IO Files: US/A/M (Chr)/11
Minutes of the Eleventh Meeting of the United States Delegation, New York, Hotel Pennsylvania, October 28, 1946, 9 a. m.
[Here follow list of names of persons (26) present,83 and discussion of other subjects.]
Position on the Veto
Senator Austin reported that he had decided to speak at the close of the general debate. He would take the position on the veto outlined [Page 316] in the position paper. The net of this was that the United States objected to amending the Charter. Our understanding of the veto principles was that they were pre-eminently constructed and not negative. We favored keeping the door open to amendments if the case were suitable but, in the meantime, there should be announced a progressive, constructive policy regarding the peaceful settlement of disputes. The voting principles had not been intended to interfere with peaceful settlement of disputes. Senator Austin did not propose to put forward any resolutions or recommendations to be acted on by the General Assembly.
Senator Connally inquired whether the United States could not sponsor or agree to a resolution expressing the hope that the Security Council would use the veto sparingly, thus indicating the United States was not pleased with its prodigal use. Senator Austin said that he thought the United States could agree to such a motion but he thought that it should not be put forward in his speech but in later debates or in the Committee. Senator Connally agreed. He recalled that in defending the veto at San Francisco, he had defended the principle of unanimity among the Great Powers. It had been agreed then if two Powers were to try to coerce a third major Power, war might be precipitated and therefore unanimity was essential. However, it had not been the intention that the veto should be used all over the lot on two-bit questions.
Senator Austin said that it might be that Senator Connally might see fit to make some such proposal in Committee 1.
In answer to Mr. Eaton’s question, Senator Austin said he was not going to imply that the veto had been abused. Mr. Eaton asked if that were not the case. Senator Austin said that he had not completely clarified the position but that he expected to urge that the use of the veto be restrained by rules of procedure.
Senator Vandenberg said he did not know what the speech should contain for it was Senator Austin’s and not his. He continued that the thing he missed was the lack of affirmative United States proposals on anything on the agenda. He said that he did not believe that there was any United States proposal in the thirty-two items on the agenda. He did not believe that moral leadership would be obtained in that way. He agreed that it was no time to amend the Charter but that the development of a definition of the veto should specifically assert that in our opinion the veto should be confined to Chapter VII. This would be a progressive step which could be taken without jeopardizing in any degree reasonable use of the veto.
Senator Connally observed that when abuse of the veto was charged, someone would ask in what cases it had been abused. Senator Vandenberg replied that one didn’t have to charge abuse of the veto but he [Page 317] did not like, even by silence, to deny the great majority of small States who had charged an abuse of the veto. He did not like to be associated with the general denial. Senator Austin remarked that that was the reason for his speech. Senator Connally thought that was a very nebulous sort of approach. Senator Vanderberg replied that it ceased to be nebulous if it was established that the veto applied only to Chapter VII. Senator Connally recalled that the Delegation had started out and intended in San Francisco to have the veto apply only to Chapter VII. However, some provisions of the Charter had been drawn which did not sustain this position. Senator Austin said that he believed the use of the veto to obstruct peaceful settlement violated the Charter. Senator Connally stated that if Senator Austin emphasized that argument it would lay the groundwork for Committee 1 to come along with some recommendations.84
[Here follows discussion of other subjects.]
- With respect to the minutes of the meetings of the United States Delegation to the General Assembly the list of persons present is not printed because of excessive length; those who are mentioned in the minutes themselves as participating in the discussion are readily identifiable; note may be made of the general lists of persons on the expert and advisory staff printed pp. 37–42.↩
-
For Senator Austin’s statement of the United States position on the General Assembly item dealing with voting in the Security Council, delivered in the course of his speech to the General Assembly on October 30 at the time of the opening speeches by the delegates, see GA (I/2), Plenary, pp. 904–908. Omitted from Senator Austin’s speech were details of the United States program for liberalization of the voting procedures and practices of the Security Council as set forth in the position paper of October 22 and included in earlier drafts of the speech.
The General Assembly on October 31 after a brief discussion adopted the General Committee’s recommendation that the items regarding Article 27 be referred to the First Committee (GA, (I/2), Plenary, pp. 931–933).
↩