the world might hear the languages represented at the Conference, he said had also been considered.

This list was reasonably representative of the nations assembled at the Conference and also provided that as many different languages as possible would be broadcast to the world. No translations would be made at the session, he added, although English texts would be available at the meeting, with French texts to be distributed later.

Mr. Evatt (Australia) remarked that on such an occasion it should be recognized that only formal statements of a ceremonial nature should be made. If the selection of speakers had been made on any grounds other than those stated by the Chairman-for example in order that certain delegations might put their views before the Conference-he said that there would be ground for criticism. He remarked also that the list bore no relation to the contributions of any particular countries to the Conference.

The Chairman assured Mr. Evatt that the statements were to be purely formal ones and that the only grounds for selection of speakers had been geography and language.

Mr. Evatt moved that Document 1042 be approved by the Executive Committee and forwarded as a recommendation to the Steering Committee. The Chairman stated that before accepting this generous motion, he wished to say that no one had contributed more to the Conference than Mr. Evatt. Mr. Loudon (Netherlands) seconded the motion, which was approved by a unanimous vote.

Summary Report of Tenth Meeting of the
Steering Committee, June 21

Doc. 1212, June 28

The Chairman held a copy in his hand of the complete text of the Charter which had been finished at 4:30 a.m., June 21, and just a short while before the meeting had been reproduced in mimeograph form.

The Chairman stated that . . . the Executive Committee had just finished consideration of Document 1042, EX/25, dated June 17, 1945, entitled "Suggestions with Respect to Schedule for Concluding Sessions of the Conference"15 and had voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the suggestions set forth in the document by the Steering Committee...

The Secretary-General stated that Document 1042 contained dates which must be changed in view of the action of the Steering Committee at its meeting on June 20, when it advanced the date for the closing plenary session to June 26, and that otherwise it had been approved by the Executive Committee.

The Secretary-General made the suggestion that the Steering Committee approve the procedure recommended in this document for the conduct of the concluding sessions of the Conference and stressed that statements to be made at the penultimate plenary session should relate only to the text and should not deal with general subjects be"Ante, p. 84.

665605-46- -30

cause these have been discussed in commission meetings and because of the necessity of conserving time if the schedule for concluding the Conference was to be met.

In respect to paragraph 4, the Secretary-General invited the attention of the members of the Committee to the provision that delegations desiring to make concluding statements could do so and they would be released through the medium of the Conference Journal and the public press. He requested that any such statements be sent to the Office of the Executive Secretary, as requested in paragraph 4.

The Secretary-General said that the signing of the Charter could not commence before the adjournment of the penultimate plenary session and advised that the Secretariat hoped to have the Charter signed by the majority of the delegates before the final plenary session convened on Tuesday, June 26.

Paragraph 7 of the document, the Secretary-General advised, concerned the final review of the Charter by the Steering Committee.

The Secretary-General, referring to paragraph 8, said that he had mentioned it in substance earlier in his remarks and that it was planned that the first meeting of the Preparatory Commission would take place the afternoon of Wednesday, June 27.

The Chairman stated that the Committee had heard the unanimous recommendation of the Executive Committee, and asked if there was any discussion.

Lord Halifax (United Kingdom) addressed himself to the statement of the Secretary-General that it would be difficult to complete the signing of the Charter before the convening of the final plenary session and said that he hoped that all signatures could be affixed and the Charter handed to President Truman before the convening of the final plenary session. Lord Halifax said that he appreciated there were mechanical difficulties, and assured the Secretary-General that not only he and the other members of his Delegation, but, he felt sure, all the members of all delegations would be willing to sign the Charter at any hour of the day or night, to make the signing of the Charter possible before the final plenary session.

The Secretary-General said that mechanical difficulties to which Lord Halifax adverted did exist, and that he would request the matter be left open, if possible. He observed that the problems incidental to the printing of the Charter in five languages were tremendous; that the best printing schedule would not make the Charter available before midnight Monday; that the signing of the Charter, which cannot commence before Tuesday morning, would take a minimum of eight hours, but that the Secretariat would make every effort to have the Charter signed as suggested by Lord Halifax.

The Chairman stated that he knew the Secretariat would do everything humanly possible to have the Charter signed before the final plenary session.

Mr. Loudon (Netherlands) said that if the signing could take place as Lord Halifax suggested, he proposed that the Preparatory Commission meet Wednesday morning, which would suit everyone's purpose better. Mr. Paul-Boncour (France) seconded the proposal of Mr. Loudon.

The Chairman asked if there was any objection to this proposal; there being none, the proposal was adopted.

Mr. Forde (Australia) asked at what time the final plenary session would convene. The Chairman replied that it was planned to convene at 4 p.m. and that the President would address the session between 5 and 5:30 p.m.

There being no further discussion, the recommendation of the Executive Committee to the Steering Committee that it adopt the suggestions set forth in Document 1042, "Suggestions with Respect to Schedule for Concluding Sessions of the Conference", was unanimously approved.

Mr. Gromyko (U.S.S.R.) said that he had given consideration to the location for the seat of the Preparatory Commission and, after having weighed all the circumstances, had concluded that the most proper place would be London, and he so moved. The motion was adopted by acclamation.

Lord Halifax stated that his Government would be greatly touched and deeply appreciative of the popularity of London and the warmhearted fashion in which the motion of Mr. Gromyko was received at the hands of the Steering Committee. The United Kingdom, he said, would spare no effort to help forward the great work which the Organization will do.

Mr. de Schryver (Belgium), referring to paragraph 2 of the document, said that he thought that the size of the Executive Committee should be increased from 14 to 18 members. He pointed out that a large part of the work of the Preparatory Commission would be done by the Executive Committee and that it would, therefore, be appropriate to increase the number to 18. He said that there were three reasons why the number should be increased. First, the Executive Committee at this Conference is a subcommittee of the Steering Committee and each could meet as often as the other, and this is not applicable to the Preparatory Commission which will meet comparatively seldom. Second, 18 members are not too many for the amount and kind of work the Committee will be called upon to do, and, third, at this Conference the Executive Committee is made up of members from 14 countries and four other countries hold chairmanships of the four commissions. He said that Belgium is advanced socially and industrially, that it has colonies and a mandate, and that it knows the horror of war and of occupation, and that, therefore, Belgium could serve usefully as a member of the Executive Committee.

Mr. Al-Jamali (Iraq) stated that a new job is being faced, namely, to build the structure for which the Charter provides the scheme, and that in his opinion it would be appropriate under these circumstances to adopt a democratic procedure and elect the members of the Executive Committee by a majority vote. He concurred with the Delegate of Belgium that the size of the Executive Committee should be increased and pointed out that five Arab states, through no intentional omission, were not given recognition at this Conference, that they are young and vigorous, and anxious to participate in international life and international cooperation, and one of them should be considered for membership on the Executive Committee. If no addition in number to the Executive Committee is possible, he suggested that excepting the five permanent powers, the remaining members be elected.

Mr. Diamantopoulos (Greece) stated that Greece was disappointed at not having been selected as a member of the Executive Committee at this Conference but that since the question of enlarging the size of the Executive Committee for the Preparatory Commission had been raised, Greece was a candidate for the Committee and concurred with the statements of the Delegates of Iraq and Belgium.

Mr. Castro (El Salvador) said that the statement of the Delegate of Iraq represents the democratic procedure, but suggested a modification of the proposition, namely, whether or not the number of the Executive Committee is increased, in either case, the procedure for selection of members should be by majority vote and he said that with this modification, he supported the suggestion of the Delegates of Belgium and Iraq.

Mr. Cáceres (Honduras) stated that if the size of the Executive Committee of the Interim Commission is increased, he would like to see a representative of the Central American countries have a place on it. While it is true, he said, that the Central American countries are not highly industrialized, they were among the first nations to declare war on the Axis powers at the side of the United States.

The Chairman asked if there was further discussion on the motion of the Belgian Delegate to increase the size of the Executive Committee to 18.

Mr. Loudon asked whether the Belgian Delegate had made a motion, a suggestion, or a recommendation. Mr. de Schryver replied that he had put his statement politely as a suggestion, but that it was, of course, a motion. Mr. Loudon replied that if this motion was acceptable to the four big powers and France, he would second it.

Mr. Castro made a point of order, namely that the motion of the Belgian Delegate should be voted on in two parts: first, on the increase in number of the members of the Executive Committee which he had seconded, and, second, on the method of selection, and that in regard to the second part he concurred with the Delegate of Iraq that all members should be elected by majority vote.

Sir A. Ramaswami Mudaliar (India) stated that there were two motions before the Committee and that the more general motion of Iraq should be voted on first.

Mr. Plaza (Ecuador) stated that his Delegation was in favor of the original suggestion in Document 1026. He observed that although a number of members of the Steering Committee had spoken, representatives of all interested countries had not been heard and that if any other scheme than the one recommended in Document 1026 be adopted, it would require a great deal of work and study which quite probably would delay the conclusion of the Conference on Tuesday, June 26. The Chairman, to clarify the matter, stated that there were two proposals before the Steering Committee: (1) the recommendation of the Executive Committee that the Steering Committee adopt Document 1026, and (2) the motion of the Belgian Delegate to amend paragraph 2 of Document 1026.

Field Marshal Smuts (Union of South Africa) stated that he supported the original motion before the Steering Committee. The Field Marshal said that the Executive Committee of the Preparatory Commission is a committee set up to do a tremendous amount of detail work and that the larger the body becomes the more difficult it will be to get proper work done by that body.

Lord Halifax said, addressing himself to the number of members on the Executive Committee, that the members of the Steering Committee before voting on the motion of the Belgian Delegate should do so with an impartial recognition of all the facts. He said that the arguments of Field Marshal Smuts as he understood them were sound, that the Executive Committee of the Preparatory Commission would not deal with policy but with administrative detail which it must do wisely, efficiently, and quickly, and that the smaller the body, the more expeditiously it could work. Further, he said, the Executive Committee should have a very transitory existence and for that reason he would not have thought that the body falls into the category of one with more powers and longer life. In addition, the Executive Committee at this Conference, he observed, was originally intended to have 11 members but was expanded to its present membership of 14, and now the recommendation was made to expand the newer committee to 18 and that with many countries desirous of having representatives on the new Committee, it was not unlikely that before long there would be a proposal to again increase its size. Lord Halifax said that he thought the present size of the Executive Committee should be retained, but whatever the action of the Steering Committee might be, the United Kingdom would accept it with good-will and, as he said before, do all it could to assist in the great work of the Organization. Badawi Pasha (Egypt) thought that the ideas exchanged in the Steering Committee had raised two questions: first, whether the number of the members on the Committee should be 18 or 14, and, second, how the members should be selected, by appointment, election, or by appointment and election. He submitted that the question of number should be acted on first and that the question of selection of members before being decided, should be broken down into its two parts. He then addressed himself to the substance of the question and said that the argument for a small Executive Committee based on efficiency and facility of decision was not convincing, that a few more members would not make a substantial change, and that the Committee could act equally efficiently. With respect to the administrative work, he said that the Executive Secretary would do the major portion of it, that the Preparatory Commission and Executive Committee would make the decisions as set forth in paragraph 4, that these decisions require discussion and deliberation of persons who are representative in character. He said that he considered the number of members of the Executive Committee to be a conventional question. With respect to selection of members, he said that election is the general method of choosing members of a body, that the nations which want to have members on the Committee have that desire, not because they want a seat on the Committee, but because in the good faith they believe they can be of real help to the Committee in its work. To make the Committee more effective, representative, and efficient are the reasons for a country's seeking membership on the Committee. He also observed that the new Committee would sit in London, which could well call for a change in personnel from the present Executive Committee which sits in San Francisco.

Mr. Jiménez (Panama) requested that there first be a vote on the number of members of the Executive Committee and then a vote on the method of their selection.

Mr. Lleras Camargo (Colombia) said that he would vote in favor of Document 1026 because he agreed with the arguments theretofore ad