The initial membership of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic in the proposed international organization: The meeting recommends that the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic be invited to be initial members in the proposed international organization. MR. STETTINIUS: Does any delegate wish to comment on this unanimous recommendation of the Steering Committee to the plenary session? Hearing no objection, the recommendation is approved. DR. BELT: Credentials Committee: The meeting appointed a Credentials Committee, composed of six members, appointed by the chairmen of the delegations of the following governments: Luxembourg (chairman), Ecuador, Nicaragua, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yugoslavia. Participation of Poland in the Conference: The meeting recommends to the Conference in plenary session the adoption of the following resolution: Second Plenary Session... The governments of the United Nations express to the people of Poland their sympathy and their admiration. They hope that the constitution of a Polish Government, recognized as such by the sponsoring nations, will make it possible for Polish delegates to come and take part as soon as possible in the work of the Conference. MR. STETTINIUS: Thank you, Dr. Belt, for your very fine and very brief and very efficient report. Gentlemen, the last resolution that Dr. Belt read was introduced this morning by the Foreign Minister of Belgium and has been recommended to the plenary session. Do I hear any objection to the adoption of this resolution? Hearing no objection, the resolution is approved. Thank you, Dr. Belt. Ladies and Gentlemen, this completes the business to be taken up today. We now come to the second part of our program, and I recognize the Delegate from Australia who will speak in behalf of the Australian delegation, the Right Honorable Francis M. Forde, Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. Address by Francis M. Forde REPRESENTING THE AUSTRALIAN DELEGATION MR. FORDE: Mr. President, Fellow Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen: Australia joins her voice with those of other nations in paying tribute to the memory of the late President Roosevelt. He fought the battle for world security for many testing years and I venture to suggest that he won it before he passed away. We in Australia know in full the calamity of war; what it costs in sacrifice, human suffering, and wasted opportunities of peaceful development. We know that a nation with our population cannot hope to stand alone against the aggression of larger and stronger powers. That realization is the basis of our national policy. The Australian delegation is determined to do its utmost to make this Conference a success. We share the desire for despatch expressed yesterday by the Right Honorable Anthony Eden. We too are anxious to get down to business. We believe that yesterday's speeches indicated a real willingness to see the Charter improved without impairing its fundamental principles. In our view the success of the Conference will be measured by one test: Will it bring into existence an organization which will give to the peoples of the world a reasonable assurance of security from war and reasonable prospect of international action to secure social justice and economic advancement? The acceptance by the nations of the invitation to this Conference means that we are already agreed that world organization is necessary and that the Dumbarton Oaks draft is a suitable basis of discussion. There is an even wider area of common agreement on relevant principles. For example, by the United Nations Declaration of January, 1942, incorporating the text of the Atlantic Charter, and by subsequent adherence to that Declaration, all the United Nations have accepted three great postulates: 1. The establishment of a peace which will offer to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their boundaries and which will afford an assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and freedom from want. 2. The fullest collaboration in the economic field with the object of securing for all improved labor standards, economic advancement, and social security. 3. The eventual abandonment of the use of force, but in the meantime the immediate use of force to curb aggression. Of course, no absolute guaranties can be given. But in the past the leaders of the United Nations have made solemn promises to our peoples and especially to our fighting men. History will pass a severe judgment upon us all if we fail in the endeavor to translate these promises into action. The new association of nations must be endowed with sufficient military power to deal effectively and ruthlessly with any resurgence of Fascism and with any immediate threat to world peace. At the same time the constitution of the association must be made capable of development to meet new situations as they arise. We are substantially agreed on basic objectives. We have to apply ourselves realistically and intensively to translating our fervent desires into firm commitments and into principles and methods of action. Instruments like the Atlantic Charter did not sketch a charter for Europe alone. Over three years ago the Australian Government stressed the point that the principles of the Atlantic Charter were to be made effective as much in the Pacific and Asiatic countries as in those bordering the Atlantic. It is particularly fitting that this Conference is being held on the shores of the Pacific Ocean. The location will remind us, if reminder is needed, that even when European Fascism has been destroyed, another barbarous aggressor, Japan, must be compelled to surrender. The cardinal points of Australia's policy in relation to security may be restated as follows: (a) There must be speedy and orderly procedures for the peaceful handling of disputes between nations. (b) There must be a system of sanctions which can be imposed very rapidly and which will be based on the united military strength of the great powers, but shared in by all powers. (c) A permanent system of security can be made effective and acceptable only if it has a foundation in economic and social justice, and real international stability can be achieved only by promoting measures of economic advancement as well as by maintaining security. This, I may add, is the policy for which my colleague here, Dr. Evatt, has striven for years. I gladly acknow edge the ability and energy with which as Minister for Australia has welcomed the general acceptance of the Dumbarton Oaks principles. We do not speak as theorists, but because as a nation fighting in two wars, not for ourselves alone but for world security, we have learned by bitter experience that peace and security are indivisible and that nations in the Pacific cannot contract out of Europe any more than European nations can contract out of the Pacific. There is one basic requirement fully and fairly recognized by the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. For the Organization to succeed, all members of the United Nations must pledge themselves to co-operate in carrying out, by force wherever needed, the decisions of the Organization for the preservation of peace. We believe that the obligation to contribute to enforcement action should be accepted by all members and that decisions of the Organization to apply enforcement measures should be equally binding on all members. The expectation that there will be complete and immediate application of measures for collective security is essential both to deter the would-be aggressor and to bring reassurance to the peoples of the world who look for security. In our view the acceptance of this obligation is fundamental. It is now the duty and the opportunity of the Conference to pass from general principles to the practical working rules of the proposed Organization. In this task we should attempt precision of thought and language and avoid the oratorical flourishes which only serve to conceal the real difficulties in hammering out a workable constitution. The best initial contribution any nation can make to this Conference is to say frankly where it stands, to indicate how much of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals it is prepared to accept without reserve, and to set out the points on which it finds difficulty and seeks improvement. By this process we can ascertain the area of apparent difference. Then we should be able to reduce that area until it ceases to be of any significance. While accepting the general principles of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, we are of opinion that in some respects they call for expansion and amendment. We propose, therefore, to make positive and constructive suggestions to the Conference on certain points. First, we accept the principle that there should be a Security Council of the world Organization vested with wide executive power and authorized to act immediately on behalf of members of the Organization in meeting a threat of armed conflict. We also accept the principle that for the purposes of security the greater powers should act as a unit and therefore that these powers can be properly accorded special recognition. They will have the major responsibility for the joint exercise of military power. They are therefore entitled to all the rights and prerogatives which are incidental to or reasonably necessary for the application of sanctions against an aggressor. One of these rights is the so-called "veto" power. The term "veto" is not altogether a happy one. In relation to sanctions, it means only this: that if the world Organization is to exercise economic or military sanctions against an aggressor, which of course involves acts of war, its leading members must act unitedly or not at all. But the very considerations which are appropriate to enforcement action by the greater powers are out of place in relation to the settlement of disputes by means of conciliation, arbitration, or by other specific means. In such cases, which are covered by Chapter VIII-A of the Proposals, the Security Council should be empowered to act by the proposed majority of seven without the requirement of the approval by each and every one of the five great powers. I think that this point of view is implicit in the Yalta formula, 10 K Second, we consider that in the processes for the pacific settlement of disputes the maximum use should be made of the Permanent Court, both for fact-finding and for terminating disputes which are capable of settlement by reference to standards of international law. The Permanent Court has been a successful institution, and we hope a step forward will be taken in relation to its compulsory jurisdiction. Third, we think express provision should be made in the Charter the better to secure the political independence and territorial integrity of individual nations. These rights are the very basis of a nation's existence. Unless they are fully respected, the principle of the sovereign equality of nations declared in the Moscow Declaration and the Dumbarton Oaks draft would become an empty phrase. At the same time we recognize that in the course of time adjustments in the existing order may become necessary, not so much for the preservation of peace as for the attainment of international justice. The Charter could, therefore, properly declare that the Organization should exert its powers for the promotion of justice and the rule of law. In the Charter should also be inserted a specific undertaking by all members to refrain in their international relations from force or the threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. The application of this principle should insure that no question relating to a change of frontiers or an abrogation of a state's independence could be decided other than by peaceful negotiation. It should be made clear that if any state were to follow up a claim to extended frontiers by using force or the threat of force, the claimant would be breaking a specific and solemn obligation under the Charter. In such a case it would surely be impossible for the Council to decide the dispute in favor of the nation that had violated its obligations. The powers and functions of the General Assembly in regard to the settlement of disputes should be clarified. The General Assembly is to comprise all members. Ultimately it should become the central organ or the forum in which the conscience of the peoples of the world should have its most potent expression. We admit one exception, and one exception only, to the right of the Assembly to consider and to make recommendations as it thinks fit with regard to any matter affecting international relations. While the Security Council is handling a dispute in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, nothing should be done to diminish the authority of the Council or to hamper the prompt settlement of the dispute. We suggest that, on taking over a dispute, the Security Council should give some clear indication as to whether it is actively handling the matter. During the period when the matter is being so handled, the Assembly can fairly be precluded from dealing with the subject on its own initiative. But it is equally essential that the Assembly should be kept notified of the position so that it would be competent to make positive recommendations in relation to the matter, in case the dispute should become frozen in the Security Council. It was in this way that the Chinese-Japanese dispute became frozen during the period when Japan first taught other Fascist aggressors how to snap their fingers at solemn international obligations. We must speak plainly about the composition of the Security Council. Its powers in relation to the employment of force by the world Organization will be tremendous. As I have said, the great powers are entitled to special position in relation to the application of sanctions. United action is essential to stamp out an aggressor. But the application of the same principle in the case of the selection of the nonpermanent members of the Council requires that special attention be paid to the proved willingness and capacity of members to make a substantial contribution to security. It will have to be recognized that outside the great powers there are certain powers who, by reason of their resources and their geographical location, will have to be relied upon especially for the maintenance of peace and security in various quarters of the world. Like France, Canada, and other countries, Australia has consistently maintained this principle. But there is another principle of even greater importance. Certain powers, not classified as great, have proved by their record in two world wars that they not only have the capacity but also the will to fight in resistance of aggressors' threatening the world with tyranny. These powers are in a sense proved veterans in the struggle against Fascist dictatorship threatening the security of the world. They are in truth security powers. They have a claim to special recognition in any security organization. There are various ways in which this special claim might be recognized. One suggestion is that categories of nonpermanent members should be drawn up so as to insure that the nonpermanent members of the Security Council do, in fact, represent powers whose material resources, geographical location, and willingness to resist aggression make their actual co-operation with the great powers absolutely essential to the effective working of a security system. I have specially emphasized the subject of security because it is a matter on which we feel most strongly. For more than five years our soldiers, sailors, and airmen have been fighting against aggressors in almost every theater of the world war. During part of that time we had no one to depend on except our own kith and kin in other British countries, and the strength of our own arms. Part of our external territory was invaded and our whole national life disrupted. There are other countries in the same case, countries which in two world wars have fought to the full extent of their resources and borne the brunt of the fighting for the security of all peoples while, for one reason or another, many other countries did little or nothing to resist the aggressors. Now we are being asked to commit ourselves to fight again in case of future aggression anywhere in the world. We must be reasonably certain that on these future occasions other nations will stand with us. Our case is not different from that of others, but it is vital to us to have a security system that will really give us security. I have already emphasized the principle that under the proposed security system the obligation to contribute will be binding on all members. Acceptance of that principle implies that we must be ready to give, but in return there must be an assurance of security; an assurance that, if we are attacked, the nations of the world will come to our assistance just as we have, in fact, gone promptly to their assistance in the past. Australia has given clear proof of her willingness to make sacrifices for security. She was in the war in 1914, immediately after the invasion of Belgium by Germany; she was in the war in 1939, immediately after the invasion of Poland by Germany. Therefore, the people of Australia and, I suggest, the people of every other country similarly situated have a right to look for reasonable assurance of security. One form the assurance can take is the knowl edge that the members of the Security Council who will have to make decisions regarding enforcement action, will be real and not nominal security powers. Let me turn now to the proposal for economic and social co-operation. Australia's foreign policy has long been especially concerned with the arrangements for economic and social co-operation. We take the view that peace and security must rest on economic justice and social security. Apart from the relationship of welfare to security, welfare is an end in itself. Greater welfare, employment for all, and rising standards of living for the masses have been promised in international declarations, such as the Atlantic Charter, and in the national declarations of policies of most of the socially advanced countries of the world. All this has been pledged. It is necessary to redeem the pledge. The pledge should be written into the Charter of the world Organization as an objective, but that is not enough. Suitable machinery must be provided for the progressive fulfillment of the pledge. The statement of principles is clear enough. The United Nations declared themselves in the Atlantic Charter in favor of the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field, with the object of securing for all improved labor standards, economic advancement, and social security. There is everything to be said for a repetition of the words of this plain declaration in the Charter of the world Organization. The declaration is clear in its meaning. We will, therefore, suggest the inclusion in the Charter of an undertaking by which all members of the Organization will pledge themselves to take appropriate action, both national and international, for the purpose of securing for all peoples, including their own improved labor standards, economic advancement, and social security, and as part of that pledge to take appropriate action through the instrumentality of the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the I.L.O., and such other bodies as may be brought into relationship with the International Organization. We believe that member countries should not only enter into this pledge but should also accept the obligation to render reports on the action they are taking to carry it out. We also propose that the Economic and Social Council be made one of the principal organs of the world Organization, and will make proposals vesting in the Council certain powers and functions in addition to and in expansion of those set out in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. We also believe that, in order to carry out its functions and responsibilities, the Economic and Social Council, like the Security Council, should be in permanent session with continuous representation of those nations elected to it. It comes to this real stability in the postwar world can be achieved only by carefully building an organization that will do its utmost to assure the peoples of the world a full opportunity of living in freedom from want as well as in freedom from fear of external aggression. The Australian Government urges that the Charter of the world Organization should recognize that the main purpose of the administration of dependent or undeveloped territories is the welfare and advancement of the peoples of those territories. This was recognized in Article XXII of the Covenant of the League of Nations in respect of territories which were at the disposal of the Allied powers as a result of the war of 1914-18. While no doubt certain modifications arising out of experience should be made in the terms of existing mandates, on the whole we believe the system worked reasonably well. Certainly most of its principles could safely be extended to dependent territories taken away from our enemies in the present war. Subject to the overriding requirements of controlling bases and facilities for the purpose of security, these detached territories should properly be held in trust for the native inhabitants. They should be administered under terms which will impose upon the administering power a duty to the United Nations to promote the welfare of these dependent peoples. We believe also that this principle of trusteeship, which in modern times powers have frequently recognized in relation to their colonial possessions by positive unilateral declarations, cannot in principle be confirmed to undeveloped territories formerly belonging to our enemies in World War I or World War II. Otherwise, native peoples would be in a better position merely because they had once been under enemy sovereignty. We, therefore, wish to see provision in the Charter for the continuance of the mandate system, the establishment of new mandates, the recognition of the principle that the purpose of the administration of dependent territories is the welfare and advancement of the peoples of such territories. We also wish to see the setting up of an expert organ of the United Nations, the function of which will be to inform the world organization of the welfare and progress of the peoples of mandated territories and such other dependent territories as may be determined upon by appropriate action. It is quite wrong to call such a system "international direction" or "international supervision." There would be no interference with sovereignty. All that would be done would be to treat the welfare of dependent peoples as a matter not only of local but of international concern. We were reminded yesterday of the futility of straining after a perfect Charter. This is true, but we must not let that idea block the possibilities of improving the Charter here and now. Nor must we allow the possibilities of improvement later to be obstructed by adopting too rigid a constitutional form. Mr. Stettinius reminded us that ten vital amendments in the United States Constitution were made within four years of its adoption. The parallel must not be pushed too far. No amendment of the Charter as it now stands will be possible without the unanimous consent of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Any one of the five will therefore be able to make the present constitution immutable. If the United States Constitution had given to the five major original States a similar entrenched position, I do not think that many constitutional amendments would have been carried. The Dumbarton Oaks plan as it stands bears very many characteristics of a mere prolongation into the years of peace of the type of great-power leadership that has been found necessary in order to win the war. It would be wise, therefore, to regard the plan as having many transitional features. If that is conceded, the organization could start off in the expectation that the Charter would be progressively modified to fit the normal conditions of international relations after the period of postwar rehabilitation has been completed. To that end, however, the amending process needs greater flexibility. Australia will propose an amendment for this purpose. In placing Australia's views before you, my colleague, Dr. Evatt, and I have endeavored to state our position frankly and realistically. There is no time to waste on mere generalities. There is, as we have been reminded, a job to be done. We desire to serve our people and the peoples of the world. We will be no party to building up hopes for a better world unless the machinery for building that world is likely to work. We put these views before the great powers in the hope and belief that, except in principle and general application, the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals will not be treated as sacrosanct or beyond criticism. Our confidence in, like our gratitude toward, those powers is very great. They have led us out of the jaws of death. Our relationship to the United Kingdom is one of the closest kinship, and to the war effort of Great Britain the whole world owes a great debt. We admire the epic deeds of the Red Army and the great sacrifices of the people of the Soviet Union. China's long-sustained resistance against Japan gave us enough time to hold back that powerful and unscrupulous foe. And toward the people of the United States of America whose soldiers have done so much for Australia, we will always be deeply grateful. For over three years, our cooperation with the United States in the Pacific has been of great and decisive significance. The Coral Sea Battle, the Midway Battle, the Solomons Battle, all these battles decided the fate of Australia. And had America not been able to send tens of thousands of the flower of her manhood and hundreds of fighters and bombers to the southwestern Pacific at that period, Australia would have been overrun by the Japanese. To France we pay special homage because of our association in New Caledonia and the sacred memories of the first great war. France's rapid restoration as a great power rejoices the heart of all lovers of what is best in Western civilization. And I speak with some feeling on this subject because in recent weeks my colleague, Dr. Evatt, and I had an opportunity of visiting Paris, of meeting the French people, and of learning of the great revival that has taken place, and the way they are standing wholeheartedly behind their government. We appeal to all countries, and especially to the great powers, not to shrink from making improvements in the Charter merely because a little more time and a little more trouble will be required. What we can do, and what we must do, is to accept the general principles of the Dumbarton Oaks plan and proceed as soon as possible to consider all proposals for its improvement. By doing so, we will be doing our duty to those whose sacrifices have made this Conference possible. That is the duty of each of us. No man can do more, but no man should do less. MR. STETTINIUS: Ladies and Gentlemen, I now recognize His Excellency the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Belgium, and the chairman of the Belgian delegation, Dr. Spaak. Dr. Spaak spoke in French. An English translation follows: Second Plenary Session... Address by Dr. Paul-Henri Spaak CHAIRMAN, THE BELGIAN DELEGATION Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I am here to represent a country, twice invaded, twice occupied, twice tortured by the Germans in a quarter of a century. A country essentially fond of peace, a happy country, satisfied with its fate, where on the whole life is easy and pleasant and where civilization is old and deep. A country which holds an honorable place in the world, a country which is passionately attached to peace. A country which has twice heroically resisted a catastrophe that befell it but one which measures fully what dangers a third possible trial would mean and wishes to accomplish everything in its power in order to avert it. This will explain to you why, as the bearer of the hopes of the Belgians, I have come here, together with the members of my delegation, determined to work with all my heart in order to promote security and justice in international relations. It may sound commonplace to repeat once again that we are living moments that will probably prove decisive in the world's history. But constant repetition may help to make us feel the full weight of our responsibilities. The eyes of millions of men and women are fixed upon us, expecting that from our endeavor will come the fulfilment of their hope and the assurance that their sorrows and their sufferings shall not have been borne in vain. Yesterday, in his magnificent and encouraging speech, Mr. Eden told us that our task is a hard one, but that its possibilities are great. Nothing could be more true. The peoples of the world have felt and understood the dangers that our civilization has just faced. They realize how nearly we escaped the tragedy of seeing disappear from the face of the earth, for long, and perhaps forever, all that brings a price to life and dignity to mankind. With the sure instinct that so often guides them, they are prepared today to make the effort necessary to prevent the return of such a threat. Let us not miss the chance that is offered us, for it might never return. A complete and perfect international organization, including an effective subordination of all private concerns to the interest of the collectivity is certainly one of the wishes of humanity. Had we been asked to bind ourself to such an undertaking, I feel sure I would have been able to bring the full consent, both deeply pondered and enthusiastic, of all my compatriots. It would be a mistake to pretend that the Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta proposals have brought us all that we wished, that they fulfilled all our hopes, that they claimed of us the maximum effort that we were ready to furnish. But my compatriots and myself are not of the kind that can be discouraged if the goal is not reached at the first try. We know that the road that leads to achievement is long and sometimes rugged, that progress is made in successive stages and of repeated efforts. The result of the combined work of the four great peace-loving powers has been accepted by us loyally as a basis for fruitful discussions. It would be wrong, however, to allow oneself to criticize systematically the proposals that have been made to us, and not to notice what, in some fields, they have brought that is new and progressive. Indeed, how could we not greet joyfully the fact that the new international organization is this time offered to us by a group of nations among which are the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? The absence of these two great nations, at the time of the creation of the League of Nations, brought about consequences which weighed on international politics during the whole period between the two wars. The family of peace-loving countries, being incomplete, was necessarily weakened. The present participation of the United States and of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics now constitutes a magnificent reinforcement, and this important fact in itself is cause for hope and faith. But there is another cause for hope: the sketchy but promising tendency to forego, on some grounds, the traditional rule of unanimity that was necessary to the taking of effective decisions. Undoubtedly, we would have wished for more daring, but the sign is a hopeful one and it gives us reason to believe that, on the road newly opened today, the nations will march tomorrow with more determination. There is also new ground for hope in the plan to create an international body of armed forces strong enough to assure the enforcement of the organization's decisions. This is the sort of realism that serves and serves powerfully the loftiest idealism. And there is finally another reason for hope: the suggestion that economic and social co-operation will not be neglected. Allow me to dwell for one minute on this point. Everybody now stresses the necessary solidarity that ought to manifest itself in times of war; and one is right in doing so. But this solidarity would probably become useless if the peoples of the world understood more clearly that they must help one another in times of peace. From a strategic point of view, there are no more frontiers. When war breaks out in one part of the world, it does not take long to overrun the whole world. And that is the terrible vision that is offered us, every once in a while, so as to remind us, as we have such a tendency to forget it, that we are all dependent upon one another. But why do we have to wait for war to become conscious of this reality? It exists as well-it exists as much, it exists perhaps even more-in times of peace. It is fine to be united to achieve victory; but it would be so much finer and so much more effective and less costly to be united to build a better world. One cannot limit oneself to laying down texts that can be applied only when the situation becomes serious. I wish that we could build something that would become part of our daily life, of our daily preoccupations, something that reminds us of its existence not only when the specter of war appears threateningly but also helps us to answer effectively the anguishing questions that will arise from the social and economical organization of the world of tomorrow. I wish the International Organization that will be the outcome of our work would offer us the solution not only of the problem of how to prevent war, not only the solution of what must be done to win it, should it after all break out, but also bring us the means to insure peace by giving men the chance to live happily by their labor. It is fitting to remember now that President Roosevelt, the great leader whose will has brought us together here and whose loss we feel so cruelly, never separated in his mind the fight for peace from the struggle to insure economic co-operation and social security, and that the expression of his powerful and prophetic thought is to be found as much in the resolutions of Hot Springs, of |