Africa
The first essay, written with Paul Eidelberg and published in the summer of 1979, addresses the civil war in what was then Rhodesia. The British had conquered the area and brought it into the Empire in the 1890s. White settlers and their descendants governed themselves and the black majority in local matters, beginning in 1923. This government declared independence from the Empire in 1965, under the Rhodesian Front Part led by Ian Smith. United Nations sanctions soon followed, and the United States refused to recognize the white government. Two black parties fought that government in a guerrilla war beginning in 1972. The Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) and the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) each field military wings. (The term ‘Zimbabwe’ refers to the city of Great Zimbabwe, capital of the Munhumutapa Empire, which flourished during the European Middle Ages). Headed by Robert Mugabe, ZANU enjoyed Communist Chinese backing; ZANU was supported by the Soviet Union. Outnumbered by more than twenty to one, whites resorted to biological and chemical weapons in a vain attempt to hold off the insurgents.
By 1979, the whites sought compromise. Some black leaders, including the Methodist Bishop Abel Muzorewa, joined the political process. April elections did not include ZANU or ZAPU, however, as they declined to participate. An internationally-supervised election took place in 1980, with Mugabe and ZANU the winners, and the Republic of Zimbabwe was founded.
We correctly predicted that Mugabe would turn tyrant, given his Marxist leanings, although formally Zimbabwe remains a republic.
Rhodesia: Emotions and realities
[Originally published July 20, 1979]
It is understandable and appropriate that American blacks take particular interest in African politics—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 other countries, American blacks rightly follow the politics of the new African nations with attention and care. 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 some experience in government. He is a moderate liberal who has not swayed with the winds of opinion—whether they be ‘radical,’ as in the ‘sixties, or ‘neo-conservative,’ as in the ‘seventies.
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 a Rhodesian attempt to defeat the forces of Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe. He blames “the media” for feeding Americans “a load of cliches about the people engaged in the Rhodesian struggle,” thus drugging them into a state of imminent policy madness.
There are three main media-concocted stereotypes that Rowan seeks to counteract:
- that the blacks “who crawled into bed with [Ian] Smith” (such as Bishop Abel Muzorewa) are moderate and pro-Western, whereas the “Patriotic Front blacks” who oppose the settlement are Russian-supported guerrillas or pro-communist terrorists;
- that the recent [April] election was based on the principle of one man, one vote;
- that black majority rule now exists in Rhodesia, by the grace of that election.
The latter cliche is erroneous because “the three percent white minority will rule Rhodesia for many years more,” in fact if not in name. The whites are over-represented in the legislature, occupying some 39% of the seats under a constitution approved in a “whites only” referendum; thus, in effect, ‘one man, one vote’ does not exist. Finally, while Nkomo is upplied by the Soviets, he is “no more of a communist than Muzorewa,” the newly-elected Rhodesian head-of-state. “The chief difference between Nkomo and Muzorewa is that Muzorewa craves power so much that he will sell himself to Ian Smith and South Africa and become a figurehead perpetrator of injustice, while 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, not even very, democratic. 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-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 sent so far as to compare Nkomo to George Washington. It is unclear, however, if Mr. Nkomo is as fervent an adherent of republican principles as General 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 to dying for it. One should avoid sanitizing one’s heroes.
As for Bishop Muzorewa, it is unclear why a man who “craves power” would “sell himself” to become a “figurehead.” Those who really crave power surely avoid that sort of thing. Mr. Rowan exclaims, “I’ll risk my security on a man of Nkomo’s principles than [on] Murzorewa’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 than Bishop Muzorewa does, 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. Rowna 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 and to communists of every description. The enemies of that unjust regime are Mugabe and Nkomo. 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 Israel. Any policy that would cause Nigeria to reuce 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. Two further points. 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 because their purpose, as Marxists, is to subvert the government and to 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 things in such a manner as to gain power 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, as the guerrillas have done. The latter self-servant 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.
[Co-written with Paul Eidelberg]