COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.require "let.pub[let,jmc]" source
C00005 ENDMK
C⊗;
.require "let.pub[let,jmc]" source;
∂AIL Editor:↓%2New York Times%1↓229 West 43d St.↓N.Y. 10036∞
.turn on "→";
To the Editor:

	Your March 5 editorial opposes the Rhodesian settlement
as not contributing to the American goal of
"a peaceful transition to black rule throughout southern Africa".
What if this goal is impractical for the same reason that the
goal of liberating eastern Europe from Soviet domination is
impractical?  What if its achievement
requires pushing a power with nuclear capability to the point of
using it?

	It might be better to settle for a lesser attainable goal -
ending the exploitation of black labor by African whites.  This is
attainable, because African blacks can make the exploitation of
their labor impractical.  Given the existing hostility of blacks
towards whites, which is more likely to grow than to decline,
there will probably have to be a partition of southern Africa.

	The Rhodesian internal settlement gives a longshot chance to avoid
this outcome by providing an example of whites living with blacks without
dominating them.  Most likely it will fail, because when the blacks
acquire most of the power, a majority of blacks will consider the present
deal invalid, go for full power, and demand redress for past wrongs to an
extent that will force white emigration.  This will probably happen
whether or not the guerrillas take part in the government.

	I fear the policies advocated by the %2Times%1 are contributing
to the likelihood of a war that is eventually likely to become nuclear.

.sgn