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

501.BB/12–746

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Chief of the Division of Dependent Area Affairs (Gerig)

secret

[New York,] December 7, 1946.

Subject: Conversations regarding “states directly concerned”.

Participants:	Mr. Ivor Thomas (UK);
	Mr. Dulles and Mr. Gerig (US).

Mr. Thomas, by request, came to see Mr. Dulles concerning the proposed draft statement prepared by Mr. Dulles and which had been given to Mr. Novikov yesterday with a view to serving as a basis for agreement on the question of “states directly concerned”. (Draft attached hereto, the contents of which had been given to Mr. Thomas by Mr. Dulles yesterday.)

Mr. Thomas said that he had disclosed the essential features of the tentative draft to Mr. Bevin, whose first reaction was the following: Mr. Bevin felt strongly

(1) that the United Kingdom did not feel that it was wise to give any private assurances by letter or otherwise to the Soviet Delegation although they felt less concerned with the Japanese islands north of the Equator than with the Italian colonies in this respect;

(2) that the United Kingdom did not feel that it could agree to the important second paragraph of the tentative draft without permitting the Cabinet to examine it carefully which could probably not take place before Tuesday; and

(3) that Australia and the Union of South Africa were in particular very much concerned about a procedure which would require consultation in advance with the Soviet Union and China in regard to territories which are of special concern to them.

Mr. Thomas said that the Union of South Africa, he felt, might initiate a trusteeship agreement for South West Africa if it were not necessary to recognize a special position in relation thereto by the Soviet Union.

Mr. Dulles said that the second paragraph, as Mr. Thomas knew, was designed not to outline a procedure for determining “states directly concerned”, but rather to avoid a precise attempt to define Article 79 by outlining a procedure for consultation only.

Mr. Thomas said his Delegation fully appreciated this point and felt that if the Soviet Union would find the proposal acceptable, it might go a long way toward breaking the deadlock on this question. He was mainly concerned about private assurances which might be given apart from this general statement.

Mr. Dulles then dictated the following memorandum addressed to Senator Austin giving a copy to Mr. Thomas which, in effect, states that we do not intend to give any private assurances to the relation of the Soviet Union to the Italian colonies:

“Mr. Ivor Thomas talked with me today regarding the conversations which I am having with Ambassador Novikov with respect to ‘states directly concerned’ and the establishment of a Trusteeship Council. I told him that he could feel assured that we would not, in the course of these conversations, give any private commitments or assurances to the Soviet Delegation that we would support a claim by the Soviet Union to be a ‘state directly concerned’ within the meaning of Article 79 in relation to Italian colonies.”

Mr. Dulles said that in regard to the Japanese islands north of the Equator, which he felt was the main concern of the Soviet, in particular the question of the future of the Ryukyu Islands, he did not know what the attitude of the United States would be if a specific request were made by the Soviet Union in regard to the future of those islands. This was, of course, a most difficult question and would probably arise before or at the time of the Peace Conference on Japan. In any case it seemed clear that what the Soviet Union is trying to get is some understanding with the Great Powers and, in particular, with the United States as to the future of those islands.

Mr. Dulles said that the Soviet had indicated that China was very much concerned with possible claims on the Ryukyu Islands which might be made by the Soviet Union. Mr. Thomas said he had the same information.

It was agreed that if the Soviet Union rejects the second paragraph of the tentative proposal, it might be best to return to the original paragraph which slightly revised the statement made by Mr. Dulles in Committee IV on December 5. It seemed now that at least the requisite votes could be secured for that statement even though the Soviet group will vote against it. However, Mr. Dulles thought it might be desirable to indicate in an oral statement the main lines of the proposal contained in the second paragraph in order to let other Members of the Assembly know about the efforts which had been made to reach agreement.⁸⁰

80. Also on December 7 a conversation along similar lines took place with Professor Kenneth H. Bailey, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia and member of the Australian delegation. The gist of Professor Bailey’s remarks was that he felt “the formula amounted, in fact, to recognizing the five great powers as automatically directly concerned almost everywhere”; particular concern was expressed at claims China and the Soviet Union might assert in this connection in respect of New Guinea and Nauru. At the end of the conversation “Mr. Dulles said that Mr. Novikov had not yet given any reaction to the proposal and if he did not do so in a day or two, we would, in any case, have to fall back on the original proposal contained in the first paragraph of the tentative draft. Mr. Bailey concluded by saying that that would certainly be their preference.” (memorandum of conversation by Mr. Gerig, December 7, SPA Files, Lot 54–D510, Box 20012).

    The two memoranda of conversation were forwarded by Mr. Gerig to the Department on the same date with the comment “You will see that a good deal of apprehension seems to be developing as to what might result from our talks with the Soviet.” (memorandum from Mr. Gerig to Mr. Hiss, December 7, SPA Files, Lot 54–D510, Box 20012)