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. |
544. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom/1/ Washington, October 18, 1966, 6:59 p.m. /1/Source: Department of State, Central Files , POL 16 RHOD. Secret; Nodis. Drafted at the White House and approved by John P. Walsh of S/S. 68392. For Ambassador. Following message was sent today by private channel to Prime Minister from President Johnson: "In reply to your good message on Rhodesia,/2/ let me begin by saying that I greatly admired the way you handled the Commonwealth Conference. You were certainly right to concentrate on holding the group together and retaining control of the Rhodesian situation. As you say, the Commonwealth is very important to all of us--the more so as racial problems multiply. /2/See Document 542. If Smith throws away his last chance, you may depend on our full support for the moves spelled out in your letter. Specifically, we will support your withdrawal of all previous offers to Smith, your adoption of a position of no independence before majority rule, and your proposal of limited mandatory economic sanctions in the Security Council. I know you are aware that there will be strong pressures to broaden the sanctions and to apply them to South Africa. My people--both at the State Department and in New York--seriously doubt that there will be support in the Council for limiting the scope of export sanctions or for restricting to Mozambique any subsequent oil embargo. They believe that the drive to enlarge the target to include South Africa is likely to be overwhelming. Nevertheless, I fully appreciate your problems with a UK veto of such an enlargement. I do not think that we can help through direct contact with Smith. If you believe it would be useful to have a go at Vorster, I am willing to have my Ambassador reiterate our firm support for your policy and for UN resolutions designed to end the Smith regime. He would try to persuade them that their own interests dictate that they comply with the present voluntary sanctions. He would also point out that the Security Council is likely to impose mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia, and that South African refusal to comply would lead to pressures to extend them to South Africa which would be difficult for us to resist. Perhaps your people in Pretoria could make a similar approach. In any event, I would suggest that we use the time you have gained to discuss the problems presented if you are forced to give effect to your conference commitments, as well as the contingencies which could arise if things go badly in New York. If you agree, I will get my people in touch with yours. I want you to know that I think you have been a great force for good in this matter. I know it is a heavy cross, but you are doing Africa and the world a great service." Rusk
545. Telegram From the Department of State to Secretary of State Rusk in Manila/1/ Washington, October 20, 1966, 6:32 p.m. /1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 16 RHOD. Secret; Nodis. Drafted and approved by John P. Walsh of S/S. Repeated to London for the Ambassador. Secretary Rusk was in the Philippines October 21-27 for the Manila summit conference on Vietnam, October 24-25. 70145. Tosec 4. 1. Following message from Prime Minister Wilson to the President was received this morning via private channel: "Many thanks indeed for your very helpful message on Rhodesia./2/ We are truly grateful for your promise of support if Smith throws away his last chance. /2/See Document 544. We of course share to some extent the apprehensions of your people, both in Washington and in New York, about the likely difficulties of trying to limit the scope of export sanctions or restricting any oil embargo to Mozambique. But such indications as we have had from Commonwealth Heads of Government are that they will do their best to honour their part of the conference bargain. We shall just have to work hard to achieve the desired result: and this is why your promise of support is of such real practical value to us. I fully accept what you say about the difficulty of your helping through direct contact with Smith. But I warmly welcome your offer to have a go at Vorster. I believe this could be very helpful, especially if it can be done soon. Without being too sanguine about the likelihood of the South Africans pressing Smith really hard to accept this last chance, I think there is at least a worthwhile prospect of their doing so. George Brown worked on the South African Ambassador here as a preliminary to meeting Muller in New York: and, at that meeting, Muller undertook to think over very carefully what George had said and, for the first time in our dealings with him, he appeared seriously to contemplate the possibility of using South African influence. Accordingly, when he got back here, George sent a further message to Muller, confirming what he had told him of the terms we have now put to Smith and warning him that, as Smith was on the brink of a decision, any South African action would have to be immediate to affect it. We do not, of course, know whether the South Africans have yet taken any action but I shall be very grateful if you will, as you suggest, now instruct your Ambassador in Pretoria to act on the lines you propose./3/ This will most usefully reinforce our own approach to Muller. Moreover, the timing should be just right. Smith yesterday gave our emissary in Salisbury his oral reply. As we expected, it temporises. Smith promises us a written reply within the next week or so. His oral reaction has been essentially negative: But I still think there may be an outside chance of getting somewhere with him before our end-November deadline: and, perhaps more important, before the November 11th Anniversary of I.D.I. If the South Africans can be induced to weigh in constructively while he and his colleagues are still deliberating, this might yet tip the scales. /3/Telegram 71381 to Pretoria, October 21, instructed Ambassador Rountree to make U.S. views known orally to Prime Minister Vorster and to leave an aide-memoire expressing firm U.S. support for British policy on Rhodesia. (Department of State, Central Files, POL 16 RHOD) In telegram 529 from Capetown, October 24, Rountree reported that he met with Vorster for 75 minutes that day and gave him the aide-memoire. (Ibid.) Meanwhile, however, we clearly have to prepare for the worst: and I am sure it is right, as you suggest, that our people should get together to consider the contingencies. I am not quite sure at what point this will reach you in your present travels. But it brings you my warmest wishes for a profitable outcome. George has given me a heart-warming account of his reception in Washington and especially from yourself. Clearly there can be no room for excessive optimism about current trends in Soviet attitudes. But it seems as though there may be at least a chink of light at the end of the tunnel." 2. White House relaying Canberra./4/ /4/President Johnson was in Australia October 20-23 for a State visit preceding the Manila conference. Katzenbach
546. Memorandum of Conversation/1/ Washington, November 16, 1966, 5:30 p.m. /1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 16 RHOD. Secret. Drafted by Goldstein, and approved in S on November 21. The source text is marked "Part 1 of 3." The meeting took place in the Secretary's office. SUBJECT PARTICIPANTS U.S. Ambassador Dean said that he was instructed to hand to the Secretary the text of Smith's reply to the British Government's proposals for settlement of the Rhodesian question. He observed that the reply seemed basically designed for publication. It amounted to a rejection of the British proposals, though it did not explicitly say so. The British Government expected to have to take the Rhodesia question to the UN. Before doing so, however, the Government has asked Smith to state his position on (1) providing guarantees for uninterrupted progress to majority rule; (2) participation in an interim broad-based Rhodesian government before promulgation of a new constitution, the acceptability of which would remain to be determined by Rhodesians as a whole; and (3) reversion to the Governor of control over the military, the lifting of censorship, and the release of political detainees. The Ambassador said that Sir Malcolm McDonald was explaining to Uganda, Nigeria, and Kenya what the British Government was doing, and Lord Caradon had talked to President Kaunda along the same lines. The Secretary, referring to his own conversations with Kaunda, noted that Kaunda did not say as much then as he did in his speech at the UN: their talk was quite relaxed and Kaunda used no invective or florid language in expounding his unhappiness with the British. In almost an hour's discussion he spent perhaps ten minutes on Rhodesia. Kaunda was very much concerned that the passage of time was allowing for the consolidation of the Smith regime. The Secretary went on to say that Kaunda stressed that sanctions against Rhodesia could not succeed without the cooperation of South Africa. When Kaunda raised the question of using force in Rhodesia, the Secretary expressed strong reservations--he noted that the situation could require two divisions--and Kaunda did not argue the point very much. Kaunda pointed out that 600-700 people had signed the Governor's book in Salisbury and that, while this was not a large number in itself, in the circumstances it probably reflected a considerable body of anti-Smith sentiment in Rhodesia. The Secretary concluded by recalling that Kaunda did not ask for anything specific from the United States. He seemed to be waiting for the present British schedule to run out.
547. Telegram From Prime Minister Wilson to President Johnson/1/ Washington, November 29, 1966, 2030Z. /1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 19 RHOD. Top Secret and Strictly Personal; Nodis. The source text does not indicate how the telegram was sent. An attached note from Read to Palmer, Sisco, and Leddy states that, because of the unusual caveat at the beginning of the Prime Minister's message, it was uncertain if the U.K. negotiators in Washington knew of the information. Read's note cautioned the recipients not to indicate any knowledge of the message to the British. The text of the message was transmitted to the Embassy in London in telegram 93323, November 29. (Ibid., POL 16 RHOD) I want you to know, for the strictly personal information of yourself and Dean Rusk at this stage, that I hope to be able to tell the House of Commons tomorrow that the Commonwealth Secretary and I will be meeting Ian Smith later this week. If he agrees to this, it will be a final showdown between us. Our prolonged probings of his position, culminating in Bowden's visit this last weekend, coupled with Smith's developing realisation of the pressures building up on him--our Commonwealth undertakings, the threatened UN action, South African representations to him (and I am confident Vorster has done this) and even signs of possible division within the Rhodesia front--all these things have, I believe, at last brought him to recognise that he stands now at the brink. And, as he gazes at the abyss ahead, I believe too that he is, perhaps for the first time since November of last year, seriously thinking that he must come to terms with us, because he understands how much worse for him and for Rhodesia any alternative course would be. This, at all events, is the conclusion that my colleagues and I have drawn from the attitude he took last weekend with the Commonwealth Secretary. I need not trouble you with the details. He has not come all the way to meet us--far from it. The gulf is still wide between us. And, if it is to be bridged, the initiative must come from him. We shall stand firm on our six principles, on a return to legality and on guarantees both against any fresh IDI and on unimpeded advance to African majority rule. But Smith has said enough to make it clear to me that I could not justify, to my country or my conscience, a break with him now and the implementation of paragraph 10 of the communique, with all the consequences that would flow for Rhodesia, for Britain and for the world as a whole, without one last personal effort to bring this narrow, obstinate, but not, I think, fundamentally dishonorable man to face up to the realities. If I fail, that will be that, and we shall go ahead as undertaken at the Commonwealth Conference. If I succeed, this will, I know, be only the beginning of many further difficulties--with the African Commonwealth, at the United Nations--and with some of our own supporters here. But there will be no agreement with Smith that does not meet our stated requirements and that I can not therefore with honour defend to Parliament. So I am prepared to face up to these difficulties and see them through, as the inevitable but acceptable price of a favourable settlement. I do not want to make this message any longer. But you have given us such staunch support throughout this Rhodesian business, and despite the misgivings that I know many of your people have felt, that I wanted you to have this advance warning of our plans. Joe Garner can fill in the State Department on some of the background. And I shall of course keep you posted of progress--if any. This is a very crucial moment. But we are going into it with clear heads and no illusions. If I was a betting man, I should wager against a settlement. But the odds are not so steep that the gamble is not worth taking: and the stakes, for all of us, are high./2/ /2/Telegram 93835 to London, November 30, transmitted a message from Wilson to the President stating that he had not yet been able to announce the proposed meeting because Smith had asked for extra time to consult his colleagues. The Prime Minister noted, however, that Smith had now confirmed his willingness to come, and that their meeting later that week seemed likely to be delayed by only a few hours. (Ibid., POL 16 RHOD)
548. Memorandum of Conversation/1/ Washington, December 1, 1966, 10 a.m. /1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 16 RHOD. Confidential. Drafted by Holmes, cleared by Fredericks and Sisco, and approved in U on December 5. The meeting took place in the Secretary's office. SUBJECT PARTICIPANTS Sir Saville Garner stated that broad agreement had been reached by the two sides in yesterday's talks on Rhodesia./2/ There had been a difference regarding the tactics to be employed with respect to oil sanctions, but no differences on the broad objectives to be achieved. Both sides wished to avoid escalation of the matter toward economic warfare with South Africa. The British now had to ponder two questions: (1) Should HMG support an amendment to their resolution calling for broad oil sanctions? (2) Should the UK make a statement regarding its strong desire to avoid confrontation with South Africa at the time the amendment was discussed in the Security Council? It is clear that South Africa is worried; presumably we should do nothing to relieve this worry. South Africa is the key to the Rhodesian problem. /2/U.S.-British talks on Rhodesia were held in Washington November 30-December 1. The Under Secretary said that probably no outcome would be totally satisfactory. We must all play our cards carefully to bring about the best possible solution. In reply to the Under Secretary's question, Sir Saville stated that the next Commonwealth meeting would probably be held in March or April of next year. He recalled the communique's provisions for another meeting. If, however, a settlement were to be reached with Smith, pressures for a meeting would undoubtedly rise and it would presumably be held fairly soon. Sir Saville emphasized that he could not comment on the chance of a settlement. He recalled that the Prime Minister carefully refrained from committing himself on this aspect in his message to the President./3/ It is clear there has been some recent shift in Smith's position. Smith has now agreed at least to consider a return to the 1961 Constitution and to give up independence. Nevertheless, he had by no means agreed to go nearly as far as the UK had wanted. The Rhodesian Prime Minister would still be responsible to the present parliament whereas the British had wanted the parliament to be dissolved. It is likely that the effect of sanctions and the influence of business and financial circles in Rhodesia had prompted Smith to move somewhat. /3/Document 547. The Under Secretary remarked that Smith would likely have moved in due course even without sanctions. His policy was so completely against the world trend of events that he could not have maintained it indefinitely. In discussing the general situation, Sir Saville remarked on the striking lack of public opposition to the Smith regime by Africans in Rhodesia. They had been amazingly quiescent. The Under Secretary remarked that perhaps the Africans had been hoping the situation would be resolved in other ways. If no solution were to be reached, they might in time be driven to take action themselves. He wondered how Africans in Rhodesia must feel at seeing their fate decided by white Rhodesians and white Britons in consultation with white Americans. Mr. Fredericks pointed to the efficient Rhodesian security force and its willingness to operate in ways unlike those employed by the British in the colonies in the past. Mr. Palmer remarked that the history of the Mashonas gave no particular expectation of strong action by them. Sir Saville declared that if a settlement with Smith were to be announced in the next few days, it would jolt most Africans. He would expect an extremely critical reaction. Much would depend on how a settlement were explained and handled. In view of the very complicated nature of likely constitutional arrangements, it would be extremely difficult to explain them to the ordinary man. The Under Secretary agreed that it would be very difficult to sell a settlement, even if the agreement to be obtained were better than now seems likely. In his view it would be better to emphasize the conclusions of a settlement rather than the specific details. Mr. Fredericks pointed out that in view of South Africa's history with entrenched clauses in a constitution, it would be very difficult to obtain favorable African reaction to a settlement with Smith. Sir Saville agreed, stating that once independence is granted to a country, there is really nothing outsiders could do to control its subsequent actions. That is why the UK had wanted a British force in Rhodesia following any settlement. Any paper guarantees could be changed. In reply to a question, Sir Saville stated his belief that if Smith and Governor Gibbs made a joint appeal they would get the backing both of the Rhodesian armed services and the majority of the people. He believed that the vast bulk of Rhodesians would breathe a sigh of relief if an agreement with the UK were to be achieved. In conclusion, the Under Secretary and Sir Saville agreed that we must all wait to see what would happen with regard to the Rhodesian problem in the next few days.
549. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom/1/ Washington, December 4, 1966, 2:55 p.m. /1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 16 RHOD. Secret; Immediate; Nodis. Drafted at the White House, and approved by Larry C. Williamson of S/S. Repeated to Pretoria.
96316. For Ambassador. Following message from Prime Minister Wilson was delivered today to President and is sent to you FYI: Text: I write this to you in the plane on my way back from one more of these strangely tantalizing and--yet again--ultimately disappointing meetings with Smith. I say tantalizing because, after two days (and nights) of argument, discussion and very plain speaking, it seemed by yesterday evening that an honourable agreement was at last within our grasp. I need not trouble you with details. We discussed the three main issues--indissolubly related in our minds: to be dissociated so far as possible in his: the independence constitution: the prior return to legality and the formation of the interim government: and the essential external guarantees of the eventual settlement. By late yesterday we had hammered out a document which gave Smith a better deal in all three respects than he conceivably deserves: and on which my two colleagues and I had to reflect very carefully before we decided that this was something we could with honour recommend to Parliament. On the text itself, argued over line by line, paragraph by paragraph, there seemed in the end to be agreement between us. Why then have we had to make the indecisive short statement today which will have been shown to you? The answer I am afraid, is that we are dealing with a very devious and schizophrenic personality. Smith agreed to meet us on the absolutely clear understanding, to which he specifically assented that each of us came with full powers from our respective colleagues to settle. But on Friday/2/ he recanted on this and insisted that he could not go further than agree with us a text which he would recommend to his colleagues as acceptable. By Saturday evening we had such a text. But then he recanted again: he would go no further than take it back and think over whether or not to recommend its acceptance. /2/December 2. This was intolerable. But we were so resolved that the chance of a settlement should not slip through our fingers through any fault of ours that we have, as you see, given till noon tomorrow to give us a plain yes or no to the document, without any modification whatever. I think there is still an outside chance that he, or some of his colleagues will come to their senses. Before he left late last night, I spoke to him in rougher and more brutal terms than ever before of the appalling dangers for himself, for Rhodesia and for the whole of Southern Africa which were bound to be the consequence of a refusal. I may have shaken him (I certainly shook his colleagues). But what still sticks in his gullet as he put it, is the idea that he must return to legality before there can be the test of Rhodesian opinion in the new constitution. If he could not remove this bone on board the Tiger, I doubt if he will in Salisbury. At all events, by noon tomorrow the die will be cast, one way or the other. If, by then, he has not said yes to our text, we shall go straight ahead with the programme of action we promised to the Commonwealth in September. Garner has reported on the extremely helpful and thorough talks which he had with your people last week. I am sure that we must continue to act in the closest concert as we go forward to this next stage, fraught as it is with so many difficulties and I am glad to know that there is such close understanding between us. It is clear to us from our exchange with the South African Government that they have been leaning pretty heavily on Smith to reach a settlement. We have informed them of the content of the text we worked out with Smith, in the hope that even at this eleventh hour they may be able to exert some further pressure. I hope you may be willing to consider most urgently whether, by saying anything to them today, you too might help persuade them to try their hand again in Salisbury before noon tomorrow. End Text./3/ /3/On December 6, Prime Minister Wilson announced to the House of Commons that the Rhodesians had rejected the working document signed by Smith on December 3, leaving the United Kingdom no option but to appeal in the United Nations for the invocation of selective mandatory sanctions against the illegal Smith regime. Rusk
550. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in South Africa/1/ Washington, December 4, 1966, 1:58 p.m. /1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 16 RHOD. Secret; Flash; Nodis. Drafted by McElhiney, cleared by Read, and approved by Rusk. Repeated to London and to the White House. 96312. Deliver following message from Secretary to Muller immediately, stressing that it is strictly confidential and personal, not for publication. "Prime Minister Wilson has informed President Johnson that he has worked out with Mr. Ian Smith a tentative formula for the settlement of the Rhodesian issue./2/ Mr. Smith is now considering whether to recommend its acceptance to his colleagues in Salisbury. The point of difficulty for Mr. Smith appears to be that he must return to legality before there can be a test of Rhodesian opinion in the new constitution. /2/See Document 549. "While we have not seen the text of the formula, I understand that it conforms with the Six Principles and the requirements set forth in the September Commonwealth Conference communique. I understand you have been informed of the contents. "If this is the fair and equitable settlement it appears to be, I believe that the interests of all of us lie in Mr. Smith's accepting it. If you agree, I would urge you to try to convince him of the wisdom of reaching agreement with the British. The matter is one of considerable urgency, since the British Government has been compelled by its commitments to the rest of the Commonwealth to require Mr. Smith's reply by noon Monday. I understand you have been helpful in the past and I sincerely hope you will once again be willing to bring your influence to bear at this crucial moment." For London: Text of Wilson letter in separate cable. You may inform appropriate FonOff officials of Secretary's message to Muller. Rusk
551. Intelligence Memorandum/1/ No. 2206/66 Washington, December 9, 1966. /1/Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Country File, Rhodesia, Vol. II, Memos and Miscellaneous, 2/66-12/68. Secret; No Foreign Dissem/Background Use Only. A note on the source text states that the memorandum was produced solely by the Central Intelligence Agency. It was prepared in the Office of Current Intelligence and coordinated with the Office of Research and Reports and the Office of National Estimates. THE RHODESIAN PROBLEM AFTER THE Summary Prime Ministers Wilson and Smith claim to have agreed on a constitutional settlement for Rhodesia, but they split over who should have effective power within the country during the period of British sovereignty before the granting of independence. London now is asking the UN Security Council to impose selective sanctions on Rhodesian exports. It is trying to come to terms with African demands that sanctions on oil import into Rhodesia also be covered--a move which Britain fears might make it harder to avoid a confrontation with South Africa. Whatever resolution the UN adopts is unlikely to have much effect on Rhodesia's economy. It is also unlikely to satisfy African governments, but most of these will probably continue to put priority on their domestic problems. There may be further efforts to end the dispute outside the UN, perhaps including further negotiations between Salisbury and London. [Here follows the body of the paper.]
552. Memorandum From the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs (Popper) to the Ambassador at Large (Harriman)/1/ Washington, December 13, 1966. /1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 16 RHOD. Confidential. SUBJECT 1. Southern Rhodesia Following the failure of negotiations with the Smith regime in a last-minute attempt to reach a settlement of the Rhodesian problem, the UK introduced a draft resolution in the Security Council on December 8 calling for the application of selective mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia. Ambassador Goldberg spoke in support of the resolution on December 12. On behalf of the African nations, Uganda, Nigeria and Mali submitted to the Council on December 13 proposals to amend the British resolution to include a comprehensive oil embargo, sanctions on Rhodesian coal and manufactured goods, and a reminder that "appropriate action" would be taken against violators of mandatory sanctions. The African amendments would also call on the UK to declare categorically that it would not grant independence to Rhodesia until majority rule was achieved, determine that the situation in Rhodesia constitutes a threat to peace, and deplore Britain's refusal to use force to end the rebellion. Consultations between the U.K. and African states on these amendments are now going on. The British have indicated they will not oppose the oil provision, but they find most of the other amendments unacceptable and hope to muster enough abstentions to block their adoption. We expect the Assembly to approve a resolution imposing selective mandatory sanctions (including oil) on Rhodesia before the end of this week./2/ /2/On December 16, by a vote of 11 (including the United States and the United Kingdom) to 0 with 4 abstentions, the U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution imposing certain mandatory economic sanctions upon Rhodesia, including a comprehensive embargo on the supply of oil and oil products. For text of Resolution 232 (1966), see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1966, pp. 608-610. [Here follows discussion of unrelated topics.]
553. Paper Prepared in the Department of State/1/ Washington, January 23, 1967. /1/Source: Johnson Library, White House Central Files, Confidential File, CO 250, Rhodesia-Nyasaland, Federation of. Secret. No drafting information appears on the source text, but a covering memorandum from Executive Secretary Bromley Smith to the National Security Council refers to it as a State Department paper for consideration at the January 25 NSC meeting. SOUTHERN RHODESIA Background 1. Since 1923 Southern Rhodesia has been an internally self-governing colony with a high degree of autonomy. A new constitution granted by Great Britain and approved by a predominately European electorate in 1961 removed most of the few remaining legal controls held by the United Kingdom. This constitution was abrogated on November 11, 1965 when Ian Smith unilaterally broke with the British Crown. 2. The colony's estimated population of 4,350,000 is composed of about 4,105,000 Africans, 224,000 Europeans (white), and 21,000 of other ethnic groups--or a ratio of almost 20 Africans to 1 European. The whites are largely British or South African in origin. 3. The significant features added by the 1961 constitution were a bill of rights and the introduction of a second electoral roll with lower franchise qualifications, permitting a limited number of Africans to qualify. The African leaders refused to cooperate in implementing the constitution, which they considered a device to perpetuate minority rule, and few Africans registered to vote. 4. The European electorate showed little desire to accept African demands and progressively replaced their more moderate party leaders. In April 1964 Winston Field, a Rhodesian Front Prime Minister, was replaced by his deputy, Ian Smith, when Field failed to move rapidly enough for the more authoritarian elements in his party in independence negotiations with the British. The replacement of Field by Smith was a continuation of the trend evident since the 1950's when each Prime Minister was more right-wing than his predecessor. On November 11, 1965, after nearly 2 years of unsuccessful negotiations with the British Government, Ian Smith illegally and unilaterally declared the territory independent from the United Kingdom and proclaimed a new constitution. 5. The British still appear willing to grant the colony its independence under conditions which provide for majority rule coupled with guarantees of minority rights. 6. The six principles set forth by the British in the talks provide for unimpeded progress toward majority rule within a constitutional framework acceptable to the Rhodesian people. 7. The United States and other nations have accepted the British Government's position that Southern Rhodesia is a British colony. We continue to recognize the sovereignty and legal authority of the United Kingdom in Southern Rhodesia. No country in the world has recognized Southern Rhodesia's declaration of independence. 8. Soon after the unilateral declaration of independence on November 11, 1965, the British, by a vote of 10-0-1 (France), won approval in the Security Council for a measured policy of economic sanctions against the regime. The voluntary sanctions program has caused some deteriorations in the Rhodesian economy, although there has been serious circumvention throughout South Africa and Portuguese Mozambique. The Rhodesian economy continued to function reasonably well and the Smith regime remained in firm political control. The British began in April 1966 another series of exploratory talks with the Smith regime at the official level aimed at finding a basis for negotiations. 9. Prior to the Commonwealth Conference in London (September 6-15), rumors of an impending UK "sell-out" to Smith were widespread. Zambia threatened to leave the Commonwealth if British policy toward Rhodesia was approved by a majority of the members. The conference communique reflected the wide divergence of opinion within the Commonwealth over British policy on Rhodesia. The UK received general support from only four countries, i.e., Australia, New Zealand, Malta and Malawi, with Canada playing the role of mediator. The other 16 called in varying degrees for more positive action by the British to bring down the Smith regime. (Tanzania did not attend.) The communique did record, nevertheless, the UK's intention to put proposals to the Rhodesians designed to give the illegal regime one last chance to return to constitutional rule before the end of the year. If these proposals were not accepted, the communique noted that the British Government would jointly sponsor mandatory sanctions in the UN prohibiting the import by member states of selected Rhodesian products. 10. A meeting took place between Wilson and Smith aboard HMS Tiger December 2-4. There, the two sides drafted a "working document" to be submitted to the British and Rhodesian Cabinets. The British Cabinet announced its approval of the document shortly after Wilson's return to London. The Smith regime, however, stated on December 5 that it was prepared to agree to Wilson's constitutional proposals but that it had to reject the Tiger proposals as a whole because it could not accept a return to legality (i.e., rule by the Governor for an interim period of about four months). Thereafter, Wilson went to Parliament and reaffirmed the British commitment in the Commonwealth communique not to grant independence before majority rule. Under the terms of the "working document," independence would have preceded majority rule. 11. UK Foreign Minister Brown on December 8 submitted a resolution to the UNSC calling for mandatory economic sanctions on selected Rhodesian products. On December 16, 1966 a resolution (No. 232) was adopted by the Security Council imposing selective mandatory economic sanctions against Southern Rhodesia. US Interests and Objectives 12. A number of important US interests are involved. We want to maintain our political influence in Black Africa and help to create conditions conducive to stability and progress. Continued lack of movement toward a Rhodesian solution could be exploited by extreme African elements, as well as by the Communists, to our disadvantage. Our goals are to avoid a racist war in Southern Rhodesia and serious deterioration in race relations elsewhere in Africa (particularly Zambia). We are trying also to prevent closer political and economic cooperation among the white-dominated countries of southern Africa. We share the British view that a phased movement toward majority rule in Rhodesia is the best way to achieve our aims. Interests and Objectives of the UK 13. The basic issue between the British Government and the Rhodesian regime has been the timing of independence in relation to majority rule. The British have been willing to grant independence before majority rule, but only if unimpeded progress toward majority rule were assured. The Africans and other members of the United Nations have urged the UK to allow independence only after the establishment of majority rule. 14. The UK initially supported a voluntary sanctions program (adopted by the UN Security Council in November, 1965) and subsequently backed the mandatory economic sanctions resolution against Southern Rhodesia in the hope that such pressure on the Smith regime would bring about a settlement of the problem based on the six principles. The British are most reluctant to see sanctions extended to South Africa, from which Rhodesia has been buying most of its petroleum products. Such economic warfare with the South Africans could gravely affect the British balance of payments. 15. The British Government has ruled out the use of force in the belief that (1) this would lead to open warfare; (2) public opinion in the UK would not accept such a course; (3) South Africa might intervene; and (4) it would be a big operation necessitating the moving of UK forces from Germany or the Far East. US Strategy and Past Actions 16. On the same day that the Smith regime declared its independence from the United Kingdom, we announced the recall of our Consul General in Salisbury and the closing of the US Information Office in Rhodesia. The US Government at present maintains a small housekeeping consular staff in Salisbury by virtue of authority granted by the UK. 17. Following the UNSC resolution in November 1965 calling for voluntary economic sanctions in Southern Rhodesia the US Government urged US companies importing various Rhodesian products into the United States to find alternate sources of supply. We later imposed controls on exports to Rhodesia from the United States. 18. On April 9, 1966 the UN Security Council adopted a resolution noting its concern that substantial oil supplies might reach Rhodesia and result in a "threat to the peace" by encouraging the illegal regime. When it became apparent to the British Government that the voluntary sanctions program was not having the desired effect, we were asked to support a UK request in the UN Security Council for a resolution calling for mandatory economic sanctions against Southern Rhodesia. We agreed and, following the collapse of the HMS Tiger talks, the British introduced their resolution. On December 16 UNSC resolution No. 232 was adopted (11 (US)-0-4 (USSR, France, Mali and Bulgaria)) imposing selective mandatory sanctions against Southern Rhodesia. The list of embargoed items covers some 80 percent of Rhodesian exports. On January 5, 1967 Executive Order No. 11322 was issued prohibiting activities by any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that are proscribed by the resolution. Future Actions 19. The UK continues to have primary responsibility for the situation. The US Government must, nevertheless, maintain close touch with the British as the sanctions program evolves. We must do whatever we can to provide the British with maximum leverage to use with Rhodesian regime to reach an acceptable settlement. However, the US Government must avoid any action vis-a-vis the British which might be interpreted as pressure on our part to make further concessions to Smith. 20. We should hold frank discussions with the British on the special problem posed by the attitudes of Portugal and South Africa in complying with the sanctions resolution. The British should approach both Portugal and South Africa to convince these two countries that their own long-range interests will best be served by compliance with the Security Council's decision. As a follow-up, the US should make similar approaches. The above approaches should not foreclose the use of South Africa as a means of influencing the Rhodesians. 21. We should question the British as to how they see the effect of mandatory sanctions on Southern Rhodesia in both the short and longer term. We should also try to learn what further means of bringing about a satisfactory settlement they have in mind. The British should not be given the impression, however, that the United States is so interested in a solution as to be urging concessions to Smith which would be unacceptable to the international community. 22. Since the use of force against the Rhodesian regime appears to be ruled out, no early solution of the problem can be anticipated. The US should nevertheless continue its policy of non-recognition of the Smith regime in order to protect our credibility and position throughout Africa. 23. The foregoing discussion reflects the current assessment of a variety of considerations relevant to US policy. Our policy should be given continuing consideration in the light of the anticipated future problems discussed below. Anticipated Future Problems The Enforcement of Mandatory Sanctions 24. The most likely cause of failure of the mandatory economic sanctions program will be non-compliance by key countries. There is, however, some doubt that, even if sanctions were complied with fully, they would in fact bring about an early settlement in Southern Rhodesia based on the six principles. 25. The countries most likely to violate the sanctions are of course Portugal and South Africa. 26. The question that the Security Council will be faced with in March 1967, when a review by the Security Council of the effectiveness of sanctions is scheduled, is what action to take should there be evidence of non-compliance by UN members. Should there be considerable evidence of non-compliance by Portugal and South Africa, there is the strong possibility that various African countries and others will urge the extension of mandatory sanctions to both South Africa and the Portuguese African territories. 27. The UK is most reluctant to engage in economic warfare with South Africa and we would find ourselves in a difficult position should we support such an extension. While our commercial and investment interests are not as extensive in South Africa as those of the UK, we nevertheless have considerable national interest in seeing economic conflict avoided with South Africa so as not to increase the strains on the value of the pound and speculation in gold. One possibility for the US would be to seek reaffirmation of the present sanctions and a renewed call for compliance. 28. Should there be non-compliance by South Africa and the Portuguese territories, various UN members may not only call for an extension of sanctions to these areas but may also request an armed blockade of the coast of the area to force these governments to comply. The Soviet Union would probably encourage and support such moves in order to bring economic pressure on the West for its own ends. 29. The failure of mandatory economic sanctions to bring about the restoration of constitutional authority in Southern Rhodesia would create hostility toward the US and the UK not only in Africa but in other areas of the world. American domestic criticism from both right and left of the US position on sanctions is likely to continue and support for the UK and UN actions may become more difficult to maintain. The prestige of the UK and US is involved as well as that of the UN. 30. If present measures are not effective, the African states can be expected to increase pressure for an independent US policy on Southern Rhodesia. Although US policy has been represented to the Africans as independently arrived at, certain key African leaders persist in the view that the US has been merely following the British lead. The Declaration of a Rhodesian Republic 31. In the event of a declaration of a republic in Rhodesia (which Smith has stated will not take place without a vote of "the people"), we would be faced with the problem of our representation in Salisbury. Depending on what the British do and the terms on which the Rhodesian regime would accept our continued presence, we might find it to our interest (a) to withdraw the small staff that is presently there, (b) to maintain some unofficial liaison with the regime, or (c) to remain in place, on the theory that an illegal regime cannot become any more illegal by action going beyond the unilateral declaration of independence. Racial Conflict in Southern Africa 32. In the event that serious racial conflict develops in southern Africa, Communist countries will attempt to win over nationalist elements among the Black Africans. A racial conflict in Southern Rhodesia would be difficult to keep from spreading into other areas both to the north and south. It would be difficult for the United States to remain totally aloof from such a conflict and we would be faced with the possibility of being urged to support either the "white settlers" for the sake of stability or the "black nationalists," who would probably have Communist backing, for the sake of our position in Africa and in other non-white countries in the world.
554. Intelligence Memorandum Prepared in the Central Intelligence Agency/1/ RR IM 67-1 Washington, undated. /1/Source: Johnson Library, White House Central Files, Confidential File, CO 250, Rhodesia-Nyasaland, Federation of. Secret; No Foreign Dissem. A copy is filed as an attachment to Document 553. RHODESIA AND ZAMBIA: /2/This memorandum was produced solely by CIA. It was prepared by the Office of Research and Reports and coordinated with the Office of Current Intelligence; the estimates and conclusions represent the best judgment of the Directorate of Intelligence as of January 1967. [Footnote in the source text.] Summary Mandatory economic sanctions imposed by the UN against Rhodesia are not likely to have the desired result. Essentially, the Security Council Resolution of 16 December 1966 makes binding on all UN members many of the voluntary sanctions which have been in effect for more than a year. These sanctions have failed to force Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith to reach an accommodation with the United Kingdom, largely because of South African and Portuguese support. Both South Africa and Portugal have indicated that they will ignore the Security Council's demands. Thus the economy of Rhodesia will probably be able to function at close to present levels. Voluntary sanctions also failed because the United Kingdom underestimated the white Rhodesians' commitment to the unilateral declaration of independence (UDI). Their determination is probably even greater now than a year ago. Most of the adverse effects of voluntary sanctions have fallen on Zambia, whose economy is considerably shakier now than when Rhodesia proclaimed its independence on 11 November 1965. Zambia has had little success in its frenetic efforts over the past year to find alternative transport routes and thus reduce its critical dependence on Rhodesia. If present trends continue, Zambia will almost certainly have to make further concessions to Rhodesia to prevent economic deterioration. (For major transport routes in central Africa, see the map.) Rhodesia, moreover, retains its capacity to retaliate against sanctions by refusing either to supply Zambia with goods or to carry the bulk of that country's imports and exports. Rhodesia could thus quickly bring the modern economy of Zambia to a halt and there would be little that UN members could do to supply Zambia with even its minimal needs. [Here follows the body of the paper.] [Next documents] Volume XXIV Index | Historian's Office | Department of State |
