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 78

Minutes of the Seventy-Eighth Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Saturday, June 23, 1945, 10:36 a.m.

San Francisco, June 23, 1945, 10:36 a.m.

[Informal Notes—Extracts]

[Here follows list of names of persons (41) present at meeting.]

The Secretary convened the meeting at 10:36 a.m.

The Secretary declared that he was sure that the Delegation would be gratified to learn that the U.S.S.R., the United Kingdom, and the United States had reached a solution for the Polish situation, that a new Government had been formed of which Mr. Mikolajczyk would be a member.⁸⁶ The Secretary thought that the new Polish Government would become a signatory to the Charter in the near future although there was little possibility of the Poles becoming parties to the Organization before the conclusion of the Conference. A place would be reserved for the signature of the Poles he declared.

Program for Receiving the President

. . . . . . .

Final Commission Sessions

The Secretary reported that as a result of negotiations among the four Presidents it had been agreed to dispense with the final Commission sessions to review the Charter. The Steering Committee would conduct the final review of the texts as prepared by the Coordination Committee.⁸⁷

Report to the President

The Secretary asked Dr. Bowman whether he had anything to report on the status of the report that was being made to the President.⁸⁸… The report would be finally ready on either the Saturday or Sunday following the final session of the Conference.…

Senator Connally declared that he would not favor release of this document until the President had submitted both the Charter and the report to Congress.⁸⁹ Dr. Bowman declared that the President had been consulted and a representative of the President had sat at the final meeting of the Editorial Board. The President had been most pleased that the report would be ready so soon and he had left the question of its release to the Secretary.… The report, The Secretary said, should be released 48 hours after the President’s message to Congress and his submission to the Senate of the Charter.⁹⁰…

Coordination Committee Text

The Chairman reported that the Delegation had met for the primary purpose of giving a careful reading to the Charter.⁹¹…

. . . . . . .

… Commander Stassen declared that the important thing for the Delegation at that time was to consider the changes which had been made by the Coordination Committee during its meeting the previous night.…

Ceremony at Noon

. . . . . . .

Charter Changes

Mr. Pasvolsky reported that there had been no change in the first Chapter of the document on the previous evening. It had been decided to delete the third paragraph of Chapter II, Article 4 as being unnecessary. In Chapter III, the Trusteeship Council had been added to the organs of the organization in the first paragraph. This paragraph now read:

“… a General Assembly, a Security Council, an Economic and Social Council, a Trusteeship Council, an International Court of Justice, and a Secretariat.”

Mr. Pasvolsky reported that it had been suggested, with respect to Article 8 of this Chapter that the last phrase be revised to read: “in the work of the principal and subsidiary organs”. However it had been decided that the word “its” should be substituted for “the” in this paragraph. It had been decided to revise the last sentence of paragraph 2 of Article 12 to read: “any such question…”.

A question had been raised, with respect to Article 13, concerning the verb in the first paragraph. Mr. Pasvolsky thought that the Technical Committee had intended that the word “may” be used and he pointed out that the wording in the section on Economic and Social Council was “may”. Mr. Pasvolsky observed that it would be impossible to obligate the General Assembly to make recommendations as provided for in the draft before the Delegation. The Coordination Committee had not changed the wording, however, and had left the decision to the Steering Committee. The Secretary asked what objection there was to the use of the word “shall” and Mr. Dulles expressed the opinion that “shall” was more satisfactory. Mr. Pasvolsky reiterated that the General Assembly should not be obligated to make recommendations. Mr. Hickerson suggested the words “shall, at its discretion, make recommendation”. The Secretary announced that he would vote in the Steering Committee for the word “shall” unless the Delegation instructed him otherwise. Mr. Dulles remarked that this was not a mere question of semantics but was an important constitutional consideration. Mr. Pasvolsky remarked that the word “may” was used uniformly throughout the document.

Mr. Pasvolsky reported that no agreement had been reached on another question. It had been suggested that the word “nations” in Article 14 be changed to “states”. Senator Vandenberg declared that this was the paragraph which had been routed back and forth between Moscow and San Francisco.

The Secretary asked what the decision of the Delegation had been with respect to the use of the word “shall” in Article 13. Mr. Pasvolsky observed that “shall” would stick out like a sore thumb in the Charter and Senator Vandenberg thought that it should be obvious. The Secretary declared that he would vote in favor of the word “shall.” Senator Vandenberg asked what had been the decision with respect to Article 14 and Mr. Pasvolsky declared that it had been sent to the Steering Committee. Senator Vandenberg asked which nations were supporting the change and Mr. Pasvolsky reported that there were about ten states which favored the substitution. Mr. Dulles pointed out that in the Chapter on “Purposes” the word used was “nations” and he expressed the opinion that this article should be consistent with the Purposes. Mr. Pasvolsky reported that the Coordination Committee had been forced to make changes in other places in the document. Mr. Hackworth observed that “nations” was a broader word than “States”. Senator Connally asked whether the delegation was agreed to the word “nations” and it was decided that the Secretary should vote in favor of the original language.

Mr. Pasvolsky reported that the Coordination Committee had decided to substitute the words “decided upon or taken” for “adopted or applied” in Article 15.

The Secretary asked how many items had been referred to the Steering Committee and Mr. Pasvolsky reported that there had been three or four. The most important of these had been the use of the enumerative phrases “problems of an economic, social, cultural and humanitarian character and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for the fundamental freedom for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion”. The first part of this phrase had appeared eleven times in the Charter and had been reduced to six by the Coordination Committee. No two of these six Mr. Dulles declared, were exactly alike. The same had been true of the second part of the phrase which appeared six or seven times in the Charter. Mr. Dulles observed that this was a ridiculous situation but that the Coordination Committee had not taken any liberties but had referred the matter to the Steering Committee. Mr. Pasvolsky reported that Senator Rolin of Belgium had indicated his desire to speak on the subject in the Steering Committee to the effect that one mention of these items would be sufficient. Mr. Pasvolsky declared that in his opinion Senator Rolin was correct. Pie pointed out that in the Trusteeship chapter the order had been reversed and the phraseology used was “social and economic”. Commander Stassen represented that it would be unwise to adopt one wording without examining carefully the mandates of the various Technical Committees. The Secretary declared that he would want a memorandum from the staff stating the sentiment of the Delegation on the various questions decided that morning so that he would know how to vote at the Steering Committee meeting.

Mr. Pasvolsky reported that the Coordination Committee had decided to rewrite Article 16 as follows:

“The General Assembly shall perform such functions with respect to the International Trusteeship system as are assigned to it under Chapters 12 and 13, including the approval of Trusteeship agreements for areas not designated as strategic”.

The Delegation agreed to this new wording.

Mr. Pasvolsky reported that the section on voting had been rearranged. An interesting situation had developed with respect to the heading “Primary Responsibility” in Chapter 5 on the Security Council. Elsewhere in the document the analogous heading had been “functions and powers”. This matter was related to the compromise which had been reached on Article 11 concerning the right of the General Assembly to discuss the questions within the scope of international relations. The Russian representative had urged that the heading in Chapter 5 be changed to: “functions and powers” in order that there might be no question involved. Commander Stassen thought that this suggestion was no longer applicable inasmuch as it had been agreed to adopt the words “the scope of the Charter” in Article 11. Mr. Dulles said that it had been the desire of the Russian delegate to tie this heading in with the technical chapters which had “functions and powers” as their headings. Mr. Pasvolsky declared that the Coordination Committee had decided to make a change as suggested by the Russian Delegate.

Mr. Pasvolsky then remarked that the order had been changed in Article 23.

Mr. Pasvolsky reported that the Coordination Committee had not changed the Yalta Formula in Articles 33 and 34. However, the words “without vote” had been added in both articles following the word “participate”. Mr. Pasvolsky explained that the word “state” had been interpreted universally throughout the document as meaning any state, whether or not a member of the Organization.

Mr. Notter asked whether it had been settled that the word “the” preceding “United Nations” should not be capitalized in the title of the Organization. Mr. Pasvolsky remarked that this had not been settled and was going to be considered by the Steering Committee.

Mr. Pasvolsky reported that there had been a great deal of discussion on Article 38. The Australian Delegate had asked whether the General Assembly actually had the power to discuss “any dispute or any situation”. The Australian wanted to make reference in Article 38 to all the Articles describing the powers of the General Assembly. As a result it had been decided to omit “which will act in accordance with the provisions of Articles 12 and 12(x)”, from Paragraph 1 of this Article. It was decided also to add a third paragraph as follows:

“Proceedings of the General Assembly with respect to matters brought to its attention under this Article will be subject to the provisions of Article 12”.

Mr. Pasvolsky remarked that the General Assembly did have the necessary power. Mr. Dulles added that the wording of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals had been changed in paragraph 2 with the result that a State not a member of the United Nations could bring to the attention of the Security Council or the General Assembly only a dispute and could not submit a situation to this body. This, Mr. Dulles remarked had been done intentionally in the Technical Committee but he urged that it would have the effect of placing a premium on the creation of disputes.

Mr. Pasvolsky remarked that it had been decided to use the combinations “Pacific settlement” and “Peaceful means” throughout the Charter.

Mr. Pasvolsky reported that a question had been raised with respect to the phraseology of paragraph 3 of Article 51. The Coordination Committee had decided to return to the wording of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposal so that the paragraph now ended: “the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently”. The military advisers to the Delegation declared that this change was satisfactory to them. Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that the word “appropriate” had been used to qualify “regional agencies” in paragraph 4 of this article. The Latin American States had been satisfied with this change.

Mr. Pasvolsky observed that the French had expressed a desire to establish Article 55 as a complete Chapter by itself. However, it had been agreed in the Coordination Committee to place the Article where it had originally been intended, at the end of Chapter VII. The Article had been revised somewhat to read at the end: “such action as it deems necessary …”

Mr. Pasvolsky then referred to the article which was numbered 55 in Chapter VIII. The first Article 55, in Chapter VII, would become Article 51 in the final Charter, and the article under consideration would become article 52. Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that the Delegation should be satisfied with the fact that two paragraphs had been made out of paragraphs one and two. The word “shall” had been substituted for “should” in paragraph 3 of this article.

The Delegation turned next to a consideration of a definition of “enemy states” embodied in paragraph 2 of Article 56. Mr. Pasvolsky declared that this article had been the cause of considerable discussion in the Coordination Committee and the final wording had been worked out by the Committee of Jurists. In paragraph 1 the word “regional” had been included before the word “arrangements” in the first sentence. Mr. Kane pointed out that the words “enemy state” had been substituted for “enemy states” in the second sentence of this paragraph, and Mr. Pasvolsky replied that the Committee of Jurists had suggested the use of this phraseology. Senator Connally agreed that this new wording was more appropriate and thought that it should be made possible for measures to be taken against either one State or a number of States. Mr. Pasvolsky added that there was a further advantage that these measures could be withdrawn individually under the new wording.

The Secretary interrupted to announce that the meeting of the Steering Committee had been set definitely for 6 p.m.

Plans for Address by Marshal Smuts

Senator Connally reported that arrangements had been made in Washington for Marshal Smuts to address Congress during his visit to Washington on July 2 or thereabouts.⁹²… Mr. Hiss reported that the time for the Steering Committee meeting had been advanced one hour to 5 p.m. because an hour had been cut off the delivery schedule. At this time, 11:45 a.m. Secretary Stettinius left the meeting.

Preamble

Dean Gildersleeve asked why the text of the Preamble had been kept secret, to which Mr. Pasvolsky replied that it had been decided not to consider the Preamble until the rest of the Charter had been completed.

Coordination Committee Draft

The Delegation turned again to Article 56 of the Charter, the definition of “enemy states”. Mr. Hickerson thought that instead of the use of the word “enemy” toward the end of the second paragraph of Article 56 it might be appropriate to use phraseology such as “any state which has declared war against any signatory of the present Charter”. Commander Stassen agreed with Mr. Hickerson and observed that the present wording was too broad. He suggested that the words “in a state of war” be used. Mr. Hickerson remarked that the present wording was very broad and was subject to misinterpretation and he pointed to the fact that the U.S.S.R. had on several occasions referred to Switzerland and Portugal as “enemies” because they had been centers of enemy espionage. Senator Connally asked whether the word “enemy” was not a well known designation having a specific definition in the parlance of international law. Mr. Hackworth declared that this interpretation was correct and added that it was possible for a state to be an enemy of another state without declaring war on it. Senator Vandenberg asked whether it was thought the Delegation would want the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 56 to be applicable to any state which might be termed an “enemy state” by the Soviet Union. Commander Stassen reiterated that the phrase “in a state of war” would resolve the difficulty. Mr. Pasvolsky observed that perhaps this suggestion would give rise to a long discussion and Mr. Pasvolsky declared that in his opinion it would not be worth the trouble. Commander Stassen declared that in his opinion the definition embodied in paragraph 2 should be omitted completely. Mr. Pasvolsky replied that it had been decided to establish a separate definition because to attempt to clarify the use of the words “enemy state” in paragraph 1 would have the result of making the entire paragraph incomprehensible.

Mr. Dulles declared that it had been his interpretation that it was intended to tighten down on the treaty system established by the U.S.S.R., in this paragraph in conjunction with the transitory clause, Article 80 under the present draft. It had been the intention, Mr. Dulles thought, to limit the freedom of action of the responsible states under the transitory provisions as much as possible in order that Russia could not take action against Spain or Switzerland. Senator Connally asked whether the addition of paragraph 2 to the draft prepared by the Technical Committee was a substantive change. Mr. Dulles submitted that there was a substantive change involved which had been made without adequate authorization. Mr. Pasvolsky declared, however, that there was no substantive change because the language used was the same as that which had been approved for article 80. Mr. Dulles pointed out, however, that in article 80 of Chapter 14, “enemy state” was qualified by the words “taken or authorized as a result of that war by the governments having responsibility for such action”. Mr. Dulles pointed to the importance of the words “as a result of that war” and declared that since this phrase did not appear in article 56 a free hand would be given to any nation which so desired to claim that Spain or Switzerland were “enemy states” under the terms of the article. Senator Connally was of the opinion that it would be impossible to substantiate any such claim and he declared that the other members of the Security Council would not permit such an arbitrary definition. Mr. Dulles remarked, however, that no action of the Security Council would be required for the enforcement measures against former enemy states to be undertaken. Mr. Pasvolsky submitted that the Security Council would have to determine if any such action were consistent with the obligations and purposes of the Charter and he urged that the other members of the Security Council would be given the opportunity to pass upon the enforcement measures taken under the circumstances.

Mr. Pasvolsky reported that he had received no suggestions from the members of the Delegation on these points although he had received any number of suggestions on the other parts of the Charter. This draft had been gone over by the Advisory Committee of Jurists and it had been agreed that the wording did not involve any change in substance and was, in fact, the only way in which the sense of the technical committee discussions could be expressed. Senator Connally stated himself as favoring this wording. Mr. Pasvolsky re-marked that the Russians had never said that Spain or Switzerland were enemies.

Mr. Dulles declared that the reference to article 80 in the first paragraph of article 56 was ended by the use of the words “or any regional arrangements directed against …”. Mr. Dulles admitted that he had not made any recommendations on this section but he declared that he had been working on some ideas and had been doing research on the question of Russia’s attitude toward Spain and Switzerland, with specific reference to Russian use of the term “enemy” with respect to the two nations. Mr. Dulles observed also that the question of Denmark might conceivably be raised in this connection. Mr. Hackworth expressed the opinion that Denmark could not possibly be named as an enemy state and added that an enemy would have to have participated in the war to be so classified. Commander Stassen asked if it were not true that Denmark had signed the Anti-Comintern pact⁹⁴ and it was admitted that this was true. However, Mr. Pasvolsky observed that the exception embodied in the second sentence of paragraph 1 of article 56 would not apply to members of the United Nations. Mr. Pasvolsky referred to the use of the words “sovereign equality” earlier in the Charter and declared that it was inconceivable that a member of the United Nations could be classed as an enemy state. Mr. Hackworth remarked that Article 56 referred specifically to article 80. Commander Stassen urged that there be included in paragraph 2 the words “not a member of the United Nations”. Mr. Pasvolsky observed that the inclusion of these words would not remedy the situation with respect to Switzerland and Spain. However, Commander Stassen urged that the wording he had suggested would constitute a decided improvement. He declared that in his opinion it would be better to omit the definition entirely or to use the words “in a state of war”. Mr. Dulles observed that the word “enemy” was subject to loose construction and often used very freely. Mr. Sandifer declared that the meaning of “enemy” in the paragraph under consideration was quite precise.

Senator Connally expressed the fear that the Delegation would run into difficulty with the French if it attempted to modify article 56. However, Mr. Dulles pointed out that paragraph 2 was entirely new and the French had no great interest in it. Mr. Pasvolsky objected to part of Mr. Dulles’ statement, declaring that the Technical Committee had asked the Coordination Committee to rewrite the paragraph and to find a proper way of expressing a definition of “enemy”. Commander Stassen thought the Coordination Committee had been authorized to take this action only with respect to Article 80 but Mr. Pasvolsky declared that the Coordination Committee had received authorization with respect to Article 56 as well. Mr. Pasvolsky declared that he knew what his authority was. Commander Stassen declared that if Mr. Pasvolsky could show his specific authorization by the Technical Committee to write a definition of “enemy states” in Article 56 he would raise no further objection. Admiral Hepburn interposed that in military parlance “enemy states” indicated a state of war. Mr. Dulles asked whether it would be possible to drop paragraph 2 entirely and Senator Connally asked what effect such a decision would have. Commander Stassen asked whether the word “enemy” had a recognized meaning which would limit its application under Article 56. Mr. Dulles replied that under the Anglo Saxon code of jurisprudence it did have such a meaning. He remarked, however, that the Russians had used the term loosely as applying not only to political action but to social action as well. Mr. Notter added that the Russians had also interpreted the word as having application to individuals as well as to states. Senator Connally declared that he could not understand how the contention which had been advanced could possibly be applicable. This article, he said, was directed against the renewal of aggressive action by those states which had been the enemies of the United Nations during the war. Senator Connally declared that he accepted Admiral Hepburn’s statement concerning the meaning of the term “enemy states”. He expressed the opinion that as it was used in this article the phrase had a definitive meaning. Mr. Dulles asked whether it would not be possible that Spain could be included in this category because of the fact that a division of Spanish troops had been employed on the Eastern front in the war against Russia. Mr. Hackworth pointed out that this contention could hardly be supported in view of the fact that there had been thousands of United States soldiers engaged in the First World War against Germany before the United States ever entered the war without this country being classified as an enemy of the Central Powers. Senator Connally asked whether the United States would not have a veto over the application of measures under article 56. Mr. Dulles replied in the negative and said this article gave complete freedom of action to the responsible powers under article 80. Senator Connally thought that the enemy states might be defined as “aggressors during the Second World War”. Mr. Kane supported Commander Stassen’s suggestion that the words “in a state of war” be substituted for the present wording. Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that the original wording had been “enemy states” and submitted that the wording adopted in paragraph 2 was not in any way different from the earlier wording. Another phrase which had been suggested was “aggression by a state now at war with the United Nations”. Commander Stassen urged that the substitution of the word “in” for “during” in paragraph 2 would establish the action rather than the time limit as the primary factor. In that way the definition could be related to the act of war rather than the period of the war. Mr. Pasvolsky observed that the language presented by the Technical Committee had been “enemy states in this war” and asked whether the Delegation would be satisfied if the equivalent wording which had been adopted for paragraph 2 were to be moved up into paragraph 1. Commander Stassen said he would be satisfied with the substitution of the word “in” for “during”. Senator Vandenberg asked why it was necessary to change the wording at all and Mr. Pasvolsky replied that the Coordination Committee had been asked by the Technical Committee to find suitable expression for the idea implied. Mr. Dulles observed that this authorization applied only to Chapter XII, paragraph 2 of the draft of the Technical Committee. Commander Stassen thought that the difficulty might be met by substituting the words “in the Second World War” for “this war” in the original Technical Committee draft. Mr. Dulles observed that the present wording of article 56 broke the chain which had been established with article 80. Mr. Pasvolsky did not agree with this and pointed to the fact that the language of the two articles was the same. However, Commander Stassen observed that the wording was tied down in article 80 by the use of the phrase “as a result of that War”. Mr. Armstrong asked whether Spain could not be considered as an enemy by Russia even under the language of Article 80 and Mr. Pasvolsky replied in the negative. He declared that it was of course possible for any word to be misinterpreted. Senator Connally thought that to attempt to change the wording at that late date would be to create trouble. Senator Vandenberg submitted that since the need for changing the language arose out of the necessity for defining “enemy states” the best solution would be to adopt the original Technical Committee wording with the addition of a suitable definition. Admiral Hepburn expressed the opinion that the language of this article placed enforcement measures on the same terms as regional arrangements. Mr. Dulles remarked that a loose definition was being substituted for one which had been more precise.

Mr. Pasvolsky asked whether the Delegation would be satisfied if the language of the first paragraph of article 56 were to be changed to read as follows:

“… with the exception of measures against enemy states in the Second World War provided for pursuant to article 80 . . . .”

This would require deleting paragraph 2 entirely. Commander Stassen declared that he would be satisfied with this solution and Senator Vandenberg declared himself to be in agreement also. He observed that this met completely the authorization to define the words “enemy states in this war”. Mr. Pasvolsky declared that the wording to which the Delegation had just agreed was precisely the same in substance as the language of articles 56 and 57 as they had been presented to the Delegation.

Mr. Pasvolsky turned next to the changes which the Coordination Committee had made in the sections on the Economic and Social Council.

In Article 60 the word “such” had been substituted for “specialized” in paragraph 2.

In Article 62 the word “agency” had been made plural.

The words “for all” had been added at the end of paragraph 2 of article 64.

With respect to article 65 doubt had been expressed concerning the wording “approved by the General Assembly”. Consequently it had been decided to revise the paragraph to read as follows:

“1. The Economic and Social Council may enter into agreements with any of the agencies referred to in article 60, defining the terms under which the agencies concerned shall be brought into relationship with the United Nations. Such agreements shall be subject to approval by the General Council”.

In Article 66 the word “may” had been substituted for the words “is; authorized to” in both places where the later phraseology appeared. The end of paragraph 1 of this article was revised to read “and recommendations on matters falling within its competence made by the General Assembly”.

Article 68, paragraph 3 had been revised to read:

“It shall perform such other functions as are specified elsewhere in the present Charter or as may be assigned to it by the General Assembly.”

Mr. Pasvolsky then directed attention to the Chapter on the Secretariat. In Article 69 it was thought that the enacting nature of the phraseology was not necessary and the beginning of the article was revised to read: “The Secretariat shall comprise …” instead of “There will be established a Secretariat comprising …”

The words “be responsible only to the organization. They shall” were deleted from Article 72 and the first two sentences were joined together to form one sentence as follows:

1. “In the performance of their duties the Secretary-General and the staff shall not seek or receive instructions for [from?] any Government or from any other authority external to the Organization.”

There was added to the end of paragraph 1 the phrase “who are responsible only to the Organization”.

Mr. Pasvolsky reported that it had been decided to eliminate, in the sections dealing with the various organs of the Organization, the reference to the technical staffs of these organs and to make provision for all such staffs in paragraph 2 of Article 73. A new sentence,. “These staffs shall form a part of the Secretariat” had been added by the Coordination Committee to the draft which was before the Delegation.

Mr. Pasvolsky next considered the changes which had been made in Chapter XII on Trusteeship. The word “Declaration” had been substituted for “Policy” in the title of the Chapter. Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that three chapters had been created on the subject of dependent territories.

The Coordination Committee had substituted the words “when and where appropriate” for the single word “appropriate” in part (d) of Article 73. This clause now read:

(d) to promote constructive measures of development, to encourage research, and to cooperate with one another and when and where: appropriate with international bodies with a view to the practical achievement of the social, economic, and scientific purposes set forth in this paragraph”.

Mr. Dulles asked whether the titles of the chapters had any binding nature and there was general agreement that the headings were not legal instruments. Mr. Dulles asked further whether there had been any statement in the report of Committee II/4⁹⁶ which clarified the meaning of the phrase “metropolitan area”. Dr. Bowman declared that this was a standard technical term which was used in all languages. Mr. Dulles declared that his question was directed toward determining whether the French could exempt Algiers, for example, from the scope of Chapter XII on the grounds that it was a metropolitan area and Dr. Bowman observed that Algiers was a Department of France and that it was a part of metropolitan France. Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that the Spanish had developed a plan for incorporating Morocco as a part of their metropolitan area and it was remarked also that the Dutch and the French had been promoting similar schemes to avoid classification of some of the areas under their jurisdiction as dependent. Mr. Dulles asked whether Alaska and Hawaii would fall under the scope of the provisions of Chapter XII especially the reporting functions provided for in part (e) of article 73. Dr. Bowman replied to this question in the negative but Senator Vandenberg declared that there seemed to be a difference of opinion on the matter. Commander Stassen observed that it made no difference whether Alaska fell under this Chapter because of the fact that the United States had been in the habit of publishing periodic reports on the conditions in Alaska and Hawaii anyway. Mr. Dulles suggested that the question would be asked by the Senate and he thought it was important that the various members of the Delegation get together to prepare a uniform answer. Mr. Bowman pointed out that the same difficulty would arise no matter what language was used. This was true, he declared, because of the variety of relationships which existed between metropolitan states and various parts of their territorial possessions. “Metropolitan area” he declared was a descriptive term and was widely accepted. Mr. Dulles urged that the Delegation agree on an answer to the question as to whether Hawaii and Alaska would come under the terms of Chapter 12. Senator Vandenberg remarked that he himself would say that Hawaii and Alaska would not come under this Chapter. Dr. Bowman reiterated that the word “metropolitan” was in general use and had arisen out of the need for finding a word other than “homeland”, or “home country”, which was not universally applicable. Senator Connally asked to whom the United States would report on the conditions prevailing in Hawaii and Alaska and Mr. Dulles replied that the reports would be made to the Secretary-General of the Organization. He pointed out that Chapter XII referred to areas which were not fully self-governing and did not depend on the trusteeship system which was set up in subsequent chapters. Commander Stassen pointed out that part (e) of Article 72 [73] referred only to statistical information which did not compromise the security or constitutional requirements of the nations in question. Commander Stassen submitted that, although the United States made information on the territories under its jurisdiction available regularly, there were a number of dependent areas about which no information whatsoever was available. Commander Stassen submitted that it would be “a wholesome situation” to obtain figures and information on these areas for purposes of information and reference only. Senator Vandenberg declared that in his mind the whole Chapter was not worth the trouble it had taken if it implied any jurisdiction by the Organization, no matter how remote, over Hawaii and Alaska. Mr. Kane declared that the Navy had been calling this question to the attention of the Secretary for some time. The Navy, he said, had reservations to make concerning Alaska, Guam, Hawaii and Samoa. Mr. Kane observed that the Navy Department was not concerned about jurisdiction over Hawaii and Alaska but he urged that these two territories should fall under the scope of Chapter XII. The Department of Interior, he said, had announced its intention to submit reports to the Organization on conditions within these territories. Mr. Kane remarked that there were no security considerations whatsoever with respect to these areas and he declared that this was the first time that he had ever heard mentioned the possibility that the reporting function under Chapter XII would not apply to Hawaii and Alaska. Mr. Kane asked Dr. Bowman what arguments he had to offer to substantiate his unusual position. Mr. Hackworth pointed out that Hawaii and Alaska were “incorporated” territories as a result of Congressional action and Senator Connally submitted that certainly these areas could not be classified as ordinary colonies. Mr. Dulles reiterated that no matter what the decision was on this matter there should be agreement among the various members of the Delegation. Commander Stassen declared that this was not a matter which was involved in the Charter. He observed that the United States should make information on these territories available to the Secretary-General of the Organization, not so much because of benefits which might be derived by the territories themselves, but in order to set a precedent which would be followed by other administering powers throughout the world. Commander Stassen pointed out that if the United States were to attempt to exempt these territories from the scope of the reporting function under Article 72 [73] there would be little likelihood of other nations submitting reports on territories under their jurisdiction. Senator Vandenberg declared that he was opposed to any admission that the Organization would have jurisdiction over Hawaii, Alaska, or the District of Columbia. Admiral Hepburn pointed out that the language now before the Delegation had been weakened since the first draft.⁹⁷ In the original draft there had been an “undertaking” on the part of the States having responsibilities for the administration of the dependent territories to submit reports. Under the latest draft they merely accepted “as a sacred trust” the obligations to submit such reports. Dean Gildersleeve declared that it seemed quite obvious to her that the United States should accept this responsibility with respect to the two territories under discussion. Mr. Armstrong asked whether Dean Gildersleeve had been reading the San Francisco Examiner recently. That paper, he said, had been running columns on this very question. Commander Stassen expressed the hope that national policy would not be decided on the basis of columns or editorials run in the San Francisco Examiner or the Chicago Tribune. Mr. Kane expressed the opinion that in any event the position of the Delegation on this matter should be made clear. Commander Stassen observed that the furnishing of reports to the Secretary-General was a voluntary matter but Commander Stassen was strongly in favor of the United States submitting such reports. Senator Vandenberg admitted that if the obligation was only a voluntary one, no jurisdiction would be established by the Organization over the territories in question. Dr. Bowman thought that the matter might be cleared up somewhat if it were to be understood that the decision on this matter would have to be made by the United States Government, but could not be written in as an interpretation of the article. Mr. Dulles wondered what latitude there could be for a signatory power in view of the obligation to “accept as a sacred trust”. Dr. Bowman pointed out however that there was a reference in article 74 to “the territories to which this Chapter applies”. Dr. Bowman declared that he took the position that this Chapter did not apply to Hawaii and Alaska. Mr. Notter urged that traditionally the territories of the United States had been considered as states and had been assimilated to the metropolitan area for some purposes. Dr. Bowman declared that there would be no difficulty involved with the Congress on this paragraph. Senator Vandenberg expressed the opinion that it would be most humiliating to the people of the Hawaiian Islands to be placed in a class with the peoples of the Sahara Desert. Mr. Hackworth declared that it had been the intention to limit the “sacred trust” to the first paragraph and he pointed out that the words “and to this end” had been omitted from the end of the paragraph before part (a). Senator Vandenberg declared once more that he was not prepared to admit that Hawaii and Alaska did not have “a full measure of self-government”. Mr. Gerig expressed the opinion that these territories could not be brought under the jurisdiction of Chapter XII because they were considered as falling in a different status than Samoa and the Virgin Islands. It was urged that Puerto Rico also must be distinguished from the islands of the Pacific and the Virgin Islands. Commander Stassen declared that he was satisfied with any position which might be reached.

Mr. Pasvolsky then continued the consideration of changes which had been made by the Coordination Committee in the previous meeting. In paragraph 2 of Article 77 there had been included the words “as to” after “agreement”.

The word “shall” had been substituted for “should” in Article 78, and “will” had been substituted for “shall” in Article 81.

Mr. Pasvolsky turned to a consideration of Article 80, paragraph 2. He declared that the attention of the Coordination Committee had been called to the fact that the original draft of this paragraph did not contain the word “such”. As a result the paragraph had been reworded as follows:

“2. Paragraph 1 of this article is not to be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiations and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 79”.

Mr. Kane submitted that this wording was not as suitable as the earlier phraseology. Mr. Pasvolsky agreed but declared that the other nations involved would not accept the previous wording. He declared that they had expressed a desire to return to the language adopted by Committee II/4. Admiral Train stated that the new wording might have to be referred to the higher military advisers. Commander Stassen pointed out however that he had read a statement into the record declaring that paragraph 3 of section (b) of the Technical Committee draft was controlling and General Embick said that the new wording was acceptable to him.

Mr. Pasvolsky reported that the British had brought in a new draft for Article 83 which was an interpretation of the text prepared by Committee II/4. The British proposal substituted for the words “obligations undertaken by the administering authority under Article 47 and” the phrase “obligations toward the Security Council undertaken in this regard by the administering authority”. Commander Stassen asked why the reference to Article 47 had been dropped and Mr. Pasvolsky replied that the British expressed the opinion that this reference was redundant. Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that the reference had not appeared in the original Committee text and the Delegation agreed to the change.

Mr. Pasvolsky reported that it had been decided to grant membership on the Trusteeship Council to the members of the United Nations rather than to representatives of these members and the article had changed accordingly, In order to insure that the actual representation on the Trusteeship Council would be sufficiently competent to carry out the duties of that body, the sentence “each member of the Trusteeship Council shall designate one specially qualified person to represent it therein” was added to the end of the article.

Mr. Pasvolsky reported that it had not been clear in Article 87 whether the General Assembly was reserving to itself the right to carry out the functions outlined in the Article. As a result it had been decided to start the article with the words “The General Assembly and under its authority …” This was the original language of the Committee text. Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out also that the words “terms of the” had been omitted under part (d) of Article 87 and were reinserted by the Coordination Committee.

Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that the word “security” had been added to the title of Chapter XIV so that it now read “Transitional Security Arrangements”.

Article 81 (x) of Chapter XV was modified somewhat. The words “General Conference” were capitalized in paragraph 1 arid the words “membership of the” were inserted before General Assembly. The word “alteration” was substituted for “modification” in paragraph 2, and “coming” was substituted for “entry” in paragraph 3. Mr. Pasvolsky reported that a question had arisen with respect to paragraph 1 concerning the meaning of the words “a day and place to be fixed”. It was asked whether these words meant that there was to be only one conference and the U.S.S.R. had insisted that that was the significance. However, there had been a feeling that such a general conference could, if it desired, make provisions for the calling of a future conference.

In Chapter XV, “appointed” was substituted for “elected” in paragraph 2. In paragraph 3 the reference to the protocol was clarified by the addition after “of” of the words “ratifications deposited shall thereupon” in place of “such deposits shall”. It had been decided also to add “original” with respect to “members” in paragraph 4.

Title of the Organization

Mr. Pasvolsky remarked that the question of the title of the organization still required clarification. The only problem was whether or not the word “the” should be capitalized.…

Senator Connally asked whether any difficulty was apprehended in the Steering Committee. Mr. Pasvolsky replied that all the Delegates were in favor of the document except for the repetitions which prevailed. He declared that the repetitious phraseology appeared in the Preamble, in the Chapters on Purpose, Principles, and on the General Assembly. Senator Vandenberg expressed the opinion that no harm could result from this repetition but Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that different phraseology was used in each case. He declared that the phrase “economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character” appeared fourteen times in the document. Senator Vandenberg agreed that this was ridiculous. Mr. Pasvolsky thought that it would be possible to make cross references and eliminate all the repetition. Mr. Pasvolsky recalled that the most amusing part of his Coordination Committee work had been the contact with the various officers who had been called in from time to time. He reported that Mr. Fraser who had been Chairman of Committee II/4 had said that when he could not understand the wording they were discussing on any matter he was unable to understand he had put it to a vote and had it passed.

Opposition had been forthcoming also from the Indian Delegate, Ramaswami Mudaliar, who had thought that the Economic and Social Council was being subordinated because no specific reference was made to the “right” of the Council to take any action. Mr. Pasvolsky reported that he had tried to make it clear that the use of the word “may” presupposed that right and that to affirm the existence of the right indicated there was some question about it.

Mr. Kane asked whether it was thought that it would be possible to regain the earlier wording of paragraph 80. Mr. Pasvolsky declared as Chairman of the Coordination Committee he could take no action and it would be up to the Secretary to propose the question. Commander Stassen thought the matter should be left as it was and Mr. Kane indicated that he was satisfied.

Foreign Language Texts

Mr. Dulles asked what assurance the Delegates would get when they were signing the Russian text that it was accurate. Mr. Pasvolsky declared that he had worked in two languages in the Coordination Committee. The Coordination Committee had handled the problem by accepting the position that the governing text was the English draft. Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that under this situation the French text was required to express in French the same thoughts as were expressed in the English text. Mr. Pasvolsky remarked that the Dutch had raised the question of the five authenticated copies. The Soviet representative had suggested that, if the question should arise, it would be necessary to examine the history of the drafting procedure. The record of the Conference would show that the English text had been adopted and for that reason the Soviet representative had thought the English text should be accepted as the governing text. Mr. Pasvolsky declared that this sounded reasonable to him. Senator Connally declared that it was his understanding that the French text was not a translation but was a restatement in French of the ideas of the English text. Mr. Pasvolsky confirmed this and declared that each of the five drafts would be an authentic text.

Mr. Dulles asked who would certify for the Delegations as to the nature of what they were signing. Mr. Pasvolsky declared that three language panels had been established for this purpose.⁹⁹ Each Delegation had the right to designate as its representative to these panels a person who knew the language involved. These panels went through the text completely, in Russian, Chinese and Spanish. A different procedure had been adopted with respect to the French text which had been parallel with the English draft. The French text had been gone over in the Coordination Committee and in the Committee of Jurists. Mr. Sandifer reported that the United States had no representative on the Chinese panel but pointed out that the British had a representative who was giving careful consideration to this text. Mr. Dulles wondered whether the Delegation would not want certification from Mr. Bohlen or someone else who had a knowledge of the languages involved before the Delegates signed the Charter. Mr. Hackworth declared that the three-language panels would certify the documents. Commander Stassen declared that he was in agreement with Mr. Dulles that there should be final certification for the record from either the language panels or someone in the State Department declaring that it was all right for the Delegation to sign the various language drafts. Mr. Hackworth remarked that consideration had been given in the Committee of Jurists to the possibility of signing only in one language.¹ However, the Committee of Jurists had declared that this procedure was not acceptable because the Delegation were supposed to sign the Charter, not an English text of the Charter.

Charter Text

Senator Connally declared that he wanted to call Mr. Pasvolsky’s attention to the fact that there were some blank spaces which remained to be filled in article 29. Mr. Pasvolsky reported that this matter had already been taken care of.

Mr. Notter asked whether the significance of Article 58 in Chapter 15 (x) was that the United States was to keep all five texts. Mr. Pasvolsky replied that the five language texts were to be bound as one and would be signed as a whole. The United States would have custody of the entire document.

Repetition

Mr. Pasvolsky reported that a question was likely to arise in the Steering Committee concerning the repetition of the phrase² “respect for human rights and for the fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, color, sex, language or religion”. Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that the phrase be used only once in the Chapter on Purposes. Mr. Pasvolsky further suggested that thereafter only the first part “human rights and fundamental freedoms” be used. The Delegation agreed to this suggestion.

Mr. Pasvolsky declared that much the same question would arise with respect to the “economic, social, cultural, and other humanitarian matters”. He suggested that the phrase be standardized throughout the document as he had just read it and the Delegation agreed to the suggestion. Mr. Pasvolsky remarked that the sections dealing with trusteeship would not be touched.

Seal to be Used

Mr. Hackworth reported that a problem had arisen concerning the seal with which the five language texts would be bound. They were to be tied with ribbon and sealed with wax but the question was what seal to use. Consideration had been given to the use of the United States seal, the State Department seal, the seal of the State of California, and the seal of the City of San Francisco. The seal of the United States had been ruled out because of the difficulty of bringing it to San Francisco. For a variety of reasons there had been objection to the use of the seal of the Department of State. It had been decided as a gesture to the City of San Francisco to use its seal. Senator Connally could not see why this position was taken. Mr. Notter asked whether the San Francisco seal used the emblem of the State of California, the bear, and Senator Connally observed thai the Delegation certainly did not want to use such a symbol.³

The meeting was adjourned at 1:32 p.m. sine die.

86. For documentation on this subject, see vol. v, pp. 110 ff. See also Doc. 1213, ST/23, June 28, UNCIO Documents, vol. 5, p. 305.
87. Doc. 1213, ST/23, June 28, UNCIO Documents, vol. 5, p. 305; for consideration in plenary session of final reports of the Steering Committee and the four Commissions of the Conference, and voting on the Charter, including the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and on the agreement establishing the Preparatory Commission, see Doc. 1210, P/20, June 27, ibid., vol. 1, p. 612; for approval of the Charter in Steering Committee, see ibid., vol. 5, p. 311; for approval of the Charter in Plenary Session, see ibid., vol. 1, p. 631.
88. Conference Series No. 71: Charter of the United Nations: Report to the President on the Results of the San Francisco Conference, by the Chairman of the United States Delegation, the Secretary of State, June 26, 1945 (Department of State publication No. 2349).
89. For message of President Truman submitting the Charter of the United Nations to the U.S. Senate (White House press release of July 2), see Department of State Bulletin, July 8, 1945, p. 46.
90. For summary of report on results of the San Francisco Conference which was released to the press by the White House on July 9, see ibid., July 15, 1945, p. 77.
91. For drafts of the Charter and the Court Statute which had been approved by the Coordination Committee and the Advisory Committee of Jurists on June 22, see Doc. 1159, CO/181, June 23 and Doc. 1158, CO/180(1), June 22, in UNCIO Documents, vol. 18, pp. 602 and 589, respectively. For final changes made by the Coordination Committee in the text of the Charter as approved by the Steering Committee June 23, see Doc. 1192, CO/185, June 25, ibid., vol. 15, p. 260. For final text of the Charter, and signatures, see ibid., pp. 335–364 and 486–509 (no document number).
92. Secretary Stettinius reported to the delegation, meeting at 4:15 p.m., June 23, that Field Marshal Smuts would not be able to visit Washington at all and so would be unable to address Congress.
94. For text of the Anti-Comintern Pact, agreement between Germany and Japan, signed at Berlin, November 25, 1936, see Foreign Relations, 1936, vol. i, p. 400; for text of secret additional agreement, see Department of State, Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1918–1945, series D, vol. i, p. 734, footnote 2a. Denmark acceded to the Pact by the Protocol of November 25, 1941, which extended the period of validity of the agreement another five years; for the text of the Protocol, see ibid., vol xiii, p. 820.
96. Doc. 1115, 11/4/44(1) (a), June 20, UNCIO Documents, vol. 10, p. 607.
97. For text of working paper for chapter on dependent territories, see Doc. 823, II/4/12, May 15, UNCIO Documents, vol. 10, p. 677; for text of paragraphs approved by Committee II/4, see Annex A, Report of Rapporteur, June 20, ibid., p. 614.
99. Doc. WD 222, CO/98, June 3, UNCIO Documents, vol. 18, p. 651, and Doc WD 288, CO/116, June 13, ibid., vol. 17, pp. 77–78.
1. For summary of discussions on the question of the language to be used in submitting the recommendations of the United Nations Committee of Jurists to the United Nations Conference, see Jurist 36(11), G/26, April 13; Jurist 58, G/46, April 16; and Jurist 85, G/72, April 19, UNCIO Documents, vol. 14, pp. 54, 212–213, and 237–238, respectively. For summary report of discussion of the question of languages of texts of the Charter to be signed at San Francisco, when the Assistant Delegate of the Netherlands delegation, Adrian Pelt, proposed in the Coordination Committee on June 8 that the Charter should contain a clause providing that the text in one language would govern, see WD 266, CO/108, June 10, ibid., vol. 17, pp. 66–67.
2. For a list of certain repetitive words and phrases in the Charter and the Statute, see WD 381, CO/156, June 18, UNCIO Documents, vol. 18, pp. 654–690.
3. The seal of the City and County of San Francisco does not use the emblem of the State of California, the bear.