Lot 60–D 224, Box 99: UNCIO Cons Four Min 2
Minutes of the Second Four-Power Consultative Meeting on Charter Proposals, Held at San Francisco, May 3, 1945, 10 a.m.
[Here follows list of names of participants, including members of delegations of the United States (15); United Kingdom (6); Soviet Union (11); and China (6).]
Mr. Stettinius suggested that the discussion continue at the point where it left off the preceding evening.
Chapter VI. Section D.
(Mr. Stettinius and the members of the United States Delegations present had before them a document entitled “Amendments to the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals as Suggested by the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China”, US Gen 48, May 3, 1945, copy attached.75)
Paragraph 2. Regional Subcommittees of the Military Staff Committee.—Mr. Pasvolsky explained the United States proposal to delete the phrase “including regional subcommittees of the Military Staff Committee”. He said that in view of the fact that the Security Council was empowered to set up any agencies necessary for the performance of its functions it seemed strange to make specific reference [Page 563] to only one of them in this provision. He thought there was very little reason for including one specific body at this point.
Mr. Eden said that he was inclined to agree that this was not the right place to refer to regional subcommittees of the Military Staff Committee. He thought that this provision might be put in the regional section in Chapter VIII, Section C, or in the paragraph on the Military Staff Committee in Chapter VIII, Section B. He said that he was willing to agree to the United States proposal to strike it out here provided that it should be considered in one of the other places that he had mentioned.
Mr. Stettinius proposed that following Mr. Eden’s suggestion this matter be considered in connection with the provision concerning the Military Staff Committee in Chapter VIII, Section B. This was agreed to.
Paragraph 5. Participation of Non-Members.—Dr. Soong, at the request of the Chairman, explained the Chinese proposal to add a sentence as follows to this paragraph: “In the case of a non-member, the Security Council should lay down such conditions as it may deem just for the participation of such a non-member.” Dr. Soong said that it was the thought of his Delegation that if a non-member were given the privilege of attending and participating in meetings of the Security Council when considering a dispute in which it was involved, the Security Council should have the right to lay down the conditions of such participation.
The proposal was agreed to without further discussion.
Chapter VIII. Section A
New Paragraph Before Paragraph 1. Recommendations on Request of Parties.—The British proposal to insert the following new paragraph before paragraph 1 was next taken up:
“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. Eden said that his Delegation recognized the importance of not cluttering up the Security Council with miscellaneous disputes, as had sometimes been the case with the League of Nations, but at the same time it was their thought that if the countries parties to a dispute requested the Council to take it up, the facilities of the Council should be available for this purpose.
The proposal was agreed to without discussion.
Chapter VII
Paragraph 6. Enforcement of Judgments of the Court.—At this point Dr. Soong called attention to the fact that one of the Chinese [Page 564] proposals related to Chapter VII and had not been discussed. The Chairman apologized for this oversight, which he said had resulted from the Secretariat putting the paragraph under Chapter VIII instead of Chapter VII. Dr. Soong said that this was probably the result of the paragraph having been inadvertently listed under Chapter VIII in the text of the Chinese proposals.
The Chinese proposal was to insert the following paragraph as paragraph 6 of this chapter:
“If any party to a dispute fails to comply with the judgment of the International Court of Justice, the Secretary Council may, upon application by the other party or parties concerned, take such action as it may deem necessary to give effect to the judgment.”
Dr. Soong said that his Delegation regarded this provision as necessary and very important.
Mr. Eden doubted the desirability of including such a provision.
Mr. Molotov said that the inclusion of such a provision would mean that in addition to the decision of the court the Security Council would be issuing decisions binding upon the parties. He questioned the desirability of such a provision.
Mr. Stettinius stated that the United States Delegation was opposed to this provision.
Dr. Soong said that in view of the position of the other three governments China would reserve its position with respect to this provision.
Chapter VIII. Section A
Paragraph 2. Obligations of Non-Members.—The Chinese proposal to add the following sentence to this paragraph was taken up for consideration: “In the case of a non-member, it should be required to accept, for the purposes of such dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the Charter.”
Dr. Soong pointed out that this provision was related to the provision in paragraph 5 of Chapter VI, Section D, concerning invitations to non-member states to participate in the discussion relating to disputes to which they are parties.
Mr. Molotov asked for a further clarification of this provision.
Dr. Koo explained that the purpose of the proposed addition is to make certain that when the Organization takes up for consideration a dispute involving a non-member, it can count on the obligations being complied with by such non-member.
Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that the proposed addition was related also to the last paragraph in Chapter II on Principles to the effect that the Organization should insure that states not members of the Organization act in accordance with the principles laid down in Chapter II so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of peace and security.
[Page 565]Mr. Stettinius and Mr. Eden indicated that this provision was acceptable to their respective Delegations.
Mr. Molotov asked for time to study the provision.
Paragraph 4. Recommendation of Terms of Settlement.—The proposal of the United Kingdom to add the following sentence to paragraph 4 was taken up for consideration: “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.”
Mr. Eden said that his Government attached great importance to this provision. He said that under the original provision if the Security Council took jurisdiction of a dispute its action was limited to the recommendation of procedures or methods of settlement. He thought that it would not be understood by the general public how the Council could take up a dispute and then take no action looking towards its settlement other than to recommend procedures or methods of settlement.
Dr. Soong said that the provision was acceptable to his Delegation.
Mr. Molotov thought that the provision might be acceptable to his Delegation, but that they would like to go over the draft again.
Mr. Stettinius said that it was the view of the United States Delegation that it was undesirable for the Security Council to have the power to recommend terms of settlement. He would be happy to discuss the matter now or later as desired by the other Delegations.
Mr. Eden said that if this provision were not made clear by the proposed addition the Security Council could do nothing but talk and would not be in a position to take any effective action. At the very least he thought it must have the power to make recommendations as to terms of settlement.
The United States reserved its position on this question.
Paragraph 7. Domestic Jurisdiction.—Two proposals were before the meeting with respect to this paragraph. The United States proposal was to delete the words “by international law” and the word “solely”.
The British proposal was that paragraph 7 be replaced by the following
provision:
Sir William Malkin , at the request of Mr. Eden, explained the British proposal. He said that paragraph 7 had never been fully discussed at Dumbarton Oaks.76 Under the Dumbarton Oaks provision, paragraphs 1 to 6 of Section A would not apply to matters coming within domestic jurisdiction, whereas the provisions of Chapter VIII, Section B, would apply to such matters. The effect of this was that members of the Organization would not be obligated under Section A to submit disputes coming within domestic jurisdiction. At the same time if such a dispute produced a situation likely to lead to war or if it actually caused a breach of the peace, the Council could act under Section B. It seemed to the United Kingdom essential that this situation be clearly stated and that was the purpose of the proposal put forward by the United Kingdom Delegation.
Mr. Bowman, at the request of Mr. Stettinius, explained that the United States proposed the deletion of the words “international law” on the ground that international law might not keep up with the evolution of the definition of domestic jurisdiction. It was proposed to omit the word “solely” as too precise in view of the existing imprecision of international law.
Mr. Molotov said that the United States proposal was acceptable to his Delegation.
Dr. Soong said that he would prefer to see the words “international law” retained.
Mr. Eden stated that he preferred the fuller statement of the matter contained in the British proposal.
Mr. Stettinius proposed the appointment of a subcommittee to consider this matter. The respective Delegations appointed Mr. Dulles and Mr. Hackworth (United States), Sir William Malkin (United Kingdom), Mr. Golunsky (Soviet Union), and Dr. Wang (China). The suggestion was accepted and the subcommittee directed to consider this matter at once and submit a report at the next meeting.
Chapter VIII. Section B
Paragraph 1. Character of Measures of Enforcement. —Mr. Pasvolsky said that the change proposed by the United States was intended [Page 567] to make it clear that the word “measures” is intended to mean measures indicated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this section. The same proposal is made also with respect to paragraph 2.
Mr. Eden thought that this proposal required consideration in connection with paragraphs 4 and 5 of Section A.
Mr. Molotov said that he would prefer the original language of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. Mr. Soong seemed inclined to agree with Mr. Molotov.
The United States reserved its position with respect to this proposal.
Paragraph 2. The Measures to Maintain or Restore Peace.—It was pointed out that the United States proposal in this paragraph was identical with that in paragraph 1, that is to limit the measures to be taken to those provided in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this section.
Mr. Eden said that he had no objection to the proposed change in this connection. Mr. Soong agreed, but Mr. Molotov thought that it was connected with that in the preceding paragraph. Mr. Eden pointed out that this paragraph had reference to a threat to or breach of the peace. Mr. Molotov said that he had no objection to the change.
The proposed change was agreed to.
New Paragraph Between Paragraphs 2 and 3. Provisional Measures.—Dr. Soong explained that the new paragraph proposed by China arose out of the experience of the League in the case of Manchuria.
Ambassador Koo said that the whole idea was to facilitate the Organization’s task of maintaining or restoring international peace and security. The provision was designed to maintain the conditions existing at the time the disturbance occurred. It would be helpful to prevent any aggravation of the situation. The prescription of provisional measures would be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned, but would not in any way affect the final settlement of the dispute. If any of the parties should fail to comply with the measures prescribed, such failure might be taken into account by the Council in reaching its final decision.
Mr. Molotov and Mr. Eden had no objection to this provision. Mr. Stettinius reserved the right on behalf of the United States Delegation to study the matter further.
Chapter VIII. Section C.
Paragraph 2. Enforcement through Regional Agencies.—The proposal of the Soviet Union for an amendment to this section reading as follows was next taken up:
“2. The Security Council should, where appropriate, utilize such arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. [Page 568] But no enforcement action should be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures provided for in treaties already concluded directed against the renewal of a policy of aggression on the part of the aggressor states in the present war.”
Mr. Molotov explained that the purpose of the contemplated Organization is to prevent future aggression. This is also the purpose of a number of treaties which have been concluded among certain of the Allied states in Europe during the course of the present war. The amendment proposed by the Soviet Union would apply only to those treaties entered into, prior to the ratification of the Charter, by the governments participating in the San Francisco Conference. The proposal would include only treaties against aggression within this limited time-period. The proposal is entirely in keeping, Mr. Molotov said, with the spirit of the proposed Organization.
Mr. Eden said that he was in entire agreement with Mr. Molotov as to the importance and purpose of the treaties in question. One of the first treaties of this character was that between the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom.
Mr. Eden had two points which he wished to make with respect to the Russian proposal. In the first place, it was not reasonable to limit the exception to measures provided by treaties in force at the time that the Charter was ratified. A later treaty of the same character should not be discriminated against, for example Great Britain might conclude such a treaty with France after the ratification of the Charter. Mr. Eden’s second point was that some provision should be made so that when the new Organization became stronger there should be a provision for its taking over the functions carried out by the parties to these treaties. This of course could only be carried out with the agreement of the signatories to the treaties. This he had tried to cover in an amendment which he had proposed.
Senator Vandenberg said that the question raised by the Soviet proposal should be considered in connection with the settlement of the question raised last night concerning Chapter V, Section B, paragraph 6.
Mr. Stettinius said that he had had in mind suggesting at the end of the meeting that the provision to which Senator Vandenberg had referred be turned over to a subcommittee of specialists for the purpose of exploring all angles to reach a common ground. He thought that it would be desirable to refer both of these matters to such a subcommittee. There being no objection, the following persons were designated: Mr. Stettinius and Mr. Pasvolsky (United States), Sir Alexander Cadogan and Mr. Jebb (United Kingdom), Mr. Molotov and Ambassador Gromyko (Soviet Union), Ambassador Koo and Dr. [Page 569] Wang (China). Mr. Molotov suggested that Mr. Pasvolsky act as chairman. Mr. Stettinius said that he would attend the meetings as time permitted.
Chapter IX. Section A
Paragraph 1. Economic and Social Council.—The United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union each had made proposals for amendments in this paragraph. The United States proposed the insertion of the word “cultural”. The United Kingdom proposed the insertion of the phrase “in association with the International Labor Organization and other bodies concerned”. The Soviet Union proposed three different insertions: (1) “based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”; (2) “in particular the right to work and the right to education”; (3) “for all without distinction as to race, language, religion, or sex”.
Mr. Molotov explained that he wished to support the Soviet proposal for inclusion of the provision concerning the right to work and to education, but that he would not press the matter. If there was no objection to these additions, he would also like to have reference made to them in the Chapter on Purposes. Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that if such additions were made the language used in Chapter I should be followed here.
Mr. Attlee said that the proposal of the United Kingdom with reference to the International Labor Organization was related to the proposal for the insertion at the end of paragraph 2 of a new paragraph reading 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.”
The International Labor Organization as a specialized organization would be brought into relationship with the new Organization. It would be brought into relationship particularly with the Economic and Social Council. It was the view of the British Delegation that it was highly desirable that this should be stated clearly and specifically here. This view was based upon the important and distinguished record of the International Labor Organization.
Dr. Soong said that he regarded the British amendment as too sweeping and that he would like to study it further.
Mr. Molotov said that for reasons well known it was the view of the Soviet Government that it would be sufficient to adhere to the original text of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals in this respect.
[Page 570]Mr. Pasvolsky explained that the United States desired to add the word “cultural” in order to make it clear that the cultural and educational fields were covered by this paragraph. It had been understood at Dumbarton Oaks that the word “social” included cultural, but there was a strong sentiment in the United States for making this explicit. Dr. Soong supported the United States proposal and it was agreed to by the four governments. Action on the British proposal both in paragraph 1 and paragraph 3 was reserved for later consideration.
The Soviet proposal was agreed to with the understanding that the language should be made to conform with the proposal which had been agreed to for paragraph 3 of Chapter I. This would involve the deletion of the phrase “in particular the right to work and the right to education”.
Chapter IX. Section D
Paragraph 1. Establishment of Commissions.—The United States had a proposal on paragraph 1 for the addition of the phrase “a human rights commission”. The United Kingdom proposed the deletion of the first sentence with respect to the establishment of specified commissions, a new sentence as follows to be substituted: “The Economic and Social Council should have the power to set up such commissions as may be required.”
Mr. Attlee explained that in the view of the British Delegation the Dumbarton Oaks Proposal was too precise on this point in specifying the particular bodies to be created. It would be wiser to give the Council the power to set up commissions or other bodies as required and to leave the matter open and flexible for development. Mr. Molotov said that he had no objection to the British proposal.
Dean Gildersleeve said that she would very much like to have a specific reference made to a human rights commission. She had some sympathy with the British proposal, but she thought that further consideration of both proposals was desirable.
Mr. Attlee suggested that the United States point might be met if a proposal on human rights were put at an earlier point in the document.
Mr. Eden suggested a subcommittee to study this question. Accordingly the following subcommittee was appointed: Mr. Bowman (United States), Mr. Attlee (United Kingdom), Dr. Hsu Mo (China), and Mr. Kuznetsov (Soviet Union).
Chapter X
Paragraph 1. Secretary-General and Deputies.—Ambassador Gromyko explained that the first Soviet amendment to this paragraph related to the number of deputies. The second related to the term of service of the Secretary-General and the deputies. His delegation [Page 571] had in mind that the four deputy secretaries-general would be from the permanent members of the Council, the Secretary-General also being a national of one of the permanent members. His delegation thought that the two-year term proposed would be long enough for purposes of experience and yet short enough to guarantee a term of service for a national of each of the five permanent powers within a ten-year period.
Dr. Soong supported the proposal for four deputies, but he thought that the two-year term was too short. He would prefer something like three, four, or five years. Mr. Eden said that he had no objection to the provision for four deputies. However, he thought it was not a good plan to choose these deputies from among the four great powers. They should be chosen upon their merits as individuals. He would not favor as short a term as two years. He wished the point emphasized that the officers of the Secretariat would not be representatives of their countries. They would be international civil servants. If they did good and satisfactory work they should be kept on.
Mr. Stettinius said that he was in entire sympathy with the views expressed by Mr. Eden. He thought that the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals were adequate on this point.
Mr. Molotov said that he would not insist on the suggestion made by Ambassador Gromyko on behalf of the Soviet Delegation that the four deputies be nationals of permanent members of the Council. He would agree to a three-year term. Mr. Stettinius suggested that the four delegations study this proposal but come fully prepared on all points at the next meeting.
Mr. Attlee inquired whether Mr. Molotov would press the point of non-reelection. Mr. Molotov suggested that this also be studied for the next meeting, to which there was general agreement.
New Paragraph 4. International Character of Secretariat Staff.—The United States proposed the addition of a new paragraph 4 as follows:
“4. In the performance of their duties, the Secretary-General and the staff should be responsible only to the Organization. Their responsibilities should be exclusively international in character, and they should not seek or receive instructions in regard to the discharge thereof from any authority external to the Organization. The members should undertake fully to respect the international character of the responsibilities of the Secretariat and not to seek to influence any of their nationals in the discharge of such responsibilities.”
Mr. Pasvolsky explained that this provision was based upon the experience of the League, especially in the years following the rise of Fascism and Nazism in Italy and Germany. The attitude of those [Page 572] countries had been to regard their nationals in the Secretariat as national servants rather than as international civil servants. It was extremely important on the administrative side that the staff of the Secretariat be truly international in character. It was important to build up a true international civil service. It was the view of the United States Delegation that there is a great deal to recommend the adoption of a provision of this character.
The proposed paragraph was agreed to without further discussion.
Chapter XI
Paragraph 1. Coming Into Force of Charter.—The Soviet Delegation proposed the following new paragraph as the first paragraph of this Chapter:
“1. 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.”
Senator Connally in explaining the reason for this proposal78 pointed out that while the Chapter provided for individual amendments it did not provide for any general revision. It was the thought of the United States Delegation that there ought to be somewhere authority for a complete revision of the Charter if situations should develop to make this desirable. He pointed out that in the Constitution of the United States there was a provision authorizing Congress to call a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of reexamining the whole Constitution, or the states might by a specified vote call for the convening of a Constitutional Convention. While the present provision with respect to separate amendments is both necessary and desirable, there ought to be provision to take account of changing conditions and growth. This can best be done by providing for review at intervals to be determined. The interests of the permanent members of the Council would be protected under the proposed provision by the requirement for their unanimous vote for the approval of any revision recommended.
The United States Delegation regards this amendment as highly imperative because of the possible difficulty of getting approval by the Senate. The Delegation is extremely anxious to get a Charter which will receive the Senate’s approval. There have been objections that the Charter of the proposed Organization should not be frozen for all time.
Commander Stassen said that he was very much in accord with the position stated by Senator Connally. He was interested in this provision [Page 573] particularly on account of the men in the armed services who were not here to make their influence felt in the formulation of the Charter. It should be made possible for them to exercise their influence at a later date.
Mr. Molotov said that perhaps if we accepted this provision it would not be necessary to work so hard on other provisions and amendments under consideration, since everything would be open to change.
Mr. Eden thought the proposal was acceptable. He had two questions to raise: Why was the provision made for a three-fourths vote of the General Assembly in calling a Conference, whereas elsewhere in the document a two-thirds vote is used? Secondly, Would it be desirable to fix a minimum time within which such a Conference should be called? He thought this might help meet the point Mr. Molotov had in mind. Senator Connally suggested seven years as a possibility. He said that the three-fourths vote had been suggested in order that the calling of a Conference would not be too easy.
Dr. Soong said he thought this was a very wise provision. It was sufficiently safeguarded by the requirement of ratification by all members of the Security Council.
Mr. Molotov said that taking into account the reasons given by Senator Connally and Commander Stassen he was willing to accept the proposal.
The proposal was therefore agreed to.
Chapter V. Section B.
New Paragraph to Follow Paragraph 7. Administrative Budgets.—The United Kingdom proposed the following provision:
“The General Assembly should examine the administrative budgets of such specialised agencies with a view to making recommendations to the agencies concerned.”
This provision was agreed to without discussion.
Procedure
Mr. Stettinius brought up the question of future procedure in considering the proposed amendment[s]. After we have reached agreement are we to regard the amendments as part of the revised Dumbarton Oaks Proposals to be submitted to the Conference? Or should it be announced that the four governments have consulted each other and submit the amendments agreed on separately? It would be understood, he assumed, that each Delegation would be at liberty to present its individual views in the Commissions and Committees. He thought that it was very important to weigh carefully the effect on other countries of consultations among the four governments resulting in new joint proposals.
[Page 574]Mr. Eden thought that the position was substantially this. The four authors of the original Dumbarton Oaks Proposals have each presented amendments. Quite naturally and properly they have discussed these amendments among themselves for the purpose of reaching mutual agreement if possible. So far as other amendments proposed by other governments are concerned, we seek to impose no amendments on them, though we may consult on other amendments as they arise.
Dr. Soong thought that it might be desirable for the four governments to present their amendments to the Conference in a joint statement.
Mr. Molotov agreed in general with the suggestions made by Mr. Eden.
Commander Stassen suggested that the amendments as agreed upon be proposed jointly as amendments to the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. There seemed to be general agreement with this proposal.
Mr. Stettinius asked that the Secretariat prepare a statement before the next meeting which might be submitted to the Conference and to the press. He proposed that the group should meet again at 9:30 this evening. The subcommittees should be prepared to report at that time. Mr. Stettinius suggested that the subcommittees meet immediately following the meeting.
- Parallel United States, United Kingdom, Soviet, and Chinese texts of suggested amendments of Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, not printed.↩
- For the American proposal of September 9 to the Joint Steering Committee, and Soviet acceptance of the proposed paragraph 7 on domestic jurisdiction on September 27, see Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. i, pp. 789 and 838, respectively. See also minutes of meetings of the American delegation, April 12, 16, and 18, ante, pp. 269, 296, and 330, respectively.↩
- For text of United States proposed new paragraph providing for a general conference to review the Charter, see p. 438.↩