Assembly 393 Trusteeship. Fourth Committee.

1. At the fourth Committee on tenth December India, in view of
adoption of relevant Soviet proposal on review of all agreements
[1] withdrew the Indian proposal for a ten year period.

2. China introduced a proposal on non-discrimination (New Guinea
Agreement) with the result reported by today's most immediate
cable (Assembly 392 [2]). Was asking for non-discrimination not
open door.

3. Australian reply referred to 'C' Mandate Status, change in
obligations due to Charter, Australian acceptance of obligations
and the fact that the agreement covers these therefore proposal
unnecessary. The proposal deals with administration which is
matter for administering authority and trusteeship council.

4. India, (without prior notice to us of intention to do so)
exercised its option to move an addition to the New Guinea
agreement of articles 9 and 9(A) of British agreements [3] with
necessary drafting changes. Made three main points, viz:-

(A) Australian administration in New Guinea discriminatory;

(B) Australia had made no attempt to meet the wishes of the Sub-
Committee;

(C) The Charter obligation should be made precise and concrete by
specific undertakings written into agreement;

5. Australian reply:-

(A) Administration has been in the interests of inhabitants and
has stood test of Permanent Mandates Commission supervision and
loyalty in disaster of war;

(B) New article eight of New Guinea Agreement;

(C) Unnecessary to spell out Article 76(D) especially unreasonable
to ask the Australian Government to consider incorporating so much
complex detail.

6. India was supported by Cuba, China by Cuba (same speech) and
Australia by United Kingdom and New Zealand.

7. The Indian Delegation badly fumbled its presentation (confusion
amongst documents being the main cause but arrogant, inflammable
personality of Menon contributing). A period of confusion,
somewhat trying to the patience of the Committee, ensued. The
Chairman resolved this by ruling the Indian proposal to be voted
first. India defeated sixteen to eleven (eleven abstaining) and
China by fifteen to fourteen (nine abstaining). The Soviet group
abstained on both votes seemingly because stipulations of this
kind belong essentially to the capitalist order. U.S.A. voted
against the Indian proposal and abstained on the Chinese.

8. The Indian proposal for the handing over of Trust Territories
and all assets to inhabitants on termination of agreements
supported by Yugoslavia, opposed by Belgium on behalf of the
Mandatories. Approved by nineteen to sixteen (two abstaining).

9. Indian proposal for naming dates by which territories should be
declared self-governing or independent withdrawn after discussion
showed impracticability of decision by the Assembly.

10. This completed full committee work on proposed modifications
(except preamble).

11. The Committee then adopted the Rapporteur's report on the
Philippine resolution [4] (see Sub-Committee two reports) subject
to correction of French translation.

12. In discussion of the Rapporteur's report on treatment of
information on non-self-governing territories, the French
Delegation obtained inclusion of the French Government reservation
to effect that parts of these resolutions were contrary to Charter
and France reserved its position in relation to participating in
any action taken under them. Under this reservation Governments of
all States administering non-self-governing territories had
associated themselves. This will also be mentioned in report.