882.01 Foreign Control/371: Telegram
The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State
[Received 11 p.m.]
262. From Reber. Department’s 132, September 21, 4 p.m.; and 133, September 21, 6 p.m.
Although I am endeavoring to postpone any discussion of the nationality of the Chief Adviser there is an overwhelming sentiment already existing in the Committee that the person selected should be a neutral, which would exclude a national of any state having African possessions or specific interests in Liberian products. This attitude receives additional support from the general understanding that neither British, French, nor Dutch nationals would be acceptable.
I am informed on excellent authority that should a vote be taken at the present time the United States would remain alone in its support of an American candidate. A number of members consider that inasmuch as the United States has made the question a matter for international cooperation the League cannot accept direct supervision of an international plan by a country having specific interests in Liberia. It has been directly contrary to League procedure in other cases to appoint at the head of similar administrative commissions citizens of countries directly concerned.
In this connection Cecil told me he must stress the fact that the Council of the League will not agree to the appointment of a citizen of any single country having predominant interests in Liberia.
Members of the Committee have been led to believe, presumably from Liberian sources, that American policy in this matter centers upon the appointment of an American citizen as Chief Adviser to draw up a plan which would principally concern and benefit Firestone interests. I have reason to think that recent activities in Monrovia have induced Barclay to inform other members of the Committee that the United States has been endeavoring to persuade Liberia to advocate the appointment of an American citizen and that even should Liberia suggest this nomination other members of the Committee would reject it.
I do not believe Cecil is particularly animated in this connection by pro-British interests. He seems primarily anxious to keep the question upon an international basis, and the mere fact that an American citizen is not Chief Adviser does not in his opinion preclude American participation in sharing with the League the responsibility for the success of the plan. He feels that American financial interests can be adequately protected through the Financial Adviser. [Page 756] He stated to me this morning that he feared it might not be possible to prevent the question of nationality from being discussed in connection with the determination of the neutrality of the Chief Adviser.
With reference to the Department’s inquiry as to the possibility of discussing this matter directly with the British Government, I can only say that Cecil has told me that he has been given a free hand by his Government to effect a settlement of this matter along general international lines and I fear that a change in British policy in this respect might be difficult to obtain.
Although I have made it clear the United States at the present time desires to reserve the question of nationality, this point has been raised in several discussions I have had with other members of the Committee and the sentiment against an American citizen as Chief Adviser is one which cannot be disregarded. Insistence upon this point will in my opinion result in a break-up of the meeting without solution. Inasmuch as some report must be made by the Committee to the Council, I have received intimations that in such an event a recommendation might be made that in view of American position the solution of the Liberian problem should be assumed by the United States. [Reber.]