IO Files: US/A/C.4/78
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. James F. Green of the United States Delegation Staff of Advisers
| Participants: | Ambassador Liu Chieh, Representative, Delegation of China |
| Raja Sir Maharaji Singh, Representative, Delegation of India | |
| Ambassador Padilla Nervo, Representative, Delegation of Mexico | |
| Judge Jose D. Ingles, Alternative Representative, Delegation of the Philippines | |
| Ambassador Francis B. Sayre, United States Delegation | |
| Mr. Earle R. Dickover, United States Delegation | |
| Mr. James Frederick Green, United States Delegation |
The four representatives of non-administering Members were invited to lunch at the Colony Inn today to discuss the question of establishing the Special Committee on information transmitted under Article 73(e) of the Charter. The principal points of the conversation, which lasted almost an hour and a half, are summarized below.
Ambassador Sayre said that because the United States was genuinely and sincerely interested in the welfare of the peoples of non-self-governing territories the United States Delegation was somewhat concerned over the split which had developed in the Fourth Committee between the administering Members and the non-administering Members. The development of such conflicts might prove injurious to non-self-governing peoples. The Delegation had sought, whenever possible, to secure cooperation between these two groups in the effort to make progress along a constructive program. It sought to avoid conflicts which might result in the more conservative colonial powers becoming resentful and apprehensive and hence less ready to cooperate in an international cooperative program. Ambassador Sayre said that he was not interested in going over all that had previously happened in the Fourth Committee, but he hoped that in the future all could work together in a more cooperative attitude. He pointed out that in the Trusteeship Council no such split had developed, and that on only one minor occasion had there been a division in the voting between the administering Members and the non-administering Members. Ambassador Sayre concluded by saying that he thought it might be profitable to exchange views on three questions: first, when should the Special Committee be elected; second, what Members should be chosen; third, when should the Committee meet?
Ambassador Liu said that there was also a fourth question—what should the Special Committee do when it met? In other words, should it be just a rubber stamp, as the colonial powers seem to desire? Ambassador Liu said that he was not aware of any such division in the Fourth Committee. None of the non-administering Members had consulted together or worked out a common policy. In response to a question from Ambassador Liu the other representatives present agreed that this was true. On the other hand, Ambassador Liu went on, the colonial powers seemed to have cooperated very closely and to have persuaded the United States to become their spokesmen. In his opinion everybody in the Fourth Committee had rejoiced over Ambassador Sayre’s opening speech on the resolution of the Ad Hoc Committee because it represented a fine liberal spirit. In his closing speech, however, [Page 315] Ambassador Sayre seemed to have taken back everything he had said earlier. Nevertheless, he was sure no one had ever considered the United States as a colonial power.
Ambassador Sayre remarked that there was no inconsistency in the two speeches since they had been written at the same time. The United States always took a liberal view in the colonial field but it wanted to see things done within the framework of the Charter.
Raja Singh said that two developments had greatly upset the non-administering Members. In the first place they resented the insistence of the administering Members that the Indian Resolution and the Fifth Resolution of the Ad Hoc Committee required a two-thirds vote. They regretted that the United States had unnecessarily taken such a strict position on this question. In the second place, these Members felt that the plenary meetings had completely overturned the work of the Fourth Committee. In fact, the Fourth Committee might just as well never have met.
Ambassador Padilla Nervo said that he agreed with these views and that he felt strongly that the Indian Resolution, which merely expressed a hope that non-self-governing territories should be placed under trusteeship, required a two-thirds vote. The colonial powers, he kidded, may have set a precedent which they will regret some day.
Ambassador Liu commented that he had invented the phrase “non-self-governing territories” at the San Francisco Conference. Lord Cranborne had presented a paper on trusteeship which also dealt with what were then called “dependent territories”. Ambassador Liu had suggested that the latter was not an accurate or desirable phrase and suggested “non-self-governing territories”. Lord Cranborne had remarked that “non-self-governing territories” contained too many hyphens and was unpronounceable, but it had now become the standard phrase. Both the United Kingdom and Australia, Ambassador Liu went on, had tied trusteeship and non-self-governing territories closely together in all their discussions at San Francisco. Therefore, he could not agree with the view that the Charter did not intend that non-self-governing territories should be placed under trusteeship.
Raja Singh commented that the United States had no business dragging in the “category (b)” territories during the discussion of the Indian Resolution. The Charter said nothing about the order in which territories should be placed under trusteeship. The whole issue was completely irrelevant.
Ambassador Sayre asked when the Special Committee should be elected, as the Resolution was not clear on this point. Several of the [Page 316] colonial powers, he went on, had told him that they favored holding the election next year rather than at this session. Raja Singh replied that he felt strongly that the Committee should be elected at this session. Ambassador Liu asked how a subcommittee of the Fourth Committee could be elected at this session if it were to meet next year, since the Fourth Committee would go out of existence some time this month. He said that he could recall no precedent for the establishment, by a Committee of the Assembly, of a subcommittee which would meet after the end of the session. This showed that the colonial powers really did not want such a committee.
Ambassador Sayre asked whether the other representatives had any views as to which States should be elected to the Special Committee. None of the representatives gave any indication as to their views.
Ambassador Sayre then asked when the Committee should meet. He said that he had a completely open mind on this point, but he did see that there were fairly strong arguments in favor of a meeting during the next session of the Assembly. This arrangement would save the time of busy officials; it would be less expensive; and it would give the Secretariat more time to prepare the documents. In any case, the Fourth Committee would have plenty of time to deal with this subject next year.
Raja Singh said that it was absolutely essential that the Special Committee should meet before the General Assembly. There would be much more detailed information to review than was available last year. None of the representatives would have time during the General Assembly to give attention to this very important matter.
Ambassador Padilla Nervo agreed with this view, and added that it was impossible for the smaller delegations to deal with these complicated technical problems during the regular session of the Assembly. The large delegations of the colonial powers thus had an unfair advantage. In response to questions from Ambassador Sayre, both Ambassador Liu and Judge Ingles agreed that the Special Committee should meet two weeks before the Assembly.
Summing up the conversation, Ambassador Sayre said that it appeared to be the view of the other four representatives present that the Fourth Committee should elect the non-administering Members tomorrow and that the Special Committee should meet two weeks before the General Assembly. He said that he would pass on these views to the colonial powers if they consulted him on this matter. He suggested that someone ought to submit to the Fourth Committee tomorrow a Resolution which would make recommendations on this matter to the General Assembly. Ambassador Sayre said that he would give [Page 317] careful thought to the views expressed by the other representatives on these points.1
- On November 6 the Fourth Committee met and chose the eight elective members of the Special Committe, in accordance with the terms of Resolution 146 (II); these were China, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, India, Nicaragua, Sweden, and the Soviet Union. States who were members of the Committee by virtue of transmitting information under Article 73(e) were Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. At the same meeting, it was decided that the Special Committee should meet at a date to be fixed by the Secretary General, not less than two weeks before the next regular session of the General Assembly. (GA (II), Fourth Committee, pp. 108 and 109.)↩