Office of the Historian

320.14/12–154

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Director of the Office of Dependent Area Affairs (Gerig)

confidential
[Washington,] December 1, 1954.
  • Subject:
  • General Assembly: Fourth Committee Matters
  • Participants:
  • Baron Silvercruys, Belgian Ambassador
  • Mr. Charles Muller, Second Secretary, Embassy of Belgium
  • Mr. David McK. Key,IO
  • Mr. Benjamin Gerig, ODA

At his request, the Belgian Ambassador came to the Department to express the views of the Belgian Government in regard to several matters which have arisen in the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly. In particular, he wished to express the surprise and regret of the Belgian Delegation on the divergent views which have developed on the Syrian resolution entitled “Participation of the indigenous inhabitants of the Trust Territories in the work of the Trusteeship Council”.

Baron Silvercruys said that in the past our respective delegations had maintained close contact on questions arising in the Fourth Committee. When at the last meeting of the Trusteeship Council the Syrian proposal was brought forward, the United States, Belgian and four other delegations found it wholly unacceptable and the resolution failed by virtue of a tie vote. They had naturally assumed that when the Syrians brought in the same resolution in the Fourth Committee, we would continue to be opposed to it. They were the more surprised, therefore, when our delegation said that with certain minor amendments the United States would support it.

The Ambassador pointed out that they felt in line with past practice that it was desirable to both our Governments to maintain such close contact as we had been doing, for example, on such questions as Chinese representation, atomic energy, as well as on colonial and trusteeship matters. The Syrian resolution was one which was wholly unacceptable to the Belgian Delegation which would be unable to apply it. He hoped that this did not mean that there was any change in our past practice of consulting, even though we might not always agree on various questions.

Mr. Key assured the Ambassador that there was no change in our policy and practice of consulting with our friends on all matters of common interest. He was surprised if this was not done in this particular case and was certain that there was no intentional lack of contact if, indeed, the rush of developments in the Fourth Committee was such that it was difficult to maintain close contact at all times.

[Page 1425]

Mr. Key went on to explain that our delegation was certain that the Syrian resolution would pass in any case and that our tactic was to offer a number of amendments which we thought would take the sting out of the resolution, or at least remove its most objectionable features. Mr. Gerig said that the resolution was actually voted on day before yesterday and was passed by 38 to 8, with 3 abstentions. It was clear, therefore, that the resolution would pass, and the amendments which our delegation had proposed were considered by them not as minor but as important.

Mr. Key said we would look into the matter of continuing contact with the Belgian and other delegations, but he again assured the Ambassador that there was no change in our practice in that regard. The Ambassador said that he was very glad to know this and would so report to his Government.