By 1976, the war was escalating, African Nationalism was militarizing throughout the region, South Africa was preparing to disengage its support to Salisbury, and Britain had no appetite for force or trusteeship. Near total international isolation via sanctions from the UK, the Commonwealth, and the UN had not forced Rhodesia to capitulate.
Into that narrowing space stepped U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who had observed that further Soviet and Chinese entrenchment in Africa was not healthy for American foreign policy.
Kissinger proposed a settlement protocol that was probably the best remaining chance for a peaceful, non-revolutionary post-colonial transition in Rhodesia. His central insight was brutally realistic: majority rule is inevitable, but revolutionary victory is not. The protocol tried to separate inevitability (majority rule) from method (violent takeover).
Compared to earlier British efforts and later Lancaster House, Kissinger’s framework had four unusually strong features.
-
It came before guerrilla victory:
Guerrilla movements had not yet won militarily, and the pre-existing institutions of Rhodesia still functioned. And Rhodesian security forces were intact, so negotiation leverage still existed. This timing advantage was decisive and fleeting.
-
It imposed discipline on all parties:
Unlike the guiding policy set by PM Harold Wilson, Kissinger’s protocol did not moralize one side and indulge the other. Instead, it required the Rhodesians to accept majority rule on a timetable, and it required African Nationalists to accept a British-run transition. The guerrillas were required to assemble and disarm before a transition could occur, and the external sponsors (USSR and China) had to stand down. This symmetry was essential to a real resolution, but it was also extremely politically unpopular with a global press that had long ago chosen sides.
-
It treated institutions as assets instead of relics:
The protocol would have preserved Rhodesia’s courts, civil service, and economy, and avoided the dangerous probability of a “winner takes all” revolutionary outcome. In hindsight, this focus on institutional continuity looks prescient rather than cynical as his many critics claimed at the time.
-
It offered enforceable sequencing:
Finally, Kissinger understood that trust is not created by promises, but by mutual compliance with an agreed-upon process. Power would transfer, after disarmament, through the hands of a transitional authority (the UK) via supervised elections.
The Kissinger Protocol was not well received by the international press. It was most commonly framed in terms of Cold War cynicism, cast in Britain and Europe as an American attempt to control African self-determination in order to contain Soviet influence, the result of which was a betrayal of “authentic” liberation. Very little attention was paid to the mechanics of transition and the track record of revolutionary takeovers elsewhere.
Perhaps worse, the Liberation movements (ZANU and ZAPU) were treated as moral arbiters in their own right. The British and European media assumed that if the Liberation movements reject a settlement, it must be illegitimate. This made the protocol vulnerable because the Patriotic Front rejected any political constraints following the transition, and all of the frontline states opposed trusteeship. Unfortunately, radical rhetoric played better in the press than Kissinger’s procedural detail, and journalists often echoed African liberation propaganda emanating from Moscow or Beijing without interrogating the implications.
Kissinger himself was also probably the wrong messenger. He was associated with the Vietnam War, and the press hated his realpolitik. His association almost immediately created the view that the United States was making an illegitimate attempt to “manage” African liberation.
Already have an account? Sign In
Two ways to continue to read this article.
Subscribe
$1.99
every 4 weeks
- Unlimited access to all articles
- Support independent journalism
- Ad-free reading experience
Subscribe Now
Recurring Monthly. Cancel Anytime.
Regardless, the Kissinger Protocol produced a diplomatic breakthrough with Ian Smith’s Rhodesian Government. Realizing that he would never get another deal that recognized their concerns and protected Rhodesia’s institutions, on 24 September 1976, the Rhodesian PM announced in a televised broadcast to the nation that his government had accepted the “Kissinger Plan”. Smith agreed to transition to full enfranchisement and black majority rule within 2 years. Unfortunately, the Kissinger Protocol was rejected by Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo, who were under no pressure to accept any deal on the table. Sentiments in the European press made them believe that they could hold out for a full revolutionary victory.
Kissinger was working on how best to get the African Nationalists to commit when Jimmy Carter won the 1976 election over Gerald Ford. A civil rights activist named Andrew Young was appointed by Jimmy Carter to run all Africa foreign policy. Young was not a Marxist, a revolutionary strategist, or an Africa specialist. He was a moral radical, operating with high confidence and thin regional knowledge, and he was unusually empowered to shape policy so far beyond his technical preparation.
Once he settled into the State Department, Young was forced to read CIA assessments of African Nationalist leaders, and he was well-informed of their ruthlessness and brutality. Unfortunately, Young saw these assessments as categorically irrelevant.
Young believed deeply that any Western attempt to manage post-colonial outcomes was morally illegitimate, regardless of foreseeable consequences. He rejected transitional trusteeship, conditional independence, external guarantees, and managed sequencing of power on strictly moral grounds.
Instead, Young believed that the “legitimacy” created by a successful revolutionary liberation would civilize African Nationalist leaders like Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe. He believed that electoral processes would discipline power and that sovereignty itself would moderate their behavior. These were axioms of faith—not empirically derived conclusions.
Young had never lived in Africa and had no formal training in African history or politics. He also had no exposure to post-liberation governance across Africa and had not studied liberation-movement factionalism in depth. Instead, Young derived Africa policy from his experiences in the American Civil-Rights movement, anti-colonial moral literature, and UN General Assembly discourses.
Andrew Young ended all advocacy for the Kissinger Protocol, largely for reasons articulated by the global press critique.
The Kissinger Protocol was framed as undemocratic, but what followed later under Robert Mugabe was far less democratic. It was rejected as paternalistic, but Mugabe’s later regime was far more coercive. It was rejected as Cold War manipulation, but the Liberation movements established a Chinese (and Soviet Union) aligned dictatorship in the quasi-socialist state of Zimbabwe.
COMMENTS