Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1945, General: The United Nations, Volume I

RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 96: U.S. Cr. Min. 14

Minutes of the Fourteenth Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Tuesday, April 24, 1945, 9:30 a.m.

San Francisco, April 24, 1945, 9:30 a.m.

[Informal Notes—Extracts]

[Here follows list of names of persons (15) present at meeting.]

Senator Vandenberg opened the meeting at 9:30 a.m. Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that there were two items on the agenda. A discussion of a paper on United States Delegation, Organization and Procedures, drafted April 22, 1945 and discussion of a paper entitled Principal Proposals by Other Governments and Arguments Against Them, April 23, 1945.⁸²

[Here follows discussion on the organization and procedures of the United States delegation; on relations with the press; and on arrangements for meeting the Secretary, who would arrive at the San Francisco airport at approximately 10:30 a.m. (he had left Washington at midnight on Monday, April 23).]

Principal Proposals by Other Governments and Arguments Against Them

Senator Vandenberg suggested that Mr. Pasvolsky introduce the document before the Delegation, Principal Proposals by Other Governments. Mr. Pasvolsky indicated that this document incorporated many points which had already been discussed but that its main function was to bring concretely together the main arguments against the proposals of other governments that we would not favor. Senator Vandenberg thought this type of document was very useful and asked what procedure should be followed in discussing it. Mr. Pasvolsky proposed that the Delegation go over the argumentation to see whether the arguments were in each case adequate.

Chapter II—Principles

Mr. Pasvolsky then introduced the first proposal by Brazil, Bolivia and other countries that there should be included among the principles maintenance of the territorial integrity and political independence of member states. Mr. Pasvolsky suggested that the two arguments against this proposal be reversed. Mr. Bowman indicated that he would favor maintaining our position to exclude a principle of this character. He thought particularly that we should be aware of the difficulties involved since to put the emphasis upon the possibilities of change would tend to take the lid off the box. He questioned whether the reference in the first argument to the modification of boundaries was wise. It would seem to give opportunities to states to revise boundaries.

Representative Eaton asked why New Zealand favored this particular principle. Mr. Pasvolsky replied that this principle was favored by the New Zealand Minister in Washington⁸³ who felt that the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals did not go far enough to guarantee the boundaries of states. He did not believe however, that the New Zealand argument needed to be taken too seriously. Mr. Armstrong thought it was important in arguing for our position not to say anything that would give the impression that we favored a change of boundaries. He was afraid this would open the door to a difficult situation.

Mr. Stassen asked whether the Act of Chapultepec did not guarantee the territorial integrity of states in this hemisphere. Mr. Pasvolsky replied that the Act of Chapultepec defined aggression as a crossing of a frontier.⁸⁴ He thought this might be all right. He proposed that argument 1 be omitted and that argument 2 be retained but expanded to include the idea that an enumeration of what is included under the term “sovereign equality” would weaken the concept which, stated in general terms, covers a very broad field.

Mr. Bowman commented that since the question of territorial integrity would be raised by a large number of states he thought it was desirable to agree upon a formula which would satisfy everybody He said he would be glad to attempt the drafting of such a formula at any time he was so directed. Senator Vandenberg noted that this subject fell within the jurisdiction of Committee 1 of Commission I. Mr. Dulles commented that this was a most delicate problem.

Dean Gildersleeve suggested that Mr. Bowman prepare a formula along the lines he had suggested and submit it to Committee 1 for consideration. Mr. Pasvolsky’s suggestion for the argumentation on the principle of territorial integrity was accepted generally by the Delegates.

Chapter III—Membership

Mr. Pasvolsky commented that the main proposal on membership that we would wish to counter was the suggestion of the principle of universal membership. According to this principle all states would automatically be members of the organization. He pointed out that most theories of universal membership involved the idea that some countries would not exercise the privileges of membership although considered members of the organization. In practice he said, there would be the categories of initial membership and other members admitted later, and it was on the basis of this theory that we were proceeding. He suggested that to the present arguments there be added the idea that the organization is to be an association of states for certain purposes and not the super state indicated by a provision for universal membership.

Mr. Stassen commented that he was greatly interested in seeing that certain rules were established for the whole world, so that there would be some things which the Organization would decide that would be abided by by everyone. Mr. Dulles noted that there was a principle dealing with that very conception. Mr. Pasvolsky, in reply to a question from Senator Vandenberg, said that this particular problem lay within the jurisdiction of Committee 2 of Commission I.

Mr. Stassen said he would like to see some language, possibly in the Preamble of the Charter, indicating that the Organization was concerned with the entire world and that states regardless of whether they were members or not would be expected to abide by certain laws. Representative Eaton agreed with Mr. Stassen that there would have to be created a world law and that non-member states would have to abide by certain provisions of it. Mr. Armstrong thought it might be provided that non-member states should act in accordance with it. Senator Vandenberg indicated that he would hate to do anything that would brand the new Organization as a world state.

Chapter V—The General Assembly, Section B—Functions and Powers

Senator Vandenberg asked to which committee this topic fell. Mr. Gerig replied that it came within the jurisdiction of Committee 1 of Commission II. Mr. Gerig explained that a large number of states were unofficially pressing this idea of extending the powers of the General Assembly and that the main difficulty was that any such broad extension of its powers would involve the General Assembly in the security field. Senator Vandenberg then read the proposal by Cuba, Mexico and Paraguay that the General Assembly be the supreme authority of the organization in all matters within the scope of the charter including the maintenance of international peace and security.

Senator Vandenberg suggested that Mr. Gerig read the arguments, which Mr. Gerig then did. Mr. Bowman remarked that the most important argument was not stated and that was that the ultimate causes of war lie in certain economic conditions and relationships and that it was these problems with which the General Assembly would deal. The Assembly after all would be the primary organ dealing constructively with all of the fundamental economic and social problems. Mr. Bowman thought the argument should start off with this positive note. Mr. Dulles explained that one got into the question of weighted voting the moment one thought of giving the General Assembly supreme authority in the organization in all matters within the scope of the Charter. He added that this question of weighted voting raised problems that could not be resolved. Dean Gildersleeve commented that it was a fallacy to believe that the only democratic way of settling questions was by a majority vote in the Assembly. Mr. Dulles agreed that when each state with such different populations had one vote it was not democracy. Mr. Stassen agreed.

Senator Vandenberg then read the second proposal by Chile, Ecudor, Guatemala, Paraguay and Venezuela, that the General Assembly should be empowered to review decisions of the Security Council and to consider appeals from such decisions. Senator Vandenberg indicated that the argument against this proposal was obvious. Mr. Bowman asked Mr. Gerig if the experience of the League did not bear out the undesirability of this proposal. Mr. Gerig agreed that the League experience suggested that too much time would be lost if the General Assembly had a power of review of decisions of the Council. Mr. Armstrong pointed out that the fact had to be recognized, however, that the small states in the League Assembly had been more willing to take action than the large states on the Security Council. Mr. Gerig noted that one reason for this was that probably the small states were not so immediately involved in taking action themselves.

Senator Vandenberg said that the next proposal, to grant to the General Assembly the right of referendum on decisions of the Security Council and to provide that such decisions will not become binding on all member states until approved by a two-thirds majority of the Assembly, would fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee 2 of Commission II. Mr. Notter noted that the right of the Assembly to approve action in fact involved the right of the Assembly to force action. He pointed out that Mr. Padilla had in mind empowering the General Assembly to take action if the Security Council was stopped by the veto of any one state.

At Senator Vandenberg’s suggestion the meeting was recessed at 11:15 in order to permit the Delegates to greet the Secretary in his office. The meeting reconvened at 12:15.

Press Policy

Principal Proposals by Other Governments and Arguments Against Them, Chapter VI—Security Council

Senator Vandenberg commented that the next proposal to consider was one by Canada, that special provisions be adopted to insure due representation of the middle powers as non-permanent members of the Security Council. Mr. Pasvolsky explained that if this question comes up the Delegation had agreed that they would not recognize any single criterion, that if they have to recognize any criterion the Delegation would want to list a large number. He thought that the Latin American countries might emphasize moral contribution as one element but that in any case we should be prepared to bring forward a list of criteria in order to avoid settlement on any single criterion. Mr. Dulles commented that any middle power proposition would divide nations into two groups and that tremendous competition to qualify as a middle power would be started. Mr. Dulles suggested that the way to beat the proposal was to ask what states would be classified as middle powers. Mr. Pasvolsky agreed that in this way the situation could be snarled up so that we could probably maintain the present provisions.

Press Policy

Mr. MacLeish announced that Mr. Byington, who had just arrived with the Secretary, had come to the meeting to discuss press policy with the Delegation. Senator Vandenberg remarked that there were a number of problems troubling the Delegation and that there was a general feeling that it was time to tell the press what they can and what they cannot do. All of the Delegation felt, he said, that relations with the press were vital and that the press contacts of the Delegation were almost as important as what happened in the substantive discussions themselves. Senator Vandenberg urged that a press policy was necessary.

Mr. Byington explained that as he understood it the press were free to see the Delegates and that a special press room had been provided for them. Mr. MacLeish added that in addition to the special press room on the fourth floor of the Fairmont, the Green Room on the main floor would be available for press conferences. Mr. Stassen urged that the press be prevented from entering any rooms except the press rooms and that in addition there be daily background press conferences. Senator Vandenberg commented that he saw no use of background conferences if there was going to be merely shadow boxing. We had to be frank he said and we would have to do something to counteract the fact that the Conference was opening with a natural attitude of anxiety, gloom and doubt. He said a specific story was what the press needed and that they could have it in the assignment of Delegates to Commissions.

Mr. MacLeish asked whether it would be possible to announce the proposals which this Government intended to make. Mr. Pasvolsky said this would be very unwise since other nations would think that we were trying to force their hand.

Mr. Dulles noted that while it might be 4 inwise to announce the specific assignments to Commissions and Committees since the organization of the Conference had not yet been agreed to, he thought the assignment of Delegates by subjects could be made public. This proposal was generally agreed to.

. . . . . . .

Senator Vandenberg adjourned the meeting at 12:55.

82. Neither printed.
83. C. A. Berendsen.
84. Resolution VIII of the Final Act of the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, part I, par. 3, in Report of the Delegation of the United States of America to the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, Mexico City, Mexico, February 21–March 8, 1945, p. 74.