Blouse in London, the Tory aulate a constitution a government has succeeded solution on Zimbabwe? We ion of the Patriotic Front, bough we don't share the ernational community', we it.
ARVER looks at nabwe and JOHN HUNT aff Zimbabwe. THE case of the "terrorist passports. well illustrates the British government's hypocritical muddie over Zimbabwe.
The government of Bishop Muzorewa. "illegal Smith regime' plained to the members of ZAPU, known "terrorists', Have OCCU traveling passports.
Now, considering its sudden concern for Britain's colonial responsibility in Zimbabwe, the Tory government could have told the illegal' regime where to get off. It could have suggested that these 'rebels against the Crown' had no valid opinion on who was or was not a "terrorist'. It could even (truthfully) have pointed out that successive British governments had gration policy in blatant disregard of the wishes of foreign governments and had no intention of changing now.
(And it forthcoming legislation would make a British passport useless anyway!)
the what used to be called the has comForeign Office that on been for treason instructive figure formulated immihave added that Line late Successive Westminster black elite, favourite with Surprisingly enough, the government did none of these things. Instead, the Attorney General made a statement in Commons that 'passports for persons known to be terrorists will, of course, be refused.' This at least theoretically raises the possibility that Patriotic Front leaders Joshua Niomo and Robert Mugabe — a pair of "terrorists' if ever there was one - will be refused admission to next week's Zimbabwe constitutional conference, while an Order in Council has issued granting lan Smith and Abel Muzorewa immunity from arrest passports because the issue of Britain's 'colonial responsibility' will the London conference. It was on that basis that the Tories and the Commonwealth prime ministers were able to reach agreement at the Lusaka conference last month.
At Lusaka it was 'fully accepted that it is the constitutional responsibility of the British government to grant legal independence to Zimbabwe on the basis of majority rule.' The Tories deliberately hark hack to their 'golden age' of decolonisation in and carl! 14015 colonial countries We t bequeathed a constitution on the model, pro-Western and i heavily dependent economy. Then they were cut adrift The Tories do genuinely seem think that that process can simply be repeated, even down to their choice of venue - Lancaster House. scene of sc many pre-independence conferences.
The Kenyan model has long been a British governments. After a brutal war against the liberation relinquished • power to amenable section of opposition, having first won considerable guarantees for the many white settlers. Nairobi is now a playground for international capitalism so that the British press is magnanimous v prepared to overook the faci that the country is a brutal, one-party dictatorship.
The parallels with Zimbabwe are obvious. The last Labour government sought make that appointing Lord Carver, served in Kenya, transfer of power in Zimbabwe. And President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania struck a chord in Lusaka when enthusiastically Kenya white settlers were paid large sums of money by possible racial harmony and peaceful transition to independence.
in the statement renrinted on this page. the Patriotic Front rejecis this sort of precedent. Britain's arrogant interference selt-determination 15 more justifiable with the passage of time.
The Lusaka conference endorsed a longstanding aim of British ments, both Labour and Tory, scarch lor a lasting settlement. must involve all parties to the conflict.' The Patriotic contrast. states that the onlv thing to be discussed is how the white settler regime is to be totally divested of its power. An 'all party" racists and liberation fighters as equal parties to the conflict is unacceptable.
of the many graciously the most the black administer transition?
- so much vised authority,, The point by who had supervise the ones? he announced ' that *In Commonwealth britain lo make turn out to correctly African demands at betatives Tories CHIC Cl.
that the Front statement, by That is which treats rejecting An outstanding problem - and one points on which the conference could founder — is who will Zimbabwe during the The Lusaka conference 'acknowledged that the government formed under such an independence constitution must be chosen through free and fair elections properly supergovernment and with Commonwealth ambiguities manifold Bishop Muzorewa, for example, will be the first to point out that according ta a Tory Party delegation the 'internal settlement elections in April were 'free and fair. So why the need for new And what is meant by 'under British government authority? And will the observers' actually be foreign troops, envisaged under the Labour government's Anglo-American plan?
It is to be hoped that the Patriotic Front's statement of position indicates its refusal to accommodate to British Lancaster House. The Smith regime is only sending represenbecause imagines that the wish to freeze the liberation The real aim of the conference is more dangerous: the incorporation of the Front into British plans, probably by inducing a split in its ranks Dial. Yel without the Patriotic Front the combined powers of London and Salisbury will be unable to impose their settlement. That is why we offer the Front our fullest solidarity in Many pretensions wield legitimate power in Zimbabwe