S/PV.117 Security Council

Are there any other comments on the United States proposal? Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais) : QUelqu'un· a-t-il d'autres observations a presenter au sujet de la proposition des Etats-Unis? Mr. Quo Tai-chi (China): I want to say a brief word on behalf of my Government in support of the draft United States resolution which is before the Council. M. Quo Tai-chi (Chine) (traduit de l'anglais): Je tiens a ajouter quelques mots au nom de ~on Gouvernement en faveur du projet de resolutlOn des Etats-Unis qui est soumis au Conseil. J'estime que par ce projet de resolution le Conseil faciliterait les travaux de la Commission de l'energie atomique, conformement aux directives de l'Assemblee generale. I think this draft resolution is caleulated to facilitate the work of the Atomic Energy Commission, which this Council is called upon to do by the terms of the General Assembly's resolution. The Council's clear duty at this juncture is to enable the Atomic Energy Commission to proceed with the next phase of its work in pursuit of an object which is common to all of us, namely, the establishment of an international system of control and inspection. This system, in our view, comprises various aspects of the problem. It calls not only for a convention for the prohibition of atomic weapons, but also for a system of safeguards, by way of control and inspection, as well as punishment for the would-be violators of the convention which is to be concluded. Le devoir du Conseil consiste maintenant selon toute evidence, a permettre a la Commission de l'energie atomiquede passeI' a la phase suivante de ses travaux en se proposant un' objectif qui nous est commun atous: l'etablissement d'un systeme international de controle et d'inspection. Ce systeme, anotre avis, comprend plusieurs aspects. 11 requiert, non seulement la conclusion d'une convention relative a la prohibition des armes atomiques, mais aussi l'etablissement d'un systeme de garanties par le moyen de contr61es et d'inspections, ainsi que de sanctions contre les Etats qui tenteraient de violer la future convention. Une C Invention relative a la prohibition des seules armes atomiques ne repondrait pas au but qu'on se propose; une telle convention ne peut pas etre efficace par elle-meme. Nous avons bien, par un pacte, mis la guerre hors la loi, cc qui n'a pas empeche la plus grande guerre de l'histoire d',eclater. C'est pourquoi la convention relative a la prohibition des armes atomiques doit etre completee par l'inspection, le contreIe et des "mesures efficaces de sauvegarde . . . en vue de proteger les Eta~s respectue~x d.es engagements" contre les nsques de vlOlatlOns et de subterfuge; elle doit en outre prevoir des s~nc­ tions rapides et efficaces contre les pays qm en violeraient les termes. J'avais espere, ~omme cert.ains !nem~res du Conseil, qu'a la sUlte de nos dlSCUSSl?nS I en~ente se serait resserree entre nous, malS depUls le discours de M. Gromyko, mercredi dernier, je dois deploreI', comme la plupart d'entre nous, qu'il n'en soit pas ainsi. A convention to prohibit only atomic weapons would fail in its purpose, for such a convention cannot by itself be effective. We have had an anti-war pact, but it did not prevent the outbreak of the greatest war in history. Therefore, this convention to prohibit atomic weapons must be integrated with the questions of inspection and control and of the "safeguards . . . to protect complying States against the hazards of violations and evasions," and must provide for swift and sure punishment for countries violating the convention. I had hoped, like some other members of the Council, that, as a result of the discussions in this Council, the measure of agreement amongst the members would have increased; but since Mr. Gromyko spoke last Wednesday we feel, as do most of you, rather disappointed that that is not the case. I share the views expressed by my French colleague that the Soviet Union representative's Je partage l'opinion de mon ~~llegue fran~ais qui a fait remarquer que les crItIques adressees I feel that some of the CrItiCIsms that Mr. Gromyko expressed struck at the very root of the whole problem of establishing a? effec~ive international system of control and mspectlOn. I hope that some of his criticisms were either due to misunderstanding or were merely intended to emphasize the Soviet point of view, and that they do not express the last word from the Soviet Union. The United States Government was the leader in the field of atomic energy, but that Government also led the United Nations to try to establish an effective system of international contI"ol and inspection. However, as Mr. Parodi has just said, we feel that the criticisms of the report were also levelled against the other members. who supported and adopted this report as their own. I feel that, far from trying to establish this international system of control and inspection in favour of the national interests of anyone country, or trying to establish a monopoly to protect the interests of anyone country, the purpose of the report is to establish such an effective international system in the interest of pcace and in order to promote human welfare. Instead of making atomic energy available for warfare, it aims to make its use available for human welfare. The report is our joint effort and a common product, although the United States led in this effort. I have no desire to make a detailed reply to Mr. Gromyko's criticism in this council. I think we can take up the various points in the Atomic Energy.Commission, the member~hip of which, after all, is identical with the membership of the Security. Council, with the exception of Canada. But I do want to express the hope that the work of the Atomic Energy Commission will not be allowed to be halted by discussions which could be postponed. The immediate task of the Security Council is to mal{e it possible for the Atomic Energy Commission to proceed with its work without further delay. The Commission has already stopped its work for over two months, and we should pass this resolution,· so as to allow it to resume its work, and with the utmost despatch, as urged by the Assembly resolution. Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): The Australian delegation hopes that we may now be able to return as quickly as possible to work on the detailed problems of atomic energy in the Atomic Energy Commission. Accordingly, we shall vote for the United States resolution. de la paix et du bien-etre de l'humanite. Au lieu de mettre l'energie atomique au service de la guerre, il vise a la faire utiliser pour le bien-etre de l'humanite. Ce rapport, bien que les Etats- Unis en aient eu l'initiative, est le resl.11tat de nos efforts communs et constltue une reuvre commune. le n'ai nullement l'intention de repondre en detail aux critiques de M. Gromyko en ce moment. le pense que nous pouvons reprendre ces divers points a: la Commission de l'energie atomique, dont la composition, apres tout, est identique a celle du Conseil de secllrite, a l'exception du Canada. Mais je tiens a exprimel' l'espoir que les travaux de la Commission de l'energie atomique ne seront pas entraves par des discussions qu~ pourraient ctre remises a plus tard. La tache immeciiate du Conseil de securite est de permettre a la Commission de l'cncrgie atomique de poursuivre ses travaux sans retard. La Commission a interr6mpu ses travaux il y a plus de deux mois et nous devons adopter cette resolution afin qu'elle puisse les reprendre dans les delais les plus brefs, comme l'Assemblee ge. nerale l'a demande avec insistance dam sa resolution. . M. HASLUCK (Australie ) (traduit de I'anglais): La delegation australienne espere que nous pourrons, au sein de la Commission de l'energie -atomique, reprendre le plus tot possible I'etude. detaillee des problemes qui se posent. C'est pourquoi naus voterons en {m'cur de la resolution des Etats-Unis. espere. Mais, au moment de reprendre notre tache au sein de la Commission de l'energie atomique, je me demande si nous n'aurions pas avantage a considerer l'ensemble dJ.l probleme sous un aspect queIque peu different de celui sous lequel notre collegue sovictique l'a envisage dans sa declaration de l'autre jour. Si nous examinons une fois de plus l'expose du representant de l'Union sovietique, il s.emble que la situation se presente de la maniere suivallte: les Etats-Unis essaieraient d'imposer a certains Etats (on ne nomme pas ces Etats, mais on fait allusion, vraisemblablement, a l'Union sovietique) des conditions inacceptables: immixtion dans les affaires interieures des pays, pouvoir d'inspection excessif, droit exclusif d'accomplir les recherches, direction du developpement de l'energie atomique, etc. Ces pouvoirs, confies a un organisme international, seraient tous diriges contre l'Union sovietique. Chose curieuse, nous n'avons jamais envisage le probleme sous cet angle; il nous a semble, a juste titre, je pense, que c'ctaient les Etats-Unis qui acceptaient de subir des mesures de contrOle. Ce sont les Etats-Unis qui, en tantque partie au systeme final de controle, se soumettent a l'autorite de l'organisme international; ce sont les Etats-Unis, aussi bien que tous les autres pays, qui subiront des limitations de souverainetc et des restrictions administratives, et qui seront soumis aux inspections. En realite, s'il est un pays qui s'expose a subir les plus grandes limitations, ce sont bien les Etats-Unis, car ils possedent le secret atomique. Ce sont eux qui ont d'immenses usines destinees a la production de l'energie atomique. Je pense que si nous envisageons ainsi l'attitude des Etats-Unis--qui .n'essaient pas d'imposer a I'Union sovietique des conditions en apparence difficiles, mais qui au contraire se soumettent volontairement a ces conditions tout en possedant le secret de l'irnmense force de l'energie atomique-nous pouvons esperer accomplir certains progres. Looking again at the Soviet statement, it seems that it rather represented this kind of state of affairs: the United States was trying to impose on certain unnamed other States-presumably on the Soviet Union-certain impossible conditions of interference in their internal affairs, excessive powers of inspection, exclusive rights to carry out research, powers of management, and SQ on; and these powers, vested in an international authority, were all being used against the Soviet Union. Strangely enough, we had never looked at it in this way. The way we see itand this way, I suggest, is the correct one-is that the United States is submitting itself to the imposition of those controls. The United States, as a party to the ultimate system of control, will come under the international authority; and the United States itself, equally with all other countries, will be subject to those abrogations of its sovereignty. It will be subject to that inspection and to those conditions of management. In reality, if anyone suffers, it is the United States which will suft'er the greatest measures of restriCtion, for it is the United States which has the atomic secret. It is the United States which has the enormous plants for the production of atomic energy. I think perhaps if we could see it in this way-not as anyone trying to impose upon the Soviet Union these seemingly difficult conditions, but ratller as the possessor of this great power willingly submitting to the imposition of those conditions upon itself-we might be able to see some hope for progress in the future. Le PRESIDENT (tmduit de l'anglais): Y a-t-il d'autres represer1tants qui desirent faire des commentaires?

I should like to know if there are any further c,omments from the representatives. M. GROMYKO (Umon des Republiques socia~ listes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Je voudrais dire quelques mats apropos du projet de resolution des Etats-Unis. Je ne sais pas s'il {aut le faire tout de suite ou un peu plus tard, car je ne suis pas tres sur que nous soyons en train de discuter le projet de resolution des Etats-Unis. 11 mc semble que nous en sommes cncore a la discussion generale. Si je n'ai pas entierement raison, je vous prie de m'eclairer. Si c'est le texte de la resolution des Etats-Unis que nous discutons en ce moment, je voudrais !fire quelques mats a propos de ce projet. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet' Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I wish to say a few words regarding the United States draft resolution. I do not know whether it would be better to do this now or later 011, as I am not quite certain whether we are now discussing the text of the United States draft. I have an idea that the general discussion of the question is still going on. If I am not quite right about this, will you please inform me? If we are already discussing the United States resolution, I should like to say a few words on the subject of this draft. Mr. GR01IrYKO (Union of Soviet So('iali~t Republics) (translated from Rursiall): I han already had the opportunity to state that tlH~ Soviet delegation will not ob~eet,1<1 a det:isioll ,to refer the report of the AtomiC I~,nerg~' Commission together with the amendments,I additions , I ' and proposals which have b~cn m,ac~e cun,ng the discussion, back to the ComnmslOn, with a view to its seeking further pm.sibilitics of agreement on the qucstions on which liD agreement has so far been reached. The Soviet delegation has alreadr Hated that it agrees that the report of the Atomic Energy Commission should be referred buck to the Commission for further study and examination of the relevant problems. Duringth(~ debate on the repo'rt of the Atomic Energy Commi:;.:;ion in the Security Council, some reprci<entnth'cs on the Council quite understandably t:xpr{'~sed the opinion that, in view of our failure to agree un very important qucstiol1l1, it would he (k~irablc for the Council not to take a decision, hut to refer the report back to the Atomic Energy Commission. If I am lIot mistaken l this opinion was expressed by the representative of France .and subsequently by several other rcprrseotattve:s. The rcpresentative of the United States of America has also agreed to this propo!'al and has drafted it in writing. As the Soviet dekgation has already agreed to the proposal expressed during the discussion by the reprcst:ntativc of France and several other representatives, the Soviet delegation naturally agn:es to atl)r elraft, ,. whether it be presented by the United States or by any other rcpresentative--which f0I111ulat(·s the relevant propollal in writing. r should like to make a fc,w separate rt'ntnrh on the, United States draft. In the first place, I must say th~lt the last United States draft is somewhat better than thr first. It is [annulated with g-reater dcarnes.." and precision in some respect!;, Secondly, the Soviet ddt'.qation fc~('h, that paragraph 2 of the n(~W U nitc~d Statc$ draft iJi unc!esiral.Jlc. The resolution would be improved if wc omitted pal'a,l.{raph 2, which begins with the words: "Recognizes that any agreement , . ," etc. The Soviet delegation feels that the idea expressed in paragraph ~ is unnecessary in this resolution of the ScclII'it\' Council. r think that the idea cxprC':.;sed in thi~ paragraph of the resolution is tantamount tn the following: each State has the right to ac:cept the relevant proposal regarding the control of atomic encl'h'1' either in its entirety or in part. This thesis is undcr1\tanduble, ,I ),1. Glw:>rYl{() (Union des Republiques . j' ., • (' SOCIa- I~tl'~ !'(\\·I~~tlqU('S). tradwt du 1'ltsse): J'ai de1 ('\I IOlTaSIon tic dm~ que la delegation sovietiqJ ne wlTait pas cl'objections a Ce que le ConsuUe I' . 1~ 1 ' 1 e , (;r!t at {,C rcnvoycr a a Commission de l'ener- !~H~ atol11Hjll(" le rapport de ladite commissl'o .. 1 i 1 n, a1\l.sl que C.~S amCll( ements et lcs addenda qu' , • , 1 1 ~. ,ont, de apportes, et es ,propositions qui ont l'tl' faltl'S nu (Oll1'S de nos debats, afin que celle-ci r~'dH'l'llH: lll~e pos.s.ibilitc cl'enten~e sur les questIOns ({lH n ont pas encorc fait I'objet d'un :H'l'ord. • I;,a c~acgati()n sovictique a deja declare qu'elle etalt cl accord pour que le rapport de la Cornll1is..~iol1 (.le l'C-nergie atomiquc flit renvoye acette C:(lrnIl1i~.s.ion, aux fins cl'Ull nouvel examen des I prolll\·tl!es qui font l'objet de cc rapport. Au IeOllrs tic' I'examcn dn rapport de la Commission . tlt' 1\~Ilt'l'gic atomique au sein du Conseil de I ~t::rurit~, rt'l'tains mcmbres du Conseil ont declare Ifort p('rtim:mmcnt qu'ctant donne les diver- I gelln:s de Vllt$ qui subsistent sur certaines questiun,,> tn"'", impnrtantes, il serait souhaitable que le (:clllseil ~.abstint de prendre une decision, et Cju'il n'1l\'oyat cc rapport ~l la Commission de I'l'IICrgie atomique. Si je ne me trompe, c'etait El I'opilliun dl! representant de la France ainsi que c\(: ('ertaint-; autrcs representants. Le repre. !Orntant ell'S Etats~Unis d'Amerique s'est egale- Inc.-Ilt rallie a ('Nte proposition et il a redige un pmjet de r[-solution a cet eITet. Etant donne que la t}(:le!!;:ltion $()victique a deja accepte la propI1s.itim'1 que It rc~prcselltant de la France, ainsi (lIte plmielln; aut res represcntants, avait soumise au ((lI1l'.~ dc: nos t1{~bats, nous accepterons tout prn.iet,owpn!s(:ntc par les Etats-Unis ou tout ~~tre representant"qui ttaduirait ceUe proposItion. par UIl textt: dCfini. .T<' voudrais f:lire maintenant quelqu,; ob~er­ vatioI!s particulit"'rclI sur le projet de resolutlOn ell'S Etats-U nis. TOllt d'abord, jt:. dais dire que le n.ouveau pl'ojet des Etats-Unis marque un ce.rtam prog'I'CS par rapport au premier texte. n,est dans un certain sens plus precis et plus claIr que le proj(:t ori~inaJ. . Ikuxi(:mc1l1cnt, la delegation sovietique tr?,uve qu'il :-it'rait preferable de supprimer le deu~JJ?e paragraphe du nouvcau projct des E,tatsms, La l:ewlution gagnerait It la suppreSSIOn. ~~R~~ I :.) 11ra..,rl'ilI)hc q.ui rO.llllnencc par les mo~s; . . t> " "1 delegatlOn connmt que tout accord, .• ,etc, J.a cl s , "1 't'l d'mserer an snvi("tiquc cstnne qu I est mu le, "d' ue la resolution du Conseil de securite 11 ?deq rnnticnt le dcnxirmc paragraphe. Cette I l~se rct! IIit en som11lC, a ccci: chaque pays est 1 re (I;'l,t'('c'pt'c'r .soit ('n tout soit en partie, tou:e pro- I. ( ." , • . , A l'e e ataposition relative au controle de . ne: clroits mique, Cela est naturel et conforme a The General Assembly resolution of 14 December speaks of a convention or conventions- I stress the words, a convention or conventions- <la conventi.on" in the singular and "conventions" in the plural. 1 For some reason or other the United States proposal contains the words "treaty or convention". The word "treaty" does not figure at all in the General Assembly resolution. "Treaty" is a word which is always proposed by the United States delegation. There is no such word in the General Assembly resolution; and the United States draft also omits the word "conventions" in the plural and mentions only "convention" in the singular. I think that the additions and amendments which I have just mentioned would improve the text of the United States draft, would bring it closer, in my opinion, to the General Assembly resolution of 14 December 1946 as regards its language and content, and would in general make it clearer and less ambiguous. I have already stated that the proposal to refer the report of the Atomic Energy Commission back to the Commission is acceptable to the· Soviet delegation. I do not quite understand, therefore, the remark of Mr. Austin, when he said: "Now, the question is: Do we adopt the pending resolution to facilitate the work of the Atomic Energy Commission, or do we decline to carry out the recommendation of the General Assembly?" M. Austin a confondu dans sa declaration deux elements differents. Lorsqu'on veut parler de recommandations de l'Assemblee generale, on touche au fond des decisions qu'il appartient au Conseil de securite de prendre. Quant au renvoi du rapport a. la Commission de l'energie ato- This statement confuses two different things. The question of the recommendation of the General Assembly is a question concerning the substance of those decisions which the Security Council must ultimately adopt; the question of referring the report of the Atomic Energy Com- 1 Voir les Resolutions adoptees par I'Assemblee generale pendant la seconde partie de sa premiere session, article 4, page 66. 1 See Resolutions adopted by the General Asse~bly, during the second part of its first session, article 4, page 66. phr~se que je vous soumettrai par ecrit et qui contiendra une reference a la resolution de I'Assemblee generale du 14 decembre 1946. Enfin, en ce qui concerne la derniere phrase de ce paragraphe, je propose de mettre apres les mots "soumettre . . . au Conseil de securite un projet" le membre de phrase suivant: "de convention ou des projets de conventions portant ses propositions definitives". La resolution de l'Assemblee generale en date du 14 decembre prevoit la conclusion d'une ou de plusieurs conventions--je repete: d'une ou de plusieurs conventions, soit un singulier et un plurieP-alors que le projet de resolution des Etats-Unis emploie, on ne sait trop pourquoi, les termes "traite" ou "convention" au singulier. D'ailleurs, le mot "traite" ne figure pas dans la resolution de l'Assemblee generale: c'est la delegation des Eiats-Unis qui l'emploie constamment. Ce mot n'existe pas dans la resolution de l'Assemblee generale et le projet des Etats-Unis ne parle pas de "conventions" (au pluriel). 11 n'y est question que de "convention" (au singulier). 11 me semble que 1es addenda et les amendements que je vous ai soumis. sont de nature a. ameliorer le texte du projet des Etats-Unis, a rapprocher ses termes et son contenu des termes et du contenu de la resolution de I'Assemblee en date du 14 decembre 1946 et a rendre ce texte plus precis et moins ambigu en general. ],ai deja. dit que la delegation sovietique etait d'accord pour que ce rapport flit renvoye a la Commission de l'energie atomique. .le ne vois donc pas tres hien pourquoi M. Austin a dit dans sa declaration: "Voici la question qui se pose maintenant: adopterons-nous la resolution qui nous a ete soumise en vue de faciliter le travail de la Commission de l'energie atomi.que, ou refuserons-nous de donner dIet aux recommandations de l'Assemblee generale?" It seems to me, therefore, that such a highly significant statement is not quite comprehen· sible, since it links the substance of the qucstion with the question of referring the report back tn the Atomic Energy Commission, These are two different questions, The SO\'iet delegation agrees that the report should be rderred back to the . Atomic Energy Commi.';siofl, in order that further study may be given to the relevant important problems and further pos.~ibiIiti('s be sought of reaching agreement on them. The substance of these problems is another matter. This will probably be the subject of furtht'r discussions in the Atomic Energy Conllnis.~ion, As regards the substance of these important problems, I have already made two statements in the Security Council on behalf of the Soviet delegation, in which I have explained the position of the Soviet Governmcnt in this matter. I Thc PR!;SIDENT: i\Iav I ask the Unit\:d Statl'l' representative whether I;c is able to al'n~pt ;lIlY of the arnendments offcred by the n:prescntative of the Soviet Union? I ask this in order tu facili· tate the business of the Councill because it would be unnecessary to vote nil amendments if tht'\' had been accepted by the author of the proposal. Mr, AUSTIN (United States of America): I readily accept the addition of the \\lords: "and by the resolutioll of the Gen('ral Assembly of 14 December 1946", merely lJCGW)\{' they do Ilot change the meaning at all; they arc usd\':-;'~ hen'; therefore tht:y are harml('s.o: and I accept them, The PRESIDE:-;T: What about "('(m\"(~lltion or conventions"? Mr. AUSTIN (United States of AII1(:rica): That is a serious matter. I intend to take lip these proposals seriatim. The first paragraph it is proposed to deletc is a recognition by the St:- cudt}' Council of a g(~neral principle. It dO(~s not have the meaning which the rcpresentatiw of the Soviet Union daims it has. This paragraph means that any mcmber of the Council. or any number of l11emb(~r:; of the COllllcil COIlstituting the majority rl:q tlin~d by the Chartt:r, may agree, if they f'ce Ht, to S{~parate l"(.·rtain sections of the report withoutl hnwcvcr, do:-ing the door and making a final judgment on the report. Thus in order to make progl't'&<;, thi:; principle of procedure can be followed safely: members can agree by the neces.~ary majority to olle article or another, but when it cOIlles to the assembly of the contml plan in final form, somethin,l{ may have been inserted rendering the form unacceptable; in such a case they ,~ollld not be bound .. j~\l~~i > b~(:~l, c:ttc dccIar~ti.o?, si lourde de (1· olls~lqIIlUli\(S, me semble dlfflCIIement comprelellsl.) e, t autant .que le renvoi du rappo t \ I ( • .. I I" I' a a ,omn l l1;SI,tltl t e cll~rgie atomique s'y trouve rattac le a lIne question de fond Mal'S e f' , . "nalt cc !'ont la deux questIOns distinctes, La de'I' l , ." - , eKa- , tl011 ~O\'letlCjlle acccpte que le rapport soit . i "IC' ", ren I \,(.).ye a lIa . :omml~"IIOJ: de I cnergie atomique paul' que rc C'l'l proc~'( C a u~e etude snpplementaire de~ gran:s q llestlons Cjm y sont traitees et pour qll die d!t'rche de nouveIIcs bases d'accord sur n's qlH..~tl()I1~, Pour cc qui est du fond de ees prnhlhncsl la situation est differente, La CamllIis.o;ion de J'cncrgie atomique en discutera prohahkl1ll'nt au COllrs de ses reunions ulterieures. Dlalltl'c part, j'ai deja fait devant le Conseil de .1 l;cCUritC, au nom de la delegation sovietique 1 !' 1 . L , I (CIIX. (CC aratlon~ portant sur le fond de ees questIons e.'t dans les.·queIIes j'ai precise I'attitude <lu GOllvernement sovictique1, 1 Le PH{:~I/)F,~T (tl'arluit de l'anglais): Puis-je I. ' dt'lll<lnc..ler a 11 ~'ep.l'cscntant des Etats-Unis s'il pcut an'eptcr hm ou I'autre des amendements j pmpo~I:1\ par le representant de l'Union soviei tiC}lW;1 .le pose cctte question afin de faeiliter I la tache dll Conscil, car il serait inutiIe de voter ! sur des amcndements qui auraient ete aeeeptes I par I'auteur tie la proposition. 1. 1\1. AUSTIN (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit tit l'anglais): J'accepte volontiers l'insertio/l dc's mol:; "ct par la resolution de l'AssembJee W~/l6ralc en date du 1't decembre 1946'\ parce qu'il.'> ne ('hal1~ent nllIlement le sellS de ma prop(J~jtiol1, Ils sont inutiles, it eet endroit, done illolTt'nl'ifs, et jc Ies accepte. Le PR(.;sIlmNT (traduit de l'anglais): Aecep- ! tt'I.-VOUS les mot;,; "un ou plusieurs projets de nmvt'ntitll1s"? I !\'L Al'STIN (Etats-UnL~ d'Amerique) (traduit I de l'mtglais): Cela pose un grave p:obleme, .rai I'illtt~lltion d'cxaminer ces propositIOns une 11 I1IH~, Lc. paragl'aphe qu'on propose d'abord de supprimer constitue la reconnaissance, par l~ COll!'dl de securitt\ cI'un principe general. Il Il'a pal' k ,<;elll\ que lui attribue le repres~nt~t tk l'l)lIion mvi(~tique, Cc paragraphe slgnifle que tnut memhre elu Conseil ou tout grou~e ?~ . !lIemlllT!' e1u Comdl qui reprcsente la ma~?rIte . rcqui!'t' par la Charte peut approuver, sil le jll~e hOll, ccrtaines parties du rapportl sans pour (cia engager son jugement sur I'ensemble du rap; port final. En d'autres termes, pour aceeIere la marche des travaux on peut suivre eette 'I I 'it' 'i'te', on peut· en reg t; t e procc( lire en oute S~C~1 l, 're'tel dfet, <l\'oir ac10pte a la maJontc neceSSaI t de nu td article et decouvrir, au momef formuler le plan de controle dans sa ?rme definitive, te! Oll tel point qui le rende Inac- -.__._-- . il de secu- , Voir lcs Proces-verbaux OffiCle!S du Cons~ rift. Deuxicme Annec, Nos 14 et 22. "R . th ecogmzes at any agreement expressed by the members of the Council to separate portions of the report is preliminary, since final acceptance of any part by any nation is conditioned upon its acceptance of all parts of the control plan in its final form." That is a wise rule. We have found that it is the only practical way to proceed. If men must reserve their judgment on a portion merely because they are not yet able to see the whole plan, we shall not make much progress, shall we? I suggest. that the vote on this matter might be kept distmct from the vote on the whole resolution, if that would please my friend from the Soviet Union. If it would accommodate him in any way to vote upon that part of the resolution' separately from the rest, I am willing that that vote be taken; then we should know who considers this as a sensible rule and who does not. By our votes we shall indicate who recognizes that this is a good way to do business, and who does not. That is my position on that point. With regard to the last point, it is proposed that after the words, "submit to the Security Council a draft", the rest of the paragraph 5hould read as follows: "convention or conventions incorporating its ultimate proposals." I have never understood why, in all the exceptions and in all the remarks of the representative of the Soviet Union, he has seen fit to strike out the words, "treaty or" and leave nothing but the word "convention" to represent the solemnity of the agreement by which we would outlaw this terrific weapon. Why do that? There may be some reason for it. There may be something in his language leading him to adopt that course, but truly if we do believe that this matter is of such great importance that it should be imbued with the solemnity of the highest form of agreement between nations, then we must not strike out the words "treaty or". Je ne comprends pas pourquoi, dans toutes ses critiques, dans toutes ses remarques, le representant de l'Union sovietique a juge bon de supprimer les mots "traite ou" et de ne laisser que le mot "convention" comme convenant mieux a la solennite qui doit accompagner la mise hors la loi de cette arme terrible. Pourquoi? 11 cloir y. avoir une raison. 11 doit y avoir dans sa langue quelque chose qui explique cette preference. Cependant, si nous estimons que cette question est de la plus haute importance et que l'accord auquelon aboutira doit revetir la forme la plus solennelle qui soit, nous ne devons pas supprirner les mots "traite ou". En quoi consiste la difference? Voici l'avis d'une des plus anciennes autorites du monde en la matiere: il est tire d'un arret de la Cour supreme des Etats-Unis, Etats-Unis contre Bel- What difference is there? Let me quote one the oldest authorities in the world on that subject, it is taken from a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, United States versus Belmont: "In this general conuexion" (of course, I am not reading the whole decision; I am merely taking an extract from it) "it is interesting to note that Vattel, WTiting in the middle of the eighteenth century, made a distinction between treaties and other types of agreements between nations. 'A treaty', he wrote, 'is a compact eIttered into by sovereigns for the welfare of the State, either in perpetuity or for a considerable length of time. Compacts which have for their object matters of temporary interest are called agreements, 111011t: "A cet egard" (bien entendu, je ne vais pas vous lire tout le texte de l'arret mais seule· ment un extrait) "i! est interessant de noter que Vattel, ecrivant·· au milieu du xvme sieeIe, etablissait une distinction entre les traites et les autres formes d'accords internationaux. "Un traite", ecrit-il, "est un acte coneIu, par des souverains dans l'interet de leur Etat pour une duree perpetuel1e all en tout cas tres longue. Les instruments qui ont pour objet des questions d'interet temporaire sont appe1es accords, conventions ou ententes. C~tte regl~ ~st sage et. constitue le seul moyen pratIque de faIre avancer nos travaux. Si nous dev~ons reserver notre opinion sur une partie du proJet parce que nous ne sommes pas en mesure de voir le projet dans son ensemble, il est evident que nous n'avancerions pas tres rapidement. Je propose que cette question fasse l'objet d'un vote distinct de celui qui portera sur l'e.nsemble de. la resolution, si cela peut satisfaIre mon amI le representant de l'Union sovietique.. S'il aime mieux voter separement sur cette partie de la resolution, je suis pret a\ accepter ce vote. Nous saurons ainsi quels sont les membres du Conseil qui reconnaissent la sagesse de cette regIe et ceux qui sont d'un avis contraire. Ce vote indiquera quels sont ceux qui approuvent cette fa<;on de faire et ceux qui ne l'approuvent pas. Telle est mon attitude sur ce point. En ce qui concerne le dernier point, apres les mots "soumettre . . . au Conseil de securite un projet" ils s'agirait d'ajouter les mots "de convention ou des projets de conventions comportant ses propositions definitives". T . dl'" II I 1 he approprmte WOI' lere IS treaty. n t le General Assembly we used both words. In some places we were careless and used just "coIlvention," but the significant fact is that wc rcco~­ nized treaties as well as conventions and made a choice possible. If that is the purpose of this Rmendmcnt, I should, of course, be opposed to the use of "convention", because I do not chose to make this agreement less dignified than a treaty would bc, I think a convention is wholly inferior to a treaty. However, the second paragraph of the General Assembly resolution of 14 Decembel' 1946 says: "The treaties or conventions appro"ed br the General Assemblv shall be submitted to the signatory States f~)r ratification in accordance with Article 26 of the Charter." I Taking the General Assembly resolution of 14- December as a whole, I cannot exclude the word "treaties" from it in my consideration of this matter. In order to give effect to thc whole of it, "treaties" must be included. Just one more word on this subject. An examination of the juridical effeet of treaties and executive agreements will throw further light On their respective functions. The Constitution of the United States uses the word "tn:atic!i" as a type of undertaking which will bind the United States of America; they must be ratified hv a two-thirds majority of ;~ll the Senators pr<:sl:nt; that is why it is significant. The COllstitution provides that: Cl, , • all treaties I1Ull!c, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shnll he bound thercby, anything in the Constitution or laws of an}' State to tIll: contrary notWithstanding." That is artidc VI nf the Constitutll1ll. "In construing this l:mglH1.gt~, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that tl treaty will not only pn:"ail over the Constitution ancllaws of n Statl', hilt mav also deal with powers rcsern'd to th<: States ;lnfkr the Tenth Amendment, if propel' subjects for international negotiations. lh:nc(' it follows, both from the pro"ision,<; of the ConstitlltilJII relating to treaties and from judicial decisions thercunder, that if it hl~ desired that an international covenant shall operate at the same time to bind this country under international l:OU~ ,a}:ons p,arle de tr~it~ aussi, bien queqde COin cntlOll, lCndant amsl pOSSIble le choix entre les deux termcs. Si tclle est la raison de cet amendement 'e m'oppc)scrai naturcllement a l'emploi du :n~t ICconvcl1tion" parce qu'a. man avis l'accord en question clait avail' toute la solennite d'un traitc J'cstimc qu'une convention a une valeur infc: rieure II celle cl'un traitc. I)'ailkurs, dans le second paragraphe de sa resolution ell! 14 decembre 1946 l'AssembIee generale stipule que: ' "Les traitcs ou conventions approuves par l'Asscmblce gcnerale scront soumis aux Etats signataircs pour ratification, conformement a l'.·\rtidc 26 de la Charte." Considcrant l'enscmble de la resolution de I'Assemblec generale . . . du 14 decembre, il m'cst impossible dc retrancher le mot "traite", POllf que le systhne fonctionne nous devons I maintcnir cc mat. Encore tIn mat a cc sujet. Un examen des I dfcts juridiqucs des traites et des accords executoircs fera mieux comprendre leur nature res· pf~ctivc. La Constitution des Etats·Unis, qui I,h~finit les traitcs comme des actes qui lient les I Etats-Unis d'Amcrique et doivent etre, notez,le bien, car c'cst important, ratifies par la majori~c dc.~ deux tiers des scnatcurs presents, la ConstI· tution, clis-jc, stipule: ". , . tollS traites c:onclus ou qui sero~l condus sous l'autoritc des Etats·Ums cUllstitllCl'Ont la loi supreme du pays et Jes jl1gc_~, dUllS tous les Etat~, seront li~s pa~ eux, lH)1w!Jstanl toutc dispositIon contr~lre .exlstant clans h Constitution ou la legislatIOn des Etat5." I ·'I'd (~st l'artich:: VI de cette Constitution. " (IIntcrprctant ce texte, la Cour supreme I des Etats.Unis a decide que non ~euI~me~~ les tmites l'cmportent sur la ConstltutlOn,_ la ICI"il'[ation des Etats, mais encor~ qu l!S , ., I estIons re- ; pl:uvent egalcInwt toue ler aux qu 1 S'I'I'\'I~/~ ~l la competence des Etats par e .. "'. • , . 'sont dixieme amcndClllcnt, SI ces qucsuon~ , s . . I' b' t d ncgoclatlon :m~('cp1:thles de faIre 0 Je e , If's des illternationa1es. Il resultc done, a a. 01 Ul( CII'S[)OSI'tiollS de la Constitution relatIves a' t ., , .. ., ., ace sUJe tnitcs ct des deCISIons Judlclarres . I • . - . , t internatlOua qlle, SI 1'011 desIre qu un pae e l'AssembUc gM' 1 V()!'.. \r.s Rtfsollltians adoptees par "re 'ession, .. , d s prem1e • rale pendant In seconde pnrtlc e a article 2, page 55. I have just read an extract from page 15 of Treaties and Executive Agreements, an analysis prepared for the Committee on ForeiRn Relations by Mr. Henry S. Frasier, Assistant Counsel, Special Committee Invcstigating Petroleum Resources, and published by Senator Connally, 21 September 1944:. This is an authority worth respecting. Therefore, I cannot accept the amcndment in its present fonD. This is what I could do, if it were in any way a matter of accomodation; if the problem was mcrely one of singular or plural, I could add the words "or treaties", after the words "draft treaty" and after the word "convcntion", "or conventions". If there is any country which will be a party to this solemn arrangement in whose language the word "convention" fits bettcr than the word "treaty", well, then, we have both of them there, and that country can bind itself in that manner. But as far as the United States is concerned, if you desire to have our serious interest in this matter, represented by thc solemnity of our agreement, it must bc by a "treaty"; and we have always contemplated a treaty. Our Senate, in ratifying the Charter, has by different addresses indicatcd its wish that in transactions of this importance, the manner of binding the United States should be by treaty, in order that it might require the consent of two-thirds of all of the Senators present when voted upon. I have offered facilitating suggestions here only for the purpose of obtaining a separate agreement on these different suggestions. I am willing to vote on number 1. I have already agreed to number 2 (a). I disagreed to number 2 (b), but I have made an alternative suggestion which may be accepted. However, if it is not accepted, I cannot agree to substituting the word "convention" for the word "1.>J:eaty".

May I ask the representative of the Soviet Union whether he is able to accept any of the suggestions offered by the United States representativc, in order that we may vote on this proposal, if possible? Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): Mr. Austin . has not made very many proposals that could Voila pourquoi je ne peux pas accepter cet amendement tel qu'il est presente. Voici ce que je peux faire, si cela doit resoudre la question; je suis pret, s'il s'agit simplement de singulier et de pluriel, a faire suivre les mats "projet de traite" des mats "ou projets de traites", et le mat "convention" des mats "ou projets de conventions". S'il est des pays signataires de cet acte solcllnel qui preferent le mot "convention" au mat "traite", alors, tout ira bien puisque nous employons les deux mats; ces pays s'engageront en utilisant leur propre terminologie. Mais en ce qui concerne les Etats-Unis, si ran veut nous voir solennellement engages, i1 devra s'agir d'un traite, ce que nous avons d'ailleurs toujours envisage. Notre Senat, lorsqu'il a ratifie la Charte, a illdique a plusieurs reprises que dans les transactions de cette importance, 1'acte susceptible de lier les Etats-Unis doit etre un traite, car un traite requiert l'assentiment des deux tiers de taus les senateurs presents. Pour faciliter les chases, je viens de faire diverses suggestions qui doivent rendre possible un accord sur chacune d'elles separement. .Je rcpete que je suis dispose a voir voter sur l'amendement No 1, que fai donne man accord a l'amendement No 2 a), que je m'oppose a l'amendement No 2 b), mais que j'ai fait une contre-propositionqui est acceptable. Toutefois si on ne l'accepte pas je ne peux pas donner mon accord a la substitution du mot "convention" au mat "traite". Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Est-il possible au representant de l'Union sovj(~tique d'accepter l'une ou l'autre des suggestions faites par le representant des Etats-Unis~ de maniere que nous puissions voter sur le proJet de resolution, si possible? M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques sodalistes sovietiques)(traduit du russe): Parmi les propositions qu'a faites M. Austin, il n'y en a As regards paragraph 2 of the ~Jnited States draft resolution, I have already pOlnted out that the Soviet delegation considers this paragraph unnecessary. It' can only lead to confu:-:ion anti give rise to misunderstanding. Indeed, can a country have any difficulty in decidingon the whole question of a convcntion or on 'the next report of the Atomic Energy Commission even after having adopteu a certain position in regard to individual parts of the report of the Atomic Energy COInmiR~ion or, let us say, of this draft cO!l\'entioll:) It seems dear to me that regardless of the attitude of any country to individual parts of a convention or the report of the Atomic Energy Commi~~ion, that cOllntry is entitled, it goes without saying, to determine its attitude to such documents a:> a whole. Hence there is no need whatever to speak about this right in the resolution of the Security Council, especially as this IIIay givl~ riSl' to misunderstandings of various kinds. The Soviet Union, however, ii; no 1I10rc affected by this paragraph, thi1l propo!iill, than any other country represented here, M any COllntl'\' which is a Member of the 'United Nationi' and is not represented here. Tht~ intcrest~ of the Soviet Union arc no more afl'trtcd by this paragraph than the interests of any other countr,,; and if the Soviet delegation has drawn the attention of the Security Council to thil' paragraph, it is only hccal1Sc~ it consider!i it would be desirable in our common intcrests that thel'(' should be no such obscure paragraph likely to give rise to misunderstanding. I have bec'l1 guided solely by thi!i consideration. I am very glad that Mr. Austin is accepting the Soviet delegation's amendment to paragraph 4 of the United StateI' draft re:iolution calling attention to the General Assembl,,'s decision of 14 December 1946, . As regards the question of the tt'rms "treaty" and "convention or conventions", I think there is no reason for :Mr, Austin to wonder wh\' tIlt' Soviet representative often preferi' the \~'or<b "convention or ('oT1\Tntinnl'" tn the word "treaty". The que:;tion raiSl:d by the United States representative might 1)(' rxprcR<;cd nwre accurately as followii: r wondn why the Soviet reprciicntativc frequently refers to the lIe(',es.~ity of keeping to the tCl'Illl' LIiied by the General :\~­ scmbly in its resolution of 1'1 December l~H(i:' That would be an accurate stat(~lJH'l1t of the question. I should also like to put a question to the UIlited States representative, r wonder why, in connexion with the General Assembly resolution of 14 December, which speaks of a "convention ° Qua.l1t au deuxieme ~ara~aphe du projet'de l'l'sCl.lutHlll cles E.tats-Ums, ]'ai dc]'a, dit qu I 1°1" " " e a ~ c c~latl0Ln sovlel'tlqfi~e est~~1ait. que ce!ui-ci etait lIIuh e. c seu e' et qu I pUlsse avoir c'est d , If' , e ereer a con U510n et de provoquer des malentendus. Ell effet, est-il possible qu'un pays hesite ase prononcer stir I'em;emble de la resolution ou sur le prochain rapport de la Commission de I'energie atomique, meme apres avoir adoptc une n'I'tainc attitude aI.'egard de chacune des parties de C(~ rapport ou, SI vous voulez, de Cl'. projet de cllIlw'ntion":l Il est clair, me semble-t-il que queUe que soit I'attitude d'un pays a liegard de chacune des parties de la convention ou du rapport de ~a COl~lInission ?e I'energie atomique, re pays dOlt <1\'011' le drOit, ce!a va de soi, de (!t'terminer SOil attitude a l'egard de ces docunH'nl.<; clans leur ensemble. C'est pourquoi il est ahsolullwnt inutilc de mentionner Cl'. droit dans la n'solution e1u Con~eil de securite. II est d'autant plus inutile de le faire que ce!a pourrait c1nnller lieu :\ tOlltes sortes de rnalentendus. L'Union sovietique n'est pas plus visee par re paragraphe qlle n'importe que! autre pays r('pr6s(~lltc id, 011 n'importe que! autre Etat Mcmbre des Nations Unies qui n'est pas repre. s(~nl6 au Conseil de securitc. Les interets de I'lJniof1 ~oviCtique ne sont pas plus atteints par re paragraphe que les interets de n'importe que! autre pays; et si la delegation sovietique a attire l'attention elu Conseil de securitc sur ce point, c'l'st qll'clle cstimait qu'il serait de notre interet cnmmull d'c"liminer un point si peu clair et sujet a. tant de malcntendus. C'est uniquement pour ccla que jc l'ai fait. Jc ,~lIis heureux de constater que M, Austin j!cccptc la proposition sovietique d:inserer d~ns le quatrit:mc paragraphe ,d~ pro]:t de, ~efo­ lution des Etats-Dnis une reference a la de~lslOn de I'As.,emblec gencrale en date du 14 decembrc 1946. Quant allx terrnes "traite" d'une. part :t "convention ou conventions" d'autre part" Je crei!' (Iut ~L Austin comprend parf~l:e. ., ' 'efere mcnt pourquoi le representant sovletlque p~ " l'ouvcnt les tcrmes "c.onvention ou conventions all termc ."traite". Si I'on voulait formul~r d\lII(, facon !)llls precise la questi?n que ma ". E U on pourposte le representant des tatsms, , . I' . '1: que le representant nut tIre: Je III donnc . d sovictique insistc tellement sur la ncc~lte d~ nom; en tcnir aux termes de la resolu on b 1'A.o;..,;cmblce rrcncrale en date du 14 decem re Cl I' la ques- 1946. C'est SOUii cette formea que tion aurait du ctre posee, , ., d·' lement poser une Quant a mm Je vou ralS ega . L . , E t Ums es question au representant des ta so, " 'rale termes de la resolution de rAs:'emblee ~~~~t a en date du 14 decembre dermer, ne P I do not see, therefore, that Mr. Austin has any reason to wonder. Whereas the Soviet representative considers it necessary to keep precisely to this term, which figures in the General Assembly resolution, the United States representative advises us not to keep to this term. Hence, I think I have more reason to express surprise at the attitude of the United States representative in this matter than the United States representative has in regard to the attitude of the Soviet representative. Mr. Austin has drawn our attention to certain historical documents of the Supreme Court of the United States of America and to other documents. I personally, like the rest of us, have respect for the Supreme Court of the United States and for the United States Constitution, but nevertheless I do not think that these are convincing arguments for not following the General Assembly resolution, which was adopted unanimously by fifty-five countries, each of which, as is well known, has its own constitution. . I shall not object to the use of the words "treaty or treaties", "convention or conventions", in the resolution, if the Security Council considers it expedient to use them and considers that it is not necessary to follow strictly the terminology of the General Assembly resolution. However, this will not alter the attiude of the Soviet delegation on this question, since it will continue to hold that, in this connexion, we should base ourselves on the General Assembly resolution, which speaks of "a convention or conventions". The Soviet delegation will bear this consideration in mind not only during the debate in the Security Council but also in the future, whereever similar drafts, documents or proposals are discussed.

If no one wishes to speak, we are now going to pass to the vote. According to our rules of procedure, we have to vote first on the amendment proposed. We now have only one amendment left. It consists in deleting paragraph 2 which begins with the words: "Recognizes that any agreement expressed by the members of the Council to the separate portions of the report is preliminary since final acceptance of any part by any nation is conditioned upon its acceptance of all parts of the control plan in its final form." Je ne puis donc pas m'expliquer l'etonnement de M. Austin. Alors que le representant de l'Union sovietique estime qu'il est necessaire de nous en tenir aux termes de la resolution de l'AssembIee generale, le representant des Etats- Unis nous recommande de ne pas employer ces termes. Il me semble ala verite que c'est plutot moi qui devrais m'etonner de l'attitude du repre- sentant des Etats-Unis. M. Austin a attire notre attention sur certains documents historiques concernant la Cour supreme des Etats-Unis d'Amerique, ainsi que sur certains autres documents. Personnelle- ment, je respecte, comme tout le monde, la Cour supreme des Etats-Unis et la Constitution ameri- caine. Cependant, je crois que de tels arguments ne sont pas assez convaincants pour nous per- mettre de nous ecarter d'une resolution de l'As- semblee generale qui a ete adoptee al'unanimite par cinquante-cinq nations, dont chacune a sa propre constitution. Je ne m'opposerai pasace que nous employions dans notre resolution les termes "traite ou traites", "convention ou conventions", si le Conseil de securite estime que c'est utile et s'il croit que nous ne sommes pas obliges de nOllS en tenir stricte- ment a la lettre de la resolution de l'Assemblee generale. Toutefois, cela ne changera en rien l'attitude· de la delegation sovietique, qui estime toujours que dans cette question, nous devons nous in- spirer de la resolution de l'AssembIee qui parle de "convention ou conventions". La delegation sovietique maintiendra cette attitude, non seulement au cours des debats du Conseil de securite, mais aussi a l'avenir lorsque nous aurons a discuter de projets, de documents ou de propositions de cette nature. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Per- sonnene demandant plus la parole, nous passons au vote. Conformement a notre reglement in- terleur nous devons d'abord nous prononcer sur l'amendement propose. I1 ne reste plus qu'un seul amendement. Il consiste a supprimer le paragraphe 2 ainsi con~u: "Reconnait qu.e tout accord donne par les membres du C.on~ell aux diverses parties de ce rapport est provlsOlr~, puisque l'acceptation definitive d'une. partle quelconque de ce rapport. par une natIOn est subordonnee ason acceptatlOn de toutes les par- ties du systeme de contrCile dans sa forme definitive." Il est ,procede a un vote a, mai~ levee, .et l'amendement de lJUnion des Republzques socza- listes sovietiques est rejete par six voix contre quatre, avec une abstention. Votes against: Australia Belgium Brazil Colombia United Kingdom United States of America Abstention: China

We are now going to vote upon the United States draft resolution with the slight modifications accepted by its author.

Before we adjourn, I am going to call upon the representative of Colombia, Chairman of the Sub-Committee on the question of the Corfu Channel, for a brief statement. Mr. ZULETA ANGEL (Colombia) (translated from French): I would inform the Council that the Sub-Committee, in spite of all its efforts, will not be in a position to submit its report next Wednesday. The Sub-Committee has consequently instructed me to ask the Council to extend the time limit for the submission of the report. Votent contre: Australie Belgique Bresil Colombie Etats-Unis d'Amerique Royaume-Uni S'abstient: Chine Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Naus alIons maintenant mettre aux voix le projet de resolution des Etats-Unis avec les legcres modifi- cations acceptces par son auteur. Il est procede a un vote a main levee, et le projet de resolution des Etats-Unis, ainsi modi{it1• est adopte a runanimite. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Avant de lever la seance, je demanderai au representant de la Colombie, President de la Sous-Commission chargee d'enqueter sur les incidents survenus clans le detroit de Corfou, de bien vouloir fairc ulle breve declaration. M. ZULETA ANGEL (Colombie): Je desire informer le Conseil que, malgre taus ses efforts. la Sous-Commission n'est pas en mesure de pre- senter son rapport mereredi prochain. La Sous- Commission m'a done charge de demander au Conseil une prolongation du delai necessaire ~l la presentation du rapport. La seance est levee a18 h. 50.