S/PV.104 Security Council

I propose that our meeting now adjourn, and that the discussion be resumed this afternoon. There are still two speakers on my list. The next meeting will be held at 2.30 p.m. HUNDRED AND FOURTH MEETING Held at Lake Success, New York, on Wednesday, 12 February 1947, at 2.30 p.m. President: Mr. F. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgium) . Le PRESIDENT: Je propose d'ajourner notre reunion et de reprendre la discussion cet apres- midi. . Deux orateurs sont encore inscrits. La pro- chaine seance est fixee a 14 h. 30. La seance est levee a13 h. 20. CENT-QUATRIEME SEANCE Tenue aLake Success, New-York, le mercredi 12 Nvrier 1947, a14 h. 30. President: M. F. VAN LANGENHOVE (BeIgique). Mr. ARANHA (Brazil) : It is with some hesita- tion that I enter the field of disarmament. As you are probably aware, I am the most disarmed of you all; first, because I cannot use my own language here, and second, becacse, having ar- rived late at your discussions, I have to consider your arguments without having had much time to formulate my own. Nevertheless, I do feel that we are faced today with the necessity of taking a decision of principle with regard to the measures which are placed before us. M. ARANHA (Bresil) (traduit de l'anglais): C'est avec une certaine hesitation que je penetre dans le domaine du desarmement. Vous le sa- vez probablement, je suis le plus desarme de vous tous; d'abord parce que je ne puis pas faire usage, id, de ma propre langue, et ensuite parce que, arrive tard au cours de vos discus- siQns, je dois examiner vos arguments sans avoir eu beaucoup de temps pour formuler les miens. Neanmoins, j'ai le sentiment tres net que nous sommes places aujourd'hui devant la necessite de prendre une decision de .principe sur les mesures qui nOES sont soumises. De ce que j'ai entendu, il semble clair que, pour realiser des progres reels dans l'examen du probleme de la reduction et de la reglementation generales des armements, nous devons etablir une separation entre la competence de la nou- vellle commission qui s'occupera des armes de type classique et la competence de la Commis- sion de l'energie atomique qui s'occupe de l'arme atomique et des autres armes permet- tant des destructions massives. Pour nous, void les faits: une Commission de l'energie atomique a ete creee; elle fonctionne et elle est arrivee a des conclusions qui doivent maintenant etre soumises a l'examen du Conseil de securite. Il faut Creel' la commission des ar- mements de type classique pour donner suite a la recommandation de l'Assemblee generale. Dans nos decisions passees, aucune confusion ne s'etait creee en ce qui concerne ces deux commissions et j~ ne vois aucune raison pour que la confusion survienne maintenant ou dans l'avenir. Ce serait retrograder que de detruire l'reuvre accomplie, afin de la refondre. Il ne nous faut pas tomber dans cette erreur, sous peine de reduire a neant le travail de la Com- mission de l'energie atomique et de decourager la nouvelle commission dans ses efforts. l'energie atomique doit etre eliminee en tant . qu'arme de guerre et son usage doit etre controle en temps de paix. Je crois qu'il existe un accorc;i general sur re paragraphe 2 du projet de resolution, libelle comme suit: "... d'examiner, dans le plus bref delai, le rapport presente par la Commission de l'energie atomique et de prendre des decisions appropriees en vue de faciliter ses travaux". From what I have heard, it seems clear that, in order to make effective progress in our con- sideration of the problem of the general regula- tion and reduction of armaments, we must separate the jurisdiction of the new commission which will deal with. conventional armaments from the jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Commission, which deals with atomic and other weapons of mass destruction. The facts before us are that an Atomic Energy Commission was created, it is functioning, and it has arrived at conclusions which are now due to be submitted for the consideration of this Council. The commission on conventional armaments is to be created in compliance with the recommendation of the Assembly. In our past decisions, there existed no con- fusion regarding these two commissions, and I see no reason why confusion should arise now and in the future. It would be a retrogression to destroy the work already done in order to re- mould it. This would be an error into which we must not fall. It would annul the work of the Atomic Energy Commission and discourage the efforts of the new commission. Atomic energy has to be eliminated from warfare, and it must be controlled in peace. I believe there is general agreement in regard to paragraph 2, which reads as follows: ". . . to consider as soon as possible the report submitted by the Atomic Energy Commission and to take suitable decisions in order to facili- tate its work". We must not delay in this task, which will demand onr united efforts. Now,! ne devons apporter aucun retard al'exe- cution de cette tache; qui exigera l'union de nos efforts. The problem of conventional armaments is an old one; it existed long before atomic energy and has never received a satisfactory solution. It is so great an issue, involving so large a field, that for long years we have striven in vain to ~..~,. Le probleme des armements de type classique est ancien. Il existait bien avant la decouverte de l'energie atomique, et n'a jamais re~u de solu- tion satisfaisante. C'est un probleme si vaste, . dont le domaine est si etendu que, pendant de It is incumbent upon the Security Council to carry out the resolution of the General Assembly within its own terms of reference; they are ample and responsible. Among these terms of reference are those which give the Council the power to create commissions and define their functions. The authority of the Council in this matter must match the amplitude of its responsibilities. The Council does not and cannot suffer capitis deminutio in regard to' subjects within its scope. As a matter of fact, a proposal made in San Francisco for the inclusion in the Charter of the definition of the word "aggressor" was rejected on the grounds that it might reduce or weaken the powers of the Council. Consequently, I cannot see how a doubt re- garding interpretation can deprive the Council of its power to maintain a commission already in existence, to create another commission and to fix the line of demarcation between their respective fields of work. I believe this to be one of Our tasks, namely, to determine the best way to execute the resolu- tions of the Assembly. Granting even that the resolutions .adopted by the Assembly do not mention separately any provisions governing atomic weapons, on the one hand, and conven- tional weapons on the other, there is nothing ill them which denies the Security Council the au- thority, in the execution of these provisions, to order its work in such a manner a8 to achieve the objectives of the Assembly. To maintain a commission, to create a new one, to define terms of reference, to fix the lines of work, are all functions of this Council; deprived of them, it would merely become an automaton, a mechanism, an organ without au- thority, which, I should say, would become almost unnecessary. Our responsibility is to the Assembly. The responsibility of the commission is restricted to the Council. Furthermore, I do not see any benefit or advantage in the joint consideration of subjects which hurlent de se trouver ensemble, such ~s conventional armaments and atomic energy, requiring widely different consideration and action. . Our first duty is to co-ordinate in order to avoid confusion. We must s~llplify our prob- lems; we must not complicate them. We must not destroy work that has been almost com- pleted, but rather finish that which is still to be done. We must not fall back on ground which we have already covered, but rather use it to forge ahead to broader fields. ra~n conquis pour aller de I'avant vers ces do- maines plus etendus. To allow confusion, especially in the matters Permettre la confusion, notamment en matiere ~lle, definir les mandats, etablir les programmes de travail, tout cela entre dans les attributions du Conseil de securite. Prive de ces attributions, il deviendrait un simple automate, une machine, un organe sans autorite et, je dirais meme, presque inutile. C'est envers I'AssembIee generale que sont nos responsabilites. La responsabilite de la com- mission, elle, est limitee au Conseil de securite. De plus, je ne vois aucun profit, aucun avantage a examiner conjointement des sujets qui "hurlent de se trouver ensemble", tels que celui des armes de type classique et celui de l'energie atomique, qui requierent un examen et une action tout a fait differents. Notre premier devoir est de coordonner afin d'eviter la confusion; nous devons simplifier nos problemes et non les compliquer. Nous ne de- vons pas detruire une reuvre qui est presque achevee, mais plutot terminer ce qu'il nous reste a faire. . Nous ne devons pas revenir sur un terrain deja explore, mais, au contraire, utiliser le ter- For these reasons my delegation is in favour of including in the Council's resolution the suggestion made by Sir Alexander Cadogan with reference to paragraph 4, and the passages of paragraph 3 which are italicized in document 8/268, which is before us. It is a definition rather than a delimitation. It is a matter of putting order in our work so as to make it effec- tive. It is, in our judgment, the best way, the shortest and the most secure, for disarming na- tions and quieting the life and labour of peoples. Mr. !IASLUCK (Australia) : Mr. President, the Australian delegation, in common with the other authors of resolutions on this subject, took part in the informal conversations last week. I should like to take this early opportunity of paying a tribute to the wise and patient guidance which you gave to the various delegations, and to the great contribution which you yourself made, in your office as President, to the produc- tion of the common text which we now see before us. Those private talks seem to us to have been justified both by the fact that it was possible to replace five differing resolutions by a eingle resolution containing a large measure of agree- ment, and also because it was possible to narrow down the disagreements to a single issue. I think most members of the Council recognize that there is only one issue at present which needs to be resolved. That issue concerns the terms of reference and the jurisdiction of the proposed disarmament commission and its relationship to the Atomic Energy Commission. It seems to our delegation that this is a purely mechanical matter which has to be settled in ?rder to enable the Security Council to discharge Its duty. There is apparently no disagreement of any kind regarding the nature of the duty of the Security Council. We all recognize that the Security Council has an obligation, both under the Charter and under the General Assembly ~esolution of 14 December, to formulate plans In respect of disarmament. We also recognize, eve:y ~ne of us, that the Security Council ha::; obligatIOns under the resolution of the General Assembly of 24 January 1946, as regards the consideration of the report of the Atomic Energy Commission. It has a further obligation under the General Assembly resolution of 14 December 1946, to expedite consideration of this report, Cnd to.f~cilitate the work of the Atomic Energy OInffi!SSIOn. So there is no difference at all b Pour ces motifs, ma delegation desire voir inclure d~~ la resolution du Conseil la propo- sition faite par Sir Alexander Cadogan apropos du paragraphe 4, et des passages du para- graphe 3 qui sont en italique dans le document S/268 que nous avons sous les yeux. Il s'agit la d'une definition plutot que d'une delinJitation. Il s'agit de mettre de I'ordre dans notre travail afin de le rendre efficace. C'est la meilleure ma- niere, a notre avis, la plus rapide et la plus sure, de parvenir au desarmement 9-es nations et d'assurer aux peuples la tranquillite dans leur vie et dans leur travail. M. HAsLUCK (Australie) (traduit de l'an- glais): Monsieur le President, la delegation australienne a pris part, avec les autres pays qui ont presente des resolutions a ce sujet, aux entretiens officieux qui ont eu lieu la semaine derniere. Je voudrais profiter de cette premiere occasion pour rendre hommage a la patience et a I'habilete avec lesquelles vous avez dirige les diverses delegations dans les debats, et souligner l'importante contribution que vous avez person- nellement, en votre qualite de President, fournie a l'elaboration du texte commun que nous avons sous leg yeux. Ces conversations privees nous semblent avoir ete justifiees a la fois par le fait que nous avons pu remplacer cinq resolutions differentes par une seule resolution sur laquelle I'acco:r:d s'est en grande partie realise, et aussi parce qu'on a pu reduire aun seul point les divergences d'opinions. Je pense que la plupart des membres du Conseil reconnaissent qu'il n'y a plus maintenant qu'une question a resoudre; cette question est celle du mandat et de la competence de la commission du desarmement que l'en envisage et de ses re- lations avec la Commission de l'energie ato- mique. Il apparalt a notre delegation qu'il s'agit la d'un probleme de pure organisation qui doit etre resolu pour permettre au Conseil de securite de s~acquitter de sa tache. Il n'y a, apparem- ment, aucun desaccord entre nous sur la tache du Conseil de securite. Nous reconnaissons tous que le Conseil de securite a une obligation qui decoule a la fois de la Charte et de la resolution prise par l'Assemblee generale le 14 decembre: celle de formuler des plans en matiere de desar- memento Chacun de nous reconnalt egalement que le Conseil de securite a des obligations, aux termes de la resolution prise par l'AssembIee generale le 24 janvier 1946, en ce qui concerne l'examen du rapport de la Commission de l'~ner­ gie atomique. Il a, de plus, I'obligation, aux termes de la resolution de l'Assemblee generale du 14 dtkembre 1946, d'acceIerer I'examen de ce rapport et de faciliter le travail de la Com- On the other hand, the United States of America, for reasons which have been given to us, wishes the Council to state explicitly that the proposed commission shall not e:l1croach on any matters within the jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Commission. Our delegation would like to ask the mem- bers of the Council to try to rise above the situa- tion and perhaps look at it in a perspective in which the world might look at it in the future. It seems to us that if this question is considered in isolation, and particularly if it can be con- sidered essentially as a question of organization, that is to say, a question of devising the most efficient means of undertaking an agreed task, it becomes much simpler and should be capable df a very ready solution. We would suggest that any other elements which have been introduced into this question are elements which do not belong essentially to it. They are elements which have found their way into the problem as a result of our own uncertainties, our own, fears and our own doubts, concerning the future. If we can look at the, question simply as one of organization, the answer is surely that for purposes of efficient functioning there must be some demarcation between the work which one commission shall undertake and the work of the other commission. That is necessary simply for economy in operation, and to avoid unneces- sary overlapping. At the'same time, it has always seemed to our delegation that this demarcation should not be so rigid as to impede the effective working of either commission. Undoubtedly, certain phases of the work of the Atomic Energy Commission will touch the borders of the general This almost identical membership, and the possibility of perfect co-ordination through the instructions which Governments will give to their representatives on the three bodies, makes the present difficulty in which we are placed seem almost fantastically unreal. What would be the position if, in the course of the work on the pro- posed new commission, it was found that it was necessary to discuss something relating to weapons of mass destruction? There is no neces- sity for discussing such a matter.within the new commission, and no hardship would be created if it were not discussed there. The membership of the new commission will be exactly the same as that of the Atomic Energy Commission, and their members will have every facility for discussing such a matter. No member of the new commission would be unaware, at any time, of the exact stage reached in the progress of the Atomic Energy Commission. Similarly, no member of the Atomic Energy Commission would be unaware of the exact stage of the progress made in the work of the new commission. If ever we got into difficulty, it would be almost as simple as moving from one room to another, from one table to another, in order to take up the discussion at a specific point. And our delegation is at some loss to understand the nature of the hold-up on so simple a question when we consider the fact that there is almost identical membership in th~ three bodies which will be discussing these questions. It would seem to us to be quite easy and quite natural for any body of reasonable men to work at t~ese two tasks side by side. Yet we g~ on talking as though these two commissions were ~oing to be bodies entirely different in composi- tI?n, entirely different in powers, responsible to different Governments, and drawing their in- structions from different sources. I suggest that, asyractical men, we should pay some regard to t~ fact and not go on belabouring this ques- tIon of jurisdiction at too great length without remembering that it is simply a term which, in the present case, may not have a great deal of reahty. Briefly, the Australian position is that the im- portance of the present situation before us is ~o~ that of finding a formulation or of rigidly de- fmmg the terms of reference of one body or another. Its importance is really whether or not .be ' co~jointement. Cependant, nous continuons a pader compte si ces deux commission devaient etre des organismes entierement differents par leur composition et leurs pO"!1voirs responsables devant des Gouvernements differents et recevant leurs instructions de sources differentes. J'estime qu'en hommes pratiques, nous devons tenir compte de ce fait et ne pas rebattre trop long- temps cette question de competence sans nous rappeler qu'il s'agit la d'un terme qui, dans le cas present, peut ne pas correspondre a quelque chose de tres reel. Bref, la position de la delegation australienne est la suivante. A notre avis, l'importance de la situation teIle qu'elle se presente a nous, actuel- lement, ne reside pas dans la recherche d'une formule rigide pour.definir le mandat de tel ou As regards the particular terms of the resolu- tion, our view is that it should be made dear, in the interests of efficient working, that the two commissions are to work on parallel lines, and that the two commissions are not intended to encroach on each other. It should also be made clear, in our estimation, that we should not destroy the work that has been done by the Atomic Energy Commission, and that we should not go back on its work either. Rather, we should do everything in our power to facilitate the work of that Commission and encourage its further progress in the next stage of its work. Following the private talks, we had an op- portunity of referring to our Government the full text of the resolution which emerged. The present position of the Australian delegation, on instructions received from the Australian Gov- ernment, is that it will support paragraph 1 of the resolution, paragraph 2 and the greater part of paragraph 3. However, in a last attempt to find some way out of the present impasse, th~ Australian Government has instructed me to submit for the consideration of the Council a draft text to replace the words which are itali- cized in paragraph 3. The amendment, which we suggest might replace the words italicized, would read as follows: "Those matters which fall within the'com- petence of the Atomic Energy Commission, as determined by the General Assembly reso- lutiQns of 24 January 1946 and 14 December 1946, shall be dealt with in accordance with such resolutions, and the jurisdiction of the commission hereby established shall be with- out prejudice to the competence and juris- diction of the Atomic Energy Commission." Now, admittedly. that draft amendment is not as precise, it is not as rigid, 0; as comprehensive as the text which the delegation of the United States of Am(~i~tl. prefers. Achllittedly, it does not settle this ~ue5tiDn IQf jurisdiction once and for all. It a.lkfw::l ;:t cc-rtain amount of flexibility. But it ~oes seen to the Ausltralian Government that tt :cext of this nature should be sufficient for reasonable men and men of good faith to work Oil. And I should like to say quite frank!? that if we are not reasonable men and if we aI\ not men of good faith, a mere alternative wcrdirlg will not ease this problem, will not assist us to make any progress. If we are not prepared, at this stage, to act like reasonable men, and to act like men of goou faith, then the devising of new fOmlulas, the devising of new safeguards is not going to get us out of that difficulty. • c()n~ues pour se livrer a des empietements reci- proques. On doit egalement preciseI', a notre avis, que nous ne devons pas defaire le travan deja accompli par la Commission de I'energie atomique et que nous ne devons pas non plus revenir sur ce travail. Nous devons plutot faire tout ce qui est en notre pouvoir pour faciliter la tache de la Commission et l'encourager a faire de nouveaux progres dans la phase suivante de ses travaux. A I'issue des conversations prive~, nous avons pu communiqueI' a notre Gouve:-nement le texte complet de la resolution qui s'en est de['-\ge. La position actuelle de la delegatIon australienne, selon les instructions re~ues clu Gouv~rnement australien, est la suivante: nous donnons notre approbation aux paI:agraphes 1 et 2, ainsi qll'a la plus grande pame du paragraphe 3. Nean- moins, pour tenter une derniere fois de trouver une issue aI'impasse dans laquelle nous sommes actuellement, le Gouvernement australien m'a charge de soumettre a I'examen du Conseil de securite un projet destine a remplacer, dans le paragraphe 3, les mots en italique. L'amende- ment que nous proposons consiste a remplacer les mots en italique par les suivants: "Les questions qui sont de la competence de la Commission de l'energie atomique, aux termes des resolutions de l'AssembIee generale du 24 janvier 1946 et du 14 decembre 1946, seront traitees conformement aces resolutions, et les attributions de la commission creee par la presente resolution ne porteront pas atteinte ala competence et aux attributions de la Com- mission de l'energie atomique." J'entends bien, ce projet d'amendement n'est pas aussi precis, aussi rigide ni aussi complet que le textc auqueI vont les preferences de la dele- gation des Etats-Unis d'Amerique. Certes, il ne regIe pas une fois pour toutes cette question de competence; il permet une certah'1e souplesse. Mais il semble vraiment au Gouvernement aus- tralien qu'un texte de cette nature doit suffire a des hommes de bon .'lens et de bonne foi pour continueI' atravailler. Et je tiens adire franche- ment que si nous ne sommes pas des hommes de bon sens et de bonne foi, ce n'est pas une simple variante dans la redaction qui rendra ce pro- bleme plus facile ou qui aidera arealiser quelque progres. Si nous ne sommes. pas prets, au pomt ou nous en sommes, a agir en hommes de ban sens et en hommes de bonne foi, ce n'est pas en imaginant de nouvelIes formules et de nouvelles precautions que nous sortirons de cette difficulte. The Australian Government entirdy shares the view which has been expressed by other dele- gations that we cannot hope for disarmament until we have made some progress towards the building of a system of security. We are in a less fortunate position than that of the repre- sentative of the United Kingdom, who spoke this morning. He has apparently received some ink- ling of what the Military Staff Committee has been doing during the past year, inasmuch as the·United Kingdom has a representative on the Committee. But so far as the non-permanent members of this Council are concerned, I think the position can be fairly stated as follows: Since the Military Staff Committee was asked, nearly a year ago, to undertake this urgent work, we have nothing before us but a complete blank. We do not know what this body has been doing. It has submitted a brief report to be included in our annual report to the General p~sembly; but whether it is making progress, what progress it is making, or why it is not making progress, is all closed behind a dark wall. The small countries of this world depend even more than the great countries on the building up of a sound and effective security system. I think that before going much farther with this work of disarma- ment, we should receive some indication from the Military Staff Committee of what it has been doing during the past year, what difficulties it has encountered and what prospects there are of building a security system. We therefore ask that the words "and as a matter of urgency" be inserted in paragraph 4. And, inasmuch as the amendment moved this morning by the repre- sentative of the United Kingdom is completely in keeph'1g with that idea, we shall also be quite happy to support that amendment. In conclusion, I should like to say that the Pour conc1ure, je tiens a dire que le principe general principle which has guided the Australian general qui a guide la delegation australienne delegation during all the debates in this Council dans sa participation aux debats de ce Comeil et and in the private talks, has been to try to recon- aux conversations privees, a toujours ete de cher- cile the opposing views of the United States of cher a concilier les vue& opposees des Etats-Unis America and the Soviet Union, because we d'Amerique et de l'Union sovietique, parce que recognize that it is essential to reconcile those nous reconnaissons qu'il est essentiel de concilier views before we can proceed much farther. But ces vues pour pouvoir aller de l'avanf. Mais, a we would suggest that the reconciliation which notre avis, la conciliation tentee actuellement is being attempted at the present moment is solely doit porter uniquement sur les methodes de·tra- a reconciliation on the method of work. I do vail. Je ne pense pas que meme le membre le not think that even the most optimistic member plus optimiste du Conseil puisse esperer concilier, of the Council would hope to reconcile, at this au point ou nous en sommes, les oppositions sta~e, the fund~mental difference on substance. fondamentales qui portent sur des questions de I! ~ ~ot our busmess to do that. The only recon- fond. Cela n,est pas notre a...'Iaire. La seule con- c.iliation we want at this moment is a reconcilia- ciliation que nous desirions a l'heure actuelle Le Gouvemement australien partage entie- rement le point de vue deja exprime par d'autres delegations, a savoir que nous ne pouvons pas esperer aboutir au desarmement tant que nous n'aurons pas realise quelques progres vers l'edi- fication d'ur~ systeme de secmit~. Nous sommes moins heureux que le representant du Royaume- Uni que nous avons entendu ce matin. n a, seIon toute apparence, quelque idee de ce que le Comite d'etat-major a fait au cours de l'annee passee, attendu que le Roya.lliIle-Uni est repre- sente a ce Comite. Mais la situation, telle qu'elle apparait aux yeux des membres non permanents du Conseil de securite, peut, a mon avis, etre assez bien exposee comme suit: Depuis bientot un an que nous avons demande au Comite. d'etat-major d'entreprendre cette tache urgente, nous n'avons devant nous que le vide. Nous ne savons pas ce que cet organi'Ome a fait. Il a remis un bref rapport qui doit etre inclus dfu~ notre rapport arilluel it l'Assenlblee generale. Mais realise-t-il des progres? Et queIs progres? Ou bien pourquoi ne realise-t-il aucun progres? Tout cela est, pour nous, recouvert d~un voile impenetrable. L'edification d'un systeme de securite solide et efficace est d'une importance encore plus directe pour les petits pays de ce monde que pour les grands pays. Je pense qu'avant d'aller beaucoup plus loin dans cette reuvre du desarmement, nous devrions recevoir du Comite d'etat-major quelques indications sur ce qu'il a fait au cours de l'annee passee, les difficultes qu'il a rencontrees et les perspectives qui existent quant a l'edification d'un systeme de securite. C'est pourquoi nous proposons d'illse- rer dans le par~graphe 4 les mots "et comme une question urgente". Et, puisque l'amende- ment propose ce matin par le representant du Royaume-Uni est en harmonie complete avec cette idee, nous serons egalement heureux d'ap- puyer cet amendement. Mter all, there are fifty..,thtee other Members of the United Nations, and those fifty-three other Members are waiting for these two to move. Those other fifty-three have required this Council to take action. Those other fifty-three, in com- mon with us, have expressed their will in a resolution, and so far as we can understand the English language, and so far as we can interpret the debates of the Assembly, it seems to us that what the Members of the United Nations-all the Members of the United Nations-said is this: first, the work of the Atomic Energy Com- mission is to continue; second, the responsibility in respect of atomic weapons and other weapons of mass destruction remains with the Atomic Energy Commission; third, the Security Council has responsibility for devising practical measures for the general regulation and reduction of arma- ments; and fourth-and I state this negative1y- .the General Assembly did not intend that there should be any duplication of work or rivalry between these two bodies. We have reached the point where we find it extremely difficult to understand how it is possible to refuse persistently to go ahead in conformity with the terms and in the sense of that General Assembly resolution., We repeat that we do net expect at this stage that we can reconcile all points of ftmdamental difference, but it does seem to us that it should be within our capacity to reconcile differences regarding method.

Le PRESIDENT: Avant de donner la parole au Before calling on the representative of Poland, representant de la Pologne, qui l'a demandee, je who has asked to speak, I should like to comment voudrais faire une breve remarque au sujet de briefly onothe order of our debate. l'ordre de notre discl1ssion. Two amendments have been submitted, one Deux amendements ont ete presentes, l'un, this morning by the representative of the United ce matin, par le represent~t du Royaume-Uni Kingdom, and the other just now by the repreet l'autre, a I'instant meme, par le representant sentative of Australia. de l'Australie. At the moment, we are carrying on a general Nous procedons en ce moment a une discusdiscussion of document 8/268. We shall next sion generale fondee sur le document S/268. 'examine this document paragraph by paragraph. Nous passerons ensuite a l'examen de ce docu- I suggest that we consider the amendments when ment, paragraphe par paragraphe. Je propose we deal with the different paragraphs of the resoque nous considerions les amendements au ~~~ commen~ons apenser que ces Puissances, malgre leur grandeur, doivent comprendre qu'il ne s'a~' pas d'une question privee entre eIles et qu'aucune Puissance, si grande soit-eIle, ne peut, au sein des Nations Unies, s'offrir le luxe d'aboutir, dans ses relations avec un autre Membre, a une situation sans issue. Somme toute, il y a cinquante-trois autres Membres des Nations Unies, et ces cinquantetrois autres Membres attendent que ces deux Puissances aillent de l'avant. Ces cinquante-trois autres Membres ont demande au Conseil d'agir; ces cinquante-trois autres Membres ont, avec nous, exprime leur volonte dans une resolution et, pour autant que nous connaissions la langue anglaise et dans la mesure ou nous pouvons interpreter les debats de l'Assemblee, il nous semble que ce que les Membres des Nations Unies, tous les Membres des Nations Unies, ont dit, c'est: premierement, que le travail de la Commission de I'energie atomique doit continuer; deuxiemement, -que la responsabilite en matiere d'armes atomiques et d'autres armes de destruction massive demeure confiee a la Commission de l'energie atomique; troisiemement, que le Conseil de securite est charge d'elaborer des mesures pratiques en vue de la reduction et de la reglementation generales des armements; et quatriemement, je donne ici une interpretation negative, que I'Assemblee generale n'a pas voulu qu'il y eut de double emploi dans le travail de ces de~ organismes) ni de rivalite I entre eux. Nous aVOilS atteint un point ou nous eprouvons une difficulte extreme a comprendre pourquoi 1'0n refuse obstinement d'aIler de l'avant seIon l'esprit et la lettre de la resolution de l'p."ssemblee generale. Nous repetons que nous n'esperons pas, actuel1-"TI.ent, pouvoir concilier toutes les divergene....,; fondamentales d'opinions, mais il nous semble en verite que nous pouvons concilier les divergences d'opinions qui portent sur des questions de methodes. , Mr. MICHALOWSKI (Poland): The Polish delegation h~ already stressed in ~ Coun~ilthat our policy will be ~me of promoting ~he Imple- mentation of the disarmament resolution of the General Assembly without any undue delay.' We have to take immediate steps to prepare for the general regulation and reduc.tion of. armaments, and we also have to take Immediate steps to prepare for the abolition of atomic weapons. We do not think that there is any internal contradic- tion between these two points. We can immedi- ately proceed to the formation of the commission on disarmament, and perhaps tomorrow we shall be able to take up the report of the Atomic Energy ConuniBsion. It seems to me that practically all members of this Council are in agreement. There is only the wording, the matter of definition, which hampers the unanimous decision of this Council. The Polish delegation welcomes the draft reso- lution which has resulted from the consultation of the President with the representatives of five States. We are of the opinion that the extent of agreement reached by this consultation is much more important than the disagreement on a few minor points. We accept paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 of the draft resolution. We also accept the first part of paragraph 3, and, as regards the second part of this paragraph, we do not consider it of very great importance, but nevertheless, even after the explanation given yesterday by the repre- sentative of the United States, we do not under- stand the reason for the inclusion of four sentences repeating four tLtUes the same idea. It is already expressed clearly and without any doubt in paragraphs 3, 4, 6 and 8 of the resolu- tion of the General Assembly of 14 December 1946. 1 Besides, both commissions will be work- ing under the guidance and supervision of the Security Council and will have almost the same membership. Is that not a sufficient guarantee for the division of work in these commissions? Nevertheless, in our opinion, the unanimity of the permanent members of the Council in the matter of disarmament is a substantial question., Therefore, we call upon the representatives of these countries to find a reasonable solution and to come to an agreement. The' peoples of the world want disarmament, and immediate dis- ~nnament. In order to fulfil their expecta- !lOns, all of us must sacrifice part of our own mterests. M. MICHALOWSKI (Pologne) (traduit de l'an- glais): La delegation polonaise a deja souligne devant le Conseil que sa politique a pour but de favoriser une prompte mise en reuvre de la re- solution de l'Assemblee generale sur le desarme- ment. Nons devons prendre immediatement des mesures pour preparer une reglementation et une reduction generales des armements; nous devons egalement prendre immediatement des mesures pour preparer I'interdiction des armes atomiques. Nous pensons qu'il n'y a aucune contradiction profonde entre ces deux obliga- tions. Nous pouvons proceder sans deIai a la constitution de la commission du desarmement et, peut-etre, des demain, pourrons-nous aborder I'examen du rapport de la Commission de I'ener- gie atomique. Il me semble que presque tous les membres du Conseil sont d'accord. Seules des questions de redaction, de definition, empechent le Conseil de prendre une decision a I'unanimite. La delegation polonaise atcueille avec satis- faction le projet de resolution redige a la suite de la consultation du President avec les repre- sentants de cinq Etats. Nous sommes d'avis que I'accord realise a la suite de cette consulta- tion est beaucoup plus important que le desac- cord qui subsiste sur quelques points st:condaires. Nous acceptons les paragraphes 1, 2 et 4 du projet de resolution. Naus acceptons egalement la premiere partie du paragraphe 3; quant a la seconde partie de ce meme paragraphe, nous ne la considerons pas comme presentant une im- portance essentielle; neanmoins, meme apres I'explication qu'a donnee hier le representant des Etats-Unis, nous ne comprenoIl& pas pourquoi on y a fait figurer quatre phrases qui repetent quatre fois la meme idee. Cette idee est deja exprimee, clairement et sans aucune ambiguite, dans les paragraphes 3, 4, 6 et 8 de la resolution de I'Assemblee generale du 14 decembre 19461• En outre, les deux commissions fonctionneront sous la direction et le controle du Conseil de securite et comprendront a peu pres les memes membres. Cela ne suffit-il pas adonner la garan- tie que, dans ces deux commissions, la division du travail sera observee? L'unanimite des mem- bres permanents du Conseil en ce qui concerne le desarme~ent n'en constitue pas moins, selon nous, une question essentielle. En consequence, nous faisons appel aux representants de ces pays pour qu'ils s'efforcent de trouver une solution· raisonnable sur laquelle ils pourront se mettre d'accord. Les peuples du monde veulent le de- sarmament, le desarmement immediat. Pour re- pondre a leur attente, nous devons, tous, sacrifier une partie de nos propres interets. Paragraph 1 is'entirely acceptable to us. Paragraph 2, which stresses the urgency and the priority of the report of the Atomic Energy Commission, is entirely in accord with the views which I, on behalf of my Government, expressed at an earlier meeting. . Paragraph 3, with the italicized clauses, seems to cause the main difference between the "USSR and t.he United States representatives. I listened very carefully, as must have all the other mem- bers of the Council,. to the long and clear ex- positions made yesterday by the representatives of both the United States and the Soviet Union on behalf of their respective Governments. It seems to me that their differences appear to be more superficial than real. I think those differ- ences stem from their different interpretations of the Assembly resolutions. The United States position is that problems related to atomic energy, in accordance with the Assembly resolutions, are entirely within the competence and jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Commission, and that consequently the' new commission which this Council proposes to establish shall not have any jurisdiction over those matters, so as to avoid overlapping and en- croachment by the new commission on the jurisdiction of the Atomic Eriergy Commission. The position of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, if I ~mderstand Mr. Gromyko rightly, is that the Assembly resolJltion does not expressly make any distinction between atomic weapons and non-atomic weapons, and thus, the new commission shall not necessarily be ex- cluded from dealing with matters that fall within the competence of the Atomic Energy Commis- sion. In short, their differences arise from different interpretations of the Assembly resolutions. For this reason, we believe that it is all the more desirable and necessary that the terms of ref- erence of the new commission should be clearly defined, beyond any doubt, so as to avoid any possible confusion or' argument when the new commission proceeds with its work, to which we all attach very great importance. The italicized dauses as introduced by the United States delegation provide that clarity, and I think that once we get this point settled, there will be no possibility of confusion when the commission starts its work. This determination of the terms of reference is clearly within the power and duty of the Security Council when But that is a matter for further consideration by the Council. I do not think it involves any great principle once we have adopted the first and third italicized clauses. With reference to the work of the Military Staff Conur'ttee, of which China is a member, I join with my British colleague in urging that Committee to expedite its work in order to provide some plan or basis ~or the Council's consideration concerning the problems of dis- armament and security, which are inseparably linked. Countries which are not members of the Military Staff Committee may well have reason to complain that they know little or nothing of the work that this Committee has been doing. I am afraid the representatives of the countries which are members of that Military Staff Com- mittee do not, pending its interim report, know much more than those which are not members. Thus, in a sense, I would support the suggested amendment or addition by the United Kingdom representative, but we can discuss that when we deal with the draft resolution paragraph by paragraph. In short, China, like all the other members of this Council, wishes to see the Council proceed with dispatch with its work on this very im- portant problem before the Council. No member should, and I am sure no member would, wish to impede this very important work by differ- ences that can be comoosed and which, when finally resolved, really ~ involve no very great principle. But, as the Australian representative has said, it is more a matter of method; because in whatever we do, we have to be guided by the terms of the General Assembly resolutions and also by the clear power and duty conferred under the Charter upon the Council.

As there are no more speakers in the general discussion, we shall proceed to examine document S/268 paragraph by paragraph. I think it well to state beforehand that even ~ ~e. take a decision on each of the paragraphs mr.livldually, there will be another vote, a final Le PRESIDENT: Personne ne demandant plus la parole dans la discussion generale, nous passons a I'examen du document S/268, paragraphe par paragraphe. le crois utile, auparavant, de preciseI' que, si nous sommes amenes a nous prononcer au sujet de chacun des paragraphes, il y aura, en outre, Under the rules, we are first required to vote on amendments and additions, and when there are se'veral amendments, as there happen to be in tills case, the first amendment-to be considered is the one which is the farthest from the text. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): Mr. President, I am not on your list of speakers, but I should like to say a few words in the general debate. I have a few observations to make in connexion with the statement of the United Kingdom representative. In the course of his remarks, the United Kingdom representative asked me a number of questions. One of these questions was: "Does he oppose the United States additions simply because they are implied in the resolution, and he thinks it unnecessary to repeat what has already been said?" The second question was: "On the other hand, does he oppose these additions because he does not agree with them?"1 I replied to these questions in my statement yesterday.2 I do not think that there is any necessity for me to rep~at what I said then. In my opinion I explained in full detail the reasons why I am unable to agree to the inclusion of the amendments and additions to the draft resolution submitted by the United States representative. In his remarks, Sir Alexander Cadogan touched on a number of other subjects, including the question of the organization of the meetings of the Security Council, and he contributed the new idea of introducing simultaneous interpretation as a means of accelerating or retarding the implementation. of the General Assembly resolution of 14 Decem~r 1946. I do not intend to discuss the importance of these methods of work, because we are not dealing with this matter but with the substance of certain questions. " \ Some of these questions were also mentioned by the United Kingdom representative, who 1 Texts quoted in English, see hundred and third meeting. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques sodalistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Monsieur le President, bien que mon nom ne figure pas sur la liste des orateurs, je voudrais dire quelques mots dans le cadre de la discussion generale. Je voudrais en particulier repondre a la declaration du representant du Royaume-Uni. Celui-ci m'a pose un certain nombre de questions. Il m'a demande notamment: "Le representant de l'Union sovietique est-il oppose a l'insertion des dispositions proposees par le representant des Etats-Unis d'Amerique parce. qu'il estime que le sens de la resolution va de soi, et qu'il serait superflu de repeter ce qui a ete deja dit?" Il m'a demande egalement: "Au contraire, est-il oppose a l'insertion de ces dispositions parce qu'il ne les approuve pas?l" J'ai deja repondu a ces questions dans ma declaration d'hier2• Je ne yois pas la necessite de me repeter. Il me semble que, dans ma declaration d'hier, j'ai expose d'une manihe complete et detaillee les raisons qui m'empechent d'ac-, cepter les amendements et les additions que le representant des Etats-Unis propose d'apporter au projet de resolution. Sir Alexander Cadogan a souleve dans son discours un certain -nombre d'autres questions, jusques et y compris la question de l'organisation des seances du Conseil de securite. Il a apporte une certaine contribution a l'etude de ce probleme en exprimant une idee nouvelle au sujet de I'interpretation simultanee, consideree comme un -moyen d'accelerer ou de ralentir la mise en reuvre de la resolution de l'Assemblee generale en date du 14 decembre 1946. Cependant, jeme garderai de surestimer I'importance de ce moyen de travail, car ce n'est pas cela qui importe actuellement, c'est le fond des problemes. Le representant du Royaume-Uni a d'ailleurs egalement touche a certaines de ces questions de 1 En anglais dans l'original (traduction) • Voir centtroisieme seance. . Thus, an obvious opposition is being created between the system of security and the regulation and reduction of armaments. This opposition does not arise out of the General Assembly resolution of 14 December 1946, and is contrary to this resolution. The meaning of the General Assembly resolution is that the solution of problems connected with the general regulation and reduction of armaments implies the establishment of a system of security and the reinforcement of international peace. The opposition between security on the one hand and disarmament (that there is such an opposition is, in fact, often argued) and the regulation and reduction of armaments and armed forces on the other hand only complicates the issue and diverts. us from the question with which we must deal in the Security Council. There are still certain naive people who may believe that there is some difference and opposition between the establishment of a system of security and the regulation and reduction of armaments, but the delegation of the Soviet Union for its part, feels obliged to explain the actual situation. The delegation of the Soviet Union feels obliged to draw the attention of those who really wish to solve this problem to the fact that the opposition which has been created recently between security and questions concerning the regulation and reduction of armaments indeed complicates the situation and hinders the successful fulfilment of the tasks laid down by the General Assembly in its resolution of 14 December. It is no accident, therefore, that the United Kingdom representative repeated this thesis, which. has already become banal, and made no attempt either to develop it Or to show where the contrast lies between the system of security and the problems of the regulation and reduction of armaments. No proofs or arguments were adduced, but a thesis which has already become stereotyped was repeated. Can we consider such an assertion of the existence of an opposition between security and the problems of the regulation and reduction of armaments to be the expression of a real wish to begin the implementation of the General re~sembly resolution? Est-il possible de voir, dans l'affirmation qu'il existe une opposition entre la securite et les problemes de la reglementation et de la reduction des armements, l'expression du desir d'abordel' reellement l'application de la resolution de l'AssembIee generale? I should like to draw the attention of the Security Council to the fact that on 27 December 1946 the delegation of the Soviet Union submitted a proposal regarding certain practical measures for the implementation of the General Assembly resolution of 14 December.1 Today is 12 February 1947, and the Security Council has not yet been able to take a decision on the organizational aspect of the matter, on the question of what preliminary measures should be taken in order to pass from words to deeds. A:l kinds of arguments have been brought forward to prove this. We were told that we should first of all settle the question of atomic control; then we were told at the next meeting that we should deal with the report of the Atomic Energy Commission; and then other arguments were adduced. It is possible to find dozens of various pretexts, but the work of the implementation of the General Assembly resolution of 14 December 1946 is not progressing. It is sufficient to think about this and to cast a cursory glance at the work of the Security Council during the last six or eight weeks in order to perceive that if the Security Council progresses at such a rate, one must even hesitate to indicate approximately how long it will take to approach a practical solution of the problems of regulation and reduction of armaments and armed forces. We are in fact only discussing one single question, that of the establishment of a subsidiary organ of the Security Council, which is to assist the Council in drawing up proposals for certain practical measures to implement the· General Assembly resolution. This is the first of the preliminary measures, and we have not yet made any substantial progress, we have not even taken a decision. on this matter, and when this decision ha!> been taken, we shall still have to draw up the programme of the commission. If this programme is submitted to the Security Council for confirmation, we shall have to dis- Que n'a-t-on pas invoque pour justifier cette . situation! On nous a dit d'abord qu'il fallait commencer par resoudre la question du controle de l'energie atomique; a la seance suivante, on nous a dit: etudions le rapport de la Commission de I'energie atomique; puis on a produit d'autres arguments encore. Lorsqu'on y tient, on peut trouver des dizaines de pretextes de tout genre, mais I'application de la resolution de l'Assemblee en date du 14 decembre 1946 ne fait aucun progres. Il suffit de reflechir et de jeter un coup d'reil sur le travail accompli par le Conseil de securite au cours des six dernieres semaines ou des deux derniers mois pour cornprendre que, si le Conseil continue a progresser au meme rythme, on hesite a fixer, meme approximativement, les delais qui lui seront necessaires pour aborder I'execution pratique de ses taches dans le domaine de la reglementation et de la reduction des armements et des forces armees. Au fond, nous avons une seule question it. resoudre: la creation d'un organisme auxiliaire qui aiderait le Conseil de securite a elaborer un projet de mesures d'ordre pratique a prendre pour donner efIet a la resolution de l'Assemblee generale. C'est la la toute premiere chose afaire. Or, nous n'avons fait aucun progres quant au fond; nous n'avons meme pas 'Pris d@ decision a ce sujet. Nous savons pourtant qu'une fois la decision prise, nous aurons encore a elaborer le programme de la commission. Si ce programme est soumis a I'approbation du Conseil de securite, il faudra que celui-ci en discute. Nous n~ , La delegation de rUnion sovietique a deja eu l'occasion de faire observer que les peuples qui ont interet a l'etablissement d'une paix durable jugeront les travaux du Conseil de securite, en general, et l'attitude de ses membres, en particulier, non pas d'apres les paroles, mais d'apres les actes. n sera difficile de cacher longtemps la situation reelle aux hommes qui sont interesses a l'etablissement d'une paix durable et au renforcement de la securite internationale. Pour l'instant, ces hommes ecoutent encore et nous regardent fake; ils ne voient pas encore dairement OU est la verite et quelles sont les causes qui retardent a ce point la mise en pratique de la resolution de l'AssembIee generale. Il se pourrait cependant qu'un jour les hommes comprennent. C'est du moins ainsi qu'il en a ete dans le passe. The delegation of the Soviet Union has already had an opportunity to point out that the peoples of the world, who are concerned with the establishment of a lasting peace, will judge the actions of the Security Council as a whole and of all individual representatives on the Council not on their declarations, but on their deeds; and it will be difficult to conceal the actual state of affairs for any length of time from people who are concerned in the establishment of peace and the safeguarding of international security. These people are now watching and listening; they do not yet see where the truth lies and the reasons which are hindering the implementation of the General Assembly resolution. Perhaps, however, the time will come when people will realize the truth. At any rate, this has happened in the past. Il suffit de se reporter a la situation internationale des quinze dernieres annees pour se rendre compte que les choses se sont bien passees ainsi. Apres dix ou quinze ans, on a vu clairement qui avait raison, de ceux qui demandaient que la paix fUt garantie par des mesures telles que le desarmement et la reduction des armements, ou des autres. If you review the international situation of at least the last fifteeh years, you will see that this was indeed the case. In the course of ten or fifteen years, it became clear who was right in demanding that peace should be safeguarded by definite measures, including those of disarmament and the reduction of armaments, and who was wrong. Pour le moment nous ne pouvons qu'esperer que l'histoire ne se repetera pas et que les decisions prises par,les Nations Unies, il y a deux mois, constitueront vrainlent une rnesure d'importance historique dans l'reuvre de consolidation de la paix et de la securite des peuples: ~ Je voudrais presenter maintenant· quelques observations de detail au sujet/des propositions additionnelles concernant le Comite d'etat-major. A mon sens, nous ne devons pas oublier qu'il est dangereux de prendre des decisions qui risquent de ne pas etre executees ou d'etre mal executees. Le Conseil de securite manque malheureusement d'informations. A ma connaissance, il a meme omis de consulter le Comite d'etat-major, et nous ne savons pas quel est le temps requis par ce dernier pour elaborer ses propositions. Il se peut que le Comite d'etat-major puisse nous presenter sys propositions, soit avant, soit apres le 30 avril. Ne serait-il pas preferable de tirer ce point au clair avant de fixer ~e date precise? We can only say at present that it would be desir~ble that this should not be repeated, and that the decision taken by the United Nations two months ago should become a really important historical step in the reinforcement of peace and security of nations. I should like to make some remarks with regard to the amendments concerning the Military Staff Committee. I think that we should not forget that it is difficult to take decisions if there is any danger that they may not be carried out or that they may not be properly carried out. Unfortunately, the Security Council is insufficiently acquainted with the situation at present. To the best of my knowledge the Council has not asked the Military Staff Committee, and we have no information, as to the earliest date by which the Committee will be able to submit its proposals. Perhaps it will be able to submit them not on 30 April, but either The draft resolution contains a passage, the second italicized passage, relating to the working programme of the commission which we shall probably set up. I cannot understand why this passage is not among those on which agreement has been reached. I repeat that I do not know why this is so; it may be that someone has objected to this passage. I have not objected to this passage, and we have not discussed it. In the course of the discussions at an informal meeting, this passage formed a part of a longer sentence, which also dealt with the defence of the rights, powers and functions of the Atomic Energy Commission. As representative of the Soviet Union, I was unable to accept this passage in its original fonn. But the second part of the sentence has been omitted; the United States representative, Mr. Austin, has withdrawn that passage. At present the passage is worded quite differently, and I should like to ask the President-and I think that other representatives on the Council are interested in this-to explain the situation with regard to this passage, and, in particular, the reason why it is among those on which agreement has not been :r:eached. The delegation of the Soviet Union feels obliged to.submit an amendment to the draft resolution which we are discussing. We suggest that this amendment should take the place of the ~hird and fourth passages in the draft resolution. This additional passage which we propose reads as follows: "The results of the work of this commission, and also the results of the work of the Atomic Energy Commission, must be a basis for working out the measures for general regulation and reduction of armaments." I would ask the Security Council to discuss the possibility of including this amendment of the delegation of the Soviet Union in the place of the third and fourth sentences of the draft "Les resultats des travaux de cette commission, ainsi que les resultats des travaux de la Commission de l'energie atomique, devront servir de base a l'elaboration des mesures a prendre en vue de la reglementation et de la reduction generales des armements." Je demande au Consei1 de securite de vouloir bien etudier la possibilite de substituer le texte propose par la delegation de rUnion sovietique aux troisieme et quatrieme phrases du projet Le PRESIDENT: Le representant des Etats- Unis d'Amerique a pose tout a I'heure une question d'ordre. Or, le reglement interieurdu Conseil de securite stipule, dans son article 30, que "si un representant souleve une question d'ordre, le President se prononce immediatement sur ce point". Le representant de I'Union des Republiques sociaIistes sovietiques a ensuite demande la parole. J'ai eru que e'etait au sujet de la question d'ordre soulevee par le representant des Etats-Unis, et c'est pourquoi je la lui ai donnee. Je voudrais a present, selon le reglement, repondre a la question d'ordre posee par le representant des Etats-Unis. Je crois que cette questionresulte d'un malentendu. Tout al'heure, j'ai propose qu'une fois close la discussion generale, nous procedions a l'examen du document S/268, paragraphe par paragraphe, et que nous prenions en consideration chaque amendement en relation avec le paragraphe qu'il concerne. Le Conseil a marque son approbation; cette decision restera valable aussi longtemps que le Conseil ne I'aura pas annuIee; j'ai pOUf devoir, en ma qu~1ite de President, de la faire respecter. . Si la discussion generale peut etre consideree comme close, je vous proposerai d'examiner successivement le preambule, les paragraphes 1, 2, 3, puis le paragraphe 4. Les difficultes de procedure ne se presenteront qu'au sujet des paragraphes 3 et 4. Pour le paragraphe 3, il y aura deux difficultes a resoudre. La premiere resulte de ce que nous nous trouvons en presence de deux versions, et que nous devrons determiner l'ordre dans lequel nous mettrons ces textes aux voix; la seconde difficulte se presentera quand il y aura lieu d'etablir l'ordre des amendements, soin qui incombe au President. En ce qui eoncerne le paragraphe 4, il faudra egalement etablir l'ordre des amendements. Le representant des Et~ts-Unis a demande la parole. Qu'il me permette de lui demander si c'est sur une question d'ordre. If the general discussion can be considered closed, I would suggest the examination first of the preamble, and then of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4. Procedural difficulties will arise only in connexion with paragraphs 3 and 4. There will be two difficulties to solve in regard to paragraph 3, first, because we have two versions before us and we shall have to decide the order in which we shall vote on them. The second difficulty will arise when the order of the amendments has to be decided, and this will have to be done by the President. . As regards paragraph 4, the order of the amendments will also have to be decided. The representative of the United States has asked to speak. May I ask if it is on a point of order? Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): It is. Mr. President, in this parliamentary situation there is very little opportunity to preserve what I regard here as rights. I base my point of order on rule 36, which reads as follows: M. AUSTIN (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais): Oui. Monsieur le President, au point de vue des usages parIememaires, la situation ou nous nous trouvons· offre tres peu d'occasions de faire valoir ce que je considere comme un droit. En soulevant la question de procedure, je me suis fonde sur I'article 36, qui est ainsi con~u: "Si une proposition ou un projet de resolution font l'objet de deux ou plusieurs amendements, le President G~terminera dans quel ordre iIs seront rnis aux voix. En general, le Conseil de securite vote d'abord sur I'amendement qui s'eloigne le plus, quant an fond, de la proposition originale, et ensuite sur l'amendement suivant qui s'en eloigne le plus, et ainsi "If two or more amendments to a motion or draft resolution are proposed, the President shall rule on the order in which they are to be voted upon. Ordinarily, the Security Council shall first vote on the amendment furthest removed in substance from the original proposal, and then on the amendment next furthest removed, until all amendments have Pt Now, the situ?~='m presented to us by the procedure which LdS been followed, namely, of having had a conference of all those members of this Council who had offered draft resolutions, and thereupon presenting this document S/268, which was the result of that conference, ought not to cast any .one of those countries into the position of actually proposing an amendment, for all the other countries which .had also presented resolutions come before this Security Council together with the report compiled at that conference. Here is a copy of document S/264, filed on 4 February 1947 by the United States of America.1 It is a draft resolution, and it contains the essential points which would differentiate the jurisdiction of the proposed commission from the business entrusted to the Atomic Energy Commission. Thus, the first paragraph of this draft resolution reads as follows: "To establish a commission composed of the members of the Security Council, the function of which shall be to make recommendations to the Security Council regarding the practical measures, including the provision of effective safeguards, for the general regulation and reduction of armaments and armed forces, except as regards those matters which fall within the competence of the Atomic Energy Commission as determined by the General Assembly resolutions of 2l January 1946 and 14 December 1946." Now, this was a section of one of the resolutions which were considered by the small group whose report we are examining today, and just because there was one country which opposed .that exception contained in the United States proposa!; the proposal had to be italicized in order to make this clearly apparent. It does not at all represent an amendment proposed by the United Stat~s. The resolution is the contribution of the entire conference to the information which this Security Council ought to have in connexion with these various texts which were before it. To treat this matter a:.J if these italicized words were an amendment seems to me most unjust; it deprives the Unitf'rl States of a status that it ought te> have'n the Llecurity Council, a status at least equal to that of any other country, in presenting its views without being handicapped by any parliamentary procedure. Thus, I submit to you that the ruling should perhaps not take this into account, especially in view of the remarks which followed, characterizing these italicized passages as a United States ameridment, neither of which charges is. well-founded. They are 2. part of the Il s'agit la d'un paragraphe de l'une des resolutions examinees par le groupe restreint dont nous etudions le rapport aujourd'hui. C'est precisement parce qu'il y avait un pays qui s'op· posait a l'exception contenue dans la proposition des Etats-Unis qu'il a fallu mettre celle-ci en italique de maniere a faire apparaitre nettement cette opposition. Elle ne constitue en au· cune maniere un amendement propose par les Etats-Unis. I1 s'agit la de la contribution ap· portee par la conference tout entiere pour fournir au Conseil de securite les renseignements qu'il etait en droit d'attendre au sujet des divers textes dont il etait saisi. Il est tout afait injuste, seIon moi, de considerer ces mats en italique comme formant un amendement; on prive ainsi les Etats-Unis des prerogatives qu'ils doivent avoir au.sem du Conseil de securite, prerogatives au moins egales a celles de tout autre pays, et qui sont de presenter leur point de vue sans etre genes par aucune regIe de procedure padementaire. Dans ces conditio~, permettez-moi de VollS dire que VOllS ne deV!'lez pas, en teglant l'ordre de ce debat, tenir compte de ce fait. J'insiste d'autant plus sur ce point que, I think this situation ought to be remedied in some way in order that our proposal may be given exactly the same consideration as that of any other country which presented a resolution at that conference. May I say, that my request that we proceed with the amendments which have been offered did not refer to those italicized paragraphs. I had in mind those amendments which had actually been offered here in the Security Council: one by the representative of the United Kingdom, two by the representative of Australia, and now, since I raised the point of order, one by the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Those are all offered as amendments, but those italicized passages in docliment S/268 were never offered as amendments. They were submitted as an essential part of this resolution, and they were identified by being italicized solely to indicate that they were the only passages of this resolution on which unanimous agreement did not exist. At the time when the question first arose, I called attention right away to the fact that the agreement of the United States to the remainder of the text was conditional on these italicized passages being regarded as an essential part of . the text.

I still think that there is a certain misunderstanding, and I shall try to clear it up. I certainly did not say that the italicized text in document S/268 constituted an amendment proposed by the representative of the United States of America. On the contrary, I said that, on the one hand, there were two alternative texts for paragraph 3 and, on the other, two amt~nd­ ments submitted today by the representatives of Australia and of the Union of Soviet Socianst Republics, respectively. I should like to add that I wish in no way to evade the difficulties which face us with re~ard to paragraph 3. But if we are going to abide by the decision we have just taken, we must first of all consider the preamble and next paragraphs 1 and 2. When we get to paragraph 3, I shall put my views before you as impartially as I can. The representative of the Union of Soviet ~o.cialist Republics wishes to speak. May I ask if It concerns a point of order? j~ ne faisai.. pas allusion aux paragraphes en italique. Je pensais aux amendements qui avaient ete effectivement soumis au Conseil de securite, un par le representant du Royaume-Uni, deux par le representant de l'Australie, et maintenant, depuis que fai souleve la question de procedure, un par le representant de l'Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques. Il s'agissait la d'amennefJlents presentes comme teIs, tandis que les passages en italique du document S/268 n'ont jamais ete presentes eomme des amendements. lIs vous sont soumis comme partie integrante du rapport et n'ont ete mis en italique que pour indiquer clairement qu'il s'agit la des seuls passages de la resolution sur lesqueIs il n'y a pas eu accord unanime. Au moment ou la question a ete soulevee pour la premiere fois, fai immediatement appele l'attention sur le fait que l'accord des Etats-Unis sur le reste du document etait subordonne a 1'acceptation des passages en italique comme constitmmt une partie integl'ante du texte. Le PRESIDENT: Je persiste a croire qu'il y a un certain malentendu, et je voudrais m'efforcer de le dissiper. le n'ai assurement pas dit que le texte en italique du docume'1t S/268 constituait un amendement du representant des Etats-Unis d'Amerique. J'ai dit, au contraire, qu'il y avait, d~une part, deux textes proposes pour le paragraphe 3 et, d'autre part, deux amendements presentes aujourd'hui successivement par le representant de l'Australie et par celui de 1'Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques. le voqdrais ajouter encore que mon intention n'est nullement d'esquiver les di.qicultes que nous avons a resoudre en ce qui concerne le paragraphe 3. Mais si nous voulons observer la decision que nous avons prise tout a 1'heure, il nous faut prendre tout d'abord en consideration le preambule, puis les paragraphes 1 et 2. Quand nous arriverons au paragraphe 3, je vous indiquerai ma maniere de voir, et je le ferai en y apportant le maximum d'impartialite. Le representant de 1'Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques desire avoir la parple. Puisje lui demander s'ils'agit de la question d'ordre?

As I have just said, we shall take up that question when we deal. with paragraph 3. May I take it that the general discussion is closed? The proposal was adopted.

At the beginning of this morning's meeting, while reporting on the exchange of views which I had last week with the authors of the five resolutions which had then been submitted, I said that the resolution contained in document S/268 had been substituted for the previous resolutions. As no objection or comment was made on this statement, I consider that such is the case. We shall now proceed to the examination of document S/268 and first consider the preamble. The preamble is now open for debate. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): I have a procedural inquiry to make. The Unite~ States would like to indicate its favourable attitude towards those paraglraphs which precede this contested paragraph 3, but wishes it to be distinctly understood that it reserves its position upon the whole matter, this being dependent on the decision which will be taken on paragraph 3.

As I have. already said, when we have pronounced ourselves upon each paragraph of this draft resolution separately, there will be a final vote upon the resolution as a whole. This final vote, in the strict sense, will constitute the decision of the Council. If there are no remarks on the preamble, I shall consider it as adopted. The preamble was adopted.

Paragraph 1 is open for debate. Are there any objections regarding paragraph 1? Paragraph 1 was adopted.

Paragraph 2 is open for debate. Are there any objections regarding paragraph 2? Paragraph 2 was adopted. Le PRESIDENT· Comme je viens de le dire, .nous reprendrons cette question quand nous aborderons le paragraphe 3. Puis-je a present considerer que la discussion generale est close? Il en est ainsi decide. Le PRESIDENT: Au debut de la seance de ce matin, en rendant compte des echanges de vues que j'avais eus la semaine derniere avec le~ auteurs des cinq resolutions alors soumises, j'ai dit que la resolution constituant le document S/268 se substituait aux resolutions anterieures. Cette declaration n'ayant fait 1'0bjet d'aucune objection ou observation, je considere qu'il en est bien ainsi. Nour allons maintenant passer a l'examen du dQcument S/268 et considerer en premier lieu le preambule. La discussion est ouverte sur le preambule. M. AUSTIN (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais); Je voudrais poser une question de procedure. Les Etats-Unis voudraient indiquer qu'ils sont partisans des paragraphes qui precedent le paragraphe discute, le paragraphe 3; toutefois, ils desirent qu'il soit c1airement entendu qu'ils se reservent de subordonner leur position sur l'ensemble de la question a la decision que le Conseil prendra sur le paragraphe 3. Le PRESIDENT: Comme je l'ai dit tout a I'heure, apres nous etre prononces successivement sur chacun des paragraphes du projet de resolution, nous voterons sur l'ensemble, et c'est ce vote final qui constituera, a proprement parler, la decision du Conseil de securite. S'il n'y a pas de remarques concernant le preambule, je le considererai comme etant adopte. Le preambule est adopte. Le PRESIDENT: La discussion est ouverte sur le paragraphe 1. Y a-t-il des objections concemant le paragraphe 1? Le paragraphe 1 est adopte. -Le PRESIDENT: La discussion est ouverte sur le paragraphe 2. Y a-t-il des objections concernant le paragraphe 2? Le paragraphe 2 est adopte. Le texte en italique est le plus complet et, pour ce motif, on pourrait soutenir que priorite devrait lui etre donnee. En ma qualit6 de President, je desire demeurer objectif et demanderai au Conseil de decider s'il veut donner la priorite au plus long ou au plus court de ces deux textes. Mr. HAsLUCK (Australia): It seems to our delegation that· it would be essential to take the longer text as the basis, inasmuch as the two amendments which have been moved concern the second part of the text. If we took the shorter text as a basis. it would be almost impossible to consider l .._ese amendments. It is necessary to examine the longer. text in order that we may consider the amendment which the representative of the Soviet Union has moved, as well as that of the Australian delegation. M. HASLUCK (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais): Notre delegation estime qu'il serait essentiel de prendre comme base le texte le plus long, etant donne que les deux ameIidements presentes portent sur la seconde partie de ce texte. Si nous prenions cornme base le te:ll.te le plus court, il serait presque impossible d'examiner ces amendements. Il faut prendre le texte le plus long pour pouvoir etudier l'amendement de l'Union sovietique et celui de la delegation australienne. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): A mon sens, il n'y a pas lieu de parler ici cl'un texte de base. Nous avons affaire a deux rortes de textes: . ce1ui sur lequel I'accord s'est realise et qui est acceptable pour tous et celui qui ne peut etre accepte par toutes les delegations. Le fait qu'on a propose des amendements a la deuxieme partie, sur laquelle l'accord ne s'est pas realise, ne modifie pas la situation, car cette deuxieme partie devra, elle aussi, semble-t-il, etre mise aux voix, sous-paragraphe par sous-paragraphe. C'est pourquoi, je propose de mettre aux voix separement le texte qui n'est pas en italique, sur lequel l'accord s'est realise, «::t le texte en italique, sur leque1 il n'y a pas accord. Si nous votons sous-paragraphe par sous-paragraphe, peu m'importe que nous commen~ions par le premier ou par le dernier. Commen~ons par le dernier paragraphesi vous estimez que c'est correct..Cela m'est egal. Ce qui m'importe, c'est qu'on ne confonde pas les deux parties du paragraphe 3, le texte en italique et le texte qui n'est pas en italique, car cela ne pourrait que creer de la confusion. Le bon sens nous dit que le ou les membres du Conseil de securite qui acceptent la premiere partie mais qui ne sont pas d'accord avec la seconde, ne doivent pas se trouver dans l'impossibilite de voter pour la premiere a cause d'irregularites de procedure, ac.ause d'une confusion dans la procedure. Il y a, me semble-t-il,. un moyen simple d'eviter r - >1:e confusion: il suffit de voter separement sur le texte en italique et sur le texte qui n'est pas en italique. Si vous desirez commencer par la fin, je n'y vois pas d'objection. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I do not think that the idea of a basic text is applicable in this case. We have before us two texts, the one which is agreed upon and accepted by all, and the one which we cannot all accept. The fact that amendments have been made to the second part, upon which agreement has not been reached, does not change the situation, since the second part on which agreement has not been reached must apparently be put to the vote by sub-paragraphs. For this reason, I propose that we vote separately on the agreed text which is not italicized, and then on the italicized text, on which we have not reached agreement. If we vote sub-paragraph by sub-paragraph, it does not matter to me whether we begin with the first paragraph or the last. If you consider it correct to do so, let us begin with the .last paragraph. I really do not mind. In my opinion, it is important that we should not confuse the two parts of this paragraph, the italicized part and the part which is not italicized, since this can oniy result in confusion. Common sense tells us that the member or members of the Security Council who are in favour of the first part but cannot accept the second part, should not be placed in a position in which they will be unable to vote for the first part because of procedural irregularities and confusion. I think there is a simple way of avoiding such confusion, by voting separately on the italicized text and on the text which is not italicized. If you wish to begin with the end, I have no objection to doing so.

The representative of Australia has proposed Le PRESIDENT: Le representant de l'Australie a propose que l'on vote en premier lieu sur le texte f'll italique. C'est le premier point sur le- Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): My idea was not that we should vote first on the italicized text, but rather that we should start our consideration with the whole text in our minds. My object is simply to ensure that both the amendment which I have moved and the amendment which the USSR representative has moved would be put to the vote. Those are amendments to the italicized text. The possible procedure which I had in mind in suggesting that we take it as a basis for consideration was that we should not vote first to adopt any part eit.l:ier of the italicized or of the non-italicized texts, but that you, as Chairman, should rule which of the two amendments is farthest removed from the original, and that we should vote on that amendment. If that amendment is accepted, it would be incorporated in the text. If it is rejected, it would disappear. We should then vote on the second amendment which, as will be determined by your ruling, is not so far removed from the original text, and if that amendment is accepted it would become in.corporated in the text. If it is rejected it would disappear. We should then have before us a long consolidated text of one kind or another, and it would then be appro- . priate either to move the deletion of the portions which are in italics and vote on that proposal, or, alternatively, to follow the suggestion made by the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that we should vo.te sub-paragraph by sub-paragraph on the entire text, either retaining or eliminating subparagraphs until we have reached an agreement. I think working from the bottom upwards would allow the clearest indication of our views. But if we start by trying either to adopt the entire text or to adopt the paragraph without the italicized passages we shall do some damage, I think, to the possibility of eventually incorporating in the text either the USSR amendment or that of Australia. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): The two portions of the text represent two opposing views. If you delete any part, you do not then present a true picture of what we did in that committee. The moment you divide paragraph 3 into parts, you destroy the expression of an idea, which is expressed by the complete text and not by any part of it. It is so concise that you cannot remove a sub-paragraph without changing the meaning and the principle involved. M. AUSTIN (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais): Ces deux parties du texte representent deux points de vue opposes. Si vous en supprimez une partie, vous cessez de presenter un tableau fidele de ce que nous avons fait au comite. Des I'instant ou vaus fractionnez le paragraphe 3, vous faites disparaitre l'idee qui est exprirnee par l'ensemble du texte et non par l'une quelconque de aes parties. Il est si concis que vous ne sauriez en supprimer un sousparagraphe sans en alterer le sens et modifier le principe qui s'y attache. In the shorter form without the italicized Le texte le plus court ne contenant pas les pas!'~;;es, quite another idea is expressed. passage en italique expose un idee differente. I ~,mnot assent to the idea of dividing up Je ne puis consentir au principe du fractio~- these sub-paragraphs. I think that the proposal nement de ces sous-paragraphes. Je pense qu 11 <r~~~~~:~pr::~~:~.,,~~:~l~ ..~:..~~~~:~~d::~_~ __ convient de donner suite a la pr_o~:s~~nd:. M. HAsLUCK (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais): Mon idee n'etait pas de voter en premier lieu dur le texte en italique, mais plutot de commencer notre examen en ayant a l'esprit l'ensemble du texte. Mon but est simplement de faire mettre aux voix les deux amendements presentes celui du representant de l'URSS et le mien. C~ sont des amendements qui portent sur le texte en italique. En suggerant de faire porter notre examen sur ce dernier, je pensais que nous pourrions adopter la procedure suivante: nous ne voterions pas en premier lieu pour adopter telle ou telle partie du texte en italique ou du texte non en italique, mais vous decideriez, en qualite de President, quel est, des deux amendements, celui qui est le plus eloigne du texte original, et nollS voterions alors sur cet amendement. Si celui-cl etait adopte, on I'introduirait dans le texte en italique. S'il etait repousse, il disparattrait. Nous voterions alors sur le second amendement qui, selon votre decision, ne serait pas aussi eloigne du texte original; si cet amendement etait accepte, on I'introduirait dans le texte. S'il etait rejete, il disparaitrait. Nous nollS trouverions alors en presence d'un long texte unifie, de telle ou telle teneur, et il conviendrait alors soit de proposer la suppression des parties qui sont en italique et de mettre aux voix cette suppression, soit de suivre la suggestion du representant de I'Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques de voter, sous-paragraphe par. sous-paragraphe, sur l'ensemble du texte, en conservant ou en rejetant les paragraphes jusqu'a ce qu'on arrive a un accord. J'estime que, pour exprimer nos vues le plus c1airement possible, il vaut mieux faire porter d'abord notre examen sur la fin du texte. Si nous comrnen~ions pas essayer d'adopter soit l'ensemble du texte, soit le paragraphe ne corn· prenant pas les passages en italique, j'estime qu'il serait plus difficile d'introduire dans le texte final soit I'amendement de l'URSS, soit cdui de I'Australie. M. DE LA TOURNELLE (France): Je me bornerai a repeter ce que j'ai dit au comite de redaction, a la fin de ses travaux, lorsque j'ai preconise l'envoi au Conseil de securite de deux textes au choix. Mr. DE LA TOURNELLE (France) (translated from French): I shall confine myself to repeating what I said in the drafting committee, at the end of its work, when I advocated submitting two. alternative texts to the Security Council. I do not think it is true to say that there was unanimous agreement on the non-italicized text. Indeed, had there been unanimous agreement on one text, we should not now have two alternative versions before us, and be obliged to seiect one of them. I think, therefore, that the best procedure now would be to ask the Security Council to give priority to one of the two versions and then discuss the proposed amendments to the one chosen. I1 est, je crois, inexact de pretendre qu'il y ait accord unanime sur le texte qui n'est pas en itaIique. S'il y avait, en dIet, un accord unanime sur un texte, nous ne serions pas en presence de deux versions possibles, et nous n'aurions pas achoisir entre ces deux versions. Je pense done qu'actuellement, la meilleure fa~on de proceder serait de demander au Conseil de securite d'accorder une priorite al'une de ces deux versions et de discuter ensuite les amendements proposes sur le texte choisi. Le PRESIDENT: Je crois que nous finirons par nous entendre, tout au moins sur la question de methode, mais, pour y arriver, nous ne devons pas essayer de resoudre toutes les difficultes a la fois. Nous devons d'abord statuer sur le point de savoi:c si nous prenons en consideration en premier lieu la version la plus longue du texte. Dans l'affirmative, nous aurons a examiner les amendements qui s'y rapportent. D'autre part, je crois comprendre que les remarques presentees par le representant de l'Union des Republiques sociaIistes sovietiques visent particulierement la deuxieme phrase en italique. I1 semble qu'il y ait eu un malentendu a ce sujet au sein du petit groupe qui s'est reuni la semaine derniere. I1 semble que cette

I think that we shall eventually agree, at least on the question of method, but we must not try to solve all our difficulties at once. To begin with, we must decide whether we are going to consider the text in its longer form first. If so, we shall have to examine the amendments which apply to it. Moreover, I believe that the remarks of the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist ~e~~lics referred particularly to the second It~lic1Zed sentence. It appears that there was a tmsunderstanding on this subject in the small group which met last week. It seems that it ~.Lwas wrongly italicized and that in reality there ............ Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): Mr. President, I have nothing to say in connexion with the s~cond italicized passage. I needed your explanation, since I did not know why it is italicized and why agreement has not be'enreached upon it. I should like an answer to this question: if we take the longer version of the text as a basis for voting, shall we or shall we not vote sub-paragraph by sub-paragraph? .If we do vote in this way, in what order shall we take them? I should like an answer.

The President is the slave of the rules. I have the rules of procedure of the Security Council before me. Rule 32 says the following: "Parts of a motion or of a draft resolution shall be voted on separately at the request of any representative, unless the original mover objects." As -this proposal is not:due to the initiative of a single author, but is the result of the deliberations of a group, it seems to me that this provision is difficult to apply in the present case. Since I do not feel qJ.lalified to reply to the . question raised by the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, it is for the Security Council to decide. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I have suggested that we vote sub-paragraph by sub-paragraph ill order that the italiciZed text, including the second italicized sub-paragraph, should be voted on in this way. Whether we vote on the italicized text first or last is of no imp0I'tance to me. It is also a matter of indifference to me whether we vote on the first, third and' fourth italicized passages together or whether we vote separately on each of these passages; any of these courses would be acceptable. to me. I ;should like this question to be settled. ,- The PRESIDENT (translated from French): The Council will begin by deciding whether it will give consideration first to the longer version or to the shorter version without the italicized passages. After taking this decision, the Council will decide whether it should concern itseH with the amendments, and if so I shall indicate the order in which these will be voted upon. Next the Council will decide on the question which has just been raised by the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Are there any objections to our'first considering the longer version of the text before us? Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): Mr. President, may I ask whether the text not italicized, M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socia. listes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Monsieur le President, je ne peux rien dire sur la deuxieme des phrases en italique. J'avais besoin de votre explication parce que j'ignore pourquoi cette phrase est en italique et pourquoi l'accord ne s'est pas fait a son sujet. Je vous prie de bien vouloir repondre a la question suivante: si c'est la version la plus longue du texte qui est mise aux v6ix, le vote se fera-t-il sous-paragraphe par sous-paragraphe ou non? Et si le vote est efIee. tue de cette maniere, dans quel ordre voterons•. nous? J'attends une reponse acette question. Le PRESIDENT: Le PreSIdent est l'esclave du reglement. J'ai le reglement interieur du Conseil de securite sous les yeux. Je lis ceci, al'artic1e 32 de ce reglement: "La division est de droit, si eIle est demandee, amoins que l'auteur de la proposition ou du projet de resolution ne s'y oppose." Cette disposition me parait difficilement appli. cable dans le cas present, etant donne que cette proposition n'est pas due a l'initiative d'un seul auteur; elle' est le resultat des deliberations d'un groupe.Des lors, j'estime ne pas etre qualifie pour repondre a la question posee par le representant de l'Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques et je pense qu'il appartiendra au Conseil de securite de se prononcer. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): C'est precisement pour cette raison que j'avais propose de mettre aux voix, sous-paragraphe par sous-paragraphe, le texte en italique, y compris la deuxieme phrase en italique. Que nous votions sur ces passages au debut ou a la fin, cela m'est indifferent. Il m'est egal aussi que nous1mettions -aux voix l'ensemble des premiere, troisieme et quatrieme phrases en italique, ou chacune de ces phrases separement. Toutes ces solutions sont egalement acceptables. Je vous prie de prendre une decision sur ce point. Le PRESIDENT: Le Conseil va d'abord decider s'il prend en consideration en premier lieu la version la plus longue du texte ou la plus courte, qui ne comprend pas les passages en italique. La decision prise indiquera si le Conseil doit s'occuper des arriendements. J'indiquerai l'Qrdre suivant lequel ceux-ci devront/eventuellement etre votes. Ensuite, le Conseil se prononcera sur la question que vient de poser le representantde l'Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques. Y a-t-il des objections a ce que nousprenions en consideration, en premier lieu, la version la plus longue du texte qui est devant nous?· -M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Voudriez· vous m'ex~liquer Oll est la diffe:ence? Le textest"41 Le vote a lieu a main levee. Le Conseil se prononce pour la prise en consideration du texte dans sa version la plus longue, par neuf voix, avec deux abstentions. Votent pour: Australie Bresil Chine Colombie France Pologne Syrie Royaume-Uni Etats-Unis d'Ameriqti~ A vote was then taken, by show of· hands, and it was decided by nine votes, with two abstentions, to consider the longer version of the text. Votes for: Australia Brazil China Colombia France Poland Syria United Kingdom United States of America . S'abstiennent: Belgique Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques Abstentions: Belgium Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Le PRESIDENT: Votre President, Messieurs, s'est abstenu.

Gentlemen, your President abstained... M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit de l'anglais): Jen'ai pas pris part au vote, considerant qu'il n'y a aucune raison de'le faire. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics): I did not take part because I believe there is no seme in doing so.

We shall now consider the amendments to paragraph 3. Before deciding on the order in which these amendments should be considered, I think it is necessary to ask their authors to explain their significance. ' Would the Australian representative explain exactly which passages in paragraph 3 the Australian amendment is intended to replace? Le PRESIDENT: Nous allons prendre en consideration les amendements presentes au paragraphe 3. . Avant de determiner l'ordre dans lequel ces amendements doivent etre pris en consideration, il me parait necessaire de demander. a leurs auteurs d'en preciser la portee. Le representant de l'Australie voudrait-il indiquer quels sont exactement les passages du paragraphe 3 que l'amendement australien tendrait a remplacer? Mr. HAsLUCK (Australia): If I may, I shall read the passages which the Australian amendment is intended to replace. The passages which we propose to delete are the following: M. HASLUCK (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais): Si vous le permettez, Monsieur le President, je vouclrais donner lecture des passages que nous eritendons remplacer par l'amendement australien. Les passages que notre proposition visea supprimer sont les suivants: "... dans la mesure OU ces resolutions se rapportent· aux an:p.ements du domaine de la nouvelle commission." "Les questioIls qui sont de la competence. de la Commission de l'energie atomique, .aux termes des resolutions de l'Assemblee generale du 24 janvier J946 et du 14 decembre 1946, sont exclues du domaine de la commission etablie par la presente." " . in so far as these resolutions relate to armaments within the new commission's jurisdiction." "Those 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 shall be excluded from the jurisdiction of the commission hereby established." The sub-paragraph which commences "The commission shall submit a plan of work' . . ." will stand, and the same applies to the last italicized sub-paragraph relating to the title of ~j._". Le sous-paragrl!-phe qui commence par les mots: "La com..111ission presentera un programme de travail . . ." restera inchange, de meme que le dernier sous-paragraphe en italique relatif au titre de la commission.

The question is certainly not settled yet. In my view it should be decided by the Council after it has voted on the amendments. May I ask the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics if I correctly interpret the meaning of his amendment? Is the first italicized sentence, which reads " . . . in so far as these resolutions relate to armaments within the new commission's jurisdiction", to be replaced by the text which he proposes? Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Re.. publics) : I have said repeatedly that my amendment is intended to be substituted for the third and fourth sub-paragraphs, both of which are italicized.

' Consequently, the sentence which I have men-. tioned is not affected by the amendment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): Mr. Presi· dent, the first passage is to 'remain. The text submitted by the delegation of the Soviet Union states clearly that this amendment is intended to replace the third and fourth passages, I repeat, to replace the third and fourth passages.

In these circumstances, it appears to me that the amendment of the Australian representative is the farthest removed from the original proposal, and therefore I shall put it to the vote first. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): Mr. President, if it is in order, I should like to discuss this amendment before it is put to the vote. Is that Ptrmissible?

I recognize the representative of the United States. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): Mr. President, this amendment reads as follows: "Those matters which fail within the competence of the Atomic Energy ComD;1ission, as determined by the General Assembly resolutions of 24 January 1946 and 14 December 1946,: shall be dealt with . . ." What is the meaning of this amendment? By whom are these matters to be dealt with, the Securi,f Council, the Le PRESIDENT: La question n'est certaine. ment pas encore reglee. Dans ma pensee, elle devrait etre tranchee par le Conseil apres le vote sur les amendements. Puis-je demander au representant de I'Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques si j'interprete bien la portee de son amendement? Est-ce que la premiCfe phrase en italique, ainsi con<;;ue: '~. . . dans la mesure Oll ces resolutions se rapportent anx armements du domaine de la nouvelle commission" est remplacee par le texte qu'il propose? M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques sodalistes sovietiques) (traduit de l'anglais): J'ai repete a plusieurs reprises que mon amendement . est destine "a remplacer les troisieme et quatrieme sous-paragraphes, tous deux en italique. Le PRESIDENT: Par consequent, la phrase que j'ai mentionnee subsiste avec l'amendement de I'Union des Republiques socialistes ·sovietiques. M. GROMYKO (Union de Republiques sodalistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Monsieur le President, la premiere phrase subsiste. Le texte de la proposition de I'Union sovietique indique clairement que notre amendement vient remplacer les troisieme et quatrieme phrases; je le repete, ce texte doit remplacer les troisieme et quatrieme phrases. Le PRESIDENT: Dans ces conditions, il me semble que c'est I'amendement du representant de l'Australie qui s'ecarte le plus de la proposition originale, et c'est done celui-la que je mettrai a~x voix le premier. M. AUSTIN (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais): Monsieur le President, si la chose est possible, je voudrais discuter cet amendement avant qu'il soit mis aux voix. Pouvez-vous m'autoriser a le faire? Le PRESIDENT: La parole est au representant des Etats-Unis d'Amerique. M. AUSTIN (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais): Monsieur le President, cet amendement est ainsi redige: "Les questions qui sont de la competence de la Commission de l'energie atomique aux termes des resolutions de l'As· semblee generale du 24 janvier 1946 et du 14 decembre 1946 seront traitees ... ". Quel est le sens de cet amendement? Traitees par qui? Par le Conseil de securite, par la Commission de..... Prenons ensuite la derniere partie de la phrase: ". . . conformement a ces resolutions . . .". Qu'est-ce que cela donne au Conseil de securite? Y a-t-il quelque chose dans ces resolutions qui dise ce que doit faire le Conseil.de securite? Le texte de l'amendement continue comme suit: "... le mandat de la commission creee par la presente resolution ne portera pas atteinte a la competence et au mandat de la Commission de l'energie atomiqt~e." Qu'est-ce que cela signifie? Cela veut-il dire que la competence que nous reconnaltrons a cette commission ne doit pas restreindre la competence et le mandat de la Commission de l'energie atomique? Si tel est le sens de cette phrase, quel besoin est-il de le dire? Manifestement, ce n'est pas la le probleme que nous tentons de resoudre. Cet amendement ne fait que retarder indefiniment la decision a laquelle nous nous effor~ons d'aboutir. Pourquoi ces feintes, ces esquives, ces essais de formules nouvelles et difl'etentes qui ne resolvent pas la question que nous savons parfaitement impossible a eluder. La question qui nous occupe est une question de principe: il s'agit de savoir si nons alIens travailler sur la base des resultats acquis grace a la Commission de l'energie atomique, ou si nous alIons remettre tout en question en donnant un manda'l: a une nouvelle, et differente, commission du desarmement? Oil nous arreterons..nous? I1 est vain de simplifier le probleme en disant: "Apres tout, ce sont les memes membres; il y a exactement les memes membres dans les deux commissions." C'est la simplifier a l'exces. Nous savons fort bien que ces deux commissions ne seront pas composees des memes personnes. Les chefs de delegations, peut-etre; mais les savants, les experts, ceux qui vraiment traitent les problemes qui se posent a la Commission de l'energie atomique seront entierement differents de ceux qui feront partie de la commission que nous sommes en train de creer. . On dit que l'un des inconvenients de ce texte, c'est qu'il est trop rigide, qu'il n'est pas souple. Certes, il est rigide. Mais cette rigidite est voulue. Cette redaction, que 1'0n s'efforce maintenant de' supprimer, a precisement pour but de trancher cette question avec une telle precision que ce texte se dresse comme un rour entre ces deux commissions. Je me permettrai de rappeler id que la Commission de l'energie atomique tient ses pouvoirs d'un autre organe. La Commission de l'energie atomique emane d'une autorite differente de celle qui donnerait des pouvoirs a la commission que nous envisageons en ce moment. I1 va sans dire que le Conseil de securite examinera les travaux de ces deux commissions et etudiera les rapports deJ'une,et de l'autre. Si les rapports de ces deux This amendment simply postpones the decision we are trying to make. What is the use of dodging, ducking and offering new and different wordings which do not solve the question which we know perfectly well we have to face? The decision before us is one of principle: namely, are we going to advance on the basis of the gains made by the Atomic Energy Commission, or are we going to reopen the whole discussion by giving jurisdiction to a new disarmament commission? Where shall we end? It will not do to simplify this matter by saying: "Well, they will have the same members; the membership of these two commissions will be identicaL" That is over-simplification. We know full well that the personnel on those commissions will not consist of the same men. The heads, I expect, may be; but the scientists, the experts, those who really deal with the problems involved in the Atomic Energy Commission, will be quite different from those in tl'Js commission that we are setting up. Now, they say that one of the weaknesses of this text is that it is too rigid; that there is no flexibility. Yes, there is rigidity. That is intentional. It is precisely the purpose of this wording, which it is now attempted to strike out, to make this matter of jurisdiction so clear that there will be, as it were, a wall between these two commissions. We must not forget, I respectfully submit, that the Atomic Energy Commission is the creati?n of another body. The source of the AtomIC Energy Commission is a different authority from that which will create the commi~ion we are considering. It goes without saymg that the Security Council will consider the work of both those commissions and will con- ':~,:.both their reports. If there are matters Up to this point we have been right. Are we now going to evade the issue, to adopt an amendment which will throw us right back where we were at the beginning? That has been the only issue between us. Are we going to take a decision on this or not? I have said enough. You can see that I am very interested ill this question. You must know that by now, for I have carri~d on a long and strenuous fight-not as a private matter between the United States and the USSR; there is nothing of the kind in this situation. This is a matter of public import. It is a question of whether this awful energy shall!n time be turned loose for the purpose of destroying mankind, or whether, now that it is well in hand, we shall eL.ablish that security and that certainty of control which will ensure that it will never again be used in making war. That is no private mattel'. At the present time, it is a sacred trust in the hands of the United States of America, which wishes to be able to discharge that trust and fully perform its duty. That:is why the United States is doing what appears to be the most foolish thing in the world, but which should hasten the day when there shall be effective and enforceable regulation' and control against th~ use of this energy for destructive purposes. l'en ai assez dit. Vous pouvez vous rendre compte que je m'interesse grandement a cette ,question. Vous devez maintenant en etre con· vaincus, car j'ai m~ne, pour defendre ces principes, une longue et dure bataille; et il ne s'agit pas la d'unequestion personnelle a regler entr~ les Etats-Unis et l'URSS: la situation ne cornporte rien de tel. La question ~t de portee generale. ns'agit de savoir si, un jour, ce,tte redoutable energie sera dechainee pour la destruction de l'humanite ou si nous etablirons, maintenant que nous l'avons bien en main, cette securite et cette rigueur de controle, par quoi nous serons SUI'S que son emploi pour la guerre ne se repetera plus jamais. Il ne s'agit pas d'une affaire privee. C'est un depot sacre; il est actuellem~nt entre les mains des Etats-Unis qui souhaitent etre en mesure de s'acquitter de leur responsabilite et de faire completement leur devoir. C'est pourquoi les Etats-Unis sont en train de faire ce qui peut para1tre comme la plus grande sottise du monde, ,,mais qui devrait rendre plus prochain le jour ou il existera un reglement et un controle pratiques et efficaces contre l'emploi de cette energie a des fins de destruction. On pourrait, bien entendu, demander aux Etats-Vnis: Pourquoi tant vous presser? Vous possedez cette arme redoutable, vous et personne d'autre. Pourquoi proposez-vous un desarmement unilateral si rapide? et en commenc;;ant par l'arme la plus efficace que vollS possediez? . The reason is that we want collective se- La raison, c'est que nous voulons la securite curity. We do not want individual security. collective. Nous ne voulcns pas de securite indi- We want to set up. a system of collective seviduelle. Nous voulons instituer un systeme de One might well enquire of the United States: Why are you in so great a hurry? You possess this tremendous weapon; no one else does. Why do you propose to disarm unilaterally so quickly, starting with the most effective weapon you have got? My friends, this is a matter over which one needs to be in dead earnest. I am in ·~arnest. I think this amendment and all other amendments which avoid or evade taking a decision upon this matter are wrong and ought to be voted against. Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): The Australian delegation feels somewhat surprised that its rather modest effort to be helpful has met with such vehement treatment. We put forward this amendment in a last attempt to. try to get this Council into what we regard as a better frame of mind. It seems to us that the Council is getting into rather a bad frame of mind in this particular matter. Whatever the eventual outcome of the voting, it may be of such a character as to prejudice the future work on this very important subject. For this reason, we went back to the General Assembly resolutions. Basing ourselves completely on them, we relied on a certain amount of reason and good faith in the future interPretation of those resolutions. Le Conseil nous semble s'engager, sur ce point particulier, dans une voie assez dangereuse. Quel que soit le resultat du vote, il peut etre de nature a nuire aux travaux futurs du Conseil sur cette question fort importante. Dans ces.conditions, nous nous sommes reportes aux resolutions de . l'Assemblee generale. Nous fondant entierement sur ces resolutions, nous avons tenu pour assure un certain degre de raison et de bonne foi clans leur interpretation future. It is true, we have not attempted any predsion, we have not attempted a clear and pre- ',lSe definition of the functions of the proposed commission. We have rather relied on the good sense and the good faith in which the General Assembly r~solutions will be interpreted. C'est la, mes amis, un proble:me qu'il faut prendre tout a fait au serieux. C'est ainsi que je le prends. Je tiens pour mauvais cet amendement et tous les autres amendements qui cherchent a eluder la decision et j'estime que nous devons voter contre. M. l!ASLUCK (Australie) (traduit de ['anglais): La delegation australienne est quelque peu surprise de voir que sa modeste tentative de cooperation a suscite une critique aussi vehemente. En presentant cet amendement, nous faisions un dernier effort pour faire regner au sein de ce Conseil ce que nous appelerons un meilleur etat d'esprit. Nous ne nous sommes pas, ,il est vrai, efforces d'introduire des precisions ni d'adopter une definition claire et precise des attributions de la. nouvelle commission. Nous avoilS plutot fait confiance au bon sens et a la bonne foi qui doivent presider a l'interpretation des resolutions de l'Assemblee generale. . Les grands traits de notre these et les motifs qui nous ont fait proposernotre amendement reposent sur l'idee que ces deux resolutions, adoptees a l'unanimite par l'AssembIee generale, etaient acceptees en toure bonne foi par chacun des Etats Membres qui se sont prononoe3 en leur faveur, que les Etats Membres qui ont donne leur adhesion unanime a ces resolutions entendent en respecter les termes, et que'nous pouV'ons attendre les uns des autres une attitude raisonnable et loyale dans l'ey.ecution des accords qui sont intervenus. n nous semblerait facheux cl'entreprendre ~ne reuvre aussi importante que le desarrpement si, des que nous nous efIor~ons de travailler ensemble, nous commen~ons en quelque sorte par nous tater mutuellement les poches pour voir quelles armes nous yavons cachees. C'est ce qui est apparu au cours de hien des discussions de la derniere quinzaine. Ces discussions ont ete entourees d'une atmosphere de, je me refuse a employer un mot aussi fort que suspicion, ritais C:~'aft anything which would suggest that we had doubts regarding the good faith of any other member of the Council. During the past fortnight, I think, the Council has become confused because there has been a natural attempt to try to settle, or at least to foreshadow the settlement of, several major matters of policy, whereas our delegation has insisted, in its previous intervention on this subject, that what we are f: ,~to face with now is simply a question of methou. While it is quite true that the determination of method may affect the ultimate determination of major matters of policy, we feel that we should make an attempt to confine ourselves rigidly to this simple question of method. We regret that we have reached a state where, in effect, we are trying to erect safeguards not, unfortunately, against the misuse of armaments, but apparently against each' other. Our own views as regards the substance of this matter are unchanged. We have expressed them several times. Our interpc-etatiQu of the General Assembly resolutions':-interpretations which we will maintain-is that the work of the Atomic Energy Commission is to continue; that responsibility in respect of atomic weapons and other weapons of mass destruction rests with the Atomic Energy, Commission; that the Security Council has the responsibility for devising practical measures for the general regulation and reduction cf armaments; and tbat the G,eneral Asserrlbly did not intend that there should be ~my duplication between work which the Security Council is to pursue and the work of the Atomic Energy Commission, but rather that those two aspects of the work should continue on parallel lines. That is the whole sense of our resolution. The basis for it is a reliance, first, 011 the agreement reached in the General Ar.sembly-a unanimous agreement-and also a reliance on the good faith of those who participated in the General Assembly resolution. The PRESIDENT ,(translated from French): ,If no one else wishes to speak, I shall ask the I Council to vote on the Australian representative's amendment. Au cours de la quinzaine passee, les choses se sont embrouillees au Conseil, parce que nous avons tente, et c'etait fort nature!, de resoudre plusieurs points majeurs de politique, ou du moins d'en envisager la solution, alors que,-et notre delegation a insiste sur cela lors de la precedente intervention,-la question qui nous retient actuel1ement est uniquement une question de methode. S'il est vrai que le choix d'une methode peut, en fin de compte, amener la decision sur des points majeurs de politique, nous pensons t0utefois qu'il serait preferable d'essayer de nous en tenir strictement a cette simple question de methode. Nous regrettons de constater que nous avons atteint un stade OU, en fait, nous nous effor~ons d'instituer des mesures de precautions non pas, malheureusement, contre le mauvais emploi des armements, mais, semble-t-il, les uns contre les autres. Sur le fond du probU:me, nos vues r'ont pas change. Nous les avons exposees a plusieurs re; prises. Notre interpretation des resolutioJ1S de l'Assemblee generale, interpretation a laquelle nous nous tenons, c'est que la Commission de l'energie atomique doit poursuivre ses travaux, que lui demeurent confies les problemes touchant aux armes atomiques et aux autres armes de destruction massive, qu'il appartient au Conseil de securite de trouver les mesures pratiques pour la reglementation et la reduction generales des armements et qu'il etait dans les intentions de l'AssembIee generale, non pas qu'il y eut double emploi entre le travail a effectuer par le Conseil de securite et celui de la Commission de l'energie atomique, mais au contraire que ces deux aspects du travail dussent se continuer paralleIement. C'est la tout le sens de notre resolution. Elle repose d'abord sur la confiance que nOllS inspire un accord, l'accord unanime de l'AssembIee generale, et sur la confiance que !laD:. w, vns en la bonne foi de ceux qui, al'As· sCinhL::e :;h,t::rale, ont participe a l'adop~ion de c::tl.f: rfsolution. Le PRESIDENT: Si personne ne demande plus la parole, je vais demander au Conseil de se proncncer sur l'amendement du representant de l'Australie. Votes against:/ Belgium Brazil China United Kingdom United States of America Abstentions: Colombia France Poland Union of Soviet Socialist Republics The ,PRESIDENT (translated from. French): We shall now proceed to the amendment submitted by the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translat~d from Russian): The delegation of the Soviet Union submitted this amendment on the assumption that it might serve as a basis for a unanimous decision on this question. What does the amendment of the Soviet Union deal with? It states that the results of the work of the new commission to be established by the Security Council and a!sQ that of the Atomic Energy Commission should serve as a basis. for working out the measures for the general regulation and reduction of armaments. I think it w-ill be very difficult to objo;t to the proposal of the Soviet Union. Who, indeed, is to prepare concrete proposals for the Security Council? If the decision to esta.blish a commission is adopted, this function will be fulfilled by two commissions, the commission proposed -in paragraph 3 of the resolution and the Atomic Energy Commission. For this reason, the delegation of the Soviet Union suggests that the resolution should state that the proposals submitted to the Security Council shall be drawn up both by the Atomic, Energy Commission and by the new commission, and that the results of the work of both these commissions shall serve as a basis for the elaboration of concrete meas~ ures for the general regulation and r,eduction of armaments. I repeat that, in submitting this amendment, the delegation of the Soviet Union assumed that on this basis we might be able to reach a unanimous decision and have as little obscurity as possible in beginning the vast and important work of the implementation of the General Assembly resolution on the general regulation and reduction of armaments. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): I Votent contre: Belgique Bresil Chine Royaume-Uni Etats-Unis d'Amerique S'abstiennent: Colombie France Pologne Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques Le PRESIDENT: Nous allons passer maintenant a l'amqndement du representant de l'Unio.a des Republiques socialistes sovietiques. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): En presentant son amendement, la delegation de l'Union sovietique partait de l'idee qU'il permettrait de parvenir a une decision unanime. Que dit, en diet, l'amendement sovietique? n stipule que les resultats des'travaux de la commission que va creer le Conseil de securite et ceux des travaux de la Co~ion de l'energie atomique doivent servir de base a l'elaboration des mesures a prendre en vue de la reglementation et de la reduction generales des armements. A mon avis, i1 serait diffici)e d'elev' des objection'! contre cette proposition de l'Union so'Vietique. En effet, qui va elaborer les propositions concretes qui de- VIont etre soumises au Conseil de securite? Ce seront deux commissions, si le Conseil adopte la presente resolution: celle dont la creation' est envisagee, au paragraphe 3 de la r~solution, et la Comniission de I'energie atomique. Voila pourquoi la delegation de rUnion sovietique_propose de preciser dans la resolution que le Conseil de securite doit recevoir les propositions qui seront elaborees tant par la Commission de l'energie atomique que par la nouvelle commission, et que les conclusions des travaux de ces deux organismes serviront de base a I'elaboration des mesures concretes a prendre en vue de la reglementation et de.Ja reduction generales des armements. " En presentant son amendement, la deIega:- tion de l'Union sovietique, je le repete, est partie de l'idee que ce texte pourrait conduire a t.n accord unanime et nous permettre d'assombrir le moins possible, si' je puis m'exprimer ainsi, les debuts des longs et importants trav~.ux necessaires pour mettre en pratique la resolution de l'Assemblee generale relative a la regIementation et a la reduction generales des armemel1ts.. M. AUSTIN (Etats-:Unis d'Amerique). (tra':' duit de l'anglais): Comme je l'ai d.eja declare, je desapprouve et combats energiquement tout

I call upon the Council to vote on the amendment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. A vote was taken by show of hands, and the USSR amendment was rejected by eight votes to two, with one abstention. Votes for: Poland Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Votes against: Belgium Brazil China Colombia France Syria United Kingdom United States of America Abstention: Australia The PRESIDENT. (translated from French): The Council must now take a decision on the proposaI made by .the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that we should vote separately on the sub-paragraphs of paragraph 3. I think that this means that a vote will first be taken on that part of the text which ends with the words "in so far as these resolutions relate to armaments within the new commission's jurisdiction". I shall put this proposal to the vote. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): Mr. -President, I should like the proposal to be formulated more precisely, as it is not clear.

I should like to consult the Council as to whether or not it intends to proceed to a vote on paragraph 3~ sub-paragraph by sub-paragraph. The vote will be taken in the first place on the part which ends with the words, "in so far as these resolutions relate to armaments within the new commission's jurisdiction". Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated fron_ Russitm): Mr. President, my proposal was that we ~lhould vote on paragraph 3 of the resolution sub-parLgraph by sub-paragraph. It is of nu ':nJpo:tl:ance to me whether we begin with' the firs\: sub-pRt'agraph Le PRESIDENT: J'appelle le Conseil a se prononcer sur l'amendement du representant de rUnjon des Republiques socialistes sovietiques. Le vote a lieu a main levee. L'amendement de l'Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques est repousse par huit voix contre deux, aVec une abstention. V otent pour: Pologne Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques :~~que J Chine Colombie 1 France' Syrie Royaume-Uni Etats-Unis d'Amerique S'abstient: Australie Le PRESIDENT: Le Conseil doit maintenant se prononcer sur la proposition du representant de rUnion des Republiques socialistes sovietiques tendant a mettre aux voix separement les sous- paragraphes du paragraphe 3. Je croisque eette proposition tendrait ace que le vote eut d'abord lieu' sur la partie du texte se terminant par les mots "da~..3 la mesure ou ces resolutions se rap- portent aux armements du domaine de la nou- velle commission". Je mets aux voix cette pro- position. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socia- listes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Je vous serais reconnai:3sant, Monsieur le President, de formuler la proposition d'une maniere plus cIaire. Elle manque de nettete. Le PRESIDENT: Je consulte le Conseil sur le point de savoir s'il entend ou non proceder au vote du paragraphe 3, sous-paragraphe par sous- paragraphe. Dans l'affirmative, le vote aurait lieu d'abord sur la partie se terminant par les mots "dans]a mesure ou ces resolutions se rap- portent aux armemcnts du domaine de la nou- velle commission". M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques soda- listes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Monsieur le }?resident, ma proposition etait de mettre aux voix le paragraphe 3 de la resolution, sous-para- graplLe par sors-paragraphe. Peu m'importe qu'on commence par le premier ou par le cler- I should like to make a further explanation. When I said that I wanted the vote to be taken separately, I also pointed out that it. di~ .not matter to me whether we voted on each ItalicIzed passage separately, or on the first, third and fourth passages taken together. I only consider it important that the italicized text should not be ::onfused with the remainder of the text. Le PRESIDENT: Je n'ai pas bien compris t(\ut a l'heure la proposition du represent,ant de I'Union des Repu1?liques socialistes sovietiques. Je crois qu'elle est maintenant tout a fait claire.

I did not entirely understand the proposal of ,the1representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics just now. I thirlk it is perfectly clear now. Unless I am mistaken, Mr. Gromyko would be satisfied if the vote could first be taken on the text which is not italicized, that is to say that tert which ends with the words, "the General Assembly of 14 December 1946" and if later a separate vote were taken on the italicized sentences, with the exception of course, of the words, "The commission shall submit a plan of work to the Council for approval", which appear erroneously in the italicized text. M. Gromyko aurait, si je ne me trompe, satisfaction si le vote avait lieu d'abord sur le texte qui n'est pas en italique, c'est-a-dire, le texte se terminant par les mots "1'Asseniblee generale du 14 decembre 1946" et si un vote distinct avait lieu ensuite sur les phrases en italique, a l'excep~ tion bien entendu de celle-ci: "La commission presentera un programme de travail a I'approba.- tion duConseil de securite", qui figure par erreur dans le texte en italique. ' . Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): Mr. President, if we did that, we should not be voting on the subject we have been discussing. This matter cannot, be divided in this way. Para~ graph 3 without the italicized phrases has an entirely different meaning from paragraph 3 with the italicized phrases. There is only onc way in which we can take a decision on the question which'is before us, and that is to present paragraph 3 with the amendments and with the italicized phrases. I do not mean amendments, because the amendments have not been accepted. The only way to examine the question before us and give us a chance to vote upon it, one way or the other, is to present paragraph 3 in itsfinal form after voting on the amendments, which we have done. M. AUSTIN (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais): Si nous £aisions cela, Monsieur le President, nous ne voterions pas sur la question que nous avons discutee. Nous ne pouvons pas couper ainsi en deux cette question. Le paragraphe 3, sans le texte en italique, a un sens entierement different duparagraphe 3 au complet. Nous n'avons qu'un moyen de decider de la question dont nous sommes saisis: c'est de presenter le paragraphe 3 avec les amendements et avec les phrases en italique. Je ne devrais pas parler d'amendements, car ilS n'ontpasete acceptes. La seule fa~on d'examiner cette question et de nous donner la possibilite de prendre position par un vote,. dans un sens ou dans l'autre, est de presenter le paragraphe 3 dans sa forme complete, apres avoir vote sur les amendements, ce que nous avons fait. Si ce te:l!:te n'est pas accepte, cela ne privera pas le representant de I'Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques de lapossibilite de voter sur le texte du paragraphe 3 sans le texte en italique. Toutefois, si l'on adopte le texte complet du paragraphe 3, alors la question se trouve naturellement regl€~. Now, if this text is not accepted, that does not bar the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from requesting a vottt on·paragraph 3 without the italicized text. However, if the complete text of paragraph 3 is accepted, that of course ends the matt~r. M.r. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): Mr. Presi~ dent, the United States representative is misrepresenting the situation when he says that the first. part of the text has been accepted.1 So far, we have not adopted any part of the text; we have only dealt with the amendments. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques. socia'- listes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Le repre- 'sentant des Etats-TTr'J3 dtforme la realite lorsqu'il dit qu'une pa' du texte est accepted 1 (adoptee). Nous n'avons, pour le moment, adopte aucune partie du texte; nous avons simplement termine l'examen des amendements•. It seems to me that Mr. Austin's proposal is contrary not only to the rules of procedure, but also to ordinary common sense, since if . we follow the procedure which I have suggested ~d which is in accordance with the usual rules of procedure, each representative on the Council will be in a position to define his attitude with regard to each sub-paragraph of·the text, including both the italicized part of the text and the part which is not italicized. O~l the other· hand, the procedure suggested by Mr. Austin would mean that certain members of the Council would be unable to vote for the subparagraphs which are acceptable to them, merely because the United States delegation wishes to complicate the'situation-it is usually easier to catch fish in troubled waters--and to confuse the non-italicized text which has been agreed upon with the text which is italicized. I object categorically to the confusion which would result from the' recommendation of the United States representative, a recommendation which is contrary not only to the rules of procedure, but also to ordinary common sense. I consider the suggestion which you put forward from.the Chair to be the correct one.

Will members who are in favoUr of cUviding the vote in the manner proposed by the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics raise their hands? Mr. GROM:YKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from RusSian): Mr. President, I should be grateful for an explanation: did you or did you not give a ruling? 1 I understood that you.gave a ruling 1 from the Chair on the rule of procedure which we are discussing. If you did not do so, then my proposal must be put to the vote. I understood that, as President, you stated that this procedure was the correct one, and. in my previous remarks I said that I agreed with your ruling.1

There is a misunderstanding. I have given no ruling from the Chair. On the contrary, I no\:ed just now that rule 32 of the rules of procedur(': was not applicable in the case before us, and that is why I suggested that the Council itself should decide. 'Mr. DE LA TOURNELLE (France~ (translated from French): lam: not opposed to a vote on paragraph 3, sub-paragraph by sub-paragraph, . provided that we later take a vote on the paragraph as a whole. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics): I agree with this. ' troubl~n rattachant le texte qui n'est pas en italique, sur lequel nous n'avons pu nous entendre, au texte qui est en italique. Je declare desapprouver formellement la con· fusion qui pourrait remlter de la proposition du representant des Etats-Unis. Cette procedure de' vote n'est conforme ID au reglement interieur, ni au bon sens le plus elementaire. J'estime fondee la modification-que vous avez proposee en votre qualite de President. Le PRESIDENT: Les membres favorables ala division du vote, telle que le representant de l'Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques vient de la proposer, sont pries de lever la main. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques') (traduit du russe): Monsieur le President, je vous demande de preciser si vous avez pris ou non un ruling 1 (decision). l'avais crn comprendre que vous aviez pris un ruling 1 sur ce point en votre qualite de President. S'il n'en est pas ainsi, il faut que ma proposition soit mise aux voix. Lorsque vous avez declare que cette procedure de vote etait bonne, j'avais 'crn comprendre que vousparliez en tant que President;, c'est pourquoi je viens de dire que j'etais d'accord avec votre ruling 1. _,' Le PRESIDENT: lly a un malentendu. Je n'ai pas pris de decision presidentielle. J'ai, au contraire, fait remarquer tout a l'heute que l'artide 32 du reglement n'etait pas applicable au cas devant lequel nous nous trouvons, et c'estla raison pour laquelle j'ai propose que le Conseillui-meme se prononce. M. DJ; 1_1\ TOURNELLE (France): le ne sIDs pas "'f;:.·Ut£ )', llJ,t vote du paragraphe 3 sousparagraphG par :'Mus-paragraphe, mais a la condition qu'H 1)(;Yt C ,~, ,ite procede a un vote sur l'ensemble du paragraphe. . M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit de l'anglais): Je sIDs d'accord. A vote was then taken by show of hands on the proposal of ~he Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to vdte on paragraph 3 by sub-para- graphs. Votes for: Australia Colombia France Poland Syria Union of Soviet Socialist Republics parsou~paragraphe. . Votent pour: Australie Colombie France Pologne Syrie Union des Republiques socialistessovietiques Votent contre : .Bresil Etats-UniS d'Amerique Votes against: Brazil United States of America S'abstiennent: Belgique Chine Royaume-Uni Abstentions: Belgium China United Kingdom Le PRESIDENT: Six representants se sont pro- nonces en faveur du vote par parties, deux contre, et trois se sont abstenus. Nous allons done voter pame par partie, et le premier texte que nous allons mettre aux vo;x est celui qui commence par les mots "De constituer une commission ..." et qui se termine par les mots ". . . Assemblee geneale du 14 decembre,1946".

There were six votes in favour, two against and three abstentions. We shall therefore vote on this draft resolution in sections, and the first text which we shall vote upon is that which begins with the words, "To set up a commission" ..., and ends with the words "... General Assembly of 14 Decem~r 1946." M. DE LA TOURNELLE (France): Je desire soulever une question d'ordre. Je croyais qu'on votait sous-paragraphe par sous-paragraphe et non pas partie par pame. Mr. DE LA TOURNELLE· (France) (translated from French): I should like to raise a point of order. I thought that we were going to vote sub-paragraph by sub-paragraph, and not in sections.

I drew a wrong conclusion from the vote. I have indeed committed a very serious error in overlooking Article 27, paragraph 2, of the Charter, under which decisions on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of seven members of the Council. Consequently the proposal submitted by the delegation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to divide the 'Vote is not ~dopted. Le PRESIDENT: J'ai tireune conclusion erronee du vote. Je viens, en effet, de commettre une erreur tI:es grave en oubliant l'Article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Charte d'apres lequel les decisions sur des questiOI1S de procedure requierent le vote affirmatif de sept membres du Conseil. Par consequent, la proposition presentee par la delegation .de rUnion des Republiques socialistes sovietiques pour.la division du vote n'est pas adoptee. La proposition tendant aprodder au vote du paragraphe 3, sous-"paragraphe par sous-para- .graphe, n'estpas adoptee. The proposed to vote on paragraph 3 by subparagraphs was not adopted. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of. Soviet Socialist Re;" publics) (translated from Russian): I should like to submit a second proposal: that is to divide paragraph 3 into two parts, and to vote separately on the first part which ends with the words, "the General Assembly of 14 December 1946", and then to vote on the second part which .is italicized. I wish to emphasize that I have in mind that we can vote on the paragraph as a re Whole ~terwards. . M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques sodalistes sovietiques) (traduii du russe): Je faiS une deuxieme proposition: je propose de scinder le paragraphe 3 en deux parties, et de mettre separe-' ment aux voix la premiere partie, qui se termine par les mots "1'Assembleegeneraledu 14decembre 1946", puis la seconde partie, c'est-a-dire le texte en italique. n est bien entendu, et j'y insiste, que nous pourrons ensuite mettre aux voix I'ensemble du paragraphe. . As far as our delegation is concerned, we should like to make a difference between our vote on one of the italicized passages and our vote on the remainder of the italicized passages; possibfy there may be other delegations in the same situation. I suggest that our sole concern should be to fud a means which will give all members of the Councilan opportunity of voting in the way in which they want to vote in order to express their opinion, and I do not see that that damages the position of any delegation inasmuch as they have the final opportunity of expressing an opinion on the text as a whole. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): I am not inviting attacks upon paragraph 3, as thus fal' perfected, but the rules of procedure are perfectly clear. There is,a way to do this, and at the same time to do it correctly and to safeguard all our rights. Anyone here has a right to mov~~to "strike out any passage on. which he nas not had a chance to express his opinion. We have'already had two attempts at this: one made by a motion to strike out certain: passages and to substitute another in their place; the second by a motion to strike out two other passages and substitute another. Now, if anyone wants to challenge a pa<:sage here, he can do so in the regular way, by moving to strike it out altogether, and a vote will be taken on that. If he succeeds, he will have accomplished his purpose. If he does not, he will have failed, and he will have to abide by the decision. But there is nothing unique in doing this. We do not have to have any special rules of procedut:e to safeguard the rights of every individual here at this table. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I think it would be useful to fonnulate precisely each particular question on which we vote~ The proposal on which we have voted was that we should vote on, paragraph 3, sub-paragraph by sub-para- M. AUSTIN (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (tra~ duit de fanglais) : Je ne cherche pas a provoquer des attaques contre le paragraphe 3 tel qu'il a ete complete, mam le reglement interieur est tout a fait clair. n y, un moy~n de proceder ainsi, tout en agissant correctemeni: et en sauvegardant les droits de chacun. Chacun de nous a le droit de demander qu'on elimine tout passage sur lequel il n'aurait pas eu. l'occasion d'exprimer son opinion. n y a deja eu deux tentatives dans ce sens: rune tendant a supprimer certains passages et ales remplacer par un autre, la seconde tendant a supprimer deux autres passages et ales remplacer par un troisieme. Si l'un de nous desire s'en prendre a run de ces passages, il peut le faire dans les formes regulieres, par une motion tendant a le supprimer completement, motion qui sera mise aux voix. En cas de succes, l'auteur de cette proposi. tion aura atteint son but. En cas d'echec, i1 aura perdu, et devra s'incliner devant la decision. Mais il n'y a la rien d'exceptionne1. Nous n'avons pas besoin d'articles de reglement speciaux pour regir les droits de chacun des repre. sentants jci presents. M. GROMYKO (Union des Repubiiques sodalistes 'sovietiques) (traduit du russe): I1 serait utile, a mon avis, de bien preciser les questions mises aux voix. La proposition sur laquelle nous venons de nous prononcer consistait a mettre aux voix le paragraphe 3, sous-paragraphe Mr. DE LA TOURNELLE (France) (translated from French): In a spirit of. conciliation I agreed just now to vote on paragraph 3 subparagraph by sub-paragraph, but I should not be prepared to vote on it in sections. I can see no reason why we should carve up this unfortunate paragraph 3 into different parts. Mter all, we are not a butcher's club. M. DE LA TOURNELLE (France): J'ai accepte tout a l'heure, par esprit de conciliation, le vote du paragraphe 3 sous-paragraphe par sousparagraphe, mais je ne me preterai pas a un vote partie par partie. n me semble qu'il n'y a pas de raison de depecer ce malheureux paragraphe 3 en differentes parties. En procedant ainsi, nous finirions par nous transformer en club de charcutiers.

Does the representative of Australia submit a formal proposal? Le PRESIDENT: Le representant de l'Australie soumet-il une proposition formelle? Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): No, Mr. President. M. HAsLUCK (Australie) (traduit de l'artglais): Non, Monsieur le President.

Does the representative or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics insist on the Council's being consulted again? Le PRESIDENT: Le representant de I'Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques insiste-t-il pour que le Conseil soit consulte a nouveau? M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): La proposition que j'ai faite est la seule qui sait correcte du point de vue de la procedure; elle consiste a diviser ce paragraphe, qui est le paragraphe 3 au complet, en deux parties, et a voterseparementsur chacune d'elles, etant entendu que, par la suite, no1;lS voterons sur l'ensemble du paragraphe 3. Les belles paroles que vient de prononcer le representant de la France, loin d'eclaircir la situation, ne font que la compliquer. J'ai fait une proposition et je demande qu'elle soit mise aux voix. Si la majorite se prononce contre, qu'on nous precise comment nous devrons voter dans ce cas. Comment devront voter ceux des membres du Conseil qui acceptent la premiere partie du paragraphe 3? J'ainierais que l'on reponde a ma question. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I have made a proposal which is the only correct one from the point of view of procedure: namely, to divide this paragraph, the whole of paragraph 3,. into two parts, bearing in mind that a vote will subsequently be taken on paragraph 3· as a whole. I think that the eloquent phrases of the representative of Frence do not clarify the situation, but serve only to complicate it. I have submitted this proposal, and request that it be put to the vote. If a majority co~iders it to be incorrect, then I should like to know how we are to vote. How are those members of the Council to vote who are in agreement with the first part of paragraph 3? I should like to hear an answer to this question. Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): I would support the request of the representative of the Soviet Union to have a vote taken on his proposal to M. HAsLUCK (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais): Je desire appuyer la demande du representant de I'Union sovietique, consistant a mettre aux voix sa proposition de voter en deux fois sur le paragraphe 3. Cette fa~on de proceder ne donne pas entierement satisfaction a·notre delegation, car elle n'offre pas la possibilite de difvo~e in two parts. This would not completely satisfy our delegation,as it would merely give the opportunity to differentiate the'vote; but our reason for voting in support of the Soviet Union 1Itt, .... For the sake' of the record, I should like to explain the purpose of the Australian delegation, which;if it could have been achieved, was simply to abstain from voting on the third italicized passage. The reason for that abstention, which we shall not be able to exercise now, was simply a m.atter of consistency. We had previously moved an amendment to that passage, and for the sake of consistency we proposed a1?staining from voting for it; although, had it been carried in the first vote, we should certainly have voted for it when we came to vote on the complete text. The PRESIDENT .(translated -'rom French): I shall consult the Council again, and, I hope, in terms which will be sufficiendy clear. ' , The proposal on which I shall consult the members of this Council is to divide paragraph 3, for the purpose of voting, into two parts, the first part ending with the words, ". . '. General Assembly of 14 December 1946", a"~d the second comprising the whole of the italicized text with the exception of the phrase beginning, "The commission shall submit....", which was included erroneously in the italicized text. Mr.. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Re.; publics): This will be on the understanding that we are going to take a vote on paragraph 3 ail a whole, if other members of the Council wish to do so.

When there is a division, a subsequent vote on the whole is the rule. Is the proposrJ now quite clear? A vote was then taken by show 0]' hands on the proposal to ,divide paragraph 3 into two parts. Votes for: Australia Colombia Poland Syria Union of Sovi~t Socialist Republics Votes against: Brazil United States of America Abstentions: Belgium China France United Kingdom Le PRE: "'ENT: Je vais consulter a nouveau le Conseil et j'espere que ce sera ell termes qui, apparaltront suffisamment clairs. La proposition sur laquelle je vais consulter les membres de ce Conseil tend a diviser, pour le vote, le paragraphe 3 en deux parties; la premiere partie se terminant par les mots ". . . Assemblee gell:<le du 14 decembl'e 1946", et la 'seconde comprenant tout le texte en italique, a l'exc1usion de la pln:ase "La commission presentera ...", incluse par erreur dans le texte en italique. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socia~ !istes sovietiques) (traduit de l'anglais): n est entendu que nous voterons sur l'ensemble dri paragraphe 3, si d'autres membres du Conseil le desirent. Le PRESIDENT: Quand il y a division, le vote sur l'ensemble est ensuite de regIe. La proposition est-elle maintenant bien claire? Le vote a lieu a main levee sur la proposition tendant a diviser le paragraphe 3 en' deux parties. V otent pour: Australie Colombie Pologne Syrie Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques V otent contre: Bresil Etats-Unis d'Amerique S'abstiennent: Belgique Chine France Royaume-Uni

In mycapadty of President, I have simply recorded the decisions taken by the Council. I now put paragraph 3 as a whole to the vote. A vote was taken by show of hands on the whole of paragraph 3. The paragraph was adopted by nine votes to nil, with two abstentions. Votes fQr: Australia Belgium Brazil China Colombia France Syria United Kingdom United States of America Abstentions: Poland Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I should like to say a few words to explain my abstention. It is clear to all the members of the Council that the delegation of the Soviet Union supports and votes in favour of the first part of paragraph 3, the proposal to establish a commission, as it was our proposal; we are also in favour of the proposal regarding the composition of the commission, as this was also proposed by the Soviet Union; and, finally, we are in favour of the Jast part of this first half of the text, which states that the function of the commission is to prepare and formuJate practical proposals in order to ensure the implementation of the General Assembly resolution of 14 December. I abstained from voting on the first part only because it is artificially and incorrectly tied to the second part, owing to the erroneous procedure adopted by the Council. The, PRESIDENT (translated from French): The statement of the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is noted. We have been sitting for more than five hours. 1£ we have no pity on ourselves, we shoulf! have pity on our interpreters. I propose adjourning M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Monsieur le Pr,esident, vous n'avez pas repondu ama question. Dans quelle situation se trouveront, avotre avis, ceux ,des membres du Conseil qui, tout en acceptant la premiere partie du paragraphe 3, ne peuvent en accepter la deuxieme par suite de la procedure erronee et irreguliere adoptee par le Conseil? Le PRESIDENT: J'ai simplement, en ma qualite de President, a enregistrer les decisions prises par le Cons'eil. Je mets maintenant aux voix I'ensemble du paragraphe 3. Le vote a lieu amain levee sur l'ensemble du paragraphe 3. Le paragraphe est adopte par neuf voix, avec deux abstentions. V otent pour: Australie Belgique Bresil Chine Colombie France Syrie Royaume-Uni Etats-Unis d'Amerique S'abstiennent: Pologne Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques soda· listes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Je desire ajouter quelques mots pour expliquer man abstention. Je crois que tous les membres du Conseil se rendent compte que la delegation de rUnion sovietique accorde son appui a la pre· miere partie du paragraphe 3 et vote pour la proposition de creer une commission, car cette proposition a ete faite par l'Union sovietique. Elle vote pour la proposition relative a la composition de la commission, etant donne que c'est encore une proposition de l'Union sovietique. Enfin nous approuvons la derniere partie decette premiere moitie du texte, partie qui indique que la commission sera chargee de preparer et de formuler des propositions concretes afin d'assurer la mise en reuvre de la resolution prise par l'Assemblee generale le 14 decembre. Si je me SUls abstenu en ce qui concerne la premiere partie, c'est uniquement parce qu'elle se trouvait Hee d'une maniere incorrecte et artificielle a la deuxieme partie, par suite de la procedure erronee adoptee par le Conseil. Le PRESIDENT: Il est pris acte de la declaration du representant de l'Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques. Messieurs, nous siegeons depuis plus de cinq heures. Si nous n'avons pas pitie de nousmemes, nous devons avoir pitie de nos interpre- The meeting rose at 8.15 p.m. La seance est levee cl 20 h. 15.