Zimpapers Logo

The Herald, October 12, 1979

ASPECTS of Britain’s proposed constitution for an independent Zimbabwe were unreasonable and the Patriotic Front was justified in opposing them, the Government-owned Zambia Daily Mail said yesterday.

The Daily Mail which generally reflects government thinking on such issues, said in an editorial that it was “ridiculous” for Britain to propose that whites in Zimbabwe Rhodesia be allowed to have dual citizenship after independence.

“This demand is meant to accommodate mercenaries and saboteurs,” the mail said.

“It cannot work in an independent Zimbabwe.”

“The logical thing is what the Patriotic Front has suggested-that those with dual citizenship should decide within a year which citizenship they would like to retain.”

The newspaper also criticised Britain’s citizenship proposals.

“They (the Patriotic Front) feel the British are trying to force on them people who have gone to Rhodesia as mercenaries or to serve in other sectors in support of the rebellion. We agree with them,” the editorial said.

The Daily Mail said a number of other suggestions by the British which had threatened stalemate in the negotiations were incredible. They must be intended to frustrate the attainment of independence for Zimbabwe,” the editorial concluded.

The party-owned Times of Zambia criticised Lord Carrington’s handling of the constitutional talks in London and said the Foreign Secretary’s arrogance could lead to a total collapse of the negotiations.

The newspaper’s editorial seems to reflect concern in the Zambian Government about the pace of the negotiations in London and Britain’s apparent unwillingness to make further compromise for the Patriotic Front.

LESSONS FOR TODAY

• Following the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Zambia (then Northern Rhodesia) which shares one of the longest borders with Zimbabwe, understood the plight of Zimbabweans and knew the constitution that was appropriate for it. When it describes British demands as “unreasonable”, Zambia knew what it meant, for it was also a former British colony.
• Zambia also described the British actions as “unreasonable” because the British sought to do what was in their best interests, and not what was in Zimbabweans’ best interests. In other words, the British never wanted to let go of Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe).
• Under its founding father, the late Dr Kenneth Kaunda, Zambia made huge sacrifices towards Zimbabwe’s independence from the 1960s to the 1980s through various ways, sacrifices which cannot be quantified.
• However, for a white Rhodesian newspaper to carry this story was a signal that the dye is cast. The Patriotic Front had eventually had their way.
• The British’s unreasonableness was witnessed when black people repossessed their land. Together with the United States of America and their allies, they have been in the forefront of imposing illegal economic sanctions, wanting a regime change, but Zambia as a member of SADC and the African Union has once again has been in the forefront of saying “no” to sanctions.