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. 24

Minutes of the Twenty-Fourth Five-Power Informal Consultative Meeting on Proposed Amendments, Held at San Francisco, June 18, 1945, 12 noon

San Francisco, June 18, 1945, noon

[Informal Notes]

[Here follows list of names of participants, including members of delegations of the United States (16); United Kingdom (2); Soviet Union (3); China (2); and France (4).]

Mr. Stettinius of the United States presided. He stated that the purpose of this meeting was to discuss briefly the language with respect to the right of discussion to be enjoyed by the General Assembly, which had been suggested by Dr. Evatt of Australia and discussed in the Executive Committee and in the Steering Committee that morning. Mr. Stettinius recalled that Dr. Evatt had brought the paragraph in question into the Subcommittee last night, and it had been referred to the Technical Committee for consideration. This paragraph read as follows:

“The General Assembly should have the right to discuss 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 or 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.”

M. Boncour stated that he had given very serious consideration to this question and to the position of the Russian Delegate that there must be a definite reference in this paragraph to the aims set forth by the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, i.e., that this right of discussion should be limited to matters affecting international peace and security. M. Boncour believed that the Russian Delegate was quite right, and that the language suggested by Dr. Evatt did not achieve this purpose. He, therefore, proposed that Dr. Evatt’s draft be changed to read:

“The General Assembly should have the right to discuss 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 or otherwise within the scope of the Charter, the main purpose of which is the maintenance of international peace and security .…”

Ambassador Gromyko stated that, as he had said yesterday, Dr. Evatt’s language does not contain a reference to the maintenance of peace and security. The language in this draft, he thought, was as near as possible to the previous language. Referring to the phrase in the draft, “within the sphere of action of the United Nations”, he observed that we are discussing what right the General Assembly is to have, what matters it may discuss, and what actions it can take. He thought that this phrase was unclear and that everything could be discussed under this formula.

Mr. Stettinius thought that M. Boncour had made a very constructive suggestion in proposing the phrase to be added to the Evatt draft. Lord Halifax agreed with Mr. Stettinius and also thought we should be grateful to M. Boncour. He was disposed to agree with Ambassador Gromyko on his point with respect to the phrase “sphere of action of the United Nations”. He thought those words were too vague and had thought so when he first read the language. Lord Halifax proposed that this be changed to read: “sphere of action of the United Nations, as delimited by the Charter”.

M. Boncour observed that it was necessary to consider the points of view of both parties and recalled that Dr. Evatt had insisted on this phrase because a similar phrase was contained in the Covenant of the League of Nations. He agreed, however, that this particular phrase ‘is too vague, and that the fears of the Soviet Delegation are justified. He thought the word “Organization” should be used instead of “United Nations”. Mr. Dulles commented that the phrase “United Nations” was used here as the name of the Organization. M. Boncour thought it was better to state specifically “Organization”. Mr. Stettinius also thought that Dr. Evatt was referring to the Organization in using “United Nations”. He asked for Dr. Koo’s reaction.

Dr. Koo stated that if M. Boncour’s proposal were acceptable to the others, it was acceptable to him. He then observed that a vast range of matters came within the scope of the Charter and he wondered if there were any objection to discussion by the General Assembly of any matter within the Charter. He did not object to a specific reference to “maintenance of international peace and security”.

Ambassador Gromyko thought that it could be stated that the General Assembly should have the right to discuss any matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security, or to social, economic, educational, and cultural cooperation among nations and other questions affecting the maintenance of peace and security. He thought this would be a broad formula, but it would be exact and would be in accord with the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. This formula would not permit the General Assembly to raise any question at all, which might in some cases not be in accord with the principle of sovereignty of states. He asked why we should not use the formula of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals which we had agreed upon.

Dr. Koo said that it seemed to him that we were very close on what the Ambassador had just said. Mr. Stettinius said he felt so. Dr. Koo inquired whether we could not say “discussion of any matter relating to the maintenance of international peace and security or otherwise within the scope of the Charter”. This, he thought, would make it clear that matters relating to the maintenance of peace and security would not be the only matters that the General Assembly could discuss. Ambassador Gromyko suggested that we might say “any matter within the scope of the Charter affecting the maintenance of international peace and security”.

Mr. Boncour observed that from the logical point of view, the Soviet Delegate was right. However, in practice, he recalled that the Technical Committee has now voted this formula three times, so that we should try to get as near to the Evatt formula as possible. Two changes had been proposed to the Evatt draft: (1) to substitute “Organization” for “United Nations”; and (2) to insert after the phrase “within the scope of the Charter” the additional words “the main purpose of which is the maintenance of international peace and security”. He thought that these two changes in the Evatt draft would do what the Russian Ambassador wants.

Ambassador Gromyko thought that this change would not change the meaning of the phrase since Dr. Evatt means “Organization” by the term “United Nations”. He thought there was a logical defect to this language, since we were talking about the rights of the General Assembly and what action the General Assembly should take. This formula says that the General Assembly should “take action within the sphere of action of the United Nations”. He thought it would not make sense.

Senator Vandenberg asked Ambassador Gromyko if there were anything named in the principles and purposes of the Charter that he was not willing to have the General Assembly discuss. Ambassador Gromyko said no. Senator Vandenberg suggested that we say just that. He proposed language along the following lines: “matter relating to the maintenance of international peace and security, or any other matters covered by the purposes and principles of the United Nations or pertaining to the functions of its organs”.

Lord Halifax approved this suggestion and thought that the reference to international peace and security should be put first. Ambassador Gromyko said he would like to see this language in written form; and Mr. Stettinius asked Mr. Dulles to dictate this new language to his stenographer and have it brought in.

There was temporary recess until the new draft was brought in. Mr. Stettinius read it aloud as follows:

“The General Assembly should have the right to discuss any matter relating to the maintenance of international peace and security or otherwise covered by the purposes and principles or falling 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.”

Mr. Stettinius asked for comment on this draft. M. Boncour stated that he personally was agreeable to this formula, but he feared that it went rather far from the Evatt draft and that there would be some difficulty getting Dr. Evatt to accept it. Lord Halifax said he had the same thought and he felt that there should be included in the paragraph the phrase referring to the organs of the United Nations as Dr. Evatt attached importance to this phrase. He said that he personally would accept this draft otherwise.

Ambassador Gromyko observed that the phrase “scope of the Charter” would include matters relating to its organs. Lord Halifax thought that Dr. Evatt would, nevertheless, want his own language on this subject. Dr. Koo thought that the question of the organs was essentially a matter of detail and that he would agree to this change if it were thought that Dr. Evatt would accept it more easily.

Mr. Stettinius stated that the United States Delegation considered such language satisfactory. He was impressed by M. Boncour’s remarks on this point, and he thought we should consider the inclusion of the reference to the “organs” in order to negotiate this matter. Senator Connally thought that Ambassador Gromyko was correct in stating that the phrase “scope of the Charter” included matters relating to the organs of the United Nations. He thought that specific reference to the organs would not change the meaning of the draft and if this would make it easier for Dr. Evatt to accept the draft, it would be desirable to include such a reference. Lord Halifax proposed that there be inserted after the phrase “within the scope of the Charter” the following language: “or relating to the powers and functions of any of the organs of the Assembly”. Mr. Dulles thought an important point was involved here and it was necessary to say “powers and functions of any organ of the General Assembly”, since the Security Council, which is an organ of the United Nations, is not a subsidiary body to the General Assembly. Ambassador Gromyko asked if this phrase was to go after the word “Charter”. Lord Halifax repeated the proposed language: “or relating to the powers and functions of any of the organs of the Assembly”.

Mr. Stettinius said that if we limited this phrase to the Assembly, he was quite sure that it would not be acceptable to Dr. Evatt. He suggested instead the phrase “organs of the Charter”. Mr. Sandifer thought the phrase should be “organs of the United Nations”. Senator Vandenberg proposed that we say “relating to the powers and functions of its organs”. He thought we should get an exact text of the new draft.

Mr. Stettinius stated that this group would have to study the matter further before deciding upon its position in the Technical Committee. He noted that four of the countries represented here had tentatively agreed to the new text, and that Ambassador Gromyko had asked for time to study the text. Ambassador Gromyko stated that he hoped to be able to give an answer on this matter either that evening or the next day.

The following text was then distributed:

“The General Assembly should have the right to discuss any matter relating to the maintenance of international peace and security or otherwise covered by the purposes and principles or falling within the scope of the Charter, or relating to the powers and functions of any of the organs provided for in 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”.¹³

Mr. Stettinius then adjourned the meeting.

13. This revised text, together with a report on the Five-Power meeting, was transmitted by Mr. Stettinius in telegram 7, June 18, to the Acting Secretary to be sent to Ambassador Harriman so that he might be kept fully up to date for his discussions of the problem with Foreign Minister Molotov; Mr. Stettinius also requested that President Truman be informed of the sense of the message. The message was repeated to Moscow as telegram 1337, June 19, 1 a.m. (500.CC/6–1845).