Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Africa and South Asia, Volume XI, Part 1

870.411/1–1953

The Consul General at Leopoldville (Mallon) to the Department of State¹

restricted
No. 118

Leopoldville, January 19, 1953.

Subject:

• The Central African Congress, a New International Organization of White Colonists

I. Summary

Representatives of organized Belgian, British, French and Portuguese colonists of Central Africa recently assembled in Bukavu, Belgian Congo, to consider certain problems common to the various colonies in this part of the world. Some of the problems to be considered were: the vast numerical disproportion between the white and black populations (400 thousand against 45 million), the potential danger to racial peace posed by Communist propaganda, the UN’s “dangerous meddling” in colonial affairs, and the alleged indifference and misunderstanding on the part of some metropolitan countries toward their colonists in Africa.

Most of the delegates read previously prepared monographs on one or another aspect of colonial problems, none of which provoked much discussion. After a debate which disclosed a certain measure of disagreement among the several national delegations, the Congress passed five moderately worded resolutions recommending, inter alia, an increase in white immigration, timely and measured promotion of the natives’ progress, loyal cooperation between blacks and whites, non-interference by backward countries of the UN in colonial matters. Most importantly, the assembly created a permanent international organization of colonists called the “Central African Congress” which is to work for unity of action among white settlers in this region.

It is manifest that many British and Belgian colonists want to make the new organization a “White International”, capable of influencing the colonial policies of the metropolitan countries, and eventually serving as the base for a political federation of the various territories in this region. It is likely that the Congress will be influenced in this direction by the Capricorn Africa Society, an enthusiastic member group. However, it seems improbable that the French and Portuguese colonists, whose participation is lukewarm and perfunctory, will support any movement tending to weaken the control of their metropolitan governments.

II. Congress organized on Belgian colonists’ initiative

FEDACOL, the federation of associations of Belgian Congo colonists initiated the Congress. It invited the representatives of organized colonists in Central Africa to meet at Bukavu on January 4 at a “Congress for the Development of Civilization in Africa”. The assembly was to be held in connection with the lavish “Festival of Kivu”, a provincial fair advertising the commercial and touristic opportunities of the Eastern Congo.

To discover FEDACOL’s motives, it is worthwhile to consider the state of mind of the Belgian Colonists. Generally the 7,000^* permanent white settlers of the Congo are a dissatisfied and frustrated group, despite their large share in the fruits of the current economic boom. They are unhappy over the political and social aspects of Belgian colonial policy. In particular, they deplore the rigid limitation on white immigration into the colony, the absence of any trace of self-government for the white colonists, and the Government’s policy of simultaneously “coddling” the natives (institution of family allowances at employer’s expense) and pushing them ahead too fast (“artificial” and “premature” creation of labor unions). More than anything else, they—permanently rooted in Africa—abhor the very suggestion of eventual Belgian withdrawal and native assumption of control.

The colonists are frustrated over their impotence to change and, in most cases, even to influence colonial policy. As a political force or even as a pressure group, they are negligible. None of the three large organized forces in the Congo—Government, “Big Business”, the Church—do they consider as their ally.

In recent months, several events have upset them further. In October, Colonial Minister Dequae, then visiting the Congo, replied to certain demands of a colonists’ delegation in a manner which he later described as “frank and cutting”, but which the angered colonists termed “rude and arrogant”. In the same month, Honorary Vice Governor Marzorati, a member of the Conseil Colonial, publicly reprimanded them for wanting to place their own interests above those of the native population and Belgium’s international responsibilities. Shortly afterward, Monsignor Bigirumwami, the first native Catholic bishop, returned from a visit to Belgium and Rome and spoke to the press of the necessity for consolidating further the Catholic position among the natives; he wanted an increase in the number of native priests before a “critical period” of an unspecified nature which he estimates will occur in about ten years, as well as an accelerated development of civilized social institutions among the natives. The most recent blow to the colonists was the failure of their “favorite son”, Emil Dehoux, to get appointed to the Conseil Colonial. With the appointment of Louis De Wilde to the vacant seat, pro-colonist newspapers here charge that the interests of the colonists are still unrepresented on the Conseil Colonial.

It was inevitable that sooner or later the white colonists in the Congo would start looking for allies among their own kind in neighboring colonies.^† This was FEDACOL’s main purpose in convoking the “Congress for the Development of Civilization in Africa”.

III. Delegates to the Congress

An officer of the Consulate General who attended the Congress as an observer was unable to obtain a complete list of the fifty-odd delegates present. Among the more prominent persons from Belgium were: Former Colonial Minister Godding; Senators Van Remoortel, De Bruyne, Buisseret; M. Dubois, the representative of FEDACOL at Brussels; Emil Dehoux, the colonists’ favorite spokesman in Belgium. The Capricorn Africa Society Delegation was headed by Mr. N. H. Wilson and Col. David Stirling. They appeared to be working closely with Sir Archibald James and Mr. Stokes, delegates from the “Rhodesia Party”. Kenya sent, among others, Mr. Lipscomb and Mr. Megson, both of the European Agricultural Settlement Board of Nairobi, and Lord Portsmouth. M. Garcin, President of the Chamber of Commerce at Pointe Noire, headed the small delegation from French Equatorial Africa. Senhor Antonio Carreira, of the Portuguese Guinea Chamber of Commerce, was the sole Portuguese attending. From the Congo, M. Maleingrau, President of FEDACOL, as well as the leaders of the subsidiary organizations composing FEDACOL were active participants.

IV. Opening session. Keynote speech

Although FEDACOL represents a discontented group, it was plain from the beginning that the general tone and atmosphere of the Congress were meant to be moderate and restrained. The Congress was placed under the chairmanship of M. Godding, a man admired as much in the Congo as in Belgium. He was assisted by two of the Belgian Senators. Representatives of the Catholic Church, which does not see eye to eye with the colonists on native policy, were invited to assist at the Congress; one priest did participate slightly in the meetings.

The Governor General, the Apostolic Delegate, and many other prominent colonial personalities attended the inaugural session to hear M. Godding deliver the keynote speech. It was noncontroversial from the Belgian colonial point of view. M. Godding declared that the primary concern of the colonists must be for the permanent presence of western civilization in Africa, a presence indispensable to blacks and whites alike. The natives must be absorbed into this higher civilization, but it is dangerous to try to rush the process. Western civilization took two thousand years to evolve; one cannot implant it into savage masses in a couple of generations, for “the human mind cannot be improved as rapidly as an airplane engine”. The obstacles to a peaceful cooperation between whites and blacks do not come from within Africa, said M. Godding; they stem from external sources: Communist propaganda, half-baked theoreticians and ideologists, and the United Nations. He sharply criticized the “hypocrisy” of some of the more ardent of the anti-colonialist nations in the UN. M. Godding concluded that the European Colonists of Central Africa, who share common interests and problems, should unite to try to find a solution to their difficulties.

V. The Themes of the Congress

The sessions until the fourth and last day of the Congress were devoted mainly to the reading of papers and monographs prepared beforehand by the various delegates. The studies, many of them scholarly and well-reasoned, were concerned with one or another aspect of the racial problem in Africa and the outlook for the performance of European presence in Central Africa. The following are summaries of the dominant themes which appeared time and time again throughout the Congress:

A. Central African’s Role in the World Crisis

Central Africa is a land of unlimited promise. Although its immense resources have scarcely been tapped, it could, with proper policies, experience a rapid and profound progress, comparable to that of the United States.

Central Africa can be an emigration outlet to relieve the social pressures in the overpopulated countries of Europe. Its economy would be complementary to that of Western Europe. In close association with Western Europe, it could form a powerful new bloc in world affairs, capable of tipping the balance against Communism.

B. Massive White Immigration Indispensable

Central Africa, now largely a demographic vacuum, can be conserved for the free world only by a massive influx of European settlers. Most of the immigrants should be agriculturists but there is need for colonists engaging in all forms of human activity. The children of these immigrants will consider themselves Africans. The natives’ climb toward civilization will be assisted and accelerated by the presence of a large mass of whites.

C. Necessity for Greater Measure of Self-Government

The political disfranchisment of the white populations of the Central African colonies is incompatible with democracy. Too often the government policies and public opinion of the metropolitan countries show a lack of understanding of colonial problems. The colonists themselves are best equipped to run the affairs of the territories.

D. UN “Meddling and hypocrisy” Condemned

One of the chief dangers to peace and cooperation in Central Africa is the UN’s constant interference in colonial matters. This interference stems mostly from the Arab, Asiatic and Latin American countries which themselves have backward populations and underdeveloped economies. The UN representatives of the European colonial powers must stand firm against such attacks; the metropolitan governments should retain freedom of action with regard to participation in the UN.

(Comment: At no time during the Congress did Communist propaganda receive more than a brief, almost casual mention. It appears that the leaders of the white settlers regard the UN as a subversive danger more immediate than Communism. (See despatch 88 dated December 13, 1952.)²

E. Need for Greater Understanding and Unity among White Colonists of Central Africa

Colonists in this part of the world share many common interests, problems, and aims. It is imperative that they unite for common action. The trend in Western Europe is toward unity; this trend should have its counterpart in the African colonies. Only a union of some kind can bring about the transformed Central Africa (item A, above) which the world so urgently needs.

Perhaps because of the limited time available there was scant discussion of any of the papers.

VI. Debate on resolutions

The main work of the Congress was the formulation of resolutions. Despite all the talk about community of interest it proved surprisingly difficult to agree on the phraseology of the resolutions. The debate on a set of proposed resolutions, submitted by a special committee, revealed some interesting points of difference among the various national delegations.

The delegation from FEA strongly protested against a proposal to recommend a “massive white immigration” into Central Africa. The French held that there is little scope in FEA for agriculturists and that their colony neither needs nor wants a large white proletariat “which might become disappointed and start forming Communist organizations”. At the insistence of the French, the first resolution calls for an “important” instead of a “massive” increase in European immigration.

The Rhodesian delegation, supported by the French, vetoed a proposal to recommend a greater measure of self-government for the colonies.

The Rhodesians explained (and here the spokesman asked the newsmen present not to transcribe his remarks) that, while they are ardent advocates of colonial autonomy, they are obliged to soft-pedal this angle at the present time in order not to prejudice public opinion in Britain and in the colonies against the proposed federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland. After the federation is a fait accompli, said the Rhodesians, they will be in a better position to demand a “considerable measure of self-government”.

Bitter feelings flared among the Belgians over a proposed “congratulations” to the UN delegations of the colonial powers on their firm stand against the attacks of the anti-colonialist nations. The Ruanda–Urundi delegation protested vociferously against any phraseology that might be construed as a felicitation to Belgium’s Pierre Ryckmans. They considered his rebuttals in the UN councils to be “too little and too late” and charged that he is plotting to sacrifice Ruanda–Urundi to the anti-colonialists in order to save the Congo for Belgium. In the course of their denunciations of M. Ryckmans the word “traitor” was used. At this point, M. Godding lost his temper and threatened to walk out of the Congress if the word was not retracted; M. Ryckmans, he said, is his good friend and was a great and patriotic Governor General of the Congo. The word was withdrawn but the Ruanda–Urundians remained in a sullen mood. To appease them, the specific congratulations were changed to a general expression of approval for the “resistance now being opposed in UNO” to the attempts of the anti-colonialists. However, the Ruanda–Urundi delegation abstained from the vote approving this resolution.

VII. The resolutions

There follows the official English language text of the amended resolutions passed at the conclusion of the Congress:

“The first Congress for the Development of Civilization in Africa, which met at Bukavu from the 4th to 7th of January 1953 and which included delegates coming from French Equatorial Africa, Portuguese Guinea, Kenya, Southern Rhodesia, Belgian Congo and Ruanda—Urundi, concludes its labours with the following resolutions:

• “1—It proclaims the supremacy of the ideals of Western Civilization and affirms that an important increase in European immigration representing all spheres of human activities is indispensable to the development of Central Africa.
• “2—It declares itself hostile to all discrimination amongst men which may be based on race and stresses the necessity of promoting, without neglecting the time factor, first of all the cultural, economic and social, and then the political progress of indigenous Africans in proportion to and to the full extent of their capacities.
• “3—It declares itself convinced that under these conditions a sincere collaboration between the inhabitants of Africa, black and white, is not only possible but indispensable for the moral and material progress of Africa and to the development of its immense latent resources of which the world has the greatest need.

• “4—The Conference takes a firm stand against the pretension of states, many of whom are themselves underdeveloped, to interfere—notably for example, at UNO—in the administration of African territories carried on by powers whose traditions of humanity, liberty and long-standing and constantly progressing civilization are the best guarantees of the fidelity with which they carry out their mission and trustees.

  “It applauds the resistance now opposed in UNO to the unjustified and repeated attempts made to overstep the bounds of the San Francisco Charter.

• “5—The Congress considers it highly desirable that the wide measure of common principles, sentiments and interests existing amongst all the countries of Central Africa will lead them to a closer association and to common and concerted action.

  “It has decided to create under the title of ‘Central African Congress’ a permanent organization, to meet in general once a year, composed of delegates from the countries named in the preamble and any other country declaring itself an adherent to the above principles and to nominate a committee to prepare for this organization a draft constitution to be submitted with any other opportune proposals at the next general meeting in 1954.”

VIII. The future of the Central African Congress

The principal achievement of the “Congress for the Development of Civilization in Africa” was the resolution of its own permanence; henceforth, as the “Central African Congress”, it will meet annually. As far as is known, the constitution-drafting committee mentioned in the final resolution has not yet been formed. Presumably, this will be done before the general meeting next year.

Now in its embryo stage, the Congress is little more than a kind of study group for the consideration of political and racial problems in Central Africa. But it is clear that many of its organizers want to make it into a real political movement. During the sessions there were repeated references to the “momentous importance” of the gathering. Various speakers pointed out that many of the decisive political movements in history had similarly modest beginnings, and several Belgian delegates assured M. Godding that he would be known in history as the first chairman of the Central African Congress.

A good guarantee that the Congress will take on a political complexion is the interest and enthusiasm brought to the project by the African Capricorn Society. Mr. Wilson and Colonel Stirling told the writer that they were overjoyed at the opportunity to gain a permanent audience among Belgian Colonists. That the Society envisages the inclusion of the Belgian Congo in its plan for a federated Central Africa is now known (despatch No. 110 dated December 12, 1952 from the American Consulate General at Salisbury). Although the Belgians appeared only mildly interested in the details of the Capricorn plan, it is possible that the Society will play a dominant role in the new Congress since nobody else appears to have any counterproposals to the Capricorn Declarations.

Finally, it appeared that the French and Portuguese colonists will not go along in any political movement of this nature.

The sole Portuguese delegate, who came all the way from Portuguese Guinea, appeared only at the inaugural session where he read an innocuous paper extolling the beauties of the Congo. He subsequently sent word that he was too sick to participate further in the work of the Congress. Appearances may have been deceptive; he may really have been interested in the Congress; he may really have been sick. But the possibility cannot be excluded that, after a look around, he became nervous that the Congress might become a colonial separatist movement or that it might be so regarded by the Salazar Government. Also conspicuous by their absence were any representatives of Angolese and Mozambique colonists. Almost certainly they were invited but, perhaps unlike their compatriots in Guinea, they are well aware of the state of mind of the neighboring Belgian colonists.

French reserves about the direction of the Congress were apparent all through the sessions. Notably, the FEA representation was the only national delegation which made no criticism of its metropolitan country. On the contrary, the FEA delegates repeatedly extolled the “wise and benificent” French rule in Central Africa, voiced their great pride over France’s position in the UN, and asserted the integrity of the French Union (FEA officials and businessmen have a discernibly RPF tinge). As mentioned previously, they disagree, at least as far as FEA is concerned, with the British and Belgian position that a massive immigration of whites is desirable.

It appears that the French think that the Congress should be primarily a kind of colonists’ united front against UN “encroachments”. If and when it becomes a political movement with colonial separatist tendencies, the FEA members will probably drop by the wayside.

Patrick Mallon

1. This despatch was drafted by Vice Consul Joseph P. Nagoski.
2. The figure refers to heads of households. [Footnote in the source text.]

3. Reportedly, some of them are looking even further afield. A few days ago, Mr. I. E. A. De Villiers, Colonial Africa Desk Officer of the Foreign Office at Pretoria, temporarily on duty at Leopoldville, told the writer: “You’d be surprised to see the amount of fan mail from Belgian Colonists that crosses my desk in Pretoria. They all say that only South Africa has the right slant on race relations in Africa. They say that some day their country is going to pull out of Africa, leaving them high and dry among 16 million natives and, when that day comes, they hope South Africa will step in and save them.”

   In a conversation with Mr. de Villiers and the wartime Belgian Minister of Colonies, M. De Vleeschawer, the principal officer was surprised to hear the latter endorse the policies of the South African government. For decades, Belgians have been vaguely apprehensive over the possibility of a new northward trek, and apartheid is still almost a dirty word in the Congo. [Footnote in the source text.]

2. Not printed.