Canisius College Model United Nations 37 th Annual Conference 1 Situation in Southern Rhodesia Historic Security Council May 1965 Introduction and Overview In the 20 years since World War II ended—between 1945 and 1965—more than three dozen new countries in Asia and Africa have achieved autonomy or outright independence from their European colonial rulers. In some places decolonization has been peaceful and orderly. In some others, independence has come at the cost of violent revolution. A few newly independent states have established stable governments swiftly and with reasonable success; others have given way to rule by military juntas or dictators for decades, or have sunk into civil war. European states losing control of their colonial holdings during decolonization have reacted to the change in a variety of ways. European governments at times have encouraged former colonies to become independent and have welcomed a new relationship with those newly independent states; in other situations, the colonial masters have been reluctant, and have tried to slow or even prevent the colonies from achieving independence. In extreme cases, European colonial powers have used military intervention to contest decolonization or affect its outcome. In southeastern Africa we find one special case of decolonization: Southern Rhodesia. While many of its counterparts have achieved independence from the British Empire during the past few years—including Nigeria (1960), Tanzania (1961), Uganda (1962), and Kenya (1963), among others—the territory of Southern Rhodesia has remained under British control. As we consider the case for independence, and the problems associated with the call for independence, delegates should pay close attention to how their own countries would view the cause of those calling for the independence of Southern Rhodesia. Delegates are urged to remember the broader context of this case: the Cold War rivalry between the superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union (USSR); the relative newness of the United Nations (less than 20 years old!); and the United Nations’ commitment to promoting human rights and freedom, but in ways that preserve international peace and security. A resolution from the United Nations Security Council could provide guidelines for the best handling of Southern Rhodesia, as well as a precedent for future cases of contested independence claims. Just as important, however, are issues concerning democracy, justice, and race.
Transcript
Canisius College Model United Nations 37th Annual Conference
1
Situation in Southern Rhodesia Historic Security Council May 1965
Introduction and Overview
In the 20 years since World War II ended—between 1945 and 1965—more than three dozen new countries in Asia and Africa have achieved autonomy or outright independence from their European colonial rulers. In some places decolonization has been peaceful and orderly. In some others, independence has come at the cost of violent revolution. A few newly independent states have established stable governments swiftly and with reasonable success; others have given way to rule by military juntas or dictators for decades, or have sunk into civil war.
European states losing control of their colonial holdings during decolonization have reacted to the change in a variety of ways. European governments at times have encouraged former colonies to become independent and have welcomed a new relationship with those newly independent states; in other situations, the colonial masters have been reluctant, and have tried to slow or even prevent the colonies from achieving independence. In extreme cases, European colonial powers have used military intervention to contest decolonization or affect its outcome.
In southeastern Africa we find one special case of decolonization: Southern Rhodesia. While many of its counterparts have achieved independence from the British Empire during the past few years—including Nigeria (1960), Tanzania (1961), Uganda (1962), and Kenya (1963), among others—the territory of Southern Rhodesia has remained under British control. As we consider the case for independence, and the problems associated with the call for independence, delegates should pay close attention to how their own countries would view the cause of those calling for the independence of Southern Rhodesia.
Delegates are urged to remember the broader context of this case: the Cold War rivalry between the superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union (USSR); the relative newness of the United Nations (less than 20 years old!); and the United Nations’ commitment to promoting human rights and freedom, but in ways that preserve international peace and security. A resolution from the United Nations Security Council could provide guidelines for the best handling of Southern Rhodesia, as well as a precedent for future cases of contested independence claims. Just as important, however, are issues concerning democracy, justice, and race.
Canisius College Model United Nations 37th Annual Conference
2
Index of names and titles ANC - African National Congress, the colony's first black nationalist political party as founded by Joshua
Nkomo. BSA - Cecil Rhodes’ British South Africa Company; colonized what would become Southern Rhodesia. Malawi - previous member of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, previously called Nyasaland
before gaining independence from Britain in 1963, officially recognized by and became a member of the United Nations in 1964.
NDP - National Democratic Party (NDP) formed by black nationalists. Southern Rhodesia - previous member of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, current British
colony in southern Africa, occasionally referred to in 1965 as merely Rhodesia but politically correctly called Southern Rhodesia.
Zambia - previous member of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, previously called Northern Rhodesia before gaining independence from Britain in 1963, officially recognized by and became a member of the United Nations in 1964.
ZANU - Zimbabwe African National Union formed by Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole and Robert Mugabe. ZAPU - Zimbabwe African People’s Union formed by Joshua Nkomo. Outlawed in 1962 by the White
Settler Rhodesian Front (RF).
Historical Background
In 1889, Cecil John Rhodes’ British South Africa Company (BSA) gained a mandate from the British government to colonize what would become Southern Rhodesia (sometimes simply referred to as Rhodesia). White settlers quickly moved in to complete the colonization of the Africans that lived there, primarily with the goal of mining vast amounts of gold. Although no gold was found, Southern Rhodesia was well equipped to cultivate Western agricultural products. In 1893, there was an unsuccessful Ndebele (Matabele) uprising against the British colonizers which was quickly crushed by the BSA as many of the Matabele were in the north of the country fighting the Mashona, another Bantu people. The BSA remained in power of the British colony.
A white minority emerged as political leaders over the black majority population in 1922 after the BSA administration ended. From then until the early 1960s, black opposition to the white colonizers grew tremendously.
Cartoon depicting Cecil Rhodes in Africa
Canisius College Model United Nations 37th Annual Conference
3
Nationalist groups such as Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) and Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) began appearing to fight for the rights of the black majority.
In 1953, the British decided to create the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (or the Central African Federation) which was made up of Northern Rhodesia (which would become Zambia in 1964), Southern Rhodesia, and Nyasaland (which would become the Republic of Malawi in 1964); see historical map at right. The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland was dissolved in 1963 when Northern Rhodesia, now Zambia, and Nyasaland, now Malawi, gained independence from British rule. For Southern Rhodesia, much of the internal governing was independent from Britain if only dictated by the white minority that remained in power. However, in 1965, Southern Rhodesia legally remains a British colony.
For more detailed background, see: http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/rhodesia.htm
Sources: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14113618 https://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1800s/yr90/fanglomatab1893.htm http://www.zim.gov.zw/component/content/article/2-uncategorised/39-history-of-zimbabwe (Official Zimbabwe Government site; may error out after several pages)
Current Crisis and its Causes
After becoming the premier of Southern Rhodesia in April 1964, Ian Smith began instituting changes to the British colony. One of Smith’s first actions was to step down hard on increased black nationalist activity. This included banning both ZAPU and ZANU; after tension between the two rival groups resulted in violent conflict within black townships, and after members of ZANU killed a farmer, Petrus Oberholzer, these black nationalist groups were labeled violent threats by the white-dominated government and their leaders imprisoned indefinitely.
At present, there is hope that future violence may be avoided if Great Britain steps in to sort out the conflict. As Southern Rhodesia legally is still a British colony (though independent in many ways, Southern Rhodesia never legally gained independence), it is Great Britain’s duty to advise and end the conflict between the descendants of the white settlers and the native Africans.
Canisius College Model United Nations 37th Annual Conference
4
Thus far, Britain’s policy has been to bring democratic independence to its colonies as agreed with other states as part of decolonization, and in a manner broadly consistent with the expectations of the United Nations.
One important feature of the democratization of former colonies is the use of elections to select political leaders for the government. In Southern Rhodesia, the elections of May 7, 1965 have occurred and the votes recorded. The White Settlers’ Rhodesian Front (RF) has won 50 of the 65 parliament seats (nearly 77 percent of the legislature). The National People’s Party (NPP) won 10 seats (15 percent), with another 5 seats (7 percent) to other independent parties.
The election results may seem to indicate that Southern Rhodesia is democratizing, politically stable, and may be ready to move forward as an independent, sovereign state. However, there are two major issues: (1) the election might not be strong evidence that Southern Rhodesia is truly democratic; and (2) Southern Rhodesia may appear to be stable, but the outward appearance of stability may be deceiving. Many questions remain about whether political rule in Southern Rhodesia is just—and for those who believe that it is unjust, what are they prepared to do to change the system?
Consider first the elections. Even to the casual observer, it is perfectly clear that the general elections in Southern Rhodesia are not equal for all citizens. Voting occurs in two separate “rolls”: A and B. The “A” Roll determines 50 seats in the parliament. To be counted as an “A” Roll voter, one must meet certain requirements including those determined by income, age, and education, and these criteria favor the white settlers. Thus, the “A” Roll is primarily made up of white voters. Of the approximately 94,000 “A” Roll voters, approximately 89,000 are white. “B” Roll also has certain requirements but they are significantly lower than that of “A” Roll. As such, many of the African citizens vote in this category.
In addition to the unequal voting standards, in the spirit of protest against an unjust system, the black nationalists called for a boycott of these elections. Because some citizens (likely black Africans, for the most part) heeded the call and decided not to vote, this boycott significantly decreased the number of participants in the “B” Roll.
Contemporary observers see this racial inequality and minority domination as similar to issues seen in South Africa and with Portugal’s influence on Angola, Mozambique, and Portuguese Guinea. It is argued that these problems, and the opposition to what is perceived to be an unjust system, will only erupt into more violence. As President Nyerere of Tanzania states, “Africans are not European, could not become European and do not want to become European. They demand instead the right to be Africans in Africa, and to determine their own cultural, economic and political future.”
Canisius College Model United Nations 37th Annual Conference
5
If Nyerere is correct, then resistance to white minority rule and a system designed to preserve white privilege will continue in Southern Rhodesia, and this resistance will generate instability and possibly organized violence.
The Rhodesian Front’s wins in the May election proved that the European population supported and backed Ian Smith and his white minority government. In turn, some observers might have interpreted this as move toward Southern Rhodesia’s declaration of independence. Leading up to the May elections, however, Smith continuously denied that he would ask for a mandate for a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI). Although much of the population and media did not believe his statements, there was still hope that the problems would be settled in a less drastic way.
Q: What is a Unilateral Declaration of Independence, or UDI for short? A: It is a formal process leading to the establishment of a new state by an entity that is not considered a country (such as a colony or territory) that declares itself independent and sovereign without first making a formal agreement with the national state from which it is seceding.
As an alternative to UDI – which could result in diplomatic problems and damage to Southern Rhodesia’s relationship with Britain and other countries – Ian Smith’s minority government has been discussing terms with the government of the United Kingdom. Smith expressed a desire for Britain to grant independence to Southern Rhodesia and approve the Constitution of 1961, a document that specified the governance structure and process for an independent Southern Rhodesia. However, the British Government had a few issues with the Constitution of 1961, including: (1) questions about the Southern Rhodesian government’s commitment to the progress toward majority rule; (2) the improved political status of the African population in the increasingly autonomous colony, and (3) whether and how Southern Rhodesia would put an end to racial discrimination.
After the elections this May, Smith’s government seems to be moving toward further restricting the political opportunities of the African population and black majority. Both ZAPU and ZANU are reportedly preparing to fight against the white minority control of the country through acts of guerilla warfare. Meanwhile, Smith’s RF-led government has rejected the terms offered by the British government. As Smith and his government have rejected Britain’s conditions for independence, Smith may announce a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) any day now to hasten independence and pre-empt threats to white minority rule.
Canisius College Model United Nations 37th Annual Conference
6
Actors Involved in the Crisis Great Britain and government: Great Britain may be accused by its critics as having been quite ignorant of the rising issues in Southern Rhodesia. Although dedicated to bringing democratic independence in the face of decolonization following World War II, Britain has been short on their promise when it comes to this particular case. Southern Rhodesia is legally still a colony of Great Britain. Great Britain was highly optimistic in a settlement out of the surface conflict with the state wanting independence from Great Britain. However, they did very little in the ways of rights for the African peoples subjected to the white minority government although their negotiations seemed to have a long-term goal of black majority rule.
http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/314/1/Watts06PhD.pdf (PDF of British, international, and US points of view on the Rhodesian Crisis leading up to possible UDI)
White minority and Ian Smith: Smith is a white supremacist in Southern Rhodesia who has called for independence from British rule but supports the continuation of white minority rule and black suppression. He succeeded Winston Field as leader of the Rhodesian Front (RF) in 1961, the political party in Southern Rhodesia which ran on a white supremacist platform with the push for immediate independence under white control. The RF became the ruling party for the Southern Rhodesian government following the dissolution of the Central African Federation in 1963. The RF continues to work towards independence from Britain formally in 1965, especially after winning 50 of the 65 seats in parliamentary elections on May 7, 1965.
Source: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Rhodesian-Front Joshua Nkomo is one of the most recognizable black nationalist leaders in Southern Rhodesia. He has befriended many well-known Africans, including Nelson Mandela. He founded the National Democratic Party (NDP) in 1960, which was later banned by Ian Smith’s government. He was the leader of the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) in 1962, having founded the organization with fellow revolutionary Robert
Canisius College Model United Nations 37th Annual Conference
7
Mugabe after the National Democratic Party (NDP) was banned. Although ZAPU was split in 1963 into ZAPU (which became a primarily Ndebele organization, 15% of the population) and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) (taking the Shona majority, 85% of the population), both worked for the independence of Southern Rhodesia. Nkomo was imprisoned by Ian Smith’s government in 1964 for his outspokenness and popularity among Southern Rhodesians and the international community.
For more, see: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Joshua_Nkomo Sources: http://www.bulawayo1872.com/history/nkomoj.htm http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/rhodesia/joshuankomo.htm
Robert Mugabe is a leader of the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) opposition group that split from Nkomo’s ZAPU. He had joined the NDP in 1961 with Nkomo and became a member of ZAPU when the NDP was banned. Shortly thereafter, ZANU was banned by Ian Smith’s colonialist government in 1964 and Mugabe was arrested and jailed as one of the leaders of the group.
David Stirling founded the Capricorn Africa Society. A WWII hero from Britain, Stirling settled in Southern Rhodesia after the end of the war and began his idealist society. The Capricorn Africa Society’s central idea was African citizenship for all, but with a complicated array of electoral colleges for each individual group. It fell between the black nationalists who wanted “one person, one vote” and the white minority who wanted to preserve their privileges.
Canisius College Model United Nations 37th Annual Conference
8
South Africa is said to support the ruling white minority in Southern Rhodesia. When potential UN action and sanctions were brought up, South Africa was very much against them. Currently, they are dealing with their own version of racial inequality and discrimination.
United Nations Involvement As of 6 May 1965, the UN Security Council has stated the following in S/RES/202:
• The elections to take place on 7 May 1965 are taking place under the 1961 constitution that is not recognized by the majority of the population.
• The UNSC suggests that the UK should convene a constitutional conference with Southern Rhodesia at the request of the majority of the population of Southern Rhodesia.
• With threats of a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI), they ask that the United Kingdom Government (UK) and all other member states of the UN not to accept the declaration.
• Requests the UK to take all steps necessary to prevent a UDI.
• Not to give sovereignty or power to the current minority government but to continue to guide Southern Rhodesia towards democratic independence despite the minority government.
As adapted from http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/202(1965)
Discussion, Part One
Having outlined the major issues and actors and highlighted the recent resolution by the United Nations Security Council with regard to the situation in Southern Rhodesia, we now meet an opportunity to reflect on the current situation. A white minority government has taken power in Southern Rhodesia, under a political system that is not considered representative of the majority population. Further, that system is widely considered to be unjust, and reinforcing of racial inequality and discrimination in Southern Rhodesia. Against external pressure, the white minority government of Ian Smith is poised to declare its independence, but to recognize Southern Rhodesia in this form would be like giving a seal of approval to racism (or “racialism”). Before deciding what position your country will take, and what the UN should do, read the following selection from Julius Nyerere’s Foreign Affairs article about the situation.
Canisius College Model United Nations 37th Annual Conference
9
Selections from
“Rhodesia in the Context of Southern Africa,” by Julius K. Nyerere, in the journal Foreign Affairs
“The deep and intense anger of Africa on the subject of Southern Rhodesia is by now widely realized. It is not, however, so clearly understood. In consequence, the mutual suspicion which already exists between free African states and nations of the West is in danger of getting very much worse…
“Colonialism must be wiped out in Africa before any post-colonial independent state can feel secure. And no citizen of Africa—white or black—can live in the comfort of his own self-respect while other African citizens are suffering discrimination and humiliation for being born what they are. Yet at the present time the Portuguese colonies of Angola and Mozambique, together
with South Africa, South West Africa, and Southern Rhodesia, constitute almost one-seventh of the land mass of Africa. About 12 percent of Africa’s population lives in these areas. And each of these territories in different ways is governed on the principles of racial inequality and minority domination.
“Racialism has become a self-justifying religion of survival, which demands ever-increasing ruthlessness to protect its adherents against the hatred it has induced. Its doctrines of superiority are inculcated into the white community from the moment of birth; its teaching of inferiority dominates the lives of the non-whites from a similar moment.
“What Africa has been demanding from Britain in Southern Rhodesia is a transition from the white minority domination in government to majority rule, and only after that, independence for the colony. This has been the position of the nationalist forces in the colony; it has been the position of all African leaders. The argument has not been about the timing of this transition—how long it would take, or how many steps are involved—but about the principle of it.
“A successful declaration of independence by the minority government of Southern Rhodesia represents an expansion of racialism and fascism in Africa, and a step backward in the drive for African freedom. It is as though one of the southern states in the United States of America now …succeeded in enlarging and strengthening the segregation and discrimination within its area of jurisdiction. The reaction of the Federal authorities, and of the civil-rights organizations, can be easily imagined. They would know that their future was at stake, and that the battle was joined as surely as it was at Fort Sumter in 1861. So it is in Africa.
“But the parallel does not stop there. Just as would be the case in America, so in Africa, the success of the Southern Rhodesian minority would strengthen the forces of reaction in other parts of the continent. South Africa and Portugal must want [Ian] Smith…to succeed. Their
Canisius College Model United Nations 37th Annual Conference
10
interest is one of ideological sympathy.
“[Most] Western governments have repeatedly declared their hostility to apartheid and their adherence to the principles of racial equality. They have frequently made verbal declarations of their sympathy with the forces in opposition to South African policies. But they have excused their failure to act in support of their words on the grounds of South Africa’s sovereignty. Africa has shown a great deal of skepticism about this argument, believing that it masked a reluctance to intervene on the side of justice when white privilege was involved.
“Now, in the case of Southern Rhodesia, legality is on the side of intervention. What is the West going to do? Will it justify or confound African suspicions? “…It would not be enough for Smith to resign and for a different ‘more liberal,’ white-dominated, independent government to be legally established…the minimum must be the reestablishment of effective British authority, and an interim government which is charged with the task of leading the colony to majority rule. This will inevitably require the presence of British civil servants and British troops—or, better still, United Nations administrators and forces. Experience in South Africa, and in Southern Rhodesia itself, makes it absurd for anyone to expect Africa to trust Rhodesian whites (even under nominal British sovereignty) with the task of effecting the transition to majority rule.”
“It is vital that Africa's legitimate concern in this matter should be recognized. For each sovereign African nation has had to overcome the power of racialism in order to become independent. It is, to us, the ultimate horror. We can never surrender to it, or allow it to continue unchallenged on the African continent. Our own future is too much involved.
“But the United States, Britain and all other countries of the world are also involved in the issue of racialism…Free Africa is now waiting, with some impatience, to see whether the West really intends to stand on the side of human equality and human freedom.”
Discussion, Part Two
Nyerere’s article issues a call to action to the countries of the world to intervene in the situation. This does not necessarily mean military intervention, though that may be an option, depending on the willingness of the Security Council member-states. The Security Council may consider a variety of options, but as it does so, it must remain sensitive to: (1) African countries’ interest in a community of states that are democratic and free from racism or racialism; (2) the differences in opinion among the black African majority population in Southern Rhodesia, which are represented by different organizations; and (3) the restoration of justice in a country where the colonizers have exploited the local population.
Canisius College Model United Nations 37th Annual Conference
11
Questions for Consideration
• Where does your country stand with respect to the issue of racism? Has your country managed to deal effectively with any racial or ethnic tensions within your own borders? How confident are you in your ability to advise other countries on dealing with issues of racism and racial injustice, given your own history?
• What sorts of options are available to the UN Security Council with respect to the situation in Southern Rhodesia? How should the world react to the imprisonment of the leaders of black nationalist organizations in Southern Rhodesia? If Ian Smith’s white minority government issues a unilateral declaration of independence, what should be done?
• How might the UN Security Council strengthen or improve upon resolution S/RES/202? What sorts of recommendations or demands might the Security Council issue this time around? Should the UN Security Council rise to the challenge issued by Julius Nyerere? If so, how?
• Do you have ideas for how best to counteract racism when building new, democratic governments? As decolonization proceeds in countries around the world, what sorts of protections and provisions should be included in new countries’ constitutions to ensure that racism is diminished and eventually eliminated from politics?
Sources
Barber, James P. 1966. "Rhodesia: The Constitutional Conflict," The Journal of Modern African Studies, vol. 4 (4): pp. 457-469.
Blake, Robert, Baron of Braydeston. 1978. A History of Rhodesia, 1st American edition. New York: Knopf.
Dynamic Analysis of Dispute Management (DADM) Project, University of Central Arkansas. “Rhodesia/Zimbabwe (1964-present).” http://uca.edu/politicalscience/dadm-project/sub-saharan-africa-region/rhodesia-zimbabwe-1964-present/
Hintz, Stephen E. C. 1972. “The Political Transformation of Rhodesia, 1958-1965.” African Studies Review, 15, pp. 173-183.
Nyerere, Julius K. “Rhodesia in the Context of Southern Africa.” Foreign Affairs 44, no. 3 (1966): 373-386.
Canisius College Model United Nations 37th Annual Conference
12
Timeline of Events: Situation in Southern Rhodesia 1830s - Ndebele peoples are pushed north by Zulu and Boer conflict in what is now South
Africa. They move northwards and settle what is now known as Matabeleland. The Shona people are, in turn, displaced by invading Ndebele. The Shona are forced to pay tribute.
c.1840 - First arrival of European hunters and traders. Followed rapidly by Missionaries. 1855 - David Livingstone is the first European to reach the 100 metre (328 foot) waterfall on the
Zambezi River. He gives it the name Victoria Falls. The local name was Musioa Tunya ('smoke that thunders').
1881 - The Ndebele King Lobengula regroups his izinDuna in the face of British colonial forces. 29 October 1888 - Cecil Rhodes is given a royal charter by Lord Salisbury to create the British
South Africa Company (BSA). The company is modeled on the East India Company and it is expected to annex and then administer territory in southern Africa, to act as a police force, and develop settlements for European settlers.
The British South Africa Company (BSA) exploits its mandate from the British government by gaining access to minerals through rights and treaties obtained from the Ndebele king, Lobengula.
1889 - British South Africa Company (BSA) begins colonization of Matabeleland (region of Southern Rhodesia).
12 September 1890 - The Pioneer Column, a volunteer force of white settlers organized by Cecil Rhodes' British South Africa Company (BSA), raises the Union Jack in Mashonaland, and at a new settlement to be called Salisbury (now Harare, Zimbabwe). The fort and city are named for the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, the then British prime minister. The local Shangani people are dispossessed of their lands.
1893 - Ndebele uprising against the British South Africa Company (BSA) is soon brought to an end. 1895 - The BSA territory is named Rhodesia after Cecil Rhodes. Four hundred men from the
Matabeleland Mounted Police join the Jameson Raid. 1896-97 - Shona and Ndebele revolt against British rule in region. The revolt is quashed. Cecil
Rhodes rides into the Matopos Hills to negotiate a peace. 1897 - Rhodesia divided into two parts, Northern Rhodesia, now Zambia, and Southern
Rhodesia. 26 March 1902 - Death of Cecil Rhodes at the age of 48. He is buried in a tomb in the Matopos Hills. 1905 - Completion of 200 metre (650 foot) iron bridge spanning the Zambezi river near to
Victoria Falls, connecting Southern and Northern Rhodesia. 1911 - Rhodesia is divided between northern and southern parts.
Canisius College Model United Nations 37th Annual Conference
13
8 April 1919 - Birth of Ian Smith, premier of British Colony of Southern Rhodesia from 13 April 1964 to present.
1922 - End of administration by the British South Africa Company administration. A referendum amongst white settlers in Southern Rhodesia votes to become a self-governing colony, rather than the alternative of uniting with South Africa.
1923 - Southern Rhodesia becomes a self-governing colony of Britain. 21 February 1924 - Birth of Robert Mugabe, member of the Shona people, in the British Colony
of Southern Rhodesia. 1930 - Land Apportionment Act divides land between whites and blacks, with the best land
being given to white settlers. Blacks are forced to seek wage labor to pay taxes. This marks the beginning of political opposition to colonial rule.
12 September 1933 - Godfrey Martin Huggins becomes prime minister of Southern Rhodesia for the Federal Party.
10 March 1952 - African National Congress (ANC) founded by Joshua Nkomo, the colony's first black nationalist political party.
1953 - Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia), and Nyasaland (now Malawi) are joined as the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (otherwise known as the Central African Federation).
7 September 1953 - Garfield Todd becomes prime minister of Southern Rhodesia for the United Rhodesian Party, URP, (becomes the United Federal Party, UFP, in 1957 when it merged with the Federal Party, FP).
17 February 1958 - Edgar Whitehead becomes prime minister for the United Federal Party (UFP). 1960 - National Democratic Party (NDP) formed by black nationalists. 1961 - Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU) founded by Joshua Nkomo. 1962 - ZAPU banned as the segregationist White Settler Rhodesian Front (RF) wins white-
only elections and takes control of the legislature. 17 December 1962 - Winston Joseph Field becomes prime minister for the Rhodesian Front (RF). 1963 - Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (Central African Federation) is dissolved after
campaigns by Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland nationalists. Northern Rhodesia gains independence as Zambia, Nyasaland gains independence as Malawi.
National Democratic Party splits with some joining Joshua Nkomo's Zimbabwe African People's Union and others forming the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) under the Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole and Robert Mugabe.
13 April 1964 - Ian Smith becomes prime minister for the Rhodesian Front (RF). He begins negotiations with Britain over independence (as a white settler state).
1964 - Britain demands majority rule for (Southern) Rhodesia. Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo jailed by Ian Smith’s government after rivalry between competing black nationalist groups turns violent.
