800.014/9–546
The Department of State to the British Embassy 9
Aide-Mémoire
The United States Government was glad to learn from the extract of a Foreign Office telegram dated August 31, 1946, which was attached to Mr. Middleton’s letter of September 5, 1946 addressed to Mr. Hiss, that the respective views of the two Governments as regards the procedure for submitting trusteeship agreements to the General Assembly are now almost identical.
It is noted that the United Kingdom Government considers that the phrase “agreed upon” in Article 79 of the Charter means simply “concurred in” and that such concurrence can be obtained by diplomatic consultation without any recourse to formal signature. It is further noted that the United Kingdom Government believes that it would be a tactical mistake to approach the Soviet Government as to any other possible interpretation of this Article.
The United States Government is very anxious to avoid a protracted debate in the General Assembly, both as regards the nature of the “agreement” and the states which might have to concur in an agreement of this informal character. Therefore, the Department undertakes once more to urge the United Kingdom Government to consider whether it would not be possible and highly desirable for the United [Page 629] Kingdom Government to present the draft terms of trusteeship to the General Assembly without specifying any particular states by name as having concurred in the agreement. Should the United Kingdom Government specify as “states directly concerned” those named in Prime Minister Attlee’s statement of January 23, 1946 and also in the British Embassy’s aide-mémoire of May 24, 1946, this Government might deem it necessary to inform the General Assembly that it considers that the United States is entitled to be a “state directly concerned” in all mandated territories. Such a decision might easily result in a large number of other claimants, and thereby start the General Assembly on a protracted debate and possibly a series of votes as to which states should qualify under Article 79 of the Charter.
It seems to this Government that the General Assembly should be able to “satisfy itself that the agreement of the states directly concerned including the mandatory power has been obtained …”, as stated in the preamble of the draft agreements, without undertaking to specify these states in each case. This Government is expressing the same view to the Belgian and French Governments.10
The United States Government is also somewhat disturbed by the possibility that some mandatory powers may only be able to accept ad referendum certain changes which might be proposed by the General Assembly. This Government agrees with the Foreign Office view as to the procedure in case changes should be proposed by the General Assembly, namely, that the mandatory power would need to agree to such changes before the terms of trusteeship could be approved by the United Nations.
It is to be hoped that the pre-Assembly consultations will have resulted in such a wide area of agreement that any changes in the draft agreements which may be necessitated in order to obtain the approval of the General Assembly could readily be agreed to by the mandatory powers through their representatives to the General Assembly. This would obviate the delays incident to reference back to Parliaments and would permit the Trusteeship Council to be established by the General Assembly this year. In furtherance of this [Page 630] objective the United States Government has warmly accepted the Belgian proposal for further separate and informal discussions by the Belgian, United Kingdom, French, and United States Governments just prior to the opening of the General Assembly.
For the foregoing reasons the United States Government believes that it will be both possible and desirable to leave the question of “states directly concerned” undetermined and the enumeration of such states unspecified. If the question should arise in the General Assembly, the United States Delegation is likely to urge the wisdom of leaving the phrase undefined. And if the General Assembly does not concur in this view, it may urge that all states, except of course the mandatory power, should agree to waive the exercise of any special rights which their designation as states directly concerned might appear to give them and, instead, to accept as binding the two-thirds vote of the General Assembly. If all the other states are willing to agree to this formula the United States Government, as mentioned before, will be willing to waive the exercise of its rights in this respect. The United States will, however, reserve its rights with respect to future alterations and amendments of the terms of trusteeship.
- Handed to the First Secretary of the British Embassy (Middleton) on September 20 by the Chief of the Division of Dependent Area Affairs (Gerig).↩
-
Actually aide-mémoire were handed first to the Australian Embassy and the New Zealand Legation on September 30, neither printed (800.014/9–3046). Aide-mémoire were transmitted to the Belgian and French Embassies on October 7 and 8, respectively, neither printed (800.0146/10–746 and 501.BB/10–846 respectively). A memorandum was handed to Mr. A. A. Gromyko of the Soviet Delegation to the General Assembly on October 15, at the United Nations, not printed (501.BB/10–1146). All were substantially of the same content as this aide-mémoire of September 20 to the British Embassy.
On October 18 a memorandum was handed to the Chinese Ambassador (Koo) by the Director of the Office of Special Political Affairs (Hiss), explaining this Government’s position regarding states directly concerned. This was an abbreviated composite of the Secretary of State’s note of May 7 to the British Ambassador, p. 579, and this aide-mémoire. (501.BB/10–1846)
↩