RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 96: US Cr Min 74
Minutes of the Seventy-Fourth Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Saturday, June 16, 1945, 7:30 p.m.
[Here follows list of names of persons (24) present at meeting.]
Chapter V, Section B, Paragraph 1
Mr. Stettinius said that the meeting had been called for the purpose of establishing the position of the Delegation on the authority of the General Assembly under Paragraph 1 of Chapter V, Section B. He referred to the discussion of the matter earlier in the day and especially to the discussion in the second committee of Commission II.83
Senator Vandenberg referred to the action of the Russian Delegate in Committee II/2 saying that he had introduced the qualifying clause upon which the Russians had been insisting “relating to the maintenance of international peace and security” at the end of the paragraph rather than in connection with discussion in the first part of the paragraph.84 The effect was that the phrase had reference to recommendation rather than to discussion.
[Page 1329]The Senator said that Canada had objected to the Russian motion and that the United Kingdom had supported it85 He said that the Chairman had adjourned the meeting without the discussion of the matter and that it looked as though the motion would be defeated.
Mr. Dulles referred to the repercussion of the action in other committees of the motion introduced by the Russian Delegate in Committee II/2.
Mr. Hiss said that three Latin American countries had protested against the holding of the Sunday meeting of Committee II/2.86 He said that a number of Delegates had left town who would oppose the Soviet proposal. This might affect the question of holding a Steering Committee meeting. There was a question of what to do both with the Steering Committee meeting and the meeting of Commission II. There was also the fact that the report of the Rapporteur had not been voted upon in Committee II/2. The usual procedure was not to distribute the report until after its approval by the Committee.
Mr. Dulles thought that the Russians would not withdraw from the Conference on this issue. He thought it was best to let the matter be handled in the Steering Committee. Senator Vandenberg endorsed this view and said it was best to let the Russians get a good “licking” in the Committee.
Mr. Stettinius agreed with this view and asked whether we should support the Russian proposal in the Steering Committee. Senator Vandenberg thought we need not necessarily support the Russians.
Mr. Stettinius raised a question as to the power of the Executive Committee and the Steering Committee. Mr. Hiss thought it was clear that these committees had power to deal both with matters of procedure and substance. He thought that Ambassador Gromyko expected to ask for a reversal of the technical committee action.
Senator Vandenberg thought it was desirable to have the matter settled on substance in the Steering Committee. However, he recognized the undesirability of having matters reopened once they had been voted upon in a technical committee.
Mr. Stassen asked if Mr. Evatt would accept the Russian proposal. Mr. Dulles thought not. Mr. Stassen thought that an agreement with Evatt might be worked out. Mr. Hiss agreed that it was very desirable for the matter to be worked out outside the Committee before the Committee meeting.
[Page 1330]Senator Vandenberg suggested that it be made clear in the Steering Committee that as a general rule it is not proposed to have such matters reopened in the Committee.
Mr. Stassen remarked that he thought that the Russians proposal was right. He thought that the Assembly should not have full power of recommendation on any matter within the sphere of international relations.
Senator Vandenberg thought that we should not take any initiative in attempting to improve the Russian amendment. Mr. Stettinius agreed.
Mr. Stassen reiterated his view that we should vote with the Russians if the matter came up in the Steering Committee.
Mr. Dulles thought that the Russian proposal did not appreciably change the effect of the present provisions, particularly in view of Paragraph 6 of Chapter V, B.
Mr. Hiss suggested that the question was whether the Steering Committee should take jurisdiction of this particular item. Mr. Stettinius agreed that this was the first question and said that the second was what position we should take on the Russian proposal.
Mr. Stassen suggested that Mr. Gerig be asked to find out what the Russian position would be, and that we should then attempt to mediate a position among the interested parties. He thought it was important to maintain our relations with the Russian Delegation in as friendly an atmosphere as possible.
Mr. Dulles said that the first question in the Steering Committee should be, is this particular type of question one which the Steering Committee wants to review? Is this one of the rare and exceptional cases in which the Committee should use its power to review action taken by the Technical Committees? This would establish the general power of the Steering Committee but would at the same time make clear that it was only to be used in exceptional cases.
Mr. Stassen again stated that if the matter would come to a vote he thought we should vote with the Russians. We should vote for the Russian proposal as it had been introduced in Committee II/2 and vote against the original Russian proposal to delete the phrase “within the sphere of international relations” or to limit the scope of the Assembly’s power of discussion. He agreed that Mr. Stettinius should use his discretion as to the vote of the United States Delegation on the question of the Steering Committee taking jurisdiction.
It was agreed that a statement along the lines suggested by Mr. Dulles should be prepared for use by the Secretary in opening the meeting of the Steering Committee.
- Doc. 1038, II/2/55, June 16, UNCIO Documents, vol. 9, p. 221.↩
- See provisional text of the Rapporteur’s report of Committee II/2 (Doc 1008, II/2/52, June 16), paragraph 33, Recommendation 1 (1), ibid., p. 203.↩
- United States delegate Vandenberg supported the Soviet proposal made that afternoon in Committee II/2 (so that the right of discussion would be left untouched but the right of recommendation would be limited to matters having to do with the maintenance of peace and security).↩
- At the request of Mr. Gromyko, Mr. Stettinius had called meetings of the Executive and Steering Committees for Sunday, June 17.↩