RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 96: U.S. Cr. Min. 27

Minutes of the Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Thursday, May 3, 1945, 9 a.m.

[Informal Notes—Extracts]

[Here follows list of names of persons (22) present at meeting.]

The Secretary convened the meeting at 9:00 a.m., and stated that he hoped that the members of the Delegation had been able to get some rest over the night.

[Here follow discussion of proposed meetings of the Delegation with private organizations and the Secretary’s report on progress of consultations with the Four Sponsors.]

Press Policy

The Secretary stated that, following the departure of the two Senators the night before, a group had continued to meet in his apartment on the question of the release of our proposals to the press. Since a press conference had already been scheduled for Thursday, but since [Page 559] it would not be possible to issue the proposals at this time, agreement had been reached that Mr. Stassen would leave the meeting of the four sponsoring governments and attend a press conference at 11 a.m., Thursday, on behalf of the whole Delegation.

The Secretary asked Mr. Stassen to summarize the statement he would make to the press conference. … He said he would indicate that the present consultations were a continuation of those held the previous evening, and that he would stress that consultation was going forward on amendments which each of the four governments wished to propose for discussion along with the consideration of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. Moreover, he thought it should be said that, since none of the four governments had published the texts of their amendments, as host government it would be courteous for us not to publish our proposals before the conclusion of the consultations. …

. . . . . . .

Representation at Consultations of the Four Sponsors

. . . . . . .

Provision on Equal Rights

Representative Bloom remarked that the question of solidarity was not at issue, since he had on a number of occasions brought a suggestion which had not been ruled out and yet did not appear in any of the documents. The Secretary asked Mr. Sandifer the status of Representative Bloom’s suggestion. Mr. Sandifer stated that the suggestion was to include in Chapter I, Purposes, paragraph 3, reference to “equal rights for all people”.

Mr. Pasvolsky stated that this point was in fact in the document, since last evening the Soviet proposal had been accepted to add the phrase in paragraph 3, “without distinction,” etc.

Representative Eaton asked what could be done if the Russians did discriminate. Would we deal authoritatively with the Russians? Mr. Pasvolsky said the Organization could not impose a decision on this question but that it could say to them, “you are violating a purpose of the Organization”. Moreover considerable pressure could be mobilized in the form of public opinion.

Representative Bloom asked what objection there was to his phrase “equal rights”? Mr. Pasvolsky explained that the word “equal” was a touchy one with the Russians, and that from his point of view the phrase “without distinction” was actually better than “equal”. Representative Bloom asked whether Mr. Pasvolsky meant to say that the Declaration of Independence was wrong. Mr. Pasvolsky said that it was satifactory for the United States but not for the world, since to others it had a different connotation. Representative Bloom asked whether Mr. Pasvolsky thought it was better for [Page 560] us not to use the word “equal”. Mr. Pasvolsky replied that he had no objection in principle to the word “equal”, but was merely pointing out that it would be difficult to negotiate in this connection. Having gotten agreement on the Soviet proposal he was afraid we might lose what we had if we started monkeying with the language.

The Secretary stated that he thought it was a very small request to ask for the inclusion in the document of a reference to “equal rights for individuals and nations”. Mr. Pasvolsky replied that the difficulty with this proposal was that it raised the whole minority question. Representative Bloom noted that he did not recognize minorities and that this was the whole point of his amendment.

Mr. Pasvolsky reaffirmed that it had already been agreed in Chapter I to take care of what Representative Bloom wanted, but that in addition, if it was desired to include a reference to equal rights, then the matter would have to be considered.

The Secretary asked that, if possible, a provision on equal rights be included and that Mr. Sandifer should make a report on this problem. Mr. Stassen expressed support for the Secretary’s statement. The Secretary suggested that the reference to equal rights might well be included in the preamble. Mr. Pasvolsky agreed that it might be possible to work it in there.

Dean Gildersleeve said she would like to go on record as saying how grateful she was to find the great advance in language indicated in the Soviet proposal for paragraph 3 of Chapter I.

Status of Amendments Made by the Four Governments

. . . . . . .

Mr. Pasvolsky thought that it might be necessary, if agreement was not reached on the Vandenberg proposal,73 for us to put forward that proposal separately. He added that the British and even the Russians might have one or two individual proposals to make. Senator Connally remarked that this question would, for the moment, have to be reserved. The Secretary pointed out to Mr. Notter that it would not be possible for Mr. Stassen or anyone else to discuss this with the press until a policy had been established in consultation with the four sponsoring governments. Dean Gildersleeve thought that, if joint proposals of the four governments were issued, the impression might be given that the four governments were ganging up on the other countries. Mr. Pasvolsky thought it would be possible to make an introductory statement to the effect that these proposals were the result of our joint studies, but that we were ready to consider all the views and proposals presented by other governments.

[Page 561]

The Secretary indicated that he would not like to run the risk of Mr. Molotov’s going home before the four powers had agreed upon a joint set of proposals. Mr. Pasvolsky explained that it would be necessary to continue consultations with the sponsoring governments until they had together gone over all the substantive proposals. This consultation would continue over the weekend. He thought Mr. Molotov could be persuaded to stay for this length of time. The Secretary thought he might be persuaded to stay until Saturday.

Senator Connally stated that the justification for the four sponsoring governments putting forward joint proposals was that these four drew up the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals originally, and we could say that on reflection, and following consultation, we had all felt they could be improved.

Mr. Pasvolsky said, in answer to Dean Gildersleeve’s earlier comment, that it so happened that all the proposals being put forward were in the direction of improving the position of the smaller states rather than in acquiring more power for the large states, and therefore he thought they would actually please the other governments:

[Here follows discussion of Mr. Stassen’s anticipated press conference, and documents before the delegation.]

Proposal on Revision of Treaties

The Secretary asked whether there was any further business. Senator Vandenberg stated that he had been surprised by Mr. Molotov’s first question74 as to whether our proposed change in paragraph 6, Section B, of Chapter V, was Senator Vandenberg’s proposal or the proposal of the whole Delegation. Senator Vandenberg stressed that the proposal on the review of treaties must be in the document or charter if it is to get through the Senate. He indicated that Mr. Molotov must understand that this is indispensable. Senator Connally said he would like to know how he might help in the negotiation of this proposal.

Mr. Bowman said we ought to find new ground for an argument for keeping the clause in paragraph 6. He pointed out that in a conversation with Mr. Gromyko he had been told that too much importance was being attached to the Senate Republican minority, since in fact the Republican votes were not needed to get the Charter through. Mr. Bowman said he had disabused Mr. Gromyko of his interpretation by citing the world court fight. Mr. Eden also had said that the clause that we were proposing created a good deal of difficulty. Senator Vandenberg pointed out that Mr. Eden had said however that he hoped that Britain would never negotiate a treaty that it would not be willing to submit to scrutiny.

[Page 562]

Representative Bloom added that it was not only a question of the attitude of the Senate but that it was also a problem of public opinion.

Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that we argue that the final clause of paragraph 6 was included within the phrase “impairs the general welfare”. He thought we should drop the reference to the Atlantic Charter, put this in the preamble, and emphasize the last clause with respect to treaties. Senator Vandenberg indicated his agreement with this proposal.

The Secretary suggested that we should stress at the opening of the meeting that the Delegation still backs Senator Vandenberg’s clause.

Mr. Pasvolsky favored not beginning with that point, but, for purposes of negotiation, starting with another point. Senator Connally, Senator Vandenberg, and The Secretary agreed to this suggestion.

Mr. Stassen pointed out that much of the difficulty arises from the fact that the newspapers have linked Senator Vandenberg’s proposal with review of the Polish question.

The Secretary adjourned the meeting at 10 a.m.

  1. For previous discussion of chapter V, section B, paragraph 6, see minutes of meeting of the United States delegation, May 2, 5:30 p.m., pp. 528, 537; for text of United States proposal, see Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, p. 680.
  2. See minutes of Four-Power consultative meeting, May 2, 9 p.m., pp. 548, 555.