Global Apartheid?

The hypocrisy of the British and American spokesmen on the Rhodesian issue is stupefying. In their speeches to Parliament, Congress and the United Nations they base their formal case against Ian Smith’s regime on one argument, and, in the last analysis, on this one argument only: that his is a “minority government.” “My Government,” Ambassador Goldberg intoned to the UN Assembly, “holds strong views on these problems. We are not, and never will be, content with a minority government in Southern Rhodesia.”

The identical argument in British mouths carries a special fraudulent overtone, since it is the British who, on the Peking-recognition issue, have always appealed to the rule that recognition should be granted, automatically, to whatever happens to be the de facto government.

JB

About the Author

James Burnham

Featured Tags

The hypocrisy of the British and American spokesmen on the Rhodesian issue is stupefying. In their speeches to Parliament, Congress and the United Nations they base their formal case against Ian Smith’s regime on one argument, and, in the last analysis, on this one argument only: that his is a “minority government.” “My Government,” Ambassador Goldberg intoned to the UN Assembly, “holds strong views on these problems. We are not, and never will be, content with a minority government in Southern Rhodesia.”

The identical argument in British mouths carries a special fraudulent overtone, since it is the British who, on the Peking-recognition issue, have always appealed to the rule that recognition should be granted, automatically, to whatever happens to be the de facto government.