changed especially rapidly since the emergence of other independent territories in Africa. There is no doubt that what has given the tremendous impetus to the African political movements in Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia and also in Southern Rhodesia has been the fact that they have been able to look to other parts of the continent of Africa and say to themselves,"If our brothers in such and such territories can be independent, why not we?" There is no answer to that. If Tanganyika can be independent, why not Northern Rhodesia.
The Governments concerned, with the exception of Southern Rhodesia, have made an assessment of political realities as they are at present. We are therefore left with the moment of truth that political structure in any part of Africa from now onwards has to be based upon the rights of the majority. I was very glad indeed that the noble Lord made that so clear in his references to Southern Rhodesia. Of course it will be difficult for her. It will be intensely difficult for her to recognise this very difficult fact.
It will be all the more difficult, because at one point Southern Rhodesia was riding so high on the crest of the federal wave. One of the results of Federation was to increase the attractions for investment of Salisbury and Bulawayo. There was a period—the climax of it was about 1957—of"never had it so good" which affected Southern Rhodesia and which brought in very considerable outside investment. There was a building boom. There was land speculation, and so on. It must be very bitter indeed for those who thought that they were riding on the crest of the wave to find that they are now in the trough.
But they must face realities and they must recognise, as the leader in the Guardian today makes clear, that— "Once the principle either of apartheid, as in South Africa, or of paternalism, as in Southern Rhodesia, is abandoned there is no rest this side of universal suffrage." It must come sooner or later and it will have to be recognised and accepted. My hon. Friends and I have made it clear that until that road has been clearly charted in Southern Rhodesia there should be no question of complete independence.
Having said that, we are, nevertheless, clearly anxious about the future of the territories. There were good reasons for wishing that the three should co-operate because of the unequal distribution of wealth and natural resources in that part of the world. The territory which worries me perhaps more than any other is that of Nyasaland. I was there nearly 10 years ago and I wonder what fundamental changes have taken place in the intervening years. I appreciate that there have been some improvements—in the health service, education and so on—but I do not think that very much progress has been made in the territory's basic economy. They were always the weaker partner. Their political representation was minimal and the whole force of Federal finances was to bolster up Southern Rhodesia.
Very little has gone to Nyasaland, and that country is now starting on independence in the most unenviable situation of not being a viable State. If they look north, as they frequently have done, to Tanganyika, they must realise that Tanganyika herself is not equipped to do very much to help Nyasaland. One hopes that the resources of Northern Rhodesia may somehow be shared, but during federation that territory has felt bitterly that she was the milch cow of the Federation and that there was a limit to what she could be expected to do for her neighbours.
One fact of life Southern Rhodesia will have to face is that unless she can find a modus vivendi with Northern Rhodesia and unless the burden of the federal services can be shared equitably she will also be in a difficult position. I echo what the Guardian stated today in its leader about the desirability of Her Majesty's Government making such generous arrangements as can be made when the time comes for committees A and B to get to work, recognising that some at least of the public debt which will be a millstone around the necks of the territories was incurred because of the mistaken policy of the British Government.
We should without any recriminations, be as generous as we possibly can wherever we find it necessary to enable economic development to take place, social services to be fostered and institutions to be maintained which were started in the belief that the federal system would continue, but which may now find themselves seriously weakened
