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

226. Aide-Mémoire From the Department of State to the Ethiopian Embassy¹

Washington, November 5, 1955.

In a conversation with Mr. Allen on June 30 of this year, the Ambassador of Ethiopia said it was his Government’s desire to negotiate a settlement of the disputed Ethiopia–Somalia boundary with Italy as quickly as possible.² The Ambassador emphasized, however, that this could not be done under the pressure of a deadline, such as that established in General Assembly Resolution 854(IX) of December 14, 1954.³ Boundary disputes, the Ambassador observed, are complicated affairs which cannot be settled in a few weeks or a month.

The United States is by no means unsympathetic to this attitude, as demonstrated by its successful efforts at the Trusteeship Council meeting in July to prevent the adoption of a resolution calling for mediation within a specified period.⁴ It should be understood, nevertheless, that the United States subscribes fully to the view set forth by the Ambassador that a boundary settlement should be reached as expeditiously as possible.

While sympathizing with Ethiopia’s objection to the imposition of a deadline, the Department of State considers it in the general welfare that a border settlement be reached no later than the beginning of Somalia’s independence in 1960. It is surely in Ethiopia’s interest to dispose of an issue which could become a target for rising Somali nationalism and a source of discord with the new Somali state.

In addition, the trend of feeling in the United Nations on this matter should not be minimized. That organization has a natural desire to launch Somalia on its course of independence with as few problems as possible. There are consequently mounting pressures in the United Nations for recommending that the parties to the boundary dispute now resort to United Nations mediation, as provided for originally in General Assembly Resolution 392(V) of December 15, 1950. It obviously becomes increasingly difficult for the United States to oppose these pressures in the absence of progress in bilateral negotiations.

Ethiopia and Italy appear to have been frustrated so far in their desire to proceed with negotiations by certain procedural difficulties, in particular a difference of opinion over Somali representation in the negotiations. According to reports from our Embassy in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia holds, as a matter of principle, that it must deal primarily with Italy in the negotiations. At the same time the Department has the impression that Ethiopia would not object to a role for Somalis as experts or advisers on the Italian side of the negotiating table. The Department sees much practical merit in this means of associating individuals likely to hold authority in the future Somali nation with the boundary settlement. Such an arrangement would furthermore appear to be without prejudice to the Ethiopian contention that Ethiopia and Italy are the only legitimate spokesmen in the negotiations. As in all trusteeships, sovereignty in Somalia already resides in the people of that country and in the long run the success of any boundary settlement will depend on their acceptance of it.

In any event, the Department strongly hopes that the procedural issues can soon be disposed of and that through earnest and vigorous bilateral negotiation substantial progress can be made on the boundary problem itself so that the United States will be in a position to give the fullest possible support to Ethiopia during the forthcoming discussions of Somalia at the United Nations in opposing any move to insist on United Nations mediation at this time. The Department would welcome such further views as the Ambassador may have on the boundary negotiations.⁵

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 675.77/11–455. Leo G. Cyr handed the aide-mémoire to Berhanou Dinke, Counselor of the Ethiopian Embassy.
2. Among the other subjects discussed by Ambassador Yilma Deressa and George V. Allen were Ethiopian requests for aviation and port development loans. (Memorandum of conversation by Cyr, June 30; ibid., 775.5–MSP/6–3055)
3. This resolution urged Ethiopia and Italy to negotiate directly a settlement of their dispute or resort to U.N. mediation as proposed in General Assembly Resolution 392(V) of December 15, 1950. Ambassador Deressa asserted on January 19 that the U.S. vote was viewed as a vote against Ethiopia. (Memorandum of conversation by Alfred Wellons, January 19; ibid., 775.5–MSP/1–1955) At the urging of the United States, talks between Ethiopia and Italy began in June.
4. Because Ethiopia agreed to resume negotiations, the United States tried to forestall the Trusteeship Council from adopting a resolution unacceptable to Ethiopia. Resolution 1257(XVI) of July 21 expressed the hope that direct negotiations would yield the results hoped for in Resolution 854(IX). It further recommended that in the event the negotiations fail, the mediation procedure contained in Resolutions 392(V) and 854(IX) be implemented. The vote was 7–0–5 (United States).

5. In a November 19 memorandum delivered to the Department of State November 22, Ethiopia thanked the United States for helping to put off mediation and agreed that the Somali-Ethiopian border should be expeditiously delimited, but stated Ethiopian desire that Italy accept the 1908 Convention—which the Somalis rejected—as the basis for negotiations. The United States expressed the view that Ethiopia should not insist upon this point and indicated that continued U.S. backing of the Ethiopian position against mediation was predicated on bilateral progress. (Telegram 272 to Addis Ababa, November 23; ibid., 675.773/11–2355) On November 26, the Ethiopian Foreign Minister assured the U.S. Ambassador that Ethiopia would inform Italy of its willingness to engage in negotiations without insisting that it be solely on the basis of the 1908 Convention. (Telegram 353 from Addis Ababa, November 26; ibid, 675.773/11–2655)

   Resolution 947(X), adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on December 17, recommended that Ethiopia and Italy expedite their bilateral negotiations. It was adopted by a vote of 45 votes to 1 with 13 abstentions, the United States voting in favor.