862S.01/10–1646
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Director of the Office of Special Political Affairs (Hiss)
Mr. Middleton came to see me yesterday at his request.
He said that he had good news on the subject of the British attitude toward states directly concerned and, he believed, also on the question of the status of the revised draft agreement for Tanganyika.
As to the first point he said that the Foreign Office is now quite happy about the arrangements made with respect to proposed procedure for dealing with “states directly concerned.” They agree with us in hoping that the matter can be left undefined. They have gone so far as to say now that if, in urging that it be left undefined, we wished to mention the possibility that the Charter could be interpreted as meaning only the proposed administering state is to be considered as a state directly concerned the British Delegation would be willing to go along with stating that that is a possible interpretation provided that the French, the Belgians and the South Africans, to whom they feel committed as being states directly concerned in the British African Mandates, are also agreeable to such a position. Mr. Middleton made it clear on this point that the Foreign Office is not prepared to support such an interpretation as a definitive interpretation but merely to agree that it is a possible interpretation and as such is indicative of the uncertainty of the issue and the desirability of leaving it undefined at this time. They think it might also be helpful as an argument in support of why those claiming to be states directly concerned should be willing to waive their claims for the purposes of the present Assembly.
With respect to the status of the present revised draft agreement for Tanganyika Mr. Middleton said that the Foreign Office have said that they were sorry that if in an excess of enthusiasm they had asked [Page 645] for a written commitment from the Department that we would not initiate amendments and would consult any amendments proposed by others. They understand fully that we are not in a position to give such a commitment and are perfectly satisfied with the oral assurances which Mr. Gerig and I had previously given that this was in fact the attitude of the Department, that we would urge it upon the Delegation and that we had every reason to believe that the Delegation would accept it.
Mr. Middleton went on to say that the Foreign Office further were agreeable to the issue of paragraph 10(c) (on monopolies) being left outside these oral assurances. He said we could “agree to disagree” about paragraph 10(c) and it was understood that we were perfectly free to initiate a substantive amendment to that paragraph.
As to the phrase “on behalf of the United Nations” which we wished to be inserted as governing the assumption of trusteeship, Mr. Middleton said that the Foreign Office regarded the exclusion of this as being as important to them as we regarded a revision of paragraph 10(c). He asked whether we could agree that if in the course of the informal conversations with the mandatory powers, planned to be held prior to the Assembly discussion, it developed that all the mandatories were equally opposed to the inclusion of this phrase we would agree not to initiate an amendment proposing its inclusion in the agreement. I told Mr. Middleton that frankly we regarded this as a matter of less moment to us than paragraph 10(c) but nonetheless considered it an important matter of principle which should be clarified so as to leave no doubt of the status of the trustee. It seemed to me the kind of issue that we would not wish to try to prevent the Delegation from raising although I felt sure the Delegation itself would not consider it the kind of issue which would prevent our approval of the agreement if not settled satisfactorily to us, assuming other provisions of the agreement were satisfactory.
Mr. Middleton said that he was now in a position to assure us that the Foreign Office has no objection to an obligation with respect to political surveys being incorporated in questionnaires or regulations of the Trusteeship Council. The Foreign Office is also prepared to make this commitment as a matter of record in the Assembly.
Mr. Middleton said that the Embassy had been asked by the Foreign Office to be sure that the oral assurances which Mr. Gerig and I had given as outlined above had been brought to the attention of the Acting Secretary. I said that I would undertake to do this and would communicate again with Mr. Middleton promptly after I had talked to Mr. Acheson.
Referring again to paragraph 10(c) Mr. Middleton said that he had been asked to repeat orally to the Department the British arguments [Page 646] as to why they did not feel that they could agree to determination as to the propriety of a given monopoly by an organ of the United Nations. They felt that freedom of action on the part of the trustee was necessary in order that the trustee could carry out its obligations for the welfare of the inhabitants. They felt that the open-door provisions of the mandates had resulted definitely in certain disadvantages to the inhabitants of the mandated area. They believe that Article 76(d) of the Charter, which relates to equal treatment, makes it clear that such treatment is to be given without prejudice to the attainment of the basic objectives re the welfare of the inhabitants. They think we should be prepared to accept lesser rights than we had under the mandates in view of the provisions of Article 76(d) and the whole change in the conception of the administering states’ responsibilities under the Trusteeship System as opposed to the mandate system. They feel that any approval by a United Nations organ would result in endless appeals by vested interests which would obstruct necessary action for the welfare of the inhabitants. Finally, they feel that any abuse can be corrected in view of the fact that the right of petition will be available. Mr. Middleton said that the British Government wished to point out that their position on this matter does not mean that they will fail to give full consideration to our views in the course of any informal meetings we may have on the subject of paragraph 10(c).
Reverting again to the question of the phrase “on behalf of the United Nations” Mr. Middleton said that the British position is that there is an important distinction between trusteeships administered by a single power and trusteeships, such as we have proposed for the African colonies, which the United Nations is to administer directly. In the former cases the trustee is not merely an agent of the organization. He pointed out that the trustee has no recourse to the United Nations if there is a budget deficit. He said that if the Assembly were to insist on the inclusion of this clause he felt sure that the United Kingdom would have to reconsider its entire attitude toward the agreement and would consider that many of the obligations contained in it were inconsistent with such a thesis. He informed me that it was his understanding that the Australians are equally vigorously opposed to the inclusion of this clause.