RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 96: U.S. Cr. Min. 50 (Exec.)
Minutes of the Fiftieth Meeting (Executive Session) of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, Tuesday, May 22, 1945, 10:50 a.m.
[Here follows list of names of persons (29) present at meeting.]
Withdrawal
The Secretary stated that the discussions of the Delegation on the question of withdrawal were being held in Executive Session because of the great importance in preventing any information getting out on this subject.
Representative Eaton briefly reviewed the developments in Committee I/2 concerning the question of withdrawal. He reported that the Uruguayan, Brazilian, and Ecuadoran Delegations were presenting their case for a provision which would prohibit withdrawal from the Organization. He recalled that at an earlier meeting of this [Page 848] Committee when a drafting subcommittee had recommended that silence in the Charter be interpreted to mean that the right of withdrawal did not exist, he had reserved the position of the United States.65 When the subject was re-opened for discussion at the meeting of Committee I/2 last night66 he had read the following statement:
“Mr. Chairman, it is the position of the United States Delegation that there should be no amendment prohibiting withdrawal from the Organization. The memorandum of the Rapporteur of the Drafting Subcommittee on membership, read in this Committee on May 14, suggests that if there is no prohibition of withdrawal, and if the Charter remains silent on this matter, any possibility of lawful withdrawal is eliminated. That is not my view. Rather, it is my opinion that if the Charter is silent on withdrawal, the possibility of withdrawal would have to be determined in any particular case in the light of the surrounding circumstances at the time.”
He stated that as things were developing now it would appear from the standpoint of the public that there was one way to get into the Organization and three ways to get out. He stated that personally he was not in favor either of withdrawal or expulsion. He expressed the fear that if a withdrawal clause were inserted in the Charter, it would greatly weaken the entire Organization.
Commander Stassen , before leaving the meeting, expressed his agreement with the position taken by Representative Eaton, and urged that the Charter be silent with regard to withdrawal.
Mr. Armstrong expressed the view that it might be too late to maintain the position that the Charter should be silent on withdrawal. He reported that the issue before the Committee was whether or not a provision on withdrawal should be included in the Charter. If no provision on this subject were inserted in the Charter then it would be necessary to agree upon an interpretative statement on the meaning of the silence of the Charter. Mr. Dulles concurred in the view that the Charter should be silent and thought that an interpretative statement was necessary. Mr. Hackworth suggested that no provision on withdrawal be made in the Charter, and pointed out that the right of withdrawal would exist, in any event, without specific provision. In his view, it was impossible to put a country in a straight jacket and keep it within the Organization against its will.
Representative Bloom stated that he believed that the provisions on suspension and expulsion should be maintained but that the Charter should remain silent on withdrawal. He added that if it was impossible to maintain this position then it might be necessary to put in a clause on the procedure for withdrawal as a counter measure [Page 849] to those who were using the interpretation that silence in the Charter meant that there was no right of withdrawal. Mr. Armstrong repeated that the issue was whether or not we favored any mention of withdrawal in the Charter and if not how the silence of the Charter on this question should be interpreted.
Mr. Pasvolsky stated that our position was that we did not want to mention withdrawal and suggested that we might get the Uruguayan, Brazilian and Ecuadoran Delegations to withdraw their amendments concerning the prohibition of withdrawal.
Representative Bloom observed that if the amendments proposed for the prohibition of withdrawal were likely to receive strong support, it would be necessary to introduce another amendment which would provide for voluntary withdrawal.
The Secretary concluded the discussion by observing that the position of the Delegation had already been stated by Representative Eaton. He thought that the less said on this subject the better. He requested Mr. Dulles to attend the meeting of the Subcommittee which was to discuss this question.