UNA Files
Memorandum by the Special Assistant to the Secretary of State ( Pasvolsky )1
Memorandum of Conversation
Subject: Second Conversation with the Soviet Ambassador on the Dumbarton Oaks Documents
| Participants: | Ambassador Gromyko |
| Mr. Pasvolsky |
Copies to: S, U, A–D, Le, SPA, Mr. Bohlen
At the Ambassador’s request, we met again today to continue the conversation which took place on January 11.2 Our meeting lasted over two and one-half hours, and the conversation ranged over a large variety of subjects related to the Dumbarton Oaks proposals.
The Ambassador opened the conversation by saying that he had given a great deal of thought to the points brought out in our previous discussion and had re-read the President’s proposal. He was puzzled by the reference to Chapter VIII, Section C, paragraph 1, and proceeded to read that paragraph from the Russian text of the Dumbarton Oaks documents which he had in his hands. I told him that what we had in mind was the question of whether or not the Council should encourage a regional group or agency to undertake peaceful settlement of a local or regional dispute. He thought that was logical in terms of our general formula.
[Page 74]He said that he was anxious to have another talk because, in view of his imminent departure for Moscow, it had occurred to him that this would be a good opportunity to clarify his mind on a number of points.
There ensued another long discussion of the voting formula, which did not, however, bring out any new points. His evident purpose was to fix clearly in his mind our arguments in favor of the formula.
He then asked me if I would be willing to go over with him the other open items, and proceeded to enumerate them as they occurred to him:
- 1.
- The International Court of Justice
- 2.
- Dependent areas and international trusteeships
- 3.
- Liquidation of the League of Nations
- 4.
- Initial membership
With regard to the Court, he said that he considered the matter settled in substance and that agreement on details should not be difficult to reach. The whole subject is being studied in Moscow on the basis of our documents which were discussed at Dumbarton Oaks.
The discussion of the dependent areas matter was rather lengthy. He said that he had been very much interested in the few informal conversations we had on this subject at Dumbarton Oaks, but had never had the opportunity to make a more systematic examination of the subject. He mentioned the memorandum which Secretary Hull had presented at the Moscow Conference3 and (as Sobolev had told me in September) said that the Soviet Government was very favorably impressed by it. He repeated the statement made by Sobolev that, while the Soviet Government has neither colonies nor experience in colonial administration, it is greatly interested in the subject. He asked me if I would care to outline for him the principal problems in this field as we see them.
I summarized for him the various alternative approaches to such problems as the distinction between trust and colonial areas; the possible declaration of general principles applicable to both; the machinery of international trusteeship for detached areas; the possibilities and structure of regional commissions for colonial areas; the question of international accountability; and the relation between the international organization and the possible regional commissions. I said that our basic thought runs generally in terms of the ideas expressed in Secretary Hull’s memorandum, and that we consider our treatment of the Philippines as a desirable type of attitude toward dependent areas.
[Page 75]In reply to his question as to whether all of these problems would have to be discussed at the United Nations Conference, I said that only questions relating to international trusteeship properly belong on the agenda of the conference. Colonial problems as such might be touched upon, but probably ought to be taken up in earnest at some special conference or by some other means.
He inquired whether such a discussion of colonial problems would involve only the colonial powers or also the other important powers. Might it not even be appropriate, he asked, that such a discussion be arranged by the future international organization, since the problems raised might well come within the scope of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council? I said that any one of these procedures was possible.
He then said that he was certain that some trusteeship arrangements for detached areas must be provided for in the Charter, and that the matter really ought to be of direct concern to his Government. After all, he pointed out, as a country at war with Italy, the Soviet Union will have to assume responsibilities with regard to Italian colonies, and it may well have to assume responsibilities with regard to territories detached from Japan.
His next question related to the position of Great Britain and of other countries on this subject. I said that we have a tentative arrangement with the British to exchange documents relating to this question, and it is our intention to make our documents available to the Russians. I said I was sure that the British intended to proceed similarly. I recalled the fact that there are very interesting passages on this subject in the Chinese memorandum.4 He said that they had found the ideas of the Chinese very interesting and would be very glad to study whatever documents we might give them.
We readily agreed that the initiative on the question of the liquidation of the League of Nations should be taken by the members of the League.
On the subject of initial membership, he repeated that the Soviet Government still wishes the Soviet Republics to be included while it wishes the associated nations, as well as the neutrals, to be excluded. I made no attempt to argue the point, saying merely that we have had no new thoughts on either the Soviet Republics or the associated nations.
He then raised the question of the seat of the organization. We talked briefly about the Pays de Gex idea, which he had heard about and found quite interesting, except that a part of the territory would be Swiss. He characterized Switzerland rather contemptuously as [Page 76] a neutral, and not a good neutral at that, and hence ineligible. I asked him what ideas he had, and he said he had none. The subject was not pursued further, except that we explored jokingly the possibility of placing the organization in the Caucasus.
After that he turned to the summary of views expressed by certain Latin American governments5 which I had given him. He said that he had studied it carefully and thought that there should be little difficulty in accepting some of the suggestions. For example, the ideas of political independence, of territorial integrity (with proper provision for possible adjustments), of peaceful change, of revision of treaties, and of promotion of international law could all be worked into the document. He agreed that many of them could be embodied in the preamble.
He said, however, that he was somewhat perturbed by the various suggestions for strengthening the Assembly and the Court at the expense of the Council, since such changes would completely alter the character of our proposals. I agreed. I also agreed that it would be impracticable to make the decisions of the Court enforceable by the Council because the Council would, for one thing, deal only with peace and security, whereas the Court might render decisions on a large variety of subjects. In answer to his inquiry, I explained to him the meaning of compulsory jurisdiction, which he had misunderstood completely.
When he came to the statement that the Latin American countries are against voting by the permanent members on disputes in which they are involved, he again plunged into the subject of how “unrealistic” the smaller countries are in making that demand. I said that we must expect all of the countries at the Conference to urge many ideas of the kind that have emerged in our discussions with the Latin American countries, but that it seems to us that the advocacy of most of them would be greatly weakened by the acceptance of our voting formula. He said he would like to think about that possibility, and then asked if it would be possible for me to give him our analysis of the functions of the Council from the point of view of the voting procedure proposed in the President’s formula. I said that I would be glad to put down on paper the points in this respect which I brought out in the discussion.
In conclusion, he again said that our two conversations had been both interesting and useful to him and would certainly be helpful in making his report to his Government. I responded in kind, and we parted on a very friendly note.
- Carbon copy.↩
- See supra.↩
- For the text of this draft, entitled “Declaration by the United Nations on National Independence” and dated March 9, 1943, see Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, pp. 470–472. See also The Memoirs of Cordell Hull (New York, 1948), vol. ii, pp. 1304–1305.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Not printed. See ante, p. 72, footnote 1.↩