Dilemmas of Intra-Commonwealth Representation during the Rhodesian Problem, 1964–65

Abstract

By the mid-1960s the arrangements for intra-Commonwealth representation between its sovereign member states were well established. The racial tension engendered by the problem of Rhodesian independence threatened the continued existence of the Commonwealth, but the conventions of Commonwealth diplomatic representation made the problem more difficult to manage. This article examines how Rhodesian attitudes towards the Commonwealth and the exclusion of Rhodesia from the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference ruled out the possibility of multilateral diplomatic engagement. Opportunities to influence the Rhodesian Government were therefore restricted to bilateral exchanges, but the mechanisms for such diplomatic representation, though technically correct in terms of Commonwealth relations, were limited and inadequate. This historical case study therefore confirms the necessity for sufficient representation between sovereign states and other international actors, but demonstrates that the parties to such a diplomatic relationship can conceive the functions of representation in different terms.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier draft of this article. In particular they encouraged me to focus more clearly on the theoretical aspects of diplomacy, and the contemporary relevance of historical case studies.

Notes

1. Sir Ernest Satow's standard reference work for diplomats begins with the definition: ‘Diplomacy is the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations between the governments of independent states, extending sometimes to their relations with vassal states; or, more briefly still, the conduct of business between states by peaceful means’ (Satow, 1917 1979: 3). Sir Harold Nicolson (1964: vii) defined diplomacy similarly as ‘the art of negotiating agreements between Sovereign States’. From an academic perspective Alan James (1980: 936) has written that diplomacy involves ‘the conduct of relations between sovereign states through the medium of accredited representatives’ and Paul Sharp (1997: 609–610) observes that such representatives derive their authority ‘from the claim that they represent sovereign states in their relations with one another’. R. P. Barston (1988: 1) goes a little further with his definition: ‘Diplomacy is concerned with the management of relations between states and between states and other actors.’ This reference to ‘other actors’ is of course highly significant. Richard Langhorne (2005: 339) has recently concluded that among other developments the proliferation of non-state actors suggests ‘The finely honed traditional machinery of inter-state diplomacy is coming to seem increasingly like an antiquated machine of almost baroque refinement.’

2. After Northern Rhodesia became independent as the state of Zambia in October 1964, Southern Rhodesia was usually referred to simply as Rhodesia. This article refers to Rhodesia throughout, except where Southern Rhodesia appears in quotations.

3. Two conferences marked the fortieth anniversary of UDI: in September 2005, the Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, Cambridge, hosted ‘UDI Forty Years On: Liberation, Confrontation and Co-operation’, the programme for which is available at http://www.udi40.org; and in January 2006, as part of its Southern Africa Initiative, the Cold War Studies Centre at the LSE held a similar conference, details of which can be accessed at: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CWSC/events/rhodesia_jan_06.htm. The increasing number of journal articles about the Rhodesian problem has also demonstrated significant academic interest during the last few years. On the vexed question of whether Britain should, or could, have used force to solve the Rhodesian problem see Watts (2005), Murphy (2006), and Coggins (2006). For the impact of the Rhodesian problem on Anglo-American relations see Butler (2000), and Watts (2006a). The regional context of Rhodesia's UDI is considered in Onslow (2005). For the Commonwealth dimensions see McWilliam (2003), which provides an overview of the impact of Rhodesian and Zimbabwean affairs on Britain's relationship with the Empire-Commonwealth; Alexander (2006), which contains a brief discussion of the Rhodesian independence issue as one of several conditioning factors in the Labour Government's Commonwealth policy; Watts (2006b), which examines attitudes in the Old Commonwealth towards Rhodesia and the reception given to Canadian initiatives for a diplomatic settlement; and Watts (2007), which considers the reasons why the Commonwealth did not disintegrate as a result of the Rhodesian problem. See also Wood (2005), an extremely detailed chronological account that conflates Anglo-Rhodesian and international perspectives, which makes the text tricky to navigate for non-specialists.

4. The other three ‘constituencies’ were Rhodesia, Britain, and the United Nations.

5. Southern Rhodesia Legislative Assembly Debates, 26 February 1964 (quoted in Miller, 1974: 190).

6. Ibid.

7. Field to Sandys, 3 March 1964, para. 2, Cmnd. 2807, Southern Rhodesia: Documents relating to the negotiations between the United Kingdom and Southern Rhodesian Governments November 1963–November 1965 (London: HMSO, 1965), 13.

8. Ibid.

9. The Rhodesian Front perceived Field as too moderate and deferential to the British. For the process by which Smith replaced Field see Wood (2005: Ch. 1).

10. Douglas-Home to Smith, 20 May 1964, final para.; Smith to Douglas-Home, 24 June 1964, para. 8, Cmnd. 2807, 16 and 19.

11. Garfield Todd and Hardwicke Holderness to Keith Holyoake, 9 June 1964, enclosing a copy of a letter from Todd and Holderness to Sir Alec Douglas-Home, 15 May 1964, ABHS 950, W4627, 245/8/3, Part 9, Archives New Zealand/Te Rua Mahara o te Kāwanatanga, Head Office, Wellington (hereafter ANZ).

12. Australian Embassy, Washington, to Department of External Affairs (hereafter DEA), Canberra, Savingram 1284, 30 October 1964, A1838, 190/10/1, Part 3a, National Archives of Australia, Canberra, [hereafter NAA].

13. E. V. Vines, British High Commission (hereafter BHC), Dar Es Salaam, to D. F. B. Le Breton, UN and General Africa Department, Commonwealth Relations Office (hereafter CRO), London, 3 February 1964, DO 183/324, The National Archives of the United Kingdom, Kew (hereafter TNA). Vines reported a visit by an Australian official, Ralph Harry, to several African states including Tanganyika. Le Breton replied: ‘It is interesting to note how both Kambona [Tanganyikan Foreign Minister] and Sithole [Leader of the Zimbabwe African National Union] regard the Australians as the best channel for exerting influence on Field and his Government and also on ourselves.’ Le Breton, CRO, to P. A. Carter, BHC, Dar Es Salaam, 25 February 1964, DO 183/324, TNA.

14. See Smith to Wilson, 28 June 1965, para. 3; ‘Record of a Meeting held at 10 Downing Street, 8 October 1965’; and ‘Record of a Meeting held at Milton Buildings, Salisbury, 29 October 1965’; Cmnd 2807, 62, 81–82, 114–115. Smith continued to condemn African dictatorship and corruption in his memoirs, e.g. Smith (2001: 64–66).

15. Ralph Collins, Canadian Ambassador to South Africa, to DEA, Ottawa, Cable No. 85, 3 July 1964, RG 25, Vol. 10071, 20-1-2-SR, Part 1.1, National Archives of Canada, Ottawa (hereafter NAC).

16. For a brief summary of conflicting academic opinions about the status of Rhodesia in international law see Nkala (1985: 62).

17. Secretary of State for the Dominions to Sir Cecil Rodwell, Governor of Southern Rhodesia, 3 December 1931 (cited in Menzies, 1967: 217).

18. ‘Meeting with Mr J. H. Howman, Minister of Internal Affairs for Southern Rhodesia’, (on 12 September 1963), Memo by R. G. Hatheway, African and Middle Eastern Division (hereafter AMED), DEA, Ottawa, 19 September 1963, para. 4, RG 25, Vol. 10071, 20-1-2-SR, Part 1.1, NAC.

19. ‘Visit to Ottawa by Mr J. H. Howman, Minister of Internal Affairs, Local Government and African Education of Southern Rhodesia, Sept. 12–13 1963’, Memo by D. B. Hicks, AMED, DEA, Ottawa, 21 October 1963, para. 2, RG 25, Vol. 10071, 20-1-2-SR, Part 1.1, NAC.

20. House of Commons Debates, 30 April 1964, cols. 583–584 (cited in Miller, 1974: 191–192).

21. The Times, 25 April 1964 (cited in Miller, 1974: 192); and Ghana Today, 6 May 1964 (cited in Aluko, 1972: 312).

22. Guardian, 28 April 1964 (cited in Miller, 1974: 192).

23. Sir Eric Harrison, Australian High Commissioner, London, to Menzies, Canberra, Cable No. 2863, 6 May 1964, A1838, 190/11/1, Part 1, NAA.

24. Douglas-Home to Menzies, 5 May 1964, A1838, 190/11/1, Part 1, NAA.

25. Memo by M. R. Booker, First Assistant Secretary, Division IV, DEA, Canberra, 6 May 1964, A1838, 190/11/1, Part 1, NAA.

26. Foreign Minister's hand-written minute on Booker's Memo.

27. Menzies to Douglas-Home, 7 May 1964, A1838, 190/11/1, Part 1, NAA.

28. DEA, Wellington, to New Zealand High Commission (hereafter NZHC), London, Cable No. 1074, 5 May 1964, ABHS 950, W4627, 245/8/3, Part 9, ANZ.

29. J. S. Reid, NZHC, Ottawa, to DEA, Wellington, 15 June 1964, ABHS 950, W4627, 245/8/3, Part 9, ANZ.

30. Daily Telegraph, 26 May 1964 (cited in Miller, 1974: 192).

31. House of Commons Debates, 3 June 1964, cols. 239–240 (cited in Miller, 1974: 192).

32. The Times, 8 June 1964 (quoted in Miller, 1974: 192; and Young, 1967: 139).

33. For example, in November 1964 the Rhodesian High Commissioner in London wrote to his New Zealand counterpart: ‘In view of the manner in which the machinery of government in Rhodesia has been widely misrepresented, I am enclosing a booklet which sketches in outline some important background considerations that are all too often overlooked.’ Evan Campbell to Sir Thomas Macdonald, 11 November 1964, ABHS 950, W4627, 245/8/3, Part 10, ANZ. Macdonald forwarded the booklet, ‘Southern Rhodesia: Advance to Maturity’, to his Prime Minister and suggested that he could check the information against the first-hand impressions of the party of New Zealand MPs who had attended the recent indaba of African Chiefs in Rhodesia. Macdonald to Holyoake, 13 November 1964.

34. J. B. Johnston, BHC, Salisbury, to Sir Saville Garner, CRO, 24 July 1964, DO 183/317, TNA.

35. ‘Attachment of Foreign Service Officer to Trade Commissioner's Office, Salisbury’, Memo by R. G. Hatheway, AMED, DEA, to Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 24 December 1963, RG 25, Vol. 10071, 20-1-2-SR, Part 1.1, NAC.

36. The Rhodesian Government proposed that its Minister attached to the British Embassy in Washington, Oliver Bennett, be formally accredited to Ottawa and that the Canadian Ambassador to South Africa be accredited to Salisbury. Canadian Embassy, Washington, to DEA, Ottawa, Cable No. 390, 30 January 1964, RG 25, Vol. 10071, 20-1-2-SR, Part 1.1, NAC.

37. DEA, Ottawa, to Canadian Embassy, Washington, Cable No. ME 95, 11 March 1964, RG 25, Vol. 10071, 20-1-2-SR, Part 1.1, NAC.

38. Johnston, BHC, Salisbury, to Garner, CRO, 24 July 1964, DO 183/317, TNA.

39. Ian R. Smyth, Acting Canadian Trade Commissioner, Salisbury, to T. L. Carter, AMED, DEA, Ottawa, 16 June 1965, RG 25, Vol. 10071, 20-1-2-SR, Part 1.2, NAC.

40. Ibid.

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid.

43. For details of this initiative see Watts (2006b).

44. ‘Australian Trade Commissioner, Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia’, Memo by R. L. Harry, First Assistant Secretary, Division IV, DEA, Canberra, 17 January 1964, para. 1, A1838, 190/10/6, Part 1, NAA.

45. Ibid., para. 2.

46. Ibid., para. 3.

47. Sir Garfield Barwick, Minister for External Affairs, to J. McEwen, Minister for Trade and Industry, 6 February 1964, A1838, 190/10/6, Part 1, NAA.

48. N. H. D. Henty, Acting Minister for Trade and Industry, to Barwick, 16 March 1964, NAA: A1838, 190/10/6, Part 1, NAA.

49. J. C. G. Kevin, Australian Ambassador to South Africa, to DEA, Canberra, 12 June 1964, A1838, 190/10/6, Part 1, NAA.

50. Charles Lee, DEA, Canberra, to Australian Embassy, Pretoria, 3 July 1964, A1838, 190/10/6, Part 1, NAA.

51. Johnston, BHC, Salisbury to Smith, 15 Oct. 1964; and Bottomley to Smith, 19 October 1964, Cmnd. 2807, 41–42.

52. J. K. Brodie, Marketing Officer, Salisbury to W. Mayne-Wilson, Australian Embassy, Pretoria, [n.d. but October 1964], A1838, 190/10/1, Part 4, NAA.

53. See ‘Southern Rhodesia’, Memo by J. C. G. Kevin, 25 February 1965; Kevin, Pretoria, to DEA, Canberra, Cable No. 170, 15 October 1965; and Kevin, Pretoria, to DEA, Canberra, Savingram 65/65, 17 December 1965; A1838, 190/10/1, Parts 4, 5, and 7, NAA.

54. See Watts (2006b) for details of political, official, and public attitudes in Australia towards Rhodesia.

55. Such efforts were not confined to the Old Commonwealth. In September 1965 the Rhodesian Government sparked a major diplomatic row with Britain by sending a Rhodesian ‘accredited diplomatic representative’ to Lisbon (see Wood, 2005: Ch. 21).

56. Smith to Pearson, 9 October 1965, DO 183/674, TNA; Smith to Menzies, 9 October 1965, A1838, 190/10/1, Part 5, NAA; Smith to Holyoake, 9 October 1965, ABHS 950, W4627, 245/8/3, Part 13, ANZ; Pearson to Smith, 12 October 1965, DO 183/674, TNA; Press Statement by Keith Holyoake, Australian High Commission, Wellington, to DEA, Canberra, Cable No. 495, 11 October 1965, A1838, 370/1/26, NAA.

57. For the concept of the national interest see Reynolds (1994: Ch. 3).

58. ‘Australian Trade Commissioner, Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia’, Memo by R. L. Harry, First Assistant Secretary, Division IV, DEA, Canberra, 17 January 1964, A1838, 190/10/6, Part 1, NAA.

59. Department of Trade Memorandum, 27 January 1964, ABHS 950, W4627, 245/8/3, Part 11, ANZ.

60. ‘Southern Rhodesia – Possible UDI – Canadian Interests’, Memorandum by Tom Carter, AMED, DEA, for Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, 28 October 1964, RG 25, Vol. 10071, 20-1-2-SR, Part 1.1, NAC.

61. L. G. Sellars, Acting Australian High Commissioner, Ottawa, to DEA, Canberra, 26 June 1964, A1838, 190/10/6, Part 1, NAA.

62. For a study that explicitly addresses the quality of Canadian diplomatic representation in Africa see Stigger (1971).

63. It is therefore a theory-confirming case study. For a brief discussion of the value of different types of case studies see Lijphart (1971: 691–693).