Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1932, The British Commonwealth, Europe, Near East and Africa, Volume II

882.01 Foreign Control/219

The American Representative on the International Committee on Liberia (Reber) to the Secretary of State

Geneva, February 8, 1932.
[Received February 24.]

Sir: Supplementing the Consulate’s recent telegrams relating to the meetings of the Committee appointed to examine the problem raised by the Liberian Government’s request for assistance, I have the honor to submit herewith a somewhat more considered report summarizing the session and general discussions in this regard held at Geneva.

As during the London meetings,¹⁵ Viscount Cecil presided. There were present at the seven meetings of the Committee, in addition to the President, the Count de Saint Quentin, Chief of the African Section of the French Foreign Office; Baron von Weizsächer [Weizsacker], the German representative at the present session of the Council; M. Rosso, representative of Italy at the Council; M. Garay, representative of Panama; M. Zaleski, Polish Foreign Minister and rapporteur; Señor de Madariaga, Spanish Ambassador at Paris; the Liberian representatives, Mr. Grimes, M. Sottile, and Count Bogaerde, Liberian Minister in Paris; and the American representative. The three experts¹⁶ appointed by the Committee at its London meeting likewise participated in the discussions and explained their report.

Prior to the opening meeting on January twenty-fifth, the Secretariat of the League had indicated the general belief that the opposition of the Liberian Government, even to a discussion of the experts’ report, would block any real progress at this session. It was proposed that the report be read and discussed and that the Committee would then adjourn to await the Liberian Government’s alternate plan which was promised by the next session. The Committee would therefore not be called upon to evolve any definite scheme of assistance until that time. During these informal discussions with the Under-Secretary-General and Mr. von Renthe-Fink, in charge of this question at the League, it was learned that the Secretariat hoped, with the support of the British and French members, to create some arrangement for the control of the foreign specialist assistants similar to the scheme established for the reconstruction loan to Austria,¹⁷ which set up an international committee of control composed of the powers guaranteeing the League loan and whose powers were set forth in a protocol adhered to by these states and Austria. It was anticipated that through the advance of further funds, Liberia’s consent to such an arrangement might be gained.

In order to secure these funds, it was of course evident that the consent of the Finance Corporation of America would have to be secured. In fact, it was considered that this company would be the only source of the additional money required. Therefore, an indication of its attitude was judged to be an important factor without which no further progress could be made. This was given in an informal conversation between Mr. von Renthe-Fink and Mr. Walter Bruce Howe, representative of the Corporation, as described in the Consulate’s telegram No. 31, January 25, 9 p.m. It was later presented to the Committee by a member of the financial section of the League and Mr. Ligthart, who had been impowered to request this information in the name of the Committee. A reference thereto appears in the report to the Council.

The representatives of the Finance Corporation and of the Firestone Plantation Company likewise explained their position to the experts. Although they stated in confidence that they preferred the nomination by the President of the United States of the principal foreign specialist, they expressed the hope that this point need not be raised at the present time as there appeared to be many other more basic questions to be arranged first, including gaining the consent of the Liberian Government to any plan derived from the report. A further description of the Corporation’s attitude is contained in the attached letter from Mr. Howe¹⁸ to which no formal reply was deemed necessary, as it was explained to him that the Committee’s work had not progressed sufficiently to present the danger he feared.

The discussions which took place during the meetings have already been summarized in the Consulate’s recent telegrams and a complete review of them appears in the provisional minutes, which are being forwarded to the Department under a separate cover.¹⁸

It will be seen from these that the majority of the members had no real understanding of the situation and were interested principally in the juridical problems arising out of the nature of assistance which the League could grant to a member state. Many felt and expressed the opinion privately that if Liberia did not wish to accept the League’s plan when concluded, there would be no method of compelling it to do so. The Spanish representative, as previously explained, was primarily concerned with the theoretical problem presented by the existence of the strong Firestone interests within a weak and feeble state. This he considered the root of the problem and for that reason was opposed to anything which might further the financial dominance of a single private organization. Señor de Madariaga’s opinions, however, it is believed, are not so much based on a knowledge of conditions in Liberia or any other state, as derived from new Spanish theories of government and his well known opposition to what he has at other times called “capitalist imperialism.”

Other members of the Committee, including possibly the rapporteur, appear to believe that the present loan agreement constitutes too heavy a burden upon Liberia’s resources and that it should be modified before further advances are made. They appear not to have studied the elements of security required before funds can be lent under the unstable conditions there existing, although this point was at one time explained by the financial expert. Liberia’s expressed opposition to the present loan and attack upon it evidently impressed one or two members, such as the Spanish and Panaman representatives, but it is felt gained little support from either Great Britain or France. The others did not appear greatly interested in any phase of the discussions.

The principal concern expressed to me both by Lord Cecil and M. de Saint Quentin is to gain Liberia’s acceptance to a practical plan. The former feels very strongly that no scheme should be devised by the Committee which is not essentially capable of fulfillment. He believes no responsibility should be accepted by the Committee or the League for any plan which in itself does not contain the germ of success. Adequate powers in the hands of the principal foreign official who would be responsible to the League are deemed essential by him. This opinion is shared by the French representative and officials of the Secretariat. In summarizing his observations on the report, Lord Cecil in the Committee brought out these factors; and when Liberia’s objections to any plan which might change its Constitution were stated at the Council, he explained that the Committee was devising its own project of assistance to be granted Liberia and for that reason would have to retain full liberty in preparing it. Whether it was acceptable to Liberia was another question.

In reply to questioning by the Chairman, the unanimous view of the experts was expressed to the effect that the plan which they had outlined did not go far enough in that it contained no provision for any general control by the League of Nations. This provision had not been inserted in their report, since it was considered that their terms of reference did not envisage any proposals affecting the central government.

The Liberian representative’s objections to the report, criticisms of the experts and general opposition to their work, have made clear that Liberia does not propose to accept any practical scheme which may be based on the present report. Grimes constantly referred to the scheme which his own Government was preparing and asked that Liberia be allowed to help itself in its own way as much as possible.… No one has as yet, however, suggested a method of enforcing the Committee’s project upon Liberia, especially when it means the advance of further funds. No recommendation to accept the experts’ report was contained in the Committee’s report to the Council nor is it believed that Liberia will feel any compulsion to do so. The only danger it runs in its own eyes will be the refusal of the League to grant any aid, and this will not be a great deterrent, it is feared, to continued abuses and oppression of the natives. The advantage of securing further funds to re-establish its economic and financial position will not in all probability be judged a sufficient inducement for it to accept stricter international supervision. This will not take place except through united action on the part of the most interested powers.

The administrative expert, M. Brunot, described the opposition existing between the natives and the present Liberian administration and emphasized the disturbed condition in the country. He charged the Liberian Government with adopting measures of reprisal against natives who had testified not only before the International Commission of Inquiry, but before his own group of experts. This statement, without further elaboration, was set before the Council by the President of the Committee, who added that it had been supported by statements from the British, American and French members of the Committee. Copies of the memorandum which was circulated in connection with my statement before the Committee is herewith enclosed.

In the above connection, M. Brunot pointed out that the League had assumed a certain responsibility in taking the interest in Liberia it had already displayed and that if it did not accomplish effective reforms, then it would have inculcated a spirit of revolt among the natives, whose hopes had been aroused.

There are also enclosed copies of the second preliminary report of the Committee.²⁰ It will be noted that a reference is contained therein to the services of the Financial Committee which are to be lent for the purpose of assisting in the financial negotiations. Mr. Loveday of the Committee has informed me he proposes to draft a scheme which will be shown to me during the course of the next few weeks.

I shall keep the Department informed of further developments.

Respectfully yours,

Samuel Reber, Jr.

[Enclosure]

Memorandum by the American Representative on the International Committee on Liberia (Reber)

Geneva, [January 30, 1932.]

During recent months the American Government has received reports of continued unrest and disturbances along the Kru Coast of Liberia, which would lead to the conclusion that methods employed to effect an adjustment of differences arising between the native tribes and the Government have been those of force and brutality on the part of frontier force soldiers. These soldiers it appears were under the command of a Special Commissioner to the Kru Coast, Colonel T. Elwood Davis, who had been despatched to patrol the area, investigate and report the sources of grievance and to re-establish Government authority. It is understood that the instructions addressed to him included orders to discourage and put down every act showing lack of discipline, including brutality, looting, or raiding on the part of either soldiers or officers and that for every breach of these orders he was to be held strictly accountable.

Yet it is said that during November, after a delegation of chiefs from the Kru Coast had returned from Monrovia where they were alleged to have presented protests against the action of the patrol, soldiers occupied Nana Kru, flogged and arrested persons who refused to carry loads for them. Five persons including women are reported to have died there as a result of this treatment.

In towns belonging to the Petey tribe it appears that soldiers expropriated property of the townspeople who were driven from their homes and forced to carry loads for the soldiers to Nana Kru where some were jailed. Similar reports are received from Tiempoh which was burnt together with eight other towns in the district.

Although it is stated a special appeal was sent to Monrovia from Sasstown to ask that Colonel Davis be recalled on account of his actions along the coast, this is reported to have been refused by the authorities in Monrovia who were alleged to have replied on November 4 that the Government could not accept such conditions and that the people of Sasstown must submit immediately to the Commissioner’s direction. He arrived in Sasstown on November 5 and was received by the Paramount Chief. A meeting was set for November 9 to discuss recent disturbances and the chiefs called upon to surrender guns and ammunition. The Paramount Chief denied the existence of these weapons. It was therefore alleged that fighting broke out on the following night and the towns of Sasstown, Niffoo and other smaller villages were destroyed.

In other cases the Commissioner is reported to have armed certain tribes known to be hostile one to another without regard to the consequences of such an act. This is reported to have led to several cases of bloodshed and inter-tribal clashes. One of the alleged reasons for plundering on the part of the soldiers of the force has been delayed payment of salaries and inability to subsist without forced levies upon the tribespeople.

Other villages are reported to have been pillaged, their inhabitants killed or driven into the bush by soldiers in the detachment commanded by Col. Davis. In addition to these depredations it is stated that others have been committed by the local officials of Maryland County, who have permitted soldiers to plunder villages, demanding food and carriers, arresting and flogging persons who refused to carry out their orders.

It has been claimed that even officials in Monrovia have admitted that Liberian frontier force soldiers are engaged in ruthless and unwarranted attacks upon the natives. Although it appears difficult, owing to the difficulties of communication between various parts of the Liberian coast, to determine the exact spread of these measures of repression or the total number of lives lost, there would seem to exist no doubt that a serious situation exists in this region which if it should spread to other parts of the country might lead to serious consequences and diminish the administrative control of the central Government.

It has been determined that in spite of the charges raised against Col. Davis and presented to the central Government he left Monrovia to return to the Kru Coast on December 23rd. On this trip he was again accompanied by Major Grant and is reported to have carried a further supply of ammunition.

Additional reports received as late as this month give further evidence of continued depredations on the Kru Coast resulting in loss of life and in the burning of towns. A prolongation of this strife along the coast means great loss to the native peoples.

15. i.e., the February–March, 1931, meetings of the International Committee on Liberia. See Foreign Relations, 1931, vol. ii, pp. 675 ff.
16. Ligthart, Brunot, and Mackenzie.
17. See Foreign Relations, 1930, vol. i, pp. 391 ff.
18. Not printed.
18. Not printed.
20. League of Nations, Official Journal, March 1932, p. 523.