vanced in support of the document and because London, which is well chosen as the seat of the Preparatory Commission, has a complete diplomatic representation of all the countries represented at this Conference; therefore, it would be easy for each country to be represented on the Commission, and it could meet frequently. He said that he did not consider the number of members on the Committee to be the problem, but he did consider important how the Committee members would function. In this regard, he said that later in the discussion he would propose that the Preparatory Commission be given the power to revoke any action of the Executive Committee and that the Executive Committee be required to report to the Preparatory Commission.

Mr. Gromyko said that the functions of the Executive Committee would be comparatively simple, that it would not formulate any policy, that that would be the function of the Preparatory Commission, and that the provisions of Document 1026 successfully combine the two requirements for the Executive Committee, namely, representativeness and efficiency. The document, he said, had the approval of the Executive Committee, the big four, and France, and he would recommend its adoption by the Steering Committee.

The Chairman said that he should point out that the actions of the proposed Executive Committee would have to be ratified by the Preparatory Commission.

Badawi Pasha raised a question in regard to the language of paragraph 6 of Document 1026. He observed that the Preparatory Commission would hold its first meeting in San Francisco, would not again meet until after the Charter of the Organization comes into effect and whenever subsequently the Executive Committee considers such a session desirable. He said that it might be a long time before the Charter of the Organization comes into effect and that thereafter it would be up to the Executive Committee to call further meetings of the Commission.

The Chairman pointed out that it should not be long before the Charter of the Organization came into effect and that, consequently, an early meeting of the Preparatory Commission could be expected. Mr. Paul-Boncour (France) said that he sympathized with the position of Belgium, which, as a neighbor of his country, had suffered with France the ravages of war twice during the past 25 years, but added that the Delegate of Belgium, by his own statement, showed that if his motion to increase by four the size of the Executive Committee were adopted, election would be the only means of choosing the members of the Executive Committee and such a task would be disproportionate to the part the Executive Committee had, which, in fact, was comparatively minor. The Preparatory Commission had the real job to do, he said, and his Delegation, therefore, was in favor of the provisions of Document 1026.

The Chairman stated that the United States Delegation also favored the provisions of Document 1026.

Mr. de Schryver stated that there was confusion in the discussion. All functions and powers of the Preparatory Commission, when the Commission is not in session according to paragraph 2 of Document 1026, he pointed out, shall be exercised by the Executive Committee. For this reason, he said, he must insist on his motion.

Mr. Koo (China) said that in his opinion an international body should be representative and that to him 14 out of 50 is representative. He agreed with the observation of Field Marshal Smuts that the

Executive Committee would do detail work and added that this would be for only a short time. He continued, as Lord Halifax had correctly observed, that no increase in number would be satisfactory to all. And finally, he said that although the Executive Committee by the terms of paragraph 2 of Document 1042 is given certain powers, paragraph 4 of the document makes it clear that the Preparatory Commission to which the Executive Committee must report has the real powers and that the Executive Committee must convene the Preparatory Commission as soon as the Charter of the Organization is ratified by a sufficient number of powers. For these reasons, he believed that the provisions of Document 1026 should be adopted by the Steering Committee.

Mr. Al-Jamali stated that his first point had been that conditions change, that the situation in San Francisco had not been the same as the situation would be in London; second, that there should be regional representation on the Executive Committee and the democratic method of election should be followed.

The Chairman asked if there was further discussion on the motion of the Delegate of Belgium. There being none, the vote was taken, and the motion lost by 10 "yes" to 29 "no".

Mr. Al-Jamali made the motion that the 14 members of the Executive Committee be elected by the Preparatory Commission.

Badawi Pasha raised a question of order. He said that the document creating the Interim Commission should be submitted to the governments represented at the Conference and he questioned the authority of this Conference to name the number of members on the Executive Committee. He felt that the Preparatory Commission should make this decision. The Secretary-General, in answer to the first point of the Delegate of Egypt, said that he did not recall what powers the Delegates of Egypt had been given by their Government when they came to this Conference, but added that most delegates had been given the full power by their countries to adopt and sign any acts of this Conference.

Mr. Evatt (Australia), in answer to the second point of the Delegate of Egypt, stated that the document for the creation of the Preparatory Commission must be prepared in advance and that the Conference should determine the number of members of the Executive Committee just as it should determine the number of members on the Security Council of the permanent Organization.

Badawi Pasha seconded the motion of the Delegate of Iraq, which failed to carry on a vote of 6 "yes" to 34 "no".

Mr. Jiménez said that he believed there was confusion in the minds of several delegates on the meaning of paragraph 2 of Document 1026; that there appeared to be a fear that the Executive Committee might perform the functions of the Preparatory Commission set forth in paragraph 4 of Document 1026. He recalled that the Delegates of the U.S.S.R. and China had said that the powers in paragraph 4 would not be performed by the Executive Committee, but that nevertheless, in his opinion, it was not quite clear under the provision of paragraph 2 what the powers of the Executive Committee were when the Preparatory Commission was not in session, because of the provision in paragraph 2 that all functions and powers of the Commission be exercised by the Executive Committee, if the Commission were not in session. For the further reason, he said, that it was not clear when the Executive Committee under paragraph 6 would call the Preparatory Com

mission into session, he made the motion to amend Document 1026, paragraph 4, line 1, to read, "The Commission in full shall:".

Mr. Koo, in reply to the point raised by the Delegate of Panama, referred to the last sentence of paragraph 6 of Document 1026 which requires the Executive Committee to call the Commission into session. as soon as possible after the Charter of the Organization comes into effect. Paragraph 4, he observed, requires certain action by the Commission with respect to the General Assembly. It is evident, he said, that the General Assembly cannot be called into session before the Charter comes into effect. Therefore, the Executive Committee, he pointed out, could not exercise the powers in paragraph 4 until the Charter comes into effect and as soon as the Charter comes into effect, the Executive Committee must call a meeting of the Preparatory Commission.

The Chairman asked if, in view of the explanation of the Delegate of China, the Delegate of Panama insisted on his motion. The Delegate of Panama withdrew his motion and made the further motion to insert after the words "organization comes into effect" in line 7 of paragraph 6 of Document 1026, the words "to adopt the measures provided for in paragraph 4". There being no second to this motion, the Delegate of Panama withdrew it.

The Chairman asked the Delegate of Colombia if the point he had raised had been met.

The Delegate of Colombia stated that his point had not been met because in his opinion the Executive Committee could, as Document 1026 stood, exercise all the functions and powers of the Preparatory Commission and that therefore its actions should be reviewable and revocable by the Preparatory Commission.

The Chairman then read the motion of the Delegate of Colombia to add at the end of the third sentence of paragraph 2 "in any event the Commission shall have the faculty to revoke any decision taken by the Executive Committee". The motion was seconded by the Delegate of Egypt and failed to carry on a vote of 15 "yes" to 22 "no".

The Delegate of Paraguay, Mr. Velázquez, said that he could not vote for the Colombian proposal for the technical reason, namely, that if action of the Executive Committee could be revoked by the Commission, the Executive Committee could not do its job. He said that the Executive Committee, under the provisions of Document 1026, is to have all functions and powers of the Commission when the Commission is not in session, but that nowhere in the provisions of Document 1026 is it stated that the Executive Committee must report to the Preparatory Commission and that the Commission should have the right to receive the report of the Executive Committee and make recommendations to it, and he made a motion to this effect.

The Chairman stated that it was clear in his opinion that the Executive Committee of the Preparatory Commission is simply a subcommittee of the Commission and would, therefore, be obliged to report to it; that that would be the only reason for its existence.

The Delegate of El Salvador seconded the motion of the Delegate of Paraguay, which lost by a vote of 6 "yes" to 23 "no".

The Chairman asked if there was further discussion on the recommendation of the Executive Committee to the Steering Committee that the provisions of Document 1026 "Interim Arrangements Concluded by the Governments Represented at the United Nations Con

ference on International Organization" be adopted. There being none, the vote was taken and the recommendation of the Executive Committee was adopted 39 "yes", none against, with 6 abstentions.

Summary Report of Eleventh Meeting of the
Steering Committee, June 23

Doc. 1213, June 28

The Chairman stated that at one of the early sessions of the Conference the hope had been expressed that the Provisional Polish Government of National Unity would be formed in time for Poland to participate in the Conference and to sign the final Charter at San Francisco. Unfortunately, he said, it did not prove possible for the new government to be established in time for its representatives to take part in the work of the Conference. He stated that to the great satisfaction of everyone present it had been announced yesterday that Polish groups which had met in Moscow had reached an agreement on the reorganization of the present Provisional Government by the inclusion of democratic leaders from within Poland and from Poles abroad. Convinced that they were correct in their interpretation of the will of the Steering Committee, he said, the four Presidents of the Conference unanimously agreed to reserve a place at the end of the Charter for representatives of the Polish Government of National Unity to sign and that they had further agreed that such signature might be affixed as soon as the new Government had been formally recognized by the states party to the Yalta agreement. There being no objection to the recommendation of the four Presidents to reserve a place for the signature of Poland on the Charter, the recommendation was approved.

The Chairman stated that copies of the Charter had been in the hands of the members of the Steering Committee for the past 4 hours, the Coordination Committee having worked until 5 a.m. to make the text available. He assumed that each of the Steering Committee members had been through the text. He pointed out that it would be impossible for the Committee to review the Charter sentence by sentence and article by article, and suggested that he hoped that discussion could be limited to matters of substance.

Lord Halifax (United Kingdom) agreed with the suggestion of the Chairman that minor points of drafting should not be considered by the Steering Committee but that the Committee should confine itself to a consideration of larger points of substance. Lord Halifax suggested that the Steering Committee not concern itself with verbal drafting; he said the workmanlike procedure would be to invite delegations to transmit any drafting suggestions they might have to the Coordination Committee and that the Steering Committee give the Coordination Committee power to act on them.

Mr. Fernández (Chile), referring to a proposed revised text of the preamble, copies of which had been distributed to members of the Committee, said that there were substantial differences between it and the Preamble of the Charter as adopted in the technical Committee. He said that Chile would find itself unable to sign the Charter if the new proposed Preamble were adopted.

The Secretary-General (Mr. Hiss), on the request of the Chairman, explained how the revised text of the Preamble happened to be placed before the meeting. He said that Mr. Rolin (Belgium), President of Commission I, had advised the Secretary-General by letter that he (Mr. Rolin) presented the proposed revision of the Preamble in view of the desire of a number of the delegates that the text be improved. The letter continued that the revised text had been reviewed with Field Marshal Smuts and was submitted to the Steering Committee because the Coordination Committee had not found it convenient to modify the wording.

Mr. Gallagher (Peru) stated that he associated himself with the remarks of the Delegate of Chile. The Preamble of the Charter was agreed to by the Coordination Committee and the Committee of Jurists, he said, after it was long discussed in the technical Committee and in Commission I. The proposed revised Preamble omitted, particularly in the third paragraph, points that his Delegation was anxious to have included and for that reason it was not acceptable.

Mr. Gromyko (U.S.S.R.) said the Preamble is an important part of the Charter, that the present one had been worked out by Field Marshal Smuts and had been approved by the technical Committee and the Commission, and that representatives of all delegations had approved it. He did not think that at the last minute there was any reason or ground to change it, and that the Soviet Delegation wished to retain the present Preamble.

Field Marshal Smuts stated that he should advise how he had come into the picture. The Coordination Committee, he said, had a number of difficulties with the language of the Preamble and had consulted him about three alterations it proposed to make. The first, he said, occurred in the second paragraph "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and value of the human person". The word "value" the Coordination Committee, he said, thought had an economic reference, and suggested the word "worth", which he had used in an earlier draft, as much better. The Field Marshal did not think there could be any objection to the substitution of the word "worth" for "value".

The Field Marshal said he would later refer to the second question. The third difficulty, he said, was found in the language "by the employment of international machinery for the promotion of economic and social advancement of all peoples". This sentence, he observed, had no syntax or grammatical connection; it was without context. The language proposed by Mr. Rolin "to employ international means" was intended to replace "by the employment of international machinery". This change, too, he said, was merely a verbal one to which there should be no objection.

The second difficulty, the Field Marshal continued, was found in the language "to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained". This language, he explained, the Coordination Committee found to be intricate, complicated, and legalistic, which only lawyers would understand. The object of the Preamble, he said, is to have simple, clear language that the man in the street can read and understand and which will appeal to him; the language suggested by Mr. Rolin meets this requirement and for that reason he agreed to it. The Field Marshal continued that the word "pledge" includes treaties, in fact all undertakings. The Field