339. Letter From the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs (Williams) to the Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole0
Dear Reverend Sithole: Your letter to President Kennedy1 which was left at the American Embassy at London on April 8 has been received in Washington, where it has been carefully studied. The views which you expressed were of great interest to our Government. The President has asked me to acknowledge your letter.
The developments in the Southern Rhodesian situation during the past several months have been followed with great interest and concern by my colleagues in the United States Government as well as by our delegation at the United Nations where, as you know, we are presently participating in the discussions of the Southern Rhodesian question by the Committee of 24. In the forum we have had an opportunity to express the United States outlook on the difficulties and complexities facing all the people of Southern Rhodesia. In that Committee our representative has made known our support for what the British spokesman described as his Government’s wish to see established in Southern Rhodesia “a political climate favorable to liberal and orderly constitutional development” and his Government’s readiness to give what help it can consistent with their constitutional relationship with Southern Rhodesia. We have expressed our hope that the new government of the Colony will not adopt an adamant and uncompromising manner and that violence will not be resorted to by any of the parties concerned. The United States has made known its awareness of the complex nature of the internal problems of Southern Rhodesia as well as its belief that the tides of official and political change, like the tides of the ocean, cannot be halted.
Speaking officially for the United States, our representative, Mr. Sidney R. Yates, on March 25, 1963 told the Committee that it was understandable that there would be vehement objection to a system which apparently froze political control in a privileged few by means of [Page 531] unrealistic voting barriers euphemistically designated as “qualifications”. On this occasion, as during a previous debate last October, the US representative summarized the hopes of the United States for Southern Rhodesia in the following words:
“We believe the people of Southern Rhodesia should be given the opportunity for self-determination—of development of a government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed—all the governed. We would hope and expect to see changes in the Constitution which would provide for a realistic liberalization of the franchise looking to universal adult suffrage.
“Secondly, we would hope and expect to see steps provided for to break down patterns of racial discrimination, to permit the development of a society which would permit each man to exercise his talents to the fullest, free from the imposition of any racial barriers.
“Thirdly, we would hope and expect that such self-determination would bring the establishment of peaceful and advantageous relations between Southern Rhodesia and its neighbors in Africa, an association founded on the freely-given support of the majority of the people concerned.”
On the same occasion Mr. Yates took note of previous public assurances by the British spokesman in the Fourth Committee late last year that any future change in the relationship between Southern Rhodesia and the United Kingdom could not come about through unilateral action. The United Kingdom has consistently maintained that Southern Rhodesia is neither sovereign nor independent and has asserted its ultimate international responsibility for Southern Rhodesia. Our spokesman, Mr. Yates, stated emphatically that “for our part we do not believe that independence should be granted to Southern Rhodesia until a more satisfactory situation has been achieved within the territory”. On behalf of the United States he urged the United Kingdom “to apply its special influence, regardless of what its legal authority may be, towards the rapid broadening of the franchise and the rapid elimination of racial discrimination.” He pointed out, furthermore, that the United Kingdom has a fine record of cooperation with the United Nations and with the Secretary General. He expressed his confidence that it would embellish that record in the case of Southern Rhodesia.
You may rest assured that the grave problems of Southern Rhodesia are being followed by my Government with intense concern. Within recent weeks, as you may know, I have had the opportunity of examining personally many facets of the situation both in Salisbury and in London. Governor Stevenson has also been taking a great personal interest in this pressing problem. All of us will continue to do so in the hope that the leaders of Southern Rhodesian opinion will appreciate the heavy responsibility which history is placing upon their behavior and their decisions. It is particularly hoped that the situation in Southern Rhodesia will not be allowed to deteriorate for lack of contacts between the leaders of [Page 532] all elements of the population. We consider it essential that a continuing dialogue be maintained and that all parties would avoid regrettable precipitate action while there is yet hope that a solution satisfactory to all may yet be achieved.
Thank you again for keeping my Government informed of your thoughts.
Sincerely yours,
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 19 RHOD & NYAS/UN. No classification marking. Drafted by Mulcahy. The source text bears a typed notation that reads: “Original copy handed to Sithole by G. Mennen Williams 4/16/63.” Reverend Sithole was a prominent African nationalist.↩
- Sithole’s April 8 letter noted that the danger that Southern Rhodesia would face when granted independence under the white minority government had considerably increased due to the latest demands voiced by Field and Welensky. He warned that if independence were granted, it would mean that a situation where 250,000 whites would brutally dominate 3,800,000 Africans had been finally decided upon. He asked the U.S. Government to condemn publicly any attempt to grant independence before the present constitution was amended so that every adult person had the right to vote, and to caution the British Government regarding the bitter consequences of such a step. (Telegram 3917 from London, April 8; ibid., POL 16 RHOD & NYAS)↩
- Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.↩