RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 96: US Cr Min 47
Minutes of the Forty-Seventh Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Saturday, May 19, 1945, 9 a.m.
[Here follows list of names of persons (31) present and announcements by the Secretary.]
Consideration of the Basic Issues Arising in Committee II/3
The discussion of the Delegation was based on Document US Gen 143, May 19, 1945, entitled “Basic Issues—Committee II/3 (Continued)”. The discussion commenced with Item 7, all sections of which were approved with little debate except 7 (c) and 7 (g). Item 7 (h) had been approved at the last meeting of the Delegates.
Item 7 (c) raised the question of the Economic and Social Council making recommendations to members of the Organization. The original Dumbarton Oaks Proposals and the Four Power Amendment had left it unspecified as to whom the recommendations were to be addressed. The Drafting Committee had voted to leave the amendment as it stood. Congressman Bloom thought that it should specify to whom the recommendations were to be made. Mr. Pasvolsky stated that the question had come up in the Subcommittee of Five and the British were opposed to recommendations to individual governments. Senator Vandenberg indicated his opposition. The question was then raised as to whether this could not be left to the rules of procedure. Mr. Pasvolsky thought that it could, while Congressman Bloom thought that this might be dangerous. Senator Vandenberg indicated that he had no objection to recommendations being sent to all members but objected to having them sent to individual members. Mr. Stinebower thought that the amendment as it stood now might be subject to different interpretations. Mr. Notter suggested that recommendations might be made to the General Assembly, to all members, and to specialized agencies. The suggestion that it be left unspecified as to whom the Council’s recommendations might be addressed was approved.
Mr. Pasvolsky explained in connection with Item 7 (g) that the Council can recommend to the Assembly the calling of conferences [Page 804] but that the Assembly alone can call conferences. This would be true of technical conferences as well as general ones unless the Assembly authorized the Council to take specific action. This position was approved.
Item 8 was concerned with an amendment substituting, in the sentence providing for the composition of Commissions, for the word “experts” the phrase “persons competent in their respective fields”. Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that the whole sentence be dropped. The Secretary, Senator Vandenberg, and Congressman Bloom favored its inclusion. Mr. Pasvolsky indicated that the United Kingdom did not wish the sentence included. It was decided that there would be further conversations with the United Kingdom and the sentence would be included if the United Kingdom could be persuaded to accept it, otherwise it would be dropped.
Item 9 related to the substitution by the Subcommittee of Five of the word “world-wide” for the word “general” after the word “agencies” in paragraph 2 of Section D. Senator Connally expressed disapproval of the phrase and it was decided to have the matter taken up again in the Subcommittee of Five.
The recommendation not to change the title of the Council was approved.
Item 11, which was concerned with the proposal of the Consultants that an Interim Secretariat be created, was passed over to be considered in the discussion of another item on the agenda with reference to a Preparatory Commission.
Attention was then directed to Item 1 and there was an extended discussion which revolved around (1) the arrangement of ideas in the paragraph, (2) the inclusion of “full employment”, and (3) the tactics to be followed in effecting the desired changes. Mr. Dulles and Senator Vandenberg were opposed to the word “promote” in the Preamble although Mr. Dulles thought it was all right in connection with subparagraph (b). Senator Connally thought that its use was all right. Senator Vandenberg stated that we were concerned with the fundamental ideological conflict with Communism, with which Congressman Eaton agreed. Mr. Stassen suggested that rather than using the word “promote” we should indicate that we were concerned with the solution of international problems relating to subparagraph (a). Mr. Pasvolsky suggested subparagraphs (a) and (b) be combined and Mr. Stinebower suggested that subparagraph (a) should be inserted in the Preamble. Mr. Rockefeller suggested the substitution of “maximum employment” for “full employment”. The Secretary asked Mr. Stevenson whether he thought the phrase “full employment” met the approval of the Consultants. Mr. Stevenson thought that it would, and The Secretary said that he was impressed with Mr. Stevenson’s views.[Page 805]
Dean Gildersleeve inquired how the matter was to be handled and Mr. Pasvolsky explained that the first action was taken in the Committee and then went to the Coordination Committee. Mr. Stassen, returning to the phrase “full employment”, expressed the view that it would prejudice passage in the Senate. Mr. Pasvolsky joined in this, saying that the retention of the phrase would get us into trouble and that the Secretary of Labor did not favor the use of the phrase. Mr. Stinebower explained how the phrase had been put into the report of the Committee by almost unanimous action. Mr. Waring favored Mr. Stinebower’s suggestion that subparagraph (a) be inserted in the Preamble. Mr. Dulles agreed with this. The Secretary suggested that the matter be referred back to the Committee and Dean Gildersleeve thought it should go back to the Drafting Committee. Mr. Bowman wished to be certain that the phrase with respect to educational cooperation should not be lost, and Dean Gildersleve assured him that it would not.
Mr. Stinebower suggested that any further negotiations on “full employment” would have to take place at a high level. Mr. Stassen said that getting final approval of the Charter was the important thing. Mr. Rockefeller suggested that the basic issue was one of ideologies. Senator Vandenberg said that when one subscribes to full employment, it may be full employment at low levels and at low wages and that its insertion anywhere was bad. Senator Connally objected to the phrase “full employment” and didn’t see any difference between this and high and stable levels of employment. He would rather not have either. Mr. Dunn said that it could not be included. Mr. Pasvolsky informed the Delegates that in the Subcommittee of Five meeting the British were opposed to full employment, the Chinese were in favor of it, and the French were indifferent. Senator Vandenberg indicated that he preferred the formula “high and stable levels of employment” and that the idea of full employment could not be sold to the American people. The Secretary suggested that the matter be referred back to the Drafting Committee. Senator Connally stated that he was opposed to overloading the Charter with all these economic and social matters which were unattainable dream stuff. Senator Vandenberg concurred.
It was finally decided that the use of the word “promote” was acceptable if subparagraph (a) was moved to the Preamble, and that the phrase “full employment” should be opposed in any part of the paragraph.
Items 2, 3, 4 and 5 were approved with little discussion.
On Item 6 relating to the provision on the Council of members of major economic importance, Dr. Pasvolsky reported that the Subcommittee of Five was opposed to all amendments but would accept freedom of action on this particular suggestion. It was concluded [Page 806] that the United States would not actively support an amendment but would not oppose it.
(The Economic and Social Advisers and Experts then left the meeting.)
Ad Hoc Voting Membership on the Council
Mr. Pasvolsky indicated that there was an acute question on which the Delegation should express its opinion: “should member states not on the Security Council be admitted individually as ad hoc voting members of the Council when use of their forces or facilities provided under agreements envisaged in Paragraph 5, is under consideration?” Mr. Pasvolsky stated that the Soviet Union was awaiting our position on this matter and that he had reserved our position in the Subcommittee of Five in order to have the matter considered by our Military Advisers. He called on the Military Advisers to express their views. Mr. Gates stated that he had just seen the draft for the first time. General Embick said he had seen the draft the evening before and was in a position to express an opinion.
Mr. Hickerson then introduced the following draft which had been prepared by Mr. Jebb as a compromise British draft. He indicated that he had himself made certain modifications in the draft indicated by underlining and crossing out so that it would be more acceptable to us. The draft read: “When a decision to use force has been taken by the Security Council, it shall, before calling upon any Member not represented on it to supply armed forces in fulfilment of its obligations under the preceding paragraph, invite such Member, if it so request, to send a representative to sit as a Member participate in the decisions of the Security Council when that body is considering the question of concerning the supply of armed forces by such Member.” Mr. Hickerson pointed out that the Canadian amendment had been up for some time and that all the middle sized powers were for it. He pointed out that we would probably make the same kind of demand if we were in their position. Mr. Hickerson noted that this draft he had just introduced followed paragraph 7, Chapter VIII, B.
Mr. Pasvolsky explained that the British would not accept the Canadian proposal as it stood in its original form but would accept this proposal he thought. The original Canadian proposal was more radical providing that all countries that furnished forces should come into the Council as members when their forces were being used, with the voting procedure of the Council changed so that decisions would be by two-thirds of the membership of the total Council. We have rejected this proposal but the British consider it very important to give the Canadians some satisfaction so that they can get their Parliament to accept the Charter.[Page 807]
Under our proposal, Mr. Pasvolsky explained, states would be admitted to the Council, if their forces were to be used, only after the decision to use force has been taken by the Council of eleven, and only one by one, so that at no time would the Council consist of more than twelve. The proposal would meet the demand of Canada that its forces should not be used without the opportunity to vote in the Council on their use. The Canadians he said, believe that without some such provision they cannot get the Charter through the Parliament.
Senator Vandenberg questioned how we could resist this proposal. Mr. Pasvolsky said its one limitation was that it would slow down procedure somewhat. The Secretary asked whether states contributing facilities would come under this provision. Mr. Hickerson stated that on this point we would not yield.
Mr. Gates asked whether there would ever be more than twelve members under this arrangement. The Secretary replied that there would never be more than twelve. Mr. Gates indicated that this was a fair request and that he could hardly blame the Canadians for bringing the matter up. He thought that this might somewhat slow up the machinery in an emergency but that perhaps this could be taken care of. Mr. Stassen, in leaving the meeting, stated that the proposal presented by Mr. Hickerson was satisfactory to him. General Embick thought that in practice such a provision would have little effect upon the work of the Security Council. The one time at which there might be some difficulty would be when an attack occurred without warning.
Mention of Act of Chapultepec
General Embick said he was worried about the fact that there was a rumor around that the Soviet Union was going to propose that the use of the words “Act of Chapultepec” should be reinserted in the Proposals. The British he felt in striking out the “Act of Chapultepec” and in insisting on the word “collective” were making an effort to commit us in the Eastern Mediterranean. He thought we should make an effort to ourselves introduce reference to the “Act of Chapultepec” and make it clear to the British that they depend on our support. The Secretary remarked that the most serious objection to introducing any reference to the “Act of Chapultepec” was that the Arabs would then wish to introduce reference to the Arab bloc.26 Mr. Rockefeller pointed out that, if the word “collective” was removed and the “Act of Chapultepec” substituted, the Arabs and the British would feel that they had not gotten anything to [Page 808] satisfy their demands. General Embick repeated that he felt it was time to tell the British that they depended on us. The Secretary was confident that the draft as at present worded would get by.
Ad Hoc Voting Membership on the Council—Continued
The members of the Delegation then approved in principle the draft presented by Mr. Hickerson. Mr. Pasvolsky said he would discuss the matter in the Subcommittee of Five and would bring back any revisions they might propose.
Definition of Aggression
Mr. Pasvolsky reported that the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, and the United States continue to be opposed to any definition of aggression in the text of the Charter. However, China has reserved its position and indicated that it wished to support the definition of aggression. He stated that agreement was then reached that each state would have freedom of action. He pointed out that the Soviet Union was now the most adamant against the definition of aggression and used all the arguments that we had previously used. Mr. Hickerson commented that this question was now under debate27 and that there was considerable pressure to spell out acts of aggression. What it came down to, he said, was that some states wanted the Council to take action automatically in the event that certain actions took place so that there would not even be a vote. Mr. Hickerson interpreted this line of argument as a direct attack on the veto system. Senator Connally indicated that we could not support any proposals that action by the Council should be taken automatically. Mr. Pasvolsky and Senator Vandenberg urged that this line of argument must be opposed. Mr. Hickerson believed that it would be possible to successfully defeat efforts to define aggression.
Agreements for the Supply of Forces and Facilities
Mr. Pasvolsky introduced the question for discussion: “Should the military agreements be concluded between members or groups of members and the Security Council, instead of among the members?”
Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that the original proposal that agreements should be concluded among the members was based on the belief that none of the great powers would pledge themselves to contribute a particular amount of forces until they knew what other states were going to pledge. It was understood, he said, that once these agreements had been negotiated among the member states they would be approved by the Security Council. Moreover, we were proposing [Page 809] that the Council initiate the motion for such agreements. He concluded that the chief argument for joint negotiation is that we would know before we ourselves pledge a contribution what was being pledged by others.
Senator Vandenberg expressed the view that a contract directly with the Security Council might have some advantages. Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that the provision for negotiating the agreements under the auspices and on the initiative of the Security Council would appear to meet the situation. The probable procedure would be that the Security Council, with the advice of the Military Staff Committee, would prepare a plan as to what they thought would be satisfactory. This would then be discussed by the members and agreements would be reached, it being desirable to have as nearly as possible a single instrument. The instrument, however, would become effective for each country as ratified by each country. Mr. Armstrong asked whether we would be bound to make contributions before others had pledged their forces. The Secretary pointed out that such fundamental issues as had been raised by Mr. Armstrong should be discussed in a paper on this question which should be prepared for discussion on Monday in consultation with the Military Advisers. Senator Vandenberg thought this was a most crucial problem that would probably arouse longer debate in the Senate than any other issue. He believed that the question would be raised in this connection as to the power of the American delegate to commit us to the use of force.
Senator Vandenberg said the one difficulty he saw with the provision that the agreement should be among the members was that no qualification could then be placed upon the power of the Security Council with respect to the conditions under which it could call upon the forces pledged. Mr. Dulles suggested the phrase simply “concluded by them”. Senator Vandenberg indicated that this would of course only postpone the argument. Mr. Dulles remarked that this wording would have the advantage of making it possible to follow either course as circumstances indicated.
Exception for Action Against Enemy States
Mr. Pasvolsky stated that the question had been raised in the four-power discussion28 whether the treaties of mutual assistance would disappear when the powers of the Security Council were extended to cover action against enemy states. The French, he added, were particularly concerned about this question. Mr. Pasvolsky noted that the Soviet representatives thought the treaties would disappear. The [Page 810] British held that the treaties would continue; that, if armed attack occurred, the treaties would come into force under the new paragraph 12 of Section B, Chapter VIII. Mr. Pasvolsky added that our interpretation, which he had explained to the meeting, was that treaties not inconsistent with the provisions of Section C would continue to exist when the Security Council took over the functions with respect to enemy states, if the parties so desired. In our view the matter would be up to the parties as long as the treaties were consistent with the Charter.
Senator Vandenberg pointed out that no transfer of power to the Organization in dealing with enemy states would take place without the consent of the major states. Mr. Pasvolsky added that the treaties would acquire a different character when some of the functions were assumed by the Council. Senator Vandenberg indicated that the control as to the time of transfer would remain within the hands of the states themselves.
Right of Enemy States to Appeal to the Council
Mr. Pasvolsky said that in the discussions of the Subcommittee of Five the question was whether, as long as paragraph 2, Chapter XII, prevailed, enemy states would have the right of appeal to the Security Council. Greece believed that they had no such right.
Senator Vandenberg asked what decision had been reached as to the list of enemy states. Mr. Pasvolsky replied that France, Russia, and Great Britain, in the Subcommittee of Five, had made it clear that the enemy states included Germany, Italy, Finland, Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Japan, and Thailand. Mr. Pasvolsky noted that Austria was not included on this list since it never declared war on the United Nations. All the other countries had declared war on the United Nations. He suggested that the exception was a very important one.
Mr. Rockefeller wondered whether it would be possible to limit the list of enemy states to Germany and Japan only. Mr. Dulles believed this would be impossible to accomplish. Mr. Dunn indicated that the phrase “enemy states” was included in Chapter XII, paragraph 2, and Mr. Pasvolsky noted that the question of limiting the enemy states to Germany and Japan only had never been raised. Mr. Dunn thought it would be impossible to make such a limitation. Enemy states, he said, meant states that had declared war on the United Nations. He acknowledged that the question with respect to the present problem was how large a block of states was going to be outside the purview of the Organization.
Senator Vandenberg asked how Italy could get into the Organization. Mr. Dunn stated that Italy would presumably be eligible for [Page 811] membership after the final peace. Senator Vandenberg pointed out that Russia had a veto by which Italy might forever be prevented from becoming a member. Mr. Dunn thought that Italy could be taken out of the classification of enemy states by an international convention and then enter into the United Nations. Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that, as enemy states were admitted to the Organization, it would probably be necessary to have special arrangements negotiated among the victorious powers to remove the disability under paragraph 2, Chapter XII; since, if this disability remained, there would be no sovereign equality.
Mr. Johnson noted that in Committee III/2 Mr. Stassen had taken the position that enemy states did not have the right to appeal to the Council.29 We were, therefore, on record on this matter.
Mr. Pasvolsky thought this question should be discussed with the Subcommittee of Five and Mr. Dunn agreed it was in large part a matter of interpretation.
Draft Proposal for Preparatory Commission
The Delegation had before it Draft Proposal for Preparatory Commission, US Gen 139.30 Mr. Sandifer said that this memorandum had been considered in the Secretariat and that the plan was to have the proposal discussed in this Delegation. If approved in a preliminary way, it would then go to the Subcommittee of Five and to the Executive Committee.
Mr. Notter stated that, in answer to the French proposal that an explicit provision should be included that the principles of neutrality would be incompatible with the Charter,31 he had urged that (a) such a provision was unnecessary since the fact was already clear, and (b) a discussion of this matter would precipitate the committee into a discussion of the seat of the Organization. This position was upheld by Senator Vandenberg and generally by the other members of the Delegation.
The meeting was adjourned by the Secretary at 11:00 a.m.
- For text of the Pact of the League of Arab States, signed in Cairo, March 22, 1945, see Doc. 72, III/4/1, May 4, UNCIO Documents, vol. 12, p. 745.↩
- For discussion at the May 18 meeting of Committee III/3, see Doc. 442, III/3/20, May 19, UNCIO Documents, vol. 12, p. 341.↩
- Minutes of fifth Four-Power meeting, May 4, 6:30 p.m., p. 603.↩
- During the discussion in Committee III/2, May 14 (Doc. 321, III/2/9, May 15, UNCIO Documents, vol. 12, p. 24), the Greek delegate asked the opinion of the Committee whether an enemy state, under paragraph 2, could bring a dispute to the attention of the General Assembly or the Security Council. Mr. Stassen held that chapter XII, paragraph 2, excluded such an appeal (US III/2, Doc. 4, not printed).↩
- Not printed; for text of preliminary draft prepared by the Secretariat as a possible basis for discussion, see Doc. 902, EX/23, June 11, 1945, ibid., vol. 5, p. 514.↩
- Doc. 2, G/7(o), pt. 2, March 21, ibid., vol. 3, p. 383.↩