Department of State Committee files, lot 54 D 5, “Working Group on Colonial Problems”
Minutes of Meeting of the Working Group on Colonial Problems, Department of State, June 27, 1952, 10:30 a.m. to 12:10 p.m.
CP M–2
Present
- UND
- Mr. William Cargo, Acting Chairman
- Mr. J. R. Fowler
- EUR
- Mr. Ridgway Knight
- Mr. W. B. Sale
- L/UNA
- Mr. Leonard C. Meeker
- Mr. C. Runyan
- UNP
- Mr. Eric Stein
- Mr. Vincent Baker
- P
- Mr. Walter Schwinn
- NEA
- Mr. Harry N. Howard
- WE
- Mr. Francis Spalding
- S/A
- Mr. Louis H. Pollak
- TCA
- Mr. Lawrence Cramer
- FE
- Miss Ruth Bacon
- S/P
- Miss Dorothy Fosdick
- ARA
- Mr. Simon Wilson
- S/S–S
- Mr. E. M. Christensen, Secretary
I. Approval of Minutes (CP M–1)
1. The minutes of the first meeting were approved as issued.
II. Future Work Program of the Working Group (CP D–1, D–1/1, D–2 and D–3)
2. The Chairman called attention to the documents which had been prepared to assist in planning the future work program of the committee. He recalled that at the first meeting the group had agreed to adopt a dual approach and consider not only specific problems but overall colonial questions as well. The Chairman asked the group to comment on the consolidated list of suggested topics (CP D–1) and the outline summary of the 1950 paper (CP D–3).1 He noted that the entire 1950 paper had been retyped and would be distributed by the Secretariat.
3. Mr. Howard asked whether it would be possible to reproduce with the reprint of the 1950 paper the various statements on colonial problems by U.S. officials which were to have been appended to the 1950 paper. He also suggested that this list of statements might be brought up to date. The Chairman expressed agreement with Air. Howard’s suggestion and indicated that UND would assume responsibility for preparing such a collection.2
4. The Chairman asked for views on what approach should be taken toward overall consideration of the colonial problem, noting that CP D–3 had been prepared only as a point of departure. Mr. Stein inquired as to the purposes behind the preparation of the 1950 paper. The Chairman replied that it had been undertaken as part of a comprehensive review of colonial problems but that in view of the impasse which had resulted, it had been taken along to the London Foreign Ministers’ Conference (May 1950) for information only. In response to a question from Mr. Howard, the Chairman said that certain offices in the Department had approved the 1950 paper, but that others had suggested further changes, some of a major character. Since 1950 no further work had been done on the paper.
5. Mr. Howard said that he had reread the 1950 paper and thought that it was an admirable approach to the colonial question even though there have been many new developments in the field since 1950. He suggested that most offices should have no difficulty in accepting such a paper as an overall policy statement without committing themselves on specific problems. Mr. Meeker urged that S/P be requested to do a general paper which would contain statements of policy which could be applied to specific colonial problems. Such guidance, for example, [Page 1133] would be helpful in an attempt to reconcile the underlying conflicts referred to in Mr. Pollak’s memorandum (CP D–1/1, pages 1 and 2). He suggested that it would be preferable to have this paper drafted in S/P rather than in the working group, and through such a paper guidelines could be established on what the working group should do on specific problems. Mr. Pollak expressed agreement with Mr. Meeker’s suggestion, but Miss Bacon asked whether the working group would continue to meet while such a paper was being prepared. She suggested that although S/P’s thoughts might be helpful, CP could still examine the general approach and type of guidance needed on the colonial problem. She concluded that the group’s work program might be delayed through awaiting preparation of a paper by S/P. Mr. Meeker said that he was not suggesting that the working group delay its work on specific problems. The Chairman said that in view of Miss Fosdick’s absence he would contact S/P in order to see what they planned to do with reference to a study of the colonial problem. It would then be possible for the group to decide what should be done. He expressed the belief that the various drafts which could be prepared by the offices represented on CP might be very helpful in the consideration of the overall approach which should be adopted.
6. Mr. Knight said that he would like to make some general comments on the problem of colonies since he had not been present at the previous meeting. He said that in his opinion the heart of the problem as far as the State Department was concerned had been set forth in Mr. Pollack’s memorandum in which he said “in a general way we all know what our colonial policy is…. Our problem is that in various specific situations other factors have intruded themselves and a conflict of U.S. positions frequently results.” He said that it would probably be possible for the working group to agree on a general statement of U.S. policy but that such a statement would not be too helpful. He asked whether a frank approach to the underlying differences on U.S. policy in the past would not be the most helpful step. He discussed the varying attitudes of the interested areas in the Department toward the colonial problem. On the basis of the existing situation Mr. Knight made the following comments and suggestions: (1) unless underlying differences among the interested areas of the Department have been resolved the papers produced by the working group will be pointless; (2) the papers on specific problems which are prepared must be carefully written in order that they will not be rejected, for example, by the Department of Defense. He noted that in the case of Tunisia all areas in the Department and EUR had done everything possible to push the French on Tunisian reforms. He suggested that the group might discuss Morocco as a specific case since our past course on this question had been neither “orderly nor evolutionary”; the American people should be educated on the merits of an evolutionary [Page 1134] approach to the colonial question; (5)3 at the same time we should develop a strong position that can be used in the UN and through which we will not be forced to try and outbid the Soviet Union for the support of the underdeveloped areas of the world; (6) he suggested that the 1926 Comintern paper on Communist strategy toward colonies could be used as a highly effective source of anti-Communist propaganda material; (7) finally, an effort should be made to get France to follow a line in the UN similar to that followed by the UK.
7. At this point the Chairman called upon Miss Fosdick, who had just arrived at the meeting, to comment on the suggestion that S/P draft a guide paper on the overall phases of the colonial question. Miss Fosdick said that S/P is now planning an extensive study of the colonial question but that it was not certain as to how soon a guide paper for CP could be prepared from this study since the colonial problem will be considered in relation to other major problems. Mr. Howard asked whether the S/P study would deal with action problems. Miss Fosdick said that is was primarly a projection for the next five or ten years and would probably not be too helpful for use in the next General Assembly. The Chairman asked how this study would be related to the 1950 paper on colonial problems. Miss Fosdick said that objectives would constitute one part of the S/P study but that this section would not constitute the main portion of the study. She suggested that the working group continue to move ahead on its own and noted that Mr. Sandifer and Mr. Ferguson had agreed that the group would have to work on specific problems. The Chairman said that it would be helpful if Miss Fosdick could keep the group informed on how best to proceed in light of the S/P study. Miss Fosdick said that S/P and the working group should conduct their studies independently but that she would keep the group informed.
8. Mr. Pollak said, with reference to Mr. Knight’s comments that Le agreed that seeking general conclusions would not be a fruitful experience since philosophical generalities would be of little help. Mr. Knight said that it was very vital that we examine the underlying elements and differences. In his view part of the trouble with the 1950 paper was that it was not properly balanced. The pro-independence elements of the papers had been over-emphasized and nothing had been included about the debit side of independence for colonial peoples. He concluded that unless we recognize the debit side our position will be so weak that it will be outweighed by military considerations.
9. Mr. Howard said that he agreed with Mr. Knight that it would be difficult to explore the various colonial problems but that nonetheless it might be possible to reach general agreement. He questioned [Page 1135] however whether the conflict was one of semantics since, for example, we know through historical experience what “orderly evolution” is. He cited the example of the British Commonwealth as an illustration. He suggested that the examination of such examples might lead to two steps: first, the group could consider specific colonial questions; and second, the formulation of an overall program could be kept in mind as the first step was being carried out.
10. The Chairman said that he was aware that agreement on general terms would not solve the group’s problems and therefore, it would be best to concentrate on specific problems. However, the idea of getting comprehensive statements of U.S. colonial policy should not be discarded in view of its helpfulness. He said that it was very important that the underlying issues of colonial policy be discussed.
11. At the suggestion of the Chairman, it was agreed that the 1950 paper should be scheduled for subsequent discussion. At that time it will be possible to see what divergencies exist and what adjustments in the paper are necessary and what new lines of investigation might be required. An attempt will then be made to reach general agreement on an overall statement.
[Here follows discussion of the Working Group’s work program, on the basis of the consolidated list appearing in Doc. CP D–1. The final list of documents prepared by the Group is printed on page 1123.]