Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V

350/3–2250: Telegram

The United States Delegation to the Trusteeship Council to the Secretary of State

secret

Geneva, March 22, 1950—8 p. m.

411. Tcdel 139. 1. This morning during discussion Article 39 Garreau put forward suggestion that statute should come into force on date to be determined subsequently by resolution of TC. Belgium formally proposed this which was supported by Australia, US,¹ France and Dominican Republic. Iraq, objecting, insisted that in order to comply with terms of GA Resolution December 9, statute should come into force immediately upon its adoption. As compromise, Philippine Delegation suggested date should be decided subsequently by TC but it should not be later than December 1, 1950.² UK, without taking position, pointed out that date on which statute should come into force and steps to be taken in connection with implementation statute were two different matters and should not be confused. New Zealand requested postponement of vote until next week to seek instructions in view of fact interpretation of UK, to which New Zealand and Australia agreed, was not generally accepted by Council. Dominican Republic believed that Article 39 should be moved to next to last article of statute and suggested further consideration of Article 39 should be postponed until third reading.

2. Following morning’s meeting, USDel feeling that TC failure to decide on Article 29 [39] during second reading would seriously complicate its vote in third reading, asked New Zealand Delegation whether it would be possible for it to obtain earlier instructions. New Zealand Delegation agreed request urgent instructions and it is hoped that if such instructions are received within next day or two, Article 39 can be discussed again and be dealt with prior to third reading and preferably this week.

3. USDel feels that position it should take with respect to article by article vote and vote on statute as whole should depend somewhat on outcome of vote on Article 39. If Article 39 is redrafted along lines Belgian proposal, USDel will proceed in accordance with Deltc 35, March 20. USDel is forwarding in separate telegram³ for Department’s consideration draft of proposed statement to be made in this event. However, if Iraqi proposal adopted, Department may feel it desirable for USDel to vote against statute as whole. Please also instruct what course to follow if Philippine proposal is adopted.

4. USDel will communicate with Department as soon as further developments occur. At present impossible to predict Council’s action on Article 39.⁴

Sent Department 411, repeated London 105, Jerusalem unnumbered, Tel Aviv unnumbered, Amman unnumbered, USUN unnumbered. Department pass Tel Aviv, Amman, USUN.

1. The views expressed by Ambassador Sayre are summarized in TC (VI), p. 522.
2. The Iraqi proposal is printed in ibid.; the Trusteeship Council released the texts of the Belgian and Philippine proposals in T/L.64 and T/L.65, respectively.
3. No. 413, identified also as Tcdel 140, March 22, not printed.
4. The U.S. Delegation to the Trusteeship Council, on March 22, stated that “After considerable discussion Trusteeship Council March 22 deferred until third reading of Jerusalem Statute the question of date on which Statute would come into force. Majority appeared to favor revision of Article 39 to effect that TC would determine date in a subsequent resolution.” (Telegram 412, identified also as Tcdel 138, from Geneva, 350/3–2250) For a summary of the Council’s discussion on the morning of March 22, see TC (IV, 6), pp. 518 ff.