Office of the Historian

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

August 5, 1946, 4 p.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 7

When the Committee reconvened at 4 p.m. the Norwegian and Canadian Delegations supported the U.K. amendment on the ground that it gave a voice to the middle and smaller powers without affecting the position of the members of the Council of Foreign Ministers. M. Molotov delivered a long speech in which he stressed the extreme importance of the question and strongly defended the suggestion of the [Page 125] Council of Foreign Ministers that recommendations be adopted only by a two-thirds majority. He defended this proposal as based on the precedent of the San Francisco Conference and on the need for achieving the greatest possible agreement. He charged the U.K. and United States Delegations with inconsistency for having supported in the Council of Foreign Ministers the proposal for a two-thirds majority and then having abandoned it at the Peace Conference. He stated that the rule of simple majority would enable certain blocs of states to impose their will on other states. He proposed, to meet the wishes of other delegations, the following addition: “If a proposed recommendation fails to obtain a two-thirds majority, the states which vote for such a recommendation may refer it to the Council of Foreign Ministers”.43 M. Couve de Murville (France) prepared a compromise formula reading as follows: “In cases where a proposal obtains a simple majority but not a two-thirds majority such proposal may at the request of the states favoring it be submitted to the Council of Foreign Ministers for consideration.” Dr. Evatt (Australia) argued that the Allied Nations not represented on the Council of Foreign Ministers had already, by decisions of the great powers, been given a smaller role in the peacemaking than that to which they were entitled He alleged that the two-thirds rule would restrict that role still further; he therefore supported the Netherlands amendment in favor of the simple majority rule as the means whereby the Conference would place its views before the Council of Foreign Ministers.44 Mr. McNeil (U.K.) replied to the arguments of M. Molotov and defended the right of the U.K. Delegation to support amendments to the rules of procedure suggested to the Conference by the Council of Foreign Ministers. The Indian and South African Delegations supported the proposal that recommendations could be made by simple majority vote.

  1. For text of Molotov’s speech, see V. M. Molotov, Problems of Foreign Policy, Speeches and Statements, April 1945–November 1948 (Moscow, Foreign Language Publishing House, 1949), p. 79.↩
  2. The adjournment of the 7th Meeting interrupted Evatt’s speech. He continued his remarks at the Eighth Meeting.↩