Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, General; the United Nations, Volume I

IO Files: US/A/M (Chr)/4

Minutes of the Fourth Meeting of the United States Delegation, New York, Hotel Pennsylvania, October 21, 1946, 10 a.m.³⁶

New York, October 21, 1946, 10 a.m.

secret

[Here follows list of names of persons (23) present.]

In opening the meeting Senator Austin expressed the gratitude of the Delegation to Senators Vandenberg and Connally for the work done in Paris. He then called upon Mr. Gerig to discuss the problems which it was expected would arise in the Trusteeship Committee.

Trusteeship Questions³⁷

Mr. Gerig explained that the most important questions would be the following:

1. Procedure in Negotiating and Adopting Trusteeship Agreements;

2. The Question of the Future Status of South West Africa; and

3. The Functions of the General Assembly on Information to be Transmitted by Members Concerning Non-Self-Governing Territories.

Procedure in Negotiating and Adopting Trusteeship Agreements

Mr. Gerig discussed the proposals made by the Department aimed at simplifying the procedure for negotiating and approving trusteeship agreements, particularly as regards the definition and rights of the “states directly concerned”. He explained that we had proposed to the mandatory powers and the Soviet Union and China that if all other claimant states were prepared to do the same, the United States would be willing not to press its claims to be a signatory to the draft trusteeship agreements and to leave the determination of the “states directly concerned” undefined when the draft agreements are submitted to the Assembly for approval and to abide by an unqualified two-thirds vote of the Assembly. He added that our proposals had been accepted by the United Kingdom, France, and New Zealand. The Soviet Government had been informed but had not yet accepted them. He pointed out that the Soviet Union had previously indicated that it was a “state directly concerned” in its capacity as a member of the Security Council and the Trusteeship Council and on account of its worldwide interests. The Arab states, as well as others, might also put in claims and, unless our proposed procedure were followed, the General Assembly would be forced to designate specifically “states directly concerned”. Unless the Assembly were to decide this question by a two-thirds vote, one of the states directly concerned might veto any agreement.

Mr. Gerig explained that the viewpoint of the Soviet Union appeared to be that the proper procedure would be for four or five states directly concerned to confer together and draw up a more or less formal agreement. Senator Vandenberg expressed the opinion very strongly that our proposed procedure was already “out” and that the Russian position would have to be met.

Mr. Gerig said that if pressed to define the “states directly concerned”, it was thought in the Department that we would probably have to vote for the inclusion of the Soviet Union in this category. He pointed out that the Soviet Union was particularly anxious to see the Trusteeship Council established and that we were not asking them to renounce their rights but merely not to exercise them to the full.

Mr. Sandifer expressed the opinion that if the Soviet Union were brought fully into the preliminary negotiations, it might waive the exercise of these further rights. Mr. Dulles pointed out that by our proposed procedure we were following a policy already laid down at London. We felt that it was undesirable to secure a formal definition of “states directly concerned” as it would involve endless decisions concerning the definition as well as claims from the Arab states, for instance, regarding Palestine. He agreed with Senator Vandenberg that much depended on preliminary agreements on the question with the Soviet Union.

Senator Vandenberg reiterated that the whole matter lay at the mercy of an advance agreement with the Soviet Union and Mr. Dulles pointed out that the Soviet Union could make an alliance with other states as well as with its own bloc and thus exert a practical veto power over the whole trusteeship system.

After Senator Vandenberg had stated that the procedure must be cleared and Senator Austin had suggested that the matter should be placed before the Secretary of State, the following decision was taken:

Decision: It was unanimously decided that no attempt should be made to define “states directly concerned” at the present time if it could be avoided.

It was unanimously decided that the Secretary of State should confer with Foreign Minister Molotov regarding the procedure in negotiating and adopting trusteeship agreements as soon as possible, especially as regards leaving the “states directly concerned” unspecified.

Terms of Trusteeship Agreements and Monopolies

Mr. Gerig, in discussing the terms of the draft trusteeship agreements on which differences remain, first took up the question of monopolies in trust territories. He explained that the British, French, and Belgian draft agreements proposed that the administering authority should be entitled to establish general monopolies in the trust territories, if such monopolies were considered to be in the interest of the inhabitants, as provided in Article 76(b) of the Charter. The United States had suggested that if such monopolies were established, they should not only be in the interest of the economic advancement of the inhabitants, but that determination of such interest should be subject to the approval of the Trusteeship Council. The British, French, and Belgian Governments have not agreed to our proposal.

Mr. Villard pointed out that the mandatory powers were opposed to securing the approval of the Trusteeship Council as they felt this would lead to endless delays and, in general, discourage investors.

Mr. Sandifer said that the British argument was that the administering authority should have the right to agree to the establishment of monopolies, loans, etc.

Mr. Bloom stated strongly that complaints against monopolies should go to the Trusteeship Council, while Mrs. Roosevelt expressed concern for the welfare of the inhabitants in the matter. Mr. Stevenson felt that the Department formula was perfectly acceptable. Mr. Dulles, with whom Mrs. Rossevelt expressed her agreement, stated that we should stick to our principles and vote for the prevention, of monopolies. Mr. Dulles then proposed the following motion as a substitute for the formula suggested by the Department:

“That the position of the United States Delegation should be that the trusteeship agreements should make no provision for monopolies other than natural or fiscal monopolies or such monopolies as might be approved by the Trusteeship Council as being an application of Article 76 of the Charter.”

Decision: The motion was unanimously adopted.

Aviation Rights

Mr. Gerig explained the United States proposal regarding aviation rights which stated that:

“Nothing in this article shall be so construed as to accord traffic rights to aircraft flying into and out of the trust territory, such rights being subject to special agreement between the administering authority and the state whose nationality such aircraft possess.”

Senator Connally opposed raising the claims on aviation rights and Mr. Fahy agreed.

Decision: It was voted that the provision which the Department had suggested be added to each trusteeship agreement on aviation rights should be omitted.

Economic and Social Advancement of the Inhabitants of Trust Territories

Mr. Gerig explained that the United States had proposed to the mandatory powers that there be added to their draft trusteeship agreements detailed provisions concerning the economic and social advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territory.

Senator Connally moved that the recommendation of the Department on this subject be approved.

Decision: It was recommended that the United States Delegation should not initiate discussion on the subject of economic and social advancement as stated on pages 14 and 23 of the British draft agreement for Tanganyika (SD/A/C.4/6a) and that if other Members proposed that specific provisions on social matters be included in the trusteeship agreements, the Delegation should act in a negotiating capacity to reach a compromise acceptable to the mandatory power.

Freedom of Information

Mr. Gerig stated that the United States had suggested to the United Kingdom that it would be appropriate to include in trusteeship agreements provisions to facilitate the free interchange of information, but that the British preferred not to include such provisions in the trusteeship agreements in as much as the question was being considered by the Commission on Human Rights with a view to a possible convention on the subject.

Mrs. Roosevelt pointed out that any conference on freedom of information should include such important subjects as movies and radio adding that the United Nations Secretariat had expressed a desire to postpone consideration of this question for one year.

Decision: It was decided to defer consideration of this item for the present.

Responsibility of Administering Authority to the United Nations

Mr. Gerig pointed out that while the British and Australian drafts for Article 2 of the trusteeship agreements have eliminated the phrase that the trusteeship was being administered “on behalf of the United Nations”, the Government of the United States wished to indicate that cognizance should be taken of the responsibility of the administering authority to the United Nations. He pointed out that the British feel that such a phrase should be eliminated as unnecessary and as embarrassing to the exercise of the full authority of the administering power in the territory.

Mr. Sandifer expressed the opinion that the British tended, by this reservation, to obscure the nature of the trusteeship system. Mr. Fahy stated that the phrase, although correct, was not essential.

Decision: It was recommended that while not pressing unduly for consideration of this phrase, the Delegation might find it desirable to state our views for the record.

New Zealand and British Requests Not To Amend

He added that the New Zealand and British Governments had requested an undertaking that we would not initiate further amendments at the General Assembly, that we would agree not to support any amendment in substitution which may be proposed by other states.³⁸ Mr. Gerig said it had been made clear that our Delegation could in no way have their hands tied. Mr. Dulles said that although this was true, he hoped the Delegation would confine itself to a minimum of changes.

The Future Status of South West Africa

Mr. Gerig summarized the present position as to the future status of South West Africa by explaining that the United States Government had proposed to the Government of South Africa that a United Nations Commission should be established to investigate the problem of South West Africa and to report to the next session of the General Assembly. He added that the South African Government had replied that it proposed to submit to the General Assembly a statement on the outcome of its consultation with the peoples of South West Africa regarding the future status of the mandated territory, and on the implementation to be given to the wishes thus expressed.

Senator Austin expressed the opinion that it might be unwise to take a position as to the annexation of South West Africa by the Union in view of the fact that we might be forced into the position of having to annex some of the Japanese Mandated Islands in the Pacific.

Mrs. Roosevelt asked for information as to what policy toward annexation we were contemplating in the Pacific and wondered what we were afraid of. She said that although the War and Navy Departments could offer advice, she felt that it was still up to the Department of State and to the President to make a final decision in the matter of annexation taking into account our general interests.

Mr. Dulles stated the opinion that the United States Delegation would be in an embarrassing position unless some declaration of intention regarding the Japanese Mandated Islands were made. He traced the history of internal dissension between the various Departments of this Government which went back as far as the period before Dumbarton Oaks. He requested the Chairman of the Delegation to confer with the President and the Secretary of State on the urgent necessity of making a declaration of intention regarding the Japanese Mandated Islands. The Chairman stated that he would do so.³⁹

Decision: It was decided to defer consideration of this question until conversations on the technical level with the South African Delegation had taken place.⁴⁰

[Here follows short discussion relating to information to be transmitted to the General Assembly regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories.]

36. For documentation regarding organization and arrangements for U.S. representation at the second part of the first session of the General Assembly, opening at New York on October 23, see pp. 1 ff.
37. The Delegation had before it at this meeting a position paper dated October 19, document US/A/C.4/2 (IO Files), not printed, which was organized on the same basis as the sub-divisions of these minutes. Positions described in the paper were those which in pertinent part have been developed in the previous documentation, with specific reference to the procedure for submitting the trusteeship agreements to the General Assembly and the question of the terms of the agreements themselves. This paper was the last of several written in the Division of Dependent Area Affairs in a conventional drafting process which began in September (documents found in the IO Files in series SD/A/C.4/1 ff.).
38. The New Zealand request had been conveyed to this Government in the New Zealand Legation’s aide-mémoire of October 18, not printed (890.0146/10–1846); see footnote 34, p. 652.
39. Senator Austin reported on this matter in telegram 867, October 22, 12:10 a.m., not printed.
40. For subsequent developments see footnote 62, p. 683.