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 73

Minutes of the Seventy-Third Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Saturday, June 16, 1945, 9:04 a.m.

San Francisco, June 16, 1945, 9:04 a.m.

[Informal Notes]

[Here follows list of names of persons (34) present at meeting.]

The Secretary convened the meeting at 9:04 a.m.

Announcements

The Secretary reported that three Committees had still to complete their work. Committee I/2 had been progressing slowly, while Committee II/4 had been held up awaiting approval from Moscow on Section A of the Trusteeship Chapter. Commander Stassen declared that technically this was correct but actually the delay had been caused by the inability of the British and the Australians to get together on the new wording. The Secretary went on to declare that Committee III/3 was awaiting the approval of the Russian government. The Secretary declared that there was to be a meeting of the five powers at 9:45 that morning⁶⁸ and that this was to be followed by a meeting among Ambassador Gromyko, Ambassador Koo and Secretary Stettinius. Senator Vandenberg asked whether Committee II/2 should not be included on this list and he remarked that that Committee was scheduled to meet during the course of the day. Mr. Sandifer observed that there were no important matters before Committee II/2 but Mr. Pasvolsky declared that this Committee was considering the powers of the General Assembly. It was agreed that Committee II/2 should be added to the list of committees which had important decisions to make.

The Secretary reported that he had had a meeting with three other presidents of the Conference on the previous day and it had been apparent at that time that it would not be possible to conclude the conference with a simple ceremony as had been planned originally. The Secretary reported that the Russian delegate wanted to make a speech and therefore it would be necessary to ask the Chairmen of the other sponsoring governments to speak also. Furthermore, it would be necessary to ask several representatives of the smaller nations to address the final session of the Conference before the President’s speech. The Secretary observed that it would be possible to hold down this preliminary oratory to a total of 45 or 50 minutes. He asked that the Delegation authorize him to negotiate with a view to establishing rules on time limits and the like in order that the final session might be made as short as possible.

. . . . . . .

Revisionary Conference

Commander Stassen observed, that there seemed to be strong sentiment among the smaller nations for some more definite assurance of a date for calling of the revisionary conference. Commander Stassen declared that he personally felt strongly that it would be unwise to ignore at the end of the Conference such widely expressed sentiment on an issue which was not really crucial. He thought that some concession on this point would help in avoiding ending the Conference on a sour note. He suggested that discussions be undertaken with the other major powers. He suggested that some wording such as the following be adopted:

“If such a conference has not been called prior to the tenth year after the effective date of the Organization, and unless a majority of the members have indicated during the tenth year that they do not desire such a conference to be called, the Secretary-General shall call such a conference to be held at a convenient date between the tenth and twelfth years inclusive.”

Mr. Pasvolsky thought that it was not within the powers of the Secretary-General to call a revisionary conference but Mr. Hickerson observed that specific authority would be provided in the Charter for this power if Commander Stassen’s suggestion were adopted. Commander Stassen also suggested that Senator Rolin’s proposal that a ⅔ majority, including the permanent members of the Security Council, be accepted in place of a simple majority, including the permanent members, as previously proposed. Commander Stassen reiterated that he thought it was important that a liberal attitude be maintained with respect to non-critical issues.

Senator Connally observed that there had been a great deal of enthusiasm for Mr. Armstrong’s amendment to the effect that a revisionary conference be placed on the agenda of the General Assembly during the tenth year.⁶⁹ Mr. Hickerson thought that this enthusiasm had been lost as the meeting progressed. Mr. Hickerson declared that he agreed with Commander Stassen that the Delegation should take a liberal attitude with respect to issues which were not vital. He pointed out that the newspaper headlines were quite unfavorable, emphasizing as they did the fact that the Big Five had opposed setting a definite date for the calling of a revisionary convention. Mr. Hickerson suggested a provision be inserted in the Charter that a revisionary convention be held every ten years. Representative Bloom pointed out that to his knowledge there was nothing in the Charter which would prevent having revisionary conferences periodically. Mr. Hickerson agreed that such conventions could be called at any time according to the desires of the member states and he observed that no real concession would be involved. Mr. Hickerson thought that it was the gesture that was important. Commander Stassen pointed out that there was a feeling among the smaller states that they had failed to attain the necessary ⅔ majority because of the votes of those states which customarily followed the lead of the U.S.S.R. and the United States. Because of this, they were somewhat doubtful of their ability to garner the necessary ⅔ vote for calling a convention in the future. In effect they were being told that a revisionary convention would be held in the future if ⅔ of the members of the Organization were in favor of such a convention immediately after they had failed in an attempt to achieve a ⅔ majority on this issue.

Mr. Hickerson observed that he was dissatisfied with the amendment presented by Senator Rolin. Mr. Hickerson thought that the more ratifications that were needed for any amendment, the weaker the Organization would be. Mr. Hickerson admitted that there was no immediate difficulty to the United States involved in a requirement for more ratifications because of the fact that the United States had a veto over any amendments passed. He reported that one delegate had told him that he was opposed to Senator Rolin’s proposal but would vote for it because he was tired of being “kicked around by the Big Five”.

Senator Connally observed that he would have no objections to setting the tenth year as the date for holding a conference unless the Security Council and the General Assembly opposed such a convention by a majority vote. Representative Bloom pointed out that even if provision were made in the Charter for having a convention at a specific date, it would still be necessary to call such a convention by a procedural vote. Mr. Dulles thought that Representative Bloom was technically correct unless there could be established in advance a definite date, hour, and organization for such a conference. However, Mr. Dulles thought that the question at issue was not a technical one, but was the broad matter of ending the conference on a decent note. The smaller states were not interested in technical questions. The delegation was dealing, Mr. Dulles said, with a psychological problem. Senator Connally observed that Mr. Evatt wanted the convention to be called without any interference by the Security Council. The Secretary thought that so long as the permanent members of the Security Council had ultimate control of the amendments that went into effect, the rest of the details could make very little difference. Secretary Stettinius suggested that the delegation settle on some formula. Mr. Dulles observed that if the United States could negotiate on this question alone, choosing the appropriate time and taking advantage of the best possible strategy, the entire question could be settled in an hour’s time. Mr. Dulles pointed out, however, that the United States was in partnership with the U.S.S.R. and with the other sponsoring governments. The greatest need, he said, was for flexibility but this would be impossible inasmuch as prior agreement was required among the sponsoring governments and France. The position of the Russian delegates was that all changes should be rejected. Mr. Armstrong pointed out that the Russians had given their approval to placing the convocation of a revisionary convention on the agenda of the General Assembly. A number of nations had spoken in favor of this solution and if it had been put to a vote, it would have been carried with approximately two abstentions. However, the Delegation had held up a vote because if it were decided that the United States could go further on the question it would soften somewhat the disappointment of the small powers over having to accept the veto over amendments. Mr. Armstrong did not think that the U.S.S.R. would go any further, but he expressed the opinion that the Russians would accede to Senator Rolin’s proposal that 34 ratifications be required instead of 28. Mr. Armstrong declared that he was not in agreement with Mr. Hickerson on this point. The small powers, he said, wanted a voting procedure which would expedite the calling of a revisionary convention and at the same time would make passage of amendments adopted more difficult. Secretary Stettinius asked whether it was thought that Ambassador Gromyko would approve this proposal. Mr. Armstrong thought that he might if the United States pressed it strongly. Mr. Dulles thought that Ambassador Gromyko had sufficient authority to accept this proposal because the Ambassador had suggested that the question be held over in order that the sponsoring governments might talk it over. Mr. Dulles thought that Ambassador Gromyko would not have made this suggestion unless he was empowered to concede. The Secretary asked whether it was thought that the small nations would be satisfied by the placing of a revisionary convention on the agenda of the General Assembly in addition to Senator Rolin’s amendment. Commander Stassen thought that it might be acceptable if provision were made for the calling of a conference by a majority of the Assembly plus a procedural majority of the Security Council. Commander Stassen asked whether the Delegation would recommend approval of Senator Rolin’s proposal and the Delegation agreed to accept the provision requiring the ratification of ⅔ of the members of the Organization including the permanent members of the Security Council before an amendment passed by the revisionary convention would become effective. Commander Stassen asked next whether the Delegation would recommend advancing beyond merely placing the convocation of a revisionary convention on the agenda of the General Assembly. Senator Connally declared that he would vote to grant liberty of action to the United States delegate to work out the most acceptable solution. Mr. Hickerson thought that in the event that it was impossible to obtain Ambassador Gromyko’s agreement it might be appropriate to establish American latitude on minor matters before the Committees. If Ambassador Gromyko could be talked into abstaining from any position and reserving the position of his government the work of the Conference could be wound up. Secretary Stettinius urged that the consultations should be brought to an end that morning. Commander Stassen declared that the difficulty was that there was an established four power position. If it was essential to close the consultations that morning, the net result might be that there would be no departure from this previous position. Commander Stassen thought that Mr. Hickerson’s proposal likewise was not satisfactory because if Russia were to abstain, its abstention would “stick out like a sore thumb”. Commander Stassen thought that the Delegation should agree to a proposal whereby a revisionary convention could be called by a majority vote of both houses of the Organization. Senator Connally urged that it might be more appropriate to provide for rejection of such a convention by a majority vote and the Delegation agreed to this suggestion. Commander Stassen thought that it might be possible to gain clearance from Moscow before the Commission Session the following week. Mr. Pasvolsky indicated that he was in favor of Senator Connally’s provision. He thought that an attempt should be made to have a revisionary convention in the tenth year. If the members should reject a convention by a majority, there would be no convention. If they did not reject such a convention the conference could be held between the tenth and twelfth years. Mr. Rockefeller declared that he wanted to go on record as supporting Commander Stassen in his emphasis on the important psychological effect of concession on this issue. He thought that if it would become necessary, the United States should reserve the right of independent action. Mr. Rockefeller pointed out that the Russians had taken such a step on another issue.⁷⁰ But Commander Stassen replied that no four power position had been established on the other question.

Discussion by the General Assembly of Any Matter Within the Sphere of International Relations

Secretary Stettinius asked Mr. Dulles to present to the Delegation the third item on the agenda. Mr. Dulles referred the Delegation to the document, “The American Position on the Right of the General Assembly to Discuss any Matters Within the Sphere of International Relations,” US Gen 267.⁷¹ Mr. Dulles observed that at the previous meeting of the four presidents of the Conference, Ambassador Gromyko had taken advantage of the occasion to indicate that he could not accept the text of Chapter V, Section B, paragraph 1 as it had been accepted by Committee II/2.⁷² Ambassador Gromyko had urged that there be held immediately a meeting of the Steering Committee and it had only been after considerable pressure that he had agreed to consultations to work out compromise wording. He had been urged not to insist on a Steering Committee meeting on the grounds that the Soviet objection would probably be overruled and ill will would be created. Mr. Dulles thought that it would be acceptable to the Big Five and to Committee II/2 to add at the beginning of paragraph 1 of Section B, Chapter V, the following wording:

“Within the purposes and in accordance with the principles laid down in the Charter, the General Assembly should have the right to discuss any matter within the sphere of international relations; …”

This additional wording, Mr. Dulles thought, would eliminate the possibility of academic discussions. Mr. Gerig agreed with Mr. Dulles that this wording could probably be accepted in view of the difficulty of opposing reference to the Purposes and Principles of the Organization. He admitted, however, that he had not been able to remain until the end of the meeting and hence was unable to gauge adequately the temper of the Committee. Mr. Cordier, who had been present for the entire meeting, declared that there had been no additional developments. The Secretary pointed out that the sponsoring governments were bound by the original language but were not bound by the additional wording. Mr. Gerig reiterated that it would be difficult to oppose this language because of its connection with previously accepted purposes and principles. Senator Vandenberg, however, thought that the new language would be rejected by Committee II/2. Mr. Gerig pointed out that there was no real limitation involved in this language because of the broad purposes and principles established. In reply to Secretary Stettinius’ request for his recommendation, Mr. Dulles declared that he would recommend that the Delegation acquiesce in the change. He thought that the Delegation should vote in favor of the new wording but should not take any responsibility for promoting its acceptance. The Secretary asked whether he was right in understanding that the British would accept either phraseology and were willing to take the initiative in proposing the change. It was agreed that this interpretation was correct. Senator Vandenberg observed that the United States had been gaining a sufficiently bad reputation and he declared that he would not have anything to do with promoting this change. Secretary Stettinius asked whether he would not vote for it without taking any more positive action. Senator Vandenberg declared that he would have no objection to Mr. Cordier voting for it but he said that he would not vote, himself. Mr. Pasvolsky thought that this qualification should not be related to the function of discussion but should be tied to the power to make recommendations. Mr. Dulles, however, pointed out that the Russian intention had been to eliminate academic discussions. Mr. Pasvolsky declared that he had made a suggestion with a view to discussion among the various governments. Senator Vandenberg thought that the United States should have no part of the suggestion and he asked why the Delegation should “stultify” itself just because Ambassador Gromyko wanted to “stultify” himself. The Secretary remarked that Ambassador Gromyko had instructions to carry this question all the way up through the Conference, if necessary. Commander Stassen urged that the United States was in a position of mediation and would have to exert its influence to mediate. The Commander pointed out that this government should attempt to avoid any set opposition to the Soviet Union if a peaceful post war world were desired. Representative Eaton thought that this was a “laudable ambition” but he thought that it would be necessary to have the assistance of the Russians. Secretary Stettinius asked the Delegation whether it was willing to abide by Mr. Dulles’ suggestion that the United States vote in favor of this amendment without taking any responsibility for it. The Delegation agreed.

Interim Arrangements

Mr. Pasvolsky reported that several changes had been suggested in the document “Interim Arrangements Concluded by the Governments Represented at the United Nations Conference on International Organization”, Secretariat Document 902 (English).⁷⁴

The first change suggested was the substitution of the word “appointed” for the word “detailed” in paragraph 3 concerning the personnel of the Preparatory Commission. Mr. Stone thought that there was a disadvantage to the use of the word “appointed” inasmuch as it had the significance of fixed affiliation. He thought that the word “designated” would be better and the Delegation agreed to this substitution.

The other suggested change was the omission of part D of paragraph 4. Mr. Pasvolsky presented a substitute wording which he thought would be acceptable, as follows:

“Examine problems involved in the establishment of relationships between specialized intergovernmental organizations and agencies and the Organization”.

This change, he declared, had the same effect as the original and the Delegation agreed to the proposed wording. Secretary Stettinius thought that Mr. Sandifer should present this change but Mr. Sandifer said that since the revision had been made upon the suggestion of the Russians it was up to the Russians to present the new wording.

At this point, 9:45 a.m., the Secretary left the meeting.

Revisionary Convention

Senator Connally asked that the Delegation return to the question of a revisionary convention. He thought that Mr. Armstrong should be given the credit for the amendment to place the calling of such a convention on the agenda of the General Assembly, which had been tendered an enthusiastic reception. He thought that the proposal might be liberalized further by including a provision allowing the Assembly to fix the date for the convention. Commander Stassen suggested that it be established that the convention be held between the tenth and twelfth years after the Organization came into operation. Mr. Hickerson declared that he agreed with Senator Connally’s proposal. Senator Connally said that such a proposal would fix the time and might satisfy the smaller powers. He thought that there could be no harm in permitting the holding of a conference at a fixed time. Senator Connally expressed the opinion that nothing very important would be adopted at such a conference in any event because of the division which would exist among the members of the Organization. Mr. Rockefeller suggested the wording “as soon as practicable” but Mr. Hickerson thought that the Assembly should be specifically authorized to set the date. Mr. Rockefeller asked what kind of vote would be required for the calling of a convention and Senator Connally replied that a majority would be sufficient. Commander Stassen declared that he thought the advisors should draft some wording. Mr. Dulles pointed out that under the language that had been considered it would be necessary to have the concurrent opposition [consent?] of both the General Assembly and the Security Council in order for a convention to be held. Commander Stassen thought the Assembly itself by majority vote should be permitted to block the holding of the convention. Senator Connally declared that he had wanted to include the Security Council in this discussion because he could not see any point in calling a convention if the representatives of the Security Council were going to be opposed to the amendments considered. Mr. Armstrong declared that the immediate problem was to gain the approval of the Russians in five minutes and he wondered whether they would accept the solution offered. Senator Connally declared that they had accepted the previous suggestions and so might accept this.

Senator Connally had a new suggestion. He thought that the convocation of a revisionary convention should be placed on the agenda of the General Assembly and the actual calling of the meeting should be by a majority vote of the Assembly and a procedural vote of the Security Council. Mr. Hickerson thought that this would apply only to the tenth year. If a conference were hot called during the tenth year, a ⅔ vote would be necessary to call a revisionary convention. It was thought, however, that no reference whatsoever should be made to this distinction and the Delegation agreed to accept Senator Connally’s proposed wording.

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

68. For minutes of the Five-Power meeting, see infra.
69. Doc. 1015, I/2/68, June 16, UNCIO Documents, vol. 7, p. 220; see also Doc. 1022, I/2/69, June 16, ibid., p. 229.
70. Agreement was reached at the Five-Power meetings on June 12, 6 p.m., and June 13, 2:30 p.m., on freedom of action with respect to the issues of withdrawal and domestic jurisdiction; for minutes of meetings of June 12 and 13, see pp. 1266 and 1273, respectively.
71. Not printed.
72. Doc. 686, II/2/34, May 30, UNCIO Documents, vol. 9, p. 108.
74. Doc. 902, EX/23, June 11, UNCIO Documents, vol. 5, p. 514.