IO Files

Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. D. Vernon McKay of the United States Delegation to the Trusteeship Council

confidential
US/T/111

Subject: The Ewe Problem

Participants: Mr. Awni Khalidy, Iraqi Delegation
Mr. Benjamin Gerig } United States Delegation
Mr. Vernon McKay

Mr. Gerig and Mr. McKay approached Mr. Khalidy at Lake Success this afternoon to persuade him to accept the text of a tenth draft of a proposed Iraqi-United States amendment to the Anglo-French proposal on the Ewe problem. (The French and UK Delegations expressed to the US Delegation this morning their approval of this text, although they informed us that they would abstain when it was put to the vote).

Mr. Khalidy stated that his government had authorized him to join the US in presenting a suitable text of a draft resolution. He said that he had cabled his government the text which he had discussed yesterday with Mr. Gerig and Mr. McKay, and which he was sure would be acceptable. (This text differed in three important parts from the text which the French and UK Delegations this morning insisted upon maintaining without change). Mr. Gerig reminded Mr. Khalidy that the text Khalidy had wired to his government was only a text which we had discussed provisionally, and not one that the US had agreed to. Mr. Khalidy recognized this fact but said that he did not think he could go beyond this text.

The three disputed points were then discussed and rediscussed at considerable length. Mr. Gerig and Mr. McKay stated that the US felt that the Considering clause and the Urges clause should be maintained, (see Attachment A) and that the words “seriousness of the situation and the desirability” should be replaced by the word “necessity” in the Draws the attention clause. Mr. Khalidy contested all [Page 568] three points, Mr. Gerig and Mr. McKay pointed out that all three clauses had already been considerably modified in order to meet Mr. Khalidy’s views. Mr. Gerig said that the US Delegation was in a difficult position because the Department had studied the problem at great length, had in fact taken the matter up at the level of the Secretary’s office, and the Department wanted the Delegation to maintain all three of the points which Khalidy now opposed.

Mr. Khalidy responded that he could see the difficulty of our position and, in a spirit of cooperation, he was willing once more to go over the three contested points to see if there was a way out of the impasse. On the Considering clause, Mr. McKay pointed out that it had already been modified twice to meet Khalidy’s views; the words “were such as to enable” had been changed to “represented a sincere effort to enable”, and later the word “sincere” had been dropped along with the word “true” in the next line. Mr. Khalidy stated that these changes had improved the clause from his point of view but he still didn’t like it. He suggested, however, that it might be acceptable if “all sections of the population” could be changed to “the population”. Mr. Gerig said he was sorry but the Department considered this an important point. (We knew that it was an important phrase to the French). Mr. Khalidy then suggested “the population concerned”, and Mr. Gerig countered with “the sections of the population concerned”. Mr. Khalidy accepted this change.

Mr. Khalidy then again asked for the deletion of the Urges paragraph. Mr. McKay recalled that it had already been toned down from urging the Ewes to cooperate in the Consultative Commission, to the much less objectionable phrase of urging them to cooperate in seeking a solution. Mr. Khalidy suggested adding the words “of the Ewe problem” at the end of the Urges clause. Mr. Gerig pointed out that the problem involved other peoples than the Ewes. Mr. Khalidy then suggested “of the problem” which we quickly accepted. (We had agreed with the British and French in the morning to accept no changes, but the above two changes were so inconsequential that the British and French could easily and gladly accept them, a fact which we shortly verified with them).

The third point, on the word “seriousness”, was next discussed and Khalidy reluctantly accepted our revision. However, he then said that he did not want to accept the idea of amending even a UK resolution, let alone a French one. He didn’t want the UK to get the credit for-the resolution. Mr. Gerig pointed out that after our amendment was accepted, there would be almost nothing left of the UK original resolution, and that Iraq and the US would certainly get the credit for vastly improving the resolution. Mr. McKay added that procedurally an amendment was better because it was certain to be voted [Page 569] on first, If we put in a separate resolution, the UK proposal might be voted on first. Mr. Khalidy recognized this danger but still opposed the idea of an amendment because the resolution would have been introduced by the UK, and might be reported in the Iraqi press as a UK resolution.

Mr. Khalidy suggested that Sir Alan Burns be approached at once to see whether he would object to a separate resolution instead of an amendment. (We knew that the French wanted the amendment rather than the separate resolution but thought that the text agreed to by Khalidy met all the latest Anglo-French position, so we thought it worth approaching them again on this point). Mr. McKay therefore asked Sir Alan to step out of the Council Chamber for a few minutes. Sir Alan promptly agreed to Khalidy’s desire for a separate resolution and said that if we would wait for him he would consult Laurentie at once. In a few minutes Sir Alan returned with Laurentie’s consent.

It was then agreed that in order to ensure the success of the arrangement, the US Delegation should approach the President and tell him that the French, Iraq, UK and US Delegations all wanted him to put the Iraq-US proposal to the vote first, (President Urena subsequently agreed to this procedure).

Mr. Khalidy concluded by expressing his pleasure that we had been able to reach agreement, but emphasized that this agreement dependedupon there being absolutely no further changes in the text. Mr. Gerig responded that we were in entire agreement with him on this point. Mr. Khalidy also stated that in making his remarks in support of our draft resolution he intended to be quite moderate, and would not go into details on the French elections or other matters. He would emphasize that in his view, however, the two administering authorities were being given one more chance, and the future depended upon their coming up wih a satisfactory solution at the next session of the Trusteeship Council.

Vernon McKay

Attachment A

Text of United States-Iraqi Joint Draft Resolution on the Ewe Problem

The Trusteeship Council

Having considered the General Assembly resolution of 2 December 1950 (document A/1616) on the subject of the Ewe problem;

Noting the statements made by the Administering Authorities regarding the electoral methods adopted for elections to the enlarged Consultative Commission for the Trust Territories of Togoland under French Administration and Togoland under British Administration;

Considering that these methods represented an effort to enable the sections of the population concerned to express their opinions;

[Page 570]

Noting that certain groups in the two Trust Territories did not find it possible to take part either in certain stages of the elections or in the proceedings of the enlarged Consultative Commission;

1.
Notes that the Administering Authorities propose to take steps in order to encourage these groups to take part hereafter in the work of the Commission;
2.
Urges these groups to cooperate with the Administering Authorities in their efforts to seek a solution of the problem;
3.
Regrets that a satisfactory solution of the problem has not yet been reached notwithstanding the delays involved;
4.
Draws the attention of the Administering Authorities to the necessity of seeking a solution with the utmost expedition;
5.
Invites the two Administering Authorities to continue their efforts to solve the problem in the spirit of the Resolution of the Trusteeship Council of July 14, 1950;
6.
Recommends, whether or not the composition of the Consultative Commission is completed, that the Administering Authorities formulate as soon as possible substantive proposals for a practicable solution of the question and inform the Council accordingly not later than July 1, 1951.

Attachment B

Text of French-British Joint Draft Resolution on the Ewe Problem

The Trusteeship Council

Hawing considered the General Assembly resolution of 2 December 1950 (A/1616) on the subject of the Ewe problem;

Noting with satisfaction the statement made by the Administering Authorities regarding the electoral methods adopted for election to the enlarged Consultative Commission for the Trust Territories of Togoland under British Administration and Togoland under French Administration;

Considering that these methods were such as to enable all sections of the population to express their true opinions;

Noting that certain groups in the two Trust Territories declined to take part either in certain stages of the elections or in the proceedings of the enlarged Consultative Commission;

Regrets that, as a result, it has not been possible for certain points of view to be expressed in the Commission;

1.
Notes with approval the steps which the Administering Authorities propose to take in order to encourage these groups to take part hereafter in the work of the Commission;
2.
Urges these groups to take advantage of these proposals and to take part accordingly in the second session of the Commission;
3.
Recalls its resolution of 14 July 1950; and
4.
Invites the Administering Authorities to proceed as soon as possible with the further implementation of the plans set out in document T/702 to report to the Council at its next session on the work of the enlarged Consultative Commission.