LORD CRANBORNE invited Colonel Stanley to open the discussion with
a statement of the United Kingdom Government's views regarding
Territorial Trusteeship.

COLONEL STANLEY said that he must first apologise for having asked
that what Mr. Fraser rightly described as a secondary matter
should be taken first. The urgency was explained in Dominions
Office telegram D. 519 of the 28th March to Dominion Governments.

[1] It had been agreed at Yalta that the question of Territorial
Trusteeship should be the subject of further consultation before
the San Francisco Conference between the five countries who would
have permanent seats on the Security Council. The United States
authorities had suggested that these conversations should be held
in Washington as soon as possible, and the date at which we were
aiming was the 9th April. These conversations, which would be on a
technical level, would, of course, be exploratory, but the United
Kingdom Government wished to hear Dominion Governments' views
before their representatives left for Washington.

He would begin with the Memorandum on 'International Aspects of
Colonial Policy' which had been sent to Dominion Governments on
the 27th December last under cover of the Dominions Secretary's
despatch D. No. 172. [2] He did not wish to go into that
Memorandum in detail, but he would like to explain that it was the
result of considerable thought given to the subject in the
Colonial Office. It had been considered by some of his colleagues,
but it had not received final Cabinet approval. It represented an
honest and, he hoped, constructive attempt to get the maximum of
international co-operation in relation to colonial territories.

There had been no question in the United Kingdom Government's mind
of an appeal to public opinion. The sole object was to improve
colonial administration for the benefit of the dependent peoples
in colonial territories. He regarded that as of infinitely greater
importance than even the most honest public opinion elsewhere.

The main feature of that Memorandum had been the proposal to get
rid of the Mandate system, and to substitute for it a more
generally satisfactory scheme of colonial administration. He did
not wish to belittle the work of the Permanent Mandates
Commission, but the United Kingdom and some of the Dominion
Governments had had experience of the working of that body, and
his own opinion was that, while it had achieved a certain amount,
it had suffered from many disadvantages. The sense of
impermanence, which inevitably followed from the nature of its
conception, re-acted to the detriment of the native peoples
concerned. He had felt strongly that the proposals in the
Memorandum for consultation on a regional basis were much more
satisfactory and more applicable to territories many of which had
progressed a long way towards self-government.

He would now turn to what had happened since December. In the
first place, the spotlight had been concentrated on the Mandates
system. He was advised that that system could only be abolished by
international agreement. The Mandatory Powers had entered into
engagements from which they could only be released by common
consent.

The United Kingdom Government were very grateful for the full and
detailed comments which had been received from the Dominion
Governments. It was clear that as regards Mandates, Australia and
New Zealand were not convinced about the advisability of
abolition, and here he would remark that their experience had
perhaps been rather different from that of the United Kingdom.

Their Mandates belonged to Class C, while most of the United
Kingdom Mandates belonged to Class B. Canada, while observing that
she had not been directly concerned as a Mandatory Power, had put
forward the view that abolition was not likely to commend itself
to public opinion in the United States. He had had further
opportunity to test opinion in the United States at the end of
last year when, following upon a visit to the West Indies, he had
had conversations with officials of the State Department, and had
been empowered to discuss informally with them the proposals set
out in the Colonial Office Memorandum. He must confess that he had
been disappointed by the United States reaction, which had been
far from constructive. Little, if any, interest had been displayed
by United States officials in the improvement of administration
which had as its objective the benefit of the native peoples. It
was clear that they were principally concerned to seek ways and
means of acquiring Japanese islands in a manner which would not
adversely affect their own public opinion. If, as he thought, the
views expressed to him by the United States officials he had seen
reflected the views of their Government, there appeared to be
little, if any, hope of satisfactory agreement with the United
States.

The most recent development had been the very brief discussion of
the question at the Yalta Conference, which resulted in the
inclusion, in the Secret Protocol of Proceedings, of the agreement
set out in Dominions Office telegram D. 429 of the 12th March to
Dominion Governments. [3] The Prime Minister had since made it
clear that this agreement committed us to no more than discussion,
as a natural part of the discussions arising out of the demise of
the old League of Nations, while limiting the scope of the matters
to be discussed, and that there was nothing in it in any way to
limit our freedom of decision or to prevent us from putting
forward in those discussions any points which we thought it proper
to advance.

It was natural that in view of these new factors-
(i) the comments made by Dominion Governments;

(ii) the United States reactions in informal conversation at
Washington, and
(iii) the obligation to discuss the Mandates system, entered into
at the Yalta Conference;

the War Cabinet should reconsider the position. As he had said,
there could be no question of abolition of Mandates by unilateral
action. On full consideration, the United Kingdom Government had
therefore come to the conclusion that they would be prepared to
accept in principle the continuance of the last-war Mandates, and
the application of a similar system to territories detached from
enemy States as a result of the present war. In taking this
decision, the United Kingdom had in mind the single-Power system,
whereby a single State undertook responsibility for administration
of a particular area on a Mandatory basis. He did not know what
the United States Government contemplated; the paper which their
officials had promised had not yet been received. But if the press
was any guide, there was the possibility that they might present
us with proposals for multiple-or international-Mandates. If so,
particularly if these proposals included provision for
accountability to some central international body, the United
Kingdom Government proposed to resist them strongly.

On the assumption, however, that the single-Power system would be
perpetuated, United Kingdom authorities had been examining the
existing machine as it had been established after the last war.

They felt that considerable changes would be necessary, and he was
ready to circulate a list of these. Meantime, he would only refer
to one or two alterations of major importance, which the United
Kingdom wished to suggest:(1) Defence-The restrictions upon the
establishment of military, air and naval bases, the erection of
fortifications, and the organisation of native military forces
were clearly obsolete and should be removed. Modern warfare had
demonstrated the inter-dependence of neighbouring and even far-
distant territories; for example, after the fall of Singgapore, we
had found it necessary to take considerable defence measures in
Tanganyika which it was very difficult, if not impossible, legally
to reconcile with the Mandate provisions. The defence role of
Mandated territories should be determined in relation to the world
security plan and regional requirements.

(2) The Open Door Policy-Quite a number of provisions, e.g., those
requiring for all nationals of States Members of the League equal
rights with the nationals of the Mandatory Power in respect of
conduct of business, the open door economic provisions, &c., were
unfair in practice. Those provisions related to B Mandates and the
same disabilities did not, of course, apply in the case of C
Mandates, which could in effect be administered as parts of the
territory of the Mandatory Power. In practice, the open door
provisions had proved to be much more of a safeguard for those
outside the Mandated territory than for its inhabitants, who
received nothing in return. The foreign States who enjoyed the
benefits of these provisions did not reciprocate. In the case of
Tanganyika, he did not think that the position could be maintained
locally if there was any suggestion of reverting to the pre-war
situation regarding German immigration. He recalled the
revelations which had been made of the manner in which the Germans
had abused their position in Tanganyika.

(3) Impermanence of Existing Mandates-He felt that the main
disadvantage of the existing system rested in the inevitable
feeling of impermanence. He had been very much impressed, for
example, by the position in Togoland and the Cameroons. These two
small areas were, for practical purposes, administered as part of
a larger colony. When capital expenditure was being considered,
there was a natural inclination-and who could blame those
concerned-to spend on permanent works in the area which was an
integral part of the Empire and not in the Mandated portion. He
felt that, somehow or another, it would have to be made clear that
there should be no question of the Mandatory Power surrendering
such territories.

To sum up, as regards existing Mandates, while the United Kingdom
Government agreed in principle to the continuance of the system in
respect of existing Mandated territories and territories removed
from the enemy, there were features of the existing system which
he would wish to see modified. He hoped that the United Kingdom
would have the full support and assistance of Dominion Governments
in securing agreement to these modifications.

There was one further point of vital importance in regard to the
preliminary conversations at Washington. Clause (c) of the passage
on Territories Trusteeship in the Secret Protocol of the Yalta
Conference (Dominions Office telegram D. 429 of the 12th March)
referred to 'any other territory which might voluntarily be placed
under Trusteeship'. There had been nothing under the old Mandates
system to prevent countries placing fresh territories voluntarily
under Mandate, but no Power had, in fact, availed itself of this
provision. It was certainly not the intention of the United
Kingdom Government to agree that the Mandatory system might be
extended to territories under its sovereignty.

MR. FRASER asked whether that represented the considered opinion
of the United Kingdom Government.

COLONEL STANLEY confirmed that it was. He went on to explain that
we hoped to limit the discussions in Washington and San Francisco
to the points which he had mentioned, and that we would urge that
discussion of these subjects at San Francisco should be confined
to the drafting of a general formula, detailed discussion being
deferred for later consideration by a smaller and more suitable
body consisting, e.g., of all the Mandatory Powers, including the
United States as a potential Mandatory Power.

There remained the question of the action to be taken in regard to
the other proposals in the Colonial Office Memorandum for the
establishment of Regional Commissions and of an International
Colonial Centre. The United Kingdom Government had had no thought
of putting forward the Regional Commissions proposal as a
bargaining counter in connection with the abolition of Mandates.

But the International Colonial Centre had been proposed as in some
ways taking the place of the Permanent Mandates Commission, and it
would therefore now be dropped. He did not, however, wish for one
moment to abandon the proposals for Regional Commissions, though
he felt that it would be inappropriate to discuss them at San
Francisco. He regarded these proposals as the most hopeful and
fruitful approach that had yet been made to the colonial problem,
and he felt that it would be a great mistake to have them mixed up
at San Francisco with the Mandates question. He therefore
suggested that the Regional Commissions proposals should be
pursued as opportunity offered in each of the areas concerned. The
Caribbean was a useful model. In the Pacific, Australia and New
Zealand would no doubt wish to make an early start with the
Commission which had been suggested for that area. In Africa,
however, a slightly different approach might be advisable; there
it might perhaps be better to build up first on the basis of ad
hoc conferences, such as the recent Civil Aviation Conference,
and, when experience had been gained, to constitute a Commission.

These were the reasons why the United Kingdom Government's views
had altered since the despatch to Dominion Governments of the
Colonial Office Memorandum. He would be very glad to hear the
views of the Dominion delegates.

MR. MASSEY [4] said that he and Mr. Hume Wrong [5] were much
indebted to Colonel Stanley for his very full and interesting
review of the situation. Canada was greatly interested in these
questions, but she was neither a Mandatory Power nor a parent
State. For the moment he would not, therefore, wish to express any
particular views.

DR. EVATT said that before commenting upon the United Kingdom
proposals in detail he wished to make two observations.

First, as regards the procedure which was being adopted, he would
recall that, following upon receipt of the Colonial Office
memorandum of December last, Dominion Governments had been
informed in Dominions Office telegram D. No. 342 of the 24th
February [6] that territorial trusteeship had been discussed
briefly at the Yalta Conference, but that there would be full
discussion with Dominion representatives at the proposed British
Commonwealth Conference. The Australian Government had certainly
expected the United Kingdom Government to await such discussion
before reaching any decision.

Secondly, the Australian Government had expected to be consulted
fully in advance of any decision. Indeed, their comments had been
invited in the Dominion Secretary's despatch D. No. 172 of the
27th December, and subsequent telegrams had promised discussion.

They were now informed that the United Kingdom Government had
taken a firm decision that it would decline to agree that the
mandatory system might be extended to 'any other territory which
might voluntarily be placed in trusteeship'. In his opinion
consultation with Dominion Governments should have taken place
before a decision was reached.

The mandates system had two different aspects. The system was set
up in 1919 because President Wilson [7] objected to the ordinary
consequences of conquest. A mandate was given to the selected
Power to administer ex-enemy territory as the agent of the
victorious Powers. That aspect of the mandate system could have
existed even without any idea of trusteeship for the dependent
peoples. The second aspect of the mandate system was that the idea
of trusteeship for dependent peoples had been introduced, and it
was required that the mandatory Power should exercise the mandate
for the benefit of the native peoples. He did not think that there
should be any insuperable difficulty about the alteration of the
terms of existing mandates, where necessary or advisable, but
these two distinct aspects should be kept in mind.

At the end of this war a situation would arise similar to that of
1918. The Japanese could not be allowed to retain their colonial
territories, and the mandate system was the solution. It must be
borne in mind throughout that the overriding consideration was the
benefit and welfare of the native inhabitants of these
territories.

Dr. Evatt continued that the broad questions raised by the
statements and communications on the subject of territorial
trusteeship might be stated as follows:-

(i) Whether Powers responsible for dependent territories should
accept the principle of trusteeship, i.e., that the main purpose
of administration is the welfare of the dependent peoples and
their economic, social and political development.

(ii) Whether such Powers should make regular reports either to an
international body analogous to the Permanent Mandates Commission
or to some regional body.

(iii) Whether this body should be established within the framework
of the General International Organisation.

(iv) Whether this body should make reports.

(v) Whether this body should be empowered to cause dependent
territories to be visited (see paragraphs 5 and 6 below).

(vi) Whether this body should have executive or merely advisory
powers.

The Colonial Secretary's proposals of December 1944 were of first-
rate importance. They favoured regional advisory councils for
collaboration rather than any institution analogous to the
Permanent Mandates Commission. Nevertheless, the proposals clearly
envisaged United Nations discussions on all dependent territories,
not merely mandates or 'detached' areas. Further, the report
recognised the international interest in dependent peoples by
proposing an 'International Colonial Centre' as part of the World
Organisation.

After the proposals had been dealt with by cables from Australia
and New Zealand it was understood that no British Commonwealth
decision on the subject would be taken pending consultation.

However, at Yalta it was agreed that 'trusteeship' should be
applied only (i) to present mandates; (ii) to territories
'detached' from the enemy during the present war; and (iii) to any
territories voluntarily placed under trusteeship. This agreement,
although made without first reference to the Dominions, still left
open for discussion whether the above principles could still be
applied within the framework of the Yalta decisions, and it had
been hoped that the United Kingdom would decide to place some of
its territories voluntarily under trusteeship.

Dr. Evatt presented the following general arguments for
recognition of trusteeship in respect of all dependent peoples:-

(i) It seemed to be a logical and almost inevitable development
from past policies and statements.

(ii) International concern in the welfare of dependent peoples had
increased and would increase in future. Public interest was real
and criticism could not be avoided.

(iii) Reluctance to acknowledge that 'trusteeship' implied some
duty or responsibility would provoke very hostile criticism. Most
Colonial Powers had nothing to hide and a suitably constituted
advisory commission of a functional character and comprised of
experts could assist greatly in the difficult task of governing
dependent peoples.

(iv) In matters of welfare it was impossible to draw any valid
distinction between territories taken away from an enemy Power and
other dependent territories. What reason was there for according
inhabitants of ex-enemy territory rights under a charter which
inhabitants of other dependent territories were denied?
(v) Under the Dumbarton Oaks draft itself it was provided (Chapter
IX (A)) that the organisation acting through the General Assembly
and the Economic and Social Council should facilitate solutions of
international economic, social and other humanitarian problems and
promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It
would seem that the power referred to clearly covered action of an
advisory character for the purpose of promoting the welfare and
the 'human rights' of dependent peoples.

(vi) Among the objectives stated in the Atlantic Charter was 'a
peace . . . which will afford assurance that all the men in all
the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want'
(Sixth Principle). Acknowledgment of some degree of responsibility
in respect of dependent peoples would be an important step towards
carrying out this principle.

(vii) It was important, in the Pacific at least, that a means of
advising and influencing certain non-British colonial
administrations should be established. Not only Australia and New
Zealand but the British Commonwealth as a whole was vitally
interested in seeing that conditions of dependent peoples of
South-East Asia were advanced and improved, thereby contributing
to the security of that region.

(viii) Conditions in dependent territories were capable of
considerable improvement and the obligation to report to a central
body would be an incentive to improvement. By way of example only,
it was stated authoritatively that in 1937-38 only 2.4 per cent.

of the population of Indo-China and only 4 per cent. in the N.E.I.

were receiving education, as compared with over 10 per cent. in
Formosa, Philippines and Thailand. The percentage of total
expenditure devoted to education in the N.E.I. was 6; in Thailand
it was 11 and in the Philippines 20 per cent. (J. S. Furnivall,
Educational Progress in S. E. Asia (I.P.R. 1943)).

In many dependent areas public health services were very backward,
sanitation was poor and midwifery primitive (L. P. Mair, Welfare
in the British Colonies (R.I.I.A. 1944), PP. 92-3). The League of
Nations Committee on Nutrition reported in 1937 that 'colonial
populations in general are undernourished' (A 13, 1937, 11A, P.

320) and that in Africa diet was partly responsible for relatively
low resistance to infection, and high infant mortality. The report
on Nutrition in the Colonial Empire (1939) stressed the need for
raising standards of living and improving education. Reports and
analyses by an international body, and discussion of such matters
by the Assembly and the Social and Economic Council, would
unquestionably stimulate and assist more energetic action to
advance the welfare of dependent peoples.

Reviewing policies of various Governments, Dr. Evatt quoted Clause
28 of the Australian - New Zealand Agreement, of January 1944, as
follows:-

'The two Governments declare that, in applying the principles of
the Atlantic Charter to the Pacific, the doctrine of "trusteeship"

(already applicable in the case of the mandated territories of
which the two Governments are mandatory Powers) is applicable in
broad principle to all colonial territories in the Pacific and
elsewhere, and that the main purpose of the trust is the welfare
of the native peoples and their social, economic and political
development.'
At the Australian-New Zealand Conference in November, 1944, the
following resolution was adopted and subsequently approved by the
Cabinets of both Australia and New Zealand:-

'Resolution 11-Powers responsible for dependent territories should
accept the principle of trusteeship already applicable in the case
of mandated territories. In such dependent territories the purpose
of the trust is the welfare and advancement of native peoples.

Colonial Powers should undertake to make regular reports to an
international body analogous to the Permanent Mandates Commission
set up within the framework of the General Organisation. This body
should be empowered to make reports of its deliberations and to
visit dependent territories.'
Provided that the central international body were properly
constituted and competent, he did not see how any exception could
be taken to the obligation to report to it upon the administration
of dependent territories. Voluntary action in this direction by
the United Kingdom would afford a shining example to other Powers,
whose administration of colonial dependencies was far from
satisfactory. Surely we could at least go as far as the Colonial
Centre? As a minimum, something like that should be attempted.

Trusteeship in its broadest sense had long been declared by
British Statesmen to be the recognised principle of British
Colonial administration. For example, in 1923 the British
Government stated with reference to Kenya:-

'In the administration of Kenya, His Majesty's Government regard
themselves as exercising a trust on behalf of the African
population and they are unable to delegate or share this trust,
the object of which may be defined as the protection and
advancement of the native races. We are the trustees of many great
African dependencies of which Kenya is one and our duty is to do
justice and right between the various races and interests,
remembering above all that we are trustees before the world for
the African population. Our administration of this trust must
stand eventually before the judgment seat of history and on it we
shall be judged as an empire' (quoted in Lindley 'Acquisition and
Government of Backward Territory in International Law', page 335).

In 1920, Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant evidenced an
important step forward, for it recognised the need for some
international institution, representing world opinion, to which
certain specified States should render an account or report of the
manner in which they were discharging their duty towards native
peoples. In principle Article 22, on which was based the mandate
system, seemed equally applicable to all dependent territories.

Article 22 said:-

'the principle that the well-being and development of such
peoples' (i.e., people not yet able to stand by themselves under
the strenuous conditions of the modern world) 'form a sacred trust
of civilisation, and that securities for the performance of this
trust should be embodied in this Covenant.'
In the United Kingdom statement of Policy on Colonial Development
and Welfare issued in 1940, it was declared that-
'His Majesty's Government are trustees for the well-being of the
peoples of the Colonial Empire ... The primary aim of Colonial
policy is to protect and advance the interests of the
inhabitants.'
At the Prime Ministers' Conference in May, 1944, the Colonial
Secretary expressed the hope that the mandate system would be
abolished. On the other hand, he was also reported as having said
that 'he contemplated an obligation being placed on colonial
Powers to make reports, but supervision could best be left on a
regional basis'. But willingness to accept an obligation to make
reports implied a recognition of the main principle under the
mandate system, i.e., that the performance by parent States of
their duty to care for dependent peoples is properly regarded as a
matter of international concern.

In the memorandum on Colonial Policy of the 21st December, 1944
(paragraph 4) it was stated that:-

'the objective of good colonial administration is to promote to
the utmost the well-being of colonial peoples within the world
community. So far as Great Britain is concerned, this objective
may be taken as implying:-

(i) the development of self-government within the British
Commonwealth, in forms appropriate to the varying circumstances of
colonial peoples;

(ii) their economic and social advancement; and
(iii) recognition of the responsibilities clue from members of the
world community one to another.'
This memorandum outlined a scheme for future international
cooperation in regard to colonies, including both co-operation on
a regional basis and co-operation through central bodies attached
to the World Organisation. In regard to the latter, the United
Kingdom memorandum provided for the operation in respect of
dependent territories of functional bodies under the General
International Organisation. It also provided for the setting up of
an International Colonial Centre, which would receive reports and
act as a centre of information on colonial matters. It was
difficult to reconcile this approach to the question with the
recommendations of the Yalta Conference. This memorandum expressly
recognised 'the responsibilities due from members of the world
community one to another', in respect of colonial matters. This
provided for the setting up of a central body, which could
properly concern itself with the welfare of dependent peoples. It
was quite clear that the suggestions in the United Kingdom
memorandum were not confined to mandates (existing or to be
created), but were to be made applicable to dependent and colonial
territories generally.

The Australian and New Zealand Governments both sent telegrams to
London commenting on this memorandum by the Colonial Secretary.

[8] They welcomed the suggestion of co-operation between colonial
Powers and specialised international agencies. Both welcomed the
trend of United Kingdom thinking towards the establishment of an
international Colonial Centre, although Australia and New Zealand
felt that this proposed body should be given much greater powers.

It might be mentioned that the British Labour Party, in a pamphlet
on 'The Colonies', published as recently as March 1943, advocated
the extension of the mandate system to all backward colonial
territories. It urged that-
'The International Authority should therefore appoint an
International Colonial Commission, composed of independent persons
who are nationals both of administrating and non-administrating
Powers. It should have all the powers of the old Mandates
Commission, but also others.'
This pamphlet contemplated for the Commission powers that went
beyond those proposed by Australia and New Zealand.

It was clear that up to the Yalta Conference the subject of
colonies was being discussed on the assumption that the colonial
question generally, and not merely the question of mandates, would
be discussed in connection with the World Organisation. However, a
telegram dated the 12th March [9] was received, indicating that it
had been agreed at Yalta that the five nations which would have
permanent seats on the Security Council would confer with each
other prior to the San Francisco Conference on the basis that
territorial trusteeship would apply only to existing mandates,
territories detached from the enemy in the present war, and any
other territory which might voluntarily be placed under
trusteeship.

Two comments could fairly be made:-

(a) Unless a broad interpretation and application are given in
relation to the third category, (i.e., territories voluntarily
placed under trusteeship), the effect of this suggestion would be
to confine the principle of trusteeship within narrow limits.

(b) The five Nations invited to the discussions had been chosen as
permanent members of the Security Council because of their
military power and not at all because of their special concern in
the problem of the welfare of dependent peoples. Chapter IX (C) 1
of the Dumbarton Oaks draft clearly implied that the problem of
dependent peoples related primarily to welfare and only touched
security in a secondary way. The Australian Government had always
understood that the whole basis of the proposed world organisation
was that there should be a distinction between security and
welfare matters. Surely problems connected with the administration
of dependent peoples were primarily a matter of welfare? It was
therefore inexplicable that the nations invited to take part in
the preliminary discussions on this subject should be the military
Powers while the Dominions which were directly concerned were
excluded.

The Australian case might be summed up as follows:-

(a) The Australian contention was that the general principles
expressed in the Australia - New Zealand Agreement are sound, that
the Charter of the General International Organisation should
clearly embody the principle that the duty of the parent State is
to protect the welfare of native races in its dependent
territories, and that this international duty should be
accompanied by a duty to submit reports regularly to an expert
committee or agency vested with sufficient powers to enable it to
give advice and make suitable recommendations.

(b) It had been hoped and it was still hoped that a position not
dissimilar in substance might be arrived at by voluntary
declarations in accordance with the Yalta arrangement.

(c) None of the proposals supported by Australia and New Zealand
involved any interference with the Sovereignty of the parent
State.

In conclusion DR. EVATT said that the main issue was whether the
hopes aroused by the various declarations of the Great Powers and
the United Nations were to be fulfilled or not. He did not think
that it was asking much of the United Kingdom to acquiesce in the
principle that the duty of parent States was to protect the
welfare of native races in their territory and that this duty
should be accompanied by an obligation to submit reports regularly
to an expert and competent body. He could imagine nothing less
onerous in the case of Powers such as the United Kingdom,
Australia and New Zealand, which discharged their colonial
obligations honestly and to the best of their ability. If they
refused to do so it would set the worst possible example for
others. He trusted that the conference would not end without some
conclusion in this direction having been reached.

[matter omitted]

SIR FIROZ KHAN NOON [10] enquired what would happen if agreement
were reached between the Commonwealth Delegations that the
existing system of mandates should be retained, but at the
discussion in the Assembly at San Francisco the majority of those
present voted in favour of a system of international trusteeship?
LORD CRANBORNE said that it would be necessary to keep an open
mind and to be guided by the situation as it developed. It was
very difficult to predict the course of events.

DR. EVATT said that it was important to face the possibility that,
however one attempted to restrict the area of discussion, once the
matter had come before the Assembly it would be hard to control
the course of the debate. In the discussion on mandates in
particular, no previous arrangement could prevent the matter from
being discussed on broad lines.

LORD CRANBORNE said that none of us yet knew how the question
would be raised at San Francisco. For his part, he envisaged the
matter arising only under the general head of transferring to some
other body the residual functions of the League of Nations. To
discuss details at the San Francisco Conference would be
premature.

FIELD-MARSHAL SMUTS said that in the discussion so far the
questions raised could be divided into those of substance and
those of procedure.

(a) Questions of substance:-

He agreed with Colonel Stanley that there was no question of
surrendering our existing mandates, which were ours under
international law and represented rights which we should certainly
retain. On that there was, he thought, general agreement amongst
delegates.

It was also generally agreed that there were certain features of
the mandates which were out of date and could well be improved. In
particular, some different system would have to be found for the
Permanent Mandates Commission, the present working of which was
far from satisfactory. But these were matters of detail which
would be better discussed on some later occasion.

(b) Questions of procedure:-

Here there appeared to be some difference of view. For his own
part, Dominions Office telegram D. 429 of the 12th March, which
stated that it had been agreed at Yalta that there should be no
discussion of actual territories, had reassured him. But the
subsequent telegram (D. 519 of the 28th March) regarding the
preliminary consultations, had renewed his doubts as to the value
of discussing mandates with Powers who knew little about colonial
problems and had little interest in them. San Francisco seemed to
him to be an entirely wrong place for such a discussion.

MR. FRASER suggested that the question of how to dispose of the
present Japanese-held islands would in any case cause the question
to be raised at San Francisco.

FIELD-MARSHAL SMUTS said that we wanted to keep existing mandates
out of the discussion.

Any system of territorial trusteeship would have to be applied
generally to countries with colonial possessions. These were the
United Kingdom, and the other Commonwealth countries, France,
Portugal, Belgium and Holland, all of them sovereign countries
with large and valuable colonial Empires. By what right could we
suggest to them that they should curtail their rights? Although we
might all agree that it would be most desirable, it would be
extremely difficult to dictate in any such terms to sovereign
Powers.

In his view, the furthest we of the British Commonwealth could go
would be to say 'we for our part are acting on this principle'. To
go further would risk encountering the opposition of other Powers.

For these reasons he felt that any discussions on colonial matters
should be limited strictly to procedure. He certainly would not be
prepared to agree to anything whether decided at Washington or
elsewhere, which affected any mandate held by South Africa,
without full previous opportunity being given to him for
considering the matter.

DR. EVATT said that the future status of mandates also interested
Australia and New Zealand, who would not be represented at the
Washington talks either.

COLONEL STANLEY suggested that it was only right before we went to
San Francisco to inform the Americans that we now held the view
that the existing mandate system should be continued. The other
object of the Washington talks was to confirm that the discussion
at San Francisco would be confined to the acceptance of the
general formula which might well be discussed as part of the
general business rising out of the demise of the League of
Nations. Any detailed discussions would have to be held later and
in a more suitable atmosphere.

The difficulty with regard to the publication of reports arose not
so much over publication as over ensuring that any discussion
which took place on the reports should be objective in character
and should be conducted only by informed persons, concerned to
ensure the welfare and progress of the areas in question, rather
than to pursue any ulterior political motive.

DR. EVATT said that he trusted it would be possible for the United
Kingdom Government to review the policy announced by Colonel
Stanley before participating in the Washington talks. He felt that
this was a matter of real importance.

COLONEL STANLEY asked whether Dr. Evatt felt that San Francisco
would be a good place to discuss the proposals contained in his
original paper of December 1944, or whether he agreed that the San
Francisco discussions should be limited to the general proposition
that the existing mandate system should be continued and that
details should be left until later?
DR. EVATT replied that our prime object must be to secure the
welfare of the native peoples. This subject should be discussed
with the other colonial Powers concerned, not necessarily at San
Francisco. Of the other 'security Powers' Russia and China had
practically no interest in colonial questions and the United
States had only very limited colonial territories.

LORD CRANBORNE said that the preliminary consultations at
Washington had been decided upon at Yalta, and that it would be
difficult now not to hold them. He felt, however, that there was
general agreement that we should limit the subjects to be
discussed at the San Francisco conference to a discussion of what
was to be done with the existing mandates when the League of
Nations came to an end. A later discussion between colonial Powers
could be held to discuss details.

MR. FRASER agreed but said that the danger was that the matter
might well be raised at San Francisco by a majority vote of the
Assembly.

MR. ATTLEE suggested that it was essential to limit the
discussions at San Francisco to what was really necessary. If
colonial questions were discussed by uninformed people there would
be a tendency to blur the responsibility of the mandatory Power.

There should be a later discussion between the countries concerned
upon functional questions, of which the principal one was how to
implement the principle of territorial trusteeship without
blurring the responsibility of parent States.

[matter omitted]