800.014/10–1646
Memorandum of Telephone Conversation, by the Associate Chief of the Division of Dependent Area Affairs (Green)
Mr. Middleton telephoned at noon to say that there were two points in connection with our position on the British draft terms of trusteeship which he wished to clarify before telegraphing London. He said that Mr. Hiss had informed him earlier in the morning that the Department was still studying its position on Article 5(b) and that he understood Mr. Hiss to say that we were concerned about the omission of any provision concerning the establishment of customs, fiscal or administrative union, or federations. I said that he may have misunderstood Mr. Hiss, for we were concerned not with the omission of the provision as a whole, but rather with the omission of the clause “subject to the approval of the General Assembly or the Trusteeship Council” which we had proposed at London. I said that I understood that the British representatives in London had told Mr. Gerig and Mr. Smith that it would be difficult to incorporate such a provision in the Tanganyika agreement since arrangements for associating Tanganyika with Kenya and Uganda were already far advanced, but that the British spokesmen apparently did not feel quite so strongly on this point with respect to Togoland and the Cameroons.
Mr. Middleton said that the British had been willing to state that any such arrangements must be consistent not only with the basic objectives of the trusteeship system but also “with the terms of this agreement”. He asked whether inclusion of this phrase would not give adequate protection. I replied that while I thought that the phrase would probably be sufficient to make sure that any such unions or federations would not violate the commercial equality article, I would like to consult other officers of the Department on this point. The Department had previously felt, I continued, that approval of the General Assembly or the Trusteeship Council would be necessary to [Page 650] make sure that any union or federation was in accordance with the trusteeship agreement. Mr. Middleton said that he personally could not see why such a provision was necessary and asked whether I thought he ought to emphasize the point in his telegram to London. I replied that I personally did not think this matter was of equal importance to the monopolies provision and certain other points on which we had reserved judgment, and that I would let him know our views as soon as possible.
Mr. Middleton then said that he had one suggestion to make concerning the suggested revision of Article 10(c) on monopolies which he had discussed earlier this morning with a group of officers of the Department. He suggested that the last clause of our suggested revision be altered as follows: “provided that the conditions laid down by the appropriate United Nations agencies and approved for the purposes of this Article by the Trusteeship Council relating to the circumstances in which and the manner by which such monopoly undertakings may be established or maintained are satisfactory”. Mr. Middleton said that he thought the phrase “for the purposes of this Article” should be inserted in order to make clear that the Trusteeship Council was not reviewing the general work of other organs of the United Nations or of the specialized agencies, since the latter might well resent such an implication. I replied that I thought this amendment was a useful one and that I would inform the other officers who had talked to Mr. Middleton this morning.