147. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom1
79685. Subject: Letter From Secretary to Dr. Owen.
1. Following is reply from Secretary Vance to letter from David Owen which was delivered here yesterday by British Embassy (Owen letter will be repeated to you septel).2 Secretary’s reply should be transmitted to Dr. Owen at earliest possible convenience.
2. Quote Dear David:
Thanks very much for your letter.
I have discussed the proposed course of action on the constitutional conference with the President and the Vice President. They are agreed in principle subject to evaluation of the results of your talks with the various leaders. The President wants me to emphasize the necessity for early progress as he feels the situation will worsen with the passage of time.
I agree with most of the points which you will stress in your meetings in Southern Africa. However, I do note some new elements or points of possible difference which we should iron out before you leave.
(1) It was my understanding that the question of the franchise would be worked out among the delegations in the conference. In your letter you say that “these elections would in our view need to take place on the basis of an unrestricted franchise.”
(2) We are in accord that the Zimbabwe Development Fund remains a central ingredient for the settlement. In your letter you say that you would state in your talks that the fund would be suspended if the post independence government violated the constitution.
Tactically, it might be preferable to tell Smith that the question of the franchise would be worked out at the conference, even though it is likely that only a one-man one-vote formulation will be acceptable in the final analysis. I am, however, open to suggestion on this point and would welcome your views.
With regard to the Zimbabwe Development Fund, I agree that if the post-independence government violated the constitution in some [Page 402] flagrant manner, we might well suspend the Zimbabwe Development Fund. However, I think that it would be a good tactic not to state this to any of the parties now. My understanding is that, for purposes of the negotiations, the fund is an inducement for both blacks and whites to reach a settlement. It would seem to me that if we talk about the fund as suggested in your letter, we could arouse black resentment and white uneasiness.
I agree that, as you point out in item (5), a constitutional guarantee of individual human rights need not carry a guarantee of minority rights. Basic rights of all the people of Zimbabwe would, under the kind of constitution you are proposing, be protected. Again for tactical reasons, I believe it would be preferable to state this in that manner—positively—that minority rights are best guaranteed in this way.
I agreed that it would be desirable for our Ambassador in Cape Town to inform the South Africans that the proposal which you will outline has the support of the United States. However, it might be awkward for Ambassador Bowdler to call on Vorster and tell him this personally before you have seen Vorster and have explained our joint position on Rhodesia. I propose to instruct Bowdler to pass the word to Brand Fourie or Pik Botha before you arrive that indeed we are in agreement with what you shall convey to Vorster.
I understand that you also would like us to talk to Smith in Cape Town after you have seen him, to make it clear to him that we fully support what you will have told him. I will instruct Bowdler to be prepared to do this.
Best wishes, Cy. End quote.
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770123–0948. Secret; Immediate. Drafted by Donald K. Petterson (AF/S); cleared by Schaufele and Habib and in S/S; approved by Vance.↩
- In telegram 80725 to London, April 11, the Department transmitted Owen’s letter to Vance. (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Material, Cables File, State Department Out, Box 107, 4/77)↩