Smith Still Believes in Zimbabwe's Future

0 Comments | Insight on the News, August 20, 2001 | by James P. Lucier

Ian Smith, former prime minister of Rhodesia, has worked his entire life for freedom and democracy in his native land, which has been renamed Zimbabwe.

In 1923 the African nation of Rhodesia, a protectorate but never a colony, was granted independence by Great Britain in all respects except foreign policy. Ian Smith, a native Rhodesian and a World War II hero, sought to bring his country into full independence under a democratic constitution fortified by a bill of rights similar to that enjoyed in the United States. Rhodesia had no apartheid laws and had allowed people of all races on the electoral roles since 1923. But the British Foreign Office was prepared to turn the country over to Marxist leaders who disdained democratic structures.

Smith had worked in the Rhodesian Parliament to increase lands allotted to the tribal-trust areas and became prime minister in 1964. The next year, Rhodesia declared total independence from Great Britain in the spirit of 1776.

Smith worked to bring white and black leaders together under Western constitutional principles. Under fully democratic, elections in 1979, with expanded participation of black voters. Rhodesians elected Bishop Albert Muzorewa as prime minister, and the country's name was changed to Zimbabwe. However, one leader, Robert Mugabe, a self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist, boycotted the elections because he could not win on a level field. As a result of the Marxist boycott, Western leaders asserted that Muzorewa's election was not fully representative.

In tense negotiations at Lancaster House in London, Muzorewa, Smith and others negotiated protocols for a new election, based on the assumption that there would be no intimidation. Though that promise was betrayed, the Western powers hailed Mugabe's "victory." In the last 20 years, Mugabe has consolidated his power, jailing opponents, banishing a free press, killing local leaders and even resorting to "ethnic cleansing."

Insight: When did the Smiths come to Zimbabwe?

Ian Smith: My father came to Africa in 1897, so he was one of the pioneers. He lived there all his life as a farmer and was one of the leading men of the community, which was called Selukwe.

Insight: Is that where you grew up?

IS: Yes, and I am still working that farm today. I went to school in that little town. I went to Rhodes University in Grahamstown [South Africa], where the 1820 settlers landed, and was only there a couple of years when World War II broke out. Then I was a pilot in the Royal Air Force from 1941 right up to the end of the war. I was shot down over enemy lines in the Po Valley over Genoa [Italy].

I landed in the Ligurian Alps and was there for five months, fighting with the Italian Partizani against the Germans. I decided to come back because the winter was coming on and the Germans were coming down out of the snow line. We had to cross the alps above the snow line and walked for 23 days toward France because the American invasion force had come in.

It wasn't easy. But eventually I brought the team over. After that I went back to flying Spitfires on the German front.

Insight: And after the war you returned home?

IS: Yes.

Insight: Was the Smith family considered a large landholder?

IS: My farm is the standard size of farms in that area. Farms were divided throughout the country in keeping with the type of agriculture in the area where they were established. In the low veldt areas, where it is dry like Texas, there were big ranches, 20,000 up to 50,000 acres. And then, when you came to Matabeleland, they were down to 10,000 acres. In the midlands, where I am, they were down to 6,000 acres. Then when you went into the higher rainfall areas of Mashonaland, they went down to under 3,000 acres. The plan was to let a man live there with his wife and bring up his family in decent conditions and give employment to black people.

Insight: The charge, often is made that the white settlers came in and took all the best land and left the indigenous tribes with very poor, worn-out lands.

IS: There's no substance to that, but that is a common story by people who just wish to malign the white people. The British [government] simply said, "You leave all the black people where they are presently living." And it was divided pretty well equally. About one-third was tribal-trust land for the black people, about one-third was allocated for commercial farms and one-third was state land in between that could be used for different purposes: forest lands and game parks and future expansion of lands for the black people.

I happen to know a great deal about this because I was appointed to a select committee in [the Rhodesian] Parliament to examine the question of allocating new lands to the black people and examining the various soils in the country.

Insight: Were there no black people already farming in the areas now farmed today by white farmers?

IS: When the white man first came, there was nobody on those lands where they settled because those fields weren't so good. They are rated very poorly as Class I -- that is, the heavy red soils. The black people told us -- and I was on the select committee -- they said, "We are not interested in those lands. The white farmers with their tractors and heavy implements can plow those lands, and they can have them. We want the soft alluviums." And it so happens that the soft alluviums are the best soils of the country. So it is a complete misconception to say that the white man took the best lands. In fact, it is quite the reverse.