501.BB/10–2346: Telegram
The Secretary of State to Senator Austin
255. For Gadel. Urtel 702, Oct. 23. 1. British suggestions to amend Article 10c or to substitute short general statement of principle for [Page 664] Articles 9 and 10 (telephoned Gerig to Green Oct 28) not satisfactory to Dept.
- 2.
- If Gadel considers modification necessary of Dept’s original position favoring prior approval of other monopolies by Trusteeship Council, Gadel might suggest version requiring that any proposed monopoly be submitted to Trusteeship Council or its designee and should be considered approved if not disapproved within a specified period such as, for example, 60 days. The latter version would meet British objection that Trusteeship Council approval would unduly delay action and discourage capital from entering area.
- 3.
- If not possible to obtain British agreement to version suggested in
para. 2, Dept suggests accepting modification of Article 10c proposed by British (urtel 702) if rephrased as follows:
“Where the interests of the economic advancement of the inhabitants of Tanganyika may require it, to establish, or permit to be established, for specific purposes, other monopolies or undertakings having in them an element of monopoly, under conditions of proper public control: provided that, in the selection of any non-governmental agencies to carry out the purposes of this clause, the administering authority shall not discriminate on grounds of nationality against other members of the United Nations; and that in every case in which use is proposed to be made of the powers conferred by this paragraph the administering authority shall report to the Trusteeship Council or its designee for consideration a full explanation of the circumstances and the reasons why the measures proposed to be taken are considered necessary. Such report shall be submitted at least blank days prior to any final decision by the administering authority.”
- Sixty days might be considered reasonable.
- 4.
- Dept aware British objections to prior approval by Trusteeship Council of other monopolies are based on both legal and practical grounds. Dept feels, however, British objection on legal grounds to granting Trusteeship Council right of “approval” could be met under broad scope of Article 87 (d) of Charter of UN by insertion of appropriate provision in trusteeship agreement. Administering authority could legally agree therein to accept “decision” or “recommendation” of Trusteeship Council. Dept willing not to force issue on legal authority being granted Council in trusteeship agreement and believes wording in para. 2 should satisfy British practical objections.
- 5.
- British experts’ suggested alternate proposal to consolidate detailed provisions of Articles 9 and 10 into single statement of general principle appears even more undesirable than the mandate provisions and is subject to uncertain interpretation.46
- A U.S. Delegation working paper of even date, not printed, written after this telegram was received in New York, analyzes in some detail the several proposals and counter-proposals passed back and forth between the U.S. and U.K. experts on this question in the latter part of October. There is further a memorandum of conversation of October 30 recording an exchange of some length that took place on that date between Messrs. Gerig and Poynton in which the situation as of that time was carefully explored, not printed. It is clear from the latter document that despite very active efforts by the technical experts on both sides that at least a temporary impasse had been reached. (IO Files, documents US/A/C.4/8 and US/A/C.4/9)↩