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. 63

Minutes of the Sixty-Third Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Monday, June 4, 1945, 9 a.m.

San Francisco, June 4, 1945, 9 a.m.

[Informal Notes—Extracts]

[Here follows list of names of persons (32) present at meeting, miscellaneous announcements by the Secretary of State, and discussion of a procedural question.]

Transitional Arrangements

The Delegation was referred to the document “Recommendations to the United States Delegation on Basic Issues”, US Gen 219.⁸⁹ Mr. Johnson reported that the Four Power attempt to gain acceptance for the original wording of Chapter XII, Paragraph 1 had been defeated twice, 17 to 15 and 18 to l.⁹⁰ The question had been referred to a subcommittee which voted by a count of 5 to 0 that the paragraph needed no further clarification.⁹¹ The Big Five had been the only powers to vote on this issue. However, a report of the subcommittee made it very clear that the Big Five had different interpretations of this paragraph, thus making most difficult the position assumed by the Big Five that the paragraph needed no clarification. The question had been referred to the Steering Committee for decision.

The Secretary asked Mr. Johnson what he would recommend. Mr. Johnson replied that the military seemed to agree to the position stated in the paper he had presented in which it was suggested that “the United States Delegation accept the necessity for some modification of Chapter XII and take the lead to bring this about, first in the Big Five and subsequently in the Steering Committee.” Mr. Johnson suggested that it would be advisable to study the language of the suggested revision which was attached to US Gen 219. This suggested redraft, “Proposed Redraft of Chapter XII,” June 3, 1945, proposed that a new paragraph be inserted after paragraph 1 as follows:

“1. The Security Council shall as soon as it is organized be vested with all the functions and powers conferred upon it by this Charter with the exception of those involving enforcement action. The latter functions and powers shall be assumed by the Security Council as soon as, through the coming into force of the special agreement or agreements provided for in Chapter VIII, Section B, paragraph 5, adequate forces and facilities are available for the fulfillment of all its responsibilities under the Charter.”

The suggested redraft also included the addition, in brackets, of the following phrase at the end of the old paragraph 2:

“until such time as those Governments shall transfer this responsibility in whole or in part to the Security Council.”

Mr. Johnson explained that there were three issues, when the Security Council would take over the function of enforcement against enemy states, who should make this decision, and what was to be the scope of the Security Council’s functions. Senator Connally declared that he was opposed to the exception established in the new paragraph 1. The Security Council, he declared, would have authority whenever forces were made available to it, and Mr. Dunn agreed that the exception established was too broad. Mr. Johnson asked whether this objection was not covered by paragraph 2 of the redraft. Mr. Dunn replied that this paragraph provided only for consultation, but Senator Connally added that the consultation was provided for “with a view to such joint action … as may be necessary.” Mr. Hackworth submitted that there was no need for the additional paragraph. The original wording, he thought, was sufficiently clear to make any addition unnecessary. Senator Connally observed that the additional paragraph, or clarification of some kind, was made necessary by the demands of the smaller powers. This question had been submitted, he declared, to the Steering Committee for a decision. The Secretary asked why it was not possible to stand on the original language. Mr. Johnson replied that the different interpretations advanced by the various members of the Big Five made it impossible to maintain the position any longer that the original wording did not require clarification. Mr. Dulles asked what the Russian interpretation had been. Mr. Johnson replied that the Russians had stated their position as being that the Security Council could not function until the agreements for the supply of forces came into effect. The Russian Delegation had also insisted on the wording “maintenance of peace” instead of “enforcement”.

Senator Connally suggested that paragraph 1 of the redraft be dropped and that wording such as “subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, the Security Council is vested with all the functions and powers granted to it in this Charter” be substituted.

Mr. Pasvolsky remarked that there was complete misunderstanding of the purpose of this chapter. It had not been proposed at Dumbarton Oaks in order to grant more power to the four major nations. In fact, its purpose had been just the opposite, to assure the small powers that there would not be a chaotic situation during the interim period between the end of the war and the coming into effect of the Organization. Mr. Pasvolsky declared that as far as the Big Powers were concerned, this Chapter was not at all necessary inasmuch as the Moscow Declaration would stand by itself and would give the Four Powers the necessary authority to undertake enforcement action. Mr. Pasvolsky thought that it should be explained to the small states that if they did not want the protection provided by this paragraph, it could be dropped. Mr. Johnson replied that the small states were aware of the need for interim machinery but were afraid that the provisions of this Chapter could keep the Security Council from assuming its functions for an indefinite period. The Norwegian Delegate had expressed the fear that a situation might arise which would be “like hitting a lobster while it was changing shells”. Mr. Pasvolsky thought that this was a ridiculous interpretation. It was impossible, in his opinion, to block the Security Council’s assuming its functions. He thought that a talk should be conducted with the Russians to straighten out the interpretation of the Chapter and that if it were to become necessary, the paragraph should be dropped. Commander Stassen remarked that the question was now going to the Steering Committee where it could be decided. The Secretary thought that he would discuss this matter in the meeting of the Big Five at twelve noon, and asked Mr. Johnson to present a background paper before that time. Mr. Johnson remarked, however, that he had an important committee meeting at 10:30 and thus would be unable to prepare a paper, and Mr. Pasvolsky remarked that no paper was really necessary. The Secretary asked Mr. Johnson whether he was satisfied with this procedure and Mr. Johnson thought that the matter should be held off until the following day to provide time for the preparation of the paper. The Secretary thought that it would be possible to speak to Ambassador Gromyko at noon and have the entire matter clarified without any further delay. Mr. Johnson declared that he did not think that the small powers would accept any solution short of new wording, and Mr. Johnson agreed that in his opinion new wording was necessary. The Secretary declared that such language might be developed as a result of the 12 o’clock meeting, and Mr. Johnson admitted that this was so.

Senator Connally declared that Mr. Johnson deserved a vote of thanks from the Delegation for his efforts in preparing the paper which the Delegation had just considered. Mr. Johnson declared that Colonel Hamilton had been of great help in the work of preparing the recommendation for the Delegation.

Referral of a Question to the Steering Committee

Secretary Stettinius apologized to Mr. Hiss for having kept him waiting and declared that he realized how busy Mr. Hiss was. The Secretary then explained to Mr. Hiss the problems that had been raised by Representative Bloom earlier in the meeting. Mr. Hiss agreed with the previous sentiment of the Delegation that the Steering Committee could consider any matter under discussion by the Conference. The Steering Committee, he declared, was empowered by the Rules of Procedure to consider all major matters on procedure and substance and each Delegation was granted the privilege of submitting any matter to the consideration of the Steering Committee at any time. The Secretary asked whether this would be true even if a technical committee approved a question. Under such a circumstance, The Secretary asked, would it be possible for the matter to be submitted to the Steering Committee without its first being presented to the Commission concerned with the matter? Mr. Hiss replied that exactly that situation had occurred in the case of the World Trade Union Conference.⁹³ Representative Bloom asked who had referred the matter to the Steering Committee in that instance and Mr. Hiss declared that he himself had found it necessary to take this action. Representative Bloom then asked how the decision of a technical committee included in a Rapporteur’s report could be handled if the Big Five were to ask for the referral of such a matter to the Steering Committee. Mr. Hiss replied that the Steering Committee was the highest appellate body and as such was competent to consider any question even if it had been settled by a technical committee. Representative Bloom declared that trouble might be expected on the floor of the Conference if the Big Five were to carry through with their intention of referring a number of matters to the Steering Committee despite the previous decisions of the technical committees. Representative Bloom thought that someone on the technical committee should be asked to request reconsideration of the problems; in that way the onus would not fall on the Big Five.

Domestic Jurisdiction

The Secretary thought that the Delegation should then turn to the remaining questions on the agenda. The Secretary said that he was of the opinion that questions 3, 4, and 5 had already been discussed but he was assured that they had not been discussed in that form. The Secretary declared that he was outvoted. Mr. Sandifer said that the matter of the Preparatory Commission should be considered by the Delegation because it was to be presented in Committee that morning.

Mr. Dulles referred the Delegation to his memorandum of June 1 to the Secretary, concerning the problem of domestic jurisdiction. Mr. Dulles declared that there was a new aspect of this problem. The smaller powers had evidenced concern over the authority of the Security Council to make recommendations which might affect domestic affairs under the exception established with respect to Chapter VIII, Section B. in paragraph 7 of Chapter II. Mr. Dulles recommended that the United States not take the initiative in this question if the other four proved to be willing to drop the phrase which was causing the difficulty, “this principle shall not prejudice the application of Chapter VIII, Section B.”⁹⁴ Mr. Dulles was of the opinion that the United States should agree. Mr. Pasvolsky remarked that this question had been discussed in the Subcommittee of Five but that it had been brought up only informally. The opinion of the French, Chinese and Russians had been that there was no weight to Mr. Evatt’s contention that the domestic rights of the small powers were threatened by this phrase.⁹⁵ The Big Five had decided informally to stand on the original wording. Mr. Dulles was of the opinion that there might be something in Mr. Evatt’s position. Section B of Chapter VIII, which was excepted from the domestic jurisdiction clause, gave broad powers of recommendation to the Security Council. Representative Bloom inquired whether the Security Council might recommend under this clause that New York be given to Canada. Mr. Dulles said that in all probability no such recommendation could be passed because the United States would have a veto power but the smaller powers were worried that some such action might be taken by the Security Council in view of the fact that they had no veto power themselves. Representative Bloom asked whether the question of immigration might be considered under this clause. Representative Bloom wondered if immigration would possibly be a matter for international concern. Mr. Dulles pointed out that the powers of recommendation under Chapter VIII, Section B. were not restricted to international matters. Representative Bloom thought that such broad powers for the Security Council would create trouble in the Congress when the Charter came up for ratification. Mr. Sandifer thought that to leave out the phrase “this principle shall not prejudice the application of Chapter VIII, Section B,” would be to omit a most important safeguard for the Security Council’s power to take effective action in a dispute. Secretary Stettinius remarked that during a conversation with Mr. Evatt someone had asked a very appropriate question, whether it was not proper for the Organization to interfere in the domestic concerns of any state in a case where that state might be persecuting its Jewish population, for example.

Mr. Dulles reported that the British had been informing the Dominions that the United States was responsible for this excepting phrase establishing clearly the authority of the Security Council. Actually, it had been Foreign Minister Eden who had urged full authority for the Security Council.⁹⁶ Representative Bloom thought that this was logical in view of the fact that England had no immigration restrictions. Mr. Dunn repeated that the British had misled the Dominions into believing that the United States was responsible. Commander Stassen asked how Mr. Dulles knew this and Mr. Dulles replied that he had been told by representatives of some of the Dominions. Commander Stassen thought there was no significance to this.

Mr. Notter submitted that it was not necessary to omit this phrase in paragraph 7 of Chapter II. He thought that this clause could be made to read: “prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VIII, Section B”. Mr. Dulles thought the United States should not take the initiative; it should agree to such a change if it were necessary, and The Secretary declared that this was agreeable to him. The Delegation agreed to this suggestion of Mr. Notter’s.

Right of the General Assembly to Discuss any Matter Within the Sphere of International Relations

The Secretary suggested that the Delegation turn next to the problem of the right of the General Assembly to discuss any matter within the sphere of international relations. Senator Vandenberg urged that it was agreed by the Great Powers that this right was inherent in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. Senator Vandenberg submitted that since this was admitted, it was really unnecessary to attempt to force the withdrawal of the proposed amendment making the authority of the General Assembly express.⁹⁷ Such an action, Senator Vandenberg declared, would inflame the small powers. Senator Vandenberg reported that Ambassador Gromyko had been anxious to press for the withdrawal of this language.

Mr. Pasvolsky declared that he was of the opinion that the Committee had taken the wrong course of action in accepting the wording. However, Mr. Pasvolsky thought that the United States should not raise the matter in the Steering Committee because it was not of sufficient importance. Mr. Pasvolsky declared that since there were other important matters on which the technical committees would have to be overruled, he did not think this question should be brought up for action in the Steering Committee. Mr. Hackworth declared that the question was raised by the fact that the matter had been referred to the Executive Committee. If that body did not take some action on the issue, it would be left neither in the technical committee nor in the higher committee. Secretary Stettinius declared that he favored Mr. Pasvolsky’s suggestion and he asked that the Delegation authorize him to ask the Steering Committee not to consider this question on the grounds that it was not of sufficient importance. Representative Bloom asked whether the Secretary would do this at the beginning or at the end of the meeting. Representative Bloom thought that the Secretary should wait for Ambassador Gromyko to raise the question first.

Preparatory Commission

Mr. Sandifer submitted for the consideration of the Delegation the Draft Protocol, June 3, 1945, on the establishment of a Preparatory Commission.⁹⁸ Mr. Sandifer read the draft aloud to the Delegation.

. . . . . . .

Mr. Hackworth raised a question with respect to the wording of paragraph 9. He asked whose signature would be necessary under the present wording “This protocol shall be effective beginning with the day on which it is first signed.” The Secretary declared that this wording meant that all the nations present would sign the protocol but Mr. Hackworth declared that this wording could be interpreted as meaning only two signatures would be required for the interim machinery to come into effect. It could not be effective with only two signatures, Mr. Hackworth thought.

Mr. Sandifer urged that the Delegation give careful consideration to the problem raised previously concerning possible ratification if this document were to be called a protocol. Mr. Sandifer thought that if legislative action would be necessary under the present title, consideration should be given to the use of the word “resolution”. Representative Bloom remarked that a resolution required a majority of both Houses, but he was informed that a resolution of the present Conference was implied. The Secretary declared that he would favor dropping the use of the word “protocol” because it implied an attempt to “dress up” the agreement. Mr. Sandifer said that several other countries had expressed the desire to use the word “protocol”. Commander Stassen suggested “interim agreement”. Senator Vandenberg agreed that if the present wording would involve a discussion of the necessity of ratification, if not in this country, then in other countries, he would favor calling the document a resolution. Dean Gildersleeve remarked that Committee II/3 would consider this matter. Commander Stassen urged the use of the words “interim arrangement”, and the Delegation was unanimously agreed to this suggestion.

Future Delegation Procedure

Commander Stassen declared that the Conference was reaching a crucial stage in these last days, especially in view of the fact that the Big Five would be attempting to reverse decisions of a number of the technical committees. Commander Stassen thought it was vitally important that the Delegation should not appear to be divided before the other members of the Big Five. Commander Stassen suggested that any member of the Delegation who had any proposals to offer in the Big Five meetings should first clear them with the Secretary in order that he could fit these proposals in with the Delegation’s position. Commander Stassen thought that when any member of the Delegation had a proposal to offer, the Secretary should ask that the matter be kept open until a meeting of the Delegation could be called to decide the Delegation’s position.

Commander Stassen thought that it was becoming apparent that it would be impossible to push Ambassador Gromyko into agreeing to any matter unless he first got approval from Moscow. Commander Stassen thought there was no point in pressing Ambassador Gromyko on unimportant matters. Commander Stassen thought the Delegation should adjust its procedure according to the obvious requirement that Ambassador Gromyko had to clear everything with Moscow. Commander Stassen thought progress would be made much more quickly if the Delegation understood this necessity. He suggested that when the United States had any suggestion to offer, an exploratory statement should be presented, couched in definite terms, and the Delegation should realize that the problem would have to lay over for three or four days. There would be no point in trying to press for an immediate answer. Commander Stassen admitted this was a difficult and bad situation but this, he declared, was the situation with which the Delegation was faced. Senator Vandenberg declared he was in complete agreement with Commander Stassen’s first observation but he did not think this Delegation should subordinate itself permanently to the Moscow time table. The Secretary asked whether the Delegation would give him 24 hours in which to discuss the matter with Ambassador Gromyko. Mr. Stevenson declared that he was in complete agreement with the first point made by Commander Stassen. Any apparent division among the Delegation, he declared, would leak out of the Big Five meeting before he had a chance to leave the room.

The Secretary urged upon the Delegation the necessity for not revealing the plans to locate the interim commission in London.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 a.m.

89. Not printed.
90. Doc. 704, III/2/36, May 31, UNCIO Documents, vol. 12, p. 404.
91. Doc. 765, III/3/39, June 3, ibid., p. 419.
93. Doc. 48, G/13, May 1, UNCIO Documents, vol. 1, p. 58; Doc. 189, II/3/7, May 10, ibid., vol. 10, p. 16; and Doc. 224, ST/7, May 11, ibid., vol. 5, p. 207.
94. See the Four-Power amendment, Doc. 2, G/29, May 5, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 623.
95. See the Australian amendment, Doc. 2, G/14(1), May 5, ibid., pp. 551–552.
96. See minutes of the second, third, and fourth Four-Power consultative meetings on Charter proposals, May 3 and 4, pp. 562, 581, and 598, respectively.
97. Doc. 686, II/2/34 May 30, UNCIO Documents, vol. 9, p. 109.
98. Not printed.