Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, General; The United Nations, Volume I

501.BB/10–1447: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Acting Secretary of State

secret
urgent

[New York,] October 14, 1947—4:54 p.m.

Delga 31. Special for Gerig from Green.¹

1. Recent decisions taken in Comm 4 on resolutions proposed by Ad Hoc Committee raise serious question as to position which GADel should take in plenary meeting.² Resolutions 2, 3, and 5 were drastically amended, to disadvantage of Members administering non-self-governing territories, by votes of 22–18, 20–19, and 23–19 respectively. Effect of amendments is as follows:

Resolution 2, para 6, now provides that the SYG may, for purposes of comparison between data relating to the various non-self-governing territories and their metropolitan areas (rather than relating to the territories and all independent states), use official statistical material as is available in the statistical services of Secretariat and as may be agreed upon between SYG and Member concerned.

Resolution 3, after referring to Article 73(b) of Charter, states transmission of info re results achieved in matter of participation of local populations in work of local organs of adm is entirely within spirit of Article 73 and recommends administering states to transmit such info.³

Under Resolution 5 proposed Special Comm is created by, and its non-administering Members elected by, GA rather than Comm 4; its tenure is 2 years rather than unspecified; its recommendations are not limited to procedural matters and functional fields; and its time of meeting is specified as some weeks before GA.⁴

These decisions were taken only after prolonged debate in which US, UK, and other Delegations presented in clearest and strongest manner possible their interpretation of character and purposes of Chapter XI of Charter, and emphasized limitations of Article 73(e). It is clear that Soviet bloc, Arab States, India, Pakistan, Philippines, and many Latin American countries are determined to continue embarrassing administering Members by misinterpreting Chapter XL

2. Amended Resolutions 3 and 5, taken together, have far-reaching implications for US and other administering Members. On one hand, an administering Member which does not transmit information on participation of local populations in local organs of government will be censured next year for disregarding a recommendation of the GA. On other hand, any such information transmitted will be subject to censure in recommendations of Special Comm.

3. As Dept is aware, functions of UN under Chapter XI have been steadily expanded from first part of first session of GA through second part and Ad Hoc Comm to present session. End of this process is not yet in sight. Fact that Soviet Del did not submit, contrary to its original announcement in Comm 4, proposal that UN should provide for visits to non-self-governing territories and examination of petitions relating to them suggests that this further extension of UN supervision is being postponed until next year.

4. GADel would appreciate Dept’s recommendations as to tactics to be employed in plenary meeting. Possible courses, together with preliminary observations, are outlined in paras 5 and 6 below. Dept will wish to consider whether it desires a real showdown over Chapter XI this year or would prefer wait until next session when pressure against administering Members will be even heavier. Question also arises as to whether GADel should seek to have the five resolutions considered “important matters” under Article 18 of Charter requiring adoption by two-thirds vote. This involves larger issue as to whether it is in long-term US interest to enlarge list of these “important matters”. In any event it might be difficult to argue for two-thirds vote, since resolution constituting Ad Hoc Comm was adopted last year by majority vote.

5. Two possible courses which seem feasible are as follows:

(a) GADel could submit amendments, for consideration at a plenary meeting, with a view to restoring original wording of Resolutions 2, 3, and 5. This procedure would indicate US willingness to cooperate in implementing Article 73 (e) so long as implementation follows moderate, compromise resolutions agreed upon by Ad Hoc Comm. It would involve, however, long debates on technical points and perhaps a complicated series of votes.

(b) GADel could vote in favor of Resolutions 1 and 4 and against Resolutions 2, 3, and 5. We tentatively favor this procedure as it would enable Gadel to salvage two most useful resolutions and probably to eliminate two—Resolutions 3 and 5—which were not wholly satisfactory even in original form. It would involve long debates but these debates could be focused on resolutions rather than amendments.

A third course, which seems less desirable, is the following:

GADel could oppose all five resolutions on ground that balance attained in Ad Hoc Comm has been completely upset by actions of Comm 4. This procedure would enable GADel to argue case on general principles and to focus debate on interpretation of Chapter XI. It would have disadvantage, however, of making GADel appear to take a recalcitrant “all or nothing” attitude.

6. If resolutions were adopted in present amended form, GADel could take one or more of following positions, each of which deserves careful consideration in terms of long-range US interests:

(a) GADel, perhaps invoking Article 2(7) of the Charter, could state reservations as to legality of recommendation contained in Resolution 2 and of any recommendations made by proposed Special Comm under amended Resolution 5, and could state tha such recommendations cannot be legally and morally binding on administering Members.

(b) GADel could warn that, because of misinterpretation of Chapter XI underlying amended Resolutions 2, 3, and 5, US cannot state at this time that it will be willing to transmit any information on Govt (Section I, D of Standard Provisional Form annexed to Resolution 1) with respect to territories it administers.⁵

(c) GADel could propose that GA seek an advisory opinion of ICJ as to proper interpretation of Article 73(e) of Charter especially with respect to interpretation of “for information purposes” and transmission of information on political conditions.

7. Whatever course it is determined that GADel should pursue in plenary meeting, it will be necessary (a) to explain this course with great care in background conferences with press, and (b) to bring some pressure to bear on Latin American and other Delegations to support US position. (Because many other items on the agenda, especially those before Comm 1, have been more urgent, political officers have not sought support of other Delegations on Comm 4 matters.) If two-thirds vote is required in plenary meeting, support of only half the Latin American Delegations would almost be sufficient to enable GADel to defeat any or all of the five resolutions. If only majority vote is required, much wider support would be needed. In order that future GADel course may be explained to press and to other Delegations, Dept’s recommendations should be received if possible by end of week. [Green.]

Marshall

1. Seen in draft by Mr. Dulles and Ambassador Sayre.
2. For the summary record of the deliberations of the Fourth Committee in respect to the five resolutions, see GA (II), Fourth Committee, pp. 66 ff. For the Ad Hoc Committee text for which the United States voted affirmatively, see ibid., pp. 212 and 213; for text of the resolutions adopted by the Fourth Committee on October 10 and which the United States voted against, see GA (II), Plenary, vol. ii, p. 1547 (Report of the Fourth Committee).
3. For the Ad Hoc Committee text on which the United States voted affirmatively, see Ibid., p. 213; for text of the resolution adopted by the Fourth Committee, against which the United States voted, see GA (II), Plenary, vol. ii, pp. 1547 and 1548. The amended resolution was moved by the Soviet Union in the Fourth Committee on October 11 and adopted by a vote of 20–19 (GA (II), Fourth Committee, pp. 72, 76); see also Ibid., p. 217, annex 4h.

4. The Ad Hoc Committee text of Resolution 5 is found in GA (II), Fourth Committee, p. 214; the United States supported this draft. This text was amended by the Fourth Committee on October 11 on the motion of the Indian delegate (GA. (II), Plenary, vol. ii, p. 1548); the U.S. voted against the amended resolution. For discussion in the Fourth Committee, see GA (II), Fourth Committee, pp. 76 ff.; see also Ibid., pp. 215 and 216, annex e.

   For statements by the United States delegate, Ambassador Sayre, see ibid., pp. 69, 70, 75, 76, and 77.

5. The United States had approved the text of Resolution 1 as voted both in the Ad Hoc Committee and in the Fourth Committee.