For and against the settlement

Sir: As a regular reader of your journal, please allow me to comment on your leader article in the Spectator issue of December 4 last, entitled—' In Defence of the Settlement.' Sad, because in other respects, this journal is always worth reading for its pungency and spare no one' views. The article deserves a thorough going-over, but I will spare you and your readers this tedium and content myself with simply exposing the latent hypocrisy, lack of logic and false parallels in that article.

First of all, let us have a look at Britain's history where the black man is concerned in matters of territory and justice.

'South West Africa,' whose sole ' protector ' under a valid treaty was HM Government, was bequeathed to a nation even then well known for her bigotry and complete disregard for the rights of others; namely, the Republic of South Africa.

That territory to date remains, by right of might alone, the exclusive preserve of that obnoxious regime, the British government being quite helpless to rescue victims of her past political short-sightedness, or is it indifference?

The Nigerians' undoubted atrocities towards their own people. Was not this also the result of another example of Britain's political shortsightedness in the way in which Nigeria was so ill-prepared by her colonial masters for nationhood?

Control had been in the hands of the 'fathers' in Whitehall, and tribal units indistinguishable in terms of territory etc. At the end of the day, sooner or later, those different peoples had to come into open conflict! I will not spell out this episode, sir; for all those who read this journal and are equally so perhaps students of national and international politics, know only too well the cause of the evils which eventually led to the sad and com plete engulfment of the Nigerian people. In your issue, however, you piously hastened to recall such regrettable incidences — calculatingly avoiding mention of the architects of the miseries that followed as a direct result of colonial rule.

The Rhodesian issue is too grave a situation to be a suitable subject for the display of political erudition, solely and simply. What is needed is political wisdom. The only painful choice which either Mr Heath or Mr Wilson before him had to make was that of chastising their own "kith and kin ". Had the tyrant of Rhode sia been a black government responsible to 'Whitehall, there would have been no such pain of choice! Cheddi Jagan? A good example! Back to your comments in that article. Machinery for the prevention of retrogressive amendment to the constitution" — you use such terms as if they were inexorably the last word of wisdom; dear sir, when a nation becomes independent, it becomes independent!

If during a period when •the British government had a right legally to intervene, she was unwilling to act, how could you be so naive as to assume subsequent interference with a matter that would have then become one of internal policies to a nation? Please let us move from such a second-year political science concept, to one more in keeping with adult minds! Again, in terms of "more integration" with Rhodesia's powerful southern neighbours: are these two countries not now already almost "totally integrated" in so far as their respective racial policies are concerned? More precisely — parallel policies!

White Rhodesians have reacted gleefully to the thought that sanctions will soon he lifted. Why " gleefully " if, as you point out, sanctions have been ineffectual? After Mr Wilson's first term of office, I wrote to him through his then Chairman of Ways and Means, Sir Eric Fletcher, and, as a voter, I warned that they were condemning themselves to twentyfive years of obscurity if their one policy when out of office, and another when in office, did not cease. This has come true, though there are still many years before they complete their sentence. Political duplicity is as dangerous as political ineptitude and shortsightedness. On colonial matters, the Labour party's history is one of consistent reversal of previous good intentions. Seretse Kharna?— just an earlier example of their 'two-policy.'

I am sorry for Mr Heath, because he has inherited Mr Wilson's most lamentable failure as a Prime Minis ter. But be that as it may, a government's business is to govern. To put right what was wrong, not to consolidate and perpetuate it. This is precisely what has happened, for I have no doubt that this is the end of the matter in so far as Britain is concerned — though not in so far as the Africans nor, need I point out, the rest of the world are concerned.

You use the words "reasoned argument" so often, or by implica tion in that article, that I am left wondering whether these two wards have any real meaning in this or in any other context. " Reasoned " on whose behalf? Mr Smith and the White Rhodesians? For certainly there could be nothing reasonable in a settlement which entrenches absolute real power in the hands of a white minority, totally ignoring the wishes, aspiration and birthright of the indigenous people of that land. Clearly again the only inhabitants overseas whose interest really means anything in truth to Britain are the whites. Mr Wilson before Mr Heath demonstrated this clearly in his "kith and kin" statement.

The very naive manner in which you tried to include by implication in the context, the black sector of " overseas inhabitants " is, in itself, pathetic if not outright offensive to the critical and analytical mind.

Neither is it a question of black man ruling badly nor of white man ruling wisely. This is too schoolboylike and emotive to strike a responsive chord in the minds of the thoughtful. No black man has any right to be cruel any more than has any white man! Ordinary sensible people take that view •for granted all over the world.

I am now saying to those who control and deign to guide our destiny, that we are on the certain road to mutual destruction if they will not see the truth of what lies ahead.

I hardly expect you to print this article. This is not important, for there must be millions in our country who share these views, and have no need to be reminded, if you do not wish to do so. But for you sir, it will serve as food for thought to know that there are many silent people watching and reading the popular press in these matters and taking note.

AMOS A. Ford 28 13arratt Avenue, Wood Green, London N22 Sir: You refer to the abuse heaped on Mr Heath and Sir Alec on account of the settlement with Rhodesia. With respect, you have got it wrong. What, in my view, has been so remarkable has been the almost complete absence of abuse or even col criticism from the left. We all remember well enough that when Mr Wilson made his attempts, aboard ' Tiger ' and Fearless,' to achieve a settlement with Mr Smith, the leftists in his own party screamed blue murder accusing him of "selling the Africans down the river." It seemed at the time that if Mr Smith had not been so naughty as to refuse to be a purchaser on the terms offered, then the left would indeed have insisted on Mr Wilson's head on a plate.

In the event it fell to the lot of the wicked Tories to do the deal and I for one waited for the thunder as the leftists went into action, uninhibited by reason of their own leader being involved as was the case last time (one assumes that this is some sort of inhibition

although in truth it does always seem so). I have amazed by the almost desP, silence on the left. The ' columns of the Guardian, it is have contained their goon leftist bleats about •a sell-out who are the signatories this I Not the Homeric heroes, Foots and the Allauns ant Joan Lestors, but humble signing themselves Mr SMiP, Mrs Jones. What is the call; this remarkable restraint? anybody's guess, of course, IP own guess is that the ,If leaders have sensed the', British public is glad to be 5P., the Rhodesian imbroglio and give short shrift to anyosel tried to prevent the deal done. Perhaps the most illurnift,; aspect is the attitude of F; Huddleston, the leftist Bisb0) Stepney. After 'Fearless,' he' nated that if the deal went trt he would jack in his passport and take up one tr°, by his friend President INY", (The fact that there were ' blacks rotting in Tanzanian without trial than in Rhodeallt not a thing to worry a Or headed Bishop.) I certal pected anathemas to be from Stepney these last weeA; if there have been any, even shape of a letter to the Guar/ have missed them. I find most puzzling. A. 33 Redington Road, London Sir: Xaunda of Zambi54 declared a one-party state all,' placed 115 organisers opposition party in dete' Come along Sir Alec, awaY double standards! Let tia sanctions against Zambia, insistence upon the Five Pill" We cannot have one set rty for whites and another for fi That is surely an offence uno" Race Relations Act. Robert g 4 Ronald Hill Grove, Leigh-u" Essex Sir: Some time after 0 declared UDI, Bishop Hum4 , declared that in the event, sell-out he would rescille British nationality. In a recent letter to the he has in effect declarev proposed settlement terms sell-out to the Rhodesian wb„1

Can we presume he isi"

11) carry out his promise ark.A suggest he takes out citizenship? T. Alex Wai,„1° 8 Hermitage Drive, ly" Berkshire