REPORT ON UNCIO
N.Z. DELEGATION’S PART Prime Minister’s Review ABSTENTION ON VETO VOTE (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, July 20. “While the Charter docs not measure' up to our most earnest hopes, it does exceed our expectations in certain respects and, moreover, it represents a marked improvement over the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, which formed the basis of the discussions at San Francisco. It has more life, more breadth and depth, than that somewhat stiff and formal document. It is more flexible, and it is in some respects more democratic. It bears the imprint of many more minds and points of view than did the original,” said the Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. P. Fraser) in his report on the San Francisco Conference, tabled in the House of Representatives to-day. “These improvements reflect the degree of willingness of all the nations, great and small, to travel at least a part of the distance towards the reconciliation of divergent points of view,” the report continued. “There were few, if any, delegations which did not find themselves called upon to make some considerable concessions in the Interests of the successful conclusion of the conference. Without that spirit of restraint and co-operation the Charter would not have been written at all. “The New Zealand delegation, in my opinion, is entitled to look back with a measure of satisfaction' on the part it played in the conference. At the same time, however, I would not presume to claim for it any disproportionate share of the credit for the improvements which were made on the original proposals. Our individual efforts to gain many of those improvements would have been of no avail without the similar efforts of many other delegations. We were gratified to discover among them many who shared our points of view.and whose sincere beliefs coincided to a large degree with our own. “Throughout the conference, as before it, we maintained the closest relationship with the Australian delegation. The examination of the Dumbarton Oaks plan made by both our Governments at Wellington in October, 1944, and the common viewpoint on world organisation problems then reached remained the basis of the policies of the Australian and New Zea-, land delegations at San Francisco. London Meeting Mr Fraser at the outset referred to the British Commonwealth meeting held in London from April 4 to 13, which had afforded a most useful opportunity to examine in common the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. The purpose was not to arrive at decisions, but to secure elucidation of one another’s viewpoint and to gain first-hand . information on the proposals from the representatives of the United Kingdom who helped t i formulate them. ITtl was made clear to the public that in no way was there implied any intention or desire to create a “British Empire bloc.” The subsequent trend of debate and voting at San Francisco bore out that fact, and the influence and standing of the British nations was undoubtedly enhanced thereby without impairment of the essential unity and solidarity of the British Commonwealth. , „ , Mr Fraser said he took the opportunity of paying a tribute to the work of the members of the delegation, particularly his go-delegate, Mr C. A. Berendsen, New Zealand Minister to the United States and the Chief Justice Uhe Rt. Hon. Sir Michael Myers). The delegation and staff were required to work exceedingly long hours and this they did with willingness. Shortcomings in Charter M« Fraser said that though the time spent in San Francisco was long every encouragement was given by Mr Stettinius. on behalf of the sponsoring Powers, to have matters threshed out fully and thoroughly. He thought every delegation came away from the conference feeling it had had opportunity to express its country’s viewpoint and to have it considered. ~ The preamble of the Charter, he said, was the subject of much discussion. Unhappily the somewhat involved draft tabled at the San Francisco Conferenc° failed to reproduce, in thefopinion of the delegation, the simplicity, force and distinction of the language which they had heard from Field-Marshal Smuts who proposed at the London / conversations that such a P re 3™kle should introduce the Charter. When the draft, modified only in detail, came before the full Commission. Mr Fraser had proposed that some well-known writer of good English—such as Mr Archibald MacLeish, who was attending the conference —should be asked to redraft and reinvigorate the preamble. , The text, however, remained much as it had been and the chance that the Charter should be prefaced by a statement of aims to which men and women everywhere might respond was lost. “In an endeavour to effect improvements, and in accordance with the line of argument which I had used in the plenary session, the New Zealand delegation vigorously adyanced in the first instance, the suggestion that the statement of Purposes and Principles should be so extended as to include, as a positive aim of the Organisation, the preservation against external aggression of the territorial integrity and political independence of every member of the Organisation. The New Zealand amendment on this point was defeated. It is true that there was added to the Chapter of Purposes and Principles an undertaking to refrain from any act of aggression against the territorial integrity and political independence of any member This negative provision is, however, in our view, an madequate substitute for the New Zealand amendment. _ ( “Kernel of Collective Security’ “The Charter lacks an even more important provision , which our delegation sought to have incorporated in the form of an undertaking on the part of all members ‘collectively to resist every act of aggression against any member. This proposal suffered varied fortunes at the hands of the conference It was at first rejected in sub-committee by a majority that included the votes of the five Great Powers, but was resurrected in the full committee and put to the vote after Mr Berendsen had insisted forcefully that a clear pledge against aggression was the minimum undertaxing to which the smaller nations entitled, and that it was in fact the core and kernel of collective security. In spite of the fact that no fewer than 25 other nations supported New Zealand, the Great Powers remained opposed to it, and, with the assistance of 13 other votes, they were able to prevent it from gaining the required twothirds majority. , „ at “The New Zealand delegation attached such importance to this, proposal, and to the substantial majority of votes it had gained despite the restricted time made available for its discussion, that I felt it my duty to draw the attention of the relavant Commission to the result of the voting, and to the grave defect that remained in the principles of the Charter. Without proposing that the question should be reopened, I made a declaration in the name of the New Zealand delegation explaining that the point, of our proposal was that when the Security Council had decided that an act of aggression against one of the members of the organisation had taken place, there should immediately result a clear and unmistakable duty on every member of the organisation, great and small, to resist and defeat that aggression by the means laid down by the Security Council. ‘ “The New Zealand delegation placed on record its earnest hope that the Security Council, in its work of resisting aggression and establishing and maintaining international peace and justice, with , the support of all the
United Nations and with increasing experience and confidence, would find it possible and advantageous to accept' the New Zealand proposal in practice as a guiding and basic principle in what we devoutly trust will be its realistic approach to the problems with which it will have to deal. Wider Powers Wanted “The New Zealand delegation endeavoured during the conference, through its own amendments and those put forward by other Powers, to give its support to any proposal for widening the powers of the General Assembly. We felt that the Dumbarton Oaks proposals conferred excessive authority on the Great Powers and, while we realised that no security programme could be fulfilled unless it commanded the adherence of the Great Powers, we felt, and still feel, that the smaller nations could take a much greater part in framing the decisions of the World Organisation than has been envisaged in the Charter. , “The New Zealand delegation protested vigorously against a situation under which the Great Powers retained for themselves the right to say in every important case whether the Organisation should or should not act, and whether they themselves should be bound or not, and under which the Great Powers were at the same time vested with the .right to deny Jo the smaller Powers not only a vote but a voice in these matters. “For this reason New Zealand put forward an amendment designed to give the Assembly powers sufficiently wide to permit it to consider any matter within the sphere of international relations. We also proposed that when sanctions were called for by the Security Council endorsement by the Assembly should normally be required, and that all members should thereafter be bound by the Assembly’s decision. Our attitude on the questions relating to the Assembly was shared by the majority o* the smaller Powers, and it is gratifying to be able to report that considerable modifications were obtained in the original Dumbarton Oaks text. the Veto “Another major issue in which New Zealand was actively concerned was the rule of unanimity, or the veto of the Great Powers on the Security Council. "At the plenary session on May 3 I dealt with the viewpoint of the New Zealand Government on this question and stressed what we considered were the grave defects of a security system as laid down by the Great Powers in the Dumbarton Oaks text and at Yalta. As indicated in my remarks on that occasion, I felt it my duty to oppose the adoption of the undemocratic veto, and during the committee discussions I took every opportunity to request explanations and modifications. In particular. we were concerned about the veto which could be exercised by one of the permanent Powers in the Security Council in respect to aggression by other nations. It could be argued from a literal reading of the Yalta text, though, personally. I was unwilling to admit the possibility of such a rigid interpretation, that a Great Power could, if it so desired, use the veto to prevent any discussion on the aggressive action of a smaller nation against another. This particular feature appeared to be capable of reducing the work of the Security Council to futility. “At the outset of the conference I stated that the veto as a whole should not and could not survive as a permanent arrangement, and that the New Zealand delegation were firmly of opinion that if its adoption' in some form was inevitable then its operation should be restricted exclusively to enforcement action and not to peaceful settlement. When the Australian delegation introduced an amendment on these lines the New Zealand delegation gave it their fullest support. Especially did I protest against the perpetuation of the veto in the procedure for amendments whereby alterations to the Charter agreed upon oy an overwhelming majority of the United Nations could be blocked by the dissent of any one of the permanent members of the Security Council. . “It became clear very soon during the committee discussions that the majority of the Powers present were opposed to the veto. It was made equally obvious that without the veto the sponsoring Powers would not agree to the adoption of the Charter. This situation, in the last analysis, presented the opponents of the veto with the alternative of voting against it or of abstaining. Reasons for Not Voting “In the final meeting of Commission 111 I took the opportunity to place on record in the following terms the reasons why New Zealand adopted this latter course: ‘“The sponsoring Powers, particularly the three Powers responsible for the initiation of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference and the Yalta Conference, felt and indicated their decision that the rule of unanimity among the five permanent members of the Security Council was imperative. They emphasised that it could not be altered or deviated from Jn matters of substance that might involve serious consequences. and that the veto was a precondition of the formation of the new world organisation. That was an attitude expressed very clearly, much more clearly than the explanation of the actual detailed effect and working of the veto. There was, on the other hand, at the beginning of the conference the obvious and apparent inability of th£ majority of the other countries represented to accept that point of view as final. If the question of the veto had been Voted on on its intrinsic merits, as an authority placed in the hands of one Power which in certain circumstances could be used to defy the conscience of the world; and, further, if this question had been put without the warning that its nonacceptance would have disastrous consequences to the organisation, then, without any question, the veto would have been defeated overwhelmingly. As it was, it came very near defeat. If the 15 abstentions on one of the principal divisions had not been made, then the rule of unanimity among the main Powers would not have been carried If in committee one-third of a vote less had been cast, the rule of unanimity would not have been carried to apply to the amendment of the Charter. Therefore, in the case of most of the opposing Powers, those who carried their opposition right up to the point of casting the final vote in committee, it was a question a most serious and all-important question to decide what to do—to defeat the veto and lose the Charter, or to accept the Charter with the veto. Mr Fraser’s report, with its appendices, including the Charter of the United Nations, occupied 169 printed pages. ____________
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19450721.2.57
Bibliographic details
Press, Volume LXXXI, Issue 24624, 21 July 1945, Page 8
Word Count
2,327REPORT ON UNCIO Press, Volume LXXXI, Issue 24624, 21 July 1945, Page 8
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.