Opinion / Resources
Resources in Rhodesia: Implication for US Policy
21 Jun 2011 at 08:04hrs | Views
RESOURCES IN RHODESIA: IMPLICATI0NS FOR U.S. POLICY
TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1976
House of Representatives
The subcommittee met at 2:05 p.m. in room 2255, Raybiirn House Office Building, Hon. Charles C. Diggs, Jr. (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding.
Mr. Diggs. The subcommittee will come to order.
Today we will hold the first in a series of hearings entitled "Resources in Rhodesia : Implications For U.S. Policy."
The purpose of the hearing is to assess the implications for continued U.S. access to Rhodesian Resources as a U.S. policy which has not concretely contributed to the attainment of majority rule and which is perceived as supporting the minority Smith regime. Particularly, in a situation of armed conflict where positions tend to harden, a future, majority ruled government is not likely to view with favor a United States which is seen to be supportive of Ian Smith.
Rhodesian resources include major reserves of chrome, asbestos, and other mineral resources such as gold, copper, coal, iron ore, and tin.
With Ian Smith's continued recalcitrance in rejecting even the British proposals for a settlement, the failure of talks between Smith and Joshua Nkomo, and President Samora Machel's closure of Mozambique's border with Rhodesia, it is clear that armed struggle in Rhodesia is the only alternative for majority rule.
This hearing, then, will focus on a number of areas of concern in U.S. policy toward Southern Rhodesia.
These include analysis of what efforts the United States is making to:
(1) investigate and put to an end all violations of U.N. sanctions against Rhodesia by American corporations or persons ; and, bring all the power of the White House to bear in support of efforts to repeal the Byrd amendment in Congress.
And it will include, hopefully, testimony to make it definitely clear that, under no conditions, will the United States itself, directly or indirectly, defend or give military-related support for the defense of the white minority regime in Rhodesia.
Certainly the contradictory statements of administration officials in connection with majority rule, on the one hand, and warning against the use of Cuban troops on the other hand, even if this is what the Africans should determine is necessary to achieve majority rule, give cause for real concern.
I think it is instructive to point out that the subcommittee has met with rather unusual difficulty in securing witnesses to address these requested areas of concern.
The Department of Commerce, for example, found a witness for the hearing only after protesting that the Department had no information on Southern Rhodesia.
The Defense Department also stated that it could not testify in open session on the questions submitted by the subcommittee with respect to the security situation in Southern Rhodesia, the military or other assistance to Rhodesia and South Africa by such countries as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, Israel, and Brazil, and by South Africa to Rhodesia, and aid and military-related assistance patterns to Rhodesia and South Africa.
This is data which is essential to an understanding that the U.S. actions with respect to Rhodesia are consistent with our stated support, of majority rule and which has important implications for U.S. relations with a future, majority ruled government in Rhodesia.
The subcommittee, however, is concerned that, contrary to Defense Department protestations, such information as requested, does exist in unclassified form or can be downgraded or declassified so that it may be used in a public manner.
The Washington Post of February 18, 1976, for example, has published a chart, of Soviet and Cuban assistance in Africa which gives data on the amount of such assistance throughout Africa. The Defense Department is the source of this information, which indicates that such unclassified information can be made available with respect to the military and other assistance of other countries in Africa, and concerning the security situation in Africa.
I might add that the State Department did not want to testify prior to the Secretary's impending trip, which is scheduled to be on April 23.
I don't know what the implications of this reluctance are, but I think in order to put the record straight, let us say that the witnesses were dragged kicking and screaming to this testimony today.
Among the areas of concern are:
(1) An overview of resources in Rhodesia, including estimated reserves of raw materials as well as actual production figures and exports.
(2 The economic interests and activities of American and other countries' companies or nationals in Rhodesia.
(3) The impact of the continuing war in Rhodesia and the prospects of majority rule on the business climate in Rhodesia, including the effect on business activity by United States and other companies there.
(4) The current situation, economic and political, in Rhodesia, including such factors as the political and economic status of blacks and whites in Rhodesia, prospects for a peaceful settlement, current emigration and immigration rates/trends, status of the war in Rhodesia, and the status of the so-called protective villages as well as political detentions and arrests by the Smith regime.
(5) An over ew of U.S. policy regarding Rhodesia, including U.S. efforts to investigate and end all violations by American companies or nationals of U.N. sanctions and the extent to which the United States is allowing the Rhodesian Information Office to operate in the United States-Wither as the Rhodesian Information Office or as the guest editorialists for the Washington Post.
(6) Future directions of U.S. policy toward Rhodesia, including an analysis of the implications of prospective majority rule for continued U.S. access to resources there.
( 7) Finally, U.S. aid, military, and other assistance to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, Israel, Brazil, and to any other Third World country whose pattern of assistance to Rhodesia or South Africa has or is projected to change.
We have as our witnesses today:
Mr. James J. Blake, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of African Affairs, Department of State.
Mr. Samuel Sherwin, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Domestic Commerce, of the Department of Commerce.
Mr. Richard Violette, Director of Operations of the Defense Security Assistance Agency.
We will receive the testimony from the Department of State first: Mr. Blake is not a stranger to the witness chair before this subcommittee.
Without objection, his background will be placed in the record at this point just before his testimony.
Mr. Blake, you have submitted a prepared statement to the subcommittee, and you may proceed.
Click here for the document: RESOURCES IN RHODESIA: IMPLICATI0NS FOR U.S. POLICY
TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1976
House of Representatives
The subcommittee met at 2:05 p.m. in room 2255, Raybiirn House Office Building, Hon. Charles C. Diggs, Jr. (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding.
Mr. Diggs. The subcommittee will come to order.
Today we will hold the first in a series of hearings entitled "Resources in Rhodesia : Implications For U.S. Policy."
The purpose of the hearing is to assess the implications for continued U.S. access to Rhodesian Resources as a U.S. policy which has not concretely contributed to the attainment of majority rule and which is perceived as supporting the minority Smith regime. Particularly, in a situation of armed conflict where positions tend to harden, a future, majority ruled government is not likely to view with favor a United States which is seen to be supportive of Ian Smith.
Rhodesian resources include major reserves of chrome, asbestos, and other mineral resources such as gold, copper, coal, iron ore, and tin.
With Ian Smith's continued recalcitrance in rejecting even the British proposals for a settlement, the failure of talks between Smith and Joshua Nkomo, and President Samora Machel's closure of Mozambique's border with Rhodesia, it is clear that armed struggle in Rhodesia is the only alternative for majority rule.
This hearing, then, will focus on a number of areas of concern in U.S. policy toward Southern Rhodesia.
These include analysis of what efforts the United States is making to:
(1) investigate and put to an end all violations of U.N. sanctions against Rhodesia by American corporations or persons ; and, bring all the power of the White House to bear in support of efforts to repeal the Byrd amendment in Congress.
And it will include, hopefully, testimony to make it definitely clear that, under no conditions, will the United States itself, directly or indirectly, defend or give military-related support for the defense of the white minority regime in Rhodesia.
Certainly the contradictory statements of administration officials in connection with majority rule, on the one hand, and warning against the use of Cuban troops on the other hand, even if this is what the Africans should determine is necessary to achieve majority rule, give cause for real concern.
I think it is instructive to point out that the subcommittee has met with rather unusual difficulty in securing witnesses to address these requested areas of concern.
The Department of Commerce, for example, found a witness for the hearing only after protesting that the Department had no information on Southern Rhodesia.
The Defense Department also stated that it could not testify in open session on the questions submitted by the subcommittee with respect to the security situation in Southern Rhodesia, the military or other assistance to Rhodesia and South Africa by such countries as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, Israel, and Brazil, and by South Africa to Rhodesia, and aid and military-related assistance patterns to Rhodesia and South Africa.
This is data which is essential to an understanding that the U.S. actions with respect to Rhodesia are consistent with our stated support, of majority rule and which has important implications for U.S. relations with a future, majority ruled government in Rhodesia.
The subcommittee, however, is concerned that, contrary to Defense Department protestations, such information as requested, does exist in unclassified form or can be downgraded or declassified so that it may be used in a public manner.
The Washington Post of February 18, 1976, for example, has published a chart, of Soviet and Cuban assistance in Africa which gives data on the amount of such assistance throughout Africa. The Defense Department is the source of this information, which indicates that such unclassified information can be made available with respect to the military and other assistance of other countries in Africa, and concerning the security situation in Africa.
I might add that the State Department did not want to testify prior to the Secretary's impending trip, which is scheduled to be on April 23.
I don't know what the implications of this reluctance are, but I think in order to put the record straight, let us say that the witnesses were dragged kicking and screaming to this testimony today.
Among the areas of concern are:
(1) An overview of resources in Rhodesia, including estimated reserves of raw materials as well as actual production figures and exports.
(2 The economic interests and activities of American and other countries' companies or nationals in Rhodesia.
(3) The impact of the continuing war in Rhodesia and the prospects of majority rule on the business climate in Rhodesia, including the effect on business activity by United States and other companies there.
(4) The current situation, economic and political, in Rhodesia, including such factors as the political and economic status of blacks and whites in Rhodesia, prospects for a peaceful settlement, current emigration and immigration rates/trends, status of the war in Rhodesia, and the status of the so-called protective villages as well as political detentions and arrests by the Smith regime.
(5) An over ew of U.S. policy regarding Rhodesia, including U.S. efforts to investigate and end all violations by American companies or nationals of U.N. sanctions and the extent to which the United States is allowing the Rhodesian Information Office to operate in the United States-Wither as the Rhodesian Information Office or as the guest editorialists for the Washington Post.
(6) Future directions of U.S. policy toward Rhodesia, including an analysis of the implications of prospective majority rule for continued U.S. access to resources there.
( 7) Finally, U.S. aid, military, and other assistance to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, Israel, Brazil, and to any other Third World country whose pattern of assistance to Rhodesia or South Africa has or is projected to change.
We have as our witnesses today:
Mr. James J. Blake, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of African Affairs, Department of State.
Mr. Samuel Sherwin, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Domestic Commerce, of the Department of Commerce.
Mr. Richard Violette, Director of Operations of the Defense Security Assistance Agency.
We will receive the testimony from the Department of State first: Mr. Blake is not a stranger to the witness chair before this subcommittee.
Without objection, his background will be placed in the record at this point just before his testimony.
Mr. Blake, you have submitted a prepared statement to the subcommittee, and you may proceed.
Click here for the document: RESOURCES IN RHODESIA: IMPLICATI0NS FOR U.S. POLICY
Source - US Government Printing Office
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
