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 77

Minutes of the Seventy-Seventh Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Wednesday, June 20, 1945

San Francisco, June 20, 1945

[Informal Notes]

[Here follows list of names of persons (31) present at meeting.]

Senator Connally announced that the Secretary would not be present and he convened the meeting at 9:04 a.m.

Senator Connally asked Mr. Pasvolsky how the Coordination Committee was progressing, and the latter replied that he was dismayed by the number of inconsistent and unnecessary phrases that had been included. Representative Eaton declared that, as a plain citizen, he wanted to go on record as rejoicing that the United States had opposed Fascist Spain’s joining the democracies, such as Russia and the United States.⁵⁵

Status of the Committees

The Delegation next considered the status of the work of the various technical committees. All the technical committees had disposed of the controversial issues before them with the exception of Committee II/2, which still had to reach a decision on the power of the General Assembly to discuss matters within the sphere of international relations.⁵⁶ Dean Gildersleeve reported that Committee 1/1 had approved the section on the principles of the Organization and had finished all its business except the Preamble, which was being considered by the Coordination Committee. Mr. Hickerson observed that Representative Eaton had made a fine speech in his Committee on the previous day,⁵⁷ and The Representative declared that he had stolen it from the President of Johns Hopkins University.⁵⁸ Commander Stassen reported that Committee III/3 had concluded its deliberations on Chapter XII.⁵⁹ The question of the right of recourse by enemy states to the General Assembly and the Security Council had been settled by including in the report of the Committee a statement which had been drawn up and telephoned to the Pent House for approval during the course of the previous day’s meeting. The Rapporteur’s Report declared that enemy states should not have recourse to the Security Council or the General Assembly until the Security Council grants them the necessary power.⁶⁰ Commander Stassen reported further that Committee II/4 was scheduled to approve its Rapporteur’s Report that morning.⁶¹ Mr. Pasvolsky declared that he wanted to report a miracle. He said that Mr. Evatt had replaced the other Australian Delegate⁶² at a Coordination Committee meeting and had defended the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals against the changes made in Commander Stassen’s Committee with respect to the peaceful settlements of disputes.⁶³ It was agreed finally, that the words “shall if necessary” should be used. Mr. Pasvolsky thought that Mr. Evatt had displayed a great deal of nerve in attempting to have the Coordination Committee adopt a suggestion which had been defended [defeated?] both in the Technical Committee and in the Commission.

Mr. Pasvolsky declared that there were still some questions which would require careful consideration. For example, the appropriate committee had voted to restore the provision on expulsion but had not specified the procedure whereby a state could be expelled.⁶⁴ This, he said involved three committees. Commander Stassen expressed the opinion that the Committee had decided to adopt the original Dumbarton Oaks text, but Mr. Pasvolsky observed that it had not been thus presented to the Coordination Committee.⁶⁵ Commander Stassen agreed that this might have to be cleared up within the appropriate officers of the Technical Committee.

Mr. Pasvolsky declared that there was a great deal of unnecessary repetition in the Charter, and remarked that there were so many reference to “justice”, that “it was funny”. Mr. Pasvolsky reported that there would be a completed text available for the following morning’s meeting of the Delegation, and he thought that the Delegation could go over the entire Charter at that time. Mr. Sandifer reported that four chapters, Chapter I, III, X and XIII had already been distributed, and that Chapter V was being distributed that morning. There had also been distributed to the Delegation an unofficial compilation of committee texts which could be used for purposes of reference. There was also provided a cross-reference between the Committee text and the final Coordination Committee text. Mr. Sandifer declared that the remaining chapters would be distributed as they became available.

Trusteeship

Mr. Kane asked whether the report of the Trusteeship Committee was likely to be available before the meeting that morning, and Commander Stassen thought that the text would not be available until shortly before the meeting was to start. He suggested that Mr. Kane attend the meeting so that he would have ample opportunity to study the report. Mr. Kane asked whether Commander Stassen had been able to assist the Rapporteur in drafting his report. Commander Stassen declared that he would be able to assist the Rapporteur, and had endeavored to have a greater emphasis placed on Paragraphs 3, 4 and 6.

Senator Vandenberg asked what was the answer to Mr. Fraser’s statement concerning a commitment on the part of the United States to place territories under trusteeship. It was urged that Senator Vandenberg had given the correct reply when he declared to the press that it was his understanding that no commitments were involved in the Trusteeship chapter at that time. Commander Stassen declared that no commitment had ever been made. Mr. Rockefeller asked whether it had ever been planned to place all territories under trusteeship. Mr. Pasvolsky declared that there had never been any serious plans of this nature, although there had been some “wild” ideas concerning a complete trusteeship system. There had been, however, a plan to provide a complete reporting system as it had been incorporated in Section A of the Trusteeship chapter. However, this had nothing to do with the actual trusteeship system. Senator Vandenberg stated that apparently the plan referred to by Mr. Fraser must have been a private plan, but Mr. Pasvolsky reiterated that there had been no such commitment that he knew of. Representative Bloom thought that, in any event, such a plan could not have been revealed to Mr. Fraser, because it could not have been known that he was going to be the Chairman of Committee II/4.

Opium

Mr. Dulles observed that there had been an article in that morning’s edition of the San Francisco Examiner referring to a statement by Congressman Judd,⁶⁶ declaring that he had received no answer to his letter concerning the opium question. Dean Gildersleeve replied that she had sent an answer to Congressman Judd’s objection. It was proposed that this issue should be met by the Delegation in a public statement to the Press. Mr. Dunn agreed with this suggestion. Representative Bloom urged that the Delegation stay away from Congressman Judd, but Senator Vandenberg pointed out that the real issue was not merely an argument with the Congressman. Mr. Stevenson agreed that something should be done about the situation which was developing, and Mr. Dunn suggested that a statement should be made by the Delegation. Dean Gildersleeve observed that it might be difficult to prepare such a statement, in view of the fact that the Conference had actually not done anything about the problem of narcotics.⁶⁷ Senator Vandenberg observed that he had received a letter from a women’s group which was “shocked” that the United States had opposed the control of opium.

Mr. Dunn repeated that there should be a statement by the Delegation. Representative Eaton remarked that he too had received a letter expressing indignation over the fact that the United States had expressed opposition to the control of narcotics. Congressman Eaton declared that he had replied that whoever circulated that falsehood was an “unmitigated liar”.

Mr. Hackworth observed that the guiding spirit behind this movement was Mrs. Hamilton Wright, who was the wife of the man who had attended the first opium conference.⁶⁸ Commander Stassen thought that the statement to be issued by the Delegation should declare that it had been decided that the Charter would not include details of any kind. He asked whether a statement to this fact [effect?] had been included in the report of the Committee. Dean Gildersleeve replied that the declaration of United States’ policy on this question had been attached to the Rapporteur’s Report. This statement of policy expressed the United States’ interest in the problem and indicated a hope that the agencies dealing with narcotics would continue their work and would be brought into relation with the general organization. In the Report itself had been included a statement by the Committee expressing the hope that control of narcotics would be continued. Commander Stassen asked whether the Delegation would commission the Secretary to make a public statement on behalf of the Delegation. Mr. Dunn proposed that the statement should contain not only Dean Gildersleeve’s statement which had been attached to the report of Committee II/3, but an indication of support by the Delegation. Senator Vandenberg suggested that the Rapporteur’s Report should be quoted on this matter. Dean Gildersleeve observed that there was a weakness in the United States’ position. This difficulty was that there could be no explanation as to when and how the opium question could be brought into relation with the general organization. Mr. Dunn submitted that this difficulty could be surmounted by declaring that the United States would insist that such a relationship should be established at the appropriate time in the future. Senator Connally asked whether the Delegation would agree to have Mr. Stevenson prepare a statement which would be approved by Mr. Dunn, Dean Gildersleeve and Mr. Dulles. The Delegation agreed to this procedure.

The General Assembly’s Right to Discuss

Mr. Pasvolsky asked whether there were any new developments on the negotiations on this issue. Senator Connally declared that he was not at liberty to advise Mr. Pasvolsky on that matter. Mr. Pasvolsky asked whether agreement had been reached, and Senator Vandenberg replied in the negative, declaring that the major Powers and Australia were far from agreement on this matter. Senator Connally pointed out that the New York Times was in advance of the actual events, because it had indicated in that morning’s edition that substantial agreement had been achieved.

Mr. Pasvolsky asked who was opposed to accepting the language which had been agreed upon at the last meeting of the Big Five⁶⁹ and Australia, as follows:

“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.”

(Alternative wordings for “sphere of the Charter” were suggested as follows:

1. “Scope of the Charter”

2. “Sphere of the action of the Organization”).

Mr. Dunn replied that Ambassador Gromyko was unwilling to accept this language.

Senator Vandenberg declared that Mr. Evatt had indicated his willingness to accept any of the three alternatives proposed, and he had been very decent about the whole thing. Mr. Pasvolsky remarked that this paragraph was to be a complete article in the Chapter on the General Assembly. Senator Vandenberg thought that the major, powers would have to decide what their joint attitude would be if no answer was forthcoming from Moscow, or if the Russians were unable to accept the wording under consideration.

Mr. Pasvolsky asked whether the draft under consideration was not very similar to the wording which had been submitted by Foreign Minister Molotov. Mr. Dunn declared that he could not understand why Mr. Evatt was unwilling to accept the draft presented by the Russians,⁷⁰ which read as follows:

“The General Assembly has the right to discuss any questions or any matters within the sphere of the functions or powers covered by this Section, or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the Charter, and, except as provided for in paragraph 2 (B) of this section, to make recommendations to the members of the United Nations or to Security Council or both on any such questions or matters.”

Senator Vandenberg observed that this draft confined the right of discussion to “questions or any matters within the sphere of the functions or powers covered by this Section.” He wondered how the right of discussion could possibly be confined to the scope of one section. Mr. Pasvolsky asked what there could possibly be to talk about besides the sections mentioned in Molotov’s draft. Commander Stassen maintained the view that the wording should be broader, on the order of “discuss any questions or matters within the sphere of the functions or powers provided for in the Charter.” Commander Stassen asked whether the American representatives had spoken to any of the other smaller powers. He wondered specifically whether Mr. Evatt was the only representative of this point of view.

Mr. Pasvolsky observed that actually the entire paragraph was unnecessary in view of the fact that the General Assembly could talk about anything without specific authority. Senator Vandenberg asked why, if this were true, an attempt should be made to write in a limitation. Mr. Pasvolsky remarked that the small powers, in trying to insure this right on the part of the General Assembly by writing in specific authority, had weakened their own position.

Commander Stassen observed that it was important to remember that both sides of this question had already departed from their fixed positions. Mr. Pasvolsky remarked that the power of the General Assembly to discuss matters within the sphere of international relations could not be restricted inasmuch as all the international agencies would report to the General Assembly. Senator Vandenberg suggested that Mr. Pasvolsky should attempt to convince Committee II/2, which had already voted against a limitation on the authority of the General Assembly four times. Mr. Dulles observed that there was a practical matter involved. It was obvious, he said, that it would be impossible to stop a member of the General Assembly from bringing up any matter in which it was interested. However, there was no doubt, as a result of the discussions on the subject, that the proposal of the U.S.S.R. had a limiting purpose. The language submitted by Foreign Minister Molotov represented an effort to tie the Assembly directly to discussions of the functions and powers of the General Assembly itself and of the relation of the General Assembly to the powers and functions of the other organs of the Organization. This wording, Mr. Dulles remarked, left out the principles and purposes of the Organization which were not the functions of any agencies. There were, he declared, a great number of questions involving the member states which did not constitute specific functions of the agencies of the Organization. Ambassador Gromyko had expressed this desire when he had referred to the possibility that the General Assembly would discuss relations between Czechoslovakia and the U.S.S.R. It was the intention of the Soviet Delegation to preclude the possibility of the General Assembly’s considering the matter. Mr. Dulles declared that despite the practical difficulty involved in stopping a nation from undertaking any discussion desired, from a drafting standpoint the Russian draft provided that the General Assembly would have the right to discuss only matters within the sphere of that section and relating to other sections. However, the second part of this Russian draft limited the General Assembly to discussing the powers and functions of the other organs themselves, rather than any matter which might fall within the sphere of those powers and functions. Mr. Dulles declared that if this was a precise legal document he would not accept Foreign Minister Molotov’s suggestion. However, it would be impossible to limit discussion by any language. Mr. Dulles pointed out that Committee II/2 had already adopted a text which made the Soviet position somewhat more difficult. Mr. Dulles expressed the opinion that Mr. Evatt would make much the same points as he had in the discussion of the Soviet proposal.

Signing Ceremony

. . . . . . .

At this time, 9:45 a.m., Senator Connally, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Warren left the meeting.

Discussion by General Assembly

Senator Vandenberg observed that the chief difficulties involved in the Russian draft was the use of the word “section.” He urged that “Charter” would be more appropriate and could see no reason for confining discussion to that section. Mr. Pasvolsky agreed that this wording was not good but he pointed out that the word “section” could not possibly appear in the final Charter because of the organizational changes being made by the Coordinating Committee which were eliminating sections completely. Senator Vandenberg reiterated that in his opinion discussion should be permitted with respect to the entire Charter. He declared that it was very unsatisfactory to start off a definition of the right of free speech by confining that right to a single section. Senator Vandenberg declared that both he and Mr. Evatt would accept the other text, which had been prepared in the joint meeting. Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that in the next paragraph the right of the General Assembly to discuss any principle of the Organization was established. Mr. Pasvolsky said that if the article under discussion were not included in the Charter, the General Assembly would be much stronger. Commander Stassen remarked that it appeared as if Mr. Evatt was attempting to write in the Charter a substitute for Senator Vandenberg’s section. Mr. Pasvolsky declared that he would suggest omitting from the Russian draft the words “within the sphere of the functions and powers covered by this section, or”. He pointed out that the Russian objection to the more liberal phraseology probably arose out of a suspicion concerning the ends which Mr. Evatt was trying to accomplish. Mr. Pasvolsky reiterated that there would be no sections in the final Charter and therefore no importance whatsoever could be attached to the word “section.” However, Mr. Pasvolsky declared that the wording of the Molotov draft amounted in effect to saying “any organs provided for in the Charter.”

Dr. Bowman asked whether Mr. Pasvolsky had read the record of the previous day’s meeting in the Penthouse and Mr. Pasvolsky replied in the negative. Dr. Bowman remarked it was important to remember that on the previous day Ambassador Gromyko had made a statement on the subjects concerning which he wanted to have no discussion. The three categories he mentioned were immigration, treaties, and agreements.⁷¹ Dr. Bowman pointed out that to exclude a treaty from the scope of discussion of the General Assembly was to exclude the provisions of that treaty and its articles. Thus, parts of such agreements which were inconsistent with the objectives and principles of the Organization could not be discussed by the General Assembly under the draft proposed by Molotov. Mr. Dulles remarked that Mr. Manuilsky⁷² of the Ukrainian Delegation had told him that the Russians planned to consummate a series of treaties which they did not want to be discussed by the Organization. Mr. Pasvolsky observed that this aim of the Russians could not possibly be achieved in view of the fact that by signing the Charter they would accept the obligation that the Charter was the over-riding consideration in international relations and that no agreements inconsistent with it could be concluded. Mr. Dulles reiterated that there was a difference between referring to the Charter and referring to its organs. Dr. Bowman observed that the Russian rationalization was that it would be nonsensical to permit the Organization to talk about “anything at all.” It would have to talk about something specific and the Russians had attempted to define the sphere of discussion narrowly. Representative Bloom commented that Ambassador Gromyko had appeared to regret having outlined the three categories of questions which he did not want to be discussed by the General Assembly and he had tried to minimize the importance of his statement. Mr. Armstrong pointed out that Ambassador Gromyko had referred to “immigration” previously.

Mr. Pasvolsky declared that the Coordinating Committee would have to read every paragraph of the Charter to determine if the phraseology was consistent with the intent expressed in the Committee discussions. If the Coordinating Committee was not sure that the phraseology was consistent they would bring in the presidents of the Committees and the other appropriate officials. In this case, he pointed out that he himself did not know the intent of the paragraph. Dr. Bowman declared that a record of the discussion on the previous day would show what the Russians meant by this draft. Mr. Pasvolsky observed that Dr. Bowman’s statement brought up an important consideration. It had been decided, he declared, that the Organization could not be bound by individual interpretations. Therefore the Russian intention had no weight in the Conference. Dr. Bowman observed that by the same token, the individual interpretations of the United States would have no standing either. Commander Stassen asked whether it was not true that the Assembly was going to interpret those clauses of the Charter which defined its powers and Mr. Pasvolsky declared that this was certainly true.

. . . . . . .

The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 a.m.

55. Doc. 1167, I/10, June 23, UNCIO Documents, vol. 6, p. 135.
56. Doc. 1121, II/2/59, June 21, UNCIO Documents, vol. 9, p. 233.
57. Doc. 1167, 1/10, June 23, ibid., vol. 6, p. 117.
58. Isaiah Bowman.
59. Doc. 1113, III/3/52, June 20, UNCIO Documents, vol. 12, p. 568.
60. Doc. 1095, III/3/50, June 19, ibid., p. 560.
61. Doc. 1143, II/4/46, June 21, ibid., vol. 10, p. 601; Doc. 1115, II/4/44(1) (a), June 20, ibid., p. 607.
62. Paul Hasluck, Department of External Affairs; Adviser, delegation of Australia.
63. See WD 432, CO/196, August 27, UNCIO Documents, vol. 17, p. 246; see also Doc. 958, III/2/B/1, June 13, ibid., vol. 12, p. 259, and Doc. 992, III/2/27, June 15, ibid., p. 109, WD 429, CO/193, August 21, ibid., vol. 17, pp. 212–217, and WD 434, CO/198, August 31, ibid., pp. 267–268.
64. Doc. 1074, I/2/76, June 18, ibid., vol. 7, p. 293; the Committees involved were 1/2, II/2, and III/1.
65. Doc. WD 432, CO/196, August 27, UNCIO Documents, vol. 17, p. 243.
66. See minutes of the seventy-fifth meeting of the United States delegation, June 18, 9 a.m., p. 1339.
67. See Doc. 924, II/12, June 12, UNCIO Documents, vol. 8, pp. 81, 88–89, and 98–99.
68. For index to documents on the International Opium Conference (first) at The Hague, December 1, 1911–January 23, 1912, see Foreign Relations, General Index, 1900–1918, p. 316; for communication regarding the appointment of Hamilton Wright as a delegate of the United States, see Foreign Relations, 1911, p. 56.
69. Text presented by Secretary Stettinius at the twenty-seventh Five-Power meeting, June 19, 8:45 p.m., p. 1382.
70. Text presented by Ambassador Gromyko at the twenty-sixth Five-Power meeting, June 19, 5 p.m., p. 1377.
71. See minutes of the twenty-seventh Five-Power meeting, June 19, 8:45 p.m., p. 1382.
72. Dmitry Z. Manuilsky, Chairman of Delegation of Ukrainian Soviet Republic.