GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Timaru Herald, Volume CLVII, Issue 23216, 1 June 1945, Page 5

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Structure And Procedure Suggestions Submitted

By Telegraph—N.Z. Press Aesn.—Copyright (8.50 p.m.) SAN FRANCISCO, May 30. Commission II held its first public session • to-day, when it approved with one reservation, a report embodying the recommendations agreed upon by the committee charged with drafting those sections of the Security Charter which deal with the structure and procedure of the General Assembly. The following are among the principal recommendations approved:— Every member country may be represented on the Assembly by a delegation of not more than five members, but will have only one vote.

States whose financial obligations are more than two years in arrears should be deprived of all voting rights. The Assembly may waive this penalty, if default is due to causes beyond the control of the member States. Still under consideration is the question whether the same penalty should be invoked against members who fail to make available to the Security Council on its call the “armed forces, facilities and assistance necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.” A further approved recommendation is that the Assembly should be empowered to apportion expenses among members and consider and approve the budget of the organisation as well as any financial and budgetary arrangements with specialised agencies (such as the 1.L.0. and the Food and Agriculture Organisation), which are brought into relationship with the general organisation. It was also recommended that the General Assembly shall meet in regular annual sessions and that specified substantive actions will require a twothirds vote.

Power of Veto

One recommendation which the New Zealand delegation actively supported Involved a significant departure from the corresponding Dumbarton Oaks provision relating to the election of the secretary-general of the new organisation. The effect of the committee’s recommendation, if approved

by the full conference, would be to remove this particular matter from the operation of the veto. Instead, the secretary-general would be elected by the Assembly “upon the recommendation of the Security Council made affirmative by the vote of seven members.” This need not include the concurrent votes of the five permanent members. The committee’s recommendation was opposed by the Soviet member of the Commission. As a consequence it has been sent to the Steering Committee for further consideration, but no final decision can be expected on this or a number of other questions of substance involving the application of the veto, until the Big Five—the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, China and France —receive approval from their home Governments of a joint statement interpreting the veto power. It is understood that the intention is to issue such a statement in reply to the list of 22 questions submitted by the smaller nations, including New Zealand, who want to know when and under exactly what circumstances unanimity is required on the part of the five nermanent Council members.

The veto question is the big unsettled issue before the conference and one which more than any other is holding up the completion of committee reports, particularly with reference to disputes, and amendments of the Charter. In view of the nature of the unsettled issue, conference officials have virtually abandoned their goal of closing the conference on June 6. Indications now are that the closing date will be some time between June 11 and June 15.