The passage of legislation late in 1971 which in effect caused the United States unilaterally to breach the United Nations sanctions against Southern Rhodesia surely constitutes one of the most shameful episodes in the recent conduct of our country's international affairs. One commentator quite correctly did not mince words in describing the action as a “chrome-plated treaty violation.” And yet, even today, it is doubtful whether any great numbers of American citizens realize that their government has broken its treaty obligations to an international institution which our country did most to initiate and to promote until very recent times. An especially saddening aspect of the affair is the fact that an Administration which rightly has condemned and often contested growing neo-isolationist sentiment in our society's outlook on the world scarcely lifted a finger to prevent precisely the kind of result it decried.

At the risk of being called unscholarly, or unnecessarily pedantic, I would like to revive an old issue: the role of Africanists vis-à-vis Africa. In most intellectual circles, this issue is shunned. Generally, criticism of Africanists has been presented in terms of the relevance and/or nature of African/ non-African, Black/White involvement in Africa. The defense of the Africanist community, however, has been based on the impartiality of scientific investigation and the cumulative nature of all knowledge– without regard to cultural bias. My purpose here is to take a slightly different route and to interweave the two views in an effort to restate the case against Africanists.

Criticism is frequently expressed about the manner in which the African group at the United Nations injects southern Africa into discussions at every conceivable opportunity in the political, the economic, and the social forum. A question often posed is whether the emphasis on this issue, particularly at the international level, is proportionate to its import for the world community as a whole. As we Africans view the matter, the situation in southern Africa challenges the basic assumptions which brought the United Nations into being, and it is therefore the responsibility of the entire world community. In the political context, the situation is seen as a threat to regional and international peace and security; in the moral context it is considered a crime against humanity. The concern of African states was expressed by the late Kwame Nkrumah when, as President of Ghana, he declared: “The independence of Ghana is meaningless unless it is linked with the total liberation of Africa.”

Time and again students of contemporary Africa have stressed the impact of ideologies on the literary works of contemporary African writers. Authors have also insisted on the imperative need to link closely the study of the new written literature from Africa with the study of the general cultural and political renaissance of the past two or three decades in Africa.

I am delighted to consider with an audience of academicians a subject as filled with both philosophical and political considerations as is the nature of American interests in Africa. It is a subject with which we in the government are confronted everyday, and to which we have, perforce, given a great deal of attention — even though we may not always articulate these interests as fully and clearly as many students of Africa would wish. As you may be aware the Department of State recently developed a new and more systematic approach to policy analysis and resource allocation in the aftermath of departmental task force recommendations contained in the report, Diplomacy for the 70's - A Program of Management Reform for the Department of State.

The importance of Africa in contemporary world affairs and the responsibilities of the U.S. as the major power in the “free world” have contributed to a re-examination of American foreign policy towards Africa. Attempts to clearly identify U.S. interests in Africa reflect the desire of the present Administration to avoid unnecessary involvement in African affairs that might parallel America’s Southeast Asia experience. In addition, identification of vital interests ought to permit the formulation and implementation of better (if not ideal) American policies. Recognizing the linkages between domestic and foreign policies, it is proper that one include as part of the process of foreign policy formulation the perspectives and interests of significant groups within American society. Thus, the examination of Afro-American views on U.S. foreign policy towards Africa becomes an important area of concern.

The Rhodesian settlement proposals of 1971 have been described by the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, as a just and honorable settlement, conferring advantages on Rhodesian Africans, measuring them not against an ideal solution, but against an indefinite continuation of the status quo in Rhodesia, and leading by a steady addition of Africans to the Rhodesian Parliament to majority rule.