The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, U.S.

Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material.

If a user makes a request for, or later uses a photocopy or reproduction (including handwritten copies) for purposes in excess of fair use,
that user may be liable for copyright infringement. Users are advised to obtain permission from the copyright owner before any re-use of this material.

Use of this material is for private, non-commercial, and educational purposes; additional reprints and further distribution is prohibited.
Copies are not for resale. All other rights are reserved. For further information, contact
Director, Hoover Institution Library and Archives, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-6010.
.
'=\'" .
FIRING LID
NO. 221
AFRICA AND COLONIALISM
Wllllam F. Buckley, Jr.
Elspeth Huxley, Guest
OCTOBER 20, 1970
London, England
Mr. Buckley: There is in America an abatement of interest in Africa after the hectic
period of decolonization. Here, in England, A:f'rica still occupies the front pages and,
only recently Pres. Kaunda, of zambia, waJ.ked huffily out of No. 10 Downing Street
after dinner because the Prime Minister, Mr. Heath, declined to promise not to send
arms. to South Africa. Mr. Kaunda was heard to threaten to expel England from the
Conunonwealth -- which might be compared to expelling Abraham Lincoln from the Lincoln
. Monument. Here to discuss Africa and colonialism is Elspeth Huxley. Mrs. Huxley was
raised in A:f'rica -- in Kenya. -- studied agriculture at Redding and at Cornell in America,
and she has been wr1ting about Africa ever s).nce. No one would venture to sa;y whether
Mrs. Huxley is primarily a novelist, an historian, or an essayist. She is equally talented
in every field, and her English prose is unequalled among writers who have made Africa.
their primary focus of interest. She has been compared with lsak Dinesen.
I should like to begin by asking Mrs. Huxley whether she thinks it quite responsible
for England to have liquidated her empire at quite the speed she did.
Huxley: Whether it was -- I think there was no alternative. There comes
a point when events collect their own momentum. And you only defy momentum by using force,
and I think it had come to the point when,if we had not speeded up the decolonialization
period, we should have had to shoot a lot of people. And, apart from a reluctance at that
time -- more than there seems to be today -- to shoot a lot of people, it would not create
much good will afterwards. We've had lessons, I think, on this. I think we had a lesson
in Cyprus, where an attempt was madeto arrest the process, and that ended in a lot of
l?loodshed.
Mr. Buckley: Well, how do you account for the apparent success of the Portuguese in slowing
(:lawn decolonization'l
Mrs. Huxley: Well, r'm not sure --
l?) 1970 Mfm. r.. BllcileyJr.
Mr. Buckley: -- without, apparently, shooting a lot of people --

Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
",
..
-2-
Mrs. Huxley: Perhaps" apParently" is the word there
Mr. Buckley: (Cross-talk) Is that the right word?
Mrs. Huxley: -- I mean I have not been to the Portuguese territories. They have done
it by straightforward repression" have they not -- I think they have been very success..,
f'u1 and skillful at this" and they have done other things as well. -- constructive things.
But" in fact" I mean" they have taken the l.inewhich the French have attempted to take
in the beginning in Algeria. . And the Algerians were too many - - and too successful..
And they have been abl.e to contain it. I suppose, on the same basis, we might have been
abl.e to do so, if we had had massive mil.itary campaigns in Africa, perhaps we coul.d have.
But this was not part of our desire.
Mr. Buckley: Well, what I am really trying to expl.ore is whether two dogmas are recon-
cil.able: the one is that a nation ought not irresponsibly to retreat from a position in
which it enjoys a certain prestige and maintains a certain stabiJ..ity; and the second is
colonial.ism is always, under all circumtances wrong. Now" for instance" it presumably
would have been an act of statesmanship" would it not" to have been able to prevent such
losses of l.ife as in Nigeria and Biafra which took pl.ace during pericd of eighteen
months. Now" will history speak kindly of Engl.and's precipitate or will
history say, in effect, that simp1y because Engl.and found it an easier thing to do"
, they cloaked their withdraw8J. in anti-colonial. and humanitarian rhetoric -- and simply
got out while the going was good?
Mrs. Huxley: I don't think they did cloak it with that; I think they tried to del.ay it
as much as they coul.d -- with conferences of every kind" you know -- constitutions were
as thick as --
Mr. Buckley: I thought we just agreed that they could have delayed more. After all"
the resources of England are at least equal. to those of Portugal.
Mrs. Huxley: Onl.y by using a massive force in a great many different countries
Mr. Buckley: Portugal didn't use massive force -- in fact" there were a couple of
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr, University.
."
spectacular -- (Cross-talk)
Mrs. Huxley: They are still doing so. There are four years' compuJ.sory national service
in Portugal for every man over eighteen. I believe they spent 4 0 ~ of their budget on
military -- defense, whatever it is called -- I mean, this woul<l have been a crippling
burden, financially. And, also, the heart of the British people was not in it. I don't
think we'd ever wish to suppress people by force in our coUIitry -- in l ~ g e numbers. We
perhaps had an illusion that we were doing good -- I don't think it was an illusion.
I think we were. I think we left more hurriedly than would have been desirable -- but
I don't think as hurriedly as all that. You taJ.k about precipitate: I don't think
it was precipitate -- it was going on, well, ever since 1947 when India. became independent.
It was known it was going on, I think. The Sudan was the first, then there was Ghana --
which was some time in the late fifties -- Nigeria in about 1960 -- it wasn't very
precipitate.
Mr. Buckley: Well, 42 new countries in 8 years is generally thought of as quite fast.
Mrs. Huxley: Yes, but I think you can't compare it with the s1tuation in the Belgian
Congo, where it was precipitate -- because they had not anticipated withdrawal. Admittedly,
we should like to have had longer. I think ever/body would. But, there does come a point
when you' .ve got tQ choose -- either you say, well, we'll have an ideal situation where
more people have had time to graduate from universities -- there are more skilled people
equipped to take over the reins of government -- you can do this. Or, you can say that
is worse -- shooting a lot of people. The question of any kind of future -- of good
will -- if you leave in an atmosphere of bloodshed and violence, you can't expect to
attain what you hope to be, a commonwealth.
Mr. Buckley: Well, that certainly is a factor. And we saw, of course, in Kenya, really,
as I understand it, a combination of the two postures:on the one hand, while you were
there you were determined to repress the Mau Mau -- and you did so rather forthrightly.
Board of :rrustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
-4-
And then having done so, you withdrew. And Kenya entered into what I guess we would
agree to call happier days, at least, comparatively --
Mrs. Huxley:
Mr. Buckley:
Mrs. Huxley:
Mr. Buckley:
Yes.
At least for the time being.
Yes.
Well, you recently, in an interview, said that in point of fact you be-
lieved there was less we1l:being in Africa at this point than there was doing the
colonials' period. Now, as I understand it, your observation had nothing to do -- or
very little to do with the nature of government there, and a great deal to do with
economic factors. Is that correct?
Mrs. Huxley: Yes -- I'm not quite sure what the statement was, or what was exactly
meant by"we:ubeing" -- I think it is true that standards of living are not rising, as
people wished they had -- and they might have risen if colom.alism had gone on. But,
I don't think this is due to 0tU'" withdrawal. I think this is simply basically due to
the population explosion. This simply exceeds any attempt to try to keep pace with
education and health services, and so forth.
Mr. Buckley: What you wrote exactly was: "For the majority of people; life is
probably harder than it was before independence."
Mrs. Huxley: Yes. I think this is certainly true in. one respect -- there is less
employment. They've had to grapple with very difficult problems of employment. And
the question is, there is a enormous number leaving school every year with no employ-
ment market. Their trade has not expanded -- this, again, is an economics matter which
has nothing to do with our withdrawal; in fact, trade has moved against the primary
producing countries in the last seven or eight years. They get less relatively for
what they export -- and pay more for what they have to import. And I should think
that opportunities may have shrunk in some way. But, OD the other hand, I wouldn't
think that almost any of them, if asked, would say they would like to go back to
colonialism -- that I feel sure of.
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
., ....
'.
-5-
Mr. Buckley: No. I expect you are correct -- althoUgh it is true, is it not, that
there is vast emigration f'rom "self'-ruling' countries in Africa to --
Mrs. Huxley: Down in South Africa --
Mr. Buckley: Down in South Africa --
Mrs. Huxley: This is, again, the search f'or jobs.
Mr. Buckley: So, presumably, some people do put a premium on relative material
prosperity.
Mrs. Huxley: Yes, I think a great many have gone as temporary -- as a good many do
here. They come where the streets are lined with gold in order to take something
back home. I think this happens. And, of' course, this is perfectly true -- the
countries like South Africa, with a great deal of' industry and large injections of'
capita1 are economica1J.y better of'f' and paying higher wages. This is perf'ectly true.
Mr. Buckley: Well, when you wrote -- or, rather, you said, "You see, these people
have tremendous visions of' the splendors and glories of' independence and what it
would bring them. Of' course, it didn't happen that way. It never does."
Mrs. Huxley: Well, that is true, isn't it.
Mr. Buckley: Well, who was responsible for visions?
Mrs. Huxley: Human nature.
Mr. Buckley: Yes.
Mrs. Huxley: It's responsible f'or that.
Mr. Buckley: Well, is it a vision c6ncerning which there was collaboration by, on the
one hand, the people who led them out of' colonialism -- plus also the colonialists?
Did they encourage them to
Mrs. Huxley: When you get independence, you throw off' the yolk -- all these rather
cliches, and so on. But this is how you see it. It's perhaps like in the old days when
you came of' age. It doesn't happen now. But you f'elt that you got away f'rom authority
and you thought the world was going to be wonderful. Gradually, as you go on, the world
.....,
'.
Board of :rrustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
.. ..J:';"
. ~
isn't wonder:ful. It never is. But I don't think you can b l ~ any particular person.
I don't think the British or any of the other colonial powers led them to believe life
would be splendid. They just thought that way.
Mr. Buckley: Yes.
Mrs. Huxley: All nationalists think that way, I expect. I expect they think that way
and, perhaps, the people in Quebec are thinking that way today.
Mr. Buckley: Sure.
Mrs. Huxley: Th1.s is the way people think.
Mr. Buckley: You say now, and perhaps you thought then, "They cannot possibly have
democratic government;'from which I understand you to be saying it simply ian' t in the
cards, considering the --
!vIrs. Huxley: Did I say it just like that? -- that they can't have democratic government
-- or democratic government on the British, let us say, British model. It might be
French or -- or what is now called the Westminster mOdel. There has been a lot of talk
-- there was at that time. It is true, I think, the Westminster model, for various
sociological
Mr. Buckley: Yes -- sure.
Mr. Huxley: -- did not suit the African. I don't think that I've ever said " democratic,It
which is the sense of the people having very considerable say -- because that was the
'I;raditiona! African system. I don't think the party system, as we know it in this
country, has fitted in with their particular traditions. They have very quickly and
smartly thrown it overboard. That doesn't mean there's no democracy.
Mr. Buckley: Your elaboration was, It I've never thought that parliamentary democracy
would work in Africa, or that the Africans wanted it. It isn't the kind of system that
they like."
Mrs. Huxley: No. This is the in and out system that they don't like.
Mr. Buckley: Yes.
Mrs. Huxley: The two-party system in which the opposition is just waiting -- you
Board of 'Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University. ~ I . ., ,
,.
OJ
'
-7-
have a changeover -- you blow a whistle because it's half'-time and decide to change.
This is the thing -- they haven't really been brought up on football and cricket and so on.
(Station Break)
Mr. Buckley: Mrs.. Huxley, it was part of the dream of decolonization that one should be
self-ruling. Now," self-ruled,1I real.ly means something, or doesn't, surely, on the basis
of whether the individuals' preferences count -- whether they are tabulated.. So, for you
to say that, on the other hand, -- on the one hand, they are going to have just a one-
party system because they don't believe in parliamentary democracy; but, on the other hand,
they are going to have the blessings of self-rule, strikes me as making a rather abstract
point.
Mrs. Huxley: I don't think an A:f'rican would say that. You see, their traditional method
was that they had this argument -- dialogue to straighten things out -- but at a prelimin-
ary stage. And they will now say that in a one-party state, there can be a number of
candidates when you have your elections, and they will do all this beforehand. I think
this comes down from the traditional tribal government which varies according to tribes.
In that way you could have conferences in which people would talk; but they didn't end
by taking votes. At the end, the chief, if there was a chief, -- a chieftanship --
would more or less sum up and say, well, this is what is going to happen. And then it
happened, and the argument was over. Then it became more or less treasonable to q u e s t ~ o n
the word of the chief. But the idea that sometime or other this particular chief, who
was your traditional head, should be overthrown by another chief, of course, often
happened. But this was anarchy -- this was all civil war --
Mr. Buckley: Hobbes thought of that, too, didn't he'?
Mrs. Huxley: . -- or, indeed, just conquest. It wouldn't happen peaceably within the
tribe -- unless there were circumstances in which it did, I thihk. For instance, in
one tribe the chief became absolutely impossible. Somebody anonymously brought him
a parrot's egg -- and that was a symbol that he had to go off into the bush and commit
suicide. Which I think very often happened. Again, when people became weak and could no
. Board of :rrustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
.;'

longer-- they were obviously failing physicaL1.y.' of course, among most of the tribes
they were very often quietly put out of the way. Blood was never to be shed; they were
strangled, and somebody else took their place. I mean, there were ways of getting rid
of a government -- but not just by voting. I am not suggesting that this would happen
today, but I think the tradition : is there -- that it becomes very especially
in these countries that are not unified in the way we understand it in this country. They
are too diversified; tribalism is still very much alive. And this would unleash all sorts
of forces. In effect, when you have our kind of parliamentary democracy with voting,
the parties tend almost always to put contend:j.ng parties out of the tribe. This, of
course, happened in Nigeria. And then you simply have tribal warfare -- extending into
the political field, instead of what they always wished -- which was tribal traditions
-- to be gradually overcome. Therefore, they have a long way to go. But that' s their
wish, I think.
Mr. Buckley: Yes, well --
Mrs. Huxley: That
l
s why I think parliamentary democracy -- they often think -- to be
very often wrong for them.
Mr. Buckley: I donI t doubt peopleI s infinite ingenuity in justi:fying one party govern-
ment -- for that matter, one-man government -- both of us have got a lot of votes on
that theme (Mrs. Huxley laughs) -- what I am wondering is, whether or not it is a form
of western paternalism to simply accept the mockery of political freedom in that part of
the world: point I, point II: what I am wondering is, whether it is intellectually
responsible, to say nothing of morally responsible, for westerners to say, in effect,
well, look, don't you understand that the kind of freedom we enjoy is purely an aspect
of our culture. You can't expect people in that part of the world, with a shorter ex-
perience with freedom, to enjoy the same kind of thing. Now, I grant that this is an
historical observation, but I can't understand it as an observation that goes so far as
to say: then, therefore, let us simply assume that they are better off and happier
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
.-
;/::
"Ii
."
-9-
under one-man, one-party rule, than they were under a system in which the minority's
rights were protected by the Crown.
Mrs. Huxley: Well, I don't know -- I think. there are two answers to that. I mean,
it's more paternal, still, to say there is only one system: it is ours, and if you don't
practice it, you're falling down and you are just being immature. We have said that a
great deal, and it is extremely annoying to them.
Mr. Buckley: I don't think. you have to go into --
Mrs. Huxley: They may not want our system. We often assume that we have this Grail --
this Holy Grail -- and everybo<iy doesn't want it.
Mr. Buckley: I'm not talking about --
Mrs. Huxley: They don't necessarily want it.
Mr. Buckley: I'.m not talking about the forms. I grant that there are many forms by
which one can be governed -- our own in America are different from yours. But this is
not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about substantive freedoms. Can we assume that
nobody takes pleasure, let's say, in being boiled in oil, if he happens to disagree with
the chief of state. We can assume this is universal.
Mrs. Huxley: On the whole, a lot of people do it in honesty (Laughter) but I quite
agree -- but, what can we do then? I mean, again, it's a little irresponsible simply to
condemn them. We say we do not agree to b<?iling people in oil. But we can't go and send
a gunboat to stop them from doing it.
Mr. Buckley: No --
Mrs. Huxley: Because it becomes a little petty --
Mr. Bu::aey: Well -- No-no-no --
~ s . Huxley: People go on saying how dreadful you are -- you do these awful. oil boilings
-- but we can't stop it -. we can't do anything but say, tut-tut.
Mr. Buckley: The reason I bring these things up is because, after all, Englishmen and
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
....
-10-
Americans spend an Awful lot of time talking about the horrors of Rhodesia and South
Africa -- and very little time at all talking about what, if one uses the same standards,
one would denounce as in certain other countries.
Mrs. Huxley: Uh-hmm.
Mr. Buckley: Now, I take it that this is a sort of convoluted form of racism, i. e.,
implicit in these judgments, well, after all, if black people do it, what else can you
expect. But if white people do it -- well, this is to be very roundly denounced.
Mrs. Huxley: That's probably true; we condemn it more when white people do it. I
suppose it's true -- we can do nothing about the white people, either. Personally, I'm
rather against that. I've never joined anti-apartheid movements for the exactly the
same reason; it doesn't help -- it doesn't do any good. I can't do anything about it.
So, therefore, don't let us preach to them about what they ought to do.
Mr. Buckley: Well, don't you believe that certain moral pressures ought to emanate from
more fortunate countries toward less fortunate countries?
Mrs. Huxley: Well, certain pressures; I think this is certainly arguable
Mr. Buckley: I said, moral.
Mrs. Huxley: Yes, I'm not sure about "moralo" I think if it comes right down 1;0 it,
if we care enough, we should probably say, we should cut off all trade with South Africa.
Mr. Buckley: That's not a moral question.
Mrs. Huxley: !fo, that is the kind of question that counts. I don't know what moral
pressure you can exert on people who are perf'eotly convinced that morally they have the
answers.
Mr. Buckley: Well, you can hope, eventually, to isolate them can't you?
Mrs. Huxley: I don't think -- well, you are talking about specifically, South Africa?
Mr. Buckley: Well, I think a thing called, world opinbn, does exist.
Mrs. Huxley: Not much with Afrikaners; they think they have the answer.. They have
direct communication with God, and it's all right, you see. I mean, it's all in the Bible
"
-,
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr, University.
-ll-
Mr. Buckley: Bow, wait a minute: they think two things. First or all, they think that.-
apartheid is going to end up helping the black people faster than they are helped else-
where. No.2, they think there is a great discrepancy between how life actualJ..yis in
South Africa, and how they think it is. That's why they invite journalists to go down
there, rather than keeping them away. But those are two distinct --- (Cross-talk)
Mrs. Huxley: I think that ultimately they will not help black people faster, but
ultimately there will be a solution -- there could be a solution without bloodshed,
which is the only honorable solution. That, at least, is what they think. I may be wrong.
Mr. Buckley: Well, the true philosophers of apartheid actually believe that this is sort
of a mysticism with them; they actually believe that they are going to bring about a
miracle far sooner than was brought about, say in Ghana; isn't that correct?
Mrs. -Huxley: They believe that there is a future for this separate development which
can be constructive in the sense that the Africans wi thin their own areas -- but pressures
will make this impossible. But, about South Africa, all the economic pressures. really
are on the side of working towards modification of apartheid. Therefore, I don't agree
with the idea that we should sever all connection with them.
Mr. Buckley: What about Rhodesia?
Mrs. Huxley: Well, Rhodesia, I think, has been a tragedy -- entirely to mismanagement
by us. I mean, Rhodesia, you see, was not sold on the South African policy. You see,
it was sort of' ba1f'way. It was not a country, while I was there, which was, practicing
complete apartheid. There was a good. deal of it in the Land Apportionment Act. But
there was a multi-racial society in Salisbury -- there were Africans staying in the
hotel where we stayed. They have a multi-racial university. There was no question or
segregation in public places at all. And all this, I think, could have been salvaged,
if we had not just stood on our pride. Really, the basic issue originally about South
Africa was not really -- I mean, about Rhodesia -- was not really trying to do the
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
-, ]
I
."
-12-
best for Africans -- I think we made that position far worse-- it was national pride..
Ian Sm!th didn't wait for a member of the Royal family to come and haul down the flag.
He did it himself. You see, you've got to do this thing in an orderly and proper way.
This offended people terribly. And the issue, real.l.y, origina.l.1y was that of sovereignty.
what
And that was originally/the talks really came down to. If you will just hand over every-
thing to good -- what's his name -- Sir Humphrey Gibbs -- and give it all back,. then we
can talk. This was basically a far more important issue at that time -- and it could
have been settled. We could have done a great deal better for Africans. We've cut of':f
all the support which was going maipJ.y to Africans --things like education, and forced
them to become moreor less an adjunct of South A:f'rica. I think this was a great failure.
(Station Break)
Mr. Buckley: Our State Department in America has a sort of handbook on Africa, and under
Rhodesia it:.refers to the government of Mr. Ian Smith as II illegal," which is to accept
the British construction --
Mrs. Huxley: They accept entirely the British construction. Most interesting the way
America, which I always understood was against imperialism -- you know -- the British __
the redcoats and all that -- suddenly becomes a tremendous protagonist of the British
Empire; he has done it illegally -- so, therefore he was a sort of pariah -- it wasn't done
in the proper way -- this is very basically the thing.
Mr. Buckley: Yes, that does perplex quite a lot of us.
Mrs. Huxley: It surprised me -- still it's nice to think they're all for the crown __
Mr. Buckley: (Obviously smiling) Yes, such solidarity. You will accept us as a member of'
your Commonwealt},tafter your've lost zambia. Did the Conservative Party when it came back
to power last Spring of'f'er a new Rhodesia policy?
Mrs. Huxley: I don't think so -- I don't think they can because they were very largely
responsible, really, f'or the original Labour action, but they haven't got any better record.
The great mistake originally made was when the Central African Federation was resolved
about 1960 - and Malawi and Zambia had their independen-!-h
e
It
... was not given to
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
e
-13-
Southern Rhodesia, which was a much less advanced country. It was held over. Actually,
at that point, it could have made some terms which would have given a fair deal to Africans
not all at once but a gradual increase of representation, and so forth. You see, there
are still Africans in the Central -- but they failed to do that, for various reasons.
Mr. Buckley: Yes. Well, remind me of this -- why was Rhodesia's secession illegal, and
South Africa's legal?
Mrs. Huxley: Well, South Africa goes back a long time --
. Mr. Buckley: Well, Rhodesia has been self-governing since 1921.
Mrs. Huxley: Yes, but not quite as self-governing. These are all tremendous legal
quIbbles it still was not completely independent. It still had certain reservations
which we
Mr. Buckley:
Mrs. Huxley:
What did South Africa
South Africa, I think, had a dominion state which had complete independence,.
as far as they were concerned.
Mr. Buckley: Ah -- so anybody who has dominion status can evolve at will to total inde-
pendence'l
Mrs. Huxley: Yes, they don't have to have something passed in the House of Parliament.
There were certain reservations put on certain acts affecting African lands which had to
go through the British Parliament by order and counsel. And so, there was here one of
those curious half-way houses which are very difficult to explain don't think I
ought to do it.
Mr. Buckley: Well, do you think America's policy towards Rhodesia grows out of sort of a
residual Wilsonianism in our system or is it simply that we want to be obliging with you
people because you're obliging with us sometimes?
Mrs. Huxl:ey: Well, I should think it is very largely because America is in the same posi-
tion as we are -- it doesn't want to offend an enormous number of independent Africa
nations in the United Nations. It also is because you have your terrible racial procem
at home -- which is tied up. Therefore, you do not want to affront African opinion.
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
-.' ....
-14-
Perhaps it is more important for you not to do so than it is with us.
Mr. Buckley: Let me ask you this, would this be a fair analogy that tho.sa Americans
who boycott, for a Polish ham, on the grounds that, after all, Poland is a
slave state, without any political freedom whatsoever, and that those who dominate
Poland are a foreign power, and this ought to be a form of protest in which everybody
should concert -- would this be an equivalent of those who boycott Rhodesia?
Mrs. Huxley: I did not know that people boycotted Polish hams -- it might be very well
because you know as a result of this course -- that you have to buy things from Russia
which are very much more expensive than if you got them from Rhodesia.
Mr. Buckley: From what you know about Rhodesia, assuming that there were a plebiscite
there in which the people of Rhodesia, and I mean, of course, the people of Rhodesia,
were asked whether they favor a boycott of Rhodesia, is there an obvious answer'l
Mrs. Huxley: I should have thought so. Though it might be difficult for them to
quite know what you meant by it. You mean, in other words, we don't buy their tobacco,
and so forth.
Mr. Buckley: Would they prefer us to oppress their oppressors, or to continue to trade
with them?
Mrx. Huxley: My guess is no better than yours --
Mr. Buckley: It should be better -- you're an African
Mrs. Huxley: Well, no, it's very difficult to explain all this in very simple terms to
a peasant people, wouldn't it. But I should say we want to sell our s'W:f'f, if we can
grow it and somebody to buy it from us. They might also say that we should like to have
more political rights. But, of course, as you know with any undeveloped country, the
number of people concerned in this desire for political rights is very influential and
ultimately it becomes the voices, but it is at the time a very small one. The voice
of the people is mainly concerned in what is going to be the price of meat, and so fvrth,
and have youre going to arrange the market.
Mr. Buckley: When Mr. Kaunda was in London, and he had the fabled row with Mr. Heath,
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
. "
-15-
do your sources confirm that Mr. Heath retaliated by reminding Mr. that his own
country was trading with South Africa via Rhodesia -- or is this just an embellishment --
Mrs. Huxley: No, I think this is true. The zambia trade with South Mrica has more than
doubled since U. D. I.
Mr. Buckley: Well, doesn't that - ...
Mrs. Huxley: because they need the things--
Mr. Buckley: create philosophical difficulties, or they matter?
Mrs. Huxley: Well, I think the philosoPhical difficulties are very quickly brushed
aside by ardent nationalists; there are obvious logical ones. see, all this is
on an emotional level, really, isn't it, and they don't like it -- I think this is one
of the things that you don't like to do but at the same time you can't cut off trade.
They would much prefer it, and I think attached such hopes for the Tanzan Railway being
built by the Chinese; by, again, this is an idealistic thougbtthat a railway running
right across these very inhospitable regions -- terrible country -- will, in fact, be
to send
an economic way/stuff to markets which are on the other side of the world. I mean, this
is one of these things where nationalism doesn't make for common sense --any more than
it does in South Africa, you see. You've got the same thing there
have this dedication to apartheid, and I think they're rather like
pantomime donkeys? In America?
Mr. B'lI.ckley: No.
the nationalists
do you have
Mrs. Huxley: You have two men done up like a donkey -- one is the forelegs, and one is
the hindlegs in a pantomime, you know -- sometimes they have a little cornie tarn when
one wants to go in one direction, and the other in the other.
l4r. Buckley: Yes -- yes.
Mrs. Huxley: And they're sort of torn apart. And I think this is somewhat like South
. Af'rica -- you've got apartheid and the Afrikaners and nationalists going forward with
one set of legs -- the whole economic set-up is becoming more and more complex and
integrated, and depending entirely on Af'rican labor -- becoming skilled -- and going the
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
'.'
-16-
other way. And so you've got this tug between the two; in you can't have
apartheid and a modern industrial system. And South has got eventually to
choose. This is the way apartheid, to my mind, ultimately will be dealt with, rather
than marching Square.
Mr. Buckley: Do you think that South has re.:lched the point where the pressures
of apartheid on economic growth have actually been reached -- or have been I
think they are being felt very considerably -- yes, I think they are. I was told
the other day by an architect who was practising inside South building a lot
buildings, that they pay 10,000 pounds a week in finesfor breaking the Job Preserva-
tion Act, which means you have skilled semi-skilled -- who are
always called teaboys because they lliustn't be called anything else} doing the jObs
that they're not supposed to do. This is the kind of thing that one can't see going on.
Mr. Buclu.ey: Like a black market in Russia.
Mrs. Huxley: It's nonsense, yes, it's going on a long time. There's a whole new
generation of Afrikaners growing up, which I think is very interesting. They're
very sophisticated people -- they've got an urban background -- they're totally
from their fathers and grandfathers. And they are now getting on the big
board of banks, insurance companies and industries.
Mr. Buckley: And they're less hard-nosed about it.
Mrs. Huxley: Well -- they see the sense of it. But I think the pressure is all the
time mounting up. And, of course, you've got the reaction the companies lined up
under Albert Hartzog who equally is trying to bolster pressure in the other direction.
(Station Break)
Mr. Buclu.ey: May I ask you this, Mrx. Huxley, as far as the typical Englishman is
concerned, would you be to America for sort keeping out Rhodesian and
South African Or ii'ould you rather welcome i t we sort of changed our li'nes
, - - you change yours, SO you?
'.
- -.
Mrs. Huxley: Well, I' don't think anyone would expect that, but I think on the question
'of Rhodesia, up to now as far as I know, the two have been in harmony more or less. I.
don't think anyone would expect to change your line to suit us --
Mr. Buckley: But there are an awful lot of Americans who think we're damned fools,
Dean Acheson being one.
Mrs. Huxley: Yes.
Mr. Buckley: For getting into this Commonwealth squabble between you and Rhodesia.
And you might even find a lot of liberals who, whatever their feelings about etlual
rights, reacting nowadays Y!:El.., very strongly against amoral imperialism. I give you
an and that's Senator Fulbright, who says that America can certainly bemoafi
the existence of odious political regimes anywhere in the world --but we have no
quarrel with them unless they seek to export them -- which is a position that whose
cogency appeals to more and more Americans. Now, would you feel terribly let down,
if, let's say, a President of the United States said, well, as far as this Rhodesia
business and U. D. I., and so On and so forth -- we're prepared to accept the de facto
government of Ian Smith --
Mr. Buckley: \'lell, personally, I wouldn't because I think that in the end it would be
a good thing. No, I think, on the whole, it's difficult to find what American policy
is on Africa. I think there's a general feeling that you've had it more or less --
the kid gloves not likely to do anything definite -- largely for fear of repercussions
at home, which I suppose is very justified. I mean, you've got to think of Black
Pant1Wf-n .-eRg. tpa8R' think there's a feeling that you're just sitting in the
corner, Inot wishing to stick another pin into it; w'liy say anything too provoca.tive
about Africa.
Mr. Buckley: You know, there are something less than 200 Black Panthers in the States --
Mrs. Huxley: Yes, I'm sure -- this is always so with minority --
Mr. Buckley: They don't tluite yet wag our--well, ma.ybe they do -- presumably somebody
dictates our foreign policy.
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
\ .
'.
1 .
-18-
Mrs. Huxley: Yes, well, I think your foreign policy on Africa has been very negative,
I must say, as far as I'm concerned -- I just don't know very muck about it. But,
there's not been a lot of has there? And, again, on South Africa, you're like
us -- your trade was considerable -- and then, all of a sudden the sailors on one of
your ships were forbidden to land there -- somebody got a nice supper ready and they
couldn't serve it. And this seemed to be very gratuitous and didn't lead to very much..
It was just a sort of moral gesture.
Mr. Buckley: Yes -- well, moral gestures have their place, too; I was talking with
Lord Caradon, and I thought he was going to have to be carried out -- he worked. up
such a moral lather on the subject of Rhodesia. I thought I'd have to say, R-h-o-d-e-s-i-a.
Mrs. Huxley: (Laughing) Yes.
Mr. Buckley: You know, it seems extraordinary in the light of his total urbanity
about Red China and things like that. Anyway, you don't think there would be a feeling
of betrayal on the part of the English people, if we sort of walked out on you --
Mrs. Huxley: I wouldn't say so because I think there's considerable disillusion anlong
the English people about African affairs. It's quite expensive -- we have to give out
a lot in aid; a lot of people think it's not enough, but it is.
Mr. Buckley: Yes, we're paying three times as much for dhrome from Russia -- because
we're not allowed to sell -
Mr. Huxley: Yes, and I think there's a feeling of that. I don't think people will be
very disillusioned. There's the whole question of_the Commonwealth, now -- there are
great threats about leaving the Commonwealth, but nobody seems to know what the
Commonwealth is. I mean, nobody is able to define the Cmmmonwealth -- it doesn't
really exist. There is a small office in London with Dr. Smith and --
Mr. Buckley: It's an administrative abstraction, but it
Mrs. Huxley: Well what works? Nothing really works.
Mr. Buckley: Ohhh it shores up the sterling system, for one thing.
Mrs. Huxley: No, well, I don't think that all the members-- I think a lot of them
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
'.
-19-
are republics -- one or two of them were at war with each other -- and had to call in
Russia to sort it out -- when India and Pakistan were more or less at war. And then
there was the civil war in Nigeria -- Biafra. I think it was a beautiful idea, but
I don't think there is any community of interest now. I think. that one advantage is
the continuous discussion goes on -- and I think it's probably easier to discuss, and
all the discussions are in English. But, otherwise, I think it's really the "emperor's
clothes," if anybody looked around and said what is (unclear)
Buckley: It would be like the British Constitution.
Mrs. Huxley: Yes, I don't think you would really notice it very, very much.1 think
it's fantasy, really.
Mr. Buckley: As much could be said of the UN, I suppose. It has got a building.
Mrs. Huxley: Well, it has a constitution -- a large secretariat. No, I think the UN
does do things, you see. As a UN it doesn't keep peace and all that kind of thing,
but it has all its agencies which do a great deal. The Commonwealth could, I suppose
Mr. Buckley: Well, you had a little thing dusting up with Anguilla a while ago.
Mrs. Huxley: Yes, that was splendid, wasn't it. If only Gilbert and Sullivan had been
alive -- it would read so much better. (Mr. Buckley laughs)
Mr. Buckley: Then, we can leave it this way that you think. the practical situation
both in Rhodesia and South Africa is ultimately going to prevail --
Mrs. Huxley: That I wouldn't like to say about South Africa becaus,e I think very
often realities do not prevail. I think there's a chance, that's all. I don't say
that I think it necessarily will. And, of course, there is no question that anti-
South African feeling is building up, and guerrilla warfare against South Africa
escalate, I should think -- without question from these camps in Zambia and
Mr. Buckley; Why are so many Englishmen opposed to sending to South A:frica weapons
which couldn't possibly be used for purposes of black repression unless Tanzania and
Zambia developed an enormous navy --
Mrs. Huxley: Because this is what you were talking about -- a moral gesture. It will .
12 ..,1 sf Twat
sa
Uk ! ! pi 12M fut 'f I 'p;"Ncitw
- I
.. ..
'- ...
-20-
be interpreted throughout Africa as a sort of apprOval -- well, not exactly approval.,
but a failure to condemn apartheid, lining up with the white South Africans against
the future development of African --
Mr. Buckley: In a sense that trade is not'l
Mrs. Huxley: Yes, that's why I think on balance it would be a mistake to resume these
sales to South Africa because the factors of emotional and symbolic importance --
Mr. Buckley: You would vote against it?
Mrs. Huxley: I would simply on those grounds -- we should lose more than we should
gain.
Mr. Buckley: Would you vote against it, if you knew that South Africa couldn't get the
arms from anybody else?
Mrs. :Huxley: Of course we do know that she can get other arms.
Mr. Buckley: ,I know, I know. That's why I asked you the question.
Mrs. Huxley: If she couldn't get them from anyone else --
Mr. Buckley: If onl,y" England were in a position to make the arms to South Africa..,
would you then waive the moral --
Huxley: Personally, I would prefer to see it resume -- but I think we should be
throwing away so that it would not be in the national interest to do it.
Mr. Buckley: You could sell them to us and we could sell them to them -- that would
be okay.
Mrs. Huxley: It's very difficult to answer because I don't know how important it is
strategically.
Mr. Buckley: I see.
Mrs. Huxley: None of us do. The fact, of course, is that the Indian Ocean is on the
way to becoming Russian. I mean, the British Navy having removed itself, the Russian
Navy is beginning to come in -- they've got ships there and a submarine base --
(Station Break)
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
"
..
. . .
Mr. Buckley: Hr. Standler:
Mr. Standler: I wondered if we could clarify this question of arms to South Africa.
I vonder if you would agree that there is a difference between some trading with a
country whose policies you disagree with -- and actually selling them arms. For example,
the United States trades with Communist countries in the east, but clearly wouldn't
dream of selling them arms. I think the strategical point -- one wonders, perhaps,
how much use it would be for the Soviet fleet to sink an English ship going around
the (jape, except in a time of all-out global warfare. In which case, the Soviet fleet,.
perhaps, would have better things to do --
Mrs. Huxley: Yes, I agree this is very problematical, although I think there s.re
other reasons they want bases in the Indian Ocean than just attacking shipping.
They would be on hand to take advantage of any disturbed situation that might arise
on the mainland. I think, basically, they want air cover -- therefore, they've got to
have land bases. The Soviets, in fact, have got one in Somalia.
Mr. Standler: I vonder if you would agree that)making what you agree is a symbolic
gesture of sending arms to South Africa, we are, in fact, going to drive the black
African countries straight into the arnw of Russia and China -- indeed, some of the
African countries have intimated that if we do sell arms, they will offer the Soviet
fleet facilities in their own harbors.
Mrs. Huxley: T"nat's exactly vhy I think that on balance we should be wrong to do it
-- they may be a certain amount of flap -- there always is about these things. And
the Soviet don't always want what they're offered. They are not very pleased with
the bargains that they made in Egypt. But, of course, this is true ~ - this is what
happened in the case of Egypt. And even more, perhaps, Red China -- I think which
may well be more a fact in the end.
Hr. Standler: And also, on this question of sanctions against Rhodesia, you, Mr.
Buckley, asked whether the African population aren't getting hit harder -- in fact,
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
..
.
-22-
the leader of the African opposition, who is by no means the most radical, himself,
said that the African people is not prepared to sell their heritage for a mess of
pottage.
Mr. Buckley: It's nice to know that we tolerate opposition -- (Laughs)
Mr. Standler: Er -- we don't tolerate -- or they don't tolerate too much of an
opposition. The concentration camps are really pretty full in Rhodesia, in fact.
Mr. Buckley: Are they really?
Mrs. Huxley: I think when we were there there were no concentration camps at all
-- but there were only 400 people detained for political reasons --
Mr. Standler: Including amongst them a former white prime minister under house
arrest.
Mrs. Huxley: Well, it was a very general house arrest.
Mr. Buckley: Which shows that it's not a racist kind of oppressiQn.
Mr. Standler: Which shows, I think, that it is a racist oppression since they are
even prepared to arrest a former ex-white (sic) prime minister.
Mrs. Huxley: He wasn't really arrested -- anybody could go in and
. Mr. Standler: He was under house arrest.
~ ~ s . Huxley: Well--
Mr. Standler: On the grounds that he was against their racial policy.
Mrs. Huxley: Oh yes, I never argue that this is the perfect thing -- but only we
made it worse. We've made conditions worse for Africa.
Mr. Standler: But,you see, the point is --
Mrs. Huxley: I think Ian may have said this -- I think any good nationalist would --
~ ~ . Standler: I think you maintained earlier on that really this whole question of
sanctions was no more than a question of legal quibbles. Over U. D. I. But, there
is surely a far more important and more basic question involved, and that is, we are
under an obligation to the Africans to guarantee that they should not be given, the
whi tes, .s}v;> uld not be given independence, unless there is a blocking quarter in the
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
.
-23-
constitution -- a black blocking quarter -- which could prevent Mr.. Smith :from changing
the constitution --
Mrs. Huxley: But there is no point in arguing all this --they have got independence,
and have removed themselves from any position in which we can influence them. We
will not be practical in these matters. We can no longer influencethem-- except by
trying to starve everybody out. I think we would have gone on better by playing a
little politicsi and the talks did not break down finally on this -- but on repudiating
U. D. I., and on the question of sovereignty.
Mr. Standler: But sanctions are, in fact, beginning to bite, are they not?
Mrs. Huxley: Well, I suspect so, but on the Africans, too. I mean, I just don't
think this is an intelligent way to deal with the situation it just makes everybody
worse off. Africans and everyone else. And to make the political situation worse
because the Rhodesians have been forced -- to use one of these splendid cliches -- into
the arms of South Africa.
Mr. Standler: I --
Mr. Evans: But this is surely an emotive myth-world, with the greatest respect to Mr.
Standler. What has happened basically is that the British Government got itself into a
whole series of nets over Rhodesia. First of all, the traditional policy of the British
in Africa, up to Suez, was very much that we were going to stay there. This ignored
the fact that we lost India, and, therefore, the means to do it. The Americans deserted
us at Suez; we had a whole lot of liberal pressure at home believing all this business
about turning Africa into a whole series of black democracies on the Westminster model.
The thing turns very rapidly -- very, very sour, indeed. There's an increasing feeling
at home that something's gone wrong, but there remains, inevitably, in the British
reaction against imperialism this sort of moralistic cant of owing obligations, which
is so far removed from any reality that what you end up with is that the British Govern-
ment has said that it owes these obligations to the Rhodesians -- their indigenous
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
'.
-24-
populations in Rhodesia -- they can't carry them out . It has made a whole series or
messes internationally, attempting to do so. It lied or at least its former Prime
Minister did -- as to the prospects of suppressing U. D. I. And it's now, surely, the
best situation ror the thing gradually to be accepted that Rhodesia, de facto, is
independent. To presume anything else is just talking idealistic --
.(Both Mrs. Huxley and Mr. Standler join in cross-talk which is inaudible)
Mr. Buckley: Do you think you can cope with that q,uestion, Mrs. Huxley?
Mrs. Huxley: Well, I would agree with it. It isa recognized fact. You may not like
them. A hell of a lot of racts arenot particularly acceptable to us. And Mr. Smith,
who is a silly little man right out in the middle of Africa, . snapped his ringers at the
whole of the great British nation. That's too bad. Let us start from there. Having
said that, we will then, and I am sure that they will be perfectly prepared to talk
sense, we would then do the best we could for the Africans. And we should, in fact,
do more. Let us take a practical case -- no African can take a medical degree without
going to take the medical part of it in South Africa which, in fact, they are doing.
But he can't come to a British university; they used to have an arrangement with the
university. This, I don't think, helps anyone. Let's recognize it a n d ~ a r t from there.
Mr. Buckley: Miss Filwig.
Miss Filwig: I consider that Roger's (Mr. Evans) point is seeming to ignore the fact
that we were in Africa -- that we aren't - ~
Mr. Evans: But we owe an emotional responsibility to America. Surely, we were there
once.
(Cross-talk with Mr. Standler, Miss Filwig) --(inaudible)
Miss Filwig: -- and you're talking about America taking a firm line on Rhodesia. If
it were a tit ror tat situation, we could take more of our own line on Vietnam. I'd be
very happy to see that. But I think that we're talking here in these beautif'ul, pure,
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
-25-
terms, you know, that we boycott Polish hams, and we wouldn't go see the Moscowballet
-- as well as stopping a South African cricket tour. And, certainly, you know, the
principles through our. trade and political relationships can't be consistent. And you
have to discriminate as to what you feel guiltiest about, Roger. I know you hate guilt
Mr. Evans: What happened in A f ~ i c a was that we capitulated. Some armed thug said,
Boo, to us you've got to get out,in all this rhetorical cant, and we just --
Miss Filwig: But we went in first -- we went there.
Mr. Evans: Of course we did --
Mr. Standler: .You were saying that we must be realistic in dealing with facts, there
are two facts that I think perhaps have been ignored: the first is, that sanctions
are beginning to bite, as you yourself pointed out, the Rhodesian economy has got to
expand in order to keep pace with the exploding population. It cannot expand without
foreign investment, and that is not forthcoming as a result of sanctions. Therefore,
just as in South Africa, the effect of sanctions against Rhodesia is very severely
limiting the white economy and is putting pressure on Smith to come to some acceptable
solution to us. The other fact is that it is not just a question of liberal cant,
Roger; the fact is that two-thirds of the nations of this world are either unaligned
or suddenly are what as known as the third world.
Mr. Evans: Yes, but this is irrelevant -- as far as British and American foreign
policy is concerned --
Mr. Standler: As far as a symbolic gesture is concerned.
Mr. Evans: What symbolic gesture?
Mr. Standler: A symbolic gesture is concerned -- it is crucial to the interests of
this country and that of America that in vying with the Soviet Union for the allegiance
of this non-aligned part of the world -- it is crucial that we should be seen not to be
making a pact with what 1s clearly a racialist government.
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
-26-
tit Mr. Evans: That's a basic mistake there, and it's an infatuation which the Americans
have with South America, and the British have with Africa. Apart from in certain
limited fields, neither of these areas is essentially very important. They will go
their own way to an increasingly large extent and be impervious to external influence
-- be it ours or the Bussians. But it doesn't alter the fact that their internal
political situation will be nasty and futile; there will be a question of which
oligarchy rules -- be it white or black. It will do it by the unpleasantest methods
conceivable. And all you can say is one is in power, and another is trying to get
to power.
Mr. Buckley: What is your comment on that, Mrs. Huxley?
Mrs. Huxley: Well, he's gloomier than I am. (Laughter) But I think you're probably
right that sanctions are making life more Is that the object British
policy,just to make more I don't think this has the effect of turning
people like Mr. Smith, in a humble way, to come to us. It simply has the effect of
tying them closer to South Africa -- their capital to South Africa.
Mr. Standler: No, I think it does --
Mrs. Huxley: I think it's the wrong principle to try and just starve people and
gradually -- I mean, it's just silly. We've lost our influence with them -- and
they've turned to South Africa. Well, all right --
Mr. Standler: But it does have the effect of making it impossible for Ian to
continue to rule an ever-increasing black population
!vlrs. Huxley: No, I just think it makes it more difficult.
Mr. Buckley: Do you have the on the standard of living in Rhodesia in the
last couple of years? Has it, in fact, gone down per capita?
Mrs. Huxley: I think -- no, it hasn't -- I thiw< it has remained fairly
As far as I know, it hasn't expanded as much as it would. T"nat is undoubtedly the
case.
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
Mr.' Standler: Well, I think the real point is that it has not proportionately expanded
Mrs. Huxley: No, this seems to me a hell of a depressing result of about five years of
talk and policy: we just made people stand where they Good gr.;':\.cious, we have to
have something more positive than
Mr. Standler: Well, what do you suggest?
Mr. Buckley: War.
Mrs. Huxley: I suggest recognizing
Mr. Buckley: After we're through in Vietnam, do you want us to go to Rhodesia?
Mr. Standler: (Laughing) I would be delighted to see that, Mr. Buckley --
Mrs. Huxley: We could recognize them and then do a bargain -- which we can:well do
capital and a supply of things,and do a bargain over the Africans. All through,
they've had a lot of provocation -- they have not closed the Legislative Assembly to
as the South Africans have done
Africans; they have not closed the university. Theytd be prepared to talk, I
Mr. Standler: You say, do a bargain over the Africans -- I think this, perhaps,
illustrates --
Mrs. Huxley: The future political rights over the Africans,
Mr. Standler: the paternalistic feature --
Mrs. Huxley: You just said we owe a duty to the Africans -- if you think we
owe a duty to them -- then we do our best to secure a constitution which will give them
what we consider to be a fair opening.
Mr. Standler: It was precisely that constitution which would be guaranteed against
any changes by the white racist government that Smith refused to give. It wasn't
the English Government; it was the Rhodesian Government that refused to give -- and,
indeed, having done that, they now have said, they are going to be a republic -- there
would never be a black majority rule not only within their lifetime but as long as they
can see. Are these the sort of people that you think we could reasonably deal with --
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
-28-
Mrs. Huxley: I think that I will say the moon is made of green cheese. But it doesn't
mean that it can be made of green cheese. Smith can say this will never happen in our
lifetime --
; ,
l ~ . ~ . '
YO';:
- , ~
: . : ~ ' :
Mr. Buckley: In other words, a long time.
Mrs. Huxley: _. it could Just as well be said in anybody's lifetime. It just doesn't make
any sense.
Mr. Buckley: Thank you, Mrs. Huxley. Thank you, gentlemen -- ,and Miss Filng.
* * * *
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
.., , ..
. ~ .
FIRING ..
LINE
NEWSLETfER
#221: ) Africa and Colonialism
~ Guest: Elspeth Huxley
Rating: Public Interest'tt
Performance'tt**
Entertainment'tt
Mr. Buckley's introduction:
Distributed by:
SHOWCORPORATION
10 East 49th Street
New York, N. Y. 10017
There is in America an abatement of interest in Africa, after the hectic period
of decolonization. Here in England, Africa still occupies the front pages .. And only
recently Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia walked huffily out of No. 10 Downing Street after
dinner, because British Prime Minister Mr. Heath declined to promise not to send arms
to South Africa. Mr. Kaunda was heard to threaten to expel England from the Common-
w ~ a l t h , which might be compared to expelling Abraham Lincoln from the Lincoln Monument.
Here to discuss Africa and colonialism is Elspeth Huxley. Mrs. Huxley was raised
in Africa -- in Kenya. And she has been writing about Atrica ever since. No one
would venture to say whether Mrs. Huxley is primarily a novelist, a historian, or an
essayist. She is equally talented in every field, and her English prose is unequaled
among writers who have made Africa their primary focus of interest. She has been
compared with Isak Dinensen.
I should like to begin by asking Mrs. Huxley whether she thinks it quite responsi-
ble for England to have liquidated her empire at quite the speed she did?
Comment:
This show makes it clear that the "abatement of interest in Africa" of which Mr.
Buckley speaks in his introduction is the exclusive responsibility of funerican liberals.
The profound questions and problems of Africa remain what they were in the Kennedy
years, when wishfUl and superficial thinkers looked to the new nations there as a sort
of vanguard for the era of the New Frontier. Mr. Buckley predicted in the early Six-
ties that despite the Utopian rhetoric of those days, Africa would remain intractable
for decades .still to come. One decade later, we can see that he was right. Africa's
real and grave problems still exist, and on this show Mr. Buckley examines them anew
with the able assistance of Elspeth Huxley.
Africa's great tension involves the understandable wish of colonized blacks to
run their own affairs, whatever the economic, social and moral costs to their own
countries, and the pressing need for rational rule in those parts of Africa where
deficiencies in material and educational resources make eruptions of barbarism a con-
tinuing occurrence -- one that causes great anguish to the Africans themselves. Mr.
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
Buckley concedes that white rule in black Africa must go, but asks that we discover
ways to prevent civilization from going with it. Mrs. Huxley, ashamed of the white
oppression she has witnessed in her native continent, would prefer that whites mind
their own business for a while. The problem is to exercise our responsibility to our
fellow men without, at the same time, trying to exercise power over them. Whites have
not managed to do this in Africa in the past, and their failures have been so grievous
that Mrs. Huxley suggests they quit trying. Mr. Buckley, on the other hand, insists
that we are morally obligated to exercise this sense of responsibility, and if in our
efforts to help we continue to do some harm -- well, who says white people are per-
fect? We all inhabit the same world, and we must try to help one another, even though
human error inevitably intrudes into our thoughts and actions.
Excerpts:
EH: "In effect, when Africans have our kind of parliamentary democracy with vot-
ing, the parties tend almost always to become parties of the tribe. This of course
happened in Nigeria. And then you simply have tribal warfare extended into the poli-
tical field. . . . That's why I think that parliamentary democracy would be con-
sidered to be very often wrong for them, and this is the sort of line that Nyerere has
put into his book on the subject.
tI
WFB: til don't doubt people's infinite ingenuity
in justifying one-party government, or for that matter one-man government -- both of
us have read a lot of books on that theme. What I am wondering is whether or not it
is a form of Western paternalism to simply accept the mockery of political freedom in
that part of thw world -- Point One. Point Two -- What I'm wondering, really, is
whether it is intellectually responsible, to say nothing of morally responsible, for
Westerners to say in effect, well look, don't you understand the kind of freedom we
enjoy is purely an aspect of our culture and you can't expect people in that part of
the world with a shorter experience with freedom to enjoy the same kind of thing? Now,
I can understand this as an historical observation. I can't understand it as an obser-
vation that goes so far as to say then, therefore, let us simply assume that they are
better off and happier under one-man, one-party rule than they were under a system in
which the minority's rights were protected by the Crown.
tI
(Wm. F. Buckley Jr. Elspeth Huxley)
This newsletter is prepared by the producers of Firing Line. Mr. Buckley is not con-
sul ted in any way in i of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.