RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 96: US Cr Min 21

Minutes of the Twenty-First Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Friday, April 27, 1945, 8:30 p.m.

[Informal Notes]

[Here follows list of names of persons (24) present at meeting.]

Senator Vandenberg called the meeting to order at 8:38 p.m. in the absence of the Secretary and Senator Connally.

Economic and Social Cooperation

Mr. Pasvolsky announced that it would be necessary to take up the suggestions made with respect to Chapter IX, Arrangements for International Economic and Social Cooperation (Yellow Paper, 4/18/45).67 In this connection Mr. Stinebower called attention to the paper on this Chapter incorporating suggested changes, which had been circulated as a result of the morning’s meeting. Representative Bloom explained that the idea was to discuss possible modifications in view of the Chinese proposals.

Dean Gildersleeve recalled that tentative agreement had been reached in the morning’s meeting to insert “cultural cooperation” in paragraph 1 of Chapter IX.

Mr. Stinebower proceeded to explain the following suggested changes:

(a) Paragraph 1: The insertion of the phrase “cultural cooperation and” in line 6 between “promote” and “respect”, that is, the paragraph would facilitate solutions and promote cultural cooperation.

Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that this was not a new proposal. This change was agreed upon.

Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that the elimination of the word “other” might cause trouble.

[Page 474]

[Senator Connally arrived at this point.]68

(b) The addition of a paragraph on the responsibility of the Organization, the first sentence of which was formerly the last sentence of paragraph 1, and the last sentence of which would be new and would read “The Organization shall, where appropriate, initiate negotiations among the nations concerned for the creation of any specialized economic, social or other organizations or agencies for the accomplishment of these objectives.”

Mr. Stinebower stated that this paragraph had been considered by the Delegation at its first meeting when the economic questions came up.69 The first part of the paragraph, he observed, was not new. The new part is the part underlined. The first part of the paragraph was originally the last sentence of paragraph 1.

Mr. Pasvolsky stated that this again was something which should be put up by other governments, and in that event it might be supported by the United States.

Senator Connally inquired whether this was to involve any authority beyond that of recommendation, and Mr. Pasvolsky replied that this was all that was involved. Senator Connally stated that he would then have no objection.

[The Secretary of State and Commander Stassen arrived at this point.]

Mr. Stinebower explained that the next suggested change was something new—a new statement in Section B, providing for a staggered system of representation on the Economic and Social Council.

Mr. Dunn inquired whether this had been proposed by any other Delegation, and Mr. Stinebower said that it had not. It was not to be considered a substantive proposal, however.

Senator Vandenberg suggested that it appeared unobjectionable and might be marked “B”.70

Mr. Stinebower further explained that the suggested changes in Sections C and D were not new and had been approved by the Delegation in Washington.

It was agreed that all of these changes, while acceptable, would be marked “B” and although they would not be put forward by this Government, they would be carefully watched by the American representatives on Commission II.71

An executive session was called at this point (9:05 p.m.) and the Economic Advisers left.

[Page 475]

Chapter VIII, Section B, Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3

Following the executive session the meeting turned its attention to Chapter VIII, Arrangements for International Peace and Security, Including the Prevention and Suppression of Aggression, with particular attention to the suggested reorganization and rewording of Section B, paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 proposed by Messrs. Armstrong, Bowman, and Dulles, which read as follows:

“Should the Security Council deem that a failure to settle a dispute in accordance with procedures indicated in Paragraph 3 of Section A, or in accordance with its recommendations under Paragraph 5 of Section A, constitutes a threat to the maintenance of international peace and security or if the Security Council should otherwise determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, it may make recommendations as to how to maintain or restore peace and security and it may invoke the measures provided for by Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Section.”

“Renumber Paragraph 3 to be Paragraph 2 and strike out ‘to give effect to its decisions’ and substitute ‘to maintain or restore international peace and security’. Renumber the succeeding paragraphs.”

It was pointed out by Mr. Pasvolsky that the proposed change in the wording of these paragraphs would involve a fundamental change in substance, namely, from a mandatory position to a permissive position, and Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out the desirability of retaining the mandatory position. Mr. Pasvolsky observed that this would alter the sense of paragraph 1, which was a compromise, and that it would cause considerable discussion.

Mr. Dunn inquired whether the meaning was that the Security Council would have to make recommendations. Mr. Dulles remarked that the Security Council may make recommendations, and it may invoke action, that these are two entirely independent powers, and that there may not be time to make the recommendations first.

Mr. Notter pointed out that the biggest change involved in the suggested wording is that the Council is given discretion to act, whereas in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals this action was mandatory.

Dr. Bowman pointed out that paragraphs 3 and 4 are severe, and that diplomatic channels might be employed in the interval.

Mr. Dulles stated that paragraphs 3 and 4 are to be interpreted as giving the Security Council the power to take measures but not to compel it to do so.

Mr. Dunn inquired why the word “may” had been used instead of “should” in the rewording. Dr. Bowman explained that this was to convey the thought that there may be an interval which might bring about an agreement before action becomes necessary. Mr. Dunn suggested that the phrase might read “should make recommendations, and [Page 476] if necessary should invoke”. Mr. Dulles stated, however, that he would prefer the term “may” with respect to recommendations. Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that “may” would become “shall” in any case in the final drafting, but Mr. Hackworth stated that it need not become “shall”.

Mr. Pasvolsky stated it as his view that it would be desirable to adhere to the Dumbarton Oaks language.

Mr. Dulles pointed out that it would be possible to argue in the Council for a month as to what recommendations to make. Senator Connally stated that the Council might make recommendations and might act on them, and Mr. Pasvolsky added that the meaning is that the Council would have complete freedom of action and suggested the wording “it should make recommendations as to how to maintain or restore peace and security or it may invoke …”. It might make recommendations, it might invoke non-military sanctions, it might invoke military sanctions, or it may do all three.

Mr. Dunn stated that he also favored the original language.

Mr. Pasvolsky agreed and suggested an alternative wording “decide upon the measures to be taken to maintain or restore …”. He pointed out that the object of the redraft is to eliminate the word “any” in paragraph 1 and that this had been done.

Mr. Pasvolsky observed that another possible wording would be “it should make recommendations or decisions on measures to be taken to maintain or restore peace and security as provided for in the paragraphs below”.

Mr. Dulles stated that they could sit around in the meeting all night discussing language.

Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that the meeting might focus its attention on the proposition that it is desirable to eliminate the word “any” and to make sure that we preserve the measures provided for in paragraphs 3 and 4.

Mr. Dulles remarked that force is to be used to maintain peace and it should not be coupled with recommendations. Mr. Pasvolsky added that that is precisely why distinction is made between recommendations and measures. It is certainly clear, he said, that what we had in mind was that the Council might make recommendations or take measures, or do both. The use of “or” therefore is more flexible.

Mr. Dunn remarked that if recommendations are made they would come first.

Mr. Hackworth suggested that paragraphs 2 should actually be paragraph 1.

Mr. Pasvolsky stated that the two paragraphs could be combined necessarily if there is agreement that the measures to be taken are [Page 477] solely the measures provided for in paragraphs 3 and 4, and that the Council will not use force with respect to recommendations. He continued that we would get into international arguments if we play with the language.

Mr. Notter called attention to the last two lines of paragraph 1 as it was originally and pointed out that words had been added which have been dropped in the suggested rewording.

Commander Stassen urged that serious effort should be made to finish the consideration of American proposals at this meeting in preparation for our discussions with other governments.

Dr. Bowman inquired of Mr. Pasvolsky whether the weight of his objection to the new draft was the substance of the draft as opposed to the substance of the old wording or the difficulty of negotiating the new draft.

Mr. Pasvolsky replied that there were two points involved. One was the change from a mandatory to a permissive position, and this, he said, is fundamental. The position should be mandatory. The second was his acceptance of the position that the word “any” should be eliminated. He was inclined to put aside the question of the difficulty of negotiating the draft resulting from the deletion of the word “any”. Mr. Dunn read paragraph 4, Section B and observed that it would seem that any action that was deemed necessary could be taken under this wording. Mr. Pasvolsky remarked that up to now the interpretation had been one whereby the Council would have the right to impose a settlement when there is a threat to the peace.

It was finally agreed that the desired end could be attained by accepting a formula offered by Mr. Dulles, which would involve adding the phrase “set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Section” following “measures” in line 7 of paragraph 1, Section B, and following “measures” in line 4 of paragraph 2, Section B, and by adding the phrase “to maintain or restore international peace and security” following “decisions” in line 4 of paragraph 3 of this Section.

It was agreed that the proposal of Commander Stassen be accepted that the suggestion advanced by Mr. Dulles be marked “A”.72


Senator Vandenberg observed that the next item on the agenda would be a discussion of the Preamble.

Mr. Pasvolsky stated that the Preamble is all new and read the new Preamble, noting that it provided that “The High Contracting Parties hereby agree upon this Charter and accept its obligations”.

Commander Stassen read a suggested wording for a preamble which [Page 478] he had drafted, which he pointed out would draw considerably from the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Pasvolsky commented that the difficulty encountered in attempting to write a preamble embodying such ideas is that they would be repeated three times. He said he would like to be sure that a substantial part of the document would contain these ideas and remarked to Commander Stassen that in the draft he had just read all of the basic ideas were present and well-stated. He noted also that several people were working on a preamble.

Dean Gildersleeve remarked that it would be desirable to have a simple preamble which could be hung up and should be hung up in every peasant’s cottage throughout the world. This, she said, would not be easy to draft.

Mr. Pasvolsky read a second version of the preamble, which Senator Vandenberg stated that he liked. Commander Stassen , however, expressed dislike of the phrase “The High Contracting Parties”.

Mr. Hackworth stated that instruments such as this usually start out with the names of the parties signatory. This, he said, is a drafting problem and should be turned over to a drafting committee.

Mr. Pasvolsky advised that there are two questions involved in this matter: (1) should the United States Delegation put forward a proposal on a preamble; and (2) if so, should it be of the type that has just been read.

Commander Stassen suggested a wording as follows: “The United Nations, in conference assembled ordain the creation of an international organization to maintain peace and security, establish justice, and promote the general welfare of all peoples”.

Dean Gildersleeve stated that she rather liked this wording, but Mr. Dulles suggested that it was too much reminiscent of war.

Mr. Dunn stated that the most forceful approach would be one in which the states would obligate themselves to do the things mentioned in Commander Stassen’s wording.

Mr. Pasvolsky remarked that it should make reference to the determination of states to maintain international peace and security, law and order, to foster respect for these concepts. Senator Vandenberg added facetiously that he “rather liked the idea of getting Foster’s name in there”.

Mr. Pasvolsky advised that the Mexican Delegation would propose a very long preamble which would incorporate a bill of rights for individuals and nations. He suggested that the Delegation might collect all preambles that would be proposed, take a look at them, and come forth with one of our own.

Mr. Hackworth advised that all preambles with which he was acquainted named the states involved, but Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that the Covenant of the League of Nations did not name the parties.

[Page 479]

Senator Vandenberg suggested that it might be given to the Preamble Committee to handle.

Senator Connally remarked that he would be in a much better position with respect to the proposals of the other governments if we had a short draft of our own.

Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that it would be better if we would take a look at the preambles of the other delegations and then suggest one of our own, but if we should introduce a preamble proposal of our own first, the other groups would try to tack things on to it.

Senator Connally repeated that any proposal on the preamble that we might advance should be short and business-like.

Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that the matter might be left to Committee I/1 to propose a preamble after that Committee had examined the suggestions of the other delegations.

Senator Vandenberg inquired whether there were any other suggestions and in the absence of any stated that it was agreed that the procedure outlined by Mr. Pasvolsky would be followed. He then called attention to the subject of withdrawal.

Registration of Treaties and Regional Arrangements

Senator Connally stated that there should be a provision somewhere in the Charter requiring members making treaties of alliance to register them.

Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that there was not only the question of registration of treaties but also inconsistent obligations, and Mr. Dulles inquired whether the recent Russian-Polish treaty73 involved an inconsistent obligation.

Mr. Pasvolsky commented that this raises a very difficult problem. It is not a matter of a proposal. The Franco-Russian treaty,74 for example, raises certain special questions, for this was directed solely against Germany. The British, he said, had already raised the question as to what position we would take on this matter. If the French advance a claim, he said, we would probably have to allow that claim, but only with the very clear understanding that if the Organization takes over the functions of the victor nations with regard to the control of Germany and Japan, then the Franco-Russian treaty would become inconsistent with the provisions of the Charter.

Mr. Dulles remarked that there should be more liberality with respect to regional rather than bilateral arrangements.

[Page 480]

Mr. Pasvolsky noted that when the section of the Charter on regional arrangements was drafted those drafting it had in mind bilateral and multilateral as well as regional arrangements.


Senator Vandenberg stated that there were, no questions in connection with this problem which had to be settled at this time. He again mentioned the question of withdrawal.

Senator Connally stated that he always thought there should be some provision whereby a nation could disassociate itself from the Organization in its own interests.

Mr. Hackworth expressed the view that a withdrawal clause would weaken the document by fifty percent.

Senator Vandenberg said that in his opinion a withdrawal provision should be included. If the United States wants to withdraw, he said, then it will withdraw.

Mr. Hackworth admitted that this would be the case, but it was not necessary to include a provision in the Charter to provide for this.

Senator Connally remarked that he had just gone through a Senate fight on a treaty which was only because the treaty was “forever”.

Commander Stassen observed that as long as we have a veto power which operates in such way that the Organization cannot do anything we don’t agree With, then he could see no reason why we should not stay in it.

Senator Connally stated that this may be true but the country that wants “out” and not “in” should be able to get out.

Dean Gildersleeve inquired whether any countries had proposals on withdrawal.

Mr. Pasvolsky observed that we now have sixteen “A” proposals and that that is an awful lot.

Commander Stassen stated that we would settle for eight of these if we could pick the eight. Mr. Dunn stated that he did not think that the British would offer many.

Mr. Pasvolsky wondered whether they should all be advanced as formal proposals.

Senator Vandenberg inquired whether they would fall within the role requiring them to be present within a week, and Mr. Pasvolsky replied affirmatively.

Commander Stassen suggested that we not propose anything on withdrawal and this was agreed upon. Mr. Dulles pointed out that it would have a bad psychological effect if this country should propose it in any case.

[Page 481]

Commander Stassen inquired whether the discussions were not finished and whether it would now be possible to put the document together and take it up with other governments.

Mr. Pasvolsky replied that this was the case, and he added that by early next week the International Secretariat would provide the Delegation with a list of all proposals which the other governments are offering.

Chapter VII—The International Court of Justice

Mr. Hackworth observed that Chapter VII of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals relative to the Court had not been discussed in the Delegation. He suggested that a time should be set at which he could present the Delegation with a résumé of what took place on this subject in Washington.75 There are, he said, only a few questions outstanding.

Senator Vandenberg inquired whether this meant that the Delegation would have to reach a decision on some fundamental questions, and Mr. Hackworth said that such matters as compulsory jurisdiction, and the continuation of the present Court would have to be decided.

Senator Vandenberg announced that the Delegation would meet at 9:30 the next morning at the suggestion of the Secretary to meet with its “dissident constituents”, and would also meet at 9:30 Monday morning to discuss the outstanding questions on the Court.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:48 p.m.

  1. Not printed.
  2. Brackets throughout remainder of this document appear in the original.
  3. See minutes of meetings of the United States delegation, April 11 and 18, pp. 259 and 330, respectively.
  4. The classification “B” refers to changes in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals which the United States delegation was prepared to support.
  5. April 28 draft of chapter IX, in “Proposals Which the U.S. is Prepared to Support (B)”, not printed.
  6. The classification “A” refers to changes in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals which the United States delegation was prepared to initiate (U.S. Und. Doc. 2).
  7. For agreement regarding friendship, mutual assistance, and postwar cooperation, between the Soviet Union and the Polish Republic (National Council of the Homeland), signed at Moscow on April 21, 1945, see Department of State, Documents and State Papers, vol. i, No. 4 (July 1948), p. 231.
  8. For treaty of alliance and mutual assistance between the Soviet Union and the Provisional Government of the French Republic, signed at Moscow, December 10, 1944, see ibid., p. 230.
  9. Report on draft of Statute of an International Court of Justice, submitted by the United Nations Committee of Jurists to the United Nations Conference, April 25, 1945, Jurist 86, G/73, April 25, UNCIO Documents, vol. 14, p. 821.