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 75

Minutes of the Seventy-Fifth Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Monday, June 18, 1945, 9 a.m.

San Francisco, June 18, 1945, 9 a.m.

[Informal Notes]

[Here follows list of names of persons (36) present at meeting.]

In the absence of Secretary Stettinius and Senator Connally who arrived at the meeting several minutes late, Senator Vandenberg convened the meeting at 9:05 a.m.

. . . . . . .

Trusteeship

Commander Stassen reported that he was scheduled to meet with the Soviet representative and with the other members of the Big Five sometime during the day to consider Section A of the Chapter on Trusteeship.⁹⁶ Commander Stassen declared that there would be no difficulties in this Chapter with respect to the United States Delegation since nothing was going to be added and the only possibility was that several clauses might be deleted. Senator Vandenberg declared that he hoped paragraph 3 of Section B would not be deleted. Representative Bloom also expressed, the hope that paragraph 5 would be permitted to remain. Commander Stassen assured the Delegation that Section B was a completely closed issue and no further revisions would be made.

Opium

Mr. Dulles asked why the Delegation was “supporting the traffic in opium” and declared that he had received a letter from Representative Judd⁹⁷ protesting the fact that no reference had been made in the Charter to the opium organization. Dean Gildersleeve remarked that she had thought that sufficient publicity had been given to the public statement that the Delegation approved control over opium. Senator Vandenberg asked what reason could be given for the failure to include specific reference to opium in the Charter. Dean Gildersleeve replied that there were no references whatsoever to specific organizations, including the International Labor Organization. Mr. Dulles asked what action he should take with respect to Representative Judd. Dean Gildersleeve declared that she had sent Representative Judd a letter of acknowledgement enclosing a copy of the public statement to which she had referred. Representative Eaton thought that Congressman Judd was a “distinguished troublemaker”.

At this point, 9:10 a.m., Secretary Stettinius arrived with Senator Connally.…

[Here follows a series of announcements by Secretary Stettinius on developments over the weekend.]

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

Secretary Stettinius observed that, at the previous day’s meeting of the Executive Committee, Ambassador Gromyko had protested the action of Committee II/2, granting broad powers of discussion to the general Assembly. Ambassador Gromyko made a long speech in which he declared that the USSR could not accept the wording which made possible discussion by the General Assembly of any matter within the sphere of international relations. Ambassador Gromyko indicated that his Government was worried about interference in domestic jurisdiction. Ambassador Gromyko had pressed for immediate consideration of the matter by the Executive and Steering Committees. However, the Secretary had prevailed upon him to accept the procedure of establishing a small committee consisting of Ambassador Gromyko, Mr. Evatt and Secretary Stettinius to consider the question. This subcommittee met three times and Mr. Evatt had displayed an attitude of conciliation and had proposed a draft which was acceptable to the United States and which Mr. Evatt seemed to think would prove satisfactory to the small states. The draft proposed by Mr. Evatt, US Gen 275, reads as follows:

“1. The General Assembly should have the right to discuss [any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security, or] any matters covered by the purposes and principles of the Charter or within the sphere of action of the United Nations or relating to the powers and functions of its organs of otherwise within the scope of the Charter; and, except as provided in paragraph 2 (b) of this section, to make recommendations to the members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or both on any such questions or matters.

(Note—the adoption of this form would require some consequential alterations in paragraph 2 (b))”.

Secretary Stettinius declared that the words appearing in brackets should be omitted. They had been submitted at the last moment by the United States and had not proved satisfactory to Mr. Evatt. Ambassador Gromyko had indicated that his position was final with respect to the discussion of matters pertaining to international peace and security. However, the Secretary had pressed the Russian Delegate to submit the new wording to Moscow. The Secretary declared that he told Ambassador Gromyko that the Russian position would never be passed by the Conference even with the votes which would certainly follow the USSR and the United States. The Secretary remarked that the story written by James Reston which appeared in the morning’s issue of the New York Times would not help the situation any. The Secretary thought that whichever member of the Delegation had spoken to Mr. Reston did not perform any great service. The Russian Delegation, he declared, was of the impression that the United States was using the press as a means for bringing pressure to bear on the USSR. Mr. Dulles expressed the opinion that there was nothing in Mr. Reston’s article which could not have been implied from official statements which were issued. Senator Vandenberg thought that Mr. Reston had obtained his information from Mr. Evatt and expressed the opinion that all the leaks had come from that source. Senator Connally agreed that Mr. Evatt held a press conference each day and it would appear that he was responsible for all information given to the press.

The Secretary reported that a meeting of the Executive Committee was scheduled for ten o’clock and that the Steering Committee would meet at ten-thirty. The Secretary declared that he would report that he was sorry that it had been impossible for these bodies to meet on the previous evening. The Secretary would then refer to Mr. Evatt’s tentative draft and would ask the Australian to present the argument in favor of the new phraseology. Mr. Evatt would then announce his withdrawal from the prior position he had taken. Mr. Dulles announced that he had just received word of a telephone message in which Mr. Evatt had declared that he would accept the language in brackets, although he had announced his opposition to this wording on the previous evening, but that he would not propose it himself. Mr. Dulles pointed out that the wording had been included by the technical people, Professor Bailey and himself included. Mr. Evatt had called very late on the previous night to say that he would not accept this language. However, he had called again that morning and declared that he would accept it. Mr. Dulles thought that Mr. Evatt should be permitted to introduce the draft, omitting the language in the brackets.

Mr. Rockefeller emphasized the importance of not releasing to the press the details of the negotiations. The Russians, he thought, would be very disturbed if the fact that a compromise wording had been sent to Moscow⁹⁸ were to become known.

Secretary Stettinius declared for the record that he had insisted very strongly that the Executive Committee and the Steering Committee meet that morning.⁹⁹ The Russians had been anxious to postpone rich meetings and had been prevailed upon to accept an earlier date. The Secretary reported that Ambassador Gromyko had been insistent upon the previous day’s meetings. The Secretary declared that he would suggest, after the draft was presented to the Steering Committee, that the issue be referred back to the technical committee with the recommendation that no vote be taken for another day. Mr. Hickerson thought that the question should be referred to the Five Powers some time during the day in order to remove the Russians from the isolated position they held. Mr. Dulles agreed with the Secretary that the technical committee should be asked to hold over a decision for an additional day.

The Secretary then read the statement which had been prepared as an introduction to Mr. Evatt’s presentation of the draft in the Steering Committee. Representative Bloom referred to that part of the Secretary remark which suggested that the technical committee postpone consideration for “a day or so”. He thought that it would be best to ask that the Committee wait until instructions were received from Moscow and he urged that the wording “a day or so” was too indefinite. He thought that the Committee should be asked to postpone a decision until notified that the sponsoring; governments, France and Australia, had reached an agreement.

Mr. Pasvolsky declared that he had a suggestion to make He thought that if Mr. Evatt could not accept the draft under consideration, the following wording might be more appropriate: “The General Assembly should have the right to discuss any matter within the scope of the Charter”. The Secretary declared that Mr. Dulles and Senator Vandenberg had proposed exactly the same wording on the previous day. Mr. Pasvolsky thought that this language should satisfy everybody, but Senator Vandenberg remarked that Mr. Evatt had not accepted it and probably would not accept. Mr. Pasvolsky observed that this language made it clear that the General Assembly’s right of discussion would not extend beyond the frame of reference established in the Charter itself. He thought it should be made clear that Mr. Evatt could not expect to extend the General Assembly’s powers beyond the terms of the Charter itself.

Senator Vandenberg observed that he agreed with Representative Bloom’s contention that the words “in a day or so” were inadequate. Senator Vandenberg pointed out that the Delegation was pressing for an early completion of the Conference and he thought that the Delegation could not propose a delay on this matter.

Mr. Pasvolsky asked whether it was thought that the Russians would accept the language he had proposed and Senator Vandenberg replied in the negative, saying that no one seemed to want to accept this language, Mr. Gerig reported that, as he recalled the situation, the phraseology proposed by Mr. Pasvolsky had been drafted at the end of the four o’clock meeting on the previous day.¹ However, it had not been considered at the 8:30 meeting because Mr. Evatt had introduced his new phraseology. Mr. Pasvolsky thought that the short form which he had proposed was the only acceptable solution. Mr. Pasvolsky did not think that Mr. Evatt’s suggestion was adequate and declared that it would spoil the whole article. Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that the Coordination Committee was making a complete article out of this paragraph. Mr. Dulles thought that, if agreement were reached on this wording, the Coordination Committee could boil it down to the wording proposed by Mr. Pasvolsky. He pointed out that the matter was still in a negotiating stage and he did not think there was any reason to object at that time to the language proposed by Mr. Evatt. Mr. Pasvolsky declared that if Mr. Evatt had the idea that anything beyond the terms of the Charter could possibly be involved in this paragraph, he had best forget it. Mr. Hackworth declared that he would favor outvoting Mr. Evatt on the matter but Mr. Dulles replied that there was no reason to do this because the matter was still in the negotiating stage. Commander Stassen thought that the important point was that Mr. Evatt had withdrawn from his previous position but Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that if Mr. Evatt were to present his language to the Steering Committee he would, in effect, be committed to it. Mr. Dulles reiterated that all the parties to the discussion were in a negotiating position. There were, he declared, two states standing on antithetical positions. The important matter was to get these two opposing parties to withdraw from their insistence on a fixed phraseology. Mr. Evatt, he declared, had already indicated his willingness to compromise, by the mere fact of presenting a new wording. Secretary Stettinius declared that he thought Mr. Pasvolsky was correct but he urged that the matter would have to be referred to the technical committee for negotiation. Mr. Dunn suggested that no specific language be used by the Secretary asking the Committee to postpone its consideration of the matter. He thought that the requirement could be met by speaking to the Chairman of the Committee and asking him not to call a vote.

Closing Date

The Secretary reported that the official closing date was still June 23. He urged that the members of the Delegation should not talk with anyone about it. The Secretary declared that he was conducting conversations on a high level to determine whether the deadline could be met.

At this time, 9:40 a.m., Secretary Stettinius, Senator Vandenberg, Mr. Pasvolsky, Mr. Gerig, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Raynor, and Mr. Hyde left the meeting.

Progress in the Technical Committees

Senator Connally asked what action had been taken over the week-end by Committee I/2. Mr. Armstrong declared, that Commander Stassen should speak on that matter because he had handled the negotiations. However, he declared that expulsion had been retained in the Charter and the matter of withdrawal was going to be handled in the Committee’s report.² Mr. Armstrong thought that excellent results had been achieved as a result of the “olive branch” offered by the major powers in the form of a concession with respect to the convocation of a revisionary conference.³ Mr. Armstrong remarked that the concession had been made after the vote had been taken on the veto power over amendments and hence was not a bribe. This action on the part of the United States was greatly appreciated by the smaller powers. The Committee had also accepted the procedure proposed by Senator Rolin that the approval of 34 instead of 28 nations be required for ratification of amendments. This action of the Committee had also pleased the smaller powers. They had been anxious to make the adoption of amendments more difficult and this proposal accomplished that purpose. Mr. Armstrong pointed out that the change would not greatly affect the United States but had the advantages of gaining the support of Senator Rolin. Both Belgium and Mexico had come over to the side of the major powers and as a result the veto had been carried, although by a narrow margin. The proposal to place the convocation of a revisionary convention on the agenda of the General Assembly during its tenth year and the provision for actually calling that agenda [convention?] by a majority vote had been accepted with great applause by the Committee. Mr. Armstrong reported that the provision on expulsion had been reinserted without a fight in view of the decision of a number of the states which had been opposed to abstain from voting in view of the desires of the major powers.

Term of Secretary-General

Mr. Armstrong reported that a slight misunderstanding had arisen with respect to the Secretary-General of the Organization. The matted had been raised by the Dutch who had pointed to the action of another committee and had indicated a desire to reconsider that decision.⁴ Ambassador Koo had declared that the Big Four had already discussed this matter and had decided favorably on the Dutch proposal and thought that there was no need for further discussion among the major powers. Mr. Armstrong remarked that the Dutch proposal to eliminate any specific reference to a term of office for the Secretary-General had appeared to be quite satisfactory and he thought that the United States had acted in good faith in favoring this proposal, in view of Ambassador Koo’s statement. Mr. Armstrong declared that he had spoken to Mr. Zarapkin after the meeting and had indicated that if the Russians were to oppose the Dutch suggestion they would be defeated in the Commission. Mr. Armstrong declared that he had learned afterwards that Ambassador Koo had not been accurate in that the discussion in the Steering Committee had been related to the Deputy Secretaries General, not to the Secretary-General himself.

Senator Connally observed that the matter of withdrawal had been satisfactorily settled by the decision to include a statement in the report of the Committee.⁵ Senator Connally thought that there had been almost unanimous support for this procedure and asked whether he was correct in that assumption. Mr. Armstrong thought that the U.S.S.R. had cast the sole negative vote. Mr. Rockefeller declared that he was very pleased with the results of the negotiations in this Committee. He said that because of the tactful manner in which Mr. Armstrong and Commander Stassen had handled the negotiations, trust and confidence had been restored. The reaction to Commander Stassen’s closing talk⁶ had been most friendly.…

Progress of Other Committees

Senator Connally reported that Committee III/1 was finished and that Committee III/3 would have one more meeting in order to add the decision on Chapter XII, paragraph 1 to the report of the Committee. Commander Stassen reported that Committee III/2 had been wound up and that Mr. Eagleton had handled the situation in a fine manner. The report of this Committee was to go to the Commission that evening. Commander Stassen declared also that he hoped to wind up the work of Committee II/4 that day. Mr. Sandifer reported that Committee II/2 would have to consider some decisions taken the previous evening in different committees. Expulsion was a case in point. Committee II/2 would also have to consider the question of the General Assembly’s power to discuss all matters within the sphere of international relations.

Term of Secretary-General

Senator Connally added that part of this language would have to be reconsidered by Committee II/1, on the subject of the term for the Secretary-General.⁷

Senator Connally reported that Committee II/1 had decided to delete the specific term of three years which had previously been agreed upon. This had been the result of the Netherlands’ amendment.⁸ The text as it stood at that time provided only for the election of the Secretary-General by the Assembly on the nomination of the Security Council. Senator Connally declared that he was of the opinion that it was better not to have a definite term. Furthermore, there was no mention in the Charter of the Deputy Secretaries General and Senator Connally thought that this was appropriate because it left the decision on the matter to the Secretary-General himself.

[At this point, 9:55 a.m., Commander Stassen left the meeting].⁹

Representative Bloom declared that he was of the opinion that it had been decided in the Penthouse¹⁰ that there should be a definite term of office for the Secretary-General. Senator Connally declared that he had not known that at the time of the meeting and had accepted Ambassador Koo’s avowal that it would be all right to accept the Dutch proposal. Senator Connally thought that the indefinite wording was to be preferred. Dr. Bowman agreed with Senator Connally and declared that of necessity the relationship of the Secretary-General to the Security Council would have to be largely political. No set term of office could eliminate this real situation and he thought that to have an indefinite tenure would avoid a deal among the large powers that each should appoint the Secretary-General for one term. Representative Bloom asked what provision was made for reelection of the Secretary-General and Senator Connally declared that under the new provision reelection would not be necessary and the original provision had been deleted. Representative Bloom thought that it had been decided in the Penthouse to retain the original Dumbarton Oaks Proposal. The recent Four Power decision had been concerned only with the matter of the Deputy Secretaries General. The matter of the Secretary General had been left as originally decided in the Four Power amendment. Mr. Notter remarked that the Russians would probably raise this question again. Representative Bloom asked whether the Delegation would suggest that Committee II/1 accept the new language.

Mr. Armstrong declared that he would like to explain some of the arguments which had been proposed. It had been urged that if no term of office were set for the Secretaty General, a good man could be maintained in office indefinitely. The establishment of a short term of office would mean political bargains and Mr. Armstrong thought that the new proposal was superior, administratively Speaking. The Russians were in favor of an even shorter term than had originally been supported and were desirous of establishing a one year tenure. They had opposed the deletion of the three-year term but it had been decided that it would be best to have no term whatsoever. Senator Connally agreed with the point made previously that there would be a great deal of political trading at each election if a short tenure were established. Mr. Stone agreed that the procedure should be left flexible. It was possible, he said, to get rid of an unsuccessful Secretary General without fixing a definite period of tenure. Senator Connally thought that Commander Stassen had thought that this new decision would violate a Five Power agreement. However, Senator Connally reported that he could not remember any such agreement. Mr. Notter thought that the Delegation had taken the right action with respect to the substance of the proposal. However, Ambassador Koo had been confused about the character of the arrangements among the sponsoring governments. Representative Bloom thought that the representatives of the Delegation had been instructed to take the old position. Mr. Notter urged that if the Russians did not raise the question there would be no difficulty. Mr. Sandifer agreed but added that if the Russians reopened the question the Delegation could not maintain the new position without first consulting the U.S.S.R. Mr. Armstrong declared that there had been a most unusual situation. Both the Chinese and Byelorussian Delegations had voted with the United States. Mr. Notter thought that the solution was very satisfactory inasmuch as the Russian Delegate had had ample opportunity to be heard. Representative Bloom protested that he had been placed in a very embarrassing position. At first he had declared the decision of the Delegation was “black.” Then the Delegation had instructed him to say that he had not had his glasses on and that the Delegation really wanted “white” Now, he was in a position where he would have to say that in reality the Delegation wanted neither. Senator Connally remarked, however, that Representative Bloom would not have to reconsider the question. Mr. Sandifer agreed and thought that the decision would just have to be incorporated in the draft Charter in accordance with the decision of Committee I/2, without any further discussion. Mr. Notter thought that the Delegation should know before nightfall whether the Russians were going to make any objections. Senator Connally did not think that a Russian objection was likely because their chief interest was the Deputy Secretaries General.

Progress of Other Committees

Senator Connally declared that Mr. Hackworth had wanted to report that all the problems connected with the World Court and the legal problems of the Organization had been satisfactorily resolved. Mr. Sandifer declared that the meeting of Committee II/2, scheduled for that day, would be postponed. The status of Committee II/1 had been discussed. Commander Stassen had expressed the opinion that Committee II/4, dealing with trusteeship, could probably finish that day. Mr. Sandifer concluded by saying that Committee III/3 would accept paragraph 1 of Chapter XII and thus would be able to complete its business.

Dean Gildersleeve reported to the Delegation that there was a possibility that there would be further discussion in Committee I/1 on the subject of domestic jurisdiction.¹¹

The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 a.m.

96. Minutes of eleventh Five Power meeting on trusteeship, June 18, 2:45 p.m., not printed; for text, redraft of working paper, section A, see WD 390, II/4/42, June 19, UNCIO Documents, vol. 10, p. 570.
97. Representative Walter H. Judd, of Minnesota.
98. Telegram 5, June 18, to the Acting Secretary of State, for transmission to the Ambassador in the Soviet Union, p. 1353.
99. Doc. 1108, EX/28, June 20, UNCIO Documents, vol. 5, p. 535, and Doc. 1107, ST/18, June 20, ibid., p. 272.
1. The Subcommittee met at noon, 4:30 p.m., and 8:30 p.m., June 17.
2. Doc. 1178, I/2/76 (2), June 24, UNCIO Documents, vol. 7, pp. 327–332.
3. Doc. 1053, I/2/72, June 17, ibid., p. 241; Doc. 1052; I/2/71, June 17, ibid., p. 249
4. Doc. 1087, I/2/78, June 18, UNCIO Documents, vol. 7, p. 279.
5. The Committee adopted the commentary on withdrawal, to be included in the Committee’s report to the Commission, by a vote of 38 in favor, 2 against, and 3 abstentions (Doc. 1086, I/2/77, June 19, ibid., p. 267).
6. For summary statement, see ibid., p. 265.
7. See Rapporteurs’ reports, Doc. 666, II/1/26(1) (a), May 30, UNCIO Documents, vol. 8, pp. 452 and 454–457; and Doc. 1071, I/2/74(1), June 18, ibid., vol. 7, pp. 365–367.
8. Doc. 1087, I/2/78, June 18, ibid., vol. 7, pp. 279–281.
9. Brackets appear in the original.
10. See minutes of the second Four-Power consultative meeting, May 3, 10 a.m. p. 562; also, minutes of the twenty-third Five-Power consultative meeting, June 17, 6 p.m., p. 1331.
11. For text of article 8, chapter II, adopted by Committee I/1 on June 13, see Doc. 1019, I/1/42, June 16, UNCIO Documents, vol. 6, p. 512; also, Doc. 1070, I/1/34 (1) (d), June 18, ibid., p. 486.