710 Conference (W & PW)/3–345: Telegram
The American Delegation to the Acting Secretary of State
[Received March 5—8:45 a.m.]
309. For Grew from the Secretary, and please inform the President. The main meeting of Committee II was again postponed until Monday since the Secretary was not yet ready to make his statement. Meanwhile, a subcommittee headed by Para Pérez of Venezuela has done an excellent job of getting up a report reducing the various memoranda combining the views which have been expressed in writing by 15 countries and analyzing these views. The analysis shows a consensus on six points as follows: (1) “Aspiration to universality as an ideal which the organization should have in the future”, (2) “Desirability of amplifying and making more exact the statement of principles of the organization”, (3) “Desirability of amplifying and making more exact the powers of the General Assembly to make its action effective”, (4) “Desirability of extending the jurisdiction and competence of the International Court of Justice”, (5) “Desirability that controversies of an inter-American character be settled [Page 140] so far as possible in accordance with inter-American methods and systems”, (6) “Desirability of giving Latin America adequate representation in the Security Council”.
There is considerable informal discussion as to the form which the final resolution on Dumbarton Oaks will take. Various delegates are attempting to place the United States in the position of going on record in support of the points; whereas our position must be that we will only receive and transmit them.
This morning Committee III approved with very considerable enthusiasm the Declaration of Chapultepec. Senator Connally and Mrs. Rogers22 made statements which were given to the press. Probably Senator Connally’s statement, and possibly Mrs. Rogers’ will be incorporated in the final act as interpretations of the declaration on behalf of the United States.
This United States approval of the declaration was greeted with real applause by a large audience and has been the major development of the day.
The only critical note was that of the Bolivian representative who felt that he had not had an opportunity to raise the Pacific seaport issue and made some critical remarks with regard to the declaration as being incomplete. However he voted for the declaration.
There is now before Committee III a large group of resolutions upon which no definitive action has been taken. The problem of handling these resolutions is one which must be resolved in the next day or so. In addition there is pending before this committee a proposed declaration introduced by the Mexicans and which they call the “Declaration of Mexico”. This sets forth a list of 20 principles such as the sovereignty of states; international law as a standard of conduct; juridical equality of states; repudiation of territorial conquest; proscription of war; support for democracy; and the rights of man, et cetera. This resolution will be discussed in subcommittee this afternoon and is expected to come before the full committee on Monday. Most of the provisions are entirely acceptable. The resolution is so broad in its scope however as to cross over many other resolutions. The Mexicans attach to it a great deal of importance mostly on the basis of prestige.
Committee IV continues to proceed slowly. All of its work is still in subcommittees where there continue discussions of such points as subsidies, protection of new industries, investments, and synthetic industries. Since the subject matter is theoretical an immense amount of discussion is possible. Now that Committee V has concluded its work it should be possible to speed up the work of Committee IV.[Page 141]
Yesterday a subcommittee approved a combination of United States, Mexican and Brazilian resolutions on health, Miss Lenroot’s23 resolution on social questions, and a charter of women and children.
This morning another subcommittee agreed on a declaration of social principles of the Americas to go to the full committee this afternoon.
The strategy of the United States delegation is to keep the economic charter so far as possible as introduced and to have any special purpose items placed in separate resolutions. If all of the individual proposals were incorporated in the charter it would lose its distinctive character. In view of the basic nature of the problems and the desire of so many to discuss them, it is not expected that this committee will have finished its work until Monday or Tuesday. No new problems have arisen which were not anticipated. The subcommittee of Committee V working on the resolution covering transition from wartime purchases to peacetime completed its work today with an agreement on a resolution along the lines outlined in yesterday’s telegram. The work of this group has been of the greatest importance and has been an outstanding example of full and frank cooperation and understanding of each other’s position by the participants. Leading roles for other countries have been taken by Messrs. Bougas, Beltran, and Galo Plaza.24 This agreement is one of the major achievements of the Conference.
Committee V hopes to have a full meeting this afternoon at which the work of its two subcommittees may receive approval.
If Committee V completes its labors as indicated there will remain for next week only the following matters of importance: (1) Consideration in Committee II of Dumbarton Oaks opened by the Secretary’s statement now scheduled for Monday. There must be a decision on the form of final resolution. There now appears to be genuine question as to how much oral discussion will take place in view of the fine report prepared by Parra Pérez. (2) In Committee III the Mexican “Declaration of Mexico” above referred to and the cleaning up of miscellaneous resolutions. (3) In Committee IV the economic charter and the various specialized problems on trade control and trade restriction which are now the subject of discussion. [Stettinius.]
- Edith Nourse Rogers, Member, Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.↩
- Katherine F. Lenroot, Chief, Children’s Bureau, Department of Labor, adviser to U.S. delegation.↩
- Valentim Bouças, President of the Brazilian Commission for Control of the Washington Agreements; Pedro Beltran, Peruvian Ambassador to the United States, and Galo Plaza, Ecuadoran Ambassador to the United States.↩