Assembly 359.

TRUSTEESHIP

(1) Your UNY457. [1] Procedure in finalising Trusteeship
Agreement. Text of Article 8 was submitted to sub-Committee in
accordance with instructions as subject to final acceptance by
Australia. Approval of Assembly subject to similar reservations
would be possible but before we are instructed in this sense
consideration should be given to some consequential difficulties.

(2) Present arrangement is that if all Trusteeship Agreements are
approved elections for two Elective Members of Trusteeship Council
will be held before end of Session in accordance with Article 86
of the Charter and Rule 96 of Provisional Rules of Procedure. If,
however, an agreement is subject to reservation approval and in
consequence election also could only be on a provisional basis to
which there would probably be overwhelming objection.

(3) Article 79 of Charter is understood as contemplating that
definitive text of agreement will be available before final
Assembly approval is given. If we are not in position to submit
definitive text, Assembly will probably defer approval until next
session.

(4) We urge strongly that Government should accept text including
Article 8. This is so drafted as clearly to impose only such
obligations as are in accordance with established Australian
practice. Full Committee resumes its meetings Sunday morning 8th.

(5) Unexpectedly early because of brevity of Rapporteur's report
all eight Agreements were voted on as a whole in sub-Committee 6th
December. Interpreting paragraphs 1 and 3 of UNY437 [2] as at
least provisional indication of refusal to accept the two changes
proposed by sub-Committee in Articles 4 and 5, we obtained
approval for text as submitted including Article 8.

(6) Owing to procedural muddle through rapid pace of vote-taking,
New Guinea vote was taken on Secretariat text implying Australia's
acceptance of these changes. Position was explained and fresh vote
taken.

Voting was unchanged. Text as originally submitted with addition
of Article 8 approved by eleven votes to three, with three
abstentions. United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, South
Africa, Netherlands, Mexico, Uruguay, France, Canada, Belgium and
Australia voted for, Czechoslovakia, Soviet Union and Yugoslavia
against. China, India and Iraq abstained.

(7) All eight agreements were approved. Voting was same as for New
Guinea except that in all other cases China voted for approval.

(8) We had considered possibility of postponing decision on
approval of Australian text till we had sought definitive
instructions on the proposed changes in Articles 4 and 5. This
course would, however, have left us isolated from the rest and in
view of intense pressure to complete programme of sub-Committee,
this seemed dangerous.

(9) We do not think our rejection of the two minor changes
affected actual vote in any way but feel bound to report that it
created a rather disagreeable impression (we hope evanescent) both
in sub-Committee and among Press, other Mandatories having
accepted all modifications recommended by sub-Committee.

(10) Soviet Group explained their vote against all Agreements as
expressing intention to reopen in full Committee the four
questions of principle on which their proposals for modification
had been rejected by sub-Committee-
(i) 'Integral part' [3],
(ii) Power to constitute fiscal or administrative unions,
(iii) Power to establish bases otherwise than with consent of
Security Council,
(iv) Formal periodical review of Agreements.

(ii) India made formal reservation of its right to propose in full
Com-mittee a large number of rejected proposals but had not made
up its mind which it would press.

(12) Sub-Committee is proposing rules of procedure restricting
right to reopen in full Committee matters rejected in sub-
Committee. If these are adopted and chair remains firm we shall
probably not have to defend our agreement against any attack
directed against New Guinea text exclusively, with possible
exception of Chinese and Indian proposals regarding equality in
respect of migration, residence, occupation and the like. (See
Assembly 350 [4]).

(13) In addition to definitive urgent instruction regarding text
of Article 8 we would appreciate them with regard also to the two
minor changes proposed in Articles 4 and 5 in case they arise
again. At moment text stands unchanged but if matter were raised
again in full Committee and Minister on reconsideration was
disposed to accept either or both his gesture would certainly be
well received both in Assembly and in Press.

(14) So much of Soviet proposal [5] for Article 4 as sub-Committee
originally approved with support from United States merely makes
powers of administering authority expressly subject to agreement
and to Charter. We contended and still think it unnecessary but
would not think inclusion of these words would alter sense of
Agreement.

(15) United States' proposal to omit words 'in its opinion' from
Article 5 was pressed largely on ground that other Mandatories had
all removed the phrase from their texts at United States'
instance, and that its omission would still leave decision to
administering authority alone.

(16) We have not argued here that this is a matter of substance,
in order not to embarrass other Mandatories. Bailey fully accepts
Eggleston's thesis but as applied to this text thinks it does not
give full weight to point made in Paragraph 3 of UNY437 that this
question is one neither of law nor of fact but of discretion. We
think, however, we have heard the last of this particular
proposal. United States (Gerig) said today his Delegation would
now be prepared to move approval of Article as it stood and was
generally most helpful.

(17) Sub-Committee has now completed its work except on preambles
which are deferred pending resumption of discussions on States
directly concerned.