RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 96: U.S. Cr. Min. 41

Minutes of the Forty-First Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Wednesday, May 16, 1945, 9 a.m.

[Informal Notes]

[Here follows list of names of persons (36) present at meeting.]

The Secretary called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.

[Page 750]

Recommendations on Preamble, Purposes and Principles (Committee I/1, US Gen 110, May 16, 1945)

The Secretary stated that the Delegation had before it recommendations with regard to the amendments proposed by other countries and that the position of the Delegation should be established with regard to those proposals. He expressed the hope that the work in the Committees could be concluded within the next ten days. Mr. Bloom stated that he would like to take up first those matters which were currently under consideration in the Committees and on which a decision of the Delegation was required immediately. Mr. Pasvolsky replied that that was what he hoped the Delegation could do.

Mr. Pasvolsky referred to the series of documents on Recommendations to United States Delegation on Basic Issues (US Gen 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, and 11643) and stated that recommendations had been prepared on the principal issues before the Conference. The Secretary suggested that the Delegation go through these recommendations in a systematic way and pointed out that the recommendations in these documents referred only to the questions before the Committees of Commissions I and II. Mr. Hackworth stated that if one of the issues now being considered in Committee IV/1 is not decided this morning it would be too late for us to make our position known. Mr. Sandifer stated that the question Mr. Hackworth was interested in, namely the membership of neutral states in the Court, was listed as item 3 on the agenda for this morning.

Mr. Pasvolsky stated that the Delegation had gone through the first three items on Preamble, Purposes and Principles (US Gen 110) yesterday afternoon. Mr. Sandifer added that the Delegation had approved items a, b, and c of this paper and had tentatively approved item d, subject to Mr. Hackworth’s concurrence.

Mr. Hackworth stated that he believed it would be unfortunate if no provision were made in the Charter in which members of the Organization would be obligated to refrain from intervention. He referred to the non-intervention agreements in a number of the Latin American agreements and suggested that if we did not subscribe to the insertion in the Charter of such a provision he feared that the Latin American countries would misunderstand our position. Dr. Bowman inquired whether these Latin American agreements were not in themselves a sufficient offset to make it unnecessary to make any provision in the Charter for an obligation to refrain from intervention in the internal affairs of other countries. Mr. Hackworth replied that he could not answer that question without examining the provisions contained in the many documents on this subject. He reiterated the view that non-intervention clauses have been a focal point [Page 751] in major agreements with the Latin American countries and thought opposition on the part of the United States to the insertion of a similar provision in the Charter would be unfortunate.44 Mr. Pasvolsky stated that it was difficult to draft a statement upon which agreement could be reached. He added that an attempt had been made at Dumbarton Oaks45 to find a satisfactory formula but that none had been found. Commander Stassen moved that the Delegation accept the decision of the Committee of Five to oppose reference to non-intervention anywhere in the Charter. It was so agreed.

Mr. Pasvolsky read the text of recommendation (e) concerning the enumeration of human rights. He pointed out that this question would come up in connection with the Ukrainian amendment on the right to work.46 The Secretary observed that if any recommendation not to enumerate human rights was agreed to, it would eliminate the possibility of the proposal for a free flow of information. Commander Stassen suggested that if the Ukrainian Delegation insists on its proposal concerning the right to work we could then insist upon adding to the list such rights as the free flow of information, freedom of worship, and others. The Delegation agreed that there should be no enumeration of human rights in the form of a declaration, nor in an extended preamble, nor under a specific provision for the preparation of a Bill of Rights, in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee of Five.

Mr. Pasvolsky then read item (f) as follows: “Modification of Principle 4 to the effect that the pledge of the members to refrain in their international relations from use of force would apply solely to force ‘not approved by the Security Council’. It is recommended that this change be opposed, in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee of Five.” He pointed out that the amendment in question under this paragraph had been proposed by Norway and that it was primarily a verbal change. Mr. Dulles observed that this was a very bad recommendation because it was contrary to the provision concerning self-defense. Mr. Pasvolsky observed that force could be used with the approval of the Council and be used independently by states. Commander Stassen moved disapproval of the recommendation. It was then agreed that this recommendation be disapproved in the form stated.

The Delegation approved without discussion recommendation (g) which reads as follows: “Modification of Principle 5 to exempt states [Page 752] of one region from the obligation to assist in action taken by the Organization in disputes affecting another region and in endangering world peace. It is recommended that any change in this direction should be opposed, in accordance with the recommendation made by the Committee of Five”.

Mr. Pasvolsky then read the recommendations under item (h) (Minor Amendments) concerning references to justice and international law and to principles of the Atlantic Charter which the Committee of Five considered should be opposed. Concerning the inclusion of further references to justice and international law, human rights, etc., Mr. Pasvolsky stated that the only question at issue was that of the location of references to these matters. He stated that an attempt was being made to shift them from Chapter I. Senator Vandenberg stated that he had no objection to the recommendation provided that the State Department wasn’t trying to finagle justice out of the Charter. The Delegation agreed to oppose the inclusion of any further reference to justice, international law and to cultural cooperation other than those made in the joint amendments of the four sponsoring governments.

Mr. Pasvolsky then called attention to item (h) (2) and pointed out that the Committee of Five opposed any specific reference to the principles of the Atlantic Charter, to educational cooperation, and to an obligation to maintain international free communication and information. Commander Stassen stated that he was opposed to the recommendation of the Committe of Five to which Mr. Pasvolsky replied that we would not oppose a general reference to the Atlantic Charter. The Secretary observed that we would hardly oppose any reference to the Atlantic Charter. Commander Stassen stated that if the small nations wanted a reference to the Atlantic Charter we should not oppose them in this matter. Dr. Bowman said that he was not opposed to the substance of the Atlantic Charter but to the specific enumeration of the principles of the Atlantic Charter.

The Secretary stated that he would like to include freedom of worship, and freedom of information without some of the other amendments proposed. He called attention to the heading of this section, “Minor Amendments”, and hoped that this would not receive any attention outside the Delegation. Mr. Pasvolsky then proposed that the Delegation not oppose a specific reference to the principles of the Atlantic Charter provided we can get such a reference by itself without enumeration. The recommendation with regard to the other items in (h)(2) were disapproved.

Mr. Pasvolsky then read the additional recommendations (US Gen 110, page 3) as follows:

Procedure for dealing with four-power amendment regarding domestic jurisdiction.
It is recommended that the United States Delegate move in Committee III/2 that this proposed amendment be referred to a joint subcommittee of Committees I/1 and III/2 for immediate action and identical reports to these Committees. The object would be to eliminate the present paragraph 7 of Chapter VIII, Section A.47
The location of the proposed four-power amendment in Chapter I, paragraph 1, dealing with justice and international law should not be shifted from its position as adopted by the four sponsoring governments.48 This accords with the recommendation of the Committee of Five.
The elimination of the word “adjustment” in Chapter I, paragraph 1, should be opposed.

Each of these recommendations was approved without discussion.

Representative Bloom inquired what procedure should be followed when there is a conflict of jurisdiction between Committees. Mr. Pasvolsky observed that the jurisdiction of Committees was not always clear. Mr. Bloom suggested that it might be desirable if it could be agreed that when a matter had been handled by one Committee and decisions made thereon then other Committees which might be interested in the matter should not have jurisdiction. Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that Mr. Bloom’s proposal was reasonable but pointed out that the procedures for settling jurisdictional conflicts between Committees have not been decided. He understood that the Secretariat was preparing a plan for settling such conflicts.

Recommendations on Membership Amendments and Secretariat (Committee I/2, US Gen 111)

Mr. Pasvolsky read item (a) on the recommendations concerning withdrawal. With regard to the first question, “Should a prohibition of withdrawal be placed in the Charter”, Mr. Sandifer pointed out that Uruguay and two other Latin American countries had introduced a proposal which would prohibit voluntary withdrawal from the Organization.49 The Delegation agreed that this proposal be opposed. In connection with the second question, “Should provision for withdrawal be included?”, Mr. Pasvolsky expressed the view that the Senators would not like the recommendation that no provision on withdrawal be inserted in the Charter. Representative Bloom inquired whether the absence of a provision for withdrawal would meet objection in the Senate. Senator Vandenberg replied that he thought it would. He stated that no major power could be stopped from withdrawing from the Organization if it wanted to. Representative Eaton observed that the only powers who would want to get [Page 754] out were the Big Five and wondered who would stop them. Commander Stassen thought that the Charter should be silent on the subject of withdrawal.

Representative Bloom inquired whether a state could get out by its failure to pay its contributions to the Organization to which Mr. Dulles replied in the negative. Mr. Dulles went on to interpret the meaning of silence on the question. In his view, he thought that this question depended on whether the Organization was a union or a league. If it is a league, a state would [could?] withdraw even though no specific provision to that effect were made in the basic instrument. If it is a union, withdrawal would be impossible in the absence of any specific provision thereon.

Senator Connally observed that the Charter was a treaty and wondered whether there was any doctrine on international law which gives perpetuity to a treaty. He wondered what would happen if we denounce a treaty. Representative Bloom observed that signature of the Constitution was binding for all time. He thought we should make the Charter of the Organization just as strong. Senator Vandenberg stated that he favored a decent withdrawal clause. Senator Connally stated that at first he had thought there should be a withdrawal clause but that he now favored the proposal that the Charter be silent on the matter. The Secretary, after noting that the recommendation that the Charter be silent on withdrawal was approved by all but Senator Vandenberg, expressed the hope that we would not have any newspaper story on this question. Senator Vandenberg stated that if he was asked his position on the matter he would have to give an answer. Senator Connally observed that the newspaper stories showing divisions of opinion within the Delegation had not hurt.

Mr. Pasvolsky then read the recommendation that the Delegation should support the deletion of the provision concerning expulsion and rely simply on the power of the Organization to suspend the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership. Under suspension, a state against which preventive or enforcement action had been undertaken would still be bound by its obligations under the Charter. He suggested that the Delegation support this recommendation but thought that it should be first taken up with the Committee of Five.

With respect to amendments modifying the provision that all permanent members of the Security Council must ratify amendments before they can become binding,50 Mr. Pasvolsky proposed that we stand on the provisions of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals and that we do not approve any amendments which do not recognize the requirement that the amendments to the Charter require ratification by the permanent [Page 755] members of the Council. Senator Connally observed that it was essential to have unity among the Big Five on this question. Recommendation (c) was approved.

Representative Eaton brought to the attention of the Delegation the question being raised in Committee I/2 concerning the amendment to Chapter IV, providing for representation and participation in the organs of the International Organization of men and women under the same conditions.51 He stated that there were four ladies in the Committee who were pressing very hard for this amendment and that it had strong support. Representative Bloom stated that the same question had arisen in Committee II/152 and inquired what the recommendation of the Delegation was with respect to the jurisdiction of the respective Committees. Mr. Pasvolsky stated that the question of jurisdiction would have to be decided between the Presidents of the Commissions. Mr. Sandifer referred to the recommendations in US Gen 112 concerning the election of the Secretary General and the question of representation of women on which recommendations were made in items (a) and (c) respectively.

Mr. Pasvolsky read item (a) concerning the recommendations on the method of selection of the Deputy Secretaries-General, the number to be elected, their term of office and their eligibility for reelection. Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that the amendment of the Sponsoring Governments53 answered all but one of these points, namely the eligibility of the Deputy Secretaries-General for reelection. Representative Bloom inquired whether the Deputies should be nominated by the Council and elected by the Assembly. He stated that Canada was proposing that the Secretary-General appoint the Deputies.54 Mr. Notter suggested that we might have more than four Deputies to meet the criticism that both the Secretary-General and the four Deputies would probably all be nationals of the Great Powers. The Secretary stated his firm belief that the agreement with the Big Four on the amendments should be observed unless there is very good reason for departing from it.

Representative Bloom then inquired whether it would be possible to make a compromise in connection with the system of election proposed by the Sponsoring Governments. He wondered whether we should go along to defeat on this question or whether we should compromise and save something of our position. Mr. Dulles observed that it would be unfortunate if the Five Powers could not accomplish what they want. Mr. Pasvolsky recommended that the question of the re-eligibility of the Deputies be raised with the Committee [Page 756] of Five. He thought that, except for that point, we should not disturb the text of the amendment of the Sponsoring Governments. Senator Connally expressed the view that the whole plan was based on agreement among the Five Powers. He thought we should stick with them right down the line. The Secretary stated that this discussion was very important and believed that we could not deviate from the amendments of the Sponsoring Governments. Mr. Dulles stated his belief that the question of re-eligibility of the Deputies had been an oversight. Mr. Pasvolsky said that it was obvious that we should not change the agreements but he thought it proper to discuss any proposals for alteration in the amendments among the Big Five. He said he would like to raise the question of the re-eligibility and number of Deputies with that Committee. Representative Bloom stated that practically all of the small powers were opposed to the provisions concerning the four Deputies and wondered why we should fight them on this point. It was agreed that the Delegation should support the election of the Deputies by the same method as the Secretary General, that is, election by the General Assembly on recommendation of the Security Council. It was also agreed that the question of the number of Deputies and their eligibility for reelection be discussed by the Committee of Five.

New Court vs. Old Court

Mr. Hackworth stated that he wished to have the views of the Delegation on the question of the continuation of the present Court as against the proposal for a new Court, a matter which was to be decided by a Subcommittee at 2:30 today.55 He reported that there had been considerable debate in this Subcommittee and that the position of the Delegation would need to be defined. He stated that the British, French, Cubans and Mexicans wanted to continue the Permanent Court of International Justice.56 The Soviet Union had expressed opposition to the continuation of the old Court. The question involved concerned the position of the 17 parties to the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice who were not represented at San Francisco. He said that the Chilean Delegation wanted to know the views of the Sponsoring Powers with regard to these 17 members of the old Court. He reported that Professor Golunsky had expressed the view that some neutrals should not be parties to the Statute. Senator Connally inquired whether the neutrals could not be knocked out of the old Court and then readmitted.

[Page 757]

Commander Stassen stated that the Delegation has taken the position that we do not want parties to the Statute which are not members of the Organization. He pointed out that the concept on which we had been operating was that the Court would be integrated with the Organization. Consequently, the members of the Permanent Court of International Justice who were not members of the United Nations should be sloughed off. He pointed out that under the Statute, as at present drafted, non-members could use the new Court but that they could not take part in the election of judges.

Mr. Hackworth reiterated his question as to whether we should continue the old Court or establish a new one. Senator Vandenberg said he thought that it had been agreed to build on the old Court but confine its membership to members of the new Organization. The Secretary then stated that there appeared to be agreement for a revised Court based on the Statute of the old Court but that membership of the new Court would be integrated with the new Organization.

Other Matters

Mr. Johnson referred to the Canadian proposal57 that the Assembly should be empowered to define the criteria for the election of non-permanent members to the Security Council. It was agreed that any provision in the Charter on this subject should be permissive rather than mandatory.

Commander Stassen reported that the Committee on Trusteeship had accepted the Delegation’s working paper as a basis for its discussion.58 Representative Bloom inquired when we would be over the hurdle on the question of trusteeship. Commander Stassen replied that we should be through the discussions with the Big Five in another two days. Representative Bloom and Commander Stassen both expressed the view that a background press conference would be useful. Mr. Pasvolsky asked whether the working paper had been approved.

Commander Stassen replied that the working paper59 which was in line with the proposals of the United States on trusteeship had been approved and that the Army-Navy Group had agreed to it.

Senator Vandenberg stated that he needed to be advised on what to say on regionalism at the meeting of the Subcommittee of Committee III/4 which was meeting at 5:30 p.m.60 Mr. Pasvolsky stated that it would first be necessary to get a decision on the precise [Page 758] text of the draft on regionalism in the Committee of Five. He pointed out that we were not presenting this alone but only after consultation and that we would need to have consultation before the position is perfectly clear. Senator Vandenberg stated that he would have to have the Subcommittee meeting postponed because the Chairman had asked whether the American position would be presented at the meeting of the Subcommittee or of the full Committee. Mr. Pasvolsky said that another effort would have to be made to get agreement of the Big Five. He thought that the Soviet Delegation might have instructions but if they did not have them, it would be possible to postpone consideration on those grounds. He suggested that we might call the Soviet, French and Chinese together and inform them that we have to go forward. Mr. Dunn reported that Ambassador Gromyko had asked that we do not proceed further with the matter.

The meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.

  1. Dated May 16, none printed.
  2. See amendments proposed with respect to chapter II by Latin American States, UNCIO Documents, vol. 6, pp. 557–568 (Doc. 215, I/1/10, May 11).
  3. See the following documentation on the Dumbarton Oaks Conversations: Progress report No. 17 and extract from minutes of the Joint Steering Committee meeting No. 12, both of September 9; progress reports of September 20 and 27; and chapter VIII A (7) of the Proposals, Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. i, pp. 789, 791, 828, 838, and 896, respectively.
  4. Doc. 447, G/53, May 19, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 633.
  5. See Doc. 207, III/2/A/3, May 10, and Doc. 433, III/2/15, May 19, UNCIO Documents, vol. 12, pp. 179 ff., and p. 50, respectively.
  6. Doc. 288, G/38, May 14, ibid., vol. 3, p. 640.
  7. Doc. 2, G/7(a) (1), May 5, (Uruguay); Doc. 2, G/7(e), May 2, (Brazil); and Doc. 2, G/7(p) (Ecuador), May 1, ibid., pp. 36, 238, and 402, respectively.
  8. Doc. 288, G/38, May 14, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, pp. 700–701.
  9. Doc. 357, I/2/19, May 16, UNCIO Documents, vol. 7, p. 43.
  10. Doc. 294, II/1/10, May 14, ibid., vol. 8, p. 324.
  11. Doc. 2, G/29, May 5, ibid., vol. 3, p. 627.
  12. Doc. 2, G/14(t), May 6, ibid., p. 595.
  13. Minutes of meetings of Subcommittee IV/l/A not printed; for its report on the question of continuity of the International Court, May 21, see Doc. 477, IV/l/A/1, May 22, UNCIO Documents, vol. 13, p. 524.
  14. For index to amendments, comments, and proposals on chapter VII, see Doc. 288, G/38, May 14, ibid., vol. 3, pp. 668–671.
  15. Doc. 2, G/14(t), May 6, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 589.
  16. Doc. 364, II/4/13, May 17, ibid., vol. 10, p. 447.
  17. Doc. 323, II/4/12, May 15, ibid., p. 677.
  18. The agenda for the fifth meeting of Subcommittee III/4/A, May 16, provided for further consideration of the question of amalgamation of amendments (point 6 of Interim Report of Rapporteur to Committee III/4 on work of Subcommittee III/4/A); Doc. 335, III/4/A/5, May 15, ibid., vol. 12, p. 833.