encourage private investment in Africa. It will benefit not only Africa, but the world, to encourage efficient development of Africa's resources of petroleum, mineral, and agricultural products. American companies will also continue to help create new manufacturing enterprises and to facilitate expanded trade and tourism by working to build ports and railroads, air links and hotels.

"U.S. private investment in Africa now totals about $3.5 billion, and continues to grow rapidly. Americans are participating in important new enterprises started last year in Nigeria and Zaire. The Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation stand ready to facilitate such ventures where our participation is wanted and where it can take place on a footing of mutual benefit. Africans who want this participation must, of course, create a hospitable climate for private investment. Kenya, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Nigeria, and Zaire are examples of the benefits which flow from such a climate.

"The Southern African Dilemma

"For more than a decade, leading Americans in all fields have expressed this nation's profound concern over racial injustice in southern Africa, and decried the serious potential of the issue for bringing large scale conflict to this region. As I have repeatedly made clear, I share the conviction that the United States cannot be indifferent to racial policies which violate our national ideals and constitute a direct affront to American citizens. As a nation, we cherish and have worked arduously toward the goal of equality of opportunity for all Americans. It is incumbent on us to support and encourage these concepts abroad, and to do what we can to forestall violence across international frontiers.

"The United States can take pride in the measures it has taken to discourage a military buildup in the areas of minority rule. We have maintained our arms embargoes in those areas. We have stressed the need for self-determination in colonial areas. We have facilitated contact between the races, and underlined the fact that greater political and economic opportunity for Africans serves the true interests of all races. I detailed the steps we

have taken in last year's Report. It is a record second to none among the major powers.

"Americans alone, however, cannot solve the racial problems of southern Africa. The notion that one nation, however powerful or well-intentioned, can master the most intractable issues plaguing foreign societies belongs to a past era.

"For our part, we look toward black and white in Africa to play the primary role in working toward progress consistent with human dignity. We support their efforts by:

--Encouraging communication between the races in Africa, and between African peoples and our own.

--Making known directly to the parties involved our views on their actions. My Administration will not condone recourse to violence, either as a means of enforcing submission of a majority to a minority or as a formula for effecting needed social change.

"The situation today offers no grounds for complacency about the imminence of racial justice in southern Africa. It is, therefore, important that we continue to do everything we can to encourage respect of human dignity."

Problems of development abound in Africa, and with them a potential for violence and bloodshed. Growth and change are inevitable. The path taken by this change is of great concern not only to the people of Africa, but to the world at large, since this vast continent is destined to play an increasing part in the history of the world by virtue of its size, its location, its resources and economic potention, and because of its large restless population and the growing aspirations of its people.

Africa needs foreign capital and technological assistance to aid its development; yet the complexities found here defy foreign control of the continent's destiny. Above all, Africa will not be ignored. Perhaps the most welcomed and valuable contribution we might offer the African on his journey into the future is a full measure of understanding, encouragement, and patience.

Reading List

1. "Africa, 1973, entire issue. Current History, March 1973

2. Africa South of the Sahara, 1973. London: Europa Pub., 1973.

3. Bell, J. Bower. The Horn of Africa. New York: Crane, Russak and Comp., 1973.

4. Busia, Kofi Abrefa. Africa in Search of Democracy. New York: Praeger, 1967.

5. Carlson, Lucile. Africa's Lands and Nations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

6. Cowan, Laing Gray. Black Africa: The Growing Pains of Independence, Headline Series. New York: Foreign Policy Association, 1972.

7. Ewing, A. F. Industry in Africa. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1968.

8. Fitzgerald, Walter. Africa: A Social, Economic, and Political Geography of Its Major Regions. (10th ed. revised by W. C. Brice.) London: Methuen, 1967.

9. Hance, William Adams. Population Migration and Urbanization in Africa. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1970.

10. Hatch, John Charles. Africa--The Rebirth of Self-Rule. London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967.

11. Hazlewood, Arthur, ed. African Integration and Disintegration: Studies in Economic and Political Union. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967.

12. Hodder, B. W. and Harris, D. R., eds. Africa in Transition: Geographical Essays. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1967.

13. Hodgson, Robert Davis and Stoneman, Elvyn A. The Changing Map of Africa, 2d ed. Princeton, N. J.: Van Nostrand, 1968.

14. Legvolt, Robert. Soviet Policy in West Africa. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1970.

15. Moore, Clark D. and Dunbar, Ann. Africa Yesterday and Today. New York: Bantam, 1968.

16. Robson, Peter. Economic Integration in Africa. Evanston, Ill. Northwestern Univ. Press, 1968.

17. Singleton, F. Seth and Shingler, John. Africa in Perspective. New York: Hayden, 1967.

18. Woolf, Leonard Sidney. Empire and Commerce in Africa: A Study in Economic Imperialism. New York: Fertig, 1968.

DEFENSE MANAGEMENT

The past two decades have seen far-reaching changes in the organization and management of the Armed Forces. Successive legislative and administrative actions reflected progressively bolder steps to integrate the defense establishment and consolidate power in the Secretary of Defense.

Why has the movement toward Service unification been so tortuous? It must be appreciated that unification was much more than a matter of reorganization. It required new viewpoints, new doctrine, and new habits of thinking throughout the military establishment. For almost 150 years before the enactment of the National Security Act of 1947, the two major Departments--the Army and Navy--had evolved as distinct and separate entities. They had been established and organized by separate legislation. They looked directly to the President for leadership. They were monitored by separate congressional committees. They drew their funds from separate appropriations and got on as best they could with their own peculiarities, preoccupations, friends, and enemies. No well-established habits or instruments of collaboration and cooperation existed. Where disagreements on questions of planning or policy arose, only the President could make decisions effective on both. It was left largely to the President also to link foreign policy and military planning.

The experience of World War II provided strong impetus for the unification of the Armed Services. While unified commands were established in the theaters of operations, no comparable unified direction or command existed in Washington. The Joint Chiefs of Staff emerged early in World War II as President Roosevelt's principal staff instrument for forging allied strategy and directing global warfare. The need for joint action by the Services and for objective recommendations on military matters inevitably brought increased authority to this one joint and most nearly objective body.

However the JCS was a committee dependent for its success upon the voluntary cooperation of its members. The same high degree of cooperation achieved under the stress of war was not apt to