12. Debate was then closed and meeting adjourned until afternoon
when it [was] announced votes would be taken. Czechoslovakia
opened the afternoon meeting by suggesting that Committee should
be appointed to consider various amendments and produce an
amendment acceptable to all members. This proposal was rejected by
11 votes to 8 with 2 abstentions. Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Poland and
the Soviet moved that as the question of voting procedures was
most important matter an amendment to be adopted must obtain two
thirds majority vote. This proposal was severely criticised by
United States, United Kingdom, Australia and other members and a
long complicated procedural debate developed which was adjourned
until later in the evening.

13. This tedious debate continued when Commission reassembled
later and was contested most stubbornly by Soviet bloc using their
familiar tactics of fatigue and pressure on the President.

Ultimately these tactics apparently turned wavering members of
Commission against them for United Kingdom amendment was
eventually adopted by 15 votes to 6. Commission adjourned at 3 am.

Australia has drafted amendment to United Kingdom amendment
varying voting procedures. This amendment will be discussed at
next meeting.

14. Debate on the question of voting procedures has been most
exhaustive and when it is realised it occurred in procedural
organisation, its length and intensity may on the surface appear
disproportionate to size of issue involved. Also it is probable
that some confusion has been created in Australia by varying
newspaper reports emanating from Paris where there is a host of
reporters everyone of whom is not looking clearly at issues
involved but is attempting to dramatise incidents.

15. The issue really was vital. It went to the root of the
question of utility of conference. Recommendations of conference
have no binding force upon the Council of Foreign Ministers. In
spite of this it emerged in discussions that members of the
Council had agreed to adhere to its decisions on questions of
substance. Therefore in the first place there would be 4 and
probably 5 votes of the Great Powers marshalled against any
amendment proposed to such decisions. To these votes would have to
be added votes of probably 6 Soviet satellites (it having now
become probable that Norway will generally support the Soviet
bloc). Therefore if rule of two thirds majority were to be adopted
unamended there would be no purpose in holding conference for it
would be impossible to obtain the necessary majority to change
decision of the Council on any important question. That would even
be very difficult to obtain a simple majority. if small powers had
allowed this decision to go unchallenged a disastrous precedent
would have been created for peace conferences of Germany and
Japan. For these reasons debate has been long and stubborn.

16. As with Chairmanship, the issue of ultimate result seems
satisfactory when long term view is taken. Decision which was made
conceded substance of small powers proposals and same measure of
concession was offered by Soviet. This decision together with
strong and United opposition offered by smaller nations seems to
have ensured that there will be no repetition of attempt to
introduce such a rule in future.

17. Australia fought very hard throughout the debate to hold
smaller nations together. Although the Minister, for tactical
reasons, did not speak until a late stage in discussion Delegation
was active in supporting rule of simple majority in order to get
recommendation of conference before Council of Foreign Ministers.

Effectiveness of his efforts can be judged by manner in which
middle and smaller nations clung together in face of Soviet
tactics of deliberate intimidation of delegates, fatigue and
refusal to listen to unassailable arguments. But for Australia's
work it seems certain no departure from Council's rule would have
been considered and stubbornness of fight for simple majority rule
ensured acceptance of United Kingdom amendment which is in
accordance with Australian proposal of permitting simple majority
recommendation to come before the Council of Foreign Ministers for
full and final consideration. The truth is that what has been
called procedure in such matters and the restriction of the
rotating chairmanship to a few members and the mention of special
majorities-really in virtue of the right of effective
participation of nations outside the Big Four in the recommending
as distinct from the making of the peace-Soviet tactics having
been persistently intimidatory over all weaker and doubtful states
and as a result the struggle has been long sustained. Australia is
vitally interested in these matters in relation to the Japanese
settlement and a stand for principle has had to be made in order
to protect the future right in relation to Japan as a party
principal, and not sub-ordinate.