chocabloc.com

After a ten-year search, this book - signed by 3,000 loyal British citizens at the time of UDI - has still not been found.

We’ve reason to believe that this document has been deliberately destroyed.  Why?  Because it represents a commitment to loyal British citizens living in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia to pay compensation - a commitment that the British government of Harold Wilson didn’t want to keep! 

Portugal - with its relatively meagre resources - managed to look after its ‘Retornados’, but not Britain.    

Shortly after Ian Smith declared UDI on 11 November 1965, our history teacher pinned to the classroom noticeboard a newspaper clipping from the Rhodesia Herald.  The picture was of Ian Smith, with the caption, ‘A man of his word’.

Unfortunately, in my haste to add a comment in protest, I’d misread the words as ‘A man of his world’ and had scribbled the retort, ‘the underworld!’.  

I was embarrassed; the teacher was confused.

It’s a funny thing history, though.  In the process of looking for this governor’s book that my parents signed at the time of UDI (along with the other 2,998 loyal British citizens living in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia at the time), I’ve unearthed what must be just part of the full deceit of the British Government’s involvement with that part of Southern Africa and even with their own citizens.  

Just one example, Ian Smith paid British pensions when the British government imposed sanctions and stopped paying.

I can now say in all honesty that Ian Smith was an honourable man - in fact, too honourable for dealings with the British government. 

Were you in Zimbabwe-Rhodesian in 1965 when UDI was declared?
Did you - or your parents or your grandparents - sign the Governor’s book at the time?
3,000 loyal British citizens did.
Do you know anyone who has talked about this book?
Maybe you were at school at the time and you remember your parents going along to sign it.
Perhaps one of your grandparents has spoken to you about this little-known piece of history.
Help us find this remnant of people and their descendants.
 

Should the main benefit of British citizenship (apart from right of abode, of course) be the right to use the fast track EU/ EAA channel at the airport?  According to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (F&CO), ‘Yes’.  If you’re looking to be taken care of abroad, though, a passport from one of the European countries might be preferable.    

Last week, while France and Italy had already moved 1,600 European nationals by ship to Cyprus from Lebanon, British warships were still ’standing by’ to bring out British citizens. Why was that? Could it be that the F&CO’s sentiments towards British citizens overseas still haven’t changed: ‘If you’re foolish enough to find yourself out there, then you’ve really only yourself to blame’ - which may be true for those making a decision to travel into risky areas, but hardly so for children or second-or-more generation Britons stranded thousands of miles away.  Anyway, is that an acceptable stance for a British Government – Labour or not – to take? Isn’t there something somewhere about a government owing a duty of care to its citizen?

In 1975, the Portuguese government set up a government department, the I.A.R.N., which gave immediate assistance in the form of help finding temporary accommodation and the basics to Portuguese citizens returning from their former colonies of Angola and Mocambique. They went on to help the Retornados find jobs and start their own businesses.

Those that didn’t want to return to Portugal were offered refugee status in, amongst other countries, South Africa and Australia. Could it be that the British government of the time blocked British citizens in Rhodesia getting the same benefits?

Spain has a policy for its Retornados actually written into the constitution.

And Britain – that likes to behaves as though it were the civilising influence in Europe – well, it does what it does best and ‘stands by’ (let’s not forget the benefits of the airport fast-track concession, though).  South Africa absorbed most of those wanting to leave Zimbabwe once it was due to be jettisoned as a redundant colony.  British citizens who felt they couldn’t stay once it was no longer British became refugees with a punitive rate of exchange control imposed by Britain meaning they could take out about £200.00 per family to start again in South Africa.  Good luck getting back to Britain!  British citizens had to apply for residency In South Africa and pay their own way.  Unlike those coming in from Angola and Mocambique, there would be no refugee assistance: no assisted passage, no help with accommodation, no helping hand generally.

Ironically, £15 million of aid from the United Kingdom goes to Angola, part of which under their Consolidated Appeals Process funds Angolan Retornados - those who left Angola at the same time British citizens were leaving what was then Rhodesia.  (Have a look at the Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP) website under ‘European Commission IOM Humanitarian Aid Office ANG-04/MS05 1,203,369 0 Safe and orderly transportation and logistics assistance to returnees within Angola - Humanitarian assistance to facilitate the repatriation to Angola of Angolan refugees

and

United Kingdom OCHA ANG-04/CSSO5 513,761 0 

United Kingdom GOAL/IRDO ANG-04/H09 Improve risk reduction behaviour 764,569 0 voluntary repatriation and reintegration of Angolan refugees United Kingdom UNHCR ANG-04/MS07 1 305 970 0)

The British government systematically contravened probably every human right of British citizens while they were still living in what was then Rhodesia and let them cope as best they could when they chose to leave. The British Labour government of the time (headed by Harold Wilson) made marriages illegal unless performed by British clerics, cut off pensions (that were then continued to be paid by the Rhodesian PM, Ian Smith - supposedly the villain of the piece), let British citizens wander off as refugees and left fourth and fifth generation Rhodesians without citizenship, exposing them to being made stateless persons later.

It’s quite obvious no-one cared, but the thing is could Britain do this legally?  Just because prejudice against a particular group is popular, doesn’t make it any the less an act of prejudice and, as a result, an infringement of human rights -  again, what about that duty of care?  British government records show that Britain knew it had a responsibility to its citizens in Rhodesia – let alone to those with whom it had made a specific pact.  But it deliberately ‘stood by’ and did nothing.  Why!  Because it could. 

Why doesn’t Britain have a policy for its Retornados? Britain benefited immeasurably from its colonies and – contrary to popular belief – those colonies didn’t run themselves. British people provided skills, contributed to the economy, paid taxes and pensions. These were British colonies with a British style of government to where British people from Britain probably wouldn’t have immigrated had the British flag not been flying there.  Encouraged by national liberation organisations, Britain suddenly developed a conscience about having colonies and decided to jettison them. Trouble is, it transferred its shame to those British citizens left behind and jettisoned them along with its redundant colonies. Nobody in the global community much minded or made any objections and those stuck miles away from Westminster had no recourse or any advocacy ‘back home’.