DEPARTMENT OF STATE Memorandum of Conversation
Date: April 8, 1949
Subject: Italian Colonies
Participants: Secretary Acheson Foreign Minister Schuman Mr. Couve de Murville Dr. Jessup Mr. Rusk
Copies to: S/S, NEA, AF, UNA, UND, EUR, SWE
Mr. Schuman remained behind this morning to discuss Italian colonies. He outlined the usual French position in support of Italian trusteeship for Libya, emphasizing its importance to the domestic political situation in Italy, the necessity for protecting Italian prestige, and the ability of the Italians to provide an effective administration for a trust territory. He also indicated the keen interest which France has in the problem because of its proximity to French North Africa. In addition, he expressed concern over Eritrea, particularly over the disposition of the "Italian cities" of Asmara and Massawa. He indicated that some justice must be done to Ethiopia, but he wondered whether some form of collective trusteeship might be worked out for the bulk of the colonies.
Mr. Rusk outlined briefly the U.S. position on these points indicating that we have been unable to support Italian trusteeship for Tripolitania. He pointed out that the political weakness in Italy mentioned by Mr. Schuman might be considered a good reason not to place Italy in a highly strategic position in North Africa. Fundamentally, the U.S. attitude on Tripolitania was influenced by the prospects of violent resistance on the part of the Arabs to the re-entry of Italy into that area. Mr. Rusk stated that he felt that the Assembly as well as the United States would be in a most difficult position if we should support a solution which would bring about actual violence between Italy and the Arab inhabitants. He stated that we had hoped that the French Delegation in the General Assembly could have supported British trusteeship in Cyrenaica and that we, ourselves, believed that was the proper solution. Mr. Rusk then indicated that, in the absence of an alternative solution, it might be desirable to postpone the question of Tripolitania for a period of years and that such postponement offered the only chance which we felt Italy would ever have to associate itself directly with Tripolitania.
Mr. Schuman replied to Mr. Rusk that he considered the Italian political situation to be reasonably stable but that, in any event, it was necessary to demonstrate faith and confidence in the Italian situation by favorable action on Tripolitania. Otherwise, we would be in a vicious circle whereby Italian weakness would prevent the very action which was required to strengthen the Italian political scene. He then stated his view, already presented by the French Ambassador, that he did not anticipate any resistance on the part of the Arabs to the return of Tripolitania to Italy.
Mr. Rusk asked if Mr. Schuman thought that some opportunity would not be required for consultation with Arab opinion in Tripolitania before final action could be taken by the Assembly on Italian trusteeship. Mr. Schuman stated that the Arabs were mostly nomadic and illiterate and he did not believe such consultation would be productive. He also made it clear that he did not consider independence for Libya a solution in the near future.
I asked Mr. Schuman whether he could not agree that postponement of the question of Libya for a further period of time might not be desirable. Mr. Schuman indicated that a postponement until 1950 might be possible but expressed doubts as to a longer postponement.
It was agreed that the three Western Powers should keep in touch with each other and that this should be done through Messrs. Dulles, MacNeil and Chauvel in New York where the matter was under active consideration by the Assembly.
G:DRusk:akh