Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, United Nations Affairs, Volume III

Department of State Committee files, lot 54 D 5, “Working Group on Colonial Problems”

Memorandum Prepared in the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs¹

confidential

[Washington, June 25, 1952.]

The following constitute some of the more obvious examples of interest and concern demonstrated by Latin American countries in the problem of dependent peoples, with particular reference to those in the Western Hemisphere.

The final act of the Bogota Conference of 1948 contains a resolution (XXXIII) which includes the following declaration:

“that it is a just aspiration of the American Republics that colonialism and the occupation of American territories by extra-continental countries should be brought to an end.”

Although this Declaration was not supported by the Delegations of the U.S. and of Brazil, it may be taken as accurately reflecting the continuing viewpoint of most, if not all, of the other American Republics. It is interesting to note, for example, that at the 1951 Washington Meeting of Consultation of American Foreign Ministers this Declaration was mentioned in a resolution restating inter-American principles regarding European colonies and possession in the Americas (Resolution VI). In addition to the above Declaration, the action taken at Bogota provided for the creation of a special committee of the Organization of American States to study and recommend a solution to what was referred to as “the problem of the existence of dependent and occupied territories.” Although participation in this committee was not unanimous, representatives of 14 of the American Republics met in Havana in 1949 and came up with a rather broad set of conclusions.

The reasons for such Latin American demonstrations of interest and concern in the status of dependent peoples, it seems to me, are basically two:

(1) the natural reaction of governments of countries which have attained sovereignty and independence from metropolitan powers and which have been exercising that independence over a considerable period of time. It is interesting to note, for example, that among the considerations upon which the Bogota Declaration was based were the following:

“Whereas:

The historical process of the emancipation of America will not be complete so long as there remain on the continent peoples and regions subject to a colonial regime, or territories occupied by non-American countries;

The ideal that inspired the epic of the independence of America will always animate our peoples and governments, united in their moral pledge to strive by all peaceful means within their power to eliminate from the continent any status of dependency, whatever its form, political, economic or juridical;

Ever since they achieved their independence, the American States have had this common objective, which has lately been defined in precise terms at the Meetings of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, held at Habana and at Rio de Janeiro; in Resolutions condemning colonial regimes in America and reaffirming the right of the peoples of this continent freely to determine their own destinies;”

Countries which regard themselves as having not only obtained independence from colonialism, but also as having spent a considerable portion of the period since gaining independence in defending themselves against encroachments upon that independence, are not likely to take what we might regard as a purely objective attitude toward what they believe to be the right of other peoples to attain the status they enjoy.

(2) The existence and long continuation of a number of instances in which the sovereignty of a particular area or region is in dispute between one or another of the American Republics and a European country. The outstanding examples of such disputes are the following:

(a) The Belize Dispute, largely between Guatemala and the British. In this case, Guatemala insists that it was unjustly deprived of the control of the territory known to Guatemala as Belize and to the British as British Honduras, and the British just as insistently claim that territory as theirs. Various attempts have been made to bring this dispute to a satisfactory settlement, but its continued existence is an important reason why Guatemala has continually taken every opportunity to belabor the issue of colonialism both in the Organization of American States and the United Nations. This dispute is somewhat complicated by the fact that Mexico regards itself as entitled to portions of British Honduras. Although the Mexicans have not been aggressive in raising the issue, they have made it unmistakably clear, whenever it is raised, that, should there be any change in control of the territory, Mexico would demand what it regards as its share.

(b) Falkland Islands—Although the British have maintained control of the Falkland’s for considerably more than 100 years, Argentina has always maintained that the islands properly belong to it. As in the case of Guatemala, the existence of this dispute undoubtedly offers the principal reason for Argentina’s continually demonstrated interest in raising the issue of colonialism in international forums.

(c) British Guiana—Although an arbitration award in 1897, resulting primarily from the positive position taken by the United States, presumably settled the issue of the boundary between Venezuela and British Guiana, the Venezuelan government has on occasion revived the issue. This was done most recently in connection with certain “revelations” regarding the circumstances of the original arbitration. This issue was unquestionably a factor in the general support which Venezuela has given, at least in the Organization of American States meetings, to anti-colonialism. The Resolution of the Washington Foreign Ministers meeting referred to above, was, for example, based upon a proposal of the Venezuelan Foreign Minister. It is also possible that Venezuelan interest in the neighboring Dutch Islands has affected that government’s attitude on the question.

(d) Antarctica—Although the absence of population in Antarctica eliminates the “colonial” aspect of the matter, the interest of the two Latin American countries, Argentina and Chile, which are claimants to portions of Antarctica, helps to keep alive their concern regarding the entire dependent areas problem. In spite of the fact that a fairly successful tripartite agreement among Argentina, Chile and the United Kingdom, which is renewed annually, has tended to reduce irritation, there have been incidents from time to time which threatened to cause a real flare-up in relations between the Latin American countries on the one hand and the British on the other.

1. Circulated to the Working Group under cover of Doc. CP D–2, June 25, 1952.