One of the most disturbing aspects of the Fourth Session of the Assembly was the outcome of the discussions in the Trusteeship Committee. The satisfaction which has been felt over the voting on such matters as the Soviet peace resolution, atomic energy and conventional armaments must be somewhat diminished by consideration of the voting in the Fourth Committee. Here our friends have been dangerously divided, and the Soviet Union has been able to sit back relatively quietly and exploit this situation. There has, of course, been a strong difference of opinion between the Administering Authorities on the one hand and, on the other hand, those countries who are particularly critical of "colonialism". This difference has now become much more serious, and the position is such that this issue might assume greater importance. The growing seriousness seems to be due to the increasing pretensions of the Trusteeship Committee and the anxiety over these pretentions on the part of the Administering Authorities.

This dangerous cleavage is one which Canada cannot ignore. We have in the past intervened as little as possible in trusteeship questions on the grounds that we were not directly concerned and had no special contribution to make. In the past Session, however, our representative played a more active role in the Committee. We have been quite properly reticent about speaking too much on a subject of which we have no direct experience. At times there has been a suggestion of pharisaism, however, in our explanations, the implication being that the possession of trusteeships is a sin in which we have not indulged. Our experience on the Security Council has taught us that we can play a useful role in matters which do not directly concern us and of which we have no special knowledge. If the Canadian representative on the Security Council can play the major role in securing agreement in Indonesia, it is difficult for us to argue that we can make no contribution to the controversy over Tanganyika. In the Security Council we have now acquired experience, and we have also acquired a reputation. The fact that we have never been implicated in colonial responsibilities is a fact which ought not to be counted to us either as a virtue or lack of virtue. The same is true of the absence of an important colour problem in Canada. Nevertheless, non-European peoples have shown some evidence of looking to us as more objective than those countries which are believed to oppress non-European peoples either inside or outside of their own borders, III addition to this reputation for objectivity, Canadians have also acquired a reputation for being good negotiators. In particular they are expected not to put forward strong views of their own, but to act as honest brokers, seeking to reconcile the views of other parties.

Now that we have left the Security Council we ought to find new scope for our talents. We are not members of the Trusteeship Council, and in view of the strong permanent Commonwealth representation on that body, we are unlikely ever to be elected. This conflict over non self-governing territories, however, exists within the Commonwealth, and a Commonwealth Conference such as that to take place at Colombo might provide an opportunity for seeking some understanding. The seriousness of the problem cannot be under-estimated. It is the subject on which the countries of the Commonwealth are most divided and it could provide the seeds of discord which would lead to disruption.

The primary necessity seems to be some kind of understanding between India and the United Kingdom. Of all the countries which have raised their voice in favour of increasing the obligations of the Administering Authorities, India and Pakistan are perhaps the most honest and responsible. It is difficult to see what kind of agreement can be reached at this stage between India, Pakistan and Ceylon on the one hand, and the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa on the other. In the absence of agreement, however, there might at least be greater understanding. I may by quite wrong, but I have the impression that the Indians and the British have never really thrashed out these matters frankly. It is true that the Indians and their friends have supported demands which are entirely contrary to our principles of responsible government and which the Administering Authorities could not accept. Surely, however, some, at least, of the objections could be explained to the Indians and compromises worked out which would assure the Indians that there was no interference with the progress of non-self-governing peoples to independence. What I fear is that the British, unless the attitude in Whitehall has changed since I left London, still look upon all critics of their colonial policy as tiresome and ignorant people to whom it is scarcely worth while explaining the facts of life.

Under these circumstances the situation would seem to be right for some kind of Canadian initiative at Colombo. This is a Commonwealth problem which cannot be ignored and there is really no other disinterested member of the Commonwealth than ourselves. The Australians and New Zealanders. although they themselves have trusteeship responsibilities, have, because of their general inclinations, been in the past able to promote compromise. Unfortunately, however, the new Governments in both those countries may be expected to be much more rather than much less adamant than the United Kingdom.

The differences of opinion on trusteeship matters are not confined to any one particular issue, although the focus of the controversy seems to be the Special Committee which examines the information submitted by the Administering Authorities on Non Self-Governing Territories. The functions of this Committee were so broadened at the past Session that the Special Committee is approaching a similar supervisory status with respect to Non Self-Governing Territories as the Trusteeship Council has with respect to Trust Territories. This extension of jurisdiction has the support of a large majority of the United Nations Members and of world opinion but it is rejected unequivocally by the United Kingdom. Representa- tives of the United Kingdom have stated that their government will not comply with a number of the recommendations of the General Assembly. Despite this sharp cleavage, the declared objectives of both the Administering Authorities and the United Kingdom are the same; the development, as rapidly as possible, of the NonSelf-Governing Territories to self-government and independence. If the Administering Authorities are making an honest effort in this direction-and I believe they are-they need not fear examination and supervision of what is being done, provided criticism of their administration is constructive and responsible. The problem, then, is to ensure objective examination and supervision of Non-SelfGoverning Territories. This might be accomplished by a demonstration of good faith and a demand for reciprocity in the same direction. For example, the Administering Authorities might agree to accept supervision and supply the fullest possible information on Non-Self-Governing Territories provided that certain conditions concerning the use of this information and the manner of supervision were fulfilled. One condition might be that the information should be given exhaustive study (and not as at present superficial study) by a reconstituted non-partisan Special Committee of experts on colonial administration. Another condition might be that on recommendations related to supervision a two-thirds majority be required for adoption.

Attached for reference, if you should wish to make use of it at Colombo, are:

(1) A summary of the principal issues considered in the Trusteeship Committee of the Assembly, on which there were strong differences of opinion among Commonwealth countries;†

(2) The text of an article in The Economist of December 3 entitled "Africa at the Assembly", in which the attitude of the United Kingdom Government is criticised and several compromise suggestions are put forward;†

(3) An article by James Reston in the New York Times of December I 1 pointing out the dangerous breach which may develop between the Administering Powers on the one hand and the United States along with the non-European countries.†

J,W. HOLMES