645K.51T3/7–1951: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
117. TC—Ewe question. As authorized Deptel 38, July 18, 1951, we have consulted almost all TC members regarding our draft resolution on Ewe question.
Our discussions British and French dels have convinced us they are pleased and gratified with resolution. French, however, would prefer deletion para 8 resolution recommending to administering authorities that method determining composition joint council be such as ensure, if possible, participation major groups in two territories. Real basis French objection this provision is their wish prevent any onus for failure Ewe unification groups participate joint council, if such proves to be case, from falling on shoulders of two administering powers. We believe para 8 should not be dropped and, if any change made, it be somewhat strengthened, possibly along lines suggested by Bunche (see [Page 605] Sayre–Bunche memo of conversation, July 18, 19511). Basis for foregoing view is our belief that non-administering members, who we hope will co-sponsor resolution with us, would react adversely deletion this para and our own feeling administering authorities should not be placed in position enable them avoid all responsibility in case Ewe unification groups refuse participate joint council.
Australians, although authorized co-sponsor resolution present form, would prefer somewhat weaker resolution. New Zealanders first reaction as strongly set forth Sir Carl Berendsen, is that adoption our resolution will not prove step forward in solution of problem as unification groups will refuse participate joint council.
With respect non-administering powers, Dept aware Iraq reversal of opinion on resolution and its present view council should not in any manner endorse proposals contained in Anglo-French memo but should express regret at British and French failure submit constructive proposals settle problem in five years it has been before TC and calling upon two governments submit further proposals next session TC. Khalidy (Iraq) has informed us he will abstain our resolution and we fear abstention his part will lessen chances unification groups will accept Anglo-French proposals. Argentine, Dominican Republic, Thailand reps have indicated willingness co-sponsor resolution with us, but Argentinian co-sponsorship contingent upon favorable instructions Buenos Aires.
We believe nature of clarifying statements made by British and French at TC debate on problem is of utmost importance and might be determining factor in crystallizing attitude towards Anglo-French proposals non administering members TC, political groups in Togoland, and also non administering members fourth comite next GA. We therefore believe British and French should be urged make clear their statements during council debate their intention that proposed joint council will be a strong body, and that its advice will be given serious and sympathetic consideration. Two specific points which arise re British-French statements in council debate follow: (1) We consider it important that British-French indicate before end of debate their willingness empower joint council deal with political development matters. Khalidy (Iraq) for example, feels such action by British and French would be most desirable (2) It would also be most helpful if British and French could give satisfactory assurances in debate that method of selection members of joint council will be such as to provide unification groups with fair and reasonable opportunity secure proportionate share of seats. We believe British and French should be approached before debate begins especially re last point above as our conversations these reps have indicated they, and particularly French, have in mind method of appointment members [Page 606] council which would not be generally acceptable either majority members council or Ewe unification groups.
- Not printed.↩