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 52

Minutes of the Fifty-Second Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Thursday, May 24, 1945, 9:05 a.m.

San Francisco, May 24, 1945, 9:05 a.m.

[Informal Notes]

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

In the absence of the Secretary,⁷⁸ Senator Connally called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.

Conclusion of Military Agreements

The Chairman called on Mr. Hickerson to present to the Delegation the first matter on the agenda. The members of the Delegation were presented with a document entitled Recommendations on Basic Issues, U. S. Gen. 147,⁷⁹ and were referred to the section on the work of Committee III/3 concerning agreements for the provision of forces to the Organization. The question at issue involved the wording of paragraph 5, Section B, Chapter VIII. Mr. Hickerson stated that it had been proposed to substitute the words “by them” for the original wording “among themselves”. This new wording would make possible conclusion of agreements among any of a number of possible parties, such as the Security Council on the one hand and the member states on the other, or the member states themselves. Senator Connally asked who would determine the parties to any agreement, and Mr. Hickerson thought that this function would be performed by the Security Council. Senator Vandenberg indicated that he had no objection to the proposed change, but Senator Connally declared that he was afraid that confusion might result from the two possible situations. He himself, he said, would prefer to see the agreements consummated with the Security Council as a party, and he asked Mr. Gates to give the opinion of the military representatives on this subject. The latter said that he did not have a strong opinion on the subject but he agreed with Senator Connally that the Security Council should be a party to all military agreements. At this point Mr. Hickerson pointed out that Admiral Train had drafted a paper sometime previously proposing wording that would make possible Security Council participation in all military agreements. The wording under consideration would provide for such a possibility. Commander Stassen said that he, too, would support the change.

Mr. Pasvolsky urged that it would be impossible to get agreement on one alternative or the other, and that the most that could be hoped for would be a flexible solution making possible either alternative. There had already been agreement to grant to the Security Council the right to participate in the conclusion of military agreements. Furthermore the existing wording might possibly be interpreted to imply that unanimity among the members would be required for Security Council action.

Mr. Hickerson pointed out that at this afternoon’s meeting⁸⁰ Senator Connally would have to vote on the Australian Amendment but that this proposal might dispose of the Australian draft. Mr. Pasvolsky asked whether the Delegates would authorize him to accept the new wording and the Delegates unanimously agreed to this course of action.

Registration of Military Agreements

The Chairman called on Mr. Hackworth to present to the Delegates the next question to be considered. Mr. Hackworth stated that the Russians had raised the point, in connection with the Chapter on the Registration and Publication of Treaties, (U.S. Gen. 169⁸¹) as to whether military agreements should not be exempted from the requirement that treaties should be registered with the Secretariat of the Organization. Their proposed wording was incorporated in paragraph 4 in the draft of subcommittee IV/2/A,⁸² as follows: “The preceding provisions shall not apply to agreements entered into for the execution of Chapter VIII, Section B, paragraphs 5 and 6 of the present Charter if the Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council so decides”.

Senator Vandenberg remarked that the existence of such a provision would open the way for secret agreements in the future and Mr. Hackworth agreed that such a policy would be contrary to what we stand for. Senator Vandenberg declared that if this clause were accepted we might just as well tear up the entire Charter. Mr. Hackworth declared that he had suggested as an alternative that military agreements be subject to the jurisdiction of the Security Council whereas all others should fall under the General Assembly. Representative Eaton asked Mr. Hackworth whether he thought the Russians would accept this compromise proposal. Mr. Hackworth replied that he did not know but that he had spoken to Mr. Fahy about it and the latter also agreed that it was an acceptable solution. Mr. Hackworth went on to say that there was a possibility that the Committee would become deadlocked on paragraph 4 of this chapter.

Mr. Pasvolsky wanted to know why a military agreement should be kept secret, and Representative Eaton replied that the Bible said that it was impossible to yoke an ass and an ox side by side. Mr. Armstrong remarked that the potential utilization of its strength was the principal reliance of the Organization. Therefore, the agreements concerning the use of force should be made public.

Mr. Dunn asked who had proposed this change and Mr. Hackworth replied that it was the Russians who were supporting the new provision. Mr. Armstrong declared that he was in favor of adhering to the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. Mr. Notter commented that the arguments on both sides were strong and that a compromise might be in order. He suggested that phraseology such as “the conditions under which the proceeding provisions shall apply to military agreements shall be determined at the discretion of the Organization”. Commander Stassen urged that it would be impossible to adhere to the amendment because of the disillusioning effect it would have on public opinion throughout the world. Mr. Sandifer stated that agreement on the first three paragraphs had already been reached in the subcommittee.

Senator Connally voiced the opinion that this provision would leave the decision as to application of the provisions on registration up to the Security Council, but Mr. Hackworth declared that the ultimate decision would be made by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. This provision would not be necessary at all, he declared, if complete jurisdiction remained in the hands of the Assembly.

Mr. Armstrong urged that the Dumbarton Oaks proposals could not be changed without the approval of the Four Powers, but Mr. Dulles pointed out that no provision had been made for the registration of treaties in the Dumbarton Oaks documents. Mr. Notter added, however, that at Dumbarton Oaks agreement had been reached with the Chinese but that the matter had been left for some other nation to propose and no language had been drafted. Mr. Pasvolsky emphasized that there should be no unregistered treaties whatsoever.

Commander Stassen moved that the Delegation resist paragraph 4 of this draft and there was unanimous agreement. However, Mr. Hackworth pointed out that the 10:30 meeting might reach an impasse unless a compromise proposal were made. When he was informed by Mr. Hackworth that there had been no support for the Russian proposal, Senator Vandenberg spoke up in favor of voting the Russians down on this issue. Senator Connally, however, asked for Mr. Hackworth’s views on the subject and the latter suggested as a possible compromise that provision be made for the Council to regulate the registration of military agreements. Mr. Gates was asked to speak for the military members of the Delegation, and he declared that in his view this was not an important military issue. Secrecy, he declared, was not at issue here at all, but he said it would make sense to have control over military agreements vested in the Security Council.

Proposed Change in Sponsoring Governments’ Amendments to Chapter VIII, Section C, Paragraph 2

Mr. Pasvolsky reported that the French had found it difficult to accept the last three lines of Chapter VIII, Section C, Paragraph 2, and had proposed a new sentence to follow the word “states” (U.S. Gen. 167⁸³). The proposed wording was: “The authorization of the Security Council shall be necessary for such measures from the moment when the request of the Government’s parties to the arrangements referred to above, the Organization is charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by a state enemy of the United Nations in this war.”

Commander Stassen expressed a belief that the language of this proposal was bad and urged that we should not touch this paragraph at all because it would re-open the question of regionalism, common defense, and the like. Mr. Pasvolsky asked Commander Stassen what reasons he had to support his belief and The Commander replied that the original wording had been hammered out with great difficulty and represented a large area of agreement. Furthermore, he declared, there was no reason for making the amendment. Mr. Notter seemed to think there might be an advantage to the new wording because it specifically referred to the responsibility of the Organization to prevent aggression by immediate steps, whereas the original wording implied only a remote consent. Commander Stassen thought that the modification starting with the word “when” counteracted this new wording. Senator Vandenberg ventured that the French were trying to escape being “pressured into” something and thought that “request” was the important word. Mr. Johnson added that under the old wording bilateral amendments would become ineffective when the Organization started effective operation, but the new wording would maintain the bilateral amendments even after the effective operation of the Organization. Commander Stassen indicated that unless Chapter VIII, Section C, Paragraph 2 were to be changed, these regional arrangements must be brought under Chapter XII. He was, he declared, opposed to any change.

Mr. Pasvolsky indicated that the Russians had not yet made their position clear on this issue, but that we would possibly know later in the day what the Russian attitude would be. Senator Vandenberg declared that this was the only problem remaining before his Committee on regional problems, and that he would favor going along with the Russians. Commander Stassen restated his position that we must stand pat on the present wording. Mr. Pasvolsky stated that the Russians had indicated some concern over the word “request”. This was, he declared, a redraft of the British wording and the United Kingdom had indicated support for the new wording.

Commander Stassen reminded the Delegation that this was the place where we would give free action in Europe. The pressure for such freedom in action had been held down in the Big Five discussions and he thought that we should stand by the previous decision. Mr. Pasvolsky declared that the introduction of the French amendment had re-established freedom of action in the negotiations and that now we would have to wait to see what the Committee was going to do on this question. However, Commander Stassen declared emphatically that this was not the case, and that the United States must insist that the Big Four stand together on this issue.

Mr. Pasvolsky voiced the opinion that the new wording starting with “the authorization …” was stronger than the original “until such time …”. Mr. Dulles said that the new wording would keep regional agreements alive, and Mr. Pasvolsky declared that the original phraseology could also be interpreted in such a way as to keep these pacts in existence. Mr. Pasvolsky declared that the only difference in substance was the use of the word “request” instead of the word “consent”. Commander Stassen pointed out that “enforcement” had also been added to the previous sentence. Mr. Pasvolsky replied that the Security Council could deal only with matters pertaining to enforcement anyhow, and stated that he could perceive no objection to using the word. Commander Stassen asked why changes should be made if the meaning was all right in the first place, and Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that political considerations at home had prompted the French amendment. Commander Stassen declared, however, that the United States had not ventured to reopen all the Four Power amendments. All the nations, he declared, had an equal interest in this despite the political necessity underlying the French insistence upon a new wording. The new wording carries the complication of opening up a greater area of freedom of action, and the United States, he said, must stand firm against this.

Senator Vandenberg asked whether the French demand could be met by changing the word “consent” to “request”. Mr. Pasvolsky declared that this was a possibility, and Senator Vandenberg remarked that there could be little difference to us which word was adopted. Mr. Armstrong objected, however, and declared that the two were not the same because the incidence of the initiative might effect the result. Commander Stassen asked that the Delegation remember the background of this question. The Four Powers, he declared, had accepted our solution of this difficult problem and to reopen the question would have a bad effect. Mr. Pasvolsky, however, pointed out that the French had never accepted our solution, and Mr. Dunn corroborated this by declaring that Paul-Boncour had served notice that the French were reserving their position on this question. Mr. Dunn expressed the opinion that if it proved to be necessary to change “consent” to “request” we should do so because the only change would be in the psychological approach. This wording would be important, he said, to any French Government. Senator Connally pointed out that the change in wording would merely change the initiative. Mr. Armstrong thought, however, this new wording would preclude the Assembly from discussing matters pertaining to enforcement, but Mr. Pasvolsky was of the opinion that the new wording would affect only the taking of the final decision. Mr. Dunn reiterated that this was an important point politically to the French Delegation. Representative Bloom asked whether he was right in his impression that “consent” and “request” were practically the same and both Senator Connally and Mr. Dunn agreed that was correct. Senator Vandenberg then added that in the final analysis the signatory power would have the final word under either phraseology. Mr. Dunn said that he would oppose making a big change in this paragraph, but was in favor of the substitution of “consent” for “request”.

Senator Connally asked what was the opinion of the Delegation on giving Mr. Pasvolsky authority, if necessary, to support the change under discussion. Dean Gildersleeve voted in favor of this procedure with misgivings. Senator Vandenberg and Representative Eaton likewise voted affirmatively. Commander Stassen dissented emphatically and declared that this change could be made only with the approval of President Truman. It was closely tied in, he declared, with the entire question of freedom of action.

Senator Connally asked whether it was true that France had not participated in the discussion of this question and Commander Stassen declared that separate consultations had been held with them. Mr. Molotov, he declared, had refused to agree to the wording until he had a chance to discuss the solution with the French representatives.⁸⁵ Congressman Bloom suggested that we defer the question and see if Mr. Pasvolsky could not do better. If necessary, he said, he would go along with the change against his better judgment.

Mr. Pasvolsky then requested authorization to inform the Committee that the United States did not consent to the change and supported referring the matter to the Chairman of the Delegations of the Five Powers. The Committee agreed to this although Senator Vandenberg declared that he did not like the decision. Representative Eaton concurred in Senator Vandenberg’s sentiments. The latter wanted to know why a major issue should be made of this question and declared that it was too deep for him. France, he said, had a final say in either event. Senator Connally pointed out that we had no assurance that the French would accept the proposed revision, but Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that the French had proposed it themselves a few days previously and that the British also seemed to favor this wording. Mr. Pasvolsky remarked, however, that Senator Vandenberg’s Committee, would be forced to remain in session, and the Senator declared that this was not too important. However, he thought that it would be a healthy step if one committee did finish its work. Representative Bloom declared that his committee would probably finish shortly, and Senator Vandenberg remarked that he meant an important committee!

Senator Vandenberg declared that he could not see any point in sending Mr. Pasvolsky back without power to negotiate. He should be authorized to stand pat on the existing wording, and if necessary give up “request”. Mr. Notter declared that France had a veto now, and as a result had no less initiative than under the new wording. Senator Connally announced that the Delegation unanimously agreed that Mr. Pasvolsky should return to the Committee to do the best he could. If he could not get assurance for the existing wording, he should be empowered to try to get Five Power agreement on a substitute. Senator Vandenberg said that the decision was only semi-unanimous and asked that the motion be repeated. When a vote was finally taken the decision was upheld 4 to 1 with Senator Vandenberg dissenting on the grounds that the issue was not important enough to be taken to the Heads of the Delegations.

Proposal by Uruguay on Chapter XI

Mr. Sandifer presented document U.S. Gen. 147⁸⁶ to the Delegation. The question before the Delegation was whether, under the rules of procedure setting May 4 as the deadline for amendments, a Uruguayan amendment to Chapter XI⁸⁷ should be accepted. This amendment, he declared, would be submitted to Committee I/2. Mr. Sandifer did not think there could be any objection to accepting the Uruguayan amendment. Mr. Pasvolsky proposed that we should permit introduction of the amendment, but at the same time inform the Uruguayan Representative that the United States would oppose the substance of the amendment. Senator Connally asked why there should be a rule on this question of introducing amendments if it were not upheld, and Mr. Sandifer declared that there had been so many exceptions already that the Uruguayan proposal could be excluded only on arbitrary grounds. Representative Bloom asked how we could possibly refuse to accept the amendment if a precedent had already been set.

Mr. Pasvolsky repeated that we should tell Uruguay now that we would oppose their provision. It would be possible under this proposal, after ten years to amend the Charter to obligate the United States to commit all its resources without our consent. Commander Stassen put this suggestion in the form of a formal proposition and Mr. Sandifer amended it to have Representative Eaton tell the Uruguayan Representative our position. There was unanimous agreement that this procedure should be followed.

Broader Question of Amendments

Mr. Dulles voiced the opinion that the Delegation should give serious consideration to the entire question of the amendment provisions. He thought that the existing provision should be liberalized. Mr. Dulles pointed out that veto power over amendments was granted to the five major powers including France and China which had, he declared, hazardous future status. Liberal elements would attack China’s right to veto amendments in perpetuity. Senator Connally agreed with this position.

At this point Representative Bloom asked whether we could not permit the introduction, but not discussion, of the Uruguayan amendment in view of the fact that unless some sort of restraint were shown, it would be possible to introduce amendments any time, even until the last days of the Conference.

Mr. Rockefeller urged that our position could be strengthened if we were to make a statement along the lines of Mr. Dulles’ suggestion. The opposition, he declared, had a strong point with respect to the veto power of the Big Five, and he was afraid there would be a blowup if a position were not taken. Mr. Dulles said that he could understand that amendments would have to have the approval of the strong nations, but to give them veto rights in perpetuity would be a mistake, he thought, and would open us to attack by liberal elements. Senator Connally asked whether the Delegation favored reopening the question and Senator Vandenberg wondered whether the Yalta decision was involved. Mr. Pasvolsky replied that something more important even than that was at stake. If the amended provisions were to be liberalized, an amendment could be obligatory on the United States without our consent. Mr. Dunn added that this would be true unless there were assurances that the acceptance of an obligation was to be made dependent upon ratification by the state involved. Representative Eaton pointed out that the Charter would have to be referred to the Senate, and the chief arguments in our favor would be the fact that the Charter represented only a beginning in the direction of an Organization capable of establishing and demanding world peace. However, this argument would be effective only if there were adequate provision for amendment.

However, there was general agreement that the United States would not be willing to enter an Organization that could make changes obligatory upon us without our consent. Mr. Pasvolsky then pointed out that since this was the case we could hardly deny the right of veto to the other big powers, and added that we had already accepted France and China, as well as the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, as our equals.

Mr. Dulles suggested that consideration be giyen the possibility of demoting a state from its position as a permanent member of the Security Council by a three-fourths vote of the Assembly, and perhaps a vote of three or four permanent members of the Security Council. Mr. Pasvolsky remarked that such a procedure could be used against us, and Mr. Dulles replied that if such a situation were to occur, he would be satisfied. It seemed incredible to him that the United States could ever be in a position where the other member states of the Organization would want to demote the United States from its status as a permanent member; however, it was not so incredible with respect to France and China.

Commander Stassen was in agreement with Mr. Dulles concerning the matter and with his analysis of the situation as well. However, he was of the belief that practical considerations made it impossible to take up the question at this time. Russia, he pointed out, had been thrown out of the League of Nations, and the United States had never been a member. He thought that the best procedure would be to make changes at such times in the future as they might become necessary. If a state having veto power refused to accept an amendment demoting its status, the Organization could go ahead without its consent and in effect form a new Organization. Mr. Dulles declared that the Organization could always be scrapped anyway. Commander Stassen reiterated that we could not open up this question now. Representative Bloom agreed with Commander Stassen that this was not the time.

The Domestic Jurisdiction

Dean Gildersleeve declared that this was a very important discussion and very interesting, but that she had to leave for a meeting shortly and had a problem to take up with the Delegation. Yesterday afternoon, she declared, she and Mr. Notter had run across opposition in subcommittee I/1/A, to the additional paragraph concerning “domestic jurisdiction” (Chapter II, paragraph 7). Mr. Dulles suggested that one of the Senators should appear at the meeting because of his greater authority on the position of the Senate on this matter. Mr. Dunn suggested that Senator Connally attend the meeting at 10:30,⁸⁸ and Senator Connally replied that he might go. Senator Connally asked whether Dean Gildersleeve thought that the delegations opposing the “domestic jurisdiction” clause favored empowering the Organization to interfere in the domestic affairs of the member states. Dean Gildersleeve replied that this was not the case, and Mr. Dulles remarked that we were faced with a situation where some of the other delegations wanted the “domestic jurisdiction” clause to apply only to the Security Council and not to the powers of the Economic and Social Council.

Senator Connally pointed out that the Australian Delegation was “insane” concerning the “domestic jurisdiction” clause⁸⁹ and strongly favored the safeguards embodied therein. Mr. Notter urged that the Delegation should send its big guns to the meeting, because the decision of the United States on this question would possibly be determining. Representative Bloom moved that Senator Connally be requested to go, and the Chairman (Senator Connally) added that he might attend the meeting.

Full Employment

Dean Gildersleeve reported that she was going to a meeting of Committee II/3. She declared that she intended to follow the instructions of the Delegates formulated at the previous day’s meeting and withdraw the United States amendment⁹⁰ if it should prove necessary. In this event, she would have inserted in the formal record of the proceedings a statement of the United States position on the applicability of the “domestic jurisdiction” clause to the section on full employment.

Expulsion and Suspension

Representative Eaton asked Mr. Notter to report on the meeting of Committee I/2/C.⁹¹ Mr. Notter stated that the United States had been defeated on the question of retaining provision for expulsion in the Charter. The vote had been 6 to 5 with the Russians making a strong defense for retaining the provision. The British and Chinese had not spoken on the matter. Mr. Notter further declared that he had won on the question of suspending states, not merely privileges, in the event that a member state should not fulfill its obligations under the Charter. He had taken this action on the hypothesis that the Subcommittee would not be overruled in full Committee on the question of expulsion. Mr. Notter declared that we would undoubtedly be outvoted in the Committee on the question of expulsion. Therefore, the question before the Delegation was whether Representative Eaton should be authorized to accede to a modification on the provisions on suspension which would permit the Organization to suspend members for strong and consistent violation of its obligations. The position of the United States has always been that suspension was stronger than expulsion anyhow. Mr. Notter declared that we would support the Russians on expulsion as we were committed to doing so, but would undoubtedly be defeated.

Mr. Notter declared that it had been made clear that the previous action of the Subcommittee on the question of suspension has not prejudiced the right of the United States with respect to expulsion. The United States was now free to reopen the question of suspension as a result of the Subcommittee’s decision on expulsion.

Mr. Pasvolsky urged that this discussion should make clear that the Delegation must consider the possible alternatives as well as proposals formally made. None of the Delegates, he declared, had ever known how to react when an alternative solution had been proposed. He had talked with other members of the Committee of Five regarding the procedure in situations of this nature. Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that in the future we should consult with the representatives of the other four powers before making substitute proposals. Then we could ask them to do the same. Mr. Bloom pointed out, however, that representatives of the other powers did not know enough to be able to act on the spot on proposals made suddenly, and Mr. Notter added that they were never able to take positions under these conditions. Mr. Hickerson asked whether some arrangements could be made in the Committee of Five, and Mr. Pasvolsky declared that something could be done if the Delegation would promise not to make alternative proposals without first making them available to the other four Delegations.

At this point Dean Gildersleeve left the meeting.

Mr. Hickerson pointed out that there was a situation which had arisen recently when Sir Alexander Cadogan had made a proposal regarding Chapter VIII without consulting other members of the, Committee of Five first. Mr. Cadogan had been forced to withdraw his proposal, but the Latin American Countries had reacted very violently.

Mr. Pasvolsky declared that it must be made clear to the Latin American Countries that Section A of Chapter VIII was not impaired in any way by the “domestic jurisdiction” clause.

Mr. Notter asked what course of action Representative Eaton wanted to take. Should he fight for expulsion, or attempt to doctor up the provision for suspension? Mr. Dulles asked why we should fight for expulsion if we were not really in favor of it. Mr. Pasvolsky urged that we favor the expulsion provision, but if we are outvoted, we should withdraw. Mr. Notter suggested that if we are outvoted, we should get together with other members of the Five Powers and admit that we are fighting for a lost cause and accept the alternative, suspension. Mr. Dulles thought that no cause was defeated if the Big Five wanted it. We should point out, he stated, that we did not think it was important enough to make a real issue.

Mr. Sandifer urged that we must set a definite position on suspension because we could not propose a change without the prior consent of the Big Five. Representative Bloom agreed that we would have to fortify the suspension agreement, but Mr. Sandifer said this was not necessarily so. Mr. Notter maintained that the course of the negotiations had indicated that this was the only possible course. Mr. Pasvolsky proposed that Mr. Notter be authorized to negotiate on suspension on the spot if the occasion demanded, and the Delegates agreed unanimously.

Voting

The Chairman asked Mr. Pasvolsky whether there had been consultations on the Yalta formula on voting in the meeting of the Five. Mr. Pasvolsky declared that conferences were in progress and that he would have a report for the Chairman sometime in the afternoon.

Mr. Dulles suggested that “procedural” matters not be defined too minutely now in order that their interpretation might be liberalized in the future. The situation should not be frozen, he said, by answering the questionnaires. Dr. Bowman remarked that was a practical question. He would like to see action based on the general questions involved rather than on a specific questionnaire, but he was of the opinion that we probably could not avoid the preparation of specific replies.

Mr. Dulles left the meeting at 10:15 a.m.

[Here follows discussion of a request by Lord Halifax for a meeting to discuss the relation of the Organization to the I.L.O.]

… The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 a.m.

78. The Secretary of State was in Washington for consultations with President Truman.
79. Not printed. For proposed amendments concerning chapter VIII, B, 5, see UNCIO Documents, vol. 12, pp. 608–609 and 639–640.
80. Doc. 577, III/3/28, May 25, UNCIO Documents, vol. 12, p. 360.
81. Not printed.
82. Text of four-paragraph provisions is in summary record of eighth meeting of Subcommittee A of Commission IV/2, May 24, 10:47 a.m., not printed.
83. Not printed.
85. See minutes of the first Five-Power informal consultative meeting, May 7, 3 p.m., p. 628.
86. U.S. Gen. 147, not printed (recommendations on basic issues, Committee III/3, agreements for the provision of forces, facilities, and assistance).
87. Text of proposed Uruguayan amendment, not printed. For statement by the delegate of Uruguay on the subject, see Doc. 648, I/2/46, May 28, when the discussion of chapter XI was begun in Committee I/2 (UNCIO Documents, vol. 7, p. 145).
88. Summary report of eighth meeting of Subcommittee I/1/A, attended by Senator Connally, Mr. Dulles, Mr. Notter, and Mr. Savage for the United States delegation, May 24, 10:30 a.m., not printed (US I/1/A Doc. 8).
89. For a memorandum on the Australian attitude on this subject, see Doc. 969, I/1/39, June 14, UNCIO Documents, vol. 6, p. 436.
90. For text of proposed redraft of chapter IX, section A.l by the United States delegation, see WD 17, II/3/22, May 22, ibid., vol. 10, p. 74.
91. Record of third meeting of Subcommittee C of Committee I/2, May 23, 5:30 p.m., not printed; for report of the rapporteur to Committee I/2 on meetings of the Special Subcommittee, May 22 and 23, see Doc. 550, I/2/37, May 24, ibid., vol. 7, p. 99.