Editorial Note
On October 13 at an afternoon meeting of the Fourth Committee, Mr. Dulles made the following statement:
“[He] did not wish to stress the constitutional aspect of the Indian representative’s draft resolution, since from the point of view of the Charter it seemed to be constitutional. The trusteeship system had not been designed to include only the former mandated territories. The Charter enumerated three categories of territories which might be placed under the trusteeship system. The Italian colonies, for example, were at present being considered from that point of view. At the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers in London in 1946, the United States delegation had suggested that some of the Italian colonies should indeed be placed under this system. Trusteeship had also been [Page 297] proposed for Jerusalem in the report by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. Neither sub-paragraph 1b nor sub-paragraph 1c of Article 77 should be regarded as a dead letter.
Every draft resolution should satisfy two essential tests: it should be based on a thoroughly moral standpoint; and it should be based on fact, not fiction. By omitting territories of the category mentioned in Article 77, sub-paragraph 1b, the Indian representative’s proposal failed to meet those tests. It was for that reason that the United States delegation could not support the Indian representative’s proposal.
While territories of the category mentioned in Article 77, sub-paragraph 1b, might be dealt with under Article 107, there was no reason for the General Assembly not to express its hope that those territories would be placed under trusteeship, as the Japanese Islands had been. If the omission of such an expression from the resolution was for reasons of convenience, the moral authority of the resolution was undermined.
Paragraph 3 of the Indian draft resolution was open to doubt. Since the Charter had been adopted, three States, at present Members of the United Nations, had achieved their independence without the intervention of the Trusteeship Council. They were India, Pakistan, and the Philippine Republic. Yemen also had attained independence and membership of the United Nations without the intervention of the Trusteeship Council. It was hoped that territories such as Hawaii and Alaska would soon attain to statehood, again without the intervention of the Trusteeship Council. It had been thought that trusteeship would prove advantageous to Korea, and that had been agreed upon in Moscow on 27 December 1945; but, the people of Korea were opposed to trusteeship, and the United States delegation had asked for the immediate independence of Korea, and had placed that item on the agenda of the First Committee.
The United States delegation regarded the colonial system as obsolete, and wished to see it abolished. It welcomed the presence of former colonial territories as Member States of the United Nations, and appreciated the constant effort of the Indian delegation to secure the extension of the trusteeship system. The present resolution, however, was an unsatisfactory means of attaining that end.” (GA (II), Fourth Committee, page 81)
On October 14, the Fourth Committee voted on the amended Indian resolution (see GA (II), Fourth Committee, pages 217–218, annex 5a), and the resolution was approved (25–23–3), the United States voting against. In this connection Mr. Dulles made a second though very brief statement in opposition, explaining the United States position in light of the Indian amendment (ibid., page 90).
The resolution recommended by the Fourth Committee was defeated (24–24–1) by the General Assembly in plenary meeting on November 1. (In favor: Brazil, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, China, Colombia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Mexico, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Yugoslavia. Against: [Page 298] Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Peru, Sweden, Turkey, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay. Abstained: Venezuela.) In its fairly brief consideration of the matter, the General Assembly heard a statement of some length by Mr. Dulles explaining the strong opposition of the United States to the resolution (GA (II), Plenary, volume I, pages 657 ff.)
For the legislative history of the resolution, see GA (II), Fourth Committee, pages 78–92 and 217–219, and GA (II), Plenary, volume I, pages 651 ff. A Cuban amendment, which was introduced during the plenary discussion and which was accepted before the final vote was taken on the resolution as a whole, changed the wording of a passage in the second preambular paragraph from “…the International Trusteeship System…provides the surest and quickest means of enabling the peoples of dependent territories to secure self-government…” to “…provides a sure and quick means of enabling.…”