RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 96: US Cr. Min. 46

Minutes of the Forty-Sixth Meeting of the United States Delegation. Held at San Francisco, Friday, May 18, 1945, 6 p.m.

[Informal Notes]

[Here follows list of names of persons (34) present at meeting.]

In the absence of the Secretary, Senator Connally took the Chair and opened the meeting at 6:10 p.m.

Consideration of Issues Pending Before Committee III/3

On the basis of US Gen 123,21 Mr. Hickerson presented the pending issues before Committee III/3.

With respect to the Canadian proposal,22 under which member states not on the Council would be admitted as ad hoc voting members of the Council when use of their forces is under consideration, it was pointed out by Mr. Hickerson that Canada and the other middle powers feel very strongly that they should have a voice in decisions involving the employment of their forces. Senator Connally and Mr. Eaton questioned the practicability of the Canadian proposal in view of the large number of states which could claim representation in the Security Council in any particular situation. Senator Connally said that the conditions under which the forces of nonmembers of the Council would be employed could be set forth to the satisfaction of these countries in the special military agreements.

Commander Stassen , however, felt that in order to get satisfactory military agreements, it might be necessary to make concessions of the kind which Canada suggests, and Mr. Hickerson agreed that something must be done to assure the small nations on this point. Mr. Dulles agreed that it was important to help these countries over [Page 800] this difficulty, suggesting that something akin to the principle of “no taxation without representation” was involved. Mr. Armstrong felt that with respect to the question of facilities it was undesirable to make any concession, but that the supply of forces was another matter.

Mr. Hickerson pointed out that, in accordance with an agreement in the subcommittee of Five, a Subcommittee of III/3 had been established for the purpose of examining this question. He suggested that the Delegation should wait on the results of explorations now being made into the question before taking a final position. The Delegation agreed to this conclusion.

With regard to the Netherlands proposal to transfer paragraphs 1 and 2 of VIII B to VIII A, Senator Vandenberg expressed agreement with the purpose of the Netherlands Government, but thought that the Yalta formula precluded our giving support to it. There was general agreement that acceptance of the Netherlands proposal would necessitate a change in the Yalta agreement, and the Delegation decided, therefore, to oppose the amendment.

With respect to the amendments proposed by, Czechoslovakia, the Philippine Delegation, and Bolivia for the inclusion of a definition of aggression in the Charter, Senator Connally told the Delegation that he had already spoken against them in the Committee and expressed the hope that the Delegation would back him up. This position was readily agreed to on the ground that it was impossible to include all possible situations in any definition. It was agreed also to oppose any attempt to name, certain acts as aggressive even though such a list were not to be represented as all inclusive.

With respect to the proposal of Australia and Bolivia that the Council be obliged to impose terms of settlement under VIII B, Senator Vandenberg said that it had always been his understanding that the Council cannot impose a settlement and that he would be unable to agree to any such provision. Senator Connally expressed complete agreement with this point of view, and said that he did not want to create a world czar. Mr. Notter said that it was the clear intent of VIII B to stop breaches of the peace, not to impose a settlement. Commander Stassen felt that the present language does not imply that the Council has the power of imposition. He was opposed to changing the present text for fear that the Council would be reduced to complete impotence. It was agreed, therefore, to stand on the present text.

While agreeing with the general objective of the Norwegian amendment to VIII B which would constitute an additional guarantee against “appeasement”, the Delegation took the view that this point was already adequately covered by the Purposes and Principles chapters and that the Norwegian amendment should be opposed.

[Page 801]

The United States position with respect to the Australian amendment which would make the domestic jurisdiction exception apply to actions of the Council under VIII B was discussed and it was agreed to oppose it.

The Australian and New Zealand amendments which would provide that the Security Council might be party to the military agreements were discussed at some length. In support of the present text, Mr. Hackworth said that to make the Security Council party to the military agreements would make it, in effect, a superstate. This argument did not appear to Senator Vandenberg and Senator Connally to outweigh the practical difficulties involved in the making of the agreements if the Security Council were to be excluded. Commander Stassen thought that the superstate argument was not a serious one. The Military advisers expressed the view that the making of the agreements with the Security Council would greatly facilitate solution of a very difficult problem. Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Dulles were of the opinion that to conclude the agreements on a multilateral basis would be difficult and impracticable, and thought that the United States Delegation should support the Australian and New Zealand amendments. Mr. Sandifer and Mr. Notter suggested that a decision be deferred until the Secretary and other absent members were present, and pointed out that any change of the present text of VIII B 5 would have to be cleared in the Committee of Five. It was agreed to defer further Consideration of this matter.

With respect to the French proposal that specific reference be made in VIII B 5 to the right of passage, it was pointed out that the question had already been raised in the Committee of Five, where it was explained that the present language already includes this right. It was thought that the French might withdraw their amendment, but, in any case, it was agreed by the Delegation that specific reference to the right of passage was unnecessary.

It was agreed that the French amendment to VIII B 6, which would broaden the national contingents immediately available to include all arms, should be opposed. In this connection, Mr. Hickerson called attention to the view of United States military advisers that an international army was impracticable.

It was agreed to oppose the Chilean amendment which would make optional rather than obligatory the contribution by members of the Organization of arms, facilities or assistance for the maintenance of international peace and security.

It was agreed to oppose the Chilean, French, and Philippine Delegation amendments which, in varying ways, would enlarge the Military Staff Committee by including member states which undertake to place forces at the disposal of the Security Council. It was thought that the Dumbarton Oaks provision was correct in principle, and that [Page 802] the discretion of the Military Staff Committee should not be infringed upon.

It was agreed to oppose the South African amendment which would require guilty states to pay the cost of enforcement. In response to Mr. Hickerson’s observation that the South Africans took this amendment very seriously, Senator Vandenberg said he had assumed that it was generally understood that all costs were to be charged to us.

It was agreed that the interim arrangements now provided for in Chapter XII should be retained in the Charter, and that the Mexican proposal for placing them in a separate protocol should be opposed.

It was readily agreed that France should be included along with the signatories of the Moscow Declaration in paragraph 1 of Chapter XII. It was decided that the United States should raise the question in the Committee of Five in order that the way in which the four sponsoring powers would support the proposal in Committee III/3 might be determined.

The Venezuelan proposal for an interim agreement on the supply of forces was viewed as impracticable, and it was agreed to oppose any amendment to this effect.

Proposal on Reference to “Education” in the Charter

On behalf of the subcommittee on education appointed at the morning meeting, Dr. Bowman presented to the Delegation a proposal (U.S. Gen. 13723) by virtue of which he thought it might be possible for the Delegation to approve a specific reference to education in the Charter. The proposal was agreed to by the Delegation. The following change in IX, A, 1 of the draft already adopted in Committee II/324 is involved:

With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the Organization shall promote:
higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
solutions of international economic, social, cultural, health, and related problems and
cultural and educational cooperation, and
universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, language, religion, or sex. [Committee II/3 substitute]25

Dr. Bowman pointed out that the advantage of this redraft was that “cultural—problems” were not subject to “solutions” by the Organization, but that merely “cooperation” in this field was to be “promoted”. [Page 803] This, he thought, eliminated all suggestion that doctrinal matters would come within the purview of the Organization.

Senators Connally and Vandenberg were entirely satisfied with the redraft, and general satisfaction was expressed that it had been possible to meet the desire of the Consultants to have a specific reference in the Charter to education.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.

  1. Not printed.
  2. Doc. 2, G/14(t), May 6, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, pp. 590–591; for texts of additional amendments proposed with respect to chapter VIII B, and XII, see Doc. 289, III/3/11, May 13, ibid., vol. 12, pp. 603 ff.
  3. Not printed.
  4. Doc. 381, 11/3/16, May 17, UNCIO Documents, vol. 10, p. 39.
  5. Brackets appear in the original.