A/1/PV.52 General Assembly

We will continue the discussion on the question of the treatment of Indians in the Union of South Africa. VOllS me pardonnerez de qualifier de douteuse. Je fais cette declaration avec toute la deferellce que je dois a certains des orateurs distingues qui se sont appliques ainterpreter des dispositions juridiques, mais qui oublient que les fm'mules juridiqiues ne seront d'aucune assistance aux Hhldous victimes des l11csures de discrimination. Ces formules juridiques n'amelioreront pas les rapports entre l'Asie et l'Union Sud-Africaine. J'exprime l'espoir que l'Assemblee adoptera la resolution franco-mcxicaine. Aucun Etat ami de la paix ne restera sourd al'appel de l'Assemblee, Je veux croire que l'Union Sud-Mricaine, elle aussi, respectera notre decision, et je veux· croire que la voix de cette Assemblee a une autorite egale a celle de la Cour internationale de justice de La Haye. . Soumettons-nous done aux obligations qui devraient etre acceptees et· approuvees par tous ceux qui ont adhere a la Charte. Adoptons la resolution, laquellc declare, j'y insiste, que l'Assemblee generale "estime que le traitement des Hlndous etablis dans I'Union doit etre conforme aux engagements internationaux resultant des accords conclus entre les deux Etats, compte tenu des dispositions de la Charte". La seance est levee a18 h. 55. CINQUAN'fE-DEUXIEME SEAIIJCE PLENIERE Tenue le dimanche'8 decembre 1946, a20 h. 15. TABLE DES MATIERES Pages 138. Traitemcnt des Hindous etablis dan~ l'Union Sud-Africaine. Rapport de la Commission mixte des Premiere et Sixieme Commissions. Resolution (suite de la discussion) 1040 139. Presence de forces armees des Etats Mem- bres des Nations Unies sur des territoires non ennemis. Rapport de la Premiere Commission. Resolution 1062 President: M. P.-H. SPAAK (Belgique). 138. Traitement des Hindous etablis dans I'Union Sud-Africaine. Rapport de la C~mmission mixte des Premiere et Sixieme Commissions. Resolution (suite de la discussion) (documents A/205, A/20S/Add. 11 Le PRESIDENT: Naus allons paursuivre la dis- cussion Sur le traitement des Hindous etablis dans l'Union Sud-Africaine. M. VYCHINSKY (Union des Republique~ socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): n me semble que l'Assemblee generale a examine avec une atterition et un soin suffisants la ques- tion qui figure maintenant a notre ordre du jour, a savoir le traitement des Hindous dans l'Union Sud-Africaine. Cette question a son histoire. Depuis plusieurs dizaines d'annees en Afrique du Sud, aussi bien dans l'Union Sud-Africaine que dans les differentes repu- bliques qui existaient desavant la creation de l'Union, on a pratique systematiquement et on pratique encore la discrimination raciale; d'an· nee en annee, cette discrimination se renforce. devient plus aigue et prend un caractece de plus en plus provocant. D'autres representants ont deja parle ici de cette question; je suis done tenude ne pas repeter tout ce qui a deja ete dit, et de limiter mes remarques a. ce sujet. Cependant, je dois attirer votre attention sur certaines lois: notam- ment la fameuse "loi d'or" de 1904; notamment l'ordonnance de 1908 qui supprimait la liberte de residence des Hindous en les releguant dans certains districts, dans les bazars et dans les quartiers speciaux, et creait ainsi de veritables ghettos; notamment l'ordonnance de 1913 regIe.. mentant l'immigration en Afrique du Sud; Mr. VYSHINSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): It seems to me that the General Assembly has given sufficiently detailed and careful consideration to the question on our agenda dealing with the treatment of Indians in the Union of South Africa. This question has its history. Over a period of many decades, in South Africa as well as in the South African Union, and in the separate South African Republics even before the creation of the Union, discrimination was systematically fostered and continues to be fostered; furthermore, it is increasing year by year, becoming more and more acute and as- suming a more and more provocative and acute character. ' Representatives of other delegations have al- ready spoken here on this subject, and I, of course, must not repeat all that has already been said, and am compelled to limit my remarks on this particular question. I must, however,. draw attention to such laws as the notorious Gold Law of 1904; the Act of 1908, in particular, which deprived Indians of freedom of residence and limited their residence in certain districts to bazaars and special areas, thereby creating real ghettoes; such laws as the Act of 1913 regulating immigration to South Africa; the prohibition of marriage between whites and Indians; the famous Asiatic Law, called the Interim Law, 1939; finally, such measures as the Asiatic Land Tenure Act of 1946, providing for the limitation of the right to occupy land and even, it can be said, depriving Indians of the right to occupy land; the denial of franchise rights to Indian women, although white women enjoy this right; the fixing of a special comparatively high prop- ertyqualification of eighty-four pounds sterli~g; the denial of active franchise rights to the IndIan population with the result that Indians cannot be elected,' and can only elect. As I hav~ said, the Indian population is deprived of the nght to elect Indians in these elections, which are rather nominations and in which non-Indians must be elected. All this is unquestionably a stigma on those who apply such discriJ?inat~on, o? tho~e who establish, approve or mtensIfy thIS regIme of racial discrimination; equally, it is a stigma on those who tolerate such a situation. Indeed, how can one tolerate a situation under which Indians. are forbidden by law to walk on the pavement; this is provided under Article 18 of the 1924 Law. All these are facts. They are not disputed; they are incontrovertible, and' no one here denies them. ,It would, moreover, be difficult to deny these facts because they are undeniable and beyond all dispute. not~mment la loi interdisant les mariages entre blancs et Hindous; notamment la celebre loi asiatique connue sous le nom de Interim Law de 1939; notamment l'or,donnance de 1946 sur les droits a la propriete fondere des personne~ d'origine asiatique, loi quilimite et qui supprime meme, peut-on dire, le droit'des Hindous de pos- seder des terres; la loi qui refuse aux femmes hindoues le droit de vote accorde aux femmes blanches; l'etablissement d'un cens electoral special et comparativement Cleve, egal a quatre- vingt-quatre livres sterling; le refus d'accorder aU:l{ Hindou le droit d'etre clus, de sorte que les Hindousont seulement le droit de vote et ne peuvent clire des Hindous dans ces elections qui sont plut6t des nominations. Ces faits marquent d'une tache noire tous ceux qui pratiquent de pareilles inegalites de traitemerit, tous ceux qui etablissent, qui sou- tiennent, qui renforcent un tel regime de dis- crimination raciale, de meme que tous ceux qui tolerent une pareille situation. Comment, en effet, peut~on tolerer une situation dans laqueIle nous trouvons une disposition legislative pour interdire aux Hindous de marcher sur les trot- toirs, or ced se trouve al'article 18 de la loi de 1924. Ce sont la des faits, des faits incontes- tables et incontestes, des faits que personne ici ne pense a nier. n serait difficile d'ailleurs de discuter ces faits, car ce sont des faits indiscu- tables, et qui ne peuvent appeler aucune discus- sion.n n'y a done rien d~etonnant a ce que-pour employer un langage juridique-l'accuse, sous le poids des charges, decide de ne pas mer There is nothing surprising, therefore, if, to use a legal expression, the accused, under the weight of the evidence,does not venture simply jT:'\n~:fer it from the political to the juridical plane, although of course the matter has a juridi- cal as well as a moral-political aspect. The one does not exclude the other, as Sir Hartley Shaw- cross in particular suggests here, in trying to prove that the matter is not within the compe- tence of the General Assembly or of the United Nations in general and that it is within the com- petence of the International Court. Sir Hardey Shawcross refers to paragraph 7 of Article 2, but what does this say? It says that the Charter, which imposes definite obligations on all the Members of our Organization, in no way au- thorizes the United Nations to intervene in mat- deh~gation sud-africaine ait reussi a le faire, bien qu'eIle ait bCneficie id de l'appui d'un juriste eminent, Sir Hartley Shawcross. Ce1ui-ci a pris a son compte eette tentative de transformer une question politique en question juridique; il s'est mantre un excellent avocat du Gouverne- ment sud-africain, eonsacrant a cette cause un talent et des quaIites incantestables mais dignes d'un meiUeur emploi. Je crois neeessaire de m'arreter a cet aspect de la question et mon intervention se limitera a ce point. La delegation sud-africaine et, en par- ticulier, le marechal Smuts, ne demande plus le rejet de la resolution franco-mexicaine, qui a ete soutenue par la majorite des membres de la Commission mixte des Premiere ct Sixieme Commissions. Ce fait a lui seul est significatif. La delegation sud-africaine ne demande plus que eette resolution soit rejetee, eIle propose un amendement. Cette delegation, en dIet, estime, non sans raison, que si eIle porte l'affaire devant un tribunal, flit-ce la Caul' internationale, si dIe reussit a. la transporter sur le terrain juridique, l'affaire s'enlisera bientot dans un terrain aussi mouvant. Pour ma part, je compte bien que cette aHaire ne sera pas etouffee. Comment, en fait, la delegation sud-africaine pose-t-elle la question? Elle presente un amende- ment qui consiste a demander a la Cour inter- nationale de Justice si les questions soulevees par la delegation de l'Inde relCvent de la juridic- tion interieure de l'Union, au sens de l'Article 2, paragraphe 7, de la Charte. Ce faisant, l'Union Sud-Africaine compte bien obtenir une repanse affirmative. Reponse affirmative, c'est, du moins, le point de vne de Sir Rartley Shawcross. Je rcgrette de ne pouvoir accepter l'interpreta- tian que donne Sir Hartley Shawcross du para- graphe 7 de I'Article 2, ni appuver sa recom- mandation tendant a soumettre l'affaire a la Caul' internationale de Justice, paree que jc ne venx pas etouffcr l'affaire, je ne veux pas la transporter du terrain palitique sur terrain juridi- que. 11 est bien evident que le problcme a non seulement un aspect politique et moral, mais aussi un cote juridique. L'un n'exclut pas l'autre, contrairement a ce que pretend Sir Rartley Shawcross, qui s'efforce de prouver que cette affaire releve de la competence de la COUT inter- nationale de Justice et non de celle de l'Assem- blee generale DU de l'Organisation des Nations Unies. Sir Hartley Shawcross se fonde sur le paragraphe 7 de l'Article 2; que dit ce para- I graphe? 11 stipule que la Charte, qui irnpose I des obligations precises atous les Etats .Membres, n'autorise en aucun cas !cs Nations Unies a. The Indian's Government's complaint against the South Mrican Government, in this matter of a discriminatory regime, is justified in the fullest sense, from the juridical· standpoint, pre- cisely by the fact that it deals with the violation of an inter-governmental, bilateral agreement between the Indians and the South Africans, between the Governments of India and of the LTnion of South Africa. I have in mind the Cape Town Agreement of 1927. I have in mind the Cape Town Agreement of 1932, which confirmed the first agreement. How can it be said that all this falls within the domestic juris- diction of the South African Union, as though India were an integral part of the South Afri- can Union? Is it possible that the designs and aspirations of the Government of South Africa, under the leadership of the honourable Field~ Marshal Smuts, go as far as this? We have before us the inter-governmental, bilateral agreements of 1927 and 1932, agree- ments which place obligations on both parties. There is the agreement which states, for example (and this obligation was undertaken by the Government of the South African Union) : Nous somrnes en presence de deux accords bi- lateraux entre gouvernements, ce1ui de 1927 et celui de 1932, qui imposent des obligations a chacune des deux parties. Dans cet. accord, il y a par exemple la phrase suivante, qui consti- tue un engagement pris par le Gouvernement de l'Union Sud-Africaine: "C'est le devoir de tout Gouvernernent ci- ·vili:;6 de trouver les moyens et de prendre toutes les mesures possibles pour ameliorer la situation materieHe et morale de chaque par- tie de la population permanente du pays, pour·autant qu'il en a le pouvoir et la ppssi- bi1ite." De plus, les deux Gouvernements se sont mis d'accord sur le principe que les Hindous tres nombreux qui continuent a faire partie de la .population permanente du pays doivent bene- fider des mernes possibilites d'instruction et d'education que les autres elements de la popu- lati.on. C'est done la un engagement pris par le "It is the duty of every civilized Govern- ment to devise ways and means and to take all possible steps for the uplifting of every section of their permanent population to the full extent of their capacity and opportu- nities." Further, the two Governments agreed that, in the provision of education and other facilities, the considerable number of Indians who remain part of the permanent population should not be allowed to lag behind other sections of the people. This was an obligation undertaken by the IJ1(Ean Government with regard to a part In these' circumstances, how can it be said that this is a domestic matter of the Union of South Africa, that it comes under domestic jurisdiction and cannot have any significance of an international character, and that it i1> not one of those questions which must be included in the international category? That is why ref- erence to paragraph 7 of Article 2 is unjustified. This reference is also unjustified because the Article states that the Charter does not require Members of the United Nations to submit such matters for examination by the United Nations under the present Charter. It does not say that it forbids the submission of such matters, but only that it does not "require" it. It is therefore optional-that is, at the discretion of the Gov- ernment concerned. The Government concerned found that the right way was to bring the matter here, to the General Assembly of the United Nations. This is the best way, and the Charter itself, and paragraph 7 of Article 2 in particular, leaves it to the discretion of the government concerned. From the juridical point of view, therefore, there are positively no grounds, on the basis of paragraph 7 of Article 2, for rejecting the complaint which has been submitted for the IGeneral Assembly's consideration. I shall conclude. Sir Hartley Shawcross has spoken here of justice; it is not the first time justice has been mentioned. I recall, for in- stance, a speech made by Mr. Hofmeyr, Minister for Industry and Foreign Affairs, Vice-President of the Union of South Mrica, who spoke on this subject in March 1946 before the South African Parliament. He then said, "We attack the Indians in South Africa for looking outside South Africa for help in regard to these matters (that is, matters relating to discrimination). But we forget that most of those local Indians or their ancestors came to South Mrica because of an inter-governmental arrangement". I did not say this; it was said by Mr. Hofmeyr, Vice-Presi- dent of the South Mrican Government. He continued, "They came because we or our prede- cessors wanted them to come. . . . That being so, the Government of India has surely continued to bear some measure of responsibility in regard to these people and the descendants of these people whom it was pressed to allow to come to South Mrica." Justice demands that this historical fact should be clearly established and borne in mind. The justice of which Sir Hartley Shawcross spoke should be secured, as he said, by the institution and organs specially created for this purpose. He had in mind the International Court of Justice, Je conc1us. Sir Hartley Shawcross a pade id de la justice. Ce n'est pas la premiere fois que nous entendons pader de justice. Je voudrais citeI', a ce propos, une declaration faite en mars 1946 devant le Parlement de l'Union Sud~ Mricaine par M. Hofmeyr, Ministre de 1'1n- dustrie et des Affaires etrangeres, Vice-Premier de l'Union Sud-Mricaine, qui s'exprimait en ces termes: "Nous nous elevons contre les Hindous de l'Afrique du Sud qui, pour ces ques- tions (relatives aux discrimination::; raciales), re- cherchent l'appui de l'etranger. Mais nollS oublions que la majorite de ccs Hindous ou de leurs ancetres sont venus en Mrique du Sud a la suite d'un accord intergouverne- mental." Ces paroles ne viennent pas de moi; eHes ont ete prononcees par M. Hofmeyr, Vice- Premier Ministre de l'Union Sud-Africaine qui a poursuivi en ces termes: "Si ccs Hindous sont venus en Mrique du Sud, c'est pour repondre a notre desir ou aceIui de nos prcdcccsscurs . . . Puisqu'il en est ainsi, il est evident que le Gou~ vernemept de I'lnde assume encore une certaine pa:t de responsabilite al'endroit de ces emigres. qUI sont les descendants de ceux qu'll a ct~ oblige de laisser partir pour l'Mrique du Sud." La justice exige que ce fait historique soit bien etal;>li et qu'il reste grave dans notre me- moire. La justice, comme l'a clit Sir Hartley ~ha.wc~oss lui-meme, doit etre rendue par une InstItutIOn et des organes specialement ctablis a cet diet. n pensait ala Cour internationale de La delegation sovietique estime que la justice doit etre rendue effeetivement, qu'el1e doit etre rendue par un tribunal et par un tribunal inter- national; mais ce tribunal international est id, c'est vous, c'est nous taus, c'est notre Organisa- tion qui doit prononcer son verdict. Voila ce que nous voulons; voila ce que nous exigeons. Le PRESIDENT: Je donne la parole a Mme Pandit, representant de l'Inde.

I call upon Mrs. Pandit, representative of India. Mrs. PANDIT (India): When I spoke yesterday, I expressed a hope that the British Commonwealth would at least remain neutral in this controversy, which vitally concerns one of its most important members. But Sir Hartley Shawcross' speech has shattered my hopes. He has spoken in a manner which I consider to be entirely partisan, however full of dialectical skill it may have been. \ Mme PANDIT (Inde) (tradztit de lJanglais): Au cours de mon intervention d'hier, j'ai exprime l'espoir que le Commonwealth britannique observerait au mains la neutralite dans la presente controverse qui touche aux plus graves interets d'un de ses membres les plus importants. Le discours de Sir Rartley Shawcross a renverse mes espoirs; malgre l'habilete dialectique don i1 a fait preuve, il s'est exprime d'une maniere que j'estime tout afait partiale. Je ne re1everai que deux points. Sir Hartle, Shawcross a insinue qu'une resolution adoptee a une faible majorite par la presente Assemblee n'a pas un caractere obligatoire, et il nous propose done de demander un avis a la Cour internationale de Justice. En quoi la decision de la Cour internationale aura-t-elIe un caractere obIigatoire? Si l'on peut faire fi d'une resolution prise solennellement par la presente Assemblee, peut-on affirmer qu'il n'en sera pas de meme pour une dedsion de la COUT intemationale de Justice qui irait a l'encontre des int&ets de I'Dnion Sud-Mricaine? Est-cevraiment ainsi que les Membres de notre grande Organisation, si les decisions prises se trouvent leur etre defavorables, vont affirmer leur respect des resolutions adoptees par l'Assemblee? Je passe au d,euxieme point. Sir Hartley Shawcross fait allusion ?-ux divisions regrettables mais, je l'espere, temporaires, qui existent dans !'Inde et dont la presse americaine fait grand etat aujourd'hui. .le regrette d'avoir a dire que Sir Hartley Shawcross a manque de tact en parIant de ces divisions, car il sait ou devrait savoir qu'elles sont dues pour une grandc pait au role que le Gouvernement britannique, au cours de la longue histoire des relations entre le Royaume-Uni et l'Inde, a joue au milieu des elements divers qui constituent la population de notre pays. Sir Rartley Shawcross a parM de ces divisions avec une gaite manifeste et insouciante. Je laisse a la presente Assemblee le soin de juger par elle-meme. Cependant, je voudrais demander en quoi les remarques auxquelles je fais allusion se rapportent a. la question. A man avis, eUe ne sont qu'une manreuvre visant a detourner du probleme principal l'attention de l'Assemblee. L'Inde, qui lutte pour sa liberte, se trouve en meme temps aux prises aVec des· difficultes inb~rieures dont elle espere fermement triompher. Je ne pensais pas avoir a parler ainsi au- I shall only deal with two points. Sir Hartley Shawcross has made a suggestion that any resolution passed by this Assembly by a narrow majority is not obligatory, and therefore he suggests that we should get a decision from the International Court of Justice. What is obligatory about the decision of the ,International Court? 1£ a solemn resoluti6n of this Assembly can be flouted, what certainty is there that a decision of the International Court, if it goes against the Union of South Africa, will not also be flouted? Is this all the respect that Members of this great Organization are going' to show for resolutions passed by this Assembly if the decisions happen to go against them? The second point which I wish to mention is the reference by Sir Hartley Shawcross to the unfortunate, but, I hope, temporary, differences that exist in India and which are much in ~vi­ dence in the American press today. I regret that I must say that Sir Hartley has not shown good taste in referring to these differences, which he knows, or should know, have been brought about largely by the role which the British Government has played between the various elements in our country during the long history of Indo-British relations. He has referred to these differences with evident and unconcerned glee. I leave this Assembly to form its own view of this. But I should like to ask what is the relevance of these remarks? I submit that they are merely another red herring drawn' across the path of the Assembly to divert attention from the main issue. India is struggling for freedom and is at the same time grappling with her internal difficulties with every hope of overcoming them. , I had not thought it would be necessary for

I call upon Sir Carl Berendsen, representative of New Zealand. Sir Carl BERENOSEN (New Zealand): 1 have felt it necessary to explain in a very few words the attitude of New Zealand towards the consideration in this Assembly of a dispute between two countries with each of which I am happy to say New Zealand is on terms of complete friendship, of mutual respect and regard. Neither my Indian colleague nor my South African colleague will, I know, contest my statement that no country in the world pays a higher regard to human rights or has done more, within its capacity, to establish, to preserve and to further those ri~hts than New Zealand. I wi~h to make it plain at the very outset that. in voting on the question now before us, I shall not be expressing our view on the merits of this dispute. The view that we hold is based on something more fundamental than the issues involved in this dispute. gravely important as those issues are. Our point of view bears upon the functions and the authority of this body, upon which depend not only the Rolution of this dispute. but the future peace and prosperity of mankind. All my collea];ues wiIJ know that there arC certain aspect'! of the Charter of the United Na.. tiom with which New Zealand is in disagreement, and in very 8trollgdisag-reement. But we. and every Member of the United Nations, have accepted that Charter; this Organization is the fruit of the Charter, it operates under the Charter and it is Hmited by the Charter. What that Charter authorizes the United Natiom to do, this Assembly can do. What is not authorized by the Charter is beyond the competence of this Assembly. Le PRESIDENT: le donne la parole a Sir Carl Berepdsen, representant de la Nouvelle- Zelande. . Sir Carl BERENDSEN (Nouvelle-ZClande) (traduit de l'ang1ais) :J'estime qu'il est necessaire d'expliquer tres brievement l'attitude de la Nouvellc-Zclande quant a l'e.xamen, par l'Assemblee. elu litige entre deux pays a l'egard desquels, je suis heureux de le dire, la Nouvelle- Zelande eprouve des sentiments de pat'faite amitie et de respect mntnel. Je sais que ni le representant de l'lnde, ni cclui de l'Union Sud-Africaine ne me contrecliront si j'affirme qu'aucun pays du l110nde n'est plus respectueux des droits de l'homme que la Nouvelle-Zclal1de et n'a davantage contribue, clans la mesure de ses moyens, adcfinir, defendre et etendre ces droits. le tiens adeclarer tout de suite que notre vote sur la question dont nous sammes saisis actuellement n'exprimera pas notre opinion sur le fond du litige. Notre opinion est basee sur une consideration plus impartante que les questions que SQuleve ce litige, si graves qu'elles soient. Nous prenons cn consideration les fonctions et l'autorite de ceUe Assemblee dont dependent, non seulement la solution du litige, mais la paix future et la prosperite de l'hurnanite. Tous mes collcgues savent que la NouveUe- Zelande n'approuve pas certains points de la Charte des Nations Unies et qu'elle les desapprouve m~me fortement. Mais, comme tous les Membres de Nations Unies, nous avons aceepte la Charte; or, l'Organisation est le fruit de la Charte et son activite est reglementee et Iimitee par ceUe Charte. Ce que la Charte permet aux Nations Unies, l'Assemblee peut le faire. Ce qui n'est pas autorise par la Charte depasse la competence de l'Assembh~e. Holding the views we do, that the Assembly should have the widest possible powers, we feeland I am sure nobody will doubt the integrity of our purpose when I explain what the motive i.~ that underlies our attitude on thL'! question-that having regard to those ambiguities and doubts-and no one who has heard this debate tonight can doubt that there -have been doubts, because much of the debate has been elevated to an. explanation of the legal position -it would be most unwise and highly improper for the Assembly to record a decision on the substance of a matter in regard to which there is that present doubt as to its competence, until every proper step has been taken to resolve those doubts. We regard this as fundamental to the sucCe&'l of the Assembly in carrying out its high and sacred task, upon which rest the hopes and the fears of all mankind. It is for those reasons, and in the belief that the first necessity is to clear away any possible doubt as to the widest possible powers of the Assembly, that we feel the first and primary duty to be'to resolve those doubts before we even consider the grave issues involved in the present dispute. What better way is there of resolving those doubts than to refer them to the International Court of Justice, a body of the United Nations, established, among other things, for that very purpose? Nous considerons que c'est la une condition fondamentale pour que I'Assemblee ilUisse accomplir le devoir sacre sur lequel reposent les espoirs et les craintes de l'humanite. C'est pour ces raisons, et dans la conviction que la premiere tache consiste a climincr tous lesdoutes concernant les pouvoirs les plus etenclus de l'AssembIee, que nons estimolls que llotre premier et plus clementaire devoir est d'eclaircir ces doutes avant meme d'examiner les graves questions que pose le present litige. Quel meilleur moyen d'eclaircir ces doutes que de les soumettre a la Cour internationa1e de Justice, organe des Nations Unies qui, entre autres fins, a ete justement cree pour ceIa. C'cst done pour ces motifs, et nuls autres, que jc me propose de voter contre la resolution proposee par la Commission, et en faveur du projet d'amendement. Tt is for those reasons, and for no other reasons, that I propose to vote against the resolution proposed by the Committee and in favour of the proposed amendment. Le PRE SIDENT; Je donne la parole it M. Arc~" representant de l'Argentine.

I call upon Mr. Arce, representative of Argentina. M. ARCE (Argentine) (traduit de l'espc.- gnol): Nous Argentins. d'origine latine, nOU3 sommes, autant que quiconque, sensibles aux sentiments humanitaires, surtout lorsqu'on les exprime avec l'e.toquence et l'emotion dont vien·· nent de faire preuve certains orateurs, parmi lesquels je me plais a mentionner les representants des Philippines, du Panama, et tr28 par- .ticulierement Mme Pandit, notre distinguee Mr. ARC)'; (Argentina) (translated from 8/Janish): Being of Latin origin, we Argentinians are as susceptible as anyone to the influence of human feelings, especially when they are expressed with the eloquence and emotion displayed by some previous speakers, amongst whom I am pleased to mention the representatives of the Philippine Republic and of Panama, and particularly Mrs. Pandit, our distinguished

The general discussion. is closed, We shall now prdceed to the vote. Before doing so, I think it my duty to draw the Assembly's attention to the question whether the subject on which we are going to vote requires a two-thirds majority or not. I would refer to Article .18, paragraph 2, of th~ Charter, whieh states: "Decisions of the Le PRESIDENT: La discussion generale est close, Nous allons passer au vote. Avant de le faire, je crois de mon devoir d'attirer l'attention de l'AssembIee sur le point de savoir si la matiere au sujet de laquelle nous allons voter exige ou non la majorite des deux tiers. Je me refere al'Article 18 de la Charte, dont le paragraphe 2 declare: "Les decisions de l'h- I call upon Mr. Nicholls, representative of the Union of South Africa. M. NICI-IOLLS (Union Sud-Africaine) (traduit de l'anglais): Je pense que l'Assemblee ne peut conserver aucun doute sur l'importance de ceUe question. C'est cette importance plus qu'aucun autre aspect de la question que taus les orateurs ont mise en relief avec vigueur au, cours de ces debats. En fait, presque tous les orateurs 1'ont soulignec; je ne pense pas qu'on puisse le nier. Le representant du Mexique, par cxemple, est alle jusqu'a dire que c'etait la ques~ tion la plus important de notre epoque. D'autres ont declare qu'elle touchait aux bases memes de notre Organisation. , La procedure de notre Organisation a ete soigneusement etablie afin d'assurer un accord aussi complet que possible, sur toutes les questions importantes. On a decide qu'il faudrait la majorite des deux tiers, afin que la protection des minorites soit assuree par le fait que le poids entier 'de 1'Organisation appuiera toutes les decisions d'importance. Nous sommes sur le point de prendre une decision tres importante, une decision qui etablira le droit fondamental d'tm Etat Membre a hire appel a la Cour internationale de Justice. Un privilege de cette sorte, l'Union Sudafricaine l'accorde au dernier des criminels: il a le droit, queUe que soit sa race, sa croyance, sa langue ou sa couleur, de faire appel a l'instance juridique supreme. Si nous devions traiter cette question comme aJfaire d'importance scconclaire ou une bagatelle, par cxcmple comme un accuse de reception de documents, ce debat se reduirait azero. Ce serait prodamer que toute ceUe discussion est futile; si bien que le monde pourrait s'etonner que nous y ayons depense tant d'ardeur et une part si importante du temps de l'Assemblee. Si nous ne suivions pas ici la regIe de la majorite des deux tiers, nous aboutirions a enlever toute valeur a la procedure conltue pour protegeI' une petite nation contre un vote a la majorite simple lorqu'il s'agit d'une question vitale,d'une question qui touche l'existence meme de cette nation. Mr. NICI-IOLLS (Union of South Africa): I think the Assembly cannot possibly be in any doubt as to whether this is an important matter or not. No single aspect of this debate has been more emphatically and more unanimously expressed than its importance. Practically every speaker has referred to the fact of its importance. ' That, I think" cannot be denied. The repr~en­ tative of Mexico, for instance, went so far as to say that it was the most important question of our time. Others have said that it strikes at the very roots of the Organization. The procedure of the Organization has been carefully devised in order to ensure the greatest measure of 'agreement on all matters of importance. It was agreed that a two-thirds majority' was necessary so that the full weight of the Organization might be behind every important decision as a protection for minorities. We are about to take a very important decision, a decision which will determine the fundamental rights of a Member State to appeal to the International Court of Justice. Such is the privilege which South Africa affords to the commonest criminal-an appeal to the highest courts of the land, whatever his race, creed, language or colour may be. If the subject were to be treated as a minor matter, as a mere trifle, like the receipt of a document, it would reduce this debate to a nullity. It would amount to a declaration that all that has been said in this debate is of such a trivial character as to make the world wonder why it has generated such heat and occupied so many hours of the Assembly's time. By not accepting the two-thirds majority here, we should stultify the rules of procedure devised to protect a small nation from the vote of a mere majority on a matter which is vital to it, vital to its own existence. Le PRESIDENT: Je donne la parole a M. Chagla, representant de l'Inde.

I call upon Mr. Chagla, representative of India. Mr. CgAGLA (India): In my opinion, the question which we 'are discussing is not so impor- M. OUAGLA (Incle) (traduit de l)anglais) : A mon avis, la question que nous discutons n,a "Decisions of the General Assembly on important questions shall be made by a twothirds majority of the Members present and voting. These questions shall include: recommendations with respect to the maintenance of international peace and securit)', the election of the non-permanent members of the Security Council, the election of the members of the Economic and Social Council, the election of members of the Trusteeship Council in accordance with paragraph 1 c of Article 86, the admission of new :Mclllbers to the United Nations, the suspension of the rights and privileges of membership, the expulsion of Members, questions relating to the operation of the trusteeship system, and budgetary questions." If Article 18 stopped there, then undoubtedly the form in which this Article appears would lead one to believe that the defini.tion is illustrative but not exhaustive; but when one turns to paragraph 3 of the same Article the position is entirely different. That paragraph reads: "Decisions on other questions, including the determination of additional categories of questions to be decided by a two-thirds majority, shall be made by a majority of the members present and voting," That clearly makes the category contained in paragraph 2 exhaustive. That category can only be added to by a majority of the Members present and voting. That. I ~\lbl1lit, is perfectly clear. The question which I would address to myself is this: Should the lvlcmbers of the Asscmbl~. by a majority, decide to add to the category ~hicil is enumerated in Article 18, paragraph 2? In other words, the question which we arc going to ask ourselves is whether the matter before us is important, important within the meaning of Article 18. ' Every question that the Assembly discusses is important. We do not waste our time discussing unimportant questions. But Article 18, paragraph 2, gives you an indication of what those who drafted the Charter felt were im. portant matters, and if you look at the clauses mentioned there, you will see that they are an indication of what are important matters. If you· study each one of those, you will find that the matters which we are discussing are not important from that point of view. What are the two matters which we are discussing? Let us first of all look at the main re.sollltion, the resolution which has been reported by the Joint First and Sixth Committee. In its operative part, the resolution merely requests the two Governments to report at the next ni.~ation; la suspension dt~ droit" ct pri\'m~gcs de },{cmbrcs; I'cxclusion de 1fcmbre$; lcs questions relatives au fonctionnement du regime de tutcllc et les questions budgctaircs." Si l'Article 18 s'arrctait id, la forme dans laq\leIIe il se presente ferait penscr que la definition est explicative, mais non limitative. Tout(~­ fois, q nand on jette un coup d'reil sur le paragraphe 3 du mcme Article, on change d'avis. Ce paragraphe, en effet, renfermc ces mots: "Les decisions sur d'autres questions, y rompris la determination de nouvelles categories de questions a trancher a la majoritc des deux tiers, seront prises a la rnajoritc des Membres presents et votant.c;," 11 cn resuIte nettcmcnt qul' la catC,!{ori(' dt:$ CllIcstions enumerees au paragraphe 2 est Hmit<lth'e. SeuJe la majoritc des Mcmbrcs presents ct Yotants peut y ajouter. J'estimc que r<:la tst parfaitement clair, ]1.' me demandc done si les :Memhn~ de rA". scmblce devraiellt decider, par un vote pri:-; a la majoritc, d'ajouter de<; questions it la categorie qni figure au paragraphe 2 de I'Al'tidc 18; OU, Cll d'autrcs termes, HOllS d('vons HOlls dC'mander si la question est importantt', au sen~ 011 l'rIltend I'AItide 18. Toute que.'ltinl1 que l'A~cmbl(-e dis('llte ec:t ~ll1portante;. nollS ?c perdons pas notrc tem~ a en examIner qUI ne le soient pas. 1\Jais le paragraphe 2, Artide 18, donne tine idee de re que les auteurs de la Chartc ronsidfraicnt ('omme q ue~tions. importantes. LC:',s dispositions de eet Article, SI on l.cs ex~mine bien, re\'rlent qu('lIes sont les questIOns Impoliantcs. Si l'on etudi\' c.hacnne d'entrc el~es, on s'aper\oit que l~ qur-:- tlOns qu~ nODS tr.utons ne sont pas imp()rtant~, de cc pomt de vue. QueUes sont les deux questions dont nOllS dis~ cu~on.s? Tout d'abord, examinons la resolution pnnclp,ale. c~ll.e qui. a fait l'ohjet d'un rapport de la CommISSIon I11lxte de.'! Premil'rt~ (~t Sixieme Commissions. Le dispositif de la r6lo1ution n'a pOUf eff'et que de demander aux deux GOllyeme- The Assembly has suspended action; it wants to know what South Africa has done regarding discriminative legislation, and it is only at the next session, if the South Mrican Government has not acted, that the Assembly would call it to account. If the question comes up, it might be argued with considerable force that it would be a matter of such importance as is contemplated by Article 18. Let us turn to the amendment. The amendment asks for a reference of the matter to the International Court of Justice for its opinion. No action is to be taken. South Africa is merely asking for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. It seems to be most dangerous to go on adding to the category given in Article 18, paragraph 2. We believe, or assume to believe, in democracy and in the rule of the majority, and it is only in specific cases that the makers of the Charter thought that, for the protection of the minority, a two-thirds majority was necessary. I do appeal to you, independently of the present question, not to lay down the principle whereby. the category of cases requiring two-thirds majority would be increased. We should be most careful and re, luctant about this; it is only in exceptional cases, where drastic action is taken against a Member and is in order to protect that 1I1ember from a bare majority, that the category should be added to. ~ Therefore, I do ask you, if this question is to be put to the vote, that is, the question whether this matter should be put into the category requiring the two-thirds majority, not to vote in support. Le PRESIDENT: Je tiens a attirer l'attention de l'Assembh~e sur l'importance de la decision ,qu'elle va prendre. C'est la premiere fbis, depuis la reunion de Londres,que nous avons a prendre une telle decision. Nous alIons certainement Creel' un precedent. A moins que quelqu'un ne demande encore la parole, je vais donc consulter l'AssernbIee sur le point de savoir si e1Ie estime que la question en discussion est importante au sens de I'Article 18. . Je donne la parole a Riad Bey, representant de l'Arabie saoudite.

I would draw the Assembly's attention to the importance of the decision it is about to take. This is the first time since the London meeting that we have had to take such a decision. A precedent will undoubtedly be created. If no one else wishes to speak, I shall consult the Assembly on the question whether it considers 'that the matter now before it is important in the sense of Article 18. I call upon Riad Bey, representative of Saudi Arabia. RIAD Bey (Arabie saoudite) (traduit de l'anglais) : La question qui fait en ce moment l'obiet de nOIl debats n'est pas ce vaste probleme qui nous a ete soumis et que nous avons deja longuement discute. C'est une question d'ordreiuri- RIAD Bey (Saudi Arabia): The point under discussion now is not that large question that was put before us and has been discussed at length. It is a legal question and is quite separate from the question we have been discuss- I would say, first of all, that the important questions are exceptional, and as such must be interpreted very strictly, and not in a large or broad spirit. You must not create a precedent for this question, for which, whatever side you take, you can find a very simple solution." One solution is to ask the two Members of this big family to arrive at a settlement, alld the other solution is to ask the International Court to give a verdict. Let us assume this and assume also that important questions are exceptional. After paragraph 2 of Article 18 has mentioned these exceptional cases, paragraph 3 deals not with questions, but categories of questions. . When the Charter was drafted, there was' never any thought of putting individual questions before us. Otherwise, you would have presented the question of simultaneous translation yesterday as an "important qllestio:o" and asked us, before the vote, whether or not it was 'important. Simultaneous translation saves our time, cutting it by a third, helps us to understand what we discuss; yet nobody asked if it were an important question or not. It does not enter that category. Paragraph 2 says that these questions shaJJ include: recommendations with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, elections, rights and privileges of membership, expulsion. Then paragraph 3 was added, which mentions two sorts of ideas. One deals with "decisions on other questions". It mentions questions: that means individual questions, Again, when it speaks about the majority of . two-thirds, it uses another word, another qualification: it mentions "categories", It says: "including the determination of additional categories of quesj:ions." It does not say, "additional questions", but "additional categories of questions". If, therefore, you wish to regard this as an important question, the vote must be preceded by another vote, to add as a, category all questions such as regulations for resort to the Court, or asking the Court for an opinion, or all questions regarding disputes of that kind. There must first of all be a category, then a question. Article 18 says, "decisions on other questions," employing the word "questions". Then it uses another expression: "including the determination of additional categories of questions to be decided by a two-thirds majority." We must therefore add a category into which t11is question of the Indians in South Africa will enter. We vote first, then, on the category,. and the question will come afterwards. But, by calling L'Article 18 mentionne les "decisions sur d'autres questions" et emploie dans ce cas le mot "questions", puis il se sert d'une· autre expression: "y compris la determination de nouvelles categories de questions a trancher a la majorite des deux tiers", Nous devons done ajouter une nouvelle categorie, dans laquelIe entrera cctte. question des Hindous de l'Mrique du Sud. PUIS, nous mettrons aux voix la crea- I think it is very important to submit to the consideration of my able and learned colleagues, especially the jurists, that this matter is important, that we cannot vote for individual questions, but for categories of questions. When the category is important, then any questions entering this category will be important. Le PRESIDENT: Je donne la parole a. M. L6pez, representant de la Colombie. "The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I call upon Mr. L6pez, representative of Colombia. Mr. LOPEZ (Colombia): The amendment submitted by the delegation of the Union of South Africa calls for a request to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion, and Article 96 of the Charter provides that the General Assembly or the Security Council may request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question. M. LOPEz (Colorobie) (traduit de l'anglais): L'amendement presente par la <;Ie](~gation de l'Union Sud-Africaine tend a demander un avis consultatif a la Cour internationale de Justice; et l'Article 96 de la Charte prevolt que l'Asserriblee generale ou le Conseil de sccurite peuvent demander a la Cour internationale de Justice un avis consultatif sur toutes questions d'ordre juridique. A mon avis, l'Article 96 montre clairement qu'une demande d'avis consultatif n'entre pas dans la categorie des questions importantcs exigeant une majorite des deux tiers, mais constitue, au contraire, une question qui doit ctre decidee a la simple majorite. En outre, nous etablirions un precedent extrcmement dangereux, nuisible au bon fonctionnement de notre Organisation, si, par decision de l'Assemblce generale, nous stipulions qu'une demande d'avis consultatif a la Cour internationale de Justice exige une majorite des deux tiers. It seems clear enough to me that Article 96 shows that a request for an advisory opinion, is not one of those important questions which call for a two-thirds majority vote, but, on the contrary, is one that should be decided by a majority vote. Moreover, we should be establishing a most dangerous precedent, contrary to the ,best functioning of this Organization, if, by a decision of the Gen~ral Assembly, we were to establish the precedent that requesting the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion requires a two-thirds majority vote. Le PRESIDENT: Je donne la parole a M. Mac- Eachen, representant de l'Uruguay.

I call upon Mr. MacEachen, representative of Uruguay. M. MAcEACHEN (Uruguay) (traduit de l'anglais): Tout d'abord, je tiens adeclarer que la delegation de l'Uruguay a vote en faveur de la resolution de la Commission, laquelle est favorable au point de vue exprime par la delegation de l'Inde. Je suis monte a la tribune, parce que nouS savons que cette question presente une grande importance. Contrairement a l'avis exprime par le representant de la Colombie, j'estime qu'une majorite des deux tiers constitue une garantie pour les petites nations. Dne simple majoritc peut s'obtenir facilement. Il me semble que l'important est de savoir si la question qui nous est soumise entre dans la categorie envisagee al'Article 18, paragraphe 2, DU se trouvent ces mots: "recommandations relatives au maintien de la paix internationale". Je n'ai pas assiste aux reunions de la Commission mixte, mais le representant de notre delegation, qui a assist€ a ces reunions, m'a appris que la delegation de l'Inde a presente la question comme ayant une tres grande importance, parce que les relations entre les deux pays interesses se trouvaient. en jeu, et que, par conse- Mr. MACEACHEN (Uruguay): At the outset, I want to declare that Uruguay has voted for the resolution of the Committee which is in favour of the Indian point of view. We come to the rostrum because we understand that the matter now under discussion is of great importance. Contrary to the views expressed" by the representative of Colombia, I think that a two-thirds majority is a guarantee to small nations. Simple majorities may be easily obtained. It seems to me that the important question is to know whether the subject matter before us is one that falls within the category contemplated in Article 18, which in .paragraph 2, mentions, "recommendations with respect to the maintenance of international peace." I did not attend the meetings of the Joint Committee, but the representative from our delegation who did attend those meetings has informed me that the Indian delegation presented its case as a very serious one, because the relations between the two, cO,untries were affected, and consequently,

I call upon Mr. Arce, representative of Argentina. 111'. ARGE (Argentina) (translated from ~ jJlwish): I am guing to satisfy the representative of Saudi Arabia. Let us establish a category: whenever there is a question of the General Assembly of the United Nations wishing to intervene in matters which, it is suspected, may be within the domestic jurisdiction of a State-this being the most important question of all for protecting the life of this Organization-a two-thirds majority shall be required. I challenge all the small and medium-sized countries represented here to tell me whether the possibility of the General Assembly of the United Nations wishing to intervene by political action III the internal affairs of a small country is an important question or not. I would ask the President to take note that I should like to establish a new category; this will satisfy the representative of Saudi Arabia. Whenever a question arises on which there is a doubt whether this Assemblv is entitled or not to intervene in national affairs, this shall be an impul'tant question requiring a two-thirds majority, Otherwise we of the small nations are left at the mercy of any political combination. The Security Council with its power of veto would be a small matter compared with such a formidable possibility; wc should have created a second veto for all the small nations. I profoundly regret having to disagree with my distinguished friend and colleague, the former President of Colombia, and head of that country's delegation; but I cannot admit, in the l:ame ~f the country I represent, that the questlon of mtervention or non-intervention-for that is tbe real issue-in the domestic affairs of one of our countries-one of the small countries-is all unimportant one. "'!e can also prove things by a reductio ad adsu,.dum. I should like to ask the representative of India, whose dialectical and legal skill have been impressively demonstrated, to tell me whether he really believes that 'a discussion on whether Mr. Lie should have two rather than tllre~ ~mployees, wl1ich is a budgetary question reqUlrmg .t~o-thirds majority, is more important tha~l deCldmg whether the Assembly of the Unlted Nations may intervene in the internal affairs of a country. As I said before proof can also be provided by reductio ad ads~rdum. In concludin,e: this short statement, which I regret I had to make with the ardour of a per- Le PRESIDENT: Je donne la parole it M. Arce, representant de l'Argentine. M. ARCE (Argentine) (traduit de l'espagnol): Je vais faire plai.<:ir au repr6:entant de l'Arabie saoudite. Nous allons etablir une categorie de questions: chaque fois que l'Assemblce generale d6sirera intel"Venir dans des affaires qui peuvent etre considerees comrne affaires interieures d'un pays, question importantc entre toutes si Pon veut assurer l'existence de notre Organisation, on exigera la majoriiC des deux tiers. Je fais appel a tous les Etats, petits et moyens, id representes, et leur demande si la possibilite que PAs..~mbIee p;eneraIe vcnille intervenir par une action politique dans les affaires interieures d'un petit pays, constitue ou non une question importante. Je vous demande, Monsieur le President, de nnt"r qu(' je cl~sire etablir id nne nouveIle categorie; le representant de l'Arabie saoudite sera ainsi satisfait. Chaque fois qu'il s'agira de savoir si cette Assemblee a ou non le droit d'intervenir dans une question de carartere national. nou~ serons en face d'une question important(' qui exigera la majoritc des deux tiers. S'i! n'en ctait pas ainsi, nous, petite.., nations, now: trouvc-rinl1s n. la merd de n'importe queUe roalition politique, eventualite fonnidable en comparaisoll tie laquelle le Conseil de securitc et son droit dc veto seraient peu de cho~e, car nailS aurion~ eree un nouveau droit de veto it l'encontre de toutes le." petites nations. Je regrette beaucoup d'ctre en camplet dr.<~ac­ cord avec mon cher ami et col1e~u(". l'anc'icn Pr~~i(knt de In Colomhie. chef cll' la d€lt;gation colombienne; maL~ je ne puis aclmrttre. nu nom du pays que je reprel'cnte, que Pon romcic!h€' comme une qUl'l'tion sans imPDrtanre le fait de s'immiscer Oll non-car c'est bien de ceIa qu'il s'agit-dans Ics affaires interiellres de l'un de nos pays, de l'un des petits pays. D'autl'e part, pour emploYer une demonstration par l'absurd-e, je desire demander au repre- ~en.t~t de PInde, dont l'habilete dialectique et J~ll1dlque est manifeste, s'il pc-miC que la que.<;- tlOn de savoir si M. Lie doit avoir ur.lIX S('C'I"<"- tai,res au lieu. ~e trois, que.<;tion budgetaire qui eXlge un~ deCISIOn a la majorite des deux til'l"S. ~~t plus Importante que la question de savoil' si I A~semblee des Nations Unies peut intcl'venir ~~n.s, les, affaircs interieurcs d'un pays? Je le I epete, c est la preuve par l'absurde. Pour conclure, j'exprime le vif regret d'~tre oblige d'user d'une telle veht~men("e pour de- I should therefore like to make a formal motion on a point of order and propose that, whenever it is to be ascertained whether intervention in a country's internal or domestic affairs whieh are not specifically referred to in the Charter, is permissible or not, this shall be an important question within the meaning of Article ] 8, and shall therefore require a twothirds majority. Le PRESIDENT: Avant de donner la parole aux orateurs qui se sont fait inscrire, je voudrais essayer de ramener le calme dans le d€bat. Des questions politiques peuvent nous passionnel': les questions de procedure doivent nous laisser de sang-froid; il ne faut pas oublier d'ailleurs que la ma.joritepeut changer de camp et qne les regles de procedure ant pour objet de protegeI' la minorite. Je rense que le representant de l'Arabie saOHdite a clairement demontrc qu'il n'y avait pas Heu, en cette occasion, de faire application du paragraphe 2 de l'Article ]8 de la Charte et qu'en fait cette disposition visait non pas des questions prises individuellement, mais des cate~ gories de questions. Je crois honnctement que la demonstration est convaincante. Mais je pense que le representant de l'Uruguay a fort bien pose la question a son tour en demandant a l'Assemblee si dIe considerait que ce qu'elIe discute en cc moment interesse ie mainticn de la paix et de la securite internationales. Permettez-moi de vous re1ire l'Article 14 de la Charte, qui est ai~si con9u:

Before calling on the speakers who have put down their names,·I should like to try to restore a little serenity to the discussion. Political questions may cause our passions to run high; procedural questions should leave us calm, because it should not be forgotten that the majority is liable to change and that the object of rules of procedure is to protect the minority. I think that the representative of Saudi . Arabia has clearly shown that, on this occasion, there is no reason to apply Article 18, paragraph 2, of the Charter, and that, in fact, the terms of that paragraph refer not to questions taken individually, but to categories of questions. I honestly believe that this has been convincingly demonstrated. But I think that the representative of Uruguay in his turn made a good point in asking the Assembly if it considered that the matter under discussion was concerned with the maintenance of international peace and security. Allow me once more to read to you Article 14 of the Charter, which is as follows: "Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the General Assembly may recommend meas- "SOllS reserve des dispositions de l'Article 12, l'Assemblt~e generale peut recommander les me..<;ures propres a. assurer l'ajustement pacifique de toute situation, quelle qu'en soit l'origine. qui lui semble de nature a nuire au bien general ou a compromettre les relations cllnicales entre nations, y compris le.s ::;;tU;Itions resultant d'une infraction aux dispmdtions de la presente Charte ou sont enonces les buts et les principes des Nations Urues." Je crois que, si vous rapprochez, comme cela doit ctre fait, l'Article 14 de la Charte avec le paragraphe 2 de l'Article·] 8 et surtout avec cette expression "les recommandations relatives an maintien de la paix et de la securite internationales", la situation que nous sommes en train d'examiner s'eclaire. lilTS for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations, including situations resulting from the violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations". I consider that if, as we should, we read Article 14 of the Charter in conjunction with paragraph 2 of Article 18 and primarily with the expression "recommendations with respect of the maintenance of international peace and security", the situation before us becomes clearer. I should like to mention to the representative of Argentina that it is obviously impossible for UR to follow his suggestion to create a new categot'y of questions in whichthe General Assembly would intervene in the domestic affairs of a .Te voudrais faire observer au representant de l'Argentine qu'il DOUS est evidemment impossible de le suivre dans la voie Oll il voudrait nom conduire, en proposant de ereer une l10uvelle categorie, ceUe des questions dans lesque1Jcs I call upon Mr. Lapez, representative of Colombia, Mr. LOPEz (Colombia): I do not propose to argue out the case which my distinguished friend, the Chairman of the Argentinian delegation, has tried to make. I take it for granten that the Assembly remembers very well that I said nothing, that I implied nothing, which might authorize him to represent me as holding the opinion that interference in the domestic affairs of a State is not an important matter; at least I do not remember having said such 3. thing. My remark referred to Article 96 of the Charter, which I am going to read again, as I shall base on this same Article my additional remarks. The Article reads: "The General Assembly or the Security Council may request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question." What is the matter that we have under consideration? A request to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion. Why is it that the South African delegation wants the opinion, and why is it that the representatives who support that contention want an opinion, from the International Court of Justice? Why do they want to make it impossible to request that opinion, by insisting that it be requested by a twothirds majority? Why not give the Assembly the opportunity to request that opinion by a majority vote, which is the easiest way to act on that request? I am sorry to disagree with my friend Mr. Arce. He wants to protect the rights of the small nations; but in this case I find that the protect1on of the Indian population in South Africa does not require a two-thirds majority but a majority vote. Whichever way we take it, if we want to have an opinion from the Court the ca:-;icst way to get it is by a majority vote: If. as a general rule, the protection of the srn.al! countries lies in their ability to request an opinion from the Court. we should make it ea~i(..r and not more difficult to request that OpInIOn. The PRESlng?,T (translated from French): The representative of El Salvador is the la.'Jt speaker on the list. I propose that the Assembly sh~u!d nro~e~d to the vote when this representatlVe has fimshed his speech. Mr. CASTRO (El Salvador): I was somewhat reluctant to take part in this debate because, M. LoPEZ (Colombie) (traduit de l'anglais) : Je n'ai pas l'intention de refuter ici la these que mon distingue collegue, le president de la delegation de l'Argentine, a essaye de soutenir. Je suis certain que l'AssembIee se souviendra parfaitement que je n'ai rien dit ni laisse entendre qui puisse autoriser mon collegue a me representer comme partisan de l'opinion que l'intervention dans les affaires interieures d'un Etat ne constitue pas une affaire importante. En tout cas, je ne me souviens nullement d'avoir dit quoi que ce soit dans ce sens. Les observations que j'ai faites se rapportaient 11 l'Article 96 de la Charte. Je vais en donner a nouveau lecture, car cet Article servira de fondement ames nouvel1es remarqnes. L'Article est rcdige ainsi qu'il suit: "L'Assemblee generale ou le Conseil de securitc peut demander a la Cour internationale de Justice un avis consultatif sur toute question juridique." Or, qu'avons-nous 11 examiner? Une requete ala Caul' intel'nationale de Justice pour obtenir de cene-ci un avis consultatif. Pour queUe raison la delegation de l'Union Sud-Mricaine desiret-elle, pour queUe raison les representants qui partagent le meme point de vue desirent-ils obtenir un avis consultatif de la Cour internationale de Justice? Pourquoi cherchent-ils a rendre cette demande impossible en exigcant qu'elle soit votee a une majorite des deux tiers? Pourquoi ne pas permettre a 1'Assemblee de demander eet avis consultatif a la majorite simple, ce qui serait, en l'espece, la fagon la plus simple de proceder? Je regrette de ne pas etre d'accord avec man ami M. Arce. Celui-ci desire proteger les droits des petites nations; clans le cas present, cepencl~nt, j'estime gue ~a protection de la population hmdoue de l'Union Sud-Africaine n'exige pas l~ majorite des deux tiers, mais bien la majorite sl:l1ple. De quelque maniere que nOllS exami- 1110ns la question, si nous desirons obtenir l'avis de la Cour, l.a fa~on la plus simple d'y parvenir est ~e recouTl; au vote ala majorite simple. SI en general, la protection des petits pavs reside dans la possibilite qui leur est accordee de de.mander un avis a la Cour, il nous faut tout f~lre .pour rendre plus facile, et non pas plus di1?ctle, la procedure permettant d'obtenir cet aVIs. Le PRESIDENT: Le representant du Salvador est le ;Iemier orateur inscrit. Je propose a l'Assemblee de passer au vote lorsque ce representant aura termine son discours. ~. CASTRO (Salvador) (traduit de l'anglms) : Je prends la parole" apres que1que hesita- For instance, I do not think that there is any great difference or any such divergence of opinion between the remarks made by the representative of Argentina and the representative of Colombia, because they seem to be referring to two entirely different things. In fact, we have two different resolutions before us, and one of the representatives seems to be referring to one and the other representative to the other. I share the opinion of the representative of Uruguay, and I want to say a little about the same question. In fact, there is no doubt that, as regards the Franco-Mexican proposition, which refers to the question of substance presented by the delegation of India, it is absolutely necessary to regard it as a very important question and as a question that has to do with the maintenance of international peace and security. In order to prove this assertion, I shall read the first part of the Franco-Mexican resolution: Je partage l'opinion exprimee par le l:epresentant de I'Uruguay et desire ajouter que1ques mots sur le meme sujet. I1 ne fait aucun doute que la proposition de la France et du Mexique, relative a la question de fond soumise par la delegation de l'Inde, doive necessairement etre consideree comme une question tres importante, une questioI1 qui concerne le maintien de la paix et de la securite internationales. A l'appui de ce que j'avance, je me contenterai de lire la premiere partie de la resolution presentee par la France et le Mexique : "L'Assemblee generale, "Prenant acte de la demande formulee par le Gouvernement de l'lnde et relative au traitement des Hindous etablis dans I'Union Sud-Africaine, et apres examen de la question, "Constate qu'en raison de Ce traitement les relations de bonne amitie entre les deux Etats Membres des Nations Unies se trouvent alterees et risquent de s'alterer encore davantage a l'avenir, si un accord satisfaisant n'est pas realise." Voila pourquoi cette importante question tombe sous le coup de l'Artic1e 18, en vertu duquel une majorite des deux tiers est necessaire pour les questions comme ce11e-d: "les recommandations relatives au maintien de la paix et de la securite internationales". Si les relations entre l'Union Sud-Africaine et l'lnde ont ete alterees en raison de la question que nous discutons, il est naturel que la r,ecommandation contenue dans la proposition de la France et du Mexique vise a retablir les relations amicales entre les deux pays et que, par consequent, elle concerne le maintien de la paix et de la securite internationales. En outre, en vertu du paragraphe 2 de l'Article 18, cette resolution devra faire l'objet d'un vote a la majorite des deux tiers. Nous en. arrivons maintenant a l'amendement propose par la delegation de l'Union Sud-Mri- .caine. Cet amendement ne touche qu's. une simple question de procedure. I1 s'agit de demander un avis consultatif a la Cour internationale de Justice, et non de lui demander de se prononcer sur le fond; la Cour ne tranchera que la question de competence. C'est une procedure simple que de demander cet avis consultatif afin de pouvoir poursuivre la discussion du "The General Assembly, "Having taken note of the application made by the Government of India regarding the treatment of Indians in the Union of South Africa, and having considered the matter: "States that, because of that treatment, friendly relations between the two Member States have been impaired, and unless a satisfactory settlement is reached, these relations are likely to be further impaired." That is why this important question comes under Article 18, which requires a two-thirds majority for such questions as the following: "recommendations with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security." If the relations between the Union of South Mrica and India have been impaired on account of the question that we are debating, it is natural that the recommendation that is made in the Franco-Mexican proposition is intended to re-establish friendly relations between the two countries, that it therefore has to do with the maintenance of international peace and security, and that therefore, according to paragraph 2 of Article 18, this resolution will require a twothirds .majority. But now we come to the amendment proposed by the South African delegation. That amendment has to do with a question of simple procedure. It is a question of asking for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, which will not decide the question of substance; it will simply decide the question of competence. It is a simple procedure to ask for an advisory opinion in order to continue the discussion of the question and to decide upon the jurisdiction. I "Decisions on other qucstions, including "Les decisions ~ur. d'autres questIOns'ti the dete~mi;lation of additional categories of con;pris la det?rmm,atlOn de n?urell'esa '~rit6 (uestions to be decided by a two-thirds magones de ~uestlOns a t:anc?er a a. m, ! des .1 .'t I sllall ])c made by a maJ'ority of the des deux tIers, sont pnses a la maJonte lUll), ,. , t t" 'Members present and voting." membres presents et vo an s. , t Therefore, the opinion of the El Salvador La delegation du ~~vador est par co~eq~~t€_ delegation is that thc proposal presented by d'avis que la proposltlOn presentee par es , . . d M' t d la France est une the dr.1r(!atiom of l\lcxi,:n and of France 1S a gahons u eX1q~e e e ., cd deux propo;al'of substance that requires a two-thirds question de fo~d CXlgeant une ma]ont es l'Arma'orit , in accordance with the second parahers conformement au. paragr~p~e,2 de ] h ~f Article 18 and that the question ticle 18, et que la questlon de 1 a~ls 4 pemander ~~a~sking the Interll:l.;ional Court of Justice for . a la Cour internationale de JustIce sur la coman <~plllion concerning the competence 0: the ~ete~ce de l~Assemblee. generale en ce ca~ par- GWl."r,,! As~cmblv to deal with this particular tlculier constltue un P?lll.t ?e. procedure qUI peut q\l{'stinn. is jl qllt:~tinn of proccdure th(lt reqnires ctre tranche par la maJonte SImple. nlllv a majority vote.

I would ask you to be very prudent in your derisioTl, bccn~sc the question is really delicate and has many sllhlcties. The qnestion w~~ch wc h:1\(' to deride is not whether the declslOn we arc about to take is an important decision, but rather \vhether the question which we have disc\lssed is an important question. I would ask yon to read the text of Altic1e 18, para- ~raph 2, carefully. It beg'ins with the words, "Derisions of the General Assembly on important questions", It is important questions which have to be decided by a two-thirds majority, irrespective of the importance which particular members attach to the decision that is to be taken. I cannot agree with the interpretation given. hy the representative of El Salvador. 1£ we decide that the question is important and that it should be decided by a two-thirds majority, I shall be obliged to put to the vote first the amendment, presuming it is an amendment, of the Union of South Africa, which entirely covers the resolution proposed by the French and Mexican delegations. If the amendment were adopted, the Franco-Mexican proposal could not then be voted on, since you would have voted by a simple majority and your decision would not aIJow me to consult you on a proposal 011 which you consid~red a two-thirds majority necessary, That is obviously impossible, If you decide that the question which we have debated at such length and in such moving terms is an important question in the sense of Article 18, then all the questions related to it will require a two-thirds majority, If this is decided, I shall first put to the vote the South African amendment, which I 5haIl consider adopted only if it receives a two-thirds majority, hrcausc, in fact, it covers the entire question, Le PRESIDENT: Je vous prie de faire trbl attention avant de vous decider, car la question est vraiment delicate et comporte bien des nuanc.es, La question que nous avons a trancher n'est pas de savoir si la decision que nous aHons prendre est une decision importante, mais bien de savoir si la question que nous avons discuree est u~e question importante. ]e vous dema.nde de hre attentivement le texte du paragraphe 2 de l'Artic1e ]8, qui commence par ees mots: "Les decisions de !'Asse:mblee genera1e sur les questions importalltes." Ce sont les questions importante~ qui doivent etre reglees par des decisions prises a la majorite des deux tiers, queUe que soit l'importance aux yeux des uns et des atltres de la decision qui va etre prise. Je ne puis pas me rallier a l'interpretation du representant du Salvador. Si nous decidons en effet que la question est importante et qu'e1le doit etre tranchee ala majorite des deux tiers, je serai forCl~ de mettre d'abord aux voix l'amendement, a supposer que ce soit un amendement, de l'Union Sud-Africaine, qui couvre .enticrement la resolution proposee par les delegations fran~aise et mexicaine; et l'adoption eventueHe de cet amendement ne permettrait pas de mettre aux voix la proposition franco-mexicaine: Des 10rs, VOIlS auriez vote a la majorite simple et la decision que vaus aurie~ prise ne me permettrait pas de veus consulter sur une proposition sur laquelle VOllS estimez devoir vous prononcer ala majorite des deux tiers. C'est evidemment impossible. Si vous d6cidez que la question que now avons si longuement debattue, et dans des terIDes si pathCtiques, est une question importante au sens de l'Article 18, alors toutes les questions qui s'y rattachent daivent etre mises aux voix a la majorite des deux tiers. S'il en est ainsi decide, je mettrai d'abord aux voix l'amendement sudafricain, que je considererai comme adopte seulement s'i! reunit la majorite des deux tiers parce I hope that the question is now clear. I shall ask you to say, by replying "yes" or "no," whether you consider that the question wc have becn discussing is an important question ih thc sense of Article 18, paragraph 2 of the Charter. If, by a simple majority, it is considered that the question is important, the decisions must be taken by a two-thirds majority. In view of the importance of the question I think it wise to vote by roll-call. I call upon Mr. Vyshinsky, representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. M. VYCHINSKY (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Monsieur le President, si l'interpretation a bien rendu le sens de votre proposition, celle-ci consiste en ceci: c'est a l'Assemblee de decider si la presente question, la resolution etc., est importante ou non. La delegation sovictique estime que cette fa.-;on de presenter les choses rend la decision plus difficile. 11 ne s'agit pas en efIet de decider si la question est importante ou non, mais de decider de la methode de vote que nous adopterons en ce qui concerne la resolution qui porte sur cette question. Il a deja ete dit id qu'une question peut etre tres importante, mais que teUe decision prise a son egard peut ne pas etre aussi importante et peut mcme ne presenter aucune importance. Par exemple, la question de savoir si tene ou telle· proposition doit etre soumise a l'Assemblee peut presenter une grande importance; mais pour prendre une decision sur le jour ou aura lieu la seance consacree a cette question importante, il n'est nullement necessaire de declarer cette decision-la importante ou de la voter a la meme majorite que s'il s'agissait de voter sur la question elle-meme. L'Article 18, paragraphe 3, de la Charte ne dit rien au sujet de l'importance des questions. L'Article ] 8, paragraphe 3, indique que les decisions au sujet des questions autres que celles enumerces au paragraphe 2-qui mentionne eff'ectivement l'importance des questions-ces decisions, y compris la determination de nouvelles categories de questions a trancher a la majorite des deux tiers, sont prises de telle et telle maniere. C'cst pourquoi, la delegation sovi,ctique estime qu'il faut poser la question de 1", fas;on suivante: l'Assemblee juge-t-e1le necessaire dans ce cas de prendre une decision a la majorite des deux tiers sans se demander si cette question est importante ou non? Si l'Assemblce estime que la: majorite des deux tiers est necessaire, conformement au paragraphe 3 de I'Artic1e 18, eHe en decidera ainsi. Il n'y a done pas lieu de poser la question de savoir si nous sommes en presence d'une question importante all non. Nous proposons donc de mettre aux voix la question suivante: l'AssembIee juge~t-elle neces- Mr. VYSHINSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): If the interpretation given was correct, the President's proposal consists of the following: Should the Assembly consider this question, resolution, et cetera, important or unimportant? The Soviet delegation considers that this way of putting the question makes a decision more difficult; we do not have to decide whether the matter is or is not important, but the method or procedure we should adopt in voting on the proposed resolution. It has already been said here that a question may be very important, but that the decision taken on that question may be of less, or even of no, importance; for example, the ,question whether a particular proposal should be submitted to the Assembly may be of great importance; but in taking a decision regarding the day on which a meeting will be held to discuss this important question, it is not at all necessary that this decision be declared important or to vote upon it with the same majority as on the question itself. Article 18, paragraph 3, of the Charter says nothing ab.out the importance or uniniportance of a question. Article 18, paragraph 3, says that decisions on other questions-apart from those rnentioned' in paragraph 2, which does in fact speak of the importance of a question-decisions on other questions, including the determination of additional categories of questions to be decided by a two-thirds majority, shall be made in such and such a way. The Soviet delegation, therefore, considers it right to put the question a's follows: Does the Assembly consider it necessary to vote by a two-thirds majority without taking into account whether the question is important or not? If the Assembly considers that, in conformity with paragraph 3, the two-thirds majority rule should be applied, it will so decide. Therefore, the question whether or not the matter is important or not should be eliminated. Accordingly, we propose that the Assembly take a vote on the following question: Does the Mr. PARODI (France) ('translated from French): In view of the importance of the question and the little time available for its examination, I should like it to be understood th"at our decision will not create a precedent, that it will not have the force of a juridical interpretation, and that it will not finally bind us on other questions.

I do not think that the manner in which the question is put at present can create any precedent. It should also be understood that if we agree to put the question as I have just suggested, the two· thirds majority rule will apply to the amendment submitted by the delegation of the Union of South Africa. I repeat the question once more: Does the Assembly consider it necessary to apply the twothirds majority rule to the decisions which will be taken on the question referred to in document A/205? (A vote was taken by roll-call.) Voted for: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador,· Greece, Iceland, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Sweden, Turkey, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay. , Voted against: Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iran, Iraq, Liberia, Mexico, Philippine Republic, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Venezuela, Yugoslavia. Abstention: France.

The result of the voting is as follows: Number voting, 54 j in favour, 29 j against, 24 j abstention,l. ' ..{ _The Assembly consequently decides that the ''decisions to be taken require a two-thirds majority. The Assembly has now before it a resolution submitted by the Joint First and Sixth Committee and the text, called an amendment, submitted by the South African delegation. Le PRESIDENT: Je suis presque d'accord avec M." Vychinsky. Je ne pense pas que ce soit le paragraphe 3 de l'Article 18 qu'il faille invoquer, pour des raisons qui ont cte demontrees par le representant de l'Arabie saoudite. Mail! je propose de poser la question comme suit: L'Assemblee estime-t-e1le neeessaire d'appli. quer la majorite des deux tiers aux decisions qui seront prises sur la question rapportee au docu~ ment A/205? M, PARODI (France): En raison de la gravite de la question et du peu de temps dont" nous avans dispose pour l'etudier, je voudrais ,implement demander qu'il soit cntendu que notre decision ne constituera pas un precedent, qu'eIle n'aura pas la valeur d'une interpretation juridique et ne nOlls licra pas de£initivemcllt en d'autre~ questions. Le PRESIDENT: Je pense que la fac;on dont la question est actueIlement posce ne peut ereer aucun precMent. 11 devrait aussi ctre entendu, si nous acceptons de poser la question telle que je viens de le suggerer, que le vote a la majorite des deux tiers s'appliquerait al'amendcment depose par la delegation de l'Union Sud-Africaine. Je rappelle une derniere fois la question: l'Assemblce estime-t-elle necessaire d'appliquer la majorite des deux tiers aux decisions qui seront prises sur la question rapportce au document A/20.5? (Il est proeM! un vote 1Jar appel nominal.) Votent pour: Afghanistan, Argentine, Australie, Belgique, Bolivie, Bresil, Canada, Costa- Rica, Danemark, Republique Dominicaine, Equateur, Salvador, Grece, Islande, Liban, Luxembourg, Pays-Bas, Nouvelle-Zelande, Nicaragua, Norvege, Panama, Paraguay, Perou, Suede, rurquie, Union Sud-Africaine, Royaume- Uni, Etats-Unis d'Amerique, Drugu·ay. Votent contre,' ~epublique socialiste sovietique de 13ielorussie, Chili, Chine, Colom}:Jie, Cuba, Tchecoslovaquie, Egypte, Ethiopie, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, lnde, Iran, lrak, Liberia, Mexique, Philippines, Pologne, Arabie saoudite, Syrie, Republique socialiste sovietique d'Ukraine, Union des Republiques soeialistes sovietiques, Venezuela, Yougoslavie. S'abstient,' France. Le PRESIDENT: Voici le resultat du vote: Nombre de votants: 54; voix pour: 29; voix contre: 24; abstention: 1. L'Assemblee decide, en consequence, que les decisions doivent etre prises Cl la majorite des deux tiers. L'Assemblee est maintenant en presence de la resolution rapportee par la Commission mixte des Premiere et Sixieme Commissions et d'uD texte qualifie d'amendement propose par la delegation de l'Union Sud-Africaine.

The amendment of the Union of South Africa is rejected by thirty-one votes to twenty-one with two abstentions. We shall now vote upon the Franco-Mexican resolution (document AI105). N.ou~ passons au vote sur la resolution francomeXIcame. (ll est procUe au vote par appel nominal.) Votent pour: Afghanistan, Republique socialiste sovi€tique de Bielorussie, Chili, Chine, Colombie; Cuba, Tchecoslovaquie, Republique Dominicaine, Egypte, Ethiopie, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Islande, Inde,' Iran, Irak, Liban, Liberia, Mexique, Norvege, Panama, Republique des Philippines, Pologne, Arabie saoudite, Syrie, Republique socialiste sovietique d'Ukraine, Union des Republiques socialistes .sovi6tiques, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yougoslavie. . Votent contre: Argentine, Be1gique, Canada, Costa-Rica, Salvador, Grece, Luxembourg, Pays-Bas, Nouvelle-Zelande, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Perou, Union Sud-Africaine, Royaume- Uni, Etats-Unis d'Amerique. S'abstiennent: Australie, Bolivie, Bresil, Danemark, Equateur, Suede, Turquie. (A vote was taken bV roll-call.) Voted for: Afghanistan, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, Egyp~, Ethiopia, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras Iceland, Inaia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Mexico, Norway, Panama, Philippine Republic, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Ukra~n­ ian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of SovIet Socialist Republics, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia. Voted against: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, United States of America. Abstentions: Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Denmark, Ecuador, Sweden, Turkey. Le PRESIDENT: Voici le resultat du vote:

The result of the voting is as follows: Number voting, 47; in favour, 32; against 15; abstentions, 7. The two-thirds majority required is 32 votes. Nombre de votants: 47, voix pour: 32; voix contre: 15; abstentions: 7. La. majorite des deux tiers requise est de 32 voix.

The next item on the agenda is the report of the First Committee on the presence of armed forces of Members of the United Nations on non-enemy territories (annex 49). The representative of Ecuador, Rapporteur of the First Committee, is not present. I think, however, that all the delegations are familiar with the report, and that it is not necessary to read it. Sir Hartley SHAWCROSS (United Kingdom): l\1:r. President, the British delegation has an amendment to propose to the resolution on armed forces. I do not know whether you are proposing to discuss it tonight or riot. It is quite a short matter.

The debate is open. I call upon Sir Hartley Shawcross, representative of the United Kingdom. Sir Hartley SHAWCROSS (United Kingdom): I am happy to think that the present matter is not one which is likely to arouse feeling or take up the time that was occupied by the l~.,t question. I shall not enter into any discussion as to it., relative importance. But this is a matter which is, I think, not now likely to require any long discussion. It may be that it will be sufficient to have one or two speeches On each side and then to dispose of it, because r think and helieve that it is not a question which is likely to provoke any controversy. It comes before the A.'1.Remblv in verY different circumstances and in a very different' atmosphere from those which existed when the matter Wa~ discussed in the PnHtical Committee, and I was very glad to see my, friend, Mr. Molotov, raising his hand to ~peak. I have no doubt he is going to support this amendment and that we shall all go away in complete agreement about it. The A.,sembly will recall that the First Committee decided thFtt as a fimt step in the general n~d uction of armaments, and with a view to implementing Article 43 of the Charter in regard to the provision of military forces to ensure collective security, Member States should, by 31 December of this year, furnish information as to tJle number of troops, and other mattcrs, both within and without their own home territorY. That i.<; the resolution which is recorder! in c!OCl;- ment A/203. That matter is now settled; I apprehend that there will be no opposition to it here. We fully accept the view of the Assemhhthat this information, if verified, could be of v::llue in the important studies of disarmament ann ~ecl1rity on which we are now engaged. Le PRESIDENT: Le point suivant a l'ordre du jour est le rapport de la Premiere Commission sur la presence de forces armees des Etats ~tIem­ bres des Nations Unies sur des territoires non ennemis (annexe 49). Le representant de I'Equateur, Rapporteur ~e la Premiere Commission, n'est pas present. Mals je pensc que toutes les delegations ont pris connaissance du rapport et qu'il n'est pas necessaire d'en donner lecture. Sir Hartley SHAWCROSS (Royaume-VIIi) (traduit de fanglais): Monsieur le President, la d6ll~gation du Royaume-Uni a depose un amendement au projet de recommandation relatif aux, forces armees. Je ne sais pas si vous envisagez la discussion pour ce soir. La question peut etre traitee rapidement. Le PRESIDENT: La discussion est ouverte. La parole est a Sir Hartley Shawcross, representant du Royaume-Uni. Sir Hartley SI-IAWCROSS (Royaume-Uni) (traduit de l'anglais): Je pense que la presente question n'est pas de nature a soulever les passions et que son examen ne sera pas aussi prolonge que celui de la question pf(~cedente. Je ne discuterai pas de son importance relative, mais cette question, a man avis, n'entralnera pas de longs debat.,. 11 me semble qu'un ou deux discours dans cliaque sens suffiront et que nous pourrons alors prendre une decision car je suis persuade qu'i! n'y a pas la matiere a controverse. Cette question se pose a l'Assemblee dans des conditions et dans une atmosphere tres differentes de celles qui regnaient lorsqu'elle fut cliscutce par la Commission politique et je suis tres heurcux de voir que mon ami ~1. Molotov desire prendre la parole. Je suis absolument certain qu'i! est dispose a soutenir cet aIllendement et que nous allons nous separer apres nous etre mis entiercment d'accord. Vons vous rappelez que la Premiere Commission de l'Assemblee a decide que, pour bire un premier pas dans la voie de la reduction generale des armements et pour mettre en reuvre l'Article43 de la Charte qui prevoit la constitution de forces armees pour le maintien de la paix et de la securite internationalcs, les Etats Membres devront fournir, d'ici le 31 decembre, des informations sur Ies effectifs et SIU d'alltres objets tant a l'interieur qu'a I'extcrieur de leurs fronticres. Cette resolution a ete consignee dans le document A/203. La question est maintemint reglee; j'ai l'impression qu'eUe ne rencontrera pas d'opposition ici. Nous nOllS raIlions entierement a I'opinion de l'Assemblee seIon laquelle ces informations, si elles sont verifiees ~ontribueront grandement aux important~ etudes que nous venons d'aborder en matiere de desarmement et de securite. Peut-on coneevoir, en effet, que 1'on fournisse des comptes rendus et qu'on les compare avec d'autres sans en prevoir la verification? C'est pourquoi nous demandons que les statistiques que nous fournirons au cours des prochaines semaines soient soumises a verification. Oui done pourrait en nier la necessitc? .- ~hall snbmit in the next few weeks should be subjeet to an audit. Can anybody doubt now that that ought to be dune? Two important developments' have occurred since this matter was disclIssed. Firstly-and I direct particular attention to this because what we do now in regard to this matter may be a test of our good faith in regard to the ·widcr question-the principle of intenla~ tional control in inspection and verification, which until recently had been rejected in certain quarters, has now been fully accepted by everybody. It no longer causes any dispute between us. Those who felt difficulty in supporting this proposal when it came before the First Committee, because there was at that time some doubt as to how far this general acceptance of international control by international agencies had gone, may now vote in favour of this amendment without any fear of embarrassing others or of prejudicing the general principle, because the principle of international control by international agencies is accepted. Depuis la derniere discussion, deux evcnements importants se sont produits: En premier lieu-et ce point revet a mes yeux une grande importance car eela peut constitner une epreuve de notre bonne foi en ce qui coneeme un sujet plus vaste-chacun aeeepte maintenant le principe du controle international, sous fonne d'inspection et de verification, allquel certains s'etaient opposes jusqu'a ces dcrniers temps. 11 n'y a plus entre nOlls a ce snjet matiere a discussion. Ceux qui eprouvaient des scrupules a appuyer cette proposition lorsqu'elle s'est posee pour la prel11i~rc fois a la Premiere Commission, car on avait alars des doutes au sujet d'une approbation generalisee du principe du eontrole international par les institutions internationales, ceuxla peuvent maintenant voter en faveur de 'cet amendement sans craindre d'embarrasser les autres ni de porter prejudice au principe general, parce que le principc du contrOle international par les institutions internationales est dcsormais acceptc. En second lieu, nous n'avons plus a craindre que cette verification entrame un retard quelconqtIe dans la communication des renseignements. Cette crainte avait, et cela est tout naturel, empcche ccrtaines personnes d'appuyer d'emblee la proposition. Nous n'avons jamais eu l'intention de provoquer un retard et nous avons amende notre proposition pour dissiper toute espece de doute a ce sujct. Les renseignements, les chiffres, les statistiques, les precisions, tous ces elements doivent ctre fournis avant le 31 decembre. Nous n'avons aueun doute sur cc point. Nous pensons que tous les Etats, qu'ils aient ou non vote en faveur de cette resolution, Iourniront ces chiffre'l, ees statistiques et ces precisions avant le 31 decembre. En ce qui nous concerne, nous sommes resolus a le faire. La Commission de controle, c'est-a-dire la Commission de verification, Commission qui cloit etablir si les chiffrcs fournis par les differents Etats sont directement comparables, doit etre constituee ulterieurement; il n'y a done pas a prevoir de retard dans la fourniture des chiffres. Voila ce que j'avais it dire sur ces deux points. Permettez-moi 1;1aintcnant d'aller au devant d'une autre critique ,eventuelle. Bien entendll, nOllS ne suggerons nulIement un systemc minutieux, complique ou couteux d'espionnage ~es affaires interieures des autres Etats. Le Comlte The second difference is that there is now no longer any reason for fear that the process of verification could cause delay in the submission of the information. That was a fear which, very naturally, caused a number of p~ople to refrain in the first instance from supporting the proposal. We never had it in mind to cause delay, and we have amended our proposal to put that beyond all question of doubt. The information, the figures, the statistics, the particulars-all the~e things have to be delivered before the thirty-first of this month. We raise no <]uestion as to that. We assume that everyone, whether they voted in favour of the resolution or against it, will submit these figures, these statistics, these particulars, before 31 Deceni.ber. We intend to do it ourselve.<;. The Supervisory Committec--that is to say, the audit committee-the committee which is to find out whether the figures submitted by the different countries are directly comparable with each other, is to be established afterwards, so there is no question whatever of any delay in the submission of the figures. So much for those two points. Let me anticipate one other possible criticism. We are not, of course, suggesting for a moment any elaborate, complicated, or eostly system of espionage as regards the affairs of other countries. A perfectly simple system of international Why is it that we suggest to the Assembly that it is desirable to establish an audit system of that ldnd? Why, indeed, is it necessary to establish an, audit system in regard to any matter-for example, in regard to our own accounts? Not because we suspect anybody, any more than we have an audit system in regard to our pwn accounts because we suspect the Secretariat. Not because we suspect that any particular State will not submit accurate returns. We assume that, as I have said, all States, whether they voted f6r or against the resolution, will comply with it and comply with it in all good faith. I am particularly anxious, and I say this advisedly, that thlS amendment should not be regarded as any kind of indication of suspicion of anybody. It is not that, but we must be realistic about this matter. These returns, you know, will always be treated with a great deal of cynicism and suspicion if they are not verified. A lot of people have not realized that Great Britain has demobilized four-fifths of her forces and I do not doubt that, when our returns are put in, there will be surprise at the smallness of the forces which my country maintains, We should like our own figures to be verified so that hereafter nobody will be able to challenge them. Nobody will be able to say, "Oh, well; they said, of course, that they had only so many hundreds of thousands of troops, so many hundreds of thousands of airmen, but nobody believes that; the figures were not verified, They were able to send in any figures that they liked." We do not want that situation to arise. We want the figures that we send in, small as they may appear to be, to be subject to verification and audit on behalf of this Organization. You will remember that, under the Covenant of the League of Nations, there was a req1lirement that particulars had to be sent in and returns made about military strength and mattcrs of that kind. As far as I can gather from the enquiries that I have made, the data supplied were put away in some little pigeon-hole, or some big pigeon-hole, in Geneva, and nobody took the slightest notice of them because nobody thought that they were really reliable figures. We must this time be more realistic about all these matters. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, we wish our returns, our statistics, to command full confidence throughout the world. We invite verification. We open our doors to it, and I assume that, in this matter, no other State can do less. The second reason is that these statistics will require reconciliation with each other, if they are to be of any value for the purpose for which they have been asked, the purpose of comparing the armed strengths of different countries the purpose of deciding what steps should be taken Its adoption by this Assembly now, and its unanimous adoption by all the great Powers, will show the world that we do mean business; and in two ways. It will show the world-and I stress this point-that when we say, as we all do say, that we agree that a full measure of control and inspection is necessary in connexion with disarmament, we are not simply making vague and general promises and professions which wc mayor may not implement in the future, but we are saying that which we mean and which we are prepared to do now. If we are not prepared to agree to a simple process of verification now in regard to this comparatively unimportant mat· ter, what confidence would remain in the world when the time comes when we shall be ready to put into operation the far more rigid and far more elaborate system of controland supervision which would, for instance, have to be established as part and parcel of the prohibition of atomic warfare. This is, perhaps, a test of our sincerity in these matters. The actual operation of the inspection system, simple as it will be, will give us some useful, practical lessons on which we can act in drawing up the more elaborate plans which will be necessary for the general disarmament scheme and

I call upon Mr. Molotov, representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Mr. MOLOTOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): We are considering now a question which was raised on the initiative of the Government of the Soviet Union-the question of the presence of troops of the United Nations on the territories of other United Nations and in non-enemy States. We proposed that all States which are represented on the General Assembly should submit information regarding their troops stationed on foreign territories belonging to other Members of the United Nations. We proposed also that information be submitted regarding military bases, including naval and aircraft bases, which were created, by one or another of the United Nations, beyond the confines of their own countries. Thus, we raised the question that all Member States should give an account to the United Nations regarding, their armed forces stationed for some reason or other beyond the confines of their countries, despite the fact that the war is long since ended. The submission of this information is of great importance to the Security Council and its Military Staff Committee at the moment when they are working on the plan for organizing the armed forces which must be placed at the disposal of the Security Council for the purpose of maintaining universal peace. The submission of this information concerns above all such great Powers as the United States of America, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union, which during the war were compelled to send their troops beyond the confines of their countries to fight our common foe. According to the proposal of the Soviet Government, all countries-and above all-the great Powers, ought to give an account of the armed forces and military bases which they still maintain in the ,territories of other Members of the United Nations. The necessity to submit such infonnation would naturally heIp to put an end as soon a~ possibl~ to this abnormal situation. Indeed, since the war ended long ago, how can one justify the presence of forces on a foreign. tenitory, except for a few cases which are well known and understandable to all of Le PRESIDENT: Je donne la parole a M. Molotov, representant de I'Union des RepubIiques sodaIistes sovietiques. M. MOLOTOV (Union des Republiques sodalistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Nous etudions en ce moment une question quia ctc posee sur l'initiative du Gouv(;rnement sovietique, relativement au stationnement de troupes de certains Membres des Nations Unies sur le territoire d'autres Membres des Nations Unies et d'Etats non ennemis. Nous avions propose que tous les Etats representes a l'AssembIee generale fournissent des informations Sur les troupes qu'ils maintiennent a l'etranger, sur des territoires appartenant ad'autres Membres des Nations Unies. Nous avions egalement propose que des infonnations fussent fournies sur les bases rnilitaires, y compris les bases navales et aeriennes, qui ont ete creees par td ou tel Mcmbre des Nations Unies en dehors de son territoire. CeIa revenait a demander a tous les Etats Membres de soumettre a I'Organisation des Nations Unics un etat de leurs forces armees stationnees, pour telle ou telle raison, hors de leurs frontieres, encore que la guerre soit tenninee depuis longtemps. La communication des renseignements de cette nature a une grande importance pour le Conseil de securite et pour son Comite d'etatmajor au moment mcme Oll ils elaborent un plan de l'brgamsation des forces armees qui doivcnt ctre mises ala disposition du Conseil de sccuritc en vue du maintien de la paix generale. La presentation de ces informations concerne en premier lieu les grandes Puissances, telles que les Etats-Unis d'Amerique, la Grande-Bretagne et l'Union sovietique qui, au cours de la guerre ont etc forcees d'envoyer leurs troupes en deho~ de leurs frontieres pour lutter contre notre ennemi commun. ScIon la proposition du Gouvernement sovietique, tous les Etats, et avant tout les grandes Puissances devraient faire un rapport Sur celles de leurs f~rces annees et de leurs bases militaires qui se trouvent encore sur le territoire d'autres Membres des Nations Unies. L'obligation de fournir ces informations contribuerait, cela va de soi, a mettre fin au plus vite acette situation anormale. Puisque la guerre est ~er~~nee depuis longtemps, comment p~ut-on JustifIer la presence de trou~es sur un terntoire etranger, si ce n'est dans certal11S cas que nous conn?;-~"ns et que nous As was to be expected, the proposal of the Soviet Government met with great sympathy, especially on the part of small countries. It is those countries which frequently feel very acutely a pressure from outside, especially when it is reinforced by the presence of armed forces on the territories of these small States. As we all know, certain small States have not, up to now, been able to get rid of foreign troops which invaded their territories as far back as the era of imperialistic conquests of the nineteenth century, and which have not been willing, up to now, to go home. In other cases, foreign troops appeared in the territories of other States after the first world war and, up to now they have been anxious to remain, by hook or by crook, on these foreign territories. Lastly, after the second world war, we also observed similar events. The troops of certain Powers found themselves in the territory of States Members of the United Nations, and they are unwilling to leave it. We cannot pa"s over thC'.se latter ca~es, all the more so because all this is being done hefore our very eyes, contrary to the no~inal relations which ought to exist between the United Nations, and in contravention of elementary rules which all our Governments should observe. In making its proposal, the Soviet Government stated that it was ready to submit full information regarding Soviet troops which are still present in the territories of other Members of the United Nations. The Soviet Union has nothing to hide from anybody as regards its situation in this respect. It would seem that none of us should be afraid of submitting information regarding troops in the territories of other Members of the United Nations. This would, in many respects, be of help to the work of the Military Staff Committee. It is to be assUlned that it would also help to persuade the troops of certain Statefl not to prolong their stay in foreign territories, since the war is at an end and the circumstances which gave rise to the necessity for the presence of Allied troops in these territories no longer exists. However, not all States adopted an impartial and calm attitude toward the proposal of the Government of the Soviet Union. The discussion of this question showed that such a demand was not to the liking of representatives of certain States. It appears that they would like, somehow, to dispense with the submission of such information. It is only in this way that Nevertheless, the Soviet delegation did not object to this United States demand. We were anxious to remove any obstacles to the settlement of the question regarding the submission of information on troops stationed on foreign territories. Further, the United States Government, backed by the Un~ted Kingdom, submitted a proposal concerning the submission of information on troops stationed at home. To this question is devoted paragraph 4 of the draft resolution which we are now discussing. The Soviet delegation tried to persuade the United States and United Kingdom representatives that this proposal was inappropriate in the present solution. The Soviet delegation pointed out that this question would be settled in connexion with the proposal for a general reduction of armaments, which is being discussed now. Such an addition, in the same resolution, would only serve to complicate the question, the question of troops stationed on foreign territories. The Soviet delegation proposed that the two different questions should not be confused~ne, the question of the troops abroad, and secondly, the question of troops at home. However, our view was not accepted. The General Assembly is presented with a resolution, paragraph 4 of which refers to the fact that the Members of the United Nations should submit information as to "the total number of their uniformed personnel on the active list, wherever stationed, at home as well as abroad, including military type organizations". The Soviet delegation considers this paragraph unacceptable for the following reasons. The proposal to submit information regarding troops at home, ~s well as regarding troops abroad, will only serve to divert attention from the question which was put before the General Assembly. Are we interested in diverting attention from the question of troops stationed on foreign territories? Why is it necessary to divert pro~he. Neamnoins, la delegation sovietique ne s'est pas opposee a cette demande des Etats-Unis; nous tenions avant tout a ecarter les obstacles qui s'opposaient a la solution de la question, relative aux renseignements a fournir sur les troupes stationnees en territoire etranger. D'autre part, le Gouvernement des Etats- Unis, avec l'appui Royaume-Uni, a propose que des renseignements sQient fournis en ce qui concerne des troupes maintenues a l'interieur des Etats. Le point 4 du projet de resolution que nous examinons etait precisement consacre a cette question. La delegation sovietique a tente de convaincre les representants americain et britannique que cette proposition n'etait pas a sa place dans la presente resolution. Nous avons indique que cette question serait resolue en meme temps que la proposition que nous discutons actuellement au sujet de la reduction generale des armements. Inserer ce point dans la presente resolution ne fait que compliquer la question laquelle porte en fait sur les troupes st(ltionnees en territoire etranger. La delegation sovietique a propose de ne pas confondre deux questions differentes, celle des troupes maintenues a l'etranger et celle des troupes stationnees sur le territoire national. Mais notre point de vue n'a pas ete adopte. L'Assemblee generale est saisie d'une resolution dont le point 4 propose que les Membres des Nations Unies fournissent des renseignements sur "l'effectif total du personnel militaire en service actif, en quelque endroit qu'il soit stationne, que ce soit sur le territoire national ou al'etranger, y compris les organisations de type militaire". La delegation sovietique estime que ce point est inacceptable pour les raisons que je vais exposer. La proposition de fournir des renseignements tant sur les troupes stationnees sur le territoire national que sur celles maintenues al'etranger, ne fait que detourner l'attention de la question qui avait ete soumise a l'Assemblee generale. A-t-on interet adetourner notre attention des troupes stationnees en territoire etran- For this reason, the Soviet delegation proposes that paragraph 4 of the resolution be deleted. Then the resolution will only contain the request to present information regarding troops stationed OIl foreign territories. It will be a great achievement on the part of the United Nations if it succeeds in obtaining this information without further procrastination. Paragraph 4 of the resolution is unacceptable also for other reasons. This paragraph refers only to the submission of information regarding "uniformed personnel," but it says nothing about the submission of information regarding armaments. However, we know very well that war is not waged with' bare hands. Consequently, in order to obtain a correct idea of the armed forces, it is necessary to request information regarding not only the uniformed personnel, but also armaments, including, naturally, all types of weapons. The Soviet delegation objected to paragraph 4, but when this paragraph was nevertheless accepted we suggested that it should refer not only to uniformed personnel, but also to armaments. However, this proposal was declined on the insistence of the British representative, Sir Hartley Shawcross, and the United States representative, Senator Connally. Paragraph 4 therefore, is still drafted in such a way as to refer only to information regarding uniformed personnel and says nothing about information regarding armaments. Thus, if we adopt this paragraph, the information obtain~d under this decision will present a distorted pICture of armed forces, since this information will contain no mention of armaments, of atomic bombs, of rocket projectiles, et cetera. Silence will be maintained about all this. If such a decision is accepted, many may interpret it to mean that for some reason or other it was decided to evade the submission of information regarding the actual state of affairs in respect to armed forces. We may be asked why we hide this information on armaments, why we evade submission of this information once the question of armed forces within each State has been raised? We were told nothing reasonable in explanation of these justifiable questions. Our proposal for the submission of information to cover not only uniformed personnel, but also the armaments We are discussing an important political question. All peoples filled with a desire for lasting peace and the development of friendly relations among all peace-loving countries are interested in a correct solution of this question. We are presented with· a resolution which in its greater part is acceptable to all of us. We have reached agreement on the first three paragraphs of the resolution. Paragraph 4 leads us aside. Moreover, the submission of information under this paragraph would provide a distorted picture of the armed forces in our countries. Therefore, paragraph 4 should be excluded from the resolution. Only by taking this paragraph out, will the General Assembly avoid placing itself in an awkward situation in the eyes of public opinion if it adopts the present resolution; by so doing, on the contrary, will help to settle s11ch an important matter as that of the elucidation of the state of affairs in respect of the troops of Members of the United Nations on foreign territories. On the basis of all these considerations the Soviet delegation suggests that we take out paragraph 4- from the resolution. The attitude of the Soviet delegation towards the amendment of the British representative follows from what I have said regarding paragraph 4 of the resolution. The continuation of the discussion was adjourned to the next meeting. The meeting rose at 12.55 a.m. FIFTY-THIRD PLENARY MEETING Held on Tuesday, 10 December 1946, at 4 p.m. CONTENTS Pdg, 14-0. Presfncc of armed forces of Members of the United Nations on non-enemy territories: report of the First Committee: resolution (continuation) 1070 President: Mr. P.-H. SPAAK (Belgium). 140. Presence of armed forces of Members of the United Nations on non-enemy territories: report of the First Committee: resolution (continuation) (documents A/203 and A/203/Add.l) Th~ P~ESIDENT- (translate;I from French): The fIrst Item on the agenda IS the continuation La seance est levee a0 h. 55. CINQUANTE-TROISIEME SEANCE PLENIERE Tenue le mardi 10 decembre 1946, a16 heures. TABLE DES MATIERES , Pages 140. Presence de forces armees des Etats Members des Nations Unies sur des terri~oires non enncmis. Rapport de la PremIere Commission. Resolution (suite) .. 1070 President: M. P.-H. SPAAK (Belgique). 140. Presence de· forces armees des Etats Membres des Nations Uni-es sur des territoires non ennemis. Rapport de la Premiere Commission (documents A/203 et A/203/Add.1L (Suite de la discussion.) . Le PRESIDE~T: Le premier point al'ordre du JOur est la SUIte de la discussion du rapport