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 15

Minutes of the Fifteenth Five-Power Informal Consultative Meeting on Proposed Amendments, Held at San Francisco, June 4, 1945, 12 noon

San Francisco, June 4, 1945, noon

[Informal Notes]

[Here follows list of names of participants, including members of delegations of the United States (24); United Kingdom (4); China (4); France (6); and the Soviet Union (5).]

Mr. Stettinius opened the meeting by recalling the agreement to meet today to complete, if possible, the discussion on the open items. He asked Mr. Pasvolsky to proceed promptly with the presentation of the items on the agenda.

1. French Proposal—Chapter VIII, Section C, Paragraph 2

Mr. Pasvolsky said that the first item was the French proposal relative to Chapter VIII, Section C, Paragraph 2.

Mr. Stettinius said that the text before the group was the one which had been approved previously by the United States, the United Kingdom, China, and France.⁹⁹ The Soviet Union had asked time to study the text further. Ambassador Gromyko said that he had nothing to report.

Mr. Stettinius asked if it could be agreed to let this draft go to the Committee promptly. Dr. Soong and Lord Halifax indicated approval. Mr. Dejean said that the French attributed great importance to this matter and that they would prefer to have the answer of the Soviet Delegation before the matter is presented to a Committee.

Ambassador Gromyko reported that he had nothing further to say on the matter today. He did not understand why this item had been put on the agenda without his being consulted as he had previously indicated that he had asked for instructions from his Government. He would report to the other Delegations as soon as he had received instructions.

Mr. Stettinius said that this item had been put on the agenda in accordance with the procedure which had been agreed upon of continuing these meetings daily until all the open items had been disposed of. He said that he proposed to continue to follow this practice until the consideration of the items had been completed. He asked Ambassador Gromyko whether he considered that this matter was so important that it should not go to the Commission before he had received instructions. Ambassador Gromyko repeated that he had nothing more to say on the question now, but that he thought we should finish our consultation before the matter is referred to a Committee.

Mr. Stettinius inquired whether this matter had reached a point where the five Delegations should take a vote. Lord Halifax said that he was impressed by the reluctance of the French Delegation to proceed without approval of the Soviet Government. He did not know whether the Committee’s action was being held up on account of this matter. Senator Vandenberg said that it was; that in fact the Committee had not been able to take any action for eleven days.¹

Mr. Bowman [ Boncour ?] said that his Delegation would like very much to have the Soviet reply before any action is taken. He thanked Lord Halifax for referring to this matter and said that he would like a further delay.

Mr. Stettinius said that as two Delegations had asked for delay this question would be held up. He asked Lord Halifax whether he thought there should be any time limit. Lord Halifax said that further delay created a very difficult situation, but that he was sure the Soviet Ambassador was fully aware of the situation. The Soviet Ambassador said that he had nothing to add and reiterated that he was awaiting a reply from his Government.

2. Amendments—Conference for Revision of Charter

Mr. Pasvolsky said that this item had been held over from the last meeting.

Lord Halifax said that his Delegation was willing to accept both suggestions made at the last meeting by Mr. Armstrong.² He thought that the only point in debate was whether when the Committee met the changes proposed in the text should be offered immediately and whether there should be an effort first to obtain agreement on the original text of the Four-Power Amendment and if defeated on that then to offer to make the changes agreed upon. Ambassador Gromyko said that his Delegation believes strongly in the Joint Four-Power Amendment and that they were prepared to stand on it. Again, with respect to this item he did not understand why it was placed on the agenda.

Mr. Armstrong said that he had assumed that the Soviet Ambassador wanted to refer the matter to his Government for instructions. In the ensiling discussion there was an indication of uncertainty as to the status in which this matter had been left at the end of the discussion at the preceding meeting

Mr. Pasvolsky said that he thought the principal question was a procedural one—as to whether the committee should vote on the Four-Power Amendment or on the amendments which had been considered. An adjournment of the Technical Committee had been asked in order to give time to consider this question.

Mr. Armstrong said that there was a question of substance. Is the Soviet Government prepared to consider concessions? If not, how should we proceed? He thought the question was one largely of political judgment. Lord Halifax suggested the possibility of allowing the Committee debate to proceed on the Canadian Amendment. Mr. Armstrong pointed out that the subcommittee had adjourned following debate on the Canadian Amendment and that the procedure would be to take a vote immediately upon the convening of the next meeting.

The amendment in question was one to the effect that a conference should be called within a period of from five to ten years.

Lord Halifax inquired whether it would help if a Committee meeting were held and it were said that the vote might be postponed as discussions were proceeding among the Five Powers. The Five Powers hoped that they might shortly have something to say on the question. Mr. Armstrong said that a statement along these lines had been made in obtaining the previous postponement of the subcommittee.

Ambassador Gromyko said that he wanted to make his position clear. The Soviet Delegation stands on the joint amendment of the Four Powers. If he should receive any new instructions from his Government on the matter he would inform the Chairman of the other Delegations.

Mr. Armstrong said that the question is whether we want to take a Stand on the Four-Power Amendment now with the prospect of being defeated on the vote in the Committee and then take up the proposed modifications, or whether we wanted to take up the modifications first.

Lord Halifax asked whether the Ambassador thought he would have anything to offer as a hope that there might be some modification in the position of his Government. Ambassador Gromyko thought that the Committee should continue with its regular procedure.

Mr. Armstrong reiterated that the first business of the Committee when it met again would be to vote. The discussion has been completed. Ambassador Gromyko asked whether there was a subcommittee. Mr. Armstrong replied that his reference was to the subcommittee. If there was a hope of change in the position of the Four Governments he would favor asking for further postponement of the Committee. If not, we should decide now whether to go on in the Committee on the basis of the present text.

Ambassador Gromyko said we should go to the Committee and defend the Four-Power Amendment. Mr. Stettinius remarked that this had already been done.

Lord Halifax thought that there were three alternatives: (1) to stand on the Four-Power Amendment with risk of defeat; (2) to reach an agreement now to make concessions; (3) to give freedom of action to the Five Powers to act separately on the matter.

Ambassador Gromyko remarked that the Five Powers had been defeated before and still stood firmly for the position they had taken. We should stand by this amendment and assert our influence.

Mr. Stettinius said that the Five Delegations were faced with a situation in which there would be an unfavorable vote. He thought we might ask that the subcommittee meeting be deferred once more while waiting for a reply from the Soviet Government.

3. Right of General Assembly to Discuss Any Matter Within the Sphere of International Relations

Ambassador Gromyko thought that it had been agreed yesterday³ that this question should be considered by the Executive Committee. He said that he considered the broad form in which this text had been adopted by the Committee to be quite undesirable.

Mr. Stettinius emphasized that to press for any change in this text now would cause great disappointment to the smaller powers. He felt very strongly that it would be undesirable to “slap down” the smaller powers on this question.

Dr. Soong said that in view of the atmosphere of the Conference he thought it was desirable to give this small concession to the other powers. Mr. Boncour and Lord Halifax agreed. Ambassador Gromyko thought the matter should be thought out in the Steering Committee.

Mr. Stettinius said that it was agreeable with him to have the matter brought to the Executive Committee. In that event, he inquired whether we could agree on freedom of action.

Ambassador Gromyko said that he would agree to have the matter go to the Executive Committee if the Five Powers should be agreed on the proposal. He had made the proposal that this question be submitted to the Steering Committee because he thought there was a contradiction between this provision and other provisions with respect to the power of the General Assembly.

Mr. Stettinius asked whether the Ambassador meant that the Five Powers should ask for withdrawal or reversal of the amendment. The Ambassador said that he would not do this alone. He thought there was no point in bringing the matter forward purely as a Soviet proposal. As the other powers were not willing to press this matter, it was agreed that the Five Powers should have freedom of action on this question.

4. Raw Materials

As this was a French proposal, Mr. Pasvolsky asked that the French Delegation make a statement.

Mr. Boncour said that the French Delegation attached great importance to this proposal. It was well known that the inequality in the distribution of raw materials among the various countries was one of the great causes of war. This question was especially imports ant in the case of France because of the depletion of her resources by the war. However, in view of the opposition of the United States to the inclusion of a specific reference to raw materials, he said that the French Delegation in a spirit of cooperation would be satisfied with a statement of their point of view in the Committee.⁴ They would not press for a vote on the matter.

Mr. Stettinius expressed his personal appreciation of the fine spirit of cooperation demonstrated by the French Delegation.

5. Trusteeship

Mr. Stettinius said that unless someone had something specific to report further negotiations with respect to the outstanding trusteeship problems should be carried on in Mr. Stassen’s group.⁵ Mr. Stassen could consult with the heads of the Delegations if necessary. This procedure was acceptable.

6. Preparatory Commission

Mr. Stettinius said that before taking up the substance of the draft proposal for a Preparatory Commission he wished to speak about the selection of the seat of the Commission. He recalled that two meetings relative to the establishment of an international organization for the maintenance of peace and security had been held in the Soviet Union, and two had been held in the United States. He wished to propose that the Five Powers jointly recommend to the Executive Committee that the headquarters of the Preparatory Commission should be located in London.

Lord Halifax said that he wished to express the appreciation of his Government for Mr. Stettinius’ suggestion that London be selected as the headquarters of the Commission. He could only say here and now that if it were the general wish of the Conference that London be selected, his Government would warmly welcome this action and the opportunity thereby offered. He was deeply appreciative to Mr. Stettinius for having brought forward this proposal. Dr. Soong and Mr. Boncour expressed approval of Mr. Stettinius’ proposal. Ambassador Gromyko reserved his position pending reference of the matter to his Government. He inquired whether this meant that the Executive Committee would also meet in London. Mr. Stettinius said that this was the case.

Mr. Stettinius said that as others had not had time to study the draft he would propose that the several Delegations should transmit their comments directly to Mr. Hiss. Ambassador Gromyko said that as there had previously been consultation in the Committee of Five, under the chairmanship of Mr. Pasvolsky, he thought this matter might be referred to that group. This was agreed on, and Mr. Pasvolsky, Mr. Jebb, Mr. Novikov, Dr. Liang, and Mr. Fouques-Duparc were appointed by their respective Delegations.

7. Regional Subcommittees of the Military Staff Committee

Ambassador Gromyko said that he wished to call the attention of the group to a point not on the agenda. The Technical Committee in adopting the paragraph concerning the Military Staff Committee had included a Peruvian amendment.⁶ The draft as approved by the Committee provided: “The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council, after consultation with the regional agencies, may establish regional subcommittees of the Military Staff Committee.” The Soviet Government had abstained from voting in the action on this provision.

Ambassador Gromyko said that his Delegation considered that the addition of the provision for consultation with regional agencies weakened the Security Council. He asked that the Five Powers study this provision with a view to having it reconsidered.

Sir Alexander Cadogan reminded the Soviet Ambassador of the great pressure there had been in the Committee to adopt the phrase “by agreement with the regional agencies”. He thought that the provision for consultation was comparatively harmless compared with the provision for agreement.

Ambassador Gromyko agreed with this, but still thought that it, Was desirable to have a reconsideration of the amendment.

Senator Connally also spoke of the effort which had been made to secure the adoption of the stronger provision. The United States Delegation had concluded that the provision for consultation would do no harm.

Ambassador Koo said that as pressure had been very great in the Committee to obtain the provision for agreement the Chinese Delegation had voted for the consultation provision as a necessary compromise.

Mr. Boncour said that as Rapporteur of the Committee he could state definitely that it would be extremely difficult to have this question reopened.

Ambassador Gromyko thought that the formula of consultation gave the right to members to interpret it as meaning that action could not be taken without the approval of the regional agencies. This might delay seriously action of the Military Staff Committee.

Mr. Pasvolsky pointed out that the amendment related only to the setting up of the regional subcommittee. He said that it would not affect subsequent action of the Security Council, since it did not refer to action after the subcommittee had been established. The United States Delegation did not feel that this would in any way impair the effectiveness of the Military Staff Committee. He would have preferred no provision, but we consider the one adopted quite harmless.

Ambassador Gromyko still insisted that the provision did not exclude the possibility of approval by the regional agencies being required. It was again pointed out that consultation did not involve approval. Ambassador Gromyko feared that the formula would permit a regional agency to oppose the creation of a regional subcommittee.

Sir Alexander Cadogan thought that the provision did not give the regional agency the right of veto. However, he thought that consultation with regional agencies on such a matter was necessary to effective action.

Mr. Boncour inquired whether Ambassador Gromyko would agree to the reference of this matter to the Coordination Committee. The Ambassador said that he would if the purpose was to find a better formula but not if the reference was merely for purposes of interpretation. The Ambassador suggested that it might be desirable to ask the consultative group to consider this matter before it was sent to the Coordination Committee. This was agreed.

8. Agenda of the Executive Committee

Mr. Boncour said that the question of Chapter XII should be on the agenda of the Executive Committee. Mr. Stettinius agreed that this was a matter which should be discussed by the Executive Committee but thought that it would not be ready for consideration tomorrow. It was agreed upon the suggestion of Ambassador Gromyko that Chapter XII be referred to the consultative group for consideration before it went to the Executive Committee.

99. Minutes of the twelfth Five-Power meeting, June 2, 10 a.m., p. 1094.
1. See Interim Report to Committee III/4 by Subcommittee III/4/A, Doc. 533, III/4/A/9, May 23, UNCIO Documents, vol. 12, p. 850.
2. Minutes of the fourteenth Five-Power meeting, June 3, 4 p.m., p. 1120.
3. Minutes of the fourteenth Five-Power meeting of June 3, 4 p.m., p. 1120.
4. Doc. 780, II/3/53, June 4, UNCIO Documents, vol. 10, p. 194.
5. Five-Power consultative group on trusteeship; minutes not printed.
6. Doc. 600, III/3/31, May 26, UNCIO Documents, vol. 12, p. 371.