Page:MALAYSIA BILL RHODESIA AND NYASALAND BILL (1) (Hansard, 11 Juli 1963).djvu/23

 basis of Central African Airways. It also suggested that the railway network should continue to be operated on a joint basis, and that the Kariba Dam and the Zambesi project should be operated on a joint basis.

Other spheres in which co-operation might prove fruitful in the days and months that lie ahead are Customs and Excise, and Posts and Telegraphs. Looking ahead, one would think that in this young group of nations a great deal of research both agricultural and industrial will have to be carried out. Because of their uniform climatic and economic conditions, joint industrial and agricultural research projects might well provide opportunities for co-operation.

To my right hon. Friend I repeat my congratulations on the success that he has achieved, although I feel that this success is a hollow victory. The Federation has foundered on the rock of racial mistrust. Perhaps the concept of racial partnership as it was thought of in the old days of 1950 and 1955 was too bold and too premature. I submit that mankind will have to learn the lesson, whether it is in Little Rock, or Wankie, or even in London, that our task in the Federation is to retain what tenuous links we can to keep them together in the hope that these territories will individually learn that each is stronger in association than it is apart.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Creech Jones (Wakefield) I wish that the First Secretary had made the latter part of his speech in 1953 and not 1963. It was as true then as it is today. In 1953 it was politically unwise to push on with federation in the adopted form. I have always felt that it was an unrealistic political policy—a political blunder—largely because it ignored all that had gone before. It ignored the views expressed by the Bledisloe Royal Commission, and by almost all the enlightened people who had visited Central Africa and had had consultations with the African groups all over those territories.

In 1949 I had the privilege of touring the territories, meeting groups of Africans and discussing with them the possibilities of federation. They were unanimous in their opposition. They understood the implications of federation. Some of the discussions I had with the Africans were more enlightened and better informed than those I had with some Europeans. Therefore, it could not be pleaded that at that time the Africans did not oppose the idea, or did not understand what was involved in the policy of federation.

I want to explain why I opposed that form of federation. I did not oppose the concept of association; I had been an ardent supporter of the Central Africa Council—a council which was slowly bringing the three territories together, planning common services and securing at least the acquiescence of the Africans in its policy. It was torpedoed by Southern Rhodesia, but I have always felt that for geographical, economic and political reasons there should be some association between the three territories—something to take the place of the Central Africa Council.

I opposed this form of federation because it seemed to me that it was not a coming together of the three territories on an equal basis. Its constitution suggested that the ascendancy of the Europeans would be established. Consequently, there was fear and apprehension among the Africans, since Southern Rhodesia was to be in a stronger position than any other territory, and Southern Rhodesia was practising a policy of segregation and discrimination. The Africans had strong objections to a constitution which entrenched the power of the white minority and made it difficult for that power to be taken from them.

The then current talk among the leaders in Southern Rhodesia was that perhaps in a hundred years' time the Africans might begin to be ready to play a part in the political life of the territory. There was a series of contemptible speeches by Lord Malvern and Sir Roy Welensky which merely inflamed the opposition of the Africans to this proposition. I felt that a constitution which was opposed by the majority of the inhabitants of the country could not be made to work. It was a constitution which was imposed on the territory.

For those reasons I felt that it was unrealistic to go ahead with federation in this way. In 1952 I wrote that this concept