Summary Report of Meeting of the Heads of Delegations To Organize the Conference, April 26

Doc. 29, April 26 and May 12

I. Languages of the Conference

Mr. Bidault (France) requested that the remarks of the presiding officer be translated into French and the Committee discussed the general question of the use of languages at the sessions of the Conference.

It was moved by Mr. Bidault that both English and French be used on a basis of complete equality at all Conference sessions and meetings of commissions, committees, and subcommittees.

He emphasized that this was a matter of principle for the French Delegation and that it was essential not to give support to the efforts which have been made to eliminate as an international language, French, the traditional language of diplomacy, and one of the great languages of civilization, by any action taken at this Conference.

Mr. Fernández (Chile) seconded the motion of the Chairman of the Delegation of France that English and French be considered on a basis of perfect equality at all sessions of the Conference and meetings of the commissions, committees, and subcommittees.

He stated that it was the thought of his country, and he was sure of all the Latin American nations, that the French language should, jointly with the English, be the official language of the Conference. He said that it was traditional that at all international conferences the French language be considered as official. In this case, he stated that they should likewise make it so as a tribute to the heroic France that has made such immense sacrifices in order to defend liberty and democracy against the totalitarian regimes.

The expression of Mr. Fernández was seconded by Mr. Parra Pérez (Venezuela) and Mr. Gallagher (Peru).

The temporary Chairman said that the United States was perfectly willing to accept this proposal, but for the sake of expediting the work of the Conference asked whether the Committee would favor having French and English translations during the proceedings of the commissions, committees, and subcommittees but having the proceedings of the plenary sessions conducted in English only, with subsequent immediate French translation circulated to the delegates.

Mr. Soong (China) moved that English should be the only working language used by the Conference, with a view to saving the time of the Conference.

Mr. Cáceres (Honduras) said that if French were to be treated as an additional Conference language, his delegation would request the same treatment for Spanish. Mr. Velloso (Brazil) stated that he would accept French and English as the working languages, but that,

if there were to be several official languages, Portuguese should be included.

In the course of the discussion Mr. Soong withdrew his motion to establish English as the sole working language.

Mr. Mackenzie King (Canada) explained the procedures in the Canadian Parliament, under which members are free to use either English or French at parliamentary sessions. No interpretation is made, but the record appears subsequently in both languages. In committee meetings interpretations are provided if desired.

The meeting recommended that at plenary sessions of the Conference addresses in English or French would not be interpreted into the other language, but that a translation would appear subsequently in the record. Delegates would be free to use any other language besides English or French, but in this case they should provide interpretations thereof into either English or French at their choice. Interpretations might be made into both English and French if the speaker desired. As regards meetings of commissions, technical committees, and subcommittees, it was recommended that interpretations from English into French and vice versa would be provided if the meeting in question so desired. Delegates would be free in these bodies also to speak in any other language, but should provide their own interpretations into either English or French.

A. Official Languages

Mr. Molotov (Soviet Union) asked that the Committee decide not only as to the working languages to be used, but also the question of the official languages of the Conference. He proposed that the official languages should be English, French, Russian, Chinese, and Spanish. The temporary Chairman, in response to a question by Mr. Enríquez (Ecuador), ruled that the decision previously taken related to the working languages of the Conference and put to a vote Mr. Molotov's motion that the five languages, English, French, Russian, Chinese, and Spanish, be the official languages of the Conference. The Committee approved the motion by a show of hands.

IV. Organization of the Conference

At the request of the temporary Chairman, the Secretary-General introduced an informal memorandum on possible organization of the Conference prepared by the Secretariat and summarized the main provisions of the document.

Mr. Molotov (Soviet Union) supported the document on proposed organization of the Conference and raised two questions for clarification. First, he suggested that the Committee should not go into the details of the question of official languages at this time. The SecretaryGeneral indicated that this question was dealt with in a second memorandum on procedures to be introduced, and it was agreed that discussion should be deferred until that memorandum was considered. Mr. Molotov then raised the second point for clarification as to whether the Conference should choose one president or four presidents.

V. The Presidency of the Conference

Mr. Eden (United Kingdom) said he had given much thought to the problem of the presidency of the Conference. He felt it was essential that the Conference should make clear that the four governments which acted as sponsors were acting in unity and that this unity would continue throughout the Conference. On the other hand, it was necessary for the conduct of the work of the Conference to have at the helm one officer who would be responsible for organizing and directing this work and that no more suitable person could be found than the present temporary President of the Conference.

Mr. Eden therefore suggested that the chairmanship of the public meetings of the Conference should be rotated among the four sponsoring governments but that the Steering Committee and the Executive Committee should have one Chairman and he proposed Mr. Stettinius.

Mr. Molotov (Soviet Union) said that the Soviet Delegation was prepared to recognize in the most friendly manner Mr. Stettinius as the temporary President of the opening session of the Conference on April 25. He recognized in Mr. Stettinius an outstanding presiding officer and did not doubt that if the Committee were considering this question from a purely technical point of view it would wish to have Mr. Stettinius as President.

Mr. Molotov said, however, that the question of the presidency of the Conference was for the Government of the Soviet Union a matter of principle. The Soviet Delegation submitted for the approval of the Conference the proposal that the Conference elect as co-Presidents representatives of each of the four sponsoring governments, who would preside in rotation.

In support of this proposal Mr. Molotov advanced the following considerations. Since four governments had prepared the Conference and had acted as its sponsors, it would be only natural that a representative of each should be elected as a co-President of the Conference and that the principle of equality should be observed. Should the proposal of the Soviet Union be accepted, this principle of equality of status of the four countries in the direction of the Conference would be established, and the delegations could then elect a number of vice presidents from other countries.

The Delegation of the Soviet Union was not seeking any privileges for itself, and it should be taken for granted that no other country represented was attempting to achieve a privileged position for itself.

The proposal that there should be one president was motivated by reasons of a technical nature. There would be ample opportunity to arrange for the orderly conduct of the business of the Conference if the Soviet proposal were adopted. In fact, such arrangements must be assured. Of far more importance to the Conference was the assurance that from the very beginning of its work the principle of unity among the sponsors should be established and should not be undermined during the whole period of the Conference.

Mr. Molotov said that these were the reasons which led the Soviet Union to propose the election of representatives of the four governments as co-Presidents of the Conference.

Mr. Padilla (Mexico) referred to the norms established in diplomatic practice, which can be followed without involving any consideration of national prestige and which should not be deviated from

665605-46

without very strong reasons. One of these is the custom of choosing as the president of international conferences the foreign minister of the host government. It would be a fitting tribute to Mr. Stettinius for his special preparations for the Conference, and to the United States for acting as the host of the Conference, to elect Mr. Stettinius as the President. The views expressed by Mr. Eden and Mr. Molotov could be taken account of by choosing vice presidents from the three other sponsoring governments.

Mr. Molotov advanced the additional consideration that no single President could adequately discharge the heavy responsibility of conducting the work of so great a Conference, and he added that since the question of equality was a fundamental point of principle with his Government, the Soviet Union would not accept the presidency if the Committee should make such an offer. Mr. Molotov added that if the proposal of the Soviet Union were not accepted by the Committee, the Soviet Union would be obliged to give warning that it would refrain from any further representation of its delegation on the presidium of the Conference. The Soviet Delegation would, under such circumstances, take part in the work of the Conference on the same basis as the delegations of the non-sponsoring governments.

Mr. Padilla said that his proposal was also a matter of principle and he maintained that if the Conference were meeting in the Soviet Union he would gladly propose Mr. Molotov as President and would act in a similar way if it were meeting in England or China. He recognized the qualifications of the other representatives of sponsoring governments but maintained his motion proposing Mr. Stettinius as President of this Conference.

General [Field Marshal] Smuts (Union of South Africa) said that under ordinary circumstances there was much to be said for the proposal for a single President but that under the special circumstances of this Conference in which four equal governments have invited the other governments, the circumstances that the Conference is being held in San Francisco is almost accidental. Under these conditions, the ordinary rules need not necessarily apply.

Mr. Molotov, he continued, had raised the question of principle and that in his view when any one of the four sponsoring governments raised a question of principle the Conference should not overrule insistence on a point of principle by one of the four sponsoring governments. If one of the governments insisted on a rotating presidency, then there should be a rotating presidency. General Smuts added, however, that this was also a great Conference which must conduct its business to completion within a few weeks, and there was need for one person to be in charge of the regular conduct of Conference business in the Steering and Executive Committees. General Smuts supported Mr. Eden's proposal of four Presidents, equal in status, who would preside in turn at the plenary sessions, one of whom would be a permanent Chairman of the Steering and Executive Committees.

Mr. van Kleffens (Netherlands) supported Mr. Eden's proposal and Mr. Eden indicated that it had been better expressed by General Smuts than by himself. He added, however, that if the Committee agreed to choose a single Chairman of the Executive and Steering Committees, it would be necessary to delegate to him full power to act in behalf of the other sponsoring governments and of all the delega

tions. He also said that he wished to explain to his colleagues that the United Kingdom would have been willing to accept the proposal of Mr. Padilla for a single President.

Mr. Fraser also supported Mr. Eden's proposal and expressed the opinion that it was in full harmony with Mr. Molotov's suggestion that the principle of equality be fully safeguarded, and urged Mr. Molotov to accept it and the Committee to adopt it unanimously.

After further discussion, Mr. Molotov suggested that the Committee adopt the following resolution:

In observance of the principle of equality between the four sponsoring states which have borne and are bearing the main burden of the struggle for the defeat of the common enemy, the Steering Committee1 recommends the election of four Chairmen of the Conference.

The temporary Chairman then stated that there were three specific proposals before the Committee: (1) the proposal of Mr. Eden; (2) the proposal of Mr. Molotov; and (3) the proposal of Mr. Padilla.

In further discussion of these motions, the question was raised whether the two parts of Mr. Eden's motion might not be treated separately. It was suggested by Mr. Fraser (New Zealand) and Mr. Molotov (Soviet Union) that the Committee approve the principle that there should be four Presidents in rotation of the plenary sessions of the Conference and then take up the question of the chairmanship of the Executive Committee and the Steering Committee at a later time.

Mr. Eden, however, said that while affirming his position that in order to obtain unity, the Committee should agree to the principle of a rotating President for plenary sessions, the parts of his motion were so connected that he could not agree to their being separated.

Mr. Spaak (Belgium) stated that the entire Committee recognized most cordially the great debt which was owed to the achievements of the Russian armies and that this should be given expression by accepting the principle of co-presidency. He suggested that the questions should be combined in one motion by adding to the text of Mr. Molotov's motion the following words: "and at the same time we propose that Mr. Stettinius be Chairman of the Steering Committee and of the Executive Committee."

In the course of further discussion the following additional points were brought out. Mr. Mackenzie King (Canada) emphasized the great importance of making it clear to the public through announcement of the election of four co-Presidents that the Conference was beginning with unity among the sponsoring governments, and that it might be desirable for them to work out later the most appropriate method of conducting the business of the committees. He hoped that Mr. Molotov himself might feel that for the committee work one chairman would be a desirable arrangement.

Mr. Molotov suggested that the question as to who should preside at meetings of the representatives of the four sponsoring governments was one which should not be submitted to the Conference. He stated that he fully agreed with Mr. Eden's view that when the representatives of the four governments do meet, he would be very glad to have Mr. Stettinius preside.

1 This is the language of anticipation. Technically, the Steering Committee (identical with the Heads of Delegations) did not exist until the recommendations of the Heads of Delegations were adopted by a plenary session of the Conference on Apr. 30. (See Doc. 42, post, p. 325.)