882.20/437
The Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs (Murray) to the Minister in Liberia (Walton)
Dear Mr. Walton: I wish to thank you for your letter of March 31, commenting on several points raised in connection with the Department’s telegram no. 8 of March 25, 1 p.m. Your observations are naturally of much interest and have helped to give us a clearer understanding of the situation as it appears from Monrovia.
It is to be regretted, of course, that the Liberian Government was so taken aback at the Department’s attitude toward the proposed tripartite treaty, and that President Barclay should have received the impression that this attitude constituted a reversal of our position as set forth in the penultimate paragraph of our telegram of November 11.12 It would seem, however, that the Liberian authorities may have read into the paragraph something more than was intended, since it was never contemplated that this Government should reserve to itself the right to conduct treaty negotiations with other governments on behalf of Liberia. We have the utmost sympathy with the aims and aspirations of Liberia, and we are glad to offer advice whenever it is sought, but we naturally do not assume to act for her Government in the conduct of foreign relations.
By way of explanation as to why the Department discouraged the idea that Liberia should approach the French and British Governments [Page 570] for a defensive pact last November, you will recall that the Four Power Conference at Munich had taken place only a short time before, and the general feeling was that in view of the outcome of the Conference neither France nor Great Britain would be willing to undertake any commitments in respect to the protection of such a distant country as Liberia. If you had been in the Department at that time, while the European situation was being closely studied, I am confident you would have concurred in the view that no favorable response could then have been expected from the French and British Governments with respect to the Liberian proposals. That the European political situation has since changed radically and unexpectedly is now apparent, and the active efforts of the French and British to align other countries with their policies would seem to make it entirely proper to reverse the advice which we gave previously.
As a matter of fact, by not approaching the French and British Governments during the uncertain period of last fall, Liberia appears actually to have placed herself in a much stronger position. Your recent telegrams indicate that it was the French Chargé d’Affaires who made the initial move in proposing a tripartite agreement, and the promptness with which negotiations seem to be proceeding confirms our impression that it is now the French, rather than the Liberian Government, which is most desirous of entering into a defensive arrangement. Obviously the advantage thus rests with Liberia in the discussions.
I appreciate the comments in the first two paragraphs of your letter regarding the conversation with President Barclay which was the basis of your telegram of October 11,13 and regarding your practice of transmitting to the Department copies of all formal communications between the Legation and the Liberian Government. However, I wonder whether it would not be preferable, in important cases such as this, also to transmit copies of any informal notes or memoranda exchanged with the President? The absence of a Liberian diplomatic representative in Washington naturally requires that the transaction of business and the exchange of views should take place in Monrovia, and we therefore depend upon the Legation for as much background material as possible. Incidentally, if the telegram of October 11 embodied all the results of your informal discussion, it is still not clear just when President Barclay made a statement with regard to the possible establishment of American air and naval bases. In your telegram no. 16 of March 20, 2 p.m., referring to your receipt of the aide-mémoire from the Secretary of State, you said that Secretary Simpson had recalled such a statement made to you by the President [Page 571] “on a previous occasion”, whereas your telegram in question was the first intimation we had received that such a subject had ever been mentioned.
Sincerely yours,