RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 96: US Cr Min 44
Minutes of the Forty-Fourth Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Thursday, May 17, 1945, 6 p.m.
[Here follows list of names of persons (30) present at meeting.]
The meeting was called to order by the Secretary at 6:00 p.m.
. . . . . . .
Yalta Voting Agreement
Senator Connally called attention to a matter in Committee 1 of Commission III95 which he said he found himself “right up against”, and with respect to which he needed instructions from the American Delegation. The Yalta voting agreements, he said, were being attacked. Sir Alexander Cadogan had spoken on the subject. Ambassador Gromyko was scheduled to speak tomorrow,96 and Senator Connally said that his associates had urged him to speak.
The Chairman stated that it was his understanding that the agreement was not to depart from the Yalta formula except upon the agreement of the other sponsoring powers.
Mr. Pasvolsky reported on the views expressed in the Committee of Five and stated that the French take the position that they had made their formulation before the Yalta formula came out, and while they do not like the Yalta formula they will not force the issue. The Russians say that the only way to deal with the problem is by the Five Powers staying together. Mr. Pasvolsky replied that it is necessary to judge the temper of the Conference in order to determine whether it will be possible to hold the line. If it appears that the line cannot be held, it may be necessary to confer on the possible modification of the position to be taken. With respect to the veto, and specifically the Dutch proposal,97 the British are determined to turn it down. The French withdrew their proposal.98 Mr. Pasvolsky [Page 779] further expressed the view that the possibility of altering the Yalta formula should not be discussed in the Committee of Five, but only at the highest level. It would have to be taken up, he said, in a meeting of the Big Five as a matter of strategy; otherwise, suspicion might be created that the United States is trying to run out on the Yalta agreement. It is not yet possible, he added, to know just what the pressure is on this issue.
Mr. Bowman stated that it is necessary to decide as a matter of strategy whether the best possible defense is going to be made of the Yalta agreement. Today, he added, it seemed that a detailed defense of the agreement is necessary.
Mr. Pasvolsky commented that the Netherlands Delegation is in opposition of the Yalta formula and is urging the adoption of the Netherlands amendment. The French, however, withdrew their amendment. Sir Alexander supports the Yalta formula.
Mr. Bowman observed that Sir Alexander, in response to a question put by Mr. Fraser, had answered that he would bring in an explanation, paragraph by paragraph, on how the Yalta formula affects the Charter.99 Copies of this explanation would be distributed, he said. The United Kingdom has taken the position that it must actively support the Yalta formula, and Mr. Bowman expressed the view that the United States should pursue the same course.
Senator Connally commented that then the American Delegation would support the formula.
The Chairman agreed that this was the sense of the Delegation as of this morning.
Commander Stassen stated that it would be fine if it would be possible to get a modification of Section 8a and if agreement could be reached on this among the Five Powers. Commander Stassen agreed that it was necessary to defend aggressively the Yalta formula but that this is one point at which it is really indefensible.
Senator Connally stated that it could be defended on another point. He pointed out that if sanctions are employed later on there would be a veto power if the Security Council should take any action, but if on the other hand the consideration of a dispute is begun with a divided Security Council, why not permit the exercise of the veto power at the very beginning.
Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that the next step in the consultations would depend on the developing tide in the Committee. If it is shown clearly that the necessary votes are lacking then further consultations will be required. This, he said, is not only a Russian proposal, but a British proposal as well.
The British wish to go all the way with respect to the veto power.[Page 780]
Commander Stassen stated that it would be undesirable to have the inner feeling of the American Delegation on this matter misrepresented in inner circles. There can be no question that the Five Powers must stay together.
Senator Connally stated that Ambassador Gromyko will speak the first thing tomorrow. He added that there was quite strong feeling among the Five Powers that that question is the heart of the Charter and of Five Power unity, and that if this issue is lost the entire situation is wrecked.
Mr. Dunn inquired whether the American political officers should get word around to the other delegations.
Postponement of Big Five Meeting
The Chairman stated that the meeting of the Big Five which had been scheduled for 3 o’clock on this afternoon had been canceled because Ambassador Gromyko had not yet received word from Moscow. He stated that if he did not hear from Ambassador Gromyko by 10:00 a.m. on the next day he would proceed to call another meeting of the Big Five.
Senator Vandenberg stated that Ambassador Gromyko had been given until 3:00 today, and that his default had ended his rights. Postponing the meeting, he said, simply encouraged the Russian belief that they can push us around simply because they had not had word from Moscow. Ambassador Gromyko, he urged, should not be encouraged to slide by the deadlines. The other representatives in the Big Five, he added, were in agreement.
Mr. Dunn pointed out that the Russians had not set the deadline, and he went on to inquire as to what the American Delegation’s attitude would be in a similar situation in Moscow.
Senator Vandenberg asserted that if the Big Five did not meet tomorrow then the Delegation could name someone else to sit on the Regional Committee. He stated that he would not humiliate himself and his country any longer. This is, he said, an outrageous situation. It is impossible to hold the South American countries.
Senator Connally urged that the American Delegation should not go that far, and Senator Vandenberg replied that it is not a final situation, and that the American delegates are free agents and can do as they please.
Secretary Stettinius observed that this would be so only when the Five Power consultations are ended. He pointed out that Ambassador Gromyko had said that he had not had time physically to get word from Moscow and that therefore he was unable to say anything on the issue. If, however, Ambassador Gromyko has not heard from Moscow by tomorrow then Lord Halifax will back up the American position.[Page 781]
Mr. Dunn pointed out that the Americans would feel that they were being pushed around if they were in Moscow and subjected to the same conditions. Communications between this country and Moscow, he said, are not as good as they are between London, Washington, and Paris.
Senator Vandenberg stated it as his view that a great deal more was involved than in this particular instance. The United States, he said, was being pushed around all over the world by the Russians. They are not adhering to the Yalta agreement or to their agreement with the Secretary of State.
Mr. Dunn advised that there should be no deadlines set at a conference of this kind. He pointed out, for example, that twenty-four hours after Mr. Molotov had said that he could not agree on the two points, he came around and said that he received word that he could agree on them. Mr. Dunn stated that he had never before heard of a deadline in diplomacy, and that a deadline in diplomacy is actually an ultimatum. In diplomacy, he said, one waits a reasonable time, but one never says 11, or 2, or 3 o’clock.
Senator Vandenberg asked who was responsible for this twenty-four hour deadline and answered the question by stating that Dr. Koo had proposed it and had been supported by Lord Halifax, and that both of these men were experienced diplomats.
Mr. Armstrong commented that they had proposed this, however, very reluctantly.
Collective Measures in Self-Defense
At this point Secretary Stettinius suggested to Mr. Pasvolsky that he had better introduce his “ray of sunshine” regarding his talk with Mr. Molotov on regional arrangements.
Mr. Pasvolsky stated that the Russians had been much disturbed by the word “collective”.1 They were afraid that it would make possible a coalition against them. They said that it creates a new situation. Mr. Pasvolsky remarked that he had argued in two languages that it does not create a new situation and that it was covered entirely in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. Actually, however, this is wrong.
Mr. Pasvolsky added that the French feel that the Russians are really perturbed about self-defense. They say that the Russians are worried not about the possibility of collective measures taken against them in case the Security Council fails but collective action on the basis of previous agreements. Mr. Pasvolsky stated that he gave an explanation of the Monroe Doctrine and the right of collective measures in defense. Mr. Sobolev replied that he would have to talk further [Page 782] with his chiefs. They’ve gone one step, and now admit that the right to take collective measures in self-defense is covered in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals by inference, but they are still afraid of previous agreements.
Mr. Pasvolsky expressed the view that at the meeting on the next day the American position should be that this is a matter requiring action, and that it would be desirable to go forward with this proposal as a working basis for discussion, while continuing consultations on the question.
Mr. Dunn commented that a day is only useful when it is put to use. Senator Vandenberg rejoined that a day in the Senate is more important than a day in the State Department.
Absence of Mr. Molotov
Mr. Dulles commented that it is not a question of personal embarrassment, but a question of how the Conference is going to function in the absence of Mr. Molotov. This same situation arose at Dumbarton Oaks, he averred, and prevented final agreement on this question. Mr. Dulles took the position that it should be made clear at an early stage that we do not intend to repeat the Dumbarton Oaks experience. [The Secretary added a vigorous “No!” at this point.]2 Continuing, Mr. Dulles said that it would seem to be in order to allow these matters to go ahead and to be discussed in the Committee tomorrow.
The Chairman expressed entire agreement with the statement made by Mr. Dulles.
Mr. Dunn remarked that he was also in agreement but that he did not think that an attempt should be made to decide today what is to be done tomorrow.
Attitude of Argentine Delegation
The Chairman said that no embarrassment will be raised by the Argentine Delegation regarding the vacancy of rapporteur in the Commission.3 Mr. Warren added that the Argentine Delegation will not raise the issue. Mr. Rockefeller, he said, had had a very satisfactory conference with them, and they will not risk any embarrassment with the Russians on this question.
Dean Gildersleeve inquired whether the Committee of Five had taken up the question of the ILO.[Page 783]
Decisions Reached by Committee of Five
Mr. Pasvolsky reported on a number of decisions which had been reached in the Committee of Five.4
In Committee I/1 it was decided that the question of the observance of treaties would be handled in the Preamble. The Soviet representative would support it, but would wish it reworded.
There was opposition to the enumeration of human rights, including the obligation to maintain international free communication.
Mr. Pasvolsky stated that he had informed the others that if any enumeration is to be made the United States would support the inclusion of freedom of communication if there were heavy pressure for it. The British are prepared to oppose this issue.
With respect to the guarantee of territorial integrity it was agreed to use the Australian amendment, although some rewording is desired by the Soviet Delegation.
It was also agreed that any reference to nonintervention would be opposed.
With respect to Committee I/2 it was agreed to support the expulsion proposals as they now stand, that is, the Dumbarton Oaks text. Senator Vandenberg commented on this to the effect that this would be true except with respect to persistent offenders. Mr. Pasvolsky stated that the others want the expulsion and suspension provisions left in.
On matters affecting the Secretariat it was decided to stand on the Dumbarton Oaks text as amended by the Big Four, with a number of changes. There had been a long discussion oil several problems in connection with this subject. The changes agreed upon were the following: (1) The re-eligibility of the Deputy-Secretaries General. It was agreed that this had been an oversight. (2) An increase in the number of Deputy-Secretaries General from four to five. The Russians, Mr. Pasvolsky explained, had agreed to this change this morning. The question had also been raised as to whether the Deputy-Secretaries General should be elected, as the Secretary General, or appointed by the latter. The British had supported appointment by the Secretary-General, but the Russians were opposed to this. A tentative compromise was that the Deputies would be assigned special functions and would be appointed by the Secretary General and approved by the Security Council or the General Assembly, according to their function. The French and British were opposed to this, [Page 784] however, and the situation remained in status quo. (3) Where “Deputy” is mentioned in the text it should read “Deputy-Secretary General”. Mr. Armstrong pointed to the possibility that the Secretary General might be a Soviet citizen and would appoint all. Soviet deputies.
Mr. Bloom expressed the view that the deputies must be appointed by the Organization.
Mr. Pasvolsky stated that in his view the deputies should be appointed but whether by the Assembly alone or by the Security Council or the Assembly, according to function, would be a matter for consideration. For the moment, he said, the United States was standing on the present procedure.
Committee I/2 also had before it the proposal to empower the Secretary General to bring matters to the attention of the General Assembly. It was agreed in the Committee of Five that this would be opposed, and that the stand would be on the Dumbarton Oaks text.
With respect to the question of periodic conferences to review and revise the Charter the agreed stand would be on the Dumbarton Oaks proposals with the Big Four amendments.
The proposal of a two-thirds majority for the ratification of amendments would be opposed with a recommendation that the stand be firmly on the Dumbarton Oaks text.
A number of decisions were also reached affecting the matters under Committee II/1. With respect to the suspension of voting rights as a penalty of non-payment of contribution it was decided in the Committee of Five not to offer opposition. The American position would be to abstain from voting and from taking a public position.
On the matter of the participation of women in the general international organization the recommendation of the Committee of Five was that the governments should be left free to act. The position of the American Delegation, however, is to oppose any proposal which had application beyond the Secretariat or the members of the commissions. This would involve opposition to the Brazilian, Dominican Republic, and Mexican joint proposal.5 It was agreed that Mr. Kotschnig and Mr. Tomlinson would be requested to draft a formula which would embrace non-discriminatory rather than equal treatment, and which would cover the limited position taken by the American Delegation.
Representative Eaton read the formulation of the Drafting Committee: “The Organization shall place no restriction on the participation [Page 785] of men and women on an equal basis in its principal organs and subsidiary agencies”.
Dean Gildersleeve stated that she had thought that the provision would apply only to the Secretariat.
Mr. Pasvolsky stated that the Delegations had agreed at the meeting this morning that this provision would apply to the staff off the organization but not to the delegations, for that is the business of governments and not of the organization.
Representative Bloom reported that the question had come up in his Committee at the afternoon’s meeting6 and that the Chairman had ruled that he would declare it out of order but would allow speeches to be made on it. Mr. Bloom stated that he had made a motion to adjourn, but the Chairman of the Committee stated that he will continue the debate on the question tomorrow.
Dean Gildersleeve commented that in her view the American Delegation should hold by the stand taken at the morning meeting. She would not like to see the provision apply beyond the Secretariat.
Mr. Hickerson agreed, stating that there is no right to go beyond that since the organization cannot tell governments how to compose their delegations.
Mr. Pasvolsky stated that another question taken up in the Committee of Five affecting Committee II/1 related to the Australian amendment, which described in detail the method of preparing the budget for the organization.7 The Committee of Five, he said, recommended that on this issue the governments be left with freedom of action.
On the question of voting procedure in the General Assembly, it was decided that there should be no change; voting procedure in the Security Council should be settled in Committee III/1, and in the Assembly in Committee II/1. It was recommended that the stand would be on the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, and Mr. Pasvolsky considered this quite sound.
Nomination and Election of Judges
Mr. Bloom raised a question about the nomination and election of judges on the Court.
Mr. Hackworth reported that at the morning’s meeting the nomination of judges under the present system had been approved,8 but that then the question of election of judges had arisen. A proposal had been advanced by Uruguay that judges be elected by the Assembly alone. This had been supported by the entire Latin bloc except Haiti. The Big Five stood by the American position that the election should [Page 786] be by the Assembly and the Council as now provided. The vote, he said, promised to be pretty equally divided. While the vote to put the election in the Assembly may fail, the vote to put it in the Council and the Assembly may also fail. It was suggested that Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Warren should talk to the Latin American representatives. Mr. Hackworth further pointed out that a strong bloc could control the election of judges if this election were placed in the Assembly. The American position is, he said, that the Council should have a part in the election of these judges. For, if the Council has no part in this election it cannot control the matter. The situation, he said, is rather difficult, and the British and Russians realize that there is a good chance of losing out on our position with respect to participation by the Council.
Representative Bloom stated that the General Assembly should elect the judges on terms laid down by the Statute.
Mr. Hackworth, however, urged that this should not be left to the Assembly alone. The Statute, he pointed out, provides that the election should be by majority vote.
Senator Connally inquired of Mr. Hackworth whether it would be possible for his Commission to hold an open session on Saturday, and Mr. Hackworth replied that it would be possible to meet and report progress.
With respect to matters in Committee II/2, several decisions had been reached in the Committee of Five.
It was decided that all misunderstandings with respect to the new Five Power proposal in paragraph 1, Section B, Chapter V9 are now resolved, and it was agreed in the Committee of Five that it will be supported by the Big Five.
The explanation of the Soviet representative had been that the language was new and was too broad. The Soviet had voted no, and the British had voted yes, but after discussion the conclusion was reached that there had been a misunderstanding.
Senator Vandenberg inquired whether this means that the situation now is where it was originally and that this continues to be a joint proposal, and Mr. Pasvolsky replied that it continues to be a joint proposal.
On the subject of suspension of members, Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that the decision in the Delegation had been to ask the Committee of Five for a recommendation. The recommendation of the Committee of Five is to oppose any amendment which would place this power in the hands of the Assembly. Suspension would be provided [Page 787] for only in those cases where the Security Council is taking action against a nation on grounds of a threat to peace and security. Thus, it would be quite proper to let the Security Council take action. The proposal on restoration of suspended members is to be opposed.
Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that there had been some small amendments relating to paragraph 8, but that the Delegation had decided to stand by the Dumbarton Oaks text. In this it was supported by the Committee of Five, which recommended that the minor amendments on paragraph 8 would be opposed and that the position would be to stand by the Dumbarton Oaks text.
It was also agreed to recommend that amendments which would make withdrawal possible were to be opposed strenuously.
Representative Bloom inquired whether in the case of restoration of members after the non-payment of dues it would be necessary to wait for the Assembly to meet or would there be automatic restoration.
Mr. Pasvolsky explained that the amendments proposed provided that the right of a member to vote may be suspended pending payment of dues, and that there might be restoration on payment.
Mr. Pasvolsky also reported on decisions made with respect to matters coming under Committee II/3.
The British, he said, had wanted freedom of action with respect to the inclusion of the ILO. The other three countries were opposed to this, and so was the United States. The Committee of Five decided upon freedom of action with respect to specific mention of the ILO, but the United States position will be continued opposition to this.
The question of the specific mention of health had already been settled by acceptance.
With respect to the inclusion of the word “educational” there was a split. The Chinese had been for this, while the decision of the United States Delegation was against it, and also against reference to “intellectual cooperation”. The Russians, he said, were prepared to withdraw their original opposition to the inclusion of “educational”. The Committee of Five decided upon freedom of action with respect to this issue in accordance with the United States recommendation.
Dean Gildersleeve pointed out that the United States consultants had been strongly in favor of including “educational” during the morning and inquired whether the Delegation was ready to reconsider the possibility of changing its position on this matter.
Senator Vandenberg stated that he was willing to leave it to Dean Gildersleeve. Dean Gildersleeve indicated her willingness to go forward with “cultural” as previously decided upon in the Delegation, unless it is felt that because of the very urgent recommendation of the consultants of this morning the Delegation would wish to reconsider [Page 788] the question of the inclusion of “educational”. Dean Gildersleeve observed further that it was her understanding that a bill had been introduced in the House for the International Office of Education,10 and that Representatives Bloom and Eaton had supported this bill.
Commander Stassen suggested that the situation might be clarified by a saving clause as in the case of domestic jurisdiction, in order to make sure that there is no interference involved.
. . . . . . .
The Right to Work
Mr. Pasvolsky stated that the Soviet Delegation had proposed as one of the basic human rights, the right to work. This had been taken out on the ground that there should be no enumeration. The Ukrainian Delegation, however, upon arriving had made the same proposal and it is now before the Conference. In the Committee of Five the Soviet representative had been prepared to oppose it but would reserve his position if any other enumeration should be made.
With respect to the question of higher standards of living the Committee of Five had already voted to support “full employment” although the Soviet Delegation is alone in full agreement on this issue.
The Australian Pledge
Mr. Stinebower inquired as to what the decision had been with respect to the Australian pledge.11
Mr. Pasvolsky replied that no position had been taken on this, but that the United States should oppose it.
Mr. Stinebower asked what would be the line of opposition, and Senator Connally stated that it is not a proper jurisdictional matter. Mr. Pasvolsky added that it is not international behavior but domestic behavior, and Senator Vandenberg stated that it squarely collides with the whole structure of the Organization.
Composition of the Economic and Social Council
Mr. Pasvolsky noted that there had been several proposals affecting the composition of the Economic and Social Council.12 The decision of the Delegation had been to stand on the Dumbarton Oaks text. [Page 789] The Committee of Five left complete freedom of action to the governments on these proposals except on the question of the size of the Council, which would stand at 18 members. If smaller countries want to press some of these matters it is up to them. Freedom of action had been decided upon because of the French position. There was agreement that the Egyptian proposal of a membership of 24 and the Philippine proposal that all nations should be represented should be opposed.
With respect to the recommendation of the United States advisers relating to conferences with non-governmental organizations13 it was reported that the Committee of Five had recommended support for the Canadian proposal. Mr. Pasvolsky expressed the belief that the support of the Five Powers would not go beyond that arrangement.
Commander Stassen urged that an effort should be made to include the word “conferences”.
Mr. Pasvolsky, however, stated that he did not think that they would accept “conferences” nor that the United States should press for it, since conferences are an inter-governmental matter.
Mr. Sandifer pointed out that this would give the Economic and Social Council authority to arrange conferences on its own.
Mr. Pasvolsky stated that if it was the wish of the Delegation he would try once more to get approval for a more extended language.
Commander Stassen suggested that he might try again and inform the Committee that the World Trade Union Conference was in favor of it.
Senator Connally inquired whether this meant rejection of the recommendation of the advisers, and Mr. Pasvolsky replied that it was only a question of language.
Commander Stassen moved approval of the recommendation of the advisers with respect to sentence 1 of paragraph 1 for negotiation with the Committee of Five and this was agreed upon.
Functions of the Council
With respect to the functions of the Council, the Committee of Five did not like the word “instigate” in the French proposal, and the French agreed to consult their government on the matter.
Commander Stassen reported briefly on the situation in Committee II/4 on Trusteeship. The issue had been raised in the Committee, he said, regarding the addition of the word “independence” [Page 790] in the political objectives.14 The Chinese and the Russians had been for this addition and the British and French were against it. An attempt was being made by the latter to jockey the United States into the position of opposing “independence” as a goal. The situation, he said, was being kept in hand, and the Delegation would be informed on developments.
It was announced that the Delegation would meet on the following morning at 9:00 o’clock.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
- Doc. 417, III/1/19, May 18, UNCIO Documents, vol. 11, p. 305.↩
- Doc. 459, III/1/22, May 21, ibid., p. 332.↩
- Doc. 2, G/7(j) (1), May 1, ibid., vol. 3, p. 325; WD 215, III/1/36, June 7, ibid., vol. 11, p. 326.↩
- Doc. 2, G/7(o), March 21, ibid., vol. 3, p. 384.↩
- WD 3, May 17, UNCIO Documents, vol. 11, p. 320.↩
- See Five-Power discussion of chapter VIII, section B, new paragraph 12, at the fifth meeting, May 16, 3 p.m., p. 758.↩
- Brackets appear in the original.↩
- The position of rapporteur for Commission IV was vacant; in a circular airgram to diplomatic representatives in the American Republics, May 21, 10:35 a.m. (500.CC/5–2145), the Acting Secretary of State reported: “The Argentine delegation has agreed not to make any attempt to obtain for itself the vacant rapporteurship of commissions. This will relieve us from the embarrassment which would be caused if the Argentine issue should be raised again at the conference.”↩
- For a guide to proposed amendments, according to the Committees (referred to herein) considering them, see Doc. 288, G/38, May 14, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 639. Record of meetings of the Committee of Five (Five-Power Deputies) not printed.↩
- Doc. 2, G/25, May 5, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, pp. 602, 603. For amendment proposed by the Sponsoring Governments, chapter V, paragraph 4, see Doc. 2, G/29, May 5, ibid., p. 627.↩
- Doc. 415, II/1/18, May 18, UNCIO Documents, vol. 8, p. 353.↩
- Doc. 2, G/14(1), May 5 (11th amendment), ibid., vol. 3, p. 545.↩
- Doc. 418, IV/1/32, May 18, ibid., vol. 13, p. 180.↩
- For text of redraft proposed by the four Sponsoring Governments and France, see Doc. 354, II/2/15, May 16, UNCIO Documents, vol. 9, p. 43.↩
- For documentation on the establishment of United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), see pp. 1510 ff.↩
- For text of new paragraphs proposed for addition at the end of section (A), chapter IX, see Doc. 2, G/14(1), May 5, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, pp. 546–547.↩
- For index to proposed amendments to chapter IX, section B, see Doc. 288, G/38, May 14, ibid., p. 693.↩
- Recommendations of the United States advisers based on proposals of United States consultants, May 17 (U.S. Gen. 131), not printed.↩
See Doc. 404, II/4/17, May 18, UNCIO Documents, vol. 10, p. 452. A pencilled, unsigned, marginal note on a mimeographed copy of Doc. 404 stated:
“Omitted is much of the very important speech by Stassen against inclusion of independence because it was not possible to secure 5 power agreement. Said ind. not so necessary, that emphasis [should be] on interdependence, compared empires to U.S. federal system, said U.S. understood such moves.
“This speech was a reversal of all previous U.S. policy—FDR, Hull views—caused great disconcertment in U.S. delegation, position altered later only with great trouble. This blunder partly responsible for lack of mention of independence in the Declaration (Art. 73).”
A summary of Commander Stassen’s statement in the United States delegation’s record of the May 17 meeting (US II/4, Doc. 6, May 17, 1945) follows:
“Commander Stassen stated that the United States would vote against the Chinese amendment since it exceeded the possible area of agreement among the five powers on this subject, and since, in any case, there would be no limitation on the extent to which self-government could be developed under the existing wording. The national policy of the United States on this subject, he noted, was exemplified in our policy toward the Philippines. But hope for the success of this Conference depended on the combined support of the five powers who have contributed most to the war and a maximum number of other powers. For this reason extreme efforts are made to find maximum areas of agreement. Governor Stassen added that the word of the future is the interdependence of states and peoples and pointed to the example of the forty-eight states of the United States, whose strength is based not on their complete independence as separate entities, but on their unity and interdependence.”↩