VOUR editorial of March 6
condemns firmly the declaration by the Rhodesian Government of a republic and appeals to countries still having ties with that state to close their consulates (apparently with success).
I observe, without passing judgment, -that Rhodesia is one of the few places in Africa where the African is safe. He certainly isn't in Nigeria or many other "African" African countries.
It appears normal diplomatic practice for a country to recognise the effective Government of another country— if only to have some channel of communication. Countries which fail to recognise other countries must surely bury their heads in the sands of cloud-c-uckooland.
If Britain does net recognise Rhodesia on ethical grounds, why should she recognise the government of belligerent Russia or its puppet Czechoslovakia? Britain is so illogical. Why recognise Peking when Formosa is the "U.N." China.
Christopher L. Illeardale Plymouth.
BEFORE rushing into print .11-0 condemning the policies of the &filth regime (March 6) you might have reflected on the Church's apartheid policy in Rhodesia until very recent times.
Two of the most telling examples are Si George's College (Jesuit), Salisbury, "an Englishtype public school for the sons of gentlemen" — White, of course. the connotation did not extend to black — and the Dominican Sisters' Convent school. Salisbury, which catered exclusively for the daughters of the same "gentlemen", the white Rhodesia.ns.
If this is not racial discrimination, I have yet to learn the meaning of the term.
Marie E. Lang London. S.W.19.