Commission II to the reference to Committee I/2 of questions concerning the suspension and expulsion of members of the Organization. In considering this question, Committee I/2 had no original text of Dumbarton Oaks allotted to it, so had decided upon one. The text had been considered by a subcommittee, which had voted 6 to 5 to omit any provision for expulsion. When the matter had been put to the vote in Committee I/2, the vote was 19 in favor and 16 against the retention of an expulsion provision. The Chairman had ruled that the expulsion provision should not be included in the text because it had failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority. A vote on the text of the paragraph as a whole then had been taken, which resulted in the paragraph's being approved by 25 votes to 2. The Chairman's ruling on the first vote had been questioned on the grounds that the rejection of the expulsion provision amounted to an amendment to the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, and had not received a two-thirds majority. The reply was that the proposal in question was not an amendment, but whether it was or not, it does not require a two-thirds majority against in order to obtain a rejection. Mr. Gromyko (U.S.S.R.) stated that it would be desirable to include a provision for expulsion, which, of course, would be used only in extreme but necessary cases. He further stated that there was a question of procedure. He said that Committee I/2 had simultaneously voted on the text which contained a provision for expulsion and on an amendment to the text which deleted this provision. He stated that according to the rules of procedure amendments should first be voted on and then the text. The Chairman, he continued, had ruled that it was the text, not the amendment, which had failed to get the twothirds majority. He recommended, therefore, that the matter be referred back to Committee I/2, with instructions to the Chairman to follow the established rules of procedure. Mr. Padilla (Mexico) maintained that the Conference should observe democratic principles, and, therefore, that the Executive Committee, composed of members of a limited number of delegations, should not reexamine this question, but that reexamination should be made in a commission meeting or in a plenary session of the Conference. Mr. Evatt (Australia) said that the real objection of the four sponsoring governments and France was not so much to procedure but to the substance of the proposed text adopted in Committee I/2. He continued that he did not think there had been any irregularity in the procedure in Committee 1/2 and that the substance of this question of expulsion should be raised, not in the Executive Committee or in the Steering Committee, but at a commission meeting. Lord Halifax (United Kingdom) said that the Executive Committee would not discuss the question of substance, that it was concerned with the procedure in Committee I/2, and that, according to his understanding, normal procedure was not followed in Committee I/2 and confusion resulted. The normal procedure would have been to move an amendment to the Dumbarton Oaks text and, if, on the vote, it did not obtain a two-thirds majority, to vote to see whether the Dumbarton Oaks text obtained the necessary majority. In the circumstances, he felt that the matter should be remitted to Committee I/2 in order that the Committee may follow the ordinary rules of procedure and obtain a clear decision. The Secretary-General stated that when there did appear to have been confusion and dissatisfaction with respect to the procedure taken in Committee I/2, that the Secretariat recommended the matter be reopened in the Technical Committee, but that Mr. Rolin, President of Commission I, disapproved. The matter was brought here with the agreement of Mr. Rolin that it would be appropriate for the Executive Committee to discuss the question of procedure. Senator Connally (United States) stated that he agreed with the remarks of Lord Halifax that there had been in Committee I/2 a departure from the normal rules of procedure. Mr. Rolin maintained that the correct procedure had been followed in Committee I/2, that the text had been put to a vote but that it did not receive the necessary two-thirds majority. He requested that, if the matter is recommitted to Committee I/2, his Commission be advised of the rules of procedure to be followed, in order to avoid further difficulties. Lord Halifax stated that the difficulties under discussion had been caused by inviting an expression of opinion from Committee I/2 in the form of a question, instead of moving an amendment; if the matter is recommitted to Committee I/2, confusion, he said, would be avoided if the amendment to the Dumbarton Oaks text is voted on first, and if that amendment fails to get a two-thirds majority and is voted down, the Committee would no doubt wish to vote directly upon the Dumbarton Oaks text. Mr. Paul-Boncour (France) stated that since the regularity of the procedure followed in Committee I/2 is questioned, the best course is to refer the matter back to that Committee. Mr. Evatt said he saw no evidence of confusion in the procedure followed by Committee I/2 and had observed similar procedures being followed in other committees. Mr. Loudon (Netherlands) asked what rule of procedure had been violated. He said he could not find any rule in the Rules of Procedure (Doc. 177, ST/5) 11 which had been violated. He also referred to EXSEC/812 and read from paragraph 3(a) under the heading "Motions", as follows: "If an amendment striking out or altering certain words in a proposal is moved, the meeting shall first vote on whether the words in question shall stand as part of the proposal." He then asked if there were any other rules of procedure which might be applicable and if an amendment had been proposed in Committee I/2. The Secretary-General replied that he understood there had been general agreement in the Steering Committee that the orderly method of procedure when there had been an amendment would be to vote on the amendment first and then on the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. The Secretary-General said that in this case the subcommittee had proposed a deletion and that he could not say with finality whether a motion to delete specific language is an amendment of the remaining language or is a motion, but added that he considered this unimportant. The fact that there was confusion in the Committee was the significant fact. He stated that this confusion was caused by the members of the Committee being required to vote on a disjunctive on top of a negative, namely, "whether or not to delete". Some delegates he continued, it had been reported to him, did not know if they 11 Ante, p. 74. 12 Ante, p. 78. were voting to delete or to retain. When Mr. Rolin, as President of Commission I, would not agree to a reconsideration by the Committee, the matter was brought here for a discussion of the procedure and a recommendation. Senator Connally said that the basis of Conference discussion is the Dumbarton Oaks text. This text can be amended by a two-thirds vote. The text itself has to be adopted by a two-thirds vote. The form of the question put in Committee 1/2 was tantamount to an amendment, and did not obtain the necessary two-thirds vote; therefore the deletion should not have been made. He believed that there had been confusion in the Committee, and he supported the position of Lord Halifax. Mr. Rolin maintained that the point made by the Delegate of the Netherlands was sound. The language from EX-SEC/8 he had quoted was perfectly clear. It called for a vote on whether "the words in question" should stand. If there were not a two-thirds majority, the words would not stand. The Secretary-General pointed out that EX-SEC/8 never had been formally adopted by the Steering Committee, or any other committee. It is merely an informal memorandum of possible procedure suggested to chairmen. He emphasized that the point which concerned him was the confusion in Committee I/2 which arose because the members were required to vote on an "either-or" question and said he hoped, therefore, that this Committee would not approve of questions in this form being voted on. Lord Halifax moved that the Executive Committee should refer the matter to the Steering Committee with a recommendation that the Steering Committee should refer the matter back to Committee I/2 with the recommendation that any confusion would be avoided by adherence to the general rules of guidance that have been laid down. The motion was seconded by the Delegate of the United States and supported by the Delegate of Canada. The Chairman put the motion to the vote. There were 9 in favor and 5 against. The Chairman announced the motion carried. Summary Report of Fifth Meeting of the Doc. 847, June 7 The Chairman welcomed to the Conference the Chairman of the Delegation of Denmark, who took his seat on the Steering Committee. The Chairman stated that this meeting was called for a special purpose and made the following statement: Consultations among the four sponsoring powers and France have resulted in agreement on the provisions for voting in the Security Council. The agreement reached preserves the principle of the unanimity of the permanent members of the Council in all actions taken by the Council, while at the same time assuring freedom of hearing and discussion in the Council before action is taken. We believe both are essential to the success of the world Organization. Under the terms of the agreement, unanimity of the permanent members of the Council is required as provided by the Crimea agreement in all decisions relating to enforcement action and except as to parties to disputes in all decisions for peaceful settlement. But this requirement of unanimity does not apply to the right of any nation to bring a dispute before the Council as provided by paragraph 2, Section A, Chapter VIII, and no individual member of the Council can alone prevent a consideration and discussion by the Council of a dispute or situation thus brought to its attention. The successful conclusion of discussions on this matter among the four sponsoring powers and France offers a new and heartening proof of the will and ability of the Allied nations which have fought side by side in the war to construct, upon the strong foundation of their wartime collaboration, a workable and effective and lasting peace in which they will labor together with mutual understanding and a common purpose. The same spirit which has now been so effectively demonstrated by the powers which have taken part in these conversations will, I feel certain, motivate the entire Conference and make possible the speedy and successful conclusion of its task in which I have always had an unswerving faith and confidence. The Chairman said that a detailed statement on this matter would be presented to the appropriate committee tomorrow morning; that the meeting of the four sponsoring powers and France had been adjourned only 15 minutes, and he wanted the chairmen of delegations to be the first to know of the agreement. He added that he attached importance to the speed with which he called this matter to their attention and pointed out that the agreement would permit the committees to proceed with their work, which he hoped they would complete expeditiously. The Chairman expressed confidence that the Conference, without delay, would produce a Charter for the Organization. Summary Report of Eighth Meeting of the Doc. 860, June 8 The presidents of the four commissions, upon the invitation of the Chairman, were present. The Chairman stated that one item remained on the agenda which required the attention of the Executive Committee, and asked the Secretary-General (Mr. Hiss) to make a statement. The Secretary-General stated that Committee II/2 adopted provisions in Chapter V, Section B, paragraph 8 (as set forth in the agenda), which concern the relationship between the General Assembly and Security Council. He said that on May 15, 1945 Committee III/3 took action on an amendment proposed by New Zealand which in principle, at least, is inconsistent with the action taken by Committee II/2. Mr. Koo (China) stated that subparagraphs a and b of paragraph 8 were deserving of consideration. He pointed out that the General Assembly is given the power by paragraph 8a to approve or disapprove reports from the Security Council. It is recognized, he said, that the General Assembly has the right to make observations and comments on reports of the Security Council. But he said he doubted that it should have the right to disapprove the Council's reports and that if this language is inserted in the permanent Charter, not only would the authority of the Security Council be weakened but awkward situations might arise. With respect to paragraph 86, Mr. Koo said that the language of the text raises a doubt as to the ability of the Security Council to discharge its duties. A provision such as this would make the General Assembly a supervisory body over the Security Council whereas, in fact, the Security Council has the primary responsibility of taking action to maintain international peace and security. He stressed that the Conference should avoid any language being placed in the Charter which would make the Security Council appear subordinate to the General Assembly. In conclusion, Mr. Koo recommended that the Executive Committee recommend to the Steering Committee that this matter be referred to Committees III/1 and II/2 so that if they did not consider omission of these paragraphs advisable, they, in conjunction, could revise the language. Mr. Evatt (Australia) agreed that the choice of language in the paragraphs under discussion was not the best and should be modified. The problem to him, he continued, seemed to be one of drafting rather than of substance, and he suggested that this matter be referred to the Coordination Committee, which would then refer the text with suggestions for the proper wording of these paragraphs to the appropriate committee. At the conclusion of his remarks, Mr. Evatt left the meeting and Mr. Hasluck (Australia) took his seat. Lord Halifax (United Kingdom) stated that he agreed that the language in these paragraphs lends itself to undesirable conclusions. and might obstruct the smooth working between the General Assembly and the Security Council. He suggested that the wording of the proposed text should be reconsidered by the appropriate forum. Mr. Hasluck suggested that the matter should be referred to the Coordination Committee, which, if necessary, would refer it back to the appropriate technical committee. The Chairman requested Mr. Pasvolsky (United States), the Chairman of the Coordination Committee, to make a statement in reply to Mr. Hasluck's suggestion. Mr. Pasvolsky stated that if this matter were sent directly by the Executive and Steering Committees to the Coordination Committee this latter Committee would have to refer the problem to the appropriate technical committees, and that, therefore, in his opinion, time would be saved by direct reference to the technical committees. Field Marshal Smuts (Union of South Africa) said that he agreed with Mr. Pasvolsky that the proposed text in question should be referred to Committee II/2 with the recommendation that it consult with Committee III/1 and if necessary or desirable with Committee III/3 in order that there could be reconsideration and a jointly agreed upon draft which could then be forwarded to the Coordination Committee. The Chairman asked if there was further discussion. There being none, the Chairman took the vote and the suggestion of Field Marshal Smuts was approved unanimously. Proposed Agenda for Sixth Meeting of the Doc. 853, June 8 Steering Committee, June 8 (1) Statement by the head of the Delegation of Denmark accepting the invitation extended to Denmark to take its seat in the United Nations Conference on International Organization (2) Recommendation of the Executive Committee that the Steering Committee recommend that jurisdiction over the question of voting procedure of the Security Council in connection with the nomination of the Secretary-General be transferred from Committee II/1 to Committee III/1. This recommendation refers to 665605-4629 |