RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 96: U.S. Cr. Min. 20

Minutes of the Twentieth Meeting of the United States Delegation (A), Held at San Francisco, April 27, 1945, 9:30 a.m.

[Informal Notes–Extracts]

[Here follows list of names of persons (21) present at meeting.]

Press Policy

The Delegates and Advisers assembled between 9:30 and 9:40 A.M., with the exception of the Secretary and Senators Connally and Vandenberg. …

Representative Bloom asked Mr. Stassen to take the chair for the discussion, and it was agreed that the Delegates present should consider the problem of press relations and perhaps formulate a proposal which could be put before the remainder of the Delegation.55

. . . . . . .

[Page 461]

Chapter IX—Arrangements for Economic and Social Cooperation—Educational and Cultural Cooperation

Mr. Stassen suggested that the Delegates present should now take up some of the deferred items that had not yet been dealt with. He thought everyone was present who was concerned with the Preamble. Mr. Gerig suggested that the Arrangements for Economic and Social Cooperation had better be taken up and that it would be a good idea to wait with the Preamble. Mr. Dulles said this could be taken up better than some other questions.

Miss Gildersleeve said that before this was discussed, she wanted to clarify the status of the official text in the light of the Russian approval of the Chinese proposals.56 She asked whether this made the official text different. Mr. Gerig said there was a revised draft of Chapter IX57 being proposed which took account of the suggestions that the Chinese Government had made at Dumbarton Oaks. Mr. Stassen said it was his understanding that the three Chinese proposals now had the same status as the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals themselves.

Mr. Gerig asked whether they should be treated as a separate paragraph or woven into the text of the document. Representative Bloom commented that Miss Gildersleeve, himself, and Representative Eaton were on this committee.58

Mr. Bowman recalled that the Advisers had put before the Delegation in Washington a program on this subject and that this program had been discussed and some revisions had been suggested. He asked whether the text had been redrafted, and Mr. Notter said it had been. Mr. Bowman said that the group that had discussed the matter was here, and Representative Bloom said that they should come in to listen to the discussion now. Mr. Bowman asked if it would be all right to open the discussion again. Mr. Stassen thought that the Delegates could discuss the draft more intelligently if these people were available and if the Delegates could have their views.

. . . . . . .

Mr. Notter said that ordinarily Mr. Stettinius decides when an executive session should be held, and Mr. Bowman added that the group present had to decide in his absence. Mr. Stassen said that unless there was some objection, he would call in the Economic and Social Advisers and Experts. Mr. Gerig sent for them. …

[Page 462]

Mr. Stassen asked if the advisory group felt that the tentative draft of Chapter IX had adequately incorporated the Chinese Proposals. Mr. Stinebower said that in working over the draft they had gone back to the original formulation except for a small change in Section C. He was sure that the language definitely would have taken care of the Chinese Proposals with some insertions, although these proposals were not specifically covered under the specific language of Section A, Purposes and Relationships. Mr. Stassen said he thought some change was undoubtedly needed in Section A, and he asked whether the Technical Advisers would agree that this was so. He asked whether it was not necessary especially to make provision for education and other forms of cultural cooperation. He asked Dean Gildersleeve her opinion.

Dean Gildersleeve said she would be very glad to see specific mention of education and cultural cooperation in the draft. It was true that some of the Delegates and other members of Congress seemed to see dynamite in the word “education”. She thought it was possible to use educational cooperation internationally with great profit. For 25 years she had worked in this field with some success through private international organizations. As the world is today, this cooperation cannot be carried on completely and efficiently on an entirely non-governmental basis. There is undoubtedly some need of a governmental framework, nationally and internationally, and it is important to provide for international educational cultural cooperation in planning for the new international system. We have evidence of the results of international educational and cultural cooperation right here in San Francisco. For example, certain members of the Chinese Delegation were educated in American institutions and acquired a considerable understanding of this country and its ways, and an attitude of friendliness toward America as a result. This type of educational exchange was certainly all to the good. She wanted to repeat that she was opposed to the idea of an international education office that would undertake to dictate or force forms of education on the people of any country, because she thought it would be harmful and ineffective. However, she would certainly feel that an international education office that served as a center of information and mutual aid and facilitated the interchange of teaching ideas and equipment and the visits of students and teachers was not only harmless but admirable. She thought it would be enough to use the word “cultural” although many people in this country would be disappointed if the word “education” was left out.

Representative Bloom said he agreed with the Dean in the desire to have the word “education” in this document. However, he felt that it would be hard to get it through Congress. He said the word “cultural” was bad enough, and he recalled that there had been [Page 463] trouble in the Foreign Affairs Committee when the program of cultural cooperation with Latin America59 had come up. Also, the Committee had voted down any proposition that UNRRA should have anything to do with education and that it should even be allowed to rebuild schools.60 He also recalled that when Mr. Fulbright came back from London last year after the conference on education,61 and made a statement that it would cost about $20,000,000 to carry through the projects of educational reconstruction, there were a great many members of Congress who would not listen any more to the idea of an international educational organization.

Dean Gildersleeve asked whether Congress itself could not be educated.

Mr. Dulles said he thought it was significant that the Chinese Proposals had been accepted as the basis for discussion by the sponsoring governments, and he thought this gave reason for some hope of changing the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals for the better. He then read the three Chinese Proposals.

  • [1. The Charter should provide specifically that adjustment or settlement of international disputes should be achieved with due regard for principles of justice and international law.
  • 2. The Assembly should be responsible for initiating studies and making recommendations with respect to the development and revision of the rules and principles of international law.
  • 3. The Economic and Social Council should specifically provide the promotion of educational and other forms of cultural cooperation.]62

Mr. Dulles said it was important to recall that it had been agreed by the four Governments that these proposals were acceptable for discussion by the Conference, and this agreement had been specifically announced. He wished to inquire whether this Delegation was competent to reject a stand that already had been taken publicly by our Government. He questioned also, whether it would be expedient to [Page 464] do so, especially since it might open the way for the Russians to go back on their commitments.

Mr. Stassen said it was his opinion that this Delegation has the right to reject any part of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals if it deems wise, and that it was not bound by previous actions of the Government, not even by this agreement. Perhaps there were consequences that would have to be faced if any change were made, but the Delegation had the right to do so. Representative Bloom asked Mr. Dulles if it would be satisfactory to leave out the word “education” and include the rest. Mr. Dulles commented that the Russians leave out the word “justice”. Mr. Cox remarked that this stand had been taken publicly and that an announcement had been made, so that it might have unfortunate repercussions to make any change.

Mr. Stassen said that all that happened was that Molotov agreed to what the British and American Governments had already agreed to at Dumbarton Oaks and that the four Governments had agreed to release this information.

Representative Eaton asked for a definition of educational cooperation among nations. Representative Bloom said he had tried that in the Foreign Affairs Committee and that Mr. Fulbright and Mr. Murray63 and others who had experience in this field had attempted to define the word “education” for Congress.

Mr. Cox said that the general public impression is that the Chinese Proposals are now supported by the United States and by the other sponsoring powers.

Representative Eaton repeated his question as to what educational cooperation is. Mr. Bowman said he had already given a definition and did not want to bore the Delegation by repeating it, but he would repeat it if they wished. He said that there were as many definitions of “education” as of “religion” and that since various forms of propaganda had been developed, some of which we condemned and some of which we approved under the name of “education”, there was considerable confusion about the whole matter. A great many fears had been aroused by the misuse of education to propagandize whole peoples, and he thought there was some feeling of the hopelessness of trying to educate entire nations by the processes involved in ordinary educational contacts. He said there were no serious differences as long as international educational cooperation meant setting up machinery for exchange of materials and students, but the difficulties began when we tried to establish values and preach about them. There is considerable controversy as to how to stay away from the latter while doing the former. He spoke of the experience of the Scientific Unions, [Page 465] where members from some countries had frequently tried to promote highly objectionable ideologies. He concluded that all that can be done is to exchange information and people on a friendly personal basis. He said it was a matter of having a in this country knowing a in another country. There will be a tremendous demand for exchange of materials after this war. Countries that have been blocked off from normal contacts need everything, beginning with journals and books. When we are faced with such a demand and it comes in the form of a concrete practical job to be clone, we can agree on that. Looking at the Chinese Proposals again, he said that the Technical Advisers should see what could be done with the text to incorporate the intention of Paragraph 3. The professional educators would not be satisfied, it is true. He was not enough of a politician to know what storms might be created if the word “education” was taken out.

Representative Bloom said he was willing to have all sorts of international interchanges carried on but that it would be impossible to write the word “education” into the Charter and then hope for favorable action by the Senate and the House.

Representative Eaton said he believed it necessary to face realities of the world situation on the intellectual and spiritual side. During the last century the world had developed a four-pronged philosophical life. One system was based on the ideal of freedom. That was essentially represented by America and Britain. Three other ideologies stemmed from one source, and the forms they take are the Communism of Russia, the Naziism of Germany, and the Fascism of Italy. Molotov had spoken on behalf of his ideology and with him, being against Fascism apparently meant being against tyranny.

The real question was what would happen in trying to carry on cooperation with the three-pronged systems of education where the Governments supported and dominated educational life. We have not educated people for Democracy as these other nations have educated their people for their ideologies. We take Democracy rather for granted and feel that we need not worry. The Russian system hopes now to advance by pacific means and to gain converts as, in fact, it has already done on a large scale even in this country. He was anxious to get background information on what we mean by educational cooperation. What would happen if we sent our educational philosophies to the U.S.S.R. and they sent theirs here? Our people would come back converted to the Communist system; The Russians have succeeded admirably in educating us here with the people they have sent over. How is it possible to cooperate with the educational system of Russia, which is a country that indoctrinates its people deliberately?

Mr. Bowman said he was in favor of simply working along the line of cultural cooperation. Mr. Stassen called on Mr. Hovde to outline [Page 466] what he thought was included in the term “cultural cooperation”. Mr. Hovde said that personally he felt that the word “cultural” was broad enough. If that was left in, he thought it would be possible to persuade others that education, art, science, etc., were a part of culture. There was a practical situation, however, of which due account must be taken. Between the two Great Wars and during this War, professional educational people had been organizing to promote educational cooperation on an international basis. They were interested in school systems and methods of education and in developing the content of education for international understanding. It was not only the educational people who have drives to insert various descriptive words. Some people want specific mention of science and scientific cooperation. He added that Mr. MacLeish would bear out the assertion that artists in the United States feel very strongly on the matter of having artistic cooperation included. If all of them could be brought to agree that the word “culture” covers all of them and would permit them to engage in their proper lines of activity, it would be a very good thing. However, if we want the support of various groups, it may be important to try to satisfy them with a more precise formulation.

Mr. Stassen said that as the adjournment time of 12:30 was approaching, he thought that the Delegates would like to know what was happening in the Steering Committee, and he suggested sending Mr. Notter to go over to the meeting and come back and inform the group. Mr. Notter said that before going he wanted to say that by this time there had been a great deal of experience with programs of cultural cooperation, and he was for all achievable progress in this field. He thought the big test was whether cultural cooperation would involve freedom of information. He wanted to raise this question of a free exchange of information, thinking this a far more serious problem. It reached all the way to radio, news, etc., and was actually much more explosive. [Mr. Notter left the meeting.]

Mr. Bowman said that in the period when the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals were being explained, it had been necessary to take a position on policy and to interpret and explain various points in detail. It was not enough to take a timid attitude and try to avoid the issues. We should have to come out and explain what we read into any formular that was adopted. In public discussions now, as after the Dumbarton Oaks Conversations, public interest is intense, and it is important to enlighten the public as to our meaning. He believed it necessary to state what elements of education we think suitable to have flourish in the world after the war. He thought it well to expand the idea of cultural cooperation and explain that it includes education, arts, and sciences, and perhaps that would bring us a little farther along the road.

[Page 467]

Representative Bloom said that if any other word besides “cultural” was used, that is any specific term, the other specific terms would have to be added. He thought it usually better to keep to more general formulas. For example, Congress under the Constitution was given the right to regulate Post Offices and Post Roads and because of that had been able to deal with a great many specific matters. Thus, he thought it better to use a broad term and interpret it to include science, arts, and education. He had one further example. When Congress was considering a proposal to finance the committee for the preservation of the monuments of Europe, there was a great deal of misunderstanding until it was explained that this term covered art treasures, museum objects, etc. He cited this as an illustration of how difficult it is to work with certain words. He was sure that if the word “education” was in the Charter, there would be a fight in Congress.

Mr. MacLeish said he had been a member of the Delegation to the education meeting in London last year and had been living with his [this?] problem for some time. He was reluctant to make any suggestions on the subject of public pressure, knowing what the members of Congress felt on this matter. He would like, however, to underline what Mr. Hovde had said. The American people feel strongly on the subject of education, and there is a considerable body of opinion and a tremendous support for proposals that lie in the educational field. One aspect of the problem was that the people of the United States, having seen that education had been used as a weapon by the Nazis, now believe that this tendency could not be left uncombatted. He thought that the difficulties were obvious, and it was a problem how to deal substantively with the problem in any terms. The matter could be approached in terms of interchanging the instruments of education, that is, technical information, documentary films, books, new developments and the techniques of education everywhere. Then we could favor an international organization to exchange information about advances in these fields, and circulate reports on developments in different countries. However, it would be difficult and dangerous to ignore the fact that in many minds, education has been abused; and if we really intend to stop war, we must begin to do so and not refuse to take necessary steps in all fields. He would agree that one general word was better than several specific terms. The word “culture” is suspect in America, but there is no substitute for it. He thought it would be better to take the general term and develop it in statements afterwards. He spoke of plans for establishing a special international organization for education and cultural cooperation, which would encourage the interchange of knowledge and techniques and throw light on the developments of education in various countries. This [Page 468] might give part of the control that is needed when things begin to go wrong substantively.

Representative Eaton asked if this is what Mr. MacLeish meant by the term “education”. Mr. MacLeish said he thought there was something risky about having announced acceptance of the Chinese Proposals and then whittling them down, and we should face the consequences. Representative Bloom asked if Mr. MacLeish could not suggest any other word, and Mr. MacLeish said he could not. Representative Bloom said that he was trying to ease the way and thought it would be helpful if the word “culture” could cover the word “education”.

Dean Gildersleeve said she thought the word “culture” could cover it, although she would have to do a lot of explaining when it became generally known. It was an important point to keep in mind that the four Governments had agreed on the Chinese Proposals and were now making changes. The American people have an almost superstitious reverence for the word “education” and would be shocked if the word is cut out. She thought the matter could be explained if the Delegates were permitted to talk freely about it, so that actually we were coming back again to the question of public relations.

Mr. Stassen said that the word “education” is a fighting word and a symbol. To many it means better information and an opportunity to learn more. To others it is a device through which to establish central control of what people shall learn, and it is this element of control that is opposed by a great many people.

Mr. Dulles thought this problem could be met by making the language clear and saying that control is not intended.

Mr. MacLeish said that the proposed Constitution of the United Nations Organization in this field64 had been drafted in the State Department and approved by President Roosevelt shortly before his death, and it was intended for later consideration. However, it was relevant to mention it here. It had been very carefully gone over and worded so as to indicate the objectives very clearly, and to limit and define them. If this draft constitution is brought out soon after the Charter is agreed upon, it may resolve some of the misunderstanding.

Mr. Armstrong said he would like to ask about a specific application of the theory of international educational cooperation. What would an exchange of knowledge and techniques between the United States and the U.S.S.R. involve?

Mr. Hovde said that educational cooperation as we conceive it includes a continuous study of methods of education as they are carried [Page 469] out in various countries and of reports describing them as they are published. For example, some country might want improvements in its educational system and might request the international body or the United States directly to help it obtain a survey of its educational system. Then there could be exchanges of students, professional educators, and leaders in various fields who would learn how the people doing corresponding work in other countries conducted their operations. If they should see something worth adopting, they might recommend making use of it in their own countries. It was conceivable that there might be some sort of cooperative model school established to test out various educational methods in actual conduct and to see whether a real contribution could be made through them. It is not merely a matter of the interests of professional educators in this country. American education is admired to a high degree in many other countries, for example, in China, the Balkan countries, Scandinavia, England, and France. Many people look to the United States for suggestions and help. Mr. Bowman asked if Latin America should not be included in this list. Mr. Hovde said it should be.

Representative Bloom asked Mr. Hovde what was the name of the division of which he was chief, and Mr. Hovde replied the Division of Cultural Cooperation. Representative Bloom said that this was another place where the word “cultural” was used rather than “education”. He thought Congress would have to be educated, but he was trying not to give them an excuse for opposing the Charter at this point. Dean Gildersleeve said she would like to be free to tell the educators that the effort to use the word “education” had been blocked by Congress. Representative Bloom said it would not do to say that the word “culture” meant something else. It would be better just to say that the word “culture” is all-embracing and that the word “education” is too limited.

Representative Eaton said he thought it should be remembered that the members of Congress quite faithfully represent the cultural and educational level of the people they represent in Congress and that their views are not peculiar.

Mr. Armstrong said he still wanted an answer on Russia. He said he wanted to help the people who wanted us to help them, but we might not be so much interested in interchanges with those who wanted to educate us.

Dean Gildersleeve said she believed it would be much better if more Americans had been in Russia and could speak Russian. She thought we were handicapped in this Conference by a shortage of people who can talk freely with members of the Russian Delegation. It would be desirable to have international machinery to facilitate sending American students to learn about Russia and to learn to speak the Russian language.

[Page 470]

Mr. Armstrong said he did not think of this as coming under the heading of educational techniques. Mr. MacLeish said it was generally thought here that the cure for the failures of Democracy is more Democracy. If this is true, then it seems that the cure for failures of information is more and not less information. We cannot and should not exclude ideas, but we must be sure that they are fully exchanged. It is true that there are difficulties imposed by the Russians themselves. We, however, would like a very full exchange of students, teachers and documents and would like to make available to all the common body of knowledge. Mr. Stassen said that the real difficulty was that Russia so far has not opened up the avenues of information about the rest of the world to its own people, though we might live in hope of improvement.

Representative Eaton said that ideas are like thistledown and they fly like the wind. He said that you take American boys and girls and send them to Russia and they come back Communists. However, whenever Russians come over here they do not go back as Democrats. Very few Russian missionaries had become converts to Democracy.

Dean Gildersleeve and Mr. Bowman questioned this observation, saying that most American young people who went to Russia came back anything but Communists.

Mr. Stassen then read a proposal made by Mr. Dulles for an addition to the Chinese Proposals on educational and cultural cooperation, suggesting the the phrase be added: “through exchanges between the states; but the Economic and Social Council should not itself sponsor or permit any particular educational or cultural methods or matter.”

Mr. White said he thought the sole question here was the impact on the public and Congress, and the attitude of Congress was decisive. All Governments supported some degree of educational interchange, and the phraseology would not affect the actual operations. The question here was not what would actually be done in this field, He thought that “culture” as the broader concept was preferable. He believed that the matter could be explained and that it would be useful to have the experts instructed to prepare a redraft of Chapter IX taking the Chinese Proposals into account.

Mr. Cox said there was bound to be some emotional reaction, but he thought it was important to get in the concept of freer interchange of knowledge and to include the idea that cultural interchange includes science, art, and education.

Mr. Stassen said he did not see that the use of the word “education” would be enough of a gain to justify the loss of support that might come if the word was used.

[Page 471]

Mr. Stinebower presented the alternative draft for the first paragraph in Section A, Chapter IX.

[1. With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations, and in order to further their common economic, social, and cultural development, the Organization should promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and should encourage separate and cooperative action by all nations for the solution of international economic, social, health, and other related problems.]

In substance, it was the same as the one presented at the last meeting in Washington. Moreover, it included the words “cultural development” but not “education”. Dean Gildersleeve said she thought that in this formula, human rights seemed an intrusion. It was certainly vital to keep in the recognition of human rights, but she thought this was not the right place for it. Mr. Stassen expressed the view that there were an unnecessary number of words used here. Representative Bloom asked why the phrase “all nations” should be used and not just “nations”. Mr. Stinebower said it was not a very important matter, and Representative Bloom suggested taking out the word “all”.

Mr. Stassen asked if the wording of Subsection B had been approved.

[to make recommendations on its own initiative with respect to international economic, social, cultural and other related matters, provided any such recommendations made to governments or to specialized organizations are not inconsistent with those adopted by the General Assembly.]

Representative Bloom asked if the technical experts had not gone too far in redrafting this text. Mr. Stinebower said they intended to go less far than the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals by encouraging “separate and cooperative action” and looking to the nations as well as to the international organization for action.

Representative Bloom asked if it would not be preferable to have fewer words if the same results could be obtained. He thought that the original language was as broad and even broader. Mr. Stinebower said it had been retained because the Committee thought it a desirable safeguard. Miss Gildersleeve said she thought that the simplest thing to do would be to keep the original language and put in the word “culture” in order to adapt the draft to the Chinese Proposals and also to leave the order of words as in the original.

Mr. Stassen said that with the agreement of the Delegation, he would ask the Technical Advisers and Experts to prepare a draft, taking account of the Chinese Proposals, and then bring it back for decision. The Delegates agreed with this suggestion.

[Page 472]

Mr. Stinebower asked whether the word “humanitarian” could not be struck out and the word “related” used instead. Mr. Armstrong suggested it would be better to leave out the word “other”. Representative Bloom said that the word “humanitarian” is a good word and that it should be left in.

Mr. Stassen instructed the Technical Advisers and Experts to draft a text which would include the cultural phase of the Chinese Proposals with a minimum of words. He then thanked them for their assistance. The meeting was recessed at 12:15 and reconvened in executive session at 12:35.65

  1. See minutes of the twenty-third meeting of the delegation, April 30, 9:30 a.m., p. 488.
  2. For Chinese proposal, see telegram 619, March 16, 11 p.m., to Moscow, p. 126; also, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 25; for Soviet approval of Chinese proposal, see minutes of first consultative meeting of the Four Foreign Ministers, April 23, p. 363.
  3. U.S. Doc. Und. 1, not printed.
  4. Committee II/3.
  5. An act was approved on August 9, 1939, by the United States Congress “To authorize the President to render closer and more effective the relationship between the American republics” in accordance with the treaties, resolutions, declarations, and recommendations signed by all of the twenty-one American republics at the Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace held at Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1936, and the Eighth International Conference of American States held at Lima, Peru, in 1938 (53 Stat. (pt. 2) 1290). For documentation on these two conferences, see Foreign Relations, 1936, vol. v, pp. 3 ff., and ibid., 1938, vol. v, pp. 1 ff.
  6. See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Foreign Affairs: Hearings on H.J. Res. 192, a Joint Resolution to enable the United States to participate in the world of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, December 1943 and January 1944 (78th Cong., 1st and 2d sess.).
  7. Representative J. W. Fulbright, of Arkansas, member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives. For documentation on the meeting of the Conference of Allied Ministers of Education, April 5–29, 1944, see Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. i, pp. 965 ff.
  8. Brackets throughout remainder of this document appear in the original.
  9. Representative Howard J. McMurray, of Wisconsin, member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  10. For the final United States draft, March 8, 1945, which was explained to the Conference of Allied Ministers of Education in London at its meeting on April 11, 1945, see Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, p. 649.
  11. The delegation went into an executive session to hear a report from Mr. Notter regarding the events during the morning at the meeting of the Steering Committee (Doc. 30, DC/5(1), April 27, UNCIO Documents, vol. 5, p. 81); minutes of the meeting of the United States delegation in executive session, 12:35–12:50 p.m., not printed.