Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, United Nations Affairs, Volume III

Department of State Committee files, lot 54 D 5, “Working Group on Colonial Problems”

Minutes of Meeting of the Working Group on Colonial Problems, Department of State, June 20, 1952, 11:00 a.m. to 12 noon

confidential
CP M–1

[Washington,] June 24, 1952.

• Present: UND
• Mr. William Cargo, Acting Chairman
• L/UNA
• Messrs. Charles Eunyan L. C. Meeker
• FE
• Miss Ruth Bacon
• S/A
• Mr. Louis H. Pollak
• EUR
• Mr. W. B. Sale
• NEA
• Mr. H. N. Howard
• S/P
• Miss Dorothy Fosdick
• ARA
• Mr. G. N. Monsma
• TCA
• Mr. Lawrence Cramer
• S/S–S
• E. M. Christensen, Secretary

I. Scope of the Work Program to be Undertaken by the Working Group.

1. The Chairman opened the meeting by noting that everyone present was generally familiar with the reason why the Working Group on Colonial Problems had been established. He requested that the group adopt a pragmatic approach and attempt to deal with specific problems while also considering long range policy questions. He suggested that each area represented prepare a list of problems which should be brought before CP. He noted that UNA would like to follow this procedure for current UN problems but that there are, in addition, problems in various areas which have not yet reached the UN stage which could profitably be raised. He suggested that each member of the working group submit to the CP Secretary by Tuesday, June 24, a list of immediate and long range problems in the colonial field. These lists will then be combined and distributed as a committee document. Consideration could then be given at the next meeting to what the group’s work program should be.

2. With regard to the general consideration of U.S. colonial policy he suggested that further consideration of the 1950 document on U.S. colonial policy (FM D F–3/1)¹ should not be ruled out, noting that this document had never been finally approved in the Department. He stressed that such an overall document would not provide answers to specific colonial problems which arise, for example, in the General Assembly of the UN. Nonetheless an overall policy statement would be of considerable value to those officials not working daily with the colonial problem and for those delegates to technical conferences who are often confronted unexpectedly with colonial questions. He hoped, however, that the group would not become “bogged down” in an effort to reach agreement on a long paper setting forth general U.S. colonial policy and suggested that by the preparation of a list of the various problems a determination could be made as to what problems should be given priority consideration.

3. Mr. Monsma expressed doubt as to the value, in the ARA area, of simply listing recurring problems such as those of the Falkland Islands and Belize. The Chairman replied that the Committee might well consider not only territorial problems but the attitudes of the peoples involved and other comparable questions. He suggested that each representative attempt to include in their list an across-the-board view of present and potential colonial problems in their area. Mr. Howard said it would be very easy to prepare a long list of problems in the NEA area but that it was much more difficult to do something about them. He asked whether the working group would be responsible for preparing position papers on colonial problems for the General Assembly or the Trusteeship Council and, if so, whether this would result in a duplication of the work usually handled between UND and the geographic areas. The Chairman said that UND was anxious to avoid any duplication, and that if positions on colonial questions for forthcoming international meetings could be determined by the CP working group it would be unnecessary to repeat this work elsewhere. Mr. Howard asked whether the list should contain issues such as those of the Sudan and Cyprus, which may be raised in the next, or a subsequent, General Assembly. The Chairman replied that he felt that such problems should be considered by the group.

4. Miss Fosdick asked whether it was intended that a paper be prepared which would raise the overall issues relating to the colonial questions. The Chairman replied that such an overall paper might be approached inductively rather than deductively since the latter approach had failed on the 1950 paper. Miss Fosdick suggested that an overall guideline paper should be prepared rather than depending upon sporadic papers to set forth our basic policy. The Chairman said that an initial step might be made through the preparation of a summary of the 1950 paper. Miss Fosdick asked whether the primary objective of the group was not to examine our entire colonial policy. Miss Bacon reminded the group of both the difficulty that had been encountered in trying to reach agreement in 1950 on an overall statement and of the detailed work which had gone into the preparation of the 1950 document. The Chairman said that it had been UNA’s thought that the group would deal primarily with specific problems and that this idea was also reflected in memoranda written by the various geographic offices. Miss Fosdick expressed the view that the working group should take nothing for granted as far as previous policy was concerned and that all of the representatives should divorce themselves from their office loyalties in order to consider problems in a detached manner. If such was not to be the case, the colonial problems might as well be handled through regular channels. Mr. Meeker suggested that the members of the working group should probably read the 1950 paper and then attempt to prepare a new statement of U.S. policy.

5. Mr. Monsma noted that he had participated in the attempts to reach agreement on the 1950 paper. While this was a revealing exercise, the group could only answer such questions as “should the U.S. continue to be a ‘balance wheel’?” It was impossible however to reach agreement on what such terms as “balance wheel” meant. Therefore, while a short paper outlining general policy might be helpful, even after it is prepared it will still be necessary for the working group to address itself to specific questions. Miss Fosdick asked whether it was absolutely essential that the group reach final agreement. She suggested that the group would be fulfilling a purpose if it did nothing more than raise the various dilemmas in the colonial field and refer them to the Secretary of State for resolution. Mr. Pollak took the view that the group should avoid trying to settle only philosophical generalities. He suggested that in reviewing Tunisia and other North African problems which had arisen it might be possible to determine the areas and the direction in which the group should go. The Chairman said that the Department was, of course, not in a position to “let the wheels stop” on particular questions, since many specific problems are coming up or will be coming up soon in the UN. Therefore, he felt that it would be necessary to consider specific problems as well as to work on an overall policy statement.

6. Mr. Monsma noted that it was possible that issues would arise for committee consideration which are not on the General Assembly agenda. He recalled the “postmortem” which had been held in the Department on the last General Assembly. Mr. Gerig had stressed the “moderating position” which the U.S. had tried to take on each issue. In the overall review it was not clear whether the U.S. had accomplished its objective by such an approach and the Committee might well study such a question profitably. Another question which might be considered is whether we are morally bound to carry out General Assembly resolutions even though we are not legally bound to do so. He indicated that these were the type of problems that ARA would like to see considered. Miss Bacon noted that FE was also interested in working on specific problems.

7. Miss Fosdick said that she would question the objectives on which everyone usually agreed. She questioned the adequacy of the 1950 paper in view of the many new developments since that time. She urged that a statement of the issues and new tendencies be prepared and concluded that the group should concentrate more on programs than on objectives. The Chairman expressed agreement that the group should assess what has been done in the colonial field, but he said that it was also vital that the group agree to discuss specific problems not only because these problems must be met, but because they will lead the group to a discussion of the basic U.S. approach to colonial questions. He said that UND regarded the colonial issue with a sense of extreme urgency, because it is possible that the colonial problem at the next General Assembly might surpass the East-West issue in importance.

8. The group agreed to the following suggestions by the Chairman: (1) each area will submit to the Secretary by Tuesday, June 24, a list of suggestions on problems (not necessarily territorial) which should be considered by the working group; (2) the members will review the 1950 paper and a paper summarizing its main points will be circulated for consideration at the next meeting of the group; and (3) with the two above steps as points of departure the group will consider at the next meeting its future work program.

9. The next CP meeting will be held in Room 5104, New State at 10:30 a.m. on Friday, June 27.

1. See the editorial note, p. 1075.