A.—2

18

The amendment, as such, was not accepted, but a reflection of the intention of the proposal in relation to human rights and fundamental freedoms —which was also made by many other delegations — is to be found both in the Preamble and in Chapter I as finally approved. (3) The New Zealand delegation proposed a new paragraph after paragraph 4, as follows: — " 4a. All members of the Organization undertake collectively toresist every act of aggression against any member." This proposal was opposed throughout by the Great Powers and by those other delegations whose policy it was invariably to support the Great Powers. As a result, in the sub-committee, where the strength of the Great Powers was predominantly great, the proposal was defeated without difficulty. Mr. Wilson, on behalf of New Zealand, reserved all rights to raise the matter again in the Committee itself, and in the sub-committee's report to the Committee the following comments were made by the Rapporteur:— " The New Zealand amendment numbered 4a, page 32 of the English text reads: ' All members of the Organization undertake collectively to resist every act of aggression against any member.' Such a motion is to be found in many other amendments. The New Zealand amendment was rejected by a majority not attaining two-thirds. The main reasons for the bare majority rejecting this amendment were two: (1) The keynote for collectivity is found in the opening words of this Chapter. The Organization and its members should act in accordance with these principles. (2) The amendment limits itself to the collective resistance of every act of aggression, aggression not being defined. The rejection or acceptance of this amendment rests with the Committee. The New Zealand delegate, as well as another delegate, reserved explicitly their right to speak on that amendment before the Committee." This proposal was regarded by the New Zealand delegation as covering one of the most serious inadequacies of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, and its discussion in the Committee resolved itself into a major test of strength. The New Zealand delegate, in stating New Zealand's case, made it plain at the outset that though the New Zealand amendment had been rejected by the sub-committee he was now asking the Committee to reverse this decision. He suggested that the first objection as set out in the Rapporteur's report —namely, that the keynote of collectivity was to be found in the opening words of the same Chapter —could afford no serious reason for the rejection of the New Zealand proposal. On the second objection that aggression had not been defined, it was pointed out that New Zealand had no objection to an attempt to define "aggression"; that many such definitions had been offered from time to time; that others had been produced at San Francisco; and that while there was an admitted difficulty in covering what might be referred to as the fringes of aggression, there could certainly be no difficulty in defining a very great proportion of the area of the concept intended to be covered, leaving the remainder for decision by the Security Council. In any case, it seemed most inappropriate that the sub-committee should raise objection to this word as indefinable, as they themselves had used it in their own draft of Chapter I; the authors of Dumbarton Oaks proposals were in a similar position for the term was used more than once in these proposals; nor could any of the parties to the Act of Chapultepec assert that aggression could not be defined, because they had in fact defined it in that agreement. It could quite