RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 96: U.S. Cr. Min. 37
Minutes of the Thirty-Seventh Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Saturday, May 12, 1945, 9 a.m.
[Here follows list of names of persons (37) present at meeting.]
The Secretary called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m.
. . . . . . .
The Secretary replied that on the previous evening Mr. Dulles, Mr. Dunn, Mr. Pasvolsky and himself had met with Mr. Eden and a few of his associates on the question of regional arrangements. He stated that the British had been shown none of the American language, however. Mr. Pasvolsky and Mr. Dunn are to meet today with Mr. Jebb. Mr. McCloy and Secretary Stimson are satisfied with the revised language. Army clearance has been obtained on the language which the Delegation worked over on yesterday.
The Secretary also stated that there was great embarrassment yesterday afternoon. The press had picked up the story that Sol Bloom had made an indignant speech. Mr. Pasvolsky stated that it was a mistake to permit the press on this floor.[Page 675]
The Secretary also stated that he and Señor Padilla are close friends and that on the strength of this he had phoned him this morning to inquire whether there was any concern or uneasiness on the part of the Latin American states on the question of regional arrangements. He replied that there was none at all, and that the Latin American states had complete confidence in the United States Delegation. The Secretary added that he was inclined, therefore, to believe that there was no immediate heat on this question.
Senator Vandenberg remarked that on the other hand, the Committee on regional arrangements on the previous day72 had insisted on going ahead on this question and he doubted if he could hold them much beyond Monday. The meeting on the previous day had been tough, he said, and very nearly got out of hand. He added that he had great difficulty in getting the meeting adjourned. They wanted to go ahead on the veto question.
Mr. Pasvolsky inquired as to who was particularly difficult in the meeting, and Senator Vandenberg replied Australia and the Soviet Union. He urged that this question must be settled some way in the next forty-eight hours.
The Chairman replied that Dean Gildersleeve wished direction on the question of the Social and Economic Council and that attention should be given to her subject early in this meeting.
On the question of regional arrangements Mr. Gates reported that the reaction of the Navy Department is the same as it had been on the previous day. The Navy will concur if this is the best deal that can be made. It is satisfactory with respect to western hemispheric solidarity, but there is a fear that it will throw the door open to arrangements elsewhere which might weaken the international organization.
General Embick stated that he had informed a General who wanted to exempt the Pan American system from they Security Council that this would be the best arrangement that could be made.
The Chairman pointed out that Mr. Eden was leaving the Conference at 2:30 p.m. on the next day, and that this would be the last chance to talk with him on this subject.
Proposed New Language
Mr. Dulles called attention to a proposed new language on regional arrangements (US Gen. 93).
(This is a new paragraph to be added to Chapter VIII, Section B, as paragraph 12.)[Page 676]
12. If the Security Council fails to prevent aggression by any state against any member state, such member state possesses the inherent right to take measures of self-defense. The right to take measures of self-defense against armed attack shall apply to arrangements, like those embodied in the Act of Chapultepec, under which all members of a group of states agree to consider an attack against any one of them as an attack against all of them. The taking of such measures shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under this Charter to take at any time such action as it may deem necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
The Chairman inquired whether this would include the two changes adopted by the Delegation, and Mr. Dulles replied that this was an original wording.
Senator Connally inquired why the language “in the event of an attack” had been changed.
Mr. Dulles explained that this was in order to make the same approach as the French proposal which Mr. Eden favored. If the Security Council fails to maintain peace and security then a state’s inherent right of self-defense comes into play.
The Chairman stated that on the previous evening he had heard the British reaction to the Act of Chapultepec and inquired whether it is necessary to mention this Act specifically.
Mr. Dulles stated that there were two reasons for doing so: First, the Latin American states will like it, and secondly, reference to the Act of Chapultepec puts a limitation on the arrangements. Specific reference to it would tend to prevent arrangements purporting to be like it, but not having the same solid basis. Reference to the Act, therefore, has a limiting force. It prevents throwing the door open to less sound and historical arrangements.
Senator Vandenberg inquired whether there might be some other word than “arrangement”.
Mr. Dunn pointed out that the Act of Chapultepec in fact is not much more than an arrangement.
Appraisal of New Language
Mr. Hackworth expressed the view that in the proposed new wording the document has been greatly weakened. It presupposes a breakdown of the Security Council and he inquired when it would be determined that the Security Council has failed. Mr. Hackworth went on to suggest that the wording be left as it had been originally.
Mr. Dunn remarked that the new wording had been devised in order to bring the Security Council into the picture—that is to make it clear [Page 677] that the regional arrangement only operated in self-defense. The intent was to bring the Security Council right into the picture.
Mr. Armstrong commented that the new wording emphasized the Security Council more than did the former text.
The Secretary suggested that Mr. Pasvolsky might discuss the French amendment which the British prefer to the American wording.
Failure of Security Council to Act
Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that if the Security Council fails to agree on an act, then the member state reserves the right to act for the maintenance of peace, justice, etc. The League of Nations Covenant, he said, had a provision that if the Council fails to act, then a member state resumes freedom of action for the maintenance of peace.73 The present French amendment is much like that except that it says “after the Council fails to agree”. The freedom of action reserved to the member state if the Council fails to agree, is much greater than in the American wording—a reservation for individual freedom of action. Mr. Eden’s interpretation of this is that group action is not precluded and is therefore entirely possible. There is agreement that the French wording permits much more freedom of action than the American, but the British were shocked by the American concept of self-defense. It was to them a new thought that self-defense can operate outside of a nation’s territorial limits. The wording of the French text was as follows: “Should the Council not succeed in reaching a decision the members of the organization reserve to themselves the right to act as they may consider necessary in the interest of peace, right and justice”.
Commander Stassen suggested a new wording of the US Gen 93 as follows: “if the Security Council does not prevent aggression and aggression occurs by any state against any member state …”
[Mr. Rockefeller arrived at this point and the Chairman brought him up to date on the discussion, including the Army and Navy reaction to the proposed wording on regional arrangements, and the fear that it would strengthen the hemispheric situation at the expense of the world situation.]74
Mr. Hull’s Views
The Secretary expressed regret that he had not been seeing the Latin American Foreign Ministers. He announced that he had heard from Mr. Hull this morning, and that Mr. Hull felt that the American position was veering away from a strong international organization. Mr. Hull felt that the proposed new wording on regional arrangements would impair the strength of the international organization. He [Page 678] stated that we are being led away from our own national interest and the intent of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals.
Mr. Dulles suggested the addition of the word “existing” before “arrangements” in line 5 of US Gen 93. Mr. Eden, he said, would like this since he is worrying about opening the door too wide to such arrangements.
Mr. Bowman pointed out that the insertion of the word “existing” would limit and freeze the situation. There could be, he said, other regional arrangements approved by the Security Council as long as they were within the broad purposes of the organization.
Mr. Dulles pointed out that as it now stands anybody can create a regional organization. Any group of states can make a pact that an attack against one is an attack against all. He stated that he would propose to put a veto power on that, i.e. that no new groups can be created for this purpose without the approval of the Security Council.
The Secretary inquired whether this would not also raise the question of whether the Security Council must approve arrangements under the Act of Chapultepec, and Mr. Dulles replied negatively.
Commander Stassen stated that he did not think that the United States could draw up a rule which would permit the door to be closed after they had taken care of our own national advantage. Arrangements for mutual defense against armed attack can be made, he said, but if an attempt is made to make this exclusively a United States or western hemisphere advantage then we would be in an impossible position, vis-á-vis the rest of the world.
Mr. Dulles pointed out that this would merely recognize an existing situation.
Commander Stassen responded that the British would say that an armed attack against any part of the empire is an attack against all of the empire.
Mr. Dunn stated that there is a wide-spread hope that the Act of Chapultepec would be superseded after the war by a new arrangement. The United States, he said, would not wish to cut itself off. Mr. Dunn added that it is not possible to limit the right of self-defense, and that the reaction of the British last night was that the American conception was so new as to be startling to them. Senator Connally remarked that if the concept was applied to the six dominions it should not be startling to them.
Mr. Dunn pointed out that suppose arrangements were made between Britain and Turkey on the basis that Turkey is essential to the defense of the British Isles. He added that the regional concept is easy for the United States to visualize because of the background of the Monroe Doctrine, but it is not so easy for others.[Page 679]
The Chairman referred again to the French amendment and Mr. Hackworth asked when it would be decided that the Council had not succeeded. The Secretary replied that this would be when aggression occurs.
Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that it might be possible to use the language proposed by Commander Stassen as follows: “should the Council not succeed in preventing aggression and should aggression occur by any state against any member state such member state possesses the inherent right to act individually or collectively as they may consider necessary in the interest of self-defense against aggression.”
Mr. Bloom inquired whether the intent was the threat of aggression or actual aggression.
Mr. Pasvolsky stated that Mr. Eden had been bothered last night and that the United States Delegation had been for a long time, since there is no way that individual nations can act legally within the system. Mr. Eden would prefer a wording relating to “collectively”.
Mr. Bloom inquired if more than one state acts, if that is to be interpreted as “collectively” and Mr. Pasvolsky said that it would.
Senator Connally inquired whether the French would accept the elimination of the words “peace, right, and justice”, and the Chairman said that they would.
Mr. Pasvolsky inquired as to who would determine whether or not an act of aggression occurs.
Mr. Armstrong inquired whether this disadvantage had appeared in the draft which had been considered at the morning’s meeting.
Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that this was a new arrangement involving a defensive alliance.
Mr. Armstrong stated that it appeared to open a much broader door to the break-up of the international system than under the original wording.
Mr. Pasvolsky stated that it implied complete freedom of action. Mr. Eden, he said, had introduced a new problem, namely, how much freedom of action is to be allowed to individual nations without a Council break-down. The United States, he said, referred to its hemispheric system, but that doesn’t cover the British. The French tried to solve the problem by giving freedom of action to individual states, leaving the states completely free. What Mr. Eden had liked was that it applies to a group and not to a region and thus could apply to the British Commonwealth.
Senator Connally remarked that if the organization fails any nation not pleased with the speed of action can say “here we go in a bloc.” Mr. Pasvolsky observed that it is really worse than that, for they can veto the action of the Council. But this, he said, is a danger that can not be avoided.[Page 680]
Commander Stassen remarked that in his view this would open it up too wide. This door, he said, should not be opened up too wide. Some emphasis should be on regional arrangements like Chapultepec, but the situation should not be opened up wide for any kind of regional arrangement. Commander Stassen suggested that it might be advisable to revert to the original American wording, using the opening sentences of the French text.
Senator Connally stated that the French text does not provide for group action.
Mr. Pasvolsky stated that the Act of Chapultepec has all sorts of things in it. It would be well, he said, to make certain it is that sort of arrangement which is being referred to, and not an interventionist system.
Commander Stassen inquired whether there was general agreement on the wording “should the Council not succeed in preventing aggression and should aggression occur …”.
Proposals Relating to Work of the Committees
. . . . . . .
With respect to the draft on regional arrangements Senator Connally stated that he would prefer some arrangement setting forth the American position. This is, he said, a very broad question, but he thought that the draft before the Delegation would possibly be satisfactory if some of the language of the French text were added.
Mr. Bowman urged that whatever the changes which might be made in the wording, it is obligatory that somewhere a finger be put on the historical chain, beginning with Monroe and ending with Chapultepec. Mr. Bowman stated that he would like a poll taken with respect to the specific inclusion of the Act of Chapultepec in the draft.
Mr. Pasvolsky commented that no one was opposed to this.
The Secretary observed with emphasis that the American Delegation had not taken a position on this matter and asked Mr. Bowman why he would try to force a position. It will be necessary, he added, to consult with the President. He stated further that he understood fully Senator Connally’s position.
Senator Connally said that the people making this organization need the United States as badly as the United States needs them. The time will come, he said, when the United States will have to talk turkey to them. The United States must be able to take care of itself.
Commander Stassen commented that the other countries go along. He pointed out that on the previous night all four votes had come along with the positions he had urged in the Committee, and that on every occasion he was sustained by more than a ⅔ vote. The South American countries had come along, he said, after some stewing.[Page 681]
The Chairman suggested that the opening sentence of the French text might be taken, from the point of view of psychology, since Mr. Eden favors it.
Dean Gildersleeve stated that she would like to make three points: (1) that she was in general agreement with the position taken in the Delegation on the matter, (2) that it is impossible for the United States to get an arrangement without giving the possibility of a similar arrangement to the rest of the world, and (3) that she felt a little uneasy about not mentioning the Act of Chapultepec in the draft.
The Chairman inquired whether there was agreement on using some of the French language, that is the opening sentence in the French text.
Mr. Bloom stated that he was in agreement with this but would like to see the Act of Chapultepec mentioned.
Senator Vandenberg stated that it would help him greatly in the Committee, if the statement should start out with the French language. The Soviet representative, he said, had raised a procedural question and the employment of the French language would help.
Representative Eaton said that he was in agreement.
Commander Stassen said that the suggestion was a very good one and that it would be desirable to start with the French language. This is, he said, a difficult and intense issue. There are, he warned, some efforts being made on the outside to split up this Delegation, and it is very important that all members of it should remain calm and clear. The attempt to split the Delegation, he said, is because it has done so much.
The Secretary stated that he would wish to endorse every word of Commander Stassen’s statement and suggested that everyone should get rested over the week end. He had told the press, he said, that there was no split in the American Delegation, and that it was operating under very harmonious relations. From the point of view of negotiating the draft with the British, French and Russians, it would be helpful to start with the French language. With respect to the mention of the Act of Chapultepec, he added, this has been his unalterable position, providing it is something that can be negotiated.
Mr. MacLeish stated that it is important to consider the impact on the public. This, he said, is a new angle. The right of self-defense, is spelled out in these treaties, and it should be made clear that the right of self-defense is spelled out in one regard by bilateral treaties and in the second by regional arrangements. This should be presented to the public as a spelling-out of the self-defense arrangements and not as a dicker between governments.
The Secretary expressed agreement with this view, and inquired whether the military advisers wished to say anything on the subject.[Page 682]
Mr. Gates stated that he would be willing to go along with the Secretary’s suggestion respecting the use of the French language.
Admiral Willson also expressed agreement with this view. He added, however, that a question which is not settled is how much of the French language should be used. A decision would have to be made, he suggested, between armed as against unarmed attack.
General Embick stated that he would concur in opening the provision with the language of the French, and following with the draft that had been agreed upon yesterday and mentioning the Act of Chapultepec.
Mr. Armstrong said that he was in agreement with the Secretary’s suggestion.
Dean Gildersleeve inquired as to what the attitude of the British and Russians was to the French amendment.
The Secretary replied that the British like it and would accept it, but that the United States advisers and technical experts think that it opens the door too wide.
Mr. Dunn commented that he would not go so far as to say that Mr. Eden actually liked the French text, but that he did recognize that it provided for action to be taken legally if the Security Council did not have success in stopping an act of aggression.
Representative Eaton asked why they should not conform to human nature since it is only natural that nations will take arms when attacked.
Commander Stassen offered a suggested composite wording as follows: “Should the Security Council not succeed in preventing aggression, and should aggression occur, the members of the Organization possess the inherent right to act as they may consider necessary in the interest of self-defense. The right to take measures of self-defense against armed attack shall apply to arrangements, like those embodied in the Act of Chapultepec, under which all members of a group of states agree to consider an attack against any one of them as an attack against all of them. The taking of such measures shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under this Charter to take at any time such action as it may deem necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security”.
Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that an important word was missing in this draft, namely, the word “also” following the phrase “armed attack shall”.
Senator Vandenberg inquired whether this revised language would cover the situation of a British-Turkish arrangement, and Mr. Pasvolsky replied that it would.[Page 683]
The Secretary stated that he would like to revert to the matter raised by Mr. Bowman, that is, leading down the historical chain of events from Monroe to Chapultepec. He stated that it should be decided whether the United States Delegation is willing to accept anything without specific mention of the Act of Chapultepec. The British, he said, will press strongly for general language, and the Delegation should reach a decision on this issue.
Mr. Bowman stated that his intent was that somewhere the draft should reach out and touch this chain of historical events. Whether the Act of Chapultepec is mentioned specifically is of little consequence. Whatever changes may be made, and in his opinion, starting out with the language of the French text, would be good, will relate to this chain of circumstances. If Mr. Eden should find that this has completely opened the door to all sorts of independent individual actions and destroyed world organization, the question then arises as to whether the United States would wish to give up its hemispheric organization in order to preserve the world organization.
Secretary Stettinius inquired whether the sentiment of the Delegation was to mention the words “Act of Chapultepec” or whether there would be a willingness merely to describe it in the language. Mr. Rockefeller stated that the Delegation had on its hands a negotiation with the four sponsoring powers, but that it also had negotiations with twenty other South American powers. He expressed agreement with the views stated by Dean Gildersleeve. Specific mention of the Act of Chapultepec would have a great drawing power. The simplest way would be to mention the name.
The Secretary stated that the Delegation would like the Act mentioned, but if Russia and Britain refuse, what will our position then be? The question is, he said, whether the United States Delegation would be willing to have it described rather than mentioned.
Senator Vandenberg pointed out that the League Covenant had been mentioned, and that the Act of Chapultepec is merely the modern name for the Monroe Doctrine.
Commander Stassen stated that it is not necessary to have complete agreement. The United States is not in a weak position, and it is on sound ground in stating that an opening has been made.
Mr. Pasvolsky stated that by the elimination of certain words from the previous American draft the French and British had been given exactly what they wanted. In the new sentence it is left to the member states, individuals or groups of states, to make decisions regarding self-defense. It should be remembered, he said, that lend-lease was adopted as a measure of self-defense. There would be no objection to mention of the Act of Chapultepec if it is made clear to what part of that Act reference is made.[Page 684]
Mr. Pasvolsky read a revision which he suggested and which was as follows: “Should the Security Council not succeed in preventing aggression, and should aggression occur, (the members of the Organization possess the inherent right to take necessary measures for self-defense) [by any state against any member state, such member state possesses the inherent right to take necessary measures of self-defense]74a the right to take measures of self-defense against armed attack shall [also] extend (to a group of states the members of which agree,) as in the case of the Act of Chapultepec, [action taken as a result of understandings or arrangements under which all members of a group of states agree] to consider an attack against any one of them as an attack against all of them [as in the case of the Act of Chapultepec] the taking of such measures shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under this Charter to take at any time such action as it may deem necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security”.
The Chairman suggested that there might be a pause in the discussion in order to take inventory. He raised a question as to whether this matter would need to be referred to Washington.
Mr. Gates thought that it would need to be referred to Washington if any change in the substance of the text is made.
The Chairman inquired whether the Delegation would feel that a tentative decision could be reached before Mr. Eden leaves, that if so that it could be taken up at 2:30 at the meeting of the Foreign Ministers.
Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that it would be advisable to explain to Mr. Eden what the Delegation has in mind to do. This, he said, has never been discussed with Mr. Eden and amounts to the resumption of complete freedom of action.
Commander Stassen expressed the view that it would not be a reversion to freedom of action if the American draft is sufficiently tied down.
Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that the intent of this morning’s discussion had been to tie in the whole Act of Chapultepec. This would cause trouble. No one, he said, would grant the right to bring in the entire Act of Chapultepec.
Commander Stassen stated that the intent was to use the Act of Chapultepec as a limiting factor not only with respect to a group of states but also with respect to the nature of the group.
Mr. Pasvolsky observed that Mr. Eden would disagree. The point is, he said, that a group such as that involved in the Act of Chapultepec should have the right to act in self-defense.[Page 685]
Senator Vandenberg commented that Mr. Pasvolsky was right in respect to sentence 2, and Commander Stassen with respect to sentence 1.
Mr. Pasvolsky advised that it is much better to nail down specific examples after the principle is clearly defined.
Commander Stassen observed that the British had been satisfied with the draft which had been shown to them the other night, and that they should not be given more than they needed.
Mr. Pasvolsky inquired whether the intent would be to eliminate the possibility of the formulation of a group such as the United States, the United Kingdom and France.
Mr. Gates suggested that it would be inadvisable to give way any further.
The Chairman read the 11:05 a.m. draft and following some discussion the suggested rewording of this draft by Commander Stassen was agreed upon. The original wording with the suggested revisions appearing in brackets was as follows: “Should the Security Council not succeed in preventing aggression, and should aggression occur by any state against any member state, such member state shall possess [such member state possesses]75 the [inherent] right to take [necessary] measures of [for] self-defense. The right to take measures of self-defense against armed attack shall also extend [apply] to [understandings or arrangements, like those embodied in the Act of Chapultepec] action taken as a result of understandings or arrangements under which all members of a group of states agree to consider ail attack against any one of them as an attack against all of them, as in the case the Act of Chapultepec. The taking of such measures shall be immediately reported to the Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under this Charter to take at any time such action as it may deem necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security”.
[Here follows discussion on Commission meetings and a report to the Press.]
11:20 Draft on Regional Arrangements
At this point The Secretary read the 11:20 draft on regional arrangements. This draft, with the minor revisions indicated in brackets, was as follows: Chapter VIII, Section B, paragraph 12
“Should the Security Council not succeed in preventing aggression, and should aggression occur by any state against any member state, such member state shall possess[es] the [inherent] right to take necessary measures for self-defense. The right to take [such] measures for self-defense against armed attack shall also apply to understandings [Page 686] or arrangements like those embodied in the Act of Chapultepec, under which all members of a group of states agree to consider an attack against any one of them as an attack against all of them. The taking of such measures shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under this Charter to take at any time such action as it may deem necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
The Secretary requested that all of the Delegation in favor of this draft as amended and for its submission to the President raise their right hands. Agreement on this draft was unanimous. The Secretary announced that he would phone the President immediately to inform him that the Delegation had unanimously approved this draft and that the military advisers were in agreement with it.76 [The Secretary left the meeting at 11:35 a.m.]76a
Commander Stassen presented a brief explanation of the developments with respect to the trusteeship problem. He explained that a proposed Working Paper had been explored and discussions held and that it had been agreed upon in part in the Five-Power Consultation Group on Trusteeship.77 He emphasized the importance of not having anything in that paper which the United States Delegation might not wish, and pointed out that it was much more difficult to get something out of the paper than it was to get something into it. He read the proposed draft of the Working Paper. With respect to paragraph 6, he said that the British do not contemplate putting their territories under the strategic arrangement concept which the Americans have advanced. The British on their part want a general provision affecting security matters which would make it possible to use resources and facilities in any territory for purposes of security and local defense. With respect to paragraph 10, he pointed out that the Soviet Delegation had requested that they be insured a seat on the Trusteeship Council. The British are reluctant to accept this position. With respect to paragraph 11 the arrangement agreed upon had been to strike out the specific reference to investigation which had been a provision of the American proposal and to accept a provision relating to the right of periodic visits to the trust territories. This had been done to satisfy the British and the French who balked at the concept of investigation.[Page 687]
Commander Stassen requested permission of the Delegation to present the Working Paper draft to Committee II/4 as the basic working paper for its deliberations at its 11:30 meeting on Monday morning,78 provided the Soviet Union and the British accept it in its present form.
. . . . . . .
Commander Stassen inquired whether he would have permission of the Delegation to move this draft as a working paper on Monday in Committee II/4 if the Army and Navy approve it.
Senator Vandenberg inquired whether there were any objections and in the absence of any the request of Commander Stassen was approved. Senator Vandenberg asked Commander Stassen if he would like to comment on the position taken by Senator Byrd with respect to the American right of possession in the Pacific.
Commander Stassen stated that the United States has the right of possession. This right of possession, he emphasized, can be kept if the country has national backbone and if satisfactory trusteeship arrangements for these territories cannot be negotiated.
Economic and Social Cooperation
Dean Gildersleeve stated that she would like to seek some advice. She stated that she would be pushed into a corner if the Committees are going on. She would have need for guidance, although she realized that all of the members of the Delegation were now tired after a long meeting.
Senator Vandenberg inquired whether the Delegation would do anything about this now. He stated that it was only 11:50 and suggested that Dean Gildersleeve might be given an hour at this time.
Dean Gildersleeve stated that if this were to be done she would like to have Mr. Stinebower come into the meeting. A group of the American advisers and technical experts on this subject of economic and social cooperation had held a number of meetings, she said. They had gone over the amendments which had been submitted to the Committee, and especially the Canadian redraft. Dean Gildersleeve stated that she would like to get guidance on some of these points.
With respect to putting in “educational” as well as “cultural”, Dean Gildersleeve stated that she had taken the line that “educational” should be kept out, since this would make trouble in Congress. She expressed the view that “cultural” covers “educational”, but if other countries insist on the inclusion of “educational”, Dean Gildersleeve inquired whether she should vote against it.
With respect to Chapter IX, paragraph 1, she said, a number of nations, and especially Haiti, desired to have “educational” inserted.[Page 688]
Mr. Stinebower stated that the issue also arises with respect to the Commissions which were to be set up under the Economic and Social Council, one of which will be on education.
Senator Vandenberg inquired whether, if the word “educational” is to be used, there would be any way to make it clear that American educational autonomy is not subject to any outside interference whatever.
Dean Gildersleeve explained that she and M. Bonnet were in agreement. The French would like to use the word “intellectual”, but the specific vote, if it comes, will be on the word “educational”.
Senator Vandenberg stated that he would have no objection to its inclusion if there were some qualification that is explicit with reference to domestic jurisdiction.
Mr. Dulles stated that this is clear in the Charter; nothing contained in the Charter can interfere with domestic jurisdiction.
Mr. Armstrong said that if the word “cultural” includes education, science and other fields, he was agreeable to the word “cultural”. Dean Gildersleeve said that if “cultural” does not include “educational”, why then should we avoid the word, but that she was nevertheless prepared to hold to the word “cultural”. She said that other fields such as health had also been proposed for specific mention.
Senator Vandenberg believed that we should say precisely what we mean, and make it clear that we do not contemplate interference with domestic affairs. He said that it was not possible to get UNRRA through the Senate until Congress was satisfied that there would be no control over education or domestic affairs. Dean Gildersleeve said that in the Committee she would follow the American position and speak regarding our interest in education, but that she would oppose specific inclusion of the word. She said that the Canadian draft79 included neither the words “educational” or “cultural”, and that we could probably get the Canadian draft accepted with the word “cultural” added. This would be the simplest method.
Mr. Stinebower pointed out that possible interference of the Organization in domestic affairs could be avoided if its actions were limited by words such as “the Organization should encourage separate and cooperative actions”. Senator Vandenberg liked these words and believed they should be inserted so as to apply broadly to all activities of the Organization that were under discussion.
Dean Gildersleeve then referred to the Canadian proposals (Document 157, p. 880) which included as an objective “attaining of higher standards of living and economic and social progress and development”, asking whether this amendment was acceptable. Commander Stassen pointed out that it went no farther than the Atlantic Charter. [Page 689] Senator Vandenberg replied that the Atlantic Charter went farther than many Senators liked.
Mr. Stinebower suggested that if the words “encourage separate and cooperative action” were included in the Canadian amendment, this should meet the objection. Senator Vandenberg agreed but said that two-thirds of the Senate would be hunting for some of Mr. Wallace’s ideas.
Dean Gildersleeve said that in the next sub-head of the Canadian proposal, i.e. (b), we would add the word “cultural”. This and (c) were agreed to by the Delegation.
Dean Gildersleeve then asked our position on inclusion of the word “health”. Mr. Stinebower said that several countries hope for the establishment of a consultative health organization. He felt that the word “health” was probably not included in the word “cultural”. Senator Vandenberg said that he had less objection to “health” than “education”, and was willing to include “health”, providing we emphasize that we were not attempting to internationalize these fields but were to “encourage separate and cooperative action”. He said he objected to none of these ideas if they were adequately explained.
Dean Gildersleeve then brought up the British amendment (pp. 10, 1481) which gives a special position to the ILO. She said that we were not opposed to the ILO itself but did not believe it should be singled out and given special attention. Commander Stassen felt quite definitely that we should not have the Charter take sides in a labor fight as would be done by the British amendment. Dean Gildersleeve said that the British reportedly had binding instructions regarding the ILO proposal. Mr. Armstrong said that Mr. Eden had remarked that if the ILO were excluded, Mr. Attlee would “have a fit but that there was to be a general election”.
Mr. Stinebower said that even if there were no labor fight regarding the ILO, we still did not wish a special position specified for the ILO in the Charter, since the ILO had been inclined to regard itself as superior to all other agencies and to encroach upon their fields. He raised the question as to whether we should not have a line of retreat if necessary, namely to delete the British amendment but to be willing to mention the ILO in some innocuous manner by a phrase “such as the ILO”. Commander Stassen declared that we should have no line of retreat and that if necessary the United States should reserve its position and carry the fight all the way up. This was agreed.
Dean Gildersleeve said that Mr. Tomlinson of the U.K. had just requested a meeting with the United States to go over the ILO amendments. Commander Stassen said that we should tell Mr. Tomlinson [Page 690] that we had discussed the matter at length and that no compromise language was possible. Dean Gildersleeve said that she would meet with Mr. Tomlinson at two o’clock this afternoon. Mr. Bowman said that the picture was continually changing regarding the ILO and the labor field in general. We would therefore lose flexibility if we recognized the ILO in the Charter.
Mr. Rockefeller said that there were fifteen men from the press outside the door and that they were bitter at the American Delegation. He thought that with the Sunday papers and special articles coming out we should give them background material and meet with them even though there was little we could say. Mr. Dulles and Senator Vandenberg agreed. Senator Vandenberg said that he would be willing to talk with them briefly, telling them that the Delegation was completely united in its desire to find a formula, and believes it can, to preserve the Act of Chapultepec without impairing measures to gain general security. Commander Stassen said that he saw no objection to Senator Vandenberg’s talking to the press as Chairman of this meeting and also in harmony with the right of any delegate to give background material. Mr. Armstrong suggested that the press be told other matters were also discussed.
Dean Gildersleeve said that she would like help in clarifying the functions of the Economic and Social Council, referring particularly to the Australian and Canadian proposals (pp. 20–22, Doc. 15782).
Mr. Stinebower said that a question for determination had to do with the power of the Council to make recommendations to governments. He said that this did not depart from the intent of the proposal but that we should have delegation approval. Senator Vandenberg believed it was dangerous to have the Council enabled to make recommendations to governments for fear that the Council might criticize a certain country. Commander Stassen said that the recommendations to individual countries should go through the Secretariat. Mr. Stinebower gave an example of what was intended, namely that if the Council had analyzed a world inflationary trend, could it send its report directly to members or must it wait for the General Assembly? Senator Vandenberg agreed that if no one nation were singled out, it would be appropriate to send recommendations directly to members but he said it would still be dangerous since the United States would have only one member on the Council who could commit the United States to a policy. Mr. Stinebower referred to the Canadian wording (b) on page 22, wherein the Council is authorized “to make on its own initiative studies, reports, and recommendations with respect to economic, social and other related matters of international concern to the General Assembly, to members [Page 691] of the United Nations and to related organizations and agencies.” Senator Vandenberg believed that to make studies was satisfactory but that the power to make recommendations should be removed. Mr. Dulles agreed. Commander Stassen said that the wording should make clear that the Council could still make recommendations to the Assembly.
The meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
- Summary report of Committee III/4/A, May 11, 5:15 p.m., not printed.↩
- Art 15 (7).↩
- Brackets appear in the original.↩
- Brackets throughout this paragraph appear in the original.↩
- Brackets throughout this paragraph appear in the original.↩
- The Secretary read to President Truman on the telephone the text of the new paragraph No. 12 for chapter VIII, section B, and sent the text to the Acting Secretary of State in telegram 6, May 12, for transmission to the President and to Mr. Hull (500.CC/5–1245).↩
- Brackets appear in the original.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Doc. 310, II/4/11, May 15, UNCIO Documents, vol. 10, p. 439.↩
- Doc. 2, G/14 (t), May 6, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 589.↩
- Doc. 157, II/3/5, May 9, ibid., vol. 10, pp. 306–807.↩
- ibid., pp. 308 and 312.↩
- Doc. 157, II/3/5, May 9, UNCIO Documents, vol. 10, pp. 318–320.↩