IO Files
Minutes of Meeting of Administering Members of the
Trusteeship Gowicil, New York, July 3, 1951
New York, July 3, 1951
confidential
US/T/127
| Participants: |
Sir Alan Burns, Representative of the
United Kingdom Delegation in the Trusteeship Council |
|
Mr. W. A. X. Mathieson, Alternate
Representative, United Kingdom Delegation |
|
M. Leon Pignon, Representative of the
French Delegation |
|
M. Henri Laurentie, Gouverneur des
Colonies, Alternate Representative on the Trusteeship
Council, French Delegation |
|
Mr. Pierre Ryckmans, Representative
of the Belgian Delegation |
|
Mr. B. C. Ballard, Representative of
the Australian Delegation |
|
Sir Carl Berendsen, Representative of
the New Zealand Delegation |
|
Ambassador Francis B. Sayre,
Representative in the Trusteeship Council, United States
Delegation |
|
Mr. J. Jefferson Jones, III, Adviser,
United States Delegation |
After passing copies of the redraft of the Anglo-French memorandum on
the Ewe question to the representatives present, Sir Alan Burns said
that he would like to make a few general comments on the redraft. In
the first place, the French and British in redrafting the [Page 580] memorandum had attempted
to embody in the new draft as many of the suggestions made by those
present at the last meeting as was practicable.1For example, the order of the memorandum had
been changed and what was considered the more positive parts of the
memorandum, i.e., the proposals dealing with the establishment of
the Joint Advisory Commission, had been placed in the first part of
the memorandum followed by the provisions explaining why unification
was not possible. Sir Alan said that the United States criticism
that the original memorandum would create the impression that the
door was permanently closed on all forms of unification had been
taken into consideration in redrafting the memorandum, and that
paragraph 7 of the memorandum had been altered in order to indicate
clearly that the administering authorities concerned did not mean to
imply that unification was permanently ruled out. Sir Alan said that
he would appreciate the support of the other administering powers in
obtaining Council endorsement of the memorandum, and that he
considered it particularly important to emphasize that the two
administering authorities had earnestly considered various possible
solutions and had reached the conclusion that no solution involving
a change in political boundaries could satisfy more than a minority
of the peoples concerned.
Mr. Mathieson said that he would like to make a few comments of a
more detailed nature regarding the alterations in the original
memorandum contained in the redraft. The British and French had
decided to make an addition at the end of paragraph 4 of the
original memorandum clearly stating that the administering
authorities were satisfied that the Consultative Commission had
served its purpose and had no role to play in the future. According
to Mr. Mathieson, it was thought that this addition would be helpful
in making plain that the Joint Advisory Commission described in the
memorandum was not merely a refurbishing of the Consultative
Commission. Commenting on the new paragraph 6 in the redraft, Mr.
Mathieson said that the British and French had decided to include in
the memorandum a statement that the large majority of difficulties
to the Togoland people resulting from the frontier between the two
Togolands had been removed. Referring to the criticism made at the
previous meeting by various representatives that the functions of
the Joint Advisory Commission were not sufficiently spelled out, Mr.
Mathieson said that the British and French accepted this criticism
and had [Page 581] attempted to
delineate more clearly what, in their opinion, should be the
functions of the prospective commission, and particularly had tried
to set forth more clearly the financial responsibilities of the
commission.
In reply to a question by Ambassador Sayre, Sir Alan said that he had
transmitted to London the United States suggestion that the minutes
of the two Consultative Commission meetings be issued separately
from the memorandum, but that it was believed in London that the
reports should be issued as annexes to the memorandum. Sir Alan said
that he personally doubted that the inclusion of the reports on the
Consultative sessions would adversely affect the reaction of
non-administering powers to the proposals embodied in the
memorandum.
Ambassador Sayre asked if the British and French thought that any
purpose would be served in retaining in the memorandum that portion
of paragraph 4 which was critical of the Ewe groups which did not
participate in the Consultative Commission. Ambassador Sayre
questioned whether it might not be better to omit these portions of
the paragraph, since their inclusion might lessen the chances that
the All-Ewe-Conference Members would be willing to participate in
the Commission. Sir Alan replied, with the concurrence of the
French, that it was thought that this portion of the memorandum
should be retained, and that its retention would not affect either
one way or the other the Ewe reaction to the document.
Ambassador Sayre said that he would like to have some clarification
of the portion of the redraft dealing with the financial
responsibilities of the proposed Development Commission (paragraph
17). Sir Alan commented that, while it was true that the Commission
would have only advisory functions, it was likely that its advice
would be followed by the appropriate governmental bodies. Sir Alan
in attempting to illustrate the role of the proposed commission said
that if, for example, the Gold Coast Government decided to build a
school in Togoland, it would request the advice of the commission as
to where the school should be located and would undoubtedly follow
the advice given. Both Sir Alan and M. Laurentie pointed out that
there should be no overlapping of functions between the legislative
assemblies of French Togoland and of the Gold Coast with the
Commission; that the two legislative assemblies by law were charged
with certain responsibilities and could not transfer these
responsibilities to the Commission. Moreover, care would have to be
exercised to keep from “treading on the toes” of the local
governmental bodies which were extremely jealous of their
prerogatives.
Governor Ryckmans asked if the British and French had any idea of
what the reactions of the Gold Coast and Ewe leaders, including [Page 582] Nkrumah, Antor, and the
two Olympios,2would be to the
proposals. M. Laurentie said that he did not know but that he
anticipated that their reactions would become known since Antor was
already in New York and would remain at least until after the
Council discussions of the Ewe question. It was also expected that
both Pedro and Sylvanus Olympio would be present at Council
discussions of the Ewe problem. M. Laurentie stated that Sylvanus
Olmpio had altered his views and now favored Togoland unification
rather than Ewe unification. Governor Ryckmans said that his
experience as a colonial administrator had convinced him that the
administering authorities who possessed the responsibilities for
administering a particular territory were in a better position to
know what was best for the people of that territory than was any one
from the outside. He would, therefore, support the proposals
contained in the memorandum. He made no further mention of his
previous suggestion for the establishment of an “Ewe Provincial
Assembly” within the framework of the Commission.
Sir Alan then asked if Sir Carl would care to give his comments on
the redraft. Sir Carl replied that he had received the comments of
the New Zealand Government on the original memorandum and that his
Government considered the memorandum to be “ineffectual”. The New
Zealand Government also believed that, even if the Council accepted
the memorandum, the solution which it provided would cause “violent
altercations” in the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly.
Mr. Ballard expressed regret that he had not as yet received the
views of his Government on the memorandum.
Ambassador Sayre stated that, in his opinion, the redraft constituted
an improvement over the first draft but that the United States would
like to have the views of other Members of the Council and of the
peoples directly concerned before determining its final position
with respect to the memorandum.
Sir Alan reiterated his hope that the various administering
authorities in their talks with other delegations would support the
Anglo-French proposals. He also said in reply to a question from
Ambassador Sayre that if the Council approved the proposals it was
anticipated that the Advisory Commission would be established
immediately and would be functioning before the time the General
Assembly was convened. Sir Alan said that it should be remembered
that next year a [Page 583] visiting
mission would visit the West African trust territories including the
two Togolands and, since the Commission would have been functioning
for almost a year at that time, it would be possible for the
visiting mission to make a realistic appraisal of the
accomplishments of the Commission.
A copy of the redraft of the original Anglo-French memorandum is
attached.
[Annex]
Redraft of Anglo-French Memorandum
Paras. 1–4 as in original draft.
Add at end of (4)
“Nevertheless they must add that they are satisfied that the
Consultative Commission had served its purpose of
elucidating the views of the majority of the people of the
two Trust Territories, and they desire to place on record
their appreciation of the manner in which the Commission has
carried out its terms of reference, handicapped as it was by
the absence of a section of its members. Even in its
expanded form, however, it was a special body elected for a
specific task and that task has now been fulfilled. In the
positive arrangements for the future the Administering
Authorities envisage no continuing role for the Consultative
Commission.”
ii. the basic principles governing
consideration of the problem
5. In preparing this memorandum, and indeed from the outset of
the matters with which it deals, the Administering Authorities
have been conscious that any proposals which they finally put
forward must conform to two principles;
- 1.
- they must pay full regard to the known wishes of the
peoples of the two territories and command general
acceptance or at any rate acceptance by a large
majority;
- 2.
- any change in political organisation in the
territories must be practicable from the economic and
fiscal aspects as well as on political grounds.
Throughout this memorandum these two principles are regarded as
fundamental to the examination of the problem with which it
deals and to be the basis both for the proposals put forward and
for the criticisms which are advanced of alternative suggestions
for a solution.
iii. practical steps of an economic,
cultural and fiscal character
6. It must be stated at the outset that much has been
accomplished in the four years in which this matter has been
before the Trusteeship Council to alleviate the difficulties
which the presence of the frontier causes. The Administering
Authorities sympathise with the Ewes in [Page 584] their desire to retain their cohesion and
with all the inhabitants of the two Togolands whose family
connections and normal avocations have been affected by the
existence of the boundary between the two territories. They have
always been ready, and are now, to do everything practicable to
meet all legitimate grievances and remove every impediment to
free association across the frontier. Already by the end of 1948
considerable ameliorations had been effected and these are fully
described in paragraphs 13 to 52 of the Special Report made by
the Visiting Mission on the Ewe problem, which for convenience
of reference are appended as Annex II to this memorandum. They
include extensive improvements in such fields as the movement of
persons, goods and currency, public health, education,
communications and taxation. In the intervening period since
1948 progressive improvements have been accomplished and as a
result of the extensive concessions which have been made there
is now complete freedom of movement of persons and only the
minimum restraint on other traffic. The efficacy of these
improvements can be gauged by the fact that no significant
complaints of difficulties caused by the frontier were brought
to the notice of the two Governments in 1950.
7. That further progress in this field is possible is evidenced
by the recommendations made in paragraph 7(iv) and (v) of the
Summary Statement of the second session of the Consultative
Commission in regard to economic, social and cultural matters.
In the comparatively short time which has elapsed since the
close of the second session of the Commission the Administering
Authorities have given earnest and urgent consideration in
conjunction with the authorities on the spot, to the
implementation of these recommendations. While some raise issues
of considerable complexity involving also administrative
arrangements which cannot safely be improvised a number of
decisions have already been reached and put into effect which
will be communicated to the Trusteeship Council by the Special
Representatives of the two territories.
iv. substantive proposals of the
administering authorities
8. The Administering Authorities recognise that the practical
steps described in the preceding paragraphs cannot yet be
regarded as completely satisfying the aspirations of the peoples
concerned. They are fully conscious that the existence of two
separate administrations exerts a sundering influence on these
peoples of the two Trust Territories who feel natural ties of
kinship and they have considered together, in response to the
recommendation of the Trusteeship Council at its Eighth Session,
in what way an effective link can be maintained between the
peoples on each side of the frontier. For reasons which are
analysed in detail in the concluding section of this memorandum
they have reached the decision, based on the fullest possible
consultation [Page 585] with the
people of the territories, that it is conclusively demonstrated
that no solution involving an alteration of boundaries or of
political allegiance can currently be
proposed which commands the general assent of the peoples of the
two territories or even the agreement of a majority. They are
equally satisfied that no change of this nature can be
undertaken which does not raise a fresh set of problems, whether
political, economic or fiscal, in place of those which they are
now considering. They feel that the setback which the disruption
of any change would cause in the political and economic fields
must outweigh the advantages to be derived from the
gratification of the ambitions of political groups in the
territory, none of which represents a majority. They
particularly wish to make clear one point which they feel has
not always been evident to all the advocates in the respective
territories of unification in one form or another. Unification
must imply the creation of a political entity. Such an entity
must have its own constitutional organisation, whatever may be
its relationship to one or more of the neighboring territories.
It must have its own administrative organisation and its own
fiscal and economic structure which will enable it to stand on
its own feet financially and to maintain and develop itself. If
new frontiers are created, new controls and customs barriers
must be set up on those frontiers if the separate existence of
the new entity is to be established and preserved. The
renunciation by one part of the present Trust Territories of its
present status must inevitably mean the abandonment by it of the
advantages which it enjoys under its present state in exchange
for any which might be conferred by its new state; and this in
its turn must greatly influence the prospects of viability of
the new territory.
9. Within the framework of existing boundaries, however, there is
scope for closer relations between the peoples of the two
Territories. The Administering Authorities have noted with
considerable interest the reference in paragraph 4 (a) of the Summary Statement of the Second
Session of the Consultative Commission to the desirability of
harmonising the policy of development in the two Trust
Territories as an essential corollary to their advancement
towards self-government. The Administering Authorities are fully
in sympathy with this view, and it has been and will remain
their object to administer the territories in the closest
co-operation. They feel that the problem which has been raised
in the Trusteeship Council by Ewe and other petitions cannot be
considered in isolation and is not of a nature which permits of
some immediate solution. In Togoland, as in West Africa as a
whole, developments and changes are going on at a rapid pace in
all fields. On both sides of the frontier which divides the two
Trust Territories, important developments are in progress in the
shape of regional and local government and in the manner of
participation by the inhabitants in the administration of public
affairs. The final pattern cannot yet [Page 586] be set; in the meantime the inhabitants of
the Trust Territories are gaining political experience and
maturity by participation in these developments. This was
recognised by the 1948 Visiting Mission which in its Special
Report on the Ewe problem (Document T/798, paragraph 101) said
“The Political formula that will in the opinion of the Mission
meet the situation in the future depends to a large degree on
the people of two Togolands themselves, on the extent of a well
informed public opinion, and on the political maturity of the
people. Such a condition appears to be rapidly advancing in the
South”.
10. In order to associate the people more directly with their
efforts to ensure congruity between these developments, the
Administering Authorities have decided that a joint body of
representatives of the two Trust Territories should be created
which would be an effective instrument in establishing these
closer relations. Although it is clear that any such new body
can have no executive or legislative power extending over both
Trust Territories, it should nevertheless be a meeting place of
representatives of the peoples of the two Togolands wherein
views on the development of the respective territories can be
exchanged and co-ordinated and the measures of development in
every field harmonized and stimulated.
11. The new body would meet at regular intervals and as often as
the occasion demands. It would have the opportunity of
discussion and consultation with the senior Administrative and
Technical Officers from each side and would consider and advise
the two Administering Authorities jointly on the planning and
implementation of the programme of development, economic and
social, in the light of available resources and on all other
practical questions relating to the preservation of close
connection between the peoples on each side of the frontier,
together with any further amelioration of conditions caused by
the existence of the frontier. It will of course review the
progress of the measures referred to in paragraph 7 above and
also advise on their development. One important feature of the
functions of the new body will be to advise the Administering
Authorities on the projects of common interest on which they
consider it necessary that funds should be expended and on the
priority which should be accorded among such projects in the
expenditure of funds as they become available for such purposes
from the respective administrations. Discussions are now in
progress between the most senior representatives of the two
Administering Authorities on the detailed organisation and
functions of this body which will make it effective for the
purposes set out above.
12. The Administering Authorities believe that by this means it
will be possible for them to maintain and develop the
administration of their respective Trust Territories in
accordance with the terms of the Charter and of the Trusteeship
Agreement. They believe also that [Page 587] given this link, together with the
existing close collaboration between French and British
Authorities, both locally and at the Metropolitan level, the
legitimate aspirations of the people of the Trust Territories
will be assured and any prejudice to their interests avoided
during the period of their advance towards self-government.
v. analysis of the various proposals for
unification which have not been accepted by the
administering authorities
13. The Administering Authorities have not reached the
conclusions indicated above without the most searching
re-examination of all the various proposals for “unification”
which have been advanced from time to time by different groups
in the Territories. As is made clear by careful analysis in the
report of the Visting Mission on the Ewe problem, the term
“unification” does not imply any single or agreed solution of
the demands put forward by the petitioners. There is, on the one
hand, a group consisting of the pan-Ewe parties which advocates
unification of the areas inhabited by Ewes; on the other hand,
there are elements, in the main based solely in Togoland under
United Kingdom Trusteeship which advocate unification of the two
Trust Territories as a whole. Either of these projects, viewed
within the framework of British and French Administration, is
capable of more than one interpretation; there may be
unification under French Trusteeship, under British Trusteeship
or conceivably under some form of Anglo-French Trusteeship.
Here insert paragraphs 8–16 of original draft as paragraphs
14–22.
viii. conclusion
23. It is for these reasons, which in view of the history of this
question they felt bound to expose in some detail for the
consideration of the Trusteeship Council, that the Administering
Authorities have reached the conclusion that the proposals set
out in section IV of this memorandum offer the best prospect of
leading the two Trust Territories towards the most rapid and
harmonious attainment of the aims embodied in Chapter XII of the
Charter and they commend them to the Trusteeship Council and to
the peoples of the Territories.
