Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, General; The United Nations, Volume I

890.0146/4–2447

Summary of Trusteeship Agreement Negotiations in the Security Council, New York, April 2, 1947¹

New York, April 2, 1947

[Extract]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

During a long session on April 2, 1947, the Security Council reconsidered the entire agreement article-by-article. In voting on proposed amendments, the United States Representative followed the rule of casting a vote when the United States vote would be in the affirmative, and abstaining from voting in cases wherein the United States did not favor the proposal before the Council. Thus, he abstained from voting on proposals to revise Article 8(1) and Article 15. Prior to the voting on each of these Articles, the United States Representative declared that the United States would not veto the amendment. In advance of his first abstention, he stated that, “On questions such as this, it is perfectly clear—to us anyway—that the United States, where it may be obliged in view of its responsibilities to withdraw the tender of an agreement, should certainly not exercise a veto in the Security Council also”. Prior to his second abstention he said, “The United States being a party to the agreement, all I can do is, with the utmost modesty, state that an amendment in the nature of that proposed…² probably could not be accepted by the United States as a party to the agreement”. At the close of the session, the Security Council approved unanimously the United States draft agreement as a whole including three minor revisions which were accepted by the United States Representative with the consent of the United States Government. The three amendments are as follows:

Article 3.—An amendment proposed by the Representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to delete the words “as an integral part of the United States”. Upon accepting this amendment at the 116th Meeting of the Security Council, the United States representative said inter alia: “In agreeing to this modification, my Government feels that it should affirm for the record that its authority in the trust territory is not to be considered in any way lessened thereby.”

Article 6(1).—An amendment proposed by the Representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and revised in the Council, to add after the words “toward self-government”, the words “or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of the trust territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned,”. In accepting modification in Article 6(1) at the 116th Meeting of the Security Council, the United States Representative declared that “the United States feels that it must record its opposition not to the principle of independence, to which no people could be more consecrated than the people of the United States, but to the thought that it could possibly be achieved within any foreseeable future in this case.”

Article 6(1).—An amendment suggested by the Representatives of New Zealand and India and introduced on behalf of the latter at the 124th Meeting of the Security Council, to delete the word “local” from the phrase “in local government;”. The observation of the Representative of India at the 124th Meeting in behalf of this deletion was that in certain countries the word “local” connotes municipal government, and that surely would not be the intention of the Representative of the United States.

In the final consideration of the United States trusteeship proposals, the original text of Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 19 was approved in each case without objection or comment. The American Representative, Mr. Austin, requested that Article 7 be perfected as follows:

“In discharging its obligations under Article 76(c), of the Charter, the administering authority shall guarantee to the inhabitants of the trust territory freedom of conscience, and, subject only to the requirements of public order and security, shall guarantee to the inhabitants of the trust territory freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; freedom of worship, and of religious teaching; and freedom of migration and movement.”

Mr. Austin stated: “The significance of this perfection of the Article is that it moves up freedom of conscience so that it will not be subject to the requirements of public order and security.” The approval of the trusteeship agreement with the three minor amendments and this slight change followed the withdrawal or rejection of several other proposed amendments as follows:

Preamble—Discussions on the Preamble concerned three alternative versions—suggested by Poland, the Netherlands, and the United States—of an amendment proposed originally by the Representative of Poland at the 116th Meeting of the Security Council. This proposal was to add the following phrase to paragraph four: “Whereas Japan has violated the terms of the above-mentioned mandate of the League of Nations and has thus forfeited her mandate…” The United States Representative endorsed this proposal, but the amendment was reconsidered at the 124th Meeting. The Netherlands Representative proposed that the amendment read “Whereas, as a result of the signature by Japan of an act of unconditional surrender, the mandate held by Japan for these islands has come to an end.” As a compromise, the United States Representative proposed the following wording: “Whereas the mandate, held by Japan for these Islands has come to an end.” After failure to reach agreement on these alternative proposals, the original wording of the Preamble was approved unanimously.

Article 8(1).—The United Kingdom Representative proposed an amendment to Article 8(1) to delete the phrase “except the administering authority”, holding that the inclusion of those words would give preferential position to the United States which did not seem to be in strict accordance with Articles 83(2) and 76 (d) of the Charter. He asked whether that phrase in Article 83(3) “without prejudice to security considerations” would not really give the United States sufficient safeguard. After replying to this question in the negative, the American Representative stated for the record: “…the United States Government has no intention, through this clause or any other clause, of taking advantage for its own benefit, and to the detriment of the welfare of the inhabitants, of the meager and almost non-existent resources and commercial opportunities that exist in the scattered and barren islands. The nature of this proposed clause is dictated by the fact that these islands are proposed as a strategic trusteeship area and by the obligations which the administering authority will assume under the Charter ‘to further international peace and security’ and to insure that the territory itself ‘shall play its part’ in the maintenance of international peace and security.”

Article 13.—The United Kingdom Representative proposed a redraft of Article 13 to read:

“The provisions of Articles 87 and 88 of the Charter shall be applicable to the trust territory, provided that the administering authority may at any time inform the Security Council, in accordance with Article 83(3) of the Charter, that security considerations do not permit the exercise of the functions of the Trusteeship Council in regard to specific areas.”

He did not insist on this amendment, however, because the United States Representative stated for the record that the United States contemplates that notification shall be made to the Security Council whenever the proviso that is contained in Article 13 comes into use.

Article 15.—Extended debate took place before reaching agreement on Article 15. Two formal amendments to this article were presented by the Representatives of Poland and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Soviet amendment was to make Article 15 read as follows: “The terms of the present agreement may be altered and amended or the terms of its validity discontinued by decision of the Security Council.” The Polish amendment was to modify Article 15 to read: “The terms of the present agreement shall not be altered, amended or terminated except as provided by the Charter.” The United States indicated a willingness to accept the following text as a compromise: “The terms of the present agreement shall not be altered, amended, or terminated except by agreement of the administering authority and the Security Council.” The rejection of the Soviet and Polish amendments was followed by the acceptance of the original wording of Article 15.

Proposed Article 17.—An issue debated at length in the Security Council was embodied in an amendment proposed by Australia to add an Article 17 to the agreement which would have delayed its coming into force until the effective date of the peace treaty with Japan. The view thus expressed was supported by the United Kingdom and by New Zealand. The United States Representative argued most forcefully against this proposal which would have left the agreement in suspense for an indefinite period. As a basic contention of the United States Government, he emphasized throughout the debates that the matter did not depend upon, and need not await, the general peace settlement with Japan. Following this widening of the Council’s discussions to include representatives of Canada, India, the Netherlands, and the Republic of the Philippines for the purpose of stating their views on the United States trusteeship proposals, the Australian Representative withdrew his proposal.

According to Article 16 of the agreement, the Security Council having approved its terms of trusteeship, only the approval by the United States in accordance with its constitutional process is now required to bring the Trusteeship Agreement for the Territory of the Pacific Islands into force.³

1. Extract from memorandum entitled “Negotiations of the Trusteeship Agreement for the Territory of the Pacific Islands between the Security Council of the United Nations and the United States of America,” which was drafted in the Department of State on April 24, and was transmitted to President Truman under cover of a letter from the Secretary of State dated July 2 (FW 890.0146/4–2447). The proceedings in the Security Council for this date are found in SC, 2nd yr., pp. 642 ff.
2. Omissions throughout the document are indicated in the source text.
3. In a letter of July 2 to President Truman, the Secretary of State recommended that the Congress be requested to take action to authorize the President to accept the Agreement and bring it into effect (FW 890.0146/4–2447). This the Congress did in the enactment of a Joint Resolution on July 18 (61 Stat. 397), the President approving the Agreement the same day. For text of “Trusteeship agreement for the former Japanese mandated islands in the Pacific, designating the territory as a ‘strategic area’ and the United States as administering authority pursuant to the provisions of chapter XII of the Charter of the United Nations,” see Department of State Treaties and Other International Acts Series (TIAS) No. 1665, or 61 Stat (pt. 3) 3301, or United Nations Treaty Series 189.