The Press THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 1972. Setbacks for inquiry in Rhodesia

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32819, 20 January 1972, Page 10

The Press THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 1972. Setbacks for inquiry in Rhodesia

The Pearce Commission has made an inauspicious start in its round of inquiries to ascertain Rhodesian opinion on a settlement between Britain and the Smith regime. Before Lord Pearce and the other commissioners arrived in Salisbury there was much complaint in Britain, and elsewhere, that the proposals for settlement amounted to a sell-out of the Rhodesian Africans. In Rhodesia, however, the view seems to have been growing among the European population that the terms are a sell-out of white Rhodesians. The main reason for this view is that the Africans, who outnumber whites by more than 20 to one, can veto the settlement and thus cause Rhodesia to endure the burden of economic sanctions. The fear among Europeans has been reinforced by a surprisingly rapid mobilisation of African nationalist opinion. Two banned nationalist organisations have formed a coalition under the name of the African National Council. Already it has fostered a campaign of voting against the settlement. The Salisbury regime has tried to prevent meetings among Africans to discuss the settlement. Free political activity has not been resumed; and if there is public disorder, as there was at Gwelo this week, the Smith regime will have ample excuse to bear down more severely on African political organisations. This, in turn, will confirm the opinion among Africans that the regime cannot be trusted. The Pearce Commission’s task is already difficult enough. One of the main problems is that Africans generally have had little opportunity to find out what the terms of settlement are, let alone understand what they mean. According to some reports Africans have been warned that if they reject the settlement they will suffer from the continuation of sanctions. There must be many Africans who will not be disappointed if the economy and the Smith regime collapse under the weight of sanctions. They must suspect that if the settlement is approved the white population of Rhodesia will probably increase through immigration. This would restrict the extent to which the Africans’ own economic lot would be improved after the removal of sanctions. They must also be aware that, in spite of assurances in the settlement, their approval of the agreement would end all chance of outside intervention on their behalf. The most daunting aspect of the inquiry is that Africans have not been given even the roughest estimate of their progress towards majority rule. The commission is unwilling, or unable, to provide them with the information they need about the settlement. In these circumstances it can hardly be said that a plebiscite—however democratic it might appear—would have been a better sounding board than the Pearce Commission. But it is beginning to look as if the commission is not going to get a chance to do its job. If the commission finds that it has to report opinion to be against a settlement at least it might be able to recommend modifications that would produce an acceptable settlement. This might keep negotiations alive. If it cannot reach a verdict because of obstructions within Rhodesia the outlook for all Rhodesians will indeed be ominous.