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

RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 96: US Cr. Min. 51

Minutes of the Fifty-First Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Wednesday, May 23, 1945, 9 a.m.

San Francisco, May 23, 1945, 9 a.m.

[Informal Notes]

[Here follows list of names of persons (35) present at meeting.]

In the absence of the Secretary, Senator Connally called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. He called upon Mr. Byington to report on the substance of a communication he had received from Washington earlier in the morning, concerning a press statement by Secretary Stettinius.

The Secretary’s Statement

Secretary Stettinius revealed to the press that President Truman had agreed to come to San Francisco in order to address the final plenary session of the Conference. The Secretary had been unable to name an exact date but indicated that the final session would probably be held early in June. In off-the-record remarks, the Secretary indicated that he hoped that the open Commission Sessions would be held next week. On the record, he expressed his satisfaction over the results of meetings thus far.

Withdrawal Provision

The delegation was referred to the document US Gen 160.⁶⁷ Mr. Dulles reported that the Subcommittee concerned with the question of the right of states to withdraw from the Organization had expressed the opinion that the absence of a specific withdrawal clause would have the effect of making withdrawal impossible.⁶⁸ Representative Eaton had indicated in a statement the day before that the United States did not agree with this position. The text of Representative Eaton’s statement follows:

[Here follows text of statement substantially the same as that read in the fiftieth meeting (Executive Session) of the delegation, May 22, supra.]

Mr. Dulles announced that the Belgian Delegate, Mr. Rolin, had abandoned the previous position of his government that there had to be explicit provisions concerning withdrawal. Mr. Rolin had recommended that the proposal concerning prohibition of withdrawal be withdrawn and that silence on the question be construed as indicating that any nation had the right to withdraw if the Organization failed in its obligations. Mr. Rolin’s statement was thought by the Delegation to constitute an almost complete acceptance of the position of the United States on the subject. It read as follows:

[Here follows text of statement identical with document 528, I/2/33, May 23, UNCIO Documents, volume 7, page 87.]

Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that Representative Eaton’s statement had been entirely in accord with the agreement reached among the Big Five and Mr. Dulles added that in the Subcommittee the British had agreed to the position taken by Mr. Rolin, while the Soviet representative had not expressed any opinion. Senator Connally said that the defeat of a no-withdrawal provision was to our advantage. Mr. Armstrong remarked that Mr. Rolin was in the unusual situation of having created a crisis and solving it himself. Mr. Raynor stated that the Secretary had remarked on the question of withdrawal in Washington earlier in the morning.

Mr. Dunn indicated that the President supported the Delegation’s position of hoping that the veto power should be made inapplicable to parts of Section A of Chapter VIII.

Full Employment

Dean Gildersleeve reported to the Delegation that she had run into a difficult situation in the previous night’s meeting of Committee II/3.⁶⁹ In that session she had presented a revised draft on the first paragraph of Chapter IX, Section A, reopening the question of full employment and also the inclusion of the word “educational.” The Subcommittee had consented to reconsider these problems and voted unanimously to accept the word “educational.” There had been, however, a strong sentiment in opposition to the United States draft concerning full employment, on the grounds that it was unnecessarily weak. The consensus of opinion had been that the wording as it stood before the United States proposal did not constitute a threat to the internal security of any state because of the safeguards incorporated in the “domestic jurisdiction” clause in Chapter II. In view of the opposition which had developed, both the British and Canadian representatives had advised Dean Gildersleeve to withdraw the proposal of this government. The meeting had been adjourned without reaching a decision although the Chairman indicated that a vote would be taken at the next meeting. After the meeting, Prime Minister Fraser of New Zealand had indicated to Dean Gildersleeve that a phraseology on the order of “through international collaboration” might possibly prove acceptable to the Committee. Representative Bloom asked Dean Gildersleeve whether she thought some such phraseology could be pushed through and the reply was that Dean Gildersleeve was uncertain although Mr. Fraser seemed to think that the phraseology might be accepted.

Mr. Dulles commented that the President had endorsed the U.S. position on full employment and was in favor of retaining the words in the Charter. Dean Gildersleeve indicated that she herself favored phraseology involving “collaboration” because the Australian representative on the Committee had cited the Atlantic Charter and had proposed collaboration on the provisions of that document. Commander Stassen said that this combination of part of the Atlantic Charter with “international collaboration to promote” was just as bad as the original wording. The mere fact of the existence of a world organization indicates collaboration and it would be redundant to make specific mention of collaboration in the Charter for such an organization. Dean Gildersleeve indicated that any attempt to change the existing phrase would probably be defeated 48 to 1. Mr. Pasvolsky recalled that the French had at one time proposed a draft which used phraseology on the order of “act in the direction of promoting.” Support for Dean Gildersleeve’s opinion that any proposed change in the wording would be defeated was evidenced by Mr. Waring who declared that there would be very strong opposition to any such move.

Mr. Dulles asked whether the majority decision seemed to be to have the United Nations Organization operate directly in the promotion of full employment. Mr. Waring replied that this was not the case at all. What was desired, he declared, was the strong wording as the Committee had adopted it.

Commander Stassen said that the U.S. should try to get the Five Powers in line. They had been, he declared, breaking an agreement and the Committee of Five should be brought into operation on this point. He declared that we could not afford to allow the other members of the Committee of Five to “raise the devil with us.” We had not embarrassed them on questions such as freedom of information. Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out, however, that it was not only the other four powers which were in opposition, to which Commander Stassen replied that agreement among the Big Five was essential. Dean Gildersleeve voiced the opinion that even with Big Five agreement it would still be impossible to alter the decision of the Committee which seemed very strongly to favor the original wording. Dean Gildersleeve, in reply to a question from Mr. Pasvolsky, declared that the Chinese had voiced no opinion. Dean Gildersleeve repeated that Mr. Fraser had seemed to agree on the adoption of “through international collaboration.” The latter had made clear that New Zealand would not want to foster interference in the domestic affairs of the member states but this problem was adequately covered, he thought, by the new wording adopted in Chapter II.

Mr. Hackworth proposed that a specific condition be established in the clause on full employment making its provisions subject to the provision of the “domestic jurisdiction” clause in Chapter II. Mr. Dulles opposed this on the grounds that it would be dangerous because all provisions of the Charter are subject to the exception established in the “domestic jurisdiction” clause. To make a specific reference to this clause in connection with any single provision in the document would be to weaken the entire document. Commander Stassen expressed the opinion that it did not make sense to establish an exception for matters of domestic jurisdiction and to support elsewhere in the Charter a provision making possible interference in domestic affairs. Dean Gildersleeve remarked that none of the representatives seemed to support interference by the Organization in the domestic affairs of any of the member states.

Representative Bloom asked why Mr. Hackworth’s suggestion that specific reference be made to the “domestic jurisdiction” clause could not be adopted. Mr. Dulles replied that such a reference would weaken the entire document and asked why it was necessary to make it specifically applicable in this instance. Representative Bloom indicated that it was possible that the safeguards incorporated in Chapter II might not be interpreted strongly enough as applying universally throughout the document, with the exception of course of Section B, Chapter VIII. In view of the fact that doubts might arise on this question Representative Bloom thought that its application in this connection might be made explicit. Representative Bloom said he was not a lawyer.

Representative Bloom proposed that Dean Gildersleeve try every possible means to push through a wording that would be acceptable to the U.S. Delegation. Mr. Hackworth suggested that if it were impossible to achieve an acceptable wording in the clause itself then at least we should make certain that the Rapporteur got the position of the United States in the final record. In this way we could protect our own internal affairs. Representative Bloom supported this idea and suggested that Dean Gildersleeve be prepared with a written report to submit to the Rapporteur. Mr. Waring also indicated his support for this strategy. It was, he declared, the “happiest solution” because it would involve the least tampering with the existing phraseology. “The Organization shall promote,” he declared, was interpreted as meaning collaboration and nothing more and Chapter II was accepted by the majority of the states represented in the Committee as providing an adequate safeguard against intervention. Therefore, the states on the Committee were supporting strong language and were insisting upon it. A statement of the United States position in the record of the proceedings, however, would probably be acceptable.

Representative Bloom proposed that a statement be prepared in advance and that Dean Gildersleeve ask for unanimous consent to include it in the record.

Mr. Dulles proposed as a wording acceptable to the United States: “The Organization shall, by means of international collaboration, promote …” But Dean Gildersleeve reiterated that the other nations would not want to accept any such change in wording. Mr. Fraser had received hearty applause when he spoke on human rights and the Delegates wanted strong language in this clause. Senator Vandenberg interpolated that such a position was ridiculous. How, he asked, would it be possible to get Communists and capitalists to collaborate to promote full employment? Commander Stassen declared that unless the interpretation of this clause were made clear in the Charter there would be many hours of oratory in the Senate.

Mr. Dulles indicated that submission on this point might result in pressure for the direct promotion of the fundamental freedoms as well. Dean Gildersleeve said that the opposition had asked why the United States did not oppose that provision as well. The consensus of opinion among the Delegates was that the United States was opposed to the direct promotion of fundamental freedoms.

Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that this discussion would raise the question of the composition of the Economic and Social Council. When that question had been discussed at Dumbarton Oaks it was understood that the Council would be only a facilitating agency. Mr. Stinebower indicated that this question had been settled in principle in the Committee and in the drafting Committee but the problem still was not solved because it was the Organization as a whole which was to be responsible for the promotion of full employment, not the Economic and Social Council alone.

Mr. Waring expressed the opinion that there could be little doubt concerning the efficacy of the safeguards relating to domestic affairs. Chapter II related to international affairs as does everything that follows. Therefore, the United States has nothing to fear in this regard. However, he favored including a statement of our position in the record.

Mr. Dulles pointed out that the opening paragraph of the Section under consideration presupposed that the conditions mentioned were necessary for the maintenance of peaceful relations. If this was so, was it not possible that full employment could become a matter of international concern and therefore be no longer subject to the “domestic jurisdiction” clause? Mr. Hackworth indicated that he himself did not subscribe to the theory that employment could become an international issue. Mr. Sandifer asked whether there was any likelihood that the full employment clause would be so construed and the consensus of opinion of the Delegation seemed to be that it would not.

Mr. Hackworth suggested that the word “recommend” be used. Mr. Stinebower pointed out that throughout the proposal for an Economic and Social Council there was no provision for implementation of the powers of the Organization beyond the authority to make studies and reports and to make recommendations. Nowhere was there any provision for more extensive implementation. This, he declared, was the ridiculous part of the Australian proposals. “Attitudes were crystallizing around shibboleths.” An empty victory would result.

Dean Gildersleeve indicated that she would attempt to push through Mr. Dulles’ wording. If that proved impossible, she would try to have Mr. Hackworth’s statement referring to the “domestic jurisdiction” clause written into the record. She was of the opinion that it would be impossible to get anything else through. Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that an attempt be made to include “in the attainment of”, to which Dean Gildersleeve replied that that would be impossible. Mr. Pasvolsky stated that the question would probably get back eventually to the Steering Committee. Mr. Dulles was asked by Senator Connally whether he thought Chapter II would apply throughout the Charter. Mr. Dulles replied that if two provisions of a document of this nature were inconsistent, as a general rule, in interpreting an attempt was made to give meaning to each. In this case, that would mean dilution of the safeguards of the “domestic jurisdiction” clause. This could be done very easily by accepting the interpretation that full employment is essential to world peace and thus no longer a matter of domestic concern alone. Senator Connally disagreed. In his view the fact that the document had an international orientation throughout, in addition to the safeguard provided in Chapter II, was sufficient to overpower all other considerations. Senator Vandenberg expressed the fear that if he were to support this proposition it might “come back at him.” Sidney Hillman and Henry Wallace,⁷¹ he declared, could use this clause to promote their own economic theories. Senator Connally ventured the opinion that too much emphasis had been given in the Charter to economic and social considerations anyhow. The Senate would probably ask if a word [world] WPB⁷² or WPA^72a would next be established. Mr. Dulles indicated that the Negro problem in the South might cause some Southern Senators to oppose this provision. Dean Gildersleeve remarked that she had stressed the need, in the Committee, for care in view of the necessity of ensuring Senate ratification of the Charter. She had emphasized that there was “no difference in fundamental aims” among the various parties to the discussion. Senator Connally declared that in his view full employment was like the Golden Rule, toward which one could aspire but which one could never attain. Senator Vandenberg declared that if the question arose in the Senate he would refer the Senators to this statement by Senator Connally.

Senator Connally maintained that domestic jurisdiction would not be impaired by this clause and expressed confidence that it would be possible to satisfy the Senate in this regard. Senator Vandenberg, he declared, was agile enough to meet any objections raised in the Senate. Senator Connally declared that the Organization would have only powers of recommendation on the question of full employment. In addition, the domestic jurisdiction clause would close the gate to international intervention with the exception of Chapter VIII, Section B.

Dr. Bowman thought that our vulnerability lay in the first two lines. An opponent of the proposal would probably accept the validity of Chapter II paragraph 7. However, the legal position established here was not consistent with the general truth established at the same time that full employment was necessary for world peace. This inconsistency, he declared would provide grounds for political attack. Senator Connally replied that there would undoubtedly be attacks of this nature in any event but Mr. Rockefeller declared that he was concerned over the possibility of propaganda arising over this inconsistency during times of unemployment which he was certain could not be avoided. Dean Gildersleeve said that she understood that the Organization would work toward this goal and she ventured the opinion that international collaboration could help in advancing toward the attainment of this objective. Senator Vandenberg asked whether anyone had cited specific examples of the type of collaboration envisaged and Dean Gildersleeve replied that the improvement of economic conditions by means of international conferences would probably fall in this category. Senator Vandenberg maintained that full employment meant collectivism or a paraphrase of it and that it never had been otherwise. Dean Gildersleeve maintained, however, that full employment actually meant higher employment.

Representative Bloom inquired whether the two lines under dispute specifically meant that full employment was not a domestic matter. Dr. Bowman replied that there was no specific implication but that if the objectives of full employment were not fulfilled opponents of the scheme could point to the undermining of the Charter inasmuch as peace was declared to depend on full employment. Representative Bloom thought that opponents of world organization could always point to some such flaw, imaginary or otherwise. Mr. Dulles made the point again that the phraseology supported by the opposition on the Committee could be interpreted in such a way that the attainment of full employment would become an international affair. Senator Vandenberg urged that the citizens of this country be asked whether they would have to believe in full employment in order to support the Charter. Mr. Waring declared that full employment was a goal towards which we were striving. We would be trying international collaboration in order to attain this goal. Furthermore, the Organization would have only recommendatory powers.

Senator Vandenberg expressed the opinion that thus far the Delegation had overlooked a fundamental cleavage in the United States public opinion. There were, he declared, those who believed in “full employment,” synonymous with Communism and collectivism, and, on the other hand, there were those who believed in “high and stable levels of employment,” synonymous with free enterprise. If this clause were adopted as it stood, Senator Vandenberg declared, he and his friends would be asked to subscribe to something which they abhorred. However, Senator Vandenberg hastened to assure Dean Gildersleeve that she was in no way responsible for his dilemma but had been forced into an impossible position.

Dean Gildersleeve declared that it was impossible to attain acceptance for yesterday’s proposed wording and therefore she would attempt to push the new wording suggested by Mr. Dulles. If this were unsuitable, she would attempt to incorporate in the record of the proceedings the position of the U. S. Delegation as formulated by Mr. Hackworth.

Senator Connally said that in facing the Senate he would adopt a different approach than Senator Vandenberg. He would point out that we were undertaking to establish an agency which was in effect a laboratory to explore the possibilities and to make recommendations. Mr. Pasvolsky added that the recommendations would be made not only to the United States but to other nations as well. Senator Connally added further that the United States would be able to reject these recommendations. This, he declared, would be his tentative position. Senator Vandenberg reserved his reply.

Objectives of the General Assembly

Mr. Pasvolsky asked if he might take up a question which was not on the agenda. There had arisen a question, brought about by inadequate punctuation, relating to paragraph 6 of Section B of Chapter V. There had been an attempt in the Committee, he declared, to interpret this paragraph as including two objectives, for the attainment of which the General Assembly should initiate studies and make recommendations, both intended “to assist in the realization of human rights and basic freedoms for all …” He inquired of the Delegation what its interpretation of this paragraph was and the Delegation was unanimously agreed that there were in reality three objectives, including the realization of human rights and basic freedoms for all.

Report on the Committee of Five

Mr. Pasvolsky reported that the question of the relation of the French treaty to the security functions of the Organization was due to come up in Committee today. The French had asked Mr. Pasvolsky to make a proposal in Chapter VIII Section C, paragraph 2, safeguarding their treaty rights.⁷⁴ The French wanted to cut paragraph 2 starting with the words “until such time” and Mr. Pasvolsky had countered with the proposal that “by consent of” be changed to “by request of.” Senator Connally suggested that this would constitute a blanket exemption of the French treaty from the provisions of Chapter VIII but Mr. Pasvolsky said that the French treaty would be exempted anyhow under the existing phraseology. According to the French, he declared, it was not a matter of legal obligation at all. Mr. Armstrong ventured that if we were to give in on this issue it would be interpreted as being a concession to the Russians as well as to the French. Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that the Russians had been advising the French and, in fact, putting pressure on them to drop the exception. Senator Vandenberg remarked that this was the only problem facing his committee, and if a change were made the Committee would probably have to wait for an interminable Moscow “confab.” Mr. Pasvolsky indicated, however, that the Russians might accept the proposed phraseology.

Senator Vandenberg remarked that the use of the word “request” had been his idea and Mr. Pasvolsky congratulated him upon his contribution to Mr. Molotov. Mr. Pasvolsky continued that it was the Russian position that the new Chapter XII made possible the elimination of this provision in Chapter VIII. Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Dulles both indicated a preference for leaving this limitation in on the grounds that bilateral treaties were here differentiated from collective self defense. Mr. Pasvolsky observed that there was a lot to be said for retaining the existing phraseology because the last part of the paragraph provided a link between regional arrangements and the United Nations.

Senator Vandenberg indicated that he would go along with any decisions of the Committee of Five because he considered that this paragraph had been rendered relatively inconsequential by the adoption of Chapter XII. Senator Connally remarked that the only advantage of retaining this clause would be that it establishes clearly the responsibility of the Organization. Mr. Dulles pointed out that this type of thing was described as a regional arrangement and would be subject to the restrictions of Chapter VIII, Section C paragraph 2. It was not collective defense. Mr. Pasvolsky stated that where the Organization operates, no freedom of action would be retained by the individual states but where the Organization did not operate the states would have the right of initiative. This question, Mr. Pasvolsky said, had not yet been discussed by the Committee of Five. Perhaps the phraseology “by consent or on request” would prove acceptable to this body. Mr. Dulles asked whether the word “and” might not also be adopted and Mr. Pasvolsky said that was another possibility. “By consent or on request” would, he declared, be acceptable to the United States. Senator Connally said he could see no difference between the two phrases except that “request” placed the initiative more squarely upon the individual state. Mr. Armstrong pointed out that pressure by the Organization would be facilitated if a state was required only to “consent.”

Mr. Pasvolsky emphasized that there had been no commitment and asked the Delegation to allow him to explore the various possibilities. Senator Vandenberg declared that his chief interest lay in winding up the job of the Committee and making the final report to the Commission. Mr. Pasvolsky asked what his position would be if the French pressed for “request” or “request and consent.” Senator Vandenberg said he favored accepting any formula agreed upon by the Five Powers and the Delegation agreed unanimously to follow this course.

Voting

Mr. Pasvolsky declared that no action had been taken on the question of voting arrangements and that therefore he had nothing to report. Mr. Rockefeller asked whether the Secretary was taking this question up with the President in Washington and Mr. Pasvolsky replied that that was the case.

Respect for Treaties in Section on Principles

Mr. Pasvolsky asked how strongly the Delegation felt about the question of including a reference to respect for treaties in the section on Principles. The Five Powers he declared had agreed not to object to the inclusion of such a reference in the Preamble but, Mr. Pasvolsky emphasized, they were agreed that it could appear in the Preamble only since it was a matter for states and not the Organization. The Preamble, he pointed out, established only the obligation of states. Mr. Dulles agreed that it would be dangerous to include any such provision in the Chapter on Principles. Mr. Pasvolsky observed that the Latin American states had been pressing for the inclusion of some reference to the sanctity of treaties among the Principles. They also favored the inclusion of a statement in Chapter V, Section B, paragraphs 1 and 6 that the General Assembly should be governed by the purposes and principles of the Organization established in Chapters I and II. Senator Connally urged that this was an issue that could not be ignored but at the same time could not be stressed because too strong a statement would take the heart out of the Organization, Mr. Rockefeller stated that he had had a conversation with the Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs who declared that it was not Chile’s intention to affect the Vandenberg amendment. The French would not care whether the provision appeared in the Preamble or in the Principles. Mr. Sandifer pointed out that a provision appearing in the Preamble would have no legal standing. Mr. Pasvolsky stated that the French had worked out language to be introduced in the Preamble. Mr. Hackworth declared that, in the past, Inter-American meetings had always attempted to promote respect for treaties. Here, however, there was provision for getting rid of treaties which were inconsistent with the aims of the Organization. Senator Vandenberg urged that “disrespect” for treaties was not involved if the treaties themselves were inconsistent with the objectives of the United Nations.

Palestine

At this point in the meeting Mr. Gerig announced that he and Representative Bloom would have to leave to attend another meeting and asked whether the Committee could consider for a moment a political question which had arisen. The Arab League, he declared, had been active by supporting a specific reference to Palestine and their proposition would have a direct effect on the Trusteeship draft Chapter. Commander Stassen was to have a meeting with the representatives of the Arab League at 12:30 and desired the advice of the Committee. Mr. Gerig pointed out that the Trusteeship proposal makes arrangements for machinery but provides that specific arrangements concerning individual territories would be made in the future, possibly at the Peace Conference. The Arab League was insisting that there be specific provision in the Charter that no change be made in the present mandated status of Palestine.⁷⁵ If this proposal were to be accepted changes in the status of other mandated territories would be made difficult. The Arabs, he declared, had gone so far as to suggest that it would be impossible for them to sign the entire Charter unless their conditions were met. Mr. Dulles asked whether he understood correctly that the Arab League wanted the Charter to refer specifically to the territory of Palestine and Mr. Gerig replied that this was correct. It would be to the disadvantage of the Arabs, he declared, if room were left for revision of the existing status quo because of their fear that greater rights might be granted to the Jewish population in Palestine. Mr. Dulles declared that there were other groups also which wanted statehood for Palestine.

Representative Bloom expressed the opinion that specific mention of Palestine and freezing its status would have a bad effect on the rest of the Trusteeship Chapter inasmuch as there is no mention of any specific territory elsewhere in the document. This, he declared, would be true even if he were in favor of the substantive proposal of the Arabs. For these reasons, Representative Bloom favored adopting a hands-off policy. Dean Gildersleeve proposed that no mention be made in the Charter of any specific territories and the Committee was in complete agreement.

At this point (10:10 a.m.) Representative Bloom and Mr. Gerig and Mr. Crawford⁷⁶ left the meeting.

Respect for Treaties in Section on Principles

Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that the Committee return to its consideration of the question of respect for treaties. Dean Gildersleeve declared that this fell under the scope of her Committee but Mr. Pasvolsky declared that this was primarily Mr. Rockefeller’s headache. The latter expressed the view that it was to the interest of the United States to avoid opening up existing treaties for revision because of the numerous border disputes which would arise in Latin America. Mr. Sandifer declared that the Charter was based on the faithful observance of obligation, the implication being that no specific reference to the sanctity of treaties was necessary. Senator Connally asked why inclusion of some phraseology in the Preamble wouldn’t satisfy the Latin Americans and Dean Gildersleeve commented that there must be an acceptable phraseology. Mr. Dulles inquired as to the status of the Japanese-Russian agreement.⁷⁷ Would the United States favor respect for this obligation as well?

Mr. Pasvolsky replied that he had convinced the French that it would be dangerous to place any reference to respect for treaties in the Chapter on Principles. All possibilities had been examined and the French had agreed to withdraw their amendment and had indicated support for locating that provision in the Preamble. The Preamble, Mr. Sandifer declared, would not be binding but it merely would be a statement of the aspiration of the Organization. Mr. Rockefeller indicated support for this position but also suggested that the two insertions concerning the General Assembly’s respect for the principles and purposes of the Organization, proposed by the Latin Americans, be accepted. These insertions, he said, would not jeopardize the document in any way but Mr. Pasvolsky declared that this request was not reasonable with respect to the document itself, although such an action might perhaps be justifiable with consideration for the internal situation of the various Latin American countries. It had been proposed that provision be made in paragraph 6 of Chapter V that the Assembly be governed by the principles established in Chapters I and II. Mr. Pasvolsky asked why this provision had been included in the Chapter on the Security Council and not in the chapter on the General Assembly. The reason, he declared, was that the Council was a small body and should not act arbitrarily. The Assembly, however, would be fully expected to act in accordance with its own principles. It would be completely redundant, he maintained, to include such a reference. The position taken by Mr. Rockefeller apparently was, he declared, that revision of treaties would be acceptable for Europe but not for the Western Hemisphere.

Mr. Rockefeller said that the Latin American countries were prepared to accept Senator Vandenberg’s resolution. However, we must take adequate account of their internal situation. Senator Connally indicated that he thought the Latin American countries ought to be content with the inclusion of some phraseology protecting treaties in the Preamble.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 without any decision being reached on this question.

67. Progress report, May 21 and 22, not printed.
68. Doc. 529, I/2/33, May 23, UNCIO Documents, vol. 7, p. 86.
69. Doc. 532, II/3/23, May 22, ibid., vol. 10, p. 57.
71. Henry A. Wallace, Secretary of Commerce.
72. Possibly a garbled reference to the PWA (Public Works Administration) instead of the WPB (War Production Board).
73. Works Progress Administration.
74. For French draft amendment of May 6, see Doc. 2, G/7(o) (2), UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 392. An attempt was made in the May 21 and 23 meetings of the Five Power Deputies to draft a new text combining the French proposal with that of the Sponsoring Powers (U.S. Gen. 167, not printed). For amendment proposed by the four Sponsoring Governments, see UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 688.
75. Doc. 552, II/4/23, May 24, UNCIO Documents, vol. 10, p. 477.
76. Boyd Crawford, assistant to the Congressional members of the delegation.
77. Neutrality pact between the Soviet Union and Japan, signed at Moscow April 13, 1941, Department of State Bulletin, April 29, 1945, p. 812; see also Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. ii, p. 186.