1. At the first meeting of Committee 4 dealing with Trusteeship
Mr. Belt of Cuba was elected Chairman and Mr. Kuzma V. Kiselev of
the Byelo-Russian S.S.R. Vice-Chairman.

2. As soon as Hasluck, speaking as Deputy for Dr. Evatt, had
introduced Chapter 4 of the Report of the Executive Committee the
Soviet representative opposed the creation of the Interim
Trusteeship Committee on the grounds that there was no provision
for it in the Charter and the General Assembly did not have the
power to constitute bodies as substitutes for the principal
organs. He suggested as an alternative to the dilemma pointed out
by Section 2 of Chap. 4 of the Executive Committee's Report (page
55 of the Report), that mandatory powers might submit to the
General Assembly at its first session draft trusteeship agreements
for approval. If and when these were approved, the Trusteeship
Council could be established.

3. The Yugoslav representative spoke in support of the Soviet
representative's statement which was then opposed by the United
Kingdom and United States representatives. Both of these
delegations pointed out that the Executive Committee's
recommendation was based upon a desire to bring the trusteeship
system into operation as soon as possible, and the United Kingdom
representative said that if the Soviet delegation were able to put
forward a better solution to the problem than that suggested by
the Executive Committee, the members of the Committee would give
it serious consideration. The South African representative pointed
out the need for some body to take over the functions hitherto
exercised by the Permanent Mandates Commission and also the need
for some expert body to work out problems involved in the
trusteeship system, such as the definition of the phrase 'states
directly concerned' in Article 79 of the Charter. The New Zealand
and Egyptian representatives reserved their positions.

4. Bailey, the Australian representative, spoke strongly in
support of the recommendation of the Executive Committee. He
presented firstly legal arguments to show that the Interim
Trusteeship Committee was a constitutional body based on a chain
of authority the links of which were Articles 75, 85 and 22 of the
Charter in that order. Secondly he showed the Committee was
necessary for practical reasons. Pending the establishment of the
Trusteeship Council the General Assembly would need the services
of an expert body which would act in an advisory capacity. With
the aid of this body the establishment of the Trusteeship system
would be expedited.

5. At the next meeting of the Committee the Yugoslav Delegation
presented a paper based upon the suggestions made by the Soviet
representative at the previous meeting (see Document PC/TC3,
copies of which will be forwarded with memo UNO/DOC 4). In this
paper it was suggested that the General Assembly at the first part
of its first meeting should invite mandatory powers to declare
their willingness to place mandated territories under trusteeship
and at the same time to state whom they considered were states
directly concerned with these territories. Before the General
Assembly met the mandatory states could prepare to respond to such
an invitation. The Yugoslav Delegation stated that it considered
the States directly concerned in these cases in the first place
were the mandatory powers, the permanent members of the Security
Council and perhaps neighbouring states. (For the full text of
this paper see telegram UNO 8 of 1st December 1945.) [2]

6. At this meeting of the committee the representative of the
Byelo-Russian S.S.R. supported remarks previously made by the
Soviet representative upon the unconstitutionality of the Interim
Trusteeship Committee. These remarks also secured support from the
Egyptian and Philippines representatives, the latter of whom
seemed to fear that use was being made of artful lawyers in an
endeavour to alter the terms of the Charter to the prejudice of
colonial peoples. The United Kingdom and United States
representatives stated they were not prepared to admit that the
creation of an Interim Trusteeship Committee would be
unconstitutional but stated that it would be desirable for
delegations to have time to examine the proposals of the Yugoslav
representative.

7. At the meeting of Committee 4 on 1st December, 1945, Bailey,
representing Australia, said that although the Yugoslav proposal
was a constructive one, it over-simplified the process of
formulating trusteeship agreements. A body of experts was needed
to solve the problems involved in the trusteeship system and
although this body would advise the General Assembly on these
problems when the Assembly was in session, the need for it did not
cease when the Assembly was not in session. The ad hoc committee
proposed by the Yugoslav Delegation was therefore inadequate. He
did not think that the trusteeship system could be brought into
operation with such despatch as the Yugoslav Delegation envisaged.

Difficulties, such as the definition of the phrase 'states
directly concerned', would operate to delay the process, and in
any event the negotiation of trust agreements by each mandatory
power with about six or more states which the Yugoslav Delegation
considered 'directly concerned', would be a lengthy procedure.

Also divergent views might be held by states directly concerned on
the question of designation of strategic and non-strategic areas,
and even if these views were reconciled, they would not
necessarily agree with the views of the Security Council on this
question.

8. After the Australian representative had spoken the debate on
the Interim Trusteeship Committee was adjourned until 4th December
1945, in order that delegations might have time to consider the
Yugoslav plan. The Committee meanwhile turned its attention to
Section 5 of Chapter 4 of the Executive Committee's Report, being
the Provisional Rules of Procedure for the Trusteeship Council. On
the motion of the Soviet representative Rule 1 was amended to
provide that the Trusteeship Council should hold two regular
meetings per year, and as a consequence of this amendment Rule 9
was altered so as to provide that the elections of a Chairman and
Vice-Chairman should take place at each regular meeting. Rule 24
was changed so that it now provides that meetings shall be held in
public unless for exceptional reasons it is decided to make them
private. It was agreed to redraft Rule 26 to read in similar
terms. It was proposed by the representative of Egypt to elaborate
Rule 27, but consideration of this proposal was stood over pending
circulation of a text. With the exceptions already mentioned, the
Committee approved Rules 1 to 27.

9. The Soviet Delegation have played a most active part in the
deliberations of Committee 4 up to the present time. The tenacity
with which their representatives and the representatives of
satellite delegations have opposed the creation of the Temporary
Trusteeship Committee and their insistence upon the
unconstitutionality of such a body and upon the adoption of their
alternative plan is out of proportion to the technical merits of
the matter. This has aroused much speculation in the minds of
other delegations, particularly the United Kingdom and United
States, about their objectives. It appears, however, that no
satisfactory indication of the intentions of the Soviet bloc has
yet been found. All that can be said at present is that the Soviet
Government is very much interested in the subject of trusteeship
and intends to play a leading part in the proceedings of the
Trusteeship Council.