Security 301.

1. After to-day's meeting of the Security Council Austin indicated
to Hasluck that the Australian amendment would be opposed on two
constitutional grounds-
(a) that the Council cannot transfer jurisdiction to a peace
conference, and
(b) the Council cannot direct peace conference what it should do.

More seriously Brazilian President also told Hasluck privately
that in his opinion the Australian amendment would reduce the
authority of the Council and it would not be possible for him to
accept such an amendment. He would rule to that effect at the
opening of the next meeting of the Council. He promised to show
Hasluck a copy of his written opinion as soon as prepared.

2. We assume that we can readily answer the above objections by
pointing out that the Council has not transferred jurisdiction but
has decided to take certain action subject to the realisation of
certain conditions in the future. Further the Council is not
attempting to bind the peace conference but its members are simply
pledging each other to take a certain stand at the peace
conference. We do not rightly understand Brazilian objection but
assume he considers that Council should not share its sole
jurisdiction on strategic areas with another body which does not
have jurisdiction. We would appreciate your instructions on these
points and would also submit for your consideration that slight
textual modification of our amendment might make much of the
criticism pointless.

2 Oswaldo Aranha of Brazil.

'This agreement will enter into force on the date which the
interim or final treaty etc. becomes binding on Japan.'