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

ODA files, lot 62 D 225, “General Assembly”

Memorandum by the Deputy Director of the Office of Dependent Area Affairs (Robbins) to the Director of That Office (Gerig)¹

confidential

[Washington,] August 12, 1954.

• Subject:
• Soviet “Colonialism” at the Ninth General Assembly

We have given considerable thought to the question of the desirability of making Soviet colonialism the theme of the Ninth Assembly and would make the following comments for whatever use they may have:

1. The colonial problem will almost inevitably be the single most controversial issue at the forthcoming General Assembly. The Cyprus question, almost certainly to be inscribed on the agenda on the initiative of Greece, and the dispute over the sovereignty of Netherlands New Guinea (West Irian) which the Indonesian Government has threatened to bring up, are the two outstanding “colonial” questions which will pose difficulties for the United States at the Ninth General Assembly. The recent policy statement of France with respect to political reform in Tunisia and Morocco may succeed in keeping this perennial issue off the Assembly’s agenda at this session although information reaching us and recent disorder in Morocco indicate that the Arab-Asian bloc may raise the question. Four allies from among the nations of the Western World are involved in these questions (U.K., France, Netherlands, Greece) and with the exception of Greece their position will be that the less discussion of colonialism that takes place in the United Nations, the better their position. We already have been told by the British that they will threaten to “walk out” of the Committee which discusses Cyprus, while the French have adopted this technique of non-participation at past sessions when Tunisia and Morocco have been discussed. We do not know yet the precise tactics the Dutch will adopt if the question of New Guinea (West Irian) is discussed. Thus, as in the past, the United States will be hard put to adopt a positive attitude on the substance of these colonial disputes. Were we to advocate a full-scale discussion of Soviet “colonialism” our sincerity would be challenged unless we advocated a strong anti-colonial position on these other items, a situation which would jeopardize our relationship with our closest allies, two of whom are on opposite sides in the colonial debate.

2. In addition to those of our Western Allies directly concerned with the items mentioned above, others who administer non-self-governing territories would be very hesitant to support a full-blown discussion of colonialism in any form. Under their influence most of the other nations of Western Europe and the white Commonwealth countries would probably prefer to abstain from such a discussion. In the past the colonial powers have countered Soviet charges with effective use of examples of Soviet imperialism. They could be counted upon to continue this tactic of counter-attack but it is highly unlikely that they will agree to any full scale offensive against the Soviet Union on colonialism when they realize that they are so vulnerable in this respect and have suffered so much at the hands of anti-colonialists in the United Nations.

3. Although the Arab-Asian Members would probably welcome a General Assembly which had colonialism as its theme, or more accurately anti-colonialism, their sights would be set not on the Soviet brand but on the Western European brand. They would undoubtedly insist that all forms of colonialism be discussed and not just the Soviet brand. To the extent that individual members of this group have been lulled by the apparent relaxation of East–West tension following the truce in Indo China, it would be difficult to enlist their support for any anti-Soviet attack which they might construe as exacerbating East–West relations. They are as ever, however, prepared to continue their attack on Western European colonialism.

4. While the Latin American nations can probably be counted upon to go along with us on any anti-Soviet item, they too would have difficulty in divorcing any discussion of Soviet colonialism from the brand practiced by our European allies. The anti-colonial temper of the recent Caracas Conference is only the most recent example of the attitude of the Latin American countries toward colonialism.

5. If it is decided, therefore, to pursue the objective of making the theme of the Ninth General Assembly Soviet “colonialism”, we will probably have to be prepared to go counter to some very important interests of our Western allies. It is not likely that a majority of United Nations Members will care to make a distinction between Soviet and Western European colonialism. In this respect it should be borne in mind that an issue of direct and vital concern to the United States and indeed to the security of the Free World and one which has colonial overtones may well be discussed at the Ninth General Assembly. The Indian Representative on the Trusteeship Council has indicated that his government will ask the General Assembly to recommend a moratorium on nuclear tests in the United States administered Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands pending an ICJ opinion on the legality of conducting such tests in a trust territory. It is very unlikely that we will be prepared to acquiesce in that proposal, and we will be in need of all the support we can get from UN members.

6. Our experience in international meetings since the Geneva settlement on Indo-China is too limited to indicate the nature and quality of support that we could muster for any anti-Soviet items. There are indications, however, that there exist varying degrees of reluctance among UN members to stir up what they hope are only lukewarm ashes of cold war controversy. It would be a mistake for the U.S. to take the initiative on any anti-Soviet items until soundings were taken of the attitudes of other Members. The reaction of American public opinion would be adverse to the UN were we to find ourselves in a more or less isolated position on any such item, especially one discussed on our initiative.

It is recommended therefore, that we employ a technique which has been effectively used in the past and which could be utilized with success at the Ninth G.A. This would involve reference to Soviet imperialism in statements wherever appropriate. In the Political Committee’s discussion of colonial items it would be a simple matter to point to Soviet practices to demonstrate the hypocrisy of their pose as the champion of dependent peoples. In any Third Committee discussion of self-determination similar statements would be appropriate. Soviet economic imperialism could be an appropriate topic of statements in the Second Committee. Our Western European allies, as well: as the Latin American countries, could be persuaded to join us in the discreet utilization of this technique.

1. Drafted by Edward P. Noziglia of the Office of Dependent Area Affairs.