Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, United Nations Affairs, Volume III

ODA files, lot 62 D 225, “Trusteeship Council”

The Director of the Office of Dependent Area Affairs (Gerig) to William L. Yeomans, Office of Territories, Department of the Interior

[New York,] February 11, 1954.

Dear Bill: Enclosed is a first draft of a memorandum which, as you will see, is aimed at improving the procedure of the Trusteeship Council which in most respects, as you know, has become pretty deadly and useless.

The questions which are asked for several days are usually already answered in the reports, and the whole process has resulted in an atmosphere rather reminiscent of a criminal court procedure.

As you see from the enclosed memorandum (which is merely a first draft intended for our own thinking), I am attempting to see whether a change of emphasis in procedure could bring about a better condition in the Council. The main proposal, as you see, is to get the discussion going on a certain number of selected problems which the Administering Authority would outline, either at the end of the Annual Report or in the Special Representative’s opening remarks, or both.

Now what I would like to have your help on is whether you could indicate four or five such problems in the case of the Pacific Trust Territory which would lend themselves to this form of treatment, assuming always that we would be willing to let the Council in on a consideration of such problems, with a view to inviting their assistance.

I am not sure that the other Administering Authorities would be willing to place themselves that much at the mercy of the Council, or whether they believe that the Council would have anything constructive to offer in any event. We haven’t talked to the other delegations yet about this.

My main purpose, therefore, is to see whether you would be able to, indicate four or five such problems in our case, and even to outline them a bit in the form of a draft sample statement which could be made along these lines.

I hope this will not be asking too much of you, and that you could dash this off rather quickly so that we can see whether the idea has any practical merit. Any comments of yours would, of course, be deeply appreciated.

Ever cordially yours,

Benjamin Gerig

[Enclosure]

Memorandum Prepared by the United States Delegation to the Thirteenth Session of the Trusteeship Council

[New York,] February 11, 1954.

Possible Improvement in the Procedure of the Trusteeship Council

i. present situation in the council

The question-answer method has, in the view of many Members of the Council, become stereotyped, routine, restrictive and in a large measure unproductive.

This method, moreover, has developed in a form disadvantageous to the Administering Members and not satisfactory to the non-administering.

It is disadvantageous to the Administering Members because (a) it rests on the unacceptable premise that the good faith and good intentions of the Administering Authorities must be called in question, and (b) it assumes that the Administering Authority must be held in suspicion of some kind of skulduggery for his own benefit.

The questions in nearly all cases—except when put forward by other Administering Authorities—can be reduced to a simple proposition—“Have you been a good boy during the past year?” The only obvious answer, of course, which the Administering Authority can and will give is—“Of course I have been a good boy, but conditions are such that I cannot do all I would like.”

In general this method renders the Council sterile as a medium through which a constructive and positive result can be attained. The fundamental purpose of the Trusteeship Council should be to seek, collectively and cooperatively, to find the best possible solutions for problems which inevitably arise in any country and for whose solution knowledge, experience and good judgment should combine to bring about a positive result. This purpose can hardly be achieved in a courtroom atmosphere when a half-dozen so-called “court’s prosecuting attorneys” are attempting to secure a conviction of the trustee for malfeasance or misfeasance.

ii. suggested change in procedure

It is not suggested that the question-answer method should be or can be wholly dispensed with. This is obviously one way to bring out information. But it is here suggested that in addition to or perhaps largely in substitution of this method, the following method might be tried:

1. The representatives of the respective Administering Authorities should make an opening statement outlining in detail eight or ten of the special problems which have confronted the administration in the past year. These problems would not only include those originally presented by the Administering Authority, but also those problems which might have emerged in the effort to carry out previous Trusteeship Council or General Assembly recommendations;

2. The Administering Authority should freely invite the Members of the Council to offer any constructive and helpful advice and suggestions based on their own knowledge and experience which might assist the Administering Authority in dealing with the problem;

3. The President of the Council should aim to channel the discussion of the Council toward a consideration of the particular problem and its solution. Questions might be asked by various Members for information on the problem but the discussion should take on the character of a collective effort rather than a consecutive series of bilateral questions and answers, as at present; and

4. Each problem discussed would presumably lead to a Council recommendation and it would be understood, of course, that the Administering Authority would continue, as at present, to have the responsibility to accept, reject or modify the Council’s recommendations, as may be necessary in any particular case.

iii. advantages of this method to the administering authorities

This method would give the initiative to the Administering Authorities and remove, at least in large part, the defensive posture to which they have been increasingly subjected.

The discussion, except possibly for the Soviet Member, would be kept more largely within the framework of the trusteeship agreements rather than to attack the validity of the agreements themselves or even the whole trusteeship and colonial system. If the Soviet Member would refuse to participate in this collective effort to find solutions to problems, his intervention would be exposed for what it is. It may be assumed that most of the non-administering Members would offer their advice and suggestions sincerely, and thus the Soviet Member would be segregated and largely isolated.

The proposed method would tend to bring the Council back to its original purpose, namely, to exercise a supervisory role in the form of positive and constructive assistance to the Administering Authority, instead of a kind of international criminal court where a succession of bilateral exchanges take place aimed at undermining the position of the trust power.

This method would also enable the technical and expert character of the Council to emerge as it was envisaged by those who formulated this Chapter of the Charter. It would offer possibilities where the Specialized Agencies could gear in more effectively in the search for solutions to problems.

Finally, it would avoid unnecessary repetition of answers to numerous picayunish questions, the answers to which, in most cases, are already to be found in the voluminous reports already provided by the Administering Authorities.