Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1945, General: The United Nations, Volume I

RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 99: UNCIO Cons Amer Rep Min 1

Record of First Informal Consultative Meeting With Chairmen of Delegations of Certain American Republics,⁹⁹ Held at San Francisco, May 14, 1943, 2:30 p.m.

Stettin San Francisco, May 14, 1943, 2:30 p.m.

[Informal Notes]

[Here follows list of names of participants, including chairmen of delegations of the United States (ten additional members of the delegation), Brazil, Chile (one additional delegate), Cuba, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela.]

Mr. Stettinius opened the meeting by saying that since his recent consultation with the Foreign Ministers¹ the American Delegation had been studying this question day and night and had made good progress. He had before him a paper which he wished to give the Ministers for their private and confidential study. In order to handle this matter in such a way as not to cause jeopardy to the success of the San Francisco Conference, it was essential that this matter should be kept confidential and not given to the newspapers. It would, of course, cause the gravest embarrassment in other relations with other states participating in the Conference, especially the other sponsoring powers, if the matter should become public prematurely.

Mr. Stettinius emphasized that it was just as important to the United States to have the inter-American system continue and succeed as it was to any of the American Republics. The United States is determined to maintain so far as is within its power the military, political, and economic solidarity of this Hemisphere. We are constantly working in that direction.

Since the discussion of this regional question came up Mr. Stettinius said that there had been so much public agitation of the question that the United States is being charged with departing from the idea of world organization and the idea of President Roosevelt for the establishment of a world organization to keep the peace. Mr. Stettinius said that it would be a tragedy to have the San Francisco Conference jeopardized by this issue. He knew that the Foreign Ministers did not like some of the events in Europe any better than he did, but it is essential that we have a world organization for the maintenance of peace and security.

At this point the Secretary distributed three papers (copy attached): (1) Chapter VIII, Section B, New Paragraph 12, first version; (2) Chapter VIII, Section B, New Paragraph 12, second version; and (3) Chapter VIII, Section C, Paragraph l.² After reading the first version of the proposed new paragraph 12 of Chapter VIII, Section B, Mr. Stettinius said that the proposed draft of paragraph 1 of Chapter VIII, Section C, was a companion piece with this—the two would go together. He said that the second version of the new paragraph 12 of Chapter VIII, Section B, involved a refinement in the language of the first sentence worked out by some of his colleagues.

Mr. Dunn remarked that the second version pointed out more clearly the responsibility of the Security Council to take action.

Mr. Dulles added that it avoided a specific reference to the possibility of the Security Council failing to maintain peace and security. Some have thought that it would be better not to mention the possibility of failure. The substance of the first and second version is the same.

Mr. Dunn added that the second version might have a better psychological effect.

Señor Padilla (Mexico) said that the drafts presented impressed him very favorably on first reading. He thought that the formula would take care of the interest of the inter-American system. He said that he would like to suggest the addition of one word in Chapter VIII, Section C, paragraph 1. In the last sentence following the word “encourage” he would insert the words “and support”, so that the sentence would read: “The Security Council should encourage and support settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies, either on the initiative of the states concerned or by reference from the Security Council.”

Señor Fernandez (Chile) said that he thought the right ideas were in these drafts. The final wording of the Charter would need to be worked out later. Pie understood that the word “shall” would be used in the first line of paragraph 1 of Chapter VIII, Section C, in place of the word “should”. He was assured that this was the case.

Senator Vandenberg made a statement at the request of Mr. Stettinius, He said that his position was well known and that the Ministers were well aware of how sympathetic he was to the inter-American system and to its maintenance in complete and effective operation. He said that he had been driven to the reluctant conclusion that if the Act of Chapultepec is to be identified in the Charter we will have to identify other regional agreements by name. We would then wind up, if we identify the Act of Chapultepec by name, with a long list of other identifications. He thought that we had done nothing for the Act of Chapultepec if in addition we have to include along with it the names of a number of other agreements. It would almost ruin the unity of our undertaking if this should happen.

Senator Vandenberg said that he would prefer to rest on either the first or second version of the new paragraph 12 of Chapter VIII, Section B. He would be willing to guarantee that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in making its report to the Senate on the Charter would specifically spell out the meaning which the United States Delegation attaches to the language used in the new paragraph 12.

It would be stated that the collective action referred to in this paragraph had reference primarily to action through the inter-American system under the Act of Chapultepec and such treaty as might be negotiated to carry out the Act of Chapultepec. With this declaration of the interpretation by the United States of this provision he thought that we would be better off not to identify the Act of Chapultepec by name. The language of the new paragraph 12 gives us everything that we want and assures the United States and the other American Republics of the right to take necessary action in the event of an armed attack against one of them. This would not in any way impair the idea of global security.

The Senator concluded by saying that it would be no satisfaction to the American Republics to have the Act of Chapultepec bracketed with other regional agreements of much less stature and importance.

Mr. Stettinius observed that a further consideration in this connection was that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to be sure of getting the other powers to agree to the inclusion of the Act of Chapultepec in paragraph 1 of Chapter VIII, Section C.

Senator Vandenberg said that if we stand on either the first or second version of the new paragraph 12 we get everything that we really want and we have not challenged the unity of the world effort for the establishment of an organization for the maintenance of peace and security. He would guarantee that the report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would spell out by interpretation the meaning of collective action.

Mr. Stettinius endorsed the statement made by Senator Vandenberg.

Señor Camargo (Colombia) said that he did not think it was possible to omit the Act of Chapultepec from Chapter VIII, Section C, paragraph 1. It was essential that the Act be mentioned in order to assure that there be no question of its consistency with the principles of the Charter. As far as the United States was concerned a statement of the character suggested by Senator Vandenberg would be satisfactory, but this would not take care of the question of the interpretation put on this provision by the rest of the world.

Senator Vandenberg remarked that if the United States and the other American Republics understood each other, it did not matter what attitude other countries take.

Mr. Stettinius said he wished to raise the direct question whether the American Republics wanted world organization or whether they wanted regional organization.

Señor Camargo (Colombia) said that the American Republics wanted a regional organization which would operate within the framework of the world organization.

Mr. Stettinius said that this matter must be very clearly understood, that the primary goal was world organization, and that the success of the San Francisco Conference must not be impaired by any exaggerated emphasis on regionalism.

Señor Camargo (Colombia) said that it was his view that all regional arrangements should be approved by the world organization both now and in the future. Tomorrow or the day after a group of states might get together, enter into a regional organization or arrangement, and demand the same rights as the inter-American system. This should not be possible. It should be clear that any such organization or arrangement would have to prove its consistency with the world organization.

Señor Fernandez (Chile) inquired whether the new paragraph 12 of Chapter VIII, Section B, and the proposed revision of paragraph 1 of Chapter VIII, Section C, were to be taken separately or whether they went together. Mr. Stettinius replied that they were companion documents and would be proposed as a part of one formula. He said that Senator Vandenberg’s proposal was that we drop the proposed amendment of Chapter VIII, Section C, paragraph 1. Senator Vandenberg returned to the point that we could not guarantee getting the revision of Chapter VIII, Section C, paragraph 1.

Señor Parra-Perez (Venezuela) inquired whether regional organizations would be subject to approval by the Security Council. It was pointed out that this was clearly contemplated under the language of paragraph 1 of Chapter VIII, Section C.

At this point one of the Ministers inquired about the possibility of a protocol giving the interpretation suggested by Senator Vandenberg.

Mr. Stettinius said that he could not understand why the proposed new paragraph 12 was not adequate if it were accompanied by a statement of the character proposed by Senator Vandenberg. He asked again whether the American Republics wanted a world organization in which we would all have confidence or whether they wanted a regional organization.

Señor Camargo (Colombia) said that his point of view was definitely not against world organization. He felt that every regional organization must have the approval of the Security Council and must be consistent with the purposes and principles of the organization.

Señor Parra-Perez (Venezuela) pointed out that there was a difference of primary importance between the inter-American system and other regional arrangements in the process of development. Senator Vandenberg said that this was exactly his view and it was for this reason that he proposed [opposed?] having them bracketed together in the Charter.

Mr. Stettinius inquired if Señor Camargo understood that we have not obtained the approval of other governments for the papers under consideration. Señor Camargo said that he did. He thought that it was vital that any regional organization or arrangement should have the approval of the Security Council and that its aims should be consistent with those of the world organization. This should be true of organizations established in the future. To this Senator Vandenberg agreed. Señor Camargo inquired whether the pact entered into by the Arabic states would have to be approved by the Security Council.

Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that the inclusion of the name of the Act of Chapultepec in the Charter would constitute prior approval. However, it was clear that under Chapter VIII, Section C, paragraph 1, new organizations or arrangements would be subject to approval by the Security Council. However, the procedure undoubtedly would be that such an arrangement or organization would be treated as consistent with the Charter of the organization unless the question of its consistency were challenged.

In answer to an inquiry from Señor Camargo, Mr. Pasvolsky said that the Security Council would have the authority to determine the question of consistency. Señor Camargo said that if the name of the Act of Chapultepec were not included, the consistency of the Act with the inter-American system might be challenged at a later time and the Security Council might declare it to be inconsistent with the Charter. It was pointed out that there was no likelihood of this happening with the United States having a veto in the action of the Security Council.

Señor Padilla (Mexico) remarked that the American Republics would not be internationally reassured unless the Act of Chapultepec were mentioned. He thought there might be two exceptions to the authority of the Security Council: one, the European mutual assistance treaties excepted by the joint Four Power amendment of Chapter VIII, Section C, paragraph 2; and the other, a special exception for the inter-American system.

Senator Vandenberg pointed out that the limitation of the exception already proposed was to enemy states. Its purpose was confined to action for the control of Germany and Japan.

Señor Camargo (Colombia) said that this was not the question. The question here relates to Chapter VIII, Section C, paragraph 1. He returned to his question whether under this provision later regional arrangements would be subject to approval by the Security Council. If the inter-American system were not mentioned it might be subject to disapproval by the Security Council.

Mr. Pasvolsky reiterated his statement that the burden of proof in such a case would be on others to show the existence of such inconsistency and that there would be the safeguard of the veto of the United States. Señor Camargo again asserted that what he did not want was that some day the Security Council should have an opportunity to say that the inter-American system was inconsistent with the Charter.

Mr. Stettinius suggested that the Ministers might like to have an opportunity to discuss among themselves the formula which had been laid before them and to meet again later. He said that we must speed along on this matter, and that rumors of the desire of the American Republics to build a fence around this Hemisphere were causing a great deal of damage. We cannot let the policy of hemispheric solidarity interfere with a world system of security. Senator Vandenberg indicated his wholehearted agreement with this and said that we cannot recede now from the program of establishing a world security organization.

Señor Fernandez (Chile) said that the final issue was that—whether it would be possible to get agreement on mentioning the Act of Chapultepec in the Charter, or whether it would [be] more preferable not to mention it if other arrangements were also to be mentioned.

Senator Vandenberg said that the Minister had put his finger right on the real issue. He said that he had discussed this general question with Mr. Evatt of Australia who indicated general satisfaction with it, but thought if such action were taken he would insist on the name of the Venezuelan-New Zealand Pact.³

Señor Padilla (Mexico) said that we are really concerned about the Act of Chapultepec because it represents the fruition of years of effort. Naming it here would give recognition to the Act and its importance to the American Republics. He thought, however, that inclusion of the word “support”, as he had suggested, in paragraph 1 of Chapter VIII, Section C, would help the Latin American position a great deal. If this were accompanied by a guarantee from the United States of the existence and validity of the policy embodied in the Act of Chapultepec, the American Republics might be willing to refrain from insisting on the inclusion of the Act of Chapultepec.

Mr. Stettinius referred to the assurance given by Senator Vandenberg. Mr. Rockefeller inquired whether this would be in writing, to which Senator Vandenberg replied that definitely it would. It would be embodied in a report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Charter.

Señor Padilla (Mexico) pointed out that if the Act of Chapultepec has no support from the Senate naming it here would be of no help. He asked if they could have a guarantee of specific support by the United States of the Act of Chapultepec. Senator Vandenberg said that it was his understanding that the United States Delegation would be willing to issue a statement or adopt a resolution saying that the collective action under the new paragraph 12 includes action under the Act of Chapultepec.

Señor Belt (Cuba) said that this is just what was wanted. He said that the Act of Chapultepec synthesizes Pan American aspirations of half a century. He emphasized that the policy of inter-American solidarity as represented in the Act of Chapultepec has the support of the peoples of Latin America.

Mr. Rockefeller said that the possibility might be considered of having the delegation prepare a resolution interpreting the new paragraph 12 of Chapter VIII, Section B, along the lines indicated by Senator Vandenberg. The Ministers expressed approval of such a procedure.

Señor Padilla (Mexico) said that it would be a poor gain for the United States if they should obtain the language of the new paragraph 12 and then find themselves standing alone in the Security Council. The continued support of the Latin American Republics was of great importance to the United States. In order to preserve the spiritual unity of the world the Charter of the new world organization must give evidence of the joint action of the American Republics.

Mr. Stettinius indicated his agreement with the general sentiments expressed by Señor Padilla. He suggested an adjournment and that the Ministers meet again at nine o’clock.⁴

99. This was the first of three informal consultative meetings with the Latin American diplomats, held in Mr. Stettinius’ apartment in the Fairmont Hotel, May 14–20.
1. For Mr. Stettinius’ summary report to the President on a May 8 meeting with the Latin American Foreign Ministers regarding the place of the inter-American system in the World Organization, see footnote 41, p. 642.
2. For texts of the three papers, see (1) p. 691, last paragraph; (2) p. 705, first quoted paragraph; and (3) p. 705, second quoted paragraph.
3. Reference is apparently to the Australian-New Zealand agreement of 1944 on World Security Organization: for documentation on U.S. concern over this agreement, see Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. iii, pp. 168 ff.
4. No record of meeting found in Department files.