AF files, lot 56 D 412, “Southern Rhodesian Correspondence”
Memorandum by the Director of the Office of African Affairs (Bourgerie) to the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern, South Asian, and African Affairs (Berry)1
Subject:
- The Proposed British Central African Federation
The Rhodesias were originally administered by the British South African Company under a Royal Charter granted in 1889. In 1923, Southern Rhodesia was granted full self government, subject to certain reservations with respect to external and native affairs, and in 1924 the administration of Northern Rhodesia passed to the British Crown. Nyasaland has been a British Protectorate since 1891. The total population of the three territories was estimated in 1950 at about 6.3 million, of whom about 169,000 were Europeans.
Proposals for amalgamation or federation of the British Central African territories have been made periodically since 1915 when the British South African Company suggested a single administration for the Rhodesias. Until recently, these proposals were rejected by the British Government as being neither practical nor expedient, although regarded as desirable in principle. The reasons for this action were the differing native policies and the differences in the degree of political development reached by the three territories.
Southern Rhodesia enjoys a quasi-dominion status. Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, as protectorates, are administered under authority of the British Colonial Office. Besides the formal distinction in political status is the complete domination of the Government of Southern Rhodesia by the white settlers as compared with the proclaimed objectives of full partnership of Europeans and Africans in the governments of the two northern territories.
The differences in degree of political development have been narrowed somewhat since World War II. In Northern Rhodesia there has been a substantial transfer of power to European unofficial members of the legislature. At the same time Africans have acquired [Page 297] greater political maturity and several have been appointed to membership in the legislative councils of both protectorates. The effect of the increasing political consciousness of the Africans in the protectorates has been to harden opposition to Southern Rhodesia’s native policy and to create a new resistance to white domination. These factors, combined with the course of native policy in the Union of South Africa and the growing pressure of Afrikaner nationalism in the Rhodesias, have caused a change in the attitude of the British Government on the question of closer union in British Central Africa.
In November 1950, a conference of senior officials of the British and territorial governments was held in London to discuss the possibility of formulating plans for closer association between the three British Central African territories. The report of the conference, published in June 1951, agreed unanimously that the three territories be federated; that safeguards be instituted for African interests; and that there be federal responsibility for a wide range of regional matters, including defense and economic development. This was followed by a conference of representatives of the British and Central African Governments at Victoria Falls on September 18–21, 1951, to explore the possibilities of a Central African federation on the basis of the London Conference recommendations. The conference adjourned, however, after four days of futile deliberation on the main question of federation. While the European representatives favored federation in principle, the African representatives unanimously opposed it, although those of Northern Rhodesia expressed a willingness to consider federation after the policy of partnership had been defined and put into progressive operation.
There was general agreement in the conference that economic and political partnership between Europeans and Africans is the only policy under which federation could be brought about in Central Africa. It was also agreed that the protectorate status of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland should be preserved, and that there could be no amalgamation of the three territories, or any two of them, unless a majority of the inhabitants desired it. It was further agreed that land settlement questions and the political advancement of the peoples of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland must remain subject to the ultimate authority of the British Government and not to any federal authority.
It had been intended that discussions would be resumed in London in July 1952. With criticism of the federation proposals mounting in the three Central African territories, however, an informal meeting was held in London in early February between the Secretaries of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and the Governors of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. As a result of this meeting it was decided that the Governments of the three Central African territories would inform the [Page 298] United Kingdom Government and each other before March 1, 1952, of any modifications of the London Conference proposals which they may deem desirable, and that a full conference, including African representatives from Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, would be held in London on or about April 23 to draft a constitution for a Central African Federation which would contain safeguards for African interests. After consideration of the draft constitution in the territories concerned a further conference would be held in London, probably in July 1952, and as soon as possible thereafter the Governments of the United Kingdom, Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland would decide whether or not to accept it. In the case of Southern Rhodesia the question of federation will be determined by a referendum of the electorate.
- This memorandum was drafted by James J. Durnan of the Bureau of African Affairs (AF). William H. Lewis of NEA/P, in a memorandum dated Mar. 14, 1952 (AF files, lot 58 D 459), indicated that, as specified in the NEA/P biweekly of Mar. 6, Durnan’s background statement was to be used for media guidance.↩