1. After to-day's meeting of the Security Council Austin indicated to Hasluck that the Australian amendment would be opposed on two constitutional grounds- (a) that the Council cannot transfer jurisdiction to a peace conference, and (b) the Council cannot direct peace conference what it should do.
More seriously Brazilian President also told Hasluck privately that in his opinion the Australian amendment would reduce the authority of the Council and it would not be possible for him to accept such an amendment. He would rule to that effect at the opening of the next meeting of the Council. He promised to show Hasluck a copy of his written opinion as soon as prepared.
2. We assume that we can readily answer the above objections by pointing out that the Council has not transferred jurisdiction but has decided to take certain action subject to the realisation of certain conditions in the future. Further the Council is not attempting to bind the peace conference but its members are simply pledging each other to take a certain stand at the peace conference. We do not rightly understand Brazilian objection but assume he considers that Council should not share its sole jurisdiction on strategic areas with another body which does not have jurisdiction. We would appreciate your instructions on these points and would also submit for your consideration that slight textual modification of our amendment might make much of the criticism pointless.
2 Oswaldo Aranha of Brazil.
'This agreement will enter into force on the date which the interim or final treaty etc. becomes binding on Japan.'