20. Memorandum From the Director of the Office of Dependent Area Affairs (Gerig) to the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs (Wilcox)1
SUBJECT
- Afro-Asian or Asian-African concept and its use by U.S. officials
As you suggested at our lunch a few days ago, I am putting down on paper this brief comment on the Afro-Asian concept and its use by American officials.
Ever since the Bandung Conference, and particularly at last year’s General Assembly and in the discussions at the Trusteeship Council, it has become clearly evident that India is making a desperate bid to assert its influence, and even its leadership, throughout Africa. Part of this assertion is seen in the way India is attempting to get a so-called Afro-Asian concept accepted for voting purposes on many general questions, and particularly on the colonial question. The basis on which India is attempting to associate African peoples and States with Asia is, inter alia, (1) the colonial question, and (2) the race or color question.
I believe it is accepted Departmental policy that this development is not in the interest of the United States or of the Western World. Indeed, it is to the interest of the Western World to keep African orientation westward rather than eastward. If for historical reasons it should be difficult to continue the close ties which have associated much of Africa with Europe and with the United States, it [Page 67] should certainly be to Western interests to have African peoples and nations develop on an independent basis rather than to be oriented eastward toward Asia. In particular, the associations of the northern and western half of Africa have been northward toward Europe and westward toward the United States; and if the color and race problems were to be handled properly this association, which is also soundly based on economic interests, should be continued. The projected Eurafrica and the common market are evidences of this natural and close relationship.
India, on the other hand, has presumed to assert her influence throughout Africa, including West Africa, and on a number of questions, large and small, in the United Nations has shown clearly what her intentions are. The U.S. Delegation, however, has been able in certain instances to lead an effective opposition to the Indian approach to Africa, and one illustration of a plenary vote will indicate our success in defeating the Indian plan by breaking up the so-called voting bloc, including African and Asian Members of the United Nations. India and the United States led two rival resolutions in connection with the future of French Togo. When the issue came to a vote on January 23, 1957, the U.S.-sponsored resolution resulted in a vote of 53 in favor, 16 against, and 7 abstentions.2 Six of the so-called Afro-Asian group voted in favor of the U.S.-sponsored resolution: Laos, Liberia, Pakistan, Thailand, Cambodia, and Ceylon; 8 voted against: Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Iran, and Iraq; and 7 abstained: Lebanon, Morocco, Nepal, Afghanistan, Burma, India, and Indonesia. The break-up of the group which India aspires to lead caused her much anxiety. It should be a deliberate and studied objective of the United States Delegation to repeat this performance whenever possible.
If it is agreed that it is not in the United States interest to encourage or abet India’s attempt to include the whole of Africa in the Asiatic bloc, then it seems evident that United States delegates and officials should avoid falling in with the use of the concept “Afro-Asian” or “Asian-African” since such usage would seem to admit a fait accompli which is not only far from being true, but which should not be admitted by us as being in any sense desirable or inevitable.
It may not always be possible to avoid this usage but if it is necessary to identify such a group it might be called by alternative terms, such as the “Bandung group” or “Arab-Asian group”. In no case should we go farther than to speak of the “so-called Afro-Asian group”. Often in statements, speeches, or Departmental documents [Page 68] we could convey our ideas as well or better by speaking of “the African group” and “the Asian group”.
The purpose of this memorandum, however, goes farther. It is to show that United States policy in this connection is soundly based on political as well as economic grounds. Emerging political institutions of Africa are largely based on Western political and constitutional philosophy. Moreover, it is the Western World that can bring economic aid and support for the development of African nations, not the East. Further, even in those areas of North and Middle Africa where Islam has penetrated, such peoples have no reason to be sympathetic with Eastern or communist philosophies.
This paper merely outlines some of the potentials of the question and does not in this brief space undertake to make any thoroughgoing evaluation. Its purpose will be served if it correctly identifies Asiatic, particularly Indian, objectives in Africa, and suggests some ways of keeping Africa either oriented westward or independent in its outlook.