350/3–354
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs (Key)1
- Subject:
- French Views on Statements by the United States Representative in the Trusteeship Council
- Participants:
- M. Henri Bonnet, Ambassador of France
- M. Gabriel van Laethem, First Secretary, French Embassy
- Mr. David McK. Key, Assistant Secretary, United Nations Affairs
- Mr. Robert R. Robbins, Acting Director, UND
- Mr. Curtis C. Strong, UND
- Mr. Ward Allen, EUR
Ambassador Bonnet said that he wished to discuss with Mr. Key in a frank and friendly spirit the concern that had been aroused in Paris, as well as in the French Embassy and in the French Mission to the United Nations, by certain statements made by the United States Representative in the Trusteeship Council. The Ambassador wished to make clear that there was no friction between the French and United States Delegation to the Trusteeship Council; on the contrary the French Representative, M. Pignon, had emphasized his high personal regard for the United States Representative and the cordial relations between the French and United States Delegations. Both M. Pignon and he were convinced that Mr. Sears’ statements in the Council had been animated by lofty motives. However, French officials, concerned with the administration of overseas territories in Africa, were seriously concerned over the harmful repercussions which they felt sure Mr. Sears’ remarks would have in some of these territories. Certain [Page 1366] phrases were bound to be exploited by extremists who sought to discredit the French administrations there.
The French recognized and were grateful for the fact that Mr. Sears had paid tribute to the accomplishments of French administrators in Africa. However, Ambassador Bonnet felt bound to say that he felt there was some inconsistency between these favorable remarks and the philosophy of the statements in which they appeared. Actually the policy of the French to provide a broad economic and social basis for political advancement stems from quite a different conception of colonial administration than the excellerated [accelerated?] political approach emphasized almost exclusively by Mr. Sears. He had in mind in particular the clear implication in Mr. Sears’ statements that independence was the desirable goal for every nationalistic group in Africa seeking it. The French felt that many of the local political movements in Africa could not be dignified by the term “national” movements. Moreover, they believed that encouragement of these numerous movements could lead to the fragmentation of Africa into a large number of nonviable, weak and unstable African states. This would be contrary to French policy, and presumably not desired by the United States either. At a time when, with United States encouragement, strenuous efforts were being made to break down international barriers in Europe, he felt sure that the United States could not desire to encourage political fragmentation in Africa. The French concept was a federal one with the territories under their administration in Africa maintaining their associations not only with each other but also with metropolitan France to the mutual benefit of all parties.
Mr. Sears had suggested in effect that the French model their policy on British policy in West Africa and that they maintain the same pace of political development. Without wishing to criticize British policy in this area, Ambassador Bonnet said that the French were not persuaded that the British experiments in the Gold Coast and Nigeria would be entirely successful. They would prefer to wait and see how they worked out before imitating them. Moreover, conditions were not the same in all West African territories. French Togoland, for example, was not enjoying the kind of prosperity which had so materially helped the Gold Coast and British Togoland along the road to self-government. French policy, too, was aimed at the achievement of self-government for the territories under their administration. The French felt that their methods were in the best interests of the inhabitants and that time would demonstrate their effectiveness.
The Ambassador also pointed out that there were a number of North African nationalist propagandists in New York, as well as in Europe and Africa, who could, and undoubtedly would not hesitate to misuse phrases from Mr. Sears’ statements to demonstrate American support for their cause. He felt sure that it was not Mr. Sears’ intention to [Page 1367] provide such persons with anti-French ammunition. However, he was seriously concerned lest in this area, too, which was of particular importance to the security of the free world, Mr. Sears’ statements would all too readily lend themselves to such use.
Mr. Key expressed his appreciation for Ambassador Bonnet’s frank and friendly explanation of the French views concerning Mr. Sears’ statements. He said that he had had occasion to talk to Mr. Sears about his statements and he was sure that Mr. Sears had not intended to be critical of French policy but simply to point out in a friendly and constructive spirit some of the factors in present day West Africa that must necessarily condition the policy of all colonial administrators in the area. Mr. Key would not deny the possibility that certain of Mr. Sears’ statements might be distorted or misused by nationalist propagandists. He hoped that this would not be the case; however, if it were, it should be possible to make clear that such propagandists were guilty of distortion and misrepresentation. He would certainly pass on to Mr. Sears the apprehensions which Ambassador Bonnet had expressed and he felt sure that Mr. Sears would give careful thought to the considerations which the Ambassador had put forward and would continue his close and cordial relationship with the French Delegation.
Mr. Key informed Ambassador xBonnet that Mr. Sears hoped to pay a visit to West Africa after the close of the current session of the Council. The Ambassador expressed his pleasure at learning that Mr. Sears was planning to make such a trip. He felt that nothing but good could come from this opportunity for the United States Representative to acquaint himself with conditions in West Africa. He also agreed that, if damaging propaganda use of Mr. Sears’ statements were made, it would be possible for Mr. Sears to point out that his statements had been distorted and misrepresented. He wondered if it might not be desirable for Mr. Sears to give some thought in advance to the kind of rectification he might wish to make.
- Drafted by Curtis C. Strong of the Office of Dependent Area Affairs.↩