1. Progress of Executive Committee since your departure is
reported in telegrams Precoms 31, 32, 33 and 34. [1] Following
background may be useful.

2. Soviet attitude. Some concern was felt last week over attitude
of Soviets. Gromyko returned unexpectedly from Washington and has
been reinforced by legal and security experts from Moscow. Last
week he appeared to be using delaying tactics and twice obtained
adjournments on ground he had no instructions. It was also noticed
that Soviet has not yet deposited ratification and Americans here
were speculating whether Soviet might use this means of holding up
assembly meeting. These factors have led to a strong Anglo-
American tendency to nurse Soviet very carefully and to yield
easily. Today however, Gromyko, though very stubborn in debate,
appeared willing to allow Conference to proceed and there is a
chance it may complete business by Wednesday or Thursday, thus
maintaining November 8 as date for Preparatory Commission.

3. Trusteeship. I cannot discover exactly Soviet views regarding
temporary trusteeship committee. Americans and Netherlands say
that Soviet would prefer establishment of trusteeship council
immediately with Five Power nucleus and that one Russian objection
to temporary trusteeship committee is that by naming mandatory
powers as members it tends to set United Nations' approval on
their retention of mandates. Report has been passed and no further
difficulty is anticipated until preparatory commission meets.

4. Permanent headquarters. Last Wednesday Wellington Koo suggested
Executive secretary might be instructed to collate material
regarding particular sites but Noel Baker ruled discussion out of
order as not being on agenda. I have had to be very persistent to
obtain publication of minutes of earlier debates. Copy has been
forwarded to you by air. On Thursday under chairmanship of
Stevenson [2] (U.S.A.) Koo made further proposal that information
regarding sites should be collated and forwarded without
recommendation to preparatory commission. I supported Gromyko's
suggestion that Executive Committee had obligation to make
recommendation itself. At this stage debate was deferred. After
meeting I discussed with Stevenson, Jebb [3] and chairman of
committee ten, preparation of draft recommendations for next
meeting, incorporating all committee's decisions and laying down
next step. Jebb, without further consultation, issued paper of his
own presenting recommendations in which decision for United States
site was made subject to serious formal undertakings by United
States Government and under which next step would be to ask
preparatory commission to choose at once between East and West
Coast. This draft being considered objectionable both by Stevenson
and myself, we collaborated in revised draft which recommends:

(a) United States site should be seat of United Nations,
(b) preparatory commission should immediately set up committee to
negotiate with United States regarding exact requirements to be
granted and at same time make studies for particular site.

Discussion is likely to take place on Wednesday. In view of
timetable difficulties referred to above, it appears impossible to
obtain two-thirds vote on particular site before Executive
Committee rises and above series of recommendations would not
prejudice our views.

9. Reception. Invitations have been issued by me in your name and
on your behalf for reception [tomorrow] afternoon at Savoy, to
principal members of delegations, all members of trusteeship
committee, and Dominion representatives.