IO Files: US/A/M (Chr.)/3
Minutes of the Third Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at New York, Hotel Pennsylvania, October 18, 1946, 10 a.m.
[Here follows list of names of persons (24) present.52]
Permanent Headquarters Convention
Senator Austin introduced Mr. Fahy, who opened the discussion of problems in connection with the establishment of the permanent headquarters of the United Nations in the United States. Mr. Fahy said that there were two problems involved: First, the question of the precise location of the permanent headquarters; and second, the legal arrangements which would be necessary in connection with the location of the headquarters. So far as the legal arrangements are concerned, Mr. Fahy said that an agreement had been negotiated between the United Nations and the United States which was as complete as it was possible to make it without knowledge of the specific whereabouts of the headquarters area. This agreement was a working draft and subject to change by both parties, depending upon the precise location [Page 102] of the headquarters. He said that the agreement, after completion, would, of course, be referred to Congress for its approval.
Mr. Fahy said that representatives of the States of Connecticut and New York had participated in negotiating the agreement and that when the working draft was completed there was substantial agreement among all parties. Subsequently certain local officials in Westchester County had objected to some provisions of the agreement. Representatives of the State of California have indicated, however, that the agreement is acceptable to them without change. Connecticut representatives also indicated approval of the agreement. Local Westchester objections centered on such matters as the problem of tax reimbursements, options to buy, the supplying of public services, and similar matters. Mr. Fahy said that the United States would want to suggest certain minor changes in the agreement on the basis of comments which have been received from other government agencies. Copies of the draft agreement, during various stages of development, have been sent to the Chairmen and ranking minority members of the Senate and House Committees on Foreign Relations and Foreign Affairs. Representative Bloom said that he had never received a copy.
Mr. Fahy said that the position which the State Department had taken in negotiating the agreement, was that the United States should be generous to the United Nations, making them welcome, giving them the freedom necessary for the accomplishment of their functions, and not to try to restrict their activities by unnecessarily rigid, restrictive provisions in the agreement.
Mr. Fahy pointed out that the advisers hoped it would be possible early in the meeting of the General Assembly to select the permanent headquarters and thereafter, while the General Assembly was still in session, to put the draft working document into a form which could be approved by the General Assembly before its adjourns. The document, with supporting legislation, would then be submitted to the United States Congress.
Representative Bloom asked how long it would take to select the site. Mr. Fahy said that he hoped the selection could be made this session of the General Assembly and that the negotiations regarding the site agreement could be completed this session. He added that it would undoubtedly be several years before actual construction of the headquarters would begin.
Terms of Reference of Headquarters Commission
Representative Bloom remarked that the terms of reference of the Headquarters Commission confined its activities to Westchester and Fairfield counties. He asked if the Federal Government was going to take land by condemnation. Mr. Fahy said that the condemnation [Page 103] question involved the consideration of where the site should be, that is, whether or not the site should be in an area where it might be necessary to condemn land.
Mrs. Roosevelt suggested that the problems would be considerably simplified if publicly owned land could be taken for the permanent headquarters. She suggested that consideration be given to the former Odgen Mills, Vanderbilt and Rogers estates in the vicinity of Hyde Park, and also to the Harriman Section of the Palisades Interstate Park and the Pound Ridge Reservation. She felt that dispossession and tax problems were serious and valid objections which would be obviated by the selection of public lands or private estates.
Mr. Fahy said that the State Department felt it was unfortunate that the terms of reference of the Headquarters Commission were confined to Westchester and Fairfield counties, but that in view of the position of neutrality which had been taken in London on the entire site question, it had not been possible to intervene to broaden the terms. He said that the Department now felt that the terms of reference should be broadened and that the Delegation should take an active part in giving guidance and help where necessary in the selection of the permanent headquarters.
United States Attitude Toward Site Selection
Mr. Dulles said that he felt our trouble on the headquarters matter could be traced to our policy of neutrality, that this policy had given the United Nations the feeling that it could take any place in the United States it wanted for the Headquarters. He said this, of course, was not possible because only the United States Government could take property for the use of the United Nations. Mr. Dulles said that this Government must take the responsibility for telling the United Nations where it would fit in best. He felt that it was necessary for the United States to take an active part and tell the Organization when and where we will be willing to exercise the power of eminent domain.
Mr. Fahy agreed with Mr. Dulles and said that was the position we propose be taken. He said that the advisers proposed that the Headquarters Committee of the General Assembly be asked to create a subcommittee, with United States representation, and to make the terms of reference of the subcommittee broad enough so that the United States Delegation, in its assistance to the committee, would not be confined to the Westchester area.
[Here follows extended discussion of the problem.]
Mr. Ross said he thought it would be useful to have in mind the type of procedure which it was thought advisable for the Delegation to adopt in the Headquarters Committee of the General Assembly on this question. In order to do this he suggested that it may be appropriate [Page 104] to distinguish between the bodies concerned. He referred in this connection to the Headquarters Commission and the Headquarters Committee. The Headquarters Committee was a proposed committee to be composed of representatives of the 51 nations and it was in this committee that the question would be considered in the forthcoming session. The procedure which the advisers have had in mind would avoid a general debate in a plenary session or in the 51 nation committee. He thought that it might be possible to get started on this problem without a long debate and discussion. What the advisers proposed was that as soon as the Headquarters Commission Report was presented to the Headquarters Committee, the Delegation should immediately suggest the creation of a subcommittee composed of representatives from the original member states represented on the Headquarters Commission, plus the United States and two to five additional members. That subcommittee should:
- (a)
- Study between four and six possible locations.
- (b)
- Determine which of the possible locations the subcommittee should recommend back to the Headquarters Committee.
Mr. Ross felt that it will probably be necessary, in view of the work which the Headquarters Commission had done, to consider seriously whether or not it was possible to find a site in Westchester. He pointed out that it must also be remembered that New York City was extremely interested in the possibility of locating the United Nations permanently at Flushing Meadows. There was also, he said, the problem of the intensified interest of Governor Warren and other Californians in the possibility of locating the permanent site in the San Francisco area. Mr. Ross said that he believes the delegation must give full consideration to four to six possible sites and that these sites alone should be used as a basis for discussion.
[Further discussion followed.]
Attitudes of UN Members to Site Location
There was brief discussion of the position of the various countries with respect to the location of the United Nations in Europe or in the United States.53 Reference was made to a circular telegram in which [Page 105] the Department of State inquired of American missions abroad the reaction of the various countries to this question.54
The replies indicated a majority of the members favor location in the United States, although it was not clear that all of those favoring some part of the United States would favor any other section as against a site in Europe.
- For the composition and structure of the United States Delegation to the Second Part of the First Session of the General Assembly, see pp. 37–42.↩
- The Department was very much concerned at this time at what was described by Mr. Nelson Rockefeller as “great bitterness in United Nations circles against New York and Federal Government because of our failure to make available necessary office space in accordance with what they claim to be Federal Government’s assurances to all delegations three months ago that space would be provided. …” (telegram 4992, October 5, from Paris (501.BB/10–546)). The Director of the Office of Special Political Affairs (Hiss) had already on October 3 written a memorandum on the subject to the Acting Secretary of State (Acheson) in which he referred to “the international implications of failure of this Government to fulfill its commitment, and … the extremely critical situation in New York. …” (501.AD/10–346)↩
- Telegram to chiefs of mission accredited to governments of Member States of the United Nations, September 19, 9 a.m., not printed.↩