Editing 76-09-B8 (section)

=== Transcript ===
Our former Secretary of State, on his mission to Africa, had persuaded the government of Rhodesia and Great Britain and a number of African Nationalist leaders to agree to a plan for a temporary government of Rhodesia while a transition to black rule took place. Geneva, Switzerland was agreed upon as the site of the conference to iron out details of the majority government that would, in two years, take over the reins in Rhodesia. More recently, Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith has announced his government will no longer attend the Geneva meetings. Why? What happened? There will be many answers to those questions, plus charge and countercharge, but there is only one correct answer. Very simply, the African Nationalists, once they arrived in Geneva, conveniently forgot that they had agreed in advance to every detail of the Kissinger proposal. The representatives of Great Britain were willing to let them forget and it was only the Government of Rhodesia that escaped the spreading amnesia. And, I wasn't aware that rhymed until I said it.

This action has prompted a former minister in the Labor Party government of Britain, now an independent member of the House of Lords, to utter a few pithy words about what went on in Geneva. Lord Chalfont says, "The British government's attitude toward the Geneva Conference is symptomatic of the desperate paralysis, which seems to afflict the West, confronted by the very real possibility of strategic disaster in Africa". He says, "If the whole of Southern Africa becomes a Russian colony, someone will be on hand to tell us that the communist threat is being disgracefully exaggerated and that African nationalism is stronger than international Communism". His Lordship then adds, "I also confidently predict that there will still be people daft enough to believe it".

I'm sure an effort -- an herculean effort -- will be made to place the blame for the breakdown in negotiations on the Ian Smith regime; to charge that Rhodesia is balking at giving up white rule. That is not the case. The real struggle involves a Soviet-backed black minority which wants to rule over a black majority. Two of the African nationalist leaders in Geneva were not chosen by the several tribes in Rhodesia as their representatives. They are self anointed and they have the backing of the Soviet Union. They are Robert Mugabe and a man named Nkomo. They have made it clear that no matter what happened in Geneva their guerrilla troops, supported by the Marxist dictator of Mozambique, will fight on until there is a socialist government in Rhodesia.

The London-based Institute for the Study of Conflict is quoted as saying whatever the final outcome of the Geneva Conference, Soviet policy envisions a Marxist revolutionary regime in, "liberated Rhodesia". SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICA, published by the American-African Affairs Association asks a question that may cause some sleepless nights in Washington -- what will the United States do if a popularly elected, black, majority rule is threatened by a widescale guerrilla war backed by the Soviet Union? SPOTLIGHT asks, "Congress may well be able to ignore the geopolitical, military and economic issues at stake in a Southern Africa increasingly falling under Soviet influence, but, would it be able to avoid providing the only tangible western aid possible to a besieged, black, majority in Rhodesia"? That's quite a question. In the meantime, without agreement in Geneva, Ian Smith, with the support of many blacks in Rhodesia, is proceeding to implement the Kissinger proposal as he said he would. 

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">