United States. Dept. of State. Office of Public Co.

Department of State bulletin (Volume v. 22, Apr- Jun 1950) online

. (page 74 of 116)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 22, Apr- Jun 1950) → online text (page 74 of 116)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

The Governments of the United Kingdom,
France, and the United States, having had occa-
sion during the recent Foreign Ministers meeting
in London to review certain questions affecting
the peace and stability of the Arab states and of
Israel, and particularly that of the supply of arms
and war material to these states, have resolved to
make the following statements :

1. The three Governments recognize that the
Arab states and Israel all need to maintain a cer-
tain level of armed forces for the pui'poses of as-
suring their internal security and their legitimate
self-defense and to permit them to play their part
in the defense of the area as a whole. All appli-
cations for arms or war material for these coun-
tries will be considered in the light of these
principles. In this connection the three Govern-
ments wish to recall and reaffirm the terms of the
statements made by their representatives on the
Security Council on August 4, 1949, in which they
declared their opposition to the development of an
arms race between the Arab states and Israel.

2. The three Governments declare that assur-
ances have been received from all the states in
question, to which they permit arms to be sup-
jDlied from their countries, that the purchasing
state does not intend to undertake any act of
aggression against any other state. Similar assur-
ances will be requested from any other state in
the area to which they jjermit arms to be supplied
in the future.

3. The three Governments take this opportimity
of declaring their deep interest in and their desire
to promote the establishment and maintenance of
peace and stability in the ai'ea and their unalter-
able opposition to the use of force or threat of
force between any of the states in that area. The
three Governments, should they find that any of
these states was preparing to violate frontiers or
armistice lines, would, consistently with their obli-
gations as members of the United Nations, imme-
diately take action, both within and outside the
United Nations, to prevent such violation.


[Released to the press by the White Bouse May 25]

During the recent meeting in London, the For-
eign Ministers of the United States, the United
Kingdom, and France had an opportunity to re-
view the security and armaments situation in the
Near East and to consider what action their Gov-

ernments might take to provide greater stability
in the area. As a result of this consultation, a 3-
power declaration is being issued. This is another
of the many valuable results of the London meet-

The participation of the United States Govern-
ment in the declaration emphasizes this country's
desire to promote the maintenance of peace in the
Near East. It is the belief of the United States
Government that the declaration will stimulate,
in the Arab states and Israel, increased confidence
in future security, thus accelerating the progress
)iow being made in the Near East and contributing
toward the well-being of the peoples there.

Procedures of Senate and

House Foreign Affairs Committees

I'he following letter has been reecircd by the Secretary
of State from the Chairiiian of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, John Kee.

May 17, 1950
Mt dear Mr. Secretary :

Mj' attention has been called to an item appear-
ing in the State Department Bulletin of May 8,
1950, announcing the appointment by the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee of consultation
subcommittees and making reference to the hope
that the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House
of Representatives will see fit to adopt a similar
pattern. ■

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on FoT- ~
eign Relations is to be congratulated on the pro-
gressive step he is taking to create a structure of
consultative subcommittees to keep members better
informed on world affaii'S.

It is indeed gratifying to see this principle
adojoted in the Senate. When a study and con-
sultation subcommittee system was originated by
the House Committee on Foreign Affairs in the
spring of 1945, our action was hailed as an out-
standing improvement in legislative procedure.
This is the fifth anniversary of the geographical
area consultation subcommittees of the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs. Time and experi-
ence have proved their worth.

The structure proposed by the Chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee would divide i
the Senate Committee into eight consultative I
groups, 4 geographical and 4 topical. The House 1
Committee functions with six special geographical '
area subcommittees, and has made good use in past
years of topical subcommittees.

I am sure the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations will, as has the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, find this pi-oven method an invaluable
aid in liolping committee members keep abreast of
current world developments.


Department of Stale Bulletin

The Problem of the Former Italian Colonies
at the Fourth Session of the General Assembly

hy David W. Wainhouse and Philip A. Mangano


General Debate on the Subcommittee 17 Draft

Not before November 4 was it possible for the
rapporteur of Subcommittee 17, Mr. Hood (xVus-
tralia), to present his report to the First Conmiit-
tee. A general debate was begun on the basis of
the Subcommittee draft the next day. Sir Carl
Berendsen (New Zealand) expressed certain res-
ervations with respect to the plan.'* Mr. McNeil
(U.K.) expressed general support for the Sub-
committee plan for Libya and Italian Somaliland
but disagreed with its proposal for a conmiission
to study further the matter of a solution for
Eritrea. For his delegation, ]\Ir. McNeil then sub-
mitted four proposed amendments ™ to that part
of the draft dealing with Libya. The suggested
changes, said Mr. ^McNeil, wei'e intended to insure
the rights of tlie inliabitants of the three pai'ts of
Libya to make their own free choice as to the form
of government and the method of meeting and
consulting together. The existing draft with re-
spect to unity would impose on the people of Libya
a structure of government which they perhaps did
not desire. He also expressed misgivings over
the contemplated role of the commissioner and the
council for Libya; he urged that the administer-
ing authorities sliould not be confronted with
"rival authorities." Mr. van Pallandt (Netlier-
lands) agreed with Mr. McNeil's objections with
respect to unity.

Mr. Jessup (U.S.) said that his delegation sup-
ported tlie Subcommittee plan which it had helped
work out. Even if not tlie "best possible plan,"
that draft did conform to the fundamental princi-
ples laid down in the Italian Peace Treaty as

Editor's Note : This is a oontinuation of the article
that appeared in the issue of May 20, 1950. The annexes
and footnotes appear on pp. 895 and 915, respectively.

the basis for a solution of the problem. After
reviewing the long effort of the Subcommit-
tee to agree on a hnal solution for Eritrea and
after adverting to the compromise proposal on the
subject which the United States and other delega-
tions on the Subcommittee had advanced, Mr. Jes-
sup pointed out that it had seemed that no final
solution for that territory could be agreed upon
at the present session. He concluded by expressing
support for the amendments which the United
Kingdom had just submitted to the section of the
draft dealing with Libya."'

Sir Zafrullah Khan (Pakistan) disliked the pro-
vision in the plan for Libya which empowered the
commission to call upon different instead of all
members of the council for advice on different re-
gions or different subjects. He also felt that the
committee could not be sure that the inhabitants
of Italian Somaliland would cooperate with Italy
if that country wore designated the administering
authority under a trusteeship agreement. He ad-
vocated separate resoludons on each of the three
territories so that decision on anj' one would not
be dependent on decision on the others."- Mr.
Belaunde (Peru) took the opposite point of view.-^

For Argentina, Mr. Arce sought to put at rest
the doubts which had been expressed concerning
the way in which the Subcommittee plans for
Libya and Italian Somaliland would provide full
range for the expression of the will of their peo-
ples. As for Eritrea, Mr. Arce said his Govern-
ment preferred independence; though, if part of
her people desired union with Ethiopia, it should
be accomplished pursuant to the Eritreans' own
decision, not by any other means.-^ He favored a
single resolution with three parts, as had been
presented by the Subcommittee. Mr. Jooste
(South Africa) favored the amendments submit-
ted by the United Kingdom to the Libyan section
of the basic draft resolution and, in line with an
earlier United States suggestion, thought that the
capacity of the inhabitants of Italian Somaliland

June 5, 7950


to govern themselves should be reviewed

Mr. Aklilou (Ethiopia) praised the Subcom-
mittee plan for Libya but felt it would be a mistake
to make a final decision in favor of Italy for Italian
Somaliland before the directly related question of
Eritrea was settled. There had been no change,
he said, in the clear wishes of the majority in Eri-
trea for union with Ethiopia, and he regretted that
one of several compromises advanced in the Sub-
committee for that purpose had not been accepted.
Ethiopia believed herself confronted with a two-
fold threat to her national security as a result of
any postponement of decision on Eritrea and of
satisfaction of Italy's claims in Somaliland.
Ethiopia would thus refuse to be a party to the
delimitation of the frontiers of Italian Somali-
land or to the establishment of Italian or any
other trusteeship for that territory.^^

Sir B. N. Kau (India) felt that the Subcommit-
tee's resolution was a workable, compromise plan.
He stressed the fact that a unified Libya could
take different forms. The representatives of the
inhabitants, in the constitutional assembly, would
be able to vote for federation or centralized au-
tonomy, but, in his view, it was better to encourage
initial unity, allowing the people to decide other-
wise. He suggested that the United Kingdom
delegation give f urtlier consideration to the matter
before pressing tlie amendments. He then called
attention to the Indian suggestion that it be recog-
nized that sovereignty in Italian Somaliland was
vested in her people and that the General Assembly
could amend the constitution for that territory.
These points could be included in an annex to the
trusteeship agreement for the territory.^'^

Mr. Tarchiani (Italy) indicated satisfaction
with the Subcommittee plan and asked that Ethi-
opia understand that Italy desired nothing but
harmony and jaeace between them.-' He stated
that Italy had given up her claim to Eritrea by
proposing independence for the territory. Italy
accepted the Subcommittee proposal to send a
United Nations commission to Eritrea and would
bow to the final United Nations "verdict," as Ethi-
opia should be ready to do. He wanted to reassure
Ethiopia that officials of the Italian Colonial Bu-
reau could not and would not be instruments of
aggression and that Italy did not even "dream"
of having military bases in Somaliland.

The Soviet Union's representative (Mr. Ai-uti-
unian) on November 7 described the Subcommit-
tee's plan as a majority attempt to partition the
former colonies under the guise of a compromise.
He reasserted the argument that the Soviet pro-
posals represented a fairer and more democratic
solution. He also objected to the exclusion of tlie
U.S.S.R. from participation on the council for
Libya and charged that such exclusion was de-
signed to assume more of a free hand for the
colonial-minded states interested in that area.
Mr. Arutiunian felt that the United Kingdom

amendments to the Libyan draft were further evi-
dence of that country's intention to dismember the
territoi-y. He also feared attempted perpetuation
of Italian control in Somaliland and felt that Ethi-
opia's claims and interests in Eritrea had not been
given sufficient recognition, though that could be
adjusted under a trusteeship for Eritrea.'^

Mr. Belaunde strongly supported the Subcom-
mittee proposals, holding as regards Libya, that
"unity would refer to the international personality
of the state, not to the form of government it would
adopt." He believed that the United Kingdom
proposed amendments were in exact line with the
resolution, clarifying it, but that because of this
conformity, they were not necessary.

Mr. Cooper (Liberia) supportecl the plan for
Libya and the amendments proposed by the United
Kiiigdom, he accepted the idea of further investi-
gation in Eritrea but questioned the wisdom of giv-
ing Italy trusteeship in Somaliland since forcible
resistance by the inhabitants might be expected
and Ethiopia's fears should not be ignored. Mr.
Cooper then submitted several amendments '^ to
part C of the Subcommittee's draft designed to
provide a single commission to investigate and pre-
pare plans for the disposition of both Eritrea and
Italian Somaliland for consideration by the Gen-
eral Assembly.

At the Committee's 315th meeting, amendments
to the Subcommittee's draft were advanced by
Poland and China. Mr. Wierblowski (Poland)
led up to his delegation's amendments by an over-
all statement on the problem.™ He declared the
United Kingdom amendments were evidence of a
design to split up the country of Libya and to
retain their troops and military installations in
the area indefinitely. He condemned the plan to
send a commission to Eritrea as no solution and,
therefore, contrary to the Peace Treaty require-
ments which made it incumbent on the United
Nations to reach a final decision on all three former
colonies simultaneously. Although basically in
favor of the U.S.S.R. proposals, Poland wanted
above all a full and complete decision at the
current Assembly session.^'

Mr. Yu (China) supported the Subcommittee
plan generally but felt that in the section on Libya
the relations between the commissioner and the
administering authorities should be more clearly
defined. The Chinese amendments ^- to part A of
the Subcommittee draft, accordingly, sought in-
clusion of language which would —

1. have the commissioner prepare his annual report to
the United Nations "in cooperation with its administering
authorities" as well as in consultation with the council; |

2. provide that the administering authorities carry out "
certain steps toward the establishment of self-government

in the territory "in cooperation with the Commissioner."

Fawzi Bey (Egypt) defended the plan for both
a commissioner and a council for Libya, deplored
the suggested United Kingdom amendments, and
urged the Committee to deal with each of the three
former colonies under separate resolutions.^


Department of State Bulletin

At the meetings on November 9, other delega-
tions connncnted on tlie proposals before them.
Mr. Jumali (Iraq) arj^ued against singling out
the minorities in Libya for special representation
on the council since tlicy slioukl be treated as "an
integral part of the population." He also said
tliat Iraq would not foel justified in voting for a
trusteeship in Somalihmd b\' Italy alone; for the
sake of unity and harmony, a formula should bo
found wliercby Italy would be "helped by other
states." ^^ Mr. Lopez (Philippines) urged dele-
tion of that plirase in the section on Somaliland
which would make it possible for the General As-
sembly after 10 years to decide that Italian Somal-
iland was not ready for independence. He also
suggested the possibility of including the Indian
proposal for an annexure on "constitutional guar-
antees" for Italian Somaliland as an integral part
of the resolution. He further counseled creation
of an advisory council for Somaliland, with Ethi-
opian participation, to assist and advise Italy and
to be directly responsible to the Trusteeship Coun-
cil and the General Assembly .^^ Mr. Bebler (Yu-
goslavia ) stated that his delegation would oppose
the Subcommittee's recommendations for Libya
and Italian Somaliland and would support the
corresponding parts of the Soviet draft. Yugo-
slavia would, however, not oppose provision for
further study of the Eritrean question.^^

Mr. Couve de Murville (France), after restat-
ing his delegation's acceptance of the principle of
independence for Libya, still believed it would be
best not to establish a precise date. In any case,
he believed the proposed transitional period of
2 yeai-s was too short. As for Libyan unity, this
should be left for the inhabitants themselves to
determine and to work out ; France saw nothing
objectionable in the United Kingdom amendments
on this point.^' Mr. Martin (Canada) expressed
support for the Subcommittee plan with the
United Kingdom amendments on Libya, while Mr.
Dejany (Saudi Arabia) was opposed to those
amendments which he believed could, if adopted,

Slace certain obstacles in the path of unity.^^ His
elegation was also dissatisfied with the plan for
Italian Somaliland as it stood. Mr. Malik (Leb-
anon), endorsing the Subcommittee draft with
respect to Libya and Eritrea, offered an additional
paragraph on Somaliland which ]>rovided for an
advisory council (preferably of five-member na-
tions) to aid and advise the administering au-
thority and with headquarters at Mogadiscio.
Members of the advisory council not members of
the Trusteeship Council would have the I'ight vo
participate without vote in any discussion of that

After further discussion, during which the
Ukrainian and Byelorussian delegates praised the
Soviet draft, and Mr. Eban (Israel) urged reten-
tion of the provision for representation of the
minorities on tlie Libyan council, the chairman
declared the Committee's general debate closed.

Voting in Committee I

On November J), of the six draft resolutions sub-
mitted to the Committee ])rior to establishment of
Subcommittee 1" that of India had been with-
drawn, while Pakistan. Iraq, and the United States
agreed to i)osti)oiie consideration of their original
drafts until after consideration of the Subcommit-
tee plan. Liberia and the U.S.S.K. wanted their
l)roposals considered before the Subcommittee
draf t.^" The Soviet draft was first put to the vote.
The two sentences of the first paragraph (on
Libya) were rejected by 24 to 20, with 8 absten-
tions, and 31 to 11, with 11 abstentions, respec-
tively. Paragraph 2 (on Eritrea) was defeated
by 33 to 6, with 15 abstentions. The third para-
graph (on Somaliland) was rejected by 34 to 13,
with 9 abstentions; the entire vote was by show
of hands. The Chairman stated that since all
three parts had been rejected it was unnecessary to
vote on the pi"oposal as a whole.'"'

The Committee then voted on the preamble and
the first sentence of the Liberian proposal." When
that part was rejected by a vote of 27 against, 21
in favor, and 5 abstentions, the Liberian delegate
agreed that a vote on the remainder of the draft
was unnecessary.


The Committee was now ready to vote on the
various sections of the Subcommittee draft and
on amendments to that draft. The preamble was
quickly adopted by 54 to 1, with 1 abstention.
Section A of the draft (on Libya) was next ap-

Sir B. N. Ran (India) had introduced an amend-
ment to paragraph 1 suggesting three changes, as
follows: insertion of "the territories of" before
"Cyrenaica, Tripolitania, and the Fezzan"; re-
placement of "be established as" by "shall be con-
stituted into"; and substitution of "united inde-
pendent sovereign state" for "single independent
sovereign state." *^ He explained that the changes
were designed to make clear the real intention of
the Subcommittee, namely that the three terri-
tories of Libya should be brought together, into a
single political unit but that the form of unitary
government should be left to the Libyan national
assembly to decide. Mr. INIalik (Lebanon) consid-
ered "constituted" a mere drafting change bring-
ing the English into conformity with the French
version of the Subcoimnittce's paragraph. He
wondered whether "united" placed greater weight
on the idea of a federal form of government than
the word "single," but Sir B. N. Ran stated that
he had no intention of favoring any particular
kind of solution.

Mr. McNeil (U.K.) agreed to withdraw the

froposed amendments to section A in favor of the
ndian amendment. He went on to say :

The Committee will, I know, understand that, as I have
already more than once attempted to point out, my Govern-
ment, as the administering authority, has always contem-

June 5. 1950


plated certain steps which had to be taken on the road
towards the sovereignty of Libya before full unity and
independence in that territory could be achieved. As I
have already said — I hope quite precisely — we felt that
we should, as events permitted, invest sovereignty in
Cyrenaica and that thereafter, again as events permitted,
we should press ahead to endow Tripolitania with a meas-
ure of internal autonomy comparable with that which
exists in Cyrenaica. Indeed, as I remember telling the
Committee, we have already started planning for that
situation. As has been plain from the beginning, and as
the representative of the Australian delegation has just
pointed out, neither of these events conflicted with the
intention of the Subcommittee or with the intention of
the Committee as a whole in regard to the independence
and sovereignty of the territory of Libya.

Our fear, however, was that the resolution as it emerged
from the Subcommittee did not literally provide room for
such steps, althovigh, as Mr. Hood has pointed out, it was
quite plain from the discussions in the Subcommittee
that such steps were accepted by a majority of the mem-
bers as necessary and practical. I should not want, there-
fore, to be reproached at a later date or to run any chance
of being accused of ill faith through any ambiguity in the
resolution upon which we are about to vote or, to be equally
honest, through any vagueness as to the intentions of the
United Kingdom as administering power. Obviously the
administration must continue to discharge its responsibili-
ties in the period between the adoption of this resolution
and the granting of Libyan sovereignty and independence,
but the whole Committee must clearly understand that
the obligations we have do not extend beyond that period.
With the creation of Libyan independence our role as
administrator is finished.

The revised Indian amendment was then voted
upon by roll call. It now reads : "That Libya, com-
prising Cyrenaica, Tripolitania, and the Fezzan
shall be constituted into an independent sovereign
state." The amendment was approved by 51 to 0,
with 7 abstentions.^* Paragraph 1 (sec. A) as
thus amended was adopted by 56 to 0, with 2

A Polish amendment to paragraph 2, designed
to bring about Libya's independence by January
1, 1951, was rejected by 25 to 15, with 11 absten-
tions. The Subcommittee's own paragraph 2, set-
ting January 1, 1952, as the date for independence,
was approved by 54 to 0, with 2 abstentions.
Paragraph 3 (on the determination of Libya's
form of government by a national assembly) was
adopted by 56 to 0, with 1 abstention. Paragraph
4 (creitting the office of a commissioner and a
council) was agreed to by 44 to 6, with 6 absten-
tions. Paragraph 5 (on the commissioner's annual
report) was adopted by 47 to 0, with 11 absten-
tions. Previously, a Chinese amendment to that
paragraph, designed to have the commissioner
prepare his report "in cooperation with its
(Libya's) administering authorities," was rejected
by 18 to 18, with 22 abstentions.

A Polish amendment to paragi-aph 6 (designed
to replace the United States, France, and the
United Kingdom on the council by three small
states) was revised by the Polish delegate when
Sweden, Mexico, and Lebanon successively indi-
cated that they would prefer not to serve. As
revised, the Polish amendment suggested Czecho-
slovakia, Haiti, and the Ukraine and was rejected

by 35 to 5, with 18 abstentions. Thereafter, para-
graph 6(a) of the Subcommittee draft (on gov-
ernmental membership of the council) was
adopted by 46 to 7, with 5 abstentions. The first
part of paragraph 6(b) (providing representa-
tion for each of the three parts of Libya on the
council) was approved by 53 to 0, with 6 absten-

Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 22, Apr- Jun 1950) → online text (page 74 of 116)