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

IO Files: US/A/M (Chr.)/24

Minutes of the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the United States Delegation, New York, Hotel Pennsylvania, November 21, 1946, 9:00 a.m.

New York, November 21, 1946, 9:00 a.m.

secret

[Here follow list of names of persons (33) present, and discussion of other items on the Delegation’s agenda.]

Trusteeship Agreements

Mr. Dulles continued that in Subcommittee I of Committee IV they were going through the draft trusteeship agreements in detail. The United States had a lot of fine suggestions but he had found that they were not included in the Pacific islands draft. He assumed that he should not press for inclusion in other trust agreements provisions that the United States would not accept in our agreements. Senator Connally objected that this was exactly what he had had in mind when he had spoken earlier.⁶² Mr. Dulles gave as an example that the United States wished to introduce a statement that the administering authority was administering “on behalf of the United Nations”. Also it was proposed to amend the statement that the trust territory could be administered “as an integral part of” the administering state to read “as if it were an integral part.” However, this was not desired by other governments and the United States did not have this in its agreements because the Navy would not agree to it.

Mrs. Roosevelt said that if we thought certain things would improve matters for other nations and we thought that those things should be included in our agreements, then the Delegation had a responsibility to press its views. She said that she thought a significant remark had been made at a recent Delegation meeting when it was observed that we could disarm ourselves through our own people more quickly than any other way. She thought the way to do that was to give the impression that the military group in our own government was affecting policy decisions. She thought this impression would be given by United States action in this trusteeship matter. She thought that if the Delegation believed that it was right and good to have certain matters in other agreements, then it had an obligation to try to have those provisions agreed upon for ourselves. Mrs. Douglas said she wanted to support Mrs. Roosevelt because she was afraid that to hold back in this matter might wreck the United Nations.

Mr. Gerig thought that the difference between the strategic and non-strategic drafts was so great that a case could be made for presenting certain revisions in the non-strategic drafts. For example, we could press the case of a provision against monopolies, arguing against differential treatment and still not embarrass ourselves in regard to our strategic area draft. He thought that the provision for administration on behalf of the United Nations was of secondary importance and might be dropped.

Mr. Dulles said that he thought it was fundamental whether we administered the islands in our own right or on behalf of the United Nations, and also whether the territories should be administered as an integral part of the United States. On both points he understood that the Delegation’s hands were tied because the Navy refused to make any agreements that contained such language.

Mrs. Roosevelt observed that the Navy was thinking only of the interests of the Navy in this matter. She thought the Delegation had to think of how the people of the country would feel.

Senator Austin asked Mr. Dulles whether he thought it would be helpful to bring out the fact that United States’ policy was to keep the territories under strategic area agreements only until the security system of the United Nations was established.

Mr. Dulles said he would be delighted to be able to put forward such a statement for it would clear the air greatly. He said that he had planned to put forward a statement in connection with the Indian proposal⁶³ containing a delicate hint to the same effect and that he might now consider changing it. However, he was not sure, nor was Mr. Cohen, that such a statement would be cleared in Washington. He said he thought it would have a great beneficial effect if Senator Austin’s suggestion could be put forward.

Senator Austin said he had had a talk with General Romulo about this question on the previous evening. He had found the Philippines violently opposed to the United States position on the Japanese islands. When he had told General Romulo, however, that the strategic aspects would last only until the security system of the United Nations was established, Romulo said that would make all the difference in the world. Senator Austin thought that this fresh and unselfish reaction was typical and important.

Mr. Dulles queried whether such a statement could be made. He said it was his understanding that the Navy had yielded on the trusteeship question with the understanding that there would be no further dilution of the United States’ position. Senator Austin said he would make a special effort to get this position cleared.

Mr. Dulles pointed out that at present the situation was reversed from that in London where the United States was lined up against imperialism. Now the United States was lined up with the colonial powers, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium and South Africa. He thought that on this side of the fence the United States would not carry abroad. Mrs. Douglas added that it would not carry at home either.

[Here follows discussion of other items on the agenda.]

62. The Delegation had just finished a discussion of the Fourth Committee’s work regarding the proposal of the Government of South Africa to incorporate the mandated territory of South West Africa into the Union of South Africa. Describing opposition in the Committee to the South African proposal, Mr. Dulles indicated his desire to develop a moderate resolution under the sponsorship of the United States in order to head off the introduction of a resolution by India or Egypt “violently condemnatory” of South Africa, for in such a contingency “the United States would be in the position of having to vote for or against an extreme resolution”. Mr. Dulles pointed out to the Delegation that “The United States’ position was particularly delicate because the South Africans were taking the same position that the United States was taking in regard to the mandated Pacific islands, namely, that if the trusteeship proposal were turned down, the United States would hold on to them as a de facto matter. This was essentially what the Union of South Africa proposed.” Shortly thereafter Senator Connally emphasized that “we must be very careful what was said in this connection because the United States potentially faced the same position.” (US/A/M(Chr)/24) (For deliberations in the Fourth Committee on the question of South West Africa, see GA (I/2), Fourth Committee, Pt. I., pp. 62–180, passim; the work of Sub-Committee 2 which handled the question may be found ibid. Pt. III, pp. 41–82, passim.)
63. For statements by the Indian representative on the Fourth Committee to the Committee on November 5 and 14, see GA(I/2), Fourth Committee, Pt. I, pp. 69–71, 109–111, and 115; actually the proposed Indian resolution was not introduced until November 27, in Sub-Committee 2 (ibid., Pt. III, p. 47).