A.—2

28

In the prolonged discussion which took place both in Committee and in a sub-committee appointed to consider the amendment of the sponsoring Powers and other relevant proposals, the two chief isues were: the time limit for calling the Conference; the question of ratification. Time Limit. —Various delegates urged that there should be written into the Charter not only the possibility of calling a revisionary Conference, which was provided for by the sponsoring Powers' amendment, but the certainty that such a Conference would be called within a given time. They argued that the Charter contained features which might be so objectionable to public opinion in their own countries that it was most important to hold out a sure prospect of reconsideration after a term of years. A motion by Canada and Brazil providing for a special conference between the fifth and tenth years after the coming into force of the Charter received 23 votes (including New Zealand) in favour, and 17 against—i.e., it was rejected, the majority being less than two-thirds. A motion by South Africa providing for a special conference to be held not later than the tenth year after the coming into force of the Charter received 28 votes (including New Zealand) in favour, and 15 against—i.e., it was rejected, the majority being less than two-thirds. After this clear, but insufficient, expression of the will of the Committee, the U.S.A. moved the following addition to the sponsoring Powers' amendment: — "If such a general Conference has not been held before the tenth annual meeting of the Assembly following the entry into force of the Charter, the proposal to call such a general Conference shall be placed on the agenda of that meeting of the Assembly." While welcoming this proposal as a " gesture," various delegates made suggestions designed to give it a somewhat more solid content. Among these was a suggestion by the New Zealand delegate that the special Conference should be held after the tenth year "unless the General Assembly and Security Council should otherwise decide." The text finally adopted does in fact represent an advance towards the position taken by the middle and smaller Powers. 42 votes (including New Zealand) were cast in its favour; one delegation (U.S.S.R.) voted against, on the grounds that to go beyond the original proposal of the sponsoring Powers might have the effect of providing for re-examination of the Charter when there was no need for it. The additional paragraph now reads (Article 109, para. 3) :— "If such a Conference has not been held before the tenth annual session of the General Assembly following the coming into force of the present Charter, the proposal to call such a Conference shall be placed on the agenda of that session of the General Assembly, and the Conference shall be held if so decided by a majority vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a vote of any seven members of the Security Council." Ratification. —The crux of the whole problem of amendments as regards both the special Conference and the ordinary amending process is, of course, the requirement that ratification by all the permanent members of the Council is required to bring amendments into effect. In common with several other delegates, the delegate of New Zealand (the Right Honourable P. Fraser) emphasized how repugnant to the traditions of his own country was a provision of so undemocratic a character. Like other delegates, he had consistently opposed the " veto " clause in regard to the voting formula for the Security Council. Though he now reluctantly had to accept the veto arrangement as inevitable for the near future, he saw no