IO Files: US Cr Min 6

Minutes of the Sixth Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at Washington, Tuesday, April 10, 1945, 10:15 a.m.

[Informal Notes—Extract]

[Here follows list of names of persons (19) present at meeting.]

Press Policy

. . . . . . .

The Secretary stated that any statement to be made would be by the Delegation as a whole after agreement upon it. Mr. Armstrong considered that it was better to hold off the issuance of any statement until the end of the preliminary discussions because of changes which might take place in the position of the Delegation. Moreover, he thought it was advantageous not to give our hand away by releasing statements to the press. Senator Vandenberg thought that the Delegation would be better off by giving a brief report. The Secretary suggested that the Delegation review its work at the end of the week and see whether a statement should be made to the press at that time and suggested that a further review be made at the conclusion of the discussions for the same purpose. Senator Connally observed that the Delegation would be better off if no evidence of division among various delegates were revealed and publicity given thereto.75 He thought that as much as possible should be kept from the press. Representative Eaton stated that he had not made any statement whatever to the press. Mr. Pasvolsky stated that leaks would interfere [Page 228] in negotiations with other countries and said that at Dumbarton Oaks the leaks had interfered with the work and created pressures. He thought that leaks now would cause more difficulties in getting our ideas adopted at San Francisco.

Committee of Jurists

The Secretary reported that Mr. Hackworth had been elected Chairman of the meeting76 and that the French representative77 had been elected rapporteur. The Secretary added that the Committee had decided to accept the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice as a basis for its work.

Discussion of the Document on Proposals and Suggestions (Edition of April 9, 194578)

Chapter II—Principles

Paragraph 1

Mr. Pasvolsky stated that there had been criticism of the term “peace-loving states” and suggested that the phrase “its members” be substituted. With reference to the additional underscored phrase, Mr. Pasvolsky stated that it was important only in placing emphasis on the voluntary association of nations.

Senator Vandenberg expressed his satisfaction in the use of the word “sovereign” and stated that it was “dear to our hearts”. Senator Connally stated that it was useful to use the phrase “sovereign equality” as long as it did not affect voting. Mr. Armstrong considered that the term “equality” was incorrectly used in terms of voting.

The Delegation agreed that the phrase “its members” should be substituted for “peace-loving states”. It also decided that the clause, “who voluntarily accept obligations to cooperate in the furtherance of their common purposes,” should be deleted at the end of the suggestion for Paragraph 1.

Paragraph 2

Mr. Pasvolsky called attention to the suggestion for a new paragraph 2 which would accord to the middle-sized states a special position. It was designed particularly to divide the members not having permanent membership on the Security Council into two categories. Representative Eaton inquired why this provision should not be put in Chapter VI. Mr. Pasvolsky stated that certain criteria had been proposed for the election of members to the Security Council, as follows:

Their ability to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security;
Their geographical location;
Their contribution to the war; and
Their willingness to conclude agreements for the supply of forces.

He added his belief that the General Assembly should not be bound by any rules in the election of non-permanent members of the Security Council.

Senator Connally considered that some limitation should be placed on the election of the non-permanent members of the Security Council. He had in mind particularly the Latin American countries. Mr. Pasvolsky recommended that no provision be inserted in the Charter specifying rules to be followed by the General Assembly in the election of non-permanent members to the Security Council. The suggestion for a new paragraph 2 was accordingly deleted.

Paragraph 3

Mr. Pasvolsky called attention to the alternative proposed by Chile under which states of other regions would not be obligated to participate in military action if a conflict affected only one region.79 The Secretary stated that the Latin American countries were worried about the possible use of Soviet troops in the Western Hemisphere. Mr. Taft suggested that this matter could be taken care of by the special agreement for the supply of forces. Mr. Pasvolsky stated that it would be possible for us to prevent the use of non-American forces in this hemisphere if we wanted to. He added that Chile would not want to contribute any forces for use outside of the hemisphere.

Senator Vandenberg suggested that the Chapter on Principles might well be eliminated since they are taken care of in other parts of the document. Senator Connally thought that repetition might be avoided. Mr. Pasvolsky, in replying to these observations, stated that such a proposal would encounter considerable opposition. He thought it desirable for the Delegation to concentrate on the question of whether or not the ideas contained in the Chapter were to be supported.

The Delegation agreed to retain the text of this paragraph provisionally and to defer fuller consideration to a later meeting.

Paragraph 4

Mr. Dulles considered that the obligation contained in this paragraph was a dangerous one and raised the question as to what would happen if a member refused to accept a method of pacific settlement. Mr. Pasvolsky replied that a definite obligation on members was necessary and that this obligation should be distinguished from the procedures for pacific settlement which were set forth in Chapter VIII. Senator Vandenberg wondered whether this text precluded the right of self-defense, and asserted that this right would need to [Page 230] be identified. Senator Connally observed that there could not be any self-defense until there had been resort to arms. Senator Vandenberg offered the hypothetical case of an attack upon our Embassy in Argentina. Mr. Pasvolsky stated that the right of self-defense existed but that there was an obligation to notify the Council. If the Council failed to act immediately then a country was free to act. He considered that self-defense was implicit in the document but inquired how it could be spelled out. He stated that no suitable language had yet been found.

Mr. Dulles considered that both paragraphs 3 and 4 were too broad in scope and that they gave the illusion of security through sweeping commitments. He thought that from the standpoint of keeping the peace we must not give commitments that create a false illusion. Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that this was the only place in the document where a positive obligation is placed on members to settle their disputes by peaceful means. Mr. Dulles stated that we weren’t prepared to settle all disputes by peaceful means and pointed out, for example, the case of our immigration laws which were claimed by China to be insufficient. Mr. Pasvolsky replied that immigration was a matter of domestic concern. Mr. Dulles raised the question as to what would happen if China threatened to use force in case the immigration question were considered to be an international dispute rather than one of domestic concern. Representative Bloom raised the question whether any domestic law would be subject to the jurisdiction of the Organization as long as it was recognized by international law as a question falling within the domestic jurisdiction of a country.

Senator Vandenberg suggested the addition of the words “pursuant to all the terms of this document” as a possible limitation of the obligation. Mr. Taft suggested that the limitation of this principle might be effected by the addition of the phrase “subject to paragraph 7, Chapter VIII, Section A” which excepted from the jurisdiction of the Organization disputes arising out of matters which by international law are solely within the domestic jurisdiction of the state concerned. Mr. Pasvolsky stated that the question was whether this paragraph should be read as an obligation on states to settle their disputes or whether it should be interpreted to mean that they be settled only by peaceful means.

Mr. Dulles suggested the possible use of the negative form, “shall not settle their disputes by other than peaceful means”. Mr. Pasvolsky then suggested the following text to which the Delegation agreed:

“All members of the Organization shall refrain from using any but peaceful means in the settlement of their international disputes and shall use these means pursuant to the provisions of the Charter in such a manner that international peace and security are not endangered.”

[Page 231]

Paragraphs 5 and 6

Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Proposals were considered separately after the Suggestion for Paragraph 6 of the document combining these paragraphs had been set aside. With respect to Paragraph 5 of the Proposals, it was decided that the text should make clear that the obligation of members to give assistance to the Organization should be in accordance with the provisions of the Charter. The following text was proposed, subject to subsequent refinement in drafting:

“All members of the Organization shall give every assistance to the Organization in accordance with the provisions of the Charter in any action undertaken by it in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.”

The Delegation agreed that Paragraph 6 of the Proposals should be modified along the following lines, the precise drafting of which would be left to the Drafting Committee:

“All members of the Organization shall refrain from giving to any state against which enforcement action is being undertaken by the Organization assistance which would interfere with or nullify the action of the Organization.”

Paragraph 7

Following Mr. Pasvolsky’s explanation that the Suggestion for Paragraph 7 was to bring this principle into line with the Purposes, the Delegation approved the Suggestion for Paragraph 7 without change.

Paragraph 8

The Delegation agreed to delete the Suggestion for Paragraph 8 in view of the fact that provision for the promotion of human rights had been incorporated in the Chapter on Purposes.

Paragraph 9

The Secretary suggested that the Delegation need not consider the Suggestion for Paragraph 9 because the provisions on trusteeship had not yet been submitted. Dr. Bowman expressed the view that a provision of this character did not belong in the Chapter on Principles. It was agreed to delete the Suggestion for paragraph 9.

Paragraph 10

Mr. Taft considered that the Suggestion for paragraph 10 tended to repeat that section of the Chapter on purposes relating to the development of international law. Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that this Suggestion actually supplemented the text in the Chapter on Purposes. Senator Vandenberg thought that the Senate would support a provision such as that proposed. The Secretary thought that the text should stand without change. Representative Bloom proposed that the word “needs” be substituted by the word “conditions”. Representative Eaton thought that a provision of this nature would [Page 232] be welcomed by the little states as a hopeful measure. Both Mr. Armstrong and Dr. Bowman considered that this provision might be taken by the small states as an excuse for aggression against their neighbors.

Mr. Pasvolsky observed that the use of the word “treaties” might cause trouble and considered that there would undoubtedly be opposition to the acceptance of an obligation to uphold both good and bad treaties. Dr. Bowman observed that if the word “treaties” were left in, it would mean the acceptance of treaties between the present time and the time at which the International Court begins to function, and that such treaties would have to be voted by the Court. He thought that the reference to treaties should be omitted. Mr. Pasvolsky thought that a distinction might be made between treaties and treaty obligations. Senator Connally said that he could not agree to let the Security Council have authority to change treaties.

The Delegation then agreed that Paragraph 10 should be revised as follows:

“All members of the Organization shall respect international law and treaty obligations and promote their development and adaptation to changing conditions.”

It was further agreed that this paragraph should be reviewed at a later time in the light of Senator Vandenberg’s proposed amendment for Chapter VIII A.80

press statement

The Secretary interrupted the discussion of the document to read a draft statement to be made to the press if the Delegation approved. After brief discussion and the acceptance of several drafting changes, the following statement was approved by the Delegation:

The Delegation will be engaged for the next few days in a continuing examination of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals and all suggestions concerning them. It is the aim of these meetings to develop unified opinion on the part of the Delegation on all points which may come up at San Francisco. It is not possible to give day-to-day information on the trend of these discussions because tentative views reached today must be reviewed in light of subsequent discussion of other subjects. Towards the end of the week we will review the developments of the week to determine whether we can give you an overall picture of our progress.

In view of the foregoing I cannot confirm or deny the story in this morning’s press concerning yesterday’s meeting of the Delegation. [Page 233] While we hope to attain complete unanimity, I can tell you, however, that the Delegation has decided to take decisions by a simple majority vote.81

Paragraph 11

Senators Connally and Vandenberg expressed concern with the phraseology of Paragraph 11 concerning the obligations for non-member states. Senator Vandenberg proposed that this paragraph be stated in a negative rather than a positive form along the following lines:

“The Organization should ensure that states not members of the Organization should not interfere with action taken by the Organization in accordance with these principles for the maintenance of peace and security.”

The refinement of the text was referred to the Drafting Committee.

Additional Alternatives for Chapter II

The Delegation rejected all of the additional alternatives which had been proposed for Chapter II. With regard to the proposal concerning freedom of information, Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that this could be dealt with under the provisions for economic and social cooperation in Chapter IX. The Secretary proposed that the Mexico City Resolution on this subject82 might be condensed and placed in the Charter. Mr. Pasvolsky considered the Mexican City resolution impractical. He thought it would be necesary either to have something real on this subject or a meaningless platitude, and suggested that no provision be made. After further discussion it was agreed that while something would need to be done at San Francisco with regard to freedom of information, it was not appropriate to incorporate a provision on this subject in Chapter II.

Chapter III—Membership

Paragraph 1

Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that the question of membership rested on two theories: (1) whether it should be universal to start with; or (2) whether initial members should be those of like mind and that provision be made for the admission of others who are willing to accept the obligations of membership. He stated that the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals were based on the second theory and that there had been no serious disagreement with that provision. He also pointed out that the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals had made no provision for initial [Page 234] members and that the formula suggested would make it possible to include Poland as an original member if it were not represented at San Francisco.

Representative Bloom suggested that the word “nations” rather than “states” be used so that there would be no confusion concerning the definition of a state. Dr. Bowman suggested that it might be necessary to include a definition of a state. Senator Vandenberg inquired how India would qualify if the term “state” were employed. Mr. Savage pointed out that India was a signatory to the Declaration by the United Nations and could qualify under that classification.

The Secretary proposed and it was agreed that the provision for initial members should be limited to those states signatory to the Charter which would be listed in the Annex of the Charter and that the second sentence of paragraph 1 on initial members should be deleted.

Mr. Pasvolsky then called attention to the suggestion for paragraph 2 of the Suggestion and contrasted it with the alternative submitted by the French Government which would tend to restrict membership in the Organization.83 It was then agreed that paragraph 2 should be changed to read as follows, refinement in the text being left to the drafting committee:

“Other states should be admitted in accordance with the procedure provided in Chapter V, Section C, when they have demonstrated their willingness and ability to fulfill their obligations under the Charter.”

The Secretary requested that a list of states be prepared showing the members of the United Nations, other states and political units of uncertain status.84 Mr. Pasvolsky stated that a memorandum would also be prepared on the qualifications for membership which would include the discussions at Dumbarton Oaks and the Soviet proposal on non-fascist states.85

Chapter IV—Principal Organs

Paragraph 1

Mr. Pasvolsky, stating that this paragraph merely listed the principal organs of the Organization, thought that it was desirable to retain it. He also proposed that if this Chapter were retained in the Charter, it would be desirable to list all of the organs included in the Suggestion rather than to restrict the list to those organs named in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals.

Paragraph 2

Senator Connally considered that the second paragraph on other organs and agencies might be objected to by the Senate because it [Page 235] implied that many other types of agencies could be created by the Organization. He recommended that it be omitted. It was agreed that this paragraph should be deleted.

Strategy on Proposed Changes

The Secretary proposed that a list be prepared of additional provisions which the Delegation wished to insist upon and that another list be drawn up showing provisions which the Delegation was prepared to accept. Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that a single list of additional proposals be drawn up, and that the Delegation then review the list to determine which of those items should be put forward and urged by the Delegation and which of them would be accepted, if proposed by other delegations.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 noon.

  1. Reference had been made in a news article to the lack of unanimity in the delegation.
  2. Jurist 36 (11), G/26, April 13, UNCIO Documents, vol. 14, p. 52.
  3. Jules Basdevant.
  4. In Book 2. Not printed.
  5. Doc. 2, G/7 (i), May 2, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 284.
  6. With respect to paragraph 7, an alternative amendment by Senator Vandenberg proposed: “If a situation involves injustice, the Security Council shall recommend appropriate measures of adjustment, which may include revision of treaties and of prior international decisions.” (Book 2)
  7. An off-the-record statement along this line was made by the Secretary at his press conference on April 10.
  8. For text of Resolution XXVII, “Free Access to Information” adopted by the Inter-American Conference, see Department of State, Report of the Delegation of the United States of America to the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, Mexico City, Mexico, February 21–March 8, 1945 (Washington, 1946), p. 99.
  9. Doc. 2, G/7 (o), March 21, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 383.
  10. Not printed.
  11. Memorandum of April 16, not printed.