RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 96: US Cr Min 69
Minutes of the Sixty-Ninth Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Tuesday, June 12, 1945, 9:05 a.m.
[Here follow list of names of persons (31) present at meeting, announcements by Secretary Stettinius on problems of concluding, the Conference and handling publicity, and discussion of Secretary Ickes’ telegram which was presented at the sixty-sixth meeting of the delegation, June 8, 9:02 a.m., page 1197.]
Withdrawal
The Delegation next considered the document Withdrawal: Suggestions for Text of Committee Report.16 Mr. Armstrong reported that the five powers suggested that the last sentence of this document, [Page 1267] “in general, the possibility of withdrawing would have to be judged in any particular case in the light of the surrounding circumstances of the time”, be omitted. Mr. Armstrong said that Lord Halifax had suggested this change17 and the Chinese had supported it. There had been no strong opposition by the United States. The Delegation agreed to omit the sentence under consideration.
Mr. Armstrong reported that the major powers had been agreed on the interlocking program proposed originally by Commander Stassen. Representative Bloom asked how this program would be presented. The Secretary asked Mr. Armstrong to present the whole program to the Delegation and to outline Ambassador Gromyko’s proposals. Mr. Armstrong declared that the chief objective of the United States had been stated to be the prevention of complete freedom of a revisionary convention to determine its own rules of procedure. In order to attain this end and in order to meet the desires of the Latin American countries for a withdrawal clause linked with the question of amendment Mr. Armstrong had suggested that at the end of the discussions the major powers should propose an alternative which would include the paper under consideration as a substitute for Senator Rolin’s draft and including also an amendment to place the question of a revisionary Conference on the agenda of the General Assembly in its tenth year.
Ambassador Gromyko had opposed making any concessions except as a last ditch measure. Mr. Armstrong thought that Ambassador Gromyko intended that concessions should be made only when the amendment procedure was being considered by the Committee and when a vote was about to be taken. Mr. Armstrong thought the best procedure would be to indicate the opposition of the major powers to the amendment language and declare that, if defeated, the major powers would present Commander Stassen’s program. Representative Bloom thought that it would be necessary to present the integrated program before a vote was taken. Mr. Armstrong declared that although he was not so familiar with committee procedure as Representative Bloom, he thought that the proposal he had made would give the major powers the advantage of the vote. He thought that if the program of Commander Stassen’s were to be presented before the vote as the alternative, the opposition might not be able to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Representative Bloom thought that the vote would have to be taken by sections, and, therefore, it would be necessary to present the program before a vote was taken. Mr. Armstrong urged that there was a possibility that the [Page 1268] Chairman might close the matter after the vote was taken and permit no reopening of the question. Representative Bloom thought that this was another argument for presenting the program before any decision was taken. The Secretary then declared he thought the time of the entire Delegation should not be taken with these details but that procedural matters should be worked out among the interested members of the Delegation. Senator Vandenberg asked whether it would be possible to bring in the ringleaders of the opposition on a high level to influence them to change their position. It was pointed out that Ambassador Gromyko had refused to adopt this course of action. The Secretary thought that the entire question should be left in Mr. Armstrong’s hands and indicated that then Mr. Armstrong should report back to the Delegation. Mr. Armstrong declared that he would keep in touch with Commander Stassen and Representative Bloom on the procedure which should be adopted. Mr. Rockefeller reported that there was a rapidly growing sentiment favoring the adoption of a withdrawal clause. The Secretary urged that the time had come for the United States Delegation to make a statement of its position. Senator Vandenberg asked whether the Secretary was referring to Saturday’s or Monday’s position.18 Commander Stassen read to the Delegation that section of the Russian constitution providing for freedom of secession by the constituent republics19 and Commander Stassen thought this might constitute an explanation of the Russian position. Mr. Pasvolsky thought that it was very ominous to have the Russians become interested in withdrawal at that stage of the Conference. Senator Connally thought, however, that the situation was becoming more favorable and declared that the opposition to the Yalta formula might break up any moment and that Committee III/1 might be able to take a vote that evening.20 Commander Stassen declared that several of the Latin American countries had come through and added that the Norwegians had made a fine speech. One of the members of the Delegation wondered what position Panama was taking, and Senator Connally declared that if the Panamanians did not come through he thought he ought to know about it.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 a.m.
- Not printed; see minutes of the sixty-eighth meeting of United States delegation, June 11, 12:06 p.m., pp. 1236, 1249–1251.↩
- See minutes of the nineteenth Five-Power meeting, June 11, 3 p.m., p. 1256.↩
- Minutes of the meetings of the United States delegation, June 9, 9:02 a.m., and Monday, June 11, 12:06 p.m., pp. 1222 and 1236, respectively.↩
- Article 17, chapter 11, Constitution of the U.S.S.R., December 5, 1936.↩
- Doc. 956, III/1/47, June 13, UNCIO Documents, vol. 11, p. 486.↩