SWNCC Flies
Minutes of the Twelfth Meeting of the State–War–Navy Coordinating Committee Ad Hoc Committee on Military and Security Functions of the United Nations Organization, Washington, August 14, 1946, 11:30 a.m.
Present
| Rear Admiral Davis29 | Mr. Hiss, Chairman |
| Captain Gladney | General Crain |
| Commander Moore | Mr. J. E. Johnson |
| Mr. Haselton | |
| Major General Lemnitzer30 | |
| Major General Anderson31 | Absent: Mr. Hickerson |
| Colonel Cress | |
| Colonel Griffin |
Mr. Hiss opened the meeting by explaining that it had been called to review the present status of the work of the Military Staff Committee. The specific purpose was to deal with the problem created with [Page 874] respect to work on the special military agreements provided for in Article 43 of the Charter by the fact that the Soviet Delegation to the Military Staff Committee has not yet submitted a statement of basic principles.
Mr. Hiss added that it has now been proposed by the U.S. Delegation to the Military Staff Committee that General Kenney, in his capacity as Chairman of the Military Staff Committee, address a letter to the Soviet military representative reminding them that they have promised the paper and asking them when it might be expected. Mr. Johnson then presented a brief history of the matter, stating that a Military Staff Committee subcommittee, charged with the formulation of recommendations as to basic principles, had agreed on March 28 that all delegations should hand in a statement of basic principles by April 3. This subcommittee has held only one meeting, on April 3. The statements of the other four delegations were submitted at that time, but the Soviets presented no paper. Being thus stymied in the subcommittee the other delegations agreed to establish a separate subcommittee to make recommendations regarding a standard form of agreement for the provision of armed forces. This body has met regularly; the Soviets, however, have not participated in its discussions although they have sat in the meetings.32
The opinion was expressed by members of the Ad Hoc Committee that the Russians were doubtless waiting for all the other delegations to show their hands and that the present situation therefore placed the Soviet representatives in an advantageous position. It was also the view of the Army and Navy members of the Ad Hoc Committee that there might be further unfortunate publicity regarding this long delay which would, unless something were done about it, be directed not at the Soviets who deserve it, but at the Committee as a whole.
It was agreed that General Kenney should send such a letter as was proposed, doing so in his capacity as Chairman. It was suggested that, following the anticipated unsatisfactory reply from the Soviet delegation, General Kenney might propose in the Military Staff Committee that, since no further substantive business could be transacted in the circumstances, the Military Staff Committee might adjourn pending receipt of the Soviet paper. Mr. Hiss pointed out at this point that the U.S. Delegation to the Military Staff Committee should be careful not to give an impression that it was withdrawing from the Committee, but should merely indicate that there is no further business requiring [Page 875] the Committee to meet. He thought that if other delegations desire periodic meetings, the U.S. Delegation could agree, leaving junior officers to attend. The Ad Hoc Committee agreed that this might be the best procedure.
General Lemnitzer stated that General Kenney, before sending his letter, desired direct assurance that the State Department has no objection on political grounds to this action. It was agreed that Mr. Hiss should confer with Mr. Acheson the following day and then transmit the State Department’s views directly to General Kenney informing General Lemnitzer as well.33
Admiral Davis asked whether the U.S. Delegation to the Military Staff Committee has instructions to reveal the U.S. position beyond submission of the statement of principles. In reply, it was stated that the U.S. views on a standard form of agreement have been presented to the appropriate subcommittee as authorized by instructions, but that no further material contained in SWNCC 219/8 has been given to other delegations on the Military Staff Committee.
Mr. Johnson raised the question whether there might be a way around the difficulties presented by the Soviet refusal to submit a paper on basic principles. Specifically, he suggested that, if the Soviet Delegation does not submit a statement of principles, the U.S. Delegation might inquire whether the Soviets have any suggestions as to other ways in which the Committee might proceed with its work. It was the sense of the Committee that such a procedure would not be desirable at the present time. It was also the sense of the Committee that the U.S. Delegation to the Military Staff Committee should pursue a less active and vigorous role and should not continue to press ahead in the absence of a Soviet paper on basic principles.
In reply to a question as to whether the State Department now feels that the matter might be taken up through diplomatic channels, a procedure that had been decided against when the question was raised in May by Mr. Stettinius, Mr. Hiss said that he had spoken to Mr. Hickerson on this matter and that the latter felt that any representations through diplomatic channels would be both ineffective and politically undesirable.
Colonel Griffin inquired as to the reason why the United States [Page 876] wished to expedite arriving at special military agreements, apart from the fact that the Charter mentions haste in concluding the agreements. Mr. Hiss replied that public-relation-wise it would benefit the United Nations if the Military Staff Committee actually could conclude the special military agreements. It was pointed out at this juncture that some publicity might be discreetly given to the press if it were desired to indicate the cause of the delay in going forward with the agreements. Mr. Hiss remarked, however, that the press in the United States was already familiar with the delay in the Military Staff Committee and the cause of it, adding that the Military Staff Committee’s report to the Security Council would, when published, indicate the lack of progress which the press, again, could not fail to see and analyze, since it already knew that the Military Staff Committee had a directive from the Security Council to proceed with this work.
Mr. Johnson indicated that at the San Francisco Conference a number of delegations indicated a suspicion that the U.S.S.R.’s support of Article 106 of the Charter was based on the possibility of using it to postpone indefinitely the conclusion of special military agreements.
General Lemnitzer inquired as to the result of the conference with certain Senators who had raised some objections to the United States statement of basic principles. Mr. Hiss informed him that at the last conference the Senators had agreed to withdraw their objections.
[Here follows brief discussion of other subjects.]
General Anderson pointed out that a British proposal had been received by the U.S. Delegation to the Military Staff Committee which provided for a member nation placing all of its military forces at the disposal of the Security Council. The opinion was expressed that agreement to such a plan would be very difficult to obtain in the United States. When the question was asked whether a working group should prepare a position on this subject, it was decided that the Ad Hoc Committee would wait until comment on the subject had been received from the U.S. Military Representative in New York. It was pointed out that General Kenney had indicated that a number of other Delegations apparently would favor such a proposal. It was further agreed that the Ad Hoc Committee would consider the matter further when the views of the U.S. Military Representative on this British suggestion had been received in Washington.
The Committee rose at 12:40.
Executive Secretary
- Rear Adm. Arthur C. Davis of the Joint Strategic Survey Committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.↩
- Maj. Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer of the Joint Strategic Survey Committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.↩
- Maj. Gen. Samuel E. Anderson of the Joint Strategic Survey Committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.↩
- On August 27 the subcommittee, considering a standard form of agreement, submitted to the Military Staff Committee a draft based on the United States proposal, not printed, which had been used as a basis for discussion. The Military Staff Committee, however, took no action on the subcommittee report pending agreement on basic principles. (IO Files)↩
- In a memorandum of August 15 Mr. Hiss indicated that he had discussed the subject with Mr. Acheson that morning. Mr. Acheson had felt that there were no objections from a political point of view to the General’s proposed action. Mr. Hiss accordingly informed General Kenney of that by telephone and told General Lemnitzer of this action. (501.BC/8–1546) General Kenney addressed a letter, dated August 14, of the nature contemplated at the present meeting, to General Vasiliev, the Soviet Representative on the Military Staff Committee. General Vasiliev replied by letter on August 23 that the Soviet Delegation was continuing to study Article 43 but was not yet in a position to present its views or renew discussion. (IO Files)↩