, and how secure? And what is his interest in Katanga? The answers to these questions lie within the uneasy Federation over which he presides, and, at one remove, in the structure of Britain's governing Conservative Party.

As 1962 begins, the continuance of this Federation remains challenged, as it has been during the eight years of its existence, by the overwhelming majority of its inhabitants. And, in 1962, this challenge will find fresh formal expression when the constitution is reviewed by Britain, which gave life and semi-inde pendence to the Federation and which could, in theory, decide to disband it.

In Britain, the opposition Labor Party is against the continuation of the Federation unless its political control is shifted from the present white minority to the vast African majority.

In each of the Federation's three constituent terri tories, the African nationalist groups are similarly opposed to the continuance of Sir Roy's Federation.

In Nyasaland, Dr. Hastings Kamazu Banda has made the break-up of the Federation his fundamental article of faith, and the vast majority of the popula tion supports him and his Malawi Congress Party, as was dramatically proved in the territory's first gen eral election last August. With 99 percent of the still qualified African vote behind him, Dr. Banda and his MCP now dominate the Government under limited internal self-rule. Though Britain retains theoretical control, Dr. Banda will now automatically have the majority of Nyasaland's territorial representation when the Federation's constitution is reviewed later

this year. Malawi alone, of all the Federation's Afri can groups, will speak as the government of its terri tory, and Dr. Banda has made it abundantly clear that the only thing he is prepared to discuss is the break-up of "Welensky's stupid Federation, which is dead and only needs burying."

The Federal Government does, in fact, continue to provide and administer health services, communica tions, immigration, the armed forces, and customs in Nyasaland, as well as education for the territory's tiny European population and funds for certain as pects of development. But, as any visitor to Nyasaland finds, the atmosphere is such as to make the Federa tion seem already a figment of somebody's imagina tion in far-off Salisbury. British civil servants are cooperating well with newly elected African Ministers ; the white community has since the elections accepted the country's future, and race relations have never been so good.

Dr. Banda will have to find an independent Nyasa land at least ?2 million a year to replace present Fed eral finance, and another ?2 million a year for, say, five to ten years to finance development. He is certain this can be done, and looks to Britain and America. In federal terms, he looks to an East African Federa tion with neighboring Tanganyika and with Kenya and Uganda, or to a majority-ruled Central African unit. But the only way to keep Nyasaland now within Sir Roy Welensky's white-dominated Federation would be by force.

In point of fact, Sir Roy would be quite happy to let Nyasaland quit the Federation, if it were not that such a precedent would mean the loss too of Northern Rhodesia, with its massive copper mines, on a share of whose profits the Federation has been financed.

Sir Roy has made his political career as the repre sentative of the highly privileged and racially reac tionary white copper miners, many of whom are South Africans, and his early dream had long been to join Northern Rhodesia's copper riches and small white community with the much larger white community in Southern Rhodesia. He supported Federation only

when it became clear that the earlier scheme could not be achieved. Nyasaland was part of the Federal bargain with Britain.

Northern Rhodesia's territorial Government, how ever, remained, like Nyasaland's, a British responsi bility, administered by the Colonial Office. A struggle has now been going on for over a year about the terms of a new constitution which Britain is to grant

JACK HALPERN was, until recently, Editor of the Central African Examiner, Salisbury. He was previously Editor and Publications Officer of the South African Institute of Race Relations.

12 AFRICA TODAY

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.68 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 02:24:07 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the territory and, as this is being written, the final terms are expected to be annouced.

Sir Roy, as Federal Prime Minister, has no consti tutional right to interfere in territorial affairs. But, through his United Federal Party (UFP), which op erates both at the territorial and at the federal level, and in his own official capacity, he has nevertheless conducted a successful campaign to limit the degree of political advancement which is to be given to Afri cans. Under pressure from Sir Roy and from power ful vested interests in its own party, the British Gov ernment has repeatedly frustrated the legitimate expectations which it had itself raised in Northern Rhodesia's Africans, and especially in Mr. Kenneth Kaunda and his dominant United National Indepen dence Party (UNIP). Sir Roy has waged a war of nerves which has included the mobilization of reserve troops (whites who are under Federal control), in the process embittering race relations in Northern Rho desia and automatically strengthening the hand of the wilder lieutenants of the ascetic and Gandhian

Mr. Kaunda.

Originally, last year, Britain was to give Northern Rhodesia's 2,370,000 Africans parity of representa tion with its 77,000 whites. This Sir Roy blocked, and there was substituted a scheme which gave each group 15 seats and created another 15 "national" seats

which would have to be filled by men enjoying fairly substantial support from both groups. Sir Roy's UFP enjoys no effective support amongst Africans, who loathe it as the instrument of Federation. Britain's compromise scheme would have proved this yet again, since Sir Roy could not have mustered the minimal African support to get his candidates elected. There fore he fought to have the stipulated degree of this support reduced. Both Mr. Kaunda's UNIP and Mr. Harry Nkumbula's smaller African National Congress (ANC) vehemently oppose Federation and the UFP,

but they were prepared to work the "three-fifteens" constitution as a territorial transition arrangement, which would temporarily give great influence to the small multi-racial Liberal Party, headed by Sir John Moffat.

But when it was found, last July, that Sir Roy's unconstitutional behind-the-scenes pressure had suc

ceeded, resulting in a constitution so complex that few except mathematicians have mastered its nuances, African patience at last, and predictably, snapped. The constitution has been variously and rightly called a "slide-rule" one and, in an extraordinarily apt phrase of Mr. James Callaghan, the British Labor spokesman, "a dog's breakfast," but the violence it unleashed was a grim harvest of frustration, often seemingly masochistic in destroying even symbols of white authority which benefitted Africans, such as schools. It took two months to suppress, and was halted only when Mr. Kaunda, who had not called for violence but who had not this time opposed it, got an assurance from the British Government that it would look at the constitution again when violence ceased. Members and branch officials of Mr. Kaunda's UNIP

played a leading part in the disturbances in which, however, violence remained directed at objects rather than at persons. The party was banned in several areas, but is now allowed to function again. It has now declared that it will not work with any constitution which does not provide for a readily understandable

franchise giving Africans a majority. Sir Roy mean while continues to make ominous noises warning that he will accept no deviation from the "dog's breakfast" deal he has put through.

In fact, the British Government has grossly mis handled the whole Northern Rhodesi?n situation, giv ing both the Africans and Sir Roy grounds for doubt ing its word. The new Colonial Secretary, Mr. Reginald

Maudling, had no easy task when he visited Northern Rhodesia in December, and it is still not known what he has recommended to the British Cabinet.

The tragedy of Northern Rhodesia is that the local white business and civil service community had been quite prepared last year to accept an African ma jority, recognizing it to be inevitable, and believing that the sooner it came the sooner stability and a chance of prosperity would be restored.

Northern Rhodesia has effectively subsidized the first seven years of Federation, and its businessmen have watched bitterly as new industries and commerce have gone to Salisbury, which is both the Southern Rhodesi?n and the Federal capital. They are con vinced that they would have done better without Fed eration, and could still do so. Thus they do not dis approve of the anti-Federal stand of the small Liberal Party, which became the elected part of the Govern ment when the hitherto dominant local UFP, on Sir Roy's instructions, staged a protest resignation from the Cabinet. If the new constitution, when announced, leaves Sir Roy with a built-in electoral advantage, there may well be renewed disturbances?Mr. Kaunda cannot hold people back when not even limited justice is seen to be done. But whatever the outcome, the two

African groups and the Liberal Party will be offered representation at the Federal Review Conference, and the one thing which unites all three is their opposition to Federation.

Only in Southern Rhodesia is there any extensive support for Federation, and that is largely confined to the quarter-million whites. A section of the nearly 3 million Africans realize that the limited territorial gains which they are currently being offered result in part from the existence of Federation. But their po litical leaders have, partly in solidarity with the northern territories, declared their opposition to Fed eration's continuation, just as they opposed its for mation, and there is a widespread and growing feeling that African progress in all three territories is now being retarded by Federation.

Sir Roy's United Federal Party, which is dominated and led in Southern Rhodesia by its Prime Minister, Sir Edgar Whitehead, supports Federation and has the backing of two-thirds of the whites. The remain ing third support even more conservative policies than the UFP's, and believe that Southern Rhodesia could and should "go it alone" outside the Federation, which they see being dominated by black governments in the north. If, in fact, Northern Rhodesia were to achieve the African majority government which Nyasaland already has, then this feeling would gain much ground amongst the UFP as wellt It is already so strong that Sir Edgar Whitehead, as Prime Minister, has threat ened to reconsider Southern Rhodesia's position in such an event.

Internally, Southern Rhodesia has reached a fas cinating and unique point. Although officially termed a Colony, the territory's whites have enjoyed a large

MARCH 1962 13

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.68 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 02:24:07 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

measure of internal independence since 1924. Britain retained an effectively unexercised right of veto over

legislation, and responsibility for safeguarding the

relatively small and largely inferior areas of African land "reserves."

Last year, in response to pressure from Sir Edgar Whitehead, Britain agreed to relinquish all its powers except the ultimate one of suspending the constitu tion, in return for limited white concessions. The franchise, which had given a derisive token vote to Africans, was revised, and a Declaration of Rights and Constitutional Council created to safeguard all individuals and prevent racial discrimination. Mr. Garfield Todd, now a leading liberal and for

merly Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, has rightly summed up the effects of the new franchise when he said recently: "The proposed Constitution shunts over 2% million Africans onto a deadend sid ing with 15 seats in the Legislative Assembly, while the Europeans roar through on the main line with 50 seats."

As for the safeguarding of rights and the preven tion of discrimination, they are to affect only future legislation. As the Government's existing statutory powers over civil liberties in some aspects exceed Dr. Verwoerd's in South Africa and in hardly any aspect fall below his, liberals regard these safeguards as mere window-dressing.

But for a relatively large and settled white com munity which had hitherto ruled alone, these measures represent a considerable concession. That a referen dum, effectively confined to whites, approved them by a majority of two to one represents a notable volun tary concession, even though the voters were rightly assured that it would not mean African majority rule in their lifetime. The young African nationalist move

ment, which had taken shape in the National Demo cratic Party led by Mr. Joshua Nkomo (and which accepted white members), badly bungled its partici pation in the Southern Rhodesi?n constitutional con ference, and at first gave qualified acceptance to the franchise proposals. But, under pressure from its own followers, it quickly repudiated the new constitution. Britain has, however, ignored the African protests, and Mr. Nkomo has not been contradicted in his claim that the Earl of Perth at London's Commonwealth Relations Office told him that Britain could not grant Africans majority rule in Southern Rhodesia because too much British capital was invested in industry there.

The political instability of both the Federation and of Southern Rhodesia has led to an economic recession and flight of capital which has hit Southern Rhodesia, whose substantial industries had expanded greatly under Federal impetus, particularly hard. Acute Afri can unemployment (with some white) has been added to endemic African land hunger and resentment of tight governmental control in the country. In Novem ber, after the NDP had announced that it would launch a campaign to cripple industry, a series of strikes broke out. Sir Edgar waited until the Royal assent had been given to a new constitution for Southern Rhodesia. Then, within 48 hours, he banned the Na tional Democratic Party, simultaneously calling out all police reserves and, with Sir Roy Welensky's help, troops. All political meetings were banned for a

month, and ex-NDP leaders prohibited from attend

ing any meeting or entering African rural areas for three months.

Sir Edgar, having made his constitutional conces sions, is determined that Africans must now work within the political framework which he has laid down for them, and is equally determined to neutralize those who reject the whole scheme, quite rightly, as an imposed one. He is using all the resources of gov ernment and party to enroll African voters under the slogan, "Build a nation," and claims that 70,000 Afri cans could be enrolled. (They would of course still elect only 15 members, with a limited cross-influence on "upper" seats.)

In the process, Sir Edgar has led his party and a large section of white opinion a long way forward according to their own lights. Thus the recent con gress of the UFP, at which a third of the delegates were Africans, agreed in principle that there should be legislation against public racial discrimination if the electorate (still, of course, safely white) approved this course at the next elections. The party also agreed in principle to do away by stages with racial land apportionment, long regarded as the white establish

ment's cornerstone.

The color-bar decision was prodded by the inter national attention attracted by a campaign waged by a multiracial Citizens against the Color Bar Associa tion, by the growing disillusionment of even so-called "moderate" Africans with the UFP's professions of non-racialism, and by Sir Roy Welensky's need to show at a Federal Review Conference that officially the color bar was dead. But whatever the reasons, the delegates unanimously endorsed the decision, though much of the good impression abroad was damaged by hysterical white reactions to the anti-color bar group's protracted and now partly successful campaign to have public swimming baths opened to non-whites.

Militant Africans, however, have kept their eyes fixed on what they rightly regard as the one crucial issue : the franchise. Mr. Joshua Nkomo formed a new party shortly after his NDP was banned. Called the Zimbabgwe African People's Union, it has in effect taken over the NDP's massive following, and is devot ing itself to persuading Africans not to register as voters and to boycotting the new constitution. It, too, is wholly opposed to the continuance of any federation not based on majority consent and majority rule.

But majority rule is precisely what both Sir Roy Welensky and Sir Edgar Whitehead are battling to

^^^^B^^P^h^KS^^^^^^^W^ ?r^h^^. ^^^^ ^ ?! *r Ball

14 AFRICA TODAY

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.68 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 02:24:07 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

put off and off and off. When pressed, they both con cede that it will come one day, but this is to be de pendent on Africans reaching the educational and economic standards of whites in a society in which the means of such advancement are controlled by white minorities.

Yet the pressures against Sir Roy are mounting rapidly on his three "home" fronts. They have been increased amongst Africans by his support of Katan ga's President Tshombe, but, paradoxically, it is in Sir Roy's final bid to maintain his Federation that the key to his Katanga campaign is to be found.

Sir Roy is, in many ways, a very shrewd man. His one enormous blind spot is his inability to understand or accept Africans as political, and therefore as full human, beings. But he does understand the workings of the right wing of Britain's Conservative Party. This understanding may well have been helped by the close personal contact and financial interests which many leading Tory politicians have in Central Africa. These men, and the financial groups of which they are, quite legitimately, a part, center their interests in the copper mining industry of Northern Rhodesia and Katanga. Their pressure groups have been instru mental in slowing down African political advance in Northern Rhodesia, and they have had a very direct interest in supporting President Tshombe.

Their interests are not, of course, purely British. In Central Africa, there are four major groups in the

mining business. The Anglo-American Corporation and the Rhodesi?n Selection Trust between them do the mining in Northern Rhodesia. Their decisions are taken independently, though they consult closely. The difference between them is that Anglo-American is South-African based, while RST is controlled by Amer ican Metal Climax. The main revenue of Tanganyika Concessions comes from its 14.5 percent holding in Union Mini?re, which dominates Katanga next door, and from its 90 percent interest in Benguela Rail ways, which takes copper through Angola to the sea.

Then there is the British South Africa Company, which does no mining but which owns all mineral rights in Northern Rhodesia. It was given these in return for opening up and administering the country before Britain officially took it over. These rights run until 1986, and are worth at least ?200,000,000 be tween now and then. Such sedentary pickings could form a plum target for African nationalists in power, and it is widely accepted that it was the BSA Com pany, centered in the City of London and in its chair man, Lord Robins, which cracked the whip that stopped promised African advancement in Northern Rhodesia in its tracks and led to the removal from the Colonial Office of Mr. Iain Macleod.

The whole copper industry has a high degree of unity which might be surprising in view of its inter national ownership. None of the four Rhodesi?n com panies is completely separate from the others. Both holdings and directorships interlock. A good propor tion of the directors are City of London men with pronounced opinions about British policy in Central Africa.

Anglo-American, through holding companies, has large interests in RST mines ; several Anglo-American directors are on RST boards.

Lord Robins, chairman of the BSA Company, is also a director of Anglo-American and of Tanganyika

Concessions, thus participating in Katanga's Union Mini?re. Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, chairman of Anglo American, is also a director of the BSA Company and of Tanganyika Concessions. Tanks, as it is popularly known, has a number of Belgian directors ; it is headed by Captain Charles Waterhouse, a Conservative MP and a former junior minister in the British Govern ment, and its directors include the Earl of Selborne.

The BSA Company has large holdings in RST, Anglo-American, and Tanganyika Concessions, and it may not be without interest that the BSA Company and Roy Welensky have been in firm alliance since 1948. From the beginning of Federation in 1953, the big mining groups subsidized his Federal Party in five-figure annual terms. The RST did withdraw from this arrangement in 1959, but the BSA-Welensky alli ance was reinforced when Lord Malvern, the Federa tion's first Premier, joined the BSA board after his retirement.

Even more significant in Britain are the names of other BSA Company directors. Sir Charles Hambro is also a director of the Bank of England. Lord Salis bury resigned from the board recently on the grounds of ill health, but he is not known to have disposed of his shares. And Lord Salisbury is, of course, the king pin of the Conservative Party's right wing.

These, then, are some of the British and interna tional connections of the companies which mine and flourish from the copper and other mines of Northern Rhodesia and Katanga. Sir Roy Welensky has been taking a prominent and, in both cases, unconstitu tional role in both countries' affairs. And yet, re markably, he has not been reprimanded, let alone checked, by the British Government.

In the case of Katanga, Sir Roy has boldly been conducting his own foreign policy. Yet the Federal constitution expressly reserves foreign relations to Britain. In supporting President Tshombe, and in quarreling with the United Nations, Sir Roy is thus establishing an unconstitutional de facto independence for his Federation, and he has rightly been able to count on the Katanga lobby in the British Parliament to support him. As we have seen, the interests and personnel of this lobby are in large measure inter changeable with the pro-Federation lobby, many of whom also have large land and industrial interests in the Rhodesias.

My thesis, then, is that, when the British Cabinet can no longer put off deciding on the Federation's future, Sir Roy is counting on the Katanga lobby's powerful support for a bold attempt to turn the tables on his opponents both in Britain and at home. Having successfully flouted present constitutional limitations by establishing de facto independence in foreign af fairs, Sir Roy, who has repeatedly announced that he will not tolerate the dissolution of Federation, hopes instead to bully the British Government into granting it complete independence.

This is a bold thesis and, like all brief explanations of highly complex situations, it is probably oversimpli fied. But, on the score of British financial interests in both Katanga and the Federation, and of the domi nant position of these interests in the life of the Fed eration, there is ample evidence to support it. Sir Roy is not fighting so much for President Tshombe as for his own political life.

MARCH 1962 15

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.68 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 02:24:07 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions