U.N.C.I.O. POSTSCRIPT
SIR,—Mr. Francis Williams does not dispute that the text of the San Francisco Charter leaves the " hidden veto " unimpaired, but draws attention to the agreement announced by Mr. StettiniuS on June 7th to the effect that " no individual member of the Council can alone prevent a consideration and discussion of a dispute or situation . . . brought to its attention " under Article 35. Since the Charter was not signed until nearly three weeks later, it seems strange that the text was not amended in the interval so as to give effect to the " agreement " referred to by Mr. Stettinius. But, quite apart from this, Mr. Williams omits to mention the statement issued on behalf of the Big Five on June 8th. That statement clearly distinguished between the " consideration and dis- cussion " of a dispute brought to the notice of the Council and the " investigation " of such a dispute, and made it plain that the veto applied to a decision to investigate.
The position is, therefore, that not only is the text of the Charter not in conformity with Mr. Stettinius' announcement, but, in view of the Five Power statement issued immediately afterwards, the meaning of that announcement is itself obscure. As the Manchester Guardian commented at the time: "The difference between ' informal ' and `formal' investigation is still a twilight zone, in which the Organisation might well stumble on to dynamite."—Yours, &C. LEONARD STEIN.
4 Brick Court, Temple, E.G. 4.
Previous page
