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

Lot 60–D 224, Box 54: ISO 243

Meeting in Room 285, State Department, on December 29, 3:45 p.m., Including the Secretary, Assistant Secretary Nelson A. Rockefeller, Chiefs of the Diplomatic Missions of the American Republics, Except Argentina and El Salvador, and Certain American Officers

Washington, December 29, 1944, 3:45 p.m.

The Secretary, after welcoming the Chiefs of Mission, said that during the interval since their last meeting on November 9 the Committee on Coordination appointed at that meeting had prepared a document which it would present. He then stated that progress appeared to have been made for the holding of a conference of Foreign Ministers of the governments cooperating in the war effort to consider, among other items, the major issues which had been discussed at these meetings. He expressed confidence that the discussions now being held and the forthcoming conference would enable the American Republics to go to a general conference regarding international organization with a full understanding of each other’s viewpoints and the common resolve to make effective the purpose, shared by all, of preventing future war.

The Secretary then mentioned that nine governments had submitted to the Committee on Coordination helpful memoranda commenting on the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. He said that at this meeting and at further ones he thought it would be useful to all present to have frank discussions of the questions that have been raised. He said that this Government would be glad to explain the provisions of the proposals receiving attention in those memoranda and wished to explore the suggestions of the other governments with them. The governments at the general conference should, he said, then be in a position to cooperate in building the enduring international structure wanted by all, on the basis of an understanding of each other’s point of view and, therefore, with greater effectiveness.

The Secretary then asked Ambassador Martins of Brazil, Chairman of the Committee on Coordination, if he would like to make some remarks on behalf of the Committee.

Ambassador Martins spoke of the work of the Committee and presented the document it had prepared,⁸² a compilation of the memoranda regarding the Dumbarton Oaks proposals submitted by nine governments—Brazil,⁸³ Chile,⁸⁴ Costa Rica,⁸⁵ Guatemala,⁸⁶ Haiti,⁸⁷ Mexico,⁸⁸ Panama,⁸⁹ Uruguay⁹⁰ and Venezuela⁹¹ —and copies of this document were distributed to each of the Chiefs of Mission present. Ambassador Martins then said that the Committee believed that the Republics which had not yet sent in memoranda would wish to do so at the earliest possible moment and that thereafter a revised document would be prepared and sent to the respective governments.

The Secretary, after thanking Ambassador Martins and the Committee of Coordination, for the help that he and the Committee had given in preparing this document for the consideration of the questions, stated he wished to make one comment at this time concerning the discussions themselves. He said that the Governments of the American Republics would undoubtedly wish to carry the present discussions a step further at the conference of American States participating in the war effort, which evidently was to be held, and thereafter at the general conference on international organization, and that he was sure all would want to go to the latter with open minds and as few formal commitments as possible. He said that in his opinion if formal positions now were taken it would be harder to change later and he urged that a flexible rather than a crystallized approach to the matter be kept.

The Secretary then stated that Mr. Norman Armour was shortly leaving the country to assume his duties as Ambassador to Spain and asked whether it would be satisfactory if Mr. Nelson Rockefeller, Assistant Secretary of State, were appointed to succeed Ambassador Armour on the Committee on Coordination. The Chiefs of Mission agreed.

The Secretary next called on Dr. Leo Pasvolsky⁹² to explain and comment on the Dumbarton Oaks proposals in the light of the suggestions made in the memoranda of the other American Republics. Dr. Pasvolsky first took up the question of the name of the new international organization, to the selection of which unfavorable comments had been expressed by certain governments (Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela). He said that it was difficult to agree on the best name; he felt, however, that the one proposed was open to fewer objections than any others and that the term “United Nations” was symbolic not only of the war efforts being made by the countries engaged in the hostilities but also of the future relationship of states. He said that the word “Union” had been rejected because of its connotation of a super-state, and that the word “league” did not appear to be acceptable because of its past association as being closely tied with the League of Nations. He added that rejection of the word “league” apparently represented the feeling of other governments as none had suggested its use in any of the memoranda.

Ambassador Martins expressed the view of the Brazilian Government that the term United Nations was too inclusive in that it embraced the connotation of war as well as of peace. Señor Mora, Ambassador of Chile, commented that the use of the term United Nations was not sufficiently specific. He averred that the name should embody or at least indicate the objectives of the organization and that those objectives were “peace”, while at the present time the nations were primarily united for war. He thought it would be appropriate, therefore, to have a more precise name such as “Union of Nations for Peace”. The Honduran Ambassador demurred, on the grounds that the proposed title embodied the idea of unity in defending our good way of life against any aggression. Señor de la Colina, Chargé d’Affaires of Mexico, suggested the name “Permanent Union of Nations” because of the strong peaceful ideal behind such a name. He remarked that in Spanish the word “union” had no connotation of “super-state” as it was said to have in English. He also objected to the war connotation in the present proposed name. Señor Andrade, Ambassador of Bolivia, then recommended that decision concerning the name for the new organization be left in abeyance and he added that the final selection of a proper name for the organization might eventually be found by the people of the world as they would probably find a name for the present international world conflict to which at present no one could put a satisfactory title.

Dr. Pasvolsky stated that he appreciated the concern of the other American governments in regard to the perpetuation of the connotation of war through the name selected but that he felt nevertheless that the use of the word “united” was extremely important. He emphasized two other connotations of the name: (1) unity against danger, and (2) unity for progress. He thought that it was important to focus on this functional concept of unity.

Following these remarks the Secretary stated that he regretted that he was unable to remain longer at the meeting due to other appointments and took leave of the Chiefs of Mission. Mr. Rockefeller presided during the rest of the meeting.

The next topic of discussion was Chapter I of the document and attention was centered on the question of whether specific principles in international relations should be enumerated. Dr. Pasvolsky pointed out that there was no preamble to the document and he added that further principles could undoubtedly be incorporated in a preamble when the final document was completed. The effort, he said, had been made in stating the purposes and principles to single out the most important concepts of a general nature in order to give these greater weight, comprehension and simplicity. Dr. Pasvolsky said that it had been considered preferable, as less limiting, not to enumerate purposes and principles in detail, in the belief that they were all comprehended in the broad general statements in Chapters I and II. Dr. Pasvolsky said that the suggestions which had been made in the various memoranda were very valuable. He thought that some might be included in the preamble. He suggested that too detailed an enumeration of principles might weaken rather than strengthen the document.

Ambassador Mora stated that he appreciated the reasoning of Dr. Pasvolsky but said that he felt that the explicit or specific principles, such as assurance for respect for international treaties, were fundamental and that in particular, since on the basis of these principles the American nations had been successful in a far greater degree than those in any other area of the world in minimizing war and bloodshed, they should be expressly set forth in the document. Dr. Pasvolsky inquired whether there was not a broader principle than the others spoken of, namely that of settling disputes by peaceful means. He suggested that this principle embraced respect both for international treaties and for other obligations of nations. Señor Mora thought, nevertheless, that it would be important to state the principle of respect for treaties.

The Chiefs of Mission of Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico expressed the view that the principles under discussion, including political independence and territorial integrity, which were high attributes of sovereignty, should be given specific mention in the document. Señor de la Colina stated that the discussion strengthened his view that the most important principle or purpose is the recognition of international law and that he felt that the recodification of the tenets of international law should be undertaken. Dr. Pasvolsky assured the others that there was no intention that the principles mentioned, such as juridical equality of nations, respect of territorial integrity and assurance of respect for international treaties, would be excluded nor any diminution made of their continuing validity and force. He emphasized that the whole plan envisaged in the proposals was based on respect for their international obligations by the members of the organization. There was no disagreement on the fundamental validity of the principles suggested.

Ambassador Mora suggested that a vote be taken on the Chilean proposal that there be specifically stated in the document the principle requiring respect of treaties. He felt it desirable to have an expression of the majority view so that the governments would be able to present a united position at the future general conference. The Chiefs of Mission of Paraguay,⁹⁴ Brazil, and Nicaragua⁹⁵ declared that they did not think that this would be advisable at the present time as they had not received instructions from their respective governments in the matter. The discussion led to the conclusion that the purpose of the meeting was to exchange views rather than to take positions, and no vote was taken.

Mr. Rockefeller said that he felt that it was very useful that such an exchange of ideas had taken place at this meeting, so that each country could learn the opinions and views of the others and, having done so, be better prepared to work together at future conferences. He believed, however, that the American nations should not arrive at closed views and preferably not go to the general conference on international organization as a bloc with unified views, an approach which could be misunderstood and distrusted in other parts of the world, but rather to go with a common informed understanding and will on the part of each to create an effective organization together.

The discussion of the document at this meeting was concluded at this point.

Before the meeting adjourned Mr. Rockefeller stated that replies had been received from approximately one half of the other American Republics and were generally favorable to the holding in the near future of a conference of the representatives of the American Republics associated in the war.⁹⁶ He said that he wished to make it clear that this was not to be a conference per se of Foreign Ministers of the American Republics. He said that he believed that the subject of Argentina might be discussed at the conference after the other matters on the proposed agenda had been dealt with. Mr. Rockefeller concluded the meeting by saying that a further session would be called for an early date.

82. Entitled “Proposals for the Establishment of a General International Organization, Comments and Suggestions From the Other American Republics”; not printed. (IO Files: ISO–215)
83. Memorandum dated November 4, 1944; printed in Documents of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, San Francisco, 1945, vol. iii, p. 245.
84. Memorandum dated December 11, 1944, ibid., p. 282.
85. Memorandum dated December 5, 1944, ibid., p. 274.
86. Memorandum dated November 14, 1944, ibid., p. 254.
87. Memorandum dated October 27, 1944, ibid., p. 51.
88. On September 5, 1944, the Mexican Government submitted a “Project for the Constitution of a ‘Permanent Union of the Nations’,” ibid., pp. 166–174. A memorandum entitled “Opinion of the Department of Foreign Relations of Mexico concerning the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals for the Creation of a General International Organization” was dated October 31, 1944, and printed ibid., p. 54.
89. Memorandum dated November 16, 1944, ibid., p. 259.
90. Memorandum with title “The Position of the Government of Uruguay respecting the Plans of Postwar International Organization for the Maintenance of Peace and Security in the World” dated September 28, 1944, and printed ibid., p. 26. Since this memorandum and the Mexican “Project” of September 5, 1944, antedate the publication of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, they obviously do not specifically refer to the latter.
91. Memorandum dated October 31, 1944, ibid., p. 189.
92. Special Assistant to the Secretary of State, and a member of the U.S. delegation at the Dumbarton Oaks Conversations.
94. Celso It. Velazquez.
95. Guillermo Sevilla Sacasa.
96. For correspondence on preliminaries to the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, Mexico City, February 21–March 8, 1945, see vol. vii.