As World War II approached its final days in April 1945, delegates from 50 countries convened in San Francisco for the United Nations (UN) Conference on International Organization. The aim of the conference was to discuss and sign the UN Charter, the draft of which had been prepared jointly by the Republic of China (ROC), Soviet Union, United Kingdom (UK) and United States (US) earlier in 1944. Also known as the Dumbarton Oaks proposals (so named due to the location of the meeting among the Allied ‘Big Four’), the draft outlined the new institution’s purposes, membership and organizational structure (‘Dumbarton Oaks’, 1945). The UN would have four principal bodies, namely a General Assembly (UNGA), a Security Council (UNSC), an International Court of Justice and a Secretariat. Significantly for non-major powers such as Australia and Canada, the Dumbarton Oaks proposals appeared to give extensive decision-making powers to the five permanent members of the UNSC – the aforementioned ‘Big Four’ and France. While it was generally accepted that the major powers would primarily be the ones with the responsibility and ability to maintain global peace and consequently ‘must enjoy an authority commensurate with their economic and military resources’, there was also concern over their unchecked influence that could pose a risk to the interests of the smaller countries (Evatt, 1946, pp 27, 106; see also Hilliker, 1990, p 734). In this context, the Australian and Canadian representatives, among others, voiced the opinion that their respective states should be given priority among the non-major powers, for non-permanent seats on the UNSC.

Australia’s claims to ‘special recognition’ in the UN were based on the argument that ‘middle powers’ like itself possessed both the resources and willingness ‘to make practical contributions to security’, as evident in their contributions to the first and second world wars (Evatt, 1946, p 27). Meanwhile, Canadian officials argued for a ‘Middle Power amendment’ to the selection of UNSC non-permanent members (Hilliker, 1990, p 780). As one of the world’s ‘responsible middle powers’, Canada was ‘willing and able to expend lives and resources on a considerable scale towards achieving [the UN’s] purposes’, and hence should be distinguished from other states that, ‘because of small resources, backward political development, or inertia, could not or would not make a sizable contribution’ (Hilliker, 1990, pp 734, 900).