NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.
| The State Department web site below is a permanent electronic archive of information released prior to January 20, 2001. Please see www.state.gov for material released since President George W. Bush took office on that date. This site is not updated so external links may no longer function. Contact us with any questions about finding information. NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein. |
532. Record of Agreements and Decisions at the Fifth Meeting of the Senior Interdepartmental Group/1/ Washington, April 12, 1966. /1/Source: Department of State, S/S Files: Lot 70 D 263, SIG/RA: #5--May 3, 66--Discussion on France, NATO, and Rhodesia. Secret; Exdis. PRESENT Mr. Dean Acheson [Here follows discussion of an unrelated topic.] 2. Rhodesia: It was decided that American officials should, as a matter of urgency, talk to the British on this subject not only to attempt to determine the nature of British thinking, but also to inform them of our thinking: a. The United States will not in any way permit itself to be involved militarily in Rhodesia. b. We think that economic sanctions have reached a level beyond which further escalation would not be profitable. The Group also discussed the broad choices open to the British--the use of force or negotiations which could lead to a reasonably acceptable political settlement. If the British choose to use force they must understand that it will be done without us. Consideration was also given to the more positive role the U.S. might play in trying to create conditions which, hopefully, could lead to a speedy political settlement of the Rhodesia problem. [Here follows discussion of an unrelated topic.] Harry H. Schwartz
533. Memorandum From Ulric Haynes of the National Security Council Staff to the President's Special Assistant (Rostow)/1/ Washington, April 18, 1966. /1/Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Country File, Rhodesia, Vol. II, Memos and Miscellaneous, 2/66-12/68. Confidential. The following is a brief situation report on the Rhodesian crisis bringing the events of the past two weeks up to date. I. UN Activity--At the UK's request, a UNSC meeting was finally held on April 11, at which the UK's resolution on Rhodesia was passed in spite of African and Communist Bloc efforts to broaden and strengthen it. As passed, the resolution called the breach of the voluntary oil embargo "a threat to the peace" and authorized the UK to use force to stop tankers carrying oil for Rhodesia from docking at the port of Beira in (Portuguese) Mozambique./2/ /2/For text of U.N. Security Council Resolution 221 (1966), see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1966, p. 597. II. Consequences--On the strength of the UN resolution, the UK has prevented two tankers with oil for Rhodesia from being unloaded. Both tankers are Greek-owned and their cargo was purchased for Rhodesia by a South African firm The Portuguese are angry with the UK for making them the scapegoat for an "oil leak" into Rhodesia which originates solely in South Africa. Because of the UN resolution, the Smith regime has withdrawn its skeleton representation from London and ordered the UK to close down its residual mission in Salisbury. The UK has recalled its Ambassador to South Africa for consultations and instructions. He will probably return to South Africa with instructions to make the following pitch to Prime Minister Verwoerd: (a) South Africa should cooperate in the oil embargo in its own interest and perhaps (b) request Verwoerd to intercede with Smith to end the Rhodesian crisis. Dissatisfaction with the UN resolution has led the Africans and Communist Bloc to re-group in the UN's Committee of 24 to press for a stronger UNSC resolution calling for (a) total economic sanctions against Rhodesia, and (b) the UK to use force to put down the Rhodesian rebellion. III. At Stake--The longer the Rhodesian crisis continues, the harder it becomes to solve and the greater the risks for UK and US prestige and influence in Africa. Some obvious considerations are: (a) Prolongation will result in the Rhodesian crisis being tied into the crisis of South Africa's compliance with the International Court's decision in the South West Africa case in June or July; (b) Wilson's failure to put down the Rhodesian rebellion prior to the July Commonwealth PM's meeting could precipitate African members' leaving the Commonwealth; (c) Prolongation is having a serious adverse economic and psychological impact on Zambia and could topple the government of the moderate President Kaunda; (d) US Civil Rights groups are beginning to focus on the problem; (e) If economic sanctions cause the disintegration of the Rhodesian economy, the cost of reconstruction to the UK will be prohibitive; (f) Prolongation encourages the determination to resist of the Smith regime and its supporters. IV. Our Moves--State is currently taking quiet and discreet soundings in London and with the Australians and New Zealanders to explore possible approaches based on mediation leading ultimately to negotiations by the principals./3/ /3/A handwritten notation in the margin of the source text reads: "Stewart coming. Mann in charge. We want a negotiation approach--Wilson is reported leaning that way." Rick
534. Message From Prime Minister Wilson to President Johnson/1/ London, April 27, 1966. /1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 19 RHOD. Secret; Nodis. I was very grateful for your kind reaction to my message about the Rhodesian feeler./2/ /2/In an April 22 message, Wilson had informed the President of a secret feeler from Rhodesia indicating that Ian Smith was interested in beginning talks to settle the present situation with no preconditions whatsoever. (Ibid.) Johnson's reply of April 23 expressed the President's support for Wilson's efforts to settle this "critical problem" peacefully. (Ibid.) As you can imagine, things have moved fast since then. Wright's report of the businesslike talk he had with Smith and his general impressions of the situation derived from this talk and from what the Governor and Beaddle said to him was sufficiently forthcoming, in our view, to justify continuing the dialogue. Briefly, Wright recognized that only the next round of talks could establish whether a basis for negotiation existed. But he thought that the omens were pretty good and firmly recommended that we should at least go on to the next round. Accordingly, I sent him back to reach agreement with Smith on the holding of strictly informal talks with no pre-conditions to establish whether a basis existed for the subsequent negotiation of an acceptable settlement. We are appointing Duncan Watson, with Oliver Wright, to represent us at these talks and have proposed that the first round at least should be in London, though it may be desirable for the subsequent rounds to take place in Salisbury. Before Wright had been able to put this to Smith, the news had begun to break in the South African press, though it is not absolutely clear whether the leak was in South Africa or in Salisbury. At all events, I had been convinced that we should not be able to keep this secret and had told Wright to warn Smith that if the news broke, a statement would have to be made. He managed to agree to a short text with Smith and this is contained in the first paragraph of the statement I shall now make in the House this afternoon. The text of this is attached./3/ To protect Smith, we have agreed not to say specifically that he first approached the Governor. But the text clearly implies that the initiation was made in Salisbury. /3/Not printed. With luck, this publicity should not make it too difficult for us to pursue these exploratory talks. But you will realize that it is still an entirely open question whether the talks will reveal that any solid basis exists for an eventual solution. I know that you share our hopes. I am sure that you also share our recognition of the pitfalls. I will, of course, continue to keep you posted./4/ /4/A new round of British-Rhodesian talks began in London on May 9.
535. Memorandum of Conversation/1/ Washington, May 16, 1966, 2 p.m. /1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 19 RHOD. Secret; Nodis. Drafted by Stoessel, and approved by the White House on May 18. The meeting took place at the White House. SUBJECT PARTICIPANTS Portuguese Side Ambassador Garin said that he appreciated all of the demands on the President's time and therefore was most grateful that the President had been able to receive him. He then presented to the President an envelope which he said contained a letter from Prime Minister Salazar with regard to the Rhodesian problem, which was causing concern and alarm to Portugal./2/ /2/Salazar's letter, the text of which was transmitted to Lisbon in telegram 573, May 16, declared that Rhodesia was situated in the most developed, progressive, and prosperous part of Africa and warned that if a convulsion were provoked in the region, the West would face a very serious military crisis affecting the defense of the South Atlantic and access to the Indian Ocean. It stated that the Portuguese Government had counseled moderation with the Rhodesians, but only the U.S. Government was in a position to do this successfully with the British. (Ibid., POL 16 RHOD) The Ambassador said that Portugal had desired to follow a policy of neutrality in connection with Rhodesia and had been ready to accept the British contention that the matter was an internal problem for the UK to resolve. However, the Portuguese Government now found itself involved in the situation more than it had wished. The Security Council resolution against Portugal had been unfair and unjust. Now the SC would be meeting tomorrow to consider a draft resolution prepared by the African countries. This is an extreme resolution which would oblige the Portuguese to stop trade and other relations with Rhodesia and it caused Portugal much concern. In addition, the Ambassador said, the British Government is now making serious military preparations with a view to military intervention in Rhodesia. A large part of the British fleet is in the Mozambique channel. The port of Beira is under surveillance and there are reports of British troop movements and shipment of heavy equipment from Portsmouth and Southampton. While much of this is based on rumor, the Portuguese have had many reports of this kind, which are most alarming. If the British decide on intervention in Rhodesia, the Ambassador continued, there are three ways in which this could be carried out. The British troops could come through Zambia, but Kaunda has said that he does not wish this and will not permit his country to be a base of operations against Rhodesia. The British could attempt to come through South Africa, which would cause obvious problems. Lastly, they could come through Mozambique. With its port facilities, railways and pipeline, Mozambique is the ideal way for the invasion of Rhodesia. The military action could come through a sudden unilateral move by the British or as a result of UN action. If the British attempt to enter Mozambique, the Portuguese would destroy the port facilities, South Africa would become involved, and "there would be a conflagration". The Ambassador thought that the U.S. inevitably would become involved. For all these reasons, the Ambassador said, the Portuguese hope that the talks now going on between the British and the Rhodesians on Rhodesia will be successful. Prime Minister Salazar is asking the President in his letter to use his influence to this end. In response, the President said he would be very happy to read the Prime Minister's letter, which would be given careful study. He hoped very much that the situation would not develop in the manner outlined by the Ambassador but that it would be resolved in a peaceful way through negotiations.
536. Message From Prime Minister Wilson to President Johnson/1/ London, May 20, 1966. /1/Source: Department of State, S/S Files: Lot 67 D 262, Presidential Correspondence, UK/Wilson to Pres. Secret; Nodis. I should like you to know that we shall be making an announcement at 5:00 P.M. London time today (1:00 P.M. Washington) that the talks between the British and Rhodesian officials will be adjourned to enable both sides to report back to their principals. We shall also announce that the talks will resume shortly but shall not at this stage announce the date or place of resumption. For your own private information the date is likely to be about Whitsun (May 29) and the place Salisbury. If possible at Government House, if not at some neutral place like the University. The officials have had some nine meetings all told and the general impression we have received is that although the Rhodesians have certainly not come to Canossa and have not abandoned rebellion as a fall back position, they are genuinely looking for a way out and would now like to negotiate the independence they so foolishly seized last November. They have told us that they accept that independence, if granted, must come within the ambit of our six principles. Indeed, they have shown particular interest in our sixth principle, which envisages protection for the European minority after majority rule. This suggests that Smith, at any rate, has accepted the inevitability of African assumption of power and is now looking for adequate safeguards to guarantee the security of Europeans when that day arrives. Another promising line of thought to emerge was the idea that the Westminster type of constitution, with its all or nothing characteristics, may not really be the answer to Rhodesia's practical problems. There might be scope for useful discussion on these lines, for one of the advantages of an alternative system would be to give the Africans some power now, immediately, and to enable the Europeans to retain some power after majority rule. There are still a lot of hurdles ahead, in particular the question of the return to the rule of law. But I am not unhopeful. We have not abandoned our stand of principle of last November. But our ideas, which then fell on deaf ears, are now finding better receptivity. Sanctions are clearly working, inexorably, if slowly, and Smith will be negotiating against a deteriorating economy. But our basic aim is reconciliation, not punishment. To secure a just and decent future for all races in Rhodesia must be a major British interest and, I would have thought, a major free world interest too. I am beginning to allow myself to hope that we may be able to bring it off.
537. Letter From President Johnson to Prime Minister Salazar/1/ Washington, June 10, 1966. /1/Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Memos to the President, Walt W. Rostow, Vol. 5, 5/26/66-6/29/66. My dear Mr. Prime Minister: I was pleased to receive your thoughtful letter of May 11/2/ on the grave problem of peace in southern Africa. Our two countries have enjoyed friendly and fruitful relations since the founding of the United States. We are proud of that history and of our present cooperation in the Atlantic Alliance which we both helped create. /2/See footnote 2, Document 535. I have carefully reflected on your views and was particularly gratified to note that we are in agreement on the principle of government by express consent of the governed. If this principle had been genuinely accepted and applied in Southern Rhodesia, we might not be confronted with the dangerous situation of which you have written. Even now, I am confident that prompt application of this principle would lead to peaceful reconciliation of divergent interests and make possible a transition to majority government with adequate protection for all minorities. Please understand, Mr. Prime Minister, that I do not minimize the difficulties involved in the Rhodesian situation. But I have faith that if all those in authority in southern Africa would strive to create an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect by word and deed, the forces of peace and progress could triumph over those of violence and destruction. I also believe public declarations of intention and concrete evidence of application would enhance, not jeopardize, achievement of this objective. We have supported the British Government in its efforts peacefully to restore constitutional rule in Rhodesia because we believe that eventual majority rule is essential to the political stability of the area. We have been encouraged by the resumption of talks looking toward a peaceful solution, and we have cautioned against untimely action in the United Nations or elsewhere which would prejudice the successful outcome of these talks. I was pleased to learn from you that there is a desire in Salisbury that the conversations prove successful and that you have been counselling moderation. With patience and strength and with the support of responsible men everywhere. I am convinced that just and lasting solutions can be found to the problems of southern Africa. I welcome this opportunity to exchange views with you and will always be pleased to receive your thoughts on subjects of interest to our two countries./3/ /3/In telegram 765 from Lisbon, June 25, Charge Harvey R. Wellman reported that he delivered the President's letter to Salazar on June 24. (Department of State, Central Files, POL 16 RHOD) Sincerely, /4/Printed from a copy that indicates Johnson signed the original.
538. Memorandum of Conversation/1/ London, June 10, 1966, 10 a.m. /1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 16 RHOD. Secret; Limited Distribution. Drafted by Spiers and approved in S on June 20. The meeting took place at the Prime Minister's residence at 10 Downing Street in London. The source text is marked "Part III of III." SUBJECT PARTICIPANTS U.S. The Secretary asked how the Prime Minister saw the situation in Rhodesia now. The Prime Minister said things were going a good deal better. There is now no doubt that the economic sanctions are causing severe problems for Smith. The effects of the credit squeeze have been considerable and unemployment is growing. The result of the last British election, the tobacco boycott and oil embargo have also been setbacks. This was a case of sanctions having real effects in a hundred different ways. Smith, who was a sophisticated economist, should see the situation in its true light. The white emigres to Rhodesia, who had gone there for an easier living, were now finding that things were not so good. The Prime Minister said that, at the end of the day, all of this would force Smith into real negotiation. The hope was that he would break away from the hardliners and form a government of national unity. The British would continue to insist on a return to constitutional rule. The Prime Minister continued that his own view was that there would be a month or two of very constructive discussions and haggling. The big question, however, was whether Smith would have the courage to break away from the "wild men" or whether he would pursue a "scorched earth" policy, bringing the house down with him. The U.K. thought it would be possible to get a settlement giving independence to a responsible government, with a guarantee of moving to majority rule within a specified period of time. It is not clear, however, that such a settlement would be palatable to Black Africa, even though last November it had appeared ready to stomach it. There has been a weakening of the Africans ability to act cohesively. The OAU cannot even organize itself to meet. Nevertheless, inflammatory speeches continue and may cause trouble. The Secretary said that he had the impression the Africans may be more interested in words than in facts. This is a truth that the Spaniards had seen and there may be some lesson here applicable to Rhodesia. The Prime Minister thought the situations were not the same. There had been a deep emotional crisis in Africa over the U.K., beginning with Kenya. Sir Burke Trend said that the CRO would like to get in touch with the U.S. as soon as possible regarding help to Zambia. The Secretary said that flying out 12,000 tons of copper per day was "not on". Trend said that they were thinking of small-scale help in transport, harbor-dredging etc. The Secretary said that he would raise this question with his colleagues when he returned to Washington and let the U.K. know through our Embassy as soon as possible.
539. Memorandum From Secretary of State Rusk to President Johnson/1/ Washington, undated. /1/Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Country File, Rhodesia, Vol. II, Memos and Miscellaneous, 2/66-12/68. Secret. SUBJECT /2/Prime Minister Wilson visited Washington July 28-29 and met with the President on July 29. Recommendations: 1. If Prime Minister Wilson requests US support for a settlement of the Rhodesian problem negotiated with the white minority Smith regime, I recommend that you avoid a commitment pending study of the terms of the agreement./3/ /3/There is no record of any discussion of Rhodesia by the President and Prime Minister Wilson. Memoranda of their conversations on July 29 are in Department of State, Central Files, POL UK-US. A memorandum of remarks by the President concerning his private talks with Wilson, which also excluded Rhodesia, is ibid., POL 15-1 US/Johnson. 2. If Prime Minister Wilson does not raise the Rhodesian problem, I recommend that you ask him to inform you of the kind of settlement the British Government is prepared to accept. Background: From what we know of the present British position on Rhodesia, it seems likely that (1) the UK is prepared to grant Rhodesia independence under a regime headed by Ian Smith, hence before majority rule is achieved and (2) the grant of independence will not be accompanied by enforceable lasting assurances on a transition to majority rule. We have always been skeptical that the economic sanctions program would succeed in "bringing the rebel regime to an end" as the Prime Minister last November publicly expressed the hope that it would, but we have suggested no alternative lines of action for accomplishing this objective. Now we are faced with the possibility of serious damage to our relations with African governments if we are closely associated with such a Rhodesian settlement, which would be clearly unpalatable to them. US support for such a settlement would clearly be at variance with the spirit if not the letter of your May 26 remarks to the African ambassadors, which included the statement that we were supporting UK and UN efforts "to restore legitimate government in Rhodesia" because "only when this is accomplished can steps be taken to open the full power and responsibility of nationhood to all the people of Rhodesia--not just six percent of them." Without regard to the disadvantages for us, there is some question as to whether such a "settlement" would in fact settle the problem. The white minority is probably too small a part of the population to hold out indefinitely if the African majority organizes itself for militant action. There is a considerable risk that, after independence, the white minority would use repressive measures to maintain its position, the Africans would respond with violence, and there would be a breakdown of law and order. The British would doubtless try to build into any settlement some sort of "guarantees" of progress to ultimate majority rule, but really effective guarantees would be very difficult to achieve. "Inviolate" constitutional provisions can be violated by a determined minority and reliance on international guarantees protecting a constitution would be unrealistic. However, if effective assurances could be devised that are credible to the international community, this should affect our attitude positively. Suggested Questions To Be Raised: 1. The Prime Minister said in the House of Commons on July 5 that "there would be no purpose in reaching agreement on the constitutional future of Rhodesia if that agreement did not at the same time win for Rhodesia acceptance in international society." How does the British Government intend to ascertain this international acceptability?/4/ /4/The Prime Minister also announced on July 5 that the British-Rhodesian talks in Salisbury were being suspended and that the British participants were returning to London for consultations. 2. Is the British Government prepared to grant Rhodesia independence before majority rule? If so, with what guarantees of progress to majority rule? Will these guarantees be credible and enforceable if the Rhodesian Front is in control of Rhodesia? 3. What does the Prime Minister believe the African reaction will be to a grant of independence to a white minority regime? If adverse, what implication does the UK think this may have for its position in Black Africa? Dean Rusk/5/ /5/Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.
540. Memorandum From Halvor O. Ekern of the Operations Staff, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, to the Director of the Office of British Commonwealth and North European Affairs (Shullaw) Washington, August 24, 1966. [Source: Department of State, INR/IL Historical Files, Southern Rhodesia, 1965-1966. Top Secret; Eyes Only. 2 pages of source text not declassified.]
541. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom/1/ Washington, September 8, 1966, 11:27 a.m. /1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 16 RHOD. Secret; Immediate. Drafted by Dean, cleared by Ball, and approved by Sisco. Repeated to USUN, Salisbury, Capetown, and Lisbon. 42780. Subj: UK Question on Sanctions for Rhodesia. 1. At own request, UK Minister Stewart called on Assistant Secretary Sisco (IO) late Sept 7 with HMG request for US assessment of feasibility of an SC res on Southern Rhodesia which would impose mandatory sanctions on all transit of POL for Rhodesia through Mozambique and forbid importation by UN member states of certain Rhodesian products, possibly including pig iron and chrome ore. 2. As background, Stewart said meeting of UK Cabinet in London yesterday had decided with regard Rhodesia that it would be difficult hold Commonwealth together solely on basis of UK agreement to a Canadian suggestion for a selective ban on Rhodesian exports. Cabinet had decided this step inadequate and they would have to go further but wanted take only minimum action in UN necessary to hold Commonwealth together "without risking UK vital economic interests" or "putting UN on dangerous course." Stewart said Cabinet therefore considering package res which would ban transit of POL for Rhodesia through Mozambique and forbid importation by UN members of pig iron and chrome. Cabinet wished avoid risk of being forced into oil sanctions against South Africa. Stewart said he had been instructed to ask US assessment on chances such package res in SC. Cabinet would consider question tomorrow AM and wished US views by that time if possible. 3. Sisco replied that he would have to report this conversation to Mr. Ball who returning same evening and to Ambassador Goldberg to obtain official US view. Meanwhile, he could only give preliminary observations of purely personal nature. Sisco said effort to limit res to transit POL through Mozambique unlikely to wash in SC, would probably elicit immediate move to broaden res to include SA in light of known fact that South Africa main source oil supply to Rhodesia and Mozambique mainly transit area for POL originating in South Africa. Second, such step would clearly discriminate against Portugal and elicit very strong Portuguese reaction against those who supported it. 4. Leaving aside question of general advisability Chapter VII action this subject, Sisco said sanctions on pig iron might not, to limited extent his information on this subject, cause great economic dislocation for US because our imports Rhodesian pig iron sporadic and infrequent. Chrome was more important issue because high grade chrome ore in short supply on world market and important US companies now dependent on Rhodesian sources. He added important consideration here was that such action taken by itself was highly unlikely impress Commonwealth members or to hold back pressure in SC for extension of measures to cover imports into Rhodesia including POL. 5. Sisco said real question raised by UK query is ultimate UK position on sanctions toward South Africa. If UK decided that oil embargo against South Africa was an ultimate possibility in order meet political demands of maintaining Commonwealth, this would be important factor in overall equation. If on other hand, UK not planning take this decision and considered potential damage arising from it outweighed risk to Commonwealth, it would then appear unwise to take steps in SC on Rhodesia which would at minimum raise African expectations, whatever the tactical advantage. Stewart agreed that this was fundamental problem posed by his instructions. He added that HMG apparently felt it would not be in position veto Chapter VII res on South Africa and wished if possible to avoid being boxed in on this. 6. Dept has reviewed UK proposal. You may inform FonOff that Sisco's remarks represent Dept's assessment. Minister Stewart being informed here. We also reaffirming to him what Ball told Brown in London: we cannot veto res involving South Africa under conditions projected. Ball
542. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom/1/ Washington, September 24, 1966, 11:45 a.m. /1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 16 RHOD. Secret; Exdis. The text was received from the White House and approved by Read of S/S. Repeated to USUN. 53836. Following message received by President from Wilson September 23: Begin Text: 1. I have purposely not troubled you so far with messages about Rhodesia. I know that David Bruce and Pat Dean between them will have kept both you yourself and Dean Rusk well in the picture of recent events and particularly of the exceptionally difficult discussion we had at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers Meeting, as well as the background and reasons for the Commonwealth Secretary's present visit to Rhodesia. 2. But I believe we shall shortly reach a moment of decision in this Rhodesian crisis. As you will have heard, I came under the strongest pressure during the Commonwealth Conference to use force against the Smith regime, to declare categorically and unconditionally that there would be no independence before majority rule and also to move a resolution of comprehensive mandatory sanctions in the Security Council. None of these propositions was acceptable to us, but I had to fight an excessively difficult and at times bitter action against them. In the end, I believe we came out reasonably well. The majority of the Commonwealth tacitly accepted that we could not be expected to use military force; and that it was reasonable that we should have a little more time to give the regime one last chance of coming to its senses. But in return, I had to agree that, if that last chance were not accepted by the regime, we would support limited mandatory sanctions against Rhodesian exports of raw materials and perhaps at a latter stage an extension of the oil embargo to cover all imports via Mozambique. Provided that the Commonwealth supported us at the United Nations in limiting the impact of the sanctions in this way (i.e., so as to avoid, if possible, an overt clash with South Africa), I also agreed that we would then withdraw all previous offers made to Rhodesia and declare that there would be no independence before majority rule. This was the price we had to pay to buy this additional time for a last showdown with Smith. But it was also necessary if we were to hold the Commonwealth together. And I know that this was an objective that you also strongly desired, given the immense racial tensions in the world and the value of the Commonwealth as a truly multi-racial association in helping to mitigate those tensions. I had broadly two main objectives throughout our Rhodesian discussions: to hold the Commonwealth together and to keep the Rhodesian situation under our own control, so far as possible. 4. There were times when I doubted whether either objective could be attained. As it turned out, we managed to secure both, at least for a limited period of time; and I truly believe that the Commonwealth has emerged stronger rather than weaker from this great test. 5. But time really is now of the essence. The Commonwealth Secretary, whose reports this week show that he is playing a difficult hand with shrewdness and skill, is doing his best to make Smith realize that we and the rest of the Commonwealth mean business and that there really is a limit to our willingness and ability to carry the can internationally for Rhodesia. We believe that the terms we are offering as set out in the Commonwealth communique genuinely represent an honorable way out for Smith. But if he is to accept them, he will almost certainly have to bring himself to ditch his own extremists. And I am bound to say that his talks so far with the Commonwealth Secretary do not encourage us to hope that he will have the guts to do this. 6. But if this rather pessimistic forecast proves right, then we are going to be faced with the need for the measures agreed at the Common- wealth Prime Ministers Conference. I hope that initially we can agree in the Security Council on limited sanctions and that this will not therefore involve us immediately in a clash with South Africa. But we can certainly not be sure of this: and in any case a decision to move to further mandatory sanctions of this type may well hasten the day when a clash with South Africa becomes inevitable. This is something which is, I believe, equally repugnant to you and to us. The consequences (as I explained to the Africans at the Commonwealth Conference and as many of them in their heart of hearts fully recognize) are incalculable. They could in the longer run lead to armed conflict with the South Africans and would certainly produce economic warfare, the effect of which, for both our countries in particular but also I believe for Western economic interests generally, would be excessively damaging. But equally I feel bound to repeat the warning that George Brown gave George Ball during the latter's recent visit here to the effect that we must not be counted on to incur the immense international odium that would result from a British veto in the Security Council on any measures bound to result in conflict with South Africa. This is a case where I think you and we would have to stand or fall together; which is why I am addressing you now in the hope that, by judicious action before the moment of decision arrives, you may be able to help us avert the dangers I have just outlined. 7. It is difficult, and indeed inappropriate, for me to suggest what it might be possible for you to do to help us at this juncture. If you felt that it would be productive, I should welcome any action by the U.S. Government that you might think appropriate, designed to bring Smith to his senses and get him to accept that we all of us mean business, and that there is nothing but isolation and disaster at the end of the road for Rhodesia unless he is now prepared to reach an agreement on the basis of this last offer of ours, even if this has to be at the price of breaking with some of his associates. 8. I also believe that South Africa's influence on Smith is potentially of the greatest importance. If you saw any prospect of being able to induce the South African Government to bring pressure on Smith for a settlement, in their own best interests, this might well be the most useful of all. In addition, of course we hope that, if we are forced before the end of the year to work for limited mandatory sanctions at the United Nations, we shall be able to count on your help with other countries designed to keep the sanctions limited. We have made it clear that we shall only work for these sanctions provided we have full support from the Commonwealth for keeping them limited. We mean to stick to this. But equally we must expect that at least the Zambians and a number of other Afro-Asians will press for a great deal more. However, what we really want, if at all possible, is to induce Smith to come to terms. 9. I am sorry to worry you with our troubles when you have quite enough of your own. But I feel justified in doing this because, as I say, I think these are really our joint troubles; and if there is anything you feel you can usefully do now, we may be able to avoid finding ourselves jointly in a much more difficult situation which may confront us within the coming months, particularly at the United Nations and in what may follow from the debates there. End Text. Ball
543. Memorandum of Conversation/1/ Washington, October 14, 1966. /1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 16 RHOD. Secret; Exdis. Drafted by Goldstein, and approved in S on October 28. The source text is marked "Part 4 of 7." SUBJECT PARTICIPANTS UK US With regard to Rhodesia, Secretary Rusk thanked the Foreign Secretary for keeping the US Government so well informed. The Foreign Secretary said that the results obtained at the recent Commonwealth Conference were the best that Britain could have achieved in the circumstances. The Commonwealth, he thought, will hold together on the Rhodesia problem at least until the deadline (end of November) for the acceptance of a settlement by Smith, unless the Africans take fright. An awkward moment is coming up. Sir Morrice James is returning to Salisbury with the latest word from the British Cabinet; his discussions there could be misunderstood by the Africans. The Foreign Secretary went on to say that, if Smith rejects the British proposals, the UK will have to join in a UN resolution to apply mandatory selective sanctions to Southern Rhodesia. The situation in the UN at that time can be delicate, and the UK and the US will have to work closely together. The Foreign Secretary hoped that, as agreed at the Commonwealth Conference, the African countries would stay with the UK in seeking a resolution for selective sanctions only. Denis Greenhill said that a draft of such a resolution had already been prepared on a contingency basis and will be discussed soon with US officials. In reply to a question from Secretary Rusk, the Foreign Secretary said that the felt certain that tobacco was not being exported from Rhodesia in important amounts; he also felt confident that foreign dealers were not buying Rhodesian tobacco and leaving it in Rhodesia for storage. Secretary Rusk noted that, had we put our Rhodesian policy before Congress three or four months ago, it would have been defeated, partly because of the views of members from the Southern states and partly because of the movement of British flag ships to North Vietnam. He thought, however, the situation was much better today and thanked the Foreign Secretary for what had been done to reduce the number of calls by British flag ships at North Vietnamese ports. The Foreign Secretary said that he did not think economic sanctions had significantly hurt or helped Smith within Rhodesia. He was convinced that Smith was the one man who could lead Rhodesia either to continue in its illegal position or to accept a settlement with the British. Secretary Rusk reaffirmed that the US does not wish to step out ahead of the Commonwealth in dealing with the problem. The Foreign Secretary expressed concern at the movement of Rhodesian chrome to the United States. It was pointed out to him that the chrome was moving from Mozambique to which it had been shipped by an American producer in Rhodesia. In a brief discussion of Zambia, the Foreign Secretary requested that we try to have a calming talk with President Kaunda when he comes here. Sir Michael Stewart mentioned that Zambia seemed to be moving toward accepting the British aid package of 14 million pounds. The Foreign Secretary said that the US must not rely on the British to veto alone a UN resolution calling for economic measures against South Africa. The British Government has not made a decision on what it would do. Secretary Rusk said that the US has not reached a decision either. In responding to a question, the Foreign Secretary said that he thought the French would play a mischievous role if a resolution against South Africa became a current issue. In a brief reference to South West Africa, Mr. Greenhill said he would not preclude the possibility of having to face a vote on the original resolution introduced into the UN by the African states and others. There is, however, a good chance of obtaining an acceptable outcome since the small countries dearly want an affirmative vote from the US and the UK on some kind of resolution dealing with South West Africa. [Next documents] Volume XXIV Index | Historian's Office | Department of State |
