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

ODA files, lot 62 D 225, “Trust and NSGT’s, General”

Memorandum Prepared in the Department of State¹

official use only

[Washington, undated.]

Attitudes of Latin American States Toward European Colonies in the Western Hemisphere

summary introduction

The following paper summarizes the attitudes of Latin American states toward the controversial subject of European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere as expressed at various Inter-American bodies including the Meetings of the Foreign Ministers of the American Republics at Panama, 1939; Havana, 1940; Washington, 1951; the Inter-American Conferences at Bogotá, 1948, and Caracas, 1954, as well as the American Committee on Dependent Territories in 1949. It is recalled that by the terms of the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, the United States interposed no objection to European colonies in the Western Hemisphere existing as of that date. However, the American continent was declared to be henceforth ineligible for future colonization by any European power and further attempts to establish or extend such colonies to be considered as “dangerous” to the “peace and security” of the Western Hemisphere. For more than a century, the Latin American states have demonstrated their traditional opposition to extra-continental colonialism and have missed no opportunity to agitate for the termination of European colonialism in America. Such opposition has been most vehemently expressed in Inter-American meetings, but it is also reflected in the United Nations^* where Latin American states generally take an anti-colonial position and where the states having claims to occupied territories consistently reserve their government’s position with respect to the recognition of the sovereignty of the European powers over four disputed territories. However, for the purposes of brevity, discussion has been limited in this paper to the Inter-American bodies where the reaction against colonialism has been most concretely expressed.

While the Latin American states as a group have generally opposed European control and occupation of American territory and have sought to eliminate it from the Hemisphere, the degree of opposition has varied from the extremely anti-colonial states [i.e., Argentina, Guatemala, Mexico and Chile whose interests are reinforced by claims to territory occupied by the United Kingdom]² to the more moderate states [such as Brazil, Colombia, the Dominican Republic and Venezuela despite the latter’s claim against the UK].² The latter group has supported the more extreme group politically and morally to the extent of urging attainment of such claims through peaceful means.

In the midst of the heated debates on colonialism at Inter-American meetings, the role of the United States has been that of moderator. While expressing the view that the United States is opposed to the extension of European political influence in this hemisphere or any expansion of the area under colonial rule, United States delegates have nevertheless reiterated the position that discussions of colonialism in the Americas were undesirable in bodies where all of the nations concerned were not represented and where certainly [sic] friendly nations were not in a position to present their side of such issues and the bases for their claims. Even though the United States has urged inaction in Inter-American bodies with respect to colonial problems in the Americas and indicated that the United Nations might be a more appropriate body for their consideration, it has done so with caution because it is unlikely we would wish to encourage discussion of this controversial subject in the United Nations.

In dealing with questions of European colonialism in the Americas the United States has found itself under pressures from two friendly groups of nations, i.e., the anti-colonial Latin American states who urge termination of extracontinental colonialism and the European colonial powers who have not hesitated to express their opposition to Inter-American resolutions opposing colonialism, such as the ones forthcoming from Bogotá and Caracas. At the Inter-American Meeting at Bogotá, the United States delegate abstained on the creation of the American Committee on Dependent Territories on the grounds that the Conference was not a court of law and that action appearing to support the claims of one of the parties to a territorial dispute was inappropriate for a meeting in which the other party was not represented and that means for examining the problems of dependent peoples are provided in the Charter of the United Nations.

Later, at the Tenth Inter-American Conference at Caracas in 1954, the United States abstained on inclusion of the question of colonialism on the agenda on the grounds that the status of dependent territories is a subject which involves the interests of both American and non-American states and would more properly fall within the competence of the United Nations in which all interested states are represented. With respect to the disputes between the United Kingdom and American states which have advanced claims to certain territories administered by the United Kingdom, the United States has urged that such disputes be resolved on a bilateral basis or submitted to other procedures for peaceful settlement available to all parties.

To date, the resolutions adopted by Inter-American meetings have resulted in no concrete program to terminate colonialism in the Americas but have succeeded in keeping the issue alive and bringing pressures to bear upon the European powers concerned.

[Here follows the main body of the paper, entitled “Discussion”, consisting of several units devoted to inter-American meetings, 1940–1951, that addressed their attention to the colonial situation in the Western Hemisphere.]

tenth international conference of american states, caracas, venezuela, march 1–28, 1954

As a result of resolutions proposed by Argentina, Brazil, and Ecuador, the question of “Colonies and Occupied Territories in the Americas and the Report by the American Committee on Dependent Territories” was included on the agenda of the Tenth Inter-American Conference at Caracas over the objection of the United States which abstained. The United States’ stand was based on the premise that interests of both American and non-American states were involved and the subject should more properly be taken up bilaterally or through the United Nations. In general the United States reaffirmed the principles it had enunciated at Bogotá in 1948 and re-emphasized its view that peoples should be helped to attain a constantly increasing measure of self-government.

The Resolution on “Colonies and Occupied Territories in America”^† adopted at Caracas was based on a proposal introduced by Argentina, subsequently amended by Guatemala, which declared that the peoples of America oppose colonialism and desire an end to the occupation of American territories. Moreover it expressed their sympathy with the legitimate aspiration of now-subject peoples to obtain their sovereignty and proclaimed the solidarity of the American republics with the just claims of the peoples of America to the territories occupied by extra-continental countries. A new paragraph proposed by Guatemala was added to the original Argentine resolution reiterating “the faith of the American republics in the methods of pacific settlement set forth in treaties in effect” and repudiating “the use of force to maintain colonial systems and the occupation of territories in America”. In presenting its proposal, the Argentine delegate cited various declarations, emphasizing particularly the Act of Havana of 1940, as giving juridical basis for action by the American Republics against colonialism. He stated that the continuation of the colonial system had retarded the solidarity of the hemisphere and endangered the continental system and made specific reference to the Falkland Islands and portions of the Antarctic over which Argentina exercises its sovereignty. In support of the resolution, Chile said that the present sovereign nations of America did not have as much maturity at the time of their independence as do the present colonies and territories now being discussed. He felt that if a people had a right to independence, they should have it without any qualifications and in urging adoption of the Argentine resolution, called on the colonial powers to voluntarily grant liberty to the peoples under their control thus obviating the necessity of shedding blood. He made specific reference to British Guiana stating that the British had abrogated the constitution using communism as a pretext to land troops “once again on American soil”. “The use of communism as a subterfuge” was condemned and Belize was described as “not even a colony but a territory occupied by force”. The Guatemalan representative demanded its return and stated his inability to accept the condition that a desire for independence must be evidenced by the people before attention would be given to their independence. He felt that, in practice, the choice given dependent peoples is not between independence and non-independence but between the “classic colonial status and something a little better”. All such peoples should be given independence first and then consulted as to their preference as to forms. The Bolivian representative expressed disappointment that no new states had appeared in America after World War II and said that his country would support all declarations forming moral public opinion against colonialism.

In a departure from its previously announced policy that Inter-American conferences were inappropriate bodies to deal with the controversial question of colonialism since the interest of countries outside the hemisphere were affected, the Brazilian delegation introduced a proposal urging extra-continental powers to “terminate the mandate given them under the terms of the United Nations Charter in order that those peoples may exercise fully their right of self-determination and the regime of subordination to extra-continental powers may be definitely eliminated”. In addition, the Brazilian proposal envisaged the possibility of placing certain parts of the American territory “not prepared to exercise within a brief period of time its right of self-determination” under a trusteeship regime, “so that its progressive development toward attaining self-government or independence may be facilitated”. Argentina initially opposed this resolution and sought to substitute the reference to “dependent territories” and “areas under continental control” with “colonies” and “colonialism” and to delete the provision suggesting the settlement of the colonial problem through pacific means and with the understanding and assistance of the metropolitan powers. It attempted to replace the paragraph with respect to the placement of colonies in this hemisphere under the United Nations Trusteeship system with a paragraph proclaiming the decision of the American republics to request in the United Nations the independence of the territories in this hemisphere subject to colonial rule. In the final voting, however, most of the Argentine amendments were rejected and the whole resolution, as revised, was approved 15–0–1 (US) under the heading “Colonies in American Territory”.^‡ The major provisions of the resolution recommended that the assistance of the extra-continental countries be sought in finding the best way possible to enable American territories under the colonial system of extra-continental nations to organize their own autonomous existence through pacific means, so that they might be converted into sovereign members of the community of nations as soon as possible. Although Colombia favored as practical and just the development of the theme of international mandates and trusteeship, the majority of states, including the United States expressed distaste for such a provision. The Chilean representative expressed this feeling when he said “there are countries in the United Nations, such as Soviet Russia, to which Chile could never agree to deliver any colony or territory in America under a trusteeship program”.

The United States representative stated that he could not vote affirmatively on any of the proposals under consideration since these matters clearly involved the interests and responsibilities of friendly governments not represented. The delegation therefore abstained in the vote on the Argentine and Brazilian resolution.

A proposal by Ecuador^§ thanked the American Committee on Dependent Territories for its work and transmitted its report to the United Nations recommending “to the Council of the Organization of American States that in accordance with Resolution 33 of the Ninth Inter-American Conference of American states, it convoke the American Committee on Dependent Territories when circumstances make this advisable”. The United States voted against the major part of this resolution concerning the reactivation of the Committee. In putting forth the resolution, the delegate of Ecuador stated that the Conference should tell the non-American powers to “keep hands off the hemisphere” and contended that colonialism was contrary to American ideals. He further stated that the Brazilian resolution did not set forth “the true American feeling” and did not go far enough because it was based on the false assumption that the colonial powers will give freedom to their colonies on a voluntary basis.

In addition to the Inter-American resolutions adopted on colonialism as such, the history of a supposedly innocuous resolution introduced into the cultural committee (Committee 4) of the Tenth Inter-American Conference at Caracas, illustrates the strong feeling of the Latin American states against control of territory in the Americas by European states. The Delegate of El Salvador introduced a draft resolution affirming the historical interest of the American Republics in the Island of San Salvador (Watling Island), 200 miles eastsoutheast of Nassau in the center of the British Bahama Islands. It proposed to erect “a simple monument to Christopher Columbus”, to “place thereon a plaque commemorating the discovery of America” and to “establish on the island a library consisting of works on the discovery of America and the development of the American Republics”. A further provision recommended that steps be taken to obtain the consent of the British Government in order to carry out this work.

After a purely academic discussion in the subcommittee on the method for gathering books for the library, the resolution (on March 19 in Committee 4) became the subject of a heavy politically inspired debate by Argentina, Bolivia, Guatemala and Colombia. Argentina contended that the American governments which had condemned colonialism only the day before would have to “beg permission of the United Kingdom” to erect the monument and, in the view of the Bolivian delegate, would be in the humiliating position of having to pay homage to “imperialism” before being allowed to pay homage to Columbus. Guatemala and Colombia both expressed the feeling that the Conference would be placed in a ridiculous light in passing the resolution as proposed. Guatemala went so far as to propose requesting the Organization of American states to take steps to remove the island from the jurisdiction of Great Britain so that the monument could be erected. When a final vote showed ten countries against consideration of the project, two for, and two abstentions (US, Venezuela), the Committee then passed a substitute motion^║ containing only a small reflection of the original draft and expressing the desire of the Conference to render homage to Columbus in the manner suggested “once extra-continental colonialism has wholly disappeared from America”. The United States abstained on the substitute motion.

conclusion

To date, although Inter-American resolutions have opposed colonialism, no positive program for decisive action on the overall problem of European possessions in the hemisphere has developed. The resolutions have succeeded in keeping alive the issue and bringing pressure to bear on European powers which have expressed to the United States their opposition to such anti-colonial resolutions. While the United States has continued to oppose the extension of such colonies or of European political influence in this hemisphere, it has advocated refraining from adopting any resolutions which would appear to prejudge the conflicting claims of friendly nations. It has reiterated its claim that Inter-American Conferences are not courts of law and that action appearing to support the claims of one of the parties to a territorial dispute are not appropriate for a meeting in which the other party is not represented and that means for examining the problem of dependent peoples are provided in the Charter of the United Nations.

While the most vociferous expression of opposition to colonialism and occupation of American territories by non-American states has occurred in Inter-American meetings as described above, the Latin American states concerned have, since the establishment of the United Nations, consistently their rights with respect to the “occupied territories” in the Trusteeship Committee of the General Assembly as well as the Committee on Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories and have restated their objective of bringing about the termination of colonialism in the Americas.

It should be noted that since this study has been concerned only with the attitude of Latin American States toward European possessions in the Western Hemisphere, the vital question of their attitude toward Puerto Rico has been omitted. Moreover, although little has been written concerning the attitude of the inhabitants of European colonies toward the Latin American states, such a paper might at a later date prove interesting and worthwhile.

1. This memorandum was drafted presumably in the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs. In the file it was located immediately following the memorandum of Mar. 8, 1954, supra.
2. See Official Records of the Trusteeship Committee of the General Assembly and the Committee on Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories. [Footnote in the source text.]
2. Brackets in the source text.
2. Brackets in the source text.
3. See annex 7, Resolution 96, p. 25. [footnote in the source text.]
4. See annex 7, Resolution 97, p. 26. [footnote in the source text.]
5. See annex 7, Resolution 98, p. 27. [footnote in the source text.]
6. See annex 7, Resolution 23, p. 25. [footnote in the source text.]