(3 of 3)
To have any real effect, U.N. sanctions would have to include a total blockade on oil imports by Rhodesia. But such a blockade would almost inevitably lead Britain into a direct economic confrontation with South Africa, which now supplies the fuel that Rhodesia cannot readily get anywhere else. That would cut off Britain's considerable trade with South Africa, most notably including gold, which is one of the main props for the British pound. Last week sterling dropped of a cent in a wave of panic selling. Whatever happens, Wilson told Parliament, the U.N. sanctions "must not be allowed to develop into a confrontation, whether economic or military, involving the whole of southern Africa."
Indeed, in taking the Rhodesia problem to the Security Council, Britain looked suspiciously as though it was simply passing the buck. The nation that only three decades ago ruled the world's mightiest empire had given a pitiful demonstration that, as one Nigerian put it, "it is unable to spank its own child."
"Abominably Dishonest." The danger was that Britain might lose control of the punishment. Now that the matter had been hauled to the U.N., the Afro-Asian nations were demanding far tougher measures against Rhodesia. Ethiopia's Emperor Haile Selassie called for troops to throw out the Smith regime. Zambian Foreign Minister Simon Kapwepwe took the floor of the Security Council to rage that Britain was "abominably dishonest, wicked, hypocritical and racist." He demanded a total economic blockade against Rhodesia and any nation that dared trade with it.
Britain probably can count on enough votes to limit Security Council action, and can always resort to the veto to block total sanctions. But a veto would only put London in serious trouble with its own former African colonies, many of whom have been threatening for months to abandon the Commonwealth over Rhodesia. Even limited sanctions would pose a crisis for the U.N. If they are imposed, South Africa might be forced to resign from the world body and go its own way.