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

RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 96: U.S. Cr. Min. 61

Minutes of the Siatty-First Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Friday, June 1, 1945, 6:04 p.m.

San Francisco, June 1, 1945, 6:04 p.m.

[Informal Notes]

[Here follows list of names of persons (31) present at meeting.]

In the absence of the Secretary, Senator Connally called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.

Position on Important Open Questions

Mr. Sandifer reported to the Delegation that he had prepared, with the assistance of other members of the Staff, a paper, Position on Important Open Questions, US Gen 209,⁴¹ for the consideration and approval of the Delegation. Mr. Sandifer then read the document to the Delegation.

a. Voting

Mr. Dulles asked whether it was proposed to circulate this document among the other Delegations. Mr. Sandifer replied that this paper was merely for the use of the Delegation and Mr. Dunn added that the paper was drafted for the purpose of making it possible for the Secretary to state the position of the Delegation on the issues to be considered by the Big Five. The Delegation was agreed that exact phraseology should not be an important consideration with respect to this document because it was not to be circulated and would merely aid in the negotiation among the big powers.

Mr. Sandifer remarked that point (2) under Section (a) of the first item on voting had been established as the position of this Delegation in one of the three papers which were to constitute the joint Four Power statement on interpretation of the Yalta voting formula. Representative Bloom thought that the words “any situation which may lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute” were very broad, but Congressman Bloom agreed with the other members of the Delegation that this was as it should be.

Mr. Dulles remarked with respect to point (3) under part (a) of the section on voting that the Russians construed the authority granted in Chapter XI, paragraph 3 for the convocation of the Conference for review of the Charter to be a power that could be used only once.

Senator Vandenberg asked whether the four items which were listed under Section A: questions under Section D, Chapter VI; discussion or consideration of any dispute or any situation which may lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute; convocation of a conference for review of the Charter; and the election of judges, were the only items which were to be decided by a procedural vote of the Security Council. Mr. Dunn remarked that it was up to the Delegation to decide at that time whether it had any additions to make to this list. Mr. Sandifer remarked that these items had been agreed to in Mr. Pasvolsky’s Subcommittee of the Big Five, but Mr. Dunn replied that this was merely the position of the United States Delegation and had not been agreed upon in the five power group. Actually, Mr. Dunn declared, it had not been agreed in the Subcommittee that point (4), election of judges, should take place by a procedural vote and Miss Fosdick added that point (2), a discussion on consideration of any dispute or any situation that might lead to an international dispute, had, likewise, not been agreed upon.

Representative Bloom asked whether he was right in understanding that any items which were not listed in this draft as being subject to a procedural vote on the Security Council were to be considered as being excluded for this category. Mr. Dunn thought that the Delegation would have to assume that this was the case. Mr. Sandifer declared, however, that the list he had presented was not intended to be all-inclusive because he had not had the time to investigate the matter thoroughly and also because these four points were the very ones on which the Delegation had reached agreement. Mr. Dunn asked Mr. Sandifer whether the latter knew of any other items which should be considered by procedural vote. Mr. Sandifer replied that he had not examined the matter too closely and was not able to say whether the list was actually complete. Commander Stassen agreed that the approval of the judges of the World Court should not be by the unanimous vote of the Big Five. He also thought that the Secretary-General and the five Deputy Secretaries-General should similarly be approved by procedural vote. Mr. Sandifer declared that he had only reported to the Delegation on those matters which had already been decided. Mr. Sandifer thought that since there was doubt as to the inclusiveness of the list it would be advisable to end Part A after the word “vote” so that this section would read as follows: “(a) that the Charter should specify those questions on which the Council would act by procedural vote.” Congressman Bloom thought, however, the word “including” which followed the word “vote” in the original draft made possible the addition of further categories as it became desirable. Mr. Sandifer reiterated that this list was by no means comprehensive and it had not been intended as a comprehensive listing of matters which should be considered by procedural vote. Mr. Sandifer said he would not favor listing any categories at all unless there were added to the list all the additional categories of questions which should be considered by procedural vote. Senator Vandenberg agreed with Mr. Sandifer and added that it was the only safe course. Mr. Johnson suggested that the Delegation adopt Mr. Sandifer’s suggestion that Part A be concluded after the word “vote”. Mr. Johnson thought that the Delegation could then add a new section B which would state that questions on which the Council would act by procedural vote would “include” the four categories then specified in Part A.

Senator Connally remarked that he seemed to recall Mr. Pasvolsky having had a list of eleven items which should be considered by procedural vote. Mr. Dulles thought that a number of these items were included under point (1) of the present draft, “questions under Section D”, Chapter VI. Senator Connally urged that if it was intended to specify some of the categories of questions which would be decided by a procedural vote it would be necessary to specify all such categories or the unspecified class of questions would automatically fall into the bracket of questions which were to be decided by a nonprocedural vote. Senator Vandenberg thought that the difficulty could be resolved by using the words “such as” in place of “including”. Mr. Dulles urged that there was no need for a great deal of discussion on the phraseology of this paper because it was only for the use of the Delegation.

Commander Stassen submitted that the question of calling a special meeting of the General Assembly should be decided by procedural vote. Senator Connally remarked that all members of the Delegation should submit any suggestions they had for the inclusion of any category in the group of questions which would be decided by procedural vote to Mr. Pasvolsky to incorporate in the Four Power amendment.

Representative Bloom remarked that Part (B) of this section on voting arrangements made provision for the addition of other procedural matters to the list. Senator Connally urged that if the Delegation was so minded it could adopt this statement of its position without specifying any categories whatsoever. However, Senator Connally declared if some categories were specified all others would be excluded. Mr. Sandifer thought that it would be impossible because of practical considerations to incorporate all possible categories of decisions which should be procedural at that time. He thought that the choice before the Delegation was the use of wording of the order of “such as” or the avoidance of any specification whatsoever. Mr. Rockefeller remarked that from the standpoint of the smaller nations it would be easier to gain acceptance for the Yalta formula if there were the appearance of numerous acceptances [exceptions] to the veto power. Representative Bloom thought that the Delegation should attempt to get a list from the other four Powers of the items which they wished to include as being subject to procedural vote. [At this time, 6:25 p.m., Secretary Stettinius arrived at the meeting].⁴² Mr. Armstrong replied to Representative Bloom’s suggestion that a list achieved in such a way would be a list of items agreed upon by the five Powers and would not be a statement of the United States position. Commander Stassen said he thought that the four items listed in the present draft should be retained but that it should be made clear that these were not the only items which might fall in the procedural category. Mr. Johnson thought that it would be best to end the sentence with the word “vote” and then add a new sentence, “These should, in any case, include …”

Mr. Sandifer remarked that the decision as to the convocation of a special meeting of the General Assembly should also be included in the category of the questions decided by procedural vote. The position of the Delegation on the election of the Deputy Secretaries-General was stated elsewhere in this paper, Mr. Sandifer said, and need not be considered in the present section on voting arrangements.

Senator Vandenberg urged that since the list could not be completed it would be best to specify that the items in the list were examples of the type of question which would be considered by procedural vote. Secretary Stettinius urged that the most important need, in his mind, was that there be established a United States position on the open items. Senator Connally reported to the Secretary that the Delegation had been reviewing the United States position on matters which should be decided by procedural vote. The Delegation, he declared, had been considering whether the draft before it specified in enough detail those questions which should be considered by a non-unanimous vote of the Big Five. Mr. Dulles declared that the Delegation would be unable to close the list of items under this category that evening. Senator Connally declared if agreement among the Big Five were achieved on point (2), “discussion and consideration of any dispute …”, a great deal would have been achieved. He thought that it would be important for the Delegation to achieve a clear and complete agreement on this matter but he urged that it would be impossible for the Delegation to establish a comprehensive list at that time. Commander Stassen thought that the Delegation might present two lists of items, those which were procedural in nature and those which were substantive in nature. There should also be, Commander Stassen thought, a statement that the decision as to all other items should be made by a majority vote of seven including the five permanent members of the Security Council. Mr. Sandifer declared that he favored Mr. Johnson’s suggestion for the incorporation of the words “in any event”. Mr. Dunn thought that it was important to remember that the Russians were sometimes difficult to deal with on these matters and that agreement was not going to be achieved on this matter unless the entire question was considered at the same time. Representative Bloom thought that there should be obtained from each Delegation a statement of the items which it thought should be considered by procedural vote. Mr. Sandifer declared that the paper under consideration would be read at the meeting of the Big Five as the statement of the United States position. Mr. Stettinius declared, however, that it would be Ambassador Gromyko’s responsibility to take the initiative because it had been the Ambassador who had asked for the Big Five meeting. This had been a most fortunate circumstance, The Secretary declared, because he had been on the verge of calling for the meeting when Ambassador Gromyko called him and asked that a meeting be convened. Mr. Dulles asked whether this statement by the Secretary was based on the talk Mr. Dulles had had with Ambassador Gromyko earlier in the day. At that time, Mr. Dulles declared, the Russian had indicated that he would probably be ready for a meeting that evening. Senator Connally declared that in any event Ambassador Gromyko would be at the meeting.

Mr. Sandifer asked what was the feeling of the Delegation on adding to the list of questions that should be decided by procedural vote the question of calling a special meeting of the General Assembly. Commander Stassen moved formally that this question be considered by a procedural vote and the Delegation agreed unanimously that this was its position. Commander Stassen then moved that the Secretary-General be approved by qualified majority vote. Mr. Dulles pointed out that this question was covered by a later point in the draft and Commander Stassen withdrew his motion. Commander Stassen then moved that the five categories in part (a) of the first item on the list of open questions be approved as requiring procedural votes. The Delegation agreed unanimously with this position. Senator Connally wanted it made clear that this list did not preclude the addition of other items. Commander Stassen added that as a matter of fact he thought this list was complete with the possible exception of the election of the Deputy Secretaries-General.

b. Amendments

The Delegation agreed to the statement of its position on the question of amendments as follows:

“Conditional upon agreement by the other four powers the Delegation agreed (a) to a time proviso for the calling of a conference for review of the Charter of ‘not less than seven nor more than ten years’ (b) to substitute a two-thirds for a three-fourths vote in the Assembly for the calling of such a conference and (c) to stand firmly on the recommendation for ratification as stated in the sponsoring governments’ amendment.”

Secretary Stettinius declared that he wanted to add a footnote to the discussion on this item. The Secretary declared that he had spoken with Lord Halifax concerning the attitude of the Dominions on this question. Lord Halifax had thought that it would be very desirable for two or three members of the Delegation to meet with the Delegations of the various Dominions and tell them firmly that this was the furtherest the United States was willing to go. The British, Secretary Stettinius stated, were agreeable to this position of the United States but were having trouble with the Dominions on the matter. The Secretary declared that he had told Lord Halifax that he would consider meeting with the Commonwealth group sometime within the week. Senator Connally said he had often wondered why the British had Dominions and decided that it was in order that they might not be bothered by them.

Mr. Rockefeller asked what position the small states would be in with respect to ratification of amendments passed by a revisionary convention. Mr. Rockefeller urged that some small states might be placed in a difficult situation if an amendment were to be passed by such a conference and the legislature of any state were unable to accept the amendment. Mr. Rockefeller thought that some sort of statement should be made to assure the small states that they would be safeguarded under this provision. Mr. Sandifer remarked that Mr. Hackworth had referred in a previous meeting of the Delegation to the possibility of making a provision for any state to add a reservation to its ratification of any amendment. Commander Stassen suggested that a provision be made in the Charter embodying a reservation to the effect that if any state could not agree to an amendment passed by the necessary majority it would have the right to withdraw from the Organization. Representative Bloom submitted that it had been a long standing practice that reservations could be made to any treaty and that there could be no ill effects resulting from the adoption of Commander Stassen’s view; this, he declared, was in reality ordinary procedure. Commander Stassen urged that his suggestion would have the advantage of satisfying the small states that the Charter could not be changed without their consent Unless they were allowed to withdraw from the Organization. Mr. Sandifer thought that it would be unfortunate to introduce such a clause even though it was standard procedure that reservations of this nature could be made to an international agreement. Mr. Sandifer thought it would be unwise to bring the matter out into the open.

Mr. Dulles submitted that a statement had already been incorporated in the record of the Committee considering withdrawal concerning the United States interpretation of the absence of any specific clause making withdrawal possible. Mr. Dulles thought that this statement which had been introduced by Representative Eaton could be expanded somewhat to satisfy the small states with respect to the question of amendment. Mr. Rockefeller thought that the incorporation of a statement embodying Commander Stassen’s proposal would meet the objection of the small states. Mr. Dulles asked where Mr. Rockefeller would have such a statement made. He asked whether Mr. Rockefeller thought the Committee would be the proper place. Mr. Dunn observed that Sir Alexander Cadogan had already made a statement to this effect in the Committee. Mr. Rockefeller read a statement which he thought would meet the situation, to the effect that it would be possible to make a reservation upon ratification of the Charter to the effect that if any amendment proved inacceptable to any state that state could withdraw from the Organization. Mr. Dulles asked why it was necessary to refer to the right of reservation and remarked that it would be much more appropriate in his view merely to broaden Congressman Eaton’s statement. Representative Bloom thought that it might be best, instead of permitting withdrawal from the Organization, to permit any state to deny the applicability of an amendment to itself if it were unable to accept that amendment. Mr. Dunn remarked that this was not at all satisfactory because it would make possible a large number of different types of members of the Organization with different obligations, having different parts of the Charter applicable to them. Commander Stassen thought that there was an advantage to be gained from a statement of a state’s rights to make reservations. This advantage was that if it were made clear that this right were availble the majority of nations might not take advantage of it and the United States would have placed itself in the position of championing the rights of smaller states without any material loss resulting.

Mr. Sandifer remarked that this entire question of amendment procedure and revisionary convention was highly important because of the fact that the Yalta voting formula would prove acceptable to the smaller states only if there were adequate provisions for revision of the Charter. Mr. Notter thought that it was a slightly different question and remarked that the voting provisions would probably be accepted in any event but a number of states might not ratify the Charter when it was finished. Mr. Rockefeller thought that either Commander Stassen’s suggestion or the proposal made by Mr. Dulles would cover the situation. Mr. Dulles remarked that he was very much afraid of establishing a precedent of reservations and Commander Stassen declared that Mr. Dulles’ proposal was agreeable to him. Senator Vandenberg thought that a mistake had been made when there had been no provision made for a section on withdrawal in the Organization. He thought that “The Life of Henry Cabot Lodge”⁴⁴ with special reference to the parts of the book pertaining to the Covenant of the League of Nations, proved his point.

Commander Stassen thought that Mr. Dulles’ suggestion should be presented for consideration on the lower levels of the Big Five. Secretary Stettinius declared, confidentially, that from that point on there was no lower level; the Subcommittee of Five had been abolished.⁴⁵ All Big Five discussions would take plape among the heads of Delegations in the Pent House. Representative Bloom pointed to the Constitution of the United States as an example of what should be incorporated in the Charter. He pointed out that the Constitution did not permit withdrawal on the part of any state because it did not find an amendment passed by the constitutional processes to be acceptable. Dean Gildersleeve remarked that in her opinion a provision making possible reservations would be troublesome and declared that she would favor a clause on withdrawal. Secretary Stettinius wondered why it was necessary to bring the question of reservation into the open. Any country, he declared, could make a reservation to an international agreement without express recognition of that right. The Secretary reiterated that the position of the United States be settled first. Mr. Rockefeller urged that the matter be settled now and that Mr. Dulles should present a draft of the statement to be added to Representative Eaton’s declaration in the records of the committee which was concerned with withdrawal. Mr. Dulles remarked that such a statement was extraneous to the United States position on the question of amendment and the convocation of a conference for the reviewing of the Charter and hence was not necessary that evening. However, it was agreed that Mr. Dulles should prepare a draft to present later on in the meeting.

c. Election of the Secretary General

The Delegation agreed to this statement of its position on the election of the Secretary General as follows:

“It was agreed to stand on the sponsoring governments’ amendment whereby the Secretary General would be elected by the General Assembly on recommendation of the Security Council acting by a vote of seven members, including the concurring votes of the permanent members”.

d. Election of Deputy Secretaries-General

The Delegation next considered the statement of its position on the matter of electing the Deputy Secretaries-General, as follows:

“It was agreed to stand on the sponsoring governments’ amendment whereby the Deputy Secretaries-General would be elected by the General Assembly on recommendation of the Security Council acting by a vote of seven members, including the concurring votes of the permanent members, unless Mr. Pasvolsky could negotiate the proposal that the Deputy Secretaries-General should be appointed by the Secretary-General and approved respectively by the Security Council, the Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the Trusteeship Council, the fifth Deputy to be appointed by the Secretary-General without approval.”

The Secretary thought that the Delegation might as well cross out the last part of its position beginning with the words “unless Mr. Pasvolsky” because it would be impossible of acceptance. There was no use, The Secretary thought, in pursuing that course. The Secretary advised the Delegation to stand on the Four Power proposal for election of the Deputy Secretaries-General by the General Assembly on recommendation of the Security Council acting under the unanimity rule. Mr. Rockefeller asked whether this Four Power proposal had been defeated in the committee and he was told it had been.⁴⁶ However, the Delegation agreed to the Secretary’s suggestion.

e. Election of Judges

Senator Connally reported that the Big Five had not as yet agreed to the position taken by the United States Delegation that judges to the World Court should be elected by a procedural vote. Commander Stassen urged that if there was no agreement to this item on the election of judges this Delegation should not agree initially to the position of the USSR on the election of the Deputy Secretaries-General. Commander Stassen pointed out that the provision for the election of Deputy Secretaries-General referred only to “the recommendation of the Security Council” with no explanation of the manner in which the Security Council should reach its decision. Mr. Sandifer replied that at the time the language for the election of the Deputies had been agreed upon there had been an understanding that this would be subject to the Yalta formula. The Yalta formula was that Section A of Chapter VIII would be considered by procedural vote but that the remainder of the Charter should be subject to substantive procedure. Mr. Stone recommended that if it was at all possible appointment of the Deputy Secretaries-General should be by the Secretary-General himself. This, he declared, would give a truly international character to the Secretariat rather than having a Secretariat appointed by, and reflecting, national interests. Representative Bloom thought it might be possible for some compromise to be worked out whereby the Secretary-General should elect the Deputies who were to work under him while the Council should formally nominate them and the General Assembly elect them. Mr. Stone reiterated that the Secretary-General should have a voice in the selection of his deputies. Senator Connally asked whether in view of the fact that the Secretary General would be elected with the concurring votes of the major powers it was not likely that the Secretary General would appoint Deputies acceptable to these states. The Delegation was of the opinion that this would not necessarily follow. Mr. Johnson asked what was the significance of the Delegation’s decision to “stand on” the Four Power amendment. Senator Connally declared that this would apply only with respect to the Big Five meeting that evening. Mr. Johnson observed that it might be asked just how far the United States would go in support of the Four Power position. Mr. Notter observed that if this delegation were to stand by the Four Power agreement it would certainly please the Russians, but there was doubt as to the British and Chinese position and the Delegation would not be meeting the issue. The Secretary reiterated that the United States position must be established or it would be impossible for him to bring pressure to bear on the other members of the Big Five to make their positions available. Congressman Bloom thought that if the United States were to fight on this issue the Russians would complain with respect to the others. Mr. Dulles agreed with the position maintained by Commander Stassen earlier that there was nothing in the Yalta formula concerning the election of the Secretary-General and his Deputies.

Mr. Notter remarked that the Russians had been beaten in the Committee in their attempt to have the Committee itself submit the question to the Steering Committee. The Russians had been forced to submit the matter themselves.

Commander Stassen moved that the United States support the Russian position in the Steering Committee and that if this position were defeated in the Steering Committee the United States could attempt to work out a compromise with the Russians. This motion was adopted unanimously by the Delegation. Mr. Rockefeller urged that he wanted it to go on record that the Delegation did not want to line up votes behind the Four Power position. Mr. Dulles suggested that the Delegation make it clear to the Russians that the United States did not think the Yalta formula was very clear on this issue.

The Delegation returned to the question of the election of judges and agreed that its position as stated, that judges should be elected by procedural vote.

f. Expulsion

The Delegation agreed to the statement of its position on expulsion to the effect that the United States would support the reinstatement of the proposal on expulsion of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. The Secretary declared that he wanted the Staff to prepare a brief, one-page statement of the argument for the reinstatement of the provision on expulsion in the Charter.

g. Provision of Armed Forces

The Delegation agreed to this statement of its position favoring the tentative text of May 30, 1945 for Chapter VIII, Section B, paragraph 5. This text provided that the special agreement or agreements for the supply of forces to the Organization should be negotiated on the initiative of the Security Council and might be considered among the member states or between the Security Council and the member states. This draft also included the rights of passage and the general readiness of forces.

Mr. Dulles’ Draft Statement

Mr. Rockefeller suggested that Mr. Dulles be permitted to read to the Delegation his first draft statement concerning the right of withdrawal with respect to the adoption of amendments to be added to Congressman Eaton’s statement which had been incorporated in the records of the Committee. The statement read:

“The Committee is also of the opinion that the absence of any express right of withdrawal does not preclude the right of any member to withdraw if the Charter is changed by any amendment in which that member has not concurred and which amendment adversely affects it”.

Mr. Sandifer thought that it might be better to use the words “that member finds it impossible to accept” in place of Mr. Dulles’ proposed wording at the end of the statement. The Delegation agreed upon Mr. Dulles’ statement as amended by Sandifer.

Armed Forces

Mr. Dunn declared that he wanted to point out to the Delegation, with respect to the position of the Delegation on the supply of forces to the Organization that the Eussians had been opposed to any reference in Chapter VIII, Section B, paragraph 5 to rights of passage. However, Mr. Dunn declared that he would not want to influence the Delegation’s position and the Delegation agreed to maintain the position previously stated.

h. Australian Pledge Amendment

The Delegation agreed to this statement of its position favoring a revised draft of the Australian draft for separate action as follows: “All members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in cooperation with the Organization for the achievement of these purposes”. Dean Gildersleeve declared that this amendment had been passed by Committee II/3 that afternoon.⁴⁷

i. Ram Materials

The Delegation agreed to this statement of its position opposing any reference in the Charter to raw materials and also to its inclusion even as part of any illustrative enumeration.

j. Reconstruction

The Delegation considered the statement of its position on reconstruction as follows:

“The Delegation agreed to oppose any reference in the Charter to reconstruction”.

Dean Gildersleeve declared that she felt uneasy about this position because the United States would be placed in a bad situation if it opposed reference to reconstruction as a matter of international concern. Dean Gildersleeve thought that this Delegation actually did want the Organization to express interest in the problems of reconstruction. Mr. Dunn pointed out, however, that reconstruction is a problem of a transitory nature whereas the document is intended as a long-term document. Mr. Notter suggested that an interpretation might be included in the record of the Committee of II/3 declaring that since this was not of a nature to be appropriately included in the Charter that it should be left to the individual Governments to handle themselves. Senator Vandenberg declared that he felt sympathetic toward Senator Connally who would have to stand up and defend the provisions in Chapter IX, on the Social and Economic Council, before the United States Senate. Representative Bloom remarked that reconstruction was a tremendous problem and declared that it would probably cost as much as the war itself. Senator Connally declared that there was really no need to consider this problem at the present time because the Delegation had already passed on a statement of its position. Mr. Dulles thought that the language of the Australian proposal concerning separate action provided adequate reason not to accept any reference to reconstruction as a matter for the proper concern of the Organization.

k. Revised Draft of Chapter VIII, Section C, paragraph 2

The Delegation agreed to this statement of its position, “to stand on the wording of the sponsoring Government’s amendment to Chapter VIII, Section C, paragraph 2 with the one change of the words ‘by consent’ to ‘and request of’”. Senator Vandenberg remarked that the Chairman of Committee III/4 had been critical of the United States for its insistence on postponement of consideration of this matter. Mr. Dulles remarked that Russia seemed to be lining up behind the French on this issue.

l. Chapter XII, Paragraph 1

The Delegation agreed to this statement of its position, opposing any change in Chapter XII, paragraph 1 as it appeared in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. Mr. Johnson thought that the Delegation would be beaten on this issue and declared that the Subcommittee of III/3 was referring the matter back to the full committee for wider instructions.⁴⁸ Senator Connally thought that the United States would win on this question because the other nations found it impossible to agree on any amendment.

m. Action by the General Assembly on Reports of the Security Council

The Delegation considered this statement of its position on the power of the General Assembly to act on reports submitted by the Security Council as follows:

“Subject to further discussion in a full Delegation meeting, the Delegates present this morning favored the elimination of the three middle paragraphs of the draft approved by Committee II/2 for paragraph 8, Section B, Chapter V. This would have to be done in the Steering Committee.”

Mr. Dunn reiterated the opinion he had expressed in the morning meeting that the provisions of this paragraph as accepted by Committee II/2 were inconsistent with the primary responsibility for the enforcement of peace granted to the Security Council by the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. Senator Vandenberg declared that this draft had been approved by a twenty-six to three vote,⁴⁹ but he ventured the opinion that the other nations might change their minds if Mr. Dunn’s opinion were made known to them. The Secretary thought the granting of supervisory powers to the General Assembly was not acceptable to this Government. The Delegation agreed to uphold the position taken at that morning’s meeting.

n. Right of the General Assembly To Discuss any Matter Within the Sphere of International Relations

Senator Vandenberg declared that he was in agreement with this statement of the Delegation’s position as follows:

“The Delegation has agreed to oppose the inclusion of the phrase ‘any matter within the sphere of international relations’ in a new paragraph 1 of Section B, Chapter V, unless accompanied by the words ‘affecting the maintenance of international peace and security’. The Delegation has consistently taken the position that the sponsoring governments’ amendments to paragraphs 1 and 6 of Section B, Chapter V and the provisions of Chapter IX adequately cover the powers of the Assembly to discuss matters within the sphere of international relations.”

The Delegation agreed unanimously to this statement of its position. Mr. Sandifer remarked that the text had been adopted in the Committee by the vote of twenty-seven to eleven.⁵⁰

o. Revision of Treaties (Australian, Brazilian and Egyptian proposals)

The Delegation agreed to this statement of its position as follows:

“The Delegation has agreed that the wording of paragraph 6, Section B, Chapter V relating to peaceful adjustment, which has been approved by Committee II/2,⁵¹ adequately covers the question of revision of treaties and that any amendment to specify ‘revision of treaties’ should be opposed”.

p. Advisory Opinions

Mr. Sandifer remarked that the Russian Delegation was opposed to a provision for permitting the General Assembly to request advisory opinions of the International Court, favored by this Delegation. Senator Connally declared that he did not know if he was in favor of the granting of this right. He thought it was inconsistent to allow the General Assembly to request advisory opinions and not allow the other agencies of the Organization to do so. There was some question as to whether the Delegation had ever actually agreed to the position stated that it approved this right on the part of the General Assembly. Miss Fosdick declared, however, that the statement of the Delegation’s agreement to this proposal appeared in Delegation minutes No. 25. Secretary Stettinius urged that there was a possibility of a question of jurisdiction arising if both the Security Council and the General Assembly were given this right, but Mr. Sandifer pointed out that both the Security Council and the General Assembly were allowed to request advisory opinions under the League of Nations. Senator Vandenberg agreed with the Secretary that jurisdictional disputes might result. Mr. Dulles thought that this was not the chief difficulty. He was afraid that the General Assembly might venture into the field of domestic jurisdiction. The Secretary asked Mr. Dulles for his recommendation to the Delegation. Mr. Dulles declared that he was opposed to the granting of this power to the General Assembly. Mr. Dulles thought that if this power were granted it might raise a number of academic questions. Commander Stassen suggested that the Delegation look one step further, and said if the power were not granted to the General Assembly the Security Council might be able to consider the same questions and act on them. The Delegation agreed on the statement of its position favoring that the right to request advisory opinions from the International Court be granted to the General Assembly.

Preparatory Commission

It was reported to the Delegation that this question had not been included on the list of important open questions because the Big Five were not prepared to consider it that evening.

Trusteeship

Commander Stassen reported that Committee II/4 had approved paragraphs 6, 10, and 13 of Section B of the draft trusteeship chapter.⁵² One of the questions still open before the Committee was the language to be used with respect to the problem of self determination and the freely expressed will of the people. The British were opposed to such a reference. Another question to be faced by the Committee was the matter of paragraph 5, to which Russia was opposed. A third question was the problem of membership on the Trusteeship Council on which tentative agreement had been reached but on which final agreement was being held up until the other issues had been settled. A similar situation existed with respect to the power of the Trusteeship Council of the Organization to investigate petitions and the like.

Hearing of Non-Members of the Economic and Social Council

Mr. Stinebower declared that Committee II/3 had been faced with a new problem. There had been no provision in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, Mr. Stinebower reported, for the hearing of nonmembers of the Economic and Social Council in cases in which they were concerned. A permissive clause had been drafted allowing the Economic and Social Council to use discretion in inviting non-members of the Economic and Social Council to participate in its deliberations.⁵³ However, the Latin American nations were pressing for the adoption for language which would make it mandatory to hear nonmembers when they were concerned. Mr. Stinebower urged that the members of the Delegation attempt, over the week-end, to contact the heads of the Latin-American Delegations to urge them to withdraw from this advanced position.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.

41. Not printed.
42. Brackets appear in the original.
44. Possible reference to The Gentleman from Massachusetts: Henry Cabot Lodge , by Karl Schriftgiesser (Boston, 1944).
45. In bis daily message of June 2 to President Truman and Mr. Hull on developments of the Conference, Mr. Stettinius noted that “the so-called working committee of the Big Five which has been doing excellent preparatory work under the chairmanship of Dr. Pasvolsky has now been dissolved as a result of the recall to Moscow of its Soviet member Sobolev. All further regular consultation among the Big Five therefore will take place among the chiefs of delegations.” (500.CC/6-245)
46. Doc. 574, I/2/S9, May 25, Doc. 627, I/2/44, May 26, and WD 34, I/2/40, May 25, UNCIO Documents, vol. 7, pp. 106, 132, and 134, respectively.
47. Doc. 747, II/3/46, June 2, UNCIO Documents, vol. 10, p. 161.
48. WD 68, III/3/A/2, June 1, UNCIO Documents, vol. 12, p. 651.
49. Doc. 707, II/2/36, May 31, ibid., vol. 9, p. 115.
50. Doc. 686, II/2/34, May 30, UNCIO Documents, vol. 9, p. 109.
51. Doc. 203, II/2/8, May 10, ibid., p. 21; see also Doc. 416, II/2/A/3, May 18, ibid., p. 345.
52. Doc. 735, II/4/31, June 1, UNCIO Documents, vol. 10, p. 506.
53. Doc. 725, II/3/42, June 1, UNCIO Documents, vol. 10, p. 153. For the proposal originally made by Uruguay, see Doc. 2, G/7(a)(1), May 5, ibid., vol. 3, p. 46.