Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1945, General: The United Nations, Volume I

RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 96: US Cr. Min. 5

Minutes of the Fifth Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at Washington, Monday, April 9, 1945, 3:15 p.m.

Washington, April 9, 1945, 3:15 p.m.

[Informal Notes]

[Here follows list of names of persons (23) present at meeting.]

The Secretary opened the meeting at 3:15 p.m., explaining that he had just been meeting with representatives of organized labor who were urging representation for labor at the San Francisco Conference. He said the agreement to invite consultants had gone some distance in satisfying the representatives of organized labor.

Press Statement on Delegation Discussions

The Secretary stated that at his press conference that day the press had asked a number of questions, including whether the Delegates were free to speak on their own, how the Delegation would vote in the preliminary discussions, whether statements would be made concerning the progress of the discussions, and whether the discussions were going well. The Secretary asked whether he should perhaps tell the press that these were a series of private meetings at which the Delegates were briefing themselves on the substance to be discussed at San Francisco and that for the time being there would be nothing to say to the press. Senator Vandenberg proposed that, if the Delegation agreed upon a recommendation for change in the Proposals, there would be an advantage in letting the public know of this agreement. Representative Bloom suggested that no commitment be made in advance to make a statement, but that, if something was agreed upon which it was later thought wise to give to the press, then an appropriate statement could be made.

Senator Connally thought that it was important for the Delegation to act as a unit and that it would be unfortunate as far as the public went if arguments by the Delegates for different positions were published.

The Secretary suggested that it would not be easy to make final decisions at this time on substantive questions since the proposals made at the Conference would influence our position. He did not think it would “set well” with the other nations if we issued suggestions for changes in the Proposals in advance of the Conference. Senator Vandenberg urged that, if agreement was reached on an important point, he was convinced that it would be healthy for the public to know about the agreement now.

The Secretary suggested that at the close of the discussions a statement might be made to the effect that they had been productive and that on certain questions the following positions have been reached, although of course these would be subject to change. Senator Vandenberg said that he thought public opinion had developed to a point where it was fertile for any seed that might be planted and that it would be dangerous to withhold from the public the conclusions of the American Delegation.

Mr. Pasvolsky noted that the Four Sponsoring Governments had agreed that the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals should be the basis for discussion at the Conference and that the further proposal had been made by the British and supported by the other governments that none of the Sponsoring Governments would introduce any ideas for changes in the Proposals without prior consultation.⁶² Of course this consultation would not be binding. This procedure, he thought, was a wise one since, if each of the Four Sponsoring Governments brought in radical changes, the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals might be completely wrecked. He noted that up to now the British and Chinese had not suggested any changes in the Proposals.

It was decided at the suggestion of the Secretary that for the time being no statement would be made on the discussions, but that, if something did come up which should be said, the press would be immediately notified.

The Secretary asked what he should say as to the voting method on the Delegation. It was generally agreed that he should say that the Delegation would vote by simple majority vote.

[Here follows discussion on the list of advisers and unofficial representatives of national organizations.⁶³]

Discussion of Proposals and Suggestions for Consideration

The Secretary asked Mr. Pasvolsky to open the discussion of Proposals and Suggestions for Consideration, Book 2.⁶⁴ Mr. Pasvolsky said that Book 3 contained a comprehensive analysis of the views of the other governments and of private groups on the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, whereas Book 2 summarized this material and brought forward certain definite suggestions. He said that the members of the Delegation would be assigned to special committees which would work on certain portions of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, and that these committees would have before them, in addition to the text of the Proposals, statements of changes suggested for discussion by the various delegations. Each committee, he said, would then work on a particular part of the Proposals and the drafting would be done largely by subcommittees.

From our point of view, he continued, there were two things to consider: (1) What amendments we ourselves would wish to offer to the Proposals and to have included in the basic documentation of the committees of the Conference; and (2) What our attitude was to be with respect to the various proposals brought forward by other governments, since it was almost inevitable that a great number of proposals would be presented. He added that it still had to be determined how much consultation there would be between the Sponsoring Governments on the suggestions that they would make. In any case, however, it was necessary to go through the Proposals discussing them from these two points of view, so that it would be possible for the staff to draft its text for a charter on the basis of the agreements reached. We would then go to the Conference with a document in the form of a charter.

For the moment, Mr. Pasvolsky said, we should concern ourselves only with the basic ideas and not bother about the language. A discussion of the language, he said, would occur in considering the actual draft charter.

Senator Connally asked whether it was the intention to rewrite the entire Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. Mr. Pasvolsky noted that a good many provisions of the Proposals had not been criticized and that little attention would have to be paid to these provisions. However, he said, in rewriting the whole document in the form of a legal charter, the language of all provisions would inevitably be altered. Mr. Pasvolsky noted that the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals was not a legal document and that the immediate task of the Delegation was to decide what would go into the contract or charter which would be the legal document.

Dean Gildersleeve said it would be helpful to know how much we would be likely to change the Proposals—how closely we were tied to them as they stood. Was it necessary, she asked, to restrict the suggestions only to the most vital ones or was there a good deal of elbow room? The Secretary replied that he felt very definitely that there was not very much elbow room in view of the Soviet position that “with the Proposals we had already arrived”. Dean Gildersleeve said that this then meant we should restrict our proposed changes to the most vital ones?

Mr. Pasvolsky stated that any change that would affect the basic relations of the different organs, the basic obligations of member states, and the balance of the whole structure, particularly the relation between the General Assembly and the Security Council, between regional arrangements and the central organization, and between large and small powers, would have to be very carefully considered. On the other hand, he believed the Delegation could feel freer to suggest changes when considering questions that affected the framework of the Proposals themselves, particularly on matters which were not actually covered in the Proposals but would be necessary for a legal instrument. He added that most of the Proposals, he thought, would be in the form of additions to the Proposals as they stood. He said that some additions might be necessary, in particular to more fully define the criteria of action of members of the Organization and to clarify the operation of the machinery.

The Secretary said that some provisions should be made to meet Senator Vandenberg’s criticism that the Proposals did not look backward as well as forward. Mr. Pasvolsky said he thought this matter was already in the document, although it might not be clear, and that this whole question would have to be carefully examined.

Name

Mr. Pasvolsky indicated that several alternative names had been suggested for the Organization, but that “The United Nations” had been agreed to, not because it satisfied everybody, but because it seemed the least of several evils. He added that emphasis was placed by the use of this name on the unity of the nations. He said further that the name had been criticized because of its association with a war-time coalition, but that in fact it applied to something larger than that coalition. Representative Eaton agreed that the nations must be united for peace as well as for war. Mr. Pasvolsky noted that the name proposed by Mexico,⁶⁵ “Permanent Union of Nations” when translated into English suggested a superstate. Some proposals, he added, would introduce the word “security” into the name, but they had been rejected on the grounds that they were too limiting. He concluded that the most unobjectionable name was “The United Nations”. The Secretary suggested that the names of the organs be considered in connection with this question. Mr. Pasvolsky referred to the titles as indicated in Chapter IV and noted that in time each organ might become known as The United Nations General Assembly, The United Nations Security Council, et cetera. Dean Gildersleeve noted that there had been little criticism of these titles, and Mr. Pasvolsky agreed that there was little opposition to them.

It was then generally agreed to support the name for the Organization “The United Nations”.

Preamble

Mr. Pasvolsky called attention to the fact that the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals had no preamble and that an introductory statement had been included for the sole purpose of bringing in the name “The United Nations”. On the other hand, the charter of the Organization would of course have a preamble. Senator Vandenberg noted the preamble and the purposes tend to overlap and that this raised an important problem. Mr. Pasvolsky explained that at Dumbarton Oaks certain points which might ordinarily have been put in a preamble had been put in the body of the document in order to give them more emphasis. It was then possible to state in other parts of the document that the Security Council would act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the organization. He added that of course it would be possible to combine the purposes and principles into one section. Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that the preamble might include a statement of general objectives, while the purposes and principles would be more specifically stated as binding the Security Council in the performance of its duties. Representative Bloom wondered whether it would not be better to write the preamble after the document had been studied. Mr. Pasvolsky thought this would be a good procedure, that discussion might continue on the rest of the document, and the Delegation could then return to the preamble. The Secretary agreed with this suggestion.

Chapter I: Purposes

Paragraph 1.—Mr. Pasvolsky read the text of Paragraph 1 and then proceeded to outline the alternative suggestions that had been made. He noted that in developing Chapter I the question had repeatedly arisen as to whether the obligations and criteria for action should be broadly stated or enumerated. It was agreed, he said, that it was safer to spell out these questions as little as possible. Dean Gildersleeve and Representative Eaton agreed that the broad statement was more satisfactory.

Mr. Pasvolsky thought that there would be considerable pressure to introduce a statement guaranteeing the independence of states. It had been felt, however, that the reference to sovereign equality in Chapter II adequately covered the matter.

Mr. Pasvolsky noted the suggested addition to Paragraph 1 “and with due regard for the principles of justice and equity and in accordance with the rule of law.” Dean Gildersleeve asked if this addition would cause trouble. Senator Vandenberg said that, even if it should cause trouble, it should be added. He said that he presumed that this addition was to meet in part his suggestion for a reference to the establishment of justice and the promotion of fundamental freedoms. Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that the reference to fundamental freedoms was proposed for Paragraph 3. Senator Vandenberg questioned whether the additions to Chapter I met his suggestion. Mr. Pasvolsky thought that, with the addition of reference to the promotion of justice in the preamble, Senator Vandenberg’s suggestion would be taken care of.

Senator Vandenberg noted that he had proposed a separate paragraph reading: “to establish justice and to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms”. Senator Connally thought it was important to avoid giving the impression that the Organization would deal with individuals. Its main function would be to settle disputes between governments and it would be unfortunate to arouse hopes that the Organization would directly help individuals when this could not be realized.

Mr. Armstrong questioned the reference to “the rule of law”. He wondered whether this referred to the body of existing treaties or what was laid down in the charter. Mr. Sandifer suggested revising it to read “and with due regard for international law”. Mr. Dulles agreed with Mr. Armstrong that the reference was altogether ambiguous and that it would be a mistake to put in the reference in its present form. Senator Connally expressed agreement with this position also. Mr. Pasvolsky noted that the Chinese had proposed a reference to international law along the lines suggested⁶⁶ and that it would be important to put some reference of this sort in the present document. Representative Bloom thought that the public in general was “fed up” with international law and that they would not greatly appreciate the word. Mr. Sandifer pointed out that in fact the success of the whole enterprise depended upon the development of respect for international law, and that respect for treaties would be at the root of any successful general organization to maintain the peace. He added that, while some treaties are in disrepute, this is not true of all treaties.

Senator Vandenberg felt that the really important part of the proposed amendment was the reference to justice and equity, that his fundamental point of view was that the total absence of the reference to justice in the document must be corrected, and that the American Delegation could only enhance its position in the public eye if it became the champion of justice. He would therefore oppose waiting for other delegations to propose this amendment and would urge that the American Delegation propose it first. Mr. Taft asked how proposals of this sort would be brought forward at the Conference. Mr. Pasvolsky said they would be presented in open meeting. Senator Vandenberg stated that, if at the end of the Conference the document still did not contain any reference to justice, then the American Delegation would be out of luck.

Mr. Pasvolsky said that, in view of the criticism of the reference to international law, it might be well to bring in such reference elsewhere. At Mr. Dulles’ suggestion the phrase was then redrafted “in accordance with the principles of justice and equity”. This rephrasing was generally agreed to and it was understood that this proposal would be made by the Delegation as a change in the Proposals as they stood.

Mr. Pasvolsky asked whether the Delegation wished to include a guarantee of the independence of states. He added that the British had strenuously opposed this suggestion when it had been raised by the Chinese at Dumbarton Oaks.⁶⁷ He added that Mr. Wellington Koo had later said that personally he thought the arguments against inclusion of the guarantee of independence were sound. Mr. Dulles thought it would be a great mistake to include such a guarantee, since it would tend to guarantee the freezing of the world forever and would guarantee the possession by nations of their colonies for all time. It was then generally agreed that any reference to the guarantee of independence of states would be opposed.

Mr. Pasvolsky noted that the enumeration of a list of subjects with which the Organization would deal, as proposed by Venezuela,⁶⁸ did not really belong in a statement of purposes. Moreover, he did not think this addition would be pressed. Senator Connally thought the main objection to this suggestion was that items not enumerated were likely to be considered excluded.

Paragraph 2.—Dean Gildersleeve asked what was meant by the paragraph: “To develop friendly relations among nations and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace”. Mr. Pasvolsky thought this might be the proper place to include a reference to the development of international law. He added that this paragraph was in effect a “catch-all” for the purposes otherwise left out by the statements in paragraph 1 and paragraph 3. He noted that the Russians in particular were interested in this paragraph. Senator Connally commented that the Russians were still suspicious that the world was against them and this probably accounted for their emphasis upon the development of friendly relations. Senator Vandenberg said that he would be glad to have this paragraph left in if it was actually lived up to. Dean Gildersleeve said it was really in the form of a rather pious wish. Mr. Pasvolsky commented that the British and Russians both like this particular paragraph. Senator Connally said that he could not quarrel with it, but that he did doubt the wisdom of putting in any reference to international law at this point. Representative Eaton said that he thought that the development of friendly relations was in fact the foundation for a new civilization. Mr. Dulles suggested that the reference to the rule of law had been cut out in the first paragraph since there was no adequate body of law at the present time. However, since we all want to develop a body of international law, he could see the great value of putting in a reference to the promotion or development of international law as a basis for the peace. This law, he added, would be developed by decisions of the court and by the codification of international law.

Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that paragraph 2 be revised to read “to develop friendly relations among nations, to foster the development of international law, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.” Representative Bloom asked why the phrase “appropriate measures” was included since it was implicit that the measures would be appropriate. His suggestion to omit the word “appropriate” was agreed to. Senator Connally commented that he was opposed to introducing the reference to international law but that he had been out-voted.

Paragraph 3.—Mr. Pasvolsky explained that the attempt at Dumbarton Oaks to add a reference to the development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in the chapter on purposes had caused a great deal of difficulty. The Soviet representatives had demanded that a criterion for membership in the Organization be included to the effect that only non-fascist nations were eligible.⁶⁹ As a result of the controversy it had been agreed to put the reference to human rights and fundamental freedoms in the chapter on the Economic and Social Council. He thought, however, that this decision need not be taken as final.

It was then agreed that the proposed addition should be adopted.

Paragraph 4.—Mr. Armstrong said that the text of paragraph 4 “to afford a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the achievement of these common ends” was not satisfactory. Mr. Pasvolsky indicated that this was a favorite idea of the British Delegation and that they would be greatly disturbed if it were taken out. Dean Gildersleeve said that its presence did no damage. Mr. Armstrong questioned the use of the term “center”. In any event, he said, it was a center through which the members could harmonize their actions. Mr. Sandifer suggested that at one time the term “means” had been proposed instead of “center”. Senator Vandenberg noted that, if properly drafted, this purpose might become the greatest objective of the Organization. The Secretary indicated that the Delegation was apparently in general agreement on the sense of this paragraph and that it could be drafted later more exactly. Mr. Pasvolsky said that Chile’s suggestion “to include a statement that enumerated purposes do not exclude any others of similar nature” was inherent in the document.

The Secretary asked whether all the comments of the governments had already been sent in or whether others were still to come. Mr. Pasvolsky said that all the comments that had been received to date were summarized in Book 3, but that two or three states had reserved the right to send additional comments and two or three other states were still planning to send comments.

The Secretary noted that at the opening of the Conference the chairmen of the different delegations would be given opportunities to present their views. This matter, he added, was now under discussion, but he was recommending that, following the opening of the Conference by the President at 4:30 p.m., the next two days would be used to give each delegation 15 minutes to present their views. In this way within two days all 46 states would have an opportunity to present their positions. He asked the Delegation to think over whether this would be a good procedure.

Chapter II: Principles

Mr. Dulles questioned what this chapter was intended to accomplish and said that he did not understand what the principles were. In part they were long-range purposes and in part, specific undertakings by the member governments. He thought that they were extremely dangerous in their present form, and he did not see what role they were supposed to play. In particular, he said, the looseness of the commitments bothered him; e.g., all members undertake to give every assistance or they undertake not to give any assistance. What, he asked, does this mean? He thought it was most important to clear up the confusion involved in this chapter.

Senator Vandenberg asked what the difference was between the purposes and principles of the Organization. Mr. Pasvolsky explained that the principles were rules of action, whereas the purposes were the aims of action. Mr. Pasvolsky added that paragraph 5 needed to be redrafted since all members would give every assistance in accordance with the provisions of the charter. Mr. Dulles remarked that he did not know what was meant by the term “principle” and that he thought the rather generalized and vague commitments in that chapter might jeopardize getting the charter through the Senate. He referred in particular to the obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means. Mr. Pasvolsky said this meant that states would use none but peaceful means in the settlement of their disputes.

Mr. Pasvolsky added that the next paragraph obligated members of the Organization to refrain from the use of force no matter what happened in settling their disputes. Senator Connally thought this was just another statement of the Kellogg-Briand Pact.⁷⁰ Mr. Dulles thought that this statement was already implicit in the preceding paragraph. Mr. Pasvolsky commented that there were two obligations: the positive one to settle disputes by peaceful means and the negative one not to use force in settling disputes.

Mr. Acheson pointed out that there were two types of principles included in this chapter, e.g., the basis of the Organization on the principle of sovereign equality and the enumeration of the obligations of members. He felt that the chapter needed to be very carefully considered. Mr. Dulles agreed and pointed out that he was afraid that this chapter would be taken as just another chapter of principles in the French meaning of the term, to accept “en principe”. This in effect, he said, meant that one was not getting anything. If it was intended to make these principles substantial, then he thought they should be gone over very carefully and made specific undertakings. Otherwise he thought the chapter would be open to a flood of criticism. Mr. Pasvolsky explained that these principles were in fact basic obligations both of the members of the Organization and of the Organization itself. He referred to the opening paragraph: “In pursuit of the purposes mentioned in Chapter I the Organization and its members should act in accordance with the following principles”.

It was agreed that the further detailed discussion of these paragraphs under Chapter II would be postponed until the next meeting.

The Secretary suggested that the Delegates read through their books in preparation for the meeting the next day.

next meeting

It was decided to meet on Tuesday, April 10, at 10 a.m., to continue the discussion.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.

62. See proposal submitted by the United States Government to the British, Soviet, and Chinese Embassies, March 28, p. 162.
63. For list of organizations, see press release of April 10, Department of State Bulletin, April 15, 1945, p. 671. For list of consultants to the United States delegation, each named by one of the 42 national organizations, see ibid., April 22, 1945. pp. 724–725; see also Conference Series No. 71: Charter of the United Nations: Report to the President … June 26, 1945 (Department of State publication No. 2349), pp. 262–266.
64. For additional information on documentation used by the delegation in this period, see Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, pp. 435 ff.
65. Doc. 2, G/7(c), April 23, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 166.
66. See telegram 619, March 16, 11 p.m., to Moscow, p. 126.
67. For a summary report on consideration of this question at a meeting of the Joint Formulation Group, see memorandum by the Under Secretary of State, October 4, 1944, Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. i, p. 865; for a detailed account of the British attitude on the question, see memorandum B (pars. 19–27) of tentative proposals submitted by the United Kingdom for a general international organization, July 22, 1944, ibid., pp. 673–674.
68. Doc. 2, G/7 (d) (1), October 31, 1944, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 191.
69. See progress report on Dumbarton Oaks Conversations submitted by Under Secretary Stettinius to the Secretary of State on September 19, 1944, Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. i, p. 824.
70. Treaty between the United States and other Powers, signed at Paris, August 27, 1928, Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. i, p. 155.