My telegram D.39 of 18th January.

United States draft terms of trusteeship for Japanese mandated
islands.

1. The United Kingdom Ambassador in Washington approached the
State Department on the lines indicated in my telegram D.19 of 9th
January.

2. On 7th February, however, General Marshall in a statement to
the press indicated that the United States proposals to place
Japanese mandated islands under strategic trusteeship would be
submitted to the Security Council on or about 17th February
despite suggestions by the United Kingdom, Russia and Australia
that a disposition of the islands should be postponed until after
the peace treaty has been negotiated; he added that while he saw
no reason for postponement the United States Government would be
willing to consider any postponement proposed by the Security
Council.

3. We do not feel that we can modify our basic attitude towards
the United States proposal. We appreciate, however, that the
United States desire a public presentation of their case and we
for our part feel that the best course would be for the Council
merely to express its appreciation of the action taken by the
United States in submitting draft terms as an earnest of their
intention of abiding by trusteeship principle and then decide not
to proceed with consideration of the terms of trusteeship for the
islands in advance of peace treaty with Japan. (CF paragraph 2 of
my telegram D.19).

4. We think that the State Department may not fully realise the
many difficulties which are involved in asking the Security
Council at this stage to approve the draft terms and to designate
the United States as the administering authority of the islands.

The position as we see it is as follows: The Japanese Government
is at present under the control of the allies and particularly of
the United States. Although this means that the United States
carry out the functions of the Government on the islands it does
not alter the fact that the mandatory is still de jure Japan. The
islands can only come under trusteeship under Article 79 of the
Charter which requires agreement of the mandatory powers.

Therefore, it would seem to follow that no trusteeship agreement
can be approved in respect of the islands in advance of the peace
treaty under which Japan will presumably surrender her mandate for
the islands. [1]

5. In the unlikely event of a decision by the Security Council to
consider the terms with a view to approving them it will be
necessary for us to make the detailed comments set out in my
telegram D.19 of 9th January. The Security Council in any case
would, we hope, be prepared to delay consideration for some weeks
at least during the course of which further consultation of text
could take place. We could at that stage also consider whether
certain other countries which will be closely concerned with the
peace settlement with Japan should as suggested in paragraph 2 of
my telegram from New Zealand Government No.13 of 21St January be
associated with Security Council when draft terms come before it.

6. United Kingdom representative on Security Council has been
informed in the sense of the foregoing and the United Kingdom
Ambassador has been requested to inform the State Department of
the line which we are likely to adopt when this question comes up
for consideration in the Security Council.