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

350/2–1552

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Officer in Charge, Trusteeship Affairs ( Cargo )

confidential

[ Washington ,] February 15, 1952.

• Subject:
• General French Attitude toward Colonial Questions in the United Nations; Issues arising in the forthcoming session of the Trusteeship Council.

• Participants:
• Mr. Gabriel van Laethem, Second [First?] Secretary, French Embassy
• Mr. J. Jefferson Jones, III, UND
• Mr. Benjamin Gerig, UND
• Mr. William I. Cargo,UND

At his request Mr. van Laethem called on Mr. Gerig yesterday afternoon (February 14, 1952) to discuss certain questions on the agenda of the forthcoming session of the Trusteeship Council.¹

Mr. van Laethem began with a lengthy statement of his views regarding what he called the deterioration of the position of the West in Africa, the gist of which was as follows: The actions of the General Assembly, and in particular the attitudes of the Soviet, Arab, and Latin American blocs, are seriously undermining the position of the colonial powers in Africa. The granting of independence to Libya was the first unfortunate step in a chain of events which might eliminate the strategic control of the West over Africa and imperil the success of the defense measures which are being undertaken in Europe. In five years the French possessions in Central Africa, which were now peaceful, might be brought to the same situation as the North African territories. The few native leaders in African territories found it impossible to resist the temptation of possible future participation in the United Nations as representatives of independent states and, encouraged by the Arab states, were therefore unwilling to compromise or listen to reason on political issues. If the present course were to continue, a large number of new African states might be expected to arise.

Forthright leadership was required to arrest these trends in Africa. Nothing could be done with the Soviet bloc in the United Nations and little could be done with the Arab bloc. But much might be accomplished by appropriate approaches to the Latin American states. Only the United States could do this effectively. The United States, he thought, should emphasize general security and political arguments, as the French had found from their experience on the Moroccan question² that the Latin American Governments would respond to these. The French could make the task of the United States much simpler by the formulation of their objectives in Africa on a much more comprehensive and clearer basis than had been done heretofore. Essentially, this would be an explanation and extension of the theory involved in the French Union, which had never adequately been clarified to the world. The United States should exert leadership to achieve a change of direction in Africa, and in the speeches of State Department officials and in the relations of the Department with the press great stress should be laid upon the accomplishments of the colonial powers and the substantial investments which the United States has made in recent years in the development of African territories.

In the course of his comments, Mr. van Laethem said that the colonial powers were being victimized by the distorted use of terms such as “colonialism”, “autonomy”, and “independence”. He remarked that “we can’t be the accused forever” and said that instead of “colonialism”, stress should be placed on what colonial administration actually has become. Instead of “autonomy”, emphasis should always be placed on the Charter objective of “political advancement”, and instead of “independence”, the colonial powers must stress the trend of the world toward inter-dependence. On this point he observed that just at the time when the French were in the process of giving up their independence in Europe—a lesson learned in the course of some centuries of bitter experience—the great cry in Africa was to establish independence for many small entities. He felt that the people of Africa should be forced to profit by the hard-earned experience of Europe as regards the inter-dependence of peoples. He also observed in this same connection that the British political conceptions in Africa were “outmoded”, making particular reference to the recent constitutional developments in the Gold Coast.³

Mr. Gerig said that Mr. van Laethem’s analysis was very far-reaching indeed, and certainly merited careful thought. He asked whether Mr. van Laethem had any details as to plans for the future development of the territories in Africa, and also whether the French expected to integrate their planning with the United Kingdom, for example, in such areas as West Africa. Mr. Jones asked whether Mr. van Laethem had any further information as to the scope of the planning which he envisaged. Mr. van Laethem made no specific reply to these inquiries.

Mr. van Laethem then referred to a number of resolutions on trusteeship matters adopted by the recent General Assembly which will be considered by the Trusteeship Council. He said that the resolutions on petitions, on the visiting missions, and administrative unions required study to find ways of minimizing possible difficulties. He described the resolution on the closer association of the indigenous inhabitants of trust territories in the work of the Trusteeship Council as “dangerous”, and the resolution suggesting that the administering authorities formulate estimates of the time in which it is expected to achieve the objective of self-government or independence as “bad but not acute”.

Mr. Gerig said that we were in the process of formulating our positions on these and other matters and that, while considerable attention had been given to them already in UND, final positions had not been taken by the Department. Mr. Cargo expressed the view that not much difficulty should be encountered in the Trusteeship Council on the resolutions dealing with petitions, visiting missions, and administrative unions. He assumed that the Council would proceed to establish a standing committee on petitions, as suggested by the General Assembly, with power to meet between sessions. However, as this committee could undertake only a preliminary examination of petitions, as the Assembly resolution noted, the Trusteeship Council would take final action on petitions as at present. The difficulties with regard to the administrative unions resolution would be expected to arise in connection with the meeting of the newly established Assembly committee on that subject rather than in the Trusteeship Council.

With regard to the resolution dealing with the closer association of the indigenous inhabitants in the work of the Trusteeship Council, Mr. Gerig stated that he did not consider it possible to establish any kind of “dual representation” in the Trusteeship Council and that this would run counter to the spirit in which the trusteeship arrangements had been established. He felt that this was a complex problem involving the local administrations, and observed that we had not yet considered the question in detail with the Department of the Interior which administers the Trust Territory for which the United States is responsible. He said, however, that it might be possible for the Council, after consideration of the Assembly resolution, to invite administering authorities, wherever practicable, to attach representatives of the indigenous population to their delegations to the Trusteeship Council. He pointed out that the French and the British had both taken steps of a comparable nature in connection with their delegations to the General Assembly. Mr. van Laethem again expressed the concern felt in Paris about indigenous participation in the Trusteeship Council, setting forth views expressed previously to the Department by the French Embassy when this matter was under discussion in the General Assembly.

Mr. van Laethem inquired as to the views of the Department on the Ewe question. Mr. Gerig again said that the Department had not finally determined its position, but that tentatively the view was that the inquiry into the Ewe problem⁴ would be best and most economically carried out by the regular visiting mission rather than by a special mission. He emphasized that the time factor was of importance if it were to be done by the regular mission which would have to make the visit in time to complete its survey and prepare its reports before the Eleventh Session of the Council. Mr. van Laethem also asked whether the Department had any views concerning the composition of such a mission. Mr. Gerig said that it seemed to him that Mr. Ryckmans, because of his experience in Africa and for other reasons, would be a useful member of such a mission, if he could be prevailed upon to go.

1. This was the Tenth Regular Session of the Trusteeship Council which met at New York Feb. 27–Apr. 1, 1952. Unpublished documentation for this session is in Department of State central decimal file 350 and in the files of the Reference and Documents Section of the Bureau of International Organization Affairs (hereafter cited as “the IO files”). The Position Book made up for the U.S. Delegation to this Session was based directly on the projected agenda and is filed under file no. 350/2–2752. Documentation relating to this session is also in two office lot files retired by the Office of Dependent Area Affairs (“the ODA files”), lot 62 D 182 and lot 62 D 225.
2. For documentation on the Moroccan question, see volume xi .
3. For documentation concerning U.S. interest in Gold Coast affairs, see volume xi .
4. For documentation on the question of the Ewe peoples divided between British Togoland and French Togoland, see Foreign Relations, 1951, vol. ii, pp. 520 ff.