1. At this twenty-first session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, we are in the midst of a world of rising tension and turbulence. Nevertheless, it is encouraging to note that our hope and yearning for peace have correspondingly risen to a new zenith of expectation. This is in itself gratifying, because it shows that humanity, even in the midst of the flaming passions of war, is still convinced that peace is the ultimate goal, and the only hope for man's survival in a modern nuclear age. However, let us not forget that the peace we seek must be a peace founded on justice and dignity for all the peoples of the world — not only for the privileged few and, indeed, not only for the strong and mighty.
2. The Republic of Zambia is of the opinion that our Organization should strive assiduously to achieve maximum universality. Because of this noble objective, we are always happy to welcome new Members in this world Assembly. We believe that the United Nations has paramount responsibility for the peace of the world, but we also know that the power of the United Nations is, in this regard, as strong as the power Member States give it to discharge its international obligations. Furthermore, the responsibility of the United Nations with respect to the peace and security of the world depends, for all practical purposes, on the universality of its membership and on the extent of the co-operation of its present Members in carrying out their obligations under the Charter.
3. Turning now to the problem of Viet-Nam, my delegation shares the concern of most of the Member States which have already expressed their views at this session on the war in Viet-Nam. The damaging effect this war is having on the world could hardly be exaggerated. In my opinion, no other problem of our time has contributed so much to the dampening of the international climate, Viet-Nam hovers like a dark cloud over our heads, and continues to undermine the ideals and principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter.
4. We plead with all those responsible for, and intimately connected with, this conflict to end the hostilities, lest they expand to global proportions; we believe — we are convinced — that war has never brought any benefit to mankind but only the destruction of life. In the type of war now carried on in Viet-Nam, there is no victory; there is only the hardening of feelings and the worsening of human relations.
5. We are aware that opportunities leading towards a negotiated settlement have always existed. We believe that the 1954 Geneva Agreements may be a sound basis for a solution, if this is the desire of the parties concerned. In fact, any success in achieving an immediate settlement would evoke overwhelming praise from all the peace-loving peoples of the world, as it would, indeed, be in accord with their mutual desire.
6. I should like to move on now to the next point: the question of China. The question of China is bound up with the concept of the universality of the United Nations. The United Nations cannot make purposeful and binding decisions concerning disarmament and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons without the active participation of the People's Republic of China in all international deliberations. The attempt to isolate China, therefore, seems to us to be in contradiction with the declared purposes and principles of the Charter; it can only serve to postpone the solution of a number of important items on the present agenda; it is proving to be a costly exercise in futility and frustration. A nation of over 700 million human beings cannot be isolated. Our conviction is based upon the considerations that, first, the People's Republic of China is the largest nation on earth; secondly, by their ability to bring such a vast population under one coherent national administration, the leaders of the People's Republic of China have made an astonishing achievement in organizational skill; and thirdly, China's power and influence are growing steadily.
7. In the light of these facts, Zambia would like to appeal to the United Nations not to take the "problem" of China lightly. We have reason to believe that within the next few years China will probably be so big and strong a Power that it will be in a position to pose a real "threat" to this Organization and to the world, if it so wishes.
8. In this situation, the only solution seems to be the acceptance of China as a Member of the United Nations. My delegation feels that the best interest of this Organization would be served if the People's Republic of China took its rightful place in this Assembly and in the other organs of the United Nations. This would be in the best interest of world peace, brotherhood and understanding and, I am sure, would strengthen the international mandate and moral power of our great Organization.
9. Like most developing countries, Zambia has a keen interest in world trends in economic development. In this area of human concern, it seems to us that there is urgent need for a reorientation of attitudes and approaches in both the industrial countries and the developing world. It is unfortunate that efforts made within the spirit of the United Nations Development Decade have been disappointing. Perhaps too much emphasis has been placed on the availability of foreign capital to developing countries, and too little regard given to the basic long-term needs of their peoples.
10. The United Nations should avoid polarization into rich and poor nations, where the rich are implored, in speech after speech and at session after session, to give more to the poor. It is a fact that social and cultural patterns in the developing countries are fundamentally different from those in the industrial countries. In this respect, we feel that there is great need for organizational direction in self-help, in a co-operative endeavour and in the building of technologies suitable to the best cultural, social and economic interests of developing countries. Perhaps the United Nations should seriously consider the establishment of an international agency devoted to this special kind of function, which could also direct itself to ways and means of arousing enthusiasm in peoples for the economic development of their own countries. We hold the view that the prevailing attitude in the Development Decade should be transformed from one of international charity, where the rich give alms to the poor so that the gap between them may be narrowed, to one of self-help and self-reliance in the economic structuring of the developing lands.
11. The developing countries must be given the kind of aid and assistance that would best make them capable of standing on their own feet, thereby making their economic life viable and self-sustaining. The technologies and innovations introduced in these countries by means of capital aid are in most cases only short-term palliatives or patch-work: they sometimes aggravate the social problems, or create new ones, for which there are no solutions in these countries. The developing countries should be encouraged to develop, process and consume their own foods and other basic necessities. The Development Decade would he on the way to being well conceived if serious consideration were given to a change of course in this noble direction.
12. May I now turn to decolonization — the question of decolonization on the African continent is a matter of priority to Zambia and to all African peoples. We anxiously look forward to the day when the whole of Africa is completely free of both old and new forms of colonial domination. We are weary of the dangers of colonialism, the divisions it has brought to our continent, the bloodshed and confusion, the racism and hate that go hand in glove with the colonialists. The inhibition of economic, educational and social development brought about by this hostile and diabolic element directed only towards human and economic exploitation is well known. We in Zambia have for long suffered at the hands of the colonialists so we know what they are capable of, and what they are up to. We would earnestly urge the United Nations to pause a moment, in all seriousness, and to ponder with the utmost sincerity the serious implications of what is now taking place in southern Africa.
13. Let it not be recorded in the annals of history that the whole of southern Africa was recolonized by a handful of white racists while the United Nations watched with indifference and indecision. If this unscrupulous racist minority in southern Africa is allowed to get away with its inhuman policies and unpardonable robbery while the United Nations looks on and remains ineffective, world peace and security will, in no small measure, be threatened. Let me warn those who live in a fool’s paradise: the day will never come when slavery and domination will be accepted. Cannon and mortar will never stop man's fight for freedom and dignity. Further, let me remind this Assembly that the minority racist regimes and the colonial administrations in southern Africa are as much a threat to this Organization as they are to the indigenous people of Africa. The United Nations must stand up and assert its authority to protect its own principles on human rights, freedom and the equality of man, if it is to preserve its own dignity, integrity and survival.
14. I come now to my next point, which is the question of South West Africa. Before I continue, I should like to congratulate all the Members of this Organization who have supported the withdrawal of the Mandate over South West Africa from the South African regime. I think I should mention the United States Government which, a few days ago, stated from this very rostrum that South West Africa should be removed from the jurisdiction of South Africa. We in Zambia hope that the great Powers, and all the peoples of the world, will support this kind of action. It would promote a deep respect for this Organization on the part of all mankind.
15. May I quote an excerpt from this morning's newspaper, The New York Times, because there are some people who are under the impression that the South African regime is not moving slowly to envelop South West Africa. While we are talking and verbally condemning South Africa, this is what took place yesterday:
"The South African Government plans to extend the stringent measures of its Suppression of Communism Act to South West Africa.
"A new bill published in Parliament today would give South Africa greater powers to control subversion and terrorism in the territory. All the Government's sweeping security measures would go into general effect in the territory, which South Africa administers under a League of Nations mandate."
Although this may be confusing — some people might say that it is a very good thing to do, because it is a measure to suppress communism — this is a cover to suppress the black man in the southern part of Africa.
16. On 30 September 1966, my delegation spoke at length to this Assembly on the question of South West Africa [1425th meeting]. We made our position very clear and I shall not repeat what we said then, except to remind this Assembly that our stand on South West Africa is firmly based on a deep sense of morality and human justice. The actions of my country are guided by certain unshakable principles and by a deep moral sense. The true greatness of any State is measured in terms of the moral power which it exerts. Zambia will not resort to expediency as a substitute for policy.
17. To reiterate, the issue regarding South West Africa is a moral and political one, falling within the ambit of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960. The so-called legal problem is nothing but a diversionary episode that could go on and on in perpetuity, with absolutely no positive result. The point of greatest importance is that the indigenous people of South West Africa demand their inalienable right to freedom, independence and self-determination from the yoke of a colonial system imposed upon them from 1885 to the present. It is now the duty of the United Nations, which is legally responsible for the present international status of South West Africa, to take effective action in response to the wishes of the indigenous people of the Territory. Let it not be said that the people of the world were dormant in the United Nations when the people of South West Africa were being suppressed and oppressed.
18. I turn now to another subject, that of Southern Rhodesia. However, before I go on with my prepared statement, I should like to thank on behalf of the President, Government and people of Gambia, all those peoples of the world who assisted us tremendously during our troubled days: those who gave us financial assistance, material and moral support. We thank them very much indeed; we appreciate their generosity.
19. To return to the question of Southern Rhodesia: first of all, I wish to thank Member States who have given the cause of the Zimbabwe people such encouraging support here in the United Nations and in other international forums. In particular, I wish to thank our friends in the Commonwealth for their support at the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government at Lagos in January and at the London Conference in September.
20. The question of Southern Rhodesia has been before this body for many years, and representatives here in this forum will recall my presence at the twentieth session and the appeals I then made on the matter. As a result of our effort, this Assembly adopted three important resolutions on the question of Southern Rhodesia: 2012 (XX) of 12 October 1965, 2022 (XX) of 5 November 1965, and 2024 (XX) of 11 November 1965. The latter resolution, in particular, condemned the unilateral declaration of independence made by the racialist minority in Southern Rhodesia on that very day, and asked the United
Kingdom to take immediate action to put an end to the rebellion.
21. At the Lagos Commonwealth Conference in. January of this year, Mr. Wilson gave us the assurance that economic sanctions would work in a matter of weeks. We had asked for the use of force. His proposals did not seem very realistic to us, but coming, as it were, from a British Prime Minister, one thought that it bore some stamp of accuracy and authority. Doubtful as we were, we left the Lagos Conference hopeful that perhaps Mr. Wilson had something hidden up his sleeve.
22. But weeks became months, and it was at this stage that the African States decided to raise the matter — which was showing grave signs of deterioration-before the Security Council. In May of this year,
I returned to address the Security Council, as an emissary of the Organization of African Unity, on this very explosive issue. The OAU had commissioned Senegal, Algeria, and Zambia to represent the united African case on Southern Rhodesia before the Security Council. Africa was never more united on any issue in its whole history at the United Nations. With prudence and reason, the African States joined forces and presented a joint1 resolution purporting to offer a solution to the problem. The Security Council, however, in its wisdom rejected the African proposal in favour of the United Kingdom proposal for having "talks about talks" with a rebellious regime that had previously been pronounced illegal by both the Security Council and the United Kingdom Parliament.
23. Africa was never more shocked and disappointed. It became clear that the motivation of the United Kingdom Government was racist. That Government, by the influence it exerts in the Security Council — particularly on the issue of Southern Rhodesia — was able to use this high organ of the United Nations in a way detrimental to its own interest and incompatible with its obligations under the Charter. We pay tribute to those Members of the Security Council who voted in favour of the African draft resolution.
24. The United Kingdom Government has never been right on Southern Rhodesia. From the very start, the Wilson Government played right into the hands of the racist minority in the Territory. By declaring in advance that force would not be used in the event of a unilateral declaration of independence, the British Government actually gave the green light to the speedy proclamation of the unilateral declaration of independence. One still wonders whether this was a tactical error on the part of Mr. Wilson, or whether it was a plot intended to produce the result that it did. Time will give us the true verdict. It is interesting to note that, on the question of the use of force to quell a rebellion, Rhodesia has been favoured to an extreme unknown in the annals of British colonial history. The entire British Empire, upon which the sun was intended never to set, was built on the concept of force, and Indeed it was force that preserved it throughout its unholy history. It is ironical, therefore, to hear a British Prime Minister denouncing the use of force necessary to quell a colonial rebellion which the United Kingdom Parliament had condemned as a gross insult to the Crown.
25. The history of the world is replete with examples of the British applying force to impose and maintain their imperial authority for as long as they thought it necessary in their interest. We have not forgotten their use of force in America, India, Kenya, Cyprus, British Guiana — I am happy now to say ’’Guyana" — and present policy in Aden, to name only a few; the same is true in regard to Zambia, which still nurses fresh memories of mass killings, imprisonment and restrictions. In speaking here today on the subject of the British use of force, we speak from experience. If we had been able to usurp the British authority without suffering serious consequences — as the Rhodesian Whites did — we would have grabbed independence many decades ago. If grabbing independence from the British had been as easy as Rhodesia's illegal unilateral action, Zambia would never have waited until 1964.
26. It is not enough for Mr. Wilson to cover up with the admission that he had been too optimistic on the issue of the speedy effectiveness of economic sanctions of a permissive nature. This self-criticism, genuine as it may be, is not going to change the present situation. What we need is a willingness for action to repair the damage done. What we ask for is a readiness to depart from a policy that has proved for nearly one year to be wasteful and ineffective, to a new one that offers positive hope of speedy success. Economic sanctions — the famous economic sanctions, as decided on by the United Kingdom Government — have failed, and we are convinced that they have failed.
27. If the United Kingdom Government could break away from its present disastrous course — a course that from all indications will result in hatred, bitterness and frustration in the world, a course that is likely to pave the way for a racial holocaust in Africa — then Africa and the African peoples would not hold this present Southern Rhodesian tragedy against the British Government and people, and the way would be open for a bright new era of increased partnership and co-operation between the independent peoples of Africa and the United Kingdom.
28. From the very start, Zambia was right on the issue of Southern Rhodesia. We saw this rebellion as a hydra that was going to grow, increase in virulence, and get out of hand. That is why we asked the Wilson Government for the speedy application of force to keep the danger from spreading. As we saw it, a rebel is a rebel, and the colour of his skin is immaterial. Instead of trying the criminals who had been declared rebels by the United Kingdom Parliament, the British Government undertook to hold talks with them, while the victims of their crime, the people of Zimbabwe, are left completely unrepresented. What could be the purpose of such "kith and kin" talks? Zambia was, of course, shocked by this disgraceful double-dealing on the part of the British Government.
29. In Zambia, we give this question of Southern Rhodesia the topmost priority. From our point of view, it affects policy at every level; it affects our economic development plans and our social attitudes; indeed, it is part of our every-day lives. I must stress here that the British Government has been preaching and saying that they are aiding Zambia; they are not aiding Zambia. We want to make it very clear: they
are paying compensation to Zambia because they are responsible for the problem of Southern Rhodesia, They are responsible constitutionally, and therefore they are not helping Zambia but are paying compensation for the damage that they are doing to our economy. We are spending money that was not budgeted for; we are spending money which should have gone to meet the needs of our poor people. We should have answered the needs that our people have, but because of the carelessness and selfishness of the British Government we are involved in unavoidable expenditure.
30. When we ask the British Government to use force, we are not prompted by a love of bloodshed and violence. Actually, it must not be forgotten that the Rhodesian action has been, in itself, a demonstration of blatant violence; thousands of Africans have been thrown into Ian Smith's prisons for their political views; the leaders of the African nationalist parties have all been detained and subjected to restrictions; and many African people have been shot and killed in resisting the illegal regime. Yet, the end is not in sight. Southern Rhodesia has become a mass prison where a racist regime, supported by a white minority, seeks to impose its rule with the tactics of a police state on the African majority that outnumber them in the ratio of eighteen to one. When we ask the British Government to use force, we are asking it — for it is the one legally responsible — to quell this violence that is now being inflicted on the Zimbabwe people. It is our conviction that a British military presence in Southern Rhodesia would minimize the violence and bloodshed. Because we love peace, we ask the British Government to step in and do their duty to the people of Southern Rhodesia, to the British people, and to mankind. The use of force by the British Government still remains the only effective way of bringing an end to the rebellion in Southern Rhodesia.
31. Zambia is convinced that the policy of sanctions, without the will to back it up with force, is not going to work. We hold this conviction because of our knowledge of the geography and the political realities in southern Africa. Southern Rhodesia has borders with South Africa and Mozambique. Unless the Portuguese authorities in Mozambique and the regime in Pretoria are willing to go along with permissive sanctions against Southern Rhodesia, the British sanctions policy seems doomed to failure; its failure has already been well demonstrated in the past months.
32. Our position on the Southern Rhodesian issue is guided by a profound sense of peace, human justice, and morality in the conduct of international affairs. We ask the British Government to see this issue in its pure human context, without the bias of race or economic interests.
33. I should like to make some observations on what Mr. George Brown told this Assembly in his speech a few days ago [1436th meeting], I am grateful to Mr, Brown for his open acknowledgment of the fact that "time is running out". This is exactly what we in Zambia were saying months ago, and that is why we have been urging the British Government to recognize the urgency of the situation. If time is running out, it is because the United Kingdom Government has failed to perform its duty in Southern Rhodesia and has sought to postpone the solution of a dangerous rebellion that calls for an immediate, positive response through the use of force. We in Zambia know that the longer this problem remains unsolved the more complicated it will become, not only for the sovereign people of that Territory but for the whole of Africa and, indeed, for the whole of mankind.
34. Firstly, the United Kingdom Government must declare itself resolved to grant independence under majority rule to the colonial Territory of Southern Rhodesia in accordance with the Universal Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960. In this connexion, the granting of independence to Southern Rhodesia on the basis of majority rule must be unconditional and there must be no deviation whatsoever from this stand. When the United Kingdom representative says that "the British Government will not consent to independence before majority rule unless the people of Rhodesia as a whole are shown to be in favour of it" [ibid., para. 62], this is shocking. This is a trick which some people here may not see, but it is double-dealing. It is interlocked with "talks about talks". And 1 understand that today the United Kingdom Government has sent another British official to start talks about talks.
35. The situation is one in which power is left in the hands of a minority, in which the African people, although it is the majority, cannot be granted independence unless the whole population of Southern Rhodesia says yes, which can never happen. The white minority would never agree that it was right to give independence to the majority — they would never say it. Now, how can the British Government change its own traditions that exist in ail its colonies? It is when the majority expresses the wish to be free that they impose their independence on the people. But in Southern Rhodesia they want the terms for independence to be conditional and say that all the people must agree — which is impossible. This is a trick to maintain the power of the minority. What is the use of coming here and saying such things as: "I am a great socialist", or "I believe in socialism and the principles of socialism", when this is not matched by action? Why, English people say that "actions speak louder than words". There is no point in coming here and blowing one's trumpet about one's principles when they do not accord with one's actions.
36. We cannot forget what the Labour Party has done to Africa. The President of Botswana was exiled by the Labour Party for eight years. The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaiand was suggested and implemented by the Labour Party, costing a lot of lives and money. There are so many wrongs in the history of the Labour Party, yet its spokesmen stand here and tell this great Organization that they are great socialists. But their actions do not match their words. I thought socialists believed in majority rule, because majority rule is the machinery of democracy, and yet we are told here: "unless and until all the people agree" — which is an impossibility.
37. "Talks about talks" have been referred to as "nonsense about nonsense". In fact, you may be surprised to know that Ian Smith has been holding up a sell-out. If he had agreed to return to the 1961 Constitution and the British Government had inserted the five or six famous principles into that Constitution, it would have meant that the Africans in Rhodesia would have been sold for ever because the minority would have given safeguards to the majority. This is exactly what happened in 1910 in South Africa. The British put safeguards into the Constitution of South Africa, and when South Africa saw that the British were out of sight they withdrew those safeguards. And what is happening today in South Africa?
38. This is the same method that the British Government is trying to employ in Southern Rhodesia, whereby they seek to cheat the world and the people by putting safeguards in the Constitution and yet leave the power in the hands of the minority. And when a group of people are determined to govern by themselves, what is to stop them from removing those safeguards? If today Smith can throw out the Constitution of 1961, what is to stop him from throwing away the safeguards when he is left alone?
39. Now, we are real socialists, not just speaking socialists but acting socialists.
40. The British Government has come here to say that unless the Commonwealth members give them support — but this is not true; the British Government has the full support of this Organization —as you heard from my quotation from one of the resolutions adopted by this Assembly [see para. 20 above] — for action taken to quell the rebellion immediately. It was this Organization that gave it authority to act. Not only that, but the whole of Africa agreed that the British Government should topple Smith. Africa gave it full support, and the Commonwealth Conference in London recently also supported it.
41. Now, it is not support that is lacking for the British; it is courage and sincerity. Support they have; the whole world supports them against Smith. But courage and sincerity are lacking. Let the British come out. Let them not hang onto the primitive policy of kith and kin. That philosophy is old and primitive. We are living in an age in which we are all brothers: black, white and yellow. The world has become so small that we do not consider ourselves different and can cling no longer to old and primitive methods of segregation, of kith and kin. We ask the United Kingdom Government to move and not stand idle. It has the support of the peoples of the world. We, too, have given it our support in three places: in this Organization, in Africa and in the Commonwealth, It can proceed with the task tomorrow, but what is its real interest? It is interested in talks, so that it can sell out the African people. We condemn the move, because the result will be the selling out of the four million people of Zimbabwe. It is right and proper that we should be sincere in this matter, because I cannot see why the United Kingdom Government is complaining about support; the support is there. We are asking it to act.
42. Economic sanctions have so far failed. Selective mandatory sanctions, which the British are proposing, are going to fail if Portugal and South Africa refuse to support them. The imposition of total mandatory sanctions will also fail unless it has the complete
support of all. The only answer to this situation is force. And we say this, not because we love force, but because we are convinced that, if the people are to be rid of this problem, it is the only effective means of doing so. Despite what one may say, even if we all fail, the African people of Zimbabwe are going to employ force. In the final analysis, it is force that will resolve the present situation in Rhodesia. There is no doubt about that. We can try any other method, but it is force that will end that problem.
43. It is shameful for anyone to think of asking Mr. Smith to hand back the government. He will not yield control to anyone. What the United Kingdom Government is doing is ridiculous. Smith would never give up his power; power is too sweet, for good or evil. The fact that when power is obtained one consolidates it with the police and the military should make us realize that the person who takes it loves it, and he will not turn it over to anyone by means of negotiation.
44. May I conclude by emphasizing the following points: first, the hostilities in Viet-Nam must be brought to a speedy end and the Viet-Namese people, both North and South, must be left alone to solve their problems and to be masters of their own destiny.
45. Second, the dignity, prestige and moral power of the United Nations would be considerably enhanced by the presence and participation of the People's Republic of China in our international deliberations.
46. Third, the United Nations should seriously consider the establishment of an international agency devoted to research in technologies and innovations suitable to the best long-term interests of the developing countries. Such an agency would also devote itself to the ways and means of arousing enthusiasm in peoples for the economic development of their own countries.
47. Fourth, Zambia supports efforts towards decolonization throughout the world. We are opposed to colonialism in all its forms and manifestations — apartheid, "Bantustanism", and racism. We specifically denounce Portuguese colonialism in Angola, Mozambique and Guinea.
48. Fifth, the question of South West Africa is essentially a colonial problem and therefore falls for consideration within the ambit of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
49. Sixth, the question of Southern Rhodesia calls for Urgent action by the Security Council, because the United Kingdom representative, who should know the situation, recently admitted that time is running out.
50. Seventh, "talks about talks" have failed to stem the tragic tide in Southern Rhodesia and from all indications things are getting worse.
51. Eighth, Zambia holds the view that force is the only effective instrument to restore legitimate government to Southern Rhodesia. Indeed, mandatory economic sanctions, comprehensive or selective, presuppose the use of force.
52. Ninth, the United Kingdom Government does not have to worry about support in performing its duty in Southern Rhodesia. Indeed, support has never been lacking; the whole African continent was behind the United Kingdom last May in the Security Council and, as an emissary of the Organization of African Unity, I can assure the United Kingdom Government that Africa will back it to the hilt, if it will only act and accept its responsibility in Southern Rhodesia.
53. Tenth, Zambia calls for immediate positive initiatives from the United Kingdom Government in the Security Council with a view to putting an end to the illegal racist minority regime in Southern Rhodesia which continues to threaten the peace and security of Africa and the world. I should like to invite the United Kingdom Government to take this matter to the Security Council, because there is no point in saying we should wait until the end of the year, since all methods tried so far have failed. I think it should come to this Organization and be assisted in bringing down the minority regime in Southern Rhodesia. I hope that, as good socialists, we will work together co-operatively.