Northwestern University Library Evanston, Illinois 60201 LLIL Cold War and Black Liberation COLD WAR and ~A BLACK LIBERATION The United States and White Rule in Africa, 1948-1968 Thomas J. Noer I University of Missouri Press Columbia, 1985 'I /.~. y Copyright © 1985 by The Curators of the University of Missouri University of Missouri Press, Columbia, Missouri 65211 Printed and bound in the United States of America All rights reserved A FR Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Noer, Thomas J. Cold War and Black liberation. Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Africa-Foreign relations-United States. 2. United States-Foreign relations-Africa. 3. Africa-Foreign relations-1945-1960. 4. Africa-Foreign relations-1960- . 5. United States-Foreign relations-19456. Decolonization- Africa. 7. National liberation movements-Africa. I. Title. DT38.5.A35N64 1985 327.7306 84-19665 ISBN 0-8262-0458-9 ( TM This paper meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, Z39.48, 1984. To Linda CONTENTS PREFACE, ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, xiii 1. WHITE RULE ON A BLACK CONTINENT Background of a Diplomatic Dilemma, 1 2. RACE AND CONTAINMENT The Truman Administration and the Origins of Apartheid, 15 3. "PREMATURE INDEPENDENCE" Eisenhower, Dulles, and African Liberation, 34 4. NEW FRONTIERS AND OLD PRIORITIES America and the Angolan Revolution, 1961-1962, 61 5. THE PURSUIT OF MODERATION America and the Portuguese Colonies, 1963-1968, 96 6. "NO EASY SOLUTIONS" Kennedy and South Africa, 126 7. DISTRACTED DIPLOMACY Johnson and Apartheid, 1964-1968, 155 8. THE U.S.A. AND UDI America and Rhodesian Independence, 185 9. CONSENSUS AND COMPLACENCY America and the "Long Haul" in Rhodesia, 214 10. EPILOGUE From Nixon to Reagan, 238 CONCLUSIONS East and West, Black and White, 253 BIBLIOGRAPHY, 259 INDEX, 269 PREFACE History is what we select from the past to help us understand the present. As a result, history often follows the headlines. While in theory historians are committed to dispassionate reconstruction of the past, in fact they often pick their subjects with an eye on current issues. From Herodotus's account of the Peloponnesian War to the most recent book on the changing status of gays, historians have always reflected the times in their choice of topics as well as in their interpretations. This search for relevance is readily apparent in the changing emphasis in studies of American foreign relations. In the past two decades, authors have concentrated on periods and geographic areas that seemed most significant for an understanding of contemporary international issues. In the early 1960s, historians reacted to the triumph of Fidel Castro by directing their attention to U.S. relations with Latin America. They churned out dissertations, articles, and books on past American policies, and grants funded a bevy of institutes, workshops, and programs. With the gradual emergence of Vietnam as the dominant U.S. concern in the middle of the decade, diplomatic historians shifted their focus from the South to the East. Publishers sought material on American involvement in Asia rather than Latin America, and graduate students learned Chinese instead of Spanish. If this periodic realignment of historical interest continues, Africa should be the next area of attention. While it lacks the proximity of Cuba and the direct military involvement of Vietnam, black Africa now occupies a position nearly analogous to theirs in terms of public interest and international attention. The victory of black nationalists in Angola and Mozambique in the mid-1970s, the continuing problems of the transition to majority rule in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, and the sustained international pressure on South Africa for an end to its racist policies have stimulated a growing interest in Africa, particularly the southern half. Recent debate over the importance of human rights and the role of private investments in the making of U.S. foreign policy has also helped focus attention on the region. Although the dispute over human rights and foreign policy is not new, the controversy generated by the Carter administration's commitment to personal freedom centered heavily on southern Africa. The conflict between students and university administrators over the removal of college investments in corporations active in South Africa, the dispute within the corporations themix x / Preface selves over alleged cooperation with apartheid, and the recent revelation of covert U.S. activities in Angola and Mozambique have all contributed to a new awareness of the continent. Politicians, the press, and even the general public now appear conscious of the symbolic significance of and tangible interests involved in U.S. relations with southern Africa. Despite the contemporary interest in and controversy over current policies, there is no reliable account of past American involvement in the area. Historians have avoided writing about U.S. relations with black Africa for a variety of reasons. Preoccupied with military conflict and great power confrontations, most have dismissed Africa as unimportant to America and concentrated on areas that they assumed had greater strategic, economic, or cultural significance. This has usually meant Europe. The historiography of the Cold War, for example, has centered on its European origins and development. Historians seldom examine American policy in countries outside Europe except at times of intense crisis such as the Cuban revolution, or the wars in Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East. To most historians, the only period of African history of any importance to the United States began when Ghana gained independence in 1957. To many professional historians, this is "current events." It may be fit material for journalists, but not for scholars dedicated to research in all relevant sources and detached objectivity that comes from studying events long past. Such prejudice against "instant" history has not prevented the examination of America's role in Asia, Latin America, or Europe, but it has successfully limited efforts on Africa. Historians have also avoided dealing with Africa out of sheer ignorance. Only recently have undergraduate and graduate curriculums included courses on African history, languages, politics, and economics. While most historians specializing in international relations have had a thorough background in Europe, Asia, or Latin America, they generally have little knowledge of Africa. As a result of the historians' lack of interest, journalists, political scientists, and former government officials have done most of the work on U.S.-African relations. While they have produced some excellent studies, their efforts suffer from two serious limitations: lack of evidence and a strident, partisan tone. With a few, rare exceptions, these studies have been based exclusively on newspapers, magazines, memoirs, and other published sources. While this may not detract from the accuracy of an author's conclusions, it offers little documentation to support them. Without primary sources, findings are largely assumptions resting on rhetoric rather than evidence. The flaws in existing books on American policy in southern Africa have further alienated professional historians. Despite their failure to explore the topic themselves, historians have been appalled by the unobjective and undocumented results of those who did and have left the subject to the polemicists. Given their intent and limited research, both critics and supporters have Preface / xi produced simplistic analyses of U.S. actions in Africa. Neither group sees much complexity or any contradictions in American diplomacy. Critics denounce the United States as "racist," "counterrevolutionary," or "imperialistic." Their objective is not the careful analysis of previous policies but their reversal. The past is used only to advance contemporary alternatives. Those supportive of American efforts have been equally partisan. They are similarly didactical, and their works are largely self-serving defenses of diplomatic decisions. They are designed to present critics of U.S. policy as "idealistic utopians" or "dangerous radicals" unaware of the realities of global politics. In this book, I attempt to use available archival material to describe and analyze U.S. policy toward the white governments of South Africa, Rhodesia, and the Portuguese colonies. The study begins in 1948. In that year the Nationalist party and its policy of apartheid triumphed in South Africa. At the same time, civil rights emerged as a national issue within the United States. While the role of blacks in American society has been debated since the adoption of slavery, the Truman administration's decision to endorse at least limited civil rights for blacks, and the resulting fight over the 1948 Democratic party platform and walkout of southern Democrats, attest to the new importance of domestic race relations. Finally, by 1948 America had achieved near consensus on its Cold War strategy. The acceptance of the global containment of communism was nearly complete with the defeat of Henry Wallace and the Progressive party. The book concludes in 1968 largely because of an absence of sources. The study is based heavily on material in the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson presidential libraries. Although there is as yet no archival material available on the period after 1968, the epilogue sketches shifts in policy in the period 1969- 1984. Historians must wait for the documents of the Nixon,