Изображения страниц

from August 21 to October 7, 1944, in accordance with an understanding reached at the Moscow Conference that conversations of this type among representatives of the four governments would be held as soon as practicable. The Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, which resulted, are printed in Appendix A of this Report. They are shorter and less detailed than the American draft of July 18 but are otherwise essentially similar. At the same time they expressed the most essential views of the other consulting powers.

The Dumbarton Oaks Proposals did not constitute in any seuse a complete Charter for the proposed international organization. Rather they set forth the essential structural framework of an organization consisting basically, as its four main pillars, of a General Assembly, a Security Council, an Economic and Social Council, and an International Court of Justice. That organization was to be based on the principle of sovereign equality of all peace-loving states and was to be open to participation by all such states, large and small. It was to provide for the maintenance of international peace and security and for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being necessary for the maintenance of peace. The Dumbarton Oaks Proposals also set forth the basic obligations and responsibilities in all these fields which would have to be assuined by all participating states if the projected organization was to be effective. They were intended to serve as a basis for a general conference of all United Nations at which the entire structure would be developed more fully and a definitive Charter would be written.

There were several questions which were left open at Dumbarton Oaks and on which agreement was necessary at a high political level. The most important of these related to the voting procedure in the Security Council, agreement on which was finally reached at the Crimea Conference in February 1945.

Another was the question of the treatment of non-self-governing territories and particularly the possible functions of the projected organization in the field of trusteeship responsibility with respect to some such territories. An immense amount of work in this field had been done in the Department and by its committees, and the subject was discussed with the other governments concerned on several occasions. It was not, however, until the Crimea Conference that agreement was reached to include this particular question on the agenda of the general conference.

The Crimea Conference thus opened the way for the San Francisco Conference. Bet ween the two meetings, the work of preparation moved from the hands of committees and officials into those of the Delegation and its advisers.

During the six months immediately preceding the San Francisco Conference there was another and highly important phase of preparation. In an unprecedented action by the four powers represented at Dumbarton Oaks, the proposals there evolved were immediately published for world comment and criticism, prior to the discussion of them at the proposed conference of the United Nations. It is cloubtful whether the democratic process has ever before been applied so Inroadly and so directly to a developing problem in the field of international relations.

Moreover, the result more than justified the confidence of President Roosevelt and his associates. Public discussion produced criticismis


and suggestions of great value to the development of the Charter. Within the United States, the Department of State distributed approximately 1,900,000 copies of the text of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. It also responded, within the limits of time and manpower, to the public demands made upon it for information about the text. Officers of the Department accepted some 260 speaking engagements, out of many times that number of invitations, from organizations of all kinds-schools, labor unions, church groups, women's clubs, associations of all kinds throughout the country. In addition, at the invitation of the motion picture industry and of one of the principal broadcasting companies, motion picture films and a radio series relating to the Proposals were prepared. The public response, estimated in number of inquiries, was impressive. Letters to the Department relating to the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals reached a weekly peak of about 20,000 by the month of April.


The second, or public, phase of the preparation for the San Francisco Conference did not end with the consideration of the comments and criticisms evoked by the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. On the contrary, the public discussion of the question led directly to a development which was not only an innovation in the conduct of international affairs by this Government but also, as events proved, an important contribution to the Conference itself.' As a direct result of public discussion of the Proposals, forty-two national organizations were invited to send representatives to San Francisco to serve as Consultants to the United States Delegation. Included among them were leading national organizations in the fields of labor, law, agriculture, business, and education together with principal women's associations, church groups, veterans' associations and civic organizations generally. (A list of the organizations and their representatives is printed in Appendix D.)

The purpose of inviting these Consultants was to inform them of the work of the Conference and of the United States Delegation and to secure their opinions and advice. Regular meetings were held with the Chairman and members of the United States Delegation, and a liaison staff kept the Consultants in continuing contact with the documentation of the Conference and with information about it. As subsequent Chapters of this Report will indicate, the Consultants were largely instrumental in the introduction into the final Charter of certain important provisions. Their presence in San Francisco meant that a very large body of American opinion which had been applying itself to the problems of international organization played a direct and material part in drafting the constitution of the United Nations.

In addition to the forty-two organizations represented through Consultants, a number of other organizations sent representatives to San Francisco, for whom special liaison facilites were maintained near the Veterans Building and the Opera House. Meetings of this larger group were also addressed by members of the United States Delegation and others particularly informed as to the work of the Conference.

The official United States Delegation to the San Francisco Conference was named by President Roosevelt on February 13, 1945, in the course of the Yalta Conference. On that day, President Roosevelt stated that the United Nations Conference on International Organization would be held in San Francisco on April 25 and that the United States would be represented by the Honorable Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., Secretary of State; the Honorable Cordell Hull, former Secretary of State; the Honorable Tom Connally, United States Senator from Texas and Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations: the Honorable Arthur H. Vandenberg, United States Senator from Michigan and member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; the Honorable Sol Bloom, Member of Congress from New York and Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs; the Honorable Charles A. Eaton, Member of Congress from New Jersey and ranking minority member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs; Commander Harold E. Stassen, U. S. N. R., former Governor of Minnesota; and Miss Virginia Gildersleve, Dean of Barnard College, New York City.

The United States Delegation met for the first time in the office of the Secretary of State on March 13, 1945. During the next five weeks the Delegation held twelve meetings, in the course of which members of the Department of State and of the committees which had worked on the problem of peace and security reported upon the preparatory work which had been done in the Department and in consultation with other governments. In these meetings the United States Delegation reviewed the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals as well as the discussions from which they resulted and examined its own position with reference to comments upon the proposals and criticisms of them received by the Department following their publication.

The Delegation was aided in this work by the group of advisers whose names are printed in Appendix D of this Report. Included among them were the principal advisers to the Delegation who worked continuously with it from the beginning of its studies to the completion of its deliberations in San Francisco. These included Assistant Secretary of State James Clement Dunn; Mr. Green H. Hackworth, Legal Adviser to the Department of State; Mr. Leo Pasvolsky, Special Assistant to the Secretary of State; and Mr. Isaiah Bowman and Mr. Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Special Advisers to the Secretary of State, Mr. John Foster Dulles joined the group of principal advisers before the departure of the Delegation from Washington. Both in the Delegation's preparatory work in Washington and during the Conference, military advisers headed by the Honorable John J. McCloy, Assistant Secretary of War, and the Honorable Artemus Gates, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, sat regularly with the Delegation in San Francisco, particularly for the consideration of military and security questions.

Throughout the preliminary part of its work the Delegation met several times in the White House with President Roosevelt, and later with President Truman, to discuss the more important questions of policy raised in the course of its deliberations. By the time of its final meeting in Washington on April 18, the Delegation had prepared its recommendations for President Truman with respect to modifications in the text of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals and additional problems.

The first meeting of the United States Delegation in San Francisco was held on April 23, 1945, two days before the opening of the Conference, at the Delegation's headquarters in the Fairmont Hotel. Between then and the end of the Conference on June 26, the Delegation met together a total of some sixty-five times. While each of the members of the Delegation, their advisers and the technical experts was assigned to one or more of the committees which condueted the substantive work of the Conference, the position taken by the United States on specific issues coming before the committees was established in advance after full deliberation at Delegation meetings.

During the early stages of the Conference, the principal work of the Delegation was to review the decisions taken by it in Washington in the light of further suggestions made by other governments for changes in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. After the position of the Delegation on these suggestions had been established, they were then discussed with the Delegations of the other Sponsoring Powers, and these consultations also took into account the new suggestions of the consulting governments themselves. Between April 25 and May 4, such a remarkable degree of unanimity was reached among the four Delegations concerned that they were able to present jointly to the Conference their unanimously approved suggestions for some thirty amendments to the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. Throughout the remainder of the Conference, this extremely fruitful consultative procedure between the great powers (France having been subsequently added to the consulting group) was followed on all major issues of the Conference to the point where either a unanimous position was established between them on particular Conference issues, or, in a few instances, agreement was reached between them to pursue their own courses in the committee discussions. In this way, the great powers were able to assist in expediting the work of the Conference and in resolving many of the most difficult problems that were presented to it. The meetings between the great powers were attended by all or nearly all of the members of the United States Delegation; their principal advisers, and appropriate technical experts, as well as by corresponding representatives of the other Delegations involved.

In arriving at their conclusions on all of the matters that came before them in connection with the Conference, the members of the Delegation retained complete freedom of action and judgment while at the same time agreeing that, in the case of differences of opinion, the position of the Delegation should be determined by a majority vote. The confidence of the Chairman of the Delegation, expressed in its first meeting when he stated his conviction "that while free in pursuing our personal views and convictions, we shall be able to work as one team", was abundantly justified. In fact, the United States Delegation was successful in achieving throughout its long and difficult labors a spirit of cooperation and a degree of unanimity which were remarked by all who were familiar with its work.

Altogether, the preparation for the United Nations Conference on International Organization was planned, organized and executed so as to bring to bear upon the unresolved problem of the organization of the world for peace the experience and resources of the entire Government and people. In the actual labor of the Conference as well as in the preparation which preceded it, the American press. radio and motion pictures played an important part. Once the nation was committed, through the publication of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, to a wholly democratic procedure in the discussion of the question of world organization, it was essential that the people should be fully informed of the problem before them and of the proposals presented for its solution. Only thus was it possible to carry through a program of democratic collaboration to which Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Cordell Hull had given inspiring leadership worthy of the best traditions of this nation.


The United Nations was the title proposed in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals for the general international organization. This title, suggested by President Roosevelt, was taken from the Declaration of January 1, 1942, which formally brought the United Nations into being. By the time the San Francisco Conference opened, forty-seven nations had signed this Declaration.

The United Nations in their Declaration affirmed that complete victory over the common enemies was essential to the defense of life, liberty, independence, and religious freedom, and the preservation of human rights and justice. To achieve this victory, each signatory pledged its full resources in the war and agreed not to make a separate armistice or peace. The signatories of the Declaration also subscribed to the common long term program of purposes and principles embodied in the Atlantic Charter, the central goal of which is the establishment of a peace "which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want". Thus, the name, the United Nations, has been associated from the beginning with complete victory over the common enemies and the establishment of future peace and security.

Some delegations at the San Francisco Conference were not at first entirely satisfied with the United Nations as a title for the proposed organization. They felt that the name of a group of states bound together in wartime alliance was not appropriate for an international organization to maintain future peace and security, an organization which would in time include some of the states which have been or are now enemies of the United Nations. It was also felt it would be difficult to find an equivalent in certain languages.

In the discussions at San Francisco the United States Delegation held firmly to the title proposed in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. The Delegation took the position that the war had been successfully prosecuted under the banner of the United Nations; that good fortune attaches to this name; and that we should go forward under it to realize our dreams of the peace planned by the President who conceived the phrase. Other delegations also supported the title on the ground that we of the United Nations intend to stand together in peace for the same principles we fought for together in war. Furthermore, they said, the name will be no less appropriate in the future when vanquished nations are considered for membership, since they will be obliged to accept United Nations standards of conduct before they can be admitted. Numerous delegations, moreover, supported the choice of the title, the United Nations, as a tribute to its originator. Acting upon the overwhelming sentiment in favor of that name, the Conference Committee which considered this subject adopted it unanimously and by acclamation.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »