EUROPE IN AFRICA
Slit,—If, as 'Mr. Friedinan seems to maintain in his letter of April 8th, colonial Po*ers are already " accountable " to the United Nations, they surely do not become less so merely as a consequence of creating piece of machinery such as the Anglo-French West African organisation suggested in my article. It is neither neegsary nor desirable that " accountability " be written into every inter-governmental organisation concerned - with the affairs of dependent territories. So far as this particular case is concerned, the balance of argument does not seem to me to justify either (1) enlarging such an organisation by including in it Powers which have 'no responsibilities in the area or (2) seeking to make it "accountable ", to the United Nations in some way over and above• the extent to which the individual Powers are already so accountable.
Mr. Friedman seems to think failure to adopt either or both of these alternatives equivalent to abandoning internafienal !...accountability. On the contrary, it seems to me to leave " account:lathy " exactly where it' is at present. Without these alternatives, Mr. Friedman considers such an organisation would fail to secure "an atmosphere free of internal tension " and would lose' the " negative and critical " contributions of certain Powers. My view is that the adoption of either alternative, so far from producing an atmosphere conducive to co-operation, would, in fact, destroy any chance of it, just as effectively, as has been done in the fourth committee or the Trusteeship Council itself (where, incidentally, many signs of the " ganging-up " which Mr. Friedman distrusts may now be defected, for cet animal est michant, quand on l'attaque it se defend). I am entirely content to leave anyone who cares to look at the proceedings of the Trusteeship Council or the fourth committee to decide which of these views is more consonant with the facts.—Yours, &c.,
Oxford. KENNETH ROBINSON.
Previous page
