Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1932, The British Commonwealth, Europe, Near East and Africa, Volume II

882.01 Foreign Control/400

The American Representative on the International Committee on Liberia (Reber) to the Secretary of State

Geneva, 29 September, 1932.
[Received October 10.]

Sir: Supplementing the Consulate’s recent telegrams concerning the September session of the International Committee on Liberia, I have the honor to submit herewith more detailed observations with regard to the Committee’s work and its programs for the future.

The Minutes and documents of these meetings will be transmitted to the Department as soon as a full set can be received.⁶⁹ I am, however, enclosing three copies of the document setting forth the general principles of the Plan of Assistance,⁷⁰ which were accepted by Liberia on September 27, 1932 and adopted by the Committee on that date.

Acting upon the Department’s telegraphic instructions, I arrived in Geneva several days prior to the date of the meeting set for September 19th in order that I might have an opportunity to discuss with various members of the Committee and the League Secretariat the Liberian reservations to the program of reform outlined at the May session and to ascertain their views concerning the Department’s memorandum of August 25th. It was understood during these preliminary discussions that the Liberian reservations were unacceptable to the majority and in particular to the President, Lord Cecil, who, as has previously been telegraphed, was prepared to support satisfactory provisions insuring the grant of adequate authority to the Chief Adviser.

It was in connection, however, with the appointment of this official that the question of his nationality was raised by Lord Cecil in the preliminary discussions. His views in this connection were outlined to the Department in telegram No. 250, September 20, 3 p.m. This position was supported by other members of the Committee, who were not adverse to granting an extension of this official’s powers but felt that he should be a neutral, that is to say, a national of a State having no specific interests in Liberia or in the development of any of its products. During the course of these private discussions it became manifest that any suggestion for the appointment of an American would be unacceptable if proposed. In view of this sentiment it was considered most important that no reference to this question be permitted in the Committee during the course of its deliberations, and with the support of the President and the rapporteur it was possible to avoid such a discussion on the ground that until the man’s functions had been determined it would be unwise to consider his selection.

In spite of this decision to delay consideration of the nationality of the Chief Adviser, the British representative, Lord Cecil, felt this matter was of extreme importance and that an effort should be made to harmonize the views of the American and British governments on this subject, for he thought it necessary that the two governments should agree concerning this individual before any proposals could be submitted to the Committee. In this connection references are made to the exchange of telegrams regarding the intervention of Sir John Simon and Lord Cecil. Lord Cecil’s letter to Mr. Wilson in reply to the message transmitted in pursuance to the Department’s No. 3⁷¹ is enclosed at the Minister’s request.

When the Committee met on September 19th it recommended that any changes in its program (Annex III. Document C469.M.238, 1932 VII) should be presented in the shape of amendments to this text. In spite of the American proposal that the whole question of Liberian reforms could be more adequately and successfully solved through the appointment of a single individual, who would thus be in a position to prepare a satisfactory plan according to the principles already developed in the Committee, to insure the effective application of reforms, and through collaboration with the Liberian Government to reduce the preliminary expenses involved in setting up the necessary machinery, all the other members, except the Liberian who was opposed in general to any American suggestion, felt that any such departure from their program would endanger the application of the principles provided in other sections of the plan. It was felt that the appointment of the three provincial commissioners and their deputies, which was considered to be of vital importance, would be jeopardized by the suggestion.

Since the Committee realized, however, that the American Government had certain objections to the annex, it was prepared to consider these if changes could be wrought within its framework; otherwise it was feared that the whole work of the Committee up to the present time would be abandoned. Very serious opposition to this grant of power to a single individual was raised.

In order to counteract this and an impression which, probably originating from Liberian sources, seemed to be gaining ground in the Committee to the effect that the American desire to augment the powers of the Chief Adviser was largely inspired by the hope of appointing an American to reorganize the country along lines principally beneficial to the Firestone interests, it was considered wise to solicit the Department’s permission to press its objections in the form of amendments to Annex III inasmuch as they seemed principally concerned with the lack of power granted the Chief Adviser and certain aspects of the financial changes suggested. To meet these views, references to the Financial Adviser in Chapter 3 were tentatively placed to one side pending the results of the discussions with the American financial interests. Likewise Section 2 of the Annex III relating to the suggested changes in the loan and plantations contracts was omitted upon the understanding that it contained only suggestions to be taken into account during the course of the direct financial negotiations between the Liberian Government and representatives of the American groups.

In spite of the many amendments to the draft of the Plan of Assistance, (C. Liberia/27) presented by the Liberian representatives, the details of which will be seen from the Committee documents, few of these were accepted by the Committee, which determined primarily under Chapter 1 to retain the text as originally drafted. Although the original proposal of the experts had envisaged the exclusion of Monrovia from the administrative control of the foreign commissioners, this point was apparently overlooked by the Liberian delegation when it withdrew its proposal to exclude the counties from the application of the Plan of Assistance. It is now definitely understood by the Committee (reference thereto is to be inserted in the final report) that the whole territory of the Republic is to be included within the three provinces, no exception being specified.

As regards the Liberian proposal to admit only Liberians as deputy commissioners, the final decision on this point was reserved for the Chief Adviser. Other changes in the first two chapters do not seem to require comment, save as regards the proposed gendarmerie, placed under the orders of the provincial commissioner. The Committee was willing to change the name of this corps to that of messengers in accordance with existing practice in other territories of West Africa. Their functions and numbers will be arranged by the Chief Adviser.

The final drafting of Chapter 3 of the document in question is postponed.

With reference to Chapter 4, it will be seen that the appointment of the Chief Adviser by the Council of the League of Nations with the acceptance of the Liberian President is envisaged. Chapter 6, however, contains a general provision that all powers exercisable by the Council may be exercised by a standing committee appointed by it, except as regards determination of the duration of the scheme, a function which cannot be delegated by the Council to any other body. This arrangement will permit the United States to have a voice in the selection of the official or to exercise its veto should the individual chosen not be satisfactory, since the unanimity rule will be exercised in this case. Inasmuch as the appointment will have to be accepted by Liberia before coming into force, the Committee did not deem it possible to apply the provisions of paragraph 5 of Article 2 in this case. I was assured by the President during the meetings that the Committee would have first to agree upon this official, and that the Council would not wish to select anyone whose appointment was not acceptable to one of the States particularly interested.

The clauses in paragraph 3 of Article 1, relating to the documents and official reports to be supplied the Chief Adviser, were retained in the draft for two reasons. The first of these, which was made apparent in the Committee, was that Liberia wished to restrict this function and to make these reports available only in cases where a dispute had arisen between him and the Government. As explained to me, the second of these reasons which seems of importance, relates to the power thereby granted him of investigating judicial processes and court proceedings. This would seem an important provision, as otherwise no mention is made in this plan to reforms of the judiciary, except under the general clauses to the effect that the Chief Adviser in drawing up progressive details of the Plan of Assistance should take into account the discussions that have taken place in the Committee.

In addition to supervising the execution of the scheme of assistance, the Chief Adviser is empowered to prepare the progressive details of the Plan of Assistance. This will permit him the certain necessary elasticity in applying the program of rehabilitation. Paragraph 3 of the first Article of this chapter contains an agreement on the part of the Liberian Government not only to comply with the recommendations of the Chief Adviser but to grant him sufficient and ample authority for the effective execution of the Plan of Assistance. The sole reservation to this agreement to act in accordance with his advice is contained in paragraph 2 of Article 2, which permits the Council to suspend the execution of the Chief Adviser’s recommendations. This decision can be reached only, at the Council’s or Committee’s discretion, in cases involving violation of the existing constitution and does not permit Liberia to do other than comply with the recommendations made by the Chief Adviser, unless the unanimous decision of the Council,—Liberia’s vote not counting—should so permit.

While it is recognized that the full text is not perfectly satisfactory, it would seem that the main principles which the Department has considered of importance are embodied therein. The Chief Adviser has adequate authority to supervise the execution of the plan. His recommendations must be carried out, except when the Council may decide to suspend them in the case of violation of the constitution; and no final decisions have been taken upon a recommendation made concerning the financial sections or the clauses relating to changes in existing contracts, since these are left open for direct negotiations with the interested financial groups—the Finance Corporation of America and the Firestone Plantation Corporation.

It was therefore determined upon the receipt of the Department’s telegram No. 140, September 26,⁷² which stated that the revised draft with certain modifications later inserted appeared acceptable, to concur in the Committee’s adoption of this report upon its acceptance by the Liberian representative.

The Committee has expressed the desire that negotiations should be immediately begun between the American groups and the Liberian representatives in order that a final report may be drawn up for the Council as soon as possible. During these negotiations the services of the financial section of the League will be made available to the interested parties. I do not, however, anticipate that it will be necessary for me to take part in these negotiations unless otherwise instructed, but shall be available should the Department consider that the participation of the American representative is necessary.

Respectfully yours,

Samuel Reber, Jr.

[Enclosure]

The President of the International Committee on Liberia (Cecil) to the American Minister in Switzerland (Wilson)

Geneva, 27 September, 1932.

My Dear Wilson: I was extremely grateful to you for showing me the message from Mr. Stimson yesterday. I appreciate very much his courtesy in the matter, and reciprocate to the full his anxiety that nothing should be done in the Liberian affair which can possibly cause any difference of view between our two Governments.

I am glad to say that this afternoon we have finally settled, with the approval of Mr. Reber, all the administrative provision[s] of the plan of assistance which the League Committee proposes. It is now for the Firestone interests to tell us whether on that plan they are prepared to make such financial arrangements as will enable the Liberian Government to put the plan into operation. As you know, the plan provides for a Chief Adviser, to whom is now given ample power, on paper, to carry the plan into execution. It does not touch any of the financial arrangements now in existence except so far as may be agreed upon by the Firestone interests. Under these financial arrangements the nominee of the Firestone interests has complete control, as I understand it, of all receipts and expenditure by the Liberian Government in a sufficient degree to secure the debt due from Liberia to them. The Committee were advised that, for whatever reason, the result of this financial arrangement had been not favourable to the Liberian financial position, mainly no doubt through the folly of the Liberian Government, apparently not checked, or not sufficiently checked, by the Financial Adviser appointed by the Firestone people. It is to be one of the duties of the Chief Adviser in any question that may be raised as to expenditure affecting the plan of assistance, to arbitrate between the Financial Adviser and the Liberian Government, but the Chief Adviser will have no power, as I understand it, to insist on any payments by Liberia without the consent of the Financial Adviser.

It is obvious that if this machinery is to work satisfactorily to Liberian opinion, the Chief Adviser must be not only independent but clearly and obviously independent of any bias in favour of the Financial Adviser. He must be and must seem to be, absolutely impartial as between Liberia and the Firestone people.

That is one of the reasons why it seems to me rather difficult to agree that the Chief Adviser should be of American nationality. A more important reason, however, is that if the Chief Adviser were American, the complete administration of Liberia in every respect would be placed in American hands, since the Financial Adviser is American also. That might be for the best from the point of view of Liberian Administration; I can see many advantages in it; but I think it would be impossible for the League to agree to hand over the administration of one of its members entirely to individuals of one nationality, unless there were serious international guarantees for their good administration. What I mean is that if the proposal were that the American Government should undertake the responsibility for the administration of Liberia through a Chief Adviser and a Financial Adviser appointed with the concurrence of the League of Nations, that would be a proposal which from the League point of view would have much to recommend it. They would cease to have any serious responsibility except such as they have in a mandated country, and they would have the conviction that the guarantees resulting from American official administration would be fully present.

I myself should be glad to support such a solution, though I am afraid it would meet with very vehement opposition from the present Liberian Government. But unless the American Government is prepared to take the responsibility in the matter, I do feel that it is almost impossible for the League to agree to hand over Liberia to two private American individuals, one of whom would be the nominee of a commercial company, and I am pretty certain that it would be almost impossible to persuade the present League Committee, or any other League Committee, to agree to such a solution. I think they would certainly agree that the Chief Adviser should be chosen from some nation which could not be suspected of any rivalry of the United States or any unfairness to American interests. They would be quite ready to exclude, for instance, British, French and Dutch nationals. They would accept a Scandinavian or practically any other Western nationality that was approved by the American Government, but I do not see how they could be expected to go further than that, and if the Firestone people insist on an American Chief Adviser, I am afraid that the whole negotiation will break down, unless some other source can be found from which the relatively small sum necessary for starting the reforms can be obtained.

I have ventured to put the matter rather fully and I hope clearly to you, but of course you must understand that I am writing without having had the opportunity of submitting my observations to the British Government, and, though I have no reason to suppose that they would differ from them, yet it must be understood that I am not in any way committing them.

Yours very sincerely,

Cecil

69. They were transmitted to the Department under covering letter of October 17 (not printed). For texts of the documents printed, see League of Nations, Official Journal, December 1932, pp. 2037 (C.662.M.319.VII), 2051 (C.720.1932.VII), 1936 (C.721.1932.VII), and 1935 (C.722.1932.VII).
70. For revised text of the “General Principles of the Plan of Assistance” and the accompanying “Observations Regarding Certain Clauses of the Plan,” see League of Nations, Official Journal, December 1932, pp. 2053 and 2055. The “General Principles” are also printed in Department of State, Press Releases, October 15, 1932, p. 240.
71. Supra.
72. Not printed.