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. |
564. Memorandum From the Under Secretary of State (Katzenbach) to President Johnson/1/ Washington, May 28, 1968. /1/Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Files of Walt W. Rostow, Meetings with the President, May-June 1968. Confidential. SUBJECT After lengthy negotiations between the British and the Africans in New York, they have agreed on a new Security Council resolution on Rhodesia which we believe is livable from our point of view and which avoids more drastic action previously demanded by the Africans. The UK has taken the lead throughout and, as a result of a decision in London, will vote affirmatively for the resolution. This would also be our intention. The resolution is likely to be adopted unanimously. Specifically, the resolution: (a) Extends the existing sanctions on exports to and imports from Southern Rhodesia to cover all commodities except medical, educational and humanitarian supplies. Since the bulk of our trade with Rhodesia is already embargoed as a result of UN action, the practical effect on US trade is very marginal (only a total of about $5 million in imports and exports is involved). (b) Prohibits investments or transfer of funds to Southern Rhodesia except for humanitarian purposes. Again this feature is marginal, since it does not touch past investments and no new American investments are expected in any case. (c) Tightens transportation and air travel restrictions with regard to Southern Rhodesia in ways which do not directly affect the U.S. (d) Bars entry into the U.S., except on humanitarian grounds, of persons travelling on Rhodesian passports and persons likely to work against the sanctions program or further the interests of the Rhodesian regime. The resolution also establishes a Security Council Committee which would supervise the sanctions program and seek to ensure better compliance than in the past. We pressed for this provision in response to the desire of our own commercial interests who feel they are being asked to adhere to the sanctions program more strictly than commercial interests in certain other countries. Finally, the resolution has two non-mandatory provisions: a request that member states take action which would have the practical effect of cutting off communications with Rhodesia; and a recommendation that consular and trade representation be withdrawn from Rhodesia. Ambassador Goldberg would make clear in his explanation of vote that we consider these two paragraphs to be non-mandatory. At the same time he would indicate we believe the flow of information and communication with Rhodesia should continue. He would not make any specific statement with respect to the closing of our Consulate General in Salisbury leaving the option open as to what we might do in the future. The vote is expected on either Wednesday afternoon or Friday morning. Ambassador Goldberg agrees with this course./2/ /2/On May 29, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 253 (1968). For text, see Department of State Bulletin, June 24, 1968, pp. 847-849. On July 29, the President issued Executive Order 11419 implementing the mandatory provisions of Resolution 253. For text of the Executive Order and a Department of State announcement of the same date, see ibid., August 19, 1968, pp. 199-201. Nicholas deB. Katzenbach
565. Action Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs (Sisco) and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs (Quimby) to Secretary of State Rusk/1/ Washington, June 10, 1968. /1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 16 RHOD. Confidential. Sent through Under Secretary Katzenbach. Drafted by Fain and Thomas J. Carolan of IO/UNP on March 6-7, and cleared by Brown, Goldstein, and Edward W. Holmes of AFSE. SUBJECT Discussion The Security Council's new Rhodesian resolution, adopted unanimously on May 29, presents a special problem for us since it emphasizes "the need for the withdrawal of all consular and trade representation in Southern Rhodesia . . . ." At the time of the vote Ambassador Goldberg explained that we would give careful consideration to this non-mandatory provision but, in doing so, would have "to take into account our profound belief in a free flow of information and communication through- out the world, which we feel should apply to Rhodesia as well." He pointed out that the US has no trade representation in Southern Rhodesia. In terms of our public position as well as the Department's own requirements, it is essential that we decide promptly whether to remove or maintain our consular establishment in Salisbury. After considering carefully all the factors involved, we have concluded that it is in our interest to maintain the already sharply reduced staff of the Consulate General, at least for the time being and barring such developments as a mass exodus by other governments from the territory. In any case, we propose to leave the question open so that should we consider it proper we may withdraw the consular staff in the future. We recognize that a decision to remain in Salisbury will draw some criticism from the Afro-Asians and that, by virtue of being the biggest target, we can expect to receive more than our share of criticism in the United Nations. The following considerations, however, argue in favor of maintaining our small staff in Salisbury: (1) Reporting--Political and economic information obtained at first hand in Salisbury has proved valuable. The Consulate General's reporting, particularly with respect to the effect of sanctions on the Rhodesian economy, has helped us base our policy on our own information. (2) Protection for American Citizens--There are over 1,000 American citizens in Southern Rhodesia, some three- fourths of whom are missionaries and their families. Our Consular officials in Salisbury perform a number of essential services for these people in passport and citizenship matters and welfare activities. (3) Intentions of Other Governments--Ten foreign consulates have remained in Salisbury since 1965. The Japanese have announced the closing of theirs on June 5. (This action by Japan--which claims no nationals resident in Southern Rhodesia--is an effort to regain some favor with the Afro-Asians after being a prominent sanctions-buster for some time.) We do not expect that many of the other governments concerned (Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, South Africa and Switzerland) will follow suit. The UK will maintain its residual mission there. We believe the advantages of retaining our Consulate General at Salisbury outweigh the disadvantages. We would propose, therefore, to make our intentions on this subject known shortly after the President signs the Executive Order implementing the mandatory provisions of the Security Council resolution. We would say that, although the matter will remain under continuing review, we intend to maintain our small staff in Salisbury for the time being. We would emphasize our convictions about the free flow of information and communications everywhere, and we would lean heavily on the rationale of providing essential services for Americans residing in Southern Rhodesia. A draft statement for press guidance is attached. Recommendations/2/ /2/Secretary Rusk initialed his approval of both recommendations on June 17. 1. That, subject to future developments, we continue to maintain our consular office at Salisbury. 2. That the decision be made public shortly after the issuance of the US Executive Order, along the lines of the attached press guidance./3/ /3/The attachment is not printed.
566. Intelligence Memorandum Prepared in the Central Intelligence Agency/1/ RHODESIA: A THIRD ROUND OF SANCTIONS/2/ /2/Note: This memorandum was produced solely by CIA. It was prepared by the Office of Economic Research and was coordinated with the Office of Current Intelligence. [Footnote in the source text.] Summary The comprehensive sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council on 29 May 1968 against Rhodesia are unlikely to have much more effect in forcing Salisbury to relinquish its independence than have previous limited sanction efforts. So long as South Africa and Portugal refuse to comply with the Security Council's demand, Rhodesia will almost certainly be able to sell sufficient exports and obtain necessary imports to maintain its economy. Most of Rhodesia's foreign trade has been reoriented to adjust to previous sanctions and already either is with South Africa and Portugal or is carried out through disguised trade arrangements. Moreover, the country is more self-sufficient now than at the time of its Unilateral Declaration of Independence in late 1965 and is, therefore, better able to cope with the increased sanctions. Zambia and Congo (Kinshasa) will not be able to apply trade sanctions fully against Rhodesia without bringing serious economic damage to themselves. Without Rhodesian coal, Zambian and Congo copper production would have to be cut back drastically. Moreover, Rhodesia can retaliate against sanctions by refusing to supply Zambia with electric power, which is essential to the copper industry, or by refusing to carry most of the country's imports and exports, on which the Zambian economy is dependent. Although the UN resolution requests member states to assist Zambia, there is little that can be done over the next few years to replace the essential goods and services supplied by neighboring Rhodesia. [Here follows the body of the paper.]
567. Memorandum From the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs (Quimby) to the Deputy Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Kohler) Washington, June 20, 1968. [Source: Department of State, INR/IL Historical Files, 303 Committee Files, 303 C. 70, June 21, 1968. Secret; Eyes Only. 2 pages of source text not declassified.]
568. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom/1/ Washington, October 8, 1968, 1736Z. /1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 16 RHOD. Secret; Nodis. Drafted and approved by Read. 251566. Following message to President dated October 7 from Prime Minister received by private channel: Begin Text: Your people will have told you of my plans for a further meeting with Ian Smith to see if we cannot at last thrash out together an honourable settlement of this tragic Rhodesian business. We shall not announce it until early tomorrow afternoon (our time) because, although my senior colleagues principally concerned are naturally at one with me in the enterprise, I have to seek the endorsement of the full Cabinet at our meeting tomorrow, the first that has been possible since our conference last week. Assuming, as I hope and believe, that my colleagues endorse this action, I plan to meet Smith in Gibraltar on Wednesday afternoon, on board a warship and to allow as much time as may be needed during the next week or so to negotiate an agreement. I need not trouble you with the detailed background to our position. Your people will know it. In this message I only want to say two things. First I am determined that, if no settlement can be agreed, this will not be through lack of goodwill, patience or resolution on our side. This conflict has been a tragedy not only in the relationship between Britain and Rhodesia but also for the development of our Commonwealth ties and, more widely, for the international community as a whole. Its continuation not only threatens the future peace and prosperity of the Rhodesian Africans but also causes the danger of a wider and continuing conflict throughout southern Africa. I know what difficult problems it has raised for you and I have been most grateful for the support and understanding that you have so consistently displayed. Secondly, if a settlement can be achieved, I am equally resolved that it shall not represent a sacrifice of the rights and interests of the peoples of Rhodesia--and especially the African peoples. We have made absolutely clear to Smith that for us certain points are not negotiable--and these points relate essentially to the protection of the rights of the African majority and to the need to ensure that substantial change of circumstances in Rhodesia which, as I have said repeatedly, will be essential before there can be any question of our going back to the Commonwealth to re-open our commitment on no independence before majority rule. I will not pretend that I am optimistic. Long experience in dealing with this problem--and in dealing with Smith personally--has made me too wary for that. But recent developments in Rhodesia, the pressures of sanctions (and other pressures too: I am sure for example that South Africa would like us to settle), coupled with the way Smith has handled some of his own right wing extremists have all created a situation in which, once again I am convinced that we should be wrong not to try. I am confident that I can count on your good wishes for our success: and this will be a source of encouragement to me throughout the difficult and delicate discussions that lie ahead. End Text. Katzenbach
569. Telegram From the Embassy in Zambia to the Department of State/1/ Lusaka, October 19, 1968, 1017Z. /1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL RHOD-UK. Secret; Immediate. Repeated to London, Pretoria, Salisbury, and USUN. 2782. For Katzenbach and Moore (AF) from Palmer. Subj: Concern Should UK-Rhodesian Settlement Be Reached. 1. Following discussions with Kaunda and country team (including O'Neill from Salisbury) wish record concerns I have for US position in event UK-Rhodesian settlement reached on basis Gibraltar proposals. 2. As Kaunda sees it, any settlement which does not include British control during interim period before independence is a "sell-out" (septel)./2/ Although our view of Rhodesia and what would constitute satisfactory settlement do not necessarily coincide with Kaunda's, our aim of unimpeded progress to majority rule has always been firm. Therefore, before we subscribe to any settlement on Gibraltar terms we should have hard look at details and likelihood Rhodesian good faith in carrying proposals out. In this connection, I do not think we can exclude possibility UK agreeing on something less than Gibraltar. UK HICOM Pumphrey (protect) candidly emphasized to me last night how anxious PriMin Wilson is to be rid of Rhodesian problem. /2/Telegram 260164 to Pretoria, October 23, stated that the Department appreciated Kaunda's concern regarding the lack of provisions in the Fearless proposals for an interim period of British control before independence, but noted that the United Kingdom was insisting on safeguards against possible retrogressive amendments to the proposed constitution. It noted that while the Department was volunteering no public comment on the substance of the talks, the U.S. Government would be under great pressure to go along with any agreement and would probably do so. (Ibid.) 3. Ultimately, leaving Smith in control depends on question of trust in him and Europeans in general to carry out agreement in good faith. On basis past record and evident British unwillingness use force even if agreement violated, this is slender reed. 4. We also need to find out more specifically what British have in mind on implementation certain details. How would sanctions be dismantled? Supposing resolution withdrawing sanctions was vetoed? Would threat of sanctions reimposition be requested of Security Council by UK? A most important element is how test of acceptability would be carried out. Just when and how quickly would cases restricted or detained nationalists be reviewed? If these nationalists were clearly willing give agreement a try, there would be favorable atmosphere. What happens, however, if Zanu leader Sithole is for and Zapu Leader Nkomo against or vice versa? Suggest London explore these questions with CO. 5. Agreement does not currently seem too likely in light Smith's attitude. However, in light forgoing factors, I urge USG proceed cautiously, take reserved attitude should agreement materialize quickly and avoid any advanced commitments at least until full analysis can be made of implications for US positions in Africa and elsewhere. Good
570. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Swaziland/1/ Washington, October 25, 1968, 2222Z. /1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 16 RHOD. Confidential; Priority. Drafted by Country Officer for Southern Rhodesia Robert L. Bruce and AFI Policy Reports Officer F. Virginia Montague; cleared by Holmes and Edward J. Alexander of AF; and approved by Director of the Office of Inter-African Affairs Fred L. Hadsel. 262085. For Palmer from AF. Ian Smith has sent to Prime Minister Wilson Southern Rhodesia's formal reply to British "Fearless" proposals. While we do not have exact text, we understand that Smith indicated his willingness to reach agreement if British drop insistence on appeal to Privy Council on constitutional matters. Since Wilson has already told Parliament he is not averse to abandoning the appeal to Privy Council in favor some other "guarantee," way seems open to a settlement. Afro-Asian nations have begun criticizing what they interpret as British "sell-out." They introduced resolution in UNGA calling on Britain "not to grant independence to Southern Rhodesia unless it preceded by establishment of a government based on free elections by universal adult suffrage and on majority rule," and calling on all states "not to recognize any independence to Southern Rhodesia without prior establishment of a government based on majority rule . . . ." We instructed our delegate to abstain and to make no statement. Vote in GA October 25: 92 yes; 2 no (South Africa and Portugal); 17 abstentions (including US, Botswana and Malawi). Rusk
571. Telegram From the Department of State to All African Posts/1/ Washington, November 1, 1968, 2223Z. /1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 16 RHOD/UN. Limited Official Use. Drafted by Hadsel, cleared by Deputy Director of the Office of UN Political Affairs William H. Gleysteen and Holmes, and approved by Hadsel. 265503. Subject: Rhodesian GA Resolution. 1. Since US voted against Rhodesian resolution passed (89-9-15) by Committee Four October 30,/2/ it may appear to interested Africans that we have shifted position on general question. This not the case, and following background information may be used as appropriate in conversations host government. /2/On October 30, the Fourth Committee of the U.N. General Assembly adopted a 50-power draft resolution condemning the failure of the United Kingdom to take effective steps to bring down the illegal regime in Rhodesia, calling on the United Kingdom to use force to put an end to that regime, and drawing the attention of the Security Council to the "urgent necessity" of imposing sanctions on Portugal and South Africa. Resolution 2383 (XXIII) was adopted by the General Assembly on November 7 by a vote of 86 to 9 (including the United States) with 19 abstentions. 2. US sought to obtain paragraph-by-paragraph vote, since there several paras advocating use of force which we could not accept and others on which support or abstention possible. US del stated that in case paragraph vote accepted, US could abstain on resolution as a whole. Although consistent with GA practice, paragraph voting opposed by ASAFS because large number LA and some Asians and Scans would have joined other Western countries in opposition to most paras of resolution. Moreover, US not consulted on preparation of resolution. Rusk
572. Memorandum From Roger Morris of the National Security Council Staff to the President's Special Assistant (Rostow)/1/ Washington, November 15, 1968. /1/Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Country File, Rhodesia, Vol. II, Memos and Miscellaneous, 2/66-12/68. Secret. WWR: SUBJECT The odds now favor some break on Rhodesia in the next few weeks. Here's a quick look: 1. Wilson is clearly anxious to be rid of this problem. British public sympathy for the black Rhodesians has gradually melted into resignation or indifference. Sensing the moment, powerful economic interests in the City are pressuring the PM for a "practical" settlement. 2. Though he seemed steadfast in the Fearless talks, Wilson made important concessions on the question of legitimizing Rhodesian independence. The last obstacle was the old British ace-in-the-hole: an external guarantee that the white-dominated Rhodesian Parliament wouldn't renege, after the fact, on the negotiated constitutional provisions for eventual majority rule. Wilson's vehicle for the guarantee was a Privy Council--with a majority of Commonwealth watchdogs--to review and annul any infringement of the process. Smith, of course, rejected the idea on the grounds that the Council posed an unacceptable violation of Rhodesian sovereignty. 3. Now the British have gone back to Salisbury with a very attractive compromise to dilute the powers of the Privy Council. The rather elaborate legal formula is described in the attached cable./2/ The point is that it papers over another British retreat. /2/Telegram 14297 from London, November 13; not printed. 4. If Smith et al. buy this proposal--and most of us think they will--there could be a formal settlement within 2-3 weeks. State counts no more than 30 or 40 Labor votes against Wilson on this, and with overwhelming Conservative support he'll easily carry the House. Our Reaction In the short run, the consensus around town is that we adopt a wait- and-see attitude pending the reaction of the black Rhodesians. No one is altogether sure how nationalist leaders like Nkomo and Sithole will view the settlement from the Salisbury jail, or how the two squabbling terrorist organizations in Zambia will respond. Waiting on local reactions is a plausible line in public. And it should do as a first answer to Kaunda, who has already written to the President about the British "sell out." Nick Katzenbach will be sending over a memo recommending this tack, along with a proposed reply to Kaunda. I'm abreast of the policy-making process in State. The Long Run This position is likely to blunt the initial African outcry when Wilson announces his deal. It does give everybody a chance to ponder the legal merits of the agreement. I'm afraid, though, that agony is inevitable. However judicious the formula, the fact will remain that Wilson gave up independence without majority rule. In African eyes, the Privy Council will be a poor substitute even for the gossamer dream of British intervention. Nkomo and Sithole have a calculated taste for martyrdom. The counter pressures within the terrorist groups (who are beginning to make slight dents in Rhodesian security) will be enormous. Kaunda, who soon faces an election, and Nyerere, who has to keep an eye on his Chinese patrons, will have compelling reasons to reject the settlement out of hand. This adds up to a judgment that no realistic Rhodesian settlement could carry the black Africans with it. We buy time by waiting for a fair reading of the African reaction. We may even purchase a few more months, amid mounting criticism, by urging that the settlement be given a fair chance to operate. But sooner or later, the President or his successor will face a tortuous decision: our moral and political position in black Africa vs. a public break with the British (on what will be celebrated in their next election as a major accomplishment of the Wilson Government)./3/ /3/On November 16, the head of the British negotiating team in Salisbury announced that the principal stumbling block to a settlement was the Rhodesian refusal to accept the British proposal that the Privy Council in London constitute the court of final appeal against racially discriminatory laws in Rhodesia. No British-Rhodesian settlement was reached. Roger
573. Letter From President Johnson to President Kaunda/1/ Washington, November 25, 1968. /1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL RHOD-UK. No classification marking. Dear Mr. President: I much appreciated your thoughtful letter about the recent talks between the British Government and Mr. Ian Smith./2/ /2/In his October 25 letter, President Kaunda expressed concern that the rights of Southern Rhodesia's African majority would be sacrificed if a settlement were reached on the basis of the Fearless proposals. (Ibid., POL RHOD-US) As you know, the United States has fully supported and carried out the United Nations' mandatory sanctions against Southern Rhodesia. We have done this in the hope that those sanctions would influence the Smith regime to agree to a peaceful settlement opening the way to majority rule. We are still hopeful that a fair and just solution--one that serves the aspirations of all the people of Rhodesia--will eventually be reached. You can be sure, Mr. President, that America shares your deep and abiding concern for the future of the African majority in Southern Rhodesia. I think our own recent history is ample proof of our commitment to human rights. We have chosen the path of freedom and equality at home; we want no less for all mankind. It was good, as always, to have your personal views on this grave problem. I know you will do all you can to promote peaceful progress and justice in Southern Africa. The United States is working toward the same goals. With warmest personal regards. Sincerely, Lyndon B. Johnson [Next documents] Volume XXIV Index | Historian's Office | Department of State |
