Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1945, General: The United Nations, Volume I

RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 96: U.S. Cr. Min. 50

Minutes of the Fiftieth Meeting of the United States Delegation (A), Held at San Francisco, Tuesday, May 22, 1945, 9:05 a.m.

San Francisco, May 22, 1945, 9:05 a.m.

[Informal Notes]

[Here follows list of names of persons (29) present at meeting.]

The Secretary called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. and invited members of the Delegation to take up any emergency rush items.

Chapter IX, A, 1

Dean Gildersleeve pointed out that there had been difficulty over the use of the phrase “full employment” which had been advocated by a number of Delegations in Committee II/3 and to which the Delegation had hitherto objected. The Chairman of that Committee had ruled that a vote would be taken today⁵³ and that if the Delegation wished to indicate a positive position it would be necessary to present specific amendments. She pointed out that up to this time the Delegation had not presented any amendments concerning the promotion of full employment, and she felt that we should present a suitable phrasing of this paragraph to cope with the situation. She pointed out that it was unlikely that the Committee would accept any draft of this paragraph without a reference to full employment. She believed it would be possible to obtain approval of the Committee for the insertion of a clause on cultural and educational cooperation. She stated that the principal advisers had prepared two alternative drafts including both a reference to full employment and to cultural and educational cooperation. She observed that if the Delegation continued to object to any reference to full employment, it would be necessary to present specific reasons against the insertion of such a phrase in the Charter.

Mr. Stinebower stated that the problem was one of tactics. He then presented two alternative drafts for paragraph 1 of Chapter IX, Section A. With respect to the insertion of the phrase “full employment” he observed that we would be in a better position to have it included in a manner satisfactory to the Delegation rather than to be beaten on opposing any reference to it in the Charter. Mr. Stinebower then called attention to the pertinent sections of the alternatives presented, which are as follows:

Alternative I

With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and the attainment of higher standards of living, high and stable levels of employment (full employment), and conditions of economic and social progress and development, 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:

a. higher standards of living, full employment and conditions of economic and social progress and development;

b. a. solutions of international economic, social, cultural, health and other related problems; and b. cultural and educational cooperation; and

c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, language, religion or sex.

Alternative II

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 principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the Organization shall promote:

a. solutions of international economic, social, cultural, health and other related problems, including higher standards of living, high and stable levels of employment (full employment), and conditions of economic and social progress and development;

b. cultural and educational cooperation; and

c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, language, religion or sex.

Dean Gildersleeve stated that she would prefer to separate the question of full employment from that of cultural and educational cooperation and present them separately. Mr. Sandifer suggested that it would be possible to ask for a separate vote on each of these points.

Mr. Pasvolsky stated that he preferred Alternative II because the emphasis was on the words “solutions of international economic, social, etc.” which was not so clearly set forth in Alternative I. He suggested that the words “which relate to” be inserted after the word “including” in line 3 of sub-paragraph a of Alternative II. He thought that in this form the proper emphasis would be maintained on the international aspects of these questions. Mr. Dulles agreed with the proposal of Mr. Pasvolsky but thought that Alternative I was a clearer draft. Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that the problem was not to promote higher standards of living per se but the solution of international economic problems. In submitting this revised text of Alternative II to the Delegation, The Secretary expressed approval of Mr. Pasvolsky’s proposals. Senator Connally thought that reference to full employment in this context was satisfactory. Senator Vandenberg thought it was lousy. Mr. Dulles wondered whether the principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs was affected by this text. Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that under the amendments proposed in Committee II/3 the clause on domestic jurisdiction might nullify the meaning of the proposal, but under the wording as now accepted by the Delegation the clause on domestic jurisdiction would not affect it.

Mr. Stinebower then raised the question of the draft proposed by Committee II/3 concerning the clause “all members pledge themselves to take separate and joint action to achieve the purposes etc.” and inquired whether the Delegation considered that the pledge goes too far. Senator Connally thought that the phrase “take action” went too far. Mr. Dunn considered that if this were restricted to the international field it would not affect the clause on domestic jurisdiction. Senator Connally wondered how it was possible to separate action in the international field which would not affect domestic questions. Mr. Rockefeller agreed with Senator Connally’s observation. Senator Vandenberg asked what an International WPA⁵⁴ was. Dean Gildersleeve thought that the change was not serious and that our Delegation would be unpopular if we opposed the changes which had been proposed.

Mr. Pasvolsky thought that a statement “to cooperate with each other and with the Organization” was the only one that made sense and that the phrase “take separate and joint action” should not be approved. The Secretary supported this view and the Delegation agreed that the phrase “to take separate and joint action” should be deleted and the phrase “cooperate with each other and with the Organization” should be retained.

Return of Mr. Gates

The Secretary welcomed the presence of Mr. Gates and stated that there had been a long series of meetings on the regional question and that the matter had been disposed of satisfactorily. Mr. Gates stated that the Admirals had been satisfied with the text which had been agreed to.⁵⁵ The Secretary stated that he wished to apologize to the representatives of the Army and Navy for the failure of the administrative units of the Delegation to send them the documents which they should have had. He said that an investigation had already been undertaken and that the matter would be straightened out so that no such mistakes would occur again.

Secretary’s Absence

The Secretary reported that he had talked with President Truman who had asked him to come to Washington for consultation. The Secretary stated that he would leave today and that he expected to return on Thursday or Friday. He called upon Senator Connally to preside in his absence and in the event that Senator Connally was unable to be present he wished Senator Vandenberg to preside.

Advisory Committee of Jurists

Mr. Pasvolsky reported that the Coordination Committee had agreed to the establishment of an Advisory Committee of Jurists consisting of representatives of the U.S., U.K., Soviet Russia, China, France and one Latin American country.⁵⁶ He stated that it had been agreed that Dr. Tello of Mexico would be selected to represent the Latin American countries on this Committee. He pointed out that the composition of the Committee was one which represented the five official languages of the Conference. He stated that each representative of the Coordination Committee had been asked to obtain the approval of his Delegation on the composition of this Committee and recommended that the proposal of the Committee be approved. He proposed that Mr. Hackworth be appointed from the Delegation to serve as the representative of the United States. The Delegation approved this recommendation.

Discussion on Statute of the Court

Senator Connally reported that people all over the country were turning the heat on with regard to the question of whether to establish a new Court or retain the old Court. He expressed his hope that it would be possible to keep the old Court. Commander Stassen stated that neither Manley Hudson^56a or others who favored the retention of the old Court had given any indication of how it would be possible to keep out neutrals if a new court were not established. Senator Connally stated that some of the people he had talked with said that it could be done. Commander Stassen said that he would like to see the formula. Senator Connally wondered why it wasn’t possible to have the same framework but exclude the neutrals. The Secretary stated that the revised Statute was based on the old Court and that the only reason for a new Court was to get rid of the seventeen members of the old Court who were not members of the United Nations.

Mr. Hackworth stated that the judges of the Court would be elected by the General Assembly and the Security Council. Senator Vandenberg inquired whether the vote of the Security Council on this question would require the concurrence of its permanent members. Mr. Hackworth replied that they had been drafting the Statute in such a way as to get away from the veto power of the permanent members.

Senator Connally observed that we had shed both blood and sweat and still the Latin American countries continued to vote against us all the time, especially on the question of voting in the Security Council. Mr. Hackworth stated that the Latin American countries wished to eliminate the Security Council from the election of judges to the Court but that they had agreed to a proposal under which the Council would participate in the election of judges by a majority vote without the concurrence of the permanent members. Senator Connally thought that that would be satisfactory.

Senator Vandenberg referred to the position of the American Bar Association and pointed out that it had recommended the retention of the old Court. Senator Connally pointed out that many treaties had been concluded conferring jurisdiction on the old Court and that these might be affected if the old Court were abandoned in favor of a new one. Mr. Hackworth stated that Article 37 of the Statute would provide for the Court to assume jurisdiction whenever treaties between parties conferred jurisdiction on it. Senator Connally pointed out that that provision only affected the signatories of the Statute.

Mr. Hackworth called attention to the activity of Manley Hudson in behalf of retaining the old Court. Mr. Dulles observed that if the old Court were retained Manley Hudson might be able to collect five years back pay. Mr. Hackworth stated that the position of the American Bar Association, which favored the retention of the old Court was largely the work of Manley Hudson who engineered the resolution on this subject. Senator Connally said that Bill Ransom⁵⁷ was also active in supporting the old Court, to which Mr. Hackworth added that Judge Ransom was working closely with Manley Hudson.

Mr. Dulles said that he had heard that Mr. Jessup had a formula for retaining the old Court without admitting non-members of the United Nations and wondered whether it could be made available.

Commander Stassen stated that the first batch of wires urging retention of the old Court were now being superseded by a second batch of telegrams suggesting that the arrangement for the new Court was satisfactory. Mr. Hackworth reported that Mr. Fahy favored the creation of a new Court. Mr. Hackworth pointed out that there were fewer difficulties in the creation of a new Court under a new Statute than in retaining the old Court. He thought after all that we should set up a Court by strictly legal means. Mr. Dunn observed that it was politically impossible to maintain the membership of neutrals on the Court. He favored the creation of a new Court.

Mr. Pasvolsky thought that the election of judges by a simple majority of the Security Council would not work. He thought that it would be necessary to have the concurrence of the permanent members of the Council in their election. Mr. Hackworth reported that all the representatives of the Sponsoring powers had agreed to a simple majority. Mr. Pasvolsky stated that this question would arise in the Coordination Committee and that he would take the matter up in the Subcommittee of Five. Mr. Hackworth recommended that the present system of the election of judges be followed, that is, by the Assembly and Council upon a simple majority vote.

Mr. Hackworth stated that the Subcommittee of IV/1 had voted 7 to 3 in favor of a new Court,⁵⁸ but that Britain and France voted for the old Court. He observed that the feeling of the Delegation on this question remained unchanged.

Closing Date of the Conference

The Secretary announced that the Steering Committee had approved a program looking toward the termination of the Conference on June 2.⁵⁹ He stated that this was only an aim but that it now looked as if it would be possible to wind up during the first week of June. Mr. Pasvolsky thought that it would be difficult to close the Conference before June 9. Senator Connally reported that Committee III/3 had more work to do than it could get done and that they were not getting anywhere. Representative Eaton remarked on the slow progress being made in Committee 1/2 and asked the Delegation to consider its position concerning withdrawal. The Secretary asked representative Eaton to save this matter for an executive session of the Delegation at the close of the meeting.

Senator Connally stated that we were up against a buzz saw on the Yalta voting formula and that unless Mr. Rockefeller could gather up four or five Latinos we would get the hide licked off of us. He suggested that they be told if they didn’t go along with us on this there will be no Charter. The Secretary thought that after the regional matter had been settled things would go very smoothly with our Latin friends. Senator Vandenberg said that the Australians were the ones that were throwing monkey wrenches into the works.

Mr. Rockefeller said that two attacks had been leveled at the Latin Americans. One was that they voted as a bloc and the other was that we didn’t want them to move in as a bloc. Looking at it in another way, he said that anytime we wanted something we asked them to come along with us. He observed that he himself had been under attack for having created a bloc. The Secretary said that we had sweat blood to satisfy the Latin Americans on a number of things and thought that now we could appeal to them for cooperation and backing on the amendments of the Sponsoring Governments to the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals.

Representative Bloom observed that there must be something the matter with Committee II/1 because there had been no fights. Commander Stassen reported that there had been no “bloc” difficulties in Committee III/2. He thought the real difficulty was the basic issue on voting and that we couldn’t run a steam roller over that issue. He thought that we should find our [out] whether any adjustments can be made and that if we find out for certain that we can not make any adjustments then we shall have to appeal to our Latin friends. Senator Connally observed that our bloc was a road bloc. Mr. Rockefeller thought we should express ourselves quite definitely on anything we feel we must insist upon. He stated that the only issue handled thus far was on the size of the Security Council in which the Latin Americans had gone down the line with us. He thought that if the Latin Americans have taken an independent position it was because we have not asked them for their help.

Voting Procedure in the Security Council

Commander Stassen suggested that there should be consultation among the Big Five on the question of voting. Senator Connally pointed out that there was a Subcommittee which was working on the meaning of the text but that agreement had not been reached. Mr. Blaisdell said that the Subcommittee of Five had not considered the questionnaire concerning the interpretation of the Yalta formula⁶⁰ which was just distributed this morning. Mr. Dunn thought it was premature to get the Subcommittee of Five together before each Delegation had had an opportunity to study the questionnaire. Mr. Blaisdell expressed the opinion that no vote would be taken on this question today or tomorrow and suggested that it might not be taken before Friday. Mr. Pasvolsky thought that the Delegation should be given at least two days to prepare a reply and that voting on the question might be held up until Friday. He thought we should stall on this matter. Mr. Rockefeller observed that this was a matter of principle on which we might get support from our Latin friends. Commander Stassen suggested that no pressure be put on until the interpretation is clear. Mr. Rockefeller thought that if an interpretation was agreed to by the Sponsoring Governments but not inserted in the Charter it would make it easier for the Russians and more acceptable to other delegations. Mr. Dulles remarked that we probably would not get Gromyko to agree on any change and that we know now where we will come out. Mr. Notter thought that the little states might drive to a vote on which they could overwhelm us. Mr. Rockefeller stated that in his talk with the Latin Americans he had discussed only basic issues and on the basis of logic rather than on the basis of pressure. The Secretary observed that we hadn’t swung our weight around on this question yet. Mr. Dunn observed that there had never been any conference in history when there had been such freedom and latitude in the discussions.

Working Paper on Trusteeship

Commander Stassen presented the proposed working paper for the Chapter on Dependent Territories and Arrangements for International Trusteeship (draft of May 21, 1945)⁶¹ and called attention to the changes which had been made in the earlier draft. He pointed out that Section A of the paper had been left without change. He called attention to the additional proposal in Section B, 2 (b) reading as follows: “or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its people, and as may be provided in each trusteeship arrangement”. He felt confident that this formula together with the new sub-paragraph c concerning respect for human rights would be agreed to by the Five Powers if it were approved by the Delegation. He also called attention to the suggestion which had been made in Section B, 2 (d) to add the phrase “and their nationals” to clarify the meaning of this paragraph on equal treatment in social, economic, and commercial matters for all members of the United Nations. Senator Connally thought that this additional phrase should be omitted while Mr. Dulles thought it was desirable to have such a clause inserted. Mr. Pasvolsky thought that the League treaties took care of nationals and that it wouldn’t hurt to insert the clause in the Chapter on Trusteeship. Mr. Dulles observed that while member states would have equal rights, there was a danger that without the addition of this clause there might be discrimination against nationals of member states.

Commander Stassen pointed out that the phrase in paragraph 4 “including the mandatory power” was to make clear that action could not be taken without the consent of the mandatory power. Mr. Hackworth observed that under the mandates system only the League could change the terms of a mandate. In reply to a question whether the mandatory power had a veto, Commander Stassen replied in the negative. Mr. Hackworth stated that under the mandate treaties no change in the terms of the mandate could be made without the consent of the League and the United States. Commander Stassen said that under this provision the terms of the mandates could not be changed without the consent of the mandatory power. Mr. Gerig stated that the question of the transfer of a mandate was, however, a contested point under the League. Commander Stassen replied that, as a practical matter, it would not be possible to transfer a mandate without the consent of the mandatory power.

Commander Stassen stated that the addition to paragraph 5 “made under paragraph 6 below” was inserted to make it perfectly clear that the agreements to be concluded subsequently would control.

In connection with the addition to paragraph 7 “without prejudice to any special agreement made under Chapter VIII, Section B, paragraph 5”, Commander Stassen stated that this had been made because the Soviets feared that the provision as it stood might affect the forces and facilities to be supplied the Security Council.

Commander Stassen explained the additions made to paragraph 11 concerning the composition of a Trusteeship Council and said that this took care of the Soviet request for a seat on the Council. Mr. Notter inquired whether any members of the Trusteeship Council would have a veto to which Commander Stassen replied in the negative. Mr. Gerig pointed out that there was no reference to the majority which would be required for decisions of the Trusteeship Council. Mr. Pasvolsky expressed the view that a two-thirds majority would be safer than a simple majority in order to protect the administering powers. If there were only a simple majority the administering powers would be in a minority. Commander Stassen stated that he would raise this question and seek to get agreement on a two-thirds majority. Mr. Gates thought that the whole document was quite satisfactory and believed that the two-thirds majority vote was acceptable. Commander Stassen suggested that the word “shall” be substituted for the word “may” in the last sentence of paragraph 11.

Commander Stassen pointed out that the addition to paragraph 13 “on the political, economic, and social advancement of the inhabitants of the territory” had been suggested by the British and had consequently been incorporated in this draft. The Secretary, after noting that the Delegation agreed to this revised document, extended congratulations to Commander Stassen. Commander Stassen in return commended Mr. Gerig and Mr. Bloom and stated that it hadn’t been a one man job but that it was the result of agreement and hard work on the part of a number of persons.

Preparatory Commission

Mr. Sandifer reviewed the draft proposal on a Preparatory Commission⁶² which he stated had been reviewed by Mr. Hiss and Mr. Darlington and that their suggestions had been incorporated in the present draft. He stated that the purpose of the Preparatory Commission was to expedite preparations for the first sessions of the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the Trusteeship Council, and that its work would consist of the preparation of agendas for these bodies and documents pertaining thereto. He called attention to the blanks in paragraphs 6 and 7 concerning the seat of the Preparatory Commission and the government which would be entrusted with the responsibilty of calling the first session of the Commission. He said that Washington or London had been suggested as suitable locations for the work of the Commission.

The Secretary then asked Mr. Sandifer to express his view on the seat of the Commission. Mr. Sandifer suggested that London might be considered because the United States had had most of the conferences and preparatory commissions in this country, and London had had practically nothing. He thought we could expect the British to make a strong case for London. The Secretary suggested that if the Delegation were agreed on London we take the initiative in proposing it and get credit for it. Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that the Secretary discuss this matter with the President.⁶³

The Secretary expressed his favorable reaction to the proposal for the Preparatory Commission. Mr. Sandifer stated that he thought it was desirable to have preliminary approval by the Delegation so that it could be sent to the Subcommittee of Five.

In connection with the functions of the Preparatory Commission a brief discussion took place concerning the status of narcotics control. Senator Vandenberg wished to be assured that it was taken care of. Senator Connally stated that there would be authority in the Charter to take over the activities which were under the League and that Chapter IX provided ample powers for the Organization to assume jurisdiction over the control of narcotics.

In connection with paragraph 7 of the Proposals, the suggestion was made that the sponsoring governments be entrusted with the responsibility of calling the first session of the Commission. The Secretary thought that this question might be put up to the Executive Committee. Mr. Pasvolsky thought that one government might issue the invitations after consultation among the Sponsoring Governments concerning the date for convening the Commission.

Location in Charter of Provision on Respect for Treaties

Mr. Rockefeller inquired whether it had been decided where the provision on respect for treaties would be placed in the Charter. Mr. Pasvolsky replied that the Committee of Five had agreed to put this provision in the Preamble. He understood, however, that the Latin American countries objected to placing it there and wanted it in the body of the Charter, and saw no objection to reopening the question. He understood that the Latin Americans wanted to insert a provision in Chapter V similar to that in the Chapter on the Security Council, to the effect that the Assembly shall act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Organization. This proposal was supported by Chile, Colombia, and Peru. Mr. Rockefeller stated that the Latin Americans are anxious to have a provision on respect for treaties in the body of the Charter because they fear the possible reopening of discussion on treaties settling their boundary disputes.⁶⁴ While Europeans would be satisfied with a reference to this matter in the Preamble, the Latin Americans would not.

The meeting was adjourned into an executive session.

53. Doc. 532, II/3/23, May 22, UNCIO Documents, vol. 10, p. 57.
54. Works Progress Administration.
55. For text of statement by the Secretary of State on proposals submitted to the Regional Committee, released to the press at San Francisco on May 20, see Department of State Bulletin, May 27, 1945, p. 949; see also Doc. 533, III/4/A/9, May 23, UNCIO Documents, vol. 12, p. 848.
56. Green H. Hackworth (United States, chairman), Sir William Malkin (United Kingdom), S. A. Golunsky (Soviet Union), Hsu Mo (China), Jules Basdevant (France), and Alfonso Garcia Robles (Mexico), members of the Committee, were present at its first meeting on May 29, 3:15 p.m. (WD 54, CO/25, May 30, UNCIO Documents, vol. 17, p. 388).
57. American jurist; Judge, Permanent Court of International Justice.
57. William L. Ransom, Associate Consultant to the United States delegation, representing the American Bar Association.
58. Doc. 477, IV/l/A/l, May 22, UNCIO Documents, vol. 13, p. 527.
59. Doc. 499, ST/11, May 22, and Doc. 468, ST/9, May 20, ibid., vol. 5, pp. 237 and 226, respectively.
60. U.S. Gen. 156, not printed; for questionnaire on exercise of veto in Security Council, see Doc. 855, III/1/B/2(a), June 8, UNCIO Documents, vol. 11, p. 699.
61. Not printed.
62. Not printed.
63. Telegram 4075, May 23, 5 p.m., to London, transmitted the following personal message from Secretary Stettinius to Foreign Minister Eden: “On my suggestion President Truman has today endorsed proposal which I shall advance in San Francisco that the Preparatory Commission of the United Nations should meet to carry on after San Francisco until the first meeting of the Assembly, and should meet in London.” (500 CC/5–2345)
64. For discussion of the question of treaties in Committee IV/2 on May 21, see Doc. 492, IV/2/23, May 22, UNCIO Documents, vol. 13, p. 612; also, Doc. 507, II/2/22, May 23, ibid., vol. 9, p. 70.