Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Africa, Volume XVIII

12. Letter From the Representative at the Trusteeship Council (Sears) to the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs (Wilcox)¹

New York, April 3, 1956.

Dear Francis: Yesterday in the Trusteeship Council the United States Delegation took a position in favor of requesting the British and Belgian Governments to consider the practicability of adopting programs of planned development in Tanganyika and Ruanda Urundi respectively, in the form of intermediate targets and dates in certain political, economic, social and educational fields. Our point of view was almost angrily opposed by the British Representative and less so by the Representative of Belgium. As a result, I have a hunch that the British and Belgian Embassies in Washington may make some sort of protest to the State Department and so I wished to give you a little background.²

First of all, I think it is right to tell you that the course which we took in the Council was initiated and strongly urged by me from the very start. However, its actual presentation was made with great skill by Ben Gerig, who is serving as the United States Representative during the period while I am serving as President.

Secondly, our position was taken from Section 9 of this year’s position book in which we were under virtual instructions from the Department to favor the establishment of intermediate target dates. The position book stated that “If the question of timetables should come up, either in the Drafting Committees or in the Council itself, the Delegation should support a recommendation for the establishment of target dates for the achievement of intermediate goals in the fields of political economic, social, and educational advancement in the territories where such target dates are realistic.”³

Furthermore, in presenting our position yesterday with respect to Tanganyika, Ben Gerig made what I consider to be a remarkable speech in which he went no further than to invite the British merely to consider the practicability of adopting intermediate target dates for political, economic and social development, and he recommended that such programs might be considered in connection with the widening of suffrage, the increasing of legislative and executive powers, or in the building of representative institutions based increasingly on the consent of the governed. He also observed that such programs should be kept flexible enough so that they could be changed during the course of their operation. In brief, all that our Delegation did was to bring to the attention of the British authorities in Tanganyika the kind of idea which would call for the consideration of adding, let us say at the end of three years, perhaps three or more Africans to the Legislative Council. That was the type of thing we had in mind—nothing big—nothing startling, and nothing that could not be changed in mid-stream. And again, this is completely in line with Department recommendations, particularly those to be found on Page 2 of Section 9 of the Position Book for last year. This recommendation stated that “The Delegation might also support (the kind of) recommendation which would urge the further development … of executive and legislative organs …⁴ the provision of increased opportunities for indigenous participation in government” and so on. I cannot imagine a more reasonable suggestion and I am confident that if it is adopted, it will have really beneficial effects in both Tanganyika and Ruanda Urundi. It will also be very well received by all literate Africans throughout Tanganyika.

Let me also add that East Africa is one area in the continent where the United States can well afford to pay more attention to its relations with the African people themselves.

If the British by chance should come to see you in order to protest against the United States position in the Council, I hope you will privately agree with me that it is a little unbecoming for a nation which is doing so much for self-government all over the world to take objection because the United States joined other nations in asking them merely to consider a course of action—even though it had to do in a most limited way with what to their Colonial Office is the sacrosanct subject of timetables.⁵

I send you my best regards and hope that you are enjoying your responsibilities in Washington.

Yours sincerely,

Mason Sears

P.S.—I am enclosing a copy of the speeches made by Mr. Gerig and Sir Alan Burns.⁵

1. Source: Department of State, IO Files: Lot 60 D 113. Limited Official Use.
2. On April 2, the Trusteeship Council approved reports on the trust territories of Tanganyika and Ruanda Urundi, including recommendations for intermediate target dates which the United Kingdom and Belgium opposed. The report on Tanganyika was drafted by a committee chaired by Gerig. For the record of the meeting and the texts of the reports, see U.N. documents T/SR.697, T/L.657, and T/L.653, respectively. The Council’s recommendations were included in the appropriate chapters in its annual report to the General Assembly (U.N. document A/3170).
3. Reference is to position paper SD/T/295, February 1, prepared for the delegation to the Seventeenth Session of the Trusteeship Council. (Department of State, IO Files: Lot 60 D 113)
4. Ellipses in the source text.
5. Not printed.
5. Not printed.