Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, United Nations Affairs, Volume III

350/6–252

Position Paper Prepared in the Department of State for the United States Delegation to the Eleventh Session of the Trusteeship Council ¹

confidential

[ Washington ,] June 2, 1952.

Item 12: Report of the Committee on Participation of Indigenous Inhabitants of Trust Territories in the Work of the: Trusteeship Council ²

Trusteeship Council Committee on the Participation of the Indigenous Inhabitants of Trust Territories in the Work of the Trusteeship Council. (Expected to be Meeting During the Week Beginning June 2, 1952)

The Problem:

The problem is to determine the position to be taken by the United States Representative on the Trusteeship Council Committee on the Participation of the Indigenous Inhabitants of Trust Territories in the Work of the Trusteeship Council.

Recommendations:

1. The objective of the United States Representative should be the preparation by the Committee of a report or resolution which, subject to the qualifications set out in paragraph 2, is responsive to the desire of the General Assembly as expressed in Resolution 554 (VI) to have the inhabitants of trust territories associated more closely in the work of the Trusteeship Council, which would obtain broad support among Administering and Non-Administering Members of the Council, and which would provide the more moderate members of the Fourth Committee with a reasonable alternative to unacceptable proposals for direct representation of the inhabitants of trust territories in the Trusteeship Council which more extreme members of the Committee will probably advance at the Seventh General Assembly.

2. In pursuance of the foregoing objective, the United States Representative should seek to avoid action by the Committee which would:

(a) be of such a negative character as to offer moderate members of the Fourth Committee no reasonable alternative to the more extreme proposals on this question that may be expected at the Seventh General Assembly;

(b) result in some form of “dual representation” on the Council;

(c) fail to take account of the variations in the conditions relating to the individual trust territories and the consequent need for flexibility as to the manner and timing of any steps to associate the inhabitants more closely in the Council’s work.

3. If the Delegation finds that it will not be possible to obtain broad support among the Administering and Non-Administering Members of the Council for a report or resolution on this subject pursuant to the above recommendations, the Delegation should consult the Department.

Discussion:

At its Sixth Session the General Assembly adopted resolutions on the participation of non-self-governing territories in the work of the Committee on Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories and on the participation of the indigenous inhabitants of trust territories in the work of the Trusteeship Council. The United States voted for both resolutions. The vote on the resolution relating to the work of the Trusteeship Council was 33–4–4. Of the other Administering Members of the Council, Belgium, France and the United Kingdom voted against the resolution, while Australia and New Zealand abstained. All of the Non-Administering Members of the Council, except the Dominican Republic, voted for the resolution. The Dominican Republic abstained. Some of the proponents of the resolution, in particular Cuba, clearly had in mind the concept of associate membership in the Trusteeship Council for the inhabitants of the trust territories and the resolution commends the practice of some specialized agencies and regional commissions of the United Nations in admitting non-self-governing and trust territories as associate members. However, the operative paragraph of the resolution merely “invites the Trusteeship Council to examine the possibility of associating the inhabitants of the trust territories more closely in its work and to report the results of its examination of this problem to the General Assembly at its Seventh regular session.”

The Representative of the United States in explaining his affirmative vote on this resolution in Committee Four made the following statement:

“My Delegation interprets the amended resolution to mean a desire on the part of the Assembly that the inhabitants of the trust territories should be associated more closely in the Trusteeship Council’s work but not to restrict or limit the power of the Trusteeship Council to examine all the practical possibilities of achieving this objective. In other words, our vote should not be interpreted to mean that the United States has committed itself at this time to supporting any specific or particular form of such association of the inhabitants in the Trusteeship Council’s work.”

In consultations in New York and Washington before the opening of the Council’s Tenth Session, representatives of the United Kingdom indicated that, in view of the situation that might arise in the Fourth Committee at the Seventh General Assembly, the United Kingdom considered that the Trusteeship Council should adopt a moderate resolution in implementation of the General Assembly’s resolution. It favored a formula whereby the Trusteeship Council would ask Administering Authorities, where possible, to include in their delegations to the Trusteeship Council persons from the trust territories. (At a later date, the United Kingdom indicated informally to the United States Delegation that they had already made plans to attach Tanganyikans to their Delegation at the Eleventh Session of the Council and intended to do the same with West Africans at succeeding sessions.) Council action along these lines was also supported by the United States Delegation. The Representative of Iraq, early in the Session, introduced a draft resolution somewhat along these lines and the United Kingdom Delegation informally circulated a revision of this draft.³ After consultations with other Members of the Council, in particular the United States, the Representative of Iraq later introduced a revised draft of his resolution which

“recommends that, where appropriate or upon the request of the Trusteeship Council, the Administering Authorities associate suitably qualified indigenous inhabitants of the trust territories, such as persons who have participated actively in the political, economic, social and educational life of the Territory, in the work of the Trusteeship Council as part of their delegations, or in any other form which they deem desirable.”

In further consultations with the representative of Iraq the United States Delegation indicated that while the revised Iraq draft was generally acceptable to it, it could not agree to the inclusion of the phrase “or upon the request of the Trusteeship Council”. Mr. Khalidy (Iraq) stated that he understood our position but that he could not agree to the elimination of this phrase. However, he would agree to a separate vote on this phrase and would be prepared to let it “meet its fate”.

From further consultations with Administering Members it became apparent that most of them recognized the desirability of a moderate implementation by the Council of the General Assembly’s resolution. Some were not convinced that the Iraq draft resolution, even with the elimination of the above-mentioned phrase, adequately safeguarded their interests. The United States Delegation endeavored to persuade them that the resolution left adequate controls in their hands and that the opportunity of adopting such a moderate resolution sponsored by a leading Non-Administering Member of the Council should be seized at the current session; otherwise such a favorable opportunity might not present itself at a later session. It appeared that the Belgians would not have been unhappy to have the modified Iraq resolution adopted over their abstention. Consideration was also being given by other Administering Members to further amending the Iraq resolution so as to render it acceptable to them. The United Kingdom Delegation, however, modified its earlier position, indicating that it could support the Iraq draft only in a considerably weakened version. Unless this could be done, the United Kingdom was under instructions to move postponement of the issue until the Eleventh Session. Mr. Khalidy (Iraq), however, could not accept further weakening of his resolution. It therefore became clear that the United States would be the only Administering Member supporting Khalidy’s revised proposal. When under these circumstances the United Kingdom and the rest of the Administering Members urged postponement, the United States Delegation reluctantly agreed to this course.

The attitudes of the Non-Administering Members of the Council toward the Iraq proposal were not entirely clear. The USSR introduced a more extreme proposal according to which the Trusteeship Council would decide

“that the population of the trust territories have the right … to send their representatives to participate, without vote, in the consideration by the Trusteeship Council of the annual reports of the Administering Authorities and of all other questions relating to these territories.”

It is not clear therefore what position the Soviet Delegation would have taken on the Iraq draft resolution. Consultations indicated that Thailand and probably China would have supported the Iraq proposal. However, while generally favorable to the Iraq proposal, the Dominican Delegation expressed its doubts about any resolution making recommendations as to the composition of delegations of members. The Representative of El Salvador stated (T/SR.408) that he considered that neither the Iraqi draft resolution nor the USSR draft resolution exactly corresponded to the intention expressed by the General Assembly in Resolution 554 (VI). While he was sympathetic to the idea that the indigenous inhabitants of the trust territories should acquire a greater knowledge of the work of the Trusteeship Council, he did not feel that the General Assembly resolution called for direct and immediate action by the Council. It would be more proper, he said, for the Council to appoint a committee to study the various ways in which the indigenous inhabitants might be more closely associated with its work.

In view of the doubts expressed by both Administering and Non-Administering Members, with regard to the Iraq proposal, the United States agreed to the appointment of such a committee as was proposed by El Salvador. However, in discussing the proposal of El Salvador, the representative of the United States made clear that his Delegation considered that with certain modifications the Iraq proposal might offer a satisfactory solution. He recognized, however, that the substantive action ultimately taken should be such as to command the widest possible support in the Council. Khalidy (Iraq) stated that he had made every effort to meet the Administering Authorities views and this had not proved acceptable; he thereupon withdraw his draft resolution. El Salvador’s proposal for a committee was then adopted. The following Committee was appointed to “study the possibility of associating more closely in the work of the Council inhabitants of the trust territories”: El Salvador, France, Iraq, Thailand, United Kingdom and United States.

While the Department still considers that a proposal along the lines of the Iraq resolution, with the modification noted above, offers a satisfactory solution. It is possible that certain Administering and Non-Administering Members may still find it unacceptable, and that other formulas may be offered.

As has been indicated in the past the United States could not accept the concept of dual representation, which it considers inconsistent with the concept of trusteeship, nor could it accept a resolution which fails to leave a reasonable degree of discretion in the hands of the Administering Authority in the view of the varying circumstances in the trust territories and of the practical administrative problems that may arise. On the other hand, there appears to be no valid reason to alter the United States position that it would be most desirable for the Council to take action providing for moderate and reasonable implementation of the objectives sought in the General Assembly’s resolution. There are indications that certain Members of the General Assembly, in particular India, are preparing to press for some form of associate membership for the inhabitants of trust territories. If the United States and other Administering Members are to resist such efforts successfully they must offer to the more moderate Members of the Fourth Committee a reasonable alternative. Otherwise, for lack of such an alternative, a sufficient number of them may support a more extreme proposal to insure its adoption despite any efforts which the Administering Authorities may make to defeat it. The United States might in this case be placed in the most unfortunate position of having to join with other Administering Members in disregarding a General Assembly resolution.⁴

1. The 11th Regular Session of the Trusteeship Council met at New York June 3–July 24, 1952. The Position Book for the U.S. Delegation is filed under 350/6–252. Unpublished documentation is in file 350 and the IO files and the ODA files (lot 62 D182 and lot 62 D 225).

   On June 2, 1952 the President approved the appointment of Benjamin Gerig, Director of the Office of Dependent Area Affairs, as Acting U.S. Representative to the 11th Session of the Trusteeship Council (memorandum, Acting Secretary Bruce to the President, May 29, 1952, file 350/5–2952). This appointment was necessitated by the recent resignation of Francis B. Sayre as U.S. Representative on the Trusteeship Council.

2. This matter was Item 12 on the projected agenda of the 11th Session.
3. The texts of these and other drafts and the U.S. position thereon are documented in the Department of State files as follows: New York telegram 565, Mar. 4, 1952, file no. 700.021/3–452; New York telegram 566, Mar. 4, 1952, file no. 700.021/3–52); New York telegram 568, Mar. 4, 1952, file no. 700.021/3–452; New York telegram 569, Mar. 4, 1952, file no. 700.021/3–452; Department of State telegram 322, to New York, Mar. 5, 1952, file no. 700.021/3–452; New York telegram 585, Mar. 6, 1952, file no. 700.021/3–652; Department of State telegram 344, to New York, Mar. 19, 1952, file no. 700.021/3–452. The verbatim texts are printed in the Official Records of the Trusteeship Council, Tenth Session.

4. The United States was active at the Trusteeship Council’s 11th Session on this matter; and was instrumental in bringing about the committee’s decision, which “recommended the adoption by the Council of a draft resolution expressing the hope that the Administering Authorities would find it appropriate to associate suitably qualified indigenous inhabitants of the Trust Territories in the work of the Council, as part of their delegations or in any other way manner which they might deem desirable. At its 454th meeting, the Trusteeship Council adopted the draft resolution proposed by the committee [Resolution 466 (XI)].” (United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventh Session, Report of the Trusteeship Council Covering its Fourth Special Session and Its Tenth and Eleventh Sessions 18 December 1951 to 24 July 1952 (Supplement No. 4) (A/2150), p. 26.)

   Documentation on exchanges between the U.S. Delegation in New York and the Department of State is in file 350. Regarding internal Department of State documentation, there is a memorandum significant for setting forth the general lines of the basic division between the Bureau of European Affairs and the rest of the Department on general colonial policy, in the context of this particular issue. The memorandum was drafted by Hayden Raynor on June 21, 1952, under the subject title, “USDel Position re Problem of Participation of Indigenous Inhabitants in Work of Trusteeship Council” (350/6–2152). It said in part: “I believe that we must recognize that their [Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands] problems in the Trusteeship field are often much more complex and delicate than ours in our Trust Territories and that just because we can accept a given resolution it does not necessarily follow that they could also accept it and implement it in their territories. We have had intimations that a number of the other AA’s are fast coming to the conclusion that the long record of recommendations of the TC and Fourth Committee, individually usually innocuous enough, are changing the constitutional concept of the UN role in Trusteeship and non-self-governing territory affairs and that they may now have reached the point where they draw the line. There is some reason to sympathize with their concern.”

   In connection with the “question of participation”, as this problem became known, a position prepared for the U.S. Delegation to the Seventh Regular Session of the General Assembly, not printed, is useful as including a discussion of non-self-governing territories as well as trusteeship territories (IO files, Doc. SD/A/C.4/97, Oct. 5, 1952, “Participation of Dependent Areas in the Work of UN Organs”).