It is only natural that one unthinking reaction to the coup in Zanzibar and the mutiny in Tanganyika here should have been that the Union Jack had been hauled down in too many places far too quickly. Old ladies, some of them no doubt with personal experience of the grandeur of the imperial past in Asia or Africa, could be heard talking in this refrain in clubs and restaurants and even on the road. One man who has come in for the harshest criticism from right-wing empire loyalists is Mr Iain McLeod who has even otherwise been the centre of a furious controversy on account of his fierce criticism of the manner in which the former Prime Minister, Mr Harold Macmillan, manipulated the appointment of Sir Alec Douglas- Home as his successor.
“Mr McLeod was, at the critical time, Colonial Secretary and champion of immediate independence in Africa. Through his words and deeds, Mr McLeod must bear heavy responsibility for the clouds that grow darker over Africa,” wrote The Daily Express. The New Daily, mouthpiece of the so-called freedom group, which regards Mr McLeod as a subversive in the Conservative party, has found the publication of his disclosures in The Spectator last week and the troubles in Africa an excellent opportunity to revile him. It remained for The Daily Herald to point out that no other policy was viable for the British Government and that the alternative to independence for Africa would have been the suppression of armed revolts which, as the French found in Algeria, would have proved beyond Britain’s capacity.
Calm
The feeling of having been vindicated by events among the right-wing Conservatives and colonial blimps notwithstanding, it is only fair to say that not only the two main political parties but most people have reacted calmly to events in Zanzibar and Tanganyika. If, in fact, one regarded the speeches of the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition in the past one week as an indication of the popular mood, one would suspect that these developments barely touched the country’s body politic. Both have concentrated on domestic issues with Mr Harold Wilson pouring scorn on “the grouse moor conception of leadership” and Sir Alec returning the compliment with his description of Mr Wilson as “this slick salesman of synthetic science.”
This, of course, would be a false conclusion. The British are known for their ability to maintain a stiff upper lip in difficult circumstances. Africa matters a great deal to the British people and to the calculations of Whitehall and the City. Incidentally, that is equally true of many other west European countries. Tanganyika was popularly regarded here as an ideal example of how independence should be won and used. Under the moderate President, Mr Nyerere, Tanganyika was thought to be the most promising of the new East African states. There was neither the threat of tribal violence as in Kenya nor of one-party dictatorship as in Uganda. With the haven of peace, constitutional government and ordered progress under a dark cloud, the future is uncertain for the area and, what concerns the British most, for their influence there.
It is obviously premature to make comparisons. But one comparison that springs to mind is the evacuation of the Suez Canal zone in 1954. That event accelerated the decline of British power and influence in the Arab world. After this week’s mutiny in Tanganyika it may never be the same again for British influence in East Africa. The battle for influence in East Africa between Britain and the Communist world had been joined for some time. Now the British have suffered the first major reverse.
Intelligence
One question that has been asked of the Government in both Houses of Parliament is whether British intelligence had no knowledge of what was brewing in Zanzibar and Tanganyika. To take Tanganyika first, it is only obvious that the Foreign and Defence Minister, Mr Oscar Kambona, who is now said to have emerged as the “strong man”, would have been suspect for British intelligence. He was not particularly friendly to Britain.
Mr Kambona was Minister of the Interior before he took over as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Defence last year. As Minister of the Interior he had got rid of the British Commissioner of Police and British provincial police chiefs. He is reported to have blocked a defence agreement between Britain and Tanganyika. Though he was Minister in charge of security, he never attended any of the meetings of the East African Intelligence Committee. This Committee was set up specifically by the British Government to co-ordinate the intelligence of the governing authorities in Tanganyika, Uganda and Kenya. Britain continued to be represented on the Committee even after Uganda and Tanganyika gained independence because she was responsible for Kenya’s security and defence till December last when Kenya became independent.
Mr Kambona has been chairman of the African Liberation Committee which is regarded by the British as the most militant organisation in South Africa and Mozambique. He was chairman of the Afro-Asian Solidarity Congress at Moshi last February. The West has all along regarded the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee as a communist show. No, the issue is not whether British intelligence was or was not vigilant enough. The issue is whether the British Government was in a position to act effectively. It is unbelievable that it did not try.
It is accepted here both in Whitehall and outside that the coup in Zanzibar and the mutiny in Tanganyika were connected and carefully planned. There is a good deal of circumstantial evidence in support of this view. The secretary to the deposed Sultan of Zanzibar has made the statement that money and arms had been smuggled into the island for months – that is when the island was still a British dependency. This may or may not be strictly correct though the statement is widely accepted as being accurate. The more important point is that the British Government transferred power to a government which did not enjoy the support and confidence of the African majority, ignoring the explosive nature of the race situation.
The Africanist Afro-Shirazi party which has now been put in power as a result of the coup had obtained 54 per cent of the votes but only 13 out of the 31 seats in the last elections. It was therefore excluded from power. Last week, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Colonial Affairs, Mr Duncan Sandys, was asked in the House of Commons why this anomalous situation had been allowed to rise. His explanation was that it was likely that the support of the Afro-Shirazi party had been concentrated in one area. So it was. The African still tends to inhabit the poorer eastern coast of the island.
In view of the nature of the occasion – he was making a statement on the coup – no one pressed him hard enough. But it was clearly an erroneous policy to hand over power to the Arab-dominated government in a predominantly African island on the coast of Africa. The unpopularity of the government facilitated the coup. The length to which wishful thinking was allowed to proceed is well illustrated by the fact that the British Government repeatedly expressed the hope that the Arab-dominated government in Zanzibar would accede to the then proposed federation of Tanganyika, Uganda and Kenya. It might be mentioned that at least publicly the only reason that was given for expediting Kenya’s independence was that the proposed federation would come into existence by the end of 1963.
The Allusion
Intelligence sources have been quoted here as suspecting that “certain political quarters in Kenya have been in on the operation” and saying that “it will be no surprise if a similar upheaval starts in Kenya after British forces have been withdrawn.” The allusion is thinly, all too thinly disguised. One senior Minister in Kenya has long been suspect here. The same sources believe that the position of Tanganyika’s President, Mr Nyerere, is critical and it is probable that within a year Mr Kambona may assume direct power. This raises the question – most people are asking it – why President Nyerere was spared this time when the mutinous army was in a position to take over and there was no resistance to it. Did the presence of a British brigade in Kenya induce moderation and pursuit of limited objectives?
East Africa, as viewed from London, has entered a period of uncertainty and confusion. The prospects of the East African Federation, never too bright, have become dim. The Commonwealth has suffered a blow in that in future even mutual consultations based on confidence may not be easy.
The Times of India, 25 January 1964