Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XXIV, Africa

605. Telegram From the Embassy in South Africa to the Department of State¹

Cape Town, May 5, 1965.

163. Department pass Defense. Reference Deptel 130² and previous ref USS Independence.

I called on Foreign Minister Muller at his request at 5 p.m. Naude and Dunn were with him.

Minister first expressed regret that arrangements which had previously been handled at military level had gotten into political sphere. I pointed out it had gotten into that sphere by action of his own department.

Muller then referred to our mixed receptions. He said SAG feels very strongly that diplomats should observe customs of country. I said I had explained why we could not do so in this case to Prime Minister when matter first arose.

Muller continued that reason he raised this question was that US Embassy did nevertheless pursue its legal right to do what it pleased in our Embassy. SAG therefore intended insist on same right with reference to its two airports whose use we had requested here.

I raised question whether there was any difference in international law between a war vessel and a military aircraft or between our use of harbors and airports. Minister thereupon made it clear he was trying to confine issue in this case to use of DF Malan and Ysterplaat Airports and not to use of harbor by Independence.

Minister then went on to say that in future where groups of Americans wished to use SA facilities they would be required to observe SA rules. I said in other words you are raising in this case what was first put as a suggestion to a condition. He said yes this was so but that he hoped this issue might fall away in present case. Reason for this was that military (who are obviously anxious for Independence to call here) felt assured that in present case there would in fact be no violation of rule he had just stated. I said I could give him no such assurance and was confident that no naval commander could or would take step to segregate any navy crew in any naval aircraft.

Indicating concern at my negative reply Muller then explained that if our policy could be complied with while at the same time USN observed SA’s policy there would be no problem. Both Naude and Dunn from their remarks made it clear that they were very hopeful that this formula, namely that if both SA’s and our policies were observed (presumably because of absence of mixed crews), it might make it possible for visit to take place.

In course of conversation I pointed out that USN aircraft with non-white members had in fact used these same airports before. I also said that of course it would be a convenience for Independence to stop at Capetown. Furthermore our naval vessels had especially enjoyed using SA ports because of the hospitality that had been rendered them.

Comment: Conversation lasted some 40 minutes. Foregoing however is essence of what was said. Miller kept expressing regret that matter had gotten to political plan. By this he may well have meant that he had had to refer it to Prime Minister.

Minister, Naude and Dunn all seemed concerned that I had reacted negatively throughout to their proposed solution.

If sufficient importance is attached to visit of Independence to Capetown, problem can of course be settled by making no use of aircraft on board Independence. Minister made it abundantly clear that use of harbor by ship was most welcome. I am not however recommending this.

From foregoing it is clear that SAG not only has not given an inch on this issue but has raised what was only a suggestion to a condition. It also seems clear they would like Independence to call at Capetown but on their own terms. Unfortunately their equation of use by our naval aircraft of the two local airports with our multi-racial entertaining makes their terms even less acceptable.

Prime Minister may well believe that our need to refuel Independence is so great that he can take this opportunity to teach us a lesson. I recommend that we not permit him to do so.

I gave no indication of what I thought reaction of my government would be but said simply I would report our conversation to Department.³

Satterthwaite

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, DEF 7 S AFR–US. Confidential; Immediate. No time of transmission appears on the source text; the telegram was received at 3:13 p.m. Repeated to Pretoria and Defense.
2. Dated May 4. (Ibid.)
3. Telegram 133 to Cape Town, May 7, instructed the Embassy to inform the South African Government that the U.S. Government was withdrawing its request for a Cape Town port visit by the USS Independence. (Ibid.)