882.01 Foreign Control/504:
Telegram
The Secretary of State
to the Consul at Geneva (Gilbert)
Washington, February 4, 1933—9 p.m.
17. For Reber. Your telegram No. 39, February 3, 7 p.m. If the
attitude of the Committee remains as you reported, the prospect of
the usefulness of future attempts to seek a solution of the Liberian
problem by international action seems frankly discouraging. I feel
that the time has come when we must make our point of view a matter
of record: you should accordingly write a letter to Viscount Cecil,
in reply to his aide-mémoire of yesterday,
along the following lines:
- “1. It is difficult for the American Government to see
how the Committee can view the situation brought about
by Liberia’s unilateral destruction of the Finance
Corporation contract as representing merely a dispute
between Liberia and the Firestone interests, or as
having only a remote connection with the realization of
the plan of assistance.
- “2. While the Committee must obviously be the judge of
its own terms of reference, the invitation addressed to
the American Government by the Acting Secretary General
of the League on January 30, 1931, contained the
following sentence: The Committee might among other [Page 898] matters
examine the question of administrative assistance
necessary for giving effect to the social reforms
suggested by the Commission of Inquiry and also the
question of financial and public health assistance with
a view to the carrying out of these reforms.’30 ‘Financial assistance’ from the
Firestone interests has repeatedly been stressed by the
Committee as one of the essentials precedent to the
execution of its plan: in fact, as the American
Government views the record, it is essential in the eyes
of the Committee.
- “3. The Committee’s plan as drafted, as accepted by
the American Government as a basis for direct
negotiations between the Firestone interests and
Liberia, as endorsed on that basis by the American
Government to the Finance Corporation, and as accepted
by the Finance Corporation, envisages modification on
terms mutually to be agreed upon of the Corporation’s
contractual rights and advance by the Corporation to
Liberia of not insignificant further funds. Action such
as Liberia’s unilateral destruction of the Corporation’s
existing contract obviously precludes either direct
negotiations or further advance of funds until the
action has been withdrawn, and thus automatically
creates a condition in which the entire scheme must fail
of realization.
- “4. If there is any ‘dispute’ between the Finance
Corporation and Liberia, it can be brought up during the
direct negotiations which the Corporation informed the
Committee it would attend promptly after the condition
referred to above had been removed.
- “5. The suggestion considered by the Committee that
Liberia should be invited to ‘suspend the operation of
the measures’ does not seem to the American Government
to be equivalent to ‘withdrawal’, since the former not
only implies recognition of an illegal act but implies
also that if the negotiations did not result in
agreement, the ‘suspension’ itself would lapse.
Moreover, whatever the theory envisaged by the Committee
in the suggestion that Liberia should ‘suspend’, the
fact (in contrast to the theory) is that unless
Liberia’s illegal actions are withdrawn, direct
negotiations between the Finance Corporation and Liberia
under the terms of the League plan can not take place.
In this the Firestone interests can count upon the
absolute support of the American Government.
- “6. The American Government has cooperated sincerely
and disinterestedly in the work of the Committee and it
still hopes to be able to continue to do so, in
pursuance of its policy of seeking to promote a solution
of the Liberian problem by international cooperation.
Nevertheless, the American Government cannot divest
itself of the duty of protecting the legitimately
acquired interests of its citizens, and unless the
Committee is prepared to impress upon Liberia that its
actions in connection with the League plan must be based
on good faith and the sanctity of contracts, it is
difficult to see how future cooperation can be real or
effective.
- “7. Bearing these factors in mind, the American
Government is confident that it can count upon the
support of the Committee. Unless and until Liberia’s
illegal actions have been withdrawn, it is obvious that
no progress can be made, and in the opinion of the
American Government [Page 899] the onus for failure of the plan
of assistance will rest squarely upon Liberia.”
For your own information: in connection with paragraph 5 above, it
may be that the desired object of withdrawal might be obtained by
nullification of the illegal Liberian legislation by the Liberian
court. However, it seems to me that the manner in which the
withdrawal is made is Liberia’s concern.
