Next month marks the anniversary of Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith's unilateral Declaration of Independence from Britain. During each of the last eleven months, a settlement to the crisis often seemed just around the corner. But British delaying tactics and half-hearted measures have kept the final outcome as uncertain today as it was a year ago.

For the question still remains: Will there be majority or minority rule in Southern Rhodesia? Britain is committed to eventual rule by the country's black majority. But the British have been worried that unless they can induce Smith to negotiate on the issue, they will have to forget about the idea or back it up with force.

Towards a Take-over

Faced with these alternatives, the British first reconsidered their policy and then put off executing it, as Prime Minister Wilson parried criticism from all sides. He even altered the Labour Government's policy dramatically, in hopes of bringing about some sort of settlement. Britain now stands by "Six Principles" which assure "unimpeded progress toward majority rule." The principles allow for an interim independent whit government, with strict constitutional guarantees for increased African participation and eventual take-over.

The new position is a near-total retreat from the former demand that majority rule be effected before independence would be granted. Nevertheless, Wilson was able to parlay the policy into a major diplomatic victory. Observers had predicted that last month's Commonwealth meetings in London would collapse under pressure from militant African representatives. Instead, Commonwealth leaders issued a joint communique in which they affirmed the Six Principles, demanded that Smith submit, and threatened to request that the United Nations enforce mandatory economic sanctions if he refused.

Sir Morris James, deputy undersecretay of the Commonwealth Office, is now in Salisbury to present these terms to the Smith government. If they are rejected, Wilson will have to make good on his promise to carry the matter to the U.N.

Fifty More Years?

Smith has shown sufficient interest during the past week to spark speculation about terms of a settlement -- at least in many African capitals. There are rumors that the former governor, Sir Humphrey Gibbs, might reopen his office as a symbolic gesture. The nation might then be granted independence and be given 50 years to make the transition to majority rule. The rumors of such an arrangement have of course angered a number of African leaders.

But Smith as yet is probably not about to yield even that little to the British demands. Though economic sanctions have undoubtedly slowed down the economy, and at least 2,000 white Rhodesians have trekked across the border into South Africa, substantial aid from South Africa has kept Rhodesia afloat.

Stopping South Africa

It is clear that in order for U.N. economic sanctions to be effective, South African trade with Rhodesia will have to be stopped. If the Vorster government proves recalcitrant, a U.N. force would have to patrol the South African coast, inspect ships, and allow through only what is deemed essential for South Africa. It might even be necessary to clamp down on railway traffic. Such a project would be frightening for Vorster to consider. A successful economic boycott of Rhodesia might convince the world community that something can be done about South Africa, too.

If Vorster becomes worried, he may discourage Smith from relying heavily on continued South African support. That in turn would probably force Smith to the negotiating table. And the British meanwhile continue trying to make negotiations as palatable as possible, for at least as long as Wilson can control African dissent.

The crucial consideration for all concerned will be just how far the U.N. is prepared to go. If it begins to appear that the U.N. will take a hard line on the Rhodesian situation, chances are that within the month Britain will be in the final stages of negotiating a settlement with the rebel government.