219. Memorandum of Conversation1
SECRETARY’S DELEGATION TO THE TWENTY FIRST-SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
New York, September–October 1966
SUBJECT
- The United States and Africa—Selected Remarks Made at Luncheon for African Foreign Ministers
PARTICIPANTS
- The Secretary
- Ambassador Nabrit
- Ambassador Anderson
- Ambassador Witman
- Mr. Melone
- Mr. Toumayan
- Ketema Yifru, Foreign Minister, Ethiopia
- Samuel Odaka, Foreign Minister, Uganda
- Simon Kapwepwe, Foreign Minister, Zambia
- C.Y. Mgonja, Minister for Community Development and National Culture, Tanzania
- Arsene Usher, Foreign Minister, Ivory Coast
- Antoine Guimali, Foreign Minister, Central African Republic
- Joseph Murumbi, Vice President, Kenya
- Ibrahim el Mufti, Vice Premier and Foreign Minister, Sudan
- Doudou Thiam, Foreign Minister, Senegal
- Apedo-Amah, Foreign Minister, Togo
- Rudolph Grimes, Foreign Minister, Liberia
Speaking for the other Africans present, Joseph Murumbi thanked the Secretary for his statements indicating that the US would support African countries in working toward solutions for their problems and in aiding them. African problems were of world-wide dimensions and threats to Africa were threats to the free world. Africa needed the aid of Governments like the American Government.
In reply, the Secretary stated that the contention that Vietnam is occupying American attention to such a degree that the US was disinterested in the rest of the world was not true. President Johnson had made it clear that the US was concerned with the problems of Africa and the question central to American thinking was what do the people primarily concerned think about the situation in their own country. This was a simple and fundamental reaction of the American people. Ambassador Goldberg had enunciated American views on Rhodesia and South West Africa and the Secretary wished to repeat that the US would never agree [Page 359] to a situation where a few thousand white men could dominate four million Africans. The problem was not reaching agreement on the nature of the issue but rather on how to arrive at the result we seek. The US had a definite interest in security, the independence and the prosperity of every country represented at the table. On the question of independence of African countries, Africans would always find the US ready to support them.
Turning to Vietnam, the Secretary stated that a country can work for a solution within the framework of the Geneva Agreements of 1954 and 1962 and retain its non-aligned position since both sides have claimed the desire for a settlement based on the Geneva Agreements. The efforts of the US and other countries to bring an end to the conflict by negotiation had no parallel in history. It was very disappointing to see Hanoi and Peking denounce Ambassador Goldberg’s speech as a swindle. The Secretary wished fully to assure the Ministers that the US would say “yes” to any reasonable settlement that could be devised by the minds of men.
Returning to Africa, the Secretary said there was a tendency for great powers to play games in a continent where there were only new governments. As far as the US was concerned, it would always strive for African solutions to African problems. It would also support the authentic voice of Africa wherever heard. It was not important that there be 100% agreement between governments but governments should try to control the extent of their disagreement so that it would be possible to build on existing agreements.
Liberian Secretary of State Grimes stated he and his colleagues had come to convince American officials of the real problems of Africa. He was thinking not only of problems like South West Africa and Rhodesia, but more generally, of all those the central issue of which was man’s inhumanity to man. Africans could sympathize with the American problem in Vietnam only insofar as they saw a marriage of opinion between it and African problems. That is, if the principle of self-determination in South Vietnam was also applied to the non-self-governing peoples of Africa.
The Secretary replied that there should be no difficulty there so far as US policies were concerned but that the US was extremely reluctant to use force. It wanted to make sure every avenue to peaceful settlement was explored. The US had sustained 170,000 casualties since 1945 on behalf of the independence of other countries, and the US there wanted to makes every effort for a peaceful settlement. For the first tine in history the expression “the survival of mankind” was a very real problem for governments. In American minds, the central question in both Vietnam and Africa was what do the parties concerned think about the situation. The US felt that the fact that there was no future in South Africa’s present [Page 360] attitude must be impressed upon the South African Government, but the time factor was such that Rhodesia was a more urgent problem and the situation there must be stopped in its first stage.
Replying to the comment that Africa was running out of patience, the Secretary stated that Africa did not have a monopoly on this problem. It was a fact that a permanent solution to the German question had not yet been found, something which had cost the US an enormous amount [in] 1947. The Cuban question created an intolerable situation within the Western hemisphere giving rise to a great temptation to resort to violence. The Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan was not resolved and no one dared suggest the use of violence to resolve it. Recourse to violence was extremely disagreeable and must be avoided wherever possible.
The Secretary said the US had brought great pressure to bear on South Africa to the point that US influence was feeble and relations tenuous. The US probably had more influence in Dar es Salaam than in Pretoria.
Tanzanian Minister Mgonja commented that despite its proclamations, the US had a military alliance with Portugal. The Secretary said that five years ago US interest in the Azores base might have been important but with today’s long range aircraft the usefulness of the Azores was now minimal and the US was not bargaining with Portugal on that.
Sudanese Deputy Prime Minister el Mufti remarked that there was a general sentiment in Africa that the US was not really interested in the continent or it would aid the under-developed countries more and assist the non-free areas to gain their independence. Ambassador Nabrit stated that he thought President Johnson had very clearly emphasized in his May speech on Africa where the weight and influence of the US was to be found. The Secretary of State had indicated on many occasions the guide lines of US policy but the US was limited in what it could do in the world. There was no doubt that the weight and influence and opinion of the American Government and people were solidly with the movement for African independence.
Amb. Nabrit said Governments had certain objectives in terms of their own interests but in the day-to-day conduct of international relations they were limited by reasons beyond their control. In the cases of Rhodesia, South Africa and South West Africa, there was no doubt that the US resolutely opposed apartheid, opposed the manner in which South Africa treats its people, believed the International Court of Justice decision was wrong and that African peoples had equal right to a place in the sun. US beliefs, however, must operate within the limitations of what was possible and if the US did not act as Africans would like to have it act, Africa must nonetheless believe that the US wanted full freedom for Africa, that it was not separated from it, and that by cooperating with it [Page 361] Africans would find the US at their side. There was no magic by which the US had managed to escape the limitations imposed on all countries.
Vice President Murumbi said that while Rhodesia was a British problem the US should go beyond this as Prime Minister Wilson recognized. Africans did not seek to expel the European population because as had been learned in Kenya, European and African populations needed each other.
The Secretary concluded by mentioning the internal difficulties the US faced. If President Johnson last year had presented a program of economic sanctions against Rhodesia to Congress it would have been defeated. Those opposed to the US civil rights program and those who, because some British vessels have entered Haiphong, were against cooperation with the United Kingdom and the United Nations, would have opposed it. President Johnson was far ahead of Congress in his attitude toward Rhodesia. The US would continue to do its best.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL AFR–US. Confidential. Drafted by Alec G. Toumayan and Harry R. Melone, and approved in S on October 4. The conversation was held at the Waldorf Towers in New York.↩