Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, General; the United Nations, Volume I

800.014/10–946

The British Embassy to the Department of State ²¹

Aide-Mémoire

During the discussions which were held in London on the official level in June, 1946, with State Department officials to consider trusteeship matters, the thesis was put forward on the United States side that the mandatory power is the only “state directly concerned” in the terms of trusteeship for its mandated territories, and that the obligation of Article 79 of the Charter can be discharged simply by a process of diplomatic consultation with other states. Subsequently the views of the United States Government were further elaborated in the State Department’s Aide-Mémoire of the 20th September, 1946.

2. His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom appreciate the motives of the United States Government in putting forward its suggestions for simplifying the procedure of consultation with other governments and expediting the conclusion of trusteeship agreements. They share the desire of the United States Government to avoid lengthy debate in the General Assembly on the issue of “states directly concerned” and have no desire to provoke such a debate. Indeed the respective views of the two governments on the interpretation to be placed on Article 79 of the Charter would now appear to be almost identical.

3. It will be recalled that at the time that His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom announced, their intention of bringing the African territories under United Kingdom mandate under trusteeship, there was not (and there still is not) any agreed or authoritative interpretation of the phrase “states directly concerned”. His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom therefore had no alternative but to give a practical interpretation themselves in what appeared to be a generally accepted sense. As is known, His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom informed the General Assembly that they were communicating the draft terms of the trusteeship to certain states who seemed on any interpretation to be directly concerned with the terms of trusteeship for the territories in question. The United Kingdom drafts were also communicated for information to the other states mentioned by name in Article 23 of the Charter. It was made clear at the time that this action was without prejudice to the ultimate interpretation of the phrase “states directly concerned” and the action of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom was not challenged by any delegation at the General Assembly. Since that time the states which, in the opinion of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, were in any event directly concerned, have concurred in the original United Kingdom draft terms of trusteeship, the drafts themselves have been published as command papers and the command papers which refer to the concurrence of these states have been communicated for information to the Secretary-General. His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom cannot go back on these published statements.

4. In the light of the foregoing and particularly in view of the history of Article 79 of the Charter at San Francisco, His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom do not feel that they could avoid all reference at the next meeting of the General Assembly to agreement to the terms of trusteeship by “states directly concerned”. His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, however, have never contemplated the conclusion of a formal treaty among “states directly concerned” and do not interpret Article 79 of the Charter as meaning that any “state directly concerned” can indefinitely hold up the submission of draft terms of trusteeship to the General Assembly should it unfortunately prove impossible to reach agreement in any particular case. Moreover, for their part, as the United States Government is now aware, His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom will be presenting the draft trusteeship agreements on their own behalf alone and not on behalf of a group of “states directly concerned”, and will be taking the line that Article 79 of the Charter could adequately be fulfilled by obtaining the concurrence of certain states in these drafts through diplomatic channels.

5. Whether or not it will be possible to avoid a discussion on the meaning of the expression “states directly concerned”, His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom consider that it is in any event almost certain that the General Assembly will not approve the drafts until it is told what states have in fact been consulted. His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom therefore expect that it will be necessary at some stage for them to declare which states they have formally consulted and possibly to produce written evidence in the shape of formal correspondence that such states have agreed to the draft terms presented. They do not, however, propose to take this action unless requested by the Assembly, which might conceivably be equally satisfied by oral statements from the delegations concerned.

6. With reference to the last paragraph of the State Department’s note of the 20th September, His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom would be very content if it should prove possible to leave the general question of the interpretation of “states directly concerned” still undetermined. But the General Assembly itself may be unwilling to approve the draft terms of trusteeship on this basis. In the view of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom one of two things may then happen. Either the General Assembly itself may wish to settle the general question of the interpretation of Article 79 of the Charter before proceeding to the examination of individual drafts; or some particular state or states may put forward claims to be “states directly concerned”, in respect of particular mandated territories (not necessarily only those under United Kingdom mandate), and press for consideration of their claims by the General Assembly. Either of these courses would probably lead to a prolonged discussion which His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, like the United States Government, would much prefer to avoid. His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom note that, in that event, the United States delegation is likely to urge the wisdom of leaving the phrase undefined. The United States Government will appreciate that any one new claim to be directly concerned put forward at the General Assembly would be likely to provoke others. For this reason His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom express the hope that the United States Government, since it shares their general approach and interest in this question, will feel able to agree with the procedure outlined in paragraphs 4 and 5 above and to refrain from making any formal reservation at the General Assembly of its own claim to be a “state directly concerned” in respect of mandated territories.

Washington, October 9, 1946.

21. Marginal notation: “Handed by Mr. Middleton to Mr. Hiss—Oct. 10, 1946”.