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

Address by the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern, South Asian, and African Affairs (Byroade), October 31, 1953¹

Asilomar, California, October 31, 1953

The subject of this conference is one of great interest to the Department of State, and of particular interest to me personally inasmuch as many of the problems you discuss here fall within my area of responsibility in that Department. I hope to give you as fully as I can the principles which guide the United States in dealing with “colonialism.”

When we Americans turn our thoughts to international relations, one problem stands out above all others. Our principal concern is the threat of Soviet aggression, which could culminate in the horrible tragedy of atomic warfare. Americans are therefore sometimes surprised to learn that there are vast areas of the world where the Soviet threat is given secondary emphasis. Throughout parts of Africa, the Near East, South Asia, and the Far East, human interests and emotions are focused primarily on such questions as “imperialism,” “colonialism,” and “nationalism.” In many of these areas, the principal motivating force is the desire of dependent peoples to end foreign domination and achieve political and economic self-determination.

This movement toward self-determination is one of the most powerful forces in 20th-century affairs. When the history of our era is finally written it may prove to have been the most significant of all.

There is a paradox in the fact that the upsurge for national self-determination among the dependent peoples comes at this stage of human history. We know that Western nations, which have long possessed sovereign independence, are coming to recognize that self-sufficiency is a myth. We are moving steadily toward increasing association and interdependence among ourselves. In fact, several of the older nations are now engaged in creating new forms of association in which portions of national sovereignty are voluntarily surrendered.

We must frankly recognize that the hands of the clock of history are set at different hours in different parts of the world. We ourselves believe that peace, prosperity, and human freedom can be assured only within a concert of free peoples which transcends national boundaries. However, we must accept the fact that many of our friends in Asia and Africa tend to view national independence as a magic solution to all their difficulties. The problem is to avoid serious conflict between these viewpoints. We hope that the peoples now seeking self-determination will achieve it and exercise it in such a way as to strengthen rather than weaken the bonds of international cooperation. We hope that they will learn at an early stage of their development what we, of the West, have learned so painfully, that all mankind is “one continent” and that no nation is sufficient unto itself.

The movement toward self-determination has recently encountered an even more strange and potentially more tragic paradox. At the same time that Western colonialism of the old type is disappearing, a new form of imperialism has begun to extend a clutching hand to every quarter of the globe. I am referring to the new Soviet colonialism. This new colonialism is more subtle and more poisonous than the old, because it often masquerades under the guise of nationalism itself. In the name of independence it persuades people to surrender all hope of independence. In the name of security and economic progress it succeeds in establishing a system of slavery.

During the last 10 years 600 million peoples have attained full independence in the free world. During these same 10 years approximately 800 million people have been enslaved by the new colonialism centered in Moscow. People who are embittered by their present lot sometimes find it hard to appreciate the significance of these facts. But the facts speak for themselves.

Western nations have undoubtedly made many mistakes in their colonial policies. But the ideals of democracy and human dignity which existed at home within these nations have usually operated to the advantage of the dependent peoples. The new colonialism fostered by the Soviet dictatorship does not contain this quality of mercy. It will be one of the great tragedies of our time if the peoples of Asia and Africa, just as they are emerging from generations of dependence, should be deluded by the fatal lure of the new imperialism and return thereby to an age of slavery infinitely more miserable than they have ever known before.

Since old-style colonialism is on its way out, and nothing can restore it, the real choice today lies between continued progress toward self-determination and surrender to the new Communist imperialism.

Bases of United States Colonial Policy

The policies of the United States Government toward colonial questions have not always been clearly understood. In part this may be explained by the fact that each area of the world presents its own peculiar problems and circumstances. It is not possible to develop any general rule of thumb which will be applicable to all nations and areas. Our basic policy, however, is relatively simple. We believe in eventual self-determination for all peoples, and we believe that evolutionary development to this end should move forward with minimum delay.

Our Government must approach colonial questions in terms of the enlightened self-interest of the United States. We recognize that the disintegration of the old colonialism is inevitable. We believe that much blood and treasure may be saved if the Western World determines firmly to hasten rather than hamper the process of orderly evolution toward self-determination. Moreover we believe that healthy, self-governing societies will prove, in the long run, to be stronger bulwarks in the defense of freedom and the preservation of world peace than weak dependent territories. As Secretary Dulles said last June on returning from his trip to the Near East and Asia, “Without breaking from the framework of Western unity, we can pursue our traditional dedication to political liberty. In reality, the Western powers can gain, rather than lose, from an orderly development of self-government.”

We recognize that self-determination will not always be exercised in the form of national independence. Some peoples may choose voluntarily to unite or associate themselves, on a free and equal basis, with the nations which have governed them in the past. The British Commonwealth of Nations and more recently the French Union are outstanding examples of the kind of association which new nations may undertake without impairment of their powers to determine their own destinies. The essence of self-determination is not so much the course of action chosen as the right to choose.

At this point, however, one question inevitably arises. People here and abroad frequently ask: “Why evolution? Why not grant all dependent peoples immediate sovereignty? By what right does one nation continue to exercise jurisdiction over a foreign territory?”

This question cannot readily be answered on abstract ethical grounds. No government has a God-given right to rule peoples other than its own. The old concept of the “white man’s burden” is obsolete and provides no valid justification for colonialism. But if the question defies pure ethics, it may nevertheless be answered on practical and human grounds. It is a hard, inescapable fact that premature independence can be dangerous, retrogressive, and destructive.

Unless we are willing to recognize that there is such a thing as premature independence, we cannot think intelligently or constructively about the status of dependent peoples. For example, there are areas in which there is no concept of community relationships beyond the family or the tribe. There are regions where human beings are unable to cope with disease, famine, and other forces of nature. Premature independence for these peoples would not serve the interests of the United States nor the interests of the free world as a whole. Least of all would it serve the interests of the dependent peoples themselves.

Let us now consider some of the factors which cause the United States to stress the evolutionary aspects of the movement toward self-determination.

In the first place, we know that the world is a shrinking community. No territory can escape from this community and isolate itself from mankind. The withdrawal of foreign influence from a territory not yet capable of independent existence does not mean that the area will simply disappear from the world community. Instead, there will be created a power vacuum, an area of weakness which invites internal disorder and external aggression.

Whenever any people attain nominal sovereignty before they are prepared to exercise it, the net result is weakness. There may be weakness in protecting human rights, weakness in maintaining order, weakness in improving social and economic conditions, weakness in preserving independence itself. In this modern world such weakness is usually dangerous, to the strong as well as the weak.

The United States Government is committed to a policy of promoting strength and well-being in other parts of the world. We should be proud that our national self-interest is in harmony with the desire of other free peoples for strength and progress. We have been generous in helping them to achieve these things. Therefore we can be proud of our efforts to prevent the development of new weaknesses which could invite international disaster.

Second, when dependent peoples attain self-determination, we want it to be real, and we want it to endure. If they choose independence, we want them to be able to maintain their independence against the new Soviet imperialism and any other form of tyranny. we do not want the vast labor and pain expended in the struggle for freedom to be wasted by the premature creation of a state which will collapse like a stack of cards at the first hint of difficulty. If, on the other hand, the dependent peoples choose an arrangement other than national independence, such as equal union with their former rulers, this choice should be made freely, without deception or coercion. The peoples making this choice should be prepared to play their proper role in the new relationship. In other words we want these peoples to have freedom of choice and capacity for self-government similar to that possessed by India, Pakistan, and Ceylon when these nations voluntarily chose association with the British Commonwealth. If a few additional years of evolution can make the difference between a self-determination that endures and a reversion to dependency or chaos, the years will not be wasted.

Third, we know that national independence is by no means a cure-all for the perplexing problems of Asia and Africa. Independence, after all, is but a means to an end. The ultimate objective is the welfare of individual human beings. It is important that the dependent peoples develop governments which can truly represent their interests, protect their liberties, and promote social and economic progress.

These people will suffer bitter disappointment if an independent political status offers no hope of solving the age-old problems of poverty, disease, and social discrimination. The peoples of Asia and Africa want more food, better houses, more adequate health facilities, and other concrete human benefits as well as self-government. We want to help them achieve the kind of government which can make these things possible.

Fourth, let us be frank in recognizing our stake in the strength and stability of certain European nations which exercise influence in the dependent areas. These European nations are our allies. They share many common interests with us. They will probably represent, for many years to come, the major source of free-world defensive power outside our own. We cannot blindly disregard their side of the colonial question without injury to our own security. In particular, we cannot ignore the legitimate economic interests which European nations possess in certain dependent territories. Nor can we forget the importance of these interests to the European economy which we have contributed so much to support.

There has been much talk about the “economic exploitation” of dependent peoples. Too little attention has been given to the fact that economic relations between European nations and overseas territories are often beneficial to both parties. Just as Europe needs the raw materials and market opportunities of foreign territories, so do these territories need European manufactured goods, technical skills, and educational facilities. A sudden break in economic relations might seriously injure the European economies upon which our Atlantic defense system depends and at the same time prove equally injurious to the dependent territories themselves. In many instances the sudden withdrawal of European influence would remove one of the major hopes of the dependent peoples for continued economic progress.

Let me make one point very clear. Despite our interest in European economic health, we most certainly do not propose that the rights of dependent peoples should be subordinated to this interest. What we propose is that all parties concerned carefully consider their own interests. This is not a question of preserving Europe’s strength at the expense of dependent peoples. It is rather a question of finding ways to increase the strength of both. An evolutionary approach to Self-determination can help to preserve legitimate European interests in foreign territories while at the same time giving these territories economic opportunities and benefits which would be lost by a complete severance of relations.

Finally, it is extremely important that the political evolution of the dependent areas follow a course which will permit these peoples to take their place as respected and equal citizens of the free world. Self-determination involves obligations and responsibilities as well as rights and privileges. Statehood in the 20th century is more than a matter of independence. It must include recognition of the obligations of interdependence. It is our earnest hope that the movement toward independence in Asia and Africa will achieve the results expected of it without interfering with a still greater and longer-term trend, the movement toward increasing association and cooperation among all free nations and races.

These considerations should explain the emphasis which we place upon the evolutionary aspect of the movement toward self-determination. At the same time, let me say that it would be contrary to United States interests if these considerations should be used as “excuses” for procrastination or delay. The term “orderly evolution” cannot be translated to mean indefinite prolongation of colonial rule. The continued dependence of people who are ready for self-determination involves dangers to world peace and stability fully as serious as those involved in premature action.

This fact is recognized by almost all nations, including the colonial powers themselves, in the charter of the United Nations. Dependent peoples are no longer exclusively, a national problem. Their welfare vitally concerns the peace and welfare of the entire world community. Their right to ultimate self-government is fully acknowledged, and the states which administer the dependent territories have accepted the responsibility of helping to prepare these peoples for the task of self-government. Not only are questions involving the dependent peoples given attention by the United Nations General Assembly, but one of the principal organs of the United Nations is the Trusteeship Council, which supervises and guides the administration of trust territories.

In addition to its concern with the political aspects of evolution toward self-government, the United Nations has contributed to the economic evolution of the dependent territories through its technical-assistance programs, and to educational and cultural development through other United Nations agencies. The facilities of the United Nations are sometimes used to resolve disputes between administering governments and dependent peoples. Finally the United Nations has focused the spotlight of world opinion on many different aspects of the problem of colonialism. I believe I can further illustrate some of America’s problems with respect to dependent peoples by turning briefly to some of the areas which are my immediate concern in the State Department.

Africa South of the Sahara

First, let us look at the vast region of the continent of Africa lying south of the Sahara desert. This is a region larger than the United States. Except for the Union of South Africa, Ethiopia, and the Republic of Liberia, it is controlled by colonial powers. Conditions of life in a large part of the region are still primitive, and advancement toward complete self-determination on the part of the local population will require political, economic, social, and cultural development. All these factors are inseparable.

The most populous and varied groupings of central African territories are under the British, who have accelerated their policy of encouraging the devolution of power to the colonial territories. One of their major problems is the fact that many different races, tribes, and religious groups live side by side in the same areas. The British are seeking to remove mistrust and fear between the different groups and to promote a spirit of partnership. They are developing, for example, local parliaments which include representatives of different races. It is also significant that an interracial university is planned for the new federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland.

The British approach also takes into account such factors as the wealth of resources in an area, the situation of a territory in relation to its neighbors, and the political maturity of the people and their leaders. I believe this approach is paying dividends. In all British areas there now exists a considerable amount of autonomy at local levels. Nigeria and the Gold Coast, for example, now exercise a large measure of responsible representative government. It is possible to foresee the complete self-government of these two countries within the framework of the Commonwealth.

The French approach in tropical Africa has been increasingly progressive since the end of World War II. The Constitution of the Fourth French Republic confers citizenship on the African inhabitants of French overseas territories in tropical Africa, and these Africans are now brought into political activity at all levels, from the municipal and territorial legislatures to the French Union bodies in Paris. No new measures are affected without consultation with African representatives, although the French High Commissioner still retains ultimate authority to carry out decisions of the French Government. The French have also undertaken important social reforms. One of these is the extension of the social benefits of the French labor code to tropical Africa. It should be noted that measures aimed at the evolutionary development of these territories have been greatly facilitated by the traditional tolerance of the French in matters of race relations.

The policy of the Belgians in the Congo represents still another approach to colonial administration. Primary emphasis is given to economic and social development as a foundation for eventual political evolution. In brief, they believe in building from within by local training and by local institutions. They are seeking to transform the Congo into a great producer of minerals and other natural resources. Meanwhile they are introducing a variety of social measures covering minimum wages, health insurance, etc. They are also instituting a broad system of primary education to be followed by the establishment of higher institutions of learning locally. Much has already been done toward creating an African middle class on a solid economic basis. As this economic base is established, it is anticipated that increasing attention will be given to political development. The best-educated Africans in the Congo are now used in local administration.

Finally, we have the approach taken by the Portuguese in Angola and Mozambique. Portuguese policy has never admitted racial distinctions but does recognize a distinction between the civilized and non-civilized portions of the population. Thus tribal Africans who wish to remain attached to tribal traditions and customs, such as polygamy, are refused political rights characteristic of European institutions. On the other hand, when natives meet the standards of citizenship, they are automatically able to participate in the responsibilities of government.

These are but a few of the methods by which the colonial powers are carrying out their responsibilities in Africa south of the Sahara. It is inevitable that there are differences of opinion on the progress being made. But serious observers of the African scene agree that the European governments are making substantial contributions to the evolution of these peoples.

French North Africa

I turn now to a second great area, French North Africa. Here we find some of the most complex issues of current international relations. Disputes between the French and the indigenous populations, composed largely of Arabs and Berbers, have excited interest in many different parts of the world.

North Africa is a region of economic and strategic importance. Trade relations with this area are important to France and to other Western nations, including our own country. In fact, we have had complicated legal disputes with France concerning American rights in this area. Moreover there are American air bases in Morocco which have great strategic value for protecting both Africa and Western Europe. We therefore have a direct interest in North Africa.

In considering the problems of colonialism in Morocco and Tunisia, it is well to remember that the peoples in this region are relatively advanced. These areas are the seat of an ancient Arab civilization, and their people have a sense of historic greatness. Fez, for example, has been a seat of Moslem learning for over 1,000 years. It is also well to remember that, when the French came to Tunisia and Morocco, there were already in existence central authorities (the Bey and the Sultan respectively) based on a long tradition of self-rule. Finally, we must remember that French influence in this region is relatively recent. France established its protectorate over Tunisia about 75 years ago and over Morocco some 40 years ago.

Both the Tunisians and Moroccans today are demanding a greater measure of self-government. The French, however, retain a firm political hold on both countries and maintain that economic development and experience in local government must come before national political development. They argue that neither Tunisia nor Morocco possesses the political skills and economic resources necessary to become truly independent and viable states in the modern world. They fear that early independence would create a power vacuum and thus contribute to international difficulties, rather than promote orderly development in the interest of all parties. They argue that too little attention has been given to the economic work France has done in these two territories.

They also emphasize that the status of Tunisia and Morocco cannot be considered solely on the basis of local interests but also in terms of the common security interests of the entire free world.

The local populations of Tunisia and Morocco, on the other hand, are deeply suspicious of French motives and intentions. Many believe that the French will never voluntarily grant the native peoples internal autonomy or independence. Many maintain that they have already developed to a point which should permit them to govern themselves effectively. They say that the French are using the word “evolution” to camouflage an actual determination to maintain full political control of Tunisia and Morocco.

These basic differences of attitude are reflected currently in the United Nations, where the Tunisian and Moroccan issues are being considered. French authorities have assured the United Nations that they are introducing programs of political reforms which will promote an amicable understanding between France and Morocco and will give the people of that area a larger share in their government. The Arab nationalists, however, claim that the reforms are illusory and only serve to strengthen French control.

The United States Government believes that this complicated problem must be resolved primarily by the parties concerned. There is always a danger that the injection of outside influence into a situation of this kind will make it worse. It is difficult for us as a Nation to understand the extreme emotions on either side. We know of the delicate problem that the Government of France confronts in view of the large French population in this area. We agree that the local system of government in North Africa needs change before it can cope with present world conditions or guarantee social progress. We have important security interests in the strength of the French nation, as well as deep friendship for the French people. We also have a firm policy of supporting the right of dependent peoples to self-determination. We, therefore, understand the desire of the Tunisians and Moroccans for self-government.

It is no secret that these problems confront America with a dilemma. The present situation therefore calls frankly for a middle-of-the-road policy which will permit us to determine our position on practical issues on their merits as they arise. We greatly hope for progress on a bilateral basis with resultant easing of tensions. We do not rule out United Nations discussion if it appears that United Nations discussion can contribute positively to a satisfactory solution. This is one of the many situations in which it is not in our interest to “choose sides” for the sake of choosing sides. Our fundamental interests can be served only by an arrangement which is mutually satisfactory to both the French and the North Africans.

Colonialism and New Nations

I would now like to discuss the problem of “colonialism” as it relates to newly independent states. In certain parts of the world they form the overwhelming bulk of the people. When I accompanied Secretary Dulles and Mr. Stassen to the Near East and South Asia last May, we visited 13 countries. Of these, 10 have either gained or regained their independence in this generation. Resentment of colonialism still dominates the thinking of some of these nations. Perhaps it is appropriate to say that they have a severe “colonial hangover.” This “colonial hangover” often takes the form of an intense and, in our eyes, unreasonable suspicion of the policies and actions of Western nations. Some of these countries have a natural jealousy of their newly won independence. They have been preoccupied for long periods with problems close at hand. For years they have been so to speak “in opposition,” and they find it difficult to move from this negative to a more constructive approach to world problems.

There is considerable resentment of institutions and customs which developed during the period of dependency. There is resentment even against what we in the West regard as normal international economic relationships. Some of these peoples seem convinced that the Western nations are seeking constantly to restore colonial rule through the back door.

It is important that we Americans keep in mind that the emergence of independence in this area has been accompanied by an extreme nationalism and opposition to foreign influence. Some political leaders attained power largely by fierce opposition to Western influence, and it was inevitable that difficulty would be encountered in changing from this negative course of opposition to a constructive approach.

These new nations are, however, already learning that deep-rooted economic and social problems are not automatically solved by independence. They need the help and sympathy of the Western World in solving these problems. At the same time it is important that our help be given in such a way as to avoid the stigma of “colonialism.” In determining our own policies we must frankly recognize that suspicion of the West will probably endure for many years to come. We must do everything possible to prove that this suspicion has no basis. We must be willing to offer capital and technical assistance for economic development without seeking political advantage. We must avoid careless and tactless injury to racial sensitivities. In dealing with their governments we must accord them fully the equal and independent status which they deserve. In brief, we must prove our good faith time and again and must constantly encourage our friends to understand the important interests which Eastern and Western peoples have in common.

When disputes arise between the Eastern nations and our Western allies, we often find ourselves in sympathy with both sides. For example, we recognize the need for keeping the Suez area available for the use of those powers able to assist in the defense of the non-Communist world, which includes Egypt herself. At the same time, we view with the most friendly spirit the aspirations of the Egyptians for complete and indisputable sovereignty. In all differences of this nature, our fundamental problem is to lessen suspicion and encourage agreement between the Eastern and Western powers. By every word and action of our Government, we should make it clear that the old colonial relationship is dead and that it will stay dead. At the same time, we should encourage a better understanding of the possibilities inherent in a new relationship based on voluntary cooperation among independent nations.

In closing, I would like to remind you that there is no single problem which we can call a “colonial problem.” Instead, there are many different kinds of problems which exist in many different areas. As a great American statesman once said, “General propositions do not decide concrete cases,” and this statement certainly has direct application when related to colonialism. Our Government must ever be alert to the necessity of doing those things which the circumstances of time and place demand.

The clock of history cannot be turned back. Alien rule over dependent peoples must be replaced as rapidly as possible by self-determination. Of this there can be no question. At the same time, we know that the clock of history cannot be turned forward by a mere twist of the dial. The evolution of the dependent peoples toward full self-determination requires patience, imagination, and hard work—hard work by the governing powers as well as the governed—accompanied by sympathy and assistance from all nations.

We as Americans are prepared to do what we can as a part of this effort. Our ultimate objective, to use the words of a former American President, is to attain “such a concert of free peoples as will encircle the globe and make the world itself at last free.”

1. Source: This address was made before the World Affairs Council of Northern California at Asilomar, California. The text printed here is as released to the press on Oct. 30 as Department of State Press Release 605 and as printed in Department of State Bulletin, Nov. 16, 1953, p. 655.

   No documentation on the preparation of this address has been identified, and only a few scattered papers on reactions to the address are included in file 110.15 BY. One of these is a letter of Nov. 9, 1953 from Senator Guy M. Gillette of Iowa, member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, to Assistant Secretary Byroade which expressed concern that certain news accounts of the address indicated some change in U.S. policy toward colonialism and traditional support of the “principle of self-determination for people everywhere” for the sake of the “interests or wishes of an imperial power”. (110.15 BY/11–953) In a brief reply to Senator Gillette on Nov. 13, Byroade sought to explain the intent of his address:

   “What I tried to do, essentially, was to reaffirm the basic traditions of the United States toward dependent people. I sought to make clear the fact that there was no easy answer when one seeks to apply these principles to concrete problems. It was with that thought in mind that I quoted Justice Holmes about the danger of applying generalizations to specific cases. In dealing with North Africa, I tried to state clearly and fairly the fact that this area poses a particularly difficult problem for us. The quotation which was brought to your attention refers to some—but not all—of the elements of the situation.

   “I am enclosing a copy of the full speech in case you wish to glance over it. Incidentally, the reactions from overseas have so far been most sympathetic.” (110.15 BY/11–953)