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 29

Minutes of the Twenty-Ninth Five-Power Informal Consultative Meeting on Proposed Amendments, Held at San Francisco, June 21, 1945, 12:35 p.m.

San Francisco, June 21, 1945, 12:35 p.m.

[Informal Notes]

[Here follows list of names of participants, including members of delegations of the United States (19); United Kingdom (4); Soviet Union (3); China (2); and France (3).]

Mr. Stettinius called the meeting to order at 12:35 p.m. and stated that there was a small matter to discuss before the meeting of the Executive Committee.⁷⁸ He indicated that considerable pressure had been evidenced to enlarge the membership of the Executive Committee of the Preparatory Commission⁷⁹ from 14 to 18 and that this matter required our consideration. He recalled that the Executive Committee of the Conference had been originally planned as a body of 11 members but because of the great pressures from many states with the consequent pulling and hauling, we had reluctantly agreed to increase the number to 14.

Mr. Stettinius questioned whether even an increase in the membership of the projected Executive Committee to 50 would really satisfy the smaller states. He asked where the pressure for this increase was coming from.

Ambassador Halifax replied that the Belgian delegate had sent him a letter, which he assumed had been received by the other delegations. Also, the Arab nations were interested in this increase.

Mr. Stettinius asked why there was a special interest in an increase of 4.

Mr. Hiss commented that Belgium requested specifically that the Executive Committee be composed of 18, one of the extra seats for Belgium.

Mr. Gerig noted that Belgium cited the parallel of the Economic and Social Council, rather than the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council being composed of 18 members.

Mr. Stettinius stated that the Preparatory Commission would meet only for a short time in London. He wondered whether the question of the size of the Executive Committee was really a very important matter, one way or the other.

Ambassador Halifax said he had wobbled on this matter, but that, after serious consideration, he now felt we should stand pat on the number 14. He believed it was the wisest thing to do for all of the Five Powers to stand on 14, since to go beyond this number would open up the door to all sorts of pressures.

Mr. Rockefeller pointed out that there was also a move on foot to cut the membership of the Executive Committee to 11.

Ambassador Gromyko agreed that it would be desirable to leave the Executive Committee membership at 14. He believed that if this number was increased to 18, there would still be dissatisfied countries. There was a good justification for the number 14, since the Executive Committee of the present Conference was composed of 14.

Ambassador Halifax remarked that the Executive Committee would only meet for six months, in any event.

Ambassador Gromyko commented that no one had objected to the number 14 before. In a sense, this was quite a representative number. All the continents were included—Asia, Africa, Europe, Australia. He said he was in favor of leaving the number unchanged.

Mr. Pasvolsky indicated that there was a provision⁸⁰ in the Preparatory Commission draft that as soon as the Charter was ratified the whole Preparatory Commission would meet. The Executive Committee would have its primary task during the interim period before the necessary number of ratifications had come in. He felt that the interim character of the Executive Committee was a strong argument against increasing its membership.

Ambassador Koo agreed that we should adhere to the present number especially since every state member of the Organization would be represented on the Preparatory Commission itself.

Mr. Boncour stated that the French Delegation, in view of its special relationship to Belgium felt that Belgium should be included on the Executive Committee. Belgium has [was?] a close neighbor and was linked to France in their common suffering. Mr. Boncour said the French Delegation would like to set the number so that Belgium could be included, but of course would abide by a decision of the heads of the other four delegations.

Mr. Stettinius said it would be difficult to handle the situation without encouraging other demands for increasing the Executive Committee. Mr. Boncour said he would not feel badly if the membership remained at fourteen. He said he had been too often a witness to the conflicts over the League Council not to appreciate the situation. Ambassador Halifax pointed out that it was important to have the decision on this matter a unanimous one among the Big Five.

Mr. Stettinius asked if there was any other business now that agreement had been reached on this issue.

Ambassador Gromyko said he would like to be informed of the agenda for the Executive Committee and the Steering Committee meetings. Mr. Stettinius replied that the final arrangements for the closing of the Conference would be under discussion in the Executive Committee. These arrangements would also be discussed in the Steering Committee⁸¹ where consideration also would be given to the draft of the Preparatory Commission and to a motion by the Netherlands Government to amend the Assembly chapter.⁸² Mr. Hiss explained that the Netherlands motion related to the provision that a member would lose its vote in the Assembly if it did not pay its dues over a certain period. The Netherlands Government wished to provide that such a member would also lose its seat on the Security Council. He pointed out that the Netherlands Government did not expect to get this amendment accepted.

Ambassador Gromyko said he had examined the paper on final arrangements which had been put before the Steering Committee at a previous meeting. He noted that mention was made there that the Five Powers had considered the possibility of choosing by ballot the other countries to make speeches at the final session. He said he had not remembered discussing this matter at any time. Mr. Hiss remarked that he thought this question had been discussed with Ambassador Gromyko.

Mr. Stettinius and Ambassador Halifax also thought the question had been raised with Ambassador Gromyko. Mr. Hiss apologized and said he hoped that Ambassador Gromyko would now consider that this question had been discussed with him. He said that the matter had been raised informally with a group here in the Secretary’s apartment of which he thought Ambassador Gromyko had been a member. In any event, he said it had been agreed that the ballot procedure would lead to confusion and might not result in a representative group.

Ambassador Gromyko asked what changes had been made between the June 11⁸³ and June 17 draft on interim arrangements. (The June 17 draft was before the group.) Mr. Hiss explained that only two changes had been suggested by the Soviet Government itself: the change from the word “designated” to “appointed” and the modification in paragraph (d) on the second page. Ambassador Gromyko then said that the draft as it stood was satisfactory to him.

Ambassador Gromyko stated that, since it was agreed to consult on all amendments, he wondered what the opinion of the group was on the Netherlands amendment.

Mr. Hiss said he thought it was appropriate to discuss this amendment at this time, although the Netherlands did not expect to have the amendment adopted. Mr. Jebb said it had already been pointed out to the Netherlands that this was an altogether undesirable amendment, since, if the permanent members could not vote, no decision could be taken on the most important matters and the work of the whole organization would be tied up.

Mr. Stettinius proposed that the five governments use their influence against the Netherlands amendment and hit hard if necessary. Ambassador Gromyko agreed that we should both vote and speak against the amendment. This decision was generally agreed to.

Ambassador Halifax proposed that the names of the permanent members on the Security Council in the draft charter be placed in alphabetical order. He pointed out that the phrase “in due course France” used in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals was now altogether inappropriate. He said it seemed appropriate to the British Delegation to mention the permanent members in alphabetical order and wondered how his colleagues felt. Mr. Stettinius said he thought Ambassador Halifax’ suggestion should be endorsed. Ambassador Gromyko and Ambassador Koo concurred. Mr. Boncour said he was very grateful.

Ambassador Halifax stated that Mr. Stettinius’ suggestion had been previously agreed to here that the Preparatory Commission should meet in London.⁸⁴ It was now planned that the Soviet Ambassador would propose London as the seat of the commission in the meeting of the Executive Committee. This motion would be seconded by Brazil. He expressed the hope that the others would speak up for this proposal in order to assure its adoption.

Ambassador Halifax indicated that there were several matters connected with the setting up of the Preparatory Commission which need not be talked over now but which should be thought about. Among these were the allocation of posts, the presidency of the whole commission, and the presidency of the Executive Committee. There were certain obvious alternatives that could be adopted in handling these questions. He wondered, however, when these matters would be settled. Ambassador Gromyko asked whether Ambassador Halifax had in mind the selection of a permanent president in the immediate future. Ambassador Halifax indicated that the permanent arrangements for the duration of the Preparatory Commission might be settled by the Preparatory Commission when it meets the day after the signing of the Charter. Since this was in the very near future he thought we should have a clear view of what we wanted. Mr. Stettinius said he had in mind that the United States representative might call the meeting to order as temporary chairman and at that time the other officers could be elected. Mr. Hiss agreed that the American representative might serve as temporary chairman to call the meeting to order. The first matter of business would then be the selection of a temporary chairman to function until the organization of the Executive Committee in London. There was also the necessity of choosing the executive secretary.

Ambassador Gromyko asked whether it was intended to choose the permanent executive secretary at this first meeting of the commission. Mr. Stettinius assumed that the permanent executive secretary would be elected. Ambassador Halifax said he was not quite sure; he thought that, if the Preparatory Commission was to have its headquarters in London, it would perhaps be necessary for the British Government to consider the naming of a secretary. He thought it would be wiser when the commission met here in San Francisco for the American Chairman of the Conference here and the Secretary General to carry on until permanent arrangements could be made in London. Ambassador Gromyko agreed that it might be well to use the present arrangements for this first meeting.

Ambassador Halifax said he would like to move that his American friends carry on for the first meeting, an arrangement which would not prejudice future arrangements. Ambassador Gromyko indicated that, since the Executive Committee would not meet here, presumably the chairman of the Executive Committee would be elected in London when the Executive Committee met there.

Mr. Bloom asked who would act between the meeting here in San Francisco and the first meeting in London. Mr. Stettinius replied that the Chairman of the Conference here would act as chairman pro tern until London. Ambassador Halifax agreed with Mr. Stettinius’ interpretation.

Ambassador Gromyko asked whether the Preparatory Commission and the Executive Committee would both be considered in permanent session. Mr. Stettinius replied that only the Executive Committee would be in permanent session. The Preparatory Commission would meet here in San Francisco and the Executive Committee would meet very soon thereafter in London. The full commission would meet again only when the proper number of ratifications were in.⁸⁵

Mr. Stettinius adjourned the meeting at 12:05 p.m.

78. Doc. 1214, EX/30, June 28, UNCIO Documents, vol. 5, p. 550.
79. For preliminary draft on Interim Arrangements, see Doc. 1026, ST/15, June 17, ibid., p. 280.
80. Paragraph 6; UNCIO Documents, vol. 5, p. 281.
81. Doc. 1212, ST/22, June 28, UNCIO Documents, vol. 5, p. 288.
82. Doc. 1133, ST/19, June 21, ibid., p. 286. This subject was not discussed at the June 21 meeting of the Steering Committee; it was withdrawn from the agenda (Stettinius Diary, June 21, p. 2). For consideration at meetings of Committee II/1 on May 18 and 26, see Doc. 454, II/1/21, May 20, and Doc. 631, II/1/30, May 26, ibid., vol. 8, pp. 364 and 418, respectively; for consideration at meeting of Committee III/1 on June 16, see Doc. 1048, III/1/57, ibid., vol. 11, p. 596.
83. Doc. 902, EX/23, June 11, UNCIO Documents, vol. 5, p. 514.
84. See minutes of the fifteenth Five-Power meeting, June 4, noon, p. 1145.
85. See report by the Rapporteur of the Steering Committee to the Plenary Session, June 25, concerning provisions for the establishment of the Preparatory Commission (Doc. 1193, ST/20, June 25, UNCIO Documents, vol. 5, p. 315; Doc. 1210, P/20, June 27, ibid., vol. 1, p. 627).