Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The North Atlantic Alliance and Southern Africa, 1949–74

  • Chapter
NATO, The Warsaw Pact and Africa

Part of the book series: Rusi Defence Studies Series ((RUSIDS))

  • 33 Accesses

Abstract

From the time the nationalist revolt broke out in Angola (1961), Portugal’s refusal to transfer power in its African colonies and NATO’s apparent reluctance to stand firm on the issue combined to give credence to Soviet claims that the Portuguese were members of an ‘aggressively imperialist’ alliance.1 Britain’s ‘collusion’ with South Africa helped contribute to the picture. Events in Southern Africa lost NATO the friendship of many African states and won it the respect of none.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. For Soviet statements typical of the 1960s see Patricia Wohlgemuth ‘The Portuguese Territories and the UN’, International Conciliation, 545, November 1963, pp. 21–37.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Escott Reid, Time of Fear and Hope, op. cit., p. 199.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cited Oliver Holmes, ‘Portugal-Atlantic Pact Ally’, American Perspective, Winter 1950.

    Google Scholar 

  4. John Marcum, The Angolan Revolution 1950–62, Volume I (Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1969), p. 183.

    Google Scholar 

  5. The New York Times, 29 May 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cited ‘Origin of Portuguese Military Equipment’, Portugal and NATO (eds.), S. Bosgra/C. van Krimpen (Amsterdam: Angola Comité, October 1969).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Henry Kissinger, The Troubled Partnership: a Reappraisal of the Atlantic Alliance (New York: McGraw Hill, 1965).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cited Complex of US-Portuguese Relations. Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Africa, House of Representatives, 93rd Congress, 2nd Session, 1974, p. 58.

    Google Scholar 

  10. At one time Salazar publicly accused the United States of reducing Portugal’s contribution to Europe’s defence by refusing to sell arms which would have brought the rebellion in Angola to a speedy end. See Rupert Emerson, Africa and US Policy (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1967), p. 157.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cited Geoffrey Ripon, ‘South Africa and Naval Strategy: The Importance of South Africa’, The Round Table, 239, 1970, p. 308.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cited Fact Sheet, June 1971 (New York: American Committee on Africa).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Speech made by Sieste Bosgra at UN Conference on National Liberation in Southern Africa, Oslo 1973, reprinted in Loave Stokke/Carl Widstrand (eds.), The UN-OAU Conference on Southern Africa (Uppsala: Scandinavian Institute of African Studies, 1973), p. 33.

    Google Scholar 

  14. The New York Times, 29 December 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cited Implementation of the US Arms Embargo op. cit., p. 84.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hearings before the Special Subcommittee on North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Commitments, House of Representatives Committee on the Armed Services, 1972 pp. 13588, 13593.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ibid., p. 13511.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ibid., p. 13510.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Letter from Linwood Holton, Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations, Implementation of the US Arms Embargo, op. cit., pp. 153–54.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Statement of Seymour Finger, US representative on the Committee of 24, Department of State Bulletin 62:1609 27 April 1970 p. 558.

    Google Scholar 

  21. As late as 1972 the MPLA, the most avowedly Marxist of the liberation movements in Portuguese Africa, agreed to a continued Portuguese military presence in Angola in return for the promise of immediate independence. See Angostinho Neto ‘A message to the Angolan people’, MPLA Bulletin 3/4 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  22. For a sympathetic view of the Portuguese argument see Louis Axel ‘La Congolisation de l’Afrique de l’Angola: une grave menace pour l’Occident et pour l’OTAN’, Revue Militaire Generale, October 1961, pp. 393–409.

    Google Scholar 

  23. See Neil Bruce, Portugal: the Last Empire (New York: Wiley, 1975) pp. 62–70.

    Google Scholar 

  24. A full account of the raid is given in the UN’s published investigation. Report of the Security Council Special Mission to the Republic of Guinea Established under Resolution 289 (1970), UN Security Council Official Records, Special Supplement No 2 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  25. The New York Times, 2 December 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  26. The New York Times, 9 December 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  27. The Washington Post, 4 April 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  28. The Washington Post, 16 May 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  29. The Washington Post, 16 May 1971 (emphasis added).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Elmo Zumwalt On Watch: A Memoir (New York: Quadrangle, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  31. The New York Times, 16 April 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Marcum, The Angolan Revolution, op. cit., p. 131.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Letter from Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations to Senator Clifford Case, 13 November 1970, reprinted Congressional Record 116:30, 8 December 1970, p. 40345.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Part of the agreement involved the treatment of Portuguese soldiers wounded in battle in West German hospitals. Only 15 years later the government of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) put its hospitals at the disposal of Cuban troops who were invalided out of Angola fighting the UNITA guerrillas.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cited William Minter, Portuguese Africa and the West (London: Penguin, 1972) p. 107.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Document published (in part) in Wehrdienst, 9 December 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sietse Bosgra, ‘Territories under Portuguese Administration: Proposals for Action’, in Stokke/Widstrand, The UN-OAU Conference on Southern Africa, op. cit., p. 86.

    Google Scholar 

  38. The charge against NATO did not stop at arms and equipment. In 1961 Holden Roberto, leader of the FNLA, one of the three nationalist movements in Angola, accused the Alliance of supplying Portugal with napalm ‘to let her participate in defence of the so-called free world’. (Marcum, The Angolan Revolution I, p. 224). As it happened, the Portuguese produced their own napalm but imported herbicides from America which, according to Francisco Gomez, the commander in Angola in 1971, were used on quite an extensive scale (The Washington Post, 4 April 1971). Ironically, the Portuguese agreed to use defoliants instead of napalm in response to criticism from their NATO partners. In the first two years of the Nixon Administration the sale of herbicides quadrupled. Explaining the increase, the State Department claimed that at least two of the varieties sold had been withdrawn from the official munitions list in December 1970, though it was the first to admit that both had been used in Indo-China (Implementation of the US Arms Embargo, p.81).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Cited Africa Contemporary Record 1970–1 (London: Rex Collings, 1971) pp. C44–7.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Cited Robert Emerson, Africa and US Policy (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1967) p. 72.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Dean Acheson, ‘Fifty Years After’, Yale Law Review, 51, Autumn 1961, p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  42. US Security Agreements and Commitments Abroad: Spain and Portugal. Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on US Security Agreements and Commitments Abroad, US Senate, March/April 1969, July 1970, 91st Congress, 2nd Session, pp. 2404–7.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Department of State, ‘Guidelines for Policy and Operations: Portugal’ (Washington DC: Department of State, 1963), p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Maxwell Taylor, ‘US Policy towards Portugal and Republic of South Africa’, Memorandum for Secretary of Defence from Joint Chiefs of Staff, JCSM 528–63, 19 July 1963, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Statement of Alexis Johnson, Undersecretary of State, Executive Agreements with Portugal and Bahrein. Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations, US Senate, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, February 1972, p. 49.

    Google Scholar 

  46. John Marcum, The Politics of Indifference: Portugal and Africa, A Case Study in American Foreign Policy (Ecuardo Mondlane Lecture, 1972) (Syracuse University, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  47. The Guardian, 31 March 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Marcum, The Politics of Indifference, op. cit., p. 22.

    Google Scholar 

  49. For the text of the Azores Agreement, see US Security Arrangements and Commitments Abroad. Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on US Security Arrangements, US Senate, Part 2, Parts 5–11, 91st Congress, July 1970, p. 2405. The economic package in the 1971 Treaty not only exceeded the loans that America had extended to the whole of Africa over the previous 25 years, but also all previous allocations to Portugal itself.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Alastair Buchan, NATO in the 1960s: Implications of Interdependence (London: Chatto and Windus, 1964), pp. 119–20.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Arnold Rivkin, ‘Lost Goals in Africa’, Foreign Affairs, 44:1, October 1965, p. 148.

    Google Scholar 

  52. John Marcum, The Angolan Revolution, Volume 2: Exile Politics and Guerrilla Warfare 1962–76 (Cambridge: Massachussetts Institute of Technology, 1978) p. 421, n. 422.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Alvin Cottrell/James Dougherty, The Politics of the Atlantic Alliance (New York: Praeger, 1964) p. 231.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Cited Clyde Sanger, ‘What does Canada care about Africa?’ Africa Report 15:4 April 1970 p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Paul Ladouceur ‘Canadian Humanitarian Aid for Southern Africa’ in D. Anglin (ed.) Canada, Scandinavia and Southern Africa p. 89.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Cited Kenneth Grundy, ‘We’re Against Apartheid … But: Dutch Policy Towards South Africa’ Studies in Race and Nations, 5:3 1973–4.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Cited Africa Contemporary Record 1978–9 (London: Rex Collings, 1979), p. A92.

    Google Scholar 

  59. At the time of Portugal’s accession one observer noted: ‘So far as Lisbon and Washington are concerned, the less notice taken by public opinion of the collaboration between these two particularly incompatible governments the better’.

    Google Scholar 

  60. (Oliver Holmes, ‘Portugal — Atlantic Pact Ally’, American Perspective, 4:1, Winter 1950, p. 45).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Sietse Bosgra, ‘Territories Under Portuguese Domination: Proposals for Action’, in Olave Stokke/Carl Widstrand, The UN-OAU Conference, op. cit., p. 87.

    Google Scholar 

  62. NATO and Portugal (Amsterdam: Angola Comité, 1969).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ritchie Ovendale ‘The South African Policy of the British Labour Government 1947–51’ International Affairs, 59:1 Winter 1982–3 p. 45.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Cited Amy Vandebosch, South Africa and the World: The Foreign Policy of Apartheid (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1970) pp. 131–2.

    Google Scholar 

  65. See G. R. Laurie, ‘The Simonstown Agreement: South Africa, Britain and the Commonwealth’, South African Law Journal, 85:2 May 1968. Laurie wrote ‘South Africa’s relations with the West in general are now the important factor in her role and it should be recognised that this factor today requires ties with all the NATO powers, and not just a special tie with Britain alone.’

    Google Scholar 

  66. Cited James Barber, South Africa’s Foreign Policy 1945–70 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973) p. 82.

    Google Scholar 

  67. M. A. Fitzsimons, The Foreign Policy of the British Labour Government 1945–51 (Notre Dame: Indiana, 1953) pp. 164–5.

    Google Scholar 

  68. The Simonstown Agreement Cmnd 9520 (para 2.3) (HMSO: 1955).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Cited Gail Cockram, Vorster’s Foreign Policy (Pretoria: Academia, 1970) p. 65.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Laurie, ‘The Simonstown Agreement’ op. cit., p. 168. This also explains some of the palpable discrepancies in the agreement — why neither country could involve the other in war, or even come to its defence; why provision was made for South Africa’s obligations in a war in which South Africa herself might not take part, yet why the treaty was silent on the question of a war in which the United Kingdom was not involved. Since the memorandum referred to a further conference these matters might very well have been ironed out, but when Erasmus and Lord Mancroft met to arrange when it should meet, they found that the differences which had emerged at Nairobi in 1951 were if anything more marked.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Typical of South African official thinking was the statement made by the Defence Minister at a party rally in Vereeniging in June 1963. Erasmus reminded his audience that within three weeks of the outbreak of hostilities there would be 2000 ships in the south Atlantic or Indian Ocean seeking facilities that only South Africa was in a position to provide. Cited Denis Austin, Britain and South Africa (Oxford University Press, 1966) p. 123.

    Google Scholar 

  72. J. E. Spence, The Strategic Significance of Southern Africa (London: Royal United Services Institute, 1972) p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Cited Denis Austin, Britain and South Africa (Oxford University Press, 1966) p. 132.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Ditchley Park Foundation Lecture 1968. Cited Abdul Minty, ‘International Action Against Apartheid in South Africa’, Objective Justice, 5:3, July/August 1973, p. 50.

    Google Scholar 

  75. D. C. Watt, ‘The Continuing Strategic Importance of Simonstown’, US Naval Institute Proceedings, October 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Spence, The Strategic Significance of Southern Africa, op. cit., p. 17

    Google Scholar 

  77. Cited in ‘Simonstown: Bastion of a Free World’, Background, 1970, January/February.

    Google Scholar 

  78. The Economist, 30 January 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  79. {The Times, 9 February 1971). Address at Royal Commonwealth Society, 8 February 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Legal Obligations of HMG Arising out of the Simonstown Agreement (Cmnd. 4589, 4 February 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  81. Among the arms not sold but which at one time were under discussions were the Rapier missile system recommended by the British Aircraft Corporation after it had carried out a survey of South Africa’s air defence; new frigates for the Navy despite exploratory talks which opened in April 1971; and the MB 326K advanced military trainers which Rolls Royce hoped to sell in 1973 through the Italian licensed company Aermacchi (see J. E. Spence, The Political and Military Framework). Foreign Investment in South Africa Study Project Paper 4. Study Project on External Investment in South Africa and South-West Africa (Namibia). (Uppsala: Africa Publications Trust, 1973), pp. 34–5.

    Google Scholar 

  82. The Times, 23 July 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  83. The Sunday Times, 19 July 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  84. R. D. Laing, ‘South Africa — A Bastion for an Oceanic Association’, Report from South Africa, June 1969, pp. 18–21.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Cited ‘Call for an End to Military Cooperation with South Africa’, UN Unit on Apartheid, Notes and Documents, 18/73, October 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  86. See Michael Chichester, ‘Whitehall Cover-up; Westminster Exposure’, Navy International, July 1976, p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  87. J. E. Spence, The Strategic Significance of Southern Africa (London: Royal United Services Institute, 1972), p. 47.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Cited Africa Contemporary Record 1970–1 (London: Rex Collings, 1971), p. A79.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Laurence Martin, ‘The Cape Route’, Survival 12:10, October 1970, p. 349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. The Security of the Southern Oceans — Southern Africa the Key. Report of a seminar at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies, 16 February 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  91. ‘Luns over NATO en de Atlantische Oceean’, Nieuwsbulletin (Zuid-afrikaanse Ambassade Den Haag nr 41, 12 October 1972, pp. 1–2). See also Angola Bulletin 10:1, December 1971–January 1972, pp. 7–11.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Congressional Record 120:13, 3 June 1974, p. 17379; for a general discussion of the SACLANT study see The Washington Post, 2 May 1974; The Observer, 1 September 1974; R. A. Manning, ‘A South Atlantic Pact in the Making’, Southern Africa 10:3, April 1977, p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Letter from Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations to Chairman of the subcommittee on Africa Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, 17 December 1974, reprinted in Review of State Department Trip Through Southern and Central Africa. Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on Africa, 1974), p. 154.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Security Study Memorandum 39, reprinted Barry Cohen/ Mohammed El-Khawas, The Kissinger Study on Southern Africa (New York: Spokesman Books, 1975, p. 83).

    Google Scholar 

  95. The New York Times, 12 July 1970. See also David Newsom, ‘The United Nations, the United States and Africa’, address before the Chicago Committee of Council on Foreign Relations, 17 September 1970, Department of State Bulletin 63:1633, 12 October 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Congressional Record, op. cit., p. 17380.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Interview with Chester Crocker, Washington DC, October 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Statements of Ronald Spiers and Robert Pranger, The Indian Ocean: Political and Strategic Future. Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on National Security Policy and Scientific Developments, July 1971, p. 166, p. 171).

    Google Scholar 

  99. The Guardian, 20 May 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Cited Nomination of Nathaniel Davis. Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Africa, US Senate 1975, p. 39.

    Google Scholar 

  101. The Times, 7 November 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Letter from Assistant Secretary for Defence, Near Eastern, African and South Asian Affairs to chairman of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, Reviews of State Department Trip, op. cit., pp. 174–5.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Christopher Coker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 1985 RUSI

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Coker, C. (1985). The North Atlantic Alliance and Southern Africa, 1949–74. In: NATO, The Warsaw Pact and Africa. Rusi Defence Studies Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-17884-1_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation