to their own constitutions and, therefore, he suggested that this be considered in reaching a decision, so that the decision would be satisfactory not only to all countries represented at the Conference but also to those not represented. Summary Report of Tenth Meeting of the Doc. 1108, June 20 The Chairman reported that the Subcommittee appointed by the Executive Committee on June 17 had met three times that day. He stated that Mr. Evatt (Australia) had prepared a revised text of Chapter V, Section B, paragraph 1, which Mr. Evatt would present to the Executive Committee without any commitment on his part. The Subcommittee had not, the Chairman explained, reached a decision on the question, and Mr. Evatt's draft would be considered by the four sponsoring governments and France. The Chairman stated that in order to bring the matter to a close in the Executive Committee and in the Steering Committee, he would ask Mr. Evatt to present his draft. Mr. Evatt stated that at the meetings of the Subcommittee held the previous day he had produced a draft of Chapter V, Section B, paragraph 1, which was intended to meet the objections of the Soviet Union that the paragraph in its present form might permit action or recommendations by the General Assembly on matters of domestic concern or jurisdiction. It is generally agreed, Mr. Evatt said, that the general prohibition of intervention in domestic affairs which is contained in the Charter is an overriding principle or limitation and controls each and every organ and body of the Organization, of which the General Assembly is one. Any powers given to any body or organ of the Organization are subject to this overriding limitation. Mr. Evatt continued that he thought it would be proper, in order to avoid having the Conference end in a great issue on the right of discussion by the Assembly, to develop a more precise wording for paragraph 1 than the phrase "within the sphere of international relations", to which the Soviet Union objected. This phrase, Mr. Evatt said, had been drafted in an effort to avoid any undesirable limitation on the General Assembly's freedom of discussion. It was wise at this time, he thought, in order to conciliate this matter, to finalize it, to start afresh and to give a right of discussion to the Assembly commensurate with the functions and activities of the Organization. Let the Charter itself, he said, its clauses and provisions, be the field over which discussions in the Assembly can and should range. Mr. Evatt read his draft, as follows: 1. The General Assembly should have the right to discuss any matters cov ered by the purposes and principles of the Charter or within the sphere of action of the United Nations or relating to the powers and functions of any of its organs or otherwise within the scope of the Charter; and, except as provided in paragraph 2 (b) of this section, to make recommendations to the members of the United Nations, or to the Security Council, or both, on any such questions or matters. He pointed out that the first clause of the new language, "any matters covered by the purposes and principles of the Charter", referred to the purposes and principles set forth in the early chapters of the Charter; that the second clause "or within the sphere of action of the United Nations", gives to the Assembly, the body par excellence for discussing the progress of the Organization and its working, the right, which it must have, to discuss those purposes and principles within the sphere of action of the United Nations; that the third clause, "or relating to the powers and functions of any of its organs", gives the Assembly the right to discuss and consider such matters in a sphere of action delimited by the Charter; and that the last phrase made clear that any subject "otherwise within the scope of the Charter" was suitable for discussion by the General Assembly. Summarizing, Mr. Evatt stated that the new proposed language confines the power of discussion and recommendation of the General Assembly to the Charter, its workings, its principles, and its purposes. Mr. Evatt said he had been impressed by the arguments advanced by Senator Vandenberg and Mr. Dulles that the phrase "within the sphere of international relations", contained in the text of Chapter V, Section B, paragraph 1, under discussion, was not so relevant to what the Organization is to do. He appealed to the sponsoring governments and France to view the revised draft as a means of insuring the right of the Assembly to discuss the business of the Organization. Mr. Gromyko (U.S.S.R.) said he wished to make it very clear that although the Subcommittee of the Executive Committee had discussed the language proposed by Mr. Evatt, they had not agreed on a formula. He said that the formula embodied in this new draft fails to mention the main purpose for which the Organization is being established, namely, the maintenance of peace and security in the world. This main purpose, he said, is not mentioned in Mr. Evatt's suggested language. He advanced the thought that paragraph 1, to be a complete formula, should say that the General Assembly should have the right to discuss any matters relating to the maintenance of peace and security and matters relating to economic, social, and educational cooperation among the nations. Such a statement, Mr. Gromyko said, he thought would be both precise and complete and would properly emphasize the main purpose of the Organization. Lord Halifax (United Kingdom) suggested that, in view of the forthcoming meeting of the Steering Committee, the Executive Committee recommend to the Steering Committee that it remit Mr. Evatt's tentative draft to the technical Committee for its reconsideration. He went on to say that the Executive Committee was highly appreciative of the work which the Subcommittee had done. Furthermore, he felt sure that the Executive Committee desired the fullest possible right of discussion in the General Assembly and that Mr. Evatt had made a serious effort to meet the objections raised by the Soviet Ambassador to the language as approved by the technical Committee. He was confident that further discussion could bring both sides closer together if the problem were approached with open minds. Lord Halifax moved that the Executive Committee refer this matter, with its report, to the Steering Committee with the recommendation that the Steering Committee should in turn refer it for consideration to technical Committee II/2. Mr. Koo (China) seconded the motion of Lord Halifax which, without further discussion, was approved by a vote of 10 to 0, 4 abstaining. Summary Report of Eighth Meeting of the Doc. 1107, June 20 The Chairman stated that the Executive Committee had just considered the report of its Subcommittee and had passed the following motion that the question with respect to Chapter V, Section B, paragraph 1, be referred to the Steering Committee with the recommendation that the Steering Committee in turn refer the question to the appropriate technical Committee for consideration. He drew attention to a new proposed draft of this paragraph, which Mr. Evatt (Australia) had brought before the Subcommittee of the Executive Committee, copies of which had been distributed to members of the Committee (Doc. 1060, EX/26). He added that certain governments would need time to study the question, and asked Mr. Evatt to present the proposed text and comment on it, if he wished. Mr. Evatt said that at the Subcommittee meeting the previous day, the Chairman of the Soviet Delegation, Mr. Gromyko, had objected to the text of Chapter V, Section B, paragraph 1, twice approved by Committee II/2, by the terms of which the Assembly was given the right to discuss any matter within the sphere of international relations. He said that Mr. Gromyko's first objection was that it might allow interference in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of a state. In answer to this objection, Mr. Evatt stated that he had offered a draft to meet that objection. He added, however, that both the Subcommittee and the Executive Committee had generally recognized that the objection was covered by the principle of domestic jurisdiction which had been adopted in another technical committee, to the effect that the Organization could not intervene in matters of domestic jurisdiction except so far as enforcement measures by the Security Council were concerned. He indicated his willingness to insert a reference to domestic jurisdiction in his new draft, but remarked that he felt it was unnecessary in view of the fact that there was the general overriding clause on this subject in the Charter. At the meeting of the Subcommittee the argument had been made that the phrase, within the field of international relations", indicated the Committee's desire to give the Assembly the widest scope of discussion in matters of an international character. Against this argument it had been said that the phrase did not carry a definite meaning and might cause argument in the Assembly, giving rise to points of order. Therefore, the suggestion had been put forward to give the Assembly the authority to discuss and make recommendations concerning all matters "within the field of operation of the United Nations and of this Charter". His proposed new text, he said, had been put forward without commitment in a genuine attempt to effect a compromise between these two points of view. The Charter, he said, in its various chapters would indicate the sphere of action of the United Nations Organization, including the powers and functions of its various organs such as the Economic and Social Council and the Trusteeship Council. It was obvious, he said, that the Assembly should have the minimum right to discuss all such matters, in other words, anything that came within the scope of the Charter. For this reason, he added, he was prepared to make a fresh start on this subject, despite the great work which had been done by the technical Committee, in order that the Assembly might be given the right to discuss all the affairs of the Organization and to review the Charter year by year in order to see what progress or retrogression there had been made and to what extent the purposes of the Charter had been observed. In conclusion, he said that he was offering this new text without having had the time to consult many other delegations, whose representatives would probably have preferred the original text as adopted by the technical Committee. He felt, nevertheless, that their desires would be similar to his, namely, to bring this question to a speedy conclusion. Mr. Fraser (New Zealand) asked exactly what the point at issue was. Mr. Evatt replied that the difficulty had been over the asserted vagueness of the phrase, "within the sphere of international relations". His own position had been that nothing should deprive the Assembly of the right of free discussion. The Chairman reminded the meeting of the original recommendation from the Executive Committee, that the matter be referred to a technical Committee for consideration, and asked if there were any discussion. Mr. Fraser moved and Lord Halifax (United Kingdom) seconded the motion that, in accordance with the recommendation of the Executive Committee, the question of Chapter V, Section B, paragraph 1, be referred to Committee II/2. Mr. Fraser explained his motion by remarking that the spirit of the Conference had been to attain complete unanimity. For that reason, he said, every effort should be made to reconcile all differences. He asked the Soviet Delegation to make a clear statement in Committee II/2 of its objections to the text in order that all might know what the objections were, and that an early agreement might be reached. He reaffirmed Mr. Evatt's opinion that no delegations at the Conference wished the Assembly to interfere in matters of domestic jurisdiction. The Chairman asked if there was further discussion; there being none, the vote was taken and the motion was adopted by vote of 49 to 1. (The Chairman asked the Delegate of Bolivia, who cast the negative vote, to stand and receive the applause of the Committee; it was observed that the Delegate of Bolivia was the Chairman of Committee II/2, to which the matter in question was being referred.) Summary Report of Ninth Meeting of the Doc. 1211, June 28 The Chairman stated that for the benefit of those who had not been at the meeting of Committee II/2 this afternoon he was pleased to say that a unanimous recommendation had been made by Ambassador Gromyko (U.S.S.R.), Mr. Evatt (Australia), and himself on the matter of the General Assembly, which had been considered by the Steering Committee at its meeting on June 18. 1945.13 The Chairman stated that this special meeting of the Steering Committee had been called in order to review an important development in 13 Ante, p. 454. the plans of the Conference. It had been hoped, he said, to end the Conference on June 23, but several delegations had asked for a brief postponement. In addition, he added, there had been unavoidable delays in completing the final details of technical committee and commission work, which, in turn, resulted in delay in the final drafting of the Charter by the Coordination Committee and the preparation of the Charter in five languages. The Chairman continued that he had been in communication with President Truman, who had rearranged his personal schedule in order to arrive in San Francisco on Monday, June 25, rather than Friday, June 22. The Chairman stated that he had discussed the matter with the other three Presidents of the Conference and that it was the joint recommendation of Lord Halifax (United Kingdom), Mr. Koo (China), Mr. Gromyko, and himself to the Steering Committee that the date of Tuesday, June 26, be set as the final plenary session at which to bring this historic Conference to a close. The Chairman said that full details of the closing session are still being reviewed by the Executive Committee and that as soon as it has cleared the schedule it will be submitted to the Steering Committee for approval. Mr. de Schryver (Belgium) stated that the four Presidents of the Conference are in a better position to determine exactly when the work of the Conference can be brought to a close and that, therefore, he was happy to move that the Conference be closed on Tuesday, June 26, at 4 p.m. The motion was seconded by General Romulo (Philippine Commonwealth), and was unanimously adopted. Summary Report of Eleventh Meeting of the Doc. 1214, June 28 The Chairman stated that he was happy to announce that the last technical committee had completed its report to its commission at 2:15 this afternoon. He said this was an historic moment because the commissions, although they had not approved the Charter, had approved the text. The Chairman called the attention of the Committee to the business of the meeting, namely, consideration of Document 1042, "Suggestions with Respect to Schedule for Concluding Sessions of the Conference",14 which had been distributed on June 17 to the members of the Committee. This document provided, he said, for brief messages at the final plenary session by the four Presidents of the Conference, by the Chairman of the Delegation of France, and by the Chairmen of the Delegations of Brazil, Čzechoslovakia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and the Union of South Africa. These messages, he added, would precede President Truman's address, which would be the last official act of the Conference. On behalf of the four Presidents, he explained the basis upon which the list of speakers had been prepared. The special situations of the four Presidents, he said, and the geographical situations of the countries represented at the Conference had been taken into account. Furthermore, the fact that the program would be broadcast to the world, with each speaker making his address in his native tongue in order that 14 Ante, p. 84. |