RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 96: U.S. Cr. Min. 34

Minutes of the Thirty-Fourth Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Wednesday, May 9, 1945, 5:30 p.m.

[Informal Notes—Extracts]

[Here follows list of names of persons (30) present at meeting.]

The Secretary of State opened the meeting at 5:32 p.m.

[Page 655]


. . . . . . .

Appointment of Members of the Coordination Committee

The Secretary stated that it was necessary to appoint at once the members of the Coordination Committee, which was to meet at 6:00 o’clock.51 This Committee was to comprise fourteen members, namely, one deputy for each member of the Executive Committee. It had also been agreed that each deputy would have an alternate. The secretary proposed that the deputy and alternate for the United States be Mr. Pasvolsky and Mr. Dunn respectively. This proposal was approved by the Delegation.

Attendance at Commission and Committee Meetings of the World Trade Union and of Other Organizations

The Secretary remarked that he wished to submit to the Delegation an emergency matter on which a decision must be taken without delay. The problem arose out of a vote taken by the Economic and Social Committee to invite the World Trade Union Conference to send a representative to the meetings of the Committee.52 He requested Mr. Hiss to explain the situation.

. . . . . . .

Mr. Hiss explained the parliamentary situation stating that the Steering Committee was the only body of the Conference competent to pass upon the subject and that it had made a positive but not a negative decision, i.e., it had approved an invitation to the five official organizations but had not explicitly ruled out invitations to the other organizations. He was of the opinion that if the question of the invitation to the World Trade Union Conference were brought up in the Steering Committee an acrimonious debate would ensue.

. . . . . . .

The Secretary requested that Mr. Hiss call a meeting of the Steering Committee for 10:30 the next morning to consider the question.53 He likewise requested Mr. Hiss to hold up sending the invitation of the Economic and Social Committee pending a final disposition of the issue.

[Here follows discussion of schedule of Committee meetings, proposed Conference procedure on drafting of the final Charter, background talks by the Delegates on the amendments to the Dumbarton [Page 656] Oaks Proposals made by the Big Four, and procedure in the Committees.]

Non-Permanent Membership on the Security Council

Senator Connally remarked that pressure for an increase in the membership of the Security Council up to fifteen members was building up and asked for suggestions on how this could be met. He thought that Mr. Rockefeller might have something to contribute on this point since a great deal of the pressure was emanating from the Latin American group. Mr. Rockefeller said that this was in part a reflection of the desire of Brazil for a permanent seat and of the group as a whole for at least two nonpermanent seats.

Commander Stassen expressed the opinion that the delegations pressing for an increase in membership should be reminded that the five permanent members represented 65 percent of the peoples of the world. Senator Connally said in this connection that in the Assembly all states, regardless of size and importance, would have an equal vote and that a majority would elect six of the members of the Security Council. Mr. Dulles characterized the discussion developing on this subject as “academic” since an increase in the permanent and non-permanent members was out of the question. Mr. Rockefeller held that while this might be true it was desirable and wise to allow full and free discussion since it would permit the middle and small states to “get the thing off their chests”.

Commander Stassen’s Progress Report on Trusteeship

Commander Stassen reported that the conversations with the other four powers had not yet reached the stage where anything could be approved and indicated that the following problems were being discussed:

the non-discriminatory language was opposed by the British and the French and the possibility of a different approach was being explored.
the British opposed the distinction between strategic and non-strategic territories.
the handling of welfare problems of the inhabitants of the trusteeship territories was causing difficulties and it had been suggested that jurisdiction over these problems be delegated by the Security Council to the trustee governments.
we were opposing a British proposal that the trusteeship governments have the right to conscript the forces and facilities of the trusteeship territory.
the British and French opposed the right to petition and investigate. We were standing firm on the right to petition and would insist on some right of inspection within the general trusteeship territories.
France was opposed to the self-government phrase, apparently because of the absence of an adequate equivalent in French. The [Page 657] British were prepared to accept this terminology with proper qualifications.

Mr. Fraser, the Chairman of the Committee, was anxious to proceed without delay and a comparative study of the proposals was now being prepared.

. . . . . . .

The meeting was adjourned at 6:27 p.m.

  1. Doc. 198, CO/2 May 10, UNCIO Documents, vol. 15, p. 5.
  2. See Doc. 189, II/3/7, May 10, UNCIO Documents, vol. 10, p. 16; see also, Doc. 83, II/3, May 4, ibid., vol. 8, p. 7. See Doc. 165, ST/4, May 9, ibid., vol. 5, p. 187, meeting of the Steering Committee on May 8, 3:35 p.m., for data on approval of recommendation of the Secretary General to leave to the bodies concerned the matter of inviting the representatives of the five intergovernmental organizations to attend meetings.
  3. Doc. 224, ST/7, May 11, UNCIO Documents, vol. 5, p. 207.