Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1945, General: The United Nations, Volume I

RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 96: US Cr Min 26

Minutes of the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Wednesday, May 2, 1945, 5:30 p.m.

San Francisco, May 2, 1945, 5:30 p.m.

[Informal Notes—Extracts]

[Here follows list of names of persons (26) present at meeting.]

Senator Connally presided while the Secretary was absent and called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.

Meeting of the Presidents, Rapporteurs, and Assistant Secretaries General of Commissions

At the request of Senator Connally, Mr. Sandifer reported on the meeting of the Presidents, Rapporteurs, and Assistant Secretaries General of the Commissions of the Conference, which had been held during the day.⁴⁹ He reminded the group that all countries were represented among the officials of the Commissions and Committees, and he read the following statement which the Secretary General was authorized to make as a result of this meeting: “The Conference has heard in eight plenary sessions the statements of the Chairmen of Delegations who have signified a desire to speak. It is now possible for the Conference to carry on its work through its four Commissions and twelve Technical Committees. The Officers of the four Commissions met informally this morning to discuss the procedures required for beginning the second phase of bur work. It is their recommendation that the Officers of each Commission meet tomorrow with the Officers of the Committees within that Commission to plan the work of the Committees, in order that the Committees may proceed to their important tasks as soon as possible. In view of the urgency of proceeding with the agenda of the Conference, it is recommended that the Commissions meet subsequently to receive the reports of their Technical Committees.”

. . . . . . .

Voting Procedure in Public Meetings of the Conference

Senator Connally asked Mr. Gerig to report on voting procedures in public meetings. Mr. Gerig stated that the rules of procedure proposed by the Secretariat of the Conference had been agreed upon except for voting. The Secretary General had recommended that in public meetings of the Commissions and the Conference, decisions should be taken by a two-thirds majority.⁵⁰ Mr. Evatt (Australia) and some others thought it would be better to have the voting done by a simple majority so that it would be easier to get various questions on to the floor for discussion. He thought it could be decided later whether the voting should be made tighter.⁵¹ Mr. Molotov had opposed the suggestion of a simple majority because he noted that his own recommendation had been voted down the day before with twenty-eight countries voting against it, and he had commented that the Republics of the Western Hemisphere plus Liberia and the Philippines came close to twenty-four which would be a majority, and those states alone could do business in the Conference on a simple majority basis.⁵² He said the original idea of requiring a two-thirds majority was better. Mr. Stettinius had stated that the United States was in favor of a two-thirds majority. The matter was referred back from the Steering Committee to the Executive Committee for further consideration. Mr. Gerig commented that he thought it a matter of some interest that Mr. Molotov called attention to the problem of bloc voting, and that he felt safer apparently having only one more than one-third of the votes to defeat something. Mr. Gerig added that Mr. Dunn had reported on this matter to the advisers and that there had been no meeting on the matter since. Representative Bloom remarked that if the majority is to be two-thirds, that could be only a tentative agreement.

Mr. Gerig added that in the Steering Committee the possibility of setting up two categories of questions had been discussed—essential questions to be decided by a two-thirds majority and incidental and procedural questions by a simple majority.

Representative Bloom asked who would decide which category a question belonged to. He thought this question a crucial one. Mr. Dunn said that the Executive Committee was going to study the question and that Representative Bloom’s point was one of those that would be considered. Mr. Pasvolsky observed that if we were thinking in terms of bloc voting, we could still count on a two-thirds majority in many cases if we added the British Dominions and the Arab states to the Western Hemisphere. Mr. Dunn said that on the other hand, if a two-thirds majority was required, a decision could be blocked by a small number of states. Representative Bloom said that was not what concerned him. What he was primarily concerned with was how the categories of questions were to be decided. Mr. Dunn replied that it was an extremely complicated question and he was in favor of letting the Executive Committee try to settle it.

The Secretary said he would like to have some indication of what the Delegation wanted. He personally hoped for a simple majority. Senator Vandenberg said that he agreed with Molotov, for the first time, and he thought a two-thirds majority should be required on everything he wanted. Representative Bloom said that in the House of Representatives it took a two-thirds majority to ask for the suspension of rules to vote on a special measure; otherwise all the voting is by a simple majority. Mr. Dunn asked how the voting for suspension of rules was carried out and Representative Bloom answered that if the Speaker recognizes a member requesting suspension, there has to be a two-thirds majority to sustain the request. Representative Bloom said that he wanted a set of rules to cover all these matters, but that the matter of voting on substantive questions might still be by simple majority. However, if it were to be left to the Chairman to decide which category a question belonged in, it would be desirable to require a two-thirds majority to overrule the Chairman. He thought the matter could not just be left open. Mr. Stettinius asked whether any Delegation in that case could call for a two-thirds vote on any question. Representative Bloom said that the rules should be uniform and apply all the way through.

Mr. Dunn stated that this Conference is a constituent assembly establishing a basic instrument, and is not an already constituted organization, conducting its normal routine business. Mr. Dulles said there were some questions on which we would not want to have a simple majority prevail, and Mr. Pasvolsky added that there were some on which even a two-thirds vote would not be acceptable to us. Representative Bloom said we would probably have a better chance on a two-thirds than on a simple majority. Senator Vandenberg said he was in favor of having all questions decided by a two-thirds majority and the other Delegates individually said that they agreed. Senator Vandenberg commented that he hoped Mr. Molotov would be told that he had made this motion and that the fact would be reported in Pravda.

Observance of VE-Day⁵³

. . . . . . .

Four-Power Consultation

The Secretary said that the previous evening with Mr. Molotov, Mr. Soong and Mr. Eden⁵⁴ had been marked by the best spirit that was evinced since the beginning of the Conference. He said there was good cooperative spirit, some fun, and a good deal of serious talk, all mixed together, and that this spirit had prevailed in the morning meeting⁵⁵ as well. Eden and Molotov had talked on the Polish issue with great frankness and in a Spirit of cooperation. He thought maybe he would have something new to announce in the next twenty-four hours. Of course, it was questionable whether the same spirit would prevail at this evening’s meeting.

Senator Connally commented that Molotov had been in good spirits during the day. The Secretary said that Molotov had promised he would not leave San Francisco until the Commissions and Committees had begun their work and until the four sponsoring powers had reached agreement on the changes to be made on the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, also until some progress had been made on the Polish issue. The Secretary felt that that day’s meeting had brought the first rays of sun since Yalta.

Representative Bloom asked about Mr. Eden’s plans and the Secretary answered that Mr. Eden had assured him he would stay as long as he possibly could. (The Secretary made several comments off the record about Mr. Eden’s plans for the immediate future).

The Secretary said that at this evening’s meeting with Mr. Soong, Mr. Molotov and Mr. Eden views would be exchanged on amendments to the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. The Soviet Union and the British Government had given us the texts of their proposals,⁵⁶ This would be a very important meeting, and he thought the Delegation should authorize certain of its members to negotiate on the suggestions. He hoped the Delegation would grant him the authority and also designate Senators Connally and Vandenberg to be present as well as such advisers as he wanted to have with him. He said he would like to be given this authority but wanted a discussion now so that the representatives of the United States at the meeting would have full information on the American view. It would be necessary to agree on our rock bottom position and to know what the others had in mind. He asked that the Delegation give him and Senators Connally and Vandenberg authority to negotiate on this matter this evening with the other three sponsoring governments. Representative Bloom and Dean Gildersleeve agreed and Representative Eaton said that he agreed but that he wanted a full discussion of the issues. Commander Stassen asked if he might go along too, especially since he was in an unusual position. Representative Bloom suggested that it could be left to the Secretary to decide whom to take with him. The Secretary said he would appreciate that very much.

Newspaper Reports on Argentine Issue

Representative Bloom asked what steps should be taken about the newspaper report that Mr. Hull had expressed strong disapproval of the position taken by the United States on Argentina.⁵⁷ Mr. Byington said he had immediately given out a denial and he said there had been no foundation whatever for the report.…

Statements by Consultants

The Secretary said that before the Delegation started discussing the amendments the United States should bring up in the meeting of the Sponsoring Governments tonight, he wanted to report on the meeting of the Consultants.⁵⁸ He thought it had been an excellent meeting and he had been deeply impressed by the discussion. The Consultants had shown themselves especially concerned about the expansion of the reference to human rights and fundamental freedoms. He had called their attention to the phrase in Chapter IX of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals on promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Mr. Hackworth interjected the reminder that it was now proposed to add such a reference to Chapter I. The Secretary said that at the Consultants’ meeting Mr. Nolde, Mr. Proskauer⁵⁹ and others had made speeches and they had presented a statement signed by a considerable group.

The Secretary read the statement regarding human rights submitted to the United States Delegation by a group of Consultants representing church bodies, business, labor, civic organizations, etc. (U.S. Gen 42, May 2, 1945⁶⁰). The Secretary commented that the Consultants thought this a matter of tremendous importance. He had assured them that at Dumbarton Oaks he personally had voted for recognition of human rights and fundamental freedoms and he had promised them that he would take up the matter of expanding and defining in greater detail what the functions of the organization might be in this respect. He had told them that he could not say whether the Delegation would sponsor the language they proposed. The Consultants had said that they thought the United States should try to obtain agreement on giving much greater emphasis to human rights, even if there was some risk of failure. They thought that even if the United States Delegation failed in its attempt, the Delegation could put out a statement that it had tried and this would carry a great weight with American public opinion.

Senator Vandenberg commented that the group of Consultants had asked for four measures of which two were already included in the United States proposals. Representative Bloom said that while it was all right to talk about human rights, he thought it would be better to refer to equal rights; that would mean more and go farther for all people. He thought that in this country it had definite meaning and that it should be understood that what was desired was equal rights for every citizen of every nation, within that nation. He said he had taken that up with Mr. Pasvolsky earlier. He wondered what human rights really meant; did it mean equal rights? If not, he asked, what did it mean?

The Secretary said that Dr. W. W. Cumberland of the National Association of Manufacturers thought that the language in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals on the Economic and Social Council was too indefinite for the future. There were too many generalities and vague hopes. His organization wanted language used in the redraft of this chapter that would give assurance that the Council and its program would really come into being soon. They did not want it left merely that the organization had a right to make the sort of arrangements outlined. The Secretary, himself, thought that Mr. Cumberland had made a strong point.

Senator Vandenberg commented that the Russians were proposing in Chapter I the addition of the clause “and encouragement of respect for human rights and particularly the right to work and the right to education and also for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, language, religion or sex”. Representative Bloom said that the Russians repeated this proposal several times in their suggested amendments.⁶¹ Mr. Notter added that it appeared three times.

The Secretary asked what could be done about the Human Rights Commission which the Consultants group was proposing. Mr. Pasvolsky observed that the British wanted to drop the enumeration of commissions from Chapter IX and leave the Economic and Social Council free to set up such commissions as may be required. They thought this was not a statutory matter and that it was something that might be left to the organization itself to handle.

Dean Gildersleeve said that a number of people had spoken to her about the importance of making sure that the work of the existing League of Nations Committees in the field of economic and social cooperation should be carried on. She was sure no one would object to that, but the matter needed clarification.

The Secretary said he was in favor of informing the President this evening about this matter and telling him of the sincerity with which the proposals had been put forward. He wished also to report the urging of the Consultants’ group that the United States should back the proposals heartily even though they might fail eventually. He felt that the Delegation should make public its position. Senator Vandenberg said he approved of taking a public stand on this issue; he thought it would make for better public relations all around. The Secretary said that the American Delegation could take a public stand after tonight.

The Secretary referred to a letter on the subject of education which had been brought up at the Consultants’ meeting [U.S. Gen 52].⁶² Mr. MacLeish asked that the whole letter be read and Mr. Sandifer read it. Representative Eaton said this was a very important document and he wanted to come back to the Russian proposal for amending paragraph 3 of Chapter I “in particular the right to work”. He wondered whose duty it was to implement this right. Senator Vandenberg said he was surprised that the Russians had not suggested the right to strike, also. Representative Eaton said that was really a part of what they wanted. He still wanted to know whose duty it was to provide the work.

Senator Connally said he felt that while we must be sympathetic with these proposals, he dreaded trying to cover too much. If this is included, the other countries want other things. Education has as many connotations as religion. He was merely uttering a word of caution.

Representative Bloom said he wished to raise a point of order against the whole discussion. The Delegation had decided not to include the word “education”, and he thought that the one sure way to meet with trouble in Congress was to include it. He recalled that the Senators had been for omitting this word also. The Secretary asked whether we could accept this word as a proposal of the Soviet Delegation. Representative Bloom thought that would be somewhat better. Senator Vandenberg said he thought the language suggested by the American Delegation already expressed the spirit of this letter.

Representative Bloom asked why it would not be better to talk about equality. He thought “human rights” means nothing. Mr. Dulles asked Representative Bloom if he would be satisfied with the Soviet formula “without distinction as to race, language, religion or sex”. Representative Bloom said he thought it did not have quite the same meaning.

The Secretary said that it was now 9:30 in Washington and it was time for him to telephone to the President.

. . . . . . .

Mr. Bowman said that at two meetings the advisers had been invited and urged to make their suggestions. Mr. Pasvolsky said he thought it was now too late for anything further, and whatever decisions were to be made would have to be made here. Dean Gildersleeve asked whether this would apply to Chapter IX since this was the first occasion on which there would be an opportunity to decide. The Secretary said it was necessary to prepare for tonight’s meeting with the other Sponsoring Governments and reach the final position of the United States before that meeting. He did not believe that the advisers would have anything new to say, and he thought that the Consultants had really given their most essential suggestions.

Senator Connally said that the question before the Delegation was the adoption of Commander Stassen’s proposal that reference to a commission on human rights should be inserted in paragraph 2 of Chapter IX, and that the matter should be referred to the Advisers and drafting committee for the proper wording.

Dean Gildersleeve asked if that was the only change that was being proposed in Chapter IX and if there was not also to be a change in Section A. Senator Connally said that was his understanding. Dean Gildersleeve said that if that was the case, then she wished to propose that the word “cultural” be included in paragraph 1 of Section A. Mr. Pasvolsky said that the Soviet proposal contained it and the United States did not need to propose it. Mr. Dulles said that the Delegation had already agreed to this change. Commander Stassen said that psychologically Dean Gildersleeve was right. It would make a considerable difference to say that we had proposed it.

Mr. Pasvolsky said that it was all right to add the word “cultural” since it had already been accepted and that it should be added in the chapter on Purposes and in Chapter IX. Dean Gildersleeve said it should be clear that the American Delegation was making the proposal. Mr. Pasvolsky said the phrase should read “cultural and other humanitarian problems”. Senator Connally asked if the Delegates agreed on reference to the commission on human rights. If so, the next place to make a reference to human rights would be in Chapter I. Mr. Pasvolsky said that he thought that could be taken up in the discussion on the proposals and amendments, and urged that the Delegation now turn to the immediate business of deciding what amendments should be offered by the United States and which of the Russian and British proposals we should accept or oppose.

Review of U.S. Proposals in Light of Consultation Developments

Senator Connally asked Mr. Pasvolsky to open the discussion. Mr. Pasvolsky reported that the Advisers had given some consideration to this matter and wanted to suggest that the list of proposals to be insisted upon by the United States be kept to the minimum Senator Connally said he thought that was what the American Delegation should do. Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that the Delegates run through Document A (April 26, 1945) and agree on the points that should be taken up in the meeting later that evening. He said that some of the Advisers to the American Delegation had met informally with some of the Russian, Chinese and British at noon and as a result of this discussion they wanted to propose the elimination of certain amendments in the American list. (Document A)

Chapter I, Purposes.—The first suggestion was that the proposed revision of Chapter I, paragraph 1 (adding after “peaceful means” the clause “and in accordance with the principles of justice and equity”) should be altered to read “with due regard to the principles of justice and international law”.

Senator Vandenberg said that he was willing to accept the Chinese version⁶³ on this point. He thought it would produce the same atmosphere and it would achieve the purpose of including international law. The Delegation agreed to the change proposed by Mr. Pasvolsky.

Mr. Pasvolsky proposed that the suggested amendment of paragraph 2 (to include the phrase “to foster the development of international law”) should be dropped since it did not add anything to the document. A reference to international law would be in paragraph 1 of this Chapter and in paragraph 6, Section B, Chapter V of the General Assembly. Senator Connally asked if the Delegates agreed to this change and they gave their assent.

Mr. Pasvolsky asked the Delegates if the word “cultural” could be added after the word “social” in paragraph 3. The Delegates agreed to this change and no change was made in the revision already proposed for that paragraph (to add after “problems” the clause “and to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms”).

Chapter II, Principles. —Mr. Pasvolsky suggested retaining the proposed amendment to paragraph 1 (substituting “its members” for “peace loving states”). The Delegates agreed.

Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that the proposed amendments to paragraphs 5 and 6 and the unnumbered paragraph should be dropped. That meant going back to the original language of the Dumbarton Oaks document. However, some textual changes might be made in the course of drafting. Mr. Dunn said that the dropping of these amendments was recommended by himself, Mr. Dulles, Mr. Pasvolsky, Mr. Bowman and Mr. Armstrong who had met together in the course of the afternoon. Senator Vandenberg asked what would happen to the proposed insertion in paragraph 5 of the phrase “in accordance with the provisions of the Charter in any action taken by it under the provisions of the Charter.” Mr. Dulles said that this had been merely a drafting change in the first place and as it was stated now it made the phrase “any action” much too broad. He thought that the result that the American Delegates wanted to achieve could be brought about in the drafting process.

Senator Vandenberg commented that what Mr. Pasvolsky suggested was really postponing this particular problem. Mr. Hackworth said that this was a matter of shifting emphasis. Senator Connally asked if the effect in paragraph 6 would not be to make the statement positive instead of negative. Mr. Dunn thought that if the original phrase “in accordance with the” was used it could apply both positively and negatively. Mr. Pasvolsky said that he would prefer not to multiply the proposals to be made by the United States. He was working with Mr. Dunn on textual changes like this and thought there might be other ways to accomplish the results he wanted without making a formal proposal.

Senator Connally asked the Delegates whether they would agree to striking out all the amendments suggested for paragraphs 5 and 6 and the unnumbered paragraph in Chapter II, and the Delegates agreed.

Chapter V, The General Assembly.—Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that the proposed amendments to Chapter V, Section B, paragraph 1 should be dropped. He said the suggested changes had caused a great deal of discussion and many people could not understand the reason for them. Moreover, there would be many proposals coming in from the small countries on this paragraph. He thought it wise, therefore, for the United States to drop all proposals for changes in the paragraph, leaving it as it is in the text of Dumbarton Oaks, and to concentrate rather on paragraph 6 of this Section and whatever changes were desired in Chapter VIII. Senator Connally asked if the Delegates had any objection, and since they raised none it was agreed that the amendments proposed for paragraph 1 should be dropped.

Mr. Pasvolsky said that with respect to paragraph 2, Section B, the amendment proposed by the United States might cause more trouble than we had anticipated. The smaller countries were asking that the Assembly alone should have the power to admit new members. His suggestion was that the United States should make no proposal on that point, and if necessary should agree later to modify the text of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals so as to give the General Assembly and the Security Council concurrent powers in the election of new members, permitting either body to initiate the step. As far as the United States is concerned now he thought we should go back to the original language. The Delegates agreed to his proposal.

Mr. Pasvolsky proposed that the United States should not suggest any amendment on paragraph 5 and that the phrase “on the basis of an appropriate proration” should not be offered by the United States. He said that it was actually a procedural matter for the General Assembly to decide upon, and could well be left to the future operation of the Organization. In any case it was customary for international organizations to set up some scale for payment of contributions by the members.

Senator Connally asked if this might not be changed to read “agreed scale”. Mr. Pasvolsky thought it would be better not to offer any amendments at all. Senator Connally said that if there was no objection he would rule that the Delegation agreed. There were no objections.

Mr. Pasvolsky said there was a question in paragraph 6 about the meaning of the phrase “establish justice”. Did it mean justice in states or between states? Moreover, it was not clear how the General Assembly could initiate studies and make recommendations to establish justice. He thought if the phrase was left, the word “international” would have to be added. There was also a question about the last phrase “the principles accepted by them in the Preamble of the Declaration by the United Nations of January 1, 1942”. He thought this might cause some difficulty since the British and Russians had no recommendations on this point. He did, however, recommend keeping the final phrase “including situations arising out of any treaties or international engagements”.

Commander Stassen said he thought that the whole of the last 4 lines of this paragraph is vital and that the paragraph as it stands is good. Mr. Pasvolsky said he would be willing in the evening meeting to state this objective in principle, but perhaps it would have to be taken out in the negotiations there.

Senator Connally asked if there were any objections to inserting “international” before “justice”. Senator Vandenberg said he would like to return to that later if it has to be done. Senator Connally asked if the American proposal to include the word “justice” should be dropped. Senator Vandenberg said he would not want the word “justice” left out. Senator Connally asked if it was not true that the whole text of the Charter implied that the justice to be sought is international, and asked if we could assume that “international” was meant. Mr. Dulles said he wanted to leave the proposed amendments of paragraph 6 as they were. He thought that if this was to be a battle ground, it was no use for us to give up ahead of time. He thought we should try to bring the other sponsors to our point of view.

Senator Connally said that, without objection, the proposed amendments to paragraph 6 would stand and the United States would make them one of its proposals. Mr. Pasvolsky commented that some of the words could be taken out if necessary for bargaining purposes, and Senator Vandenberg rejoined that he would have put in more words if they were going to have to be sacrificed in the negotiations.

Chapter VI, The Security Council.—Mr. Pasvolsky turned to Chapter VI. Senator Connally said that so far the United States was offering only one amendment in that Chapter (Section D, paragraph 2, delete phrase “including regional subcommittees of the Military Staff Committee”).

Mr. Dunn said that in the Dumbarton Oaks text the provision for regional subcommittees of the Military Staff Committee looks like an attempt to build up blocs. Mr. Pasvolsky said he thought it would be better not to raise the question of regional subcommittees of the Military Staff Committee here. The provision had been put in on the suggestion of the British at Dumbarton Oaks, but he thought it looked strange to talk about “bodies or agencies” and then enumerate only one, and that one probably the least important of any that the Security Council might set up. If the reference to regional subcommittees of the Military Staff Committee is dropped here, however, it might be rewritten in the paragraph on the Military Staff Committee.

Mr. McCloy said he thought it wise to delete the reference to regional subcommittees of the Military Staff Committee at this point. Mr. Pasvolsky said it was the result of long argument at Dumbarton Oaks. The British had insisted upon it and since they had insisted on very few points, the Americans had thought it best to go along with them on this. Senator Connally said that if any reference is to be made at all to this point, it should be made in the paragraph on the Military Staff Committee. Mr. Pasvolsky agreed that it would be better to propose the suggested amendment and the Delegation agreed.

Senator Connally asked whether other governments are submitting many amendments on the Security Council. Commander Stassen said that all the proposals were coming in and would soon be available. Egypt, Chile, The Netherlands and Liberia were proposing changes on the Security Council. No proposals had come in from Czechoslovakia, Lebanon, Turkey, and South Africa. However, the proposals would be distributed as fast as they could be made available.

Chapter VIII, Section A.—Mr. Pasvolsky turned to Chapter VIII, Section A, paragraph 5 [to add “or settlement” at the end of the paragraph]. He said that this was only a drafting change and believed we should drop it as a proposal and go back to the original text. As to paragraph 7 of Section A, Chapter VIII, on domestic jurisdiction, the British were making a proposal. He thought we should make some declaration on this point and wanted to defer it until the British proposals were considered. Senator Connally said that he wanted to see the United States proposal on paragraph 7 put forward on the initiative of this Government. Mr. Pasvolsky said there was some question in his mind whether this was the best place for such a proposal but we could call it a proposal now and come back to it later.

Chapter VIII, Section B.—In Section B of Chapter VIII Mr. Pasvolsky thought it desirable to retain the amendments already agreed upon (after “measures” insert the following phrase “set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this section”). He thought that the suggested alteration in paragraph 3 could be dropped if the proposals with respect to paragraphs 1 and 2 were retained inserting after “decisions” “to maintain or restore peace and security”. Senator Connally asked if there was any opposition to retaining as an American proposal the suggested amendment to paragraphs 1 and 2. The Delegates agreed to this suggestion. He asked if there was any opposition to dropping the proposed amendment from paragraph 3. Mr. Dulles said it could be dropped if the proposals for paragraphs 1 and 2 are retained. The Delegates raised no opposition to deleting this amendment.

Chapter IX, Arrangements for Economic and Social Cooperation.—Mr. Pasvolsky said that in Chapter IX it had just been agreed that the word “cultural” should be inserted after “social” in Section A, paragraph 1, and that in Section D, paragraph 1 the phrase “a commission on human rights” should be inserted after the phrase “a social commission”. Senator Connally asked if the Delegation had any opposition now to these changes and there being none, he stated that the Delegation agreed to the proposals.

Chapter X, The Secretariat.—Mr. Pasvolsky said that the proposed additional paragraph to Chapter X might encounter strong objections and he wanted to be able to propose it to the other sponsors in order to have bargaining power on other provisions with regard to the Secretariat. Senator Connally asked if the Delegates agreed. They assented.

Chapter XI, Amendments.—Mr. Pasvolsky said that all three of the governments had reservations on the American proposal for a new paragraph in Chapter XI. One reason for their opposition was that as it stands it makes it more difficult to have a conference for a thorough-going revision of the Charter than for amendments. Nevertheless, he personally thought this proposal should be left in. Commander Stassen agreed with him. Senator Connally asked the Delegates if they agreed to offering this as an American proposal. He commented that according to this proposal the vote of seven Council members would be required, but with unanimity among the permanent members. However, ratification of a new draft Charter would require acceptance by all permanent members, and he thought that would be enough of a veto for them to retain. Senator Vandenberg said he was in favor of leaving this proposal as it had been drafted. Senator Connally said he would like to have this known as his amendment. He added that Hamilton Holt⁶⁴ had called upon him and said that the Charter should have a provision like this. Commander Stassen said he thought it was one of the most important proposals being made by the United States. Mr. Hackworth said the American Bar Association was in favor of it and as a matter of fact would like to have a constitutional convention of the United Nations Organization every seven years.

Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that it might be wise to provide some time limit in this procedure and to say that a general conference of the members could be held not oftener than after a certain number of years. He would also suggest that since the process of ratification is the same as for amendments, it would be sufficient to say so and not to spell it out.

Preamble.—Mr. Pasvolsky said there was one more point on which he would like advice. The United States Delegation believes there should be a Preamble setting forth the motives which lie behind the Charter. So far this was an item that had not been discussed very thoroughly and we had no draft, but he thought we might, nevertheless, tell the others that we believed there should be a Preamble. Senator Connally suggested that we prepare a draft Preamble and say to the Russians and British that we had a text in mind. He would like to see it short and crisp and to the point. Senator Vandenberg commented that there seemed to be a good many chapters of this kind—a Preamble, a chapter on Principles, a chapter on Purposes. Perhaps chapters should be added on Objectives and Aims.

Withdrawal Provision.—Mr. Pasvolsky said that no final decision had been taken on the question of proposing a withdrawal provision. Senator Connally asked about a provision on the registration of treaties. Mr. Pasvolsky said that this was being suggested by many countries.

Senator Vandenberg said that a withdrawal provision was desperately important. Mr. Pasvolsky said the Delegation had already agreed to support such a provision, but he thought we should make sure that it was in if we wanted it. Senator Vandenberg said it was utterly fundamental. Mr. Dulles commented that if the American Delegation feels it is fundamental they should see to it that it is proposed. Senator Connally asked what such a provision should contain. Senator Vandenberg asked where the text was that had been presented.

Release to the Press

Mr. MacLeish said he was sorry to interrupt the discussion, but he wanted very much to know what to say to the press in the conference to be held on Friday. He reported that the journalists were eager to be told first about the American proposals.

Senator Connally asked whether the Delegates agreed on calling a press conference for Friday morning at 10 o’clock. All except Representative Bloom agreed. …

Dean Gildersleeve said she supported communicating our proposals to the other Delegates no later than to the press. Senator Vandenberg said it should have been done already. Mr. Pasvolsky said that we have to reach some agreement with the other sponsoring nations and it would be best if all four would put out their proposals at the same time. Senator Vandenberg said he was willing to concede Mr. Pasvolsky’s point about courtesy to the other Delegates.

Mr. Pasvolsky thought the best way would be to decide tonight that this was the American program and then in the morning or afternoon of the next day to send it to the Secretary General and to the press. Senator Connally said that was difficult because the Delegation had just authorized several of its members to negotiate with the Russians and British on some of these points. Representative Bloom still thought we should put it out as our program and make it clear that some modifications might have to be made as a result of consultations. Mr. Armstrong thought that if that plan was followed the press conference could be held on Thursday, and that would delight und surprise the press.

Mr. Sandifer said there were some mechanical problems because there would have to be about 600 copies turned out. Senator Connally said it was necessary to keep in mind the facilities for a job of this sort. Mr. MacLeish said he wanted to announce to the press that it had been decided to hold a conference on Friday morning at 10 o’clock. Senator Connally said that without opposition Mr. MacLeish would be authorized to announce a press conference for Friday morning at 10 o’clock. Senator Connally called upon Mr. Pasvolsky to proceed with the business.

Withdrawal Provision.—Senator Vandenberg said there was still something to be done on the withdrawal provision. Mr. Pasvolsky remarked the best thing to do was to say to the Russians and British that there was another point on which we wanted to make a proposal and that we were working on a text which would be shown to them later. Commander Stassen said he wanted it understood that the United States was not to take the initiative in proposing a withdrawal provision. Senator Vandenberg said the Delegation had agreed not to include it in the “A” document but had put it into the “B” document. Commander Stassen said there had not been a clear decision on that point. Mr. Pasvolsky said that we could tell the others tonight that we would like to see some provision about withdrawal. Mr. Stassen said he was against having a withdrawal clause introduced by a nation that was going to have a veto in the Security Council. Mr. Dunn said the matter would have to be decided before Friday. Commander Stassen said that he would not object so much to the idea of the withdrawal clause, but he thought it would be very bad for the United States to propose it.

Review of Amendments to Dumbarton Oaks Proposals as Suggested by the United Kingdom Delegation

Mr. Pasvolsky turned to the British-proposals [US Gen 37, Amendments to Dumbarton Oaks Proposals as Suggested by the United Kingdom Delegation].⁶⁵ He suggested that the United States should make no objection to the first British proposal [delete paragraph 1, d of Section C of Chapter IX and insert a new paragraph after paragraph 7, Section B, Chapter V as follows: “The General Assembly should examine the administrative budgets of such specialized agencies with a view to making recommendations to the agencies concerned.”] Mr. Pasvolsky said he thought the American Delegation did not care very much how this matter of reviewing budgets was done. Senator Connally asked if there was any objection to Mr. Pasvolsky’s suggestion. There was none.

With respect to the British proposal on the election of non-permanent members, Mr. Pasvolsky said that this question had already been argued at Dumbarton Oaks. [“The General Assembly should elect six States to fill the non-permanent seats, due regard being paid to the contribution of members of the Organization towards the maintenance of international peace and security and towards the other purposes of the Organization.”] Mr. Pasvolsky said that the issue here was whether criteria should be set up in the Charter for election of non-permanent members of the Security Council. If one criterion were proposed, then others would be brought forward. Various countries were proposing various criteria—regional, etc. Dean Gildersleeve asked if we were going to object to having the British put this proposal forward. Mr. Pasvolsky explained that we would express our opposition to it and the British could then do as they wished about actually proposing it.

Senator Connally said it would be difficult to define “due regard to the contribution of members of the Organization …” He was against this idea, and thought the Assembly should have complete freedom in the election of the non-permanent members of the Security Council.

Mr. Johnson said that if this clause should go in, there would be a demand for an increase in the number of seats on the Security Council and there would be demands for regional representation. Senator Vandenberg commented that such a condition would virtually outlaw small states. Mr. Pasvolsky said it would be stated in the negotiations that the United States does not like this proposal. Senator Connally asked if the Delegates agreed with this position and they said that they did.

Mr. Pasvolsky took up the amendment proposed by the United Kingdom Delegation on pacific settlement of disputes. [“Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraphs 1–5 below, the Security Council should be empowered, if all the parties so request, to make recommendations to the parties to any dispute with a view to its settlement in accordance with the principles laid down in Chapter II(3).”]

Mr. Pasvolsky said this would give the Security Council the power to recommend the terms of settlement only on the request of all parties to a dispute. He thought it was a harmless provision and that the right was inherent to the Security Council anyway. The next proposed amendment to paragraph 4 of Section A, Chapter VIII, he thought was not harmless. [“If, nevertheless, parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in paragraph 3 above fail to settle it by the means indicated in that paragraph, they should obligate themselves to refer it to the Security Council. If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the particular dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under paragraph 5 or whether itself to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.”] He thought that if this power was given at this point it would open the door to permitting the Security Council to enforce the settlement of a dispute. The Delegation agreed that the United States should oppose this amendment but raise no objection to the previous one.

Mr. Pasvolsky called attention to the proposed amendment of paragraph 7, Section A, Chapter VIII. [“(1) The Charter should not confer the right on any member of the United Nations to require that a dispute or situation arising out of matters which by International Law are solely within the domestic jurisdiction of the State concerned should be submitted to the means of settlement mentioned in Section A (3). Should, however, such a situation or dispute constitute a threat to the maintenance of international peace or security, or should a breach of the peace occur in consequence of such a situation or dispute, it should be open to the Security Council, acting in accordance with Section B, to take such action as it may deem appropriate. (2) The question whether a particular dispute or situation does arise out of matters which by International Law are solely within the domestic jurisdiction of the State concerned should be decided, if necessary, by the body to which it is sought to submit the dispute or situation.”]

Mr. Pasvolsky thought that the first sentence was satisfactory but that the rest of the proposal was questionable. He thought it particularly bad to suggest that the question as to whether a particular dispute or situation does arise “out of matters which by International Law are solely within the jurisdiction of the State concerned” should be decided by the body to which it is decided to submit the dispute or situation.

Commander Stassen said that this sentence went far beyond the most extreme suggestions he had heard so far. Mr. Pasvolsky said that our proposal was to set no standard whatever. This was really the other extreme. Senator Connally asked whether the Delegation agreed to opposing this British suggestion. Mr. Dulles said that our opposition should be stated, but it should be pointed out that our main opposition related to paragraph (2). He thought perhaps we could talk over paragraph (1) with the British.

Mr. Pasvolsky read the amendment proposed by the British for paragraph 1, Section D, Chapter IX. [“The Economic and Social Council should have the power to set up such commissions as may be required.”] Mr. Pasvolsky said this would eliminate the enumeration of the commissions. Commander Stassen said we are making a contrary proposal. Mr. Pasvolsky said the matter would have to be adjusted somehow.

Mr. Pasvolsky said that the last British proposal was very important:

[“In Chapter IX Section A, Paragraph 1 the first sentence should read as follows:

After ‘should’ insert ‘in association with the International Labour Organisation and other bodies concerned.’

In Chapter IX, Section A, insert at the end of paragraph 2, new Paragraph as follows:

3. In view of its tripartite constitution the International Labor Organisation should, subject to the provisions of Paragraph 2 above, be brought into special relationship with the Organisation and should be an important instrument through which should be pursued the object of securing for all improved labour standards, economic advancement and social security.”]

Mr. Pasvolsky said this would put the International Labor Organization in a special position as compared with other international organizations. Representative Bloom inquired what our own labor organizations would think of this. Mr. Pasvolsky said that we have always opposed the efforts of the International Labor Organization to place itself in a superior position in the development of economic and social progress. Commander Stassen said that this was the other half of the fight over the World Trade Union Conference. Dean Gildersleeve said that this would weaken the Economic and Social Council.

Mr. Pasvolsky said there was no real objection to mentioning the ILO as an existing organization which should be brought into relation with the Organization. Mr. Dulles said that we did not, however, wish to give the ILO priority over the Economic and Social Council. Representative Bloom asked what the effect would be if the British made this proposal and the United States opposed it, and especially what the effect would be on American labor. Mr. Pasvolsky said that American labor groups were not very much concerned about it. Also, the U.S.S.R. would surely oppose this suggestion and the United States might not have to speak out at all.

Review of Amendments to Dumbarton Oaks Proposals as Suggested by the Soviet Delegation

On the request of Senator Connally, Mr. Pasvolsky opened the discussion on the Russian amendments [US Gen. 39, Amendments to Dumbarton Oaks Proposals as Suggested by the Soviet Delegation],⁶⁶ Mr. Pasvolsky said the proposed amendment to Chapter I, paragraph 1 had already been agreed upon by the American Delegation [insert after “peaceful means” the phrase “in conformity with the principles of justice and international law].

Mr. Pasvolsky read the proposed amendment to paragraph 2. [Insert after “nations” the phrase “based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”]. Mr. Armstrong said that it could be used to cover the expansion of the Soviet Union. Commander Stassen said he was against it. Mr. Armstrong said it would be a little difficult for the United States to come out as opposed to such a provision, and the Delegates agreed to ask the Soviet Delegation to explain what was intended by the proposal.

Mr. Pasvolsky read the proposed amendment to paragraph 3 of Chapter I. [After “humanitarian problems” insert “and encouragement of respect for human rights in particular the right to work and the right to education and also for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, language, religion or sex.”]

Mr. Bowman said that it contained everything but the right to be assassinated. Mr. Pasvolsky said that in this the Russians were playing up to the small nations and would undoubtedly insist upon this amendment. Representative Eaton said he wanted to know whose duty it would be to provide the work. Commander Stassen said that when you begin to specify the right to work and the right to education, then freedom of the press and freedom of religion would have to be added. Mr. Dulles thought it desirable to propose discussing this amendment with the Russians. Mr. Pasvolsky thought that part of it would be all right, namely the phrase “without distinction as to race, language, religion or sex.” Senator Vandenberg said that was all right with him; however, if the right to work and to education were named, then there was a long list that should be added such as freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, etc. Senator Connally said that freedom of the press and freedom for the exchange of information and freedom to petition should also be included in that case. There was agreement on this suggestion.

Mr. Pasvolsky drew attention to the Soviet proposal for amendment of paragraph 6 of Section B, Chapter V, which is the same as the proposal just discussed. He pointed out that the Soviet Delegation was not making any proposal about the revision of treaties or the principles of the Atlantic Charter. Senator Vandenberg said that the Americans really wanted to go farther in this paragraph than the Russians.

Mr. Pasvolsky called attention to the Soviet proposal on paragraph 2 of Section C, Chapter VIII. [After the phrase “without the authorization of the Security Council” add the clause “with the exception of measures provided for in treaties or concluded directly against the renewal of the policy of aggression on the part of the aggressor states in the present war.”]

Mr. Pasvolsky said that he did not like this particularly. It had been drafted to take care of the Soviet agreement with France. The British, however, were working on a redraft. Mr. Armstrong said that Mr. McCloy before leaving had asked him to say that he hoped this matter would be left open until the Military Advisers had had a chance to express themselves.

Mr. Pasvolsky drew attention to the fact that the proposed amendment to paragraph 1 of Section A, Chapter IX was simply a repetition of the amendments proposed for paragraph 6 in Section B, Chapter V and paragraph 3 in Chapter I.

Mr. Pasvolsky read the suggested amendment to Chapter X [substitute the following for the present paragraph 1: “There should be a Secretariat comprising a Secretary General, four deputies and such staff as may be required. The Secretary General and his deputies shall be elected by the General Assembly on recommendation of the Security Council for a period of two years and the Secretary General cannot be immediately re-elected. The Secretary General shall be the chief administrative officer of the Organization.”]

Mr. Pasvolsky said this was a very important proposal. He thought the United States Delegation would not like it, and the Delegates agreed that they definitely did not like such a short term with quick rotation in the office of the Secretary General, although they had no objection to the provision for four deputies.

Mr. Pasvolsky said that the proposed amendment to Chapter XII might be useful. [Insert a new paragraph before paragraph 1 reading: “The present Charter comes into force after its ratification in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by the members of the Organization having permanent seats on the Security Council and by a majority of the other members of the Organization.”]

Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that this would bring the Charter into force under the same provisions as the amending process and would require the ratification of about twenty-eight countries. The Delegation agreed that this amendment would be satisfactory. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. and the Delegates agreed to meet again at 9 o’clock Thursday morning, May 3.

49. Doc. 59, G/16, May 2, UNCIO Documents, vol. 1, p. 64.
50. Doc. 25, DC/1, April 23, UNCIO Documents, vol. 5, p. 16.
51. Doc. 37, DC/9a, April 30, ibid., p. 142.
52. Doc. 50, ST/2, May 1, ibid., p. 175.
53. For announcement to the Conference, on observance of V–E Day, by the Secretary of State, see doc. 128, May 8, UNCIO Documents, vol. 2, p. 45.
54. The sixth consultative meeting of the Big Four Ministers, May 1, 7:15 p.m.; for minutes of meeting, see p. 509.
55. See memorandum of conversation, May 2, 11 a.m., vol. v, p. 272.
56. Neither printed.
57. See The Memoirs of Cordell Hull, vol. ii, p. 1722.
58. Minutes of meeting, May 2, 5 p.m., not printed.
59. O. Frederick Nolde, Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America; Joseph M. Proskauer, President, American Jewish Committee.
60. Not printed.
61. Not printed.
62. Not printed. Brackets throughout remainder of this document appear in the original.
63. Doc. 1, G/1 (a), May 1, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 25.
64. Educator and editor; President of Rollins College.
65. Not printed.
66. Not printed.