A/5/PV.329 General Assembly

It is my sad duty to announce the death of our distinguished friend and colleague Mr. Riddell, permanent representative of Canada. We all knew his great qualities and the devotion with which he served his country and the cause of the United Nations. I myself had the privilege of getting to know him well when he was working with us in the Group on Cease-Fire in Korea. I:Iis frankness, his modesty, his intelligence and his untiring efforts gained the confidence, admiration and affection· of all his colleagues. His death deprives the United Nations of a devoted servant and us all of a great friend. 2. I am sure that I am voicing the unanimous feeling of the General Assembly when I express our deep sympathy with Mrs. Riddell and her children, the Canadian Government and the Canadian delegation. I would ask them to believe that we join sincerely in their sorrow. . 3. I call upon the members of the Assembly to observe one minute's silence i~ memory of Mr. Riddell. The representatives observed one minute of silence. 4. Mr. HILL (Australia) : The Australian delegation wishes to join with the President in expressing its sympathy to the Canadian delegation for Mr. Riddell's sudden and tragic death. We all knew Mr. Riddell extremely well and admired his many fine qualities, which will be greatly missed in the United Nations. 5. On behalf of the Australian Government, of the Australian delegation and of its acting permanent representative, Mr. Shann, who is today attending Mr. Riddell's funeral in Ottawa, I wish to convey our deep feeling of sympathy to the Canadian delegation. Tuesday, 20 March 1951, at 3 p.m.

I am sure that all members of the General Assembly will wish to associate themselves with the tributes which the President a~d the representative of Australia have already paid to our late friend and colleague, Mr. Riddell. It is a tragedy indeed that as young and brilliant an official should have been taken from us so unexpectedly. 7. Our sympathy goes out to his widow and his family and indeed to the Canadian delegation which has been deprived of one of its most able servants. Mr. Riddell was an outstanding figure at Lal<:e Success. His influence was always exerted on the side of wisdom and moderation. We are all the poorer for his loss. 8. Mr. LACOSTE (France) (translated from French): The French delegation would not like to let this occasion go by without publicly expressing its great sorrow on learning of the sudden death of the head of the Canadian delegation. It held Mr. Riddell in very high esteem. He was outstanding in the activities of several of the most important organs of the United Nations. His death is a great loss to us. May I add that I was bound to him by personal friendship, and it is not without emotion that I remember that I shall not see him again. 9. I ask Mrs. Riddell, the Canadian Government a::.d the Canadian delegation to regard my words as an expression of the profound sympathy of the French delegation and of myself in particular. 10. Mr. GROSS (United States of America): On behalf of the delegation of the United States I should like to pay tribute to Mr. Riddell. We think that the close ties which bind the United States and Canada were reflected in the relationship between Mr. Riddell and those of us in the United States delegation who had the honour to work closely with him. 11. We who knew him, respected and loved him very much, because of the person that he was and because

On behalf of the Canadian Government and the Canadian delegation I wish to say a few words in reply to the kind statements of sympathy which have been made by the President and by so many representatives regarding the loss of Mr. Riddell. I wish to assure those who have spoken here or who have written to our delegation that arrangements will be marte to transmit their remar!<s and their messages to Mrs. Riddell and her family. I know that the messages will be a source of comfort to them. 18. I can only add that we on the staff of the Canadian delegation have no words to express our sense of loss in regard to one who was both a personal friend to us and an inspiring public servant of our country. Again I wish to thank bvth those who have expressed their kind sentiments in statements and those who have written to us. Place of meeting of the sixth session of the General Assembly: note by the Secr~ta,ry-General (A/1788/Rev.l)

The delegations will have received the letter the French delegation addressed to the Secretary-General and to me. It appears in document A/1788/Rev.l. 20. As there was no draft resolution before the Sencral Assembly, I have taken the liberty of submitting a draft [A/1790] which is obviously only a suggestion and subject to all the amendments that the Ansemhly may decide upon. Before opening the discussion on the draft, I call upon the representative of France, who 22. Those comments are particularly necessary because some errors crept into the English version of the document as originally distributed. I asked the Secretariat to issue a corrigendum and I thank it for having done so. It was only yesterday afternoon that I discovered the errors in the original translation. In the meantime some inaccurate ideas had inevitably entered the minds of a number of delegations and had been published in the Press. It is important that such notions should be corrected. 23. As the Assembiy well knows, various considerations prevented the French Government from giving a definite reply, as promptly as it would have liked, to the Assembly's expressed wish that its sixth session should be held in France, and preferably in Paris. ,The reason was not only the circumstances of French internal politics, although these circumstances were such thatthe French Government would have preferred, in principle, that the Assembly should not be held in Paris this year. The government's main concern-and I am sure that the Assembly will fully appreciate it-was not to undertake for a second time, as it had to do in 1948, the considerable and v~ry expensive task of preparing temporary facilities for a session of the Assembly lasting a few weeks or at most a few months. Hitherto the primary task of reconstrudion, made necessary by the terrible devastation suffered in French territory during the last war, has prevented my govc::rnment from erecting in Paris or near--by permanent buildings espe·· cially suited to national or international congresses or conferences of a political, economic, social, scientific or other charncter. 24. Even if my government had been in a position to decide to begin constructing a permanent building as soon as the .Assembly expressed its desire to meet in Paris this autumn, it would not have been sufficient time-by a long way-to accomplish such a task satisfactorily. That is why it asked for all other possibilities to be considered first, in the hope that the Assembly might realize its desire to hold its sixth session in Europe, but in another city among those which had been contemplated-Edinburgh or Geneva, for example -without the French Government being again obliged to resort to makeshift arrangements, with all the cost and inconvenience-partly to no purpose-which inevit'.bly results from such a procedure. 25. However, when it became clear that no other choice was possible-as the Secretary-General, in particular, had found after his last transatlantic trip-and when the Assembly once again expressed its desire to hold the next session in Europe, the French Government, taking also into account the wishes of many groups in its legislative bodies to meet the General 31. In that connexion, ancl in order to answer some questions the Sect\;tary-Gene~al. asked me, I should like to add the following information which I requested from my government alld have received since I wrote my letter of 17 March. The French Government would like the United Nations to make its financial contribution out of the credits the Assembly has already voted . upon. As to the amount of the contributiori, the French Government proposes that the Secretary-General should decide on the matter at the appropriate time. 32. Finally, I should like to add to the preceding explanations some information I have just received on the arrangements the French Government intends to make to receive the Assembly this autumn. I think it will be of interest to the Assembly and it will usefully supplement the information I have already been able to g5ve on the extent of the work that is to be done. 33. In 1948 it was possible to use the museum halls of the Palais de Chaillot, which had not yet been restored. This year new buildings will have to be erected in the Trocadero Gardens. This shows again how necessary is the time th~~ the French GovernmentI has requested'. The general arrangements nC\w contemplated will nevertheless be about the same as in 1948. 1 . Plenary meetings will be held in the theatre of the Palais de Chaillot, but Committees and Secretariat offices will not be in the museums, but in temporary buildings erected in the Trocadero Gardens and con- . nected with the Palais. Thus there will be a connected ! whole, which will be more convenient than in 1948 and l all the Assembly's activities will be concentrated at 1 the same point and in the same area as during the ! third session. . 1 34. Tha'c js all I wished to say to give the Assembly 1 as complete information as I can at the present time 1 on the question with which it is deaiing today. . I

. the draft resolution to which I have referred will be distributed shortly. Meanwhile, I should also like to add a few words of explanation myseif. 36. In my opinion it was not necessary for the General Assembly to adopt another resolution since its resolution of 14 December 1950 [resolution 497 (V)] remains in effect. The reason I have taken the liberty of proposing another draft resolution is that the sixth session of the General Assembly must not meet before 6 November, in accordance with the French Government's request. However, rule 1 of the rules of procedure lays down that "the General Assembly shall meet every year in regular session commencing on the third Tuesday in September". A General Assembly resolution is needed to meet that point. 37. At the same time I should like to explain how the· Secretariat proposes to offer financial assistance to th~ French Government when it diecusses the sixth session. It will be stated that' this help must not go b.;;y\)nd the credits already approved. That, in brief, is the purpose of the draft resolution which will be submitted to you in a moment. 42. We must not forget either that many delegations will find it extremely difficult to keep a sufficient number of representatives avaHable for the different committees if the session is split in two - and the session will pe split up by Christmas and the New Year if we decide to go to Paris in November. 43. In view of what I have said I express the hope that the General Assembly will give the most careful consideration to the grave inconveniences of a practical nature entailed in holding a session in Paris this year. 44. Mr. VON BALLUSECK (Netherlands) : Before stating the views of my delegation on the matter that is to be decided today, r should like to express our deep appreciation for the welcome the French Government has extended so generously, and, I may add, so valiantly, to the General Assembly. 45. As we know, the French Government at a previous stage had not felt that it was in a position to 50. In this connexion, I should like to be informed on the way in which the rule concerning travelling expenses for delegations to the General Assembly should be interpreted. For instance, would an extra trip be paid for in certain cases and what would be the financial implications involved? 51. Furthermore, I presume that, as a consequence, it would be necessary to postpone the session of the Economic and Social Council, which might not be able to meet before the month of March. This in turn will Korea. We feel that it would be undesirable and dangerous to deplete the fund still more, especially for a purpose which in the view of my delegation, does not fall under essential and urgent activities of the United Nations. 55. In conclusion, we feel that the proposed change in the opening date so greatly affects the picture which the General Assembly had before it when it took its decision in December 1950, that there would be every reason to reconsider the matter. In any case, my delegation will have to vote against accepting the gracious welcome so valiantly extended to us by the representative of .France. Our former objections to a meeting of the General Assembly away from Headquarters were based upon our general point of view that, on accotlnt of the serious financial and administrative implications, . such a meeting could only be justified for very worthy reasons and as an exceptional measure. Those objections still stand and are reinforced by the new factors with which we are now confronted. We feel that there is but one decision which the General Assembly would be justified in taking and that is not to meet in Paris but at Headquarters where sufficient facilities are available. - 56. Mr. BOKHARI (Pa1dst~n); I am sure that the French Government is entitled to our gratitude for the welcome it has offered to the sixth session of the 58. We are not convinced that the last paragraph of the draft resolution before us is quite as innocuous as it sounds because if you take into account the last sentence, ~hich provides for additional funds 'Yhich are unknown at the present time, we shall ?e votlng for a resolution the full consequences of which cannot yet be foreseen. 59. I do not think it is fair to ask the General Assembly to vote on an item of expenditure whose: magnitude is not known at the present moment. It IS perfectly obvious that inroads will be made upon the funds of the General Assembly, diverting them from causes· which are more worthy, especially in view of the fact that we are not convinced that there are any sound reasons for not holding the session at the proper Headquarters of the United Nations. 60. For those reasons, as well as for the reasons which have been SI} ably put forward by the representatives who have already spoken, my delegation will be constrained to vote agai~st this draft resolution. 61. General ROMULO (Philippines): The Government of France, true to its tradition of hospitality, of which the General Assembly availed itself once beforeand those of us who attended the third session in Pads are deeply grateful to the Government and to the people of France - has extended a kind invitation to us to hold our next session in Paris. The invitation is all the more precious because it has come after considerahle delay, not for want of hospitality but precisely becau~e the spirit of hospitality finally triumphed over certain considerations of some weight to the people and the Government of France. If, therefore, I am going to say -. as I must - that the Philippine delegation is opposed to the holding of the sixth session outside of Headquarters, it is not because we arl~ insensitive to the graciousness of the French invitation or indifferent to the many attractions which Paris offers us as our workshop for the thre~ months of our next session. Gratefully again we recall our sojourn in Paris in 1948, Member States, it is but a drop in the bucket. But in terms of the modest budget of the United Nations, it represents about 4.5 per cent of the total. 63. To bring the figure closer down to earth, it is nearly twice the annual cost of servicing the General Assembly, the councils, commissions and committees. It is more than the total cost of maintaining all the regional economic commissions for one year, and half a million dollars less than the cost of maintaining the United Nations Office at Geneva. That $2,350,400 would cover the cost of all the printing jobs of the United Nations during one year. And we do quite a bit of printing, considering some of the very long speeches to which we have to listen here. It would maintain the International Court of Justice for three and a half years. Finally, and this comparison should be of some interest to a great many delegations, $2,350,400 is slightly more than twice our annual appropriation for the Technical Assistance Programme -certainly one of the brightest achievements of the United Nations. 64. It is true that, if you distribute pro rata the $2,000,000 among sixty Member States, our respective national shares become comparatively small. But we have done some figuring in our delegation and our Foreign Office in Manila has done some figuring of its own. We find that, in addition to our share of the extra cost, the Philippine Government would have to spend approximately $50,000 more for its own delegation - and we can hardly afford that. 65. Each of the delegations will have made its own estimates. I believe that, in this time of general financial stringency, an appeal to ecotU.>my will strike a responsive chord in many of our national parliaments back home. I am confident that the many voices that have been raised in the Fifth Committee in support of economy measures will not fail to be heard at this meeting. 66. The invitation of the French Government states that Paris will not be ready to receive the Assembly until 6 November. This would delay the session by six weeks. We must consider whether it would be wise to permit so long a delay in view of the many vital questions that will be on the ag\~nda of. the General Assembly and wilt require urgent consideration. Moreover, to start the session during the second week of November would mean that there would be only five weeks in which the Assembly could meet before the Christmas holidays. This would require the representatives to stay in Paris through the Christmas holidays or to take a quick trip home, at their own expense, to 72. There are, it is true, certain considerations which Mr. Lacoste has made clear, the first being that the session should not start before 6 November. This will, of course, involve a departure, as the President has said, from rule 1 of the rules of procedure. But this in itself will present no difficulty, as I think it is provided for in the President's draft resolution. It might indeed be argued that since the present session is still continuing and seems likely to go on for a further period of some weeks, if not months, the Assembly might well be justified in postponing somewhat the normal opening date of the next session beyond the third Tuesday in September. ' 73. There are, of course, certain disadvantages in starting the sixth session so late in the year, since it seems most unlikely that the General Assembly will complete its work before Christmas. I would hope, therefore, that the French Government might find, on further reflection, that the opening date could be advanced to mid-October. Nevertheless, if this does prove to be impossible, my delegation would be prepared to accept an opening date of 6 November, and it would also agree to the second condition laid down by the French Government, namely, that if the Assembly has not completed its work before the end of 1951, it should continue to meet in Paris during the early part of 1952, though, I should certainly hope, for not too long into 1952. 74. The question of finance admittedly raises some difficulties, and, having just read the draft resolution, I see how the President has proposed to deal with that question. It seems to me and to my d~legation to be correct in principle and not open to serious objection. In so far as I understand it, what it means is that the total expenditure for the sixth session of the General Assembly will, in fact, be no more than we have already voted upon. That is really the principle which underlies the President's draft, and with that principle my delegation, I need hardly say, entirely agrees. 75. The draft resolution also says that if the Secretary- General does find, on examination, that certain sumsand I am sure they can only be small sums - could be made available by economies in other head ~~.gs and consequent transfer to .this particular heading, that could be done, provided always that our Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions agrees. I am quite certain that; that Committee will not agree unless there is good reason -,' and no doubt there may be good reason - for the transfer of such small sums as the Secretary-General may indicate are available. But I am sure that we shall hear the Secre- 76. The' PRESIDENT (translated from French): Before calling upon the representative of the Union of South Africa, I should like to say that the United Kingdom representative's interpretation corresponds exactly with the spirit in which the draft resolution. I am submitting to the Assembly was drawn up.

I should like to associate the South African delegation with the general remarks made by the representatives of the Netherlands and Sweden. We do greatly appreciate the welcome which the French Government has extended to the United Nations to hold its next session· in Paris. As Sir Gladwyn Jebb said, if we have to meet anywhere in Europe, I cannot think of a nicer place· to meet than in Paris. But our delegation voted against the resolution which provided for holding. a session in Europe, mainly because of the finanCIal implications. At a time of financial stringency, it is perhaps· asking a great deal to provide for a budget of $2,350,400, which would be $1,700,000 more than a session would ordinarily cost at Headquarters. 78. There is also the question of the late date on which the opening of the General Assembly would take place. I need not say much on that. I think that the representatives of the N eth~rlands and Pakistan have amply demonstrated how that may dislocate the work of the General Assembly. Apart from that, there is, for the South African delegation, another reason why we cannot support the proposal before us, and that is that our Parliament normally assembles in January, and it would mean that if a cabinet milnister were to lead the delegation, he might have to r,etum to South Africa before the work of the Assembly was finished. That would be an inconvenience, and it Is an additional reason why we would not be able to support the draft resolution. . . 79. Finally, while I am going to vote against the resolution in any event, I would also like to join the representative of the Netherlands in asking the Secretary-General whether it would be possible to make the financial arrangements envisaged in paragrapl-. 3 of the draft resolution before us within the framework of the $2,350,400, plus such additional amounts as may be authorized by borrowing from other sections, and also whether the Secretary-General is satisfied that it would not be necessary t,O resort to the Working Capital Fund if this draft resolution is adopted.

I regret that the Australian delegation will· have to vote against the draft resolution that has been distributed. I should like to make it clear at the outset that in d~ing so it is in no sense out of any lack of appreciation for the very generous gesture of the French Government. I feel sure that the representative of France will not misunderstand any remarks of mine which may follow. It is quite in keeping with th" traditional hospitality of France that this invitation should have come and that it should have been given at a time when, I may say candidly, it is not entirely convenient for the French Government. That only heightens our appreciation of tlle generosity of the offer. . ...'" 83. At the time that decision was made my delegation felt that there was no doubt at all that facilities would , be available in New York and, so far as I am aware, that fact was never contested. Not only were facilities available in Nev.;' York, but in many respects these had advantages over the facilities we had previously enjoyed in New York. Much of the travelling between Manhatta!i and Lake Success would have been obviated and c-onsultation among delegations and with the Secretariat would have been facilitated. \Ve were somewhat at a loss to understand exactly what these administra~ tive difficulties and shortcomings were. 84. Another consideration is that, at the time the resoiutiofi was adopted, there was really. no alternative to New York. It was not a question of weighing the respective merits of New York and some other place; it ",as a questiml of weighing the merits of New York and. an invitation from a government which at that time had not extended any. We had very great difficulty in agreeing that the fa.cilities in New York.were not as good as they were somewhere else, or anywhere else, so to speak, because no concrete proposal had been put up as an alternative to New York. 85. The General Assembly did, however, adopt a. resolution in due course that it would meet· in Europe, and the Secretary-General and the President of the General Assembly were requested to see what facilities could be arranged in Europe. In effect, we decided to .go to Europe and we then passed the hat around among the member delegations. After some time, the hat returned and, I am sorry to say, it was empty. But at a crucial stage in the negotiations, we heard that there was a possibility that the French Govemment would respond to the suggestion that had been made that we meet in Europe. In due course, the French Goverlh"lletttvery kindly agreed to make facilities available in Paris. 86. The French Government 'has placed some conditions on this invitatio..l and I have the greatest sympathy: for those conditions. The Australian Government would not for one moment suggest that they are anything other than perfectly reasonable and proper conditions. But they do pose certain difficulties. I would teca11 that r~501utioi1 497(V) which was adopted last December said ~hat "con.sidering that in these circumstances" (as they existed in New York) there may wi~e appears to the Australian Government' that the General Assembly could be held in New York with no impediment to its normal functioning or to the convenience of its deliberations. For this reason we feel it is very difficult to accept the proposal that we should meet in Paris. 88. A particular condition of the French Government to which I should like to draw attention is the one affecting the date of the opening of the session. We fully understand the reasons which have compelled the French Government to impose this condition, but to set the date at that time would practically amount to postponing the opening date of the General Assembly by almost two months; I think that would also postpose the closing of the General Assembly by at least that length of time, and possibly more, because there is likely to be an interruption over Christmas and the New Year. Some representatives may be compelled for a variety of rea!:lons, such as parliamentary duties at home or other compelling nece5.:1ties, to leave Paris) at least temporarily. The closing date of the session might be something in excess of two months. 89. In those circumstances, it seems to me that there would indeed exist a very serious in-lpediment to the normal functioning of the General Assembly. Furthermore, it is quite likely that the Economic and Social Council might wish to hold its first meeting in 1952 before the conclusion of the General Assembly, and that certainly would be an impediment to its normal functioning. The Economic and Social Council could not properly hold a session in the early part of the year if the General Assembly· were still in full swing. 90. Likewise, there is the question of the specialized agencies, many of which hold their geI!eral conferences in the early part of the year. There would be no time for discussions and decisions of the General Assembly to be conveyed to the general conferences of the specialized agencies if the likelihood existed of the session dragging on until late February. 91. Thus, I do not feel that we can conscientiously consider that we have arrived at a decisinn on the place of the next meeting which will impose 110 impediment to the normal functioning of the United Nations aud its spedalized agencies. I should like to point out too that the decision that we should meet in Europe next year was the third of three decisions affecting the meeting of United Nations organs away from Headquarters. Two sessions of the Economic and Social Council, at least, wen~ nnder consideration in the Fifth Committee and, indirectly, in the General Assembly. The fir3t of those sessions was to be held in Santiago, Chile, and, in fad, the Economic and Social Council has met there; the other was the second session in t . b1 he l'S held responsible. It is the more un~alr vana y . add" t h mg to the Secretary-General because, m Ibon 0 ay to pay the price for an increased bud~e~-:-not m ~ financial sense but in a sense of resp~nslblhty-;-he alf ways has to put up with the added m.conve111en~e 0 having his most senior and most expenenced adVisers scattered to the four corners of the globe. 100 I have dealt at some length on the administra· tive' considerations of this particular question bec~~se, as I said at the outset of my intervention, the declSlon to go to Europe in the first place wa.s based on administrative considerations. The Austrahan Gove;n;nent felt that if the matter was viewe~ purely ad~ll:lstra­ tively only one decision was possIble:. the decISIOn to meet 'in New York. It still feels the same way, The invitation that has now come before the Assembly confirms this in our view. 101. It is now no longer possible f?r us ,to hold the session in Europe in any manner which w111 allow the proceedings of the General Assem?ly to go for:vard with a reasonable measure of convemence and.efficI~ncy and with any reasonable certai~ty.that our dehberatl?ns are likely to come to an end wlthm a reasonable penod of time. 102. I should like to pass on to the politi~a1 considerations ill case there are some representatIves who are influenced by them. I do not wish light.ly to brush aside the views of those governments whIch feel that there is considerable value in rotating meetings from onc country to another. There is considerable merit in that and the Australian Government, on previous oc· cnsions has voted in support of proposals that the princip~l organs of the United Nations, or some of them, should hold meetings away from Headquarters. But I do feel that the political considerations and the administrative considerations are interlocked. I think that it would be very short-sighted indeed to itl6ist that meetings should be held in New York because, it was administratively convenient if, for any reason, It were politically unwise to hold them there. Similarly, I think it is unwise to insist that meetings should be held away fr0111 New York on the grounds that it is politically valuable or expedient when all the administrative considerations would point to the overwhelming desirability of meeting in New York, and I believe that to be the case today. 103. While it may be true that there are political advantages in holding a session of the General Assembly in Europe, I do feel that this year is not the year to do it. There will be other years when, perhaps, invitations can be extended in circumstances which will enable us to hold our deliberations with conve. nience and efficiency. Those considerations do not exist today. 104. Mr. WENDELEN (Belgium) (translated from French): In December last .[324th meeting], when resolution 497 CV) was adopted, whereby the General Assembly decided to hold its sixth session in Europe, my delegation abstained from voting. 105. The financial implications of the draft resolution submitted by the President of the General Assembly do 124. Secondly, I fully understand why the French representat~ve told us that it might be unwise to ask a government to receive us and to make quite considerable preparations for or.ty three or four or, at the most, six weeks. It is natural that the whole of the Assembly should be held in Paris. No representative could finu anything to say against that. decickd to hold its sixth session in Eurcpe. In paragraph 2 of the operative part of the resolution, the President of the General Assembly and the United Nations Secretariat were instructed "to select the city most suitable for the above purpose and to make the necessary arrangements". The preamble to this resol~tion states that "the building intended for the holdmg of the General Assembly will not be completed until 1952", and that consequently "there may arise t~ch!1ical difficulties liable to impede the normal functlOmng of the General Assembly", 127. Not one of the orators who spoke here and endeavoured to show the so-called advantages of New York over Paris took the trouble to explaifl why he thought that those advantages would be available this autumn and one and all confined themselves to a brief and unfounded statement on the subject. It is common knowledge however, that at the rate at which work on the ne~ Headquarters is proceeding, building operations on the New Yor1: site will be in full swing next autumn and the sixth ;:;ession of the General Assemhly and its Committf>e:; would probably have to work amid the clang of excavating ma<"Alines and hamme~s.· Thus, conditions at the New York Headquarters WIll hardly be conducive to the normal conduct of the work of the General Assembly's sixth session. 128. We have therefore absolutely no reason to reconsider the views set forth in the preamble to the General Assembly resolution adopted in .December; those views still stand, for the factors whIch led the General Assembly to include them in the pre~mble remain unchanged. This is so clear that there IS no need to dwell any further on the matter. 129. Considering, however, that the French Government, in welcoming the suggestion to hold the General Assembly's sixth session in Paris, proposed as one of the conditions that the opening date of the.session ~hould be postponed until 6 ~ovember,. we mIght deCIde to adopt a 'separate 'resolutlon-albelt there would appear to be no special need for it-to the effect that the General Assembly has no objection to a postponement of the opening date of its sixth session. 130. Some speakers have tried to prove to the Assembly that such a step ",:oul~ lead to a disl?cation in the work of United NatIons organs. Nothmg, however, justifies such a statement, which is merely couched in ((The General Assembly " ((Decides that the third ~egular session of the General Assembly shall be held in Europe; ((Requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with a committee of nine members designated by the President of the General Assembly, to choose the city where the third regular session of the General Assembly shall be held." And there the matter ended. That was the decision and the session was held in Paris without any additional discussion or financial considerations. 152. As. I see it, there is little need to take any special decisio~s now regarding the meeting place of the sixth session; we should therefore merely say that the General Assembly confirms its earlier decision of December last to hold its sixth session in Europe-to be precise, in Paris-adding a statement to the effect that the General Assembly has no objection to commencing its sixth session on 6 November instead of in September. Nothing more need be said. 153. As regards the expenditure involved, that is covered by definite financial rules which may not be brokell by anyone. Should additional funds be required, those dealing with such matters will have to prove conclusively to the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions that additional allocations are really needed. That is how matters really stand. 154. Consequently, if we are not to give in to those who would like to intimidate the General Assembly with references to insurmountable political and local obstacles, or at least to financial difficulties, it might perhaps be best to maintain only the first two paragraphs of the operative part of the draft resolution and to delete paragraph 3, although tbe latter does not call for any objection of substance. I 155. As is well known, when we discussed the place of meeting of the General Assembly's sixth session [324th meeting], 'the USSR delegation voted for Europe. The USSR delegation considers that the General Assembly's decision of last December is quite sufficient and sees no particular reason to adopt at tHe time any other decision. 156. The USSR delegation has no comments to make on the considerations set forth in Mr. Lacoste's letter Such behaviour makes a poor impression, to say the least. In my opinion, thf: General Assembly has every reason to take advantage of the hospitality which has been offered it and to convene its sixth session in Paris. 157. The USSR delegation will therefore ,vote for the first two paragraphs of the operative part of the draft resolution but does not see any special need for the inclusion of paragraph 3. 158. The PRESIDENT (tra,nslated from French): We have already heard ten speakers arid there are four more on my list: the representatives of Haiti, Israel, United States and France. If there is no objection, I shall close the list of speakers. Before putting to the vote the draft resolution now before the Assembly, I shaH call upon the Secretary-General who will answer some questions put to him. 159. lVIr. Dantes BELLEGARDE (Haiti) (translated from French) : I apologize for intervening in this discussion. I am a newcomer to the United Nations and, although I am a "veteran" of the League of Nations, . I regard myself as a "freshman" in this Assembly. I should, however, like to say why I shall vote in favour of the draft resolution before us. 160. The General Assembly adopted a resolution in December last, and it is valid, as the President has stated and most of the previous speakers have confirmed. We have been called together simply to decide whether France's proposal should be accepted. -We had decided that the next session of the United Nations' General Assembly should .be held in Europe. The Secretary-General told us in his report that he had not found any government in a position to invite the Assembly to meet in its capital or any other of its cities. 161. Now the Assembly has a formal invitation from the French Government which in all the more appreciated because it comes from the French National Assem~ly. It is the Frenr.;h nation itself, through its government, which is hlViting the United Nations to hold its next General Assembly in P~!i3 in November. 162. There is undoubtediy some valne to the arguments put forward during the discussion of the resolution adopted last December, and I do not see any ill will on the part of some of our colleagues who have used the same arguments again this afternoon. I do not regard that as a disloyal move: all those who have spoken against adopting the proposal are honourable men, guided solely by the interests of the United Nations and of peace throtighout the world. Nevertheless, the arguments advanced in December were not considered valid then by the General Assembly and they are not valid .this afternoon. 163. The only q"tlestioT.l which now remains is the date of the Gener~l Assembly's opening. The French re:,resentative has given the compelling reasons which prevented, and r.mll prevent, France from inviting the United Nations before' November. Many representatives have stressed the poirLt thnt that date would place them in a difficult position. S011.1e are accustomed to spend ~he next session of the General Assembly should be held in Paris. 169. Mr. RAFAEL (Israel) : The delegation of Israel voted last December against holding the sixth session of the General Assembly in Europe. The reasons which prompt us now to maintain our position have been enumerated and substantiated in this debate by the representatives of the Netherlands, Sweden and others who followed them. 170" May I, in this respect, add only one other small consideration. In addition to the financial burdens and administrative difficulties which would confront the United Nations in holding the next session in Europe, delegati0ns would have to accommodate themselves to new and untested facilities which might impede their efficient functioning. ' 171. In voting a~-ainst the draft resolution now before us, my delegation wishes to assure the representative of France that we greatly appreciate the gracious efficiencies and general convenience which would flow to us, as wdl as to a number of other countries,by reason of having the sixth session t~ke place in New York. I stress those three considerations of economy, efficiency and convenience. . 174. It seemed to us only appropriate to consider the question of economy not merely as a loyal Member of the Organization but as one of the large contributors to its budget. We agree with the comments that have been made by some of the preceding speakers that, in a sense, the general policy question was put at rest by the decision which was taken by the General Assembly' on 14 December, and it is not now my purpose to , reopen this matter nor to· question the policies underlying it, particularly because of the factors which led us to abstain, which I have just outlined. 175. With regard .to the questions which are' now before the Assembly, I consider that the record io com-- pletely clear with regard to several very practical considerations which have been presented. The w..atter of financial implir.ations of the proposal .contained in the draft resolution is one which I am sure will cause concern to all of us ana, for a variety of reasons, will be of particular concern to my gqvernment, as well as to some of the other governments represented here. 176. We are also very mnchconcerned, as I imagine all Members are, with the administrative problems which have been mentioned in very clear terms by some of the precedit1g speakers. It would be interest.;. ing to know what, in fact, would be the effect upon the work of the United Nations organs and specialized agencies of this new element which has come into the situation: the rather late date which the Government of France suggests or advises us is the earliest date upon which· it can conveniently make the necessary arrangements. While.I am sure that this is not the time or the place tQengage in general political polemics, it does seem to me that there may be varying interests .~ ~ 184. The SECRETARY-GEN.l:!.:RAL: I am reluc:·· tant to answer now all the questions which have been raised because if I am to negotiate agreements with the French Government I do not wish to commit myself to too great an extent at this time. A card player likes to have some hidden cards in his hand. 185. I might just say that the difference between 1948 and 1951 is the following, and I mention this to explain the necessity of adopting paragraph ~~ of the draft resolution proposed by the President. In 1948 countries were almost competing with each other to welcome the General Assembly, and we were so popular at that time that we had invitations from three governments in Europe-from the Governments of France, the Netherlands and BelgiWll. It was much easier then to negotiate the necessary agreements and we had in fact reached an understanding with all three governments on the basic principles relating to holding the Assembly in anyone of those countries. Thus, before we began to negotiate, detailed agreements were alread1' in existence with regard to each one of the countries which might be selected by the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, stipulating that the government concerned should provide us with a General Assembly hall, office space, buildings, maintenance service and so on. Everything was ready~ When Paris was chosen by the Advisory Committee, '. on my advice and in accordance with my proposal, we just had to work out the details with the French Government. 186. This time there is no basic agreement. We have a letter by which we are welcomed to Paris. Something remains to be negotiated-agreements concerning the practical life. of the General Assembly for twelve or thirteen weeks. 187. Therefore, I think it is necessary that paragraph 3 of the President's draft resolution shou1d be adopted by the General Assembly, as such a resobtion would

You may recall that I referred to those few words at the end of the draft resolution when I addressed the General Assembly earlier in the meeting. As I said then, it is quite cristomary. for amounts to be transferred from one section of the budget to another, and those words may mean no more than a repetition of the normal procedures of the General Assembly. I did say, however, that their express inclusion indicated to me the possibility that the Secretary-General might anticipate that the amount· of $2,350,400 would in fact prove to be inadequate. I am not quite sure. whether I correctly understood the' Secretary-General when he spoke to us a moment ago, but perhaps he could clarify this because it would have a bearing on my impression as to whether this particular sentence requires a two-thirds majority or not. 197. When the question was being considered at an earlier stage by the Fifth Committee and sub- .sequently by the General Assembly, there was a report from the Secretary-General [AIC.j5/433] which indicated that he anticipated that the cost of holding the session of the General Assembly in Europe would be a certain amount, on the assumption that certain facilities, which were there enumerated, were provided. by a host government. What I am not entirely dear about is this: is the Secretary-General proposing that if, in respect of those items which he had ~stimated would be carried on the United Nations budget, the expenditure is under $2,350,400, plus any savings on the budget from other sections, we should be authorized to apply those savings to lightening-·if I may say so without disrespect-the burden on the French Govem- . ment? If that were the. case, I think it would require a two-thirds majority" because it is a departure from what has already been agreed to. If, however, thos additional words are just to remind the General As sembly that after all it is not uncommon for sections to be exceeded and that, if the atnount of $2,350,4 were exceeded it is always open. to the Secretary.. General, with the concurrence of the Advisory Committee, to transfer it to another section, he would rela~ed to th~ question I put in my statement and to which I regret that I feel no answer has yet been given. If economies were 1l1ade, the effect on the budget in th~ normal course of operations would be that those economies would quite simply be unexpended funds, and therefore the purpose of the expenditure does seem to be relevant· to the point of order which has been raised. 199. In my comments a few moments ago, I very respectfully suggested that it would be most ·desirable to have th~e record perfectly clear on two points: first, whether the Government of France, in its planning and its concept of the probleml considers that the sixth session can be held in Paris without eAceeding the total amount set apart in the present 1951 budget for the purpos1e of holding the sixth session; and, secondly, before the vote is taken, among other things to enable my delegation to abstain rathe:", than vote against the pending draft resolution, it mig' ~,~ Le advisable to have an appraisal from the Secretary-General of the effect which the opening of the session at the late date sug"'~ gested would have upon the work of other United Nations organs and the specialized agencies. In no . sense did I put those two questions as rhetorical questions. They seem to my delegation to be relevant and . quite important to a proper and orderly consideration of t!lis matter. 200. The SECRETARY-GENERAL: I shall answer the last question first. If the General Assembly convenes on 6 No''lember~ .and goes on until the end of January or the middle of February, some difficu1tie~ will arise with the schedules of the specialized agencies. I have always encou\raged the specialized agencies to hold their general conferences in the spring, so that the international meeti,nfsmight be spread out over the year. That results in a saving in the long run. I cannot go into the detalls of that now. However, my answer to that que~on· is that there would be practical difficulties wlJch would, in the long run, mean the same thing' as further expenditure by the United Na- !ions and the specialized agencies. 201. With regard to the question'raised both by the representative of Australia and the representative of the UrJted States, it is too complex a question for me to answer at this time. We are all facing too many unknown factors. I cannot say more on that subject than what I have already stated. I think that paragraph 3 is necessary. 2Q2. Mr. BOKHARI (Pakiston): We can proceed on only one of two assumptions. Either paragraph 3 is necessary or it is not. According to the comments made by the President, one would conclude that it is merely a reiteration of a decision which has already been properly taken on a previous date. In that case, ci~cision will be taken by a simple majority. 205. I call upon the USSR representative on a point of order. 206. Mr. J. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): It seems to me that the United States representative is making what I would call an unfair request by asking the 'French representative to say; on his Government's behalf, whether the General Assembly will be able to manage on its present, budget. It is very difficult for any government to answer such a question, which is essentially a matter for the United Nations General Assembly itself. 207. I feel, therefore, that there is no need or justification for asking the French Government any such question. We ourselves can consider and decide here whether or not any additional funds will be required. Taking the whole situation into account, it is probable that they will be required. Should that be so, thtre is the accepted procedure whereby those responsible for financial arrangements must apply to the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions. 208. The USSR delegation therefore sees no particular need for paragraph 3 of the draft resolution, but if this paragraph is indispensable we could support it on the understanding that it is to be interpreted as meaning that we are not thereby authorizing the Advisory Commh~ee on Adtninistrative and Budgetary ,Questions to revise the General Assembly's decision but that its function must be restricted to finding, together with those . responsible for the budget" ways and means of covering the additional expenditure; in any case, the Advisory Committee must not be given carte blanche in the matter. That Committee prlght suddenly decide that it cannot sanction additional funds I would beg leave to suggest that it is unnecessary. However, a moment ago, the Secretary-General assured ,us that this paragraph is in fact necessary, which ~eace that we can so easily trade a few m~1lion dollars ; lIght-heartedly? And for what purpose? Can someone . tell us just what advantage i~ to be gained from going to Paris and trading away a few million dollars? This Organization has great responsibilities qn its should~rs.. Not even the Government of France wants the United Nations to meet in Paris at that time. It is quite right. The French Government is not anxious to put up a few million dollars (f its own mor!e}r for the doubtful blessing of having an international organization sitting in the Palais de Chaillot during a very critical period of its political life. I ask -those who support the idea of going to Paris if that would be. an advantage to the United Nations. By the time of the proposed date, the French elections will just have been held. The French Government will be settling down to a period of cabinet-fon'lling and party politics. Would it 'be an advantage to France to have us there? Would that be an advantage to the United Nations? Where is the advantage? . • 219. It is not my intention to speak fo~ a long time, I am rising now only to speak on a point of order. I - did not speak before because I did not want to influence the majority. The fact is inescapable that starting the session on 6 November would upset the entire meeting schedule of the United Nations. It must be ca1~u1ated that between the end of such a -session and the beginning of the following General Assembly there will be only a six months' interval, while the period between the end of last December .and,. the next' General Assembly will be about a year. 1rou cannot leave the problems of the wotld to be considi~red&tsucb irregular intervals. ' 221. The PRE~'HDENT (translated from French): We are.now discus,:';ng the question whether paragraph 3 requires a two-thirds majority for adoption or not. We have already had a long debate; let us not stray from the subject.

The President has been good enough to express his views on whether or not rule 84 of the rules of procedure applies. May I remind him that I h~ve also drawn his attention to rule 152, on which he has not expressed his vi~ws. I should like to refresh the memory of the General Assembly by reading the last sentence: UN0 resolution in 1espect of which expenditures are anticipated by the Secretary-General shall be voted by the General Assembly until the Administrative and Budgetary Committ~e has had an opportunity of stating the effect of the proposal upon the bud.1et estimates of the United Nations." 223. The question before us is merely this; n respect ,A the decisions l,:ontained in this draft resolution, does th~ Secretary-General anticipat(; further expenditures? He has told us twice that he does. H so, this is one of those draft resolutions on which the Assembly, in the way it is at present set up, is not empowered to vote unless the matkr has been before the Fifth Committee and the report of that Committee, on the effect of the proposal, is before the Assembly. I should be very grateful to the President if he would rule on this matter in the spirit of rule 152 of tilt'; rules of procedure. . 224. The PRESIDENT (translated ff'om French): In my opinion, rllle 152 does not apply. It reads aB follows: '"No resQlution invohr;ng exppnditure shali be reclJliii~ended by a committee for approval by the General Assembly unless it is accompanied by an estimate of ex:penditures prepared by the Secretary-General." 225. But this is not a committee, this is the Assembly itself. Furthermore, rule 152 was applied when the Assembly w.:mted to take a decision on the 1uestion of holding the sixth session in Europe. At that time the Fifth Con:mittee studied the financial implications and submitted a report to the Assembly [A/1714]. The Assembly then approved the budget ~s a whole by a two-thirds majority. Com,equently, I repeat, rule 152 doe':; not npply in this case. It is true that the Charter and the ruk.... of procedure stipulate that a draft resolutior. ·'''':~h has budgetary implications must be approved by two-thirds majority. When the General Assembly h~s doubts whether this rule is applicable to a draft resolution or not, however. and is divided on the point, it must take a specific decision. I should therefore like to have tb~ Ai;seinhly's opinion in order to get out of this impasse. It would be difficult for me to make a ruling myself or to listen to the same arguments over 1.nd over again. I shaH therefore not make a ruling but shall ask for the Ass,~biy's opinion. Are we agreed on this po;,nt?

I have listened carefully to the remarks of the representatives ot P~dcistan and Iraq, but I cannot support them for the simple reason that, whatever happens, the 1951 bttdget cannot be altered. It has been adopted by a tWD-thirds majority of the Assembly. Since the budget has not been amended and expenditures do not exceed its provisions, no new question has arisen, contrary to the affirmation of the represen- ~onsequent1y, I do not think that a two-thirds majority IS necessary. 233. Mr. LACOSTE (France) (translated from French) : I merely wish to reply to Mr. Gross's question. The French Government has not asked for any specific sum to help it in the preparatory arrangements for the Assembly, but relies on the Secretary-General to contribute whatever he can within the available appropriations, towards the Ass~mbly's session in Europe. If the Secretary-General should find that he does not have quite enough funds at his disposal and should wish to consult the Advisory Committee on Administra~ive and Budgetary Questions, that is for him. to dec.lde. We have asked for nothing more than the assI.stance, understanding and co-operation of the Umted Nations in giving us, within the limits deemed possible by the Secretary-General, such support as will ensure that our financial obligations are not excessive. 234. Mr. KHALIDY (Iraq): I do not believe it is proper procedure-again taking the President's leave since I seem to be disagreeing with him all the tim.e today-to take the sense of this Assembly when there is in the rules of procedure a rule which is quite clear. The representative of Pakistan quoted the second sentence of rule 152. This is quite specific and reads as follows: "No resolution in respect of which expenditures are anticipated by the Secretar¥-General shall be voted by the General Assembly until the Administrative and Budgetary Committee has had an opportunity of stating the effect of the proposal upon the budget estimates of the United Nations." "235. When the rules are very clear there should be no question either of a ruling or of taking the sense of the Assembly. The rule is clear. We cannot take a vote by a simple majority to decide on a question whiCh is already determined by the rules of procedure. 236. The PRESIDENT: Who is to decide whether or not the rule is clear? It may seem clear to you but others may have a different opinion. "237. Mr. BOKHARI (Pakistan): The President was going to put to the Assembly the question of whether rule 84, which provides for a two-thirds majority, does or does not apply. I have submitted that the" second sentence of rule 152 is applicable. The President has disagreed with me. Therefore, to get the record straight, that should be the first question to be put to the Assembly; if that is the President's ruling, I shall take the liberty of challenging that ruling. 238. The PRESIDENT .(translated from French) : My ruling is firm and final. The Pakistani representative's last resort is to challenge it. The time is now 6.30 p.m. and the matter has been sufficiently discussed. I shall put to the Assembly the question of whether or not the adoption of paragraph 3 of the draft resolution requires a two-thirds majority. Have I made myself clear? 239. Mr. BOKHARI (Pakistan): I challenge the ruling. 240. The PRESIDENT (translated from French) : I shall repeat my ruling, which is to put to the Assem- 244. As to the question of language, I might add that the President speaks most beautifully in both languages. 245. The PRESIDENT (translated from French) : The President is not obliged to make a ruling 011 every question put to him. I have acquired a certain familiarity with the conduct of debates during the six months of the General Assembly. I repeat my ruling as President and shall not accept any points of order. My decision, as President, is to put to the General Assembly the question of whether a two-thirds majority is required for the adoption of paragraph 3 of the draft resolution contained in document Aj1790. 246. Are the members of the General Assembly agreeable that I should put the question in this way? There are no objections. The General Assembly agrees that the question should be put thus. I therefore put to the vote'the question of whether a two-thirds majority is required for the adoption of paragraph 3 of the draft resolution. The result oj the vote was 11 in jav01wJ 23 against and. 11 abstentions. It was decided by a two-thirds m;aJonty t~a~ paragraph 3 could be adopted by a. stmpZe maJonty. uThe General Assembly, UHaving been informed that the French Governtt1~nt, desirous of responding to the wish that has been expressed to it on several occasions, has decided to welcome the General Assembly to Paris for tne duration of its sixth session, . "1. Decides, in pursuance of its resolution 497 (V) of 14 December 1950, to hold its sixth regular session in Paris; "2. Decides that, notwithstanding u~e provisions of rule 1 of its rules of procedure, the sixth session .shall commence not later than 6 November 1951; "3. Authorizes the Secretary-General to conclude with the French Government the necessary agreements fm· holding the sixth session of the General Assembly in Paris, provided that the total estimated cost of holding the sixth session in Paris (including such meetings as may be arranged after 1 January 1952) shalt not exceed the amount of $2,350,400 provided in the 1951 budget, plus such additional amounts as may be authorized by transfe~( j~rom other sections of the 1951 budget by the Secreta1.y-General with the prior concurrence of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions." The first part of paragraph 3 was adopted by '28 votes to 15, with 10 abstentions. 259. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I now put to the vote the last part of paragruph 3, beginning with the words: ". . . plus such additional amounts . . :'. The last part of paragraph 3 was adopted by 22 votes to 17, with 12 abstentions. 260. Mr. SARPER (Turkey): My delegation regrets that it is not in a position to support this draft resolution due to the inclusion of paragraph·3. I shall therefore vote against the dra.ft resolution, but for that reason only. 261. The PRESIDENT (translated from French) : I now pu~ to the vote the draft resolution as awhole. A vote by roll-call has been requested. A vote was taken by roll-call. Colombia, having been drawn by lot by the President, was called upon to vote first. In favour: Colombia, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, France, Haiti, Iran, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Argentina,. Belgium, Bolivia, .Byelorussian SO'\iet Socialist Republic, Chile. Agaim·t: India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Liberia, Nether1~nds, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Sweden, Turkey, Union of South Africa, United States of America,'Australia, Canada, China. Abstaining: Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Greece,.Mexico, Saudi Arabia, $yria, Thailand, Yetnen, Afghamstan, Brazil. The draft resolution was adopted by 24 'Votes to 17, with 12 abstentions. The meeting rO~'e at 6.45 p.m.