Lot 60–D 224, Box 56: D.O./Conv.A/JSC Mins. 13–18
Informal Minutes of Meeting No. 15 of the Joint Steering Committee, Held at 4 p.m., September 17, at Dumbarton Oaks
| Present: | Ambassador Gromyko of the Soviet group; |
| Sir Alexander Cadogan and Mr. Jebb of the British group; | |
| Mr. Stettinius, Mr. Dunn, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Pasvolsky of the American group. | |
| Mr. Hiss also present, as secretary. |
In opening the meeting Mr. Stettinius said that he wished to apologize for having called a meeting on Sunday afternoon. He said, however, that he felt it was time for the Committee to take inventory of the situation. He went on to say that an appraisal of the situation reveals that an amazing amount of ground has been covered and that much in the way of agreement has been accomplished except for one obstacle, the question of the right of a state to vote when it is involved in a dispute. He said that as he understood the situation the position of the Soviet Government is that it cannot change its views on this matter.
Ambassador Gromyko replied that when this question had been asked of him at the last meeting of the Committee he had said that the Soviet position was a final one. Sir Alexander Cadogan stated that on the issue of voting in the Council there was no prospect at all of his Government changing its attitude.
[Page 819]Mr. Stettinius then said that he thought that for the benefit of all concerned the record should show clearly that the compromise proposal on this subject, which had recently been drafted and had been given consideration, was a tentative sounding of the respective Governments and had never been proposed or accepted by any of the three Governments.
Mr. Stettinius then went on to say that it seemed to him that there are three alternatives as to the procedure to be followed. He said that, first, the conversations could be terminated with a statement that the three groups have met and have found it impossible to reach agreement. He said that for his part that seemed to be an unthinkable solution. He said that, as he had remarked at the last meeting of the Committee, civilization as we know it and the entire future of the world depend upon the three powers remaining side by side in peace as in war. He said that he felt that means must be found for adjusting the positions of the three powers so that an international organization will be possible.
The second alternative procedure would be to publish the document as agreed to and to refer it to a general conference of the United Nations, leaving open the question of voting in the Council. He said he understood that Ambassador Gromyko could not agree to such an alternative.
Ambassador Gromyko said that he thought such a course would not be practicable, that it would be necessary to have prior agreement among the three powers. He said that he was expressing merely his own opinion. Mr. Stettinius asked whether his statement also represented the official view of the Soviet Government. Ambassador Gromyko replied again that he was simply stating his own view.
Mr. Stettinius then said that the third alternative would be to finish the conversations at Dumbarton Oaks, each group reporting to its own Government. The Governments could then study the results of the labors of the groups and a further meeting could be held thereafter. He said that he had a specific plan to this effect to propose but he wished first to inquire whether Ambassador Gromyko and Sir Alexander Cadogan had some other suggestion to make.
Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that it might be profitable to discuss the possibility of a general conference being held with the question of voting left open. Mr. Stettinius said that if such a course of procedure were possible he would like consideration to be given to it. Ambassador Gromyko said that he had no prepared proposal to make and that he would like to hear Mr. Stettinius’ specific plan.
Sir Alexander Cadogan said that he had just seen his Prime Minister and his Foreign Secretary. He said that he felt sure that they [Page 820] would not like the first alternative, namely, a mere breaking up of the discussions. He felt that the impression which would be given by such a course of action would not be quite a true one in as much as there has in fact been agreement on a wide range of subjects. As to the second alternative, he said that he believed that his Government would not like that either. He did not feel it would be wise to go into a large conference without prior agreement. He felt that the third alternative is the preferable one. He said that we could say that the groups have not been able to reach full agreement and that they, therefore, were referring the difficulties which had arisen to their Governments for them to study. He said that still another alternative, which he proposed only to knock down, would be to terminate the conversations without making any statement. Mr. Pasvolsky thought that this last alternative would not give a fair impression in view of the fact that so much has in fact been accomplished by the conversations.
Mr. Stettinius said that he was prepared to distribute copies of a memorandum setting forth a specific plan of procedure but that first he wished again to emphasize that the world dream of partnership among the nations is of such overriding importance that a way must be found to accomplish it. He said that he felt that the plan of procedure which he was about to suggest is not itself too good. He said that there will be tremendous adverse speculation as a result even of that course, speculation to the effect that the groups have not been able to agree. He said that everything in his being tells him that some way must be found to reach agreement.
Ambassador Gromyko said that he also felt that it should not be said that the groups had conferred and had been unable to agree. He said that his personal view is that the best thing to say would be that agreement had been reached on many questions relating to a security organization but that consideration of some questions had not been completed. He would say that discussion of these questions would have to be continued among the Governments themselves. He would not say that there had been disagreement; he would say that these questions would be considered at some later time. He said that he was expressing merely a “raw idea” and was not expressing official views on this particular subject.
Mr. Stettinius then distributed copies of a memorandum entitled “Possible Procedure”.4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .