RSC Lot 60D 224. Box 96: US Cr Min 72
Minutes of the Seventy-Second Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Friday, June 15, 1945, 9 a.m.
[Here follow list of names of persons (29) present at meeting, announcement by Secretary Stettinius concerning a meeting of the heads of the five delegations, and prospects for completion of Committee work.]
Amendment Procedure
Mr. Stassen asked whether it would be possible for Senator Connally to come to the meetings of Committee I/261 while the question of amendments was under discussion. Whereas our position had been on the whole successfully defended in the Subcommittee, Mr. Stassen said that the American representatives were hitting a snag in the full Committee.
Preamble
Dean Gildersleeve commended Commander Stassen and Mr. Dulles for their admirable work in the session of Commission I.
Dr. Bowman stated that Mr. MacLeish’s Preamble to the Charter62 was a good one. He asked whether the Coordination Committee had the power to improve on the Preamble as adopted by Committee I/1.63 In response, it was stated that this was definitely the understanding in that Committee, although Mr. Hackworth said no change in substance would be permissible. Mr. Sandifer thought it would be wise for the Coordination Committee or its Subcommittee to take the present draft [Page 1303] of the Preamble as the basis for its work rather than one brought in from the outside associated with some name other than Field Marshal Smuts. Mr. Notter thought that in view of the statement made by Dean Gildersleeve in Commission I64 concerning the importance of revising the Preamble, and in view of the understanding of Committee I/1 when it voted on the Preamble, certain even [very?] minor changes in substance could be made in the Preamble by the Coordination Committee.
Dr. Bowman suggested that a small subcommittee of the Coordination Committee be appointed to consider redrafting the Preamble. The Secretary asked Mr. Sandifer to take up this matter with Mr. Pasvolsky and to see whether a subcommittee of the Coordination Committee could be established for this purpose.
Egyptian Amendment on Termination and Transfer of Trust Areas
The Secretary asked what the Army and the Navy representatives had on their minds in connection with the trusteeship document. Admiral Hepburn indicated that the one special problem was the Egyptian amendment on termination and transfer of trust areas.65 Senator Connally asked whether we could stay in the islands we had occupied in the Pacific until we got ready to turn them over. Admiral Hepburn replied in the affirmative. He added that the mandate rights under the League would remain intact under the present proposal except for the enemy possessions, particularly Japan’s.66
Open Items in Committee I/2
Mr. Rockefeller stated that it would be helpful if there could be a final and definite policy formulated with respect to the issues before Committee I/2. If such a policy was set down, he said that the political liaison officers could then undertake to line up the votes. Mr. Hickerson agreed that such a policy would be very helpful.
Discussion took place on the proper tactics to be employed in securing the approval of Committee I/2 of that aspect of the amending provision involving veto power over amendments recommended by a general conference. Mr. Dulles pointed out that apparently the political liaison officers were hinting in their conversations with other Delegations that if there was a possibility of withdrawal from the Organization, we could get through the Senate the provision on amendments without a veto by the great powers.
[Page 1304]The Secretary stated that the situation is that the Soviets place great importance on the veto and that the American Delegation would have to go along with them because there is no time now to compromise. He wished to say that we cannot join an organization that does not include the power of veto on amendments. He added that he had been given the commitment that the whole Latin American vote could be depended upon if necessary to save the Conference.
Mr. Armstrong stated that he had made it plain in the discussions of Committee I/2 that we shall not go along without the veto provision on amendments. He felt that we had to stick to that line.
Senator Connally stated that the agreement seems to be that we will stick by the veto and announce that anyone may leave the Organization by the back door. The Secretary reminded the Delegation that the veto on amendments goes back to the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals and is not part of the Yalta agreement. Mr. Notter added that Mr. Novikov had lost us a lot of votes the previous day by his statement in Committee I/2.67
The Secretary directed those responsible for presenting the American position in Committee I/2 to confer with the appropriate political liaison officers in order to arrive at an agreed upon line of action with respect to the attitude of the Latin American countries. The Secretary asked that he be given a statement concerning the position of the Latin American countries so that he personally could go into action with respect to them. Mr. Hickerson noted that Mr. Evatt and Mr. Fraser threatened to take the amendment issue to the plenary session.
The Secretary adjourned the meeting at 9:45 a.m.
- Doc. 1015, I/2/68, June 15, ibid., vol 7, p. 219 and Doc. 1022, I/2/60, June 16, ibid., p. 229.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Doc. 817, I/1/31, June 6, UNCIO Documents, vol. 6, p. 365.↩
- Doc. 1006, I/6, June 15, UNCIO Documents, vol. 6, p. 19.↩
- Doc. 871, II/4/34, June 9, ibid., vol. 10, p. 510.↩
- For text of convention between the United States and Japan with respect to former German possessions under a mandate to Japan, signed at Washington, February 11, 1922, see Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. ii, p. 600.↩
- Doc. 991, I/2/66, June 15, UNCIO Documents, vol. 7, p. 210.↩