IO/ODA Flies: Lot 62D228, Box 230, “Colonial Policy”
Memorandum of Conversation, by the United States Representative on the Trusteeship Council (Sayre)1
Subject: Colonial Problem and The United Nations
| Participants: | Sir Oliver Shewell Franks, the British Ambassador |
| Ambassador Francis B. Sayre |
Under an appointment arranged by Assistant Secretary Hickerson I called on the British Ambassador at the British Embassy at ten [Page 371] o’clock this morning to discuss with him in an intimate and personal way the colonial problem and its ramifications. I began by making clear to Sir Oliver that I wanted to talk with him not in a formal way as an official of the United States Government but quite intimately and personally about problems that lay close to my heart.
I began by expressing my concern lest the policies being followed by the United Kingdom in the colonial field become the source of misunderstanding and criticism by other nations and particularly in the course of debates in the United Nations General Assembly and the Trusteeship Council. I said that with regard to the colonial problem, four factors, it seemed to me, were of importance and must be constantly kept in mind. The first is the ignorance and inexperience of a large majority of non-colonial states and their lack of appreciation of the responsibilities borne by the administering powers. Most of these have never wrestled with colonial problems and know nothing of the complexities and realities of the underlying issues and can therefore easily be misled by propaganda and misunderstanding. The second is the wide-spread popular misunderstanding of what British colonial policy really is—a misunderstanding based in part upon what took place during the Seventeenth, Eighteenth and early Nineteenth centuries, when much of the colonial policy of the world unhappily was in fact based upon exploitation and repression. In the popular mind colonial administration is still associated with exploitation. Thus, in a sense we are paying today for our sins of the past. The third factor in the problem is the wide-spread and popularly accepted fallacy that independence affords a ready and easy solution to the problem of dependent peoples. In truth, as those of us who have worked in the colonial field know full well, the solution of the problem of dependent peoples who lack education, who are without training and experience in self-government, or who are undeveloped economically must be sought through educational programs, through training in self-government, through political experience, and through economic and other forms of development. In the case of undeveloped subject peoples immediate independence may injure rather than help the genuine interests of the people. The fourth factor to be faced in United Nations work is the constant danger of combinations developing among three separate groups, viz: (a) the Latin American states, for the most part ignorant of colonial problems, incidentally themselves contributing very little to the interests of their own Indian and subject populations, but vaguely beneficent in their desires and wishing to end exploitation and suppression; (b) various of the Asian and Arab states, many of whom are still smarting under policies of suppression exercised against them during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries and therefore generally ready to side against colonial powers, and (c) the Soviet Union and her satellites which are always eager [Page 372] to spread propaganda against the democratic states based upon charges of imperialism and suppression and which find in the issues of colonialism a fertile field for fomenting trouble.
As a result of these four factors a very natural and reasonable feeling is developing on the part of the colonial powers that they must build up some kind of defense and must prevent injurious interference in their colonial domains by representatives who do not share any of the actual burdens of the administering powers.
I went on to say to the Ambassador that there seemed to me a real danger in this situation, I said that I feared that the colonial powers might get their backs up and decide upon some policy based on negativism—a policy emanating rather from fear and irritation than one based upon a constructive, positive practical program. I pointed out that a negative policy might serve only to deepen the gulf between the colonial and non-colonial powers. This might produce a weakening of the United Nations and even a rift of misunderstanding between the British and American peoples.
I went on to say that to my mind one of the very great heritages which the British people have given to mankind is their achievements in the realm of colonial administration. Of the hundreds of millions of peoples who have actually achieved independence during recent years, by far the larger number have achieved it as a result of British administration. India, Burma, Ceylon and Pakistan are concrete examples. Had it not been for the training and political experience secured under British administration these peoples would never be independent today. In earlier centuries, true enough, British policies in these dominions were not always free from repression and exploitation. But since the end of the First World War, as all who have studied the true facts know, British colonial policy has entirely changed. Whatever one may say of the past, Britain may point with pride to her postwar achievements in colonial development, not only in the dominions but in many of the Crown colonies as well. I said that Britain has so much to be proud of in her colonial government of the Twentieth Century that one could hope that instead of pursuing a negative defensive policy with regard to the colonial problem, a constructive policy might be followed, based upon bringing to the attention of the peoples of the world the practical realities of her achievements and the pathways which she has tried to follow. Instead of being fearful of UN interference in her colonial development, it would seem that the United Kingdom is in a strong position to welcome the opportunity to make clear her post-War colonial record, to the peoples of the world through the United Nations; to acquaint them with what she is doing and what she hopes to do and to seek the cooperation of all in helping to achieve these hopes in the years that lie ahead.
[Page 373]I also explained to the Ambassador the fundamental position which, as I see it, the United States must take in these matters. In the first place, since the US was once itself a dependent people, our traditional policy must be, as it always has been, a policy of encouraging and assisting dependent peoples to progress toward self-government or independence, seeking this objective, however, through the pathway of education, economic development and training in the technique and responsibilities of self-goverment. In the second place, the US must always be mindful of its world-wide responsibilities. Strategic considerations cannot be lost sight of. In the years ahead the titanic battle now raging between communism and democracy may depend in substantial part upon the millions of subject peoples in Asia and Africa. The US cannot afford to let itself be placed on the opposite side of the fence from these peoples. We cannot afford to alienate them nor to throw them into the Soviet camp. In the third place, the US must be mindful of the problems and difficulties of the colonial states and of our friendship for them. In the European theater where the Western powers are under constant Soviet attack, the US must seek to strengthen and uphold these Western European powers, including particularly the colonial powers.
I went on to say to the Ambassador officially that the US is deeply concerned in this whole problem of colonial development. I informed him confidentially about the telegram which was sent yesterday afternoon to our Embassy in London (London #4660 December 30),2 a copy of which is attached hereto, speaking of our concern and our hope to talk over this basic problem with the governments of the United Kingdom, France and Belgium. I mentioned to the Ambassador the news report which I had seen to the effect that the Western colonial powers expect to hold a conference in Paris in January to plan united front defense against UN “encroachment” in affairs of their colonies and dependencies, and expressed the hope that there might be a full exchange of views bilaterally between the US and the UK, France and Belgium in the near future. I said that undoubtedly the British Foreign Office is now formulating its policy and that the other members of the conference would doubtless look to the UK for leadership. I expressed the hope that such British policy as might be formulated would be broad-visioned and not based upon a fearful and defensive attitude of trying to hold off the United Nations from what colonial powers might consider overzealous activity. I said that to me the issue goes far beyond legal and constitutional questions and cannot be confined to a consideration merely of the legal powers of the Fourth Committee. I repeated that should the colonial powers formulate a [Page 374] merely negative policy based upon defensive tactics against the UN, it could even cause a possible rift of misunderstanding between these nations and the US. In a problem involving issues as grave as these the US can never adopt a negative policy but must pursue a constructive one based upon strategic as well as colonial considerations.
I concluded by saying once again to the Ambassador that I had come to him to bare my heart in this very personal way because I am convinced that the UK and the US have fundamentally the same objectives in this problem and should find a way of working closely and wholeheartedly together.
The Ambassador replied with words of deep appreciation and showed that he thoroughly understood the spirit in which I had come. When I finished, he recapitulated the gist of what I had said. I received the impression of an understanding mind and of his substantial agreement with all that I said.
- Copies of this memorandum of conversation were distributed to the Deputy Under Secretary of State (Rusk), the Bureau of United Nations Affairs, all the geographic bureaus, the Policy Planning Staff, and the embassies at London, Paris, and Brussels.↩
- Included in documentation scheduled for publication in Foreign Relations, 1950, volume ii .↩