26

A.—2

Article 97 was adopted only after a long struggle in full Committee. This centred round the following amendment to the corresponding paragraph of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals (X/l) brought forward by the sponsoring Powers.— " 1. There should be a Secretariat comprising a Secretary-General, four deputies, and such staff as may be required. Tfee-Seefetwy-sbe«l4-be—eleeted—fey—AesemWj^—e»—ei—lke Seearity Couneilj-fef-eaeh-term eeifie4 -in tho—Qhwtor; The Secretary-General and his deputies should be elected by the General Assembly on recommendation of the Security Council for a period of three years, and the SecretaryGeneral should be eligible for re-election. The Secretary-General should be the chief administrative officer of the Organization." The delegates of Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, and New Zealand took an active part in opposing this amendment, which was energetically pressed by the sponsoring Powers. No objection was taken to the election of the Secretary-General by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council. Indeed, the Committee refrained from taking a decision on this matter on the grounds that Committee 11/ l had voted that the Secretary-General should be elected by the General Assembly upon nomination by a majority of seven members of the Security Council. While welcoming the provision in the amendment for the reeligibility of the Secretary-General, the New Zealand and other delegates objected to the stipulation in the Charter of the term of " three years." They felt that the term was too short, and might limit the field of suitable candidates. They preferred that no mention should be made in the Charter of the term of office which should be left to the Organization itself to decide. The Committee approved by a large majority the sponsoring Powers' amendment concerning the term of office and re-eligibility of the Secretary-General. However, at the concluding meeting of the Committee the matter was reopened by the Netherlands delegate on the ground that the decision of Committee 11/ l regarding the nomination of the Secretary-General by a vote of any seven members of the Security Council had been invalidated. It was now agreed that the affirmative vote of all the permanent members would be required for that nomination. This, he argued, changed the whole situation. After supporting speeches by the delegates of New Zealand and Belgium, the Committee reversed its previous decision and decided to omit all reference in the Charter to the term of office of the Secretary-General. It was understood that this matter should be settled later by agreement between the General Assembly and the Security Council, the latter, of course, voting, as in the case of the nomination of the Secretary-General, by a qualified majority. The New Zealand and other delegates also took exception to that part of the amendment of the sponsoring Powers which concerns the Deputy Secretaries-General. They argued that the effect of these provisions would be to contradict in actual fact the international character of the Secretariat, which all were agreed was desirable. The Deputies, receiving their mandate, like the Secretary-General himself, direct from the Security Council and General Assembly, could hardly be expected to work under him as a team. They would probably be nationals of the Great Powers and, being appointed for only three years in the first instance, would feel that their careers lay much more with their own Governments than with the Secretariat. The result would be a small group of national representatives, of virtually equal status, constituting a kind of Corps Diplomatique at the head of the Secretariat. This was not the way to secure an efficient and loyal administration.