862S.01/10–1646
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Director of the Office of Special Political Affairs (Hiss)
After clearing the matter with Mr. Acheson at the 9:30 meeting this morning I told Mr. Middleton that Mr. Acheson approved the oral [Page 647] assurances which had previously been given Mr. Middleton and that with the exception of points listed hereafter we would recommend to our Delegation to the General Assembly that they initiate no substantive amendments to the British draft trusteeship agreement for Tanganyika (or the draft agreement for Togo and the Cameroons) and that we would not support any substantive amendments without prior consultation with the British Delegation. (See memoranda of conversations of October 11 and October 16).
The exceptions as to which Mr. Middleton and I were already agreed related to paragraph 10(c) on the subject of monopolies and the phrase “on behalf of the United Nations” as the basis on which trusteeship would be assumed by the United Kingdom. As to the former point Mr. Middleton had already this morning received informally from the Department suggested new language and the whole subject will be considered in the informal conversations in New York between representatives of the two delegations. If agreement is not reached we remain free to initiate an amendment on that subject. With respect to the phrase “on behalf of the United Nations” we do not attach the same importance to this as to the monopolies provision but we nonetheless consider it an important matter of principle and would not wish to give any assurances that we would not take the initiative in proposing its insertion in the agreement. This subject, too, however, could be discussed further in the informal conversations in New York.
I went on to refer to the provision relating to aviation landing rights und pointed out to Mr. Middleton that in view of the note on this subject which he had sent to me after the earlier talks with Mr. Gerig and me this point would also be regarded as not covered by the oral assurances. (In his note Mr. Middleton had said that British Government is not prepared to adopt our proposal on this subject because they feel that a provision to the effect that landing rights should be granted only on a reciprocal basis would be inconsistent with the Charter. He had, however, said that his Government would have no objection to our Government raising the point.) Mr. Middleton concurred that this was the agreed status of this point.
I then referred to three other topics which we had found, after careful examination of the draft revised agreement, had not been incorporated but had not been mentioned in the Embassy’s aide-mémoire with which the draft revised agreement had been submitted. In Article 3 the revised draft left out a provision for special visits which we had suggested; in Article 5 our proposal that fiscal, customs and administrative unions with neighboring territories be permitted with the approval of the Trusteeship Council had been omitted; in Article 12(a) our proposals that “freedom of movement” be guaranteed [Page 648] had been left out. I said that as to special visits and freedom of movement we felt that important matters of principle were involved and that while we did not attach the same importance to them that we did to the monopolies provision we nonetheless did not feel prepared to give assurances not to initiate provisions on these points. The two points could, of course, be discussed further in the forthcoming talks in New York. This arrangement was satisfactory to Mr. Middleton. As to the fiscal, customs and administrative unions point I said that I would wish to check further with my associates in the Department before giving Mr. Middleton a final answer but that I thought our position would be that although we considered the provision desirable it was merely designed to increase the authority of the trustee and if the administering power did not desire it I did not see how we could urge it further. (Subsequently, after Mr. Green of DA had checked with the other interested Divisions, I told Mr. Middleton by telephone that we would be willing to drop this point and to include it within the general oral assurances.)
I then said there remained one further point, namely, the question of the political surveys. Mr. Middleton had told me on October 15 that his Government is prepared to make a statement of record to the Assembly that political surveys might be included in questionnaires. Subsequently, on examining the record of the Preparatory Commission, we had discovered that both we and the British had opposed a provision for political surveys being put in the draft regulations of the Trusteeship Council on the ground that there was no authority for such surveys unless they were authorized by the agreements themselves. Mr. Middleton readily agreed that unless the Assembly were prepared to take a different view as to the legal status he could not expect the political surveys point to be within the scope of our oral assurances. It was agreed that this matter would be explored further in the New York conversations. (Subsequently I called Mr. Middleton to say that if the legal question on this point was satisfactorily settled we would want the British statement of record on this subject to be a statement of willingness that political surveys would be covered by questionnaires and by periodic visits.)
I reiterated that it was understood that with respect to amendments offered by others which merely proposed the addition of topics we ourselves had proposed but had agreed either to drop altogether or to drop from the agreement provided they were to be covered by questionnaires, periodic visits or regulations of the Trusteeship Council, although we would be prepared to consult the British Delegation before taking a position it should be anticipated that we would not oppose such amendments. In some cases we might vote for them after [Page 649] stating our willingness to have them taken care of by the questionnaires, periodic visits and regulation method, or after stating that we did not feel too strongly the topics should be included, as the case might be. In other cases we might be prepared to abstain after making our position clear in the same manner.
I then informed Mr. Middleton of the results of the conversations which Mr. Gerig and Mr. Herschel Johnson had had with Mr. Gromyko in New York on October 15 on the subject of “states directly concerned” (see telegram 671, October 15, from New York).