Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, The United Nations; The Western Hemisphere, Volume II

IO Files: US/A/C.4/129

Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. G. Hayden Raynor, Adviser, United States Delegation to the Fourth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations¹

secret

[New York,] November 24, 1949.

Subject: Trusteeship Committee Matters.

Participants:	M. Vincent Broustra, French Delegation
	Mr. Hayden Raynor, United States Delegation

M. Broustra sent word to me this morning that he wanted to see me on a very important matter. I saw him in the Lounge and he had with him an interpreter as he said he wished what he said to be entirely precise. He said he was speaking as Secretary-General of the French Delegation and on the instructions of his Government.

He said the French Government was more and more preoccupied over the matter of the policies of the United States in the Trusteeship Committee² and with respect generally to problems affecting dependent areas. He said that they recognized there was a strong public opinion in the United States on this question but he said we must realize there are also strong public opinions on the question in the countries of our friends.

He said his government was finding it extremely difficult to understand our position. He said we were making great efforts to strengthen France and the countries of Western Europe and at the same time pursuing these other policies in the dependent areas field which had the effect of weakening the potential of France.

He said, at this point, that Foreign Minister Schuman had intended to discuss this question with Mr. Acheson on Mr. Acheson’s recent trip to Paris³ but that he suspected that time did not permit this conversation. I told him that in so far as I knew it had not been raised at the Paris meeting. I stated, however, in my personal view, if the French felt as seriously about the matter as he said, that I thought it would be a good thing for the question to be discussed between us at a high level.

M. Broustra then said that it became even more difficult for them to understand our policy in the light of the Atlantic Pact.⁴ He spoke of the importance of Africa as a base in the last war and the increasing importance in this regard which it would almost inevitably play in the event of another conflict. He repeated several times the contrast and the difficulty of reconciling in French eyes the effort on the one hand to strengthen France and the North Atlantic community and, on the other hand, the pursuance of policies which will inevitably weaken this area.

He then said that our policy in France was playing directly into the hands of the Communists who follow the line that our objective in weakening the Colonial Powers is to step into these areas ourselves and control them.

M. Broustra asked if our government would study this question further in the light of the French view and especially that we study it not in a narrow specialized or technical sense but in relation to the broad considerations of security, defense and international peace.

I told him that we had long had this question under study and would undoubtedly continue the study and that I, personally, felt that there should be more exchange of views with his government on it. I explained in some detail the policy we attempted to follow and the reasons for it, stressing the importance that we not use up our “credit in the bank” that we had with the dependent peoples of the world because of our traditional support for independence. He said he recognized the importance of this and also recognized the force of our public opinion on this question, but that this still did not reconcile the matter for them as they thought our policy was weakening France and jeopardizing its security which must be a matter of concern to us because the security of Western Europe is important to the security of the United States.

In the discussion of our philosophy and point of view, I explained, as Mr. Notter⁵ and I previously did to Mr. McNeil,⁶ what we had in mind in co-sponsoring with Mexico the resolution on education in colonial areas. He replied to this by the usual argument that the terms of reference of the Special Committee are unconstitutional.

In addition to the request for a broad reconsideration of our general policies in this field, M. Broustra made a separate and specific request that we oppose, and endeavor to obtain sufficient Latin American opposition, in order that the Egyptian proposal, which would give the Assembly the power to decide what is and what is not a dependent territory, will not receive a two-thirds vote in the Plenary.⁷ He said this was a right of a metropolitan state and that if the Egyptian proposal was adopted it would not only increase agitation in dependent areas generally but would undermine the authority of the metropolitan states in these areas. I told him that I was not familiar with the Egyptian resolution or our position on it but that I would immediately call this to the attention of our people dealing with it.

M. Broustra said that we should take into account that on many important political questions France was supporting the position of the United States, although in many instances this position did not entirely coincide with that of the French Government or with French public opinion. I asked him for an example of this type of case and he replied immediately, atomic energy. However, that this did not mean that the French would change their position on atomic energy. The implication in this part of the conversation seemed fairly clear that a continuance of our trusteeship policies may have some affect on the French attitude on political questions in which we were interested. He said the French took these positions because of a recognition of the especially broad responsibilities which the United States has in the world and a desire to back us up.

In concluding the conversation, which was entirely friendly, although M. Broustra stated that perhaps he was so frank that he had been undiplomatic, I told him that I would, of course, report what he had said and that, furthermore, I would see that it was called to the attention of high officials of the Department.⁸

1. The Fourth Session of the General Assembly met at New York (Flushing Meadow). September 20–December 10, 1949. For documentation regarding the composition and organization of the United States Delegation to the General Assembly and its Advisory Staff, see pp. 12 ff.; a complete listing is also in United Nations. Official Records of the General Assembly, Fourth Session, Plenary Meetings, pp. xxii and xxiii (hereafter cited as GA(IV), Plenary). A record of the minutes of the meetings of the United States Delegation, position papers, and memoranda of conversations is in the master files of the Reference and Documents Section of the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Department of State (cited as the IO Files). Matters pertaining to Non-Self-Governing Territories and Trusteeship Territories were discussed by the U.S. Delegation at meetings on September 29, October 4, October 5, October 14, November 7, November 22, November 29, and December 1. This document is taken from a book of memoranda of conversations relating wholly to Fourth Committee matters.
2. The summary record of the meetings of the Fourth Committee is found in United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fourth Session, Fourth Committee (hereafter cited as GA(IV), Fourth Committee).
3. The Secretary of State was in Paris November 12–14 for meetings with the British and French Foreign Ministers; among subjects discussed were Germany and Greece.
4. For documentation regarding the North Atlantic Treaty, see vol. iv, pp. 1 ff.
5. Harley Notter of the Advisory Staff of the U.S. Delegation.
6. Hector McNeil, British Minister of State in the Foreign Office and Member of the United Kingdom Delegation to the General Assembly.
7. This refers to resolution VIII of a series of resolutions recommended by the Fourth Committee to the General Assembly for adoption, regarding information transmitted under Article 73(e) of the UN Charter. For appropriate references to published UN documentation concerning these matters, see footnotes attached to document that follows.
8. The Deputy Under Secretary of State, Mr. Dean Rusk, reviewed the U.S. position regarding resolution VIII, (because of the “strong representations by the French” (Minutes of 36th meeting of the U.S. Delegation, December 1, 1949, IO Files, US/A/M(Chr)/130), but no change was effected in U.S. policy.