1. During the past fortnight Committees of Conference met daily,
progress considerably delayed by frequent interruption of debate
by discussions on procedure but important decisions will shortly
be taken.

2. After the conference opened the Sponsoring Powers prepared a
list of 27 further amendments to the Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta
Proposals. An attempt was made to have these joint amendments
incorporated in the Dumbarton Oaks text but the Steering Committee
at our instigation decided that they should be placed before the
conference as amendments to the basic text and voted on in a
similar manner to proposals submitted by other participating
Governments. The immense burden of the conference work is
indicated by the fact that comments and proposals of all
Delegations fill 350 page volume. Most Committees have appointed
Sub-Committees to analyse proposals and isolate main issues to be
considered. Progress of the Committees to date is reviewed below
with special reference to the part taken by the Australian
Delegation.

3. Commission I Committee 1 (preamble purposes and principles). A
preamble proposed by South Africa laying emphasis on 'fundamental
human rights' has been accepted in principle with reservations as
to the final form. Insertion in chapter 1 of references to justice
and international law, territorial integrity and political
independence and sanctity of treaties has been discussed and
redraft is being prepared.

4. Commission I Committee 2 (membership principal organs
secretariat and amendment). During the debate on chapter III we
modified our own amendment and associated ourselves with the
United Kingdom in proposing the following draft-
'Membership of the organisation should be open to all peace loving
states which in the judgement of the organisation are able and
ready to accept the principles and obligations contained in the
Charter'.

This proposal was unanimously approved. Membership issues were
also debated on Commission II Committee 1 (see below) where we
made clear our aversion from the easy admittance of ex enemy
states and neutrals who had acknowledged the enemy.

5. Among other issues arising on Committee I/2 is composition of
secretariat including Big Four Proposal that Security Council
should recommend appointment of four deputies of Secretary General
as well as a Secretary General himself. We will strongly support
New Zealand amendment designed to ensure that Secretariat is truly
international in character and that key positions are not assigned
to Nationals of Powers with permanent seats on Council.

6. Commission II Committee 1 (Assembly, structure and procedure).

Committee resolved that Secretary General should be appointed by
Assembly on recommendation by at least seven of the Security
Council. Soviet, however, takes the view that this decision
affects provisions re voting procedure on Council and has
contested power of Committee 2/1 to make such a decision.

7. The requirement that Assembly should approve budgets (paragraph
5 of V (B)) will next be discussed. We have submitted following
text 'The General Assembly shall direct the preparation of the
budget of the United Nations by the Secretary General, shall
provide for the examination of the budget by an expert Advisory
Agency, shall approve the budget and shall apportion among the
members the expenses of the United Nations'. We also have in mind
desirability of a single budget to be approved by Assembly for
World Organisation and Subsidiary bodies.

8. There was considerable discussion of paragraph 2 of V (B)
admission of new members and eight or nine proposals were advanced
by various Delegations. We amplified our amendment to read 'The
General Assembly will admit new members to the United Nations
provided that the General Assembly shall not, without the
recommendation of Security Council admit to membership a state
which at any time since 1st September, 1939, has been at war with
any member of the United Nations or a state which since that date
has given military assistance to any such state'. Debate was
complicated by multiplicity of amendments before Committee
simultaneously and one meeting on subject ended in complete
confusion. Eventually Dumbarton Oaks text was approved.

9. Commission II Committee 2 (Assembly political and Security
functions). After preliminary debate on powers of Assembly in
relation to Security Council the Committee on Australia's
suggestion appointed Sub-Committee which prepared a list of nine
questions to be answered in order to establish the principles on
which this section of charter should be drafted. These questions
are now being discussed. Before deciding to follow this procedure
the Committee had accepted a composite amendment made up from a
joint proposal by the Sponsoring Powers and a proposal by the
United States to expand paragraph 6 of V (B) to give power to the
Assembly subject to paragraph 1 of V (B) to initiate studies and
to promote international co-operation and to 'recommend measures
for the peaceful adjustment of any situation regardless of origin
which it deems likely to impair the general welfare including
situations resulting from a violation of the purposes and
principles set forth in the Charter'. At a later stage the
Sponsoring Powers and France gave notice of their agreement to
redraft paragraph 1 of V (B) but the terms of their proposal still
do not wholly satisfy our amendment although making concession to
point of view we have expressed. Our amendment is still
prominently before Committee.

10. Commission II Committee 3 (Economic and Social Co-operation).

This Committee has recommended that Economic and Social Council be
one of the principal organs and Committee I/2 has accepted the
recommendation. General discussion in chapter IX (A) is
proceeding. The Sponsoring Powers have moved to insert the
reference to 'respect for the principle of equal rights and self
determination of peoples' and to make the reference to fundamental
freedoms read as follows:-'Fundamental freedoms for all without
distinction as to race, language, religion or sex'. All amendments
were referred to the Drafting Sub-Committee on which we are
represented and eventually following draft was approved by
Committee.

11. Commission III Committee 4 (Trusteeship). Proposals on
trusteeship have been presented by the United Kingdom, United
States, Australia, France, China and the Soviet Union. The result
will be reported later.

12. Commission III Committee 1 (Security Council, structure and
procedures). The Sponsoring Powers submitted an amendment stating
that in filling the non-permanent seats on the Council due regard
should be 'specially paid in the first instance to the
contribution of members of the organisation towards the
maintenance of International peace and security and towards the
other purposes of the organisation and also the equitable
geographical distribution'. This amendment recognises the two
points for which we fought in London and on which we have insisted
in all public statements. Having succeeded in principle we
withdrew our amendment on the subject. Big Four amendment has been
approved.

13. Committee also gave detailed consideration to the first
sentence of the paragraph setting out the total number of Security
Council. For two days Latin American and Middle East Delegations
spoke vehemently in favour of increasing the size of the Council
and introduced several amendments to that effect. Overnight,
however, they changed their minds and another meeting was occupied
by the speeches they made in withdrawing all their amendments 'in
the interests of the Unity'. The original proposal for eleven
members was agreed to by 36 votes to nil. It was obvious that some
bargain had been struck. We had expressed no view on the issue but
in common with five other Delegations including New Zealand we
publicly abstained from voting in order to make it clear that we
were not in any way associated with whatever bargaining had taken
place and in order to retain our future liberty of action.

14. Voting procedure on Council is likely to become a major issue
on this Committee during the next few days.

15. Commission III Committee 2 (Peaceful settlement). The
Sponsoring Powers have proposed amendments to Chapter VIII (A)
designed to have the following effect:-

(A) A new paragraph to give the Security Council at the request of
the parties to a dispute the power to make recommendations
concerning its settlement even if the continuance of the dispute
is not likely to endanger maintenance of peace;

(B) An addition to paragraph 2 requiring a non-member to accept
the obligations of the Charter in case it has brought any dispute
to the attention of the World Organisation;

(C) A revision of paragraph 4 to make it clear that the intention
of this paragraph is that if a dispute is not settled by the means
indicated in paragraph 3 the parties should be obligated to refer
it to the Security Council with the object of obtaining a peaceful
settlement. The Security Council then might not only recommend
procedures but also the actual terms on which the dispute should
be settled;

(D) Deletion of paragraph 7 and insertion of a new paragraph in
Chapter II (principles) to exclude issues of domestic jurisdiction
from the application of paragraphs 1 to 6 section A but not from
the application of Section B of Chapter VIII.

16. The proposal in (A) above has been accepted by the Committee
and (B) is non-controversial. The idea expressed in (C) is
acceptable to us. The same object would be served by our proposed
amendment to first paragraph of VIII (B) the consideration of
which by Committee 3 of Commission III has been referred at our
suggestion for joint examination by Sub-Committees of 2 and 3.

17. The point in (D) however is vital. We regard it as essential
that the exclusion of matters of domestic jurisdiction should
apply to decisions of the Security Council under Section B as well
as Section A. Without such a provision it would be possible for an
Asiatic Power to object to our migration Policy and if it could be
shown that a threat to peace had arisen the Security Council could
proceed to recommend a settlement involving change in our
Migration Policy as a condition necessary to remove the threat to
peace. We have been negotiating with the United Kingdom on this
matter and hope that an acceptable redrafting of the Big Four
Proposal can be obtained. This is a matter of fundamental
principle and we cannot compromise on it.

18. Commission III Committee 3 (Enforcement measures). Matters
arising under paragraph 1 of VIII (B) which are dependent on
decisions re Section A have been deferred. A protracted debate has
taken place on the general question of the powers of Assembly in
regard to enforcement. New Zealand moved that the Assembly should
be associated with the Council in all decisions re enforcement and
Canada proposed an amendment to the effect that in case of
'serious enforcement measures' a Country whose interests were
specially affected should participate in the Security Council's
decision. After protracted debate the motion and amendment were
withdrawn and particular proposals to amend the text of paragraph
1 to allow the Assembly to participate in decisions on enforcement
were defeated.

19. Commission III Committee 4 (Regional Arrangements). This
became one of the main issues of the Conference due primarily to
the desire of the Latin American Bloc to prevent interference by
the Security Council in a dispute arising in the Western
Hemisphere at least until it had been established that the
Regional Body (Pan American System) was unable to deal with such
dispute. France too wanted her mutual assistance pact with Russia
[1] to operate immediately without having to wait upon action by
the Security Council although she is ready to give an account to
the Security Council forthwith of the measures actually taken
under the pact.

The Australian amendments were designed:-

(A) To retain the primary control by the Security Council over
Regional enforcement action;

(B) To permit remission of a dispute by the Security Council to a
Regional Body for enforcement action by a majority vote of the
Council including 3 only of the permanent members (thus avoiding
paralysis of action by the veto of One Great Power) and
(C) To make it clear that if and when the Security Council decides
not to take enforcement action itself and not to remit the matter
to a Regional Body then States which are parties to any
arrangements consistent with the Charter shall have the right to
adopt such measures as they deem fit for maintaining or restoring
peace and security.

A Sub-Committee consisting of the Five Great Powers, together with
Australia, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Egypt, Chile and Mexico was set
up to analyse, classify and, if possible, amalgamate the various
amendments. In the course of the Sub-Committee's work the United
States produced a formula designed to satisfy Latin American
Countries and the Great Powers. Outcome of discussion on this
formula which adopted the chief features of the Australian
proposals will be reported later.

20. Commission IV Committee 1 (International Court). This
Committee took as the basis for its discussions the statute of the
permanent court of international justice as revised by the
Committee of Jurists which met in Washington in April. Australia
has been appointed to a Sub-Committee to report on the question
whether a new court should be established or the existing
permanent court continued. Our view is that a new court is the
only practicable course, though as much continuity as possible
should be maintained.

21. Commission IV Committee 2 (Legal Problems). This Committee has
recommended the adoption of clauses providing for the registration
and publication of treaties for the legal supremacy of the charter
and for the abrogation of agreements inconsistent with it along
the general lines of articles 18 and 20 of the League Covenant.