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

772.00/5–2654

The Consul General at Tunis (Hughes) to the Department of State¹

confidential
No. 251

Tunis, May 26, 1954.

Subject:

• Transfer of Habib Bourguiba.

After having lived in exile for over two years on the small island of La Galite off the north coast of Tunisia, Habib Bourguiba has been transferred to l’Ile de Groix, seventeen kilometers southeast of Port Louis in Brittany (Tunis’ confidential telegram No. 86, May 23, 1954).² The final decision of the French Council of Ministers was announced by the Resident General on the evening of Thursday, May 20, 1954. Bourguiba left La Galite at 1:00 A.M. of Friday the 21st by Coast Guard boat for Bizerte, and was flown to l’Ile de Groix on a French military plane.

The transfer of Habib Bourguiba marks a milestone in the administration of Pierre Voizard as Resident General. Ever since Bourguiba’s exile, January 18, 1952 the Neo-Destour Party and other Tunisian nationalists who follow the Neo-Destour line have been agitating for the release of the “Supreme Combatant” or, barring that, at least for his transfer to a place more amenable to his health which allegedly suffered from the damp climate at La Galite. On the surface, at least, the agitation has borne fruit and Bourguiba will now be able to live in a villa, mix with the local population, and receive visitors and press representatives. According to press reports he will have complete freedom of the island, will be able to have free use of the telephone and, of course, have much more ready access to any medical facilities he may require, l’Ile de Groix being about seventeen kilometers by ferry from the French mainland. It has also been reported that during the coming summer he will be authorized to travel to one of the thermal baths on the continent for his health . . .³ something that the Neo-Destour has been demanding for many months. It is also reported that certain members of his family will eventually be allowed to join him, but they are not now permitted to live with him.

As expected the Neo-Destour is only partially satisfied with this latest concession on the part of the French Government. While M. Masmoudi, delegate of the Neo-Destour in Paris, stated to members of the press that the transfer appeared to mark the “. . .³ return of good sense to France”, he emphasized that this move would in no way effect the attitude of his party nor the goals that have been set.

M. Mongi Slim in an official statement on behalf of the Political Bureau of the Neo-Destour stated that the transfer of Bourguiba could not be considered as an amelioration of the coercive regime to which he has been submitted for the past two years. He pointed out that Bourguiba is still a French hostage, deprived of his liberty and of his right to live and circulate freely in his own country; that the Neo-Destour remains unalterably opposed to the reforms of March 4th which lead only to co-sovereignty, and that the party is resolved to pursue its policy of striving for the restoration of the liberty and sovereignty of Tunisia.

Comment: Regardless of adverse criticism on the part of the Nationalists, based mainly on the claim that the climate of l’Ile de Groix will be no more conducive to Bourguiba’s good health than that of La Galite, the fact remains that the transfer of Bourguiba at this time was an excellent psychological move on the part of the French. While the Neo-Destour Party will undoubtedly continue to press for the liberation of their leader and his return to Tunisia, it will be robbed of one of its principle talking points, namely, the state of his health and the harsh conditions under which he was compelled to live while on La Galite. Further efforts on behalf of Bourguiba’s liberation will, of necessity, have to be based on political rather than humanitarian grounds. It is interesting to note that the French authorities have permitted the publication of strong anti-French sentiments by Neo-Destourians, as though to prove their promise on freedom of the press.

Morris N. Hughes

1. This despatch was repeated to Paris, Cairo, Casablanca, Algiers, Rabat, Tripoli, and Rome for Maffitt.
2. May 23; not printed. It reported the Arab press had openly criticized Bourguiba’s transfer. It claimed it was not an improvement, that Bourguiba was still a prisoner, and that Neo-Destour remained firmly opposed to the Mar. 4 reforms. (772.00/5–2354)
3. Ellipsis appears in the source text.
3. Ellipsis appears in the source text.