The Department has been informed that the American Committee on
Dependent Territories, created as a result of a resolution adopted
at the Ninth International Conference of American States (Bogotá
1948),2 will hold its first
meeting in Habana on March 15. No representative to this Committee
has been appointed by the United States. The attached paper
summarizes the functions of this Committee, analyzes the attitudes
of European and other American governments toward it, and presents
the chief arguments, which have been advanced during a period of
several months’ consideration of the problem, both for and against
participation by the United States. It concludes with a
recommendation that a representative should not be appointed, but
indicates certain steps which should be taken in connection with
making this decision known to other governments and to the
public.
I recommend that the paper and its recommendations be approved, and
that the attached instruction to the United States Representative on
the Council of the Organization of American States be signed.3
[Annex]
Position Paper
Participation in American Committee on
Dependent Territories
problem
To determine whether the United States should appoint a
representative to and participate in the work of the American
Committee on Dependent Territories, which will soon convene in
Habana as a result of action taken at the Bogotá Conference.
background
Article XXXIII of the Final Act of the Ninth Conference of
American States (Bogotá) (Annex A) declares that … it is the
just aspiration of the American Republics that colonialism and
the occupation of American territories by extra-continental
countries should be brought to an end”, and provides for the
creation of an American Committee on Dependent Territories to “…
centralize the study of the problem of the existence of
dependent and occupied territories in order to find an adequate
solution to that question”. This centralized study is to be
carried on with a view to seeking “pacific means of eliminating
both colonialism and the occupation of American territories by
extra-continental countries”. Reports on each of such
territories are to be submitted by the Committee to the Council
of the Organization of American States for transmission to
member states “for study and information” and subsequent
consideration by a Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of
Foreign Affairs.
Following Bogotá there was considerable delay in the appointment
of representatives by fourteen countries, as required by Article
XXXIII, and further delay in the selection of a date for the
meeting. The necessary appointments have been made, however, and
the COAS has fixed March 15 as
the date for the Committee to begin its sessions in Habana.
Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua,
Uruguay and the United States have not yet appointed
representatives.
Although the Resolution was approved by a large majority, Brazil
opposed its adoption, the United States and the Dominican
Republic abstained on the entire Resolution, and Chile abstained
on creation of the Committee. Most active in advocating its
approval were Argentina, whose obvious interest lies in
strengthening outstanding claims to the Falklands and in
Antarctica, and Guatemala, with a similar interest in British
Honduras (Belize). The traditional attachment of American
countries to the principles of self-government and
self-determination of peoples was also a factor of importance to
advocates of the Resolution. The United States abstained on the
grounds that
[Page 432]
the
Conference was not a court of law; that, in any event, action
appearing to support the claims of one of the parties to a
territorial dispute was not appropriate for a meeting in which
the other party was not represented, and that means for
examining the problems of dependent peoples are provided in the
Charter of the United Nations.
The Department has continued to hold these general views with
regard to the Committee as well as the Bogotá article which
created it. Our missions in most of the other American republics
were instructed to convey our general position to the Foreign
Ministers of those countries early in December, and the
responses to these approaches indicated that there was slight
genuine interest in the Committee, except for that obviously
held by Argentina and Guatemala. Cuba, Mexico, Paraguay and
Colombia indicated some sympathy with the general objectives,
but none of the countries which have not appointed
representatives seem likely to do so, while Brazil has been firm
in its expression of opposition to the Committee and its terms
of reference. Many of the countries which have appointed members
have selected their chiefs of mission or other diplomatic
officers in Habana. Failure of the United States to designate a
representative has produced a certain amount of unfavorable
comment in Latin America, although the Committee itself has
scarcely attracted enough attention yet for this to have become
extreme. One factor in this lack of interest has been the
discretion of the British in avoiding a repetition of the
excitement created in 1947–48 over Belize and Antarctica.
As holders of the territories in question, although the amount of
their control varies considerably, the British, Dutch and French
have made known to the Department on numerous occasions since
the Bogotá Conference their extreme distaste for Article XXXIII,
the Committee resulting from it, and their apprehension at
possible participation by the United States. In response to
their queries and those of the press, the Secretary and officers
of the Department have merely stated that no decision on
appointment of a U.S. representative has been reached, but that
all aspects of the problem were being given full
consideration.
Departmental consideration has, in fact, been going on for
several months and has produced a fairly evenly balanced set of
arguments for and against U.S. participation. These may be
summarized as follows:
For participation:
- (1)
- Failure of the United States to join will open this
Government up to criticism for boycotting an
inter-American organization established by majority vote
of the Bogotá Conference, as the USSR has boycotted UN
agencies;
- (2)
- It would avoid the risk of encouraging Latin American
as distinguished from inter-American cooperation;
- (3)
- It would offer an opportunity for U.S. influence to be
thrown against unwise actions which the Committee might
otherwise take;
- (4)
- It would prevent the accusations, which are certain to
develop, that the United States is indifferent to the
fate of dependent peoples;
- (5)
- Non-participation will not eliminate the necessity for
our dealing with the questions raised, either in their
immediate context or in the long run, since in any event
the Committee’s reports are to be considered by a
Meeting of Foreign Ministers;
- (6)
- Positive expression of our views at Habana is
necessary in order to prevent the Committee from acting
in such a way as to create dissension among freedom
loving countries in this time of crisis, cast an
unfavorable light on the inter-American regional
organization, or establish a bad precedent that the
question of colonial territories is an appropriate one
for action by regional groups which exclude the
metropolitan countries directly involved. There is
danger, in this connection, that the viewpoints of the
fourteen countries present will be fixed so firmly at
Habana that there will be no opportunity for subsequent
majority alteration at a Meeting of Foreign
Ministers.
Against participation:
- (1)
- U.S. participation will be resented by the British, Dutch
and French;
- (2)
- Brazil has indicated she will not attend;
- (3)
- It will be interpreted as inconsistent with our UN”
obligations, especially since we have taken the position
that, if international action on the problems is necessary,
it should be done through the UN;
- (4)
- It will be interpreted as lending U.S. support to claims
for disputed territories with regard to which we have always
maintained an impartial attitude;
- (5)
- It will be inconsistent with our abstention at Bogotá, and
the reasons for which that position was taken;
- (6)
- It will, if carried on by the U.S. representative
consistently with the principles we have always expressed,
actually antagonize the Latin Americans more than if we
abstained;
- (7)
- It has been pointed out that, since the Committee could
only get the information necessary to prepare useful studies
with the consent of the metropolitan governments, which will
not be given, or by interfering in one or more ways with
their internal affairs, which would be contrary to basic
inter-American and UN obligations, the specific purpose for
which it was created cannot be achieved, and the United
States would not therefore associate itself with such an
enterprise.
It now appears that the Committee will have only fourteen members
when it meets, and that of these fourteen there will be some
representatives of countries which will not have any strong
desire to bolster the cases of those which have obvious axes to
grind. Since Article XXXIII requires that the studies prepared
by the Committee shall be transmitted by the COAS to all the American
governments “for their information and study”, and subsequent
consideration by a Meeting of Foreign Ministers, it would appear
that this Committee
[Page 434]
can be viewed primarily as a body for preliminary action in
which the views even of the participating governments need not
be regarded as fixed or final. It would be highly desirable to
emphasize this interpretation, since it would mean that, even if
the United States, Brazil and others do not participate, there
would be subsequent opportunity, not only for them to express
their views on reports which are almost certain to be
unacceptable, but also for the countries which are to be
represented subsequently to oppose the Committee’s findings. If
it is determined that the United States shall not participate,
this position could be explained to the other governments by
stating that, while we do not think the Committee is an
appropriate body to study problems affecting countries not
represented, we specifically reserve our right and declare our
intention to examine its results and we feel that all
governments, whether represented or not, should take the same
position.
If this position can be maintained, it appears that many of the
unfortunate consequences of non-participation could be
minimized, while the opportunity would not be lost for the
United States and the Organization of American States to lessen
the danger that the original unwisdom of Bogotá will be
compounded.
recommendations
It is, therefore, recommended that:
- (1)
- The Representative of the United States on the Council
of the Organization of American States inform the
Secretary General of the OAS that the United States does not plan to
appoint a representative to the American Committee on
Dependent Territories, and transmit a memorandum to the
other representatives on the COAS stating our reasons for not making
this appointment, together with an indication that we
may wish to comment on the reports emanating from the
Committee. An instruction to this effect is attached for
the signature of the Secretary.4
- (2)
- The substance of the memorandum referred to above
should be communicated through our Embassies in the
other American Republics, together with the suggestion,
wherever appropriate, that, in view of the serious
questions of principle regarding the Committee, those
governments also reserve their final opinion regarding
any conclusions the Committee may reach.
- (3)
- After an appropriate interval, the substance of the
above mentioned memorandum should be made public.
