RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 99: UNCIO Cons Five Min 14

Minutes of the Fourteenth Five-Power Informal Consultative Meeting on Proposed Amendments, Held at San Francisco, June 3, 1945, 4 p.m.

[Informal Notes]

[Here follows list of names of participants, including members of delegations of the United States (22); United Kingdom (4); Soviet Union (3); China (4); and France (4).]

Mr. Stettinius called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and pointed out that the agenda of the meeting did not include trusteeship or voting.

1. French Proposal—Chapter VIII, Section C, Paragraph 2

Mr. Pasvolsky stated that the paper which had been circulated incorporated the proposed changes in a new draft for Chapter VIII, Section C, paragraph 2. Ambassador Gromyko stated that yesterday’s draft78 was more acceptable and that the current draft was more precise. He attached extreme importance to this matter and stated that he did not like the new draft. He stated that he had not yet heard from his Government on this question.

2. Amending Procedure

Mr. Pasvolsky called on Mr. Armstrong to report on developments concerning the situation with regard to the technical group of the Committee of Five, which had been requested to study the question [Page 1121] of the possible modification of the proposal of the Sponsoring Governments concerning a special conference to review the Charter.

Mr. Armstrong reported that Mr. Hoo, Colonel Capel Dunn, Mr. Zarapkin and Mr. Gorse had met and agreed that there should be no change in paragraph 3 of Chapter XI, concerning the concurrence of the permanent members of the Security Council in the ratification of amendments to the Charter, nor in the amendment of the Sponsoring Governments concerning the requirements for ratification of the recommendations of a revision conference. He stated that all were agreed that these provisions were fundamental. The group had taken into account the insistent demand of some of the middle-sized powers that some date for the revision conference be mentioned in the Charter, but agreed that it would be dangerous to suggest a specific date or a period in which such a conference should be held. He referred particularly to the Canadian proposal which was now before the Subcommittee of Committee I/279 that such a conference should be held not later than seven years from the date of entry into force of the Charter.

Mr. Armstrong reported that the group thought there were two concessions which were; however, worth considering. The first was to empower the General Assembly to fix a date and place for a revision conference by a two-thirds rather than a three-fourths vote, as provided in the Sponsoring Governments’ amendment. He pointed out that the number of votes involved in such a change would be from 36 to 32. Although this was a minor concession, it was nevertheless in a direction which the other powers would like. He then read the following proposal which might be added to the amendment of the Sponsoring Governments which in the view of the group would represent a slight concession in meeting the views of other Delegations:

“If such a general conference has not been held before the tenth annual meeting of the Assembly following the entry into force of the Charter, the proposal to call such a general conference shall be placed on the agenda of that meeting of the Assembly.”

He stated that Mr. Zarapkin had suggested that the tenth annual session of the General Assembly would be better than the seventh annual session as proposed by the Canadian Delegation. He observed that this was indeed a very minute concession but that such a concession would be better than nothing.

Mr. Armstrong then drew attention to the importance of the tactics which might be employed in the presentation of these proposals. He [Page 1122] raised the question whether we should fight hard for the present text and then give in, or whether we should introduce these proposals ourselves and stick to them as the maximum concession to be granted. He indicated his preference for the latter course, for it would be possible to say that these concessions represent what we can do and all that we can do.

Ambassador Gromyko expressed the view that the Sponsoring Governments’ amendment was better but that he would make a study of this proposal and express his views at a later time. Mr. Stettinius stated that the proposals outlined by Mr. Armstrong were agreeable to the United States Delegation. Ambassador Koo believed that the different steps involved here were well devised. Mr. Boncour accepted the proposals made. Lord Halifax expressed agreement with the proposals and suggested that when: Ambassador Gromyko consults his Government it should be understood that the four governments stand together on the additional sentence which had been proposed. Mr. Stettinius concluded by stating that the four governments had agreed to the proposed modifications but that the Soviet Delegation wished to study the matter further.

Mr. Armstrong pointed out that the discussion of the Canadian proposal was the first item of pending business before the Subcommittee and wondered whether the meeting of the Subcommittee should be postponed. Ambassador Gromyko asked why the meeting should not be postponed and observed that it was not difficult to postpone meetings of Committees. Mr. Stettinius then inquired whether the meeting could be postponed. Mr. Armstrong repeated that the first item of business before the Subcommittee would be a vote on the Canadian proposal which he thought would be carried. He thought it would be possible to request postponement. Ambassador Gromyko suggested that we could say that the heads of the Sponsoring Governments and France are consulting on this matter. Mr. Eaton observed that the Committee has other work to do and that if the meeting were not postponed he inquired what would happen. Mr. Armstrong thought it best to postpone the meeting. Mr. Stettinius stated that the Secretary-General would be asked to postpone the meeting. Mr. Eaton inquired for how long. Senator Vandenberg observed that one Committee had been postponed for ten days. Ambassador Gromyko stated that he could not answer how long it would be necessary to postpone the meeting and remarked that he had never raised such questions himself when the question of regionalism was under consideration. Mr. Stettinius then stated that, unless there were any objections, the Secretary-General would be asked to postpone the meeting of the Subcommittee.

[Page 1123]

3. Election of Deputy Secretaries-General

Mr. Pasvolsky stated that the question concerning Deputy Secretaries-General still was not clear and called on Mr. Gerig to give a brief explanation. Mr. Gerig then reviewed briefly the paper which had been distributed on this subject.80 He proposed that in view of the procedural difficulties in Committee I/2 concerning the question of Deputy Secretaries-General, the matter be taken up by the Steering Committee. Ambassador Gromyko suggested that this matter be considered first by the Executive Committee and then by the Steering Committe. He also thought that the joint proposal of the Sponsoring Governments should be submitted to the Executive Committee for consideration as representing the views of the Sponsoring Governments and France. He pointed out that all proposals for insertion in the Charter required a two-thirds vote and that in Committee I/2 more votes were given to the proposal to retain mention of reference in the Charter to Deputy Secretaries-General than to dropping it. Mr. Stettinius stated that he had no objection to taking this matter to the Executive Committee. Lord Halifax also stated that he had no objection to this procedure.

Ambassador Gromyko stated that there were two questions involved. The first was whether or not to include a provision concerning Deputy Secretaries-General. He considered that the vote of the Committee on this question should be corrected. The other question was how the Deputy Secretaries-General should be selected. He pointed out that the proposal of the Sponsoring Governments was that the same procedure should be used in the election of Deputy Secretaries-General as for the Secretary-General, and expressed the hope that the French Delegation would join in this proposal.

Lord Halifax stated that it was his own feeling that his Government would, on the whole, accept the proposal of the Sponsoring Governments, but that he would prefer to see no mention of the election of Deputy Secretaries-General in the Charter. He observed that this was pretty small beer anyway. He thought that it would have been more satisfactory to empower the Secretary-General, a man in whom the Great Powers would have confidence, to choose the Deputy Secretaries-General, who in turn might be approved by the General Assembly. He thought that the selection of the five Deputies by a qualified vote was too rigid and unnecessarily provocative. He suggested that if the Soviet Ambassador would go so far he would be prepared to propose that two Deputy Secretaries-General, one of them the real Deputy of the Secretary-General and the other charged [Page 1124] with responsibilities for the Security Council, be selected in the same way as the Secretary-General and that the other three Deputies be nominated by the Secretary-General and approved by the General Assembly.

Ambassador Gromyko inquired whether the position of the British Delegation had changed and observed that when the Big Four were here81 they were all agreed on the proposal that there be four Deputy Secretaries-General elected by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council for a term of three years. Lord Halifax replied that the British position had not changed but that the amendment had not been gotten through the Committee. He added that his Delegation was never very enthusiastic about the proposed amendment. He pointed out that there had been considerable difficulty encountered in obtaining acceptance of this proposal and he was, therefore, prepared to offer his proposal as a compromise.

Mr. Boncour stated that he had no objection to the procedure proposed or to the election of the five Deputies by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council with a qualified vote. Ambassador Koo thought that the matter should go to the Steering Committee and be cleared up there. Mr. Stettinius stated that if this matter goes to the Executive Committee there should be agreement on the position of the five governments. Lord Halifax stated that if the others are all agreed to stick to the amendment of the Sponsoring Governments his Delegation would go along, but he rather doubted the wisdom of trying to get it through because of its relationship to a lot of other matters.

Representative Bloom pointed out that Ambassador Gromyko had left out the subsequent agreement regarding the eligibility for reelection of Deputies. He also proposed that a distinction might be given in name between Under Secretaries-General and Deputy Secretaries-General.

Mr. Stettinius stated that he would prefer the election of the Secretary-General by a qualified vote and that the Deputies be nominated by the Secretary-General and approved by the respective bodies to which they might be assigned, such as the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, and the General Assembly.

Lord Halifax repeated his view that he would prefer to have two of the five Deputies elected by a qualified vote.

Mr. Stettinius stated that we must get ahead with this matter and that the United States was prepared to consider a compromise. Lord Halifax observed that there was a majority of 3 to 2 and suggested that we let this matter go to the Steering Committee. Ambassador [Page 1125] Koo pointed out that the vote in Committee I/2 had been very close and that the situation might be changed in the Steering Committee when more members of Delegations would be present.

Mr. Boncour asked what advantage there would be in electing two Deputies and appointing three, and suggested that this would create a difference in status between the Deputies. Lord Halifax replied that the two who were elected would hold particularly important positions and that his proposal represented an attempt to meet the general feeling against the election of all Deputies.

Ambassador Gromyko thought it best to hold to the text of the Sponsoring Governments, except as modified by subsequent agreement to increase the number of Deputies to five, and to provide for their eligibility to re-election.

Mr. Stettinius observed that since there was no objection to the proposal that there be five Deputy Secretaries-General elected for a three-year term by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council and eligible for re-election, it be taken to the Executive Committee.82

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

Mr. Pasvolsky called attention to the text of Chapter V, Section B, paragraph 8 which had been approved by Committee II/2,83 and thought that the question would have to be taken to the Steering Committee. He suggested the elimination of the three middle paragraphs of this draft if it were agreed that the first and last paragraphs were acceptable. He pointed out that the principal objection was paragraph b). With regard to paragraph a), he pointed out that whether or not this provision is inserted in the Charter, it would be impossible to stop the Assembly from taking any action on a report from the Security Council. He thought, however, there was no need to mention it in the Charter. Senator Vandenberg observed that if some provision along this line were not inserted that the Big Five would be plowed under.

Mr. Webster observed that there was no possibility of changing the substance of the proposal but that he thought it would be possible to find a better way of stating it. He said it would be impossible to deny the power of the Assembly to take the action described and believed that the Technical Committee would want the Steering Committee to find a better formula.

Ambassador Gromyko stated that it was not the language but the content of these provisions which was objectionable. He stated that [Page 1126] a) and b) are contradictory to the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, whereas the first and last paragraphs of paragraph 8 were not. He said that he was agreeable to putting the question before the Steering Committee but thought it should first be discussed by the Executive Committee. Senator Vandenberg stated that he was willing to drop these two paragraphs if necessary and agreed that it was a question of substance rather than language. He thought, however, that better language might be found. He considered that the substance of paragraph a) was inherent in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals.

Ambassador Gromyko stated that if such a provision were inserted in the Charter, it would encourage decisions by the General Assembly which contradicted those of the Security Council. He observed that if the General Assembly were to receive a report from the Security Council and disapprove it, the Security Council would not be in a good position. Senator Vandenberg stated that such a situation could occur anyway even though there were no specific provision in the Charter. Ambassador Gromyko pointed out that the text provides that the Assembly can disapprove decisions of the Security Council.

Mr. Dejean suggested that instead of the phrase “to approve or disapprove”, the phrase “to express an opinion” might be more suitable. He also observed that paragraph b) was in harmony with the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals.

Mr. Pasvolsky suggested the phrase “make any observation” in lieu of the phrase “to approve or disapprove”.

Mr. Stettinius inquired whether paragraph 8 should go to the Executive Committee with a) and b) deleted. Lord Halifax stated that while he had no objection to their deletion, he thought it shouldn’t be difficult to draft something within the meaning of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals that would be acceptable.

Ambassador Koo favored re-drafting paragraph b) and softening it, and likewise concurred with the proposal of Lord Halifax as a basis of the recommendation to be made.

Mr. Stettinius proposed that discussion of this question be taken to the Executive Committee and then the Steering Committee. He further proposed that if the Executive Committee did not favor the deletion of paragraphs a) and b) then a re-draft of those paragraphs might be agreed upon by the five Delegations and submitted to the Steering Committee. It was so agreed.

Senator Connally stated that he was opposed to paragraph b) because it made the Security Council subservient to the General Assembly and as such was especially objectionable.

[Page 1127]

5. Revision of Treaties (Australian, Brazilian and Egyptian Proposals)

Senator Vandenberg expressed the view that in so far as Committee II/2 was concerned, he thought that the view of the Committee of Five with regard to the Australian, Brazilian, and Egyptian proposals would be sustained.84 Ambassador Gromyko also thought that we would win our position on this question. He observed that it would be harmful to include a provision in the Charter which would empower the General Assembly to revise treaties and that most delegations realized this. He pointed out that the Egyptians and Belgians wished the Committee, as a whole, to agree upon an interpretation that paragraph 6 of Chapter V, B, confers on the General Assembly the right to revise treaties. He stated that the Soviet Delegation and others present oppose that interpretation. If the Egyptians or Belgians individually wish to say that this paragraph means that the General Assembly has the right to revise treaties that is satisfactory, but it would not be for the Committee as a whole to so interpret.

Mr. Webster pointed out that Egypt wanted the statement of Senator Vandenberg written into the Committee’s report. In reply to Mr. Stettinius’ question as to whether there was Five-Power agreement on this matter, Senator Vandenberg replied that there was complete agreement that the Committee should not be bound by any interpretation, but that any member of the Committee has a right to express its [his] own interpretation.

6. Right of the General Assembly to Discuss Any Matter Within the Sphere of International Relations

Mr. Pasvolsky called attention to the text of Chapter V, Section B, paragraphs 1 and 2 which had been distributed, and stated that the question was whether the additional phrase “affecting maintenance of international peace and security” should be added after the phrase “any matter within the sphere of international relations”. He wondered whether this matter should be taken to the Steering Committee.

Senator Vandenberg stated that it was impossible to make the Technical Committee understand that the proposal is inherent in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. He pointed out that the Five Powers had tried to add the phrase “affecting the maintenance of international peace and security” and had failed.85 Mr. Pasvolsky inquired whether the Delegations were ready to support the inclusion of this phrase in bringing the matter before the Executive Committee. Mr. Gromyko [Page 1128] suggested that it be left to the Coordination Committee to find out whether this phrase adds anything new to the Charter. Senator Vandenberg said that he was agreeable to this suggestion.

Lord Halifax inquired whether it was good policy to reverse Technical Committee decisions at a higher level. He thought it was all right to let this matter go to the Coordination Committee. Mr. Stettinius stated that a reversal of decisions of the Technical Committees would have a very bad effect. Senator Vandenberg observed that Mr. Evatt would take this matter to a Plenary Session unless he changes his position in the meantime.

Ambassador Gromyko thought that Mr. Pasvolsky’s suggestion that this matter be submitted first to the Executive Committee and then to the Steering Committee, leaving the Coordination Committee to decide whether anything new had been added, might be considered. He pointed out that if the provision were accepted as it now stands, the General Assembly would be empowered to intervene in any matter and that there would be no limit to its scope. Mr. Stettinius suggested that the General Assembly inherently had the right to discuss such matters because of its general character. The General Assembly, he observed, is a table around which the Governments could discuss anything. Mr. Pasvolsky stated that this paragraph was intended to cover only matters pertaining to peace and security. Other paragraphs defined other powers of the Assembly. He wondered whether or not such a provision was required and suggested that the matter be taken first to the Executive Committee and then to the Steering Committee. Lord Halifax wondered how it would be possible to stop the Assembly even if these words are too wide. Mr. Pasvolsky reiterated that the other powers of the General Assembly were covered elsewhere and said the question was whether the general powers of the Assembly should be stated in such broad terms as those proposed.

Senator Vandenberg sounded a warning on the attitude of the other powers who maintained that the power to discuss any matter within the sphere of international relations is in the General Assembly and that, therefore, it should be stated. Mr. Pasvolsky stated that such a broad and unlimited statement had not been accepted. He thought this matter could be taken up in the Coordination Committee.

Senator Connally stated that the Assembly under Section B has the right to consider the matters set forth in paragraphs 1, 2 and 6 and asked what else could be discussed. He didn’t see any harm in letting the Assembly talk, provided that it did not make any recommendations under the limitations imposed in paragraph 2 b). Senator Vandenberg observed that this question was purely a matter of strategy. Mr. Golunsky stated that the exception provided in paragraph 2 b) referred only to recommendations but not to discussion. He thought that a situation in which the General Assembly discussed [Page 1129] a matter which was being dealt with by the Security Council was contradictory. Mr. Dulles pointed out that the only limitation on the Assembly is on its right to make recommendations, not on its right to discuss. He thought that the text adopted by the Committee in that respect conforms precisely to the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that the Delegations think over whether this matter is important and review it in the Steering Committee. Mr. Stettinius suggested that “we sleep over it”.

7. Australian Pledge for Separate Action

Mr. Pasvolsky stated that there was some question with regard to the language employed in the Australian pledge for separate action as set forth in Chapter IX, A, 1. Ambassador Gromyko observed that it sounded all right but that he might have something to say on this subject at a later time.

8. Meetings of Executive Committee And Steering Committee

Mr. Stettinius suggested that the meeting of the Big Five be held at 12:00 o’clock tomorrow in order to determine the procedure to be followed before calling a meeting of the Executive Committee. The Big Five might draft the agenda but not set a time for the Steering Committee. He thought other delegations might have comments to make tomorrow. Ambassador Gromyko suggested that the agenda of the Executive Committee be discussed at the meeting of the Big Five tomorrow.

In reply to Mr. Boncour’s question on when the Executive Committee would meet, Mr. Stettinius stated that that would depend on the progress made by the Big Five.

Senator Vandenberg stated that the problem of the French amendment should be settled tomorrow. He observed that it would be unfortunate if Committee II/4 could not meet tomorrow without agreement among the Big Five. He said it was asking a lot of a group of plenipotentiaries to wait ten days while we failed to decide. Mr. Stettinius said that it was agreed that the Big Five would meet at 12:00 tomorrow.

9. Press Relations

Mr. Stettinius stated that there was a very difficult situation with regard to the press, and called on Mr. Stevenson to read a suggested statement for consideration by the group.

Mr. Stevenson suggested that it would be desirable to give ah official indication of the present situation by the issuance of a Five-Power statement. He then read the following draft:

“The Chiefs of Delegations of the four sponsoring, powers and France have met several times in the last two days to discuss a number of matters pending in various Committees of the Conference.

[Page 1130]

“In these discussions, the Delegations of the five powers have reached a common position on various suggested changes in the following provisions of the Charter:

(He did not read the list of items which might be included in the statement.)

“While a wide area of agreement has been reached on interpretations of the voting provisions for the Security Council and other matters, discussions are continuing with a view to furthering progress toward the successful conclusion of the Conference.”

Senator Vandenberg thought that any list of questions which might be included in the statement would be those which run against the smaller powers and that it would have an unhappy impact.

Mr. Stevenson stated that there was such a general state of alarm that he thought We should let the world know, in some way or other, that we were continuing to seek agreement on outstanding questions. Senator Vandenberg thought that such a list was worse than nothing because it would confirm the impression that we were plowing under the smaller powers. Mr. Rockefeller stated that the listing of items would throw the small states into confusion. Mr. Stevenson hoped that it would be possible to give some affirmative positive statement. Mr. Stettinius thought that we should recognize that a number of delegations are becoming discouraged and that it was incumbent upon the Big Five to restore confidence in the success of the Conference. This must be done promptly in some way or other. Mr. Boncour agreed that a number of delegations are getting impatient.

Lord Halifax feared that the kind of statement prepared by Mr. Stevenson would hardly do the job. He agreed with the point of view expressed by Senator Vandenberg and Mr. Rockefeller. He found no fault with Mr. Stevenson but said that we were not helping ourselves in this situation. He thought that it was dangerous to say that all is going well when it really isn’t and that we couldn’t alter the situation until we have gotten along farther.

Senator Vandenberg thought that the facts should be told and that the position of various governments on controversial issues should be stated. He thought it might be better if each government were to state its own position rather than to try to get an agreed statement among the Five.

Mr. Stettinius pointed out that we were still in a negotiating stage, and Mr. Stevenson added that a statement by each delegation would tend to freeze positions. Senator Vandenberg referred to the objective story published in the New York Times and thought that it didn’t do any damage.

Ambassador Koo said that there was need for some statement, but he preferred not to list the items as proposed by Mr. Stevenson. Lord Halifax suggested that we tell the press that the five principal [Page 1131] powers have held a lot of meetings, have reached agreement on a number of matters, and have also failed to reach agreement on some important matters but they are continuing their effort to find solutions to outstanding problems. Ambassador Gromyko stated that it was difficult to discuss any statement without a text before him, and that agreement on the issuance of a statement would depend on what was included in it. He added that he would want to communicate with his Government on the issuance of any such statement. Lord Halifax suggested the Chairman be authorized to issue a general objective statement which was not controversial. Mr. Stettinius stated that that had been tried last night with no result. The only statement he could make was as Chairman of the United States Delegation.

Representative Eaton inquired why each Delegation should not make a statement on its position. He observed that we came here as a parliament of mankind and that each Delegation should take a position before its public. He, for one, did not care for all this picayune stuff.

Lord Halifax stated that he hoped that the British position had not been backward. Representative Eaton then inquired how we could develop public opinion in the world if we sat around and chattered like a bunch of magpies.

Mr. Stettinius adjourned the meeting.

  1. See minutes of the twelfth Five-Power meeting, June 2, 10 a.m., p. 1094.
  2. Subcommittee I/2/E, established by Committee I/2 on May 29, held three meetings on May 30 and 31, but discussion on the time to be fixed for the conference was postponed from the latter date until the Sponsoring Governments had had an opportunity to consult with each other (US I/2/E Doc. 3, May 31, 10:30 a.m.).
  3. Not printed.
  4. See minutes of the second consultative Four-Power meeting, May 3, p. 562.
  5. Doc. 707, II/2/36, May 31, UNCIO Documents, vol. 9, p. 115.
  6. Doc. 827, EX/19, June 7, ibid., vol. 5, pp. 485–486.
  7. Doc. 748, II/2/39, June 2, 1945, UNCIO Documents, vol. 9, p. 126; for index to amendments proposed with respect to chapter V, B (6), see ibid., vol. 3, p. 653.
  8. Doc. 686, II/2/34, May 30, ibid., vol. 9, p. 108.