« PreviousContinue »
Europe) Lisbon might be receptive to invitation from HMG offer helpful suggestions.
b. It also seems to us that both Zambians and South AfricansZambia because it feels its security threatened and South Africa for reasons related to its “outward” foreign policy objectives—would be happy to see end to present abnormal and unsettling situation in Rhodesia.
4. Embassy should make clear we are not rpt not making formal proposal for action, but only sharing thoughts and suggesting ideas for UK consideration. Team which will be visiting London to discuss our suggestions on ways to increase effectiveness of sanctions, would be interested in British reaction to these other thoughts on how to resolve the Rhodesian problem, as well as any info HMG might wish to share with USG on timing of new talks with Salisbury.
Letter From the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Johnson) to the Deputy Secretary of Defense (Packard)
Washington, November 18, 1970.
For some time there has been a need to clarify certain aspects of United States relations with the South African military establishment. How to deal with South African requests for unclassified training films and military correspondence courses and with the question of high-ranking military visits has been a nagging problem for both our Departments for several years.
None of these issues was definitively dealt with in recent southern Africa studies submitted to the National Security Council (NSC) or the subsequent White House policy directives, but I believe we now have a framework for the determination of policy in these matters.
1 Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, DEF 12-5 S AFR. Secret. Drafted by Duncan, Crosby, Nelson, and Jacobs.
2 For study and decision memoranda regarding U.S. relations with the South African military establishment, see Documents 6, 23, and 40. A paper prepared in response is printed as Document 17.
Therefore, I am proposing a set of guidelines, a copy of which is enclosed, for handling these questions. I hope these can become agreed State/Defense policy. Assuming both Departments reach agreement on the guidelines, I propose we then inform the NSC of our action.
With all best wishes,
U. Alexis Johnson
Guidelines for Relations with South African Military Establishment A. Training Films
The South African Defense Force may buy from the General Services Administration (GSA) National Audiovisual Center (NAC) unclassified films of DOD origin which are not combat or security related. As some of the 3,000-odd DOD films currently available for GSA sale are combat related, representatives of DOD and State will review the NAC catalog and make up a list of films which may be purchased by the SADF. Defense and State representatives will meet from time to time to review the titles of new acquisitions of the Center in order to keep the approved list current.
Direct DOD sale of such films to SADF is not possible as South Africa has been dropped from the FMS eligibility list. B. Military Correspondence Courses
There may be limited South African participation in a US military correspondence course if the course:
1. is unclassified;
2. has no application to the exercise of internal security, or the enforcement of apartheid;
3. is not significantly related to combat or to training in combat operations; (Courses in economics, management, law, safety and health are illustrative of subject matter that may be considered.)
4. involves no award of a diploma or other public sign of South African participation.
The program will be monitored and applications approved through consultations among DOD/ISA and PM and AF in State with a view to assuring reciprocal advantage to the US and maintaining low visibility. Initiative will be left to the South Africans; course announcements, which in effect are invitations to apply, will not be distributed to them. Upon South African inquiry about courses in a particular field, information on the availability of qualified courses in that field may be provided.
3 Johnson signed “Alex” above his typed signature.
Approvals of applications for an individual to participate will be held to 12 a year unless special circumstances justify a larger number as in the US interest and involving no significant political disadvantages. There will be full field coordination through the Embassy in Pretoria.
The release of any courses now ready for delivery but held by our attachés in South Africa will be decided on the same basis. C. Visits and Participation in Military-Sponsored Courses and Conferences
1. As a general rule, official visits on any level will not be encouraged and high-level official visits, e.g. Brigadier General, etc., will not be approved in either direction.
2. Participation of South African officers of any level in military courses or conferences in the US will not normally be approved when the
sponsor is a branch of the USG.
3. Exceptions can be made in special circumstances, e.g. where the visit or participation in a course or conference (a) would not be conspicuous; (b) would not contribute directly to South Africa's military capacity and (c) would offer some special advantage in the pursuit of US objectives.
4. Decisions in such cases will be taken by the Departments of State and Defense jointly, and field control will be exercised by the American Embassy in Pretoria. Similarly, State, Defense and the Embassy will try to discourage nonofficial travel by high-ranking military personnel between the two countries if it appears that such travel would cause us serious foreign policy problems.
Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in
Washington, January 21, 1971, 2200Z.
11057. 1. Please pass the following message from the President to President Kaunda.
2. Quote: Dear Mr. President: Thank you for your letter of November 16.? I was pleased to receive your views and appreciated the candid and cooperative spirit in which you expressed them.
We share your concern regarding the racial problems in the southern part of Africa. Racial issues are among the most important facing the world today. Our own unalterable opposition to apartheid and racial injustice wherever it may occur, and our support of the right to self-determination, are abundantly clear. The United States will not cease to work for the attainment of the principles of human justice and equality until these goals have been achieved.
In our continuing consideration of these problems, I welcome the thoughtful views on the Indian Ocean and southern Africa which you have expressed in your letter and on other occasions. They will receive our careful attention. As you suggest, the general security of the Indian Ocean area is a matter of concern to many nations. The policy which each nation adopts is understandably based on its assessment of its own national interests. The United States would be concerned at any dominance of the area which would restrict the free passage of ships and flow of commerce so essential to all nations.
Your wide-ranging responsibilities Chairman of the Non-Aligned Conference give you a special interest in the views of other governments on various world issues. Ambassador Troxel will continue to be kept fully apprised of our views on all major issues and is ready to discuss them with you from time to time as may be convenient.
I look forward to a continuing close and friendly association with Zambia.
Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, SOC 14 S AFR. Limited Official Use. Drafted by Coote on December 12, 1970, cleared by Newsom, and approved by Curran. The text was initially received from the White House.
2 In his November 16, 1970, letter to Nixon, Kaunda expressed concerns about southern Africa and U.S. involvement in the region. (Ibid., POL 15–1 ZAMBIA)
Memorandum From the Executive Secretary of the
Washington, February 6, 1971.
International Court of Justice Proceedings on Namibia
The Secretary has authorized the Legal Adviser to make a statement on behalf of the United States in the oral proceedings in the Namibia Case, which will begin on February 8. Several other States, Finland, India, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Republic of Viet-Nam and South Africa have informed the Court that they intend to participate. In addition, the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity have appointed representatives to make statements in the Case. No date is yet fixed for the U.S. statement, although the Court has decided to proceed in English alphabetical order of states participating.
We intend to deal in the United States statement with five issues which were developed by the written pleadings.
Jurisdiction. South Africa argues that the request for the advisory opinion is not properly before the Court because two Permanent Members of the Security Council abstained on the resolution requesting the opinion. The consistent practice of the Security Council has been to regard as adopted resolutions which receive the required number of affirmative votes despite the voluntary abstention of one or more of the Permanent Members of the Council. We will argue that the abstentions of the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R. do not affect the validity of the relevant resolution.
Discretion. Under its Statute the Court is not required to give an advisory opinion even though it has jurisdiction to do so. We shall argue that it should give an opinion in this case since failure to do so would be inconsistent with its prior jurisprudence relating to the exercise of discretion in advisory cases.
General Assembly Resolution 2145. This is the 1966 resolution which terminated South Africa's rights under the Mandate. The United States
Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, POL 19 SW AFR. Confidential. Drafted by Dalton and cleared in L, AF, and IO.
2 For a transcript of the oral statement presented by Stevenson on March 9, see Department of State Bulletin, April 26, 1971, pp. 542–549. See also Yearbook of the United Nations, 1971, pp. 581-586.
3 Security Council Resolution 284, July 29, 1970.