RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 96: US Cr. Min. 4
Minutes of the Fourth Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at Washington, Tuesday, April 3, 1945, 10 a.m.
[Here follows list of names of persons (30) present (including 17 advisers attending part of the meeting).]
Press Statement on Proposal for the Representation of Certain Soviet Republics in the General Assembly
The Secretary opened the meeting by reading to the Delegation the statement proposed to be made to the press at noon that day in reply to the list of questions relative to the participation of two Soviet republics in the world organization which were raised with him by the press last Friday. (Statement by Secretary of State Stettinius For the Press, April 3, 1945, No. 285)75
Representative Bloom questioned the clarity of the first sentence of the second paragraph feeling that the two republics involved should [Page 184] be named. We [The Secretary] replied that we felt that the eighth paragraph of the statement made that matter entirely clear.
Representative Eaton raised the question of the status of the Soviet republics and it was explained by Mr. Dunn that by a change in the Soviet constitution last year they had been given certain autonomy relative to the conduct of foreign and military affairs.76 He indicated that they both now conducted foreign relations directly with the so-called Lublin Polish Government.
Senator Vandenberg inquired if this did not raise the question of sovereign equality. The Secretary replied that it was clear that we had made a commitment to support this proposal if the Soviets raised it. Mr. Hiss amplified this statement to the effect that we are not committed on the question of sovereign equality but that we are committed that the admission of these two republics would not violate sovereign equality. Mr. Stettinius explained that he was not present when the President informed the delegates of this situation77 and had not read a record of it. He added that he felt that if an individual delegate did not feel free to support the commitment that they should feel perfectly free to discuss it with the President.
Representative Eaton read the last two sentences of the second paragraph on page 2 and asked for an interpretation of the meaning thereof. The Secretary replied that we felt it was a great mistake to ask for three votes for one country as that would violate sovereign equality. The Representative commented that the votes of the two republics in question would certainly be Soviet votes whereas the same situation did not apply in the case of the constituent parts of the British Empire. Judge Hackworth pointed out that the question of three votes in the assembly really is not a major matter as the assembly is not the action body of the organization. Senator Vandenberg commented that while this might be true it would have a very adverse effect on American public opinion.
Senator Connally stressed that the final decision on this question is up to the Conference and he personally felt the Soviets would have difficulty with the smaller states in having the proposal accepted.
Dean Gildersleeve inquired how the Delegation would vote at the Conference and in reply was informed that the American Delegation would cast one vote after determining its position on a given matter itself where presumably majority opinion would prevail.
In reply to Senator Vandenberg’s request for a final answer The Secretary stated that we have a commitment to support the Soviet proposal if made, and repeated if any member individually does not agree with it he should take up the question with the President. He [Page 185] said the Government is not free to do other than to support the Soviet proposal.
In answer to Senator Vandenberg’s inquiry he was informed that we do not feel that this violates sovereign equality. The Secretary added that he felt that if an individual delegate disagreed with this commitment that he should feel free to make a public statement on it.
Senator Connally said he felt we must go along with the commitment which had been made. He indicated that he regrets that it had been made and personally doesn’t like it but feels he must go along as a representative of this Government at, this Conference. Senator Vandenberg commented that it appeared to him that the Delegation had been told one thing and the public another. Senator Connally then reviewed his recollection of what had been told the Delegation and Representative Bloom expressed his agreement with the recital. The essence was that the Delegation had been told what had been agreed to at Yalta and that the President had indicated that he would support this at San Francisco if he were present.
Senator Vandenberg indicated that we were acting somewhat in the boy scout manner by in effect surrendering to a Soviet demand and then giving up our rights in the matter.
Representative Eaton stressed the importance of the meeting at San Francisco and mentioned the tendency of our people to magnify minor events, intimating that the press was playing up this matter out of its proper proportion. He pleaded that we must make a beginning at San Francisco for a new world order based on justice, law and order rather than on brute strength. He said that this was our test, “Can we unite to create this new world order and if we cannot what is the use of being a human being?” He said he had been waiting for the opportunity of being present at San Francisco for forty years and that a beginning of the new world must be made at that meeting. He repeated that this must be based on a world order resting on justice.
In reply to the Secretary’s inquiries Representative Eaton expressed the opinion that the statement was as good as could be written under the circumstances. Dean Gildersleeve expressed the view that it was fairly good, possibly as good as could be drawn up, but that she would like to see in it some strong statement along the line of that just made by Representative Eaton which would give a lift to our people who are badly confused as a result of the present situation. She indicated that she felt the members of the Delegation as individuals were free, and that if one of them should feel strongly in opposition on some question he should be free to so state publicly but that as a Delegation we are bound to support the commitment. [Page 186] Senator Connally expressed the opinion that he personally thought it would be better not to make a statement at all but that he did not wish to urge his views in this respect on the Delegation. Representative Bloom expressed satisfaction with the statement.
Postponement of Conference
Representative Bloom raised the postponement issue in reply to which The Secretary read a prepared statement which indicates we feel it is now more important than ever to go ahead. The statement also indicated that we had received no suggestions from the other United Nations as to postponement. (Statement by Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., April 3, 1945, No. 29178)
Unofficial Representation of National Organizations
The Secretary suggested that consideration be given next to the revised List of National Organizations (April 3, 1945)79 which was distributed to the members of the Delegation with the agenda and their copies of Book 3, Comments and Suggestions on the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals.80
. . . . . . .
Welcoming Statements to the Advisers
The Secretary on behalf of the delegates, welcomed the advisers to the important undertaking that lay ahead of all of them.…
The Secretary indicated that the delegates would count heavily on this impressive group of advisers, and that, since the responsibilities of all would be so heavy, it had been decided to divide into groups so that all persons would not need to keep in touch at all times with the entire subject matter. Each delegate and adviser would therefore be active on certain subjects. The Secretary said that the group of advisers was a very important one. It would meet regularly as a group and would receive full documentation from the Department staff. The Secretary asked Mr. Hiss to see that proper arrangements were made for a meeting of the advisers in the near future. He said that the delegation itself would start its regular meetings on April 9 and would continue them almost to the opening of the Conference.
. . . . . . .
[Page 187]Tentative Assignments to Commissions and Conference Arrangements
The Secretary then asked Mr. Hiss to present the question of the assignments of delegates, advisers and technical experts to commissions. Copies of the document Tentative Assignments to Commissions of Delegates, Advisers and Technical Experts, April 3, 1945,81 were then distributed to the advisers.
Mr. Hiss stated that a number of matters were being cleared with the sponsoring powers by means of a new procedure: an informal organizing group composed of the ambassadors of the sponsoring governments in Washington. One of the matters now being cleared through this group, he said, was the question of the organization of the Conference.
. . . . . . .
The Secretary commented that the persons now gathered together in this room should consider themselves one family and should treat with complete confidence matters discussed within the family. He said that the rule now was that there should be no public statement concerning the Conference by any person in the room without approval by the delegation and that this rule held for himself as well as for the rest of the members present. No member would not [now?] speak on matters connected with the Conference except with the authority of the American delegation. He asked each member to keep within these four walls all the important matters that were discussed, suggesting as an illustration that the plan to assign the chairmanship of different committees to certain states, if revealed prematurely, might cause tremendous embarrassment.
. . . . . . .
Unofficial Representation of National Organizations
Mr. MacLeish said that the problem had arisen because so many organizations had wanted to go to San Francisco and that the problem was complicated by the fact that we did not want to do anything which would increase too heavily the burden of the delegation. On the other hand, it was important to prepare for the presentation of the work of the Conference to the American public. After a great deal of discussion it had been agreed that a certain number of organizations should be invited to send representatives to San Francisco as consultants. These representatives would be put in consultative touch with the American delegation and the Conference under terms that would interfere in the least possible way with the duties of the [Page 188] delegates. A choice had to be made between selecting 15 or 16 organizations from among the chief pressure groups, veterans organizations, farmers, etc., or selecting a larger group of organizations, some 30 to 35, that would include, in addition to the larger pressure groups, women’s organizations, religious groups and educational organizations that were greatly interested in San Francisco. It had been agreed that the larger number of organizations should be chosen and that representatives should be invited from about 33 different agencies.
. . . . . . .
The Secretary commented that this decision had been a difficult one to reach and that it had been hard to draw the line. However, the delegates had had in mind the President’s feeling that it was best in the end to invite representatives from certain groups and establish a liaison office for them.
The Secretary then suggested that the meeting of the advisers and delegates stand adjourned.
(The advisers then left the Secretary’s Office.)
The Secretary reconvened the meeting of the delegates and asked Mr. Hiss to give an explanation of the documentation presented to the delegates.
Mr. Hiss noted that the main purpose of the documents was to give the delegates an opportunity to study the suggestions for changes in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals that had been made by other governments and that had emerged in the course of discussions in the United States. It was hoped, he said, that in the course of our discussions we would make up our minds as to our attitude toward these proposed changes before going to the Conference.
The Secretary said it was going to be necessary to cut through all the underbrush so that we would know exactly what proposals the American delegation would stand by and favor and so that the matter would be altogether clear. Senator Vandenberg thought this was a wise procedure.
Mr. Hiss then explained that the text of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals was printed on the white paper, comments by other governments on green paper and suggestions that emerged from discussions in the United States on pink paper in order to make each set of papers stand out clearly.
The Secretary asked if this material had been digested to the minimum. Mr. Hiss replied in the affirmative.
. . . . . . .
Conference Policies
The Secretary asked Mr. Hiss to make a brief statement concerning the problem of language at the Conference. Mr. Hiss indicated that [Page 189] the present policy was to try to persuade the other sponsoring governments to adopt English as the official working language. This would mean that a delegate speaking in his own language would be responsible for the translation of his speech into English. Any documents submitted would be accompanied by an English translation. We would try to supply translating facilities as needed. Mr. Hiss added that each delegate that did not speak English would be responsible for providing his own interpreter. He added that the French were putting on considerable pressure to have French accepted as an official language. Mr. Dunn added that the Russians had also asked that Russian be an official language of the Conference.
Mr. Hiss explained that the gesture was proposed of offering to prepare a final text in Chinese, Russian, French, English and Spanish, and that he hoped this gesture of official recognition would make it possible to adopt English as the practical working language.
. . . . . . .
Time of Arrival in San Francisco
It was agreed at the suggestion of The Secretary that the American delegation would be on hand in San Francisco, ready to receive other delegations on Monday morning, April 23, but that it would announce that it would not be ready to receive other delegations before that time.
. . . . . . .
The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
- Department of State Bulletin, April 8, 1945, p. 600.↩
- See telegram 347, February 2, 1944, from Moscow, Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. iv, p. 810.↩
- See footnote 99, p. 145.↩
- Department of State Bulletin, April 8, 1945, p. 608.↩
- Not printed.↩
- A looseleaf compilation (kept up to date) of text of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals on white paper, the comments and suggestions by other Governments on green paper, and comments and suggestions emerging from discussion in the United States by public officials and private groups and individuals on pink paper; not printed. For a guide to amendments, comments and proposals concerning the Proposals, see doc. 288, G/38, May 14, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, pp. 637–710.↩
- Memorandum to the British Embassy, April 3, supra.↩