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 76

Minutes of the Seventy-Sixth Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Tuesday, June 19, 1945, 9:03 a.m.

San Francisco, June 19, 1945, 9:03 a.m.

[Informal Notes]

[Here follows list of names of persons (33) present at meeting.]

The Secretary convened the meeting at 9:03 a.m.

Military Endorsement

Secretary Stettinius remarked that before leaving Washington he had had talks with Secretary Stimson, Secretary Forrestal, General Marshall and Admiral King. Because of the long range implications of the Charter and because of the difficulty in drawing a line between its military and non-military implications, it had been agreed that the Army and the Navy should be represented on the American Delegation, and Mr. McCloy and Mr. Gates had come to San Francisco representing the Army and the Navy respectively. It had been thought that at the end of the Conference, the military branches of the government would make available a complete endorsement of the entire Charter. The Secretary reported, however, that this endorsement had now been narrowed to the specific military provisions of the Charter and to the strategic implications of the Charter as a whole. The Secretary asked whether the endorsement by the Army and the Navy would cover the non-strategic aspects of the Charter, such as the Economic and Social Council. Mr. Kane replied that the military endorsement would cover all military considerations, and General Embick pointed out that the letter which was being prepared for submission by the Army and the Navy to the Secretary would say that the Charter was in accord with the strategic interests of the United States. General Embick observed that this was far stronger than a statement that the military branches of the government had no objections to the Charter.

Secretary Stettinius asked whether the letter which Mr. Kane was drafting would constitute adequate approval of the Charter; specifically, The Secretary asked whether representatives of the Navy Department would appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and support the Charter in the debates. General Embick replied that the military departments would support the Charter in its military aspects, but would not undertake to endorse sections which were not within the scope of their authority, such as the World Court or the Preamble. Mr. Kane observed that the letter he had drafted had not been approved by Secretary Forrestal as yet.

Discussion by the General Assembly

The Secretary reported that there was going to be a meeting of the five powers at 9:30 a.m., and he called on Mr. Dulles to explain the situation with respect to the power of the General Assembly to discuss matters within the sphere of international relations. Mr. Dulles reported that agreement had been reached among the five powers on the draft of Section A, paragraph 1, of Chapter V, June 18, 1945, as follows:

“1. 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.”

This draft had been presented to Mr. Bailey of the Australian Delegation and he had expressed the opinion that it was satisfactory. Lord Halifax had spoken with the foreign ministers of the Dominions who had also indicated their approval. However, Mr. Dulles had received that morning a letter from Mr. Bailey indicating that the draft was not satisfactory in its present form. This letter indicated that Mr. Evatt wanted to retain the phrase “within the sphere of action of the organization.” Mr. Bailey’s letter was circulated among the Delegation, and read as follows:

“My dear Dulles,

“I have just had the opportunity of discussing with Dr. Evatt the draft of which you gave me a copy for him this afternoon.

“Dr. Evatt feels strongly that it is unnecessary, because tautologous, to preface his own draft with any specific reference to the maintenance of international peace and security. He is nevertheless willing to accept the suggestion, on condition that his own draft is accepted, without any whittling away. He feels particularly that the omission of the phrase ‘within the sphere of action of the Organization’ may easily be misunderstood. These words, as you know, are taken directly from the Covenant of the League of Nations, and it would be easy to draw from their omission an inference adverse to the scope of the Assembly’s powers.

“Dr. Evatt understands that some objection is felt to the phrase ‘within the sphere of action of the United Nations’, on the ground that the words might possibly suggest interference with national affairs. This objection however could not apply if the word ‘Organization’ were used. I think this mode of reference to the United Nations will be adopted in a good many places in the Charter.

“If the reference to ‘international relations’ is to be omitted, and the reference to the maintenance of peace and security inserted in the foreground of the paragraph, I think there is good reason for insisting on the utmost amplitude in the reference to the Charter.

“After careful consideration Dr. Evatt would be willing to accept the paragraph in the following form:

“‘The General Assembly should have the right to discuss any matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security, and also any matters covered by the purposes and principles of the Charter, or relating to the powers and functions of any of the organs provided for in the Charter, or within the sphere of action of the Organization, or otherwise 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 matters.’

“Regards—and in great haste

Yours sincerely,

K. H. Bailey”

Mr. Bailey had apologized to Mr. Dulles for having presented Mr. Evatt’s position after apparent agreement had been reached, and Mr. Dulles had reminded him that negotiations had been proceeding on the basis that the language of the June 18th draft had been acceptable to the Australians. Mr. Dulles pointed out to Mr. Bailey that it was hoped that approval of the language would be received from Moscow some time during the day. Mr. Dulles had observed to Mr. Bailey that if Russian approval was forthcoming, it would be necessary for the United States to return to Mr. Evatt and ask him to discuss the matter further. Mr. Dulles told the Delegation that it would probably be possible to line up sufficient votes to beat Mr. Evatt on this matter. Senator Vandenberg agreed and thought that the proper thing to do would be to have the chief delegates of each Delegation appear in Committee II/2 when this question was under discussion.

Mr. Pasvolsky asked whether the question would be settled during the day and The Secretary replied that it would be considered at the 9:30 meeting of the five powers.

Trusteeship

The Secretary reported to the Delegation that the Trusteeship chapter had been accepted by Committee II/4 on the previous evening.¹⁹ The Secretary thought that the Delegation owed a debt of gratitude to Commander Stassen for the fine job he had done during the negotiations on this very difficult chapter. Commander Stassen said that it was particularly gratifying to him that the meeting of Committee II/4 the previous evening had ended up most satisfactorily with all the delegates congratulating each other. Commander Stassen reported that Section A had been approved by the Committee as it had been agreed upon by the major powers and Australia. The vote in Committee II/4 was unanimous. Commander Stassen remarked that the Russians had displayed a very fine spirit because they had permitted the paragraph on reporting functions to be passed by the Committee although they did not approve it. This had been done as a concession to Mr. Evatt.…

Spain

Mr. Hickerson reported that he had been told by the Greek Delegation that Foreign Minister Padilla intended to introduce a resolution that day which would bar Spain from participating in the Organization until it had overthrown the fascist Franco²⁰ Government. This resolution, Mr. Hickerson said, would require a vote in the Commission which dealt with membership. The Greeks had asked Mr. Hickerson how they should vote on this matter, and he had replied that it would be necessary to take the matter up in the Delegation. Mr. Hickerson had made it clear, however, that this Government did not like Franco Spain. Mr. Hickerson observed that his recommendation would be that the Delegate of the United States on Commission I be authorized to vote in favor of such a resolution if it were proposed. Representative Bloom urged that a more satisfactory course would be to use parliamentary procedure to have the matter thrown out without any vote being taken. Mr. Armstrong, however, submitted that any such attempt by the United States would be construed by the press as indicating a favorable attitude toward Franco. Representative Bloom remarked that such a move by this Government could be construed only as a reliance on the established rules of procedure. The Secretary declared that before the Delegation could take any action on this matter it would be necessary to see a copy of the resolution which the Mexicans were going to present.

Mr. Rockefeller observed that the question represented a delicate situation. Mr. Padilla was under great pressure from his own Government to introduce a measure on the question of Spanish participation. However, despite what Mr. Hickerson had said, the Mexicans did not intend to introduce a resolution. The plan was that Mr. Quintanilla was to make a brief declaration stating his Government’s position on the question of Franco Spain participating in the United Nations Organization. If there should be any discussion on, or opposition to, this declaration, Mr. Quintanilla was prepared to make a speech supporting his position. Mr. Rockefeller expressed the opinion that the question might finally take the form of a resolution presented by some other Government. Secretary Stettinius asked why the Mexicans would not be satisfied by merely making a speech in the Commission session.²¹ Mr. Pasvolsky observed that the rules of procedure provided that no resolutions could be considered by the Conference. However, Mr. Dulles pointed to the fact that the Conference had adopted a resolution expressing the hope that Poland would soon be represented in the deliberations of the United Nations.²² Mr. Hackworth added that Committee IV/1 had also passed a resolution.²³

Mr. Dunn observed that the United States could not afford to be on the wrong side on this matter. He suggested that the Delegation should go along with a resolution or declaration presented by the Mexicans. Mr. Dulles pointed out, however, that the Delegation did not have to go along with a violation of the rules of the Conference. He suggested that a statement should be made that the Mexican proposal was consistent with the beliefs of the Delegation, but that the Delegation could vote for the proposal only if it were the proper business of the Conference. He held the view that it should be made clear that if the Conference decides that it could properly entertain such a proposal, the United States would vote in favor of it. Mr. Rockefeller reiterated that no resolution would be offered but that the Mexicans would make a brief declaration. However, Mr. Hickerson remarked that the Greek Delegation had asked him how to vote on the matter, which would indicate that the Mexicans intended to present a resolution. Representative Bloom observed that the Delegation should prepare itself for any possibilities. If no resolution were offered, the United States would not have to take any position. If a resolution were proposed, Representative Bloom proposed that the Delegation should follow the course of action outlined by Mr. Dulles.

Coordination Committee

Mr. Pasvolsky reported that the Coordination Committee had prepared drafts for thirteen chapters. He added that there would be fifteen altogether. The Secretary asked when the entire Charter would be in final shape, ready to be signed. Mr. Pasvolsky declared that the Coordination Committee could finish its work by Thursday.²⁴

Recourse of Enemy States to the General Assembly or the Security Council

Representative Bloom, who was then in the chair because of the departure of the Secretary and Senator Vandenberg, asked if there was any more business to be brought to the attention of the Delegation. Mr. Sandifer reported that Mr. Johnson had a matter which he wished to bring before the Delegation.

Mr. Johnson reported that a question had arisen in Committee III/3 with respect to a proposal of the Greek Delegation that Chapter VIII, Section A, paragraph 2, should be amended to prevent the enemy states from having recourse to the Security Council, or the General Assembly.²⁵ This proposal had been approved in principle by Committee III/2 which had referred it to Committee III/3, as relating to paragraph 2 of Chapter XII. The Greek wording, as amended by the United States, read as follows:

“It is understood that the enemy states in the present war shall not have the right of recourse to the Security Council or the General Assembly before the treaties which end this war have been made effective until the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council so decides.”

Mr. Johnson reported that this matter was now being considered in connection with the approval of the chapter on transitional arrangements. Mr. Johnson urged that this would be a difficult matter to defeat because the United States could not readily afford to place itself in opposition to the measure. Mr. Johnson remarked that this proposal did not really belong in the chapter on transitional arrangements. The question before the Delegation was chiefly whether it wanted to include the language in the Charter itself or whether it should be incorporated in a declaration. He reiterated that it would be difficult to take a stand in opposition to the Greek proposal. Mr. Johnson declared that the language of the Greek proposal had not been good. He observed that the Greek wording “made effective” was not clear, and there was also no way of knowing how many treaties there would be ending the war. Therefore, Mr. Johnson had proposed the substitute wording which had been referred to the Delegation. (U.S. Gen 281²⁶.) Mr. Johnson remarked that the Greek proposal had been seconded by Ethiopia and appeared to be directed against Italy. Mr. Armstrong asked whether it would not be possible to ask Mr. Politis²⁷ to withdraw his proposal. Mr. Armstrong submitted that it might have been pressed by Mr. Politis personally, without the support of his Delegation. Mr. Johnson did not think that this was accurate because of the fact that the matter had been referred by Committee III/2 to Committee III/3²⁸ some time previously, and therefore Mr. Politis was not pushing it as a personal measure at the end of the Conference. Commander Stassen pointed out that when the matter had been considered in Committee III/2 it had been urged by some of the Delegates that Chapter XII was the appropriate place for the insertion of this proposal. The Chairman had suggested that the Greek Delegate investigate the possibilities of incorporating the provision in Chapter XII, but there had been no formal recommendation. Commander Stassen reminded the Delegation that this suggestion would bring up the question of Italy and Finland as well. Neither of these countries would have the right of recourse to the Security Council or the General Assembly under the Greek proposition. Mr. Notter asked whether Chapter XII did not leave this decision to the victorious powers. He was of the opinion that the Charter provided that the General Assembly and the Security Council would make the decision as to whether or not to receive a nation which was not an initial member of the Organization.

Mr. Pasvolsky held the view that this proposal was a counterpart of a previous Russian suggestion. Apparently, he declared, the Greeks wanted to keep Bulgaria and Italy from gaining friends in the General Assembly. Representative Bloom asked whether the Greeks would be satisfied with a declaration rather than the incorporation of language in the Charter. Commander Stassen declared that he was opposed to the Greek suggestion. He pointed out that the Charter provided for strict membership rules; the only denial involved in the Greek proposal was the right of a nation to call the attention of the Organization to a situation which might endanger the peace. Commander Stassen urged that this right should [not?] be abridged. Mr. Notter pointed out that there was good ground for opposing this suggested amendment in view of the fact that recourse could be necessary only from the victor powers. Mr. Armstrong agreed that some of the smaller European nations did not trust the victorious powers. Mr. Armstrong proposed that the situation could be handled by presenting an explanation to the head of the Greek Delegation. Mr. Armstrong suggested that this explanation should be rendered by a sufficiently important member of the Delegation. Commander Stassen expressed the opinion that Mr. Hickerson was the appropriate officer. Mr. Hickerson, however observed that it might be more effective if one of the Delegates were to speak to the Greek Chairman. Mr. Pasvolsky proposed that Mr. Hickerson and Mr. Dunn should undertake to hold a conversation with the Chairman of the Greek Delegation.

Mr. Hickerson asked Mr. Johnson how strongly the Greeks had felt on this matter, and the latter replied that they had seemed to support the change rather strongly. Commander Stassen thought that this could not be true because the proposal had first been submitted six weeks previously and the Greeks had not pressed it very strongly. Commander Stassen suggested that the Greeks should be informed that their demand was adequately covered by the draft approved by Committee III/2. Mr. Armstrong observed that the matter should be handled before the Committee meeting and he suggested that Commander Stassen attend that meeting.²⁹ Commander Stassen observed that Committee III/3 was Senator Connally’s Committee, but Mr. Johnson pointed out that the Senator was out of town. Mr. Hickerson remarked that Mr. Johnson had done a good job and he thought Mr. Johnson should be allowed to handle the matter. Mr. Johnson declared that he would appreciate Commander Stassen’s coming to the meeting because, in addition to this question, consideration would be given to Chapter XII, paragraph 2. Mr. Johnson observed that he did not speak with sufficient authority. Mr. Johnson remarked that there was a great deal of dissatisfaction with the Greek text. Mr. Berendsen of New Zealand had said of the Greek proposal that “A country lawyer in his cups could not have written a worse draft if he were buying a hen house.” Mr. Armstrong maintained that this question should be settled in advance of the meeting. Commander Stassen asked whether it was true that the Committee had not yet finished its consideration of Chapter XII, paragraph 2. Admiral Train declared that Mr. Wrong of Canada planned to make a long speech on the matter that day. Commander Stassen declared that he would attend the Committee meeting but would not himself contact the head of the Greek Delegation. Commander Stassen was of the opinion that this should be done by a State Department Officer. Representative Bloom declared that Mr. Hickerson would see the Greek Ambassador.

Preamble

Mr. Hackworth reported that the Jurists were struggling over the Preamble wording “We the people of the United Nations”.³⁰ The Jurists were attempting to find some formula whereby the governments of the United Nations would be made parties to the Charter. Mr. Hackworth asked whether the word “We” was essential to the Charter and he pointed out that the problem of drafting would be greatly simplified if “We” could be deleted. Commander Stassen thought that the word “We” was important to the spirit of the Preamble. Mr. Hackworth pointed out that the solution to the problem would be greatly simplified by saying merely “The People of the United Nations”. Mr. Hackworth declared that a formula had been proposed which, although not completely satisfactory, would meet the requirements of the situation; however, this formula would be much better if “We” were to be omitted. Dean Gildersleeve asked how the Preamble would end if the wording “The People”, dropping “We” were to be adopted. Mr. Hackworth declared that he did not remember the exact phraseology which would be used in this situation. However, he repeated that the omission of the word “We” would simplify the drafting problem. It had been concluded, however, that the word “We” was untouchable. Dean Gildersleeve observed that she should not think that it was true that “We” could not be dropped. Committee I/1 had recognized the difficulty involved in the constitutional requirements of some of the governments³¹ and had had the expectation that both the beginning and the ending of the Preamble would be subjected to considerable consideration from a juridical standpoint. Representative Bloom asked whether the “punch” of the Preamble would not be destroyed if “We” were to be omitted. Mr. Hackworth pointed out that this wording would make the people of the United Nations contractual parties to the Charter—an impossible situation. Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that the document under consideration was a treaty and hence involved certain juridical situations which had to be taken into account. Mr. Pasvolsky outlined for the Delegation some of the history of the drafting of the Preamble. It had been sent to the Coordination Committee with unusual directives, one of which was that the Coordination Committee should consider the legal aspects of the phraseology. As a result of this instruction, a joint committee had been set up with the Jurists.³² This was the committee which Mr. Hackworth had been talking about. The specific question at issue had been raised by the Dutch, who had been contending that “Peoples” could not enter into contracts. Representative Bloom remarked that it had been his impression that the peoples of the United Nations would enter into the Charter through the agency of their respective governments. Mr. Pasvolsky observed, however, that even this was an impossible situation for some governments. Mr. Hackworth agreed with Mr. Pasvolsky, and pointed out that in some countries the power of government did not flow from the people, but came from above to the Crown. Mr. Notter thought that the Delegation was confronted with a practical situation. The practical problem was how it could be arranged that the states represented at San Francisco could conceive the Organization. Mr. Notter declared that personally, he was sympathetic with those countries which were not ready to undergo an American Revolution. Even the words “The Peoples” represented a big concession for the Dutch. Mr. Notter pointed out that much the same constitutional situation applied to the United Kingdom as applied to the Netherlands. Representative Bloom maintained that the people of the United States would be greatly disappointed if the word “We” were not included in the Preamble. Mr. Pasvolsky observed that this word would cause a much greater problem for some of the other Delegations than it would for the United States Delegation. He pointed out that some Delegations would be repudiated by their governments if they permitted the use of the words “We the Peoples”. He declared that the Preamble should be worded in such a way that it would be recognized that the governments concerned were becoming parties to the Charter as a result of an expression of determination by the peoples of their respective countries. Dean Gildersleeve declared that she recognized the fact that the Charter would not be an American instrument, but would be an International Charter. She declared that if it were necessary, in order to preserve the international character of the Charter, to drop the word “We”, that procedure would be acceptable to Dean Gildersleeve. Mr. Hackworth asked whether it would be necessary to submit any such change to Committee I/1 or to Commission I. Dean Gildersleeve replied that such a process would not be necessary, because Senator Rolin, as Chairman of the Commission, was prepared to take the responsibility for any change. Mr. Hackworth reported that a wording which had been suggested to meet the constitutional and legal requirements was to come to a full stop at the end of the Preamble; then the document would proceed “accordingly the Governments …”. Mr. Hackworth expressed the opinion that this solution would work but that it was not perfect. The Netherlands Delegation had objected on the grounds that their government did not operate on the authorization of the people. Commander Stassen held the view that despite this constitutional situation, the Government of the Netherlands still represented the people. Mr. Hackworth declared that the wording which had been considered was “accordingly (our respective) governments through their representatives at San Francisco …”. Mr. Stevenson asked whether this wording would not be acceptable to the Dutch and Mr. Hackworth replied in the negative. Mr. Pasvolsky submitted that the matter might be resolved by starting the Preamble with words such as “The Governments of the United Nations whose peoples are resolved …”. Representative Bloom asked why the United States should retrogress. He urged that the governments with less advanced forms of government should be forced to go forward. Commander Stassen urged that the phraseology “We the Peoples of the United Nations” should not be looked at in a strictly legal light. However, Dean Gildersleeve pointed out that she had been unable to discover that this wording had any significance for the other Governments represented.

Mr. Hackworth reported that a number of Delegates had been saying that the Preamble had been drafted by Dean Gildersleeve and that for this reason it had been supported by the United States. Mr. Hackworth declared that his understanding was that the Preamble had been drafted by Marshal Smuts, with the assistance of Dean Gildersleeve. Mr. Hackworth pointed out that the Chinese had declared that this was a United States draft. Mr. Notter declared that the Chinese were correct insofar as the wording “We the Peoples of the United Nations” was concerned and that this language had been authorized by the Delegation. Mr. Pasvolsky remarked that Marshal Smuts was not in favor of this wording. Commander Stassen asked whether there was any serious opposition in the Committee to the draft language, and Dean Gildersleeve replied that the Netherlands were strongly opposed. Mr. Bowman asked whether the Delegation had ever approved the draft presented by Dean Gildersleeve.³⁴ Mr. Bowman observed that his records indicated that the Delegation had never approved that draft. Mr. Notter submitted that the Delegation had approved the use of the words “We the Peoples”. Mr. Bowman retorted that he was not talking to that point. The Delegation, he declared, had never approved Dean Gildersleeve’s draft. Mr. Hackworth contended that the Delegation, however, wanted the wording “We the People”, but Dean Gildersleeve stated that she was willing to delete “We”. Representative Bloom maintained that if this word were dropped, the people of the United States would ask why the action had been taken.

Mr. Pasvolsky remarked that the matter would be considered by the Coordination Committee. As Chairman of that Committee, Mr. Pasvolsky would be obligated to refer the matter to the Steering Committee. Mr. Pasvolsky thought that the United States would have to defend the use of the word “We” in that body.

Mr. Hackworth reported that he had agreed on a draft with Mr. Golunski; however, the Dutch had expressed their opposition and had proposed a second phraseology. The two drafts would be submitted to the Coordination Committee. Mr. Hackworth thought that his wording was better. Commander Stassen agreed that Mr. Hackworth’s solution was good and he urged that this solution should be adopted, even if the Netherlands would have to make a reservation. Mr. Pasvolsky reiterated that if he were asked to do so, he would have to refer the question to the Steering Committee. Mr. Hackworth remarked that the Netherlands was the only country which was opposed to his wording. Mr. Pasvolsky urged that there was an absurdity involved in the use of the words “We [the] Peoples”, because “We the Peoples” would be establishing an organization to be known as the United Nations. Mr. Notter reported that the British Delegate had told him that the United Kingdom would oppose the existing phraseology if the Dutch did not win their battle. Representative Bloom observed that Ambassador Loudon was a good friend of his and he asked whether it would be helpful for him to talk to the Chairman of the Dutch Delegation. Mr. Hackworth replied that this course would not be helpful, because the Dutch were faced with an internal situation which they could not ignore. Dean Gildersleeve declared that personally she was willing to give up the word “We”. Representative Bloom declared that Mr. Hackworth’s solution was satisfactory with him.

. . . . . . .

Commission Sessions

Commander Stassen asked what matters were going to come up in the Commission sessions that day. Mr. Notter replied that Commission I would consider domestic jurisdiction.³⁵ The Dutch Delegate would make a speech expressing the hope that events would make possible a greater assumption of responsibility of [by?] the World Court in determining what constituted domestic jurisdiction. Mr. Notter added that Commission II would consider the questions which had been considered by the Delegation that day.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 a.m.

19. Doc. 1090, II/4/43, June 19, UNCIO Documents, vol. 10, p. 561.
20. Generalissimo Francisco Franco, Chief of State and President of the Spanish Government.
21. Doc. 1167, I/10, June 23, UNCIO Documents, vol. 6, p. 124.
22. Doc. 30, DC/5(1), April 27, ibid., vol. 5, p. 96; Doc. 32, DC/7, April 27, ibid., p. 118; and Doc. 20, P/6, April 28, ibid., vol. 1, p. 168.
23. Doc. 913, IV/1/74(1), June 12, ibid., vol. 13, p. 392, and Doc. 870, IV/1/73, June 9, ibid., p. 413.
24. June 21; for texts of draft Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the International Court of Justice, as finally approved by both the Coordination Committee and the Advisory Committee of Jurists on June 22, see Doc. 1159, CO/181, June 23, UNCIO Documents, vol. 15, p. 171 and Doc. 1158, CO/180(1), June 22, ibid., p. 149.
25. Doc. 1089, III/3/49, June 19, ibid., vol. 12, p. 536.
26. U.S. Gen. 281 (“Recommendation to the United States Delegation, Committee III/3, The Right of Enemy States To Have Recourse to the Assembly or the Security Council”, June 19), not printed.
27. Ambassador John Politis, delegate of Greece.
28. Doc. 321, III/2/9, May 15, UNCIO Documents, vol. 12, p. 24.
29. Doc. 1111, III/3/51, June 20, UNCIO Documents, vol. 12, p. 546.
30. Doc. WD 268, CO/110, June 10, UNCIO Documents, vol. 17, p. 405; for text prepared by the Advisory Committee of Jurists at its fourth meeting, June 9, see WD 258, CO/93 (4), June 10, ibid., vol. 18, p. 106.
31. Doc. 817, I/1/31, June 6, ibid., vol. 6, p. 365; Doe. 944, I/1/34(1), June 13, ibid., p. 449; and Doc. 1006, I/6, June 15, ibid., pp. 18–21.
32. For discussion of the “Alternative Text of Preamble Presented by Joint Subcommittee of the Coordination Committee and the Committee of Jurists”, in the June 20, 10 a.m., meeting of the Coordination Committee, see Doc. WD 435, CO/199, September 4, UNCIO Documents, vol. 17, p. 276.
34. At the twelfth meeting of Subcommittee I/l/A, May 29, 10:30 a.m., Dean Gildersleeve presented an unofficial tentative draft preamble and explained that it had not been endorsed by the United States delegation (US I/l/A Doc 12, May 29, 10:30 a.m.); for draft text, see Virginia C. Gildersleeve, Many a Good Crusade (New York, Macmillan Co., 1954), p. 346.
35. Doc. 1167, I/10, June 23, UNCIO Documents, vol. 6, p. 108.