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

IO files, SD/A/C.4/121

Position Paper Prepared in the Department of State for the United States Delegation to the Eighth Regular Session of the General Assembly

restricted

[Washington,] September 5, 1953.

The Ewe and Togoland Unification Problem: Special Report of the Trusteeship Council (A/2424)

the problem

The unification of British and French Togoland is being requested in petitions to the UN from political parties in both Togolands, representatives of which may be granted oral hearings by the Fourth Committee. Certain non-administering Members may renew last year’s effort for a resolution recommending steps to bring about the unification of all or part of these two trust territories. Such a resolution would be adamantly opposed by the two administering authorities, the U.K. and France, and would be unlikely to win the necessary two-thirds vote because it would fail to take into account the wishes of those Togolanders who oppose unification. This is the complex type of problem that can best be worked out by the peoples concerned, with the UN assisting by encouraging the establishment in a free political atmosphere of local political institutions in which representatives of all major groups can exchange and develop their views. The U.S. will be faced with the problem of endeavoring to have this item dealt with in such a way that it will not sharply divide the colonial and non-colonial powers but rather will permit a compromise solution acceptable to a substantial number of the non-administering Members, of the administering Members, and of the political parties in the two territories.

united states position

1. The Delegation should continue to support the step-by-step approach to this problem set forth in Assembly Resolution 652 (VII).

2. The Delegation should oppose proposals which depart from the above approach to the extent of recommending any particular form of unification.

3. The Delegation should also oppose proposals for UN plebiscites or special UN investigative missions to the area on the grounds that insufficient time has elapsed for a fair trial of the program recommended in Resolution 652 (VII), and that the Trusteeship Council’s 1949 and 1952 Visiting Missions to West Africa made special studies of the problem.

4. The Delegation may, however, support a proposal for another survey of the unification question by the Trusteeship Council’s 1955 Visiting Mission to West Africa.

5. The Delegation may, if appropriate, support re-emphasis by the Assembly of the importance of developing democratic institutions in the two territories, as well as the responsibilities of the administering authorities and the indigenous leaders for maintaining an atmosphere conducive to the free development of such institutions.

6. The Delegation may support requests to the administering authorities and the Trusteeship Council for full reports on the unification question before the next Assembly convenes.

comment

In the past the U.S. position has been based on the view that the wishes of the inhabitants themselves should be the most important element in determining whether or not all or parts of the two Togolands should be unified. It has consequently supported various means of determining these wishes, including special investigations by UN Visiting Missions and the establishment of joint councils in which representatives from both Togolands could express their views. No clear-cut predominating view has emerged. In fact, considerable differences of view have become apparent as to the extent of the areas to be unified, the territories with which unification is sought (i.e. some British Togolanders prefer unification with their neighbors in the Gold Coast, rather than with their neighbors in French Togoland), and the means by which unification should be achieved.

In these circumstances the U.S. at the Seventh Assembly initiated Resolution 652 (VII), which recommends that the two administering authorities “make every effort to bring about the re-establishment of the Joint Council for Togoland Affairs, or a similar body, on a basis which will enlist the cooperation of all major segments of the population.” (Such a Joint Council set up in 1952 had been boycotted by the pro-unification parties in both territories.) To the end that the Joint Council be successfully re-established the resolution recommended that the administering authorities “carry on full and extensive consultations with the principal political parties in the two Territories”. While the terms of reference of such a Council were to include the question of unification, the resolution specified that it should be authorized “to consider and make recommendations upon all political, economic, social and educational matters affecting the two Trust Territories”. No precise procedure for selecting the members of the reconstituted Council was recommended, that being among the subjects on which consultations were to be held. However, paragraph 5 of the resolution provides that the ultimate objective should be to reconstitute the Joint Council, “as soon as possible, by means of direct elections on the basis of universal adult suffrage exercised by secret ballot”. Resolution 652 (VII) thus accorded with the United States view that this problem should be dealt with in stages, designed to develop both political awareness of common problems and means to enable the inhabitants to express their views.

Pursuant to Trusteeship Council Resolution 643 (XI) and Assembly Resolution 622 (VII) the two administering authorities reported to the Trusteeship Council at its 12th Session (June–July 1953) the steps taken by them pursuant to these resolutions. Both stated that they had publicly invited the views of all parties and sections of the population as to an acceptable basis for reconstituting the Joint Council but that the process of consultations was not yet far enough advanced to permit a report on their results. The Trusteeship Council then adopted a special report on this problem (A/2424), which recounted in detail the information given by the administering authorities. This report was supported by the U.S. and approved by a vote of 11 to 1 (USSR).

Two other aspects of this question require comment. One is the frequency and persistence of petitions to the UN charging the French with persecution of the pro-unification parties in French Togoland, which would appear to justify re-emphasis by the Assembly to the administering authorities and the political leaders of their responsibilities for maintaining a free political atmosphere.

The other is the fact that British Togoland will presumably be called upon in the relatively near future to make some decision as to its future relationship to the Gold Coast, which suggests the desirability of not precipitating the Togoland unification question until the two questions can be considered together as interrelated aspects of the future of British Togoland.