RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 99: UNCIO Cons Five Min 7

Minutes of the Seventh Five-Power Informal Consultative Meeting on Proposed Amendments, Held at San Francisco, Sunday, May 20, 1945, 6 p.m.

[Informal Notes]

[Here follows list of names of participants, including members of delegations of the United States (21); United Kingdom (4); Soviet Union (4); China (4); and France (5).]

The meeting was called to consider the report of the Subcommittee of Five on the Soviet proposals regarding the three drafts on regional arrangements in relation to the general organization.

Mr. Stettinius then called on Mr. Pasvolsky to read the new draft from the Subcommittee of Five, and Mr. Pasvolsky read the following text:

“Nothing in this Charter impairs the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member [Page 824] state, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain (or restore) international peace and security. Measures taken in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under this Charter to take at any time such action as it may deem necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

Mr. Stettinius asked whether all were agreed on this text and everyone agreed up to the words “or restore” in the fifth line, in regard to which Mr. Gromyko made reservation.

After a period of time was taken out for the five delegations to discuss the new draft, Mr. Stettinius reported that the United States Delegation would accept the elimination of the words “or restore” although it was quite willing to have the words retained.

Lord Halifax said that he felt that the word “restore” should be retained, that is that the right of self-defense should continue during the period of restoration as well as up to the point where the Security Council was taking action to restore the peace.

Mr. Gromyko thought that the word “maintain” encompassed the concept of “restore” and that the latter was in effect unnecessary, but Lord Halifax objected to this interpretation, stating that you can’t maintain what isn’t there.

Mr. Dejean said he agreed with Lord Halifax and that if only one word was used, it should be the word “restore”.

Lord Halifax said that it would be more logical to retain the word “restore” but that he would not split the delegation in order to retain it.

Mr. Soong said that the Chinese Delegation preferred to retain the word “restore”.

Mr. Stettinius then asked if Mr. Gromyko could accept the word “restore” and the latter said he thought not.

Lord Halifax then proposed that the five delegations accept the word “maintain” now, so that the Committee could go forward, at the same time asking Mr. Gromyko to see if his government would be able to accept the addition of the word “restore”.

Mr. Stettinius summarized the discussion by saying that all would agree to adopt the word “maintain”.

Mr. Gromyko asked if Lord Halifax would, in this case, insist on the word “restore” later on.

Lord Halifax said that his idea was, first, that the text should go to the Committee tomorrow, omitting the word “restore”, and, second, that the Soviet Government should be informed that three out of the five had agreed that the word “restore” might usefully be included, and, third, that if the Soviet Government did not agree to its inclusion, he would not press the issue to a split in the delegation.

[Page 825]

The Committee then turned to the additional sentence to paragraph 1, Chapter VIII, Section C, and Mr. Stettinius called on Mr. Pasvolsky to explain the results of the Subcommittee’s study of this additional sentence.

Mr. Pasvolsky then read a revised form of the Soviet proposal, as follows:

“This paragraph in no way impairs the application of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section A of this Chapter.”

Mr. Gromyko then said that since regional agencies and arrangements could deal with peaceful settlement, the Soviet Delegation wanted the Security Council able to retain its right to act in this field also, that is, it should retain its right to make investigations, as in paragraph 1, and to inform the Security Council, as in paragraph 2.

Mr. Vandenberg asked whether this right would not exist without the proposed Soviet additional sentence, and Mr. Gromyko said yes, it would, that the sentence was suggested only to avoid a misunderstanding. He added that the Security Council should have the right to investigate a situation, even if regional agencies were acting.

Mr. Connally and Lord Halifax both agreed that the sentence added nothing and took nothing away, and therefore it was in the form of a clarification and could be accepted.

Everyone agreed to accept the addition.

M. Dejean thought it would be necessary to get a clarification of the other text regarding the five power amendments on special pacts. He had received certain instructions on this, and would distribute them immediately.

Mr. Stettinius said the Subcommittee of Five would examine these and report later.