RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 96: U.S. Cr. Min. 35
Minutes of the Thirty-Fifth Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Thursday, May 10, 1945, 6:30 p.m.
[Here follows list of names of persons (22) present at meeting.]
Continuation of the Discussion of Regional Problem
Prior to the opening of the meeting Mr. Dulles stated that he had a memorandum in preparation indicating the five ways of dealing with the regional problem. He suggested that a meeting be held with the principal advisers on the draft memorandum this evening, and that the memorandum then be made available to the Delegation. He said that he had already had some reactions from the principal advisers. Mr. Pasvolsky commented that the memorandum was excellent. Mr. Dulles commented that the memorandum presented the arguments for and against each of the five alternatives. He thought the memorandum might be used as a basis for reaching an agreed recommendation. Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that Mr. Rockefeller should meet with the principal advisers this evening. He pointed out that Mr. Dulles had previously focused attention on a very important point, and the Act of Chapultepec only visualizes a treaty and does not provide for a specific treaty system.
Mr. Dulles explained that his memorandum makes the point that there is no correlation between the existing treaty system in this hemisphere and the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. The Act of Chapultepec simply recommends the ratification of the treaty in the future. Before there would be a conflict, there would have to be a conference held to consider the draft of a treaty. He questioned whether this could ever happen. Moreover, he said, the treaty would have to be ratified by twenty-one republics, which he thought was altogether unlikely. Only after these two hurdles were surmounted would there perhaps be a conflict between the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals and the treaty system. He thought there were 99 chances out of 100 that the issue of such a conflict would never have to be faced. Mr. Pasvolsky thought that if the recommendation of the [Page 658] Act of Chapultepec was translated into treaty terms we ourselves would probably object.
Announcements by the Secretary
The Secretary convened the meeting formally and indicated that he had a number of announcements to make to the Delegation.
1. Mr. Gromyko had called to present to the Secretary comments and amendments of the Soviet Union on our trusteeship proposals.54 …
[Here follow numbered paragraphs 2–7 containing announcements on questions of expediting the Conference, non-admittance of non-Governmental organizations to Committee meetings; providing information on developments to Senator McCarran, changing time of meetings of the Delegation to 9 a.m., postponing discussions of the location of the Organization, and keeping all members of Committees and Commissions informed of the progress of work.]
Location of the Organization
The Secretary stated that it had been the feeling of many in the Delegation that this question was not one with which we should attempt to deal at this Conference, since it would raise all manner of knotty problems. He suggested that we agree here on the place for the holding of the meeting of the General Assembly and put up to the General Assembly the task of deciding on a permanent location. He felt that there was the possibility of the development of blocs if this matter was considered at the Conference. Mr. Pasvolsky agreed that the best procedure might well be to await recommendations by the Preparatory Commission on both the question of the location of the Organization and the place of the first meeting of the General Assembly. Mr. Dunn agreed with this proposal. Mr. Stassen (who had just come into the meeting) expressed approval of the Secretary’s recommendation and Mr. Pasvolsky’s addition.
The Secretary recommended that Mr. Sandifer consult with the two Senators who were not present on this question and if they were agreeable we would make this recommendation to the sponsoring governments and then take it up in the Executive Committee.
. . . . . . .
Continuation of Discussion of Regional Problem
Mr. Stassen stated that he had had another idea in connection with the regional question that had come from his discussions with members of the Delegation and Advisers. He added that he had just [Page 659] come from a meeting of the regional subcommittee (III/4)55 at which the Colombian Delegate56 had eloquently and clearly pressed his case for a regional exemption in this hemisphere. Mr. Stassen reported that it was a perfect plea for, hemispheric isolation. The Colombian Delegate had stated that a regional arrangement in the Western Hemisphere was better than the general organization as a means of preserving security. Under this system responsibility is placed on the regional system to take action to maintain peace. He had pointed out that military and economic sanctions were still only contemplated in this hemisphere but that these could be developed The Colombian Delegate proposed that exceptions be made for the Western Hemisphere and added that he also believed in such an exception for Pan-Arabia. He continued that if in the future there were two or three or four regions he did not believe that would be a danger to the peace, but thought that that would more assuredly result in security. The Colombian Delegate said of course that one could not foresee developments. For the time being, he would ask for only one exception, since further developments could not be clearly anticipated.
Mr. Stassen pointed out that the Colombian had revealed assumptions that he had anticipated were behind the Latin American position. It was clear that their position was not based on sound reasoning.
Mr. Stassen pointed out that he had heard over and over again that the basic objection to the present plan was the inability of a regional organization to act in the event of an arbitrary veto of one of the major powers. He said he had come to the conclusion that it might be best to spell out in the Charter the right of self-defense, in order to meet the recurrent criticism on this question. Mr. Stassen then read the following memorandum:
“Memorandum to U.S. Delegates and Advisers
“On the basis of suggestions and discussions these past few days with a number of our delegates and advisers it appears to me that’ the following would be the best answer to our regional problem and it would at the same time meet other problems. This language arises from the suggestions of other delegates and advisers.
“VI–E. Self-Defense
- “1. Nothing in this Charter shall be construed as abrogating the inherent right of self-defense against a violator of this Charter.
- “2. In the application of this provision the principles of the Act of Chapultepec and of the Monroe Doctrine are specifically recognized.
“It is of course also clear that all regions are fully entitled to use all peaceful means of settling disputes without the permission of the Security Council.
Harold E. Stassen”
On the basis of this proposal Mr. Stassen explained the Inter-American system could go forward in the field of peaceful settlement. The International Organization would have responsibility for the use of force unless this responsibility was delegated. If, however, the principles of the Act of Chapultepec or of the Monroe Doctrine were violated the proposal of the right of self-defense would be applicable. The Secretary asked Mr. Rockefeller for, his view on this proposal. Mr. Rockefeller thought that it was interesting but said he would need more time before he could make any decision.
The Secretary commented that at the 6:30 meeting the next evening this whole question would be the first order of business.
Mr. Pasvolsky announced that an amendment by Bolivia57 had just been brought to his attention, stating that in no case should regional organizations or agencies be able to adopt sanctions without the express authority of the Security Council. In view of Bolivia’s position stated orally, he thought this amendment was most interesting and wondered whether it had been withdrawn. Mr. Rockefeller reported that it was an earlier amendment and that he did not know whether it had been withdrawn.
Mr. Dulles indicated that he had had a brief talk with members of the Soviet group who had reported that they thought that most of the outstanding questions could be answered, but that the one question to which they did not see the answer was this regional one. The Secretary asked whether that was indicative that they had faith that in time they would see it. Mr. Dulles replied that they did not talk in these terms.
The Secretary announced that he would have to be excused from the meeting to phone the President.
Meeting With Consultants
… The Secretary stated that Mr. MacLeish and Mr. Dickey were working out a schedule for meetings with consultants.
. . . . . . .
In leaving the meeting The Secretary asked Mr. Stassen to preside.
Admission of Members to the Organization
Mr. Bowman said he would like to present a question in the absence of Representative Bloom which Representative Bloom had asked him to discuss with the Delegation. Representative Bloom wondered what position we should take on Chapter V, Section B, paragraph 2, if [Page 661] the Committee voted on that paragraph. Should he stand for the position that new members should be admitted “on recommendation of the Security Council” or “unless the Security Council interposes objection”. After some discussion, it was agreed that Representative Bloom’s question was typical of the situation of many Delegates on questions on which the United States’ position was not yet clear. Mr. Bowman suggested that Representative Bloom’s device of appointing a subcommittee or referring the question to a subcommittee was useful, but that there was always the possibility that such a move would be opposed and defeated. Therefore, it was necessary for a Delegate to have instructions on how to vote.
Mr. Hartley pointed out that the United States amendment with respect to the interposing of an objection by the Security Council had not been actually proposed. In the discussion, it had been pointed out that, if this change was accepted, an objection to a new member could be prevented by one vote on the Council. Because of this objection, Representative Bloom wanted to know whether we wished to drop the United States amendment. Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that agreement had been reached that, if we had to recede, we would recede to the position that the General Assembly and the Security Council would have concurrent powers in the admission of members, with initiative in either body. Mr. Bowman said that Representative Bloom wanted some indication as to how he should act on this question. Mr. Pasvolsky replied that it might be necessary in this interim period, until the Delegation had fully made up its mind on some questions, to reserve our position, then later we could move reconsideration. We might then use the procedure of the Coordination Committee to reconcile certain decisions that were not altogether to our liking. He suggested that it would be important to have a long meeting of the Delegation on Saturday to go through the crucial questions and to make up our minds. He thought he perhaps could make a report to the Delegation at that time on a number of items discussed at the meeting of the Subcommittee of Five.
Qualifications of Membership
Mr. Pasvolsky thought the delegation might be interested in the method adopted in the Subcommittee of Five. He said he had before him an amendment worked out by that Committee on the qualifications for membership in the Organization. A number of amendments, he pointed out, had been proposed on this problem. The French wished to qualify the term “peace-loving states” by providing that only those should be admitted which give proof of their love of peace by their institutions, their international behavior, and the effective guarantee which they furnish that they will respect their international obligations. The Dutch proposed the amendment “which [Page 662] may be expected, on account of their institutions and by their international behavior, faithfully to observe and carry out international commitments”. The Australians proposed a reference to acceptance of the obligations of the Charter as a condition of membership.
Following discussion, Mr. Pasvolsky stated that a simple statement had been worked out in the Subcommittee of Five, reading: “Membership of the Organization should be open to all peace-loving states, which in the judgment of the Organization have demonstrated their willingness and ability to accept the principles and obligations contained in the Charter”. After some discussion in Commission I, Committee 2,58 it was generally agreed that the following text would do, proposed by the British: “Membership of the Organization should be open to all peace-loving states, which, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and ready to accept the principles and obligations contained in the Charter”.
Representative Eaton pointed out that an attempt had been made to get a vote on this paragraph in the Committee, but that the Belgians had opposed it and that the text had been referred to the drafting subcommittee. Dean Gildersleeve pointed out that there was considerable objection among many people in this country to the term “peace-loving” and that there was some talk that the best definition of “peace-loving” was “readiness to fight”. On the philosophical level she had of course objections which could be raised, but she questioned whether it was the proper time to take out the term altogether. Mr. Pasvolsky questioned whether it should be taken out here, since the word “peace-loving” had already been removed in Chapter II. Mr. Stassen, serving as Chairman, said that, if there was no objection, the Delegation would agree to retaining the term “peace-loving”.
. . . . . . .
New Zealand Amendment on Powers of Assembly in Enforcement Action
Mr. Stassen stated that in Committee III/359 the Delegate of New Zealand had made a strong plea that decisions of the Security Council involving the application of enforcement measures should require the concurring vote of the General Assembly, except in extremely urgent cases. Mr. Pasvolsky said that for the moment the only thing to do would be to filibuster in this Committee.
Regional Problem
Senator Vandenberg stated that the regional question was making his life in Committee III/4 extremely difficult. He reported that he had just come from a meeting of that Committee in which the Colombian [Page 663] representative had stated in a most earnest and eloquent fashion the South American position. He said it was a humdinger of a speech. He said he had had to make a statement at this meeting making clear that we were attempting to obtain both the objectives of our South American friends and to safeguard the interests of the general organization.60 He had added that, whereas he could not speak in any detail and would have to reserve his position, he hoped that Without too much delay, possibly by Monday, a concrete suggestion would be available for the Committee to shoot at.
… Mr. Warren commented that the Russian reaction to Senator Vandenberg’s speech might be mentioned. Senator Vandenberg pointed out that the Russians had expressed the view that the Delegate from the United States had presented a very novel proposition which the Russians would want to have time to consider.61 Senator Vandenberg explained that he had proposed that a formula was needed which would both preserve global security and regional security until the system of global security had proved that it would work. Mr. Warren explained that the reaction to Senator Vandenberg’s statement had been quite striking. Great enthusiasm was voiced, particularly among the Latin Americans. Mr. Stassen asked whether any more had been said in the Committee concerning the Pan-Arab League.62 Mr. Warren replied in the negative. Senator Vandenberg pointed out that most of the emphasis iii the meeting was on the amendment situation. He added that he had made his speech with the approval of Mr. Wellington Koo and as a result of an appealing look by the Delegate from Colombia.
. . . . . . .
The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
- Doc. 2, G/26(f), May 11, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 618; for analysis of Soviet proposal on trusteeship, see Doc. 324, II/4/5(a), May 15, ibid., vol. 10, p. 671.↩
- Summary report of first meeting of Subcommittee III/4/A, May 10, 5:15 p.m., not printed.↩
- Alberto Lleros Camargo.↩
- Doc 2, G/14(r), May 5, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 586.↩
- For discussion on chapter III at the fourth meeting of Committee I/2, May 10, 2:50 p.m., see Doc. 242, I/2/11, May 11, UNCIO Documents, vol. 7, p. 24.↩
- Doc. 231, III/3/9, May 11, UNCIO Documents, vol. 12, p. 295.↩
- See Senator Vandenberg’s comments on the meeting in The Private Papers of Senator Vandenberg, p. 191.↩
- Mr. Stettinius, referring to the meeting of the subcommittee on regional arrangements, (III/4/A), May 10, 5:15 p.m., noted in his daily message (telegram 2, May 11), to the President and Mr. Hull that “The Russian delegate indicated that he thought no change should be made in the amendment on this subject already approved by the four sponsors.” (500.CC/5–1145)↩
- For text of “The Pact of the League of Arab States, signed in Cairo, March 22, 1945”, submitted to the Conference by the Delegation of Egypt and referred to Committee III/4, see UNCIO Documents, vol. 12, p. 745 (Doc. 72, III/4/1, May 4). At the second meeting of Committee III/4 on May 9, 10:30 a.m., the Secretary called attention to the Pact.↩