The Rhodesia Connection

To the Editors of The Crimson:

The Carter Administration is coming under increasing pressure to adopt the shortsighted position of support for continued white domination in Rhodesia. In a shocking display of cynicism and ignorance about Africa, the Senate recently voted to endorse the "internal settlement" and the so-called "elections" engineered by Prime Minister lan Smith. Massachusetts Senator Paul E. Tsongas, in opposing the Sentate bill to send an observer team to those "elections," compared Senate recognition of the white-dominated regime to the Tonkin Gulf resolution of 1964, which gave Congressional support to the escalation of the Vietnam War.

Even a cursory examination of the facts shows the farcical nature of Ian Smith's "settlement." According to this arrangement, the whites control the key ministries (including the military and police), along with 28 per cent of the legislature (although whites make up less than four per cent of the population), thereby holding effective veto power over any significant legislation. Moreover, the most important black organizations--those which make up the Patriotic Front--are excluded from the government and denied all political rights to operate. Ian Smith has steadfastly refused to negotiate with guerilla leaders.

Rhodesia is a country torn by war, with 90 per cent of the country under martial law (hence the undemocratic nature of the "elections" should be obvious). According to New York Times reports, the Patriotic Front has twice as many guerillas fighting within the country now as it had a year ago. In this situation the Ian Smith regime is desperate to gain political, economic, and indirect military support from the West.

The main effect of U.S. trade and recognition would be temporarily to strengthen white resistance, prolong and intensify the war, and increase still further the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe. But observers agree that the tide is against the present regime, and Western support cannot save it.

For us at Harvard it is instructive to notice the stand the Harvard Corporation has taken on this issue. After reading President Bok's four open letters on the role of the university, one might expect that the Corporation would at least remain neutral. One would expect that at the very least the Corporation would refrain from supporting Ian Smith. However, this is not the case.

The April 24 Crimson reported the Corporation's decision not to support two shareholder resolutions sponsored by church groups. These resolutions would have required Mobil Oil and Standard Oil to reduce their oil trade with South Africa by one-third, the amount of oil believed to be sent by South Africa to Rhodesia. More disturbing than Harvard's actual vote was one of the reasons given for refusing to support the church initiative:

"Hugh Calkins '45, chairman of the Corporation Committee on Shareholder Responsibility, said yesterday he questions whether a secondary boycott of Rhodesian oil is appropriate now that Ian Smith has given in and is forming a coalition government."

Thus, speaking publicly in his capacity as chairman of the Corporation Committee on Shareholder Responsibility. Mr. Calkins chose to confer legitimacy upon Ian Smith's "internal settlement." This type of political action by the Corporation exposes the fallacy of two basic premises in President Bok's argument against divestiture:

(1) that the Corporation is politically neutral;

(2) that, if Harvard does not divest, it can at least be relied upon to use its influence as shareholder in a morally sensitive rather than in a cynical and irresponsible manner. Neil Koblitz '69   Assistant Professor of Mathematics