Summary Report of Third Meeting of the Executive Committee, May 8 Doc. 164, May 9 and 12 Section IV of the Rules of Procedure on Voting in the Conference The Secretary-General, Mr. Alger Hiss, informed the Committee that the Secretariat had been asked to attempt to find an agreement among the delegations upon the method of voting in the Conference to be incorporated in the Conference Rules of Procedure. The Secretariat, however, had not been entirely successful and the SecretaryGeneral was, therefore, submitting to the Committee the original proposal, together with three alternative proposals set forth in Document 141, EX/4.8 Mr. Evatt (Australia) suggested that on important questions coming before the Conference, it would be necessary to have a two-thirds vote, but for other amendments the two-thirds rule should not be necessary; alternatives "A" and "B" distinguished between important and unimportant proposals; but alternative "C" required a two-thirds vote in all bodies of the Conference. Mr. Evatt felt that this would be unsatisfactory and he recommended that committees be permitted to make their own rules on an ad hoc basis as originally proposed. He expressed his readiness to support the original proposal of the Secretariat. Mr. Padilla (Mexico) said that if the committees had to decide the question of voting on an ad hoc basis, valuable time would be lost. If the rule of a two-thirds vote in all bodies (committees, commissions, and plenary sessions) were approved, a larger measure of agreement would be assured. He therefore moved that alternative "C" be adopted by the Committee. Mr. Bidault (France) expressed his approval of this course. With a view to meeting possible objections by delegates who might feel that the two-thirds rule was too restrictive, Mr. Eden (United Kingdom) suggested that Mr. Padilla's motion in favor of alternative "C" might be more acceptable if in paragraph 2 the words "and voting" were added after the word "present". This proposed amendment was accepted by Mr. Padilla and by Mr. Bidault. Mr. Evatt referred to the 27 amendments to the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals which had recently been submitted by the four sponsoring powers. Some powers, he said, would want to amend these amendments and it would be unfair to except the 27 amendments from the requirement of a two-thirds vote and insist on a two-thirds vote for amendments offered by other powers. The Chairman gave assurance that the 27 amendments of the sponsoring powers would have to run the gauntlet of the two-thirds rule in the same manner as amendments offered by other powers. The Secretary-General pointed out that the question of the 27 amendments was the next item on the Committee's agenda. He added that it was his understanding that these amendments and the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals themselves would have to be approved by a two-thirds vote of the committees, commissions, and the plenary sessions of the Conference and would be subject to the same procedure as amendments offered by other powers. 'Ante, p. 71. Mr. Molotov (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) agreed with Mr. Padilla's motion as amended by Mr. Eden. Mr. Evatt asked whether a matter which had been passed or rejected by a two-thirds vote in a Committee would be subject to review and possible reversal in a Commission. The Chairman stated that such would be the case. Decision. Mr. Padilla's motion, as amended by Mr. Eden, was carried by a show of hands. All members voted in favor of the motion except Mr. Evatt, who reserved the position of his Delegation. Addition of Four Sponsoring Governments' Amendments to Dumbarton Oaks Proposals The Secretary-General said that, at a meeting on May 7 of the commission presidents and committee chairmen with Field Marshal Smuts (South Africa) presiding, it was recommended to the Executive Committee that the 27 amendments of the four sponsoring governments be incorporated in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals as part of the basic document of the Conference. Mr. Bidault (France) stated that his country had understood that the original Dumbarton Oaks Proposals would be the basis for the Conference discussion. He recommended that the amendments of the four sponsoring governments be given prior consideration over the other amendments, but he strongly opposed the consolidation of these amendments with the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals as the basic document of the Conference. Mr. van Kleffens (Netherlands) pointed out that the amendments of the four sponsoring governments were not of a uniform character -some of them he agreed with, some might be acceptable but required study, and some he felt would not receive a two-thirds majority in their present form. The original Dumbarton Oaks Proposals had been the subject of study and public discussion since last October. It would be unfair to incorporate at this time the amendments of the four sponsoring powers in the Charter and thus make it necessary to pass a two-thirds vote to reject them, while other amendments would require a two-thirds positive vote for their adoption. He appealed to the sponsoring governments to rely on the intrinsic value of their proposed amendments. Mr. Evatt agreed with Mr. Bidault and Mr. van Kleffens. The amendments of the four sponsoring governments would virtually establish a second Dumbarton Oaks plan. He desired the right to offer amendments to the amendments of the sponsoring governments just as they had amended the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. If the amendments were to be printed alongside the original Proposals merely as a matter of convenience, he would have no objection, but he opposed the incorporation of the amendments in the text. Mr. Eden stated that there was no principle at stake. It would be wrong for the sponsoring governments to put forward their amendments without a two-thirds approval of the Conference. This was not intended; all amendments would be subjected to the two-thirds vote. He suggested that a new text might be reproduced showing the amendments in italics for the convenience of the delegates. Mr. Bidault said that he felt that as a matter of principle there should not be a Dumbarton Oaks Number 1 and a Dumbarton Oaks Number 2. While he agreed to giving priority to the amendments of the sponsoring governments, he was unable to modify his original attitude. Mr. Evatt favored the reproduction of a new document setting forth the provisions of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals on the left and all the proposed amendments on the right, beside their relevant paragraphs. This was a well-recognized parliamentary procedure. The Secretary-General pointed out that Mr. Evatt's proposal would place a heavy burden upon the Secretariat since it would involve drawing up a document of some thousand pages. Mr. Eden said that some kind of document containing the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals and the amendments thereto was necessary. Mr. Stettinius closed the discussion by stating that there was no desire to give the amendments of the four sponsoring governments priority. He would gladly accept the suggestion of Mr. Evatt to reproduce together the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals and the amendments thereto. With regard to the incorporation of the 27 amendments of the four sponsoring governments he was willing to accept the decision of the Committee. Summary Report of Second Meeting of the Steering Committee, May 8 Doc. 165, May 9 Voting Procedure The Secretary-General reported on the action taken by the Executive Committee on the morning of May 8, 1945 concerning voting procedure, a report (Doc. 146, EX/8)4 which was distributed in advance. Mr. Evatt (Australia) summarized the decision of the Executive Committee as requiring a majority of two thirds of the delegations present and voting on all questions except procedural matters. He stated that some delegations, including the Australian, felt this was too drastic a requirement but that he had become reconciled to the formula on the understanding that decisions made in committees could be reconsidered in commission and plenary meetings. He felt the procedure should work satisfactorily if it were clearly understood that a proposal which received a majority vote, but less than the required two thirds, in a committee meeting might be reconsidered in a commission meeting, or even in a plenary meeting of the Conference. The Chairman confirmed the view expressed by Mr. Fraser (New Zealand) that the two-thirds rule applied to all questions, including the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals and amendments, other than procedural matters. It was emphasized that the two-thirds majority included those present and voting. Mr. de Schryver (Belgium) said he thought paragraph of the proposed voting procedure was too cumbersome in that it required the presiding officer of the committee or commission to refer to the Executive Committee any question on which there was substantial degree of uncertainty as to whether that question was or was not one of procedure. He suggested that this decision should be left to the 'Should read "Doc. 147, EX/8." See footnote, ante, p. 73. president of the commission or chairman of the committee, or the body concerned. The Chairman stated that it would be a normal procedure for the presiding officer of a commission or committee to settle such questions unless a serious division of opinion developed, in which case the presiding officer could refer it to the Executive Committee. The proposal on voting submitted by the Secretary-General was thereupon approved without objection. Representatives of Intergovernmental Organizations The Secretary-General reported that several of the technical committees had asked the Steering Committee for a decision with regard to the question of whether and on what terms to invite the representatives of the five intergovernmental organizations, which had been asked to send representatives to San Francisco, to attend commission and committee meetings. The recommendation of the Secretariat was that this question should be left to the discretion of each committee. Certain delegates pointed out the necessity for distinguishing between granting permission on the one hand for these representatives to attend meetings as observers and be called upon for advice when necessary, and on the other hand permission for them to participate in the work of the committees. The view was expressed that the representatives of these organizations should be available for consultation but not entitled to participate actively in the discussions on their own initiative. Mr. Parra Pérez (Venezuela), however, pointed out the value of permitting, for example, the President of the Permanent Court of International Justice to express his views at meetings of committees of Commission IV, without, of course, having the right to vote. Mr. Fraser suggested that committees should be authorized to call in anyone they chose, either in public or private capacity, who could contribute to the discussions. Objections to this view were expressed by other delegates. Mr. Gromyko (U.S.S.R.)_recalled that when the subject had been discussed before, the Soviet Delegation raised a question as to whether representatives of intergovernmental organizations, who were nationals of countries other than those participating in the Conference, should be permitted to attend closed meetings. He recommended taking no action in the Steering Committee on this general matter but favored giving authority to the committees to determine whether or not to permit one of these representatives to attend the meeting. Mr. Faris al-Khouri (Syria) pointed out that the four sponsoring governments had suggested that the five intergovernmental organizations send representatives to San Francisco, obviously for the purpose of being called upon for advice when needed. He felt that this suggestion should be honored. If these individuals are invited to attend meetings, they should, however, not express their views unless called upon by the body concerned. Mr. Koo (China) pointed out that the issue was whether or not to approve the Secretary-General's proposal to permit the committees to decide whether the representatives should be asked to attend meetings. The recommendation of the Secretary-General to leave to the bodies concerned the matter of inviting the representatives of the five inter governmental organizations to attend meetings was approved without objection. Submission of Formal Proposals The Secretary-General pointed out that in the informal memorandum on the Rules of Procedure previously approved, there was an unnecessary requirement that all formal proposals be submitted to the Steering Committee. The Secretariat now recommended that this provision be revised in accordance with new language distributed at the meeting (Doc. 143, EX/6). The new recommendation provides that formal proposals should be deposited with the Secretary-General, who will distribute them to all delegations and provisionally allocate them to the appropriate commissions and committees. The SecretaryGeneral explained that final determination of the allocation will be made by the commissions and committees themselves. Summary Report of Third Meeting of the Doc. 224, May 11 Attendance of Representatives of Non-Governmental The Secretary-General explained that at a meeting the day before of Committee II/3 a motion was passed to invite a representative of the World Trade Union Congress to that Committee. This invitation, however, had not yet been sent because it appeared that the Steering Committee had not made its wishes on this general subject clear. The Secretary-General now placed the matter before the Steering Committee in order to receive further instructions. The Chairman stated that at the last meeting of the Steering Committee it had been decided that the technical committees of the Conference might in their own discretion invite any representatives of the five intergovernmental organizations to attend their meetings, which had previously been invited to attend the public sessions of the Conference (League of Nations, FAO,5 Permanent Court of International Justice, UNRRA, and International Labor Office). The United Nations Conference on International Organization was a conference of government representatives whose purpose it was to draw up a Charter for ratification by the governments concerned. The Chairman felt that to invite representatives of non-governmental organizations would change the basic character of the Conference and moreover would set a new precedent for conferences of this kind. It would also modify the previous decision of the Steering Committee which had limited its invitation only to the five intergovernmental organizations. The Chairman invited a motion from the floor to clarify the power of the committees and the commissions to invite organizations other than the five aforementioned. The Delegate of the United Kingdom (Mr. Eden) stated that he was not concerned to enter into the merits or demerits of the decision taken by Committee II/3. At a meeting of the Steering Committee on April 30, Mr. Eden had suggested that no vote be taken on the 'Food and Agriculture Organization. • United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. |