S/PV.121 Security Council

The points of view expressed before the Council by the two interested parties have revealed the fact that the accusation brought by the United Kingdom against Albania, whom it accuses of responsibiliv-; for laying a mine-field, is based solely on confused and groundless arguments. That, I believe, is why the Security Council, seeking a solution to the problem worthy of 'I the highest authority entrusted with the maintenance of peace and tranquillity in the world, and desiring to base its judgments on patent facts and not on unfounded allegations, decided to appoint a Sub-Committee. The Albanian delegation did not object to that decision, although it was convinced in advance that this supplementary work would not bring fonyard any new argument in support of the British accusation~ for the simple reason that the facts and arguments advanced were valueless. Nevertheless, our delegation showed itself ready to assist and facilitate the Sub-Committee's task. The Security Council now has the Sub-Committee's report before it. In our opinion, the most important points of the report are the following: . 1. There are no facts to provt. that the British accusation is well founded. 2. There is nothing to prove that mines were laid recently. 3. There are no facts showing that Albania was in fact responsible for laying the mines or proving that she was aware that mines had been laid. . 4. The Sub-Committee did not succeed in d,;:- termining whet1;ler or not mines were found on 13 November at the place and in the conditions indicated by the British representative. 5. The question whether the mines which damaged the two British destroyers on 22 October were part of the mine-field alleged to have been found on 13 November has not been eluCidated. Le rapport de la Sous-Commission montre que l'authenticite d'aucun des faits cites a l'appui ,de la plainte britannique n'est prouvee, et . qu'aucun fait nouveau n'est apparu. Le pro- . bleme est a nouveau pose devant le Conseil, pour etre discute~ mais il n'y a toujours pas de preuve. .Des lespren1ie!s jours, l~ delegation albaJI.aise a declare devant le Conseil qu'il etait inutile de discuter un probleme etranger a l'Albanie; , elle ainsiste sur le fait que I'accusation britan- The Sub-Committee's repo1lt shows that none of the facts on which the British complaint was founded have been proved correct and that no new facts have come to light. The problem is once more placed· before the Council for discussion, but there is still no proof.,'. , . From the.beginning, the Albanian delegation, stated· bef9re the Council that it was useless to discuss a problem which had nothing to.do with Albania; it insisted that the British .accusation Sur l~invitation du President~ le representant de l~Albanie prend place cl la table du Comeil. M. HYSNI KApo (Albanie): Les points de vue exprimes devant le Conseil par les deux parties interessees ont mis en evidence le fait que Paccusatioh portee par le Royaume-Uni contre l'Albanie, qu'il accuse d'etre responsable du mouillage d'un champ de mines, ne s'appuie que sur des arguments confus et sans aucune base. C'est la, je crois, la raison pour laquel1e le Conseil de securite, a:fin de donner all probleme une solution digne de l'organisme supreme charge de la sauvegarde de la paix et de la tranquillite dans le monde, et desirant se baser . sur des faits patents et non sur des allegations non fondees, a decide de nommer une Sous-Commis~ sion. La delegation albanaise ne s'est pas opposee a cette decision, bien qu'elle £Ut d'~vance convaincue que ce travail suppIement~Ure n'apporterait aucun argument nouveau a l'appui de l'accus?,tion britannique, pour la simple raison que les faits et les arguments avances n'ont aucune valeur. Neanmoins, notre delegation s'est montree disposee a aider et a faciliter la tache de la Sous-Commission. Le Conseii de securite a maintenant son rapport entre les mains.1 A notre avis, les points les plus importants du rapport sont les suivants: . 1. Aucun fait ne prouve que l'accusation britannique sait fondee. 2. Rien ne prouve qu'il y ait eu un mouillage de mines recent. 3. Aucun fait ne montre que l'Albanie soit responsable d'un mouillage de mines ou qu'elle ait eu connaissance d'l,m mouillage. 4. La Sous-Commission n'a pas reussi a determiner si, le 13 novembre, on a trouve ou non des mines a l'enclroit meme et dans l'etat indique par le representant britannique: 5. La question de'savoir si les mines qui ont endommage les deux destroyers britanniques le 22 octobre faisaient pame du champ de mines que l'on pretend avoir decouvert le 13 novembre, n'a pas ete elucidee. The existence of a German mine-field in the immediate vicinity of the site of the explosion is a fact; the theory that the incident was due to floating mines or mines left behind in a previously swept area cannot be excluded. The insecurity of the Albanian waters was acknowledged by the head of the British Military Mission in Albania, in a letter addressed to the Albanian High Command nine months before the British ships struck the mines; the United Kingdom representative himself, to justify th.is letter, stated before the Council that any sweeping operation, however well done, alwaYs leaves a few mines behind. The British representative denies the existence of old or floating mines and holds the incident of 22 October to be connected with the operation of 13 November; he forgets the fact that the British publication Lloyd's List is continually announcing the appearance of floating mines in waters everywhere and the damaging or sinking of ships by these mines. So far, no one has concluded from these facts that the States bordering on the waters where the mines were ,said to exist were using these mines as a weapon. On the other hand, on 22 October, British ships remained in Albanian waters for eleven consecutive hours cruising in all directions without striking the alleged mine-fields; and seven days after the incident, UNRRA ships passed through the channel without striking any mines; the British representative attributes all these facts to coincidence. The United Kingdom representative seeks to substantiate his accusation and to prove Albania responsible WIth the aid of,charts which he him,. self prepared and reports drawn up for the purpose ofthe accusation, supported by information and statements from the Greek naval allthorities -whose attitude to Albania is well known-and basing his declarations on suppositions and cui the report of Captain Mestre, which is full of contradictions.1 The confused and vague nature of Captain Mestre's report is very evident. The author does not say where·the mine-sweeping took place; he speaks vaguely of sweeping in various directions; It is worth noting iliat Captain Mestre stated that during the mine-sweeping operation he saw eight mines so closely that he was able to perceive that they had no vegetable rr.atter on their surface and that he was able to identify them as being of the GR type, whereas ten days later he stated that these same mines were of a different and larger type. There is another contradiction in the fact that in his statement of 23 Novembe.r, Captain Mestre said that darkness prevented him from landing on the Corfu coast to examine the mines, whereas in his statement of 16 November he said that two mines had been brought ashore at Corfu and he had examined one of them. The object examined was described as being of German origin and of the GR type, whereas the mines examined by experts at Malta were of the GY type. The difference between these two types is quite distinct, especially to an expert like Captain Mestre. Such.a report as the one prepared by Captain Mestre and the British authorities, one-sided and full of contradictions, cannot possibly be considered well founded and valid. Albania was denied the right to take part in the sweeping of the channel; it cannot therefore give credence to the result announced or recognize the legality of the act. One thing is certain, and I wish to emphasize it: on 12 and 13 November British ships violated Albanian sovereignty. One cannot believe the allegation that the mines are of recent origin when it is an unquestionable fact that for ten consecutive days these mines were in the hands, not of impartial authorities, but of the authors of the accusation against Albania, that is to say, the British authorities. Even if it is admitted that the mines were laid recently, it is still doubtful whether they were laid after 22 October, and more specifically, on 12 N'ovember. . The United Kingdom representative, who upholds the theory, that the mines were laid recently, does not deny that the mines, alleged to have been found on 13 November, could have ~em placed there by some other Mediterranean ~ta~e with provocative intent. If he remembered General Hodgson's secret report to his commanding officer, mentioning the entry of Greek ships .into Albanian waters, he would not speak with so much conviction of the innocence of other States so close to the area where the incident occurred. The Greek representative in his statement says th~t his' country does not possess ships capable of mine-laying and his deduction is iliat Greece apr~, il a indique ques ces memes mines etaient i'un type different et d'un volume plus grand. Une autre contradiction reside dans le fait que le capitaine de fregate Mestre, dans sa declaration du 23 novembre, nous dit qu'en raison de 1'0bscurite, il n'a pu se rendre sur la cote de Corfou pour l'examen des mines, tandis que dans sa declaration du 16 novembre, il affirme que deux mines ont ete debarquees a Corfou et qu'il en a examine une. L'engin examine a ete decrit comme etant d'origine allemande et du type GR, alors que les mines expertisees a Malte auraient ete du type GY. La difference entre ces deux types est tres nette, surtout pour un expert tel que le capitaine de fregate Mestre. Un tel rapport, partial et plein de contradictions, prepare par le capitaine de fregate Mestre et les autorites britanniques, ne peut pas du tout etre considere comme fonde et valable. Le droit de participer au nettoyage du chenal a ete denie a l'Albanie: eUe ne peut done accorder creance au resultat annonce et ne peut pas non plus reconnaitre la Iegalite d'un tel acte. Vne chose est certaine~ et j'insiste sur ce fait, c'est que, les 12 et 13 novembre, les navires britanniques ont vioIe la souverainete de l'Albanie. On ne peut ajonter foi aux allegations selon lesqueUes les mines sont recentes, alors qu'il existe un fait incontestabl~, qui est que pendant dix jours de suite, ces IPines ont ete non pas entre les mains d'autorites impartiales, mais entre les mains de l'aut~ur de l'accusation contre l'Albanie, c'est-a-dire des aut:Jrites britanniques. Meme en admettant que les mines aient ete mouilIees recemment, il est douteux qu'elles aient ete mouilIees apres le 22 octobre, et plus precisement le 12 novembre. Le representant britanirique, qui defend la these du mouillage recent, ne conteste pas que les mines' qu'on pretend avoir trouvees le 13 novembre puissent avoir ete mouillees par un autre Etat mediterraneen aux fins de provocation. S'il se souvenait du rapport secret que le general Hodgson a adresse a son superieur et dans lequel il signale l'entree de navires grecs dans les eaux albanaises, il ne parlerait pas avec tant de conviction de l'innocence des autres Etats qui se trouvent si pres,de la zone de l'incident. Le representant de la Grece, dans sa declaration,indique que son pays ne dispose pas de navires capables de mouiller des mines et il en . conclut que la Grece ne peut done pas effectuer Moreover, in 1894, the Institute of International Law laid down the principle that coastal States are not responsible for the safety of shipping within their territorial waters. Yesterday the Albanian warning to the various Governments was also invoked as an argument and, by mere hypothesis, the conclusion Nas drawn that Albania was guilty. I repeat that this warning, necessitated by continual provocations by Greek ships, was given in order to avoid undesirable incidents; I believe that my Government did no more than its duty towards others in this respect. Finally the comments made on the signals given by our port services misinterpreted these signals and even somewhat exaggerated their importance. Those who know the state of our ruined ports are well aware of the nature of our signalling equipment. I wish to emphasize again that this equipment consists of nothing more than ordinary signals to guide ships entering our ports. I must point out that two members of the factfinding Sub-Committee noted that nothing new had come to light in the course of their work; they stated that twenty-two mines had been laid recently, within the last six months, that they were moored by cables and that the min,es found on 22 October were part of 'the mine-field alleged to have been found on 13 NovemL'CI'. These conclusions are based on suppositions and on the British reports and charts, as well as on Captain Mestre's report; these documents2 are so unreliable that the Security Council itself did not consider them eonvincing, and the Sub- Committee did not check them. Moreover, although the Central Mine Clearance Board proclaimed the mine-sweeping operations performed by Great Britain to be illegal, as is confirmed by the records, two members of the Sub-CoIl!ffiittee considered the operation proper ,'. D'rl.Utre part, bien que le Bureau central de deminage ait proclame illegales les operations de deminage effectuees par la Grande-Bretagne, ainsi 'que I'attestent les proces-verbaux, les deux membres de la Sous-Commission ont cortsidere 1 Voir les Prl!Jc~s·verbaux officiels du Conseil de secu;.ite, Deuxieme Annee, Supplement No 10, Annexe 22, Appendice H: Reponse,du representant de la Grece a la questiOl1 No 45 posee par l~ ~epresentant de la Pologne. The British Government claims that Albania knew of the swept channels. Not only has Albania not received the charts mentioned, but those which General Hodgson sent to our General Staff upon their'request are charts prepared exclusively by British Admiralty experts and not by an international maritime organization, which would entitle them to be considered official. With regard to the method followed by Gr.eat Britain in sweeping the' channel and aU its arbitrary' and biased acts, I think the Security Council will readily understand how the aim of the accusation levelled at Albania is linked with the attitude adopted by the British Government~ This attitude of the British Government has sometimes been conSidered irrelevant to the problem with which the Council is concerned. To consider these facts irrelevant and the result of a mere oversight is to ignore the records of the Regional Mine Clearance Board and the denial regarding the British Government's arbitrary action, which was published by the Central Board in London. How is one to interpret the opposition raised, without any valid reason, by the British representative on the .Mediterranean Board to the suggestion that being a coastal State, Albania be invited? How is one to explain the ~ritish representative's insistence that sovereignty within the territori91 waters of a sovereign State-Al- Cette attitude du Gouvernement britannique a ete consideree parfois comme etrangere au probleme dont se preoccupe le Conseil. Considerer ces faits comme etrangers et comme resultant d'un simple oubli, c'est nier le contenu des proces-verbaux du Bureau regional de demmage, c'est nier le.dementi publie par le Bureau central de Londres a propos de I'acte arbitraire du Gouvernement britannique. Comment peut-on interpreter I'opposition faite, sans aucune raison valable, par le representant britannique devant le Bureau mediterraneen a ce que l'Albanie, en tant qu'Etat riverain, soit invitee? Comment peut-on expliquer I'insistance du representant britannique pour que la souverainet6 sur les eaux territoriales d'un Etat souverain, l'Albanie, soit confiee a la Grece? Comment peut-on expliquer la non-acceptation de la' proposition albanaise tendant a creer une commission mixte qui aurait eu pour bania~hould.be entrusted to Greece? How is one to explain the non-acceptance of the Albanian proposal to set up a joint committee, for the purpose either of indicating the normal shipping channel or of clearing that channel? missi(H~, soit de designer la voie normale de navigation, soit d'effectuer le nettoyage du chenal? Can the British Government's attitude be Peut~on considerer comm.e juste I'attitude du considered fair when it did not even deign to Gouvernement britannique lorsqu'il n'accepte reply to the Albanian communication indicating meme pas de repondre a la communication de that country's desire to be notified of the pasl'Albanie indiquant le desk de ce pays d'etre sage of foreign ships through its territorial waters, renseign~ sur le passage des navires etrangers a communication' which it addreSsed to all the dans ses eaux territoriales (communication representatives of foreign cOUhtries at Tiranaadressee a taus les representants des pays etrllnthe United States, Yugoslavi~;· the Union of gem a Tirana: Etats-Unis, Yougoslavie, Union Soviet Socialist Republics, France-and when, de Republiques socialistes sovietiques, France) instead, the Britisli' fleet not only.makcil illegal et lorsque, au lieu de cela, la flotte britannique .passages through these waters but also performs se livre non seulement a des passages illegaux, such operations as it pleases. mais a. des operations selon S'~ propres d6sirs? To, infringe the sovereignty of a State is to Porter atteinte a la souverainete d'un Etat, , violate internatio~a1 regulations and to. create ':~est passer outre aux regles internationales; c'est conflicts deliberately between nations, instead of vouloir creer des conflits entre nations; ce n'est working for peace. ·This is how Great Britam has pas travailler dans l'interet. de la paix. La acted. Grande-Bretagne a agi de cette maniere~ I wish to remmd you again that the S~preme Je veux vous rappeler'de :tlouveau que la Cour Court ofAppeal of France; on 13 Apri11923, the de .cassation de FraJice, le 13 avril 1923, la Cout Supr.eme.Court ofthe-Ynited",Statts· of America·' ;supt.&ne-ges .Etats"Utlis..,d'.Amerique,.le ·26M-· -" on 26 November 1918 and The Hague Confervembre 1918, et la Conference de La Haye pour ente for the Codification of Internatiofial Law in la codificatio:tl du droit international, en 1930, When we speak of violation of sovereignty and provocations br Grea.t Britain, some people might give these arguments the same interpretation as that given by the United Kingdom representative, namely, that that was precisely why Albania took defence measures by laying a minefield. I can tell you one thing: such acts a...... closely linked with Great Britain's policy. The ..l\lbanian Govcrnlnent had no need to take such measures; it knew-and still knows perfectly well -that a body called the United Nations exists to defend the rights of peoples; Albania did not fail to apply to that body, in its letter of 29 October 1946, asking for steps to be taken against those who had infringed her sovereignty. Why no action was taken on the Albanian request is still a mystery to our Government. The fact that Great. Britain systematically denies and opposes the most elementary rights of a sovereign State like Albania is not a matter of secondary importance, nor is it an irrelevant factor in the problem; on the contrary, such a fact throws sufficient light and clearly explains the purpose of the British accusation. At the Security Council's meeting of 19 February we presented detailed documentation on Great Britain's attitude.l I consider it my duty to draw the Security Council's attention fbr the third titne to the fact that the accusation is no more than the result of that attitude and is not merely a matter of money. Great Britain, by its provocations and by its support of Greek claims in Southern Albania, by opposing Albania's rights at the Paris Conference, by adopting an unjust attitude at the time of the discussion on Albania's admission to the United Nations,2 also by supporting Albanian war criminals and quislings, and now by bringing this. accusation before you, has shown its unfriendly attitude to the new Albanian democracy. Another important fact brought to light in the course of the Sub-Committee's work is that the United Kingdom representative, in answer to a question on the origin of the mines alleged to have been found in the channel, expressed doubts with regard to Yugoslavia, upon whose territory three depots containing mines of this same type were said to'have been found, whereas Italy, .which possesses mines of this type, is not involved betatiSe its fieetis undet nritish control. iI09.th tIi~tilig-:-see otiiCiil.1 Recorils of the Seeu,-ity Coilne.l, Second Year, No. 16. '55th meeung-'-See Ibid., First Year, SeCond Series, No. 4, page 68. Grande-Bretagne~ il se peut qu~on donne a ces arguments la meme interpretation qu'en a donnee le representant du Royaume-Uni, a savoir que l'Albanie a pris pour ces raisons-la des mesures de defense en mouillant un champ de mines. Je puis vous dire une chose: de tels actes sont lies 6troitement a la politique de la Grande- Bretagne. Le Gouvernement albanais n'avait pas besoin de prendre de telles mesures: il savait (et il sait tres hien) qU'il existe une Organisation des Nations Unies qui defend les droits des peuplcs; il n'a pas manque de s'adresser a elle pour demander, par letire en date du 29 octobre 1946, que des mesures fussent prises contre ceux qui avaient porte 9.ttdnte a notre souverainete. La raison pour laquelle on n'a pas donne suite a la demande albanaise reste encore un mystere pour notre Gouvernement. Le fait que la Grande-Bretagne nie et combat systematiquement les droits les plus 6lementaires d'un Etat souverain tel que I'Albanie n'est ni une question de second ordre, ni un element etranger au probleme; au contrairt:, ce fait met suffisamment en lumiere et explique clairement le but de I'accusation britannique. A la seance du 19 f6vrier, nous vons avons presente en detail des documents sur I'attitude de la Grande-Bretagnel • Je considere de mon devoir d'attirer I'attention du Conseil de securite, pour la troisieme fois, sur le fait que l'accusation n'est que le resultat de cette politique, et qu'il ne s'agit pas ici d'une simple somme d'argent. En provoquant et en soutenant les revenditations de la Grece sur le sud de l'Albanie, en s'opposant aux droits de l'Albanie lors de la Conference de Paris, en adoptant une attitude injuste au moment de la discussion sur l'admission de l'Albanie aux Nations Unies2, en soutenant aussi les criminels de guerre et les quislings albanare, et en portant aujourd'hui cette accusation devant veus, la Grande-Bretagne a demonLfe son attitude inamicale a l'egard de la nouvelle democratie albanaise. Un autre fait important, signale pendant les travaux de la Sous-Commission, est que le representant du Royaume-Uni, en reponse aune question sur la provenance des mines qu'on pretend avoir trouvees dans le chenal, a declare avoir des doutes au sujet de la Yougoslavie sur le territoire de laquelle se trouveraient trois dep6ts de mines de ce meme type, alors que l'ItaHe, qui possede des mines du me~etype, est exdue de I'affaire parce que sa £lotie se trouvesoUScontr81e bri- 1 10geme s~ance.. Voir .1es Proeis-verbaux officiels du Gonseit de securitt!, Deli:ideme Annee, No 16. - The work that the Council has done up to now shows that the United Kingdom accusation has no longer any foundation; none of the facts and arguments upon whi,.\ it was based have been proved correct. The British accusation is groundless, and the resolution presented by the United Kingdom representative is meaningless. We consider that there is no other course open to th~ Security Council but to pronounce itself in favour of outright rejection of the British complaint. At the same time, we declare once more that the illegal acts committed by the British Government in violating our territorial waters are still going on. At 12 noon on 13 March a tanker, which was not flying a flag, proceeding from the direction of Italy, entered Albanian waters in Valona Bay. The Albanian delegation thinks that all these facts should be taken into consideration by the Security Council and the necessary measures adopted. As regards Albania's attitude, which was referred to yesterday, we declare that it is a straightforward and normal one for a country anxious to maintain good relations with all States; but I doubt if Great Brit'ain's political attitude towards a small nation like Albania has changed.

I wish to remind the members of the Security Council of the position taken by the Soviet delegation when the Council adopted the decision to appoint the Sub- Committee, which report we are discussing. The Soviet delegation held the view that thl'.! question brought before the ~ecurity Council by the Government of the United Kingdom had been raised artificially and that it did not merit consideration by the Council. The first stage of the discussion of this question in the Council confirmed the correctness of the position taken by the Soviet delegation. The representative of the United Kingdom was unable to bring forward any proofs which would constitute a basis for the charge against Albania. It was clear to the Soviet delegation even then that the appointment of any sort of sub-committee for supplementary study of the matter could not brh'1g us any further, and, in any case, could not afford us any new proofs in substantiation of the position of the United IDngdom Government. Today we are discussing the results of the work of the Sub-Committee. What were these results? If we study attentively the report submitted by the Sub-Committee, 'We shall see that there is nothing oi substance in that report such as would constitute even in the smallest degree a basis for Comment a travaille la Sous-Commission et queUes sont les conclusions qui s'imposent a la fin des travaux de cette Sous-Commission? Comme nous 1'0nt appris les declarations du President de la Sous-Commission, M. Zuleta Angel, ainsi que les interventions de ses membres, MM. Lange et Hasluck, les representants du Royaume-Uni et de l'Albanie ant repete devant la Sous-Commission ce qu'ils avaient dit au cours de la premiere phase de l'examen de cette question. Le representant du Royaume-Uni a essaye de demontrer que l'Albanie etait coupable. Le representant de l'Albanie a soutenu que la plainte britannique n'etait pas justifiee et a presente des faits qui confirment le bien-fonde de la these du Gouvernement albanais. La SOl;S- Commission a pris acte des declarations des representants des deux pays et s'en est tenue la. Les representants du Royaume-Uni ont soumis a la Sous-Commission certams documents qui, a leur avis, sont censes renfo:rcer la position britannique dans cette question et etayer l'accusa- - tion contre l'Albanie1• Cependant, ces documents ont ete etablis uniquement par les Britanniques. Ni le Bureau international de deminage ni·aucun autre organisme international n'a participe a la preparation de ces documents. De.plus, ces documents se composent en grande partie de cartes schematiques qui, d'apres le.s Britanniques, doivent montrer la disposition du champ de mines, la route suivie par les. navires de guerre, le lieu de l'accident, etc. QueUe que soit la valeur 'artistique de leur )resentation, ces documents additionnels peuventils constituer une preuve tant soit peu convaincante que l'Albanie est responsable de l'accident survenu aux destroyers britanniques? Non, bien entendu. De tels documents ne peuvent constituer une preuve tant soit peu convaincante et Ieur valeur n'est pas grande, ni pour la Sous-' Commission ni pour le Conseil de securite. C'est pourquoi je comprends que la Sous-Commission se soit abstenue de faire· une deduction quel- 1 Voir les Proces-verbaux officiels du Comeil de sectlritt!, Deuxieme Annee, Supplement No 6, Annexe 15 et Supplement No 10,. Annexe 23. ~ontinue in this way and to accuse Albania. If, however, the Security Council really de&ires to arrive at a just decision on this question, it will have to undertake an impartial analysis of all the facts and circumstances connected with the incident and, only after that has been don~,·to draw definite conclusions. Although the experts disagree op. that point, the representative of the United Kingdom has asserted that the mines could not be old o~es, but that they w«<re new ones which had not been in the water for more than six Jl1onths. He has also asserted that the mines which caused damage to the British destroyers could not have drifted from any other al'ea, but must undoubtedly have peen laid at the ptace wltere the ~xplQsions occl.Il'!'ed. Why they could not have qrift~dfrom some other ~rea, ~~ why tlley c01,1ld npt be plci on~ rem$- mg for ~~ance from oldmine-fielcls sown by the Germans, is incomprehensible. Sir Alexander Cadogan said yesterday that per- 4aps mathematicians could prove how two mines could <kift from some other area precisely to the place where the two destroyers were damaged.l Possibly the mathematicia~ Can in fact help Sjr Alexander and prove that such a possibility is not out of the question. In any event, whether or not mathematicians can assist the United Kingdom representative, it is true to say that mine experts and specialists can certainly be of some help. I wish to draw attention to the fact that, in the discussion of this question py the Mediterranean Zone Mine Clearance Bo~d, immediately after the British destroyers we~e damaged, even the United StateS and Greek representatives admitted that the mines might be old, and not newly me~t prendre un,e dec~sion equitable dans cett<: affaire, il doit etudier d'~emaniere objective tous ks faits et toutes les circonstances qui ~ rapportent a I'incident et ce n'est qu'ensuite qu'il pourra conc1ure. Quoique les opinions des experts divergent sur ce point, le representant du Royaume-Uni a affirn\~ 9ue les mmes ne pouv~ent etre ~. . cie~es, qu'elles etaient neuves et .n~etaient P3$ immergees depuis plus de six mois. n a affirme que les mines qui ont endommage les destI:<"1'S britanniques ne pouvaient etre ven.ues ala dt:Y';" et qu'eUes avaient ete necessairement mouillees a l'endroit ou les destroyers ont ete endom·· qlages. On ne comprend pas pourquoi ces mines ne pourraient etre venues ala derive, cl'un autre endroit, n.i pourquai eUes ne pourraient etre anciennes et representer, par exemple, les restes d'anciens champs de mines mouilles par les Allemands. Sir Alexander Cadogan a dit hier que des matllematiciens pourraient peut-etre demontrer co~ent deux mines venant d'un autre endroit ava.ient pu se trouver precisement sur le lieu de l'acc~~ent survenu aux destroyersl, Peut-etre d~ mathematiciens pou:rr~ent-ils reellement venir en aide a Sir Alexander en prouvant qu'une telle possibili~e n'est pas exc1ue. Quoi qu~il en soit, que les mathematiciens soient capables ou non cl'aider le representant du Royaume-Uni, il est certah" en tout cas, que les experts et les spe· cialistes en matiere de mines peuvent nt:ms etre de que1que utilite. Je voudrais attirer votre attention sur le fait que, lors de l'-examen de cette question par l~ :aureau de deminage de l~ zone mediterraneenne, immediate~ent apr~ l'accident survenu a~ destroyers britanniques, les representants des Etats-Unis et de la Grece eux-memes (lnt admis The British representative has neither proved, nor been able to prove, that the mines were in fact not old ones. Let us, however, take for granted that the mines were in facLnot old~ but new ones. Let us take for granted that this was so and that it Was necessary to decide who laid those new mines. What reason have we for agreeing with the asserti()ns of the representative of the United Kingdom that the mines were laid by Albania, or with Albania's knowledge? It is evident from the speeches made by the British experts in the Sub-Committee that some sort of Admetton~ qu'il en soit ainsi et qu~il s;agisse de savoir qui a mouille ces nouvelles mines.. QueUe raison avons.,.nous d'accepter l'affirmation du, representant, du Rayaume..Uni, .selon laquelle ces mines auraient ete mouilIees par l'Albanie, ·011 au sude I'Albanie? 11 ressort des declarations faites par les experts brittaniques a la Sous- Itha.."l been p(\in~ed out in other statements by the United Kingdom representatives that minelaying is a comparatively easy operation and only takes about a total of fifteen minutes. At the same time the United Kingdom representatives continue to state that it was impossible to lay mines without being seen by the Albanians. If mines can be laid in fifteen,minutes, it may be assumed that over a period of several months fifteen minutes might be found during which a guard on the shore might not observe ships laying mines. It has l!!ometimes been said that the coast of Albania is gt ,~ded so vigilantly that nobody is able to approach those shores. But of what avail is ~~ilance in guarding the shores when the country has no navy for guarding them? If, according to the British expert, fifteen minut~ are sufficient to enable anyone wishing to do so, to lay the mines, if any mines were laid at all, it"is possible in the course of several months to find not one, but sev~al periods of .fifteen minutes. Sir Alexander Cadogan expressed the idea yes- , terday that the Albanian Government harbours such hatred for Great Britain tqat, prompted by no other motive, Albania is capable of resorting to such steps as the laying of mines against British . ships. If we are to talk of hatred, which I trunk ' is not quite, appropriate, the Soviet delegation ~onsiders that it is still unknown which side harbours more hatred towards the other. It seems to me that we should be nearer the troth if we reversed that formula. Sir Alexander Cadogan could have recourse to such, an argument only beca~se no more convincing arguments were ,available; , " The. Soviet delegation has already drawn the attention of the SecuntyCouncil to the fact that 'the British strained every effort to get Albania excluded from partiCipation in. the work of Mine Clearance, Organization. All attempts by the Soviet and. certain other representatives on the Mediterranean Zone Mine Clearance Board to convince the.llritish repre..,-entative that A1baW?l,"~ participation ,woUld be in the futereats notonly ,pf Albania but allio of' Great Britain itself and othe;j' coun,triesmet 'Withfailure. The BritishrepreF/.ti" tative always metwjth,the:support.of the (}tetk ,]~ Bureau de,derilinage' de la zone mediterra- , ~,~ellilr. , pour., persuader le representant' britan· niqd:<;.«iue l'adnUssion de l'Alba.nie n'etaiC'pas seulemeut dans l'interet de l'Albartie mais aussi dansceluide la Grande-Bretagne elle-meme et cl'autres pays, ont ete,vaines.• Danscette question, {e,representant britannique a toujours eul'appui all t-epresentant grec. Le Conseil desecurite sait qu'a la suite decetteopposition, l'f\1,banie n'a ..... r~preeentati.~~itrthisqu~tion:Asaresult, as ~e . SectirityCouncil' js;·,aware,Albania wasuot ado mitted to the,.Medite;-rl'aneau Zone Mine.Cleara anceBoarrl, and the remarkable decision, was th~ :British with the support of the representatives of other countries, who were at best mdifferent to this question. The responsibility for the security of the waters was not laid on the country which should by rights have borne such responsibility. Consequently, it is necessary to ask the Briti.~ Par consequent, c'est aux Britanniques, dont whose warships made themselves at home in the les navires se conduisaient en maitres. dans le Straits of Conu and often in Albanian territorial I detroit de Corfou et souvent meme dans les eaux waters-and the Greeks must also be asked-:how it is that, instead of responsibility, there was irresponsibility in the Straits of Corfu. If mines were actually laid in the Straits of Corfu, and if ',a mine-field was actually found there, then those who made themc;elves at home in those waters should take responsibility for the fact that t1.ley did not, as a result of their management, fUlfil their obligations and duties, although they assumed that responsibility by depriving Albania ,0,£ its legal rights to answer for the security of these waters. In this connexion I wish to recall a fact to which the representative of Albania has already ,drawn attention, and which became known only a few days ago. On i5 March 1947 a telegram was received from General Hoxha, Prime Minister of Albania, in which it was stated that an unknown vessel had approached the coast of Albania,violating her territorial waters, and .it was indicated that the vessel came frum the coast of Italy,1 This. occurred at a time when we were considering the United .Kingdom camplaintin the Security Council. If an unknown foreign ves~ sel can violate the territorial waters and sov.;. ereignty of Albania in broad daylight, can there be any sort of guarantee, that that has not occurred often, ,particularly at night when, as our A ce propos, je voudrais rappeler un fait, deja signale par le representant de l'Albanie et qtrl u·estconnu que depuis quelques jours. Un t6l6- gramme du general Hoxha, Prlsident du Conseil de l'Albanie, nollS est parVenu le 15 mars 1947, teIegramme clans lequel 'on nous communiqual't qU'W1 navirc Jlconnu avait approche de la c8te albanaise en violant les eaux territoriales de l'Albanie...On precisait que ce navrre venait des cotes italiennes1• Voila un fait qui seproduit pendant que nous sommes en train d'examiner, au Conseil, la plainte du Royaume-Uni. Si un navire etranger inconnu a pu, en plein jour, violer les eaux territoriales et la, souverainete de l'Albanie, pouvons-nous etre sftrs.que des faits d~ ce genre ne se sont pas produits souvent, et notamment la nuit,.lorsque l'Albanie, comme.le boa sens nollS l'indique, ne peut proteger ses eaux d'une fa~on satisfaisante, fante de. moyens, surtout si le temps est mauvais et les autres circon-: stances defavorabJes? Nul besoin d'etre UIl expert pour s'en .rendre compte. On sait bien. queUes sont les autorites occupantes. qui ekercent le controle en Italie. Peut-etre ces autorites nous ex.. pliqueront-elles pDurquoi les eaux territoriales albanaises ont ete violees dans un but de provocation, par un navire etra.nger, aumoment meme Oll le Conseil de securite examine ce probleme. ~ommon sense tells us~ Albania is unable for the ~ost part to guard its waters, since it, has no pleans of doing so, especially when the' weather and other factors are unfavourable? It is not ~ecessary'to be a specialist to re~e that~ It is ~ell known whose occupying forces exercise c;ontrol in Italy. Ped"d.ps they will explain to us why a' provocative act of violation was comrilitted by foreign vessels in Albanian territorial waters at dte very moment thatthis question was be4J.g discussed in the Security Council. "'. In the past~ acts ~f violation ofAlbanjan ter-' ritorial w~ters have taken place often enough. 1'hese wateJ;s hare been violated by British arid preek ships. Who knows but perhaps other. ships ~o entered these waters under the con&:on8 ~tablished 'by the British authorities? Some of ~ese factS are not diSput~d even by the British ttTritqriales albanaises, et c'est aux Grecs qu'il faut demander d'expliquer comment, dans le detroit de COrfou, la responsabilite a fait place al'irresponsabilite. Si des mines ont ete effectivement mouillees dans le detroit de Corfou, si c'est un champ de mines qu'on a effectivement trouve, ceux qui se sont conduits en, maitres dans ces eaux doivent repondre du fait qu~ils ne se wnt pas acquittes de leufs obligations et fonctions, bien qu'ils eussent ar::sume cette responsabilite en privant l'Albanie de son droit legitime de garantir la securite des ces eaux. Les cas de violation des eaux albanaises ont ete assez frequents dans le passe. Pes caux ont ete violees par des navires britanniques et grecs. Peut-etre, qui s~t, d'autres naviresencore yontils penetre a la faveur de l'et..t de choses creepar les .autorites britanniques. Certains. de ces. faits', meme lesBri.tanniques·nelescontestent pas. Les i Voir les Proces-verbauxo(fiCiels all. Conseil dt stic1i.rite, Deuxieme Annee, Suppl~ment No 10, Annexe 25. d. state of affairs, as that is a separate and a wider question. I have only recalled it because the question we are considering, although a comM paratively restricted one, is undoubtedly bound up with the general question of AlbanianMBritish relations. It has a definite political background which, if taken into comideration will enable us to understand this question better and to draw more correct conclusions. Albania, aswe are aware, wants and asks nothing from the United Kingdom. Albania is interested in only one thing, that the British should not consider Albanian territory as their own te1riM tory and Albanian waters as British waters, and that they should not prevent the Albanians from conducting their own affairs and from acting in their own country as they like, and not as the British might like. ~e Albanians do not contemplate giving advice to the, British Government regarding the affairs of Great Britain, but the Albanians have a lawful desire that the British should also not inteifere in their affairs and should not try to enforce their will in any quesM tions affecting the SQvereignty of Albania and the Albanian people. The Albanian representative stated here that Alb~a desires to maintain friendly relations with all countries, including the ,Unite,d Kingdom. Conseque~tly, the matter rests with the latter and not with Albilnia. There has been much, talk here of the evid~'lce 9f a French office~-and expert. I have studied the - evidence of that French officer who, accm'ding to himself and to the British, was present at minesweeping operations in the Straits of Corfu on 13 ~ovember. This evidence is full of contradictions and inaccuracies. I have no doubt that other representatives on $e Council .have noticed, if they have read his e~dence carefully, these inaccuracies and contradictions. ' These contradicti9ns and btaccuracies are ofa two-fold character. In the first place, the French I expert c9ntradicts hhnself on certain questions, plthough on certain occasions, he says. that his Prst conclusi()~ and statements were erroneQus and that the later oneS were more exact. For example,hedeals with the question of determiningthe typeQf ~;(;; ~;ud to havebeen.foul1d in ,the Straits of Corfu un. 13 November. In his report, prepared afte-r me mine-sweeping operation of. 13 November: {z:,e r;ef,;.'ttcd to one type of mine.and l;;rte,l" 4~ ~aid tl;!~\,~t ~:'.'. 11~~a~ he had examined mines ef another -rype. In his statee L'Albanie, on le sait, n'a rien a demander au Royaume-Uni et ne lui demande ricn. L'Albanie ne s'interesse qu'a une chose: que les Britanniques ne considerent pas le territoire albanais comme leur propre territoire, ni les eaux territoriales albanaises commc leurs propres eaux, qu'i!s laissent les Albanais s'occuper de leurs afft,lire5 et se conduire chez ea.", comme bon leur semble et non pas comme il plait aux Britanniques. LesAlbanais n'ont pas l'intention de donner des conseils au Gouvernement britannique en ce qui concerne l'etat de choses en Grande-Bretagne; mais en revanche, les Albanais veulent a hon droit que les Britaimiques n'interviennent pas dans des affaires qui ne les concement point, et qu'Us ne cherchent pas aimposer leur volonte danS des questions, queUes qu'elles soient, qui touchent ala souverainete de I'AlbarJe et du peuple albanais~ Le representant de l'Albanie a declare ici que son pays voulait entretenir des relations amicales avec tous les pays ycompris le Royaume-Uni. Par consequent, c'est it. ce dermer pays d'agir dans 'ce seils. On a souvent cite ici les. constatations faites par un expert fran~ais) un officier de marine. J'ai pris connaissance des conclusions d<.. l'officier fran~a,is q11i" selon ses propres decl~tions ~ aux dires des autorites britanniques~ a assiste aq dragage des mines dans le. c:letrqit de Carfou le 13 novembre. Ces conclusio~sont pleinC$ de; contradictions et d'inex~ctitud~et je suis cert~ que d'~utres membres du Con,seil, s'ils ont l~ attentivement ce document, ont remarque c~ contradi~tionset ces ine"a.~titudes. CeIles"ci sont de deux sortes. En premier lieu, !'expert fran~ais se contrecUt lui-meme sur pIusieurs points, bien qu'il dise parfois que ses premieres con~lusions et d~ciarations etaient ".r- \ fonces et que les suivantes sont plus exactes. C'~ ce qu'il fait par exemplle quand il s'agit de p~c. elser It? type de$~es qu'on aurait dragueeS le;, 13novembre clans le dlStroit de·Corfou. Dans la . declarationqu~il a faite apres le deminage dn 13 novembre, il pafled'un certain type de mirie; par la suite, II indique qu'ila examine 'a, Malte des tnin~ ~'un type;: differ~nt. Sa d~~la.ration contient UIl certroo, l'lombr-e d'aflirmationsin,;, \.:.sterday Sir Alexander Cadogan, in speaking Dans son intervention d'hier, Sir Alexander about the French expert's evidence, said he did so Cadogan, apropos des conclusions presentees par because he wished to defend an allied officer and l'expert frangais, a dit que s'il en parlait, c'etait his prestige. I do not think that such compli- ~ussi parce qu'il desirait elefendre un officier ments addressed to the French officer can in any allie et sauvegarder sa reputation. Je ne crois way strengthen the position of the representative pas que de pareils compliments a l'adresse d'un of theUnited Khlgdom. I assumethat the French officier frangais puissent renforcer en quoi que representative on the Security Council and the ce soit la position du representant du Royaume- French delegation will consider all these ques- Uni. Je pense egalement que le representant de nons on a proper ba.sis as a matter of principle la France, ainsi que la delegation frangaise au and will not descend to a level where the French Conseil de securite, envisagera toutes ces quesdelegation could let its conclusions be goverued tions comme des qu~tions de prin<ipe, ce qu'elles by considerations of prestige, whether of an indisont en efIet, et qu'il ne s'abaissera pas a baser vidual French expert Qr of an expert· of any ses conclusions sur des considerations telles que other country. la reputation d'un expert, frangais ou autr~. I cannnt refrain from dealing briefly with the Je ne puis m'empecher de dire deux mots ~ speech made by the representative of Australia; propos de la deClaration du representant de It was, as we lmow, theAust.r.alian representative I'Australie. C'est le representant australien, on who put forward the idea of appointing a Suble sait, qui a eu l'idee de erecr une Sous-Commis- Commitee for further investigation of this quession chargee de proceder a un examen compMrion. He found the facts insufficient. It would mentaire de la question. n manquait de faits. A seem that as a result of the Sub-Committee's la suite des travaux de la Sous-Commission, le work, the Australian representative has had to lepresentant australien a dO., me semble-t-il, se realize that no new facts have been brought convaincre qu'il n'y a pas de nouveaux faits. Au forward. In the Sllb~Committeethe Australian sem de la Sous-Commission, le representant ausrepresentative tried to argue that there are no tralien a tente de prouver qu'il n'existait pas de fa~ts which could refute the British complaint. faits contredisant'la plainte britannique. Mais, . But since the complait was lodged by the United' . comme c'est le Royaume-Uni qui a porte plainte Kingdom and, the onus is upon Great Britain to et que c'est alu1. par consequent, qu'il appartient prove the correctness of her complaint or her de demontrer le bien-fonde de sa plainte OU de accusations;' I think that the Australian represenses accusations, le representant australien a eu tative was rigltt in rejec:ting the theory that it raison d'abaudonner la theorie seIon laquelle cc was not for the British to prove that their case n'est pas aux Britanniques de prouver le bienwas well-founded but for the others to refute the fonde de leur, plamte, mais aux autres de refuter British argumentS, a fact wh{ch the Australian les argument~britanniques, .arguments que le representative accepts as a postulate not rl"'quirrepresentantaustralien acceptecpmme un axi9me ing proof. . ne necessitant pas de demonstration. Despite tl,1e fact. that the. Sub-Committe~ has Bien que la .SOtls-Commission n'ait·tr~~vt not found any further n~N and convincing facts al1:cun fait nouvea,u et convaincant pouva,nt co~­ confirming the charges brought by the United fir.mer les accusations portces par le Royaume- Kingdom, the AustraUan representl,ltive is in,. llni, le representant de IjAustralie, pour une r~. elined for sOme reason to consider ·the British SOIl ou pour une autre, ~t parte acroire que·~~ charges to be, generally spe~g,correct.Such accusations britamrlques sont fOIidees dans ren- . a conclusion could only 1;>e the reswt of a illsselrt"t, ):.e ~epI'esenltant de l'Australie n'a pu .regard of the facts on the part of ~e representaan··.: J. nne t~lle (:olJ..cl~on iju'en ne ten~~ tive of Australia. Even accustomed as one is to pas <;ou,l.pte des faits. Meme lo:rsqu'on a, l'habi,. t;b.e c~:ntr~cij9tiQ~ in, the·p6siti.o~ of$e Australtud,e. cie voir les repr~en~~llts. del'A~tia.U~ iap representatives, it is ~poS$ible not to take ~doit>~er uneattitude pleine de <:ontradictioIllS, ~. note of the very strange logic Qf· therepresen~a.. ne l)Cut"manqueroe reIever l'tEtrangete du J:'~ uveo! Alilstraliainthisc~.This attitude is not SOnIll~mentque suit, daIlS le cas present, le repre:.. __ cm I would like to hope that it is the first idea which I mentioned in connexion with Mr. Zuleta Angel's speech which is the dominant one in Iris conception, that is to say that there are no facts at the disposal of the Security Council which can confirm that Albania itself was guilty of laying the mines, if any mine-laying at all took place. Mr. Zul~ta Angel said that it could hardly be admitted that the United "Kingdom itself had laid the mines, counting, for instance, on receiving financial compensation from Albania. But that reasoning,is not convincing, even if only for the reason that there are other countries in the world besides the United Kingdom and Albania. Furthermore, there are, for instance, countries in which emigrant groups carry on hostile work and definite hostile activities towards certain countries, including Albania and Yugoslavia. That must not be disregarded either. The statement that it is inadmissible that the United Kingdom should have laid'these mines for a mercenary purpose explains p.othing. Against that, the analogouscounter-argumen~ can be advanced: why should Albania proceed to lay mines and thus lay itself open to accusations and make itself liable t(. an investigation of these accusations in the United Nations? What interest could Albania have in that? ~'O~'ga!lisation des Nations Unles? Quel interet j' <i.i,.,~,',I:-el1e? The investigation of this question in the L'examen de cette question par le Conseil de Security Council do~ not confirm the British securite ne confirme pas les accusati0Ill? portees . charges made against Albania. On the contrary, par les. Britanniques· contre l'Albanie. Les faits. the facts which have 'come to ligh~ confirffithe qui. ontete mis en lumiere prouvent, au conoppos~te, namely" that$e British charges are traire, queles accusations britanniques manquent entirely .unfounded. The;Soviet delegation coh, absolument de fondemen~. La delegation sovieSsidersthat as the cha~'gesare unfounded, they I tiqueestime idonc que, puisque ces accusations d'adm~ttre que le Royaume-Uni ait procede lui-meme au mpuillage des mines en comptant, par exemple, recevoir une compensation pecuniaire de l'Albanie. Mais ce raisonnement n'est pas convaincant, ne serait-ce que parce que le Royaume-Uni et l'Albanie ne sont pas les seuls pays du monde; il y en a bien d'autres. n y a meme des pays Oll des groupes d'emigres se livrent a une activitehostile et commettent des actes hostiles a regard de certains pays, dont l'Albanie et la Yougoslavie, C'est la egalement un fait qu'il ne faut pas perdre de vue. Dire qu'.on ne peut admettre que le Royaume-Uni ait pose ces mmes avec une arriere-pensee il1teressee, c'est la une .affirmation qui n'explique rien. A cet argument, on peut opposer un argument de mfune nature: pourquoi I'Albanie aurait-elle ':,;mb poser des mines en s'exposal1t ainsi a des ';:I.:f,mat!/I;1S et a fexamen de ces accusations par

The Belgian delegation, in its desire to remain impartial, preferred to wait until the examination of the case in the Security Council enabled the two parties to explain in detail the circumstances of the dispute and their respective interpretations of it. The Belgian delegation considers that as a result of the mine-sweeping operations of 13 November 1946, it is established that a minefield was secretly laid in the Corfu Channel. This fact in itself is too serious for the Security Council, having been seized of. it, to confine itself to place that affair on record as an insoluble mystery and to dismiss the two parties with a recommendation to agree between themselves. Apart from the question of· just reparation for the damage caused, it is the Council's duty to prevent, as far as lies within its power, the repetition of similar incidents of a nature to endanger peace and security. The Belgian delegation, moreover, considers it established that the mine-field, the existence of which was revealed by the sweeping operations of 13 November, was sitUated in waters to which the Albanian Government desired to prohibit free access by foreign ships, British ships in particular, and over which it therefore exercised a close vigilance which was made all the easier by the geographical[ conditions and short distances. In these circumstances, the Belgian delegation, .whilst noting that no direct evidence has been adduced to prove that theInines were laid by the :Albanian Government, cannot conceive that these mines were laid without that Government's knowledge:

Mr. Gromyko seems rather surprised at my saying.that I would accept ~e decision of the majority. That is a habit we have in my country, Colombia, and I do not want to. lose it here. I made a sharp distinction between two points: first the accusation that Albania is responsible for having laid mines, and second, the accusation that the mine..'l cannot have been laid without the ;Albanian Government's knowledge. Je fais une distinction tres nette entre,d'une part, l'accusation seIon laquelle l'Albanie serait responsable d'avoir mouilIe des mines et, d'autre part, I'accusation selon laquelle les mines n~ont pu etfe mouillees a l'insu du Gouvernement albanais. En ce qui <;:oncern,e la 'premiere accusation; j'ai declare que jen'avais pas de preuves suffisantespour voter en faveur d'une proposition reconnabsant ,le bien-fonde ..de.<;ette accusation, mais fro. ajoute qu'en ce qui· concerne la tr • t As regards the first accusation, I stated that I had not sufficient proof to vote in favour of a proposal recognizing this accusation to be well founded; but.as regards the second accusation, that the mines could not have bt..m laid without M. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgique): La delegation beIge, dans un souci d'impartialite, a voulu attendre, pour s'exprimer a son tour, que I'instruction de l'affaire au seindu Conseil de se.. curite eut permis aux deux parties de s'expliquer en detail sur les circonstances du differend et sur l'interpretation qu'elles leur donnent. La delegation belge considere conune etabli, a la suite du dragage effectue le 13 novembre 1946, qu'un champ de mmes a ete secretement mouilM dans le detroit de Corfou. Ce fait est alui seul trop grave pour que le Conseil de securite, apres en avoir ete saisi, se borne a constater qu'il y a la un mystere demeure impenetrable et renvoie dos a dos les parties en leur recommandant de s'entendre. Independamment de la juste reparation des torts causes, le Consei1 de securite a pour devoir de prevenirj -jans toute la mesure de son pouvoir, la repetition de semblables incidents qui sont de nature a mettre en danger la paix et la securite. La delegation belge considere, d'autre part, wmme etabli que le champ de mines dont le dragage du 13 novembre a revele I'existence se trouvait dans les eaux dont le Gouvernement albanais entendait interdire le libre acces aux navires etrangers, et particulierement aux navires britanniques, et sur lesquelles il exer~ait, en consequence, une etroite surveillance que la disposition des lieux et la courte distance rendaient facile. Dans ces conditions, la delegation belge, tout en constatant qu'il n'a pas ete etabli par des temoignages directs que Ies mines aient ete mouillees par le Gouvernement albanais, ne petit concevoir qu'elles I'aient ete a I'~u dece Gouvernement. M. ZULETA ANGEL (Colombie) : M. ~romyko semble un peu etonne que j'aie dit que je m'incli~ nerai devant la .decision de la majorite. C'est la une habitude que nous avons dans mon pays, en Colombie, et j'espere bien ne pas la perdre id.

In his explanation Mr. Zuleta Angel referred to the majority in the Security Council. His first remark does not refer to what I said: that is why the first part of his explanation is incomprehensible to me. The second part in which he again referred to the majority is in fact in direct relation to what I said.

The view expressed by the delegation of the United States at the one hundred and eleventh meeting of the Security Council,l following the original exposition made by the representative {)f the United Kingdom2 and in the reply of the representative of Albania, at the one hundred and ninth meeting' of the Council,8 was to the effect that the United Kingdom representative seemed to have established his case. Our delegation has listened with great attention to the further views expressed by Sir Alexander Cadogan and by the representative of Albania. We have also studied with attention the report made by the Sub-Committee of the Council appointed to examine this case. We have listened·with particular interest and attention to the report and exposition of the Chairman of that Sub-Committee, which was made yesterday. The delegation of the 'United States, without necessarily subscribing to every word and to the whole phraseology of the report of the representative of Colombia, finds itSelf in substantial agreement with his able exposition of" this case. It also seems that another conclusion which we have reached is shared by the majority of the members of the Council who have spoken. We find it difficult to reach the conclusion that the Council ought to find that Alballia" laid these mines, in the absence of direct evidence'to that effect. However, the weight of the evidence! as it appears to the United States delegatioIl, seems to be overwheliningly in favour of the proposition that tiIider all circumstances, these llifues could not.have been laid without the knowledge of the Albaniah authorities. I find it impossible to believe that"the Albanian.Government is and was entirely ignorant of the laying and placing (jf these mines. Therefore, in view of our relucbmce to support a finding that Albania actually laid the mines, I shall have .the hOIlour.of S1lggesting two small Notre delegation a ecoute avec grande attention les nouvel1es vues exprimees par Sir Alexander Cadogan et par le representant de l'Al- .banie. Nous avons aussi etudie attentivement le rapport presente par la Sous-Commission quLa ete chargee d'examiner cette affaire. Nous avons ecoute avc.: ,-in interet et une attention tout particuliers le rapport et l'expose I present6l par le President de la Sous-Commission a la seance d'hier. Sans faire necessairement siens taus les motS et expressions du rapport du representant de la Colombie, la c1eIegation des Etats-Unis approuve en substance l'expose remarquable qu'il a presente. Il semble egalement qu'une autre conclusion a laquelle nous avons abouti recueille l'approbation de la majorite des membres du Conseil qui ont pris la: parole. n nous est difficile, en rabsence de preuves 'directes acetegard, d'arrive~ a la conclusi(jn que le Conseil deYt:ait declarer que I'Albahie a moitille les miries. Toutefois, les preuves accumuIees semblent, de l'avis de la delegatitJn des EtatS..Unis, ac:crediter de fa~Oil inconteStable' la th~e seIon laquelle ces n'iliies,eu egard a toutes les circonstances, n'oilt pu etre mouillees a I'W1l des aut(jrites albanaises. n m'est impossible de crorre q1le le G01lvernement albarlais ignore et a t01ljours ignore coiriplett.. , ment le mouillage et l'emplacemeIit de bes 111iIles. En consequence, et :ptJisq1l~ nons.ne sommes pas disposes aconclure que l'Albanie a mouille ces tnines~ j'ai l'hotmeur de stiggeter de1.tt legers 1See otfi.ciaiRecor4s .ot.the Security Council, SCl:Qnd Y~ar, -No. 18, pages 382-888. . ' M. GROMYKo(Union des Republiques socialistessovietiques) (traduit du russe): Dans sa declaration, M. Zuleta Angel a parle cie la majorite au Conseil de securite. La premiere mention qU'll en a faite ne se rapporte pas a ce que j'ai dit; je ne cQmprends donc pas la premiere partie de son intervention. La deuxieme partie, au il a parle a ilouveau de la majorite, se rapporte effectivement ace que j'avais dit. M. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglo.is): A la suite du premier expose fait par le representant de la Grande-Bretagne1 et de la reponse du representant de l'Albanie, lors de la cent-neuvieme seance du Conseil de securite2, la delegation des Etats-Unis a exprime l'avis, Iors de la cent-onzieme seances> que le representant du Royaume-Uni semblait avoir justifie sa plainte. 1 Voir. les ,P,ofes,v~'bf}fJ"oilifliets4'IJContejl'dt's/curit/, :peuxil:me Ahnee,N..b 15.,.107.lmte seabce, 9IbiB., No 16. ' sIbill.,Nb 18, Vages 382 et!83. "The Security Cquncil, Having considered statements of representatives of the United Kingdom and of Albania concerning a dispute, between the United Kingdom and Albania arising out of a.'1 incident on 22 October 1946 in the Straits of Corfu, in· which two British ships were damaged by mines with resulti."1g loss of life and injury to their, cre~, "1. Corz-siders that the laybg of mines in peace time without notification. is unjustified . .and an offence against humanity, "2. Finds that an unnotified . mine,,;field was laid in the Corfu Straits with the knowledge of the Albanian Government, resulting in serious injury to His Majesty's ships and loss of life and injury to their crews."2 In suggesting that paragraph (4), inchiding its preamble,beginning With the,words "And, since the laying of mines" be deleted, the United States delegation has in mind that the subjectmatter of that paragraph in fact cqnstitutes a separate matter' of general application which is not directly connected ~ith the dispute now before the Security Council and on which we are,therefote; not called upon to decide at this time. . . 1~ee. Ollicial 1iecofds of 'the. 8ecurityCoulIcil,Second .,.:'":1 V~ir les. .Proces·verbau~ oIfiCz.'df...dttao.·.nseii·:dtrsecuntif;"·'· " Year, No. 27; page 557. Deuxic!:me Annee, No 2'1, page 567. . , New paragraph 2. fonnerly paragraph}., 2 Ancien-paragraphe 1, devenu paragraphe 2, Sir ALEXANDER CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : I am sure the members of the Council will be bterested in the amendments which the representative of the United States has just submitted, and will appreciate the spirit which prompted him to move them" I expect that members of the Council, like myself, would like a ·little' time in which to consider these new suggestions. I therefore suggest for your consideration, Mr. President, L'Iat we cannot carry the matter further tonight, and that you might perhaps think it well to adjoum the Council.

Mr. President, if I may, I should like to make a very short statement regarding the position of the Australian delegation, for the sake of the record of today's proceedings.

A representative has asked for an adjournment. I cannot consider any other matter or accept any other statement.

Mr. President, this is a matter affecting the correctness of today's record, and I would like to have your indulgence.

If it is a point of order, you may speak.

·Thank you, Mr. Prmdent. The representative of the Soviet Union, in the course of his statement, found a contr,adiction between what the Australian delegation. said and did before the appointment of the Sub-Committee and what the Australian delegation said and did on subsequent occasions. I shoUld like to have it placed on record that the Australian delegation regards the version given by the representative of the Soviet Union of what our delegation said and did before the ·appointment of tlle Sub-Committee as being. completely in('('~eet. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (Royaume-Uni) (tTaduit de l'anglais): Je suis sur que les membres du Conseil ont pris connaissa.'1ee avec interct des amendements que le representant des Etats-Unis vient de presenter et qu'ils apprccieront l'esprit dans lequel illes a proposes. j'imagine que certains membres du ConseiI ainleraient, eomme moi, disposer d'un peu de temps pour exanliner ees nouvelles suggestions. Je me permettrai done de vous demander, Monsieur le President, si.vous n'ctes pas d'avis que nous ne pouvons poursuivre cette discussion cc . wir, et qu'il serait peut-ctre bon de lever la seance. M. TfASLUCK (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais) Aonsieur le President, si vous le permettez, j'aimerais faire un tres breve declaration au sujet de la position de la delegation austtalienne, pou~ qu'eUe figure au proces-verbal de la seance d'auj".;urd'hui. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'l:mglais): Un representant a demande l'ajoumement du debat. Je ne puis examiner une autre qvestion, queUe qu'eUe soit, ni autoriser de nouvelles declarations. M. HASLUCK (Australie) (traduit de 'fanglais): Monsieur le President, il s'agit d'une question qui touche a l'exaetitude du procesverbal d'aujourd'hui. Je f~rls appel a vOtre indulgrmce. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'an~'lais): S'il s'agit d'une motion d'Quire, veus avez la parole. M. HAsLUCK (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais): Merci, Monsieur le President. Au cours de son expose, le representant ·de l'Union. sovietique a eru pouvoir rdever une contradiction entre les declarations et l'attitude de la delegation australienne avant la nomination de· la Sous-Commission .et le:s declarations et l'attitude de cette meme deIegationpar la suite. Je voudrais qu'il soit mentionne au proces-' verbal que la delegation australienne eonsidere eomme tout a fait mexacte I'interpretation donnee par le representant de l'Union sovietique des declara1ions et de l'attitude de notre delegation avant l'etablissement de la Sous-:-Commission. The meeting rose at 6.35 p.m. La seance est [eve a18 h. 35. Security Co~ncil Publications Publications du Conseil de securite Journal of the Security Council (18 January- 11 July 1946), bilingual: English-French. 42 issues, 858 pages, the set $4.20 Supplements Nos. I to 10, 190 pages, the set.. $1.95 Special Supplement: Report of the Sub-Committee on the Spanish Question, 104 pages, English edition $ .90 .Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council, English edition $ .20 Journal du Conseil lrJe securite (18 janvier-11 iuillet 1946),bilingue:anglais-franl$ais, 42 numeros, 868 pages, la serie $4,20 Les numeros 1 a 42 du Journal du Conseil de securite contiennent sous forme provisoire, les prod~s­ verbaux des 49 premieres seances du Conseil de securite. Ces proces-verbaux sont actuellement reerlites et paraitront ulterieurement sous le titre: Procesverbaux officiels du Conseil de securite, Premiere Annee, Premie,'e Serie. La publication du Journal du Conseil de securite a ete interrompue le 11 juillet 1946. i'roces -verbaux officiels du CCiinseil de securite, Premiere Annee, Seconde Serie, bilingue: anglaisfranl$ais. Proces-verbaux officiels Nos I a29, cinquantieme seance a quatte.vingt-huitieme seance, 702 pages. la serie $4.90 Supplernents aux proces-verbaux officiels du Conseil de securite, Premiere Annee, Seconde Serie, bilingue: anglais-frau-sais. Supplements Nos I a 10, 190 pages, la serie $1.95 . Supplement special: Rapport du Sous-Comite charge de la question espagnole, 104 pages, edition fran~aise $O,90 Les Proce!iH!srb€llux officiels du Conseil de securite, Deuxieme Annee, ainsi que les Supplements, sont en cours de publication. Une liste de ceux qui sont deja livrables peut etre obtenue sur demande a<b.-essee aux agents de vente. Reglement interieur provisoire du Conseil de securite, edition franl$aise _ $0.20