What It's All About

The San Francisco conference has only one job--to draft a charter for a postwar organization of "peace-loving states." Unlike Versailles after World War I, it is not a peace conference; that will come later. Such matters as Poland may come up at San Francisco, but they are not the primary business of the conference.

Its primary business is to consider and complete the outline of a world charter drawn up last fall by representatives of the U.S., the Soviet Union and Great Britain at Dumbarton Oaks, a private estate in Washington. China also signed the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, but they are the Big Three's work. Originally incomplete, even as an outline, Dumbarton Oaks now includes additions agreed on at Yalta by Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, and others (filling out the sketchy world court section) prepared in Washington by a committee of jurists.

The main emphasis of Dumbarton Oaks, including its amendments, is on the structure of a world organization, rather than on its principles. The structure recommended to the San Francisco delegates rests largely on power--the power of the U.S., Russia, Britain. In this structure:

The General Assembly, out of deference to world opinion, is given top billing, but it is definitely second in power and importance to the Security Council.

As projected at Dumbarton Oaks, the Assembly is to be an international forum, not a world legislature. Every member of the organization is to be automatically a member of the Assembly, free to "discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security" and to make recommendations on such matters as disarmament. But if the Assembly wants action taken, it must appeal to the Security Council.

The Assembly admits new members to the organization, suspends or expels offending members, and elects the important Secretary-General, the chief administrative officer. But all these actions require the "recommendation of the Security Council."

In four other respects, the Assembly stands on its own feet: it approves the budgets of the organization, elects the six nonpermanent members of the Security Council and the eighteen members of the Economic and Social Council, supervises subsidiary social and economic agencies, and promotes cooperation in "political, economic and social fields"--without interference from the Security Council.

In the Assembly each state has one vote, subject to possible changes, caused by Russia's demand for three votes.

The Security Council has eleven members. Five of them--the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, and China--have permanent seats. The other six memberships are elective and temporary.

The drafters of Dumbarton Oaks frankly proposed that the Council, rather than the Assembly, should have "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security." The Council may (not must) "investigate any dispute, or any situation which may lead to international friction"; but all members promise to seek a solution of disputes through negotiation, mediation, judicial settlement, or ''other peaceful means." The main job of the Council is to press the parties to settle disputes by themselves. Only in the event of failure does the Security Council swing into action.

If all efforts at peaceful solution fail, the Council can rule that a threat to peace has arisen and "take any measures necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security. . . ." It may order any form of action, whether political, economic, military, or all three. All members of the organization must act against the aggressor as the Security Council may determine, even if they have objected in the early stages.

The proposals say that the Council cannot take up any dispute "arising out of matters which by international law are solely within the domestic jurisdiction of the state concerned." In other words, should some future Hitler contend that his mistreatment of the Jews is a "domestic" question, the Council cannot act--if this provision is interpreted literally.

The original proposals left the troubled question of the Security Council's voting procedure up to Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill. At Yalta they agreed on a procedure that not only concentrated the

Council's power in its Big-Power members, but made any effective action by the organization impossible without the unanimous consent of the Big Powers. In short, any one of the Big Powers may "veto" such action--even if it is an aggressor.

Nevertheless, the Big Power veto is not all-inclusive. On minor matters of procedure, the votes of any seven members are sufficient. In the preliminary stages of serious inquiry, even at the point of deciding whether a given situation "is in fact likely" to endanger peace, a Big-Power member directly involved in an issue cannot vote at all. But the other four Big Powers must concur in any vote to investigate or take even preliminary action. At the all-important point of determining whether a threat actually exists, and from then on to positive action, the Council can make a decision only if all five of the Big Powers and two of the smaller members agree.

An important arm of the Council is to be its "Military Staff Committee"--in effect, the world organization's General Staff. On this body, only the Big Five arc represented (by their respective Chiefs of

Staff, or spokesmen for them). The Dumbarton Oaks draft includes no provision for a standing international police force, but relies instead on military forces of the principal nations.

The International Court and its procedure are to be modeled generally on the old League's Permanent Court of International Justice ("The Hague Court"). The jurists working on a basic statute in Washington left some of the most important questions up to San Francisco--how to choose the judges, whether they will have compulsory jurisdiction in some types of cases, whether and to what extent the court's decision and precedents bind the Security Council.

The Secretariat, or permanent research and managerial staff, is to be headed by a Secretary-General with the right to "bring to the attention of the Security Council any matters which in his opinion may threaten international peace and security." This provision would give the organization's executive an importance far beyond that of his counterpart in the League.

The Economic and Social Council is to be the only body directly subject to the General Assembly. This agency is to work on "international economic, social and other humanitarian problems and promote respect for "human rights and fundamental freedoms." The members, representing eighteen states, are to be elected by the Assembly for three-year terms.

The Dumbarton Oaks draft enjoins the Security Council to encourage and work through "regional arrangements and agencies." But the proposals neither define "regional arrangements" nor draw a clear line between them and the master world-arrangement. On only one aspect of this question are the proposals crystal-clear: "No enforcement action should be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council."

Provisions for Change. Future amendments must be 1) adopted by two-thirds of the General Assembly's members, 2) ratified by each of the Big Five governments or legislatures (in the U.S., by the Senate) and by a majority of the world organization's other members. In short, no Big Power need accept any distasteful amendment, but a smaller power may well have to take it willy-nilly.

No power, big or small, can "resign" from the new organization, as Germany and Japan resigned from the League. Once in, the only legal way to get out will be by suspension or expulsion.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.