Office of the Historian

772.00/7–3052

Memorandum of Telephone Conversation, by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern, South Asian, and African Affairs (Jernegan)

confidential
[Washington,] August 5, 1952.

Subject:

  • Relations between the AFofL and the Tunisian UGTT

Participants:

  • Mr. Samuel Berger, Special Assistant to the Director, MSA.
  • NEA: Mr. Jernegan

Following the receipt of Tunis telegram No. 33 of July 30,1 reporting that Farhat Hached had received a letter from an American labor organization urging him to stand firm because American labor would put pressure on the American Government in favor of Tunisian aspirations, the Under Secretary asked Mr. Berger to talk informally with an appropriate AFofL representative. Mr. Berger informed me that he had done so yesterday, August 4, in the course of a conversation with Mr. Jay Lovestone.

Mr. Lovestone admitted that the AFofL was in correspondence with Farhat Hached and was also in contact with Mr. Ladgham, Tunisian Nationalist representative in New York. He did not know, however, the contents of each and every letter which might have been sent to Hached. (He remarked that some of their letters seemingly failed to arrive at destination.)

Mr. Lovestone said that the general line the AFofL was taking with the UGTT was that the Tunisians should work for internal autonomy, leaving control of foreign affairs and defense in French hands. The AFofL intended to continue its support for the Tunisians in working toward this objective and, specifically, would exert its influence to get them a hearing at the next UN General Assembly.

Mr. Berger had explained that the situation was very delicate and expressed the hope that the AFofL would not do anything to make things more difficult for us. He especially urged that they not mislead the Tunisians regarding the extent of the support they might expect to receive in the US. Mr. Lovestone assured Mr. Berger that they were not misleading the Tunisians.

[Page 791]

Mr. Berger told me that he was sure Mr. Lovestone understood our concern and that he, Mr. Berger, was not merely speaking personally. Nevertheless, he was not inclined to think that the conversation had had any affect in changing the views or activities of the AFofL. At the same time, he did not think any harm had been done.

I thanked Mr. Berger for his efforts on our behalf.

  1. Not printed; but see footnote 4, supra.↩