In anticipation of discussions which will take place at the forthcoming General Assembly, we have made a reassessment of the Canadian attitude on self-determination and reviewed our policy on colonial issues as a whole. A meeting of representatives from the Divisions mainly concerned was recently held and a number of tentative conclusions were reached.

Self-determination

Our past difficulties in this regard may have been due in part to the fact that we have not made and maintained a clear distinction between self-determination as a legal concept (which has not yet been satisfactorily defined) and self-determination as a political principle (to which we subscribe but which must be related to other charter principles, e.g. domestic jurisdiction, respect for valid international obligations, etc). Canadian policy statements have accepted the principle but we have not always been clear in our minds as to what exactly the concept involved legally; hence our reluctance to subscribe to the proposed articles on self-determination in the Covenants on Human Rights. In the early days of the United Nations, it was generally assumed that self-determination meant the sovereign equality of states but lately the notion has become much broader.

Should the above distinction commend itself to you, it is thought that it could be put to practical use at the next General Assembly when the Canadian Delegation will be faced with two resolutions suggesting the establishment of commissions responsible for making recommendations to strengthen the right of self-determination and for investigating alleged denial of this right. There is, however, an alternative United States proposal calling for the establishment of an ad hoc study group to be appointed by the Secretary-General to carry out a study of the concept of self-determination.¹ You may agree that we should give our support to this suggestion on the grounds that it would be difficult for the proposed commissions to apply concepts which still require legal definition. We could, however, informally explore with other delegations the possibility that the study group, without being turned into a roving commission or being given the task of making proposals relating to specific issues, might also look into the practical applications rather than restrict itself to the theory. While there is a genuine conviction on the part of many western countries that the problem has not yet been sufficiently explored, this view is not shared by the anti-colonialists who may consider the establishment of an expert group as a mere stalling device. Therefore, by proposing that the group should relate theory and practice, we would show that we do not merely propose to delay the application of self-determination but that we are anxious to find out whether effective arrangements can be worked out on an acceptable theoretical basis. An added advantage in setting up the proposed study group would be to remove the issue from the heated atmosphere of the Assembly for at least a short while.

The suggestion has been made also that we might try to persuade some of the Colonial Powers to show greater willingness to co-operate with the United Nations on self-government issues, and to consider, for instance, placing under trusteeship certain of their non-self-governing territories.² The Colonial Powers would not be required to agree that the United Nations should decide whether independence is to be granted; but once the decision to grant self-government had been made it might be possible in certain cases to get the Organization into the act and to involve the Trusteeship Council, for instance, in the subsequent discussions on procedure and timing. The Colonial Powers might thus relieve a certain amount of pressure on themselves and elicit reasonable and constructive reactions on the part of the more responsible anti-colonial countries. Admittedly, strategic and other considerations will have to be taken into account, but if we consider that we will, in any case, be faced with more pressure as years go by, new initiatives seem essential. Although it may be premature to submit these views formally to our friends, we were wondering whether you would have any objection³ if the appropriate officers were to try the idea out informally on Mr. Bourdillon, Under-Secretary of State in the Colonial Office, who will be visiting Ottawa shortly for discussions on colonial matters. The British, whose position vis-à-vis the anti-colonialists has been steadily deteriorating recently, may be prepared to consider new suggestions.

Colonial Issues

On reviewing our policy of general non-alignment concerning colonial problems, we have found it acceptable on the whole, although it may not have been too constructive and imaginative at times. It is therefore proposed that we should continue on our middle course, but perhaps in a somewhat more active and positive way. This need not, however, be overly systematic or obvious, but closer consultation and co-operation with countries which are not directly concerned in colonial issues could, we believe, be profitable. It does not seem sufficient to go on instructing our delegations that we must be circumspect and tactful so as to balance our European ties with the need of retaining the friendship of the Asians. While being careful not to lose contact with our traditional friends and not to do anything which might lead them to consider that we are withdrawing our sympathy, we could do something occasionally to bring closer to each other the "good colonials" and the more "sophisticated" anti-colonials, and thus make a contribution in the urgent task of preventing the new countries and dependent areas from falling prey to communism.⁴ If we wait until each particular case of emancipation becomes an international issue it will then be already too late. If, as we believe, there is a desire on the part of many anti-colonial countries to be listened to by some western countries, we should perhaps be prepared to do our share of listening and conveying. We believe that, in some cases we should be able, with the assistance of countries like New Zealand, Norway, Denmark, etc., to assist both sides in solving their problems and understanding each other.

I do not suggest that we should undertake a major operation at the forthcoming Assembly. If you agree, we might, however, make a definite effort, whenever possible, to find compromise solutions and to persuade the countries concerned of the necessity of adopting reasonable attitudes.⁵ Such efforts would be well rewarded if, for instance, we were able, with other like minded countries, to bring the more intransigent anti-colonialists to realize that no advantage can possibly be gained by pushing France out of the United Nations on Algeria. In other words, what we propose is that at the next Assembly our Delegation might play occasionally a more active and constructive role than in the past on colonial issues by making greater use of the moral influence which we have with both sides. Closer contacts with as many Asians and Arabs as possible may provide the required framework for what we have in mind. It is symptomatic that, this year, our Delegation will be seated between the Cambodians and the Ceylonese. I hope to submit for your approval a telegram to our Mission in New York outlining, on the basis of the above considerations, certain tactics we might pursue during the next session of the Assembly on colonial and on a number of other issues.

It is our hope that the general approach suggested above may be applied successfully in specific instances e.g. West New Guinea, Algeria, Cyprus if circumstances appear to be auspicious. Before any action is taken, however, detailed briefs and recommendations will be submitted for your approval in each case.⁶

J. L[ÉGER]