RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 99: UNCIO Cons Five Min 13

Minutes of the Thirteenth Five-Power Informed Consultative Meeting on Proposed Amendment, Held at San Francisco, June 2, 1945, 5:30 p.m.

[Informal Notes]

[Here follows list of names of participants, including members of delegations of the United States (24); United Kingdom (7); Soviet Union (4); China (3); and France (5).]

Mr. Stettinius called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. He suggested that the target for the adjournment hour should be 6:45, since several of the members have important appointments. He called attention to the eighteen items listed on the agenda and suggested that the Trusteeship Questions, listed as item No. 17, be moved up on the agenda to tenth or eleventh place.

Lord Halifax stated that if it was intended to take up the Trusteeship Questions, then he would need to call his Trusteeship expert.

1. Election of the Deputy Secretaries-General

Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that at the previous meeting the discussion of point six in the agenda, Election of the Secretary-General, had been finished. The next point, seven, related to the election of the Deputy Secretaries-General. This, he said, involved even more difficulty than the subject of the election of the Secretary-General. There had been quite a mix-up on the question in Committee III/1. It will come to the Steering Committee unless it goes to Committee [Page 1107] III/1. There are, he said, several questions involved, primarily with respect to the administrative procedure which is to be followed and the position of the Secretary-General in the matter. There are several possibilities: One position is that the Deputy Secretary-General should be elected in the same manner as the Secretary-General. The feeling of the United States Delegation is that the election of the Deputy Secretary-General by the same method, while possible, is not desirable. The possibility of a different method should be explored, but if none can be found, then the American Delegation would be willing to see the same method followed as in the election of the Secretary-General. Other possibilities are to adopt the League method which was appointment by the Secretary-General and approval by the Council; or the suggestion made in the Committees involving appointment by the Secretary-General and approval by the various agencies according to function.

Ambassador Koo stated that the Chinese Delegation did not feel very strongly on the question of the Deputy Secretaries-General but there was a feeling that in the interest of efficiency, the Deputy Secretaries-General should be appointed by the Secretary-General with approval by the Security Council.

Ambassador Gromyko suggested that the same method might be followed as for the election of the Secretary-General. Another question was involved, he said, and this was whether it would be advisable not to mention the Deputy Secretaries-General at all in the Charter of the Organization. That decision had been taken in yesterday’s meeting of the Committee65 but it had been taken in violation of the procedural rules. The Chairman of the Committee had acted on two proposals; one for the retention of the provision, and one for its! elimination, and votes had been taken on both. More voted for the retention than against it but the decision of the Chairman was against its retention and this was in violation of the rules.

Ambassador Gromyko charged that this Committee had violated the procedural rules on several occasions. The decision taken yesterday on this subject, he said, was a wrong decision from the point of view of procedure and should be corrected.

Ambassador Halifax inquired whether it should be corrected by the Steering Committee and Ambassador Gromyko replied that he did not know by whom it should be corrected but that it should be corrected.

[Page 1108]

Mr. Stettinius stated that this should be taken up with Mr. Hiss immediately and it should also be brought to the attention of the Executive Committee.

Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that it is not possible to deal with the question of the election of the Deputy Secretaries-General unless there is provision for them in the Charter.

Ambassador Gromyko stated that there were two questions involved: (1) To mention them or not to mention them in the Charter, and (2) How to elect them. It was on the former question, he said, that the violation of procedure occurred in the Committee.

Mr. Stettinius requested that Mr. Sandifer take this matter up with Mr. Hiss; that it be analyzed, and that a recommendation be forthcoming on what action should be taken to correct the situation.

Mr. Pasvolsky stated that the first question is whether the Deputy Secretaries-General should be mentioned in the Charter and that this question falls within the province of Committee I/2.

Mr. Stettinius stated that this should be easy of solution since there is agreement that there should be five Deputy Secretaries-General.

Mr. Bloom stated that the agreement was, as he understood it, that there should be not less than five Deputy Secretaries-General, and that mention must be made of some number. It was his understanding, he said, that this decision had been made in the committee and that the question had already been referred to the Steering Committee.

Mr. Pasvolsky inquired whether the wording, “not less than five” had been adopted and Mr. Bloom replied that it had insofar as his Committee was concerned, although the question must also be referred to two other Committees.

Mr. Stettinius said that this was “small potatoes” for the consideration of a group this large and suggested that the matter be left to Mr. Sandifer to straighten out.

Mr. Pasvolsky agreed, stating that this group could not disentangle a juridical dispute. The next item on the agenda, he said, was No. 8, relating to the election of judges and this had already been dealt with. Item 9, Expulsion, also had been dealt with in the Technical Committee and it will next come to the Steering Committee.

Mr. Pasvolsky stated that the next two problems, Items 10 and 11, on the agenda related to action by the General Assembly on reports of the Security Council and the right of the General Assembly to discuss any matter within the sphere of international relations. Mr. Pasvolsky referred to the decision of Committee 2 to insert certain new language in paragraph 8, Section B of Chapter 8. At this point, the Chairman suggested that the group might jump to Item 13 on the agenda, Advisory Opinions, until Senator Vandenberg arrived.

[Page 1109]

2. Advisory Opinions

With reference to this item, Mr. Pasvolsky stated that the question is, whether the Assembly should have the right to ask the Court for advisory opinions. The feeling of the United States Delegation, he said, is that it is a proper right to concede to the Assembly, and that the Assembly might, under certain conditions, have the right to request advisory opinions from the Court.

Professor Golunsky stated that this had been decided by Committee IV/1.66

Mr. Hackworth remarked that Committee IV/1 had agreed that the Assembly should have the right to ask for advisory opinions and that the Security Council should also have this right. Provision giving the Court the right to do so would be incorporated in the statute of the Court.

Mr. Stettinius commented that there is a psychological advantage in granting this right to the Assembly and the Council.

Ambassador Halifax observed that he had not yet consulted his legal advisor on the matter but that offhand it seemed satisfactory and that he would agree.

3. Australian Pledge

Mr. Pasvolsky next referred to Items 14, 15, and 16, on the agenda, relating to the Australian pledge for separate action, raw materials, and reconstruction, respectively. With respect to the Australian pledge, he said, a question is coming up in Committee II/3. A statement concerning this matter had been worked out and seems to be agreeable. The formulation was 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 observed that the Committee had adopted this statement with only one dissenting vote.67

Ambassador Gromyko stated that he would like to see later how this would look in its context.

Mr. Pasvolsky advised that it would come at the end of the statement of purposes in the Chapter on Economic and Social Cooperation.

Mr. Stettinius stated that it was his understanding that there was no objection and inquired whether it was true that the representatives of the five Powers had already agreed to this language in the Committee.

Dean Gildersleeve replied that this was correct although some of the members would have preferred to have no pledge, since the pledge seems superfluous.

[Page 1110]

Ambassador Halifax commented that it might seem proper for the Soviet Ambassador to look at the provision in the whole text.

Ambassador Gromyko stated that he would like to see it in the whole text although it looked all right.

4. Raw Materials, Reconstruction

Mr. Pasvolsky referred to Items 15 and 16; the questions of raw materials and reconstruction. He pointed out that the American feeling was that the document would be stronger without any such enumeration and that this, enumerated in this way, might cast some doubt on the competence of the Economic and Social Council. Moreover, he said any specific reference to reconstruction would cause very great difficulty since no one knows what it means.

Dean Gildersleeve stated that there would be no need to consider the question of reconstruction, since this had been dealt with in the Committee this very afternoon.68 The Greek representative had been permitted to make a declaration with which the other members expressed sympathy. The question of raw materials, however, had been left over until Monday’s meeting of the Committee.69 Dean Gildersleeve added that the understanding was that the French were very anxious to have some mention of raw materials made.

Mr. Stettinius inquired whether it would be possible to have the precise language read but Mr. Pasvolsky replied that there was no language available; although the question had been discussed a great deal, it was now reduced to the desirability of some mention of raw materials somewhere.

Dean Gildersleeve stated that the question was one of some enumeration in Chapter IX, A, 1—some reference to finance, raw materials, etc. This was objectionable to the United States Delegation. It had been suggested, she said, that the matter could be disposed of by a mention in the report of the Committee that the provision was to be interpreted as covering finance, raw materials, etc. It was her understanding, however, that this was not entirely satisfactory to the French.

Mr. Stettinius inquired of the French representative whether this would be a satisfactory solution and the reply was that the French views on this would be available on Monday.

Mr. Stettinius advised that the United States Delegation feels firmly that any detailed enumeration of such matters veers away from the proper conception of a constitution.

Ambassador Halifax stated that his general judgment was the same as that expressed by Mr. Stettinius, and that he supported the undesirability of any detailed enumeration.

[Page 1111]

Ambassador Gromyko stated that he would await the views of the French Delegation before any final commitment on the matter.

Ambassador Koo stated that he was in favor of the position taken by the United States.

Mr. Stettinius stated that this matter then would be carried over until Monday.

5. Trusteeship Questions

Mr. Pasvolsky noted that the next item would be the Trusteeship Questions and Mr. Stassen was called upon to lead the discussion.

Mr. Stassen requested that the document on “Trusteeship Questions”, June 2,70 be distributed. There are, he said, four open questions, and an additional question relating to the Australian amendment. The paper which had been distributed, he observed, indicated the alternatives with respect to the open questions. These questions were:

1.
What reference there should be to the wishes of the people in the statement of political objectives;
2.
The conservatory or in-between clause (paragraph B, 5), and whether this paragraph should remain in the text and, if so, in what form;
3.
The composition of the Trusteeship Council. Specifically, whether the five major powers should have permanent seats on that Council, and
4.
The question of the powers which should be vested in the Assembly and the Trusteeship Council with respect to reports, petitions, inspection, or right of vistation.

The difficulty, he said, is really on only the first two points. The positions of the governments on the other two points have been reserved while awaiting a complete agreement among them on the Working Paper. With respect to the first point, the acceptable formulation on the political objectives, tentative agreement had been reached.

Mr. Stassen read subparagraph b of the Working Paper version (attached).70 The phrases underlined in this version, he said, had come, in part, from the Chinese and the Soviet amendments. In addition to this, he stated, the Soviet had offered a subsequent amendment which injected the question of the wishes of the people and on the basis of this, an exploratory version had been drafted on which agreement had not been reached. On Page 2 of the document, the United States suggestion was set forth which included part of the Chinese suggestion, and on the same page, two suggested French wordings were set forth.

[Page 1112]

This question of the acceptable wording for the political objectives, explained Mr. Stassen, is one of the questions left open in the trusteeship paper. Although the five-power consultation group on trusteeship had worked out many problems, it had not been able to find a satisfactory solution for this one. It was mainly a matter of the position of the United Kingdom and France against the position taken by the Soviet Delegation, with the United States and China trying to find a middle ground.

Ambassador Gromyko stated that he was ready to accept the latest United States proposal, as set forth on page 2 of the document, provided the Soviet amendment was incorporated therein. On this condition, the Soviet would be ready to accept the latest United States proposal.

Mr. Stassen explained that the Soviet Delegation had presented five amendments and that the five-power consultation group had met them on three of the five points without difficulty. Mr. Stassen inquired of Ambassador Gromyko whether the Soviet Delegation might consider one of the French suggestions acceptable.

Ambassador Gromyko replied that the Soviet Delegation considered the phrasing in the Soviet amendment better. He stated that they had considered this matter carefully and believed their own wording the best.

Ambassador Halifax commented that with all due respect to Ambassador Gromyko’s view, it would be difficult to do business if the group is confronted with the feeling that one delegation must always consider its own formulation best.

Ambassador Gromyko responded that the same attitude might be taken with respect to the position of the French Delegation.

Lord Cranborne remarked that his group had always thought that reference to self-determination in this context would be undesirable, but the United Kingdom, he said, had tried to find a common ground. The two French suggestions on page 2 of the document represent the maximum distance the United Kingdom would be willing to go. He stated that his group had consulted with the Dominion governments, and that they are against going any further than this and really did not wish to go this far. In the spirit of compromise, however, the British would prefer the first French suggestion, and, failing acceptance of that, would take the second French suggestion, subject to consultation with the Dominion governments.

Ambassador Gromyko stated that this represented the third concession the Soviet group had made on this point.

Ambassador Halifax stated that he gathered that from the statement made by Mr. Stassen, the Soviet Delegation had fared very well in that it had won acceptance for three of its five amendments.

[Page 1113]

Ambassador Gromyko stated that the Soviet group had made two previous concessions on this item alone in that it had first asked for inclusion of reference to “full national independence” and then for reference to “self-determination,” but had been willing to forego both of these in the interest of agreement.

Mr. Stassen stated that the other delegations had also made concessions.

Ambassador Koo observed that in the trusteeship consultations a large area of agreement had been reached. He thought that the United States suggestion on page 2 might offer a suitable compromise.

Mr. Stassen called attention to the fact that the Soviet Ambassador had pointed out that the second alternative on page 1 of the document relating to the proposed Soviet amendments was not a correct translation; that is, the phrase “freely expressed wishes of the people”, since the Soviet reference was to the expression, “the expression of its free will”.

Mr. Stassen added that either one or the other of the two parties involved in this disagreement must make some concession or the matter would have to go to the Conference Committee (II/4) without Five-Power agreement. This is, he added, the only point on which there has not been agreement in the Five-Power Consultation Group.

Mr. Stettinius announced that Senator Vandenberg had arrived and that there were only twenty minutes left before the 6:45 adjournment target. He, therefore, requested Ambassador Gromyko and the United Kingdom and French representatives to discuss this question together in order to determine whether it is possible to reach some decision which would be acceptable to all.

Mr. Stassen pointed out that the next open question related to paragraph 5, the conservatory clause. This paragraph, he said, was strongly supported by the United States but the Soviet Delegation now wishes to eliminate it. The United States, he said, is willing to consider some revised language for this paragraph but not its elimination. The paragraph had been approved by Committee II/471 and all of the other delegations among the Five-Powers except the Soviet Delegation desired its retention in some form. The question at issue is, whether the Soviet Delegation will be willing to accept it in some revised form. This paragraph carries out the intention of the Yalta agreement. It involves the question of subsequent agreements regarding specific territories. The status quo in such territories would be maintained until subsequent agreements affecting them are negotiated. The purpose is to make certain that there will be no period of uncertainty between the adoption of the Charter, the liquidation of the League, and the placing of territories under trusteeship.

[Page 1114]

Lord Cranborne expressed agreement with Mr. Stassen on this point. He stated that if there were no such provision in the Charter, there would be a dangerous gap. Other delegations, he said, wish it included in some revised form, and in this connection he read the United Kingdom’s suggestion which appears on page 3 of the document which had been distributed. The United Kingdom’s suggestion, he said, was designed to meet the needs of other governments.

Ambassador Gromyko explained that he had received the exploratory version (May 31), appearing on page 1 of the document, only yesterday. He was studying it, he said, but was unable to accept it at this time since he needed more time to complete his study of it.

Mr. Stassen then called attention to paragraph 11 relating to the composition of the Trusteeship Council. He said it was his understanding that the present formulation in the exploratory paper (May 31), appearing on page 4 of the document was acceptable to the Soviet Delegation. The other delegations, however, will not go forward on this paragraph or on paragraph 12 unless there is an agreed Five-Power position on the paragraphs in dispute. There is need for further study on these questions and later consideration in the Big Five. Conference Committee, II/4 has been very considerate and has been patient about the number of postponements which have been necessary in the absence of Five-Power agreement.

Mr. Stettinius advised that each of the Delegations should study these questions as soon as possible in order to reach a prompt decision.

Lord Cranborne stated that the United Kingdom was most anxious to reach agreement. His group, he said, had made numerous concessions, but he wished to make it clear that they had reached the limit of these concessions. The French Representative expressed the same attitude, adding that the French Delegation attached great importance to paragraph 5. It was willing to accept the June 2 version (United Kingdom’s suggestion, page 3) of this paragraph.

Mr. Stettinius, referring to Item 18 on the agenda, the Preparatory Commission, suggested that this subject not be discussed at this meeting of the Five Powers. He informed Senator Vandenberg that Items 10, 11, and 12 had been left open pending his arrival and inquired whether the Senator would wish to make a statement regarding them.

6. General Assembly Action on Security Council Reports

Senator Vandenberg expressed the hope that there would be no difficulty about any of these three points. Item 10, he said, Action by the General Assembly on Reports of the Security Council, had passed Committee II/2 in final draft. In the Committee, he said, the Five Powers had voted against three amendments and were defeated and then when the Drafting Committee had reported on May [Page 1115] 30, the draft had been approved by a vote of 26 to 3.72 The draft read as follows:

“8. The General Assembly should receive and consider annual and special reports from the Security Council; such reports should include an account of the measures which the Security Council has adopted or applied to maintain international peace and security.

“Subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Section, the General Assembly should be empowered:

  • a) to approve or disapprove in whole or in part any report from the Security Council and to make any recommendations or observations thereon;
  • b) to submit recommendations to the Security Council with a view to ensuring complete observance of the duties of the Security Council inherent in its responsibility to maintain international peace and security.

“The General Assembly should receive and consider reports from the other bodies of the Organization and may make any recommendations or observations thereon.”

Senator Vandenberg stated that he had no objection to a recommendation to take this matter to the Steering Committee and added that he had no complaints.

Mr. Pasvolsky observed that the question is whether the Steering Committee should be asked to drop the three middle paragraphs.

Ambassador Halifax remarked that it is really a question of drafting.

Ambassador Gromyko considered it desirable to reconsider all of these questions and to take them up in the Steering Committee. It is not, he said, merely a question of drafting, but a question of content. He did not think that it should be referred to the Coordination Committee, since from the point of view of the draft alone it may be an ideal text.

Professor Webster remarked that the matter had been carried unanimously in the Committee.

Senator Vandenberg said that the final vote was 26 to 3 and that, as he understood it, two of the three negative votes were the Soviet and the Ukraine.

Ambassador Gromyko pointed out that the decision affected the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals but that the Soviet Delegation had not been called into consultation on the matter, although it had been agreed before the Conference that the Five Powers would consult on all amendments. It is for this reason that the Five Powers now find themselves on different sides on this question. The Coordination Committee could not handle the issue since it deals only with questions of phrasing, sentence structure, proper placing, etc.

[Page 1116]

Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that it is not clear who proposed this provision.

Professor Webster explained that it came out of the deliberations of the subcommittee.73 It simply says, he added, what is already in the Dumbarton Oaks text.

Ambassador Gromyko called attention to the first subparagraph (a). The Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, he pointed out, did not say that the General Assembly could approve or disapprove reports of the Security Council which deal with matters relating to the maintenance of peace and security. Again, with respect to subparagraph (b), he contended that the spirit of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals was that the Security Council is responsible for carrying out matters affecting peace and security. This new provision, however, would mean that the General Assembly would have supervision over such matters.

Ambassador Gromyko added that another decision had been accepted by this same Committee about which he had a question, and called attention to subparagraph (b) of the final text of Chapter V, Section B, adopted by Committee II/2, relating to the powers of the General Assembly and reading as follows:

(b) to discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security brought before it by any member or members of the Organization or by the Security Council, and to make recommendations to the Governments or to the Security Council or both with regard to any such principles or questions. Any such questions on which action is necessary should be referred to the Security Council by the General Assembly either before or after discussion. The General Assembly should not on its own initiative make recommondations on any matter relating to the maintenance of international peace and security which is being dealt with by the Security Council. The General Assembly should have the right to call the attention of the Security Council to situations which are likely to endanger international peace or security. While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it under this Charter, the General Assembly should not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests. The Secretary General shall be required, with the consent of the Security Council, to notify the General Assembly at each session of any matters relative to the maintenance of international peace or security which are being dealt with by the Security Council and also to notify the General Assembly immediately the Security Council ceases to deal with such matters.74

[Page 1117]

The wording here, he said, is of very broad scope and is contradictory to the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals.

Mr. Stettinius stated that he had made a promise to some of the members to adjourn at 6:45 p.m. and inquired whether it would be possible to hold a meeting tomorrow afternoon to consider the important items left over. He asked whether a 4 o’clock meeting tomorrow would be agreeable and whether the Preparatory Commission paper would be ready at that time.

Mr. Sandifer replied that the Preparatory Commission Paper would not be ready until Monday.

Mr. Stettinius remarked that the time had arrived when it was necessary to go forward. He had hoped, he said, that it would be possible to complete discussion on all matters, except the two which Ambassador Gromyko must consult his government upon, at tomorrow’s meeting. He added that something must be said to the press, otherwise there would be unfortunate repercussions. He suggested that each delegation should have one of its representatives remain behind in order to consult with Mr. Stevenson on which of the three draft statements he has prepared for the press it might be desirable to release. The following representatives were designated for this purpose: USSK—Mr. Novikov; United Kingdom—Sir Alexander Cadogan; France—M. Serreules; China—

Ambassador Halifax stated that in tomorrow’s meeting the minds of the group should be applied to what should be the procedure in the Commission dealing with the subjects discussed this morning, if agreement is not reached. He saw plainly the difficulty with respect to the later stages of the work, however well the press may be contained for a few days, if agreement is not reached on procedure.

Senator Connally commented that there must be a final realization that everyone cannot get his way on everything; otherwise, he said, there will be no Charter. There must be a broad spirit of cooperation here.

The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.

  1. See Doc. 574, I/2/39, May 25, UNCIO Documents, vol. 7, p. 106, for voting on the question of Deputy Secretaries General and Doc. 732, I/2/50, June 1, ibid., p. 161, for Soviet proposal that the matter be referred to the Steering Committee since, in the Soviet delegate’s opinion, the vote of Committee I/2 on May 24 had not been decisive.
  2. Doc. 714, IV/1/57, May 31, UNCIO Documents, vol. 13, p. 241.
  3. Doc. 747, II/3/46, June 2, ibid., vol. 10, p. 161.
  4. Doc. 769, II/3/50, UNCIO Documents, vol. 10, p. 171.
  5. Doc. 780, II/3/53, June 4, ibid., p. 194.
  6. Not printed.
  7. Not printed.
  8. Doc. 580, II/4/24, May 26, UNCIO Documents, vol. 10, p. 487.
  9. Doc. 707, II/2/36, May 31, UNCIO Documents, vol. 9, p. 115.
  10. Doc. 677, II/2/B/9, May 29, UNCIO Documents, vol. 9, p. 416.
  11. Doc. 601, II/2/B/4, May 26, Report of Subcommittee B to Committee II/2, UNCIO Documents, vol. 9, p. 408; Doc. 686, II/2/34, May 30, ibid., p. 110.