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

RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 99: UNCIO Cons Five Min 17

Minutes of the Seventeenth Five-Power Informal Consultative Meeting on Proposed Amendments, Held at San Francisco, June 7, 1945, 3 p.m.

San Francisco, June 7, 1945, 3 p.m.

[Informal Notes]

[Here follows list of names of participants, including members of delegations of the United States (21); United Kingdom (5); Soviet Union (4); China (3); and France (5).]

Mr. Stettinius convened the meeting at 3:00 p.m., and asked Ambassador Gromyko to make a statement that he had wished to make at this time.

Ambassador Gromyko stated that this group had discussed the question of the voting procedure in the Security Council at several previous meetings⁴⁵ and he wished at this time to make a statement on this subject. In connection with the statement on voting procedure in the Security Council worked on by the delegations of the four sponsoring governments, he wanted to say that the Soviet Government continued to consider the Yalta agreement as binding. This meant that unanimity of the five permanent members was required in decisions of the Council, with the exceptions provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Section C, Chapter VI. Nevertheless, in the interests of unanimity and in order to speed up the work of the Conference, the Soviet Government would agree to an exception for the vote on the question of considering and discussing a dispute under paragraph 2, Section A, Chapter VIII. This, he said, should be handled by an adaptation in the text of the statement of May 26, 1945,⁴⁶ in order to prevent attempts to secure exceptions on other paragraphs of Section A or on other questions of voting.

Ambassador Gromyko indicated that the amendments which the Soviet Delegation wished to submit would be distributed. He emphasized that these amendments were to the draft statement of May 26, 1945.

The following document was then distributed by Ambassador Gromyko: Amendments Submitted by the Soviet Delegation to the Draft of the Statement by the Delegations of the Four Sponsoring Governments on Voting Procedure in the Security Council Dated May 26, 1945:

• “1. To omit two last sentences of Paragraph 1 which read as follows:

  ‘The Security Council will also be charged with many other functions. Here, too, a distinction needs to be made, in the application of the Yalta voting formula, between the decisions which will be governed by a procedural veto and the other decisions which will require a qualified vote.’

• “2. To omit the last sentence of Paragraph 2 which reads as follows:

  ‘It is likely that several other important decisions of the Council win also be governed by a procedural vote.’

• “3. To insert into the first sentence of Paragraph 3 after the words ‘consideration and discussion’ the following words:

  ‘under Paragraph 2, Section A, Chapter VIII’

• “Thus the first sentence of Paragraph 3 should read as follows:

  ‘No individual member of the Security Council can alone prevent a consideration and discussion by the Security Council of a dispute or situation brought to its attention under Paragraph 2, Section A, Chapter VIII.’

• “4. To replace in Paragraph 1, Section II the words ‘should be mentioned’ by the words ‘are mentioned’.”

The meeting then broke up into small groups to study the draft.

Ambassador Gromyko explained that, when point 4 on the draft submitted by the Soviet Delegation had been prepared, the Soviet Delegation had not had the English text before it. Therefore, the word “mentioned” had been used instead of “contained”, although the words “are mentioned” were considered to be the equivalent of the word “contains” used in the Soviet redraft of the four-power statement of June 1, 1945.⁴⁷

Ambassador Halifax asked for clarification on point 3 in the memorandum submitted by the Soviet Delegation. The Soviet Delegation then proposed to insert into the first sentence of paragraph 3 of the May 26 statement the words “under paragraph 2, Section A, Chapter VIII” following the words “consideration and discussion”. No suggestion is made as to the omission of the phrase “since the Council has the right by a procedural vote to decide its own rules of procedure.” Ambassador Halifax asked if it was intended to include this opening phrase.

Ambassador Gromyko replied that it had been agreed at a previous meeting to omit the beginning of the sentence in paragraph 3 of the May 26 statement and to begin that paragraph with the words: “No individual member of the Council can alone prevent …” Mr. Pasvolsky indicated that a new paragraph, 3 had been subsequently drafted in the Subcommittee of Five that began somewhat differently.

Following this statement, informal consultations were held for a few moments among the members of the different delegations.

Mr. Stettinius said that the gentlemen present would recall that the Subcommittee of Five had spent many days and nights discussing this problem and working on this statement. He thought it would be helpful if Mr. Pasvolsky would give an interpretation of the amendments to the May 26 draft presented in the paper submitted by the Soviet Delegation. He said he would also ask Mr. Pasvolsky to discuss fully the relation of these amendments to the provisions in the Charter.

Mr. Pasvolsky stated that the key to the whole question was contained in the paper marked “II” of May 28, 1945.⁴⁸ The purpose of the statement in this paper was to indicate that, since the Charter would contain an indication of the matters requiring a procedural vote, it was unlikely that questions of a seriously controversial nature would arise as to what was procedural or not procedural. Therefore, it was proper to have, and no one should be concerned over, the provision in paragraph 2 of that statement that the question as to whether a matter was procedural or not would have to be settled by a nonprocedural vote.

Mr. Pasvolsky stated that this meant that the Charter had to be dear on the area of questions to be decided by a procedural vote and on questions to be decided by a unanimous vote. He pointed out that the statement as it had been presented to the group would handle this matter in the form of an interpretation. He said, however, that it would be an advantage to indicate in the Charter itself that questions under Section D of Chapter VI would be settled by a procedural vote and also to say that any consideration which arises out of cases brought to the attention of the Council under paragraph 2, Section A, Chapter VIII, should also be covered by a procedural vote.

Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that two other specific cases had been agreed to, that would be indicated in the Charter, for which a procedural vote would be specified. These were the election of judges and the convocation of a conference for the review of the Charter. Mr. Pasvolsky added that one interesting question might arise as to whether or not a case brought before the Council by the Secretary General would fall outside the suggested exception for cases brought forward under paragraph 2, Section A, Chapter VIII. He wondered whether a question might not arise on this point, since the Secretary General was empowered to call matters to the attention of the Security Council.

Ambassador Gromyko indicated that, if any question arose as to whether a decision should be taken by a procedural or non-procedural vote it would have to be decided by a vote of seven members, including the five permanent members.

Mr. Pasvolsky stated that we would have to be prepared for the kind of question he had just mentioned and should know the kind of answer we were going to give. Since we would be saying in the interpretative statement that the procedural vote was indicated in the Charter for various functions of the Council, would we be willing to specify that the procedural vote applied to questions under Section D, Chapter VI and with respect to discussion of matters brought to the attention of the Security Council under paragraph 2, Section A, Chapter VIII and by such other methods as are provided in the Charter.

Ambassador Gromyko replied that it was clear that Section D of Chapter VI of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals included questions of a procedural character. Besides, he said, we agreed that the convocation of the conference for the review of the Charter should be called without the concurring votes of the permanent members, and we also agreed that the election of judges would not need the concurring votes of the permanent members If the question was raised in the future as to whether a question should be decided by a procedural vote, it had been agreed that the Security Council would have the right to decide whether a question was procedural by a vote of seven, including the five permanent members.

Further informal consultations were held among the members of the delegations.

Mr. Pasvolsky said that he had raised this question only because it would probably be put to us and he thought we should think about it and probably meet it when it comes up, if such a question is actually raised.

Ambassador Gromyko commented that, if such a question was raised, it would be easy to give an answer from the interpretation. Mr. Pasvolsky was not sure this would satisfy the questioners. He added, that he thought that with the indication of the question he had given that would probably be asked, he believed the statement of May 26, should be accepted with the Soviet amendments.

Mr. Stettinius asked if Ambassador Halifax was ready to make a statement.

Ambassador Halifax replied that he could certainly make a comment expressing his warm appreciation of the efforts the Ambassador had made to help in assuring the success of the common effort. He was sure that all his colleagues felt as strongly as he did. He said he could not make a final comment, but after the study of the words he felt that most of the changes proposed were changes in drafting to make the sense of the May 26 statement clear.

Ambassador Halifax indicated that the main comment he had to make followed from what Mr. Pasvolsky had stated. If there was agreement on the main point at issue, he felt it would be desirable and necessary to include in the Charter the provision that discussion under paragraph 2, Section A, Chapter VIII, would take place on the basis of a procedural vote. What we might answer to a question on this matter was not now in the Charter and he believed that the answer should find its place in the Charter.

Ambassador Halifax stated that the second point he would like to make was that while the British Delegation was hopeful and had no reason to believe that the Soviet suggestions did not solve the difficulty, it wished to have a closer look at the amendments in order to satisfy itself that they carried out the general line of approach. He indicated that the British Delegation would like this opportunity to give the amendments further study.

Mr. Pasvolsky stated that he wanted to say that this interpretation, as amended by the Soviet Delegation, clearly indicated what the four delegations had in mind. We knew that certain questions would be raised and we could prepare ourselves to answer them. In his Opinion, however, the interpretation quite clearly gave us what we wanted.

Mr. Stettinius said that he and Ambassador Gromyko had had a private conversation prior to this meeting and, because of the wide speculation in the public press, he and the Ambassador had felt that it would be the common desire to hold a meeting of the Steering Committee and make a statement to that Committee before there would be opportunity for wild speculation on the outcome of this meeting. He requested the authority as Chairman to make a statement to the Steering Committee as to the exact situation. He noted that a meeting of the Steering Committee had been called for 4:30 p.m. and suggested that, in order to focus the minds of the members of the group on a particular statement, he would read to them a draft just prepared:

Alternative

“Consultations among the four sponsoring powers and France have resulted in agreement on the interpretation of the Crimea provisions for voting in the Security Council.

“The agreement reached preserves the principle of the unanimity of the permanent members of the Council in all actions taken by the Council, while at the same time assuring freedom of hearing and discussion in the Council, before action is taken. We believe both are essential to the success of the World Organization.

“Under the terms of the agreement, unanimity of the permanent members of the Council is required in all decisions for enforcement action and—except as to parties to disputes—in all decisions for peaceful settlements. But this requirement of unanimity does not apply to the right of any nation to bring a dispute before the Council as provided by Paragraph 2, Section A, Chapter VIII, and no individual member of the Council can alone prevent a consideration and discussion by the Council of a dispute or situation thus brought to its attention.

“The successful conclusion of discussions of this matter among the four sponsoring powers and France offers a new and heartening proof of the will and the ability of the nations which have fought the war in Europe to a successful conclusion to construct, upon the strong foundations of their victory in that war, a workable and effective and lasting peace in which they will labor side by side, with mutual understanding and a common purpose.

“The same spirit which has now been so effectively demonstrated by the powers which have taken part in these conversations will, I feel certain, motivate the entire Conference and make possible the speedy and successful conclusion of its task in which I for one have always had an unwavering faith and confidence.”

Copies of the above statement were distributed. (Most of these copies were not corrected with the most recent changes which are included above).

Mr. Stettinius then stated that he had not officially spoken for the American Delegation on this matter either with respect to the general proposition or as to the detail of the public statement.

Mr. Stettinius then asked Mr. Boncour to give his views on the question under discussion. Mr. Boncour said that he agreed with the proposals made by Ambassador Gromyko and in addition favored a statement to the Steering Committee along the lines suggested by Mr. Stettinius.

Mr. Stettinius then called on Ambassador Koo. Ambassador Koo replied that the statement by Ambassador Gromyko was of great importance in that it met the chief point under discussion, that is, the character of the vote for the discussion and consideration of disputes brought before the Council. He said he would like, however, in order to have a fuller appreciation of how the changes fitted into the May 26 statement, to have a text of that statement prepared with the changes inserted.⁴⁹ He thought it would be a great help to have such a draft circulated in order that all would understand exactly what had been agreed to. This feeling, he said, did not prevent him from expressing his warm appreciation of the efforts made by the Soviet Delegation, in this regard.

As to the second point, Ambassador Koo said he saw the expediency of making a statement to the Steering Committee, but that, since the statement had just been laid before him, he would like to go over it.

Ambassador Halifax indicated that he wanted to say that, if the statement presented by Mr. Stettinius was agreeable to the Soviet Ambassador, as no doubt it would be, he would be quite prepared to have the British Delegation associated with it. He said he thought the statement was a fine one and that the appeal was to the heart as well as to the head, as it should be. Ambassador Halifax added that, if there were any minor points of interpretation of the statement of May 26 as amended by the Soviet Delegation, those might be left to be examined after Mr. Stettinius had made his statement. Any delegation might raise questions that they had. He thought that we should go forward in the spirit shown by Ambassador Gromyko and by Mr. Stettinius in the statement that he had just read.

Brief informal consultations were then held by the members of the delegations.

Mr. Boncour said he was sorry he had been so long in giving his reply on the Soviet proposal, but he had had to take time to compare the texts. He believed that a great effort had been made at conciliation and he was very grateful to the Soviet Delegation for having made this effort.

Mr. Stettinius indicated that Mr. Foote now had the text of the draft statement with two minor changes suggested by the Soviet Government that did not involve a change in meaning. He asked if the members of the group wished to be informed of these two minor changes.

Ambassador Koo commented that he had two suggestions to make on Mr. Stettinius’ statement to the Steering Committee: (1) In the beginning of the third paragraph the words “relating to enforcement action” should be substituted for the words “for enforcement action”. He thought this change was more in line with the purpose that had been agreed upon. (2) In the fourth paragraph Ambassador Koo suggested that the words “upon the strong foundations of their victory in that war” should be omitted, since another war was still going on and the use of that phrase might give the wrong impression. He proposed also that the phrase “which have fought the war in Europe to a successful conclusion” be omitted so that the sentence would read “… the ability of the United Nations to construct a workable and effective and lasting peace …” Ambassador Gromyko indicated that “the United Nations” would not be altogether appropriate at this point. Ambassador Halifax suggested “… allied nations which have fought together in the war to construct a workable and effective and lasting peace…”

Mr. Stettinius asked whether the statement could be left in his hands to polish off. Ambassador Halifax said he would like to hear the two minor changes suggested by the Soviet Delegation. Mr. Stettinius indicated that they were simply the omission of the phrase “interpretation of the Crimea” in the first paragraph and the addition of the phrase in the beginning of the third paragraph “provided by the Crimea agreement” following the word “required”.

There was then a brief time in which the members of the delegations consulted informally with each other.

Mr. Stettinius stated that the statement that he had read expressed what was directly in his heart and mind concerning the successful conclusion of the Conference. He wished to express his deep personal appreciation to Ambassador Gromyko and to the other members of the group on the successful outcome of these discussions.

Ambassador Halifax suggested that the group of experts meet on the voting statement that evening so that tomorrow the work of the Committee could go forward and the progress of the Conference be expedited. This plan to hold a meeting of the Subcommittee of Five to prepare the final draft of the interpretative statement on voting was generally agreed to.

Ambassador Gromyko indicated that he had one further point he would like to make. He noted that one question that had been left open concerned the seat of the proposed preparatory commission. He would like to inform the heads of delegations that the Soviet Delegation was agreeable to London as the seat of the commission.

Ambassador Koo indicated that he was also agreeable to this decision. Mr. Stettinius stated that the question was then agreed to among the Big Five.

Mr. Stettinius closed the meeting at 4:15 p.m. stating that the members present should go promptly to the meeting of the Steering Committee⁵¹ without indicating before arrival at that Committee the substance of the decisions taken at this meeting.

45. Minutes of Five-Power meetings, May 26, 9:15 p.m., p. 926; May 29, 11 a.m., p. 968; June 1, 9 p.m., p. 1071; and June 2, 10 a.m., p. 1094.
46. Not printed.
47. Not printed.
48. U.S. Und. 49a, concerning an answer to question 19 (Doc. 855, III/1/B/2(a), June 8, UNCIO Documents, vol. 11, p. 707), not printed.
49. Soviet text of the Four-Power statement, with minor changes proposed and agreed to at the Five-Power meeting on June 7, not printed; text similar to the final June 7 statement, UNCIO Documents, vol. 11, p. 711.
51. Doc. 847, ST/12, June 7, 1945, UNCIO Documents, vol. 5, p. 244.