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 57

Minutes of the Fifty-Seventh Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Tuesday, May 29, 1945, 9 a.m.

San Francisco, May 29, 1945, 9 a.m.

[Informal Notes—Extracts]

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

The Secretary convened the meeting at 9:00 a m.

Norwegian Proposal for Inviting Denmark

The Secretary brought to the attention of the Delegation the fact that, for several weeks, the question of inviting Denmark to participate in the Conference had been tinder consideration by certain officials of the Department of State. This Government had maintained the position that no nation which had not signed the United Nations Declaration could be invited to the Conference.⁵⁷

. . . . . . .

Mr. Dunn related for the Delegation the history of the Danish situation. Early in 1942 Prime Minister Churchill, together with President Roosevelt, asked the Danish Minister to the United States to sign the United Nations Declaration. The latter felt that he could not take this action because there was actually no Danish government, and he wrote a letter in which he signified adherence to the United Nations Declaration on behalf of the Danish people, and in which he declared that as soon as a Government was established, Denmark would adhere to the Declaration.⁵⁸ One of the first acts of the new Danish Government was to declare that the letter to Churchill and Roosevelt was a valid adherence to the United Nations Declaration, such adherence being retroactive to January 2, 1942.

… Secretary Stettinius thought that the Delegation was indulging in a lot of unnecessary talk because it would be impossible, in any event, to stop the Norwegians from acting. The Secretary asked the Delegation for instructions on how to act. Commander Stassen moved that the United States should vote in favor in the Steering Committee of an invitation being tendered to the Danish to come to the Conference. Representative Eaton seconded the motion, and it was carried unanimously.

. . . . . . .

Time Schedule

The Secretary declared that he should like to consider for a few moments the question of the time schedule for the rest of the Conference.…

. . . . . . .

Mr. Pasvolsky indicated that he wanted to speak for the Coordinating Committee, of which he was Chairman. That Committee, he stated, would need at least a week after the other Committees had finished their work. There were, Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out, one hundred articles, each of which would have to be gone over to make sure that it was consistent with the rest of the Charter. Then he thought that each article would have to go back to the technical committees for their approval. The Secretary observed that such a procedure could not possibly be adopted, because it would take far too much time, and Mr. Dulles concurred. Mr. Pasvolsky declared that if this step were to be avoided, the Coordinating Committee must get authority from the Steering Committee to make the final decision on the various articles.

. . . . . . .

… The Secretary inquired whether there was any objection to his holding a short meeting with the Heads of the Delegations to express his disappointment at the slow tempo with which the Conference had been progressing. Commander Stassen declared that the answer given to the Secretary would be that the big powers were holding up progress. Mr. Hickerson pointed out that Senator Connally’s committee on security problems was one of the slowest, but that it was almost finished with its work and was being held up only by the necessity for Big Five confirmation of agreements reached. The Secretary suggested that he would get to work on the Chairmen of the Big Five Delegations.…

. . . . . . .

French Treaty Question

The Secretary observed that there would be a meeting at 11:00 o’clock to discuss the French Amendment to Chapter VIII, Section C, Paragraph 2. In the Secretary’s opinion, it was a simple matter of the word “request” or “consent”. He asked what the sentiment of the Delegation was on this matter.

Senator Vandenberg remarked that it did not make any great difference to him one way or another. He said he was in sympathy with the French and he pointed out that the United States also had domestic problems which cause the Delegation to be highly insistent on some matters. Representative Bloom asked whether the advisers would care to express their opinions on this matter. Mr. Dunn declared that he would favor the change, provided that it did not entail any other changes in the paragraph. Senator Vandenberg declared that he was in favor of at first attempting to maintain the existing wording. Mr. Pasvolsky replied that this would be impossible because the French could not go home without a change. They would, he declared, take the matter all the way up through the machinery of the Conference to the final plenary session, if necessary. The Secretary asked whether it was possible to change this one word without reopening the whole question of regional arrangements. Commander Stassen asked whether Russia would permit the change of only one word. He said he favored leaving the wording as it was. In any event, Commander Stassen thought that the United States should be the last of the Big Five to take a position on this matter. If the other four agreed that this was to be the only change in the paragraph, he would favor accepting the revision. Mr. Pasvolsky thought that Russia would accept the change as it was, and he declared that the United Kingdom, which had submitted the original wording, was pleased with the new language.

Senator Vandenberg declared that he was opposed to accepting the complete amendment, as proposed by the French, and Commander Stassen was in agreement. Mr. Pasvolsky expressed the opinion that the French would accept the change of only one word, “request” in place of “consent”. The Chairman asked whether the Delegation agreed with Commander Stassen’s position that the change should be accepted only if it were first made certain that no other changes would be proposed, and the Delegation was unanimous in supporting this proposal.

Question of Acceptance of Italy Into the United Nations

Secretary Stettinius read to the Delegation the two resolutions proposed by Representative Marcantonio. The first asked that an invitation be extended to Italy to adhere to the United Nations Declaration. The second requested that Italy be recognized as a “full and equal ally”.⁵⁹ Representative Bloom remarked that this would be a troublesome issue, and Senator Vandenberg was of the opinion that the resolutions would be passed in Congress if they came to a vote.

The Secretary asked. Mr. Dunn what action he would suggest; Mr. Dunn thought that he should take this matter up with the sponsoring governments and ask them if it would be possible for Italy to come to the Conference. He thought that the United Kingdom should be asked first, inasmuch as they were opposed to accepting Italy on the basis of equality. Furthermore, the United States and Great Britain had the joint responsibility for administering Italy on the behalf of the United Nations. If the United Kingdom turned down the proposal, as was to be expected, the United States could be satisfied with having taken the initiative. Secretary Stettinius urged that this would not be a consistent position for the United States to take, inasmuch as the surrender terms for Italy had not yet been arranged. But Mr. Dunn thought that this did not make any difference because Ambassadors had been exchanged and the United States was trying to reconstitute Italy on a democratic basis. Furthermore, President Roosevelt had conceded to Italy the status of a co-belligerent. The Chairman asked whether the Delegation favored this procedure. Senator Connally announced that he was opposed to making any concessions to Italy. They had been our enemy in this war and were responsible for the death of many American fighting men. Mr. Dunn replied to this that we would be dealing with an entirely new government, but Senator Connally asked why they had not been invited previously. He thought that this was a matter of high policy and should be taken up with the President. Secretary Stettinius agreed.

Representative Bloom asked what the Greeks, the Yugoslavs and any other countries which had been oppressed by Italy would say to Italy’s acceptance into the United Nations, and Mr. Dunn declared that they would be certain to object, and he himself was of the opinion that the proposal would not get very far. In fact, he thought that it would be stopped initially by Great Britain. The Secretary asked whether the Delegation was agreed that Mr. Dunn should conduct conversations with the British on this matter. Commander Stassen said that he would favor this proposal, if it were clearly understood that no commitment were implied on the part of this Government. Mr. Dunn declared that he would take just one step—mention the matter to the British, and then report back to the Delegation. The Delegation agreed on this procedure.

Preamble

Dean Gildersleeve reported that Subcommittee I/1/A had decided at the beginning of its work that there should be a Preamble for the Charter, using Marshal Smuts’ draft as a basis.⁶⁰ Dean Gildersleeve declared that she had suggested beginning the Preamble with the words “we the peoples”, in place of “the high contracting parties”. This had been received enthusiastically and had been tentatively approved by the Drafting Committee. However, Dean Gildersleeve had discovered that there seemed to be some disagreement in the Delegation itself concerning this phraseology. Dean Gildersleeve understood that it was a legal question which should receive consideration from the jurists of the Delegation.

Dr. Bowman urged that a great deal of time could be spent considering the Preamble without getting anywhere. He had a suggestion to make. However, Dean Gildersleeve interjected that the Chairman of the Drafting Committee had asked each nation to draft a Preamble on the basis of Marshal Smuts’ proposal. Dean Gildersleeve declared that she had drafted a Preamble which she had labeled, “Tentative, Unofficial Draft, by V. C. Gildersleeve”.⁶¹ By combining the drafts submitted, Dean Gildersleeve supposed that a final draft would be prepared which would be submitted to the Delegations for their approval.

Mr. Dulles remarked that the wording “we the peoples” was inadequate because “peoples” could not legally enter into international conventions. Commander Stassen thought that “we the peoples” constituted a good beginning, but that there must be included a proper agency which could legitimately enter into conventions. Mr. Dulles proposed the addition of the words “dealing through our representative governments” to “we the peoples”.

Dr. Bowman submitted that the Preamble be handled in a special manner. It should, he thought, be the subject of discussion among the Big Five. He was of the opinion also that the Preamble could be cut in half because at present, it was “too windy”. The second half could probably be eliminated because its substance appeared in the Principles of the Organization. The Preamble, he thought, should appropriately strike a sentimental note, but this sentimentality should not be repetitive. Dean Gildersleeve reported that she had been making an effort to cut the Preamble and had marked the repetitions in the margins of her copy.

The Secretary declared that Commander Stassen had an emergency item to consider on the subject of trusteeship, and Mr. Hackworth had to have the opinion of the Delegation on the subject of compulsory jurisdiction. Consequently, The Secretary urged that the discussion be made as brief as possible. He called on Mr. Pasvolsky.

Mr. Pasvolsky remarked that the Charter would have to be signed and asked who would be the signatories thereto. Secretary Stettinius replied that the various governments represented at San Francisco would have to be the signatories, and Mr. Pasvolsky indicated that that was correct. The Secretary charged Mr. Hackworth and Mr. Dulles to give careful consideration to this question, together with Dean Gildersleeve and Dr. Bowman, for the purpose of preparing a specific recommendation to be presented to the Delegation at the following day’s meeting. The Delegation was in complete agreement on this procedure.

Trusteeship

Commander Stassen presented to the Delegation a document entitled Proposed Soviet Amendments of May 29, 1945.⁶² Commander Stassen remarked that the Soviet Delegation had presented to Committee 11/4, five amendments, to the Trusteeship Chapter.

The first Soviet amendment added to Paragraph B, 2, the phrase “hit accordance with the main purposes of the Organization provided in (the) Chapter I of the Charter,” to follow the words “trusteeship system.” Commander Stassen declared that this tied in the trusteeship system with the guiding principles of the Organization established elsewhere in the Charter. Commander Stassen thought that this amendment was unnecessary, and he could see no need to incorporate it. On the other hand, Commander Stassen could see no objection to it.

Commander Stassen declared that the second amendment, to insert after “people” in line 6 of Paragraph B, 2(b), the words “in accordance with its right for self-determination” would cause the United States no difficulty. However, he expressed the opinion that this change would cause the British and the French quite a bit of difficulty. Commander Stassen declared that the only position the United States should take on the question was that self-determination should be established according to the individual circumstances of the territories involved. There were some areas, he remarked, which could never govern themselves and, hence, could not, for their own welfare, be allowed to determine their own political status.

The third Soviet amendment would add to the last sentence of Paragraph B, 3, the words “relationship among which should be established with (the) respect of the principle of sovereign equality.” This, Commander Stassen declared, dealt with areas which would not be included under the scope of the trusteeship system. Paragraph 3, he declared, had already been agreed upon by the Committee and could not be reopened.

The fourth amendment proposed by the Soviet Union would add, after the word “strategic” in line 3 of Paragraph B, 10, the words “including the approval of the trusteeship, arrangements and their alteration or amendment.” Commander Stassen could see no objection to this addition inasmuch as it merely spelled out the United States position.

The fifth Soviet amendment was to drop Paragraph 5 completely. Commander Stassen urged that this paragraph was essential and since it had already been approved by Committee II/4, could not be dropped.

Commander Stassen declared that it was necessary for the Delegation to instruct him prior to the 1:30 meeting with the Big Five, which was to be followed by a meeting of Committee II/4 at 8:30 p.m.⁶³ The Secretary declared that he had every confidence in Commander Stassen and thought that no instructions were necessary. Dr. Bowman asked why the Russians wanted to exclude Paragraph 5, to which Commander Stassen replied that the Russian portion was that this paragraph would freeze for all time the existing arrangements. Commander Stassen reported that he had replied to the Russians that this paragraph merely maintained the status quo for the interim period until the trusteeship arrangements could be concluded. Secretary Stettinius declared once more that he was content to leave the matter completely in Commander Stassen’s hands. Commander Stassen asked whether the Delegation was agreed that Paragraph 5 must be retained in the document, and the Delegation was unanimous hi its approval of this position.⁶⁴

Senator Connally asked Commander Stassen what was the situation with respect to Paragraph 11 of the Trusteeship Chapter, to which The Commander replied that this had been approved by the Big Five.

At this point, 10:05 a.m., Secretary Stettinius left the meeting, and Senator Connally assumed the chairmanship.

Senator Connally thought that the word “main” in the first Russian amendment, the addition to Paragraph B, 2, should be dropped; and Commander Stassen replied that there would probably be drafting changes to bring these provisions in line with the rest of the document.

Mr. Notter pointed out that the second Russian amendment dealing with self-determination could be used to attempt to drive out a definition of the phrase. Mr. Dunn also was of the opinion that this addition could be used as food for agitation. Commander Stassen pointed out, however, that this phraseology concerning self-determination had been approved by the four powers in their amendments to the Chapter on Principles. Mr. Notter urged, however, that there had been no definition attempted with respect to the use of this phrase in Chapter II. Senator Connally asked whether the Delegation would agree to leave the matter to Commander Stassen’s discretion.

Dean Gildersleeve was in agreement, but Commander Stassen declared that he wanted support from the Delegation. These questions, he said, were “hot potatoes,” and he wanted to be certain that he reflected the opinion of the Delegation. Commander Stassen suggested that the difficulty with respect to the matter of self-determination could be resolved by substituting the words “with the principle of” for “its rights for,” and the Delegation was unanimously agreed that this would make the phrase consistent with the earlier phraseology. Mr. Gerig remarked that the Soviet amendment on self-determination did not depart from the declaration of principles approved in Washington before the Conference. He read a paragraph from this document concerning the rights of dependent peoples to self-determination. This wording, he declared, had interdepartmental approval in Washington, and the Russian wording did not add to the original. Mr. Pasvolsky indicated that the difficulty was caused by the use of the word “right” which differed from United States interpretation, but Dr. Bowman indicated that this question was resolved by the use of the word “principle” which would drive it back to the United States position.

Commander Stassen urged that the amendment proposed to Paragraph 3, B, was redundant and should be opposed by the United States. Mr. Pasvolsky remarked that the moment a state became a member of the United Nations, it automatically was placed on the basis of sovereign equality with the other members of the United Nations. This amendment, in Mr. Pasvolsky’s opinion, was unnecessary, and he thought that Commander Stassen should ask the Russians why they had proposed it.

Commander Stassen indicated that, in his opinion, the amendment to Paragraph 10 was acceptable inasmuch as it merely clarified the powers of the General Assembly. The Delegation was agreed on this interpretation. Commander Stassen then thanked the Delegation for making its position known to him.

Compulsory Jurisdiction

Mr. Hackworth reported that there had been considerable debate in Committee IV/1 on the subject of compulsory jurisdiction for the Court.⁶⁵ There had been a strong sentiment favoring compulsory jurisdiction. The drafting committee was to meet at 10:30 a.m. and the matter would presumably be disposed of in the meeting of the full committee that evening.⁶⁶ Most of the Latin American countries, the smaller European countries, and China had indicated their support for compulsory jurisdiction.

Senator Vandenberg asked what this phrase meant, and Mr. Hackworth replied that it signified that the United States could be sued in Court without its approval. Senator Vandenberg “asked whether this would apply to any subject, and Mr. Hackworth replied that there were four categories of disputes to which compulsory jurisdiction would be applicable. The four categories, taken from the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, were disputes concerning:

a. The interpretation of the treaties;

b. Any question of international law;

c. The existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation; and

d. The nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.

Mr. Hackworth reported that the United States, Great Britain, and Russia had spoken against compulsory jurisdiction. He himself pointed out that under the Statute as originally proposed, any state could accept compulsory jurisdiction; and he had asked the Committee what reason there was to attempt to force the matter. He had pointed out to the other nations that they were likely to end up with a weaker Court if they pressed the matter, because the big powers were not likely to find compulsory jurisdiction acceptable to them. However, Mr. Hackworth had to admit that he did not think that the majority of the members of Committee II/4 were pleased by his statement. He thought, however, that he might be able to get the other nations to accept the optional clause in the present Statute.

Mr. Hackworth declared that two states, Canada being one, had indicated their understanding of the importance of having the United States and Russia as parties to the Court Statute. For this reason, Canada had indicated its willingness to vote for the optional clause if it should prove to be necessary, and Mr. Hackworth thought that Nicaragua and several other states would go along. Mr. Hackworth expressed the opinion that if the Subcommittee were to report back a compromise to the full Committee, the larger body would probably accept it.

Mr. Hackworth declared that if the Delegation wanted to accept the proposal for compulsory jurisdiction, it could do so with reservations. Mr. Hackworth said that he had prepared a memorandum incorporating three reservations which might save the Statute in the Senate. He read from a document entitled Reservations of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of International Justice as follows:

“Any member of the United Nations may at the time of giving its approval to this Statute except from the provisions of Article 36 thereof

• “(1) Disputes which arose prior to the coming into force of the Statute and of the Charter to which it is annexed;
• “(2) Disputes involving a matter which under international law is solely within the domestic jurisdiction of that State; or
• “(3) It may condition its reference of cases to the Court upon a prior agreement, general or special, with the other party or parties to such dispute accepting the jurisdiction of the Court for its solution.

“Any reservation of the character referred to above may be withdrawn at any time by filing a notice of such withdrawal with the Registrar of the Court,”

Mr. Hackworth explained that the advantage of this suggestion was that it would placate those states which favored compulsory jurisdiction and at the same time would allow those states which were opposed to compulsory jurisdiction the opportunity to safeguard their vital interests. Mr. Dunn declared that this would be an acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction in principle.

Mr. Hackworth observed that a decision on what constituted domestic jurisdiction would fall under the jurisdiction of the proposed Court. Senator Connally remarked that the small nations were not interested in the application of compulsory jurisdiction to themselves but were trying to apply compulsory jurisdiction to the United States and other large powers. Mr. Hackworth observed that those countries which were clamoring the loudest for the compulsory jurisdiction clause were the very ones which were the least inclined to observe their international obligations. Congressman Bloom asked whether the Court would have the power to determine whether the reservations made would be applicable, in any instance, and Mr. Hackworth replied that this was so, especially with reference to domestic jurisdiction. Mr. Dulles remarked that in the introduction to the reservations proposed by Mr. Hackworth the reference to a state giving its approval to the Statute seemed to him to be inconsistent with the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, which had declared that membership in the United Nations Organization would automatically carry with it membership in the World Court. Mr. Hackworth explained, however, that there would be two kinds of members of the Court, those who were initial signatories and those who would adhere at a later date. Mr. Dulles urged that the Court would constitute part of the United Nations Charter and that no separate ratification would be necessary. Mr. Hackworth agreed with this and suggested that the word “Charter” might be substituted for “Statute.” Mr. Pasvolsky commented that this phraseology would eliminate the right of non-members to adhere to the Charter.

Mr. Dulles remarked that a memorandum from the President had indicated that the latter was inclined to accept compulsory jurisdiction. Commander Stassen suggested a compromise. He thought that compulsory jurisdiction might be accepted with the qualification that there should be a later decision as to which nations were to adhere. Senator Vandenberg commented that in any event the Court would have the final say as to what constituted a matter falling within the domestic jurisdiction of the member states. Mr. Dunn asked whether the reservations would be written into the Statute, and Mr. Hackworth replied in the affirmative. Representative Bloom declared that he did not see how the reservations would accomplish much toward the objectives of the United States inasmuch as the Court would still have jurisdiction in determining what was a domestic matter. Mr. Hackworth said that he was of the opinion that somebody had to decide what was a domestic question, and he thought that the Delegation would not be strongly opposed to jurisdiction of the Court on this matter. Senator Vandenberg declared that he was not so sure, especially since the economic and social functions of the Organization had been so greatly strengthened. Mr. Notter pointed out, however, that that section of the document had been left vague with respect to the domestic jurisdiction clause. This, however, was a specific matter. Mr. Sandifer observed that the authority of the Court would extend only to those matters which were placed before it. Mr. Hackworth was of the opinion that it would be impossible to avoid all the possible dangers and at the same time show the proper spirit of cooperation.

Senator Connally asked whether the United States could claim exemption from the compulsory jurisdiction clause by inserting reservations. He wondered whether su6h a course would be accepted by the other states, and Mr. Hackworth replied in the affirmative. Senator Connally urged that the matter be left to Mr. Hackworth’s discretion. He said that he favored adopting the reservations in view of the tenderness of the Senate on the question of domestic jurisdiction.

Representative Bloom referred to a statement that Mr. Hackworth had made concerning the application of compulsory jurisdiction to the question of immigration. This, he maintained, was a most serious matter in both Houses of the Congress. He asked whether any country could have an immigration policy which was not a matter of domestic concern alone. Mr. Hackworth replied that most countries did have immigration policies, which were solely domestic in nature. Congressman Bloom asked how this matter could be handled in order to safeguard the interests of the United States, and Mr. Hackworth replied that all our treaties on immigration contained a safeguard to the effect that this was a matter for domestic regulation only. Congressman Bloom repeated, however, that Mr. Hackworth had indicated that immigration might be considered a matter of international concern. In that case, the question would be brojight before the Court. Congressman Bloom repeated that this was a most ticklish question in the eyes of the Congress.

Senator Connally asked how the Delegation stood on this question. Specifically, Senator Connally wanted to know whether the Delegation approved Mr. Hackworth’s reservations. Representative Bloom indicated that, in his opinion, the reservations did not go far enough. Mr. Armstrong indicated that the question was largely a matter of tactics. The problem was whether or not the Delegation should write in the reservations at the present time or have the Senate incorporate the reservations when it considered the draft Statute. Senator Connally declared that he personally favored as much compulsory jurisdiction as was possible. However, he did not Want to approach the Senate only to have the signature of the United States hemmed in by reservations. He thought that the Delegation should be frank on the question in the first instance. He was of the opinion that the most effective way to achieve compulsory jurisdiction in the long run was to undertake an evolutionary process. If the United States were to become a member of the Court in the near future, Senator Connally thought that it would develop by an evolutionary process. Congressman Bloom remarked that he understood that under the rules of procedure of the Senate it would be possible to amend or make reservations to the Charter by a majority vote but that the final ratification would have to be by a two-thirds vote. This, he thought, might lead to difficulty.

Mr. Pasvolsky indicated support for Senator Connally’s position with respect to an evolutionary development. He favored accepting the optional clause now and allowing the Court to grow in function. Mr. Hackworth remarked that under the optional clause it would be possible for a member of the Court to withdraw from its obligation. Mr. Hackworth thought that it might be possible to defeat the compulsory jurisdiction clause. He was of the opinion that the United States should become a member of the Court on an optional basis and feel its way in to, ascertain what would be the best final solution.

Mr. Dunn pointed out that under the optional clause each case to be submitted to the Court would require the approval of the executive branch of the Government with the consent of the Senate. Mr. Sandifer pointed out that the optional clause would have the advantage of general adherence. It would be, he declared, a general international treaty. A clause for compulsory jurisdiction would apply only among those states which would have accepted it.

Canadian Amendment

Mr. Pasvolsky presented to the Delegation the New Paragraph to be Inserted Between Paragraphs 5 and 6, Section B, Chapter VIII, as follows:

“When a decision to use force has been taken by the Security Council, it shall, before calling upon any Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of its obligations under the preceding paragraph, invite such Member, if it so request, to send a representative to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of its armed forces.”

This Canadian amendment had been accepted by the Big Five oh the condition that the Canadians withdraw their three amendments to Chapter VI.

Australian Amendment

Mr. Hickerson asked what results had been achieved with respect to the question of the Australian amendment which would make possible the participation of the Security Council in the conclusion of agreements for the supply of forces to the Organization.⁶⁷ Mr. Pasvolsky disclosed that the discussions had not been completed. Great Britain had supported the Australian amendment, while Russia had opposed it. The Subcommittee of Five had discussed the possibility of establishing a flexible system under which it would be possible for the agreements to be concluded with the Security Council or among the member states, as had been agreed upon by this Delegation. Russia had taken the position that it did not want to foreclose the possibility of agreement among the member states. Mr. Pasvolsky was of the opinion that some wording might be worked out. He thought that the Soviet Delegation was moving in the direction of the United States position. Senator Connally declared that he hoped that the Subcommittee of Five would speed up its negotiation in order that his Committee IV/3 [III/3], might conclude its business.

Reference to France in Chapter XII

Mr. Hickerson asked whether the Delegation had any views on the question of permitting France to participate in the interim arrangements for maintaining peace. Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that the words “permanent members” be substituted for “states parties to that Declaration,” in Paragraph 1 of Chapter XII. The Delegation agreed to this substitution.

Compulsory Jurisdiction

Mr. Sandifer submitted that the question of compulsory jurisdiction had been sidetracked. Senator Connally moved that the matter be left in Mr. Hackworth’s hands. Mr. Dulles declared that he favored the optional clause as it stood rather than the system involving reservations. Mr. Armstrong remarked that the Senators on the Delegation could not oppose the acceptance of reservations to the compulsory jurisdiction clause if it was certain that reservations would have to be adopted. Senator Vandenberg suggested that Mr. Hackworth lay down the law to the smaller nations and tell them that the United States could accept only the optional clause. He asked whether they might not accept the optional clause under those conditions. Mr. Hackworth declared that he would be glad to take that position in Committee IV/1. Senator Connally declared that he had favored the adoption of reservations only because he had been led to believe that the United States would be defeated if it pressed for the optional clause. Mr. Notter indicated that it would be necessary to line up the Latin American vote. Mr. Hackworth ventured the opinion that if the United States were to declare that it would not join the Court under a compulsory jurisdiction clause, the other states would change their minds.

Mr. Sandifer suggested that a provision be inserted making possible view after a period of years so that, if it proved acceptable, compulsory jurisdiction might be adopted. Senator Vandenberg pointed out that Mr. Dulles had been able the previous day to reverse the vote in another committee by laying down the law. A vote that had been 10 to 1 against the United States became 10 to 1 in favor of the United States. Senator Connally was in agreement with Senator Vandenberg that Mr. Hackworth should adopt an aggressive policy, and Senator Vandenberg thought that Mr. Hackworth might profitably quote Senator Connally and himself as being opposed to compulsory jurisdiction.

American Procedure

Mr. Notter raised the question of amendments. He asked whether he should attempt to line up sufficient votes to carry the American position. He was asked by Congressman Eaton what the issue was, and Mr. Notter replied that it was in essence whether an amendment could be forced through without the approval of the Big Five. Senator Vandenberg asked whether this had been involved iii the Yalta decision, and Mr. Notter said “no.” Senator Vandenberg reported that he had attended a meeting of consultants on the previous Saturday with Commander Stassen. At first, the consultants had favored liberalization of the amendment procedure. Commander Stassen and Senator Vandenberg had both told the consultants that it would be impossible to allow the United States to be forced into additional obligations without its consent, and the consultants had appeared to be satisfied. Mr. Notter asked whether the Delegation would have him line up votes, in advance or depend on the force of argument on the floor of the committee. The Delegation was agreed that Mr. Notter should take every possible step, including lining up votes, to insure acceptance, of the United States position. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m.

57. See telegram 3192, April 23, 1 p.m., to London, p. 361.
58. See Foreign Relations, 1942, vol. i, pp. 21 and 29.
59. For text of the second resolution arid further discussion of these two resolutions, see minutes of sixty-eighth meeting of the United States delegation, June 11, 12:06 p.m., p. 1236.
60. For draft text of preamble submitted by the South African delegation, see Doc. 2, G/14 (d)(1), May 3, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p; 476; Subcommittee I/1/A began discussion of the draft on May 28.
61. Not printed.
62. The seventh Five-Power preliminary consultative meeting on trusteeship, May 29, 1:30 p.m., was called to discuss the five Soviet amendments to the Working Paper which had been submitted at 9:30 p.m. on the previous night For the original amendments proposed by the Soviet delegation to the United States draft on trusteeship system, see Doc. 2, G/26((f), UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 618.
63. Record of Five-Power meeting on trusteeship, May 29, 1:30 p.m., not printed. The scheduled meeting of Committee II/4 at 8:30 p.m., was postponed until May 31.
64. For a statement by the United States delegate on the purposes of paragraph B 5, see Doc.580, II/4/24, May 26, UNCIO Documents, vol. 10, p. 486.
65. Doc. 661, IV/1/50, May 20, UNCIO Documents, vol. 13, p. 224.
66. Reports of first and second meetings of Subcommittee IV/1/D, May 29, 11 a.m. and 8:30 p.m., not printed. Committee IV/1 began its discussion of article 36 of the Statute on May 28, 3:30 p.m. (Doc. 661, IV/1/50, May 29). The next Committee discussion of this subject took place June 1, 3:45 p.m. (Doc. 759, IVA/59, June 2, ibid., p. 246).
67. For summary report of discussion by the Committee III/3 regarding the Australian amendment, May 28, 10:45 a.m., see Doc. 649, III/3/34, May 28, UNCIO Documents, vol. 12, pp. 391–392. Record of discussions by Subcommittee of Five not printed.