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

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

Memorandum by the United Nations Adviser, Bureau of Near Eastern, South Asian, and African Affairs (Howard), to the Operations Coordinator (Radius)

confidential

[Washington,] August 19, 1954.

• Subject:
• Comments on OCB’s Memorandum re International Communist Conspiracy and Soviet Colonialism¹

1. I think we all understand the desirability of making clear to the nations of the free world the nature of the international communist conspiracy, the betrayal of national “liberation” movements, and especially the use of Soviet Parties as agents of the Soviet Government and instruments of Soviet imperialism, aggression and control.

2. I am sure that we all agree, too, that any case which we may wish to make concerning this problem should be built on the solid foundation of the documentary evidence. Indeed, I am persuaded that if we depart from such a foundation—whatever our purpose or forum—and rest our case on spurious data, we will soon find that we have not only failed to win our objectives, but will be in a dangerous position.

3. Furthermore, it occurs to me that the methods and techniques in the use of such material are extremely important and may well determine its ultimate influence. Leaving aside uses of this material by USIA and in psychological warfare, I believe that, in the United Nations, any artificially stimulated or forced use would detract from its validity and effectiveness, on the ground that people might feel that they had heard enough of U.S. propaganda on such matters and desired to lessen East–West tensions. If used as a natural, legitimate statement, whether in response to Soviet diatribes or otherwise, and well done, it might prove very effective.

4. I would certainly substitute for the term “new colonialism”, as applied to the Soviet Union, the term “new imperialism”, or some variant thereof. It is a much more accurate and much more descriptive term, it seems to me, to describe the manifold policies of the Soviet Union in this respect. It is, I think, also more meaningful in countries outside the United States, where the term “new colonialism”, as applied to the Soviet Union, would hardly be understood, for the simple reason that the only “colonialism” known to people of Asia and Africa, for instance, is that of the Western Powers. In this connection we should make the very effective and quite accurate point that, whereas the Western Powers, partly because of their traditions as well as of objective conditions, have been in a process of de-imperialism during the last 50 years or so—and notably during the past 30 years. The Soviet Union today is the only great power in the world actively engaged in a policy of aggressive, dynamic imperialism.

Imperialism would be much better understood, and I think it can be made to stick, and could well cover the following:

(a) The general expansionist and aggressive policies of the Soviet Union.

(b) Aggressive international Communism as an instrument of Soviet policy.

(c) Soviet policies in Eastern Europe which have, it seems to me, not only reduced the states of Eastern Europe to the status of satellites of the Soviet Union, but to the de facto status of actual dependencies and protectorates through the use of methods and techniques which are all too familiar to us.

(d) The development of the Soviet Colonial Empire in Central Asia.

(e) Soviet policies with regard to the Far East, including Communist China, the so-called Mongolian Peoples Republic, Korea and South East Asia.^*

1. Presumably refers to the USIA memorandum of Aug. 11, p. 1404.

2. I would suggest in connection with the above that extremely useful material can be found in the following:

   “(1) Nicolas Sulber, ‘Soviet Undertakings and Soviet Mixed Companies in Eastern Europe’, XIV Journal of Central European Affairs 2 (July 1954) 154–173, which is an excellent account of what I would term the Soviet reversion to something like 17th and 18th century mercantilism; (2) Alexander W. Rudzinski, ‘the Myth of Satellite Sovereignty’, Mid European Studies Center, Mimeographed Series, 26, April 26, 1954, which contains very useful material as to the destruction of the independence of states in Eastern Europe; (3) Sir Olaf Caroe, Soviet Empire (1953), which is a brief but excellent study of what the Soviet Union has done in Soviet Central Asia.” [Footnote in the source text.]

   According to an OCB memorandum of Mar. 25, 1955, the Working Group on the United Nations, after its reactivation in July 1954, started 26 study-papers under the general heading of “The Soviet Model of Colonial-Imperialism”. However the colonial issue as such was not one of the topics listed in the OCB memorandum of Mar. 1955, in which material gathered through the group’s efforts was effectively used in U.S. statements made during the Ninth General Assembly (which were forced labor, “atoms for peace”, World War II prisoners of war, racial discrimination, narcotics traffic, freedom of information, and refugee program).

   It is on record that the following remarks were made on Oct. 25, 1954 to Committee 4 by C. D. Jackson, Representative on the U.S. Delegation to the Ninth Regular Session of the General Assembly:

   “Illustrative of what I am trying to say in measured language occurred in somewhat less measured language last Friday. In speeches we heard here on Friday some rather strong language was used regarding the administering authorities, including a reference to the European nations as ‘hypocritical’ in their attitude toward non-self-governing territories.

   “If such a statement can be made in this Committee in reference to nations which have demonstrated actual, visible, tangible forward movement toward decolonialization, may I redress some of the balance by suggesting that some notice, no matter how cursory, be taken of the new colonialism which is rising in the Soviet orbit

   “We ought to consider whether there isn’t more than one kettle we wish to call black, or to put it another way, which particular one merits our indignation.” (USUN Press Release 1989, Oct. 25, 1954)

   The summary record of Jackson’s statement to the Fourth Committee on Oct. 25, 1954, is in United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Ninth Session, Fourth Committee, pp. 101 and 102; the Jackson statement occurred in the context of the Fourth Committee discussion of information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73(e) of the Charter (Reports of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and of the Committee on Information).