Cablegram PC34 PARIS, 6 September 1946, 2.33 p.m.
Your telegram P.196. We have been steadily pushing the amendments
 but so far have not obtained much support. As the discussions
proceed and become more involved the fact finding idea is gaining
more attention and the same development is slowly emerging in
connection with reparations. As reparation claims against Italy
now number 12, the whole question is becoming impracticable except
on this basis.
2. All our amendments have been discussed with other members of
the British Commonwealth but support is lacking. I have seen Bevin
and whilst he admits much merit in many of our amendments it is
clear that the British Delegation is not prepared at this stage to
give full support. I summarise below some of the arguments on
which this attitude is based in relation to 3 major amendments. We
are doing our best here to meet these arguments but would be very
glad of all the advice and suggestions you can send us.
3. Human rights. Although we have received no active support
except some indications from New Zealand there is a good deal of
sympathy of the motives of our amendment. The line taken in
argument is that
(a) The provision in the treaties is sufficiently explicit.
(b) The treaties are not the proper place to bring for-ward a
proposal so far reaching as that of human rights.
(c) The problem of human rights applies to Allied countries as
well as to enemy states.
4. The view expressed to me has been that it should be much more
appropriate and there would be much more hope of success if the
proposal were put forward at a later stage in the United Nations
with a view to giving it universal application. We are not letting
this view in any way interfere with our putting forward the
proposal here but beyond the idea we have little hope of success
at present. We will fully present the case before the legal
commission to which question has been referred by the Political
Commission in Finland.
5. The Treaty of Executive Council.  Although this amendment
has not yet come up in my commission I understand that it is
likely to meet with strong practical objections on the part of the
United Kingdom and United States. Apparently both United Kingdom
and United States had earlier considered the desirability of such
a body but in view of experience of Foreign Ministers' Deputies
meetings and in face of Soviet opposition decided to abandon it
and to adopt instead a plan for submission of matters arising out
of treaties to the relevant 4 powers' diplomatic representatives
in the ex-enemy countries. Some objection in principle has also
been expressed on the ground that rather than set up a new semi-
permanent body of this kind it would be preferable that disputes
arising out of treaties should be referred direct to the United
Nations. Bevin has clearly indicated that the United Kingdom
Government is anxious to avoid setting up additional bodies and is
planning to centre international consultation in the United
Nations. The British say we must make the United Nations work and
thus avoid disputation in too many places because they feel
according to Bevin that it suits Soviet Union to play one
organisation off against another.
6. Treaty Revision. There is rather widespread opposition to this
on the ground that treaties should be regarded as final and that
parties to them should not be led to look forward to possibilities
of revision. In the British Commonwealth group talks the view has
been advanced that if frontiers following this conference remained
in any state of uncertainty, the area would never settle down.
7. Monseigneur Egidic Vaghazy, Counsellor at Nunciature Paris,
called Tuesday and stated that the Holy Father was pleased with
the Australian delegation's work at the Peace Conference as they
were the only delegation striving for highest principles of
humanity and justice to oppressed people.
8. The observations of paragraphs 2 to 6 are forwarded for your
comment. The delegation are working well and greatly enthusiastic
with the work.
Kind regards to self and wife.