UN Arbitration in Colonial Rhodesia

Britain and UN in the Rhodesian Struggle: Conflicting Approcahes

Oct 16, 2009

Britain constituted an obstacle to UN arbitration in Rhodesia during the liberation struggle. It became clear to Africans that independence was their responsibility.

The United Nations became embroiled in the Rhodesian saga in the 1960s. This was particularly so when it became obvious that Britain was not willing to help Africans in their struggle for majority rule despite public proclamations to the contrary. Britain by all indications was more interested in protecting her economic interests in the colony and therefore offered direct and indirect support to successive white governments in Rhodesia.

The Beginning of African Appeals to the UN

Rhodesian nationalist Joshua Nkomo first tabled the case for African freedom and independence to the UN in 1961. “Thenceforth” notes Commonwealth scholar A.M Chambatti, “appeals to the UN by Africans became a regular exercise.” Britain consistently blocked these appeals on grounds that Rhodesia was the responsibility of the British government not the UN. This claim was however refuted by the UN in 1962.

In 1966, black Rhodesians again presented the problem to the UN. The General Assembly swiftly condemned Ian Smith’s government with Resolution 2024(XX) which was backed by economic sanctions. These sanctions were however flouted by the U.S, Japan, France, Portugal, South Africa and Britain – all with vested economic interests in Rhodesia.

Britain’s Role in the Rhodesian Liberation Struggle

As observed earlier, Britain hijacked the Rhodesian crisis, calling it a British problem that must be treated out of the domain of the UN. This move was a serious obstacle to any attempt by the UN or other bodies to arbitrate or assist Africans. It also exposed the high level of scheming and hypocrisy with which Britain approached the Rhodesian problem.

Wanting to go alone, London offered support to a series of pro-white constitutions in Rhodesia – 1961, 1969, 1971 all of which were denounced by Africans. In the words of Law Professor Claire Palley, these constitutions and earlier ones simply embodied “… fancy franchise, trappings and fills designed to give the appearance of some participation by Africans….”

The Pearce Commission of 1972 exposed the extreme limits of British hypocrisy, double standards and neglect of Africans in Rhodesia. This commission was charged with the responsibility of sampling public opinion about an agreement reached between British Foreign Secretary Sir Alec Douglas Home and Ian Smith on the path to majority rule.

As vague as it was, this agreement was flatly denounced by Africans. “The people of Rhodesia as a whole do not regard the proposals as an acceptable basis for independence” the Pearce Report concluded. Asked what he made of this rejection, Douglas Home observed “I thought that Mr. Smith and I stretched it almost to the limit when we made the settlement in November ….”

The UN’s Limited Role in Rhodesia

Relegated to the background, the UN could not go beyond verbal protests and helpless calls for sanctions which were openly and consistently flouted by great powers. It was clear therefore that the responsibility for Rhodesian independence stood on the shoulders of Rhodesians themselves. This explains the progressive intensity of the "chimurenga" or war of liberation.

The war of liberation, however, saw the full commitment of other African states at all levels – diplomatic, military, material, moral and financial. In 1972 and 1973for example, African states again raised the Rhodesian problem at UN. Britain characteristically vetoed all UN resolutions on the crisis. The helpless UN finally became distracted by the outbreak of the Yom Kippur war, once again leaving Rhodesia at the mercy of Britain.

Despite many other distractions, the UN closely monitored developments in Rhodesia. It was present at all summit conferences leading to the independence of Rhodesia. Alongside Britain and the U.S., the UN was witness to the birth of a new Zimbabwe in 1980. Free of British rule, Zimbabwe joined the UN as a respected member in a community of independent states though contradictions would later emerge as President Mugabe embarked on land reforms – the unfinished business of colonialism.

Fowale, Tongkeh Joseph. “The Politics of Land Reforms in Zimbabwe 1980-2005: International Responses,” 2007.

Ngoh, Victor Julius. The Modern World from 1919-1983: A Concise History, 1984.

Patel, Hasu H and H. H. K Bhila. “The Last Becomes the First: The Transfer of Power in Zimbabwe,” in Decolonization and African Independence: The Transfer of Power, 1960-1980. 1980.

Palley, Claire. “Analysis of the 1971 British Proposals for a Settlement with Rhodesia” in S.E. Wilmer (ed) Zimbabwe Now, 1973.

The copyright of the article UN Arbitration in Colonial Rhodesia in African Colonialism is owned by Tongkeh Joseph Fowale. Permission to republish UN Arbitration in Colonial Rhodesia in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.