800.014/3–1747: Telegram

The United States Representative at the United Nations ( Austin ) to the Secretary of State

248. Re [new] draft of proposed Australian amendment1 to draft trusteeship agreement for Japanese mandated islands follows:

“Article 17: This agreement will enter into force on the date on which the interim or final treaty of peace between Japan and the Allied Powers victorious in the war against Japan becomes binding on Japan, it being understood that by such treaty Japan shall be required to surrender all its rights (if any) relating to the control and administration of the present territories, and such territories shall be formally detached from any form of control by Japan.”2

Austin
  1. Early in the meeting of the Security Council on March 17 the Australian Delegate introduced a modification of the Australian amendment of March 12, the text of which follows in this telegram. As stated by the Australian Delegate, the revised amendment was designed to erase the constitutional difficulties presumed to exist in the first version. (SC, 2nd yr., pp. 520 and 521)
  2. For the lengthy statement made to the Security Council by Ambassador Austin on March 17 regarding the revised Australian amendment, see Ibid., pp. 523–530. The United States view was that the amendment still raised constitutional and legal questions, described by the Ambassador at one point in the following:

    “Every line of this amendment is in direct opposition to the Charter [of the United Nations]. In the first phrase of this amendment, we undertake to take away from the United Nations its very functions. The United Nations has the sole, exclusive, and supreme authority over trusteeship. … the second phrase of this statement is a gross assumption of authority. The United Nations has no authority under the Charter to make peace terms. It is not given any commitment with respect to the treaty of peace between Japan and the victorious powers.” (Ibid., pp. 524 and 525)