Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1944, General, Volume I

Lot 60–D 224, Box 56: D.O./Conv.A/JSC Mins. 1–12

Informal Minutes of Meeting No. 12 of the Joint Steering Committee Held at 3 p.m., September 9, at Dumbarton Oaks

Washington, September 9, 1944, 3 p.m.

[Extract]

Present:	Sir Alexander Cadogan and Mr. Jebb of the British group;
	Ambassador Gromyko, Mr. Sobolev, and Mr. Berezhkov of the Soviet group;
	Mr. Stettinius, Mr. Dunn, and Mr. Pasvolsky of the American group.
	Mr. Hiss also present, as secretary.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

With respect to Chapter VI (The Council), there was considerable discussion of the bracketed phrase “due regard being paid to the military contribution of members of the organization toward the maintenance of international peace and security”.⁷³ Ambassador Gromyko said that he felt that, of course, the contribution of members of the Organization toward its activities should be taken into account in the election of the non-permanent members of the Council. However, he wondered whether it would be advisable to make special reference to this. It seemed to him as though it might appear to be a form of pressure on the Assembly.

Sir Alexander Cadogan then suggested that the word “military” might be eliminated from the clause under reference and that there might be added at the end of the clause the words “and towards the other purposes of the organization”. He said that he felt that certain of the other powers (which, he observed in passing, are not so small as to be approximately covered by the usual phrase “smaller powers”) ought to be given a preferred position with respect to membership on the Council as compared with powers which will make no contribution to the Organization at all. Mr. Dunn thought that this subject might very properly be taken up at the general conference but he felt that it would not be appropriate to make any provision to this effect at the present stage. He said that such a provision would, in effect, set up three or four categories of powers—the great powers, those who made special contribution, and the remainder. He felt that after all the references which had been made to the principle of sovereign equality a provision of this kind would be most unfortunate. By the special powers conferred upon the four large nations there has already been set up one exception to the principle of equal membership. He recognized that the provision would have attraction for some states and he thought that in time some such demarcation might prove to be practicable but he did not think that at this time a provision of this kind would meet with general acceptance.

Mr. Jebb made the point that the British proposal would favorably influence the leaders of the other states. He felt that it is these leaders whose support we most wish to insure. Mr. Dunn still felt that the inclusion of such a provision as a part of the general impression we now desire to create would be most unfortunate.

Mr. Pasvolsky remarked that it had been pointed out in the discussions of the formulation groups that the provision would have the effect of making it impossible for some states ever to serve on the Council. Mr. Jebb thought that such a result might be a good thing but Sir Alexander said that in his opinion the proposal would not necessarily have that result. He said that it would simply mean that there would not be automatic rotation throughout the entire list of other states. He felt that the larger states among those not having permanent representation on the Council would be needed on the Council and that it was desirable that they should in fact serve more frequently on the Council than some of the smaller states. He felt that the provision does not exclude any state from membership on the Council in as much as it simply provides that due regard be paid to the contributions made by members to the general activities of the Organization. Mr. Pasvolsky observed that such a result would probably work out in practice in any event. He pointed out that some states had never served on the Council of the League whereas other states had served a number of terms. Ambassador Gromyko said that the proposal was an entirely new point and that his group had not studied it thoroughly. Mr. Stettinius said that he would have to reserve his position and that he would want to speak about the matter to Secretary Hull. Mr. Dunn and Mr. Pasvolsky observed that the changes which had been made in the clause by Sir Alexander had helped it considerably but that they still had serious doubt as to the wisdom of including any provision on this subject in the present document.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73. Reference is made to the sentence with respect to the composition of the Council: “The assembly should elect the six states to fill the non-permanent seats, [due regard being paid to the military contribution of members of the organization towards the maintenance of international peace and security].”