RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 96: U.S. Cr. Min. 40

Minutes of the Fortieth Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, May 15, 1945, 6 p.m.

[Informal Notes—Extracts]

[Here follows list of names of persons (28) present at meeting.]

Senator Connally presided during the absence of the Secretary.

Procedure for Committee Meetings

Senator Connally noted that the first item on the agenda for this meeting was a report on the voting procedure for Conference committees. Mr. Sandifer called attention to the Memorandum of the Conference Secretariat [Ex-Sec/829] with regard to procedure for conducting committee meetings. …

. . . . . . .

Deputy Secretaries General

Senator Connally called upon Representative Bloom for a report on the urgent business of Committee II/1 [Structure and Procedures of the General Assembly]. Representative Bloom reported that this Committee was now considering selection of the Deputy Secretaries General.30 Many Delegations did not want the number four specified in the Charter; also they wanted the Secretary General to appoint the Deputies rather than having them elected by the same procedure as the Secretary General himself. Moreover, they objected to the three year term without the possibility of re-election. He wanted to get the advice of the Delegation on the position we should take in the Committee, and asked for guidance.

Senator Connally commented that the Secretary General was eligible for re-election and asked if what was wanted was a longer term. Representative Bloom said there had been agreement on the three year term. Mr. Notter said the term represented a compromise. Originally Russia had wanted two years and the United States five. Senator Connally observed that five would really be better. Representative Bloom said that as far as his committee was concerned the main issue was whether or not the Deputies should be elected by the same procedure as the Secretary General himself. He called upon Mrs. Brunauer as the technical expert assigned to this Committee, to elaborate on the report.

Mrs. Brunauer stated that there had been very strong opposition expressed, especially by Canada and New Zealand, to the proposals of the Sponsoring Governments with respect to the Deputy Secretaries General. They had contended that the development of a strong [Page 741] and effective international civil service required that the Secretary General should have authority to appoint his own Deputies. They were also apprehensive lest the number four indicated an intention on the part of the great powers to dominate the Secretariat by assigning the top positions to nationals of the permanent members of the Security Council. The Canadian and New Zealand Delegates had also objected to terms of three years as being too short to permit the Deputies to function effectively especially since they were not to be eligible for re-election.

Mr. Sandifer said he wished to call the attention of the Delegation to another problem, relating to the election of the Secretary General himself. The amendment proposed by the Sponsoring Governments to Chapter X, paragraph 1 stated “the Secretary General should be elected by the General Assembly on recommendation of the Security Council for a period of three years and should be eligible for reelection”.31 In Committee II/1 there had been considerable discussion as to what vote would be required in the Security Council to recommend election of the Secretary General, and this Committee had decided that the recommendation should be made by any seven members of the Security Council.32

Representative Bloom stated that Mexico had proposed that the recommendation of the Security Council be made by a simple majority,—six members. He thought that there was a very good chance that the Committee would have voted for the Mexican proposal. He did not want to see the United States defeated on this issue, and so he had suggested that the Mexican proposal be amended to read “a majority of seven members” rather than “a simple majority.” Mr. Sandifer said that this question had come up in the group of advisors and experts which met that afternoon and he asked Mr. Hartley to explain the problem.

Mr. Hartley said that in the Committee of Five the British and Russian representatives had contended that the four Governments should stand by any proposals they had made jointly, unless they regained freedom of action as a result of consultation. They had been very much disturbed over the fact that Great Britain and the U.S.S.R. were on one side and the United States and China on the other on this issue. Mr. Sandifer added that the Committee of Five had insisted that the vote in the Security Council for recommendation of the Secretary General should be the regular Security Council vote, including all the permanent members. He said that Representative [Page 742] Bloom had brought this problem before the Delegation in the morning meeting33 preceding the session of the Committee where it was to be taken up, but that the Delegates had not realized its importance.

Representative Bloom said that when you are in a meeting you feel that you must win if you possibly can. You cannot always ask instructions and if you cannot get instructions you have to do your best. Mr. Sandifer read the following items from the Agenda for the Fifth Meeting of Committee II/1 [Document 294, II/1/10, May 14, 1945.]:

“A. Should the Secretary General be elected by the Assembly—

  • 3. Upon nomination by a simple majority of the members of the Security Council.
  • 5. On recommendation of the Security Council for a period of three years, the Secretary General to be eligible for re-election.”

Representative Bloom said that the Committee had voted that nomination by the Security Council should be made by a vote of seven members. This was a compromise proposition. Mr. Sandifer said that under the Yalta formula seven votes in the Security Council would have to include the five permanent members. Representative Bloom said that the proposition in this form could never have gotten through the Committee. It was not unlikely, even, that in that case the Committee would have voted that the Secretary General should be elected by General Assembly, alone, without participation by the Security Council. He said it was recognized in the Committee that Committee I/2 was dealing with the chapter on the Secretariat,34 and that this motion constituted a recommendation to that Committee.

Mr. Notter said that there was a real problem here. The four powers had agreed on a certain procedure, and then the United States Delegate had taken a different line and the others did not like it. We have to decide whether or not we are going to stand by the other three on the position that voting in the Security Council must include the permanent members. Representative Bloom said that they never would have gotten their proposal through this Committee. Dean Gildersleeve said she had considerable sympathy with Mr. Bloom’s position. She found it very difficult always to stick to the four-power agreements in the face of developments in committee meetings. Representative Bloom said that the opposition on the subject of the Deputies proved that if the four power amendment had been put to a vote without any compromise, it would have been lost.

[Page 743]

Mr. Notter said there were three alternatives now before the Delegates (a) this question could come up in Committee I/2 and the United States could change its vote there; (b) we could move for a reconsideration in Committee II/1; or (c) we could let it go to Committee III/1 which had jurisdiction over the question of voting in the Security Council. Commander Stassen said he thought the Coordination Committee could clear up any inconsistencies when the votes came in from other Committees. He was sure there would be numerous instances of conflict and inconsistency. He thought that Representative Bloom and Dean Gildersleeve were working along the right lines in attempting to win the maximum support and gain as many friends as possible, and then to iron out any difficulties in making the final draft in the Steering Committee.

Mr. Notter said that the Committee of Five has been justified in raising the question about the action of the United States in this Committee because it had been agreed that each of the Delegations would consult with the others on such matters. He wondered if there might not be consultation among the Delegates of the Five Powers during the committee meetings. It was a bad situation, in a vote on a proposal to which all had agreed ahead of time, to have the United Kingdom abstain, the U.S.S.R. vote no, and China and the United States voting together on the other side. Representative Bloom replied that it would be the worst possible thing to do to call for a consultation among the Delegates of the five big powers during the course of a committee meeting. Commander Stassen and Dean Gildersleeve agreed with Representative Bloom on this point. Representative Bloom said that sometimes a division among the big powers was not a bad thing, especially when a vote was being forced. He asked Mr. Kotschnig, who was assisting him in this Committee, to comment further.

Mr. Kotschnig said that the Committee voted down the Honduran proposal that the Secretary General should be elected by the Assembly without recommendation or confirmation of the Security Council. The Australian Delegation had withdrawn its amendment [“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”]. Then they came to the Mexican proposal [“upon nomination by a simple majority of the members of the Security Council”]. It looked as though this proposal might carry if put to a vote. On the basis of the discussion of the meeting of the Delegates that morning, Representative Bloom had proposed that this proposal be changed to a “majority of seven members of the Security Council.”

Mr. Sandifer said that this problem would have to be left for solution to the Coordination Committee. It would of course come up in Committee III/1. He suggested, further, that a representative of the [Page 744] United States could reserve his position if he was in doubt about what the United States Delegation wished to do in a matter that came up in a Committee.

Representative Bloom stated that he had been authorized by the Delegation to proceed as he had. Mr. Sandifer said it was true that the matter had been brought up in the Delegation meeting, but he believed the Delegates had not understood all the ramifications of the question. Representative Bloom said he had even gotten in touch with the Mexican Delegation following the advice given by the United States Delegation.

Commander Stassen said that he would like to have it suggested to the Conference Secretariat that they talk with Delegations proposing amendments, and ask them to refer amendments to other Committees or withdraw them when they seem to be unsuitable for the the committees in which they were originally brought up. He thought this would save endless debate in the Committees; no Delegate likes to be licked and he is bound to fight hard for his proposal; this takes a great deal of time, especially in three languages.

Senator Connally said that the matter of voting in the Security Council lay within the jurisdiction of Committee III/135 and nowhere else. Representative Bloom said he would be delighted to have the problem sent there. Senator Connally said he would like to have it sent on to Senator Vandenberg. Commander Stassen said he thought it would be a good idea to tell the other four governments that we thought it would be better to have action on this matter in Committee III/1. Dean Gildersleeve said she wanted instruction as to whether the representatives of the United States had to support to the last gasp all the propositions made by the Sponsoring Powers. Senator Connally said that this must be done unless we could be released from our agreement after consultation. Mr. Notter said we could not follow two policies at once.

Mr. Sandifer suggested turning to the next question on the Agenda, which was the draft reply to the letter of May 1 from certain publishers, educators, writers, and churchmen concerning freedom of communication.36

Mr. Johnson asked how the problem of voting in the Security Council should be dealt with in Committee III/1. Senator Connally said they could specifically take up this question of voting in relation to the recommendation for the Secretary General, and then let the Coordination Committee straighten out any inconsistencies. Mr. Sandifer asked whether, if this question comes up in Committee III/1, the American Delegation will support the Yalta formula. Senator Connally asked whether the Delegation agreed to the recommendation [Page 745] of the experts and advisors with regard to the issues arising in Committee II/136a on the election of the Secretary General. The Delegates agreed to parts (a) and (b) of this recommendation [“(a) we should adhere to the position taken in the joint proposals of the four sponsoring governments, which specify that a vote should be a vote of seven including the votes of each of the five permanent members of the Security Council; (b) we initiate consideration of this question in Commission III, Committee 1, in connection with the related problems of voting procedure in the Security Council;”]

Freedom of Communication

Senator Connally called upon Mr. Sandifer to present the next item on the Agenda, the draft reply to the letter concerning freedom of communication.37

. . . . . . .

Recommendations on Preamble, Purposes, Principles

Senator Connally turned to the recommendations on the Basic Issues in Committee I/1 [Recommendations to United States Delegation on Basic Issues, Committee I/1, Preamble, Purposes and Principles38] Mr. Sandifer said that in accordance with the decision taken by the Delegates in the morning meeting, he had called together the advisors and technical experts working on matters pertaining to Committee I/1. The meeting had been interrupted by others that were scheduled later. Mr. Pasvolsky was able to be present for only a short time. The advisors had to go to another meeting half way through, and he himself had not been able to stay for more than a short time. Mr. Notter, however, had been present throughout the meeting and he might present the recommendations.

Mr. Notter called attention to the fact that eleven points were raised in this document, some being very important and some being quite unimportant. The first question was whether there should be both a Preamble and a chapter on Purposes. This matter had not been decided in the Committee of Five, but we wished to recommend that the Chapter on Purposes be retained and that there also be a Preamble even if there was some duplication. He said there was considerable British pressure for a separate chapter on Purposes in the Charter and he would like to have guidance from the Delegation. He, himself, thought that including the chapter on Purposes in the Charter would give it great strength. The Delegation agreed to the recommendation [“that a chapter on purposes should be retained together with a preamble even though there may be some duplication between the two”].

[Page 746]

Mr. Notter presented the second recommendation with regard to a reference in the Charter to observance of treaties as an essential condition of international order. He said that the French were insisting on a statement with regard to the observance of treaties as a kind of mandate. It was the opinion of our group that there should be no other reference to this matter than in the Preamble and that the subject should be separated from references to human rights.

Commander Stassen asked why it should not be included in the Chapter on Purposes or Principles. Representative Bloom commented that if it was in the Preamble it has nothing to do with the Charter and if we want it to be effective we should put it in the Chapter on Purposes. Dean Gildersleeve asked why it could not be in the Chapter on Principles.

Senator Vanderberg said there were so many dubious treaties in existence, and more would be made in the near future, that we did not want to be tied to a hard and fast support of all of them. He said that was why he had tried to get into the Charter an authority to review treaties so that they could be changed peaceably. Commander Stassen said that in any case we would want to respect treaties as long as they were in force. Representative Bloom said that the reference to observance of treaties would not be emphatic if it was only in the Preamble and not anywhere else in the Charter.

Senator Vandenberg asked why the Committee of Five recommended that this reference be put only in the Preamble. Mr. Notter said they could not figure out why the French were pushing so hard for the statement, though he suspected it might be that they had their eye on the mutual assistance treaty with Russia. Senator Vandenberg said he agreed with that view of the situation. Commander Stassen said that if the French were pressing for a statement in the Chapter on Principles, it would be very difficult for anyone to be against it.

Mr. Johnson asked whether the French Delegate in the Committee of Five agreed to recommend to his Delegation that they accept the proposal of the Committee of Five. Mr. Bowman asked that the exact wording of the French proposal be read. Mr. Notter read the amendment proposed by the French Government to Chapter I, paragraph 1:39 “to maintain international peace and security, in conformity with right and justice, and to that end to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means adjustment or settlement of international disputes which may lead to a breach of the peace, while bearing in mind that treaties bind those who have signed them [Page 747] and that their observance constitutes one of the essential conditions of international order.” 40

Mr. Bowman said that this was a standard French legalism spelled out. It was partly a matter of holding down the tendency to support the movement by Senator Vandenberg to bring treaties under review. He thought they also had in mind the possibility of getting certain treaties signed before the Charter goes into effect, especially treaties in the Near East, including one with Syria before the mandate is transferred or Syria made independent. He thought it was not so much a great moral principle that the French were trying to establish, as a measure to consolidate their own position through these treaties. It was essentially a combination of French foreign policy and French legalism.

Dean Gildersleeve said that the French proposal was one that it would be difficult to stand up and object to. Mr. Bowman said he liked the phrase “due respect for treaties.” Commander Stassen said that he agreed with the idea of putting this statement into the Preamble rather than in the Chapter on Purposes or the one on Principles. Dean Gildersleeve and Representative Bloom said they did not agree with this recommendation.

The Delegation voted 4 to 2 for approving the recommendation of the Committee of Five that reference to “due respect for treaties should be put into the Preamble and that any reference to human rights, which has been associated with this point, should be handled separately.” It was also agreed that there should be no other reference in the Charter to respect for treaties.

Mr. Bowman said that we should not stand for inclusion in the phraseology of the Charter of any general philosophical language about the sanctity of treaties. Representative Bloom asked if they wanted a statement on treaties in both Principles and Purposes. Mr. Notter said that the French wanted to put it into the Chapter on Purposes. Commander Stassen said they did not want it in the section on Peaceful Settlement. Mr. Notter said that the French representative in the Committee of Five did not give the reasons for the French position, but he had said he would recommend to his Delegation that they agree to putting the reference to the observance of treaties in the Preamble. Representative Bloom said in that case he would have the recommendation read “only in the Preamble.” He said that he would like to reconsider the matter and have this phrase included. This point was agreed to by the Delegation.

Mr. Notter presented point C of the recommendations for Committee I/1. [“The recommendation of the Committee of Five, that the Australian proposal should be accepted, is recommended. This proposal [Page 748] to amend paragraph 4 of the principles reads: “4. All members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any member or state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”]

Senator Connally asked if there was any discussion. There was none, and since the Delegates raised no objection Senator Connally stated that this recommendation was accepted.

Mr. Notter commented that there was considerable pressure in Committee I/1 for a stronger statement guaranteeing that the members would not use force against each other. He said that they would want the Organization to guarantee that assurance.

Mr. Notter presented recommendation D [“that the Delegation accept the decision of the Committee of Five to oppose reference to non-intervention anywhere in the Charter.”] Dean Gildersleeve asked how this recommendation could be defended in the Committee. Mr. Hartley said that the problem arose out of defining what constituted intervention. At Dumbarton Oaks the British had contended that sometimes the failure to act is intervention. He said this matter did not cover the relations of the organization with domestic affairs. [Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Dulles, Mr. Dunn and Mr. Pasvolsky entered the meeting.]

Mr. Bowman asked what Mr. Hackworth’s opinion was on this question of non-intervention. Mr. Sandifer said that Mr. Hackworth had not been consulted specifically on this point, but in general he approved of the principle contained in the recommendation. Mr. Bowman said that his opinion should be requested.

[Here follows report by Mr. Dunn on developments with respect to the regional problem, in the meeting with the Chairmen of Delegations of certain American Republics, May 15, 2:45 p.m. (see page 730); and the Five-Power meeting, May 15, 5 p.m. (see supra).]

Mr. Dunn read the draft of the statement to the press. (Statement by the Honorable Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., Secretary of State, May 15, 1945, No. 25).41 When Mr. Dunn finished reading the statement, Senator Vandenberg said he thought it was excellent. Commander Stassen expressed satisfaction that it dealt not only with the problem of regional areas but also with the problem of self-defense. He thought it was the general view of those present that the statement should be gotten out before anything more was done to it.

Senator Connally stated that the Delegation had accepted the recommendation of Committee I/1 subject to Mr. Hackworth’s approval. The members of the Delegation concurred. [The Secretary entered the meeting.]

[Page 749]

The Secretary asked whether the Delegation approved the statement on regional areas. He said that the President had approved it, and he intended to release it to the press immediately. All the Latin Americans had accepted by this time. Mr. Pasvolsky asked who had the master copy. Mr. Dunn said he had it, but that the Secretary would keep it in his hands. The Secretary said he thought all were satisfied; the British, Chinese, French and Latin Americans. The U.S.S.R. had had no instructions.

The meeting was adjourned until the following morning at 9 o’clock.

  1. Doc. 332, EX-SEC/8, May 13, UNCIO Documents, vol. 2, p. 559. Brackets throughout this document appear in the original except for one bracketed paragraph on p. 748.
  2. Doc. 328 II/1/13, May 16, ibid., vol. 8, p. 331.
  3. For the joint Four-Power proposed amendment to chapter X, section 1, as well as the four proposals by Australia, Honduras, Mexico, and Uruguay for amendment of the second sentence in chapter V, section B, paragraph 4 concerning election of the Secretary General, see Doc. 238, II/1/8, May 11, UNCIO Documents, vol. 8, pp. 502–503.
  4. Doc. 328, II/1/13, May 16, ibid., pp. 331–332.
  5. For minutes of the thirty-eighth meeting, May 14, 9:05 a.m., see p. 707.
  6. See agenda for sixth meeting of Committee I/2, Doc. 249, I/2/13, May 12, UNCIO Documents, vol. 7, p. 35; see also Doc. 501, I/2/30, May 23, ibid., p. 74, regarding the overlapping jurisdiction of various committees on the subject of the Secretariat.
  7. Doc. 76, III/1, May 4, UNCIO Documents, vol. 11, p. 5.
  8. Not printed.
  9. Not printed.
  10. Letter of May 1 from certain publishers, not printed.
  11. U.S. Gen. 110, May 16, not printed.
  12. Doc. 2, G/7(a) March 21, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 383.
  13. Passages in this document printed in italics are underlined in the original.
  14. Department of State Bulletin, May 20, 1945, p. 930.