RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 96: U.S. Cr. Min. 12
Minutes of the Twelfth Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at Washington, Wednesday, April 18, 1945, 9:10 a.m.
[Here follows lists of names of persons (34) present at meeting.]
Mr. Stettinius called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m. and announced that he had been informed that the Secretary of the Navy [Page 331] would be coming in late. He further announced that the committee which met yesterday afternoon to draw up a revised draft statement on recommended policy on trusteeship had presented a statement, and that it was his understanding that Secretary of War Stimson has found the draft statement satisfactory. [This statement was then distributed to the delegates.]33
Mr. Stettinius read the statement, and Mr. Gates stated that the statement was satisfactory to Secretary Forrestal.
Mr. Bundy observed that he had shown the statement to Secretary Stimson last night, and that he had found it generally satisfactory. He had, however, pointed to certain redundancies and suggested that the word “namely” ought to be added after “thereunder” in the ninth line. Mr. Bundy stated further that it was his understanding that the State Department might raise a question about the phrase “trusteeship arrangements” in the eighth line, and that it was agreeable to him if it should be decided to remove this phrase.
Admiral Willson questioned the use of the word “shall” in the fifteenth line, but Mr. Bundy stated that the Secretary of War prefers the word “shall” in a policy statement.
Mr. Dulles stated that it was the committee’s idea that this statement would be a directive primarily for the instruction of the American Delegation and that if it were to be used as a statement for publication it might need some changes. This would be particularly true in view of the fact that there is somewhat tod much emphasis on United States interests and on the Pacific for a public statement.
Mr. Taussig suggested that in any statement for publication, paragraph 1, which is a negative statement, should be put last.
Mr. Pasvolsky suggested the addition of the word “political” after “social and economic” in the next to the last line. He pointed out that in all of the drafts the wording had been “social, economic and political”.
Mr. Stettinius stated that the draft statement has been recommended by the Army, Navy, and by our political and economic advisers and asked if there were any more questions.
Mr. Bloom raised a question about the meaning of the phrase in the second paragraph dealing with the territories to be put under trusteeship by “subsequent agreement” and wished to know if this meant that all territories in the above categories would be placed under the system.
Mr. Bowman explained that the wording of the statement left open the question as to which specific territories might be placed under the system by “subsequent agreement”.[Page 332]
Mr. Stettinius then asked each delegate in turn whether the statement was satisfactory to him, and it met the approval of all. Mr. Stettinius then remarked that he would wish the three Secretaries to recommend this statement to the President today as a directive for the Delegates,35 that in fact he would like to have this done within the next two or three hours, since he considered it a very important matter. With respect to the statement for the press, Mr. Stettinius stated that in his view it would not be necessary to obtain Presidential approval for a statement for publication. The draft statement, he said, should be called “Recommended Policy on Trusteeship”.
The Secretary expressed appreciation to the committee for working up the statement.
Mr. Pasvolsky indicated that consideration should next be given to the provision regarding domestic jurisdiction in paragraph 7 of Chapter VIII, Section. A.36 Senator Connally suggested that we should not try to solve the whole problem at one time, but that we should definitely limit action by the Organization to international questions. He thought that there would be a serious reaction if domestic questions were allowed to come within the scope of the Organization.
Dr. Bowman proposed that the words “by International Law” and “solely” be omitted from Paragraph 7. Senator Connally thought that in the long run the jurisdiction of the Organization would be wider if no attempt was made at the start to force states to submit questions of a domestic character to action by the organization. Representative Eaton thought that the present wording of the paragraph would provoke the question of immigration since it would be argued that the immigration question affected other countries. Senator Connally said this particular objection would be overcome if Dr. Bowman’s suggestion was adopted to strike out “by international law” and “solely”. He thought that we would get infbo difficulties unless we left it up to the states themselves to decide whether a question was within their domestic jurisdiction.
General agreement was then reached by the members of the Delegation to adopt Mr. Bowman’s suggestion, so that Paragraph 7 would read “The provisions of paragraph 1 to 6 of Section A should not [Page 333] apply to situations or disputes arising out of matters which are within the domestic jurisdiction of the state concerned.”
The Secretary asked Mr. Pasvolsky to continue the discussion and Mr. Pasvolsky indicated that the next topic would be the amendment provisions as stipulated in Chapter XI. Mr. Pasvolsky said that the basic question was whether to leave the chapter as it stood or whether to provide in addition for a system of periodic general review of the Charter.
(The Secretary was called from the meeting and asked Senator Connally to preside.)
Senator Connally said that Mr. Pasvolsky’s latter suggestion was hardly workable and that he personally preferred a more liberal and flexible amendment procedure that was clear-cut. Senator Vandenberg indicated that the present rigidity of the amendment process might prove very serious if one of the permanent members of the Security Council dropped into the position of a third rate power. It was possible that one of the permanent members might at some time not be on hand to concur in a proposed amendment. Senator Connally thought it was better to liberalize the amendment process than to provide for a general convention. He added that in any event he thought that the calling of a special convention should not be made the exclusive method for amending the Charter. He said he would tolerate the idea of recognizing the rights of the members to call a Constitutional Contention, but that he did not think this method should prevent the use of the amendment process.
Mr. Stassen suggested that paragraph 1 of Chapter XI remain as in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposal and that a new paragraph be added reading “A Revisionary Convention of the United Nations Organization shall be held in the year 1957 at a date and place to be fixed by the Assembly, for the purpose of revising the Charter of the Organization. Each Member of the Organization shall have one vote in the convention. New revisions proposed in the Charter of the Organization will take effect upon their ratification by two-thirds of the Members including the permanent Members of the Security Council.” Senator Connally asked why Mr. Stassen eliminated the other Members of the Council. Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that the other Members of the Council would have their say in the action of the General Assembly. Mr. Stassen considered it very important to give the people a chance to review the Charter at a later stage and he thought that by this procedure many groups that would be dissatisfied with the results at San Francisco would come along with the Organization.
Representative Bloom commented that the date 1957 was twelve years off and he asked what would happen if changes were desired before [Page 334] that date. Mr. Stassen pointed out that the amendment process still would be available. Senator Connally said he would have no fundamental objection to the general idea proposed by Commander Stassen, except that he did not think a definite date should be set. He did not object to suggesting in the Charter that a conference might be held, if needed, but he thought that the method of adopting the suggestions of the conference should be the same as that provided for the adoption of regular amendments. Mr. Stassen said that it might be possible to provide simply that “A Revisionary Convention of the United Nations shall be held on the call of a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly.” Representative Eaton and Representative Bloom thought this was a useful proposal.
Mr. Pasvolsky remarked that this whole question had been discussed at Dumbarton Oaks and that the possibility of a provision for general revision had been considered.37 He indicated that the argument against such a provision that had been raised at Dumbarton Oaks was that it would tend to detract from the prestige of the Organization, just at the time when the Organization should have all the prestige possible. It was agreed also, he said, that any Organization had the inherent right to have a general look at its provisions and to review its operations. In the final analysis, he said, we have to keep in mind that at the present stage of developments no system for amendments would be acceptable that would lead to a revision contrary to the wishes of any one of the major powers. He added that this assumption of the necessary unanimity of the major powers would have to be carried over into any revisionary process.
Mr. Stassen said he disagreed with Mr. Pasvolsky that a provision for periodic review would detract from the prestige of the Organization. He thought quite the contrary, that such a provision would strengthen the prestige of the Organization. He said that large sections of public opinion would be dissatisfied with the results of San Francisco, and that a provision permitting reconsideration of the Organization would help keep people in back of the enterprise.
Mr. Pasvolsky said that whatever we provided would get us into trouble, unless we recognized the principle of the unanimity of the permanent members on the Security Council. Mr. Stassen agreed with this view.
Senator Vandenberg suggested that a final clause be added to the proposed addition to Chapter XI, to the effect that revisions cannot come into effect until they have been ratified in accordance with a state’s constitutional processes. Mr. Stassen agreed that this would be a useful addition.[Page 335]
Representative Eaton felt that the attitude with which this whole matter should be approached was that we were at the beginning of a great world development, that this was only a first step, a beginnings and that it would be essential to make changes. Senator Connally indicated that his main objection to the proposal was the setting of a definite time for the convening of a convention. Such a provision, he said, would simply announce to the world that we are establishing a temporary outfit. Senator Connally thought that the calling of a general convention should be left up to an agency of the Organization to call it by a special vote.
Dr. Bowman indicated that there was a very practical political problem to be met since there would inevitably be strong objections to certain provisions of the Charter. He thought the addition now of a provision for periodic revision would decrease the pressure of public opinion.
Senator Connally said that Mr. Pasvolsky had mentioned that this question was discussed at Dumbarton Oaks. The Senator questioned how strong the opposition to this proposal had been. Mr. Pasvolsky replied that the opposition had been very heavy, but that there might have been some change of opinion in view of the discussions subsequent to Dumbarton Oaks. Mr. Dulles thought it would be very useful to be able to say that the Charter was not the last word, that it was just a start and so that people could have hope that at some future date changes might be made. Dean Gildersleeve thought that the amendment process should if possible be liberalized and that this proposal was one way of doing it. She added that she saw the difficulty pointed out by Senator Connally of specifying a date at which time a General Convention should be called.
Mr. Stassen suggested that his proposal might be redrafted to read “A Revisionary Convention of the Members of the United Nations may be held by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly for the purpose of revising the Charter, at a date and place to be determined by the General Assembly. Any revisions proposed would take effect upon ratification in accordance with their respective constitutional purposes of two-thirds of the Members including the permanent Members of the Security Council.” Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that the special position given to the permanent Members in this procedure followed logically from their special responsibilities for security matters.
Senator Connally wondered why the whole matter was not left to the Assembly. Senator Vandenberg pointed out that this country would not have a veto in the General Assembly. Mr. Dulles noted that if Mr. Stassen’s suggestions were adopted, this country would have a veto over any revision proposed by the Conference, but that it would not have a veto over the calling of the Conference. Mr. Stassen [Page 336] thought it would so work out that a conference would not be called unless there was general willingness on the part of the large nations, since there would be no use in a conference that could not count on the support of the large nations.
Senator Connally thought that the calling of a, conference should be with the approval of the Security Council, by a vote of seven. Mr. Stassen thought that rather than define the voting procedure the phrase might be included: “with the approval of the Security Council in accordance with the procedure stipulated in Chapter VI, Section C, Paragraph 3.”
Mr. Bloom noted that the action of the Conference would be limited to revision of the Charter. He asked what was implied in the term “revision” and whether the Conference could be called for any other purpose. Mr. Stassen said he interpreted the word “revision” broadly and that it might be well to say “for the purpose of considering revisions.” Mr. Bloom said he would prefer the phrasing “reviewing the Charter of the Organization.”
Senator Connally said he thought this matter should be deferred for final action and that it should be more thoroughly discussed. Mr. Stassen indicated that he was interested in having the Delegation indicate the general line of policy they favored and that the drafting Committee could then work out the language. Mr. Pasvolsky questioned introducing reference to the whole Security Council, preferring reference only to the permanent members of the Security Council.
Mr. Stassen asked whether the general principle of his proposal was acceptable to the Delegation if his original statement was modified to include Senator Connally’s proposal that the Conference be called by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly with the approval of the Security Council, if Mr. Vandenberg’s addition was included “in accordance with their respective constitutional processes” and if Mr. Bloom’s proposal was taken that the Convention be called for the purpose of reviewing the Charter. Mr. Dunn thought it was important to use the term “Conference” rather than “Convention”. Senator Connally suggested that in place of the phrase “revising the Charter” there be substituted the phrase “for the purpose of considering revisions in the Charter.” Mr. Stassen said what he had in mind was not to change the exact language, but rather to define the line of policy. He said he agreed that mention of a particular date should be eliminated.
Senator Connally asked whether this line of policy presented by Mr. Stassen and amended in the course of the discussion of the Delegation was in general satisfactory. He said that it satisfied him. General agreement with the proposal was expressed by the [Page 337] members of the Delegation. Senator Connally asked why the Assembly by itself could not adopt proposals. Mr. Pasvolsky replied that there would be strong objection to having the Assembly alone possess this power, since the permanent members of the Council would then have no special position with respect to the making of amendments.
Senator Connally pointed out that as suggested by Mr. Stassen , it would be more difficult to get a revision ratified than it would be to get an amendment ratified since an amendment would require ratification by members of the Organization having permanent membership on the Security Council and by the majority of the other Members of the Organization. According to Mr. Stassen’s amendment proposal, ratification of proposed revisions would require two-thirds of the Members including the permanent Members of the Security Council. He thought this point should be borne in mind in the drafting and Mr. Pasvolsky agreed with him.
Withdrawal From Membership
Mr. Pasvolsky asked the Delegation whether a provision for withdrawal should be included. He noted that such a provision had been removed from the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals on our own recommendation and that it was primarily a political question.38
Representative Bloom asked Mr. Pasvolsky what his suggestion was. Mr. Pasvolsky replied that, so far, no provision for withdrawal was being suggested. Mr. Stassen commented that a provision for withdrawal would affect, in fact, only the smaller states who might find it desirable to withdraw if a veto of one of the permanent members tied up action of the Organization. He suggested that this Government should not put forward a provision for withdrawal but let the small nations if they wished make the suggestion themselves. Mr. Stassen thought that it might be well to have a provision for easy withdrawal. Mr. Pasvolsky replied that since this is an Organization based on the unity of the great powers, he did not think the great powers would be willing to make possible easy withdrawal. Representative Eaton said that if a provision for easy withdrawal was stipulated, the conditions leading up to the breakdown of the League of Nations would be reproduced. Senator Connally thought it would be difficult to hold within the Organization states that really wanted to get out.
Mr. Bowman remarked that it was important to keep in mind the unnumbered paragraph at the end of the Chapter on Principles, in which it was provided that states not members of the Organization [Page 338] could not escape the obligation to conform to certain lines of action. He thought this provision should be kept in mind in considering the question of withdrawal.
Mr. Dulles suggested that there were two possibilities for handling the matter, to grant a general right of withdrawal or to grant to a small power the right to withdraw if an amendment which it did not like was imposed upon it. He said he personally favored according the right of withdrawal to small states that did not wish to accept an amendment which the large powers favored. Mr. Dunn thought this provision would get the Organization into trouble.
Mr. Stassen suggested that if the small nations came forward with a provision for withdrawal, then we would have to seriously consider it, but that since it is their problem, we might well withhold any decision at this time. Representative Bloom indicated that he would oppose a withdrawal clause included in the Charter on the ground that the public would then say we were writing only a very temporary agreement. He preferred, he said, to allow states to make reservations with respect to certain parts of the Charter while keeping the states bound together in the Organization. Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that Mr. Stassen’s proposal to postpone a definite decision would seem satisfactory. It was then generally agreed by the Delegation to pass over this question for the time being and consider it later, [The Secretary returned to the meeting].38a
Reconsideration of Chapter IX,39 Section A, Paragraph I—Economic and Social Cooperation
Mr. Pasvolsky then read the suggestion for the revision of Chapter IX, Section A, Paragraph I (April 12, 1945 Suggested Revision of Chapter IX, Section A, Paragraph I).40 Mr. Pasvolsky noted that it might be well to reverse the order of reference to economic development and social advancement and the reference to promotion of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Mr. Pasvolsky asked Mr. Stinebower to say a few words about the proposal.
Mr. Stinebower explained that the suggestion embodied shorter text that had been asked for on the basis of the discussion at a previous meeting of the Delegation. He noted that the basic change that was being suggested was the addition of the phrase “encourage separate and cooperative action by all nations for the solutions of international, economic, social, health and other related problems.” He indicated that the present draft was in lieu of a longer, detailed statement of functions which had previously been placed before the Delegation. [Page 339] Senator Connally said he liked the reference “encourage separate and cooperative action”. Mr. Stinebower indicated that this addition paralleled the idea that had developed at the Hot Springs Conference that the Organization would not take the action but rather that the nations would take the action.41
Dean Gildersleeve said she would like to say a few words on this proposal. She said she had been confronted with a good many questions as what the term “humanitarian” meant. She had wondered whether it would not be well to spell out what was meant, for example, health, education, control of opium traffic, etc. But in spelling out, the list seemed to get too complicated and she now wondered whether it would not be satisfactory simply to mention health and cultural relations so that the final phrase would read “the solution of international, economic, social, health, cultural and other related problems.” Senator Connally stated that the enumeration of any fields tended to exclude other fields. Dean Gildersleeve replied that this was taken care of by the phrase “and other related problems”. She said, however, that she recognized the advantage in leaving the text as it stood in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals as long as one had authority to state what was included under the term “humanitarian”. The Secretary said that Dean Gildersleeve was correct in interpreting humanitarian to include social, cultural and health problems. He said he remembered that late one Sunday night at Dumbarton Oaks they had wrestled with the interpretation of “social and other humanitarian”.42 It had been agreed that this phrase included education, health, narcotics and cultural relations. He asked Dr. Bowman if this interpretation was accurate. Dr. Bowman indicated that the interpretation had been just inclusive enough to allow him to go along with it. The Secretary thought it would be preferable to leave the matter in general terms rather than to attempt to list the various fields in detail.
Dean Gildersleeve replied that she had recently received a, letter with very important backing proposing the establishment of an Office of International Education. She said the situation would be satisfactory if she was authorized to say that the United States Delegation interpreted the text of the proposals, particularly the phrase “to facilitate solutions of international, economic, social and other humanitarian problems” as providing future opportunities for the [Page 340] establishment of specialized organizations dealing with health, education, culture, control of opium and other related problems as well as other problems not obviously within the category “social and humanitarian”, and that these organizations could be established whenever the Economic and Social Council under the general authority of the Assembly approved. Moreover, provisions could be made to bring them into relationship with the Organisation.
The Secretary said he welcomed this interpretation and that he did; not think a statement to this effect would do any damage, although he thought that Dean Gildersleeve should make the statement not as a member of the Delegation but as an individual. Mr. Dunn agreed that this would probably be desirable.
Representative Eaton questioned whether any reference should be made to education, particularly since it was important to avoid having ally interference by the international organization with the educational processes of the member states. Dr. Bowman said he would like to speak in support of Dean Gildersleeve and also support the chairman’s suggestion that she make her statement as an individual and not as a member of the Delegation. Since education was as hot a subject as religion, reference to it as coming within the scope of the Organization might invite dissension. However, if she spoke only as an individual, it would still leave open the possibility of talking about the matter. He explained that he had received hundreds of letters asking him whether the term humanitarian covered education as well as other matters. The letters always asked, if the term did cover education, why education was not mentioned directly. He said he answered such letters by saying that if education was mentioned, then a lot of other things would have to be enumerated, and that, in any case, the representatives that met at Dumbarton Oaks interpreted “humanitarian” to include education.
Senator Vandenberg noted that the greatest row that had taken place over UNRRA concerned an amendment on education which had been introduced. He said to get the agreement by it had taken a firm letter from Mr. Acheson 43 saying that there was no reference to education in the agreement. Dean Gildersleeve explained that after twenty-five years in the field of education, particularly in the field of international education, she was not interested in seeing education imposed on anybody, she was not interested in having an educational system imposed on this country, nor was she interested in using force to impose our educational system on other countries. She said she would be satisfied if she could say that education was not eliminated by the terms “social and humanitarian.”[Page 341]
Senator Connally urged that the phrase in the suggested draft “encouraged separate and cooperative action” be added to the present text of the Proposals. Mr. Pasvolsky indicated that the term “facilitate” had been adopted and that it carried the same meaning as “encourage”. He said that the matter of wording would be considered in the course of the work of the Drafting Committee.
The Secretary asked whether there were not other words that could be used in place of “cultural enrichment”. Mr. Stinebower mentioned that it might be possible to say “economic enrichment and cultural development”. The Secretary suggested “cultural exchange”. Mr. Stassen proposed that the phrase in the text might be condensed to “economic, social and cultural advancement”. The Secretary indicated that he preferred this modification.
Senator Vandenberg said he would prefer to keep the present text and Dean Gildersleeve concurred. The Secretary said he would like to see included the phrase “separate and cooperative action”. Mr. Bloom, Dean Gildersleeve and Mr. Stassen expressed approval of this modification.
Senator Connally proposed that the word “international” be omitted before “economic, social, and other humanitarian problems”. Senator Connally thought that the term international would arouse opposition in the Senate and would suggest that the Organization had powers that went beyond those of encouraging the solution of problems. Mr. Dulles said he felt that the omission of the word international would create greater anxiety and opposition. Mr. Pasvolsky agreed that it was important to make clear that the organization would deal only with international problems and not with domestic questions. He suggested that one might say “should facilitate and encourage cooperative action by all nations for the solution of international, economic, social and other humanitarian problems.”
Senator Connally said he still objected to the term “international.” Mr. Stassen explained that the term “international” modified the other problems and that the Organization would encourage separate and cooperative action with respect to international problems. The action, in most cases, he added, would be local and domestic action. Mr. Pasvolsky agreed that the Organization should deal only with problems of an international character and that considerable discussion had preceded the inclusion of the word “international”.
Senator Connally said that the term international definitely suggested that the Organization would have power beyond that of “encouraging separate and cooperative action”. Representative Bloom thought that the term international modified the whole document and that any special mention at this point would get us into trouble on the floor of Congress. Dr. Bowman said he thought what the Senator [Page 342] had been getting at was that voluntary cooperation so far as it can go is a good thing and that anything that is imposed is bad.
Mr. Stassen suggested that for the phrases “to facilitate” and “international …” there be substituted “encourage separate and cooperative action by all nations for the settlement of economic, social, humanitarian and other related problems”. Mr. Pasvolsky said he thought that the omission of the term international would cause trouble and that further thought should be given to the matter. Dean Gildersleeve said she feared that if any amendment was made in the text of the present Proposals there might be some danger of losing the reference to human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Secretary agreed that each change we proposed created the danger that changes would be asked by other Governments. Mr. Dunn indicated that he felt it was more important to retain the word “international”. Senator Connally thought that everything was modified by the term “international”.
The Secretary explained that the present text on Page 9 had been arrived at only after great difficulty and that the Soviet Union in particular had come along with much hesitation. To demand any change in this text, he felt, would run the great risk of upsetting the whole applecart. The Secretary asked whether any essential changes were being proposed in this chapter. Senator Connally replied that it was necessary at some point to say no to Mr. Stalin and that this would be a good issue on which to meet him.
The Secretary suggested that the text of Section A44 be reconsidered in San Francisco and that for the time being it be left as it stands. The Members of the Delegation generally agreed to this proposal. Mr. Stinebower remarked that he did not regard any proposed change in the chapter as essential, except perhaps the phrase “to encourage separate and cooperative action”. Mr. Stassen indicated that he would like to indicate his agreement with Senator Connally to omit the term international. The Secretary said he especially favored the phrase “separate and cooperative action” and Dean Gildersleeve concurred.
Review of Decisions Tentatively Reached for Suggestions on The Proposals
The Secretary suggested that each proposed revision in the draft before the Delegation45 (Chapter I through Chapter VI, VIII, and XII April 16, 1945, yellow paper) should be reviewed to see which changes we would propose and which we would support if other governments proposed them. Senator Connally hoped that, while [Page 343] general agreement might be reached, such agreement should not be considered final and that we should reserve final judgment until the proceedings in San Francisco. The Secretary added that we were obligated to consult with the other sponsoring governments regarding any changes we intended to propose.
Mr. Pasvolsky indicated that it was probably not necessary to discuss the Preamble in detail at this time and that the matter might well be deferred for consideration at San Francisco. This procedure was generally agreed to.
Chapter I—Purposes 46
noted that Paragraph 4 contained only a verbal change so that the
proposal need not be pushed. He added that, at the Chinese stage of the
Dumbarton Oaks Conversations, agreement had been reached to sponsor
three proposals made by the Chinese Government:47
Mr. Sandifer explained that these proposals had been transmitted to the Governments invited to the San Francisco Conference simply as Chinese proposals. The Secretary noted that the agreement on the Chinese proposals actually constituted a commitment on our part to support them. Copies of the three points as distributed to the sponsoring governments were then presented to the members of the Delegation. Mr. Pasvolsky noted that the Chinese proposals were quite in line with our own, and he wondered whether we should then propose the changes in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Chapter I, or whether we should merely support them. Mr. Stassen said that these three paragraphs were proposing what the Chinese had already suggested. The Secretary thought that we should support these proposals. Mr. Stassen urged that we propose them since they were in fact the work of the Delegation.
Mr. Pasvolsky thought there might be some difficulty with the Soviet Union in transferring mention of human rights and fundamental freedoms to Chapter I, but that he saw no objection to proposing [Page 344] this change. The Secretary then asked whether it was intended to propose paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Chapter I. The members of the Delegation replied in the affirmative.
Chapter II—Principles 48
Paragraph 1.—It was generally agreed that the change in Paragraph 1 should be proposed.
Paragraph 2.—Mr. Pasvolsky remarked that nothing new was suggested in Paragraph 2 and that the Paragraph added nothing important to the Proposals.
It was agreed that the Paragraph should stand.
Paragraph 3.—Mr. Pasvolsky said that the change in Paragraph 3 was primarily one of clarification. Mr. Stassen thought that the Paragraph raised the question of the rights of states when a veto by a major power prevented action by the Organization. Mr. Pasvolsky indicated that the main purpose of Paragraph 3 was to indicate that a state would violate the principles of the Organization if it used anything but peaceful measures. Mr. Stassen said he would agree to Paragraph 3 with the change that had been worked out previously. Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that Paragraph 3 as changed be proposed. This was generally agreed to.
Paragraph 4—Mr. Stassen said he would not agree to the suggested changes in Paragraph 4 since it would prevent necessary action by Member states when the veto power of the Organization was used arbitrarily. He thought the change made the paragraph more restrictive than before. He said he did not want the principle so restrictive that when the Organization failed to act, states would still be bound by the provisions of the Charter.
Mr. Pasvolsky said that we should examine the situation that would be created if Mr. Stassen’s proposal was agreed to. He added that the basic question was whether states assumed obligations not to use force or whether they did not assume them. Mr. Dulles agreed with Mr. Stassen that the proposed change enlarged the scope of the obligations of members. Mr. Stassen indicated that so long as the veto power remained, he would stand against enlarging the scope of the obligations.
The Secretary announced that there would be a meeting of the Delegation in San Francisco not later than Wednesday49 and that the discussion would continue at that time. Meanwhile he said there remained the job of going through the rest of the documents to discover what proposals we should present and which other ones we should support. Mr. Bloom said he wondered whether it would not be possible to postpone further discussion until arrival at San Francisco. [Page 345] Senator Connally thought discussions should proceed, but that we should Hot make final decisions before arrival in San Francisco. He said we would want to be free to reconsider our position in the light of the proposals made by other Governments. The Secretary agreed. The Secretary indicated that he wished to discuss with President Truman any fundamental changes that we were going to propose in the position that had been taken by Mr. Roosevelt. Senator Vandenberg and Mr. Bloom remarked that President Truman had said that the Secretary was boss and that the President had left the matter in the Secretary’s hands. Senator Vandenberg thought that we should go forward on that basis. The Secretary explained that what he had in mind was the necessity of keeping the President informed. Senator Vandenberg added that in fact there was little departure from President Roosevelt’s position.
The Secretary requested that a memorandum be prepared for presentation to the President embodying a statement of the proposed changes in the Dumbarton Oaks document that were agreed to by the Delegation. The Secretary then said that he would have to leave the meeting to go to the White House. [Senator Connally also left at this time.]49a
Mr. Dulles referring to Paragraph 4, said that this paragraph only underlined his feeling about the whole Chapter on Principles—that the statements in that Chapter were either redundant or involved too sweeping undertakings. He thought that the Chapter had not been carefully drafted and that it ought to be revised to make the commitments more precise and more definite in order that we would not put states in the position of being open to the charge that they had violated their international commitments. It was then generally agreed to defer any decision on Paragraph 4 for consideration at San Francisco.
Paragraph 5.—Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that the change in Paragraph 5 was an important clarification and he thought that the change should be proposed. This was generally agreed to.
Paragraph 6.—Mr. Pasvolsky noted that the change in Paragraph 6 was also one of clarification, but that it was important and should be proposed. Senator Vandenberg asked if there was any objection and none was expressed.
Paragraph 7.—Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that the addition of Paragraph 7 be supported. This was agreed to.
Paragraph 8.—Mr. Pasvolsky said that the addition of Paragraph 8 should be supported. This was agreed to.
Unnumbered Paragraph.—Mr. Pasvolsky indicated that this paragraph had been redrafted in order to emphasize that states not members of the Organization should not interfere with action taken by [Page 346] the Organization rather than that they should take certain types of action. Mr. Stassen said he preferred the original draft. Senator Vandenberg indicated that the difficulty with the original draft was that we were imposing obligations on states that had not, assumed them. General agreement was reached to defer decision on this paragraph until arrival in San Francisco.
Paragraphs 2 and 3. 50—Mr. Pasvolsky proposed that the addition of Paragraphs 2 and 3 be supported since they were not fundamental changes. This was generally agreed to.
Chapter IV—Principal Organs
Mr. Pasvolsky proposed that the changes proposed in this Chapter be supported.51 This was generally agreed to.
Chapter V—The General Assembly 52
Section A. Composition
Mr. Pasvolsky proposed that the changes in Section A be supported. This was agreed to.
Section B. Functions and Powers
Paragraph 1.—Mr. Pasvolsky proposed that the changes in Paragraph 1 be supported since it was implicit that the General Assembly could formulate general conventions. At Mr. Bloom’s suggestion the term “convention” was changed to “treaty”. General agreement was expressed to support the changes in Paragraph 1.
Paragraph 2.—Mr. Pasvolsky favored the changes proposed in Paragraph 2. He explained that the point of this paragraph was to assure that the General Assembly could at all times discuss any question bearing on the maintenance of peace and security, and that the limitation of its power to make recommendations concerning matters which will be dealt with by the Security Council should be confined to specific recommendations. Mr. Pasvolsky urged that this matter would need to be discussed with the other sponsoring Governments. General agreement was reached to propose the changes in paragraph 2.
Paragraph 3.—Mr. Pasvolsky favored proposing the changes in Paragraph 3 on the ground that they constituted a basic additional thought. This was agreed to.
Paragraph 4.—Mr. Pasvolsky favored supporting the change in Paragraph 4 on the ground that it was not vitally important. This was agreed to.[Page 347]
Paragraph 6.—Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that the change in Paragraph 6 be supported. This was agreed to.
Paragraph 7.—Mr. Pasvolsky proposed that the reference to the formulation of draft convention be omitted from Paragraph 7 and that the bracket be omitted from the last sentence. With these modifications he favored proposing the changes indicated for Paragraph 7, except that the first sentence should be redrafted to read “The General Assembly should initiate studies and make recommendations for the formulation of draft conventions for submission to states for ratification; for the promotion of international cooperation in political, economic, social and cultural fields and in measures to establish justice; and for the fostering of the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms; and for encouraging the development of rules of international law.” Mr. Pasvolsky’s suggestion was agreed to.
Paragraph 8.—Mr. Pasvolsky proposed that the changes in Paragraph 8 be supported. This was agreed to.
Paragraph 9.—Mr. Pasvolsky proposed that the changes in Paragraph 9 be supported. This was agreed to.
Paragraph 10.—Mr. Pasvolsky favored supporting the addition of Paragraph 10, for the time being. He pointed out that it might be necessary at a later time in the discussions in San Francisco to bring the matter up. Mr. Pasvolsky’s suggestion was agreed to.
Mr. Bloom asked how our proposals would be made. Mr. Pasvolsky replied that they would be made first when we went into discussions with the other sponsoring powers. At this time the four Governments, would submit their suggestions for changes. As the discussion developed in the work of the main conference, he added, we might bring other of our suggestions forward.
Section C. Voting
Paragraph 2.—Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that the change in Paragraph 2 be supported. Admiral Willson asked whether the reference to trusteeship was to remain. Mr. Pasvolsky said that it would remain but that we would only support the change. This decision was generally agreed to.
Section D. Procedure
Paragraph 1.—Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that the addition to Paragraph 1 be supported. This was generally agreed to.
Chapter VI—The Security Council
Section B. Principal Functions and Powers
Paragraph 2.—Mr. Pasvolsky proposed that the change in Paragraph 2 be supported. This was agreed to.
Paragraph 4.—Mr. Pasvolsky favored supporting the change in Paragraph 4. This was agreed to.[Page 348]
Section D. Procedure
Paragraph 2.—Mr. Pasvolsky asked whether the change in Paragraph 2 to take out the phrase referring to regional sub-committees of the Military Staff Committee should be proposed, or whether we should be guided by the discussions at the Conference. General Fairchild and Admiral Willson favored proposing this deletion. Mr. Pasvolsky thought that we might have a fight with, the British on this point. General agreement was expressed to propose this change.
Chapter VIII—Arrangements for the Maintenance of International Peace and Security Including Prevention and Suppression of Aggression 53
Section A. Pacific Settlement of Disputes
Paragraph 5.—Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that the addition to Paragraph 5 should be proposed. This was agreed to.
Paragraph 7.—Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that Paragraph 7 be proposed as amended earlier in the discussion that day. This was agreed to.
Section B. Determination of Threats to the Peace or Acts of Aggression and Action with Respect Thereto
Paragraph 1.—Mr. Pasvolsky proposed that the change in Paragraph 1 be supported. This was agreed to.
Mr. Pasvolsky said that the review of the present draft was now completed54 but that meanwhile certain matters of importance had been deferred including a possible withdrawal provision and Chapter IX. He said the question of the seat of the new Organization would also come up. He pointed out that the Delegation had before it a memorandum, that had not been officially approved but which presented the facts concerning the seat of the new Organization. [Report of the Fletcher Committee on the Location of the International Organization, November 1, 1944.]55
Mr. Stassen said that he would like to submit the draft proposal which he had prepared on trusteeship for discussion. The draft reads as follows:[Page 349]
Arrangements for International Trusteeship
- The organization should establish under its authority a system of international trusteeship for the administration and supervision of such territories as may be brought thereunder by subsequent agreement of the states concerned.
- The Trusteeship system should apply only to such territories in
the following categories as may, by trusteeship arrangements, be
- territories now held under mandate;
- territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of this war; and
- territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
- The trusteeship of a particular territory may be established by
- The execution of a trust arrangement by a member of the organization as trustee and the approval thereof by the Assembly and by the Security Council.
- The adoption of a trust arrangement by the Assembly of the organization as trustee and the approval thereof by the Security Council.
- All changes in any trusteeship arrangement shall be subject to the approval of the Assembly and the Security Council.
- The basic objectives of the trusteeship system shall be to advance the purposes of the organization as set forth iii Chapter One.
- The Assembly, with the approval of the Security Council, may establish a Trusteeship Council to assist in the administration of the Trusteeship System.
Mr. Stassen said that he felt that the statement in the Charter should not go into detail and that he had accordingly proposed the present draft. He said he did not mean to criticize the work done over a long period of time in the Department and felt that this work could be used. He suggested that the draft be considered that afternoon at the sub-committee dealing with trusteeship.56
Dean Gildersleeve asked whether it was expected that there would be many general resolutions offered in San Francisco. Mr. Pasvolsky replied that an effort was being made to limit the number of general [Page 350] resolutions and that it was hoped that not many would be brought forward since it was felt that they could be handled in other ways. Representative Bloom proposed that there be a special agency connected with the Conference where resolutions could be filed. Senator Vandenberg suggested that the handling of this matter would be the job of the men working with the consultants.
At 11:50 the meeting adjourned.57
- Brackets appear in the original. Revised draft statement not found in Department files; for final text, see p. 351.↩
- For a list of the chief points in a set of guiding principles with regard to policy toward dependent territories and trusteeship, for the information of the American delegation, see Conference Series No. 71: Charter of the United Nations: Report to the President … June 26, 1945 (Department of State publication No. 2349), pp. 130–131.↩
- For previous discussions on this subject, see minutes of meetings of April 12, 9 a.m., and April 16, 9 a.m., pp. 269 and 296, respectively.↩
- See progress reports of August 31, September 7, and September 20, 1944, on the Dumbarton Oaks Conversations, Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. i, pp. 755, 776, and 828, respectively.↩
- For previous discussion of this question, see minutes of the meeting of the delegation, April 11, 9 a.m., p. 241; see also progress report of August 25, 1944, on the Dumbarton Oaks Conversations, Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. i, p. 732.↩
- Brackets appear in the original.↩
- For previous discussion of chapter IX, see minutes of meeting of April 11, 11 a.m., p. 259 ↩
- Not printed.↩
- Preamble to Constitution of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; for documentation on the United Nations Conference on Food and Agriculture, Hot Springs, Virginia, May 18–June 3, 1943, see Foreign Relations, 1943, vol. i, pp. 820 ff.↩
- For reference to agreement by the American Group to accept the words “and other humanitarian” and not to insist upon specific reference to educational and cultural problems, see progress report of September 13, 1944, on the Dumbarton Oaks Conversations, Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. i, p. 796.↩
- For letter of January 22, 1944, from Assistant Secretary Acheson to Representative Edith Nourse Rogers (Massachusetts), see Congressional Record, vol. 90, pt. 1, p. 688.↩
- Not printed.↩
- For previous discussion on this subject, see minutes of meeting of April 9, 3:15 p.m., p. 215.↩
- For previous discussion on this subject, see minutes of meeting of April 9, 3:15 p.m., p. 215.↩
- See progress report of October 4, 1944, Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. i, p. 865.↩
- For previous discussions of Chapter II, see minutes of meetings of April 9, 3:15 p.m., and April 10, 10:15 a.m., pp. 215 and 227, respectively.↩
- April 25.↩
- Brackets appear in the original.↩
- For previous discussion of suggestion for the addition of a new paragraph as paragraph 1 and substitution of a new paragraph 2 for the present text, see minutes of meeting of April 10, 10:15 a.m., p. 227.↩
- See minutes of meeting of April 10, 10:15 a.m., p. 227.↩
- For discussion of chapter V, see minutes of meeting of April 11, 9 a.m., p. 241.↩
- For previous discussions of chapter VIII, see minutes of meetings of April 12, 9 a.m., and April 16, 9 a.m., pp. 269 and 296, respectively.↩
- For statement to the press by the Secretary of State on the completion by the United States delegation of its review and examination of Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, April 18, see Department of State Bulletin, April 22, 1945, p. 724.↩
- Brackets appear in the original. Report not printed.↩
- The informal meeting of some of the Delegates, advisers, and technical officers was held that afternoon just before they boarded the train for San Francisco. A new draft was drawn up, on the train, based upon the general ideas expressed at the afternoon meeting. This new paper, after clearance by telegraph with the War and Navy Departments, was considered by the delegation at its April 26 meeting at San Francisco. See draft, p. 459.↩
- For minutes of the next meeting of the delegation, held at San Francisco, April 23, 11 a.m., see p. 360.↩