RSC Lot 60–D 224. Box 96: U.S. Cr. Min. 42
Minutes of the Forty-Second Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Wednesday, May 16, 1945, 6 p.m.
[Here follows list of names of persons (28) present at meeting find the Secretary’s report on his talk with Secretary Hull.]
The Australian Amendment
The Chairman suggested that we must proceed with our work and turn our attention to document US Gen 112, which we were considering at the end of our meeting this morning. Mr. Johnson asked to present an urgent matter pertaining to an Australian amendment (US Gen 11969) which would be considered at the 8:30 meeting of [Page 762] Committee III/3. He stated briefly that the Australian amendment pertains to two issues, first, the laying down of terms of settlement and, second, requiring the Security Council to impose its settlement rather than merely to oppose and suppress aggression. He continued that point 1 is already covered both in the revised paragraph of Chapter I on Purposes of the Organization and in paragraph 1 of Chapter VIII, B, and that point 2 should be opposed as going beyond the obligation which we are prepared to accept. Mr. Dulles believed that the first part was adequately covered by Mr. Eden’s amendment on the recommendation of terms of settlement.70 Mr. Sandifer agreed that the positions recommended by Mr. Johnson should be followed by the United States. The Secretary checked the members of the Delegation and all of them approved the recommendations as outlined by Mr. Johnson.
Procedure for Meetings
. . . . . . .
Consideration of Recommendations to United States Delegation on Basic Issues (Structure and Procedures of the General Assembly), Committee II/1
Mr. Sandifer was then asked by the Secretary to proceed with the presentation of the recommendations covered in US Gen 112. These recommendations pertain to Committee II/1. Mr. Sandifer presented the recommendation pertaining to the suspension of voting rights in the General Assembly as the penalty for non-payment of contributions. He indicated that there was some interest in this provision because it seemed logical that financial support of the Organization should provide a logical basis for enjoyment of the privilege of voting. Mr. Bloom indicated that the British favored the amendment. Senator Vandenberg raised several questions with regard to the payment of quotas. He wondered particularly whether it should not be implied that all members should keep up their quotas. Mr. Dunn believed that we should support the recommendation which provided that we abstain from voting on the issue since political punishment should not be linked with dereliction on administrative matters. Senator Vandenberg inquired whether it might not be desirable to use such pressure to enforce payment.
Mr. Sandifer suggested that point c, Representation and Participation of Women in the General International Organization, was approved at the previous meeting. Mr. Eaton observed that there should be some provision in the Charter for the rights of men too. He made reference to the group of women who were engaging in a [Page 763] vigorous fight for the introduction of a clause providing more amply for the representation and participation of women in the Organization.
The recommendation for point d, Explicit Allocation of the Residual Powers of the Organization to the General Assembly, was approved. It was pointed out by Mr. Sandifer that we had approved this amendment in Washington as an amendment to be supported in case it was initiated by some other government. Mr. Dunn expressed his approval of the amendment and suggested that it might be introduced by one of the other governments. Australia and New Zealand were mentioned but it was finally agreed, upon the suggestion of Mr. Dulles, that Canada might be approached upon the matter.
The recommendation for point e, defining the subjects upon which the General Assembly should vote by a two-thirds majority, was approved. This recommendation merely stated, said Mr. Sandifer , that the position of none of the questions covered by the amendment to this paragraph can properly be considered by Committee II/1 until the substantive decisions involved are made in the pertinent committees. The Secretary canvassed the attitude of all the Delegates and all of them approved the recommendation.
The recommendation on point f on the American position with regard to amendments specifying the method of convoking special sessions of the General Assembly was approved. The recommendation provided that the United States Delegation should support a motion to set up a subcommittee to draft a consolidated amendment on this subject. Mr. Sandifer indicated that a considerable amount of study had been done by the Secretariat and that several methods of convoking the General Assembly in special session had been outlined.
In connection with the Brazilian proposal71 providing quin-quennial sessions of the General Assembly to revise the Charter, the United States Delegation accepted the recommendation that if the matter came up in Committee II/1 that it should be referred to Committee I/2 and that our position is adequately covered by the amendment to Chapter XI proposed by the sponsoring governments.72
Consideration of Recommendations to United States Delegation on Basic Issues (Political and Security Functions of the General Assembly) (Committee II/2) (US Gen 11373)
In opening discussion on recommendations for Committee II/2 Senator Vandenberg indicated the five powers had already agreed to positions on each of the nine propositions74 listed in this document. [Page 764] He felt, therefore, that we could dispose of his recommendations very: quickly. These questions, he added, pertain to the increase of the Assembly’s competence in relation to the Security Council on security matters under Chapter V, Section B, paragraph 1. Mr. Johnson announced that Committee III/3 had already voted on proposition 6. Mr. Sandifer indicated that Committee II/2 had defeated proposition 1 at its last meeting. Mr. Notter pointed out that proposition 3 should be referred to the Committee of Five since an important principle was involved in the relationship of the General Assembly and the Security Council. The Secretary suggested that we could very quickly approve propositions 2, 5 and 9 and vote negatively on all of the others.
Senator Vandenberg raised a question in regard to No. 9. He wondered whether we should vote “yes” on the question, since the sponsoring power amendment for both paragraphs 1 and 6 largely covered the principle contained in that proposition. Mr. Dulles asserted that the new amendment proposed by Canada 0would provide ample coverage for this point, especially if it were taken in conjunction with the two sponsoring power amendments. Senator Vandenberg made it clear that he wanted the General Assembly to exercise the authority suggested by the phrase “to discuss any matter affecting international relations” and agreed with other comments to the effect that the two sponsoring power amendments approximated that goal
It was agreed that there was no issue of importance in connection with paragraph 8 of Chapter V, Section B. It was the consensus of the group also that the sponsoring power amendment for paragraph 6 covers all other amendments for that paragraph.
Consideration of Recommendation to the United States Delegation on Basic Issues (Economic and Social Cooperation) (Committee II/3, US Gen 114)
Mr. Sandifer asked Mr. Kotschnig to present the recommendations of Committee II/3 on economic and social cooperation. Mr. Kotschnig read the first item in which it is recommended that our Delegation oppose any special mention of the International Labor Organization in the Charter. Dean Gildersleeve reported a very active debate on this issue in the afternoon session.75 She believed that if the issue came to a vote now, the vote would be quite close. The United Kingdom is standing strongly for mention of the organization in the Charter and she has strong support from many other powers. The issue seems to have gotten into the emotions of some of the Delegates. They will not back down willingly on the stand that they have taken. It was the belief of Dean Gildersleeve that the problem should be referred to the Subcommittee of Five for solution.[Page 765]
The Secretary wondered why mention should be made of the International Labor Organization in the Charter. Is there not equal reason to mention other organizations and if so, why mention any of them?
Mr. Stinebower supported the interpretation given by Dean Gildersleeve on the atmosphere of the afternoon meeting. He believed that we would have to take a decisive stand to avoid an unfavorable vote. In answer to the Secretary’s question, Mr. Sandifer suggested that the International Labor Organization differs from others that might be included in the fact that it has had a record of genuine accomplishment over a sufficiently long period of time to deserve recognition. He suggested that the proponents of the mention of the organization feel that its brilliant history should not only in this fashion be recognized but that mention of the organization in the Charter would confirm its continuance as a successful body dealing with important world labor problems and define the relations between the world organization and itself.
Mr. Stassen pointed out that the real issue is the Trade Union problem. The U.S.S.R. is clearly opposed to mention of the International Labor Organization and insists that if that organization is recognized by the world Organization, the many millions of Russian trade unionists would not have a voice in the Organization. It is a very knotty problem. We gave in to England on the Act of Chapultepec. They should give in to us on this issue.
The Secretary, in polling the Committee, concluded that it was: the sense of the Committee to stand by the recommendation not to mention the International Labor Organization in the Charter. Mr. Kotschnig then read a rough draft of a report of the Subcommittee of Committee II/3.76 The draft had just been made a few minutes prior to this meeting and covered amendments to Chapter IX, Section A, paragraph 1. This draft was in response to efforts to spell out more explicitly certain functions and obligations of the Economic and Social Council. There was strong vocal objection to the new draft. Mr. Dulles opposed it on the ground that it would give the Organization direct power to legislate on matters of domestic concern. Senators Connally and Vandenberg objected to the obligation to promote full employment. All agreed that the present warding would make it possible for the Organization to encroach upon domestic matters and might, in fact, create a super state. Senators Connally and Vandenberg agreed that the Senate would be definitely opposed to the creation of such specific pledges and powers which in their fulfillment would require a heavy impingement upon the internal policies of member states. Mr. Dunn questioned the expression [Page 766] “higher standards of living” and wondered how the term could possibly be defined. Dean Gildersleeve indicated that at present the Committee showed considerable approval of this draft. The Secretary pointed out that we should make clear that we are not opposed to these objectives but we oppose rather the implication of interference in domestic affairs as a means of attaining them.
The Secretary declared that it was the sense of the Delegation that we should support the amendment sponsored by the four powers on this paragraph77 with modifications along the lines suggested by the Canadian amendment.78 Mr. Dulles added that we should hold to the phrase “to facilitate the solution of …”. Mr. Kotschnig quoted Senator Connally’s version on higher standards of living and agreed that the judgment of the Delegation might be in accord with the judgment of the Committee.
It was agreed that “health” should be included among the objectives of the Organization. It was also agreed that the word “education” should be omitted on the ground that the word “cultural” includes education. Mr. Stassen quoted the dictionary definitions of education and culture and concluded that the difference was very slight. Mr. Kotschnig indicated that a strong unit of Consultants, lead by prominent educators, were strongly insisting upon the use of the word “education”.
The Delegation approved the recommendation that the Ukrainian S.S.R. amendment to guarantee the right to work should be opposed. It was agreed by the Delegation that there was no need to insert such a provision in a world Charter.
The Delegation registered its opposition to the Australian amendment providing for a pledge by members to improve labor standards.
On the issue of special representation of countries of major economic importance in the Economic and Social Council, it was agreed that we stand by the original language which does not specify representation by any defined group of countries. Mr. Notter suggested that such definition would act against the interests of the small powers. In any case, representation would be given to advanced countries economically. By leaving the door open to smaller states, representation on the Economic and Social Council could be maintained on a more democratic basis.
Senator Connally at this point indicated that in his Committee it was agreed that the countries supplying forces should be requested to sit and vote on decisions. Senator Vandenberg agreed with Senator Connally that the idea might have some merit but it deserved very careful study.[Page 767]
The Delegation approved the recommendation that all amendments stipulating representation for special regions should be rejected.
It approved the recommendation that the membership of the Economic and Social Council should be maintained at 18. It approved the recommendation that the principle of rotation in the election of members to the Economic and Social Council should be rejected. Mr. Dunn indicated that some principle of rotation would be followed in any case.
The Delegation approved the recommendation rejecting the proposal that countries of special interest in questions under consideration have seats and votes.
A consideration of the recommendation concerning representation of labor, industry, etc., was postponed until tomorrow when a special committee of labor, industry and agriculture will meet with the Delegation.
At this point Mr. Dickey announced that the combination of labor, industrial, agricultural and educational leaders had been able to get together on an important issue for the first time. All of them were very much enthused about their achievement. In fact, it almost reached Holy Roller proportions. He urged that the Secretary use the first thirty minutes of tomorrow’s session to give them a hearing. The Secretary pointed to the extremely heavy schedule of the Delegation and concluded that this meeting with these organizational leaders must be held strictly to thirty minutes.
The Delegation approved the recommendation that the French proposal empowering the Economic and Social Council to “initiate” as well as to “facilitate” solutions of economic and social problems, should be opposed.79 Senator Vandenberg felt that this suggestion could be opposed on the same grounds as those mentioned in connection with the draft submitted a few moments ago by Mr. Kotschnig, namely that it would represent interference in domestic problems.
The Secretary checked the Committee and stated that there was agreement on the recommendation that the Economic and Social Council should be empowered to initiate international conventions for submission to member nations for ratification. Mr. Dunn wondered why the Economic and Social Council should initiate conventions while the General Assembly was not given that power. Senator Vandenberg believed that the process of initiating conventions by the Economic and Social Council should be kept under the control of the General Assembly. Conventions drawn up by the Economic and Social Council should be submitted to the member states through the Assembly. The Delegation agreed to that view.[Page 768]
The Delegation also approved the recommendation that the Economic and Social Council should be empowered to call, through the Assembly, international conferences in economic emergencies.
It was agreed, upon a check of the Delegation by the Secretary, that the Council should be empowered to perform services at the request of members and related organizations and agencies.
On the question of the power of the Economic and Social Council to make, on its own initiative, recommendations to the United Nations, Senator Vandenberg asked that such reference of recommendations should be made through the Assembly.
The Delegation approved the recommendation that the words “general” or “regional” be inserted after the word “agencies” in paragraph 2 of Section D. Mr. Notter called attention to the fact that the use of the terms “general” or “regional” after the word “agencies” in the first sentence of paragraph 2, Section A, Chapter IX, is objectionable because regional agencies would thus be brought into relationship with the General Organization.
Mr. Kotschnig agreed that the use of the words “general” or “regional” in connection with paragraph 2, Section D, would be adequate.
The Delegation opposed the draft of the Drafting Subcommittee on paragraph 1, Section D. Mr. Stassen contended that the wording in this draft is not as good as that of the sponsoring power amendment. We want commissions, not committees or subcommittees. We want no watering down of the provisions for commissions. Dean Gildersleeve added that the Consultative group opposed the Cultural Commission and wanted an organization like the ILO and semi-autonomous structures. Mr. Dunn asked that the sentence on experts be omitted. Mr. Kotschnig suggested that the word “cultural” be deleted. It was agreed that with the deletion of the word “cultural” and the sentence on experts, the Delegation would stand by the amendment of the sponsoring powers.
. . . . . . .
The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
- Not printed; see Doc. 391, III/3/19, May 18, UNCIO Documents, vol. 12, p. 334.↩
- Doc. 2, G/29, May 5 (new paragraph after paragraph 6, in place of paragraph 7, Chapter II), UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 623.↩
- Doc. 2, G/7(e) (3), May 6, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 250.↩
- Doc. 2, G/29, May 5, ibid., p. 628.↩
- Not printed.↩
- For the nine questions recommended by Subcommittee II/2/A for consideration in full Committee with respect to principles raised by the various amendments proposed to V, B(1) of the Proposals, see Doc. 235, II/2/A/1, May 11, UNCIO Documents, vol. 9, p. 335.↩
- Doc. 381, II/3/16, May 17, UNCIO Documents, vol. 10, p. 40.↩
- Doc. 381, II/3/16, May 17, UNCIO Documents, vol. 10, p. 39.↩
- Doc. 288, G/38, May 14, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 690.↩
- Doc. 2, G/14(t), May 6, ibid., p. 591.↩
- Doc. 2, G/7(o), March 21, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 387.↩