Office of the Historian

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

August 3, 1946, 10 a.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 6

The Netherlands Delegation withdrew its amendment providing for the election of the representative of the host government as Chairman and substituted the following: “The Conference will elect its Chairman,” Mr. Mason (New Zealand) withdrew his amendment and supported the one submitted by the Netherlands. It was supported also by the Belgian, Brazilian and Australian Delegations. M. Molotov (U.S.S.R.) strongly endorsed the original proposal of the Council of Foreign Ministers on the grounds that any other decision would hamper the work of the Conference. Mr. Byrnes, while pointing out that the United States Delegation was entirely free to accept or reject any amendment on its merits, preferred to support the original proposal of the Council of Foreign Ministers.36 The Canadian Delegation favored the Netherlands amendment in principle but supported on practical grounds the original proposal. The Chinese Delegation took the same position. The amendment was defeated by 12 votes to 8 with 1 abstention. The following Delegations voted in favor of the amendment: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Greece, India, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Union of South Africa. The following Delegations voted against it: U.S.A., Byelorussia, Canada, China, France, U.K., Norway, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia. The Ethiopian Delegation abstained.

Articles III (Invitations to other States), IV (Official and Working Languages), and V (Secretariat) of the suggested rules of procedure were adopted unanimously. When discussion opened on Article VI (Voting on Recommendations of the Conference) Mr. Egeland (South Africa) spoke strongly in favor of the rule by which recommendations of the Conference to the Council of Foreign Ministers would be adopted by simple majority vote. He felt that the adoption of the two-thirds rule would make it difficult for the Conference to make any recommendations at all amending the agreed clauses of the draft peace treaties since a small minority could block any such recommendation. He believed the matter to be of such importance that it could not be the subject of compromise. Should, however, the Committee not be in favor of the simple majority [Page 105] rule as proposed in the Netherlands amendment, South Africa would support the U.K. amendment providing for two types of recommendations.37

  1. For text of Byrnes’ remarks, see Department of State Bulletin, August 18, 1946, p. 313.↩
  2. For text of the British proposal, which was originally circulated as an annex to the Record of Decisions of the Fourth Meeting, see article VI, paragraph a of C.P. (Plen.) Doc. 1, the Draft Rules of Procedure ultimately submitted to the Conference by the Commission, vol. iv, p. 796.↩