There is going to be held, you know-after we have straightened that voting matter out-in San Francisco a meeting of all the United Nations of the world on the 25th of April. There, we all hope, and confidently expect, to execute a definite charter of organization under which the peace of the world will be preserved and the forces of aggression permanently outlawed. This time we are not making the mistake of waiting until the end of the war to set up the machinery of peace. This time, as we fight together to win the war finally, we work together to keep it from happening again. As you know, I have always been a believer in the document called the Constitution. I spent a good deal of time in educating two other nations of the world with regard to the Constitution of the United States-that the charter has to be and should be approved by the Senate of the United States under the Constitution. I think the other nations of the world know it now. [Laughter.] I am aware of that fact and now all the other nations are. And we hope the Senate will approve what is set forth as the charter of the United Nations when they all come together in San Francisco next month. The Senate of the United States, through its appropriate representatives, has been kept continuously advised of the program of this Government in the creation of the International Security Organization. The Senate and the House will both be represented at the San Francisco Conference. The congressional delegates will consist of an equal number of Republican and Democratic members. The American delegation is, in every sense of the word, bipartisan because world peace is not exactly a party question. I think that Republicans want peace just as much as Democrats. [Applause.] It is not a party question any more than is military victory -the winning of the war. When the republic was threatened, first by the Nazi clutch for world conquest back in 1939 and 1940 and then by the Japanese treachery in 1941, partisanship and politics were laid aside by nearly every American, and every resource was dedicated to our common safety. The same consecration to the cause of peace will be expected, I think, by every patriotic American-by every human soul overseas, too. The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man, or one party, or one nation. It cannot be just an American peace, or a British peace, or a Russian, French, or a Chinese peace. It cannot be a peace of large nations -or of small nations. It must be a peace which rests on the co-operative effort of the whole world. It cannot be a structure complete. It cannot be what some people think-a structure of complete perfection at first. But it can be a peace-and it will be a peace-based on the sound and just principles of the Atlantic Charter, on the conception of the dignity of the human being, and on the guaranties of tolerance and freedom of religious worship. As the Allied armies have marched to military victory they have liberated peoples whose liberties had been crushed by the Nazis for 4 long years and whose economy had been reduced to ruin by Nazi despoilers. There have been instances of political confusion and unrest in these liberated areas that is not unexpected— as in Greece, or in Poland, or in Yugoslavia, and there may be more. Worse than that, there actually began to grow up in some of these places queer ideas of, for instance, "spheres of influence" that were incompatible with the basic principles of international collaboration. If allowed to go on unchecked, these developments might have had tragic results. It is fruitless to try to place blame for this situation on one particular nation or on another. It is the kind of development that is almost inevitable unless the major powers of the world continue without interruption to work together and assume joint responsibility for the solution of problems that may arise to endanger the peace of the world. We met in the Crimea, determined to settle this matter of liberated areas. Things that might happen that we cannot foresee at this moment might happen suddenlyunexpectedly-next week or next month. And I am happy to confirm to the Congress that we did arrive at a settlement and incidentally, a unanimous settlement. The three most powerful nations have agreed that the political and economic problems of any area liberated from the Nazi conquest, or of any former Nazi satellite, are a joint responsibility of all three governments. They will join together, during the temporary period of instability after hostilities, to help the people of any liberated area or of any former satellite state to solve their own problems through firmly established democratic proc esses. They will endeavor to see to it that interim governments-the people who carry on the interim governments between the occupation of Germany and the day of true independence-will be as representative as possible of all democratic elements in the population, and that free elections are held as soon as possible thereafter. The responsibility for political conditions thousands of miles away can no longer be avoided, I think, by this great nation. Certainly, I do not want to live to see another war. As I have said, the world is smaller-smaller every year. The United States now exerts a tremendous influence in the cause of peace. Whatever people over here think or talk in the interests of peace is, of course, known the world over. The slightest remark in either House or Congress is known all over the world the following day. We will continue to exert that influence only if we are willing to continue to share in the responsibility for keeping the peace. It will be our own tragic loss if we were to shirk that responsibility. Final decisions in these areas are going to be made jointly, and, therefore, they will often be the result of give-and-take compromise. The United States will not always have its way 100 per cent-nor will Russia, nor Great Britain. We shall not always have ideal solutions to complicated international problems, even though we are determined continuously to strive toward that ideal. But I am sure that-under the agreement reached at Yalta-there will be a more stable political Europe than ever before. Of course, once there has been a true expression of the people's will in any country, our immediate responsibility ends-with the exception only of such action as may be agreed upon by the International Security Organization we hope to set up. The United Nations must also begin to help these liberated areas adequately to reconstruct their economy-I do not want them to starve to death-so that they are ready to resume their places in the world. The Nazi war machine has stripped them of raw materials, machine tools, trucks, locomotives, and things like that. They have left the industry of these places stagnant and much of the agricultural areas unproductive. The Nazis have left complete or partial ruin in their wake. To start the wheels running again is not a mere matter of relief. It is to the national interest of all of us to see that these liberated areas are again made self-supporting and productive so that they do not need continuous relief from us. I should say that was an argument based upon common sense. One outstanding example of joint action by the three major Allied powers was the solution reached on Poland. The whole Polish question was a potential source of trouble in postwar Europe, and we came to the conference determined to find a common ground for its solution. We did. We know everybody does not agree with it-obviously. Our objective was to help create a strong, independent, and prosperous nation-that is the thing we must all remember those words agreed to by Russia, by Britain, and by me: The objective of making Poland a strong, independent, and prosperous nation with a government ultimately to be selected by the Polish people themselves. To achieve this objective, it was necessary to provide for the formation of a new government much more representative than had been possible while Poland was enslaved. There are, you know, two governments; one in London, one in Lublin, practically in Russia. Accordingly, steps were taken at Yalta to reorganize the existing Provisional Government in Poland on a broader democratic basis, so as to include democratic leaders now in Poland and those abroad. This new, reorganized government will be recognized by all of us as the temporary government of Poland, Poland needs a temporary government in the worst way-an interim government is another way to put it. However, the new Polish Provisional Government of National Unity will be pledged to holding a free election as soon as possible on the basis of universal suffrage and a secret ballot. Throughout history, Poland has been the corridor through which attacks on Russia have been made. Twice in this generation, Germany has struck at Russia through this corridor. To insure European security and world peace, a strong and independent Poland is necessary to prevent that from happening again. The decisions with respect to the boundaries of Poland were frankly a compromise. I did not agree with all of it by any means. But we did not go as far as Britain wanted in certain areas; we did not go as far as Russia wanted in certain areas; and we did not go as far as I wanted in certain areas. It was a compromise. While the decision is a compromise it is one, however, under which the Poles will receive compensation in territory in the North and West in exchange for what they lose by the Curzon Line in the East. The limits of the Western border will be permanently fixed in the final peace conference. Roughly, this will include in the new, strong Poland quite a large slice of what is now called Germany. It was agreed also that the new Poland will have a large and long coast line and many new harbors; also that East Prussia-most of it-will go to Poland. A corner of it will go to Russia; also what shall I call itthe anomaly of the free State of Danzig-I think Danzig would be a lot better if it were Polish. It is well known that the people east of the Curzon Line -this is an example of why it is a compromise the people east of the Curzon Line are predominantly White Russians and Ukrainians- a very great majority-not Polish; and the people west of that line are predominantly Polish, except in that part of East Prussia and Eastern Germany which would go to the new Poland. As far back as 1919, representatives of the Allies agreed that the Curzon Line represented a fair boundary between the two peoples. You must remember also that there was no Poland or had not been any Polish Government before 1919 for a great many generations. I am convinced that this agreement on Poland, under the circumstances, is the most hopeful agreement possible for a free, independent, and prosperous Polish state. The Crimean Conference was a meeting of three major military powers on whose shoulders rests the chief responsibilty and burden of the war. Although, for this reason, another nation was not included-France was not a participant in the Conference-no one should detract from recognition which was accorded there to her role the future of Europe and the future of the world. France has been invited to accept a zone of control in Germany, and to participate as a fourth member of the Allied Control Council on Germany. She has been invited to join as a sponsor of the International Council at San Francisco next month. She will be a permanent member of the International Security Council together with the other four major pow ers. And, finally, we have asked France that she be associated with us in our joint responsibility over the liberated areas of Europe. There were, of course, a number of smaller things I have not time to go into on which joint agreement was had. We hope things will straighten out. Agreement was reached on Yugoslavia, as announced in the communique; and we hope that it is in process of fulfillment. We have to remember that there are a great many prima donnas in the world all wishing to be heard before anything becomes final; so we may have a little delay while we listen to more prima donnas. [Laughter.] Quite naturally, this conference concerned itself only with the European war and with the political problems of Europe and not with the Pacific war. At Malta, however, our Combined British and American Staffs made their plans to increase their attack against Japan. The Japanese war lords know that they are not being overlooked. They have felt the force of our B-29s, and our carrier planes; they have felt the naval might of the United States and do not appear very anxious to come out and try it again. The Japs know what it means to hear that "the United States Marines have landed." [Applause.] And I think I may add, having Iwo Jima in mind, that "the situation is well in hand." [Applause.] They also know what is in store for the homeland of Japan now that General MacArthur has completed his magnificent march back to Manila. [Applause.] And with Admiral Nimitz establishing air bases right in their own back yard. [Applause.] But lest somebody lay off work in the United States I can repeat what I have said -a short sentence even in my sleep: "We haven't won the wars yet," with an "s" on wars. It is a long, tough road to Tokyo; it is longer to Tokyo than it is to Berlin in every sense of the word. The defeat of Germany will not mean the end of the war against Japan; on the contrary, we must be prepared for a long and a costly struggle in the Pacific. But the unconditional surrender of Japan is as essential as the defeat of Germany. [Applause.] I say that advisedly with the thought in mind that that is especially true if our plans for world peace are to succeed. For Japanese militarism must be wiped out as thoroughly as German militarism. On the way back from the Crimea, I made arrangements to meet personally King Farouk, of Egypt; Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia; and King Ibn Saud, of Saudi Arabia. Our conversations had to do with matters of common interest. They will be of great mutual advantage because they gave us an opportunity of meeting and talking face to face, and of exchanging views in personal conversation instead of formal correspondence. For instance, from Ibn Saud, of Arabia, I learned more of the whole problem of the Moslems and more about the Jewish problem in 5 minutes than I could have learned by the exchange of a dozen letters. On my voyage, I had the benefit of seeing the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force at work. All Americans, I think, would feel as proud of our armed forces as I am if they could see and hear what I did. Against the most efficient professional soldiers and sailors and airmen of all history, our men stood and fought and won. [Applause.] I think that this is our chance to see to it that the sons and grandsons of these gallant fighting men do not have to do it all over again in a few years. The conference in the Crimea was a turning point, I hope, in our history and, therefore, in the history of the world. There will soon be presented to the Senate and the American people a great decision that will determine the fate of the United States—and I think, therefore, the fate of the world-for generations to come. There can be no middle ground here. We shall have to take the responsibility for world collaboration, or we shall have to bear the responsibility for another world conflict. I know that the word "planning" is not looked upon with favor in some circles. In domestic affairs, tragic mistakes have been made by reason of lack of planning; and, on the other hand, many great improvements in living, and many benefits to the human race, have been accomplished as a result of adequate, intelligent planning— reclamation of desert areas, developments of whole river valleys, provision for adequate housing. The same will be true in relations between nations. For the second time, in the lives of most of us, this generation is face to face with the objective of preventing wars. To meet that objective, the nations of the world will either have a plan or they will not. The groundwork of a plan has now been furnished and has been submitted to humanity for discussion and decision. No plan is perfect. Whatever is adopted at San Francisco will doubtless have to be amended time and again over the years, just as our own Constitution has been. No one can say exactly how long any plan will last. Peace can endure only so long as humanity really insists upon it, and is willing to work for it, and sacrifice for it. Twenty-five years ago, American fighting men looked to the statesmen of the world to finish the work of peace for which they fought and suffered. We failed them. We failed them then. We cannot fail them again, and expect the world to survive. I think the Crimean Conference was a successful effort by the three leading nations to find a common ground for peace. It spells-and it ought to spell-the end of the system of unilateral action, exclusive alliances, and spheres of influence, and balances of power, and all the other expedients which have been tried for centuries and have always failed. We propose to substitute for all these, a universal organization in which all peace-loving nations will finally have a chance to join. I am confident that the Congress and the American people will accept the results of this conference as the beginnings of a permanent structure of peace upon which we can begin to build, under God, that better world in which our children and grandchildren-yours and mine, and the children and grandchildren of the whole world-must live, and can live. And that, my friends, is the only message I can give you. I feel it very deeply as I know that all of you are feeling it today and are going to feel it in the future. [Applause.] (The foregoing is a complete text of the President's speech as it appeared in “The Congressional Record" of March 1, 1945. In many instances he had deviated from his prepared speech. In one such instance, the prepared text read: ("I am well aware of the constitutional fact—as are all of the United Nations—that this charter must be approved by two thirds of the Senate of the United States as will some of the other arrangements made at Yalta." (In delivering the speech, the President rephrased the foregoing paragraph and omitted the following: “. . . as will some of the other arrangements made at Yalta.”) Charter for Inter-American League, Inter-America Conference at Mexico City MARCH 3, 1945 Declarations on reciprocal assistance and American solidarity by the Governments represented at the InterAmerican Conference on Problems of War and of Peace. Whereas: 1. The peoples of the Americas, animated by a profound love of justice, remain sincerely devoted to the principles of international law; 2. It is their desire that such principles, notwithstanding the present difficult circumstances, may prevail with greater force in future international relations; 3. The Inter-American conferences have repeatedly proclaimed certain fundamental principles, but these must be reaffirmed at a time when the juridical bases of the community of nations are being established; 4. The new situation in the world makes more imperative than ever the union and solidarity of the American peoples, for the defense of their rights and the maintenance of international peace; 5. The American states have been incorporated in their international law, since 1890, by means of conventions, resolutions and declarations, the following principles: (A) The proscription of territorial conquest and the nonrecognition of all acquisitions made by force. (First Inter-American Conference of American States, 1890.) (B) The condemnation of intervention by a state in the internal or external affairs of another. (Seventh International Conference of American States, 1933, and InterAmerican Conference for the Maintenance of Peace, 1936.) (C) The recognition that every war or threat of war affects directly or indirectly all civilized peoples, and endangers the great principles of liberty and justice which constitute the American ideal and the standard of its international policy. (Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace, 1936.) (D) The procedure of mutual consultation in order to find means of peaceful co-operation in the event of war or threat of war between American countries. (Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace, 1936.) (E) The recognition that every act susceptible of disturbing the peace of America affects each and every one of them and justifies the initiation of the procedure of consultation. (Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace, 1936.) (F) That any difference or dispute between the American nations, whatever its nature of origin, shall be settled by the methods of conciliation, or unrestricted arbi tration, or through the operation of international justice. (Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace, 1936.) (G) The recognition that respect for the personality, sovereignty and independence of each American state constitutes the essence of international order sustained by continental solidarity, which historically has been expressed and sustained by declarations and treaties in force. (Eighth International Conference of American States, 1938.) (H) The affirmation that respect for and the faithful observance of treaties constitutes the indispensable rule for the development of peaceful relations between states, and treaties can only be revised by agreement of the contracting parties. (Declaration of American Principles, Eighth International Conference of American States, 1938.) (I) That in case the peace, security or territorial integrity of any American republic is threatened by acts of any nature that may impair them, they proclaim their common concern and their determination to make effective their solidarity, co-ordinating their respective sovereign will by means of the procedure of consultation, using the measures which in each case the circumstances may make advisable. (Declaration of Lima, Eighth International Conference of American States, 1938.) (J) That any attempt on the part of a non-American state against the integrity or inviolability of the territory, the sovereignty or the political independence of an American state shall be considered as an act of aggression against all the American states. (Declaration XV of the Second Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Havana, 1940.) 6. The furtherance of these principles, which the American states have practiced in order to secure peace and solidarity between the nations of the continent, constitutes an effective means of contributing to the general system of world security and of facilitating its establishment; 7. The security and solidarity of the continent are affected to the same extent by an act of aggression against any of the American states by a non-American state, as by an American state against one or more American states. Part I-Declaration First-That all sovereign states are juridically equal amongst themselves. Second-That every state has the right to the respect of its individuality and independence, on the part of the other members of the international community. Third-That every attack of a state against the integrity or the inviolability of territory, or against the sovereignty or political independence of an American state, shall, conformably to Part III hereof, be considered as an act of aggression against the other states which sign this Declaration. In any case, invasion by armed forces of one state into the territory of another, trespassing boundaries established by treaty and demarcated in accordance therewith, shall constitute an act of aggression. Fourth-That in case that acts of aggression occur or there may be reasons to believe that an aggression is being prepared by any other state against the integrity and inviolability of territory, or against the sovereignty or political independence of an American state, the states signatory to this Declaration will consult amongst themselves in order to agree upon measures they think that it may be advisable to take. Fifth-That during the war and until treaty arrangements recommended in Part II hereof, the signatories of this Declaration recognize such threats and acts of aggression as indicated in Paragraphs Third and Fourth above, constitute an interference with the war effort of the United Nations calling for such procedures, within the scope of their general constitutional and war powers, as may be found necessary, including: Recall of chiefs of diplomatic missions; Breaking of postal, telegraphic, telephonic, radiotelephonic relations; Interruption of economic, commercial and financial re lations; Use of armed force to prevent or repel aggression. Sixth-That the principles and procedure contained in this Declaration shall become effective immediately, inasmuch as any act of aggression or threat of aggression during the present state of war interferes with the war effort of the United Nations to obtain victory. Henceforth, and with the view that the principles and procedure herein stipulated shall conform with the constitutional principles of each republic, the respective governments shall take the necessary steps to perfect this instrument in order that it shall be in force at all times. Part II-Recommendation The Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace recommends: That for the purpose of meeting threats of acts of aggression against any American republic following the establishment of peace, the governments of the American republics should consider the conclusion, in accordance with their constitutional processes, of a treaty establishing procedures whereby such threats or acts may be met by: The use, by all or some of the signatories of said treaty Breaking of postal, telegraphic, telephonic, radiotelephonic relations; Interruption of economic, commercial and financial relations; use of armed force to prevent or repel aggression. Part III This Declaration and Recommendation provide for a regional arrangement for dealing with matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action in the Western Hemisphere and said arrangements and the activities and procedures referred to therein shall be consistent with the purposes and principles of the general international organization when formed. This Declaration and Recommendation shall be known by the name of Act of Chapultepec. Invitation to San Francisco Conference and Voting Procedure for World Security Organization MARCH 5, 1945 At the Crimea Conference the Government of the United States of America was authorized, on behalf of the three governments there represented, to consult the Government of the Republic of China and the Provisional Government of the French Republic in order to invite them to sponsor invitations jointly with the governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to a conference of United Nations called to meet at San Francisco on April 25, 1945. Those consultations have now been held. The Government of the Republic of China has agreed to join in sponsoring invitations to the San Francisco Conference. The Provisional Government of the French Republic has agreed to participate in the Conference but, after consultation with the sponsoring governments, the Provisional Government-which did not participate in the Dumbarton Oaks conversations-is not joining in sponsoring the invitations. Today, at noon Washington time, representatives of the Government of the United States of America stationed at various capitals throughout the world are presenting to the governments of thirty-nine different United Nations the following invitation: The Government of the United States of America, on behalf of itself and of the governments of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Republic of China, invites the Government of (name of Government invited was inserted here) to send representatives to a conference of the United Nations to be held on April 25, 1945, at San Francisco in the United States of America to prepare a charter for a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security. The above-named governments suggest that the conference consider as affording a basis for such a charter the proposals for the establishment of a general international organization, which were made public last October as a result of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, and which have now been supplemented by the following provisions for Section C of Chapter VI: C. Voting: "1. Each member of the Security Council should have one vote. "2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters should be made by an affirmative vote of seven members. "3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters should be made by an affirmative vote of seven members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VIII, Section A, and under the second sentence of Paragraph 1 of Chapter VIII, Section C, a party to a dispute should abstain from voting." Further information as to arrangements will be transmitted subsequently. In the event that the Government of (name of Government invited was inserted here) desires in advance of the conference to present views or comments concerning the proposals, the Government of the United States of America will be pleased to transmit such views and comments to the other participating governments. The invitation has been presented to the governments of the following United Nations: Statement by Secretary of State Stettinius on Voting Procedure in Security Council MARCH 5, 1945 Today, with the issuance of the invitations to the San Francisco Conference, there have been made public the provisions of the text on voting procedure in the Security Council of the general international organization proposed at Dumbarton Oaks. The practical effect of these provisions, taken together, is that a difference is made, so far as voting is concerned, between the quasi-judicial function of the Security Council in promoting the pacific settlement of disputes and the political function of the Council in taking action for the maintenance of peace and security. Where the Council is engaged in performing its quasijudicial function of promoting pacific settlement of disputes, no nation, large or small, should be above the law. This means that no nation, large or small, if a party to a dispute, would participate in the decisions of the Security Council on questions like the following: (a) Whether a matter should be investigated; (b) Whether the dispute or situation is of such a nature that its continuation is likely to threaten the peace; (c) Whether the Council should call on the parties to settle a dispute by means of their own choice; (d) Whether, if the dispute is referred to the Council, a recommendation should be made as to methods and procedures of settlement; (e) Whether the Council should make such recommendations before the dispute is referred to it; (f) What should be the nature of this recommendation; (g) Whether the legal aspect of the dispute should be referred to the Court for advice; (h) Whether a regional agency should be asked to concern itself with the dispute; and (i) Whether the dispute should be referred to the General Assembly. Where the Council is engaged in performing its political functions of action for maintenance of peace and security, a difference is made between the permanent members of the Council and other nations for the practical reason that the permanent members of the Council must, as a matter of necessity, bear the principal responsibility for action. Unanimous agreement among the permanent members of the Council is therefore re ! ! |