Whereas in the course of human affairs, history has shown that it may become necessary for a people to resolve the political affiliations which have connected them with another people and to assume amongst other nations the separate and equal status to which they are entitled . . . —Rhodesian Proclamation of Independence, Nov. 11, 1965
Thus, in a pallid parody of the American Declaration of Independence, the white-supremacist regime of Rhodesia's Ian Smith finally made good its threats of two years, broke its ties with Commonwealth and Crown, and assumed its "sovereign independence."
Throughout the morning, the government radio network had been alerting the nation for a major announcement. Loudspeakers had been set up in offices, stores and restaurants, even around the bronze flagstaff of Salisbury's Cecil Square; and at 1:15 on the afternoon of Armistice Day, when Smith came on the air, all of Rhodesia was listening. "In the lives of most nations, there comes a moment when a stand has to be made for principles," said Smith, sniffling with a cold in the head. "We Rhodesians have rejected the philosophy of appeasement. I believe that we are a courageous people and history has cast us in a heroic role."
Crimes Against Freedom. It was hardly that, for Rhodesia last week became the first nation in history to launch itself into a world all but unanimous in its hostility. Instead of the customary cheers at the birth of a new nation, the U.N. General Assembly voted 102 to 2 to condemn it. Amid cries from African nations for military intervention, the Security Council called for a diplomatic boycott against "this illegal racist minority regime." In London, British Prime Minister Harold Wilson went before a tense House of Commons to brand the declaration as "unwarranted and unnecessary rebellion" and lay down sanctions against the Smith regime. "Heaven knows what crimes will be committed against the concept of the rule of law and of human freedom," said Wilson gravely.
Wilson had tried everything short of surrender to head the Rhodesians off. He had invited Smith to London, gone himself to Salisbury, and kept up a steady barrage of proposals and notes in an effort to find some common ground. But always Smith had refused even to consider the one basic condition under which Britain would gladly have granted the independence he demanded: a guarantee of eventual African rule. He could hardly have done so, since his government is dedicated to one simple principle: the indefinite preservation of white rule.
Still, the British Prime Minister kept on. Fortnight ago, when Smith suddenly accused him of "finally closing the door," he tried to open it again by suggesting that Smith meet him for the third time in five weeks, this time at a "halfway station" such as Malta. Smith, under such heavy strain that he often spoke in broken, half-finished sentences, refused, then called in his own Cabinet to await Wilson's final reply.