Page images

7. The United States will not seek a recommendation to the General Assembly of revision of the terms of reference of the Council on Namibia or the creation of a new continuing body.

8. If a resolution is introduced into the Security Council requiring member states or the Secretary General to report periodically on application of the arms embargo against South Africa, the United States will not oppose such a resolution. We shall vote for it only if this course is not objected to by our allies; otherwise we shall abstain. In no case will we actively support such a resolution, or introduce one ourselves.

9. The United States will continue all forms of assistance presently being provided on behalf of South West African refugees, but will not seek at the present time to contribute to special funds to which Congress has disapproved contributions.

The President intends that the foregoing decisions be regarded as concerned solely with South West Africa. They are not to be regarded as a precedent for application of similar restrictions and policies to South Africa or the Portuguese Territories.

The President desires that the United States continue to make clear its opposition to mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa or the Portuguese Territories and to any use of force in southern Africa.

The Under Secretaries Committee shall report on the implementation of the above decisions by June 30, 1970.4

Henry A. Kissinger


See Document 33.


Memorandum From the Acting Chairman of the National
Security Council Under Secretaries Committee (Johnson) to
President Nixon

Washington, July 6, 1970.


Implementation of Decisions on South West Africa (NSDM 55)

On April 17, you provided guidance on our policy toward South West Africa (Tab B).? Specific steps you directed include:

-We should officially discourage investment by U.S. nationals.

--Export-Import Bank credit guarantees and other facilities should no longer be made available for trade with South West Africa.

-U.S. nationals who nevertheless invest in South West Africa (on the basis of rights acquired through the South African Government since adoption of U.N. General Assembly Resolution 2145) should not receive U.S. assistance in protection of such investments against claims of a future lawful government.

-We should encourage other nations to take similar actions, but without exerting pressure on them, either in the United Nations or in our bilateral relations. Actions Taken or Planned

Following are the principal steps taken to implement your guidance:

1. Your decisions in the economic area were announced on May 20 by Ambassador Yost in an address to the United Nations Association in New York and by Assistant Secretary Newsom in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa.

2. Ambassador Phillips stated the U.S. position in accordance with your general guidelines to the Security Council's subcommittee on South West Africa. In his June 18 statement, the Ambassador issued a general call for governments to discourage trade and investment by their nationals in that territory.

3. Additionally, the new policy was communicated to the subcommittee in our reply on June 30 to a subcommittee questionnaire asking all states for information on their activities and the activities of their nationals and companies in South West Africa.

[ocr errors]

Source: Washington National Records Center, RG 330, OSD/ISA Files: FRC 330–73A1975, 334 NSC U 1970. Secret. The memorandum was forwarded to the White House under a July 6 covering memorandum from Hartman.

2 Tab B, not attached, is printed as Document 32.

4. Posts in Africa and embassies in London, Paris and Lisbon advised their host governments and conveyed our hope that they would take similar action to discourage trade and investment by their nationals and companies in South West Africa. Further approaches are contemplated.

5. Ambassador Phillips also expressed support for the Finnish proposal (still under discussion in the Subcommittee) that the following question be put to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an advisory opinion:

"What are the legal consequences for states, in light of Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), of the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia?"

6. The Department of Commerce, the Export-Import Bank, and the Department of State have taken steps to notify the business community (Tab A).

(To date no resolution has been introduced into the Security Council requiring member states to report on application of the arms embargo against South Africa. Hence the point of your guidance dealing with this aspect has not become applicable. The Under Secretaries Committee is conducting a comprehensive review of the embargo.)

We believe these actions effectively implement and publicize your guidance on trade and investment in South West Africa. The decisions have been carefully noted in South Africa and have had no harmful effects on our relations with that country. They were favorably received at the United Nations and elsewhere. We will be alert to further opportunities for explaining our policy and encouraging parallel action by others.

U. Alexis Johnson


Undated, attached but not printed.


Memorandum of Conversation

Washington, July 6, 1970.


UK Arms for South Africa


Guy E. Millard, Minister, British Embassy
C. Robert Moore, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs
Edward J. Alexander, Staff Assistant

Mr. Millard stated that he had been instructed to inform the Department of the new Government's decision with respect to arms for South Africa. Knowing that this decision could create problems for the US and having in mind Secretary Rogers' visit to London this weekend HMG wished to give us as much notice as possible.

Conservative spokesmen, Mr. Millard continued, had made clear before and during the recent British election campaign that a Conservative government would resume the sale of arms to South Africa. The decision it has now taken represents a “minimum" move in this direction. It provides that the UK will consider arms requests from South Africa for maritime defense related to the protection of sea lanes and in keeping with Simonstown Agreement of 1955. The latter, Mr. Millard said, requires the UK to provide South Africa with equipment needed for maritime defense. Public announcement of this new policy will be made in the next fortnight or so, but not before the Secretary's visit.

Mr. Millard reiterated the reasoning behind the new Conservative policy and added that the Soviet naval presence in the Indian ocean and the threat of its increase if the Suez Canal were reopened were also factors in the decision. He said the policy decision was made in full cognizance of the interest of Commonwealth and African countries in the question. He added that Commonwealth Governments including African members, he assumed, and some other friendly governments were being informed of the decision.

Mr. Millard emphasized that the decision in no way diminished his Government's opposition to apartheid and that there was no question of arms being supplied for the enforcement of apartheid. Whether the public announcement would reiterate this opposition he could not say.

1 Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, DEF 12 S AFR. Confidential. Drafted by Moore.


Noting that the US Government had recently reaffirmed its arms embargo on South Africa, Mr. Moore asked what items were embraced by the term "maritime defense". The press, he added had made refer

to frigates, reconnaissance aircraft and equipment for anti-submarine warfare as likely items. Mr. Millard replied that he had no specifics and doubted that the public announcement would contain any. The UK, he stressed, is not offering armament or equipment but is only stating its willingness to consider well-defined requests. He observed that when the UN voted its resolution on the South African arms embargo in 1963, the UK had made note of the right of South Africa to self-defense. The new position is more narrowly defined, the criterion being “maritime defense related to the protection of sea lanes." It was in fact the minimum UK reaction under the circumstances.

Mr. Millard said his government would be interested in any USG reaction to the new UK decision. Mr. Moore said that the subject of arms for South Africa is on the agenda for the Secretary's talks in London so it will undoubtedly be discussed there. However, he would be in touch with Mr. Millard if we had any earlier comments to make. He observed that certain African countries, particularly Zambia and Tanzania, would probably have strong feelings on this subject, but the British Government, he assumed, had taken their views into consideration.


Telegram From Secretary of State Rogers to the Department of State

London, July 12, 1970, 0930Z.

Secto 96/5481. Uncleared, FYI only. Subject to revision on review.

Subj: Secretary's Visit: Discussions with Foreign Secretary-Arms to South Africa.

1. Sir Alec Douglas-Home said that the UKG was bound to operate the Simonstown Agreement. It had been decided, however, that there would be narrower definition of categories of arms to be supplied by the UK to South Africa. The definition would be "arms for protection of sea routes".


Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, DEF 12–5 S AFR. Secret; Priority; Limdis. Repeated Priority to Pretoria and repeated to USUN. Rogers was in the United Kingdom to meet with Prime Minister Heath and Foreign Secretary Douglas-Home.

« PreviousContinue »