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

138. Telegram From the Embassy in Liberia to the Department of State ¹

Monrovia , January 24, 1956—8 p.m.

129. Reference: Embtel 125,² Deptel 99.³

(1) I saw Tubman for 35 minutes this morning on GOL–USSR relations presented following points orally:

(a) I appreciate confidence Tubman showing by discussing this problem with me, felt I would be less of friend if Tubman not informed my frank views and those my government;

(b) My Government would view establishment Soviet mission Monrovia as most unfavorable development especially in light Tubman’s assurances this would not occur at this time;

(c) My Government very conscious USSR pressures obtain early acceptance Soviet mission, Soviets driving enter all countries along both sides Atlantic seaboard;

(d) My Government believes Soviets using joint communiqué January 20 bulldoze Liberia into accepting Soviet proposal;

(e) My Government knows all western nations watching President and Liberia to see if they will be pushover for USSR;

(f) In view use Soviets making of joint communiqué, I should like clarification concerning what action GOL legislature will take this session re Soviet proposal. Tubman listened attentively and without any interruptions my presentation.

(2) Tubman replied along following lines:

(a) He stands today in same place he always stood, he as afraid Soviets as US and legislature will not take favorable or any action this session on Soviet proposal;

(b) He had informed Volkov very plainly Liberia not ready consider Soviet proposal this time, that legislature has passed budget which fails provide funds for any new Liberian missions, and that it impossible reopen budget legislation this year;

(c) He refused Volkov’s proposal use missions of friendly countries continue negotiations at this time since he unaware any friendly mission Monrovia which would undertake such negotiations and therefore it was impractical to pursue project this time. Tubman emphasized Volkov knows Liberia position as given above and he aware Soviet pressure to obtain its objective.

(3) Tubman informed me that at meeting Volkov prior departure latter questioned logic American newspapers making capital from USSR attempt establish mission Monrovia when US, UK and France exchanged missions with USSR. Tubman said he refused to be moved by this argument.

(4) Tubman thanked me for calling and said he wanted me come to him whenever I had problems same as he called me when he had problems.

(5) Embassy comments: Embassy believes Tubman will stand firm against Soviet proposal and prepared prevent legislature from taking favorable action on that proposal. Embassy further believes language joint communiqué was result naivete part Liberian drafters, lacked Tubman’s hand because his preoccupation reorganization his government and did not reflect Tubman’s true position which he confirmed today.

(6) Embassy believes Eisenhower letter along lines suggested reference 2 would be useful present time. Embassy respectfully suggests Eisenhower letter include additional statement along following lines would also be most useful: President gratified at Tubman’s assurances to Ambassador Jones January 24 that Liberian legislature will not take favorable action on Soviet proposal this year.

Jones

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 661.76/1–2456. Secret; Niact. Repeated to London, Paris, Madrid, Bonn, and Moscow.
2. Dated January 23, it commented on the Soviet-Liberian communiqué of January 20, which indicated that the two countries would establish diplomatic relations and exchange embassies, provided that the Liberian legislature approved. (Ibid., 661.76/1–2356) Telegram 122 from Monrovia, January 20, summarized the communiqué. (Ibid., 661.76/1–2056)
3. Telegram 99 to Monrovia, January 23, expressed concern over the apparent inconsistencies between Tubman’s letters and oral assurances on the one hand and the communiqué on the other. It transmitted the text of a draft reply from Eisenhower to Tubman and requested the Ambassador’s opinion. (Ibid.)