CFM Files: Lot M–88: FMD Papers1

Policy Paper Prepared by the Bureau of Near Eastern, South Asian, and African Affairs2

FM D D–4

Future of Africa

i. problem

To define the basic policy objectives and interests of the United States towards Africa, with particular relation to those areas which are non-self-governing, and to determine in what respects it would be desirable to achieve agreement with the United Kingdom and/or France, and/or the NAT countries on these objectives, taking due account of their respective policies toward the area.

ii. background

Africa has been assuming increasing importance in world affairs since the end of World War II. It is believed that this importance will continue to increase. The factors which have contributed to this trend are:

The strategic value of Africa clearly demonstrated during the war, particularly in the northern part, is increasing.3
Africa is a source of many raw materials which are of strategic importance to the United States and to Western Europe. The resources of Africa would assume even greater importance should other sources become unavailable. The economic potentialities of Africa are also of sufficient importance to warrant the attention of a number of nations.
Africa contains virtually the last frontier areas in the world. Western European nations administering areas in that Continent (the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain and recently Italy) have high hopes of strengthening their positions in these areas in order to strengthen their overall economic and strategic positions in the world.
While Communism has made very little headway in most of Africa, European nations and the United States have become alert to the danger of militant Communism penetrating the area, The USSR has sought within the United Nations and outside to play the role of the champion of the colonial peoples of the world.
While the greater portion of the areas of Africa have as yet no firm nationalist aspirations, there are certain areas such as French North Africa and British West Africa where the spirit of nationalism is increasing. The USSR has sought to gain the sympathy of nationalist elements. As yet the efforts of the USSR in this field have met with little success.
In the United Nations the problems of a great part of the African Continent have been receiving increasingly more attention, particularly in the Trusteeship Council, the Special Committee on Information Transmitted under Article 73e of the UN Charter and Fourth Committee (trusteeship) of the UN General Assembly.

The European Nations administering areas in Africa are extremely sensitive to anything which might in their opinion tend to lessen their influence or weaken their positions in Africa. The United Kingdom, France and Belgium have recently displayed varying degrees of increasing resentment over the part played by the United Nations with respect to non-self-governing and trust territories. In addition, they have not been entirely happy about the role of the United States. There have been numerous signs recently that some French Government officials and responsible opinion are not only apprehensive but also suspicious of United States intentions with regard to French North Africa and French West Africa. While these suspicions on the part of the European powers are unfounded, they nevertheless continue to exist. The differing views of the United States and the colonial powers on the colonial question have become a source of irritation between ourselves and the Western European nations which should be removed in so far as is possible.

Africa is today the largest remaining backward area in the world. The manner in which the continent is developed over the next fifty years will determine in a large measure whether the peoples of Africa will be friendly to Western European and American objectives or whether Africa will become the site of increasing differences between the native populations and the West.

It is in the interest of the United States from the broad point of view of our overall world policy that (1) we have as much understanding and cooperation with Western European Nations on the [Page 1526] future of Africa as is possible; and (2) the political, economic and social evolution of Africa proceed in such a way that the peoples of Africa will be favorably disposed towards the United States and other Western Nations.

iii. discussion

A. Attitudes, interests and policy of the United States with regard to Africa.

The American people interested in the future of Africa have certain basic attitudes which influence United States policy:

A humanitarian interest in assisting under-privileged peoples.
Faith in the concept that the dependent peoples of the world can be assisted in progress towards ultimate self-government or independence through4 the practical application of technology and American ideals of democracy.
Belief that Africa has considerable undeveloped resources and will be important in the future in any world struggle.
Interest on the part of religious and philanthropic groups in assisting African peoples.
Interest on the part of commercial enterprises.
Sympathy of the American Negroes for the aspirations of the African peoples, particularly those living in the area south of the Sahara.

It is in the interest of the United States to achieve the following objectives in Africa:

Political and economic stability sufficient to resist domination by unfriendly movements or powers through subversion or aggression.
Advancement of the social, political, economic and educational condition of the African, peoples5 and of harmonious relations between them and the other peoples with whom they are associated.
Development of political relations between the colonial peoples and the metropolitan countries which would in the long run strengthen both.
Creation and preservation of an attitude of friendship and respect for the United States on the part of the African peoples.
Advancement of United States strategic interests in access to raw materials, air and sea bases, air routes, communications points, etc.
Advancement of direct United States trade, investment, and transportation interests.
Increased total African production and trade and participation in world trade.
Development of conditions which will lead to a conviction on the part of the African peoples that their individual and national aspirations can best be achieved through continued association with the UN, and the free nations of the world, both during their period of colonial or trust status and when they become self-governing or independent.
Development of assurance on the part of colonial peoples in other areas of the world and those only recently emerged from colonial status of the sincerity of our support for the realization of their aspirations for eventual self-government or independence.

We have sought to follow a policy with respect to the dependent areas of Africa based on three fundamental precepts:

We look with favor upon the progressive development of dependent peoples toward the goal of self-government, and the development of those dependent territories, where conditions are suitable, toward independence.
We desire to assist and encourage the Nations of Western Europe with interests in Africa to regain their strength.
We do not wish to see militant Communism gain any control whatsoever in the area.

The United States has recently demonstrated interest in the development of Africa through aid under the ECA program and through programs under Point Four when the latter becomes law. In general, we believe that our economic goals in Africa should be achieved through coordination and cooperation with the colonial powers. We do not desire to initiate programs in those areas which might cause friction among the United States, metropolitan powers and the colonial peoples.

With respect to French North Africa we consider this area of great6 strategic importance. It has been our policy to encourage the French Government on all appropriate occasions to put forward a program of political, economic and social reform which would assure the gradual evolution of dependent territories in that area toward selfgovernment and to secure the agreement of the native leaders thereto. We believe the strength of France depends in no small measure on peaceful integration into the French Union of this important area. This should be accomplished, however, on a voluntary basis and the continued relationship should also be voluntary. Consequently French reforms should be such as to instill confidence in responsible native leaders. On the whole we do not believe that the French have accomplished much along these lines during the past four years although there are recent indications that they may take some progressive [Page 1528] steps in Tunisia soon. However, we do not wish to bring pressure to bear on France by giving aid and comfort to the natives directly, although we do maintain open and above-board contacts with the native leaders and consider their good-will and friendship important.

Our primary objective in French West and Equatorial Africa is to keep those territories under friendly and effective administration. To this end we recognize the legitimacy and desirability of French political control. We approve the liberal measures of the Constitution of 1946 and favor the orderly development of democracy in both territories within the structure of the French Union.

We are willing to cooperate with French efforts to combat Communism when the French want our help and when it is consistent with our overall policy. Under the same conditions, we will extend economic assistance to the territories, both to enhance their strategic value and to strengthen the French economy and the economy of the territories themselves.

With respect to areas in Africa under British and Belgian control, we have been generally sympathetic toward the efforts of these Governments to develop these areas. We have not taken any action of a positive character vis-à-vis the United Kingdom or Belgium on these matters other than through ECA.

Within the United Nations, pursuance by the United States of its objectives on colonial questions has generally placed the United States in the moderate position between the more conservative colonial powers on the one hand and non-administering members on the other. On occasion, as required, United States Delegations have lined up clearly with either the administering or non-administering group and have incurred criticism at times by spokesmen of both groups.

B. Attitudes, interests and policies of France, the United Kingdom, and Belgium in Africa.

France. Under the Constitution of 1946, the French Republic unilaterally established the French Union. This Union is designed to include the dependent territories. Algeria is an overseas department of the French Republic, while French West Africa, French Equatorial Africa and Madagascar are overseas territories. The position of Tunisia and Morocco, as protectorates in the French Union, is still unsettled. Togoland and the Cameroons (trust territories) are, according to French interpretation, associated territories. African representatives from overseas areas sit in the various legislative bodies in Paris, a practice which has caused some criticism in the UN, but which has also received favorable comment.
In North Africa the chief political problem confronting France has been the aspirations of the Arab nationalists. The nationalists [Page 1529] have not been unified, nor have they been strong although there have been very recent signs that their strength may be slowly increasing in Tunisia. Nevertheless, neither the Sultan of Morocco nor the Bey of Tunis have assented to the inclusion of Morocco and Tunisia into the French Union. French governmental authorities in general believe that the process of developing progressive political institutions must be slow. Comparatively little has been done to meet the demands of the nationalists. This is due in part to the fact that rightist and centrist groups within France have generally supported imperial domination of this area as well as all areas under French control, while the leftists in France have supported the chief aims of the nationalists short of independence. France considers North Africa as a vital link in her economy and security. Communism in North Africa is not nearly so strong as in France.
The major objective of French policy in French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa is to integrate the area politically with metropolitan France. To this end the Constitution of 1946, which established the French Union, gave the natives French citizenship. It also accorded the franchise to a limited number of natives. The majority of the natives are too backward to make effective use of these privileges at present, but the door is open to future representative government within the French Union. A second French objective is to develop French West and Equatorial Africa into important supports for the French economy. Further objectives are to combat the spread of Communism and to prepare the military defenses of both territories, and the government of French West Africa, to become a haven for the Paris Government in the event that France is conquered by an aggressor. The French Government, however, is somewhat embarrassed by the presence in the African territories of a small number of French Communists who are attempting to sow discord among the natives.
The United Kingdom. British colonial policy in Africa as presently defined has four major objectives: (1) political freedom and self-government for the colonial peoples within the framework of the Commonwealth of Nations, advanced as rapidly as circumstances existing in given areas permit, and speeded up through programs of education and economic improvement; (2) the reinforcement of native institutions which are not incompatible with native welfare and progress; (3) the promotion of the social welfare of the colonial peoples through programs for the improvement of health, the development of educational institutions, including techniques of mass education, and the encouragement of higher standards of living; and (4) the economic rehabilitation and development of the colonial territories. [Page 1530] These objectives are being sought through their method of indirect rule which favors the development of traditional institutions but causes some criticism among the younger educated Africans.
Belgium. Belgian policy in the Belgian Congo appears to be aimed at raising the economic and social standards of the natives with no emphasis being placed on political independence. While it is believed that the ultimate goal of Belgium in the Congo is that of a high degree of self-government, such a status is not expressly stated in official pronouncements. It is probably implied in the emphasis which is placed on the economic and educational development of natives to which there is no stated limit. Belgians evidently consider that political autonomy is a natural evolution to be reached when a dependent people becomes economically and intellectually capable of governing itself.

In 1949, the Belgians inaugurated a Ten-Year Plan for the economic and social development of the Belgian Congo. The Plan is directed to a balanced development of the country.

C. Economic Development in Africa.

The importance of the economic development of Africa has been clearly recognized by the European nations administering areas in that continent. These nations hope that there can be an increase of production of certain foods and minerals in Africa. At the same time they hope that markets in Africa for European goods can be increased. The United States has recognized the desirability of stimulating the development of the African territories.

There has been a tendency to place the emphasis on Europe’s need for Africa rather than on the mutual need of Africa and Europe for each other. It is now our view that the mutuality of this need should be emphasized.

American interest in the development of Africa has recently been manifested in two principal ways: (1) through ECA assistance and (2) through plans under Point Four.

The overseas territories of the Marshall Plan countries lie principally in Africa. They cover an area of some 7,700,000 square miles with a total population of almost 130,000,000.

ECA’s economic objective in aiding these territories is to enlarge reciprocal contributions which can be made by them to European and overall economic recovery and development; to ensure that positive and tangible benefits will accrue from such aid to the inhabitants of these territories, and to strengthen the economic well-being of the United States through increased imports of essential raw materials and a broader market for its exports.

[Page 1531]

To a large extent, ECA assistance will be in the nature of support to key development projects within the scope of plans which have already been made by the metropolitan countries and the territories. These overall plans contemplate an investment of several billion dollars in all currencies over the next ten years. ECA’s assistance thus is and will be marginal, with the major financial responsibility resting upon the four European governments concerned—Belgium, France, Portugal and the United Kingdom—and upon the territories themselves.

ECA assistance for these territories consists principally of supplying dollars to finance purchases of equipment which must be obtained from the United States, to render technical assistance and to develop strategic materials available for the United States stockpile. United States equipment is needed for such purposes as improving or constructing roads, railroads, canals and harbors, for developing mines and for hydro-electric power. Technical assistance ranges from surveys of means by which Africa’s unusual resources can be developed, to study and advise on matters dealing with tropical diseases or training of technical personnel. Strategic materials projects include those dealing with development and transportation of cobalt, lead, zinc, copper, graphite, columbite, tentalite, corundum, mica, industrial diamonds, bauxite, manganese, tin and platinum. The assistance is financial from the following categories of ECA funds: The Special Reserve Fund for Overseas Territories, Technical Assistance Funds, Strategic Materials Funds and Allocated Program Funds.

Preliminary indications show the possibility of the African participating territories increasing their dollar earnings, or saving dollars to the extent of several hundred million dollars in the year 1952/53 as compared with their record prior to ERP. Nearly two-thirds of this increase could be accomplished by greater production of material such as sisal, copper, vegetable oils, cinchona bark and derivatives, ivory, and tin. In the case of France there is a clear possibility of their African territories becoming by this date important net contributors of foreign exchange to the French Union.

The correlation of the ECA program for Africa and the Point Four Program for underdeveloped areas has been carefully worked out with the Department of State and a mutally satisfactory agreement reached which is designed to eliminate any duplication of effort.

While that part of the ECA program devoted to economic development projects in Africa is already under way, the Point Four Program has not as yet passed the planning stage. At present there still appears a lack of complete understanding as to our true intentions on the purpose and scope of the Point Four Program in Africa. So far [Page 1532] as the United Kingdom, France and Belgium are concerned, development plans in Africa involving technical assistance have already been instituted. Their reaction to United States Point Four plans has thus far been reserved and cautious.

With respect to Point Four Program, we believe that (a) paramount consideration should be given to the needs of the peoples of Africa in negotiation and execution of technical assistance and investment programs and that the allocation of funds reflect this principle, (b) care should be taken to overcome any doubts or suspicion by recipient governments regarding United States intentions and programs with political implications should be avoided, and (c) there should be careful coordination of all plans for technical assistance.

The official position of the United Kingdom with respect to African development is that all such development should be primarily for the benefit of the colonial peoples. The British recognize, in addition, the great importance of the African colonies in reestablishing the United Kingdom’s balance of payments. Investment in the colonies has been of major concern to home government. Almost all of the new economic development schemes in British territories are financed by United Kingdom arid local government funds. Ten-year plans have been formulated for each of the African colonies under the British Colonial Development and Welfare Program.

British taxpayers are contributing £120,000,000 over a ten-year period ending on March 31, 1956, most of which is to be spent on the development of British Africa. Money from this fund is to be supplemented by loans raised by the colonial governments and by local revenues. In May 1949, ten-year plans from 21 colonial governments had been approved.

France and Belgium have also launched colonial development programs. In 1946 France set up a Fonds d’investissement pour le developpement economique et social [des territoires d’outremer]7 (FIDES) which combines contributions from both metropolitan and colonial governments. Estimates for expenditures in France Overseas from this and other funds for the year 1948–49 totaled 37 billion francs including 12 billion francs private investment. Big development schemes are actively under way in the French Cameroons and other African territories.

The Belgian ten-year plan includes projects for the development of highways, port facilities, warehouses, forestry, agriculture, geology, cartography, medicine, education, public buildings, telecommunication and virtually every other phase of colonial life. Total outlay of [Page 1533] public funds spread over a period of ten years is expected to approximate five hundred million dollars. Transportation and electrification are the two fields that have received the greatest attention, and evidently will require the largest outlays. There is no provision in the plan for any invasion of the industrial or commercial fields that have characteristically been conducted in the past on a private enterprise basis. However, the Plan anticipates a concurrent investment of another five hundred million dollars in the various fields of private investment.

The Plan also includes various projects in the fields of native housing, hygiene, and industrial training, all designed to improve the living conditions of the native peoples.

A further step forward, both in colonial development and in international cooperation in Africa, is the joint undertaking of the British, French, and Belgian governments to coordinate important aspects of their colonial planning. Since the end of World War II, close contacts have been established between London, Paris, and Brussels. In Africa successful conferences on veterinary problems, public health, and communications were held at Dakar and Accra in 1946 and 1947. These conferences were a prelude to important talks between the British, French, and Belgian Governments in Paris on May 20–23, 1947 at which an agreement was reached to hold eight technical conferences in Africa between 1947 and 1950 on agriculture, health, and problems of rinderpest, trypanosomiasis and the tsetse fly. These conferences are being attended by representatives of other governments, and by Africans as well as Europeans. The Soil Conservation Conference at Goma in the Belgian Congo in November 1948 is a good example of this constructive effort. Fifty-four Belgian delegates and 47 delegates from British, French, and Belgian territories in Africa, the Union of South Africa, and the Food and Agriculture Organization drew up resolutions calling for (1) a bureau in Paris to disseminate information on soil conservation in all African territories, (2) the coordination of technical information on East, Central and Southern Africa, and (3) the study and classification of African soil and establishment of pedological service with headquarters at Yangambi in the Congo. Representatives of the governments of Britain and France met in Paris in January 1950 and agreed to recommend to their governments the establishment of the Commission for Technical Cooperation in Africa South of the Sahara. This Commission would serve the purpose of a clearing house for the exchange of information and plans on technical assistance in Africa south of the Sahara. Portugal, Belgium and the Union of South Africa would also be on this Commission.

[Page 1534]

D. Possibilities of European Settlement in Africa.

The question of possibility of European settlement in Africa has been repeatedly raised during the past several years. Italy, in particular, has expressed a keen interest in the question. The recent American Consular Conference held in Lourenco Marques8 considered whether Africa south of the Sahara might provide homes within the more or less immediate future for surplus populations, including refugees, of European countries in areas considered suitable for European settlement. The conference reached the following conclusions:

The prospects for increased European settlement in these regions appear to be sharply limited because of the following considerations:
The highland areas presumably suitable and available for European settlement, while covering about 175,000 square miles or more, are with certain exceptions, relatively poor in resources.
The possibilities for European agricultural settlement in the areas considered habitable for Europeans are restricted by such barriers as inadequate water resources, insects, pests and disease; the land supply available to European enterprise; the limited availability of markets and the entirely inadequate transportation facilities; the large acreage required per unit of European enterprises; the high cost of European agricultural settlement; and the inability generally of individuals and governments to provide the capital and subsidies essential for the maintenance of a European agricultural population in these areas at the standard of living expected by Europeans.
The outlook for a permanent European urban and industrial population in most of the territories is uncertain. Even though significant expansion occurs in mining, commerce, and industry the chances for the establishment of a large European working class are limited in most of these areas.
The growth of a permanent European population in these areas is further inhibited by inability among Europeans to compete with the natives and by the necessity imposed on the white man to maintain a relatively high standard of living.
It was recognized that there are, in terms of physical and economic aspects, possibilities for European settlement in certain selected areas (e.g., Southern Rhodesia and Angola) on the basis of present inadequate information. However, in these cases such prospects depend on development programs which may not be implemented for some time to come.
It was recognized, moreover, that there are serious social, political and policy considerations which militate against extensive European settlement in all the Conference territories.

[Page 1535]

In light of the foregoing, we believe that careful scrutiny of the potentialities for European settlement in the African territories south of the Sahara should be made before the United States Government supports a policy of European settlement.

iv. recommendations

During your conversations with the French and British Foreign Ministers regarding our policy and objectives towards Africa, with particular relation to those areas not as yet independent, it is recommended that you adopt the following line of action:

A. Tripartite conversations with the British and French:

We believe that it is in our common interest that there be achieved in Africa political, economic and social stability sufficient to resist domination by unfriendly movements or powers through aggression or subversion. In this connection, we believe consideration should be given to conditions conducive to long-range, as well as short-range stability. We desire the alignment with the democratic world of dependent peoples and those which are looking forward to the achievement of ultimate self-government or independence.
We are interested in the advancement of the social, political, economic, and educational condition of the African people and of harmonious relations between them and the peoples and governments with whom they are associated.
We desire to see the development of increased economic and, where necessary, strategic advantages to France and the United Kingdom through their colonial and trust territories. We must insist, however, that equal economic treatment be accorded to American capital and to American nationals who engage in trade in these areas. We favor the progressive development of all dependent peoples towards the goal of self-government and the development of those dependent territories, where conditions are suitable towards independence. In this connection, we are sympathetic towards the efforts of France and the United Kingdom in the steps they have been and are taking to advance the dependent peoples in their areas towards ultimate self-government. We hope that these efforts will continue unabated. We favor the strengthening of relationships between the Metropolitan powers and the colonial territories so long as the peoples within the territories desire such development.
We will endeavor to promote understanding on the part of non-colonial powers of United States objectives and policies in the colonial field in Africa, as well as an understanding of the problems, responsibilities and achievements of France and the United Kingdom.
We believe that increased total African production: and trade and participation in world trade will be beneficial not only to the Western European nations and the United States but also to the African peoples. In so far as possible, we are prepared to assist the United Kingdom and France in their efforts towards this goal.
On its part, the United States wishes at the same time to develop its direct trade, investment and transportation interests wherever and whenever possible and practicable. We desire to have access to raw materials, air and sea bases, air routes, and communications points, and to be guaranteed the right of equal economic treatment in the colonial territories of Africa.
The United States also desires to have an attitude of friendship towards it on the part of the African peoples.
With regard to possibilities of European immigration into African areas, we believe that this should be given very careful study, having regard to the serious political, economic, and racial issues involved.
With regard to the role of the United Nations as it affects dependent areas in Africa, we have been giving careful study to the whole colonial question in the United Nations for the past several months. It has been tentatively agreed that the role of the UN in relation to dependent areas will be the subject of bilateral conversations between ourselves, the British, the French, and the Belgians in the early future. In the meantime, however, we might assure these three governments that we will continue to give careful consideration to their views in determining the position the United States Will take in voting in the United Nations on problems affecting their interests in Africa.
(The Department’s views and conclusions with respect to discussion of the overall colonial question are the subject of a separate Position and Background paper.9)
We wish to have the fullest possible mutual understanding and cooperation between the United States and France and the United Kingdom on colonial policy and, in so far as is possible, an understanding by them of basic United States objectives towards Africa. [Page 1537] We wish to assure France and the United Kingdom that whatever may be our interests with regard to Africa, it is our desire that they be coordinated with France and the United Kingdom.

B. Conversations with the French

In addition to the points set forth in the preceding section, it is recommended that the following additional points be made to the French Government:

The United States wishes the French Government and French officials in overseas areas to understand and be assured of the fact that the United States has no intention of pursuing a policy designed to weaken the relationships between France and the overseas areas. On the contrary, we wish to see these bonds strengthened. Our economic assistance, the activities of the USIE and other aspects of our policy with regard to French territories in Africa are not in any way designed to undermine French influence.
With regard to French North Africa, our views remain substantially the same as they have been during the past three years. We believe that Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia are of great importance to the strategic position of the Western European Nations and the United States. We desire to see the maintenance of peaceful and stable conditions in that area. At the same time we wish to have the friendship of the peoples in that area without adversely affecting their feelings toward France.
We believe that the political stability of this area can best be assured by the development of some plan guaranteeing evolution towards self-government which concurrently safeguards the economic development of the area and the legitimate French interests by its voluntary and peaceful integration into the French Union. (We are aware, of course, that Algeria has been incorporated into metropolitan France.) We are in accord with the belief of the French that the resurgence of her strength depends in no small measure on the peaceful integration into the French Union of this important area. We believe that events are moving rapidly and that it is essential for the French and the natives to achieve a sound friendly relationship.
We suggest again that the French Government give serious consideration to approaching leading nationalist elements in Tunisia and Morocco with constructive, concrete and long-range plans which will guarantee gradual but sure evolution towards something comparable to dominion status for these countries within the framework of the French Union. We believe that it would be most useful for the French to establish a time table for any such plans.
We should make clear to the French Government that we understand that the other areas in Africa under French administration have very different features when compared with the colonial areas of the Far East or other underdeveloped areas of the world. We appreciate the fact that the peoples in so-called “Black Africa” are not as far advanced. We understand that they have not yet achieved a full knowledge and understanding of modern political, economic and social institutions; but we believe that there must be an orderly, [Page 1538] guided development of these peoples towards political maturity which only time and patience can provide.

C. Conversations with the British

There are no points not already covered in Section IV A above which the Department thinks it necessary to take up with the United Kingdom Government at this time.

D. Conversations with other NAT Countries10

Should the question of Africa come up during conversations with the Belgians it is recommended that we follow the general line set forth in IV A above. There are no additional points.
It is possible that the Italian Foreign Minister may bring up the question of furthering Italian immigration into Africa. If this eventuality should occur, it is recommended that you inform him that the United States is not able to take a position in support of European immigration to Africa at this time. We believe the problem requires careful study and scrutiny. It would seem that the best course for the Italian Government to pursue would be to work out directly arrangements with European nations administering areas in Africa.
It is not believed that Portugal has any desire to speak about the subject of Africa at this time.
  1. Lot M–88 is a consolidated master collection of the records of conferences of Heads of State, Council of Foreign Ministers and ancilliary bodies, North Atlantic Council, other meetings of the Secretary of State with the Foreign Ministers of European powers, and materials on the Austrian and German peace settlements for the years 1943–1955 prepared by the Department of State Records Service Center.
  2. This paper was circulated in the Department of State as document FM D D–4, April 20. It was concurred in by the Bureau of European Affairs, the Bureau of United Nations Affairs, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, as well as by the Economic Cooperation Administration. It was one of a series of policy and background papers prepared for the U.S. Delegation to the meetings of the American, British, and French Foreign Ministers in London, May 11–13, and the preliminary tripartite meetings of experts that preceded the ministerial talks. Regarding the May meetings of the Foreign Ministers and the use made therein of the paper printed here, see the editorial note, p. 1541.

    Telegram Tosec 144, May 9, to London, for Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Hare at the meetings of the Tripartite Foreign Ministers indicated changes to be made in document FM D D–4 to take into account suggestions made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (396.L0/5–950). Those changes are described in footnotes 3, 4, 5, and 6, below.

  3. According to telegram Tosec 144 (see footnote 2, above), this sentence was to be changed to read as follows: “The strategic value of Africa, particularly the northern part, has been clearly demonstrated.”
  4. According to telegram Tosec 144 (see footnote 2, above), the word “through” was to be replaced by the phrase “by setting an example of”.
  5. According to telegram Tosec 144 (see footnote 2, above), the phrase “at a rate commensurate with their capacity” was to be inserted after the phrase “African peoples” in Section A.
  6. According to telegram Tosec 144 (see footnote 2, above), the word “great” was to be changed to “considerable”.
  7. Brackets in the source text.
  8. Regarding the Lourenço Marques Conference, February 27–March 2, see the memorandum from Assistant Secretary of State McGhee to the Secretary of State, April 12, p. 1514.
  9. The reference here is presumably to document FM DF–3, April 27, not printed. This paper, entitled “Colonial Question”, was another of the many policy and background papers prepared in the Department of State for the meetings of the American, British, and French Foreign Ministers in London in May. The paper recommended that no conclusions be reached on the general colonial question at the Foreign Ministers’ meetings in view of plans to hold bilateral discussions on the question before the next session of the United Nations General Assembly in the autumn of 1950 (CFM Files, Lot M–88, Box 149). Regarding the disposition of the question at the meetings of the Foreign Ministers and the Washington conversations on colonial questions in the summer of 1950, see the editorial note, p. 1541.
  10. The Fourth Session of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Council was held in London, May 15–18, immediately following the meetings of the American, British, and French Foreign Ministers. The subject of Africa appears not to have been discussed at the Council session. For papers and reports on the session, see vol. iii, pp. 1 ff.