RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 96: U.S. Min. Cr. 38
Minutes of the Thirty-Eighth Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Monday, May 14, 1945, 9:05 a.m.
[Here follows list of names of persons (36) present at meeting.]
The Secretary called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.
Regional Arrangements
The Secretary reported on the five-power consultation of Saturday, May 12, stating that the British had turned down the proposed new paragraph 12 of Chapter VIII, Section B, which read as follows:
[Here follows text identical with that printed on page 691.]
Mr. Eden had felt that the inclusion of this paragraph would completely destroy the organization and others had agreed with his views.
After the meeting had broken up, the members of the Delegations had worked all Saturday afternoon and met again at 6:00 p.m. when Mr. Eden presented a new draft. Senators Connally and Vandenberg [Page 708] had been most helpful in convincing Mr. Eden of the importance of this paragraph and he had departed saying he was no longer worried. The Secretary now referred to two papers both dated May 14, 1945, which were before the Delegation, one a revision of the proposed new paragraph 12 of Chapter VIII, Section B, and the other a proposed revision of paragraph 1 of Chapter VIII, Section C. These read as follows:
Chapter VIII, Section B
New Paragraph 12
[Here follows text identical with that printed on page 705.]
Chapter VIII, Section C
Paragraph 1
[Here follows text identical with that printed on page 705.]
The Secretary stated that Mr. Eden had accepted the new paragraph 12 but was not keen on the revision of VIII, C, 1, with its reference to the Act of Chapultepec. Senator Connally said that VIII, C, 1 in its original form was encouraging to regional arrangements. Senator Vandenberg remarked that after thinking about the matter over the weekend, he believed that if Mr. Rockefeller and the Latin American Delegations are agreeable, it would be better not to identify the Act of Chapultepec. His reason was that such identification might lead to endeavors to identify the Arab League and other regional organizations. Senator Vandenberg went on to say that he had remarked to Mr. Eden that the U.S. Senate would have to make a reservation with respect to the Monroe Doctrine and Mr. Eden thought that would be all right. In view of this, The Senator wondered whether that would not be a better procedure than to identify the Act of Chapultepec, provided it was reasonably satisfactory to the Latin Americans. There was some discussion also of the possibility of the Delegation adopting a resolution about a reservation on the Monroe Doctrine.
Upon The Secretary asking whether Senator Vandenberg thought a reservation by the Senate would be necessary, the latter replied that he did.
Congressman Bloom thought that Senator Vandenberg’s proposal constituted a better way to handle the matter, as then there would be no discussion at the Conference of other regional bodies such as the Arab League. Upon being asked for the view of the military, Mr. Gates stated that as yet he had no comment to make on Senator Vandenberg’s suggestion. Admiral Hepburn added that at the time the U.S. Delegation reached San Francisco it had approved the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals without any reference to the Act of Chapultepec. This reference was introduced only as the result of the Latin [Page 709] American views. He hoped that they could accept Senator Vandenberg’s proposal.
Mr. Stettinius remarked that we were in no position as yet to go forward with a Committee meeting at 10:30. Senator Vandenberg agreed and both remarked that it was necessary to get the Latin Americans together quickly.
Senator Connally remarked that if we make a unilateral declaration it will not be binding but will rest only on our own strong right arm. Senator Vandenberg said we must stall today, since we cannot go ahead with other big four proposals until this is settled even though the Soviets approved. Senator Connally said that the big question was: Would the Latin Americans accept this solution? Senator Vandenberg inquired just exactly where we stood with the Latin Americans; he pointed out that the new language of VIII, B, 12 clearly removes the veto. Would the Latin Americans be satisfied? Mr. Hackworth commented that he thought they would be if the US. makes it clear that they feel this language clearly covers the matter. Mr. Stettinius said he felt they ought to take it.
Mr. Armstrong asked why it was necessary to tell the Latin Americans that we intend to make a reservation on this matter and Commander Stassen replied that we can certainly tell them that in our opinion this covers the Act of Chapultepec.
Mr. Gates posed a question as to our freedom under this provision in case a fleet had started from abroad against an American republic, but had not yet attacked. To this Commander Stassen replied that we could not under this provision attack the fleet but we could send a fleet of our own and be ready in case an attack came.
Mr. Armstrong inquired what difference there was between our text and the Eden draft which makes Mr. Eden like the latter better. Senator Vandenberg replied that the Eden draft would cover the right to take action in support of another country; for example the U.K. could support Turkey if she should be attacked by Bulgaria. Senator Connally and Mr. Dulles explained that Mr. Eden’s motives were (1) a desire to avoid referring to regional agencies which would be dangerously limiting, and (2) also to leave leeway for other regional organizations. Mr. Armstrong inquired whether this then meant that we were pushing the U.K. into a stronger position and Mr. Bowman replied that that was so only if an armed attack had occurred.
In reply to Senator Vandenberg’s inquiry as to the French reaction, Mr. Dunn said that M. Bidault had liked it and would abandon his insistence on his position.
Senator Vandenberg said that it was important to see some of the Latin Americans before talking to the other three sponsoring powers and France again. These Latin Americans should include the Colombian [Page 710] Foreign Minister as well as Padilla and a few others. Mr. Dulles thought the Eden draft not quite as satisfactory as the original American text, as the narrowing expression “armed attack” applies in this draft both to the individual and collective rights of self defense. He felt that the individual right should not be curtailed in any way. In reply to a query from Mr. Gates he said that the Eden draft covered the right of a Latin American state if attacked by another.
It was agreed that Mr. Gates should phone Mr. McCloy for his views and that the Secretary and Senators Connally and Vandenberg would try to get together with a small group of Latin Americans about 2:30 p.m. Mr. Dunn remarked that the Soviet and French reactions could not be obtained today and, in reply to a query from Dr. Bowman, said that he thought the idea of a separate protocol by the five covering their understanding about the Act of Chapultepec would be very dangerous. Mr. Bowman said there was no way to make valid a protocol signed only by the five and Senator Connally thought the protocol would be fatal. Mr. Eaton said he had always been opposed to the protocol as well as to the naming of the Act of Chapultepec. He asked why we should fool ourselves; if an armed attack should come from abroad we would take action in any case.
Senator Connally would prefer to leave out the word “armed” and Mr. Stettinius replied that there would be many refinements of language before a document was finally agreed upon. Senator Connally commented that we have not done a thing to abrogate or modify the Monroe Doctrine. We certainly have not done so in so far as our power to enforce that document is concerned. Senator Vandenberg said that hitherto our veto in the Security Council had been a guarantee that the organization could not take action against an American republic and that with the present arrangement we have closed the last loophole.
The Delegation agreed to reject the insertion in paragraph 1 of Chapter VIII, C of the words “or collective arrangements like that contemplated by the Act of Chapultepec.”
Secretary’s Proposed Press Statement of Human Rights94
. . . . . . .
Election of Secretary General
Congressman Bloom stated that there had been discussion in his Committee (II/1) regarding the relationship of the Security Council and the Assembly in regard to the election of the Secretary General.95 It was agreed that the Security Council should nominate the Secretary General for election by the Assembly and that the Mexican proposal [Page 711] in this regard is acceptable provided that the Security Council majority should be 7 and not 6. Mr. Bloom remarked that the Australian proposal is impossible and after Mr. Kotschntg, at his request, had read the Mexican proposal, he announced that the U.S. would tell the Mexicans we would accept it in committee with the change mentioned above.96
Arrangement for Discussion in the Delegation of Important Issues Pending in Committees
. . . . . . .
Report to Press on Status of Regional Issue
The Secretary asked whether he should say anything to the press about the status of the regional discussions. Commander Stassen thought that the whole story should be given on a background basis but Senator Vandenberg thought it should come from him and should not be detailed. Senator Connally said that in his opinion the less that was said now the better and asked what really could be given out at the present time. To this The Secretary replied that the press contend that they can obtain all the background information they want from the British, but none from us, and added that that is not a desirable situation. Senator Vandenberg said that he thought that as soon as we know that we are in the clear—that is that the Latin Americans are reasonably satisfied—we should give out the text. It was agreed not to make any statement until after the forthcoming discussion with the Latin American representatives.
. . . . . . .
New Zealand and Canadian Amendments in Committee III/3
Senator Connally brought up the New Zealand proposal in Committee III/3 regarding the role of the Assembly in enforcement action.97 He said that he and Commander Stassen were opposed to this amendment and had assumed that this was the Delegation’s view. The Secretary said that it was.
Senator Connally then mentioned the Canadian amendment98 to allow states not members of the Security Council to sit as voting members when the use of their forces is under consideration. He said [Page 712] that the British are somewhat sympathetic to the Canadian position and appear willing to soften the present provision to accommodate them at least part way. Senator Connally thought, however, that we should oppose even this.
It was agreed to oppose both amendments.
Procedure in Voting on Amendments in Committees
. . . . . . .
The meeting was adjourned at 10:25.
- For statement on human rights made by Mr. Stettinius at San Francisco on May 15, see Department of State Bulletin, May 20, 1945, p. 928.↩
- Doc. 295, II/1/11, May 14, UNCIO Documents, vol. 8, p. 317.↩
- The Mexican amendment proposed that the Secretary General be elected upon nomination by a simple majority of the members of the Security Council; the Australian amendment proposed that he be elected by the Assembly subject to confirmation by a majority of any seven members of the Security Council and a majority of ten members of the Economic and Social Council (Doc. 294, II/1/10, May 14, UNCIO Documents, vol. 8, p. 323).↩
- The New Zealand delegate submitted a motion at the fourth meeting of Committee III/3 on May 10 “that this Committee express its approval of the plan that in all matters of the application of sanctions, military or economic, the Security Council associate with itself the General Assembly” (Doc. 231, III/3/9. May 11, ibid., vol. 12, p. 295).↩
- Ibid., p. 297.↩