Workers World, Vol. 20, No. 40
October 10 – Every so often an event comes along which may weigh little in the scale of history but offers an enormously significant lesson on the very nature of imperialism and the necessity for the revolutionary overthrow of the entire rotten edifice of monopoly capitalism.
This lesson goes a long way to confirm the validity of the revolutionary road, not only in the anti-imperialist struggle but in the worldwide proletarian struggle to demolish the rule of finance capital. It also indirectly disqualifies and discredits the advocates and adherents of the peaceful transition to socialism.
The granting of the visa to Ian Smith by the Carter administration, time will assuredly prove, was small potatoes in the broad historical perspective which will not only sweep away the hated racist Smith regime [in “Rhodesia” / Zimbabwe] but the monopoly capitalists who aid and support him. It has its important lesson, however.
Everyone who has watched developments in southern Africa knows, if he or she knows anything at all, that the Smith regime is an outlaw in the world community. There is scarcely a place on earth where it is not only hated and despised but banned as an outcast. No government will recognize it. It has no legal standing anywhere.
Even in the camp of the imperialist ruling classes the Smith regime is regarded as a pariah and those who deal with it do so secretly. It is scarcely possible to even regard it as an existing government. It’s more in the nature of a military bureaucratic apparatus and can barely muster even the 4 percent of the population who are white settlers against the 96 percent made up of Africans.
Its army is becoming more demoralized with each passing day. The settlers are leaving the country in droves. The forces of the Patriotic Front are stronger than ever and have won the overwhelming majority of the population to their side. The Salisbury regime, in reality, is on its last legs.
The imperialists, however, rarely surrender a battle until it is completely lost. And when it is lost, as is shown in Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, and for that matter wherever any country has succeeded in liberating itself from the shackles of imperialism, finance capital’s hands are deftly at work trying to recover what they lost. That should not surprise revolutionists who have learned their lessons in Marxism.
What then is new about the visa granted by the Carter administration to this supreme racist?
What is new, among other things, is the insolent, blatant, and outrageous cynicism with which the Carter administration disregarded the total mandatory ban of the United Nations resolution which illegalized the Smith regime. It goes so far in its arrogant disregard that one at first sight may be led to believe that perhaps this is just a minor incidental infraction of an insignificant resolution which the U.S. reluctantly agreed to. Not so.
The resolution banning the Smith regime is now ten years old. The Security Council of the UN approved it in 1968 in Resolution 253. That resolution provided for mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia.
“Stop rights there!” the liberal elements of the imperialist establishment will cry out. The Carter administration is not against the sanctions; it’s not for Smith’s internal settlement. All in the administration agree he’s a racist.
“The sole purpose of granting the visa is in the spirit of American fair play and free speech, to give him a hearing. Why, even the Washington Post, which fought for the visa and publicly welcomed him in an editorial, says it is opposed to his regime and to the internal settlement! Tom Wicker of the New York Times says granting the visa was a good idea and he too regards Smith as a racism. So does Anthony Lewis of the New York Times and many others. It’s just a matter of begin fair and showing that our democratic system works for all, no matter what their view is.”
Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum.
What these apologists for imperialism overlook, however, or more correctly are willing to forget are the salient provisions of Resolution 253 which were framed precisely to meet these very arguments.
The resolution reads: “All member states of the United Nations [and the U.S. is a member state and one which vociferously agreed to it – SM] shall prevent the entry into their territories, save on exceptional humanitarian grounds, of any person traveling on a Rhodesian passport.”
Unlike some other UN resolutions this is clear and unambiguous. It obligates the U.S. to prevent “any person traveling on a Rhodesian passport” into the U.S. Ah, but there is a loophole – “exceptional humanitarian grounds.” But even Ian Smith did not have the impudence to avail himself of such a technicality.
So what did the U.S. government do? They said to Smith, “Here is a visa and other necessary travel papers. And you won’t have to use any passport to get into the U.S.” They just waived the requirement of a passport, thus adding insult to injury in their disregard of the UN resolution.
As though the framers of the resolution were seeking in every possible way to close all loopholes to make sure that no one could escape its intent, they also made it mandatory “that member states shall take all possible measures to prevent the entry into their territories of persons whom they have reason to believe to be ordinarily residents in Rhodesia.” There’s no escape clause in this resolution.
All in the United Nations who worked for its passage, in fact every member of the United Nations, knows that granting the visa to Smith is a flagrant violation of the resolution and an insult to every member. Secretary of State Vance didn’t ask the Security Council to relieve the U.S. of the provision. Nor did he even notify the UN of the violation. He just went ahead and did it.
It shows what the UN amounts to in the eyes of U.S. imperialist finance capital. It shows how much the U.S. believes in “international law and order” with which it harangues the rest of the international community.
However, there are still others who will find a way to absolve the Carter administration from what in fact is regarded as a very serious thing precisely because the violation is so open, flagrant, and clear-cut.
These others say, “Well, the visa is merely a procedural matter. It is a breach in the formal rules but in essence the Carter administration stands four-square for majority rule in Rhodesia and regards the Smith regime as illegal and therefore in substance there is no breach.”
Aside from being fraudulent and deceitful to the very core, the argument seeks to substitute fiction for fact. It is utterly ridiculous to regard the granting of the visa merely from the point of view of form. In reality the juxtaposition of form and substance has pointedly made the granting of the visa the very substance of the whole matter of Washington’s real position on the violently racist Salisbury regime.
As is well known, what is form in one situation frequently becomes substance in an entirely different context. Such is the dialectic of history. Every Palestinian understood in their bones the meaning of Sadat’s visit to Jerusalem.
Sadat in effect said, “I am only going to establish a dialogue. I am only going to Jerusalem to break the psychological barriers which stand in the way of a settlement. I am not recognizing Israel. We are not establishing diplomatic relations with Israel. I am not going to make a separate peace treaty. It’s just a visit to break the ice. There is no recognition of the state of Israel.”
No, there was no legal recognition of the state of Israel. There was no legal signing of a separate “peace” treaty without the Palestinian people. However, the very act of going to Jerusalem in effect validated the legal existence of the state of Israel. It in effect predisposed Sadat to negotiate separately and in reality to conspire with the U.S.-Israeli authorities against the Arab people in general and against the Palestinians in particular.
Thus the very form of the relationship between Sadat and the U.S.-Israel authorities, his very going to Jerusalem, was the substantive act of the conspiracy to negotiate behind the backs of the Arab people and later to overtly pass it off as a triumph. The act of going to Jerusalem was the very essence of the matter, just like the granting of a visa is the essence of the real relationship between the U.S. and the Salisbury regime.
Perhaps instead of invoking the dialectic of history it would make it clearer to quote a phrase from the contemporary jargon of bourgeois journalism: “The medium is the message.” This, from the point of view of pragmatism, confirms what revolutionists deduce from the theory of revolutionary Marxism.
And just as the Palestinians recognized the significance of Sadat’s Jerusalem visit, so did Robert Mugabe of the Patriotic Front immediately perceive the granting of the visa and the meeting with Vance as “tacit recognition” of the Salisbury racist regime.
It goes without saying, of course, that Washington is not necessarily tying its destiny in southern Africa exclusively to the Smith regime. What it is trying to do is to find a broader base to impose a neocolonial solution on the embattled Zimbabwean people and the unpleasant fact is that the military bureaucratic settler regime contains the only reliable support Western imperialism has there. And that is fast disintegrating.
Finally, the broader question which the Smith visa raises is this: If imperialism in general and American finance capital in particular can so doggedly continue to support such an outrageously racist regime which has so little chance of survival, what will it do when it faces a serious challenge by the working class for power?
This is the question that all serious revolutionists must address themselves to if they believe in the socialist future of humanity. In Europe the Berlinguers of Italy, the Marchais of France, and the Carrillos of Spain have given their answer.
Marx and Engels have given a totally different answer, one that is in harmony with the aspirations of the working class and the oppressed people everywhere.
Last updated: 11 May 2026