740.0011 Moscow/10–1843
Summary of the Proceedings of the Eighth Session of the Tripartite Conference, October 26, 1943, 4 p.m.86
At the opening of the session Mr. Molotov suggested that Item 1 of the Agenda dealing with the Soviet proposals for measures to shorten the war be considered at a restricted session on the following day.
Mr. Eden suggested that since the questions of Turkey and Sweden would be discussed and would be less military than political he did not see the necessity for a restricted session.
Mr. Molotov replied that he understood from General Ismay and General Deane that there would be other matters relating to military plans discussed also and therefore proposed the restricted meeting.
The Conference then turned to consideration of Items 17 and 12 together, the first part of which dealt with the British proposals; concerning general as against separate areas of responsibility in Europe.
[Page 638]Mr. Eden said that he had little to add to the proposal which he had submitted to the Conference on this question (copy attached)87 but that perhaps the Secretary would have some remarks.
The Secretary then said that in its general approach to all these questions the Government of the United States believed that the first step was to agree upon and adopt a broad set of principles capable of world-wide application which would then guide our three countries in our consideration of separate and specific questions, of which the British proposal was one. He said that the United States Government had not sought to select any particular area or question for special consideration before the general principles were agreed on, and that he personally felt very strongly that the only orderly and reasonable approach to the entire question of international collaboration and the creation of a stable and lasting basis for world peace was to take the general questions first. He added that in the absence of any proclaimed set of general principles he felt that he had little of a specific nature to add to the present question under discussion and therefore deferred to Mr. Molotov and Mr. Eden for their advice.
Mr. Molotov said that he did not quite clearly understand the situation: Was the question general as against separate areas of responsibility to be discussed or was it not?
The Secretary said that he had merely sought to present the view that he felt it of great importance that we should reach a common understanding on the basic principles to be applied in the solution of all these individual questions.
Mr. Molotov said that he had no objection to discussing this particular question at this time and if he correctly understood the Secretary he was willing to leave it to the British and Soviet representatives to express their views.
The Secretary then added that he knew that the United States Government, in accordance with general considerations which he had set forth above, very much hoped that no decision would be taken at this Conference in favor of separate areas of responsibility.
Mr. Eden in discussing the draft of the British proposal said that he had attached special importance to points one and four dealing with the rights of peoples to choose their own form of government and expressing opposition to the principle of separate areas of responsibility. He said the other two points, two and three, were not so important. He added that although his proposal dealt specifically with Europe he felt the same principle should be applied everywhere.
Mr. Molotov stated that he knew of no reason to believe that the Soviet Government would be interested in separate zones or spheres [Page 639] of influence and he could guarantee that there was no disposition on the part of the Soviet Government to divide Europe into such separate zones. He observed that although Mr. Eden had said these principles should be applied universally there was no indication to that effect in the draft, and he added that if it was to relate to the world as a whole it might be better to consider points one and four of the British proposal as possibly falling within the scope of the Four-Nation Declaration.
The Secretary and Mr. Molotov [Eden?] voiced no objection to the consideration of these two points when the Four-Nation Declaration came before this session.
Mr. Molotov then proposed that the Conference consider the question of confederations on which the Soviet Government had prepared a statement. He then read his statement and criticized the idea of planning schemes of federation at this time and stated that the Soviet Government considered the active consideration or encouragement of such schemes as premature and even harmful not only to the interests of the small countries but to the general question of European stability. He said, however, that the Soviet Government would be willing to consider again at some later date this question in the light of post-war experience and under conditions existing then (copy of Soviet statement attached88).
Mr. Eden said that it was hardly necessary to state that the British Government was not interested in creating a cordon sanitaire against the Soviet Union but was very much interested in creating one against Germany. He said that there was great force in Mr. Molotov’s argument and he would not therefore insist.
The Secretary stated that without going deeply into the details of the matter in any way, he wished to state that his Government had for some years consistently upheld the principle of the right of small nations to take such measures as they considered desirable for the welfare of their people, particularly in an economic sphere, provided such measures did not affect the larger questions of peace and security.
Mr. Molotov said he understood from the statements of the Secretary and Mr. Eden that his suggestion had met with no objection.
Mr. Eden observed that in his opinion it was largely a question of time and there might be further exchanges on this subject at some later date.
After an intermission Mr. Molotov proposed that we consider the draft of the Four-Nation Declaration as prepared by the Drafting Committee and asked for a report from that Committee.
Mr. Hackworth said that the Drafting Committee had introduced two or three changes of an unimportant character in the text, and that [Page 640] since it had not been possible to agree on a title it was merely being presented as a declaration since the Committee was not authorized to deal with the question of the number of powers which were to participate. He added that he understood Mr. Vyshinski, the Soviet member of the Committee, had a number of observations to make.
Mr. Vyshinski said that there were a number of points in regard to wording which he felt should be decided by the Conference. One related to Article 5 concerning the difference between “joint action” and “with a view to joint action”, the latter being preferred by the British and American representatives on that Committee. In Article 6, Mr. Vyshinski continued, he had proposed in place of the words “following the defeat of the enemy” the substitution of “after the end of the war”. After some discussion on this point Mr. Molotov agreed to accept Article 5 in the United States version and it was agreed by the Conference to substitute “after the termination of hostilities” for the words “following the defeat of the enemy”.
The Secretary raised the question of the participation of China as an original signatory which had been left open in the previous meeting on the subject.
Mr. Molotov then announced that the Soviet Government had no objection to the inclusion of China as an original signatory, but since he was most anxious to have some declaration signed and announced before the Conference broke up he was doubtful whether from a technical point of view it would be possible for the Chinese Ambassador here to receive the necessary powers before the end of the Conference.
The Secretary said he would undertake to communicate the text to the Chinese Government and he was convinced that the necessary powers would be forthcoming to the Ambassador here for China to sign before the end of the Conference.
Mr. Molotov accepted the Secretary’s suggestion but expressed the strong hope that there would be no delay which would interfere with the publication by the Conference of the contents of the Declaration.
The Secretary then said that he had thought of an alternative method of ensuring China’s participation as an original signatory but he was merely putting it out as a possibility as he was optimistic that the Chinese Ambassador here would receive the necessary powers in time. This alternative method was to permit China to sign as an original member within ten days following the close of the Conference.
Mr. Molotov then said he considered that the Conference was in complete agreement and authorized the Secretary to submit the text to the Chinese Government on behalf of the Conference.
[Page 641]Mr. Molotov said he would like clarification on a number of points, in particular the intent of Article 6 providing that none of the signatories would use their armed forces within the territory of another state except for the purposes envisaged by the Declaration. He particularly inquired as to what special cases the Secretary might have in mind.
The Secretary then said that the general idea of this article was that it was in the nature of a self-denying act on the part of the large nations to demonstrate to and allay the suspicions of the smaller nations in regard to the use of their superior force.
Mr. Molotov then inquired whether this would apply to the establishment of naval and air bases which might result from agreements between one of the signatories and other states.
Mr. Eden also stated that his Government had examined this article very attentively with this in mind but had perceived no objection because it was inconceivable that any of the powers represented here would use their armed forces or establish bases in the territory of other states except for the purposes envisaged by the Declaration.
Mr. Molotov then inquired whether this article would require that there be prior consultation between the signatories before any one of the states could conclude an agreement with any other power for the establishment of bases within the territory of the latter.
Mr. Eden replied that he thought that that was the case but that agreement was not required.
Mr. Molotov then suggested that a special committee be created to study this particular question.
The Secretary inquired precisely what Mr. Molotov had in mind in regard to Article 6.
Mr. Molotov replied that he wanted to be sure that in the light of Article 6 no obstacles to the future collaboration of our three Governments might result from agreements which one or another of our Governments might have for mutual assistance and the establishment of bases with other countries.
The Secretary then stated that he thought that Article 6 could not be taken apart from the rest of the Declaration; that the intent and purpose of the Declaration was clearly set forth in all its articles; that it was designed to ensure that the signatories would act together in matters relating to surrender and disarmament of our respective enemies and that such measures would be taken as might be necessary to ensure observation of the terms of surrender and the other aims as set forth in the Declaration. He said that in addition the Declaration consisted of a general set of principles dealing with the whole approach to the question of international collaboration [Page 642] and that he felt that every consideration was sufficiently taken care of in the text.
Mr. Molotov answered that he was happy to hear Mr. Hull’s remarks and was satisfied with his explanation with regard to Article 6. He then went on to say that he did not quite understand what was meant by “existing relations” in Article 8, as to whether it applied to both published and unpublished documents setting forth those relations.
The Secretary said it was his understanding that the word “existing” no longer appeared in the revised draft.
Mr. Molotov replied that notwithstanding he still wished to know whether this referred to public agreements and to agreements which had not been published.
The Secretary said that the only purpose of the article was to reassure any one of the signatories which was not at war with a country at war with the other two.
[Mr.] Molotov expressed some doubt as to the exact meaning and even value of the article.
The Secretary then said he desired to suggest that it be stricken out in its entirety. This was accepted by the Conference.
Mr. Molotov then said he considered that the Conference had definitely agreed upon the text of the Declaration and he had only one more observation to make. He proposed that a resolution be adopted which was not to be included in the Declaration itself but was to relate to Item 4. This resolution suggested that the United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union appoint representatives to a committee to work out jointly the preliminary questions connected with establishing the general international organization referred to in Article 4. He added that this committee could meet in any one of the three capitals that was desired and that if necessary other members of the United Nations could be invited to participate.
The Secretary said he thought that this was a most interesting suggestion on the part of Mr. Molotov and a really practical step in the direction of international cooperation, adding that he personally felt, without examining the resolution in detail, that the best results would be obtained by having the work of the committee informal and not in the early stage associating other members of the United Nations since that might only lead to rivalries and jealousies.
Mr. Eden expressed general approval of Mr. Molotov’s suggestion and it was agreed to accept the suggested resolution at another session.
Mr. Molotov said he was pleased to note that both the Secretary and Mr. Eden looked with favor upon his proposal.
The Conference then adjourned, to reconvene tomorrow at 4 p.m. in restricted session to consider Item 1 on the Agenda.