Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Africa and South Asia, Volume XI, Part 1

ODA files, lot 60 D 512, “US–UK Colonial Talks, 1952”

Extract From Minutes of United, States–United Kingdom Colonial Policy Discussions, Washington, September 25, 1952, 3–5:30 p.m. ¹

confidential

Washington, September 25, 1952, 3 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

[Subject: ]

• Central African Federation

Sir John Martin :²

Sir John opened the discussion on the Central African Federation by stating that the United Kingdom was concerned over the comment on this matter in the Department’s memorandum.³ He understood the United States position on the competence of the General Assembly in this as in other issues, but he was disturbed by the further remarks in the United States paper concerning the wishes of the indigenous inhabitants. Sir John then quoted the following passage from the United States memorandum, “…⁴ and we assume that the United Kingdom’s traditional respect for the will of the indigenous inhabitants of its territories would prevent it from establishing a federation against the wishes of these inhabitants. We believe that such a step might damage the United Kingdom’s reputation for wisdom and justice in its relations with dependent peoples, and might jeopardize efforts of the West to maintain the friendship of Africans”. Sir John commented that these were very serious words and, in order to clarify the situation he wished to briefly review the background of this question. He emphasized that what he was about to say was of the most confidential nature, but that among friends he felt that he could speak frankly.

There were two principal reasons behind the United Kingdom government’s plans to establish a Central African Federation. The first of these was economic. A very careful and detailed study had been made of the economic problems of the area by experts acting in a completely objective manner. This study had made a very strong, if not over-whelming, case for federation of the three territories. The principal conclusions of the study had been that rapid economic development of the area would not be possible without federation. Without such economic development, the territories would not be able to finance the social services which were urgently needed and desired.

The second reason concerned the racial problem south of the Limpopo river. Unless Southern Rhodesia could be brought into a larger unit with its neighbors to the north, it seemed clear that South African influence would spread north, eventually overtaking each of the Central African territories and reaching into East Africa. Federation seemed to offer the last chance to stop this trend at the Limpopo.

Sir John went on to point out that the principal opposition to the federation scheme had come from groups whose primary interest was in the welfare of the Africans. These people seemed to believe that federation would result in an expansion of the racial policies of Southern Rhodesia. They maintained that there would be only a technical constitutional check on the domination of the federation by Southern Rhodesia, and as a result they feared that final control from London over Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia would come to an end.

The United Kingdom government believes these fears to be unjustified. The form of the federation will leave control of such matters as education and land in the hands of the individual territories. The position of Africans in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia will be safeguarded by the continued control from London over the constitutional arrangements controlling the federation of the three territories.

Sir John then turned to the question of the wishes of the inhabitants as raised in the Department’s memorandum. He posed the question as to what these wishes really were. The great mass of Africans, he maintained, do not know the issues involved. There was a small, vocal section of the African population which was opposed to the scheme and which had resorted to unscrupulous methods in influencing other Africans.

In any event, Sir John pointed out that the entire matter was to be thoroughly discussed in a conference in London at which all points of view would be represented.⁵ Sir John emphasized that London was not lighthearted in considering its responsibilities for the African people. They were not disregarding African interests, and if they decided to go through with their present plan, it would be because the United Kingdom feels it to be in the interest of the inhabitants. He stated that there was no way to determine the wishes of the inhabitants. Some had suggested that, in view of this situation, they should wait until African opinion has developed further; the United Kingdom feels, however, that it cannot wait.

Mr. Gerig :⁶

Mr. Gerig stated that the clarifying remarks by Sir John were most helpful. He pointed out that the matter had been initially raised by the United Kingdom in its memorandum to the Department.⁷ We were, of course, very interested in the problem.

Mr. Hickerson :⁸

Mr. Hickerson suggested that perhaps the phrasing of the Department’s comment quoted by Sir John was unnecessarily stiff. The Department was seeking information from the United Kingdom on this matter; it was particularly interested in information concerning the problem of African opinion. He did not wish the United Kingdom to feel that the United States was delivering a lecture on this issue. We were genuinely interested in this difficult question; Sir John’s explanations had been most helpful.

Sir John Martin:

Sir John reiterated that whatever was done, there seemed to be no way to determine the wishes of the inhabitants. In a sense he felt that the United Kingdom had made the job harder for itself by taking into account African opinion. At the time that the federation plan was first put forward, the United Kingdom had instructed its officials in the territories to express no opinion either way on the merits of the proposal. They were to take a strictly neutral position in order to permit African opinion to develop by itself. This however had been puzzling to many Africans who were accustomed to seeking advice and counsel on such matters from their District Commissioners. When they discovered that their District Commissioners would not express an opinion on the plan, many Africans concluded that there must be something wrong with it.

Turning to the United Nations aspect of the question, Sir John assumed that the United States would agree to use its influence to keep the matter from arising in the United Nations since the Department’s memorandum indicated that the United States agreed that such a discussion would not be useful.⁹

1. Regarding these U.S.–U.K. talks, see vol. iii, pp. 1258 ff.
2. British Assistant Under-Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs.
3. For text of the memorandum, dated Sept. 20, see vol. iii, p. 1245.
4. The ellipsis appears in the source text.
5. No Africans attended the conference which was convened at the beginning of 1953.
6. O. Benjamin Gerig was the director of the Office of Dependent Area Affairs (UND).
7. Reference is to the British aide-mémoire of Sept. 3 and its annex entitled “Colonial Questions in the United Nations, 1952.” (645K.51T3/9–352)
8. John D. Hickerson was Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs.
9. The actual statement in the memorandum of Sept. 20 read: “With regard to the possibility of a Central African Federation, we note the statement of the United Kingdom that it is by no means certain that a Federal Authority will in fact be set up. This being the case, we agree that the General Assembly should not discuss such hypothetical issues when it has so many real issues to consider. Because of our view of the General Assembly’s wide powers under Article 10, however, we could not support the United Kingdom’s views that the establishment of the federation is a constitutional subject and thus outside the competence of the General Assembly, or the United Kingdom view that this question is a matter of domestic jurisdiction.”