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

2. Letter From the Secretary of State to the Representative at the United Nations (Lodge)¹

Washington, February 9, 1955.

Dear Cabot: We are confronted by the problem of determining the United States position in regard to certain parts of the Reports of the Trusteeship Council’s 1954 Visiting Mission to the Trust Territories of Tanganyika, Ruanda-Urundi and Somaliland under Italian administration.² These Reports are permeated with the principle of establishing hypothetical time limits for the attainment of various stages of self-government.

In the past the United States, as a general rule, has not supported the establishment of timetables for the achievement of self-government, and is unwilling to do so in the present instances. Our immediate problem arises from the fact that the United States Representative in the Trusteeship Council and member of the four-man Visiting Mission to the East African Trust Territories, Mr. Mason Sears, has endorsed the three Reports without reservation.³

As a member of the Visiting Mission which operated as an agency of the United Nations, Mr. Sears served in his individual capacity. Therefore the question of his right to express his own views is not an issue, nor does the Department fail to recognize in this situation that there is ample room for honest differences among individuals. On the other hand, all members of the Visiting Mission are officials of their respective Governments and nominated by them. As such it might be expected in some quarters that they would reflect their Government’s views.

Our general policy in the colonial field was restated by me before the CIO Convention in Cleveland on November 18, 1953 when I said that the “orderly transition from colonial to self-governing status should be carried resolutely to a completion (but that) the development of genuine independence is a task of infinite difficulty and delicacy, (and) zeal needs to be balanced by patience.”⁴ This basis for our policy regarding trust and other non-self-governing territories has been stated repeatedly by United States spokesmen including Mrs. Frances P. Bolton and Mr. C. D. Jackson at the Eighth and Ninth General Assemblies, respectively.⁵

We have been approached by Sir Robert Scott, Minister of the British Embassy, who was instructed by his Government to express its concern over the position taken by the United States Representative on the Visiting Mission.⁶ We are advised by our Embassy in Brussels that the Belgians will be taking this matter up with us shortly,⁷ when their Representative in the Trusteeship Council, Governor General Pierre Ryckmans, comes to Washington within a few days in his capacity as Head of the Belgian Atomic Energy Program to discuss matters pertaining to uranium.

You are aware of the frequent need we have to rely upon our friends in the United Nations for support in obtaining positions to which we attach importance. This, however, is not the sole reason why we must not alienate unnecessarily our NATO allies and some of our staunchest supporters in the United Nations. We have problems of our own in the dependent areas field regarding which we require sympathetic understanding and support of the largest possible majority of United Nations Members. For example, if we should endorse a general 20–25 year timetable for the attainment of self-government in Ruanda-Urundi or Tanganyika, the Belgians, British, or any other United Nations Member could argue cogently that self-government for the widely scattered islands of our Trust Territory should be envisaged in a much shorter time because their peoples generally are more advanced and have had considerable experience through contacts with the outside world. This could be quite embarrassing for us since we are on record against the establishment of a timetable for the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. As recently as the Fourteenth Session of the Trusteeship Council, High Commissioner Midkiff stressed the importance we attach to the principle of not imposing an arbitrary rate of development.⁸ It is precisely because we attach importance to the sound development of self-government that our policy emphasizes economic, social and educational advancement, a policy which finds full expression in the trusteeship provisions of the Charter. Thus in the Trusteeship Council and Committees of the General Assembly we should continue to stress balanced developments leading to effective and enduring self-government rather than giving the impression that we favor a hasty imposition of “western” political patterns.

I appreciate how carefully you have striven to maintain the delicate balance that is incumbent upon us in United Nations activities regarding dependent area matters which have occupied the attention of political committees in recent General Assemblies. In the Trusteeship Council and elsewhere in the United Nations we certainly do not wish to impair our independent position by aligning ourselves automatically with other administering powers or allowing them to think that they can always count on our support. It is, however, reasonable for them to want to know where we stand and whether we have changed our position.

The 1954 Visiting Mission’s Reports are regarded by various Offices in the Government where they have been studied as unnecessarily controversial and tendentious. It is felt that criticisms of administrations are not balanced by a proper amount of credit for accomplishments and appreciation of the magnitude of the problems. The Department, after consultations with the Departments of Interior, Defense and the Navy, believes that the United States Representative in the Trusteeship Council cannot support action which would endorse the principle of establishing hypothetical timetables. In case the Council is asked to endorse other conclusions contained in these Reports, the United States Representative should use as guides our past positions and general statements to which I have referred along with the current position papers.

I am sure that you share our appreciation of the gravity of colonial problems wherever they arise in the United Nations, and our need to speak with one voice in regard to them, particularly in view of the tight-rope we are continually obliged to walk in relation to those matters.⁹

There is enclosed an additional copy of this letter which you may wish to pass to Mr. Sears.

Sincerely yours,

John Foster Dulles¹⁰

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 350/2–955. Confidential. Drafted by Robbins, ODA, and cleared in draft with EUR and NEA, the Departments of the Interior, Defense, and Navy, and in final form with IO.
2. Reference is to reports on Tanganyika (U.N. docs. T/1142 and 1169), Ruanda-Urundi (T/1141 and 1168), and Somaliland (T/1143).
3. Sears joined with Delegates from El Salvador and India in supporting recommendations to which Belgium and the United Kingdom objected. The fourth Mission member, New Zealand, entered a minority opinion.
4. For text of the speech, see Department of State Bulletin, November 30, 1953, pp. 741–744.
5. For previous documentation on this matter, see Foreign Relations, 1952–1954, vol. iii, pp. 1075 ff. Frances P. Bolton and C. D. Jackson were members of the U.S. Delegations to the Eighth and Ninth Sessions of the U.N. General Assembly, respectively.
6. The British indicated their objections to timetables and adult suffrage, as recommended for Tanganyika by U.N. doc. T/1142, in an approach to the Department of State on January 25, the same day the Visiting Mission report was made public. Scott indicated that, although the members might have acted in their individual capacities, his government was disturbed by the association of the United States with the report. (Memorandum of conversation by Withers, January 26; Department of State, Central Files, 778.00/1–2655)
7. At a luncheon at the Belgian Embassy on February 15, Ambassador Silvercruys informally advised Deputy Under Secretary of State Robert Murphy of his nation’s displeasure. That same day the Counselor of the Embassy, Georges Carlier, pursued the matter officially at the Department of State. He regretted that Sears supported the Indian position on timetables which was a departure from previous policy as indicated by U.S. abstention from voting on Resolutions 558(VI), 752(VII), and 858(IX). (Memoranda of conversations by Allen, February 15; Ibid., 350/2–1555)
8. Frank Elbert Midkiff’s statement had been made July 7, 1954 in the course of the 550th meeting of the Trusteeship Council. (U.N. doc. T/SR.550)
9. In his reply, February 15, Lodge stressed Sears’ adherence to official policy and indicated that Sears was willing to make a statement distinguishing between his own and his government’s views. Moreover, Lodge explained that Sears had signed the reports so as not to polarize the Mission. In addition, according to Lodge, Sears had thought it would strengthen the U.S. position on the Council to be on India’s side on one issue. (Department of State, Central Files, 350/2–1555) Replying for the Secretary on February 18, David McK. Key emphasized the need for a prompt and strong statement by Sears so as to assuage the British and Belgians and to erase any incorrect expectations on the part of the nonadministering members. (Ibid., IO/ODA Files: Lot 62 D 225, U.S. Representative in Trusteeship Council)
10. Printed from a copy that bears this stamped signature.