My telegram 27th November, D No. 1092.

United States Draft Terms of Trusteeship
Following our representations the United States Government have
not so far presented their draft to the Security Council. They
have indicated, however, that, if they are to defer action pending
our comments, they will expect to receive these at a very early
date.

2.We have not yet formulated our final views on the strategic
implications of United States action in producing their draft.

Subject to this reservation this telegram outlines our considered
views and probable lines along which we shall very shortly
approach the United States Government.

A. Policy
Official United States statements in the last year have made it
clear that, as the power in occupation, they will take the
initiative in negotiating an agreement regarding these islands
with the Security Council (this of course meaning that they plan
to proceed under Article 83 of Charter) [1], that they would not
agree to any arrangement unsatisfactory to themselves and that, if
they met with opposition to this initiative in the Security
Council, they would simply remain in occupation. It is clear,
therefore, that a strategic area Trusteeship is as far as the
United States Government are prepared to go in permitting any type
of International super-vision of the mandates. Advantages of
having an agreement seem conclusive in that-
(a) Trusteeship issue as a whole is thereby strengthened, and
(b) we should in virtue of it be able to exercise at any rate some
control over the situation in these islands through the Security
Council.

B. Timing
We consider, however, that the present is the wrong time for
United States to press their proposals or to put them formally to
the Security Council. The fact that United States Government are
initiating Trusteeship terms prior to the Peace Treaty with Japan
is bound to be widely challenged, and, from our point of view, is
open to serious practical objection that such action might confuse
the issue about Trusteeship for ex-Italian colonies (we should no
doubt be challenged by the United States and others if we
presented a Draft Trusteeship Agreement for Cyrenaica in advance
of the Peace Treaty with Italy).

2. The line which we propose to take with the United States on
timing is, therefore, that we appreciate their action in
submitting draft Trusteeship terms for Japanese islands as an
earnest of their intention (which we welcome) to implement the
Trusteeship principle, that we regard this action as a declaration
of intention which cannot, however, take effect in advance of
peace treaty with Japan and that we should like meanwhile to
discuss certain textual points with them.

C. Comments on Text
We do not want at this stage to discourage United States from
placing Japanese Islands under Trusteeship by commenting any more
than is necessary on their draft terms, which with exception of
Articles 8 (1i) and 13, seem to us more liberal than might have
been expected ...

[matter omitted]