862S.01/10–1146
Memorandum of Telephone Conversation, by the Director of the Office of Special Political Affairs (Hiss)
Mr. Middleton called me on the telephone this afternoon and referring to the conversation which he, Mr. Gerig and I had yesterday (which is the subject of a separate memorandum of conversation) said that the Ambassador had asked him to clarify with me the matter of the degree of support which our Delegation would be prepared to give the Tanganyika draft. He said that he understood from his conversation with Mr. Gerig late yesterday afternoon, after Mr. Gerig had had an opportunity to examine the text of the British revised draft, that there were three points on which we still felt dissatisfied, namely, the draft of Article 10 (c) on monopolies, the absence of provision for periodic surveys, and the absence of a recital that the agreement is entered into by the United Kingdom on behalf of the United Nations. Mr. Middleton said that he understood that as to the provision with respect to periodic surveys we would probably be satisfied with a British statement of record that they would agree to such surveys if conducted in the form of questionnaires. He said that in any event he understood our position to be that if we can reach a meeting of the minds on these three points we would be willing to recommend to the Delegation that the United States not initiate any substantive amendments to the revised agreement and that it not support any substantive agreements which would be inconsistent with the spirit of the revised agreement.
I told Mr. Middleton his understanding of the views which Mr. Gerig and I had expressed yesterday was accurate but that I wanted to make sure that he understood fully the detailed application of this statement. There were a number of provisions which we had proposed in the course of Mr. Gerig’s conversations in London which the British have been reluctant to include in the agreement but which they had been prepared to have included in questionnaires to be formulated by the Trusteeship Council. In the event that some other Delegation were to propose similar provisions for incorporation in the agreement we would certainly not wish to oppose them although we would be willing to say what we had already said to the British, namely, that we would be satisfied if they were incorporated in questionnaires. I thought that in some such cases we might abstain from voting and in others we might actually support the proposed amendment.
I then said that I wanted particularly to emphasize the fact that I was speaking in terms of my estimate of what the Delegation would do. I said that Mr. Middleton should understand that I was not in a [Page 642] position to bind the Delegation in any sense. We had every reason to believe, however, that the Delegation would see the issues as we see them. We have been careful to go over many of the points with the Delegates who will be most interested in trusteeship matters and we did feel that our estimates were accurate but they were estimates and not commitments. Mr. Middleton said that he thoroughly understood this.
Mr. Middleton indicated plainly that he thought the British Government would be mistaken were it to ask for written commitments and I made it plain that I was confident we could give them no written commitments. I pointed out that it seemed to me that it would certainly not be in the interests of the British Government in any event to submit the original draft agreement instead of the revised agreement, and I pointed out in this connection that the French agreement which has been filed with the United Nations is almost identical to the British revised agreement; furthermore the French have stated the British have agreed to the French draft agreement. In view of this and of our conversations with the British I did not see how they could possibly oppose amendments to the original draft which merely incorporated those of our proposals which the British had agreed to at the technical level and had incorporated in their revised draft. Mr. Middleton seemed to be in agreement with me but said that this was, of course, a matter for London to determine. He said that the Ambassador is extremely anxious to reach a maximum of agreement and I feel sure the Embassy will recommend that the British not pursue further the suggestion that we either give a written commitment to support the revised draft or they would have to revert to the original draft.