S/PV.102 Security Council

The members of the Council have before them the Secretary-General's report to the President of the Security Council concerning the credentials of the representative of Brazil on the Security Council (document S/274). I shall read that report: I Ibid., Supplement No. 5, Annex 14. Le PRESIDENT: A"ant d'aborder l'examen de l'ordre du jour, je desire, au nom du Conseil de securite, souhaiter la bienvenue aM. I'Ambassa. deur Aranha, le nouveau representant du Bresijj du reste, notre collegue a deja ete introduit au· pres de vous par le rapport du Secretaire general sur ses pouvoirs. La, brillante carriere de M. l'Ambassadeur Aranha, les fonctions elevees qu'il a occupees, la grande experience qu'il a acquise en font un digne succeSseur du regrette M. Velloso; elles sont, en meme temps, le sur garant de sa collaboration aux travaux du Conseil de securite. , M. ARANHA (Bresil) (traduit de l'anglais): Je tiens a VOllS remercierde votre aimable ac- , cueil. Mon Gouvernement a. deja exprime sa gratitude pour I'hommage que le Conseil a rendu a mon predecesseur, le regrette ambassadeur Leao Velloso; il m'a honore en me chargeant de poursuivre son reuvre de collaborati<)11 avec cha· cun d'entre vous, et sa lutte pour les principes de paix continentale et mondiale inherents aux traditio!lS et al'ideal du peuple bresilien. r Des le debut, de 'notre, activite internationale, nous nous sommes toujours inspires de la conviction que tous les problemes humains peuvent etre resoIus pacifiquement entre hommes et entre peuples de bonne volonte. Aujourd'hui plus que jamais, nous sommes persuades que ce but peut et doit etre atteint grace a la collaboratioil des Nation'S Unies. Le PRESIDENT: Les membres du Conseil ont sous les yeux le rapport du Secretaire general au President du Conseil de securite concernant les pouvoirsdu representant du Bresil au Conseil de securite (document S/274). Je vais en donner lecture: ' 1 Voir Proces-verbaux officiels du ,Conseil de securite, Deuxiem,e Annee, No 9, page 151. • Ce corrigendum ne concerne que le texte fratt/iais. I Voir' Proces-verbaux officiels du Conseil de securite, Deuxieine Annee, SuppMment No 2, Annexe 4. • Ibid., Supplement No 5, Annexe 14. 45. Modafication et adoption de I'ordre du iour Le PRESIDENT: L'ordre du jour appelle 1'examen de la resolution de I'Assemblee generale sur les "principes regissant la reglementation et la reduction generales des armements" et des proposItions relatives a leur mise en application. '45. Modification and adoption of the agenda The PRESIDENT (translated from French): The agenda calls for consideration of the General Assembly's resolution on ':the principles governing the regulation and reduction of armaments" and the proposals for their implementatir'll. . At its meeting of 4 February,t the Council instructed me to contact the representatives who had submitted draft resolutions, and to examine with them the possibility of working out a single draft like1:r to be approved by t..l}e Council. It is my duty to report on the accomplishment of this mission. The exchange of views which took place resulted in the text which you have before you (document S/268). This document contains elements taken from the various previous proposals. It is intended to replace them, and would appear to be of a nature to facilitate our discussion considerably. I shall now read it to you: Dans sa seance du 4 fevrier!, le Conseil m'a charge de prendre contact avec les representants qui avaient soumis des projets de resolution et. d'examiner avec eux la possibilite d'eJaborer un projet commun susceptible de recueillir I'approbation du Conseil. fai pour devoir de faire rapport sur l'accomplissement de cette mission. Les echanges de vues auXquels nous avons procede ont abouti au texte que vous avez soUs les yeux (documents S/268 et S/268/Corr.l )2. Ce docu- .merit comprend des elements empruntes aux diverses propositions anterieures; Il se substitue a celles-ci et, ace titre, parait de nature afaciliter considerablement nos discussions. Je vais en donner lecture: .uLe Conseil de securite, ayant accepte la resolution de l'Assemblee generale du 14 decembre 1946 et reconnaissant que la reglementation et la reduction generales des armements et des forces armees constituent une mesure tres importante en vue d'affermir la paix et la securite internationales et que la mise en reuvre de la resolution prise par I'Assemblee generale a ce sujet est une des tftches les plus urgentes et les pl\lS importantes du Conseil de securite, uDecide: "1. D'elaborer lesmesures pratiques necessarres pour donner efIet aux resolutions prises par l'AssembIee generale le 14 decembre 1946 et relatives, d'une part, ala reglementation et ala reduction generales des armements et des forces armees ainsi qu'a I'etablissement d'un controle international en vue d'amener la reduction des armements et des forces armees, et, d'autre part, aux informations sur les forces armees des Nations.Unies; "2. D'examiner dans le plus bref delai le rapport presente par la Commission del'energie atomique et de prendre les decisions appropriees en vue de faciliter ses travaux. "3. De constituer une commission composee de representants des membres du Conseil de secu- "The Security Council, having accepted the reaolution of the General Assembly of 14 December 1946, and recognizing that the general regulation and reduction of armaments and armed forces constitute a most· important measure for strengthening international peace and security, and that the implementation of the resolution of the General Assembly on this subject is one of the most u!gent and important·tasks before the Security Council, . . ((Resolves: "1. To work out the practical measures for giving effect to the resolutions of the General Assembly on 14 December 1946 concerning, on the one hand, the general regulation and reduction of armaments and armed forces, and the establishment of international control to bring about the reduction of armaments and armed forces, and, on the other hand, information concerning the armed forces of the United Nations; "2. To consider as soon as possible the report submitted by the Atomic Energy Commission and to take suitable decisions in order to facilitate its work; "3. To set up a commission consisting of representatives of the members of the Security s~ance of Article 43 of the Charter." With regard to paragraph 3, this text contains two alternatives: the italicized passages represent the changes made in the original text. Several of the proposals which were submitted to the Security Council in January, andparticularly those presented by the representatives of France and Colombia, concerned both the Assembly's iesol~tion on the principles governing the gener~lTeductionand regulation of armaments and the resolution on information on arllled forces. . Although these resolutions are referred to in different items of our agenda (items 2 and 3 respectively), we thought that the Council would not object to combining these two items for the sake of simplification. If the Council· agrees, the examination of item 3 of the agenda will be combined with that of item 2. The President's suggestion was approved and the agenda was adopted. 46. Continuation of the discussion on general regulation and reduction of armaments and information on armed forces Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): I should like to report to the Security Council the distinguished service of the President of this Council in those meetings of the small committee .which laboured for some. time to attempt to Ce projet de resolution comporte, en ce qui concerne le paragraphe 3, l'option entre deux textes, les passages en -italique representant les changements apportes au texte original. Plusieurs des propositions qui avaient ete soumisesau Conseil de s~curite dans le courarrt du mois de janvier, en particulier celles des representants de la-France et de la Coloinbie, cancernaient a la fois la resolution de l'Assemblee sur les principes regissant la reduction et la regIementation generales des armements et.la resolution sur les informations relatives aux forces armees. Bien que ces resolutions soient visees en des points differents de notre ordre du jour (respectivement les points 2 et 3), no~s avons pepse, en raison de la simplification qui en resulterait, que le Conseil ne verrait pas d'objection ace que ces deux points soient unis en un seuI. , Si le Conseil partage cette maniere de voir, il conviendrait de lier l'exatnen du point 3 de l'ordre du jouracelui du p()iI1t 2. La suggestion du President est approuvee et l'ordre du jour est adopte. . 46. Suite de la discussion sur ·Ia reglementation t!t la reduction generales 'des armements et sur les informations relatives aux forces armees M. AUSTIN (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais) : Je tiens a slgnaler au Conseil de ,securite les services .eminents rendus par le President de ce Conseil au cours des seances du COrDite restreint qui, pendant un <:ertain temps, s'est ......... I fear that, in all I have said before Oll this subject, I have failed to present the position or the United States adequately. It is my purpose today to Festate briefly that position in the hope' of clarifying what has been misunderstood" or what has not been dear, and of trying clearly to demonstrate our support for the longer text of document S/268 which contains the italicized passages appearing in paragraph 3. V'e support the draft only on condition that it !s accepted in its entirety; we consider that it cannot be divided. We ~Olud hardly go 'forward with a part 'of this resolution and leave out that part which we consider .absolutely essential, to the effort /)£ abolishing war. Truly, the matter in which we are engaged in setting up this commission it; directly and intimately linked with that grand objective, the abolition of war. The procedure for the prohibition of atomic weapons and their complete withdrawal from use by mankind, together with the general resolutions which we are considering concerning the regulation of armaments and possible disarmap.:entwith regard to weapons other than those which are called major-weapons of mass destruction, constitutes one of the most essential steps towards the abolition of war. Therefore, if we should succeed in setting up a ~ommission, we should certainly be making great progress towards the abolition of war by defining its jurisdiction so clearly that there would be no conflict between the Commission, already in existence and the new one which we are planning to establish. I am certain that the General Assembly would never have agreed that the Security Council should set up a new commission which would have authority to encroach upon the jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Cori:Imissior. I should like to point out to you that paragraph 8 of the General Assembly's resolution, which has been so consistently upheld by the representative of the Soviet Umon, does not in itself bar the Security Council from doing that very thing. Paragraph 8 of that resolution states: "Nothing herein contained shall alter or limit the resolution of the General Assembly passed on 24 January 1946, creating the Atomic Energy Commission."l . In that paragraph, the General Assembly was merely stating that it had no intention whatever, The Security Council certainly has substantial authority in the field of at0rWc energy, and it is able to delegate that authority if it sees fit. The United States insists that it must not delegate to the proposed commission any authority in the field which has been set aside for the jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Commission. We insist that this is essential. , '. I think it is clear frorr~ the distussions .we have' had up to date t~at the Soviet Union is notwilling that the new commission should be expressly ·barred from considering matters which have been assigned to the Atomic Energy Commission. I make no atte~pt to give any reason for that refusal, but it is clear that one reason might well be an intention on the part of the Government of the USSR to introduce proposals int.o this new commission 'which appropriately fall withiri the terms of reference of the Atomic Energy Commission. The discussions we have held here have strengthened the determination of my Govern- . ment not to agree to terms of reference whicll would give any Member of the United Nations such an opportunity. To my mind, the reiteration that the provisions I have presented are unnecessary simply does not hold water. I have no hesitation in submitting my position to the scrutiny of the Security Council and of the world. I should like to know what information the Member States will be called upon to furnish to the Security Council through this commission, in order to give effect to the resolution of 14 December 1946 on the principles governing the regulation and reduction of armaments. As its title indicates, the resolution concerns "information on the armed forces of the United Nations". The debate leading to adoption of this particular resolution revealed differences of opinion as to whether such information should include armed forces in ex-enemy territories, armed forces in Allied territories or armed forces within each Member State. An issue also developed regarding what categories of uniformed citizens b~aring arms are included in the term "armed forces". Therefore, basing ourselves strictly on the letter of this resolution,! the kind of information .~,~.o.o,o,_ •._,.,.~ ~ sm --- ------- _--------~ Nos discussions n'ont fait que renforcer la volonte de mon Gouvernement de ne pas souscrire a un mandat qui offrirait une telle possibilite a un Membre quelconque de l'Organisation. A mon avis, I'assertion selon laquelk "es clauses que j'ai soumises sont superflue~, n'a pas de valeur. Je n'hesite donc pas a soumettre ma position a l'examen du Conseil de securite et du monde. Quelles informations, je vous le demande, les Etats Membres sont-ils appeIes a fournir au ConseiI de securite par I'intermediaire de cette commis~ion pour donner effet ala resolution du 14 decembre 1946 sur les principes regissant la reglementation et la reduction des armements? Comme le titre de la resolution l'indique, il s'agit d' "informations relatives aux forces armees des Nations Unies". Le debat qUi s'est termine par I'adoption de cette resolution a revele des differences d'opinion sur la question de savoir si ces renseignements doivent porter sur les forces armees qui se trouvent sur lea territoires ex-ennemis, les'forces armees stationnees sur les territoires allies ou les forces armees stationnees sur le territoire de chacun des Etats Membres. On a egalement souleve la question de savoir quelles categories de citoyens en uniforme et en armes etaient visees par le terme "forces armees". Je dirai donc que si l'on s'en tient strictement aux termes de cett~ resolution1, le genre de ren- Specifically, the question 3S whether the proposed commission for conventional armaments, assuming that its terms of reference exclude the phrase I have jnst quoted, ,":ould be c?mpete~t to recommend to the Secunty Council that It request Membe~ States to furnish informatio~ regarding atoIDlc weapons-let us, fc.ce this boldly-and other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction. It is believed that the phrasl'" in question should be retained in order that the intent of the Security Council in this connexion may be clear; namely, that the matters relating to atomic weapons are not within the competence of the nronosed commission for conventional arma- ~ertts, and therefore the commission cannot originate a recommendation for information on such weapons pursuant to the General Assembly resolutton of 14 December 1946 regarding information on armed forces. This belief is based upon an examination of the records of the General Assembly and of its committees at the time that the resolution regarding information on armed forces was pending. This exarnination reveals that, throughout the period of the General Assembly's consideration of this matter, the position of the Soviet Union did not change one bit; here I should like to quote my friend Mr. Gromyko, with whom I have really enjoyed the process of negotiation, and with whom I have not had a bitter moment throughout the discussions-and our friendship grows grea.ter every day. Mr. Gromyko said~ "The submission of information on military forces at home can only be justified in the case where it is requested at the same time as the information about armaments. . . . However much this information mav be of interest to the General Assembly 0'; -to the Security Council before the consideration of the question of the general reduction of armaments, the value of such information would not be very great if we did not receive, at the same time, the submission of all information concerning armaments, ha.ving in mind all types of armaments and including therein the new types of armament for mass destruction."1 This position was maintained by the Soviet Union even after other Members refused to accept it, and the resolution on information on armed forces was adopted by the General ;\ssem.b~ywith the Soviet Union still maintaining Its pOSItIon. If we take. this view regarding information on armed forces, the proposed new commission t Second interpretation, Journal No. 63, Supplement A -;-AlP.V./63, page 667, General"Assembly plenary meet. mg, 14 December 1946. 17.; __ I'Ass~mblee generale du 14 decembre 1946 sur les informations relatives aux forces armees. Notre opinion repose sux un examen des proces-verbaux de l'AssembIee generale et de ses Commissions, dates de I'epoque Oll ron preparait la :,esolution relative aux informations' sur les forces armees. O~t examen revele que la position de I'Union sovietique n'a pas varie un instant au cours des travaux consacres a cette question par l'AssembIee generale; j'aimerais citer id mon ami M. Gromyko, avec qui ce {ut un veritable plaisir de negocier, sans qu'il y eut jamais un moment penible qui put jeter nne ombre sur tIDe amitie tous les jours grandissante. M. Gl'omyko a dit: "Le fait de fournir des informations stir les troupes situee£ sur le territoire national ne pourrait ctre justifie que dans le cas Oll des renseignements seraient egalement demandes sur les armements . . . Quel que soit I'interet que de tels renseignements pourraient presenter pour l'AssembIee generale ou pour le Conseil de securite, avant I'etude du probleme de la reduction genera-le des armements, leur valeur serait limitee, etant donne qu'ils seraient hTlcomplets et ne porteraient pas sur les armements; et j'ai en vue tous les armements, y compris les nouvelles armes de destruction ma.ssivet." L'Union sovietique a maintenu cette position, meme apres que d'autres Membrl;;s eurent refuse de l'accepter, si hien que la resolution relative aux informations sur les forces armees a ete adoptee par l'Ass~mbIee generale sans que l'Union sovietique ait abandonne san point de vue. Si telle est l'attitude que l'on adopte en ce qui concerne les renseignements re1atifs aux forces t Premiere interpretation, Journal No 63, Supplement A -AlP.V'/63, page 667, seance pIeniere de l'AssembIee generale du 14 decembre 1946. Mr. Gromyko finds it unnecessary. In view of the record we can hardly believe that. We have • a declaration that is positive, clear and unequivocal, and if we were to accept the alternate wording, there would be no restriction at all, for that wording excludes nothing and includes everything. Let me read· it: "... which the commission may be in a position to formulate in order to ensure the impl~mentation of the above-mentioned resolutionS of the General Ac;sembly of 14 December 1.946". Both resolutions, period. There are no qualifications, no exclusions; it is all quite comprehensive. In these circumstances, we believe that the phrase in question should be retained so .that there may be no doubt\that such a recommenda:- tion, if directed toward~ atomic weapons, would not be within the competence of the new commission. ' We are engaged in a grave undertaking. We are making an important step towards the abolition of atomic weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. We arealso taking this further step of disarmament with respect to conventional arms. This is a grave step, and it should not be confused and postponed by any move to initiate a new debate, or to prolong discussion over procedure and jurisdiction. Jurisdiction should be settled clearly now, .once and for all, in orner that we may start from scratch, knowing where we are heading. We wish to be. migrants, not vagrants. The terms' of reference of the new commission should be so clear that it will have no legal right to call for information regarding weapons and armaments and those other matters which fall within the competence of the Atomic Energy Commission, as determined by the General Assembly resolutions of> 24 January 1946 and 14 December 1946. The plan of work which the proposed commission should submit to the Council for approval should not be liable to an interpretation so unlimited that the information furnished by the States Members could include information regarding atomic bombs or any other major weapon adaptable to mass destruction, The Atomic Energy Commission, it alone, is entrusted with the duty of proceeding-and I quote its terms of referenc:.::- "... with the utmost despatch.and enquire into all phases of the problem and make such recommendations from time to time with respect to them as it finds possible". . The term,' "all phases of the pI.)blem~', is explained ~ the first paragraph of the text of the Dans ces conditions, nous estimons que la phrase en question doit etre maintenue pour qu'il soit m.discutable qu'une recommandation visant les armes atomiques ne serait pas de la competence de la nouveIle commission. Nous sommes en .face de· decisions graves. Nous sommes en train de faireun grand pas vers I'abolition des armes atomiques et des autres armes de destruction massive. Nous sommes aussi en train de faire un grand pas vers le desarmement dans le domaine des armes de type dassique. Ceci constitue une decision tres grave; il faut nous refuser a toute confusion et a tout retard qui seraient provoques par une tentative de rouvrir le debat et de prolonger les discussions sur des points de procedure et de competence. Des maintenant, et une fois pour toutes, il faut definir clairement cette competence, afin qu'ayant fait table rase, nous puissions travailler, en sachant ou nous allons. Nous voulons aller de I'avant et non nousegarer. Le mandat de la nouveIle commission doit etre defini d'une maniere si claire qu'eIle ne puisse Iegalement demander des renseignements relatifs aux armes, armements et autres questions qui sont du ressort de la Commission de I'energie atomique, en vertu des resolutions de l'AssembIee generale des 24 janvier 1946 et 14 decembre 1946. Le plan de travail que la commission envisageedevra soumettre a I'approbation du Conseil ne doit pas risquer d'etre interprete d'une maniere si large que les renseignements fournis par les Etats Membres puissent··comprendre des renseignements relatifs aux bombes atomiques ou aux autres armes principales permettant des destructions massives. ;La Commission de l'energie atomique, et eIle seule, procede-et ici je lirai le texte de son mandat-"... avec toute la promptitude possible a l'examen du probleme sous tous ses aspects et soumet a leur sujet les recommanda- . tions qu'eIle juge pouvoir faire". La portee des ,mots "examen du probleme sous tous ses aspects~' est expliquee dans le pre- Let us examine those other terms of reference which apply to more particular functions. What I have read constitutes the general terms of reference and shows the scope of the authority of the Atomic Energy Commission. What I am about to read concerns particular points on which the Commission is to make recommenda- .tions within its general authority. In the terms of reference, we find a more precise description of the jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Commission, which the new commission should not duplicate or encroach upon. Thus: . "(a) for extending between all nations the exchange of basic scientific information for peaceful ends"; (It is unfortunate that we cannot put all our emphasis on that point, but the situation is such that we are obliged to put all our emphasis on the weapon, because that is where,our danger is today.) . . "(b) for control of atomic energy to the extent neces~ary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes; . "(c) for the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of all other major weapons adaptable to mass de~ction; "(d) for effective safeguards by way of inspection and other means to protect complying States against the hazards of violations and evasions."1 The jurisdiction of the new commission should be defined so as to limit the information it may request to ensure the implementation of the resolution of the General Assembly of 14 December 1946. This information should not relate to atomic weapons and all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction; those particular affairs are assigned to the Atomic Energy Commission. I am willing to repeat this time after time in order that it may be clea;. I have. suffered from whatever opprobrium follows repetition. I have taken the advice of my associates in ~ smaller committee and have,deleted repetitIOn where it could be done without damaging the principle involved. But we have gone to the end of the cable tow. We can go no farther in making deletions. We have thoroughly examined the matter to see if anything else could be dele~ed here in order to simplify the conditions that will prevent the Atomic Energy Commission from encroaching upon its jurisdiction, and we find it impossible to delete any without crippling the whole effort. Therefore we say that the first italicized phrase should be retained in the resolution' that is to ~( . , say: '" zn so far as these resolutions relate to U a) de developper, entre toutes les nations, l'echange des renseignemeuts sdentifiques fondamentaux pour des :fins pacifiques;" (n est regrettable que nous ne puissions mettre l'accent exclusivement sur ce point, mais la situation est telle que nous sommes contraints de mettre l'accent exclusivement sur l'arme ato-" mique, car la est le danger actue!.) Ub) d'assurer le controle de l'energie atomique clans la mesure necessaire pour assurer son utilisation a des :fins purement pacifiques; U c) d'eliminer, des arinements nationaux, les armes atQmiques et totites autres' armes importantes permettant des destructions mas- 'sives; ~~d) de prendre des mesures efficaces de sauvegarde, en organisant'des inspections et par tous autres moyens, en vue de protegeI' les Etats respectueux des engagements contre les risques de violations et de subterfuges1." . n fimdra definir nettement la competence de l~nouvelle commission, de fagon a limiter"les in." formations qu'elle pou..."Ta demander en vue d'assurer la mise en reuvre de la resolution adoptee par l'AssembIee generale le 14 decembre 1946; ces informations ne devront pas porter sur les armes atomiques et toutes autres armes importantes permettant des destructions massives, ces questions particulieres etant du ressort de la Commission de l'energie atomique. Je suis pret a le repeter encore et encore, pour qut:: la chose soit bien claire. J'ai subi toutes les critiques dont on accable les gens qui se repetent. J'ai suivi le conseil de mes com~gues du comite restreint, et j'ai supprime les repetitions toutes les fois que j'ai pu le faire sanS prejudice pour le principe en cause. Mais nons ne pouvons pas faire un pas de plus. Nous ne pouvons plus rien supprlmer. Nous avons examine si 1'0n pouvait encore supprimer quelque chose dans ce texte pour simplifier les clauses destinees a protegeI' la Commission de l'energie atomique contre tout empietement, et nous estimons qu'il est impossible de faire de nouvelles suppressions sans reduire a neant tous nos efforts. En consequence, nous declarons que la premiere phrase en italique doit etre naintenue clans la resolution, a savoir: u ••• dans ll~ mesure Nu:;nerous references to our obligation to expedite it have been made. Here are a few examples. I will choose from the resolution of 14 December 1946 certain paragraphs and read them in full for two purposes: one is to emphasize all I have to say concerning the separation of the duties of the new commission from thdse of the old Commission; the other purpose is to throw light upon what the General Assembly meant. What I am going to read amounts to more than half of the total content of that resolution of 14 December. I shall begin with paragraph 3. This paragraph is addressed to·the Atomic Energy Commission and not to us; but we must take it into account in giving the true interpretation of the whole resolution. "3. As an essential step towards the urgent objective of prohibiting and eliminating from national armaments atomic and all other major weapons adaptable now and in the future to n:ass destruction, and the early establishment of international control of atomic energy and other modern scientific discoveries and techpjcal developments to ensure their use only for peaceful purposes, "3.. Pour faire un pas decisif vers un but qu'il est urgent d'atteindre, a savoir d'interdire et d'eliminer des armements nationaux, l'arme atomique et les autres principales armes adaptables, maintenant ou a l'avenir, a la destruction massive, et d'etablir a bref delai un controle international englobant l'energie atomique en mcme temps que les autres decouvertes de la science et de la technique moderne et tendant a assurer leur emploi a des fins purement pacifiques, «L'Assemblee generale, «Prie instamment la Commission de l'ener· gie atomique de s'acquitter sans retard du mandat qui lui est confie aux termes de la section 5 de la resolution adoptee par l'As· semblee generale le 24 janvier 1946." Qui doit s'acquitter sans retard de ce mandat? Vne nouvelle commission? Non! Nous arrivons maintenant a une disposition qui concerne le Conseil de securite: "4. In order to ensure that the general "4. Pour s'assurer que l'interdiction, la prohibition, regulation and reduction of armareglementation et la reduction generales des ments are directed towards the major weapons armements puissent porter sur les principales of modern warfare and not merely towards armes de guerre modernes et non pas seule· the minor weapons, ment sur les armes secondaires, «The General Assembly ((L'Assemblee generale, «Recommends that the Security Council ex·" «Recommande que le Conseil de securite pedite consideration of the reports which the examine sans delai les rapports que la Corn· Atomic Energy Commission will make to the mission de l'energie atomique doit presenter Security Council and that it facilitate the work au Conseil de securite, et qu'il facilite les tra· of that Commission,"-not destroy it-Hand vaux de cette Commission"--et non qu'illes also that the'Security Council expedite con· n~duise a neant-"et aussi que le Conseil de sideration of a draft convention or conventions securite acheve, le plus tot possible, l'examen for the creation of an international system of d'une ou de plusieurs conventions relatives a control and inspection, these conventions to la creation d'un systeme international de include the prohibition of atomic and all other controle et d'hlspection, ces conveptions corn· major weapons adaptable now and in the prenant l'interdiction des armes atomiques et ((The General Assembly . «Urges the expeditious fulfilment by the Atomic Energy Commission of its terms of reference as set forth in section 5 of the General Assembly resolution of 24 January 1946." Fulfilment by whom? By some new commission? No. Now we come to a cl€!use that is addressed to the Security Council: I shall now read paragraph 5, which is also addressed to us, the Security Council: "5. The General Assembly , "Further recognizes that essential to the general regulation and reduction of armaments and armed forces is the provision of practical and effective safeguards by way of inspection, and other means to protect complying States against the hazards of violations and evasions. • "Accordingly, the General,Assembly "Recommends to the Security C<'uncil that it give prompt consideration to the working out of proposals to provide such practical and effective safeguards in connexion with the control of atomic energy and the general regulation and reduction of armaments." This includes both classes of armaments; it requires and enjoins upon us that we, the Security Council, should work out proper proposals to provide such practical and effective safeguards. Now listen to the purpose defined in paragraph 6. I quote: . One, "To ensure the adoption of measures for the early general regulation and reduction of armaments and armed forces, for the prohibition of the use of atomic energy for military purposes", Two, "and the elimination from national armaments of atomic and all other major weapons adaptable now or in the future to mass destruction", Three, "and for the control ohttomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes ..." I continue to quote this paragraph-' "There shall be' established, within the framework of the Security Council, which bears the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international p~ace and security, an international system ..." There is no confusion in our minds about that. We are not speaking a,bout a commission. I continue my quotation: . "... an international system, as mentioned m paragraph 4, operating through special organs; which organs shall derive their powers and status from the convention or conventions under which they are established." Nowwe go on to paragraph 8: "8. Nothing herein contained shall alter or «Recommande au Conseil de securite de mettre a l'etude sans retard l'elaboration de propositions prevoyant ces garanties pratiques et efficaces en cc qui concerne le controle de l'energie atomique et la reglementation et la reduction generales des armements." Ce paragraphe vise les deux categories d'armements. 11 demande,il enjoint au Conseil de securite d\~laborer des propositions tendant a assurer ces garanties pratiques et efficaces. Voici maintenant les buts qui sont definis au paragraphe 6; je cite: Prima, "Afin d'assurer l'adoption de mesures visant a instituer le plus tot possible une reglementation et une reduction generales des armements et des forces armees, a interdire l'emploi de l'energie atomique a des fins militaires ..." Secunda, "... et a eIiminer desarmements nationaux les ai-mes atomiques et toutes autres armes principales adaptables, maintenant ou a l'avenir, a la destruction massive ..." Tertia, "... et a controler l'energie atomique dans la mesure necessaire pour assurer son utilisation a des fins purement padfiques ..." . Je continue a citer ce paragraphe: ((Il sera etabli dans le cadre du Conseil de securite, auquel incombe la responsabilite prin-" cipale du maintien de la paix et de la securite internationales, un systeme international ..." 11 n'y a aucune confusion dans les espritsa cc sujet. Nous ne parlons pas d'une commission. Je continue ma citation: ". . . un systeme international tel qu'il est prevu au paragraphe 4, qui operera par les moyens d'organes speciaux dont les .pouvoirs et les statuts seront definis par les dispositions conventionnelles en vertu desquelles i1s auront ete institues." Passons maintenant au paragraphe 8: "8. Aucune des dispositions contenues clans That is why we have to define this jurisdiction in the third italicized·paragraph, by saying: . ccThose matters which fall within the competence of the Atomic Energy Commission as determined by the General Assembly resolutions of 24 January 1946 and 14 December 1946 skall be excluded from the jurisdiction of the commission herebyest{iblished." This is clear, definite, precise, positive, and leaves no room ~for doubt. This text certainly leaves no possibility for any country to come, forward· and claim that here was a question- "But to what kind of weapons did it relate? They had not been defined; let us go to work on that and fight that out; what categories of weapons does this. cotnmission have jurisdiction over?" -as might be the case if the new commission we:r;e set up under a general clause such as paragraph 3 without the,italicized passages. The phrase "to ensure the implementation of the above-mentioned 'resolutions" means to ensure implementation of all parts of ."the·abovementioned resolutions". The language advocated by the representative of the Soviet Union does not exclude anything; it includes everything. Since another pody created by the General Assembly~namely, the Atomic Energy Commission-has been vested with the duty of implementing the major part of the resolution, it is a matter of principle not to permit the overlapping or derogation of its functions. That body ought not to be impeded or hindered; it ought to be . encouraged and aided. What it has accomplished of a general nature ought to be used as the basis for more specific recommendations. empie~ement sur ses attributions, ni aucune atteinte a ses prerogatives. Cet organisme ne doit conna1tre nientrave ni obstacle; ildoit @tre encourage et aide. Les travaux d'ordre general qu'i1 a accomplis devraient servir de base a des recommandations plus precises.. I hope that I have made our views clear. I have probably been over-emphatic about it. No disrespect is meant. I hope you will forgive me for my emphasis, but it is motivated by devotion to the cause of disarmament. My country believes that the cause of peace and the abolition of war should engage our most thorough and careful attention, and engage it immediately, and that we should determine these issues at the earliest possible· date, and thereupon move forward in the work. That is why I have been emphatic about this matter. Let no man suppose that the United States is doing this with a view to delaying, impeding, or postponing the substantive business of disarmament. The United States is responsible for the proposal that this terrible weapon shall be prohibited and that safeguards and guarantees shall be set up against its further use in order that we. may promote peace and avoid war, in order that we may prevent the holocaust that would result throughout the world by our failure to set up promptly and forthwith those safeguards against the use of tbis terrible weapon, and in order thatYNe may start to use this great energy for the benefit of mankind. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): Does any other member of the Ceuncil wish to formulate remarks of a general character with respect to document Sj268? Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): Mr. President, the informal discussions which took place a few days ago under your chairmanship have resulted in our making a certain amount of progress. Some of the paragraphs of the resolution submitted for the ~ecurity Council's consideration today were agreed uPQn or substantially agreed upon at these discussions. I refer to paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 of the resolution. Paragraph 1 defines the general tasks confronting the Security Council with regard to the implementation of the General Assembly resolution of 14 December 1946. Paragraph 2 emphasizes the necessity of considering as soon as possible the report prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission containing certain recommendations in regard to the establishment of the control of atomic energy. Paragraph 4 stipulates that the Military Staff' Committee is to submit to the Security Council, as soon as possible, the recommendations requested by the Council on 15 February 1946 in pursuance of Article 43 ofthe Charter. The.paragraphs which I have mentioned, and o~ w~ch we succeeded in reaching agreement e:ther ~ full or in principle during the informal . . ajourn~r I'reuvre essentielle 4u desarmement. Ce sont les Etats-Unis qui ont eul'initiative de la proposition relative a l'interdiction de cette arme terrible et a l'etablissement de sauvegardes et de garanties contre son emploi futur, car ainsi nollS pourrons faire r~er la paix, eviter la guerre, empecher un holocauste mondial qui suivrait notre echec dans la voie de l'etablissement immediat et sans d6lai de garanties contre l'emploi de cette arme terrible, et nous pourrons enfin, peutetre,commencer a utiliser cette puissante energie pour le bien de I'humanite entiere. Le PRESIDENT: Un autre membre du Conseil desire-t-il presenter des observations d'un caractere general au sujet du document S/~68? M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Monsieur le President, les echanges de vue officieux, qui ont eu lieu il y a quelques jours sous votre presidence, nous ont permis de realiser certains progres. Nous avons pu nous entendre, ou du moins aboutir a un accord de principe, sur un certain nombre de paragraphes du projet de resolution qui a ete soumis aujourd'hui a l'examen du Conseil de securite. n s'agit notamment des paragraphes 1, 2 et 4. Le paragraphe 1 definit le cadre gen~ral des taches que doit accomplir le Comeil de securite en vue de mettre en reuvre la resolution de l'AssembIee generaIe en date du 14 decembre 1946. Le paragraphe 2 insiste sur la necessite d'examir ~r au plus vite le rapport de la Commission de i~. _ergie atomique qui contient un certain nombre de recommandations relatives a la creation d'un contrOle de l'energie atomique. Enfin, conformement au paragraphe 4, le Comite d'etat~major doit presenter le plus tot possible au Conseil de securite les recommandations que celui-ci lui avait demandees le 15 fevrier 1946, en application de I'Article 43 de la Charte. Les paragraphes que je viens. de mentionner et surJesquels, au cours de nos echanges de vues officieux, nous sommes tombes cl'accord soit d'une fa~on complete, soit seulement en principe, The withdrawal of the United States proposal has undoubtedly helped to reach agreement on several paragraphs. Unfortunately, however, in the course of these discussions, we failed to reach agreement on all the questions raised in previous meetings of the Security Council and in the informal discussions. Agreement has not been reached on paragraph 3. I should like to thirik that we 'disagreed only on the second part of this paragraph in which passages of the draft resolution are italicized. However, it follows from the statement of the United States representative that his delegation is not prepared to agree to the adoption ,?f the first part of paragraph 3, containing the provision for the setting up of a commission to prepare proposals on practical measures to iniplement the resolution of the General AsseIJ.lbly of 14 December 1946, unless the Security Council adopts his proposals with respect to the powers of the Atomic Energy Commission. Thus, after the statement of the United States representative; it is clear that no agreement has yet been reached on paragraph 3. Why is this? Why have we so far been unable in the informal discussions to reach agreement on all points? In so far as paragraph 3 of th~ resolution and the recommendations qmtained therein are concerned, I should-like to answer these questions and explain the real situation. During the discussion of the questions touched upon in paragraph 3, the representative of the Uni,ted States submitted a number of proposals, amendments and additions to this paragraph. If we study these proposals carefully, we shall see that they all deal with one question-namely, the terms of reference of the Atomic Energy Commission and the relations between the Atomic Energy Commission and the new commission which we propose to set up. At a time when the Security Council is faced with the very important task of implementing the General Assembly resolution on the regulation and reduction of armaments and armed forces, proposals are put forward which divert our attention from this fundamental task. If you study paragraph 3 of the resolution as it was presented to you after our informal discussions, you will have no difficulty in observing that in this resolution our attention is mainly drawn, as I have pointed out, not to the question of the speediest possible im- ..plementation of the General Assembly resolution on the reduction of armaments and armed forces, but to the question of the powers and rights of the Atomic Energy Commission and of the relations between the Atomic Energy Commission cH~er un comite devant fonctionner parallelement a la commission dont le representant de I'Union sovietique avait propose la formation. Le retrait de la proposition des Etats-Unis nous' a aides a nous entendre sur un certain nombre de points. Cependant, et je le regrette~ nous n'avons pas reussi,au cours de nos echanges de vues officieux, a nous entendre sur toutes les questions qui avaient ete soulevees anterieurement, soit au Conseil de securite,'soit au cours de nos pourparlers officieux. Nous n'avons pu nous mettre d'accord sur le paragraphe 3. J'aurais voulu croire que notre desaccord portait seulement sur la deuxieme partie de ce paragraphe, partie qui contient les passages en italique de ce projet de resolution; mais il ressort de la declaration du representant des Etats-Unis que, si le Conseil de securite rejetait ses propositions relatives a la Commission de l'energie atomique, sa delegation ne pourrait donner son accord a I'adoption de la premiere partie du .paragraphe 3, partie qui prevoit la creation d'une commission chargee de p:r:eparer des propositions relatives auX mesures pratiques en vue de donner diet a la resolution de l'Assemblee generale en date du, 14 decembre 1946: Ainsi done, apres la declaration que vient de faire le representant des Etats-Unis, il apparatt nettement qu'aucun accord n'a pu se faire sur le paragraphe 3. , A 'quoi cela tient-il? Pourquoi n'avons-nous pas reussi, au cours de nos echanges de vue offideux, a nous, entendre sUr tous les points soumis a notre examen? Puisque nous ell sommes au paragraphe 3 de la resolution et aux recommandations qu'il contient, je voudrais repondre a ces questions et expliquer quelle est en realite la sit,uation. l\.u moment ou nous avons discute des nrobU:mes traites au paragraphe 3, le representant des Etats-Unis a fait une serie de propositions, d'amendements et d'adjonctions ace paragraphe. Si· nous etudions ces propositions de plus pres, nous verrons qu'elles portent toutes sur une seuIe et meme question, a savoir le mandat de la Commission de I'energie atomique et les relations entre cette Commission et la commission que nous nous proposons de creer. Au moment· meme ou le Conseil de securite est place devant la tache capitale de mettre en ceuvre la resolution de l'AssembIee generale flur la reglementation et la reduction des armements et des forces armees, on fait des propositions qui detournent notre attention de cette tache essentielle. Si vous examinez le paragraphe 3 de la resolution tel qu'il vous a ete presente a la suite de nos echanges de vue officieux, vous constaterez sans peine qu'au lieu de souligner la necessite de hater la mise en application de la resolution de l'AssembIee generalesur la reduction des armements et des forces armees, cette resolution'insiste sur les pouvoirs et les droits de la Commission de l'energie atomique et sur les relations de cette Commission avec la commission que nous nous~ missi~n. The rights, functions and tasks of the Atomic Energy Commission are defined in these resolutions in very precise, if general, terms. T~ applies in particular to the resolution of 24 January 1946, which clearly states what questions should be dealt with by the Atomic Energy Commission and on what questions the Commission should prepare recommendations for the Security Council. The General Assembly resolution of 14 December 1946 also adequately protects the powers given to the Atomic Energy Commission under the terms of the January resolution. In the resolution of 14 December, the General Assembly clearly defined the tasks of the United Nations, the Security Council and th~ Atomic Energy Commission in the field of the general reduction of armaments and armed forces. The delegation of the Soviet Union is unable to agree with the assertion that the consideration of such questions by the Security Council contributes to the implementation of the General Assembly resolution. As a matter of fact, the consideration of this question by the Security Council is in no way indicated by the terms of that resolution. The consideration of· the relations between the commission we are about to esta)Jlish and the Atomic Energy Commission is not indicated by the terms of the General Assembly resolution, and this is comprehensible, since the Assembly itself took an appropriate decision on this matter which leaves no room for doubt. I have already pointed out that it is not for the Security Council, but for the General Assembly, to decide the question of the functions of the Atomic Energy Commission. We should not lose sight of this fact in considering the United States proposals. The definition of the functions of the .Atomic Energy Commission is not a matter for the Security Council,but clearly for the General Assembly, which successfully settled it some time ago. I would .remind you that not 'a single delegation present at the last session of the General Assembly expressed any doubts as to whether the functions of the Atomic Energy Commission were correctly defined in the General Assembly resolution. The United States delegation supported that resolution, voted for it and expressed no doubt that the task of the Atomic Energy Commission was accurately defined. F'urthermore, the proposals put forward by the representative of the United States and obstinately defended by him before the Security lllliincil, are u~~~~~table because they cause J'ai deja fait remarquer que c'est I'Assemblee generale et non le Conseil de securite qui tranche la question des pouvoirs de la Commission de I'energie atomique. C'est la un fait que nous ne devons pas non plus 'perdt:e de vue en examinant les propositions de la delegation des Etats-Unis. Il n'appartient pas au Conseil de securite de determiner les 'pouvoirs de la -Commission de l'energie atomique, mais a I'Assemblee generale qui, d'alieurs, l'a deja fait depuis longtemps et avec un plein succes. Je vous ferai remarquer qu'aucqne des delegations presentes a la derniere session de l'Assemblee generale n'a souleve la question de savoir si les pouvoirs de la Com;. mission de l'energie atomique etaient bien definis dans la resolution de l'AssembIee generale. La delegation des Etats-Unis a appuye cette resolution, a vote pour elle et n'a exprime aucun doute sur le point de 'savoir si la tache de la Commission de l'energie atomique etait exactement definie dans cette decision. De plus, les propositions que le representant des Etats-Unis a: soUmises et qu'il defend toujours avec opiniatrete devant le Conseil de securitl5, sont inacceptablesparce qu'elles opposent en. fait Somewhat lat~r, we were told that it would be necessary simply to expedite the consideration of the recommendations of the Atoll1ic Energy Commission. Yet no one raised any objection. The delegation of ~he Soviet Union.drew the attention of the Umted States delegation to the fact that since no one objected to the speediest possible ~onsideration of the report of the Atomic Energy Comniission, there was no reason to repeat the same thing at practically every meeth,g as though there were opposition to discussing'that report at the earliest possible date. Thus, it became evident that there was no need to knock against an open door, and that we were all agreed that the report of the Atomic Energy Commission should be considered by the Security Council as soon as possible. I have already indicated that when the report of the Atomic Energy CoIlUlliss~on is considered, the delegation of the Soviet Union will again explain the position of the Government of the. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics regarding the control of atomic energy and will again point out the urgent necessity of concluding a convention at·the earliest possible date as regards the prohibition of atomic weapons. Since it became evident that we all agreed to consider the report of the Atomic Energy Commission at the earliest possible date, new arguments have been put. forward: We are now told that when the Security Council considers the means of speedfug the implementation of the General Assembly resolution and the creation of a commission to assist it in this task, the Council will have to deal with the question of the relations between the Atomic Energy Commission and the new commission. Moreover, they are trying to persuade us that, in the Council's resolution, there must be included not merely one, but two, three or even four analagous provisions concerning the relationship between the two commissions. Those who put forward such proposals and insist on including in the resolution not only one, but several analagous provisions, even though they may be differently worded, apparently do not have a very high opinion of the Atomic Energy Commission, for they defend its authority, powers, rights and prestige where there is no need to do so. We are told that it is better to include such a provision, or even, as I have already remarked, several provisions in order to prevent any encroachment upon the Atomic En€rgy Commission and its powers and to prepar; for any eventuality. In his statement, to which I listened with great attention, Mr. Austin left no doubt that that was precisely his view. ~e expressed surmises regarding possible :situatiOns in the future. He said in effect: What if the Government of the Soviet Union should take certain measures undesirable to the United States on this matter? Would it not be better to include J'ai deja dit qu'au moment ou le Conseil aborderait l'etude du rapport de la Commission de l'energie atomique, la delegation de rUnion sovietique exposerait a nouveau les vues du Gouvernement de l'Union des Republiques so-, cialistes sovietiques sur le contr8le de l'energie atomique et insisterait sur la necessite absolue de conc1ure au plus t8t une convention en vue d'interdire les armes atomiques. Depuis qu'il est apparu clairement que tout le monde etait d'accord pour etudier au plus t8t. le rapport de la Commission de l'energie atomique, on a produit de nouveaux arguments. Maintenant on nous dit qu'en etudiant les moyens de hater la mise en reuvre de la resolution de l'Assemblee generale et la. creation de la commission qui faciliterait la tache du Conseil de securite, ce dernier devra traiter la question des rapports entre la Commission de l'energie atomique et la nouvelle commission. Onessaie de nous convaincre qu'il est necessaire d'inc1ure dans la resolution du Conseil, non pas une, mais deux, trois et meme quatre dispositions semblables pour definir les relations entre ces <::eux commissions. . Ceux qui presentent de telles propositions et qui insistent pour qu'on insere dans la·resolution plusieurs dispositions semblables, quoique formulees de fa~on differente, donnen.t l'impression de ne pas tenir en grande estime la Commission de l'energie atomique, cars ils defendent son autorite, ses pouvoirs, ses droits et son prestige, la meme oucela n'est pas necessaire. C'est pour parer a toute eventualite, nous dit-on, pour prevenir tout attentat contre la Commission de l'energie atomique et contre ses pouvoirs, qu'il faut inserer cette disposition ou meme, comn'J.e je l'ai fait remarquer, plusieurs dispositions, dans la resolution. Dans sa declaration, que j'ai ecou- . tee tres attentivement, M. Austin n'a laisse aucun doute sur le fait que c'etait Ut precisement son point de vue; il s'est livre a toutes sortes d'hypotheses sur Ies situations qui pouvaient se presenter clans l'avenir. Et si le Gouvernement de l'Uni,on sovietique prenait dans ce domaine des . In dealing with the question of submitting information on armed forces, Mr. Austin apparently had in mind the first provision in. paragraph 3, which has not neen agreed upon and which states that. the commission shall formulate proposals In regard to the resolutions of the General Assembly, including the resolution regarding information on .armed forces. Thus he referred to a question which has been discussed by the General Assembly, the question of submitting information on the armed forces of the United Nations. Mr. Austin recalled that, at the last session of the General Assembly, the delegation of the Soviet Union had requested that information be submitted not only on troops, but on armaments. Since Mr. Austin has touched on this subject, and since the position taken by the delegation of the Soviet Union in this respect is often likely to be misconstrued, I consider it necessary to say a few words to make the truth known and to explain the position taken by the delegation ~f the Soviet Union, as well as that of some other delegations. As you know, the delegation of the Soviet Union submitted a proposal to the General Assembly that States Members of the United Nations should submit to the Security Council or to the Secretary-General information on the After the submission of an additional proposal by the United States delegation, the delegation of the Soviet Union pointed out that.the United States proposal had no relation'to Article 43 of the Charter, since it requested information on troops stationed on home territories, whereas ArtiCle 43 of the Charter provides for the conclusion of agreements on troops which are to be made available to the Security Council for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. The delegation of the Soviet Union has stated more than once at the General Assembly that, in its opinion, the United States proposal deserved to be carefully examined in the Security C01;mcil, but that it should be brought forward only in connexion with the consideration of the general question of the'regulation and reduction of armaments and armed forces. Thus, the delegation of the Soviet Union did not object in general to the United States proposal for the submission of information on troops at home, but it did object to confusing the original proposal of the Soviet Union with the United States additional proposal. The fact is that the former related to Article 43 of the Charter, while the latter had no bearing upon it, but concerned the general question of the reduction of armaments and armed forces. La delegation de l'Union sovietique a declare a maintes reprises a l'Assemblee generale qu'a son avis, la proposition des Etats-Unis meritait d'etre attentivement examinee par le Conseil de securite, mais que eet examen ne devrait avoir lieu qu'au moment ot:: le Conseil etudierait le probleme general de la reglementation et de la reduction des armements et des forces arm~es. Ainsi, la delegation de rUmon sovietique ne s'etait pas opposee d'une manihe generale ala proposition des Etats-Unis tendant a fournir des informations sur les troupes stationnees sur le territoire national, mais s'etalt opposee a ce que I'on confonde la proposition originale de I'Union sovietique avec la proposition additionnelle presentee par la delegation des Etats-Unis. En effet, si la proposition de rUnion sovietique se rattache directement a l'Article 43, la proposition addi-. tionnelle des Etats-Unis ne s'y rattache pas mais releve plutot du domaine ,de la reduction des armements et des forces arm~es. Par la suite, les evenements se sont deroules de la maniere suivante. M. Austin s'en souviendra, car il etait chef de la delegation des Etats-Unis et avait assiste ala seance pleniere de l'Assemblee generale du 14 decembre 1946. Au cours de cette seance I'AssembIee avait adopte des resolutions relatives aux questions de la reduction des armements et des forces armees, et des informations a fournir sur les forces armees. ,!he delegation ~f the Soviet Union again La delegation de I'Union s0'11etique avait fait pomted out that paragraph 4 of the resolution observer a nouveau que le paragraphe 4 de la Later on events developed as follows. Mr. Austin will remember this, as he was the head of the United States delegation and was at the plenary meeting of the General Assembly on 14 December 1946. At that meeting, the Assembly adopted resolutions on the questions of the reduction of armaments and armed forces and the submission of information on troqps. bef~re !he Assembly concerning troops on home resolution presentee acette epoque aI'Assemblee t~mt0t;es had no relation to the question .under generale, paragraphe relatif aux troupes stationdisc}1SslOn, and that it would therefore vote nees en territoire national, n'avait aucun rap- At that time, these were the statements made on behalf of his delegation by the representative of the Soviet Union. The delegation of the Soviet Union feels that the first three paragraphs of that first resolution are acceptable; namely: "1. At what points in the territory of Members of the United Nations or other States, with the exceptioJ.1 of former enemy territories, and in what number, are armed forces of other Members of the United Nations, including military type organizations? "2. At what points in the former enemy States, and in what number, are armed forces of the Allied Powers and other Members of the United Nations, including military type organizations? "3. At what points in the above-mentioned territories are air and naval bases, and what is the size of their garrisons, belonging to the armed forces of States Members of the United Nations?"1 As regards paragraph 42 which, as I have pointed out, prov!des for the submission of information both on troops in foreign territories and in home territories, the delegation of the Soviet Union declared that, for reasons which I , have already described, it could not accept this paragraph and w~UJ.d not vote for it. At the same time, the delegation of the Soviet Union added: . "But the USSR delegation :wants this q~es­ tion to be clearly understood, and above an wants to find a solution to the question of troops on foreign territories, and it will vote for the whole resolution, even if paragraph 4 is adopted."3 The statement of the delegation of the Soviet Union was received in dead silence by the United States delegation; yet, could there have been a better ground for understanding, since the delegation of the Soviet Union had expressed its readiness to vote for the resolution, including the 1 First three paragraphs of resolution adopted by the First Committee at its meeting of 28 November ;' '46. See Journal No. 46, Supplement No. l-A/C.l/80, p, .ge 173. • Paragraph 4 of the resolution referred to reads as follows: "What· is the total number of their uniformed personnel on the active list, wherever stationed, at home as well as abroad, including military type organizations?" 8 Speech by Mr. Gromyko at the sixty-third plenary meeting of the General Assembly, on 14 December 1946. See Journal No. 63, Supplement A-A/P.V.l63, pages 668 and 669. st~tionnees sur le territoire national, elle accepte. rait de voter en faveur de l'ensemble de la resolution. Telles etaient, a cette epoque, les declarations faites au nom de sa delegation par le representant de rUnian sovietique. La delegation de l'Union sovietique considere comme acceptables les trois premiers paragraphes de cette premiere resolution, a savoir: "1. Sur quels points du territoire des Membres des Nations Unies ou d'autres Etats, exception faite des territoires des Etats ex. ennemis, des forces armees d'autres Membres des Nations Unies sont stationnees et queIs sont leurs efIectifs, y compris les organisations de type militaire? "2. Sur quels poiI;J.ts du ~erritoire des Etats ex-ennemis des forces armees des Puissances alliees et d'autres MembreL des N""uons Unies, sont stationnees et que1s Bont lev.:.:s efIec"tlls, y compris les organis<>.tions de type militaire? "3. Sur quels points des territoires susmen· J tionnes' des bases navales et aerienDes sont situees et quels sont les efIectifs de leurs garni- 1 sons appartenant aux forces armees des Etats. l Membres des Nations Unies1?" ~ En ce qui conceme le paragraphe 42, dont j'ai deja parle, paragraphe qui prevoit la communication d'informations relatives aux forces armees stationnees aussi bien sur le territoire national qu'a l'etranger, la delegation de rUnion SOVICtique avait declare que, pour Ies raisons que j'ah deja indiquees, elIe ne pourrait se rallier acette proposition et ne pourrait voter en faveur de ce paragraphe. En meme temps, la delegation de rUnion sovietique avait declare: "Cependant, pour apporter plus de clartc dans le probleme, et pour trouver, avant tout, une solution a la question des troupes sur territoire etranger, la delegation de rURSS se prononcera, lors du scrutin, en faveur de l'ensemble de la resolution, meme au cas ou le paragraphe 4 aurait ete adopte3." La delegation des Etats-Unis a accueilli cette declaration de la delegation de l'Union sovietique par un silence de mort. Cependant, pouvait-on trouver Qn terrain d'entente plus favorable? La delegation de rUnion sovietique declarait qu'elle voterait pour la resolution, y compris la proposi- 1 Texte authentique des trois premiers paragraphes de la resolution adoptee par la. Premiere Commission 10l's de sa seance du 28 novembre 1946. La premiere interpretation figure dans le Journal No 46, Supplement No 1. A/C.l/80, page 173. . • Le paragraphe 4 de la resolution auquel il est fait allusion est ,le suivant: "Quels sont leurs effectifs totaux en uniforme et en service actif, Oll qu'ils soient stationnes, aussi bien sur le territoire national qu'a I'etranger, y compris leg. organisations de type militaire?" 8 Discours prononc6 par M. Gromyko lors de la soixante-troisieme seance p16niere de l'Assemb16e generale, le 14 d6cembre 1946. Voir Journal No 63, Supplement A-A/P.V./63, pages 668 et 669. ~~~~~~ The delegation of the Soviet Union has taken exception in the past, and will continue to take exception, to all attempts to divert the attention of the Security Council from fundamental issues and to focus it on secondary, artificial and chimerical matters of procedure. For these reasons, the delegation of the Soviet Union considers that the proposals submitted by the representative of the United States do not help towards the solution of this problem. On the contrary, they make it much more difficult, for the reasons which I have already given. Therefore I cannot agree that the Security Council should adopt these proposals. Not only is their adoption unnecessary, but it would worsen the general situation, because these proposals would further delay the efforts of the Security Council to institute practical measures for the implementation of the decisions of the General Assembly resolution concerning the regulation of armaments and armed forces.

I have two more speakers on my list. If the Council so desires, we might hear them tomorrow. ~y meeting in the morning, we should be able, if necessary,' to continue our discussion in the afternoon. Do the members of'the Council agree? As there is no objection, we shall meet tomorrow at 11 o'clock. The meeting rose at 7.05 p.m. --- red-~tion generales des armements, en dit long a qm connatt I'historique de la question. La delegation de I'Union sovietique fera tout son possible pour empecher que la resolution de l'Assemblee sur la reduction des armements et des forces armees ne soit retardee sous toutes sortes de pretextes. La delegation de rUnion 80- vietique a interet a ce que I'on commence a mettre en reuvre la decision prise par l'Assemblee sur cette question de premiere importance. Le Conseil de securite a pour tache d'ecarter et non pas d'amonceler les obstacles qui nous empechent de la mettre en reuvre. Nous I'avons dit des que cette question a €te soumise a I'examen du Conseil1, c'est-a-dire le 27 decembre dernier; date a laquelle nous avons presente cette resolution2• Ce point de vue, nous continuerons a le defendre dans l'avenir. La delegation de I'Union sovietique a deja declare qu'il convenait de juger la position prise par un Etat quelconque sur cette question non d'apres ses paroles, si bonnes ....et belles fussent-elles, mais d'apres ses actes. ' La delegation de rUnion sovietiques'est opposee et continuera de s'opposer a toutes tentatives visant a detourner I'attention du Conseil de securite des problemes essentie1s et a la reporter sur de.s questions secol1daires de pure procedure, ayant un caractere artificie1 et ne correspondant a rien de reel. Telles sont les raisons pour lesquelles la delegation de l'Union sovietique considere que les propositions soumises par le representa..'!1t des Etats- Unis d'Amerique ne facilitent pas la solution du probleme. Bien au contraire, elles la rendent beaucoup plus difficile, pour les raisons que j'ai deja·indiquees. C'est pourquoi je ne peux admettre le point de vue seIon lequel le Conseil de securite doit adopter ces propositions. Non seulement I'adoption de ces propositions n'est nullementindispellsable, mais, au, contraire; elle rendrait la situation plus difficile encore, car ces propositions contribuent a retarder I'elaboration par le Conseil de securite de mesures veritablement pratiques tendant a mettre en reuvre les decisions de l'Assemblee generale sur la n!:glementation des armements et des forces armeeB. Le PRESIDENT: Deux autres membres du Conseil ont demande a prendre la parole. Si le Conseil le desire, nous pourrons les entendre' demain. En nous reunissant le matin, nous aurions la possibilite de poursuivre, si besoin etait; notre deliberation au cours de l'apres-midi. Les membres du Conseil sont-ils d'accord? Puisqu'il n'y a pas d'objection, nous nous reunirons demain a 11 heures. La seance est levee a19 h. 05.