Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers, 1945, General: The United Nations, Volume I

RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 99: UNCIO Cons Five Min 23

Minutes of the Twenty-Third Five-Power Informal Consultative Meeting on Proposed Amendments, Held at San Francisco, June 17, 1945, 6 p.m.

San Francisco, June 17, 1945, 6 p.m.

[Informal Notes]

[Here follows list of names of participants, including members of delegations of the United States (13); United Kingdom (2); Soviet Union (4); China (2); and France (2).]

Ambassador Gromyko stated that it had been agreed at a previous meeting⁸⁷ that he should have time to consult his Government on the wording of Chapter XII, Transitional Arrangements (as proposed in the draft of June 12, 1945). He wished at this time to inform the heads of the other delegations that the language as worked out was acceptable to the Soviet Government. Mr. Stettinius indicated that this was very good news. Ambassador Halifax indicated that he had thought Ambassador Gromyko had some good news to present.

Ambassador Gromyko stated that the second problem he wished to discuss related to the deputy secretaries general.⁸⁸ He said it had been agreed among the Five that the deputy secretaries general would be elected by the General Assembly on Recommendation of the Security Council, in the same way as the Secretary general was elected. It was agreed that the deputies should be mentioned in the Charter. It was agreed first that there would be four deputies mentioned, and this was subsequently changed to five on agreement among the sponsoring governments and France. This change was thought desirable in order to make it possible to have a deputy secretary general from outside the group of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Ambassador Gromyko stated that as far as he knew, the Committee had not made a final decision on this question, although there was objection by some delegations to any mention of the deputy secretaries general at all.

Ambassador Gromyko stated that he was raising this question now since the Soviet Delegation thought that it would be desirable for all five delegations to support and defend the Four-Power amendment as agreed to in the beginning. He said he had the impression that the five delegations had not used fully their power and their influence in defending their original agreement.

Ambassador Halifax asked what the sponsoring governments’ amendment on this question was. Mr. Stettinius then read the amendment as follows:

“1. There should be a Secretariat comprising a Secretary-General, four deputies and such staff as may be required. The Secretary General should be the chief administrative officer of the Organization. He should be elected by the General Assembly, on recommendation of the Security Council, for such term and under such conditions as are specified in the Charter. The Secretary-General and his deputies should be elected by the General Assembly on recommendation of the Security Council for a period of three years, and the Secretary-General should be eligible for re-election. The Secretary-General should be the chief administrative officer of the Organization.”

Representative Bloom noted that at the time the sponsoring governments’ amendment was drafted there had been no agreement on the eligibility for re-election of the deputy secretaries general. Ambassador Halifax added that it was subsequently agreed among the jive that the deputy secretaries general would also be eligible for re-election.

Representative Bloom indicated that at the time the provision for re-eligibility was approved it was agreed that there should be hot less than five deputy secretaries general. On the other hand, there was a feeling against a provision for the election of any deputy secretaries general in the Charter on the ground that the situation might be created where there would be four or five deputy secretaries general working at cross purposes.

Ambassador Halifax asked what the present status of this paragraph was. Mr. Sandifer explained that the following text of paragraph 1, Chapter X, had been adopted by Committee I/2 on June 13:⁸⁹

“1. There should be a Secretariat comprising a Secretary-General and such staff as may be required. The Secretary-General should be the chief administrative officer of the Organization. The Secretary-General shall be elected for a term of three years. He shall be eligible for re-election.”

Mr. Boncour asked why the Committee had taken this decision. Representative Bloom replied that the Committee did not want to have deputy secretaries general mentioned. Ambassador Koo explained that the Committee felt apparently that, if the deputy secretaries general were also elected by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council, like the Secretary General, the position of the Secretary General would be very difficult.

Ambassador Gromyko remarked that he thought the decision was postponed until Committee III/1 had taken action on it. Mr. Eaton suggested that a call be put in to obtain the fact status of this matter from the Secretary of Committee I/2. Mr. Stettinius suggested that Mr. Sandifer obtain this information.

Mr. Stettinius asked whether, while we waited for the information, Ambassador Gromyko would like to present any other matter. Ambassador Gromyko replied in the affirmative. He noted that the group had previously discussed the Peruvian amendment⁹⁰ concerning consultation by the Military Staff Committee with regional agencies in the setting up of regional subcommittees. At the previous meeting⁹¹ Ambassador Gromyko stated that it had been agreed among the Five Powers that there should be included in the report of Committee III/3⁹² an interpretation that the final decision on the creation of regional subcommittees should be taken by the Military Staff Committee. He explained that the representatives of the Five Powers had then negotiated with Peru, whose Delegation of course tried not to have a deviation made from the Peruvian language. The result was that no interpretation was included in the report. Therefore, he said, our Five-Power decision had not been carried out and the interpretation was not included because Peru objected. He said that, since Mr. Boncour was the rapporteur of the Commission, he would have great possibilities for helping us in this situation.

Mr. Boncour explained that the report of the Committee had been approved by the Commission, and that the language of the Commission clearly implied that the final decision rested with the Military Staff Committee.

Mr. Johnson stated that he had before him the pertinent part of the text of the report which indicated that subcommittees would be appointed by the Military Staff Committed only after consultation with the regional agencies. This, he said, implied clearly that the final decision rested with the Military Staff Committee. He suggested that it would be difficult at this stage to include an interpretation, in the report of the Commission itself, since by general agreement it was understood that the rapporteur of the Commission would make only a short report in the form of a covering statement. Moreover, he said, since the rapporteur was a Paraguayan, he did not believe that the rapporteur would be, willing to include an interpretation unless Peru accepted it.

Mr. Johnson explained that a draft statement of the interpretation had been prepared but on consultation with Peru it was found that the final decision was not acceptable to Peru. Therefore, no interpretation had been put in the Committee report.

He noted that the question could be dealt with in one of two ways. It could be raised at the next meeting of Committee III/3 and an effort made to get the proper language inserted as an addendum to the report. If this was not acceptable a statement could be made publicly in the plenary session.

Mr. Boncour suggested that the second solution was best and that the Five Powers might have a spokesman speak in the plenary session to the effect that the decision of the Military Staff Committee would be final. He thought that it would be unwise to reopen the discussion in the Committee since discussion would be endless and the matter would be given far too much importance.

Mr. Dulles suggested that the final session would be marred if the practice of making declarations was permitted. He thought some better method should be found.

Mr. Boncour stated that the rapporteur’s report could riot be changed and that he saw no other method than the statement in the plenary session. He said there was no doubt that the final decision on this matter rested with the Military Staff Committee. The text of the report provided that the regional subcommittees would be appointed only “after consultation” with the regional agencies. If the decision came only after consultation it was clearly implied that the Military Staff Committee made the decision.

Mr. Dulles explained that another wording had been worked out at one time which it was felt might be substituted for the present wording by the Coordinating Committee. This change would involve the use of the words “exchange of views” in place of “consultation” Mr. Johnson felt that if the text was reopened there would be an explosion.

Ambassador Gromyko agreed [argued?] that the statement should be included in the report of the Commission to the plenary session.⁹³ This statement, he felt, should read roughly: “The final decision on the creation of regional subcommittees should be made by the Military Staff Committee” or “The Military Staff Committee should have the right to make the final decision on the creation of the regional subcommittees”.

Mr. Stettinius asked Mr. Johnson what he thought of this proposal. Mr. Johnson replied that he agreed with the statement by Ambassador Gromyko. The problem was, however, how to get the statement in. He believed that it was difficult and in fact impossible to get a statement written into the report. Paraguay would oppose it. He suggested that it might be well to raise the matter in the Commission and request that the rapporteur’s report be amended, then debate could take place in the Commission with the vote there. Mr. Stettinius agreed that it would be best to avoid discussion in the final plenary session. Mr. Johnson explained that he was not sure that an amendment to the rapporteur’s report would be accepted. Mr. Bloom indicated that the report had not yet been approved as a whole. Mr. Johnson agreed that there was still some business for the Committee to do, and at least the point could be made in the record even if it was not possible to have the amendment to the report accepted.

Ambassador Gromyko thought that the proposal if made by the Five Powers would be accepted the Committee.

Ambassador Halifax pointed out that even if it was not accepted the statement would be in the record, supported by the Five Powers, that the final power in the appointment of regional subcommittees rests with the members of the Military Staff Committee. Ambassador Gromyko asked why the Committee would not agree to the interpretation. If the opposition prewired uncertainly, it would seem to him that they perhaps thought that the regional agencies must be in agreement with the Military Staff Committee before the regional subcommittees could be appointed. Otherwise he wondered why the interpretation would not be accepted.

Mr. Stettinius suggested that the matter should be left to the Technical Committee. Mr. Johnson said he would certainly do the best he could to get the Committee vote approving the interpretation to the rapporteur’s report. Ambassador Halifax said he would leave the matter with Mr. Johnson to find proper language.⁹⁴

Mr. Stettinius asked whether there was any further business to discuss.

Ambassador Gromyko replied that he Had made his statement at the Executive Committee and the Steering Committee to clarify his position on the scope of the right of discussion in the Assembly.⁹⁵ He noted that the Executive Committee and the Steering Committee had decided to appoint a subcommittee consisting of the Secretary, Mr. Evatt, and himself. This Committee had met already, had talked over the question, and there had been no movement forward. The Soviet Delegation believes that it would be best to stand on the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, but would have no objection to providing that the General Assembly could discuss any matter within the sphere of international relations affecting the maintenance of international peace and security. He indicated that he had hoped the Subcommittee would move in the direction of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals and that he wished to make clear that the Soviet Delegation could not deviate from the agreement worked out at Dumbarton Oaks.

Ambassador Gromyko added that he had firm instructions on this matter. He said that any decision by the Committee that contradicted the ideas agreed upon at Dumbarton Oaks could not be accepted.

Mr. Stettinius explained that the Committee on which he, Ambassador Gromyko, and Mr. Evatt were working was still in the middle of its consultations. The Committee had met at 12:00 a.m., at 4:00 p.m., and was planning to meet again at 8:30 this evening. The Subcommittee, he said, had not completed its work and he hoped Ambassador Gromyko would be willing to leave the matter in the hands of the Committee until the consultations were completed. He asked why it was necessary to call this matter to the attention of the four sponsoring governments and France at this meeting—before the work of the Subcommittee had been completed. While Ambassador Gromyko had said no progress had been made, Mr. Stettinius indicated that he felt the progress had been distinct and definite.

Ambassador Gromyko replied that he raised this question at this time to avoid the possibility of a misunderstanding. He said he understood it was his duty to raise all important questions in this group first.

Ambassador Halifax said he understood that Ambassador Gromyko was not asking us to express an opinion, but was merely reporting his impression of the progress in the consultations. He said that Ambassador Gromyko would no doubt concur in the hope that the consultations would end more fortunately than they had begun. He thought perhaps the matter should be left there for the moment.

Mr. Stettinius remarked that the Subcommittee would meet at 8:30 p.m. and continue its work.

Mr. Stettinius suggested that Mr. Sandifer now report on the status of the question of deputy secretaries general.

Mr. Sandifer stated that he had called Mr. Tomlinson, the technical expert of the United States on Committee I/2, who had gotten in touch with the international secretary of the Committee. The import was that on June 13 three votes had been taken. The first was on the proposal for five deputy secretaries general rather than four; the votes were 20 in favor and 19 against, and since a two-thirds majority was required the vote was lost. The second question concerned the amendment of the four sponsoring governments to include in the Charter provision for deputy secretaries general; 22 voted for this amendment and 18 against so that the vote was lost. The third question to be voted was the inclusion of the first two sentences of the paragraph of Chapter X as it appeared in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals; 44 [40] voted in favor of these two sentences and one against with one abstention. Mr. Sandifer indicated that this was the status of the question.

Mr. Bloom pointed out that with the Dumbarton Oaks language agreed to in the Technical Committee, it was possible to do what we wanted to do with the question of deputy secretaries general. Under this provision we could have any kind of staff we wanted.

Mr. Stettinius asked Mr. Sandifer for his recommendation. Mr. Sandifer replied that, if he was making a recommendation, it would be to let the matter stand as it had been voted by the Technical Committee so that there would be no mention of deputy secretaries general in the Charter. Mr. Stettinius indicated that this would be a satisfactory way of handling the matter. Mr. Bloom indicated that under this provision we were left free to do what we wanted with the deputy secretaries general.

Ambassador Koo agreed that there should be no mention of deputy secretaries general. He explained that the opposition to their mention in the text derived from the feeling that they should not be elected by the General Assembly in the same manner as the Secretary General since this might lead to conflicts between the Secretary General and his deputies. Ambassador Halifax agreed that we would be safeguarded under the present committee draft. The Secretary General would be elected by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council acting by a qualified majority. He would, therefore, have be support and the confidence of the permanent members. The permanent members would be able to trust the Secretary General to elect [select?] what staff he needed. Under the circumstances it would be difficult to conceive that the Secretary General, in the choice of his staff, would not have regard for the desires of the permanent members. He questioned the wisdom of reopening this issue as long as in effect we had what we wanted.

Mr. Boncour agreed with the Ambassador’s statement. Mr. Stettinius also agreed and said that it would be harmful to reopen the issue at this time. Mr. Bloom indicated that the Secretary General would want to do things right. He would want to please, and gain favor with, the permanent members. We would have in effect “an upper hand” on the Secretary General.

Ambassador Gromyko remarked that in the opinion of the group there was apparently no possibility of agreeing to come out for the Four-Power amendment.

Mr. Stettinius replied that we had been voted down on the amendment. Mr. Bloom said that we had fought valiantly and had been defeated.

Mr. Boncour remarked that, even if we got our way with respect to the deputy secretaries general, it would not tea happy solution. It would not be satisfactory to have them elected by the General Assembly. We might find ourselves in the position as permanent members on the Council of having to veto the election of one of the deputies. As the Secretary General would have our support, he thought there were better safeguards in leaving the matter as it stood in the text agreed upon by the Committee.

Ambassador Gromyko indicated that, if the other heads of delegations did not feel they could raise this matter and carry out the Four-Power agreement, then his delegation would not take any steps.

Mr. Stettinius asked whether Ambassador Gromyko had any further business to discuss at the meeting. Ambassador Gromyko replied that his military representative, Admiral Rodionov, who served on Committee III/3, had brought to his attention the fact that questions might be asked in the Committee discussions as to the countries implied in paragraph 2, Chapter XII, where reference was made to “governments having responsibility for such action”. He wondered what countries would have responsibility under this paragraph for action in relation to enemy states. How did we interpret this phrase?

Mr. Stettinius remarked that our military representatives were not at the meeting at this time. Moreover, he said, Mr. Pasvolsky had been asked to prepare a memorandum on this question and it had been under study and discussion in the Subcommittee of Five.

Mr. Johnson indicated that he and Admiral Rodionov had talked about this matter the night before. He said that no difficulty was anticipated in getting the amendment to paragraph 1, Chapter XII, that had been agreed to here accepted by the Committee. Further, he did not believe there would be any difficulty in getting paragraph 2 accepted, provided we could give an agreed answer to the question of the meaning of the phrase “governments having responsibility for such actions”.

Mr. Boncour stated that he understood this phrase to mean the four sponsoring governments and France.

Mr. Sandifer questioned whether any final agreement could be reached on an actual definition of the phrase, and said that a general answer would probably be most appropriate. The phrase in question, he said, had generally been interpreted to mean the states responsible for action against enemy states under the surrender terms. Mr. Stettinius thought it might be well for this question to be discussed on the-technical level rather than in this group.

Mr. Stettinius adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m.

87. See minutes of the twenty-first Five-Power meeting, June 13, 2:30 p.m., p. 1280.
88. For previous Five-Power discussions on this subject, see minutes of meetings of June 2 and 3, pp. 1106 and 1120, respectively.
89. Doc. 974, I/2/64, June 14, UNCIO Documents, vol. 7, p. 203.
90. Doc. 600, III/3/31, May 26, UNCIO Documents, vol. 12, p. 371
91. See minutes of the twenty-first Five-Power meeting, June 13, 2:30 p.m., p. 1280.
92. Doc. 943, III/5, June 13, UNCIO Documents, vol. 11, p. 23.
93. Doc. 1170, III/13, June 23, UNCIO Documents, vol. 11, p. 234.
94. Doc. 1095, III/3/50, June 19, UNCIO Documents, vol. 12, p. 561.
95. Doc. 1063, EX/27, June 18, ibid., vol. 5, p. 522; Doc. 1061, ST/17, June 18, ibid., p. 264.