Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, United Nations and General International Matters, Volume II

237. Telegram From the Department of State to the Mission at the United Nations¹

Washington, November 1, 1960—9:16 p.m.

804. Ref: Soviet Item on Colonialism: Deptel 617 to USUN; USUN’s 1011, 1117.² Although we expect debate on Soviet “Declaration on granting independence to colonial countries and peoples”³ will be long and difficult, we believe it can provide opportunity make clear our historic principles as well as menace Soviet brand of colonialism poses to newer and smaller states.

Problems raised by Soviet declaration are vast in scope but can be narrowed down to three major elements which USUN should take into account in discussions with other delegations. These are:

1. Position of United States on colonialism, in view our own history and outlook, can only be that we firmly support principles of self-determination for all peoples who desire it and are able and willing undertake its burdens.

2. We will continue to render meaningful assistance through United Nations and elsewhere to facilitate and expedite transition to self-government and independence for former dependent territories. Number of UN institutions, including Fourth Committee, Trusteeship Council and Committee on Information exist primarily to facilitate this transition. Equally important, UN has been instrumental in creating climate of world opinion favorable to achievement of independence by dependent areas.

3. Analysis of Soviet position on colonialism indicates that USSR is at the same time major colonial power in world today while it poses as most ardent champion in theory of rights of dependent peoples. It would be difficult find single case where the Soviets have been instrumental in achievement of independence by any people.

Dept believes all three elements important and that it would be major tactical error concentrate too heavily on (3), for example. We can succeed in pulling majority Africans and Asians towards our position on Soviet colonial structure to extent we are able convince them that United States has been most effective champion of rights of dependent peoples and that our continued support is worth more than that of Soviets.

At same time we should not neglect opportunity condemn Communist colonialism to fullest, pointing out Soviet Union is not only largest existing colonial power, but only colonial regime that is still expanding and which has never granted independence or self-government to any subject people. Recognize some Africans and Asians will prefer discourage discussion of Communist colonialism, since tends create voting difficulties in view injection “cold war” issue. However, US must use every opportunity educate these new nations in dangers of Sino-Soviet imperialism. Effectiveness this tactic already illustrated by extreme sensitivity displayed by Soviet spokesmen whenever references to Communist colonialism are made. (To extent possible, of course, desirable condemnations of Communist colonialism emanate from Afro-Asians or from Europeans and LA’s without colonial tradition.) Point should be made that colonialism exists not only when colored subject peoples are involved. Principle of racial equality requires that colonialism be opposed everywhere.

Inasmuch as many countries in the UN have recently emerged from a colonial relationship and are deeply committed to principle of self-determination, there is danger that debate may degenerate into series of emotional speeches denouncing colonialism in general and its vestiges in Africa and the Pacific in particular. To avoid such situation from developing, in which Soviets can only stand to gain, Dept considers it important debate be managed as much as possible. Delegation should make major effort enlist speakers in initial stages of debate who will stress accomplishments in dependent-areas field, point out need for peaceful transition, commend United Nations’ activities in this field, and parenthetically deliver effective blows at Soviet colonialism.

Details should be worked out New York, but Dept would suggest consultations with Malayans, Turkish, Japanese, Tunisian and Latin American delegations as priority matter. Secy told Malayan PM US hoped Malayan Del would take lead in working out counter-resolution this subject.⁴PM replied he would be happy help on this question and that he and Malayan Ambassador would discuss matter when they arrived in NY. Irish have on occasion in Fourth Committee delivered excellent speeches on general subject of colonialism as have Scandinavians. If members these delegations show interest our general approach, Dept is ready provide basic factual accounts Soviet colonialism they may find useful in preparing speeches. We have in mind Turkish discussion of Turkestan, for example, and Scandinavian treatment of situation in Baltic Republics.

On assumption Soviet declaration designed to be voted on as draft resolution, we can conceive of three methods of handling. In order of preference, they are: submission of counter-resolution; amendment of Soviet draft; and attempt to secure massive abstentions or negative votes, followed by lengthy explanation of votes.

We believe introduction of moderate counter-resolution has most to commend it, providing it can be of nature to attract at least two-thirds majority. Best sponsorship would include Africans, Asians, Latin Americans and such Europeans as Scandinavians, Ireland and Austria. Dept believes we should avoid submission of “western draft” designed merely to prevent Soviets from securing two-thirds majority. In fact, we hope major initiative will come from friendly Afro-Asians, to which we could lend full and sympathetic cooperation.

Dept pouching this evening comments on Soviet Draft Declaration⁵ which can be circulated as UN document and which stresses Soviet record on colonialism.

Texts resolutions mentioned urtel 1117 needed urgently, as well as any other being discussed Afro-Asian caucus.

Herter

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 321.4/10–2560. Confidential; Priority. Drafted by Tron on October 26; initialed by Cargo; cleared by Bohlen, Wallner, Stoessel, Kohler, Sullivan, Gerig, Herz, Nunley, and Armitage; and approved and signed by the Secretary.
2. See footnote 6, Document 184.
3. Telegram 617 is printed as Document 216. Telegram 1011, October 9, reported that USUN had prevented a Soviet bloc attempt to narrow the scope of the colonial item and requested material on Soviet treatment of minorities. (Department of State, Central Files, 321.4/10–2560) Telegram 1117, October 25, reported on an administering nations meeting at which the colonial item was discussed. (Ibid.)
4. A memorandum of this October 26 conversation is ibid., Secretary’s Memoranda of Conversation: Lot 64 D 199.
5. Not found.