the distinguished representatives of these countries could have set forth in all their magnitude and in all their implications the untold sacrifices of those people.

I should like to inquire, however, whether we are in a position, in justice, to ask of the peoples of China, of Czechoslovakia, and of Ethiopia that they accept the date of September 3, 1939, as the date of the commencement of the cruel war that has afflicted all of us.

So far as Ethiopia is concerned, it should suffice to recall to you that for several years we have carried on at the same time a fierce war against the power of the Axis, and an indefatigable and unswerving struggle for the principles of collective security. By unanimous opinion of the United Nations and of the League of Nations the war began on October 3, 1935, and it has continued and will continue until that moment when we and all other United Nations will be free from the last shadow of aggression against the peace-loving peoples of the world.

I have the conviction that we should not call upon these peoples to renounce in any way the sacrifices which have contributed so mightily to the victory which is now upon us. We should ask such a renunciation of them no more than we should ask the people of the United States and of other United Nations to renounce the prodigious contribution in war materials and ships effected during the period from September 3, 1939 to December 7, 1941. In fact, if I might say so, it would seem to me that under the circumstances no date should be fixed for the commencement of the present war. Who is in a position to affirm that the present war commenced on September 3, 1939 rather than on September 18, 1931, October 3, 1935, March 15, 1939, October 28, 1940, or on that fateful date of June 22, 1941 when Nazi Germany attacked the military might of the Soviet Union, or, finally, on December 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy?

It is for this reason, Mr. President, that I should wish to take the liberty of inquiring of the inviting powers whether they would see fit to delete the reference to September 3, 1939, although I here state that no date in the history of the world is of greater importance than that of September 3, 1939. I would also wish to inquire whether those powers might be willing to replace the last part of the interpretive clause by the words "as a result of which all the United Nations now are in a state of war". I do not insist upon the exact language just proposed. It would be quite sufficient should the spirit thereof be respected.

PRESIDENT: The Rapporteur wants to make a statement.

RAPPORTEUR (speaking in French; English version as delivered by interpreter follows): I would like to thank the Delegate of Ethiopia for his speech. Ethiopia was the second victim of Fascist enterprise, the first having been China who, we must not forget, has been at war during the last 14 years.

Ethiopia is quite right in establishing a connection between this second act of aggression and the other acts which led up to the final aggression in August 1939. But I would like to point out that the interpretation given to the words "this present war" are given in a statement by the Delegate of the United Kingdom, and in addition to that, it is in conformity with facts.

Some date must be fixed for this war, and whatever the remote

causes for this war may be, it is quite true that the present war started in 1939.

In view therefore of the tribute which I unhesitatingly pay to the courageous resistance of Ethiopia to the Italian aggression, I would like the Delegate of Ethiopia not to insist on his amendment, in view of the fact that the passage of which he spoke in the report is not really part of the report proper but a reproduction of a statement made by the Delegate of the United Kingdom.

Moreover, I would like to point out that there has been a slight mistake in the English translation of the report. The French text says "on or since September 1939" whereas by mistake, the English text says "on or before September 1939".

PRESIDENT: The next speaker is Mr. H. H. Wrong of the Canadian Delegation.

Mr. WRONG: Mr. President, this has been a long sitting and I promise you that my remarks will be very brief.

The Rapporteur to whose precision of statement and clarity of thought we are all indebted has mentioned in his report that the Canadian Delegation played a considerable part in criticizing the drafting of these two paragraphs on transitional arrangements.

These paragraphs will be of much importance in the period immediately after the Charter comes into effect, since they provide for excepting, from the general responsibilities of the Security Council, certain measures which are necessary for maintaining security during that period.

It should be made clear to the Commission that there was full recognition by all the critics throughout the discussion that it was necessary to include in the Charter some provision to this general effect. The criticisms made by the Canadian Delegation were directed against the language of the paragraph and not against their purpose. After a long delay which the Rapporteur has mentioned, a substantial improvement was finally made in the text of the first paragraph. Although we do not regard the new text as altogether satisfactory, we feel that, when read together with the explanations given in the Rapporteur's report, it is now acceptable and not very likely to lead to misunderstanding in its application.

I cannot, however, say the same for the second paragraph which has survived in the form originally drafted at Dumbarton Oaks. It reads as follows:

No provision of the Charter should preclude action taken or authorized in relation to enemy states as a result of the present war by the Governments having responsibility for such action.

It is perfectly true that the purposes of this paragraph have to be expressed in the Charter in some way and in very general terms. We have, for instance, to adopt a text which will permit the taking of all necessary action against Japan by the governments directly responsible for waging the war and obtaining military victory in the Pacific. We have to cover this situation, and we have to cover other situations, present and future, which are beyond our present knowledge or our exact knowledge.

I do not intend to attempt now a logical analysis of what I consider to be the defects of the present wording. As one delegate said in the Committee yesterday, it is certainly not a literary gem. It

was referred to in more pungent terms by other critics, but I leave it to them to repeat their criticisms to the Commission, if they so desire.

It seems to the Canadian Delegation to be more loosely drawn, both as to its scope and as to its duration, than is necessary to meet even the unpredictable conditions to which it is intended to apply.

I think that the members of the Commission should know that this paragraph was only discussed and voted on in the Committee yesterday. If it had been considered in an earlier stage in the proceedings of the Conference, I believe that it would have been possible to work out a more satisfactory language.

For this reason I desire to lay particular emphasis upon the explanations and interpretations of its meanings which are included in the report of the Rapporteur.

PRESIDENT: The next speaker is Colonel Capel Dunn of the British Delegation.

Mr. CAPEL DUNN: Mr. Chairman, I want to occupy only a moment of the Commission's time to refer to the speech made by the Honorable Delegate of Ethiopia, and my reason for speaking is this, that I am the guilty party. I was the person who at short notice in debate gave a definition of what was meant by "the present war" in the particular context of paragraph 2 of Chapter XII and it would be churlish of me, after the remarks of the distinguished Delegate of Ethiopia, were I not to make it clear, abundantly clear, that in the mind of the United Kingdom Delegation there was no intention whatsoever to minimize or to do anything but recognize in the fullest sense, in the fullest way, the magnificent contribution that has been made by Ethiopia and those other allies of ours who were the first victims of aggression. I do wish to make that clear. Now I hope very much that this definition may be improved upon when technicians get at it. It was given for a purely technical purpose. You have to find a date somewhere, sometime, from which to work for the purpose of that article. That is all I have to say.

ATO AMBAI WOLD-MARIAM (speaking in French; English version as delivered by interpreter follows): The Delegate of Ethiopia says he has nothing more to say except to thank the Delegate of the United Kingdom for his statement.

PRESIDENT: The next speaker is the Delegate of Australia.

DELEGATE OF AUSTRALIA: Mr. Chairman, in order to save the Commission's time, I wish merely to express the desire that the Australian Delegation may be placed on record as supporting the remarks made by the second last speaker, the Honorable Delegate of Canada.23

PRESIDENT: Is there any further discussion on Chapter XII? Is there any objection to the adoption of Chapter XII by the Commission? There doesn't seem to be any. We will consider Chapter XII adopted.

We have now, Ladies and Gentlemen, completed the main task of Commission III, which is the discussion and adoption of the reports of our four committees. There will be one more meeting to deal with two matters: the adoption of the report of the Rapporteur of the Commission, and the approval of the texts as they have come

"See Annex to the verbatim minutes which follows.

to us from the Coordination Committee. That last meeting of the Commission will take place either tomorrow afternoon, I understand, or Friday morning. If there is no other business before the Commission today, I declare the meeting adjourned.

ANNEX

Note by Secretariat. Because of the lateness of the hour, the Australian Representative requested that the following statement, which he had planned to read to the Commission, be annexed to the verbatim minutes.

STATEMENT SUBMITTED ON BEHALF of the AUSTRALIAN DELEGATION REGARDING THE REPORT OF COMMITTEE 3 OF COMMISSION III ON CHAPTER XII (TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS)

The Australian Government recognizes the exceptional conditions which have made Chapter XII necessary. While not opposing its inclusion in the Charter, we wish to make clear our views on the draft as accepted by Committee III/3.

The first paragraph of this chapter, as we understand it, means that until the new world Organization is ready to carry out its responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security, the four signatories of the Moscow Declaration, and France, will take joint action in the name of the Organization to preserve the peace. We understand that the Security Council will itself decide when it is ready to assume responsibility for maintaining peace and security. We also understand that the joint action to be taken by the great powers in the transitional period will be limited to those functions which cannot be assumed by the Security Council until the members of the United Nations have concluded a sufficient number of the special security agreements mentioned in Chapter VIII (B), paragraph 5, to enable the Security Council to carry out enforcement measures. In other words, the Security Council, and not the five powers mentioned in Chapter XII, will discharge the primary responsibility of the Council for the pacific settlement of disputes. In the Committee we joined with those other delegations who criticized paragraph (1) of Chapter XII as not clearly expressing the meaning that has been ascribed to it and we are still of the opinion that the draftsmanship is faulty and hope that it will be improved before incorporation in the Charter. In particular, we would wish to see greater precision regarding the termination of the period during which these transitional arrangements will apply. Paragraph 2 of this chapter, as we understand it, is intended to mean that certain governments will have special responsibility to take action or to authorize action against enemy states as a result of the present war. In our view such special responsibility can only be derived from three groups of instruments, namely (a) armistices or instruments of surrender, (b) peace treaties, or (c) the Moscow Declaration, and that no nation can take action or authorize another state to act in this matter except by the authority it obtains from such treaties or agreements. In our view the authority yielded by this paragraph, unlike the previous paragraph, is not limited to the great powers but will be shared, in accordance with the terms of the relevant instrument, by other belligerent states who are parties to armistices or peace treaties. In applying this point, we accept the

interpretation given to the term "enemy states" and of "the present war" in the Rapporteur's report, our understanding being that a "state of war" continues until the signature of a treaty of peace. We are in agreement with the general intention of this paragraph, that intention being, in our understanding, that the armistice terms and peace terms imposed on our enemies will be carried out strictly, but again we regret that the intention has not been stated precisely and again we see certain dangers in this lack of precision."

As it is drafted at present, Chapter XII might be interpreted in a way that would allow the great powers to act completely outside of the Organization which they have helped to create and without reference to any of the organs of the United Nations. In particular cases they may be able to prevent the United Nations from discharging those responsibilities in regard to the maintenance of peace and security which this Conference has agreed should be placed in the hands of the United Nations. In pointing to this danger we would stress the view that the United Nations Organization will be a success only if all its instrumentalities are used fully and in good faith. So far as the preservation of security is concerned, the Organization's success will depend on the cooperation within the Organization of the great powers. Frequently these powers have appealed to other nations to trust them. We regard it as a condition of such trust that, even in regard to the exceptional conditions of the transitional period, the great powers will act, so far as possible, within and as part of the United Nations Organization and, at all times, in the spirit of its Charter.

Report of Rapporteur of Commission III to Plenary Session

Docs. 1170, 1181, and 1204, June 23, 24, and 26

The task assigned to Commission III by the Conference consisted of the preparation of draft provisions on four principal topics relating to the maintenance of international peace and security. These were: the structure and functioning of the Security Council; the determination of procedures for the pacific settlement of international disputes; the methods to be used by the United Nations for the enforcement of peace and security; and, finally, consideration of the regional arrangements which might serve as a useful complement to the central Organization. Each of these topics was assigned to a technical committee, the documentation consisting of the original Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, together with the amendments of the sponsoring governments and those submitted by the various national delegations.

After a total of 72 meetings, these 4 committees submitted the reports of their respective rapporteurs to the Commission, and it is a source of gratification to be able to announce that their reports, which have already been distributed, and which are an integral part of this report, were all approved by the Commission without any opposing votes and without abstentions except in a few instances. Though several delegations explained to the Commission the motives which had led them to oppose the views which had prevailed on certain points in the committees, they did not press their opposition