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. 65

Minutes of the Sixty-Fifth Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Wednesday, June 6, 1945, 9:03 a.m.

San Francisco, June 6, 1945, 9:03 a.m.

[Informal Notes—Extracts]

[Here follows list of names of persons (35) present at meeting.]

The Secretary convened the meeting at 9:03 a.m.

Announcements

The Secretary declared that he was very pleased to announce that an invitation had been issued unanimously to Denmark to participate in the United Nations Conference²⁹ without any other states being proposed for admission.

Secretary Stettinius reported that he had had a long talk with Mr. Hull that morning. Mr. Hull had urged that the Delegation be patient with the Representatives of the U.S.S.R., who were, he declared, in a very difficult position. The Secretary had expressed to Mr. Hull his confidence of the outcome of the present deliberations on the question of the interpretation of the Yalta voting formula. The Secretary had been confident that the Delegation acting as a team would be able to find its way out of the jam it was in.

The Secretary reported that there was to be a meeting of the Executive Committee at 10:30 that morning.³⁰

[Here follows discussion of developments in the previous day’s meeting of the Executive Committee with respect to powers of Steering Committee, Document 806, EX/17, June 6, UNCIO Documents, volume 5, pages 461 ff.]

Publicity

The Secretary declared that he had been put in an embarrassing situation by the appearance, in James Reston’s story on the first page of that morning’s New York Times, of a reference to the official submission of the veto question to Moscow for decision. The Secretary appealed to the Delegation for the exercise of greater discretion on the material that was released to the press, The Secretary thought that far too much information had been made available to the newspapers. The Secretary declared that it was all right to provide background material on the Big Five meetings, but he could not understand any member filling in with details and quotations. Such publicity and the lack of discretion on the part of some members of the Delegation made it difficult for the Secretary to face the other foreign ministers. The Secretary declared that he had been able only to affirm to the other foreign ministers that it was not he who was responsible for the leaks to the press. Representative Bloom thought that it might have been the other foreign ministers who were responsible. The Secretary declared that this possibility was ruled out by the fact that most of the leaks were occurring in the American press. The Secretary remarked that he did not know which member of the Delegation was responsible.

Financial Arrangements

The Secretary declared that the Delegation would next discuss Chapter V, Section B, Paragraph 5, concerning the power of the General Assembly to apportion the expenses of the Organization among the members of the Organization. The Delegation was asked to consider alternative wordings. The first alternative read as follows:

“The General Assembly should apportion the expenses among the members of the Organization and should be empowered to approve the budgets of the Organization”.

The second alternative was:

“The expenses of the Organization shall be borne by the members as apportioned by the General Assembly. The General Assembly shall consider and approve the budget of the Organization and any financial and budgetary arrangements with specialized agencies brought into relationship with the Organization under the provisions of Article. …”

Representative Bloom thought the language used in the Covenant of the League of Nations should be adopted, and Mr. Pasvolsky thought that the second alternative was the same as the League phraseology.³¹ Mr. Hackworth declared that the only difference between the two formulas before the Delegation was the fact that the second alternative established an obligation on the part of the members of the Organization to contribute to its expenses. Mr. Hackworth was of the opinion that such an obligation should be established. Representative Bloom remarked that in the UNRRA Agreement the members assumed an obligation to pay the administrative expenses of the Organization, even though they did not contribute to the fund to be used for the actual work of relief and rehabilitation.³² Senator Vandenberg asked whether there was any objection to the second alternative, and Mr. Pasvolsky said that all that was required was the agreement of the Delegation. The Delegation agreed unanimously to accept the second alternative, which established an obligation for the members of the Organization to contribute toward its expenses.

French Treaty Amendment

Senator Vandenberg asked whether any answer had been received with respect to the French Amendment to Chapter VIII, Section C, Paragraph 2, for the purpose of safeguarding French bi-lateral regional arrangements. Mr. Dunn declared that no final word had been received, but that Senator Vandenberg was not to ask for any further postponement. The United States should revert to the original Four-Power Amendment. However, this Government should not object to a request for postponement by either the French or the Russians. Mr. Rockefeller asked what would be the procedure if the technical committee refused a French or Russian request for further postponement Mr. Dunn replied that in that case, Senator Vandenberg should stand on the Four-Power Amendment. Commander Stassen remarked that it was his understanding that if the new sentence considered by the Delegation in a previous meeting³³ were to be proposed, the United States should go along. Mr. Dulles remarked that the United States should accept such an amendment only if the Soviet Union would support it.³⁴

Domestic Jurisdiction

Dean Gildersleeve remarked that it was her understanding that Chapter VIII, Section B, had been opened for further discussion. Dean Gildersleeve wondered whether any changes in this Section would affect the domestic jurisdiction clause in Paragraph 7 of Chapter II³⁵ Senator Connally declared that the consideration of Chapter VIII, Section B had been completed and theorem, there was no reason to change the domestic jurisdiction clause.

Mr. Notter declared that there was nevertheless, the necessity for a Big Five decision, on the question of inserting the words, “enforcement action under”,³⁶ with reference to the exception established, in the domestic jurisdiction clause, for action taken under Chapter VIII, Section B. This phraseology had been purposed for the purpose of eliminating the possibility of the Security Council making recommendations on any subject as provided for in Chapter VIII, Section B, Paragraph 2. Mr. Dunn declared that this matter had never been taken up in a Big Five meeting. Dulles remarked that this was correct and declared, that he had told Mr. Evatt that the latter would have to take the initiative on this question. Mr. Dulles said that he had told the Australians that if Australia were able to obtain agreement for the new phraseology, the United States would go along. Mr. Dulles seemed to think that a Big Five agreement was not necessary. Mr. Notter declared that he had had to postpone the issue³⁷ and he thought that it would be necessary for someone in the United States Delegation to take charge of the negotiations with the Australians.

Senator Connally declared that, although consideration of Chapter VIII, Section B had been completed, it would be possible to hold up the submission of the report of Committee III/3³⁸ if that were necessary. Mr. Hickerson declared that such action would not be necessary at all, and Mr. Dulles pointed out that it would be easier to reach an agreement on the domestic jurisdiction phraseology if the provisions on enforcement procedure had been finally settled.

Mr. Johnson remarked that an Australian amendment to Chapter VIII, Section B, Paragraph 3,³⁹ had been deferred pending final decision on Chapter II, Paragraph 7. The Australians had been granted the right to bring up the question at some future date and this matter was still hanging over the heads of Committee III/3. Mr. Notter urged that it was important to “button up” the domestic jurisdiction clause, and he thought that this could best be done by designating a central authority to deal with other interested governments. Mr. Pasvolsky reported that Gladwyn Jebb of the British Delegation had called him to ask how agreement among the Big Five on this question would be secured. He had suggested the possibility of a Big Five meeting. Mr. Jebb had given the impression that the British were not sure that they liked the change, and they seemed to favor the broad power of recommendation provided for in Chapter VIII Section B, Paragraph 2. However, Mr. Pasvolsky thought that the British would go along with the proposal to specify that the exemption in Chapter II, Paragraph 7 applied only to “enforcement” measures. Mr. Sandifer observed that the Delegation’s decision had been not to object to the insertion of the words “enforcement measures under” in Paragraph 7, Chapter II. Mr. Dunn reiterated that the United States should not take the initiative. Mr. Sandifer remarked that Mr. Pasvolsky had raised the question of a possible meeting of the Big Five to discuss this question. Mr. Sandifer did not think this question was important enough and suggested that an agreement might be reached among the Representatives of the Big Five on the committee dealing with domestic jurisdiction. Senator Connally observed that the British always seemed to like having some one else “carry the ball” when they were opposed to a proposal of Australia or New Zealand. Mr. Hickerson asked why the United States did not let Mr. Evatt worry about this himself. Mr. Hackworth thought that that was the best way to handle the situation, but pointed out what the consequences might be. Mr. Hackworth reported that Professor Bailey of the Australian Delegation had buttonholed him and declared that he had spoken with the British, who had been opposed to any change in the wording. Professor Bailey had suggested a meeting of the Big Five.

Secretary Stettinius urged that the Delegation stand by the position established by Mr. Dulles. Mr. Pasvolsky agreed that the United States should not take the initiative, but he thought that the Secretary, as Chairman of the Big Five, would have to make a decision on the advisability of holding a meeting of the Big Five, if such a meeting were to be suggested. The Secretary declared that it seemed to have been decided that the United States should not take the initiative on this matter, and the Delegation agreed with this position. Mr. Notter urged that the Australian Delegation would still want to talk with someone oil the American Delegation on the matter, and Mr. Notter thought that Mr. Dulles should have the responsibility. Secretary Stettinius agreed that Mr. Dulles was the logical voice. Mr. Hackworth urged that the Australians should be referred to the British.

Mr. Pasvolsky asked whether Mr. Dulles, in his discussions with the Australians, had considered whether; the addition of the words, “enforcement measures under” would eliminate the power of the Security Council to determine the existence of a threat to the peace. Since this determination was not strictly an enforcement measure, it might be subject to the domestic jurisdiction clause, and any nation with an internal situation which constituted a threat to world peace might claim exemption under that clause. Mr. Dulles thought, however, that the limitation of the power of the Security Council would apply only to matters that were entirely under the jurisdiction of any state.

. . . . . . .

Powers of the Steering Committee

The Secretary explained to Mr. Hiss, who had arrived several minutes previously, the objections which had been raised with respect to the decisions of the Executive Committee on the previous day. The chief objection was that there was no over-riding body with full authority and there was no assurance that the technical committees or the four commissions would accept the recommendations of the Steering Commitee. The Secretary informed Mr. Hiss about Commander Stassen’s suggestion that the Steering Committee should have final jurisdiction before the open Plenary Session. Mr. Hiss replied that until the decision of the Executive Committee, the Steering Committee had been empowered to conduct such a final review. Mr. Hiss was afraid that the Delegation was too late, and remarked that he had informed the Delegation sometime previously about Mr. Rolin’s lobbying to reduce the status of the Steering Committee. Mr. Hiss declared that approximately ninety percent of the powers of the Steering Committee had been salvaged. …

. . . . . . .

The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 a.m.

29. The invitation was transmitted in telegram 19, June 5, to Copenhagen (not printed) in accordance with action taken at the meeting of the Executive Committee, June 5 (Doc. 806, EX/17, June 6, UNCIO Documents, vol. 5, p. 460).
30. Doc. 827, EX/19, June 7, ibid., p. 480.
31. League of Nations Covenant, article 6, paragraph 6.
32. Article VI of UNRRA Agreement concluded November 9, 1943 (Department of State publication No. 2075, Executive Agreement Series No. 352).
33. Minutes of executive meeting, June 2, 9 a.m., p. 1087.
34. For text approved by Committee III/4 on June 8, see Doc. 889, III/4/12, June 9, UNCIO Documents, vol. 12, p. 702; for United States comment, see ibid., p. 704.
35. For amendment proposed by the four Sponsoring Governments, see Doc. 288, G/38, May 14, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 642.
36. Amendment proposed by the Australian delegation.
37. Doc. 810, 1/1/30, June 6, UNCIO Documents, vol. 6, p. 348.
38. Doc. 788, III/3/42, June 5, ibid., vol. 12, p. 445.
39. For text of new paragraph to be inserted after paragraph 2 of section B, chapter VIII, proposed by Australia, see Doc. 2, G/14(1), May 5, ibid., vol. 3, pp. 551–552; for Committee action, see report in Doc, 782, III/3/41, June 4, ibid., vol. 12, p. 431.