65

3—A 2

also, that the Soviet delegation " deems it paramount to reach an agreement that each of the Powers which is a permanent member of the Security Council and of the Trusteeship Council has a right to state that it is a State directly concerned as regards trust territories. However, this does not necessarily mean that each of these Powers actually will make such a statement with regard to all trust territories." After much fruitless discussion the Chairman of the sub-committee, on his own responsibility, requested the delegations of the United States and the Soviet Union informally to consult on this question, they being free to consult with such other members of the sub-committee as they might consider necessary. This course was followed, but was reported back to the sub-committee as having found no result. A Soviet proposal to set up a drafting sub-committee was rejected at this stage. Mr John Foster Dulles, leader of the United States delegation in trusteeship matters, then introduced a proposal for inclusion in the report of the Rapporteur and adoption by the General Assembly, in the following terms " Approval of any terms of trusteeship by this session of <he General Assembly should be on the following understanding wTth respect to ' States directly concerned ' : " All members of the United Nations have had an opportunity to present their views with reference to the terms of trusteeship now proposed to the General Assembly for approval. There has, however, been no specification by the General Assembly of ' States directly concerned' in relation to the proposed trust territories. Accordingly, the General Assembly in approving the terms of trusteeship does not prejudge the question of what States are or are not 'directly concerned' within the meaning of Article 79. It recognizes that no State has waived or prejudiced its right hereafter to claim to be such a ' State directly concerned ' in relation to approval of subsequently proposed trusteeship agreements, and any alteration or amendment of those now approved, and that the procedure to be followed in the future with reference to such matters may subject to later determination." Mr Dulles gave it as his opinion that this formula would not exclude any claims ; that no vote of the General Assembly could do so ; but that it would encourage States (including the United States) to vote for the agreements at present under discussion because it would assure them that their future rights would not be prejudiced. On this assumption the delegations of the .United Kingdom and of New Zealand volunteered to have removed from the preambles of their agreements words that would be obviously inconsistent with the draft resolution given above. The Australian agreement for New Guinea had been drafted in such a way that the question did not arise. The delegations of France and Belgium were unwilling of their own volition to make similar changes, but placed the preambles of their agreements in the n&jids of the sub-committee.