A.—2

20

In view of the restriction of time allowed for debate the Chairman proposed to allow twenty minutes for all speakers on this amendment, including the mover, but on protest he agreed to extend it by another twenty minutes, making forty minutes in all. The New Zealand amendment was opposed by the delegate of the United States and by the delegate of Great Britain, on the ground that aggression could not be defined; on the ground that it was unnecessary as it merely expressed the intention of the Charter; and, by the United States delegate, on the ground that the word " collective " in the New Zealand proposal might involve the South American Republics in war in Europe, in Asia, and throughout the world. The amendment was strongly supported by the Belgian representative, M. Rolin, who has had a long and distinguished career in the League of Nations, and by representatives of one or two of the other smaller nations. On the matter being put to the vote after less than forty minutes of actual discussion there was a general demand for a nominal rollcall in order to ensure that on this point, which was regarded by many Delegations as fundamental, there should be a positive record of those for and against. The sub-committee's rejection of the proposal was soundly reversed, and the New Zealand amendment received 26 votes against 18. The majority, however, fell short by four votes of the two-thirds necessary to make a substantive alteration, but it was a matter of great encouragement to observe the very wide and vociferous measure of approval with which the New Zealand proposal was received. Subsequently the same proposal was moved again by the Panamanian delegate with the addition of the words " and to preserve the territorial integrity and political independence of each member of the Organzation." This was, in fact, telescoping the two New Zealand amendments as originally proposed, but this amendment received 21 votes against 18, with 3 abstentions, and similarly failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority. In view of the importance which the New Zealand delegation attached to this proposal the leader of the New Zealand delegation took the opportunity at the meeting of the Commission to make the following statement: — " In my address at the Plenary Session I laid stress on the fact that the nations of the world should have an international rule of conduct set before them clearly and simply, and I added that, in the opinion of the New Zealand Government, this could be done only by the universal pledge by each and every nation that all acts of aggression be resisted. " In the Rapporteur's report on the work of Committee 1 there is cited the text of an amendment proposed by the New Zealand delegation for the insertion after paragraph 4 in Chapter II of a new paragraph as follows: — ' All members of the Organization undertake collectively to resist: every act of aggression against: any member.' It will be observed that this proposal implies no definition of the term 'aggression.' It leaves entirely to the Security Council, of which the Great Powers are all and always members, each with the full right of veto, to decide for itself when in its opinion aggression has actually taken place. The New Zealand proposal is limited to this point, and this point only: that when the Security Council by its specified majority and with concurring votes of all its permanent members has decided that an act of aggression against one of the members of the Organization has taken place, there will immediately result a clear and unmistakable duty on every member of the Organization, great and small, to resist and defeat that aggression by the means laid down by the Security Council.