The stalemate of the talks on Rhodesia has dismayed those pushing hard for a
prompt and painless changeover from white-minority to black-majority rule. Those advocating overt or covert U.S. financing for an invasion of the prosperous, peaceful government of Rhodesia should reflect on other examples of enforced “liberation” in Africa.
The customary result of Communist-style “liberation” is social and political chaos, a drastic decline in economic production, a breakdown in transportation and communications, and terror tactics against political opponents.
In the mid-fifties, a Communist terror organization called the Federation for National Liberation started the move to “liberate Algeria from French rule. Thousands of Moslems were killed, mutilated or tortured during several years of bloodshed.
In the early 1960s, the “liberators” chased the Belgians out of the Congo and replaced them with a Communist, Premier Patrice Lumumba. An outstanding anti-Communist black, Moise Tshombe, then led Katanga in seceding from the Congo.
The United Nations, which does not approve of black majority rule if it is anti-Communist, then raised an army and invaded Katanga. After 14 months of this UN war, Katanga was subdued. This UN war cost $420 million, of which the United States was persuaded to pay more than half.
Five neighboring countries of Rhodesia announced on September 26, 1976 that their guerrilla war against Rhodesia would continue until Ian Smith accepts their plan for black majority rule. Most of these countries do not themselves permit majority rule.
Since Mozambique ousted the Portuguese and established a Communist dictatorship, thousands of people have been arbitrarily rounded up and imprisoned. Mozambique even held three American missionaries up to 13 months without any charges, and jailed another American for 35 days after arresting him while reading a map of Africa on a city street.
After Portugal was chased out of Angola, the U.S, State Department encouraged South African forces to intervene and defend Angola against a Cuban-Soviet takeover. The South Africans did so and pushed the Cubans back hundreds of miles. However, when the South Africans did not receive the U.S aid necessary to protect their troops, they pulled out and the Cubans, equipped with Soviet weapons, conquered all of Angola.
For months, Henry Kissinger has appeared eager for Rhodesia to surrender to its invaders. On his African visit last fall, he promised millions of U.S. dollars to Mozambique, Zambia, and Tanzania even after they threatened to invade Rhodesia. There is no authority in the U.S. Constitution for a Secretary of State to promise U.S. taxpayers’ money to induce or support an invasion of a friendly country.
Some commentators have speculated that the explanation for this unprecedented behavior is that Kissinger was concerned lest a Soviet defeat in Africa interfere with the SALT II talks. Others conjecture that the purpose of his monetary promises was to win a large black vote for President Ford, who had promised, if reelected, to continue Kissinger as Secretary of State.
It is a tragedy if Kissinger has opened up Rhodesia to the kind of liberation visited on the Congo, Mozambique, and Angola for the sake of a campaign ploy. Black Americans have too much good sense to be fooled by such an election scheme.
