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

6. Letter From the Consul at Nairobi (Barrow) to the Representative at the Trusteeship Council (Sears)¹

Nairobi, July 28, 1955.

Dear Mr. Sears: Thank you for your letter of July 18 regarding our telegrams about your opening remarks as President of the Trusteeship Council. Although I did not instigate the action, I did concur generally in Dr. Noon’s telegram and sent a supporting telegram of my own when the Department of State requested clarification.

In retrospect, I believe Dr. Noon and I—in the interests of telegraphic economy—may both have been guilty of the very thing of which we complained, namely, partial exposition of our point of view which may have been misleading. I therefore welcome this opportunity to elaborate in a little more detail the causes of our concern.

Taken by itself—and as far as it goes—we find nothing exceptionable about your statement. It was what the statement did not say that concerned us. Moreover, statements of this kind are read not only in terms of their specific content but also in terms of what you and other important Americans have said before and since on the twin problems of colonialism and self-determination. It is thus not so much this statement or that statement, but the total quantity of them, that is causing us difficulty. The most recent expression of American opinion, for example, was the McCormack Resolution which was supported unanimously by 367 American Congressmen and 88 American Senators.

Unfortunately these statements as they are repeated and reemphasized give the over-all impression here that Americans see only one side of the problem. There is, we must admit, an emphasis in them on admonition to colonial powers to give ground to “self-determination”, “self-government”, or “independence”, whereas rarely does one see in these statements any equivalent admonition to backward peoples to try to improve themselves to the point where self-determination would not likely result in self-destruction. Improving themselves in turn requires that they cooperate to a degree with colonial or other powers who are trying to help them.

Is self-determination a right that is axiomatic, automatic and divinely bestowed? Or is it a right that one must earn? Most of our American public statements seem to leave this clouded in doubt. People here have the impression we believe in the former. But I think that upon reflection nearly all of us would agree that the latter is closer to the truth. Does a child have an “inalienable right” to self-determination? Does even an adult have that right unless he is able to live up to his community responsibilities? Could an all-African government in East Africa, the Belgian Congo or French Equatorial Africa, presently meet its international obligations?

Whether one calls it “colonialism” or “paternalism” or what have you, some form of foreign protection to the African territories is likely to be necessary for quite some time to come, and while it remains necessary it would be strange to call such protection a “denial of inalienable rights of man” (to borrow a phrase from the McCormack Resolution).

There is another aspect which troubles us greatly. By repeated public mention of such clichés as “self-determination”, “achievement of self-government”, “progress to independence”, et cetera, we Americans seem to be promising more to the African than we are—in most areas—actually able to deliver. In so doing there is grave danger of creating disillusionment. One may well wish to talk of these things in the Gold Coast or Nigeria where they are on the point of fulfillment, but elsewhere we feel our public expressions and opinion should be geared to what we, as Americans, are actually in a position to accomplish or to persuade others to accomplish.

In East Africa, for instance, we have advocated an all-out economic, social and educational campaign designed to raise the level of the African in these fields as a prelude to political advance. We are trying to help the British in this respect through technical assistance and educational exchange. Once we get our programs going we will have something we can safely talk about which will have concrete meaning to the people. In short, these will be promises on which we are actually delivering. But if we prematurely indulge in highly controversial public theorizing about the prospects of the people of this area for self-determination or self-government or independence, it seems to me we are going considerably beyond ourselves.

We are inclined to believe genuine political self-determination, as opposed to economic and social advance, is not a thing that can be unnaturally forced either forward or backward in time. It is a thing that evolves out of events and circumstances. When or how it will evolve here we do not at this time know. All we and the colonial power can do is work little by little in an effort to keep things moving on the right track, hoping for the best, and keeping controversies over vaguely conceived “isms” and “principles” to a minimum.

Our classified despatch No. 17 of July 20² on reaction to the McCormack Resolution, as well as our classified despatch No. 1 of July 5³ commenting on the ideological program of the OCB discusses these same questions from the standpoint of the practical consequences to American interests. I assume these classified reports can be made available to you. I would also recommend your having a glance at the second paragraph of the Department’s CA–7584 of May 4⁴ pointing out the danger of riding the colonial power too hard. We believe this is a point well taken. Where we have a colonial power that is working in the right direction, and is indeed enlisting our help in this work, we believe it is best to “take it easy” on applying pressures or giving unwanted advice. Otherwise the terrain may be closed to us as quickly as it opened.

Whereas I shall not be in charge here in October–December, I will certainly look forward to joining Consul General Dorsz and Dr. Noon in fuller discussions with you, as I believe we will all benefit greatly from having your point of view on these matters. I quite realize that in much in what we have said we are on dangerous ground. We seem to be in some disagreement on method, though not on principle, with the unanimous opinion of 455 distinguished Congressmen and Senators aside from others. We nevertheless feel we would be doing less than our duty if we did not report frankly on how things look to us from here, and we hope that what we say will be looked upon in that light.

Sincerely yours,

John R. Barrow⁵

1. Source: Department of State, IO/ODA Files: Lot 62 D 225, U.S. Representative in Trusteeship Council. Official Use Only; Official–Informal. Enclosure to despatch 21 from Nairobi, July 28. (Ibid., Central Files, 350/7–2855) Barrow requested the Department to forward the letter to Sears. There is no indication whether the Department did so.
2. In despatch 17, Barrow recommended against publicizing the resolution since it would offend the Europeans without pleasing the Africans. (Ibid., 511.00/7–2055)
3. Not printed.
4. Document 48.
5. Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.