You have doubtless already seen the press communiqué issued on October 26
with regard to this proposed meeting.43 A copy is
transmitted herewith for your convenience.
[Enclosure]
Summary of Discussion With Representatives of the
Other American Republics
Second Meeting at Blair House to Discuss
International Organization, Thursday, October 26, 1944
The Acting Secretary began the meeting by giving a brief speech of
welcome (see attached proposed draft).44 He then introduced the American Ambassadors45 present as well as Admiral Willson46 and General Strong.47 He
asked Admiral Willson for his comment on our naval battle against the
Japanese.48 Admiral Willson
said that our success on the Pacific had been, according to the Navy’s
radio reports, even greater than the newspaper accounts indicated. The
Acting Secretary then introduced Ambassador Harriman,49 who sketched in the background of the communiqué
issued following the Churchill-Stalin meeting50 and indicated the achievements of that
meeting. He also commented on the important and useful work which the
Ambassadors of the other American republics in Moscow had been doing in
interpreting to the Soviet officials the principles underlying
inter-American cooperation.
The Acting Secretary then remarked that he and his colleagues in the
Department were eager to hear any expressions of views from the
Ambassadors on the Dumbarton document, although he realized that they
probably had not had time to receive any comments from their
governments. Stating that he understood Ambassador of Uruguay wished to
make some remarks, he then called upon Señor Blanco, who made the
personal statement transcribed in the attached memorandum.51 Following this, the Acting
Secretary asked Ambassador Castillo Nájera, as the senior among the
Ambassadors present, whether he would like to make any comments.
[Page 938]
Señor Castillo Nájera inquired about the relation of the present World
Court,52 which is linked by its statute
to the League of Nations, to the proposal regarding a court of
international justice. Mr. Hackworth53 in his reply said that of
course it was recognized that the present court still legally existed.
He said that we considered the present statute in general well thought
out, and that moreover a body of law had already been built up using it
as a basis. It was, therefore, our view that as few changes should be
made in the statute as possible. The changes might be made either by
amending the existing document or by using it as a basis for a new
statute. He pointed out that the London committee54 had recommended cutting the Court to nine
members, but that we did not like this idea. We believed that the Court
could be cut up in three or five panels. Ambassador Castillo Nájera then
asked about the proposed location of the Court, to which the Acting
Secretary said that we felt that it should return to The Hague.
Ambassador Castillo Nájera then raised the question whether it would be
better to have just the one Court, possibly with special chambers, or
whether it would not be wise to have regional courts at various
appropriate bases which would be immediately available to consider all
international questions and which would be able to decide international
matters, subject to the right of appeal of either party to the
international court as a supreme tribunal. Mr. Hackworth commented that
in our view the disputants would have the right to bring any controversy
before a panel of the Court, or the full Court, as the disputants might
decide. He thought that the panels would be able to travel to the
different regions to hold sessions when necessary. It was consequently
our present view that one court with such chambers would be more
satisfactory than a system of regional courts under the world court. The
Acting Secretary said that the Ambassador had expressed a very
interesting thought, and he believed that the Ambassador should discuss
this matter further with Mr. Hackworth.
Ambassador Turbay then asked regarding voting on the proposed Court. Mr.
Hackworth commented that the groups at Dumbarton Oaks had considered it
to be presumptuous for representatives of four nations to propose
specific changes in a statute which had been signed by so many more, and
that therefore they had not undertaken to do
[Page 939]
so; in his opinion this should be done by
representatives of the signatories.
The Acting Secretary asked whether anybody had any questions to ask or
suggestions to offer. Ambassador Escalante said that he hoped to have
his instructions by the end of next week. After some discussion the
Acting Secretary suggested that another meeting be held week after next,
November 9, and at the suggestion of the Mexican Ambassador it was
agreed that the meeting should be held at 3:00 p.m. in the Department of
State. Ambassador Escalante suggested that an agenda be prepared.
Ambassador Blanco then suggested, and Ambassador Castillo Nájera
concurred, that the Dumbarton Oaks draft might be considered point by
point. The Acting Secretary remarked that he thought that an excellent
proposal, and said that an agenda would be prepared for each forthcoming
meeting.
The Acting Secretary then called upon Admiral Willson and General Strong
to express their views regarding security problems. Admiral Willson said
that security ultimately depended on force. He said that in our view
there should be no international police force but that the Dumbarton
Oaks proposals provided that the members of the organization should each
furnish quotas which should be immediately available. He pointed out
that the Soviet delegates had wanted an international air force, but had
been impressed by our arguments regarding the practical difficulty of
such a scheme. With respect to the regional aspects of security, he said
that, personally, he thought it possible that the maintenance of
practical security in certain regions, as for example the Western
Hemisphere, could be accomplished by action within the region.
General Strong then said that he had additional comments to offer. He
said that with regard to hemisphere security, four major questions were
to be borne in mind:
- (1)
- The quotas which were to be furnished by the members to the
organization.
- (2)
- Regulation of armaments.
- (3)
- The manufacture of and trade in arms.
- (4)
- Regional arrangements.
With regard to the first-named point, he said that this involved not only
the forces but also the facilities to be furnished. In regard to the
second and third points, he emphasized that they were not to be faced in
the forthcoming conference. With regard to the fourth point, he pointed
out that it involved such questions as the future of the Pan American
Union and Inter-American Defense Board,55 but
[Page 940]
added that since this was
political in character he would not comment further.
