IO Files: US/A/M(Chr)/53
Minutes of the Ninth Meeting of the United States Delegation, New York, September 19, 1947, 9:15 a.m.
[Here follows list of persons (27) present.]
Draft Resolution on the Establishment of an Interim Committee of the General Assembly on Peace and Security
Mr. Dulles reported that the Delegation advisers had been restudying the draft resolution on the establishment of an Interim Committee of the General Assembly on Peace and Security, and had drafted a slightly revised text (US/A/C.1/143).1 The principal change was the elimination of the language which specified that one of the principal purposes of the Committee was to study the problems connected with “acts designed to subvert the political independence and territorial integrity of a State” (SD/A/C.1/86), which had appeared in an earlier draft.2 This had been eliminated because it appeared that it was going too far to indicate that a principal purpose was policing the U.S.S.R. While, undoubtedly, the Committee would have to watch that sort of thing, it was not thought to be a good idea to specify it in the resolution. Rather, it was preferred to give the Committee general power to make more effective the purposes and principles of the Charter, as set forth under Article 14.
Ambassador Austin inquired why Article 10 of the Charter was omitted from the draft resolution since that mentioned the power of the Assembly to make recommendations and since Articles 11 and 14 had been mentioned.
Mr. Dulles reported that it had not been thought that the General Assembly could delegate to a Committee its powers under Article 10. The Committee was to study and to bring to light facts but primarily it was to consider them and to report upon them to the General Assembly. The final action must be that of the General Assembly.
Ambassador Austin said he had in mind action by the General Assembly after the Committee reported, having made recommendations [Page 178] to the General Assembly, the Security Council, or Members. He said he would not pursue his question if the matter had been carefully studied.
Mr. Ross expressed the opinion that Article 10 was a broad catch-all Article and that recommendations should be made under Articles 11 and 14. Ambassador Austin inquired whether we were limiting ourselves by omitting Article 10.
Mr. Dulles observed that he thought that the Articles relating to peace and security were Articles 11 and 14. Those were the ones to which Article 10 referred. He pointed out that the General Assembly has the right to discuss matters including the powers and functions of any organ. He noted that if the General Assembly discussed the functions of the Security Council, trouble would arise. Ambassador Austin said he would not press the matter since Article 10 had not been passed over without adequate thought.
Mr. Stevenson inquired whether the same reasoning had been used to omit Article 13(a). Mr. Sandifer pointed out that this Article had been omitted in the State Department draft. Mr. Dulles observed that it had not been desired to interfere with other bodies.
Mr. Fahy expressed the opinion that Article 13(a) was quite significant, pointing out that the first part of the Article granted to the General Assembly authority to make recommendations for the purpose of “promoting international cooperation in the political field”. Mr. Dulles said he saw no objection to adding Article 13(a)’s phraseology as cited by Mr. Fahy. Mr. Wainhouse explained that Article 13(a) had been omitted because the second part of the Article referred to the progressive development of international law and its codification, and that that matter was already being handled by a United Nations body. Mr. Dulles observed that the objection could be avoided by splitting the Article.
Mr. Sandifer said that there might be no objection to including Article 13(a); however, he pointed out that in preparing a resolution, it had not been thought desirable to give the Interim Committee unlimited jurisdiction, and Article 13(a) was a very broad statement. However, he recognized that citation of this Article might appeal to some States as making the resolution more restrictive.
Mr. Dulles expressed the opinion that mention of Article 13(a) would strengthen the resolution and make it easier for some States to support it. He suggested that a phrase might be inserted in paragraph 2(a) “or which relates to promoting international cooperation in the political field as contemplated in Article 13(a)”.
Ambassador Austin inquired whether the draft before the Delegation was a tentative one. Mr. Dulles replied that he would like sufficient approval of the draft to be able to submit it without having to come [Page 179] back to another Delegation meeting. He continued that paragraph “e” of the draft resolution had also been altered so that the Interim Committee had the authority to record facts. Reference to the working capital fund had also been eliminated because it was agreed that the financial consequences of the resolution would have to be submitted to Committee 5 in any event. It was also not thought desirable to highlight the inevitable fact that there would be considerable expenditure connected with the Committee’s work.
Mr. Ross, referring to paragraph 2(a), noted there was no reference in Article 14 to Members bringing situations to the attention of the General Assembly. He inquired whether it had been considered undesirable for the Assembly to delegate broader powers to the Committee. Ambassador Austin inquired whether the phrase “may be brought to its attention” at the beginning of paragraph 2(a) was intended to be an addition to the provisions in Article 14. Mr. Dulles said that he thought Mr. Ross had raised a good point since under Article 14, it would be in the competence of the General Assembly, upon its own initiative, to deal with any situation. Ambassador Austin inquired how the Committee could do business if, in actual practice, a Member were not to bring a situation to the attention of the Committee. Mr. Dulles stated that the thought was that the Committee would not deal with a situation if it were not important enough for a Member to bring it before the Committee. He continued that his impression was that when dealing with this Interim Committee, it was better not to give it too much power of initiative or to send it roving too widely. The Committee should not go into a situation that was not important enough to be brought to its attention by some Member.
Mr. Ross observed that it was certain that there would be strong objection from the U.S.S.R. to the Interim Committer proposal. Since some Delegations have doubts as to how far the Interim Committee should be authorized to go, he thought it would be tactically wise to leave the wording as broad as possible in order to leave some room for compromise. Ambassador Austin reported that Cadogan had inquired whether the United States had considered what should be done if the U.S.S.R. and its satellites did not participate in the Committee, He wondered whether the United States was going to assume this risk and continue on none the less.
Mr. Dulles observed that there might be a parallel to the Trusteeship Council on which the Russians had not participated. He continued that the resolution might provide that the Committee could consider such situations as may come to its attention under Article 14. Mr. Fahy suggested using the phrase “within the purview of Article 14”.
Mr. Sandifer observed that the question had been exhaustively discussed in the Department. The thought was that the new agency should [Page 180] not be given the status of an alter ego of the Assembly but an agency which was being created to which Members could bring questions. The character of the Committee would be changed if it were given its authority in its own right to take up any case it desired. Mr. Dulles said that he assumed that everyone agreed that such was not the United States desire. Mr. Ross said that he did not see to what point we might recede in case of need and feared that the resolution might be tying the United States hands too tightly. He thought the same observation applied to the phraseology which said that the Committee could consider such situations and disputes as may be brought to its attention “by the Security Council, pursuant to Article 11 (2)”. He doubted the wisdom of starting out by imposing specific limitations.
Mr. Dulles said that he was willing to sponsor the resolution either on the basis of the restrictive, precise definition or the broader general grant of powers. However, he would rather put in a fairly conservatively drafted resolution to avoid the charge that the United States was trying to give all the Assembly’s powers to an interim body rather than to ask for a large grant for which the United States might be attacked.
Mr. Thompson suggested that there was not only the possibility of receding but the resolution might be broadened if other Delegations thought that were desirable. He raised the question whether the resolution before the Delegation should be introduced as it stood or whether it might be fully discussed later since it was certain to be a controversial matter. He thought it might be wise to discuss the matter before putting it before the Committee. Mr. Ross observed that the course to be followed would depend on an estimate on the amount of support to be received. He reported that those Delegations to whom he had talked were strongly in favor of the United States proposal and, therefore, he believed it would receive general strong support
Ambassador Austin expressed the opinion that contact with other Delegations on this question would stir up a good many views. He thought that there should be some very thorough interviewing with other Delegations before a definite position was taken, and he thought that even before a text was agreed upon, that the Delegation should be certain regarding the position of other Delegates.
Mr. Raynor reported that the United Kingdom Delegation had recommended to London that it be authorized to support the United States proposal on the Interim Committee.
Mr. Sandifer said that in considering the course of action and use of the draft text, the members of the Delegation should keep in mind the scope and nature of the Committee as it had been set forth in the Secretary’s speech. He expressed some doubts on how long a delay should take place before informing other Delegates of what the [Page 181] United States ideas were. He noted that a good many people did not understand the scope and tenor of the United States proposal, and thought that the sooner they were informed, the sooner their thinking would be shaped. As it stood, the other Delegations were thinking in a vacuum, and that might give rise to doubts and objections. He observed that the substance of the resolution could not be clearly altered if the Interim Committee were to accomplish what the United States had in mind.
Ambassador Austin said that he did not think that a decision could be taken at the moment since it was a very important step in the development of the United Nations. Although assuming that what Mr. Sandifer had said was true, that time was important, yet, in the interest of agreement and possible improvement, he thought that the Delegation should regard the draft document US/A/C.1/143 as a preliminary draft to be studied with colleagues in the General Assembly and to be reconsidered in two or three days after reactions had been obtained. Then, in the light of these reactions, the matter could be re-examined.
Mr. Dulles expressed the opinion that contact should be made with other Delegations with a view of educating them but he doubted whether the precise text should be discussed. He noted that there might be confusion if drafting changes had to be made later or were accepted from other Delegations. He thought that the discussion should be about the general idea rather than the detailed text which should be taken up in the proper committee.
Mr. Fahy expressed the opinion that the United States must present a draft and give a detailed explanation to Committee 1 to demonstrate that the Interim Committee was not intended as a full substitute for the General Assembly. He noted that Norway, on the previous day, had wondered whether the General Assembly was to be replaced by the Committee. He agreed that Delegates from other Members should be given general explanations not a precise draft.
Mr. Bohlen expressed the opinion that the United States must submit the draft on this question but at the same time agreed that the areas of doubt in the minds of other Delegations should be discovered. Recalling the questions which had already been posed, he noted that the chief query had been whether the United States was trying to set up a substitute for the Security Council. He thought the preamble of the resolution should make clear that this was not the intention; it should refer to the area of action which the Charter gave to the General Assembly; and make it clear that it was not intended to modify the Charter nor to alter the relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council. The preamble could be elaborated to state that the General Assembly has certain powers under the Assembly [Page 182] [Charter?] and to enumerate those powers. He thought that this failure to spell out the powers of the Assembly to show that they were legalized under the Charter had given rise to considerable doubts. Another point that needed to be clarified was who made the decision whether a new case should go to the Security Council or to the Interim Committee. He thought this matter ought to be considered in the Delegation. He raised the question whether the Interim Committee took over if the Security Council failed or whether a matter might go first to the Interim Committee.
Ambassador Johnson stated that it was his understanding that the Interim Committee should not consider matters demanding enforcement action. The Committee should have jurisdiction only on those things which the Security Council or a Member referred to it. Mr. Bohlen agreed that no action under Chapter VII of the Charter was envisaged as coming to the Interim Committee. Ambassador Johnson suggested that this point should be spelled out since a number of the smaller Delegations were not clear on it. He thought that it would also be useful to paraphrase the Charter in the preamble of the resolution to make it clear what the Committee could and could not do. Mr. Bohlen reiterated that he intended that the preamble should make clear that the Interim Committee was not infringing on the Security Council. Mr. Dulles agreed that it would be desirable to make such changes in the preamble.
Ambassador Austin polled the Delegation to inquire whether it desired to consider US/A/C.1/143 as a basic paper for the purpose of drafting a definitive resolution postponing such final resolution for a number of days. The Political Officers were requested to indicate to him how long a period of delay there should be. This proposal was unanimously approved by the Delegation.
[Here follows discussion of other subjects.]