Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, General; the United Nations, Volume I

IO Files: US/A/M (Chr)/12

Minutes of the Twelfth Meeting of the United States Delegation,³⁹ New York, Hotel Pennsylvania, October 29, 1946, 9 a. m.

New York, October 29, 1946, 9 a.m.

secret

[Here follows list of names of persons (25) present.]

Report on General Committee Meeting

Invitation to Specialized Agencies

Senator Austin reported that at the meeting of the General Committee on October 27 [28], the Secretary-General had asked that there be extended an invitation such as he had given on the opening day to the heads of the specialized agencies including the ILO, FAO, PICOA [ PICAO ], International Monetary Fund, Bank, WHO, UNRRA and The League.⁴⁰ The Committee approved extending the invitations to these men as guests for the whole session. They were also given the right to address the General Assembly and the committees. Senator Connally remarked that those persons would then have more privileges than members of the General Assembly. Senator Austin replied that the agencies had no rights. He pointed out that the draft agreements between the United Nations and the four specialized agencies were not yet accepted and that the Secretary-General’s procedure was simply anticipating the approval of these agreements. If the Delegation disapproved of such an arrangement, the proper step, of course, would be to vote against it. Both Senators Connally and Vandenberg expressed the opinion that the agreements should not accord the representatives of specialized agencies the right to address the General Assembly.

Senator Austin continued that at the General Committee meeting he had favored the Secretariat proposal, admitting the representatives of the above-named organizations as guests. Mr. Sandifer, who had accompanied him, had approved this course. Senator Austin said that when he voted he thought he knew what the invitation meant. However, Mr. Parodi (France) moved that if one particular individual were absent when a matter concerning his agency arose, he should have the right to appoint a deputy to speak in the General Assembly. Then, Senator Austin said, he stated that he had understood that the individuals had been invited as guests only. Chairman Spaak replied that this was not the case, but that the invitation meant they could speak and attend all meetings for purposes of consultation.

Mrs. Roosevelt said that her understanding of the word “consultation” was that the heads of agencies should be consulted if the Asembly or a delegation wished to consult them, but it was up to the Assembly to take the initiative. Mr. Dulles recalled the London debates on the meaning of the word “consultation” and the Soviet view that determination of the need for consultation could be made by either party.

Senator Austin described the manoeuvre of the General Committee as a forward pass. The agencies were now out ahead of the agreements which were not yet approved. He pointed out if the Delegation did not approve this arrangement, it could be changed in the contracts still to be signed.

Mr. Sandifer wished that Senator Austin’s report should be clearly understood. When the United States agreed to the plan it had no information that the term “guest” was to be construed to mean that the representatives should have the right to speak. However, when the interpretation of the term “guests” was made, it had not been desirable to raise an objection.

Mr. Sandifer continued that the most important point of the agreements was an agreement for reciprocal representation. The specialized agencies were to be represented in United Nations meetings and vice versa. Even in the face of yesterday’s move, he considered that the representatives could make statements only by invitation of the General Assembly. He said he was concerned that there should be a sound mutual basis of cooperation in view of the importance of some of the specialized agencies. Collaboration between those agencies and the United Nations was most important. However, the former had a tendency to hold back, which was explicable in part because of differences within the governments of the respective members. He cited as an example the fact that the Bank was slow about making an agreement with the United Nations. This was in part attributable to the fact that matters in connection with the Bank were handled by the Treasury rather than the State Department. A similar split in other governments explained a good deal of the reluctance of specialized agencies to conclude agreements with the United Nations.

Mr. Sandifer continued that a more important aspect of the question arose in respect to the possible parallel demands by non-governmental organizations. Manuilsky and Vishinsky⁴¹ had both served notice that they intended to press for a status for the WFTU similar to that granted the specialized agencies. Mr. Sandifer further remarked that it would have been much more preferable from the United States’ view for the guest status to have been extended only to those four agencies which had concluded draft agreements with the Economic and Social Council, in order that there should be some advantage accruing to those who made agreements.

[Here follow brief remarks by Senator Austin, Senator Connally, and Mrs. Douglas.]

Mrs. Roosevelt believed that the emphasis should always be placed on the fact that it was an invitation extended which enabled the agencies to appear before the General Assembly. The Assembly, of course, had the right to ask an explanation on any point. She pointed out that these agreements had been made in the Economic and Social Council and were now being submitted to the General Assembly for its approval. She could not imagine that the Economic and Social Council could have said that the agencies should appear and have a right to speak, because that could only be decided by the General Assembly, which wished to extend an invitation rather than grant a right.

Senator Austin agreed with Mrs. Roosevelt and pointed out that that concept had been stretched when the motion had been approved that there could be substitute speakers.

Senator Austin then read into the record the following paragraph from the draft agreement with the ILO: “Representatives of the International Labour Organization shall be invited to attend in a consultative capacity meetings of the General Assembly and shall be afforded full opportunity for presenting to the Assembly the views of the International Labour Organization on questions within the scope of its activities.”

He noted that the agreement with the FAO and PICAO was of a somewhat different nature and read the following paragraph from the FAO agreement: “Representatives of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations shall be invited to attend meetings of the General Assembly for purposes of consultation on matters within the scope of its activities.”

Mr. Bloom inquired what and when consultation would take place in the General Assembly. He stated that he thought it should be in committee and not in plenary sessions. Senator Austin said that it was his understanding that any delegate could call on the ILO representative and ask him questions. Mr. Stevenson said that he thought it had been construed that the representatives of the agencies could ask to be heard. Senator Austin replied that the record was not clear, that it was his understanding that the representatives should come as guests.

Mr. Dulles pointed out that when the Delegation talked about “consultation,” it did not mean the same thing as other delegations. He cited Article 71 of the Charter and recalled the long struggle which had ensued over it. The U.S.S.R. interpreted this article to mean that the international organizations had the right rather than the privilege to be heard and even to vote, which was a very different meaning from the meaning ascribed to that article by the United States.

Senator Vandenberg said that it should be remembered that the fundamental and original concept of the United Nations was that it was a world organization. It was commencing to mushroom entirely too fast, in Senator Vandenberg’s opinion, and he thought the mushrooming was not healthy. He urged that the basic concept should be maintained, that governments and no one else sit and speak in the Assembly, except at the invitation and on the sufferance of the Assembly. If this road, which had been followed from the beginning, were left, the Assembly would wander into the wilderness.

[Here follows further discussion of this and other subjects.]

39. For documentation regarding the composition and structure of the United States Delegation to the second part of the first session to the General Assembly which began at New York on October 23, see pp. 37–42.

40. In February 1946 at London the Economic and Social Council at its first session had passed a resolution providing for a Committee on Negotiations with Specialized Agencies and directing the committee to draw up draft agreement for the establishment of relationships between the United Nations and the specialized agencies. These agencies at that time were the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Labor Organization (ILO), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the Provisional International Civil Aviation Organization (PICAO), the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. By June the Committee had negotiated agreements with the ILO, UNESCO and the FAO which were approved by the Economic and Social Council at the end of its second session on June 21, 1946. The third session of the Council, which began on October 3, 1946, saw the approval of the draft of a subsequently negotiated agreement with PICAO. In turn these approved drafts were referred by the Council to the impending session of the General Assembly for the Assembly’s approval. A brief survey of these developments and of the provisions of the draft agreements may be found in United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, First Session, Second Part, Supplement No. 2, Report by the Economic and Social Council to the General Assembly, 28 January to 3 October 1946, pp. 42–48.

    From the outset the United States was very actively interested in the negotiation of these agreements and at an appropriate time the Department of State had forwarded to Mr. John G. Winant, United States Representative to the Economic and Social Council, drafts of the proposd agreements (IO Files, documents SD/SA/4, May 20, 1946 and SD/NSA/1, May 22, 1946, not printed). In a position paper of October 10, 1946, entitled “Consideration and Approval of Agreements Concluded with the Specialized Agencies” (IO Files, document SD/A/C.2/10, not printed), the Department had informed the United States Delegation to the impending session of the General Assembly that “The agreements already negotiated are, in general, satisfactory. They contain certain provisions which have been questioned from certain points of view … but they fulfill the requirements of the Charter and leave scope for future implementation and improvement. Meanwhile, pressing substantive problems confront the United Nations and the agencies and it is of great importance that these organizations begin at once the day-to-day collaboration which is contemplated for these bodies. Hence, it is deemed advisable to get the agreements into operation speedily …” (Relevant documentation for United States participation in this phase of Economic and Social Council negotiations may be found in the IO Files, “Handbook for the United States Representative”, Second Session of the Economic and Social Council, dated May 25, 1946 and “Handbook for the United States Representative”, Third Session of the Economic and Social Council, dated September 4, 1946).

    For the text of the memorandum submitted by the Secretary-General to the General Committee on October 28, see United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, First Session, Second Part, General Committee, p. 105, annex 19; hereafter cited as GA(I/2), General Committee. For the discussion in the General Committee meeting on that date, see ibid., pp. 76 and 77.

41. D. Z. Manuilsky, Head of the Delegation of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and Chairman of the General Assembly’s First Committee; A. A. Vishinsky, Representative of the Soviet Union to the General Assembly.