Office of the Historian

320.14/4–1052

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Director of the Office of Dependent Area Affairs (Gerig)

confidential
[Washington,] April 10, 1952.
  • Subject:
  • United States participation in Committee 4
  • Participants:
  • Sir Christopher Steel, British Embassy
  • Mr. John D. Hickerson—UNA
  • Mr. Ward Allen—EUR
  • Mr. Benjamin Gerig—UND

At Mr. Hickerson’s request Sir Christopher came to the Department today to receive the Department’s further reply to several complaints which Sir Christopher had made regarding the activities of the United States Delegation in Committee 4 of the General Assembly; in particular, the complaint that Dr. Tobias had taken a position in the Committee which was not in harmony with delegation decisions and which was inconsistent with general views expressed by United States representatives in the colonial talks.1

Mr. Hickerson said that he had looked further into this allegation and was able to say that Dr. Tobias had at all times been amenable to United States Delegation decisions and that he had faithfully and accurately represented United States views throughout his participation in the General Assembly. He had, indeed, taken these positions even though at times they may have been somewhat contrary to his own personal views and desires. Mr. Hickerson wished to add further that when Dr. Tobias made a general statement in Committee 4 referring to the Chairman’s able conduct of Committee business, this customary and pro forma statement should not be regarded as an endorsement of all the decisions of the Chairman or as an approval of the unwarranted Guatemalan attack on the British monarchy which had just been made previously and which the Chairman was unable to prevent.

[Page 1191]

Sir Christopher said that while he was glad to have this assurance he was rather more interested in the basic differences of attitude between our two delegations in regard to the role which the United Nations could play in colonial and other matters. He thought the United States was too much inclined to recognize the United Nations as a nucleus which could oppose the administering powers and that we were too ready to come to terms with this nucleus rather than to fight it in the interest of our own rights and the rights of the free world. Mr. Hickerson replied that this description did not accurately reflect our point of view. He said, however, that in certain cases, such as Korea, we felt that it was to the interest of all of us to make it a United Nations activity rather than the activity of the several nations acting under Article 51.

Sir Christopher said he hoped that in any future colonial talks there would be included in the United States Delegation the person or persons who would represent us in the General Assembly. Mr. Hickerson said he agreed that the persons handling our affairs in Committee 4 should certainly be fully briefed on the colonial talks and this was, in fact, the case this year, since Mr. Gerig who had participated in these talks was sitting immediately behind our delegate and kept him fully informed. Mr. Gerig said that in the case of the French and Belgians their representatives in the Fourth Committee were the same as those who participated in the colonial talks, but that this was not the case with the United Kingdom, since neither Sir Alan Burns nor Mr. Mathieson had participated in the talks previously in London.

Mr. Hickerson terminated the conversation by saying that although there is a wide area of agreement on general questions in the colonial field, it would be impossible always to anticipate specific questions arising in the Fourth Committee, in which our respective delegations would have to take their positions in the light of circumstances as they developed on the spot and having in mind our respective backgrounds and domestic situations, which were not always similar.

  1. In a formal protest on Nov. 28, 1951 by Sir Christopher Steel, Minister of the British Embassy, the statement was made to Assistant Secretary Hickerson “that the United Kingdom Government was disturbed over recent developments in Committee 4 … that the whole basis of the cooperative relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom on colonial questions, which had been worked out in the colonial policy discussions in Washington and in London, was being jeopardized by the policies and attitudes of Dr. Channing Tobias, the United States Representative on Committee 4.” Sir Christopher had cited particular examples. (Memorandum of conversation, by Hickerson, Nov. 28, 1951, file 320.14/11–2851) Further unpublished commentation is in the ODA files, lot 60 D 512, “Col/Pol: British Policy” (Letter, Sandifer (at Paris) to Hickerson, Dec. 5, 1951; memorandum, Gerig to Hickerson, Feb. 1, 1952).

    For the colonial policy discussions held at Washington in 1950, see Foreign Relations, 1950, vol. ii, pp. 434 ff. The 1951 London talks are documented in ibid., 1951, vol. ii, pp. 623 ff.

    ↩