IO Files
Department of State Instruction for the United States Delegation to the Eighth Session of the Trusteeship Council
SD/T/167
Item 13: The Ewe Problem (Item 17 on the Provisional Agenda)
The Problem:
The problem is to formulate the position of the United States Delegation to the Trusteeship Council regarding the Ewe problem (Item 17 of the provisional agenda). As presently listed on the agenda, this problem will be raised in connection with General Assembly Resolution A/1616 of December 2, 1950 (copy attached as Annex A to this paper). Presumably discussion of this problem will also include consideration of the report requested by Trusteeship Council Resolution 250 (VII) (copy attached as Annex B). A number of petitions are also related to the Ewe problem (list attached as Annex C).
Recommendations:
1. The Delegation should, as in the past, be guided by the principle of support for such proposals as seen most likely to achieve demonstrable progress, with the least possible delay, toward a solution of the problem raised by the Ewe unification petitions.
2. The Delegation should point out the desirability of considering the British and French progress report on the expanded Consultative Commission (Trusteeship Council Resolution 250 (VII) in conjunction with the French report on its investigation of complaints by the Ewes concerning the manner in which elections to the Commission were carried out in French Togoland (General Assembly Resolution A/1616). The Delegation should also take the position that, until action has been taken by the Council on Item 17, consideration of petitions relating to the above matters should be held in abeyance.
[Page 522]3. The Delegation should consult with the Department as necessary with reference to such specific proposals as may emerge consequent to the consideration of the above-mentioned reports. The discussion section of this paper contains an analysis of previous proposals and provides certain tentative lines of guidance.
Discussion:
Since the history of the Trusteeship Council’s consideration of petitions concerning the Ewe unification movement and related questions has been summarized in previous position papers (especially those for the 6th and 7th sessions), this discussion will attempt only to summarize major developments at and since the Seventh Session of the Council.
The major development at the Seventh Session was the adoption by the Council of Resolution 250 (VII). (See Annex B.) This resolution took into account 140 petitions, the report of the UN Visiting Mission to West Africa, the oral statements made by certain petitioners, and the plan put forward by the Administering Authorities (T/702) as explained and amended in the statements made in the Council on July 11, 1950. This plan was to expand the standing Consultative Commission for Togoland Affairs “to make it fully representative of all the people of both Territories” and charge it with the task of “ascertaining the real wishes of the whole population of the two Trust Territories”. The plan was amended on July 11, 1950 by the Administering Authorities to make clear “that the Commission is not precluded from submitting to the Administering Authorities recommendations for the ‘unification of any parts of the two Trust Territories’”. The Administering Authorities also accepted the interpretation of the United States Representative that such recommendations could include unification “either under British, French, or Franco-British administration” (T/SR 308). The Council expressed the hope that the Administering Authorities would proceed along the lines proposed and would “take all appropriate steps to ensure that the Consultative Commission will equitably represent the different sections and groups of the two Trust Territories”, and it requested “the Administering Authorities concerned to inform the Council at its next session of the steps which have been taken to give effect to the plan for the expanded Consultative Commission and to submit to the Council a progress report on the deliberations of the Consultative Commission to date”. The representative of the All-Ewe Conference, Mr. Sylvanus Olympio, stated (T/SR, 308) that “although he appreciated the great concession which had been made by the Administering Authorities in permitting the Ewe people at least to discuss their unification, he could not accept that as a satisfactory solution. He could, therefore, do no more than simply inform the people he represented that the concession had been made”. Subsequently, however, (see T/PET.6/201–7/166/Add.1) the [Page 523] All-Ewe Conference agreed to cooperate in the formation and work of the expanded Consultative Commission.
The All-Ewe Conference later reversed this decision. The events leading up to this reversal were brought to the attention of the United Nations by a petition (T/PET.7/160–6/194 and Addenda 1–5) from the President of the Comité de l’Unité Togolaise, French Togoland affiliate of the All-Ewe Conference. Discussion of this petition was introduced into the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly (Fifth Session) by the representative of the Philippines. The petition contains two principal complaints. The first of these is that in French Togoland the method of selecting delegates to the standing Consultative Commission did not result in the choice of delegates who were generally representative of the people. Instead, delegates were elected by electoral colleges whose members were selected by the chiefs, who were under the influence of the administration. As a result of the protests of the Comité de l’ Unité Togolaise, the French administration modified the electoral procedure so that: “The population of each village shall appoint a certain number of grand electors (members of the electoral colleges) under the auspices of the village chiefs or regents in council, traditionally responsibile for order, and without intervention of the Administration.” The Comité de l’Unité Togolaise interpreted this to mean that village meetings could thereupon be held to appoint “grand electors”, and it proceeded to organize such meetings. Arrests were made on the charge that the meetings were held in an illegal manner. This resulted in the second complaint of the Comité de l’Unité Togolaise, which was that persons were arrested and imprisoned because “they wished to have indigenous customs observed in the elections”.
After these arrests, the Comité de l’Unité Togolaise decided to withdraw from further participation in the procedures for selecting delegates to the enlarged standing Consultative Commission. While, in general, the selection of delegates in British Togoland took place without difficulty, the All-Ewe Conference, in protest against the electoral procedures in French Togoland, declared that the Ewes in both Togo-lands would not participate in the work of the Consultative Commission until the “French Togoland elections were revoked and free elections held” (T/PET.6/201–7/166). Should this not be done, the Conference announced that the Ewes would not feel bound by the proposed Commision’s decisions.
Considerable discussion of the complaints contained in the petition from the Comité de l’Unité Togolaise took place in the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly. The representative of France denied that the chiefs had imposed their choice of electors upon the people of their villages. He pointed out that among African indigenous people, opinions were usually made known and decisions [Page 524] taken through free general discussion at gatherings in the village square. He asserted that the petitioners’ allegations that instructions had been issued to the local administrative officials to exert pressure upon the electoral colleges was “an absolutely false and unfounded accusation”. With regard to the arrests which had taken place, he pointed out that they had been made on charges of (1) calling a meeting without the advance notification required by law and (2) uttering: threats of armed violence.
The discussions in the Fourth Committee led to the adoption by the General Assembly of its resolution of December 2, 1950 (A/1616). (See Annex A.) This resolution noted not only the complaints made in the petition from the President of the Comité de l’Unité Togolaise but also the comments to the contrary contained in other related petitions. It noted, furthermore, the declarations made on these matters by the representative of France in Committee Four. Its principal operative paragraph recommends that the Administering Authority of Togoland under French Administration investigate promptly the practices complained of with a view to ascertaining whether the methods of election which have been applied ensure that the views of all sections of the population are faithfully reflected, and to report thereon to the next session of the Council. The discussion preceding the adoption of this resolution indicates that most of the members of Committee Four did not consider that there was sufficient evidence on which to come to a decision as to the validity of the complaints contained in the petition of the President of the Comité de l’Unité Togolaise.
It should be noted, however, that the consideration of petitions relating to the Ewe question by the Fourth Committee not only established a precedent but also was evidence of the growling impatience of a number of non-administering countries with the slow progress made by the Administering Authorities concerned and by the Trusteeship Council toward a solution of the problem. This demonstration of concern by members of the Fourth Committee introduces a new element of urgency and gives greater weight to the desirability of making demonstrable progress before the next session of the Assembly.
Whatever may be the results of the investigation recommended by the General Assembly, it is apparent that the enlarged standing Consultative Commission is not presently fully representative of the different sections and groups of the two trust territories, being boycotted by the representatives of the Ewes, the largest single group concerned. It would seem, therefore, that while it may be important for the Council to determine whether or not there is any truth in the allegation that the methods of election prevented the views of the population from being fully represented, it would seem more important for the Council to devise a procedure for ascertaining the real wishes of [Page 525] the population which would be acceptable both to the Administering Authority and to a majority of the peoples concerned. Several proposals have been made at previous sessions. These include (1) a plebiscite under United Nations supervision, (2) a special mission to visit the two trust territories and to make new recommendations, and (3) new elections to the standing Consultative Commission under United Nations supervision.
A Plebiscite Under UN Supervision
The idea of a plebiscite under UN supervision was suggested by the representative of the All-Ewe Conference. Although feeling that the views of the Ewes had aleady been adequately explored, Mr. Olympio stated that the Conference was prepared to put the issue to such a plebiscite (T/SR.303). However, he evidently conceived of the plebiscite as taking place only in the Ewe areas, including those in the Gold Coast, for he stated that “the All-Ewe Conference was most anxious that the unification of the Ewe people and the unification of the two Territories of Togoland should be treated as two separate questions.” The Council not only failed to adopt the idea of a plebiscite [supported by the Philippines; opposed by the two Administering Authorities], but Resolution 250 (VII) clearly indicates that the Council accepts the view of the Administering Authorities that the interests of the inhabitants of all parts of the two Trust Territories and must be ascertained. The Council has, of course, never attempted to extend its competence outside the Trust Territories. The Council’s failure to adopt the idea of a plebiscite was probably in part the result of its realization of the difficulties involved in carrying out a plebiscite on such a complex matter. At any rate, it seems unlikely that this solution will ever prove acceptable to the Administering Authorities.
A Special Visiting Mission
The suggestion of sending a special mission to Togoland and the idea of holding elections under the supervision of the UN were made by the representative of the Philippines. As these suggestions may arise again at the eighth session, it will be well to give some consideration to their merits. The idea of sending a special mission to the Togolands involves certain difficulties. The original Philippine proposal (4th Committee, 161st meeting) envisaged a mission “to investigate on the spot the various grievances which had been voiced” in connection with the elections in French Togoland. This proposal could only be reintroduced and adopted by the Council if a majority of its Members were dissatisfied with the investigation carried out by the French Administration. Such a situation seems unlikely. More likely would be a proposal for a mission to visit both Togolands in order to study the entire problem on the spot and to recommend new procedures for a solution. It might even be suggested that this task be assigned to [Page 526] the next Visiting Mission to East Africa, as a special additional function to be carried out en route to or from East Africa. It might well be objected, however, that any mission would find it as difficult to make specific recommendations as did the previous Visiting Mission to West Africa. Furthermore, the Ewes might consider such a mission merely a device for postponing action; nor are the Administering Authorities likely to look with favor on the idea.
New Elections to the Standing Consultative Commission
The suggestion of holding new elections for delegates to the enlarged standing Consultative Commission under the supervision of the United Nations would seem to be of doubtful value unless electoral procedures acceptable to all of the principal parties concerned can be agreed upon. Possibly some kind of United Nations assistance might be helpful in enabling the parties to formulate and agree upon such procedures. The Council might recommend consultation by the Administering Authorities with leaders of all important indigenous groups with the aim of working out agreed election procedures, offering its assistance should such consultations fail. Of course, there is the possibility of discarding the Consultative Commission as a means of ascertaining the wishes of the people; however, in as much as it is not the Commission itself, but only the procedures for selecting its members that has brought about the present impasse, it would seem desirable to pursue the attempt to arrive at acceptable procedures. In any event, it is apparent that the cooperation of all the principal groups concerned is essential to any successful solution.
- This text does not incorporate three footnotes which include citations to the official records of the Trusteeship Council and the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly.↩