RSC Lot 60–D 224, Box 99: UNCIO Cons Four Min 5 (Part II)
Minutes of the Fifth Four-Power Consultative Meeting on Charter Proposals (Part II), Held at San Francisco, Friday, May 4, 1945, 10 p.m.
[Here follows list of names of participants, including Chairmen of delegations of the United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and China, accompanied by their respective delegates, advisers, and experts (not listed by name).]
The meeting convened with Mr. Soong in the chair pending the arrival of Messrs. Stettinius, Molotov and Eden.
Mr. Soong opened the meeting by referring to the new redraft proposed by the United States Delegation of an amendment to paragraph 2, Section C, Chapter VIII, which reads as follows:
“2. The Security Council should, where appropriate, utilize such arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action should be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council with the exception of measures against enemy states in this war provided for pursuant to Chapter 12, paragraph 2, or, to the extent not inconsistent therewith, in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of such states, until such time as the World Organization may, by agreement between the Security Council and the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by a State now at war with the United Nations.”
Mr. Stassen explained that this redraft attempted to meet the problems of the application of the surrender terms against enemy states, regional and bilateral treaties against aggressors, and attempts to build a strong and successful world organization. He said that this amendment made it clear that any such regional or bilateral treaties would not take precedence over, the surrender terms.
Mr. Soong then inquired from several members of the United States Delegation as to whether they agreed with this new proposal, and the unanimous opinion was expressed that this met with their wishes.
Thereupon Mr. Soong inquired from Mr. Jebb whether this proposal would meet with the views of the British Delegation. Mr. Jebb said that while he was unable to speak officially in the absence of Mr. Eden, he would like to comment briefly on it. He said that he felt the phrase “inconsistent therewith” was not clear and might be omitted from the text. Mr. Stassen said that this phrase was an attempt to make clear that the regional arrangements referred to should not supersede the surrender terms. Mr. Jebb inquired as to whether there was really any conflict between the two, and Mr. Stassen said that [Page 611] while he could not render an opinion on that, he wanted to guard against any such inconsistencies.
Following this brief discussion, Mr. Soong asked that an informal recess be taken pending the return of Messrs. Molotov, Stettinius and Eden.
There followed a brief recess from 10:15 until 10:30.
Following the recess, Mr. Stettinius asked if Mr. Soong could give a report as to the progress that had been made in consideration of the latest United States proposal. Mr. Soong reported that the United States Delegation was in agreement on the proposal; that approval had been given unofficially by the British Delegation although the phrase “inconsistent therewith” had been questioned; the Soviet Delegation had been unable to comment on the proposal; and, finally, the Chinese Delegation found the new formula acceptable to them.
Mr. Eden said that a study of the text led him to question the entire phrase “to the extent not inconsistent therewith”.
Mr. Molotov said that he thought these words should be dropped and that all of the words at the end of the proposal, beginning “until such time as, etc.” should be omitted.
Mr. Stettinius said that they could agree to the first suggestion made by Mr. Eden and agreed to by Mr. Molotov, but that the United States Delegation would be unable to agree to omit the balance of the sentence as suggested by Mr. Molotov.
Mr. Molotov said that if the language to which he objected were retained, it might be possible that the Security Council and the Governments concerned under Chapter XII would be placed at loggerheads with each other. Mr. Eden said that there was little chance of this since the Governments principally concerned under the treaties would also be members of the Security Council, and if these Governments agreed to transfer these responsibilities to the Security Council, there would be little chance of any dispute between them.
Senator Vandenberg said that he thought that Mr. Molotov’s point of view might be met by substituting the words “by consent of the Governments concerned” for the words “by agreement between the Security Council and the Governments concerned”.
After briefly considering Senator Vandenberg’s suggestion, Mr. Molotov said that he thought he would like to take up this matter with the French Delegation, since they had already proposed an amendment upon which the Soviet amendment had been based.
Mr. Dulles then pointed out that these consultations so far had been just among the four powers and that if the Soviet Delegation went to the French Delegation for consultations on this matter, many members of the United States Delegation might feel that there were other countries which the United States Delegation ought to consult [Page 612] on the question. Mr. Molotov said that the Soviet Delegation found itself in a special position in this matter and that they felt that it was important to take up the matter with the French Delegation. Furthermore, he said, this amendment had only just been submitted to him for study and that he felt that he would need more time to consider it. On the other hand, he pointed out that if the other three Delegations were willing to accept the Soviet amendment they could reach agreement immediately.
Mr. Stettinius said that under the circumstances, since the British and Chinese Delegations had accepted this latter proposal as modified, he would be willing to have the proposal submitted by the three of them. Mr. Molotov said that the Soviet Delegation did not want to lag behind but that they would need at least 24 hours to study this question. Mr. Stettinius said that, unfortunately, all amendments had to be submitted to the Conference by midnight, and that if the amendment were not submitted it would not be available for consideration.
To resolve this difficulty, Mr. Stettinius suggested that each of the Delegations might put in its own amendment. In this same connection, he raised the question of the further action that might be taken with respect to the amendment to Chapter V, Section B, paragraph 6. Mr. Molotov said that he would like to study this proposal further; that on the whole, he found it acceptable and that it met the principal Soviet points, but that he would like to have the opportunity to study it a little further.
To bring the meeting to a close, The Secretary then suggested that all of those amendments upon which they had found themselves in agreement would be submitted as joint proposals. Those amendments upon which they had found themselves in disagreement could then be submitted individually by each of the Delegations,4 with the hope that the consultations on them could continue at a later state [stage?] in the Conference.
Thereupon, the meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
- United States delegation, Doc. 2, G/14(v), May 6, UNCIO Documents, vol. 3, p. 598; Soviet delegation, Doc. 2, G/14(w) (1), May 8, ibid., p. 601; British delegation, Doc. 2, G/14(p), May 5, ibid., p. 574; and Chinese delegation, Doc. 2, G/14(q), May 5, ibid., p. 576.↩