Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1943, General, Volume I

840.50/1899c

Memorandum of Discussion in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of State (Acheson), May 4, 1943⁴⁷

May 4, 1943

The British Ambassador, the Soviet Ambassador, and the Chinese Ambassador met with Mr. Acheson to discuss further the Draft Agreement for the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. Mr. Liu Chieh, Minister and Counselor of the Chinese Embassy, Mr. Guy Thorold, First Secretary of the British Embassy, and Mr. Roy Veatch of the Department of State also were present.

The following is a resume of the ensuing discussion:

1. Proposals with respect to the nationality of Deputy Directors General assigned to the European and Far Eastern regions.

Mr. Acheson first distributed copies of a letter of April 23, 1943 from Ambassador Wei to Mr. Acheson proposing an agreement with respect to the appointment of a Deputy Director General of Chinese nationality for the Far Eastern region similar to the proposed arrangement for the appointment of Deputy Directors General of British and Soviet nationality when Deputies are appointed for the European region.

Mr. Acheson then said that the whole problem had been discussed with the Secretary of State and other officers of the Department of State and that the following alternative statement had been drafted for the consideration of representatives of the other three Powers:

“It was agreed that because of the interest and responsibility of the governments represented on the Central Committee in the work of the Administration, it would be natural and desirable that in the appointment of Deputy Directors General nationals of these countries would be included in their number. When Deputies are assigned responsibilities and duties in connection with the Administration’s work in the European region and in the Far Eastern region, it is anticipated that among their number would be included those who are nationals of those countries represented on the Central Committee which lie within those respective regions. Other Deputies might be similarly engaged or might work on matters of a more general nature. While recognizing that all such appointments and assignments were the function of the Director General, the Powers engaged in these discussions were agreed in recommending to him such arrangements and in using their best efforts in helping to establish them.”

Mr. Acheson explained that he had borrowed some of the wording originally proposed by Ambassador Litvinov and had made an attempt to draft a statement in a form which would meet the Chinese point of view as well as that of the Soviet Government.

Ambassador Litvinov asked if it might be possible to have all of the Deputy Directors General mentioned in this statement appointed subject to the unanimous approval of the Central Committee since the Director General himself must be nominated by unanimous vote of the Central Committee.

In reply Mr. Acheson referred to the discussion on March 24 when it was decided to drop that arrangement and to cover the matter by a statement in the minutes setting forth the position of the four Powers. He said that under the wording which he now suggested, the Minutes would provide for a recommendation to the Director General on behalf of the four Powers, but not formally through the Central Committee. He assumed that the Director General would quite naturally consult with the Governments involved with respect to the qualifications of the individuals whom he might wish to appoint under this arrangement.

Lord Halifax said that if he understood the proposal properly, it was not a bad compromise between (a) complete authority and independence on the part of the Director General in choosing his staff and (b) recognition of the importance of inclusion of nationals of the Powers represented on the Central Committee in the appointment of regional Deputies. He said that his Government had been opposed to any arrangement based on the latter consideration, but he said that he could now accept the proposal put forward by Mr. Acheson.

Ambassador Litvinov and Ambassador Wei said that the formula proposed by Mr. Acheson was quite satisfactory and that they could accept it without any further reference to their Governments.

2. Chairmanship of the Committee on Supplies of the Council.

Mr. Acheson referred to the discussion in his office in which representatives of the three Ambassadors participated, on April 12,⁴⁸ with respect to the chairmanship of the Committee on Supplies. The three Ambassadors said that they had been authorized to join with Mr. Acheson in the statement proposed at that time, namely that the four Powers will use their best endeavors to secure the selection of a Canadian as chairman of the Committee on Supplies.

3. Signature of the Draft Agreement and attendance at the proposed conference.

a. All of those present said they were now in a position to accept, for their Governments, the change in the second paragraph of the Preamble suggested by Mr. Acheson on April 12, thus opening up signature of the Agreement to Nations associated with the United Nations in this war. It was also agreed that the Draft Agreement should be placed before the United Nations, now including Bolivia, and the eleven Nations associated with them in the war (Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela, Egypt, Iceland, Iran, and Liberia) and that all of these should be invited to attend the proposed conference and to sign the Agreement.

b. Mr. Acheson explained that a question had arisen regarding the relationship of French participation in the conference and in signature of the Agreement to the wording of Article II and the Preamble. He recognized the desirability of participation by an acceptable French authority and the necessity of reinserting the words “or authorities” in Article II, with reference to signature of the Agreement, and a similar modification of the Preamble if the way were to be open for signature of such authority. He suggested, however, that such a provision should be left out of the Agreement at the present time with the understanding that these changes could be inserted in the Agreement, before the date of signature, if the French National Committee and the French Civil and Military Commander in Chief in North Africa should reach agreement on a single authority which would be acceptable to the four Powers for this purpose.

Lord Halifax said that he would raise no objection to Mr. Acheson’s suggestion on the understanding that the Minutes would show that the four Governments would favor the necessary modification of the Draft Agreement so as to make possible French signature of the Agreement as soon as the desirable single French authority should be established. He suggested further, however, that the understanding in the Minutes should cover the following three points which had already been discussed by Mr. Thorold and Mr. Veatch:

a. That if the French National Committee and the French Commander in Chief in North Africa can agree upon a common delegation, such delegation will be invited to participate in the conference.

b. That if prior to the signature of the Agreement these two have established a satisfactory joint authority, the Agreement will be amended to make it possible for such authority to be a signatory thereto.

c. That if a satisfactory joint authority is established after signature of the Agreement and not before then, such authority will be admitted to membership under the terms of Article II (through action of the Central Committee if not the Council).

Ambassador Litvinov said that he had no objection in principle to the proposed agreement but that he would have to cable his Government for instructions before he could indicate his Government’s agreement. He said that his Government now has diplomatic relations with only one of these groups, the French National Committee, and that he has no instructions covering relations with both or with some joint authority established by the two. In response to a question, he said that he was not informed that his Government had taken any action with respect to joint representation of the two French groups at the scheduled United Nations Conference on Food and Agriculture⁴⁹—he recognized, however, that the matter might have been taken up with his Government in some form during his visit to Cuba.

Lord Halifax said that his Government took the position that the question of French Representation and the provisions of the Agreement with respect to signature were all bound together and that he was not in a position to agree at the moment to omitting the words “or authorities” from Article II, with reference to signature of the Agreement, unless he was satisfied that the four Powers were in agreement on a method of handling the question of French participation.

Ambassador Litvinov asked, therefore, whether it would be possible to include the term “or authorities” in Article II, with reference to signature of the Agreement, and then proceed to settle the French question separately. He said that he would prefer that procedure.

Mr. Acheson said that he thought the arrangement suggested by Lord Halifax would be satisfactory to his Government and that Ambassador Litvinov’s suggestion also would be satisfactory if the Minutes would show that an authority representing the French must be acceptable to the four Powers before it would be invited to sign the Agreement.

Lord Halifax pointed out that a specific statement in the Draft that authorities as well as governments might sign the Agreement would cover the possibility of French signature and would be satisfactory to his Government. On the other hand, if the four Governments are not in a position now to make the kind of statement suggested by Mr. Acheson (covering modification of the Agreement later so as to make it possible for a French authority to sign), it still might be possible for him to agree to omitting the words “or authorities”, with respect to signature of the Agreement, in the present Draft, if the Department of State would inform the French that arrangements would be made for French signature of the Agreement if a joint authority could be established which would be satisfactory to the four Powers for this purpose.

Ambassador Litvinov expressed the opinion that the Department of State could make such a statement on its own behalf for he could say now, without the necessity of securing further instructions from his Government, that the Soviet Government would not expect signature of the Agreement by any French authority if such authority should not be acceptable to any one of the other three Powers.

After further discussion, it was suggested that the term “authorities” be included in both Article II and the Preamble of the present Draft Agreement, with reference to signature of the Agreement, on the understanding that no authority should be invited to sign the Agreement unless such authority should be acceptable for this purpose to all of the four Governments participating in these discussions.

The British, Soviet and Chinese Ambassadors said that that formula was acceptable to them. Mr. Acheson felt, however, that he must clear with the Department of State before he would be in a position to agree fully with the proposal. He added that in the event that this formula should not be acceptable to the Department, then it would seem to be necessary to ask Ambassador Litvinov to secure instructions from his Government so that the Minutes might cover the agreement of the four Powers on the three points suggested by Lord Halifax with respect to the manner in which French participation would be made possible later.

4. Time at which Agreement will enter into force.

Ambassador Litvinov expressed the opinion that the text of the Agreement should include a definite provision for the entry into force of the Agreement. He referred to a draft provision covering this point which had been included in the earliest draft last summer but which had been dropped in subsequent drafts. That draft provided that the Agreement should enter into force provisionally upon signature and finally for each signatory when it had made the necessary arrangements for compliance with its own applicable constitutional provisions.

Mr. Acheson said that the provision to which reference was made had been dropped from the Draft last August because it was thought that the rest of the Draft had been so worded as to make it possible for the Agreement to enter into force immediately upon signature. He said that he would be quite willing, however, to include a specific provision to this effect in the Draft if that was considered desirable.

Ambassador Litvinov said that in the case of the Soviet Government ratification of a signed agreement is necessary before that Government is bound by its provisions. It would be impossible, therefore, for a representative of the Soviet Government to sign an agreement which specified that its terms would enter into force immediately upon signature.

After discussion it was agreed that the following should be added to the present text of the Draft Agreement as Article IX, subject only to drafting changes which Mr. Acheson might find advisable after consultation with the Legal Adviser of the Department of State:

“This Agreement shall enter into force with respect to each signatory on the date when the Agreement is signed by the signatory, unless otherwise specified by such signatory.”

5. Final agreement with respect to the text of the Draft Agreement.

For the purposes of the record, it was stated that all four Governments are in agreement on the changes in the Draft Agreement proposed by Mr. Acheson in the course of the discussion on March 24.

It was agreed that the Minutes of the present discussion should show that all four Powers are in complete agreement on the text of the Draft as it now stands (subject only to clearance by Mr. Acheson within the Department of State on the wording of Article II and the Preamble with respect to signature of the Agreement, and the final wording of Article IX) and that the United States Government is therefore now in a position to state to the other United Nations and Associated Nations that there is such agreement on this Draft as a desirable basis for establishing the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration.

[By a circular telegram dated May 21, 1943, 9 p.m., and by airgrams dated May 21, 1943, the chiefs of mission accredited to the Governments comprising the United Nations and the Governments associated with the United Nations in the war were informed of revisions that had been made in the draft agreement and were instructed to make necessary corrections in the copies of the agreement transmitted on April 17 and April 21.]

[Copies of the draft agreement and explanatory memorandum were transmitted by the Secretary of State on May 27, 1943, to the Consul General at Algiers for the information and attention of the Civil Administrator. One set was to be available for presentation, on further instructions, to General Giraud and another set for presentation to General de Gaulle in the event he was in Algiers on date of presentation.]

47. Copies of this memorandum were transmitted to the British, Chinese, and Soviet Ambassadors on May 7. In the letter of transmittal the approval of the Department was expressed with respect to the suggested changes in article II and the Preamble, and the wording of article IX.
48. Memorandum of discussion not printed.
49. See pp. 820 ff.