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 27

Minutes of the Twenty-Seventh Five-Power Informal Consultative Meeting on Proposed Amendments, Held at San Francisco, June 19, 1946, 8:45 p.m.

San Francisco, June 19, 1946, 8:45 p.m.

[Informal Notes]

[Here follows list of names of participants, including members of delegations of the United States (16); United Kingdom (1); Soviet Union (4); China (2); France (1); and the International Secretariat (1).]

Mr. Stettinius of the United States presided. He stated that since this afternoon’s meeting, several of the group had discussed the language of the Russian text with certain other people. While the suggestion of the Soviet Union went a long way toward meeting the situation, he regretted that this consultation with the smaller powers revealed that they felt it impossible to accept the Soviet suggestion without one minor change. He then read the following text:

“The General Assembly has the right to discuss any questions or any matters within the sphere of the Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided in the Charter, and except as provided in Paragraph 2b 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 if the Soviet Union would find any difficulty in accepting the phrase “sphere of the Charter”. If so, he suggested alternatively the phrase “scope of the Charter” or “sphere of action of the Organization”. He noted that this latter phrase had been used by the League of Nations. Mr. Stettinius repeated that we were almost together on this, and it really was a matter of words. He hoped that Ambassador Gromyko could communicate promptly with his government and find out if one of these three phrases would be acceptable.

Lord Halifax observed that in the talks between Mr. Stettinius and Dr. Evatt, in which he had been invited to assist, Dr. Evatt took the point that the original draft that he had been prepared to put forward⁵¹ had been modified, but that only one out of three or four points were of importance to him. Lord Halifax said that they had been able to bring Dr. Evatt to this wording, which seemed a reasonable division between a position of the Soviet Government and Dr. Evatt’s position. He added that Dr. Evatt did not like this draft but that he could be pressed into taking it. Mr. Stettinius agreed that Dr. Evatt was not happy about the text but would take it. He believed that we could not get a successful vote without this additional wording.

M. Dejean stated that he would accept the Ambassador’s text, but that he would consider the necessity of obtaining a successful vote in the Committee. Mr. Stettinius said that we are all of the same vote on that, and that we would accept the Russian draft if it could be accepted by the Conference, but he was convinced that that was impossible. Dr. Koo thought that the revised text was almost the same as the Russian text and he really hoped that it would be accepted by the other powers here, Mr. Stettinius asked if any one of the three phrases suggested would be acceptable and Dr. Koo said that they would.

Senator Vandenberg observed that we were now confronting deadlines and also a hostile and belligerent Committee. He personally was prepared to go into that Committee with any one of these texts and could support any one of these three texts. He remarked that Dr. Evatt’s support on this was negative and grudging; but The Senator thought we could get the Committee’s support for any one of the three texts. He thought that although Dr. Evatt was reluctant, he would take any one of these, and that it would be a waste of time to seek anything less from the Committee. Mr. Stettinius asked if there were any other comments.

Ambassador Gromyko stated that the terms proposed were more general than would be acceptable to him. He thought that under this text any member of the General Assembly may really discuss any question and justify himself by reference to this provision if it is included in the Charter. He felt that this text changed the substance. He stated that he could not agree to it for these reasons.

Mr. Stettinius observed that when we speak about the right of the General Assembly, to speak about anything within the scope of the Charter, it is clear and definite; and that right is written into the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. He stated that this situation must be met, and that each of the four Delegations here have agreed upon this. Mr. Stettinius was sure the Ambassador and the rest of the group meant exactly the same thing.

Ambassador Gromyko said it was not the same thing; that the division [revision?] is something different and that it is plainly not the same.

Senator Vandenberg stated that he was unable to understand how anyone could say that the General Assembly could not discuss anything within the Charter. He was unable himself to understand this. Ambassador Gromyko replied that it meant no limit on discussion and absence of limits of action for the Organization.

M. Dejean did not agree with this. He thought the formula “sphere of action” was exactly the same as the Russian phrase “powers and functions of organs;” that there was no substantive difference, but that the other phrase appealed more to the other people. Ambassador Gromyko thought if these two texts meant the same thing they would not insist on their formula.

Mr. Stettinius asked how any of us can defend denying the right of any member discussing anything within the sphere of the Organization. Senator Vandenberg noted that the League had had that right for twenty-five years. Ambassador Gromyko replied that we want to avoid the League experience if possible.

Lord Halifax observed that Dr. Evatt laid great weight on the phrase “purposes and principles”. He thought if we told him that, some subjects were improperly included therein, that he would accept “sphere of action”. He recalled that we had a tough tussle with Dr. Evatt to get more precise words; and that we did our best to represent fairly the case that Ambassador Gromyko had made. He asked the Ambassador to consider the more precise language “sphere of action of the Organization”. He thought the language was not important but that we must get an agreement.

Ambassador Gromyko thought this phrase did not make sense. We are trying to determine what the General Assembly should do, and whether it should have the right to discuss any matters. In other words, we are determining the actions of the General Assembly. He thought if this phrase were read in context, it would mean that the actions of the Organization should be determined by the actions of the Organization. He asked how can we determine the rights of the General Assembly to discuss questions.

Mr. Stettinius said that if the Ambassador did not like that phrase, how about the phrase “sphere of the Charter”. Did the Ambassador have any objection to that? It seemed clear, specific and definite. Mr. Stettinius asked what could be the objection to saying that the General Assembly has the right to discuss any matter within the sphere of the Charter.

Ambassador Gromyko said that the General Assembly could discuss anything which relates to the functions and powers of the organs of the Organization. This, he thought, was a broad formula, but not indefinite. Lord Halifax thought that from the Ambassador’s point of view, it would be more precise to have the phrase “within the sphere of the Charter”.

Senator Vandenberg wondered if the phrase “within the provisions of the Charter” would be more precise. Ambassador Gromyko thought these phrases had the same meaning. M. Dejean thought it was much more precise.

Ambassador Gromyko stated that all provisions relate to the organs of the United Nations, so why not use that phrase. Senator Vandenberg remarked that this other way was the way of the other countries of saying what the Ambassador was saying; and that it was the same thing. Ambassador Gromyko wondered if their way of saying it would not permit interference with the sovereignty of a state and a discussion of matters likely to cause difficulty and therefore affect the efficiency of the Organization.

Senator Vandenberg asked Ambassador Gromyko to indicate which provision of the Charter he would be unwilling to have the General Assembly discuss. Ambassador Gromyko replied that he would be willing to have the General Assembly discuss any question which could be discussed by any organ. Senator Vandenberg asked why the Ambassador objected to the word “provisions”. He asked Ambassador Gromyko what provisions of the Charter he wanted to stop the General Assembly from discussing.

Ambassador Gromyko stated that under the phrase “principles and purposes of the Charter”, any member of the General Assembly could raise any question. He mentioned immigration as an example. Senator Vandenberg asked if members of the General Assembly could not find justification under the phrase “powers and functions of organs” to talk about anything under the sun.

Mr. Dulles told Ambassador Gromyko that we had gone a long way, and that to him the phrase “within the sphere of action of the Organization” seemed the most acceptable. He commented that some of the purposes and principles of the Organization are, in a sense, academic, and when you limit discussion to the field of action of the Organization, you have reached the same point to which the Ambassador was willing to go. He observed that action can only be taken by an organ and thought that the distinction between “action” and “powers and functions of organs” was so slight that he really could not see the difference. He noted that the phrase “sphere of action” is classic and is League of Nations language. The members of the General Assembly are members of the Organization, so why should they not discuss anything within the sphere of action of the Organization.

Ambassador Gromyko asked if he were discussing action by the General Assembly. Mr. Dulles explained that he was referring to discussion by the General Assembly of matters within the sphere of action of the Organization, i.e., matters the Organization is charged to do something about and not academic principles.

Ambassador Gromyko asked what he meant by the action of the General Assembly—discussion and consideration? Mr. Dulles stated that the General Assembly had a number of functions, such as the establishment of the Economic and Social Council, the election of the nonpermanent members of the Security Council, etc.

Ambassador Gromyko replied that discussion, consideration and recommendation are all forms of action and asked how you can say “action within a sphere of action”. Mr. Dulles noted that the General Assembly could pass resolutions with respect to the Economic and Social Council, etc., and that therefore it must be able to discuss those matters since it could not act before discussion.

Ambassador Gromyko said that recommendation is action and that, therefore, you are saying “action within a sphere of action”. Mr. Dulles replied that the General Assembly must be able to discuss matters in an area in which it has an authority to make recommendations. Ambassador Gromyko observed that there were limits to the action of the Organization.

Mr. Stettinius asked for any further comments and then suggested that he request Ambassador Gromyko to call this group’s position to the urgent attention of his government, and ask his government to reconsider these three alternatives. Mr. Stettinius was confident that any one of them would carry the successful vote of the Conference; he thought that if the five powers did not agree to one of these three alternatives, the Conference would vote the original language passed by Committee II/2.⁵² He said that he personally would be willing to say this to Mr. Molotov. He added that this Technical Committee must meet by tomorrow night and, therefore, hope that we would know by then what position the five governments could take. Ambassador Gromyko replied that he was keeping his government constantly informed. Lord Halifax said that he hoped that Ambassador Gromyko’s government would realize the extreme difficulty of the situation from the point of view of the time schedule and the working of the Committee.

Mr. Stettinius then declared the meeting adjourned.

51. For the Australian proposal of May 5, see Doc. 2, G/14(1), UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 544; for the revised text of June 17, see Doc. 1060, EX/26, June 18, ibid., vol. 5, p. 533.
52. Doc. 686, II/2/34, May 30, UNCIO Documents, vol. 9, p. 109.