Memorandum of Conversation; by Mr. Leo Pasvolsky, Special Assistant to the Secretary of State 67

Participants: Dr. Ezequiel Padilla, Foreign Minister of Mexico
Sr. Manuel Tello, Under Secretary of State
Lic. Primo Villa Michell, President of the Mexico, [Page 356] United States Economic Commission and Mexican Delegate to the United Nations Conference on International Organization
Lic. Luciano Wichers, (Adviser to the Mexican Delegation)
Lic. Alfonso García Robles, Minister Counselor, Mexican Foreign Office (Secretary General, Mexican Delegation to UNCIO)
Mr. Leo Pasvolsky, Adviser American Delegation
Mr. W. K. Ailshie, American Embassy, Mexico City, D.F.

I lunched today on the train with Dr. Padilla and the following members of the Mexican Delegation: Sr. Manuel Tello, Licenciado Primo Villa Michell, Licenciado Luciano Wichers, Licenciado Alfonso García Robles. In the course of the luncheon and during the conversation which followed, Dr. Padilla and his associates described the following four modifications in the Dumbarton Oaks draft which, in their opinion, they believe are the most important:

1.
Dr. Padilla said that he was very anxious that the final Charter should reflect a spiritual note, as well as, the realities of power. He spoke of the great forces of ideas and ideals which, in his opinion, would do much toward building the kind of system of international relations that we all favor. He said that for this reason the Mexican Delegation was very eager to have incorporated in the Charter something approaching a statement of the basic rights and obligations of individuals and nations. As he and his associates explained, later on, they would like to see the Act of Mexico City (Resolution #30 of the Mexico City Conference69 or as much of it as would be advisable, stated in the form of a preamble to the Charter.
2.
There should be a stronger emphasis on international law and the basis of law in international relations. They were not clear as to how they would like to see this point explained in the Charter.
3.
Their next point related to the designation of permanent members on the Security Council. They said that they recognized fully the need of placing the militarily powerful nations in a special category. However, they would like to see a democratization of the procedure for the selection of the Security Council, in such a way that the whole membership would be elected by the Assembly, but with an understanding that the five great powers would always have seats on the Council.
4.
Their most important point related to the security functions and powers of the General Assembly. They explained that they did [Page 357] not wish to see the powers of the Security Council, as now projected, disturbed in any way, but that they would also like to increase the powers of the General Assembly.

On this last point, Tello described their ideas as follows: They are perfectly willing to leave undisturbed the procedures set forth in Section B, Chapter 8, but they would like to give the General Assembly the power to review the important acts decided upon by the Security Council as well as of the Security Council to act. They would like to have the Assembly make recommendations which would require action by the Security Council if two-thirds of the Assembly, including all the members of the Council would support such a recommendation. In the event that a difference of view then developed between the Assembly and the Security Council a joint commission of the two positions would then be set up to reconcile the differences.

In an informal discission of the four proposals that followed, I pointed out that while the particulars of their proposals will, of course, be a matter of discussion at the Conference, our experience arising from our discussions with other Governments would lead me to make the following comments on their four major points:

1.
It would be extremely difficult to incorporate in the Charter anything approaching a full statement of a bill of rights. They said that they would be satisfied with even a limited statement provided it contained the most basic points.
2.
On the subject of international law, I called their attention to the fact that an international organization, if it were to be established at this time primarily on the rule of law, would have a very narrow basis on which to operate. Since there is not enough recognition of international law to provide such a basis there must, therefore, be ample scope for political action and for the extension and development of international law. The problem of intervention was raised in this connection and we all agreed that under the system that is being projected, intervention by a single nation in the affairs of another nation would be forbidden, but intervention by the community of nations for the purpose of maintaining international law and order would not only be proper but necessary.
3.
On the question of the membership on the Security Council, I asked them whether or not their desire was already met by the fact that the five permanent members would be designated by the San Francisco Conference which will, in effect, be a constitutional conference of the general organization. I pointed out that, after all, the participants would be sovereign states each of which would have the choice of accepting or not accepting membership in the organization. Their proposals would only postpone to a future meeting or meetings; of the Assembly the selection of the permanent members and the Assembly would be no more representative than the San Francisco [Page 358] Conference. They then said that their desire would be satisfied if it were possible to say in the Charter that the nations assembled at San Francisco agreed on the designation of the five great powers as permanent members on the Security Council in view of their special position of influence and power. I said, that point could certainly be given attention.
4.
On their last and most important point I raised the question as to whether, under the system which they proposed, the Assembly would have the power to over-rule the Security Council. At this juncture it became quite apparent that the group was not united on the subject. I pointed out that if there were to be two interpretations, then we would be confronted with a far-reaching analysis of the whole basis on which the Dumbarton Oaks proposals rests.

Tello took the position that what they had in mind was precisely the power of the Assembly to initiate or prevent action in those cases on which a grave emergency existed, although they were even more interested in forcing the Council to act in the event that the future power exercised by one of the permanent members would make action impossible.

On the other hand, Dr. Padilla said that in his thinking no action of the Assembly would interfere with action by the Council, but he was interested in providing for an expression of the conscience of the world and in this way to put pressure on the permanent members of the Council so as to dissuade them from using their veto power willfully. He also said that while the ideas developed by the Mexican Delegation were along the lines indicated by Señor Tello, what I said about the uselessness of a joint commission had convinced him that the proposed modification should be abandoned.

I said that, as the Dumbarton Oaks proposals stand, the Assembly already has the power to do everything that Dr. Padilla indicates, although it has not, in my opinion, and should not have the power implied in Señor Tello’s statement. Nor could I see any usefulness in an Assembly procedure which would give a special position to the members of the Council and even to the permanent members of the Council. I said that we had carefully avoided any differentiation in the membership in the organization, except in those matters in which responsibility for it goes with the capacity to exercise it. We left the Subject at that point.

Dr. Padilla spoke in very enthusiastic terms about the projected Economic and Social Council, and said that he attributed a very great importance to the types of activities which such a Council would be able to set into motion, and which in his judgment, were indispensable as a foundation for the maintenance of peace. I agreed with him fully, adding, however, that the one thing that we must constantly bear in mind is that economic progress and social betterment would [Page 359] be impossible unless there exists a reasonable assumption that the peace of the world will be maintained. Without confidence in such an assumption it would be impossible for economic enterprise and social reform to go forward.

After the luncheon García Robles walked with me to my car and on the way we had a further conversation on the fourth point. I asked him point-blank as to how I should interpret the discussion regarding the two views of the power of the Assembly in the maintenance of security. He said that his delegation was extremely apprehensive of the possibility that because of the exercise of veto power by the permanent members, the Security Council would be completely stalemated when there would be need for it to take action against one of the permanent members. I asked him to bear in mind the point that the Dumbarton Oaks proposals were based on the proposition that coercion of a great power would mean war and that if such a need arose and the procedures for adjustment were found to be inadequate to take care of it, the only possible outcome would be the breakdown of the organization. I said that we must recognize frankly that although it may become possible at some future stage to have a system that would be universally applicable, in our judgment that is an impossibility today.

On the other hand, if we were to attempt to provide some mechanism by which recognition of a larger power would be provided for in one form or another within the framework of the organization, the only consequence would be that we would end up with the same system which we had under the League of Nations, namely, further freedom of action by each of the great powers, no pledge of responsibility for combined action, and the employment of military force left entirely to the discretion of each member state.

García Robles said that he would pass these ideas along to his associates, but that he would like to think about the danger which I had indicated, and which had not occurred to them. He said that it was quite apparent after the discussion that a great deal more thinking needs to be done on the whole subject, although he was sure that Dr. Padilla intended to raise the question. I said that I hoped that if the question is raised, it would be along the lines of his statement to me at the luncheon, because to raise it in the form in which Señor Tello stated it would certainly create very great difficulties.

In the course of the luncheon a question arose as to the possible duration of the Conference. Dr. Padilla expressed the view that with goodwill and a reasonable amount of effort the Conference could be concluded by May 15. An observation was made that there were a good many issues involved, including particularly the amount of stubbornness shown by the various delegations.

[Page 360]

In connection with both the possibility of a bill of rights and the duration of the Conference Dr. Padilla expressed the view that we might well find ourselves confronted by a cleavage of the East and the West. He said that that was one of the reasons we ought to concentrate on a charter of basic obligations which could be accepted by both the East and the West.

Dr. Padilla also asked me what I thought the French attitude would be. He said that he was rather disturbed by the statements which have been made by Bidault and other members of the French Government. What interested him most was whether or not France really intended to operate outside the organization in matters of security. I said that it is not as yet clear what general attitude the French were going to assume, but it was apparent that they would attempt to argue in favor of special arrangements. In that case, I said that it would be the same question that confronted us in our Inter-American discussions. Dr. Padilla said that as far as Mexico was concerned, it was perfectly clear that in matters of security the world organization must hold a controlling position, because otherwise the whole question of world peace and security would be completely undermined.

On the question of the two Soviet Republics, Dr. Padilla expressed the view that their addition to membership might not be a serious matter from the point of view of Russia’s position in the voting by the Assembly, but that there was an important question of principle involved, regarding the qualification for membership in the organization. He suggested that even without the two representatives Soviet Russia might have as many as eight votes which would be favorable to her. I did not press Dr. Padilla for his views as to what he would do if the Soviet delegation were to raise the question of the two Republics, and he did not volunteer any statement on that subject.

  1. Printed from draft copy obtained from the Library of Congress, Manuscripts Division, papers of Mr. Pasvolsky.
  2. For text of resolution No. XXX on establishment of a general international organization, see 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, p. 102.