A.—2

34

Tt was contended, on the other side, that the Assembly in its character as " the town meeting of the world " could frame its own rules of procedure, and would therefore have full control of the Organization and its business and that the Assembly of the League had got through its business in spite of the wide jurisdiction given to it by the Covenant. As the first sentence of this proposed redraft of Chapter V, Section B, paragraph 1, represented the original New Zealand amendment, and as it was clear that the second sentence represented the viewpoint of the majority of the other Powers, New Zealand supported the adoption of the new clause. The proposal, without the qualifying phrase, " which affects the maintenance of international peace and security," was adopted by 27 votes to 11. Although Committee TI/2, then adopted the text of .the redraft of paragraph 1, Section B, Chapter V, together with the amendment referred to above, the whole question was revived a fortnight later by the Russian delegation, who had pressed throughout for the retention of the Dumbarton Oaks text, which had provided that the Assembly should have the right to discuss any question relating to the maintenance of international peace and security. This action, in the eighth week of the Conference, involved a further prolonged struggle. In particular the Soviet delegation argued that the seeming liberalism of this paragraph concealed an element of danger to the effectiveness of the Organization as a whole, as well as to individual members, because it gave the Assembly the right to discuss any matter within the sphere of international relations. This meant, they said, that any member of the Assembly which did not like the action of its neighbours could place that action before the Assembly for its consideration. Immigration and Customs laws were cited as examples. The Soviet representative regarded such procedure as a direct infringement of the sovereignty of the State against which recommendations could be adopted by the General Assembly, and he protested further that even though the General Assembly did not make any recommendation the very discussion of the matter might strain the relations between the States concerned. The Soviet delegation suggested, therefore, that the clause be referred back to Committee TI/2 for review. The Australian delegate (Dr. Evatt) took the view that the fears of the Soviet delegation were unfounded because the Charter provided elsewhere that nothing contained in it authorized the Organization to interfere in matters of domestic jurisdiction. This question was referred to a special meeting of the Steering Committee, which in turn set up a sub-committee consisting of its Chairman, Mr. Stettinius, the chairman of the Russian delegation, M. Gromyko, and the Australian Minister of External Affairs, Dr. Evatt. After further strenuous negotiations over the week-end a compromise formula was drafted, and the following new clause was adopted by the Committee:— " The General Assembly has the right to discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organizations provided in the Charter, and, except as provided in paragraph 2 (b) of this section to make recommendations to the members of the United Nations or to the Security Council, or both, on any such questions or matters." M. Gromyko, in expressing his agreement, explained that he regarded the clause as being not as broad as the original text which the Committee had approved on 18 May, but as broad as the scope of the Charter. Dr. Evatt, as the spokesman of the smaller Powers, felt that it was as broad as was necessary and that any further discussion should be avoided lest attempts be made to circumscribe it further. The successful conclusion of this matter ended the last controversy of the Conference.