800.014/8–2046
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Chief of the Division of Dependent Area Affairs (Gerig)
| Participants: | Mr. G. H. Middleton, First Secretary, British Embassy |
| Alger Hiss—SPA | |
| Benjamin Gerig—DA |
At our invitation, Mr. Middleton came to the Department to consider whether it would be wise for the British Government to notify the Soviet Government prior to the meeting of the General Assembly with respect to the procedure by which the British Government is proposing to submit its draft trusteeship agreements to the Assembly for approval.
Mr. Hiss pointed out that the Soviet Government may not be aware that the British and American Governments had agreed upon a simplified procedure for submitting the trust agreements to the Assembly, a procedure which would not require the agreement to be formally signed by states directly concerned but, instead, would be submitted by Great Britain after informal consultations with a number of states particularly interested. Mr. Hiss added that the Soviet Government had several times heard United States Delegates explain a more formal procedure under Article 79, in which signature by the states directly concerned would be required. In a conversation which Mr. Dulles had with Mr. Gromyko in London, the former got the impression that the Soviet Government expected that signatures would be called for under Article 79 and that the U.S.S.R., as a state directly concerned, would wish to sign an agreement. He, therefore, thought it was possible that the Soviet Government, unless informed otherwise in advance, might come to the Assembly under a misapprehension and cause unnecessary [Page 615] delay by claiming “surprise”. He wondered whether the British draft agreements might not be submitted to the United Nations about two weeks before the Assembly is to meet. This draft could indicate without special emphasis the plan with respect to submission to the UN.
Mr. Middleton said that he agreed that the problem should be considered. He thought his government would feel committed to transmit to the Soviet Government informally a copy of the revised draft of the agreement before submitting it formally to the UN. He pointed out that the prior draft had been similarly given to the Russians at the same time it had been given to us. No comment had been received from the Russians. Mr. Middleton said that he thought his government might transmit the revised draft about two weeks before the Assembly meets and in that draft indicate without calling attention to the point their plans as to the method of submission. He said he would take the matter up with the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office and would let us know their reaction. In the course of the discussion Mr. Middleton confirmed Mr. Gerig’s understanding that the British had never accepted the view that the agreement of states directly concerned should be evidenced by their signing an agreement prior to its submission to the UN. Consequently our proposal that there be no such signing was entirely in line with their own views and plans. Any “surprise” to the Russians would, therefore, be something the British would not feel responsible for.
The discussion then turned on whether the problem of defining the states directly concerned under Article 79 might arise in the Assembly. It was suggested that states claiming to be states directly concerned might assert that their affirmative vote would be required in the two-thirds necessary for approval of the agreements. It was also suggested that to avoid the necessity of settling the issue such states might say merely that they were prepared to accept the agreement thus making the issue moot but that they wished to be recorded as claiming the status of states directly concerned whose agreement would be necessary for any amendment of the agreement. It was agreed that such statements, however, might elict quite a number of similar pronouncements which might become embarrassing. Palestine was mentioned as an example in which such pronouncement would be embarrassing.
Mr. Middleton pointed out that in the absence in the Charter of any fixing of responsibility for determining which are the states directly concerned, the United Kingdom Government, on practical grounds, took the initiative with respect to their mandated territories and named a limited list of countries which, in any event, might be so regarded. He agreed that the list was not exclusive but that in the [Page 616] absence of any Charter definition they thought this procedure a feasible one. Mr. Hiss explained that the U.S. position had, all along, been that we considered ourselves a state directly concerned, but did not think it necessary that effect be given to this status through signature of a formal instrument.
Mr. Middleton repeated that there was a danger of a misunderstanding here and said again that he would immediately take it up with London and let us know the result in due course.