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

501.BB/11–846: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to Senator Austin

secret

Washington, November 8, 1946—7 p.m.

276. USdel. 1. After comprehensive review of monopoly problem in pending trusteeship agreements in which both geographic and economic divisions participated under Thorp’s⁵⁵ guidance, Dept feels that its basic position (Deptel 255 Oct 29) is sound in order to protect US interests in trust territories. Opposition to this position expressed consistently by other govts tends to confirm its real or potential importance.

2. Dept therefore recommends Gadel formally propose as amendment in Committee 4 substance of provision contained in paragraph 3 Deptel 255.⁵⁶

3. Dept however appreciates Gadel’s position in considering establishment of trusteeship system itself as of paramount importance. If this Govts official position outlined in paragraph 2 should constitute sole reason for preventing mandatory powers agreement and therefore for delaying establishment of trusteeship system, Dept will at Gadel’s request reconsider US position. Lines which such reconsideration might take will be suggested later by Dept. Until issue has been clarified on floor of Committee Dept feels that position indicated in its telegram 255 should be considered final one without any indication of further compromise.

4. Dept meanwhile wiring Wilcox in London re possibility approach through other than office which has principally represented British viewpoint to date.⁵⁷

Acheson

55. Willard L. Thorp. Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs-designate.
56. The text of this provision (see p. 663) was circulated by the United States Delegation either as a new article or as a modification of an existing article in respect of the proposed trusteeship agreements for Western Samoa (GA(I/2), Fourth Committee, Pt I, p. 237, annex 4c), New Guinea (ibid., p. 242, annex 5b), Ruanda-Urundi (ibid., p. 253, annex 6d), Togoland and the Cameroons under French mandate (ibid., p. 261, annex 9a), and Tanganyika and Togoland and the Cameroons under British mandate (ibid., p. 283, annex 14a).

57. The reference is to Clair Wilcox, Director of the Office of International Trade Policy in the Department and at this time Chairman of the United States Delegation to the Preparatory Committee for the International Trade and Employment Conference then meeting in London (for documentation regarding this subject, see pp. 1263 ff.). As a result of the Department’s action there ensued an exchange of telegrams between the Department and Mr. Wilcox which extended over a period from November 8 to November 21 (telegram 7623, November 8, to London, File No. 560.AL/11–1346; telegram 9843, November 13, from London, File No. 560.AL/11–3446; telegram 7768, November 18, to London, File No. 560.AL/11–1346; and telegram 9653, November 21, from London, File No. 560.AL/11–2146).

    The premise stated by the Department in initiating the exchange in telegram 7623, November 8, was that “British intransigeance may be due to policy being shaped by Colonial Office. Latter appears unaffected by recent willingness other branches British Government including FonOff to subscribe to anti-monopoly principles.” Mr. Wilcox was requested to discuss the matter “with such other officials”, and in the same telegram was given a rather detailed background survey of the principal developments to date. (560.AL/11–1346)

    The talks conducted by Mr. Wilcox in London in effect elicited no more than what was already known, namely that informally “no strong objections” to the United States position were entertained by the Foreign Office, but that formally the Foreign Office preferred to leave the question of the economic clauses of the trusteeship agreements “entirely” with the British Delegation to the General Assembly in New York “which includes expert on Tanganyika and which has been fully instructed.” At the same time the Foreign Office took occasion to “point out that proposals for US trusteeship Japanese islands contain no economic clause similar to US proposals for Tanganyika but only for economic equality among UN with an exception in favor of US as administering authority. Foreign Office indicates that disparity must be taken into account by New York delegation.” (Telegram 9653, November 21, from London, File No. 560.AL/11–2146)