Published June 1979
In 1979 Rhodesia, a former British colony which had declared its independence in 1965, was ruled by a regime consisting of the descendants of English colonists. Prime Minister Ian Smith, who had spearheaded the move to independence, also chaired the ruling Rhodesian Front Party. Almost immediately following the declaration of independence, black tribes began guerrilla warfare against the whites’ rule; the two prindipal organizations were the Soviet-backed Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU), headed by Joshua Nkomo, and the Communist Chinese-backed Zimbabwe African National Union, (ZANU), originally headed by Ndabaningi Sithole but eventually taken over by Robert Mugabe, Nihomo’s erstwhile associate in ZAPU. By the 1970s Methodist Bishop Abel Muroweza brought the two groups together under the rubric of the African National Council, but tensions among these ambitious men continued. In 1978, Great Britain brokered an agreement between Muzorewa and Smith, establishing an interim government. Subsequent elections brought Muzorewa’s party to power and he became prime minister. But Nkomo and Mugabe rejected the agreement and continued the war.
The United Nations did not accept the Murozewa-Smith agreement or the newly-elected government. Because the militant black organizations enjoyed international communist support, however, the United States Congress held the militants at arms’ length, despite its disapproval of the continuation of minority rule. The noted African-American newspaper columnist , Carl T. Rowan (1925-1975) opposed this stance, and this essay is a reply to one of his opinion pieces, published earlier in the spring of 1979. Between his decades as journalist, Rowan had served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Kennedy Administration and Director of the United States Information Agency in the Johnson Administration.
It is understandable and appropriate that American blacks take special interest in African politics and perhaps especially in southern African politics where, as in America, white and black people must learn to live in the same place. Like American Jews, who cannot feel the same way toward Israel as they feel toward any other foreign country, American blacks have special feelings for African nations.
Carl Rowan is America’s most widely-syndicated black political columnist, and for good reason. He is a thoughtful man and one of the few journalistic commentators who actually has experience in government, having served in the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations. He is a moderate liberal, having resisted the New Left critique of mainstream liberalism–really the old Progressivism as retooled by Franklin Roosevelt and the New Dealers–in the 1960s.
Mr. Rowan is “surprised and appalled that 79 [U. S.] senators would vote to lift economic sanctions against Rhodesia” because such an action may lead to “an African debacle.” Specifically, he fears that America may gradually accept the “lunacy” of participating in the Rhodesian government’s attempt to defeat Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe. He blames “the media” for feeding Americans “a load of clichés about the people engaged in the Rhodesian struggle,” thus drugging them into a state of imminent madness.
There are three principal media-concocted stereotypes, Mr. Rowan claims:
1} that the blacks “who crawled into bed with Smith”–in opposition to the militants–are moderate and pro-Western, whereas the “Patriotic Front blacks” who oppose the settlement are Russian-supported guerillas or pro-communist terrorists;
2} that the recent election in Rhodesia was based on the principle of one man, one vote;
3} that black majority rule now exists in Rhodesia, by grace of this election.
The latter cliché is erroneous, he argues, because “the 3 percent white minority will rule Rhodesia or many years more,” in fact if not in name. The whites are over-represented in the legislature, occupying some 39 percent of the seats under a constitution approved in a “whites only” referendum; thus, in effect, one man, one vote does not exist with respect to the overall Rhodesian population at all. Finally, while Nkomo is indeed supported by the Soviets, he is “nor more a communist than Muzorewa,” the newly-elected Rhodesian head-of-state. “The chief difference between Nkomo and Muzorewa is that while Muzorewa craves power so that he will sell himself to Ian Smith and South Africa and become a figurehead perpetrator of injustice, Nkomo would rather take Soviet arms and fight and die before submitting to that indignity.”
Several of Mr. Rowan’s points are indisputably correct: the Rhodesian parliament is not purely, or even very, democratic, and the whites, by reason of their economic power alone, will continue to dominate Rhodesian political life for some time, if not for “many years.” And Nkomo is not a communist, although he is Soviet-supported and supplied. But there are some flaws in other parts of the argument.
Mr. Rowan is an admirer of Nkomo’s. On a televised documentary filmed in Rhodesia and aired several months ago, Mr. Rowan went so far a to compare Nkomo to George Washington. It is unclear, however, if Mr. Nkomo is as fervent an adherent of republican principles as Washington was; indeed, it is to be doubted. One might add that, like Washington, Nkomo not only risks death for his cause but undoubtedly prefers killing for his cause than dying for it; one should avoid sanitizing one’s heroes, whether American or African.
As for Bishop Muzorewa, it is unclear why a man who “craves power” would “sell himself” and become a “figurehead.” Those who really craved power surely avoid that sort of thing. Mr. Rowan exclaims, “I’ll risk my security on a man of Nkomo’s principles than [on] Muzorewa’s opportunism any time.” But Nkomo’s principles, from what one hears of them, seem quite consonant with the craving for power. If he reaches for power with more apparent dignity, he also reaches for it with bloodier hands.
The only real idealist in this nest of vipers is Mugabe. Regrettably he is a Marxist, and Mr. Rowan passes over his principles discreetly, which is to say silently. Even more regrettable is the fact that according to those who guess about such things, Mugabe commands some four times the number of men that Nkomo commands.
The Rhodesian dilemma is this: a racist regime has taken a step toward becoming less racist, more democratic. The regime remains unsatisfactory to democrats everywhere, and also to African nationalists ant to communists of every description. The enemies of that unjust regime are Mugabe, who is now undoubtedly the Soviet Union’s first choice, and Nkomo, who is not capable of overthrowing the regime by himself. It should be noted that Nkomo, Muzorewa, and Mugabe detest one another–sentiments one can heartily endorse, while not failing to detest Ian Smith, also.
An additional complication, as Mr. Rowan correctly reminds us, is the rest of black Africa–especially Nigeria. Nigeria is a major oil supplier to the United States and its ally, Israel. Any policy that would cause Nigeria to reduce or stop its oil deliveries would be quite foolish–an effective way of increasing already excessive Arab power. It is important to add that Nigeria has never threatened an oil boycott if the U. S. lifts its trade sanctions on Rhodesia.
With Mr. Rowan’s help we have defined the problem. For its solution we may need his help again, but in the meantime there are two points to be made. First, all who care about democracy in Rhodesia, in Africa or anywhere else, should condemn Robert Mugabe. Marxists do not bring one man, one vote to the countries they master; they do not belong in any democratic government that intends to perpetuate itself because their purpose, as Marxists, is to subvert the government and gain exclusive power for themselves. Mugabe is exploiting racial feelings for purposes that have little to do with race.
Second, we grow weary of gun-toting ‘revolutionaries’ who would, conveniently, revolutionize nations in such a manner as to gain power exclusively for themselves and their associates. Given two self-serving men, we usually prefer the one who serves himself by rolling political logs to the one who serves himself by shooting at passenger airplanes. The latter may be more glamorous, but he is also more lethal. Rhodesia may yet become a serious democracy, but not for a while, no matter who wins the ongoing war.
2016 NOTE: The war continued, and eventually a new settlement was reached and a new election held. This time, Mugabe and ZANU won, in part thanks to voter intimidation. Mugabe went on to a career as the tyrant of Zimbabwe, a role to which he still clings at this writing. This was predictable, given his ideological orientation, an orientation that Carl T. Rowan ignored.
Recent Comments