700.022/2–2052
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Director of the Office of Dependent Area Affairs (Gerig)
- Subject:
- Belgian attitude toward certain Assembly resolutions relating to Non-Self-Governing Territories
| Participants: | Ambassador Silvercruys—Belgian Embassy | ||
| Assistant Secretary Hickerson | } | UNA | |
| Mr. Benjamin Gerig | |||
| Mr. Ward Allen—EUR | |||
At his request, Ambassador Silvercruys called upon Mr. Hickerson today to say that Foreign Minister Van Zeeland had requested him to convey to the Department the views of the Belgian Government in regard to the attitude adopted by the United States Delegation on the adoption of various resolutions introduced in the Fourth Committee of the last Assembly dealing with non-self-governing and trust territories.
The Ambassador said that his Government had noted “with surprise” that on several of these resolutions the United States Delegation had voted in favor, or at most had abstained, whereas the Belgian Government took “strong exception” to several of these resolutions and thought they were harmful and even dangerous.
[Page 1182]There were five resolutions in particular which disturbed the Belgian Government, namely: (1) the resolution regarding participation of non-self-governing territories in the work of the Special Committee on Information under Article 73(e); (2) the resolution on the revision of the Standard Form which tended, he said, to require the submission of political information; (3) the resolution calling for the setting up of a standing committee on Petitions to meet, if necessary, between sessions of the Trusteeship Council; (4) the resolution regarding the attainment of self-government or independence by the trust territories at a particular date; and (5) the resolution on the participation of indigenous inhabitants of the trust territories in the work of the Trusteeship Council.
It was a matter of regret, he said, to the Belgian Delegation at the Assembly that the representatives of the United States “sided with the Delegates of nations which have little responsibility in the matter” and whose customary hostility toward the administering authorities was well known.
The adoption of the two resolutions pertaining to the work of the Special Committee on Information constituted an attempt to restrict the rights of the administering authorities and to drive a wedge between them and the populations. This, he said, was dangerous and harmful.
In regard to the three resolutions pertaining to trust territories, his Government had understood that the United States had earlier expressed its opposition to the setting up of a standing petitions committee. However, in the Fourth Committee the American Delegate had voted for the resolution.
In regard to the resolution on the time limit for attaining self-government or independence, his Government rested its position on Article 76 which states that the basic objectives of the trusteeship system “to promote progressive development toward self-government as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory.” He particularly wished to stress the word “progressive”. He thought the United States Delegation would have voted against such a resolution instead of abstaining.
The resolution providing for participation of the inhabitants of the trust territories in the work of the Trusteeship Council was even more dangerous since, as the Cuban representative had explained in introducing it, it was aimed at giving the representatives of the inhabitants “a status equal to special representation.” It tended to recognize an opposition between the indigenous inhabitants and the administering authority. They were surprised, therefore, to find that the United States Delegation had voted affirmatively.
The Ambassador said that the Belgian authorities are fully conscious of their moral, social, economic and political responsibilities. [Page 1183] toward the populations of the Congo and of Ruanda-Urundi. They are promoting the advancement of both territories with the speed and moderation necessary to insure the well-being of the people. The Belgian Government had hoped for a better understanding on the part of the United States of the conditions which prevail in these territories and of the responsibilities assumed by the Belgian authorities.
In view of the surprise manifested by certain delegations to the United States representative in Committee 4, the latter had stated in Paris that his delegation would lend its good offices in the Trusteeship Council in the hope of seeking an application of these resolutions acceptable to all. The Belgian Government, therefore, sincerely hoped that the United States Delegation to the Trusteeship Council will be advised of the attitude of the Belgian Government and that he would receive instructions to proceed in such manner as will insure a reasonable solution in the application of these resolutions.
Mr. Hickerson said that the Department would study carefully the viewpoint expressed by the Ambassador and in a few days he would try to give the reply which the subject-matter merited. He was not prepared to go into detail now. He would say, however, that the Ambassador would understand that our approach and the Belgian approach to the general colonial question might in some respects differ. The United States regards its role as that of “honest broker” between what sometimes appears to be extreme positions taken by both the colonial and the anti-colonial groups. The United States sentiment was fundamentally in favor of making rapid advancement in the development of non-self-governing territories toward self-governing institutions and we were trying to be helpful to any situation where the rise of nationalism is one of the significant phenomena of our times.
Mr. Gerig pointed out that with reference to the five resolutions to which the Ambassador referred, all of them had been introduced in a much more extreme and unacceptable form and that the United States Delegation had succeeded in most cases in getting modifications of the language. Mr. Hickerson added that these and other points of detail would be taken up when we made our reply to the observations of the Ambassador.
Ambassador Silvercruys said that he himself was not too fully acquainted with the details of the resolutions to which his Government objected but that he believed and hoped that it would be possible to ameliorate their harmful effects if the administering authorities in the Trusteeship Council took the right line in their application. Mr. Hickerson said that there would be opportunities to discuss all these points, both before and during the session of the Trusteeship Council.