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

IO Files: US/AM(Chr)/72

Minutes of the Twenty-Eighth Meeting of the United States Delegation, New York, October 28, 1947, 9:15 a.m.

New York, October 28, 1947, 9:15 a.m.

secret

[Here follows list of persons (28) present.]

Report of the Fourth Committee on the Transmission of Information From Non-Self-Governing Territories

Ambassador Sayre referred to document US/A/705.¹ He pointed out that the Ad Hoc Committee of Committee 4 had agreed on five resolutions, four of which were concerned with information transmitted in accordance with Article 73 (e) of the Charter. The United States and others had agreed on a compromise between the colonial and non-colonial powers, but when the Ad Hoc Committee had reported to Committee 4 the resolutions had been amended in a way which was unfortunate from the point of view of the United States. Ambassador Sayre referred to resolution No. 1 regarding the handling of information when submitted. There had been no serious amendment to this. Resolution No. 2, regarding the furnishing of political information, which may be found in document US/A/706,² presented difficulties. Ambassador Sayre read paragraph 6:

6. That for purposes of comparison between data relating to the various non-self-governing territories and their metropolitan areas, the Secretary-General should be authorized, in addition, to include in his summaries and analysis all relevant and comparable official statistical information as is available in the statistical services of the Secretariat and as may be agreed upon between the Secretary-General and the member concerned, giving appropriate citation of sources.

Ambassador Sayre pointed out that the original recommendation had been that information coming in might be compared with similar information from other places even if these were independent. The non-colonial powers had objected to being compared with colonial states. They didn’t want an examination by the United Nations into conditions in non-colonial territories. The non-colonial powers and the Soviets inserted the comparison between non-self-governing territories and their metropolitan areas. The United States delegation wants to return to the original form. There could be valuable comparisons made between similar areas.

Ambassador Sayre referred to resolution No. 3 (US/A/707)³ concerning the voluntary transmission of information regarding development of self-governing institutions in the non-self-governing territories. He pointed out that Article 73 (e) of the Charter specifically omitted political information. The non-colonial powers have been fighting ever since to get it in. The United States voluntarily submitted political information regarding its own colonies but has maintained that there could be no binding obligation to submit such information. The non-colonial powers want to remove the word voluntary from the enacting clause. Thus Resolution No. 3 recommends transmitting political information. If this is not sent in next year then the non-colonial powers will come in with a condemnation.

Mrs. Roosevelt inquired why such information would not be transmitted. Ambassador Sayre replied that it was perfectly all right for the United States. The United Kingdom, however, takes the position that once such information were transmitted it would be open to dangerous attack. It was part of an attempt by the non-colonial powers to set up a regime as much as possible like the trusteeship regime.

Mrs. Roosevelt referred to the paragraph in US/A/707 reading “Considers that the transmission of information relating to the results achieved in the matter of the participation of local populations in the work of local organs of administration is entirely in conformity with the spirit of Article 73 of the United Nations Charter and recommends those states responsible for non-self-governing territories to transmit such information”. She said that to her that meant that the state responsible was to say how progress has been made in local governments. If it meant what it said, then she couldn’t see the harm in it, so she would like to have this explained.

Ambassador Sayre read Article 73(e) from the Charter. He said that we don’t object to sending information but we do object to its being obligatory. He said that the resolution No. 3 was the first step in a drive to set up a body roughly comparable to the Trusteeship Council but concerned with colonial territories whose sovereignty resides in the colonial power. Mrs. Roosevelt observed that she was not sure this was not a good thing. She referred to the bad conditions in places where the United Kingdom had been for a hundred years and she thought they might profitably be looked at. She couldn’t help wondering what the United Kingdom had been doing there for a hundred years. She did not see anything improper, looking at it as a man in the street, although she said she did not know much about the question. She supposed that something might be found in our own colonies. She asked why we should stand against something that will improve the colonies. Mr. Sayre replied that we want to find the most practical and constitutional methods within the Charter. Mrs. Roosevelt said that she saw the Charter did not give authority for this but she could not see that the thing was wrong itself and that we should oppose it on that basis. She just could not see this. Mr. Sayre replied that the United States have always favored improving colonial conditions in the framework of the Charter.

Mr. Dulles commented that the trouble was we only had one word for the Assembly to use, the word “recommend”. No one knows the limits of that word. It is used in the most flagrant cases, as in the case of Greece. Other times it is used when we really mean to say that it would be nice to do certain things. The colonial powers are afraid of being treated as was Yugoslavia for its attack on Greece, or South Africa for its attitude on South West Africa. This language was causing a great deal of trouble in several cases and there needed to be a distinction between a Charter violation and indicating that something was a good thing to do. Mr. Dulles recalled that he had previously said that the General Assembly had the right to make recommendations reflecting the moral judgment of the world as well as a moral obligation. If this Assembly could say that something would be a good idea, but there was no obligation, the difficulty could be resolved, but we are using the same language for strong recommendations as for weak ones.

Mrs. Roosevelt commented that the original resolution which was attached to US/A/707 was probably safer, but it was hard for a layman to understand why we were opposing resolution No. 3. Ambassador Sayre pointed out that we were trying to get as much information as possible. Everyone but the United Kingdom would agree to an amendment to the original resolution.

Mr. Notter referred to the Dumbarton Oak talks regarding the word “recommend”. The Soviets had a ruthless adherence to logic. Time and time again in formulation groups the Soviets had insisted upon putting the word with the highest power in the Charter on the ground that lesser power was carried with it, so this did not mean that the General Assembly had to “recommend” every time it wanted to “resolve” on something. It can do the lesser things since it can make a recommendation. He noted that in connection with the first resolution that the non-colonial powers would have to do a complete about-face and this might present difficulties.

At this point Ambassador Austin interrupted the discussion to turn to the Interim Committee item on the agenda. The discussion of the Fourth Committee topic is resumed later in these minutes.

[Here follows discussion of the question of requirement of two-thirds majority for inclusion of items on the agenda of the Interim Committee.]

The meeting returned to a consideration of this item.⁴

Ambassador Sayre continued that we wanted to do everything that can be done for the colonial peoples. At San Francisco the United States had taken the lead in this respect. In the Ad Hoc Committee at this session, we had taken the lead as far as seemed possible to do so. Mrs. Roosevelt said that she thought that if a vote could be gotten on the original resolution, which was attached to US/A/707, that this should be done. She had not realized that this would be possible. Mr. Sayre replied that the United Kingdom was going to vote against the resolution under any circumstances. There had been many conferences with the other powers and he believed that the votes [were?] to be had for the amended form of Resolution 3. Ambassador Austin inquired whether Ambassador Sayre saw any great difference in the meaning of the two texts, if it were not for a suspicion which underlay them. He asked if there were really any great difference. Ambassador Sayre replied that there was all the difference in the world to a technician but not to a layman. Mrs. Roosevelt said that she saw the difference. She said that she was not worried about the United Kingdom, she was not a bit worried about their not liking the resolution, but she saw that Resolution No. 3 was not possible under the Charter.

Ambassador Austin asked whether there was any objection to attempting to secure the amendments to Resolution No. 3 which were attached to US/A/707. There being no objection, it was decided that the United States would submit the amendments to that resolution.

Ambassador Sayre continued with Resolution No. 5 (US/A/708) concerning the creation of a special committee on information transmitted under Article 73 (e) of the Charter. Mr. Sayre pointed out that this had the same background as the preceding resolution.

At this point Ambassador Austin and Mr. Dulles had to leave to attend a meeting.

The non-colonial powers, Ambassador Sayre continued, wanted to set up a body to consider information under 73 (e). The Ad Hoc Committee was in favor of setting up a small committee which should not make recommendations regarding special conditions in specific countries. The Soviets had introduced an amendment to set up a permanent committee which would be very much like the Trusteeship Council. So it was important that a two-thirds vote should be required for setting up this committee, because it was not possible for a two-thirds vote to be mustered in favor of this resolution. Enough votes could be mustered for the original Ad Hoc Committee resolution No. 5, which is contained in US/A/708.⁵ Although many colonial powers were against an Ad Hoc Committee on 73(e) information, they will agree to it in the original form for reasons of practical politics. This would be doing the most that could be done under the Charter, and Ambassador Sayre recommended that we should agree. He recommended that the delegation should submit the proposed amendments. Mrs. Roosevelt and Mr. Fahy said that they agreed. Mr. Stevenson concurred. Accordingly, Secretary Marshall said that the delegation should follow that course.

Ambassador Sayre pointed out that he was confident that resolution No. 5 needed a two-thirds vote in the Assembly and he thought we should insist on this.

[Here follows consideration of another subject.]

1. Not printed. It was a delegation position paper dealing in very general fashion with the Report of the Fourth Committee on the Transmission of Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories (the five resolutions).
2. Not printed. It contained the text of Resolution 2 as adopted by the Fourth Committee, and the text of a proposed amendment to be submitted by the United States to the General Assembly in plenary meeting. The amendment simply restored the original text recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee. Subsequently, it was in fact submitted jointly with Brazil, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, and Uruguay.
3. Not printed. Head here footnote 2 above, substituting “Resolution 3” for “Resolution 2.”
4. i.e., Report of the Fourth Committee on the Transmission of Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories.
5. Not printed. It contained the text of Resolution 5 as adopted by the Fourth Committee, and the text of a proposed amendment to be submitted by the United States to the General Assembly in plenary meeting. The amendment simply restored the original text recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee. Subsequently, it was in fact submitted jointly with Brazil, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, and Uruguay.