CFM Files
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Charles E. Bohlen, Assistant to the Secretary of State
| Present: | The Secretary |
| Mr. Bohlen | |
| Mr. Molotov | |
| Mr. Pavlov |
Subject: Procedure for Plenary Sessions
The Secretary said he wanted to see Mr. Molotov in order to talk over procedure for the forthcoming plenary sessions of the Conference. He said he had been informed by representatives that there would be from 30 to 50 reports from the Commissions; and while many of these reports might not be of importance, nevertheless if each were to be discussed and debated in the plenary conference it was obvious that the work could not be completed within ten days. He felt it would be necessary to consider some program to control the debates.
Mr. Molotov agreed.
The Secretary continued that since Mr. Bidault was absent for a few days and Mr. Bevin had not returned, he wanted to have a preliminary talk with Mr. Molotov and they might then have a meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers following the return of the other two. He thought the Council might possibly meet on Saturday and consider a program for the plenary sessions similar to the one they had adopted for the Commissions. He felt that if they could agree among themselves they could then have the Secretariat present the program to the Conference.
Mr. Molotov said that he thought they could work out a suitable program.
The Secretary observed that from some Committees there would be more than one report, in most such cases a majority and minority report, and he thought it might be desirable to limit the number of speakers for and against any one report, possibly one for and one against.
[Page 646]Mr. Molotov said he felt it would be better to have two speakers on each side. If it were limited to one, then it would penalize the minority. He added that he expected to be speaking for the minority view, which was harder than speaking for the majority as Mr. Byrnes would be doing.
The Secretary remarked that he had made very few speeches here at the Conference.
Mr. Molotov said that as to limitation of time, he thought that the first speaker on each side could be unlimited, but that the second speaker could be perhaps limited say to five minutes.
The Secretary pointed out that if you allowed unlimited time to the first speaker who might then say speak for one hour, with translations it would mean three hours and would thus use up an entire session on one speech. He said he did not see how the work could be completed in those circumstances. Furthermore, no one could say that they were being unfair or restricting the right of freedom of speech if some such limitation were put on the speakers since for two months every member of the Conference had had full opportunity to speak on any point in connection with these treaties.
Mr. Molotov said he realized the difficulties but he felt it might be hard to restrict the first speaker for each side.
The Secretary pointed out that if, for example, 15 minutes were allowed to the original speakers, that together with translations would mean 45 minutes.
Mr. Molotov said that he agreed that it was necessary to draw a detailed plan for procedure and that we should study the question and have a meeting of the Foreign Ministers.
The Secretary asked Mr. Molotov if he still desired to return to Moscow before proceeding to New York.
Mr. Molotov said that such was his intention. He inquired whether in the Secretary’s opinion each clause in the treaty and each amendment should be a separate subject for discussion, or if the separate treaties should be discussed as a whole.
The Secretary replied that he would be agreeable to anything that would ensure the completion of the work of the Conference. He thought, however, that it would not be necessary to discuss each clause. He pointed out that in the Commissions, the representatives, who after all expressed the views of their governments, had had ample opportunity to make known their views on every clause and every amendment and that therefore it would be needless repetition to restate at the plenary sessions views which had been fully set forth in the Commissions. He thought that in cases where there was only a majority and a minority report from a Commission, the problem [Page 647] would not be so difficult since the discussion would refer to these reports. It would be more difficult if in addition to the majority and minority reports there were individual reports from certain members of a Commission. It was in such circumstances that a protracted debate might be expected. When there were only the two reports on a given treaty, the discussion could be confined to those reports but it might be necessary to vote by separate articles.
Mr. Molotov said that the report, however, would cover many articles. For example, the Political Commission on Italy has had a whole series of questions before it, and the members of that Commission hold various views on the different points, and he wondered if a discussion would be necessary on the individual questions.
The Secretary said that, for example, in the Italian treaty every member of the Conference except one (Norway) was represented on the Italian Commission. All the representatives on that Commission fully expressed the views of their governments. He did not see, therefore, why it was necessary to have the same views repeated, often by the same people, at the plenary session.
Mr. Molotov inquired whether the Secretary meant that the various articles should be voted separately without discussion.
The Secretary said he thought that that would be possible. Everyone would have a right to vote and there would be discussion on the Commissions’ report as a whole. Otherwise, he felt it would be impossible to get through by the fifteenth. He inquired what Mr. Molotov thought should be done if despite all efforts the Conference had not voted on all the questions before it by October 15.
Mr. Molotov said that the work must be finished by that day.
The Secretary said he agreed, but was merely thinking of the possibility that despite every effort the work would not be finished. He recognized that Mr. Molotov wished to return to Moscow but felt that if absolutely necessary the Conference should stay in session a few days more in order to complete its work.
Mr. Molotov repeated that they should make sure that the Conference complete its work by the fifteenth. He said he did not believe that the Council of Foreign Ministers could finish the final drafting of the treaties before the General Assembly met, but should meet in New York during the General Assembly to complete this work.
The Secretary pointed out that as they knew, Mr. Bevin could not get to New York before November 1, while Mr. Bidault, because of elections, would not be able to get there much before the fifteenth. He understood that the French elections were set for November 10 and Mr. Bidault would have to stay in Paris some days thereafter in connection with the formation of the new government. He thought that [Page 648] he might ask Mr. Bidault if Couve de Murville could not represent France at the Council meetings in New York so that they could start the work soon.
Mr. Molotov agreed that this would be a good idea.
Mr. Molotov suggested that in connection with the Conference, it would be well to start the plenary sessions Saturday, if possible, and have a meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers on Friday.
The Secretary said it would depend upon the return of Mr. Bevin and Mr. Bidault but that he was entirely agreeable to a meeting on Friday.