840.70/12–244: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State
[Received 10:23 p.m.]
10690. From EITO Delegation.
I. A meeting of the heads of delegations was held Thursday afternoon November 30, under the chairmanship of Noel-Baker. Honde-link was present. The Soviet was the only delegation unrepresented. There was no discussion of any interim or “stop-gap” arrangement.
II. The chairman asked the delegates if they were willing that the revision of Article XI, which had been prepared “to meet some hesitations on questions of eligibility for membership felt by our absent friend”, should be submitted to “our absent friends”. He made it clear that there was no assurance it would be acceptable to them. After considerable discussion, the delegates agreed without dissent that the “Ronald formula” was not acceptable; and agreed to revert to the text of Article XI in the printed draft.5 No attempt was made to force the “Ronald formula” on the delegates, but it was made clear that a failure to adopt it would be likely to result in abstinence from membership in EITO by the Soviets (which were not mentioned by name) until the considerations which had led them to withdraw from the Conference had been resolved. There was a pronounced atmosphere of sympathy on the part of the delegates for the position of the Poles. The discussion was extremely guarded, particularly since the Foreign Office felt that the Soviets might feel justifiably affronted if their position was discussed at such a meeting in direct terms. A representative of the Polish Foreign Office, Zaluski, remarked that it was the first time that a member of the United Nations had been asked for “unconditional surrender” by another member of the United Nations.
III. Article III was then considered and, with the exception of section 7, was accepted as contained in the revision of the draft agreement in the hands of the Department. A new text of section 7, [Page 894] proposed by Doctor Hondelink, which is being transmitted to the Department by separate wire,6 providing for a “chief executive officer” was accepted without dissent, after considerable discussion. It was made clear to the delegates that the Soviets had privately indicated their objection to an explicit provision for a chief executive officer, on the ground that it was unnecessary, and that the Executive Board would, as a matter of course, appoint such an officer. Hooker pointed out to the delegates that an express provision for a chief executive officer might make the agreement technically unacceptable to the Soviets in view of the opinion they had expressed. He urged the importance to all of them of Soviet participation, and pointed out that in view of the fact that the membership of the Executive Board had been increased to seven there could be little doubt that the Executive Board, even without explicit provision in the agreement, would in fact create the position of chief executive officer, and asked that they give careful consideration to the implications of inserting express provisions in the agreement that might make it more difficult for the Soviets to accept it. The points which he made found no support; although Henzl, the Czech delegate, stated privately after the meeting that he regretted the adoption of the Hondelink proposal, on account of its possible effect on Soviet participation.
In view of the implications of Department’s 9731 of November 18, section V; 9693 of November 17, section 8; 9608 of November 15,7 last part of second paragraph from end; 9344 of November 8, second paragraph; 9253 of November 4, first paragraph; 9033 of October 28, penultimate paragraph; also Moscow’s 223 of October 18,8 and 4455 of November 22 to the Department; and of Harriman’s comments to us, we assume the Department is willing to go ahead with EITO, with or without Soviet participation, although on a basis that goes as far as possible to make such participation likely on technical grounds. We, therefore, do not feel that the single objection mentioned above would justify our standing out against the opinion of the other delegates or in delaying the earliest possible setting up of the organization. We are also influenced by the fact that the other delegations, as indicated below, have accepted substantially in total the other concessions made to the Soviet position.
We are further influenced by the fact that the considerable reductions in the powers of the organization conceded to the Soviets should render an explicit provision for a chief executive officer considerably less significant in their view; and that even if no such explicit provision were made, since the Soviets will presumably come into the organization late, it would at that time be in operation with a director-general [Page 895] appointed by the Executive Board, so that the presence or absence of an explicit provision for a chief executive officer should at that time be of relatively minor significance.
The general discussions, as well as the language of the Hondelink proposal, make it clear that there was “no desire to see the Executive Board reduced to the status of an advisory committee to a Director-General” (Department’s 8950 of October 26); but that it would determine policy, between sessions of the Council, “within the framework of the Board policies determined by the Council”. Brigadier Blakey, representing General Napier of SHAEF, who was present, made no objection. Colonel Case, who is on the Continent, stated specifically, before his departure, that the War Department was not concerned with these provisions affecting the organizational setup.
Since the Hondelink proposal is in line with the Department’s 8950 of October 26 (and of course differs fundamentally from the original draft of Article III, section 7), we see no reason to oppose its adoption. We believe (a) that it is sound on its merits, and (b) (since the only possible argument for not adopting it is that it might jeopardise Soviet participation) that we should support it.
Hawkins and Penrose9 after full consideration approve the above recommendations. Clay is wiring his views in a separate cablegram.10 Ronald and Hondelink both agree with us that the power to delegate to a chief executive officer implies the power to appoint. This may call for spelling out by a drafting committee.
IV. Article IV was accepted as revised with the notation that a drafting committee would insert appropriate language in the last paragraph indicating that the powers of the Council under Article V, section 2, were not subject to delegation.
V. Article VII, section 2, as revised, was accepted with the notation of a number of points for action by a drafting committee, in particular (a) the insertion of suitable language after the word “allocate” to indicate the organization had power to allocate either for use or on a permanent basis, including the transfer of title, (b) the striking out of the word “to it” before “for this purpose” in order to avoid any questions of title that might arise under the revision of Article IV, (c) suitable language after the words “export and import possibilities” to indicate that it refers only to transport equipment and material.
The delegates also agreed to the deletion of Article VIII, section 4.
VI. The delegates approved of the new section inserted in the revised text between sections 2 and 3 of Article VII, with the [Page 896] notation that a drafting committee should prepare a suitable definition of “mobile transport equipment” for insertion in Article XIV.
VII. The delegates approved Article VII, section 3, with the notation of a number of points for drafting committee action, including (a) the deletion of the words “during the liberation of Europe”, (b) clarification of the language following this language, in the same sentence, (c) clarification of the reference in the same sentence to “persons or bodies under the authority of a member government,” having in mind the definition contained in Article XIV (small IV) and (d) the deletion of the last sentence in the section on the ground that it was administratively unworkable. With respect to this last point it was agreed, although the sentence deleted had been proposed by the Soviet Delegation, that since they had previously agreed to the deletion of the original reference in this section to the return of property to “its rightful owners” and had accepted, instead, provision for its restoration “to the member government concerned” as being administratively more workable, this change should not present a serious problem.
VIII. The delegates agreed to Article VIII, section 5, as revised, without any change.
IX. There were general expressions of regret that it had been found necessary to reduce the powers of the organization in reference to the Soviet views.
X. Noel-Baker has written to General Obydin, informing him of the action taken at the meeting (but not mentioning Article XI) and inviting further discussion of the revision of the draft agreement.
XI. The next meeting will be held on Monday, December 4. There was a small meeting December 1, of delegations particularly interested in waterways for consideration of the revised text of Article VII, section 12, upon which we will report by separate wire.
- See text transmitted in despatch 18095, September 19, from London, p. 792.↩
- Supra.↩
- See footnote 89, p. 870.↩
- See last paragraph of telegram 3975, October 18, 3 p.m., from Moscow, p. 828.↩
- Ernest F. Penrose, Special Assistant to the Ambassador in the United Kingdom.↩
- No. 10691, December 2, from London, not printed.↩