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

RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 96: US Cr Min 64

Minutes of the Sixty-Fourth Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Tuesday, June 5, 1945, 9:01 a.m.

San Francisco, June 5, 1945, 9:01 a.m.

[Informal Notes]

[Here follows list of names of persons (30) present at meeting.]

The Secretary convened the meeting at 9:01 a.m.

Progress of the Conference

Senator Connally declared that he wanted to report that Committee III/3 had completed its work on the previous day,¹¹ The Secretary congratulated Senator Connally for this, achievement, remarking that his had been a most difficult Committee, concerned as it was with the crucial question of security measures. Senator Connally declared that the Committee had held twenty meetings and had done a great deal of “spade work”. The only problem was the outcome of the controversy on Chapter XII, Paragraph 1 which had been referred to the Executive Committee.¹²

Senator Vandenberg declared that his Committee III/4, would be able to finish its work as soon as it received its instructions from the Big Five. The Secretary declared that the work of the Conference appeared to be coming along very well. Dean Gildersleeve reported that Committee II/3 had practically finished its work. There was to be a meeting that day to wind up the affairs of the Committee and to consider the Rapporteur’s report.¹³ Dean, Gildersleeve thought that Mr. Notter might be able to give the Delegation a report on the progress of Committee I/1.¹⁴

Principles

Mr. Notter declared that the Big Five had been defeated with respect to the insertion of the word “justice” in the Chapter oh Principles. An attempt had been made to revise the wording of the first principles regarding sovereign equality, but that effort had been defeated.

Mr. Notter reported that the Committee had decided to add the words “and justice” to the third principle in Chapter 2. As revised, this principle reads, as follows:

“All members of the Organization shall settle their disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered”.

Mr. Notter thought that since there was such great pressure for the insertion of the word “justice”, this might be the best place to incorporate it. The Secretary asked where the pressure for this change had originated and Mr. Warren declared that almost all the Latin American nations were behind the change and a great many of the European nations as well. Mr. Rockefeller remarked that the Latin American countries had reached their conclusion independently, Mr. Notter urged that the Delegation not oppose this position. The United States, he thought, would be placed in a “tough spot” if they were to attempt to oppose reference to “justice” in the Chapter on Principles. Mr. Notter reported that the French and Russians had voted against this provision, China had voted for it while the United States and Great Britain had abstained from voting. Dean Gildersleeve asked what objection there was to accepting new wording in this section of the Charter. Mr. Notter replied that “justice” had been inserted in Chapter 1 on Purposes of the Organization and that nothing would be added if it were to be included at this point. The Secretary reminded the Delegation that Senator Vandenberg had been promised that the word “justice” would be inserted at every suitable point in the Charter. The Secretary asked why this change had been opposed by the United States in the meetings of Committee I/1. Mr. Dulles replied that United States opposition had arisen out of the fact that “justice” was not in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, nor had it been previously agreed upon by the Big Five. The Secretary asked whether any member of the Delegation opposed inclusion of the word at this point. Secretary Stettinius declared that it seemed appropriate to him and asked why there should be any opposition.

Senator Vandenberg thought that Mr. Notter should be congratulated for his efforts to “beat off justice”. Mr. Notter declared that he had wanted to include justice in such a way that actions of the Organization would be dependent on justice but he thought that this end would not be accomplished by the insertion of the word in the Chapter on Principles. The Secretary thought that there should be consultations held with Ambassador Gromyko before any further action could be taken. Mr. Rockefeller reported that he had received a deputation of Latin American representatives and had been unable to, explain satisfactorily why the United States had opposed this measure in the Committee. Mr. Armstrong explained that an important victory had been won when the word “justice” had been incorporated in Chapter 1 on Purposes. There was not much difference, in Mr. Armstrong’s opinion, whether “Justice” were inserted in Chapter II. However, he pointed out that the USSR was opposed to any changes.

(At this point Mr. Byington asked whether the Delegation would object to having its picture taken by the secretariat photographer. The Secretary agreed but urged that this should be the last time such a procedure would be permitted.)

Mr. Notter urged that it be made perfectly clear that the United States was not opposed to the concept of justice. Mr. Notter pointed out that the action of the United States in opposing the amendment initially might be misconstrued as an expression of opposition involved rather than mere unwillingness to support changes without Big Five unanimity.

Mr. Notter reported that an amendment had been urged to Principle No. 4 by which the paragraph would be reworded to read:

“All members of the Organization will refrain in their relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the provisions of this Charter”.

This revision would substitute the words “provisions of this Charter” for “purposes of the Organization”. Mr. Notter thought that the proposed amendment was intended to bolster the territorial integrity of the smaller states.

Commander Stassen thought that, the word[ing] should be retained as it was because the revision would constitute an unnecessary restriction upon the right of the member states to use force consistent with the purposes of the Organization. Mr. Dulles remarked that the right of self-defense, recognized in the revised Chapter VIII, Section C, was dependent upon the original wording of Principle 4 which made possible the use of force by the member states. Commander Stassen observed that under the original wording the members could use force if the Security Council were to fail in dealing with the dispute or if it were to become deadlocked. The only restriction on the right of a member state to use force, in the wording under discussion, would be that the use of force had to be consistent with the purposes of the Organization. Commander Stassen urged further that the use of the word “provisions” would necessitate supervision by the Security Council over the use of force by the member states. Mr. Notter thought that a compromise which might be acceptable would be to combine the two possibilities as follows: “the purposes of the Organization and the provisions of the Charter”. Commander Stassen urged that this would not be a compromise at all but would be a complete abdication to the opposition. Mr. Notter remarked that the Norwegians and a number of other delegations were opposed to the old wording. The Secretary recommended to the Delegation that it stand by the original phraseology. There was no objection to this position. Dean Gildersleeve thought that the Latin American states might “gang up” to force through a change but Mr. Dulles thought that it would be contrary to their interest and to the principle of regional collaboration for defense if they were to oppose the old wording.

Secretariat

Mr. Notter reported that a proposal for the addition of a paragraph to the Chapter on the secretariat, Chapter X, had been carried in Committee I/2.¹⁵ The Russians had been opposed to this proposal but the other four had abstained. The new paragraph read as follows:

“The Staff shall be appointed by the Secretary-General under regulations established by the General Assembly. The paramount consideration in the appointment of the staff and the determination of the conditions of service shall be the necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity. Due regard shall be paid to the importance of recruiting the Staff on as wide a geographical basis as possible”.

Representative Bloom thought that all matters connected with the Secretariat had been referred to the Steering Committee and Executive Committee for decision. Mr. Notter pointed out that only the question of the vote on the Secretary-General and the question of the election of Deputy Secretaries-General¹⁶ had been referred to the higher committees. All other matters connected with the secretariat were still before the Committee. Mr. Notter reported that there was very strong support for this amendment. It was completely new and had been worked out in the subcommittee. Mr. Notter observed that the Soviet representative, Mr. Zarapkin, and he had exchanged apologies. On the previous Saturday a subcommittee had made its report and Mr. Notter had failed consult with the Russian representative. Monday Mr. Zarapkin had failed to consult with the other members of the Big Five before expressing his opposition on this amendment. Mr. Notter declared that he had told Mr. Zarapkin that he did not concur with the latter’s view that there would be several secretariats. He declared that he had told Mr. Zarapkin that, in deference to the Soviet position, he would not vote on this issue.

Domestic Jurisdiction

Dean Gildersleeve remarked that additional difficulties might be expected with respect to the domestic jurisdiction clause. Mr. Notter remarked that there would probably be a drive to reincorporate a provision for withdrawal in the Charter. Mr. Dulles’ wording for inclusion in the minutes of the Committee¹⁷ might not be a sufficient guarantee to the small states unless the Amendment procedure were changed.

Authority of the Court

Mr. Hackworth reported that at the 10:30 meeting of Committee IV/1, an amendment would be presented to allow the Court to settle disputes among international agencies.¹⁸ This amendment, which had been submitted by Venezuela, had been before the Committee since May 14. The question before the Delegation was whether it should object to the Court’s having such jurisdiction and also to that part of the amendment which would establish the Court as a court of appeals for international administrative tribunals. Mr. Hackworth reported that he had defeated another Venezuelan amendment and he did not like to try to defeat this proposal unless it was thought necessary. Representative Eaton asked whether there was any other body which could settle such disputes between international agencies. Mr. Hackworth replied that the Security Council or the General Assembly might be called upon to settle such conflicts. Mr. Hackworth pointed out that this amendment raised the question of compulsory jurisdiction for the Court because it provided that the Court would have to assume jurisdiction over disputes between international bodies. Mr. Sandifer pointed out that this amendment would raise a difficult question because of the fact that there was no clear definition of the jurisdictions of the various international agencies. Commander Stassen thought that all decisions on international bodies should be taken by the Secretary-General of the Organization subject to the approver of the General Assembly. Dean Gildersleeve remarked that the international bodies would be subject to the authority of the Economic and Social Council which was in turn under the jurisdiction of the General Assembly. This provision would allow, in effect, an appeal from the jurisdiction of the General Assembly to the Court. Dean Gildersleeve thought that this might create an undesirable situation. Mr. Hackworth remarked that as the amendment was worded, it was not even necessary for a dispute to be submitted to the General Assembly before it could be considered by the Court.

Mr. Dunn remarked that there was another important defect here. International organizations were all set up as the result of international agreements between states. It would be impossible, Mr. Dunn thought, to place these agencies under an obligation to have their disputes considered by an organ established as a result of this Conference Without the specific consent of the signatories to the various agreements by which the international bodies had been established. The World Court, Mr. Dunn said, would not have the authority to decide on the jurisdictions already established by international agreement. Mr. Hackworth declared that he had argued that the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly were charged with the function of coordinating these agencies and that therefore the new proposal would constitute an unnecessary renunciation of the authority of the General Assembly.

The Secretary asked Mr. Hackworth what course of action he would recommend to the Delegation. Mr. Hackworth replied that he thought that the Delegation should take the position that it did not understand all the implications of this amendment. The Delegation should further declare that it was undesirable to make it possible for all jurisdictional disputes to be submitted to the World Court because such matters might swamp the Court and would clutter up its calendar. Furthermore, Mr. Hackworth thought that these matters should be subject to administrative rather than juridical decision. Finally, Mr. Hackworth declared that the Court would be set up primarily to settle disputes between states and to try cases involving states. Mr. Sandifer pointed out that there would be political issues involved in any disputes among international organizations which were not proper subjects for decision by the international court. Mr. Dulles remarked that he was opposed to the amendment because it would be similar to two Deputy Secretaries General having a dispute over which of them should open the mail and having such a matter brought before the World Court. Mr. Hackworth thought that the Delegation should oppose this amendment but he remarked that he had stepped upon the Venezuelan Delegation for some time and he was afraid that they might reseat the action of the United States. The Delegation agreed to oppose this amendment.

Military Staff Committee

General Embick declared that it had been learned that the USSR had raised an objection to an amendment to paragraph 9 of Chapter VIII, Section C.¹⁹ General Embick urged that the language be maintained in the interest of international security. The Secretary assured General Embick that the rest of the Delegation were in agreement with the military position and had supported it in a conversation with the Russian delegates.

Executive Committee Meeting

The Secretary reported that there was to be an Executive, Committee meeting at 10:30 a.m.²⁰ to consider the following questions: (1) invitation to Denmark; (2) election of the Secretary-General and Deputy Secretaries-General; (3) amendment procedure; and (4) action by the General Assembly on Security Council report. The Secretary declared that he would be glad to have any members of the Delegation present at that meeting.

Mr. Rockefeller asked what should be the procedure if some other nation were to bring up the question of admitting an additional state or states to the Conference or if Mexico should bring up the question of keeping Franco Spain out of the Organization. Mr. Dulles thought that the best approach would be to adhere strictly to the agenda which had been agreed upon. Mr. Rockefeller agreed that that would be the ideal solution. Mr. Sandifer replied however, that this procedure was impossible inasmuch as there was already an agreement that the Executive Committee would not be bound by its agenda. This had been decided at an earlier meeting by the heads of delegations. Mr. Rockefeller said that the Secretary might “pull out his watch”. Mr. Dunn suggested that if any such question were to be raised it should be postponed until the agenda had been completed. Then Mr. Dunn said the Secretary could suggest adjourning for a cocktail. Representative Bloom thought that it would be appropriate for such matters to be included on the agenda of the Executive Committee meetings as “unfinished business”.

The Secretary urged that Mr. Rockefeller attempt, before the 10:30 meeting to speak to the Latin American delegates in order to ensure that the questions of Spain and Italy should not be brought up. Any subject of such a nature, Secretary Stettinius said, would probably come from the Latin American countries. Mr. Rockefeller replied that he would not discuss Spain and had been hesitant even about mentioning Italy. Mr. Notter reported that it had been rumored that Russia wanted Mexico to bring up the question of Spain that day or the next. Senator Connally asked why this question should be discussed since there was no question of admitting Spain to the Conference. Mr. Rockefeller said that the intention was to exclude the existing government of Spain from becoming a member of the United Nations. The Secretary thought that this matter should not be allowed to come up but Mr. Dunn declared that it was possible for any matter to be brought before the Executive Committee. Mr. Dunn remarked that politically it would be impossible for the United States to oppose any resolution for the purpose of keeping the Franco Government from participating in the Organization. The Secretary declared that he had made a very good impromptu speech at a testimonial dinner for Mr. Padilla on the previous day and thought that the latter could reciprocate by not bringing up the Spanish question. Mr. Rockefeller thought this was a very “hot” issue but The Secretary thought that he would have to take whatever came and hope there would be someone there to back him up. Senator Vandenberg thought he would change his mind about attending the meeting. Mr. Armstrong cautioned against allowing this Delegation to be placed in a position of opposition to a resolution which might be offered. Such an action, he thought, could be interpreted as favoring the present Franco Government. Mr. Dunn urged that the Secretary play the role of a neutral chairman.

Trusteeship

Commander Stassen referred the Delegation to the document, Trusteeship, United States Exploratory Draft (US Gen 226)²¹ which presented some of the questions which were still open before Committee II/4.

Commander Stassen referred to the wording of paragraph B 2 (b), stating the objectives of the trusteeship system as follows:

“to promote the political, economic, social and educational advancement of the trust territories and their inhabitants, and their progressive development toward self government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples (and to the (freely expressed) wishes of the people concerned, and as may be provided by the trusteeship arrangement)”.

The new wording in this paragraph was the phrase concerning the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned. The Russians and the Chinese favored strong wording in this connection while, the British and the French wanted the wording to be as weak as possible. Commander Stassen asked the Delegation what position he should take in the Committee if a point were ever reached where freedom of action would be reestablished among the Big Five. Commander Stassen urged that the language of the Atlantic Charter,²² as incorporated in the paragraph before the Delegation, would be the most appropriate. The words “freely expressed wishes” were taken from the Atlantic Charter. Commander Stassen pointed out that the British were opposed to this and stated that Prime Minister Churchill had declared that the Atlantic Charter did not apply to dependent territories. President Roosevelt, however, had declared that the Atlantic Charter was applicable to the Pacific and Atlantic areas. Commander Stassen declared that as a result of President Roosevelt’s statement, it would be difficult for this Delegation to defend any language less strong than the Atlantic Charter. Commander Stassen thought that if the United States were to support the language before the Delegation, it would be possible to defeat any Russian attempt to have stronger wording adopted; but Commander Stassen thought that the United States could not attempt to face the British and French with an equal wording, Mr. Taussig said that he fully endorsed the opinions expressed by Commander Stassen. Commander Stassen declared that the United Kingdom was opposed to the words “freely expressed” because it was thought that this language would elicit demands for plebiscites in dependent areas. Mr. Gerig remarked that the French had proposed the language under consideration without the words “freely expressed”. Commander Stassen recommended that this position should be adopted by the Delegation if a Five-Power agreement were not achieved before discussion was initiated in the Committee. Mr. Hackworth agreed that the Atlantic Charter was appropriate and Commander Stassen expressed the opinion that the adoption of the old Atlantic Charter would not be as provocative to the natives as would be the adoption of a new language. Senator Vandenberg asked if paragraph 3 of Section B was unimpaired and Commander Stassen replied in the affirmative. Mr. Dulles thought it would be necessary to obtain the position of the British before pressing this matter in the Committee and Commander Stassen agreed that this was a suitable procedure. He declared he would report back to the Delegation on any suggestion the British might make. The Delegation agreed to accept the language under consideration.

Commander Stassen turned next to paragraph 5, the “conservatory clause”. The USSR had been pressing strongly for the omission of this paragraph.²³ The new language proposed to meet the objections of the Russians on the one hand and the Arabs on the other, read as follows:

“Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship arrangements, made under paragraph 3, 4 and 6, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been completed, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any States or any peoples (in any territories) or the terms of existing international instruments to which member states may respectively be parties.”

The new language Commander Stassen declared, would not meet all the objections raised but would be sufficient to avoid any state not ratifying the Charter. There had been no approval as yet of the new wording. The clause beginning with the words “and until” had been added to meet the Russian objection that this paragraph would freeze the existing status indefinitely. The addition of the word “whatsoever” was a slight concession to the Arab bloc but did not constitute any change in the meaning of the paragraph. The final addition, the clause beginning with the words “or the terms of”, had been the result of Arab refusal to accept any reference to the Mandates which they had never signed. This language was an attempt to avoid the use of “mandates” but was thought by Commander Stassen and his advisers to protect the existing rights under the mandate system without any objectionable reference. Commander Stassen reported that his advisers had felt that the new language of this paragraph would not change the United States position and would adequately safeguard all the interests of the United States. Commander Stassen recommended that this position be adopted if a situation were reached whereby the United States could act independently of the other larger powers.

Representative Bloom asked whether the phrase “or until such agreements …” referred only to the “trusteeship arrangements” referred to previously in the paragraph. Commander Stassen declared that that was the case. Dean Gildersleeve thought that the wording “the rights whatsoever” was a bit unusual but she was assured that it had been the intention of having the word “whatsoever” refer to “rights” rather than to “manner”.

Mr. Notter asked whether the Iraqi delegates had agreed to these changes. Commander Stassen declared that the Arabs were still not satisfied by this new wording and would offer other language which would be unacceptable to the United States. A compromise would be reached, Commander Stassen thought, on this phraseology. Secretary Stettinius agreed that the United States should accept the drafts which had been submitted to the Delegation. Commander Stassen, The Secretary thought, had been in a difficult position in Committee II/4 and he urged that the Delegation give Commander Stassen full power to work out a solution acceptable to the Delegation. Commander Stassen objected on two grounds. In the first place, Commander Stassen declared he had not been alone on the Committee and had had the assistance of an excellent staff of advisers and had been accompanied on the Committee by Representative Bloom. Secondly, Commander Stassen declared that he did not want freedom of action. He was anxious to have full support of the Delegation. Commander Stassen recommended that he be authorized to tell to the Russian delegates that he, Commander Stassen, would not press the Soviet proposal for Russian representation on the Trusteeship Council if the USSR insisted on pressing for strong wording in paragraph 5.²⁵

Representative Bloom declared that he did not want to take any credit from Commander Stassen. Commander Stassen had done an excellent job, he thought, and had been trying to please everyone. Commander Stassen had been the only delegate on the Committee who had taken an intelligent position and who had been sincerely interested in establishing a worthwhile trusteeship system. Commander Stassen declared that he had been ably assisted by Mr. Gerig and by the various military advisers.

French Treaty Amendment

Senator Vandenberg asked whether the Secretary had succeeded in fighting off Ambassador Gromyko’s attempts to make known the Russian position on the French treaty amendment. The Secretary declared that Ambassador Gromyko had attempted to make the Russian position known to him but that he, the Secretary, had been too busy to see the Russians. He declared that he was kept busy looking after the Delegation.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:51 a.m.

11. Doc. 782, III/3/41, June 4, UNCIO Documents, vol. 12, p. 436.
12. At the meeting of Committee III/3 on June 2, 3:30 p.m., it was agreed to refer the whole of chapter XII to the Steering Committee (Doc. 765, III/3/39, June 3, ibid., p. 422). This matter was referred by the Five Powers to the Five-Power Deputies.
13. For draft report of the rapporteur of Committee II/3 (Doc. 823, 11/3/55, June 6) presented to the Committee on June 8 (Doc. 876, II/3/58, June 9), see ibid., vol. 10, pp. 228 and 259.
14. Doc. 784, I/1/27, June 5, ibid., vol. 6, p. 331.
15. Doc. 789, I/2/57, June 5, UNCIO Documents, vol. 7, p. 177.
16. At the June 1 meeting of Committee I/2 the Soviet Delegate announced that the question of Deputy Secretaries-General would be referred to the Steering Committee (Doc. 732, I/2/50, June 1, ibid., p. 161).
17. Minutes of the sixty-first meeting of the United States delegation, June 1, 6:04 p.m., p. 1056.
18. Doc. 801, IV/1/64, June 5, UNCIO Documents, vol. 13, p. 270.
19. Reference is made to paragraph 9 of section B, chapter VIII, Doc. 600, 111/3/31, May 26, UNCIO Documents, vol. 12, p. 371; also, Doc. 782, III/3/41, June 4, ibid., p. 435.
20. Doc. 806, EX/17, June 6, ibid., vol. 5, p. 460.
21. Not printed.
22. Joint statement by President Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Churchill, August 14, 1941, Foreign Relations, 1941, vol. i, p. 367.
23. See minutes of the thirteenth Five-Power meeting, June 2, 5:30 p.m., p. 1106.
25. Charter article 80.