RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 99: UNCIO Cons Four Min 4
Minutes of the Fourth Four-Power Consultative Meeting on Charter Proposals, Held at San Francisco, May 4, 1945, 12:15 p.m.
[Here follows list of names of participants including Chairmen of delegations of the United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and China, accompanied by their respective (delegates, advisers and experts (not listed by name).]
[Page 599]German Surrender
. . . . . . .
The Secretary said then that he hoped they could resume discussions where the meeting had left off the previous evening, and, accordingly, asked for the reports of the three subcommittees, beginning first with the subcommittee dealing with the question of domestic jurisdiction.
Domestic Jurisdiction
Mr. Dulles said that Mr. Golunsky, the Soviet representative on the subcommittee, had made a suggestion which the rest had accepted, and which he would like to have Mr. Golunsky explain. Mr. Golunsky explained that the new proposal was for adding a new paragraph at the end of Chapter II, Principles, along the following lines: “Nothing contained in this Charter shall authorize the organization to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the state concerned or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under this Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of Chapter VIII, Section B.”
The Secretary asked if all were in agreement to accept this proposed amendment and the other three Foreign Ministers indicated such was the case.
Chapter V, Section B, Paragraph 6
* Mr. Stettinius then said they would turn to the work of the subcommittee and asked Mr. Pasvolsky to report upon those consultations. Mr. Pasvolsky said that consultations had not been completed with respect to the proposed amendments to Chapter V, Section B, paragraph 6; he said that while agreement had been reached on the first part of this paragraph, the last clause was still in question. Therefore, Mr. Pasvolsky read the proposed new paragraph, as follows:
“The General Assembly should initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of promoting international cooperation in political, economic, social and cultural fields to assist in the realization of human rights and basic freedoms for all without distinction as to race, language, religion or sex, and also for the encouragement of the development of international law. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Section, the General Assembly should be empowered to recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situations, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations or of situations resulting from a violation of the purposes and principles set forth in this Charter.”
Mr. Pasvolsky said that this paragraph was now approved by the United States, British and Chinese Delegations, and had been agreed to in principle by the Soviet Delegation, although the latter wanted time to study it further. Mr. Molotov said that he would give an answer as to their position in this matter later in the day.
Regional Arrangements
Mr. Pasvolsky reported that with respect to the proposed amendments affecting regional arrangements, the discussion had not been completed but that they would meet later in the day at a time to be agreed to by the four Foreign Ministers, to continue their consultations.
Amendments Deferred For Further Study
The Secretary then said that they would move to the consideration of other items which had been deferred the previous evening for further study.
1. Chapter VIII, Section A, Paragraph 4
The first of these, Mr. Stettinius explained, concerned the proposed amendment to Chapter VIII, Section A, paragraph 4. He said that he was now prepared to announce that the United States Delegation, which had previously been the only one disagreeing, would accept the British proposal to add the following sentence to this paragraph: “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 he was happy to learn that this had been accepted, and because of its acceptance consequential amendments would be required in Chapter VIII, Section B, paragraph 1. Accordingly, Sir William Malkin explained that a legal question was involved as to whether the Security Council in taking measures under Section B, paragraph 1, would take them following its recommendations under either paragraph 4 or 5, of Section A. Accordingly, he suggested, to clarify the situation, that Section B, paragraph 1, should be amended to make clear that both paragraphs 4 and 5 of Section A were included, the sentence as reworded being as follows: “Should the Security Council deem that a failure to settle a dispute in accordance with procedures indicated in paragraph 3 of Section A or in accordance with its recommendations made under paragraphs 4 or 5 of Section A constitutes a threat to the maintenance of international peace and security, it should take any measures necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security in accordance with the purposes and principles of the organization.”
[Page 601]Mr. Stettinius said that such changes would be inevitable and would be agreeable to the United States Delegation; Messrs. Molotov and Soong indicated such changes were also agreeable to them.
2. Chapter VIII, Section B, Paragraph 1
Mr. Stettinius then turned to the proposed United States amendment on Section B, paragraph 1, whereby the word “measures” in that paragraph would be defined as those “set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Section.” Mr. Pasvolsky recalled that while this amendment had not been acceptable to the other three Delegations, the United States Delegation reserved its position on this paragraph. He said that the Delegation was prepared not to press this amendment at this time but that it reserved its position on this question if the subject was discussed in the Conference so as to make clear that its understanding of these measures was as set forth in its proposed amendment.
Mr. Eden expressed his thanks for the United States Delegation’s change of position in this matter.
3. International Court of Justice
Mr. Stettinius said that the United States Delegation had an amendment to propose to Chapter VII which would make clear the position of the four Delegations as to their attitude with respect to the provisions of this Section in relation to the proposed new Statute. A text of an amendment along the following lines was distributed to the Delegations: “The provisions of Chapter VII of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals should be adjusted to bring it into conformity with the recommendations of Commission IV in light of the report of the Jurists Committee.”
After a brief study of this proposed statement, to be submitted in the nature of an amendment, Messrs. Molotov , Eden and Soong indicated their agreement with it.
International Trusteeship
Mr. Stettinius then called upon Mr. Stassen to explain the status of the proposals on trusteeship. Mr. Stassen explained that in accordance with the agreements made at Yalta, the first consultations on trusteeship had been held the previous Monday.94 At that time, the United States Delegation had presented its paper95 to the other four Delegations and, after a brief discussion, the consultations had been adjourned until the previous evening (Thursday)96 in order to allow time for study of the United States proposal. He said that, on the [Page 602] previous evening, the British Delegation had presented its paper97 and in view of the many differences of position between the United States proposal and the British proposal, the other three Governments (Soviet Union, China and France) had reserved their position on both papers in order to allow for further time for study.
Mr. Stassen said that he recommended that the Five-Power consultations continue but that they would take several days. In order to avoid holding up the Conference action on this matter, however, he suggested that if it were agreeable to the other three Governments, each of the four sponsoring Governments should be free to submit an amendment to the Charter covering its views of the trusteeship question and then to continue the consultations while the Conference was in session. He said that if such a course were not pursued, he feared that there would be a general feeling in the Conference that the sponsoring Governments were “holding out” on the Conference.
Mr. Eden indicated his agreement with Mr. Stassen’s suggestion.
Mr. Stassen pointed out that his suggestion would not in any way preclude any of the five Powers at any stage of the consultation from advancing proposals or counter-proposals to each of the original proposals.
Mr. Molotov said that he was in agreement with Mr. Stassen’s proposal and Messrs. Eden and Soong also said that they agreed. Mr. Stassen said that, for the information of the group, the French Delegation had also agreed to follow this Course of action.
Mr. Stettinius said that this completed their agenda for this noon session, except for the proposed press statement. He said, however, that several items still remained unsettled and for that reason he proposed an early meeting in the evening at six o’clock for the purpose of finally concluding these consultations in order that the joint Four-Power amendments might be submitted to the Conference before the midnight deadline.
In view of the situation, Mr. Pasvolsky suggested, and it was agreed, that the Subcommittee on Treaties would meet at five o’clock in the afternoon in room 512 for final consultations on the proposed amendments dealing with regional arrangements.
[Page 603]Press Statement
Mr. Stettinius then asked for opinions as to the draft press release which had been distributed at the previous meeting to cover the presentation of the joint Four-Power amendments. …
. . . . . . .
This revised wording was agreed to by the four Foreign Ministers.98 It was also agreed that it would be acceptable if the Secretary of the United States Delegation presented this statement to the Conference Secretariat along with the amendments at the time that they were submitted.
Preamble
As the meeting was closing, Mr. Molotov inquired as to the opinions of the other three Delegations on the question of a Preamble for the Charter. Mr. Stettinius said that the United States Delegation thought such a Preamble would be highly desirable, and Messrs. Eden and Soong also agreed. It was pointed out that Field Marshal Smuts had already submitted a suggested Preamble and for that reason it was felt unnecessary to submit an additional one. Instead the four Delegations could take as a basis for their later discussions the draft version submitted by the Field Marshal.99 This was agreed to.
The session adjourned at 1:10 p.m.
- Minutes of the Sub-Committee on Treaties are annexed. [Footnote in the original; minutes not printed.]↩
- Informal minutes of first Five-Power preliminary consultative meeting on trusteeship, April 30, 8:30 p.m., not printed.↩
- Doc. 2, G/26(c), May 5, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 607.↩
- Informal minutes of second meeting on trusteeship, May 3, 8:30 p.m., not printed.↩
- Doc. 2, G/26(d), May 6, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 609. For French preliminary draft on international trusteeship system (Doc. 2, G/26(a), May 5); draft proposals of the Chinese delegation on international territorial trusteeship (Doc. 2, G/26(e), May 10; and amendments of the Soviet delegation to the United States draft on trusteeship (Doc. 2, G/26(f), May 11), see ibid., pp. 604, 615, and 618, respectively. For analysis of papers on trusteeship by Australia, China, France, United Kingdom, and United States (Doc. 230, II/4/5, May 11) see ibid., vol. 10, p. 641.↩
- Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, p. 681.↩
- Doc. 2, G/14(d) (1), May 3, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 476. For information on the drafting of the preamble, see Report on the Conference held at San Francisco, 25 Aprih–26 June, 1945, by the Hon. Peter Fraser, Chairman of the New Zealand Delegation (Wellington, 1945), p. 20.↩