S/PV.124 Security Council

Before I call on Mr. Gromyk.~, perhaps I can say just a word in reply to the observations of the Australian representative. As I understand it, the Polish amendment is not intended to replace the original phrase in the United States draft but is intended as an addition. The original phrase deals with the de facto situation, and the Polish amendment deals with the de jure situation. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): Mr. President, you said we wo~ld c~msider the amendments in the order of theIr presentation. This differs from the order in which they appear in the memorandum prepared by the Secretariat. If, as you.said, we decide to consider the amendments in the order in which . they were submitted, then we shall have to start by considering the Soviet amendments. If,. on the other hand, we consider all the amendments in' the order proposed by the Secretariat, we must begin with the amendment to the preamble, which is actually what we are already doing; I have in mind the speech made by the representative of Australia. I have no objection to raise against either order. We can, if we wish,follow the order proposed by the Secretariat. I only consider it necessary that some agreement be reached as to the order in which we are going to consider these amendments. If we are to proceed according to the memorandum prepared by the Secretariat, I too should like to say a few. words regarding the Polish amendment to the preamble. .

I think that, in oui discussion, we should follow the numerical order of the articles and discuss the relevant aniendments in that order. A mon avis, nous avons une chose cl faire, queUes que soient les autres clauses que nous inclurons dans le traite de paix. I1 faut que nous indiquions de la maniere la plus precise possible, afin qu'il n'y ait aucun doute, mais au contraire une certitude absoluc dans l'esprit des Japo·nais, qu'ils sont obliges de renoncer cl tous leurs droits, titres et interets sur les territoires anciennement sous leuT mandat. C'est pourquoi nous estimons que l'addition proposee est tout a fait indesirable. EIle n'est pas correcte juridiquem.ent; en tout cas, eIle ne renforce pas le titre des Etats-Unis et il nous faut encore prendre certaines mesures pour que la decheance devienne legale. C'est pour ces raisons que nous pre£erons le texte original propose par les Etats-Unis. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Avant de donner la parole cl M. Gromyko, je tiens a repondre brievement aux observations du representant de I'Australie. La modification proposee par le representant de la Pologne, si je cornprends bien, n~ vise pas cl remplacer une phrase du texte propose par les Etats- Unis: elle doit au contraire s'ajouterace texte. La phrase originale se rapporte cl la situation de facto, tandis que l'amendement presente par la Pologne se rapporte a la situation de jure. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Monsieur le President, vous avez dit que nous allions examiner les amendements jans 1'0rdre ou ils ont ete deposes. eet ordre est different de celui qU'avait choisi le Secretariat dans son memorandum. Si, conformement a ce que vous avez dit, nous decidons d'examiner les amendements dans 1'0rdre ou ils ont ete presentes, nous devons etudier en premier lieu les amendements sovietiqueso Si, au contraire, nous examinons tous les amendements dans l'ordre que nous a propose le Secretariat, nous devons commencer par l'amendement au preambule. C'est du reste ce que nous faisons maintenant, cl en juger ?ar l'intervention du representant de l'Australie. Je ne m'oppose a aucune des deux methodes. On peut adopter, si 1'0n veut, celle que preconise le Secretariat. l'estime simplement qu'il est necessaire de nous entendre sur l'ordre que nous suivrons pour examiner ces amendements. Si nous nons conformons au memorandum du Secretariat, j'aimerais aussi pouvoir dire quelques mots a propos de l'amendement polonais au preambule. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Il serait, je crois, preferable d'examiner les articles l'un apres l'autre et de discuter en meme temps les amendements qui s'y rapportent. . The PRESIDENT: I believe the Polish representative is the next speaker. Mr. LANGE (Pohnd): I want first to make a technical remark. As I understand it, this amendment was accepted by the representative of the United States and, therefore, it is no longer really an ~mendmentbut a part of the basic text which will be presented to us for a vote. The representative of Australia <::xpressed som.e doubts as to the legal doctrine which is contained in the amendment which I have presented. Of course, I am aware of the different points he mentioned. Notwithstanding this, I think that the legal doctrine which is behind my amendment is quite tenable. The argument is simply this: Japan" through her action of leaving the League of Nations, of starting a war of aggression against China, which in reality meant breaking the Covenant of the League, of which she was a Member, forfeited all rights as a Member of the League. Now, my position is that you cannot hold a right derived from membership in an 'lrganization if you leave the organization and act against all the principles on which the organization is based. . We attach a certain importance to this, because we consider it not only an historical issue, but also an issue setting a precedent. I think the same principle must apply to the United Nations. All rights of trusteeship, or other rights which are derived from membership of the United Nations, should be considered as being automatically nullified if <J. country gives up its membership of our Organization. It is true that the League of Nations never declared that the mandates held by Japan had been forfeited because of the actions of the Japanese Government. I think it was a mistake not to have done so. In order to correct that mistake, our delegation has submitted this amendment. If there is any doubt as to the legal status of these islands, the fact that we, as the legal successor to the League of Nations, adopt this amendment now, implies ipso facto that such rights as 1apan did claim with regard to these islands are forfeited. Therefore, in my opiniml, the argument raised by the repr::,:sentative of Australia, which I have seriously considered, does not hold because, although the League did not take appropriate action, we as the legal successor of the League can adopt such a resolution and thus terminate ipso facto whatever claims Japan had on these islands. I think we amend~ment, qui n'est done plus un veritable amenClement, mais fait partie du texte de base sur lequel nous voterons. Le representant de l'Australie a exprime certains doutes au sujet du principe juridique sur lequel s'appui~ l'amendement que j'ai soumis.Je connais evidemment les divers arguments qu'il mentionne.Je crois pourtant que le principe .luridique sur lequd :repose mon amendement est parfaitement defendable. Logiquement, la situation se presente de la maniel'e suivante. Le Japon, en quittant la Societe des Nations et en declarant une guerre d'agression contre la Chine - ce qui, en fait, revenait a violer le Pacte de la Societe des Nations, dont i1 etait membre - a renonce a tous les droits qu'il detenait en tant que membre de la Societe des Nations. Mon point de vue est done le r.uivant: on ne peut pas conserver un droit que l'on detient en qualite de membre d'une organisation si I'on quitte cette organisation et si I'on agit a I'encontre de tous les principes dont elle s'inspire. Nous attachons une certaine importance a ce point car, a notre avis, il n'interesse pas seulement le passe, mais cree aussi un precedent. J'estime que le meme principe doit s'appliquer aux Nations Unies. On devrait considerer comme antomatiquement annules tous les droits de tutelle ou autres droits qu'ull pays a acquis en devenant Membre des Nations Unies, des que ce pays quitte notre Organisation. La Societe des Nations, il est vrai, n'a .lamais declare que le .Japon £Ut dechu de ses mandats du fait des agissements du Gouvemement japonais. j'estime que c'etait la une erreur, et c'est precisement pour la reparer que notre delegation a propose l'amendement enquestion. Si l'on concevait quelque hesitation quant au statut juridique de ces lIes, I'adoption de eet amendement par le Conseil, en tant que successeur legal de la Societe des Nations, signifierait ipso facto que le Japon est dc§chu de tous les droits qu'il revendiquait sur ces lles. L'argument invoque par le representant de de l'Australie, argument que fai pese soign.eusement, ne me parait done pas valable, car, meme si la Societe des Nations n'a pas pris les mesures qu'elle aurait du prendre, nous pouvons, en tant que son successeur legal, adoptercette resolution et mettreiinipso facto a tous les droits q~e le Japon pouvait avoir sur I shall not enlarge on this theme. This difference is not hard to perceive when one compares the conditions of administration of mandated territories with those of Trust Territories, and also when one compares the purposes and principles adopted by the League of Nations when introducing the mandate system with the purposes and principles laid down in the Charter of the United Nations. It is not difficult to perceive the difference between the two systems. There is a difference in the fundamental principles themselves. It seems to me, moreover, that in this connexion we should ItOt lose sight of the fact that, since there is no continuity such as would permit and justify the discussion of this question by the Security Council, $e latter cannot investigate the substance of the matter. For the reasons which I have just stated, the Security Council is not competent to decide to what extel..t Japan may have violated the conditions of the mandate system and the duties involved in the administration of mandated territories. I therefore consider that the text of the preamble should be left in the form in which it was presented by the United States Government. It would be better not to incorporate this amendment in the text of the preamble. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America) : The question is not whether we should accept this as a separate amendment, but whether we should accept a part of the preamble as it has been perfected. The United States accepted the proposal of the representative of Poland to have the text of the proposed agreem~nt contain these words: "Whereas Japan has violated the terms of the above mandate of the League of Nations and has thus forfeited her mandate". Now, I am in favour of the agreement and' in favour of approving the perferteJ ~ection of the preamble, and if you will permit me to state the reasons why the United States ac- D'autre part, il me semble que nous denions avoir present a l'esprit que, dans la mt':- sure ou il n'existe pas de continuite qui puisse autoriser la discussion de ce probleme au Conseil de secudte, celui-ci ne doit pas l'examiner quant au fond. Pour les raisons que je viens d'indiquer, le Conseil de securite n'a done pas qualite pour trancher la question de savoir dans queUe rnesure le Japon aurait viole les terrnes de son mandat et n'aurait pas respecte les obligations afferentes a l'administration des territoires sous mandat. C'est pourquoi j'estime qu'il faudrait conserver le preambule tel qu'il a ete redige par le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis. Il vaudrait mieux n.e pas inclure cet amendement dans le texte du preambule. M. AUSTIN (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais): La question n'est pas de savoir si nous devons accepter l'amendement en tant qu'amendement separe, mais si nous devons accepter une addition au preambule. Les Etats-Unis ont accepte la proposition du representant de la Pologne tendant a ajouter au texte du projet d'accord l'alinea suivant: "Conside::ant que le Japon a viole les teimes du mandat susvise de la Societe des Nations et a, par consequent, provoque la decheance de son mandat . . ." Je suis en faveur ele l'accord et de l'amelioration du preambllle, et si vous me permette:l de vous exposer les raisons pour lesquelles les Etats-Unis approuvent cette amelioration et la i.;~.........~~~'.,:j i :::i What, then, is the simple, plain course that lies before us? Every signatory State of the Japanese surrender is a party to the treaty by which the Charter of the United Nations was created. Everyone of them is bound by that Charter and by every part of that Charter. Article 77 is a basis for the conduct of the United States in accepting this perfecting amendment. That Article provides that: "The Trusteeship System shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements'. . Now we are all bound by that 'clause. Does this area come within that description? Article 77, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (b), says: "territories which may be detached from enemy States as a result of the Second World "\Var". According to that clause, these territories fall within the agreement made by all of us and which binds us. . l'~mendement en question. les Etats-Unis s'appuient sur l'Article 77. qui stipule: "Le Regime de tuteUe s'appliquera aux t("rritoires entrant dans les categories ci-dessous et qui viendraient a etre places sous ce regime en vertu d'accords de tutelle." Nous sommes donc tous lies par cette clause. Est-ce que la region en question entre dans 1'une des categories enoncees dans l'Article? Le paragraphe 1, alinea b) de 1'Article 77 mentionne les "territoires qui peuvent etre detaches d'Etai:s ennemis par suite de la seconde guerre mondiale". Les territoires en question tombent bien sous le coup de cette clause que nous avons tous admise et qui nous lie tous. L'alinea c) mentionne les "territoires volontairement places sous ce regime par les Etats responsables de leur administration". C'est en application de cette clause que les Etats-Unis placent sous tutelle les territoires dont nous discutons actuellement, car les Etats-Unis sont le seul Membre des Nations Unies qui soit responsable de leur administration. Sub-paragraph (c) states: "territaries voluntarily placed under the system by States reliponsible for their administration". The territories under discussion come under this Article by virtue of that clause, for the United States is the only Member of the United Nations responsible for their administration. Article 77, paragraph 2, provides the agreement part. This clause, if my memory is correct, was regarded at the time of the negotiation of the Charter as a sort of joker, but it is included and we are all. bound by it. It reads as follows: "It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the Trusteeship System and upon what terms". Le paragraphe 2 de 1'Article 77 prevoit la conclusion d'un accord ulterieur. Cette disposition, si mes souvenirs sont exacts. fut considel"ee, au moment de l'etablissement de'-la Charte, comme une sorte de passe-partout, mais eUe fait partie de la Charte et elIe nous lie taus. Voici le texte de ce paragraphe: "Un accord ulterieur determinera quels territoires, entrant dans les categories susmentionnees, seront places sous le Regime de tutelle, et clans quelles conditions." Who are the parties referred to as agreeing? The country responsible for the administration of government is the number one country. Other countries having a direct interest are also parties. The Security Council has the sole, exclusive right and duty to approve or disapprove such agreement. QueUes sont les parties envisagees pour cet accord? Il s'agit; au premier ch.ef, du pays responsable de 1'administration des ~eITitoires en question. Viennent ensuitc les pays qui ont un interet direct dans ces territoires. Le Conseil de securite, et lui seul, a le droit et le devoir d'approuver ou de rejeter 1'accord. Note that this Trusteeship Agreement relates only to the trusteeship and not to the title, it refersto thefact that trusteeship should be exercised by the right party, namely the Government that detached the territory from the enemy, and is responsible for its administration. It is also in the spirit of the Charter Remarquez que cet Aocord de tutelle porte seulement sur la tutelle, et non pas sur le titre de propriete. et vise a faire exercer la tutdle par la partie a qui elle revient de droit. c'esta-dire par le Gouvernement qui a arrache le territoire a l'ennemi et qui est responsable de son administration. Cet Accord est egalement Quand le representant de la Pologne a presente sa proposition, le representant des Etats- Unis s'est rendu compte ~u'elle constituait une amelioration importante, car elle ajotltait au preambule une phrase qui en clarifiait le sens et reglait la question des droits que le Japon detenait sur les lIes, en tant que Puissance mandataire. Cet amendement prononce une decheance, et il y a toujours dtkheance quand le fond d'un accord est viole. Quand une des parties cl un accord agit comme si l'accord n'existait pas, l'autre partie a le droit, dans toutes les legislations oue je connais, de la declarer effectivement dechue de ses droits. Il n'existe au monde aucune autorite juridiquement competente pour prononcer la decheance d'un mandat et le remplacer par le Regime de tutelle, si ce n'est, en premier lieu, l'Autorite chargee de I'administration, en second lieu, les Etats ou les parties interessees et, enfin, le Conseil de securite. Nous sommes en presence d'une proposition acceptee par le Gouvernement responsable de I'administration. Il ne s'agit done pas de savoir si nous accepterons un projet d'amendement, mais si nous accepterons la partie du preambule telle qu'elle a ete amendee. I Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): This r, , M. ~AN KLEFFENS (Pays-Bas; (traduit de undoubtedly is a legal document, and I quite 1anglazs): .Nous sommes mamfestement en a!ITee with those who have said that, from the presence d'un document de caractere juridi- Here we have a proposal accepted by the Government llesponsible for the administration. The question is not whether we will accept a proposed amendment, but whether we shall accept that part of the preamble as already amended. p~int of view of law, it should be in order. que et je suis tout cl fait d'accord avec ceux qui estiment que, du point de vue du droit. il est tout a fait acceptable. Tout camme le representant des Etats- Unis, je pense que le preambule devrait prodamer nettement le japon dechu de son man-- dat, non seulement en fait, mais en droit. Je comprends tres bien que la dtHegation des Etats-Unis ait exprime ce desir, car si le mandat du Japon etait juridiquement valide, quoique ne s'exer~ant' plus en fait, il nous serait difficile de ne pas en tenir compte et de le remplacer par quelque chose d'autre, c'esta-dire par le Regime de tutelle. I agree with the view of the United States representative when he said that it is desirable that the preamble should make it quite clear that the Japanese mandate has come to an end not only as a matter of fact but also as a matter of law. I can quite understand that the United States delegation wants it to be I so stated specifically, for if this mandate was still legally valid~ although it had factually come to an end, we could hardly ignore it and replace it by something else, namely a trusteeship. I venture to'differ, however-not without some hesitation, because of the experience of those who have held the opposite view and have defended it-with those who hold that the mere fact of Japanese violation of the terms of the mandate is tantamount to forfeiture of their rights and I agree in that respect with the Australian representative. The Polish representative stated his views in this matter. He said that by leaving the League of Nations, and by acting against its Je me permets cependant, non sans hesitation, etant donne l'experience de ceux qui defendent le point de vue contraire, de ne pas partager l'opinion de ceux qui soutiennent que le seul fait que les Japonais ont viole les termes du mandcit entralne la decheance de leurs rlroits. Sur. ce point, .ie suis d'accord avec ,le representant de l'Australie. Le representant de la Pologne a exprime son opinion sur cette question. 11 a declare qu'en quittant la Societe des Nations et en So far, my remarks have been negative. and I am conscious of my duty to be also positive if I can, because, as I said, it would constitute a net gain if we could state clearly in the preamble that. as a point of law and not only of fact, the m.mdate has come to an end. Instead. of say~ng that the trust rested on the • mere fact of violation, I wonder whether we could not make use of Japan's signature on an instrument of unconditional surrender. I know that the United Kingdom representative in the last meeting but one said that the signing by Japan of the instrument of unconditional surrender was provisionaJ.1 I. think that we should make a distinction here. It certainly was provisional for those accepting the surrender in so far as they would later on and ultimately decide what to do with the rights surrendered, but from the point of view of Japan, surely, the act of surrender was quite final and definite, otherwise it would not be a surrender. ~ans aucun doute, absolument definitif; sinon, ce ne serait pas un acte de capitulation. Je me demande si nous ne pourrions pas remplacer l'amendemeilt de la Pologne que la deU~gation des Etats-Unis a, je crois. accepte provisoirement, par un textp du genre suivant: "Considerant que, le Japon ayant signe un acte de capitulation sans conditions, le mar,' .fat qu,'il detenait sur ces iles a pris f· ." zn. ...' Je crois que cette nouvelle redaction ecarte toutes Ies di:ffi.cultes et pose d'une fa~on certaine que le Conseil considere a juste titre I have been wondering whether we could not, in the place of the Polish amendment which, I think, the United States delegation has provisionally endorsed, say something to this effect: "Whereas, as a result of the signature by Japan of an act of unconditional surrender, the mandate held by Japan for these islands has come to an end ...".. I think that this would take care of the whole difficulty and make it quite certain that this Council rightly holds that, not only I should like to stress that the mandatory Power is only entitled to be taken into consideration or to have its point of view accepted if it is a Member of the United Nations. Other mandatory Powers which are not Members of the United Nations are ignored altogether in the Charter. The Charter considered that territories· which were held under a League of Nations mandate might be transferred to a Trusteeship System under Article 79 of the Charter. By these provisions, if the mandatory State is not a Memberof the United Nations, it should not be considered any further as a mandatory State and should be totally ignored. The Syrian delegation had occasion, at the early meetings of this Council on this subject, to lltate clearly that inasmuch as Japan is not a Member either of the League' of Nations or of the United Nations, no right may be mentioned or discussed and no reservation can be made concerning Japan pending its consent to the matter. We have to formulate our resolution definitely on the basis of existing facts and not make it dependent upon any future events. No mention in the agreement should be made of Japan, except that Japan is no longer the mandatory Power for these territories. This is on.e point to which I wanted to call your attention. As regards the second point, I wish to make a few comments on the statement made by the representative of the United States; I agree with his conclusion but not with his reasoning. He examined Article 77 of the Charter., which contains three categories of territories which may be placed under trusteeship. I might state here that, when we were working on this Article at the United Nations Conference in San Francisco. we had these .three categories before us. . The first category comprises "territories . now held under mandate". The present case of the Pacific islands comes into this category. . En ce qui concerne le second point, je desire presenter quelques observations sur la declaration du representant des Etats-Unis. ]'accepte sa conclusion, mais non pas son raisonnement. Il s'est fonde sur l'Article 77 de la Charte, qui enumere les trois categories de territoires susceptibles d'etre places sous tutelle. Je dirai alors que, lorsque nous avons elabore cet Article a la Conference des Nations Unies de San-Francisco, nous nous sommes trouves en presence de trois categories. La premiere comprend "les territoires actuellement sous mandat". Les lIes du Padfique J dont nous nous occupons actuellement en- .' • The second category comprises "territories which may be detached from enemy States as a result of the Second World War". Under this category would come all territories which are either integral parts or colonies of Japan, or of any other country which was defeated in the Second World War. That does not include any territory which was entrusted to the defeated Power by mandate. The third category comprises "territories voluntarily placed.under the system by States responsible for their administration". The phrase "yoluntarily placed" refers to territories or colonies of any State having the right of sovereignty over them which chooses to present them to the United Nations and to put them under the Trusteeship' System, as a gesture of generosity or liberalism, It does not refer to territories of defeated Powers which are obliged to submit to the system. Of these three categories, the first includes the Pacific islands and all other territories under mandate, and the agreements concerning them are similar to the agreements which we approved at the last session of the General Assembly for the various territories which were under mandate and which have been brought under lile' Trusteeship System. \ The United States cannot be considered to be internationally responsible now for the administration of the Pacific islands. This is purely temporary, but its position there, from the legal point of view, is not recognized since it is the administering Power itself which is requestiIlg that these islands be placed under its trusteeship. We are ready to approve this Trusteeship Agreement, not because the United States is the actual, Administering Authority there, but because it has made a great contribution to victory in the Pacific and because it is now willing and able to take charge of the administration of these islands in a way which will give full satisfaction to the Security Council and to the United Nations. For these reasons we are ready to accept this point of view. In that respect, I would prefer to have it mentioned in the preamble that Japan is not a Member of the United Nations and that its mandate has therefore come to an end, without giving any other reasons. If we do give reasons, that would mean that it will always be necessary te give some and that, unless there are special reasons, we shall have no right in the future to terminate the mandate of any trustee. Our view on that matter is Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United King~ dom): If anything has to be added to the preamble as originally drafted, I must say that I should much prefer the text proposed by the representative of the Netherlands. He has been kind enough to give me a transcript of his proposal. He proposed to substitute,' for the words suggested by the Polish representative: "Whereas,.as a result of the signature by Japan of an act of unconditional surrender, the mandate held by Japan for these islands has come to an end". I could certainly accept that, whereas I should have had some difficulty in accepting the rather sweeping statement which is the text proposed by the representative of Poland, for I should have doubts as to its exact legal correctness. I said just now, "if anything has to be added to the preamble", because I doubt whether any phrase that we could devise here and insert in the preamble would add anything to the already unassailable claim of the United States to the administration of these territories. I very much hope that the representative of the United States will be able to accept Mr. van Kleffens' text instead of that proposed by the representative of Poland. Mr..VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgium) (translated from French): I do not wish to prolong this debate but for the record of this meeting I wish to state that, in my delegativn's opinion, the addition to the preamble and the reasons put forward in support of it are questionable from the legal standpoint. We share the opinion expressed by the Australian representative in this regard. We, too, prefer the original text. As the saying goes: "Let well alone!" I would say that I agree with the Australian tepresentative that it is better to maintain the first suggestion of the United States, which says: "'Whereas Japan, as a result of the Sec- One thing I want to say is that the worst ddng would be to accept the suggestion of Mr. van Kleffens, because, if we did, that would be stating something that did not happen in this war. He proposes the phrase: "Whereas, as a result of the signature by Japan of an act of unconditional surrender, the mandate held by Japan for these islands has come to an end .. ,". If Japan had not signed the act of surrender, it would still have the right te the mandate; and that is why this would be quite a wrong statement to be made by this Council and hy t4e United Nations in view of all that Japan has done. and in view of its attack on China. -=--- Colonel HODGSON (Australia):. We apologize for provoking a debate like this, but it has been prolonged because there have been some extraordinary doctrines propounded and I think the positions should be clarified. They are very important. The statement we made was that it is incorrect to state that because Japan has violated the terms of the mandate she has thus forfeited it. That has not so far, in our opinion, been controverted. What'disturbed me was the doctrine or the reason given by the representative of Poland, in explanation of his amendment. He stated that a breach of the mandate was committed by Japan on account of its war of aggression against China, and that the League should have declared that mandate forfeited. In September 1931, Japan certainly did violate the Disarmament Treaty of Washington; in 1921- 1922 the Quadruple Treaty according to which they had to consult the nine Powers; the Far Eastern Treaty; the Agreement concerning the Open Door; and the Kellogg Pact, but not the mandate. The violation of the mandate resided in the fact that it fortified and used these islands as a base for military operations much later on. Now, that was the breach. c~nditions, le mandat qU'il detenait sur ces lIes a pris fin .. ," Done, si l~ Japan n'avait pas signe de capitulation, il detiendrait toujours son mandat sur ces lIes; ce serait la une declaration tout a fait erronee de la paft du Conseil et des Nations Unies, etant donne tout ce que le Japon a fait et etant donne son attaque contre la Chine. Le colonel HODGSON (Australie) (tradu.it de l'anglais) : Nous nous excusons d'avoir souleve cette discussion, mais t:~lle se prolonge parce qu'on a avance certaines opinions, que je qualifierais d'extraordinaires. Je peme qu'il faudrait bien preciser les positions. C'est la un point tres important. Nous avons declare qu'il etait inexact de pretendre que le Japon fUt dechu de son mandat parce qu'il en a viole les conditions. Jusqu'a present, me semble+il, ce point n'a pas ete mis en doute. Maisce qui m'inquiete, ce sont les motifs sur lesquels s'est fonde le representant de la Pologne pour expliquer son atnendement. Il a affirIIle que le Japan avait: viole ,les termes du mandat du fait de son agression contre la Chine, et que la Societe des Nations aurait da le declarer dechu de son mandata n est exact de dire qu'en septembre 1931 le Japon a viole le Traite du desarmement de Washington; qu'en 1921-1922 il a viole le Traite quadripartite qui l'obligeait a consulter les Neuf Puissances; le Traite d'Extreme-Orient; l'Accord sur la politique de fa. Porte 01;lverte et le Pacte Kellogg; mais on ne peut dire qu'il ait viole les termes du mandata Lorsque le Japon a fortifie les, lIes et les a utilisees par la suite, comme bases strategiques, en vue d'operations militaires, c'est alors qu'il a viole son mandata Le repr~sentantde la Pologne a declare ensuite que toute violation entraine automatiquement la decheance. C'est inexact, a moins que l'autorite competente ne prononce la decheance. Nous reconnaissons que le Japon aurait da etre dechu de ses droits. J'admets certaines conclusions du representant des Etats-Unis. Mais il n'existe la-bas aucune Autorite chargee de l'administration. Ce terme n'aura de sensque lorsque l'accord sera mis en vigueur. En ce moment, les autorites militaires occupent la totalite du territoire japon,ais et toutes les lIes japonaises. Aueun terntoire n'a done ete detache. Tout le territoire The Polish representative went' ~ .to say that any violation automatically involves forfeiture. Unless the proper authority forfeits, it does not. We agree that it should have been forfeited. I agree with some of the conclusions reached by the representative of the United States. But no Administering Authority is there. That term only applies when the agreement is actually in operation. At present there is a military oc~upation for the whole of Japan and all the Japanese islands. Consequently, no territory has as yet been detached. It is all under military occupation. Further, we agree that we can lay I [at the Peace Conference]. Thatis where they are determined and laid down. This proposal is incorrect and meaningless, and it· -is only going to cause controversy and dispute everywhere. The statement made by the United States originally was perfectly precise and perfectly correct. It indicated the position ~xactly as it is. It recognized in full their authority, and for that reason we think it should be adheted'to. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America) : I propose to the representative of Poland that we resolve this matter by withdrawing the phrase to which we have both agreed heretofore, that we leave the part of the preamble referred to just as it is. and then, immediately following that, add this as another distinct paragraph: Whereas the mandate held by Japan for these islands has come to an end. ••• I believe that would accord with the views of everyone who has spoken. The PRESIDENT: May I ask the representative of Poland if that is acceptable to him? Mr. LANGE (Poland) : It is not our intention to create any dissension in the Council. I think that what we .had considered to be rather a small point has created an unexpectedly long discussion. Consequently, if it will facilitate our achieving a practical result, I am quite willing to accept the proposed formulation, but we should like it to go on record that we do maintain the legal doctrine which I expressed earlier: Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): Mr. President, not having a vote in this matter, may I ,say that the.change suggested by the representative of the United States gives perfect satisfaction to my Government's point of 'View. .

Rule 38.of our provisional rules l;?f procedure reads as fo~lows: pr~sentant de la Pologne trouve-t-il cette solution acceptable? M. LANGE (Pologne) (traduit de l'anglais): NOils n'avons pas l'intention de ereer de desaccord an sein du Consei!. Un point qU'e nous considerons comrne assez peu important a fait naitre des discussions plus longues que nous ne nous y attendions. Par consequent, si ceIa doit nous aider cl obtenir des resultats pratiques, .le suis entierement dispose a accepter le texte propose, 'mais .ie desire qu'il soit fait mention an proci~s-verbal que nous maintenons le point de vue juridique que rai soutenu auparavant. M. VAN KLEFFENS (Pays-Bas) (traduit de. l'anglais): Monsieur le President, (omme je n'ai pas le droit de participer au vote sur cette question, .le vous demande la permission de dire que le changement propose par le representant des Etats-Unis est parfaii:emeIit conforme aux Vlles de mon Gouvernement. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): L'artiele 38 de notre reglement interieur est ainsi conr;u: j'allais demander au representant du Royaume-Uni si, en approuvant l'amendement propose par M. van Kleffens, il avait l'intention de faire cette demande. Dans l'affirmative, on peut mettre l'amendement aux voix. Mais puisque M. van Kleffens a accepte le changement propose par le representant des Etats-Unis, je pense que nous ne sommes plus saisis d'aucun amendement au preambule. I was going to ask the United. Kingdom representative wh~ther his endorsement of~e amendment submItted by Mr. van Kleffens IS intended to fulfil that condition. If so, his amendment may be put to the vote. But since Mr. van Kleffens has accepted the latest United States change, I think that there are no longer any amendments to the preamble. Le preambule contiendra l'addition suivante apres le quatrieme alinea: "Considerant que le mandat detenu par le Japon surces iles a pris fin ..." Cette phrase prec::edera The preamble will therefore contain the following addition after the fourth paragraph: "Whereas the mandate held by Japan for these islands has come to an end . . .". That comes before the fifth paragraph in the original draft. Now, are we all agreed to accept this preamble in its amended form? i~mediatement le cinquieme alinea du projet original. Tous les rnembres acceptent-ils le preambule sous sa forme amendee? Sir Carl BERENDSEN (NouveHe-Zelande) ,(traduit de l'anglais) : Le Conseil a ete temoin de tentatives, extremement interessantes et instructives, pourexpliquer ce qui est peutetre inexplicable et clarifier une situation qu'il est peut-etre impossible d'eclaircir. Sir Carl BERENDSEN (New Zealand): The Council has had some extremely interesting thought-provoking attempts at explaining what may be inexplicable and to clarify a situation which indeed may not be capable of clarification. j'ai exprime les vues de mon Gouvememem, avec clarte et moderation, je veux le croire, et je profite de votre complaisance une minute encore, Monsieur le President, uniquement pour m'assurer que 1'0n donnea mon silence la, signification qu'il comporte. Ce silence resulte de ce quej'ai declar,e apres mure refl,exion, a savoir que nous ne voulons pas insister pour faire adopter nos vues; il ne signifie pas que nous acceptions les opinions exprimees, si fortes, si importantes, si autorisees soient-eHes. Mr. President, 1 have expressed the views of New Zealand-I hope, clearly and moderately-and at this time I am trespassing upon your indulgence for one minute, merely to assure myself that my silence on this matter is interpreted for what it is: namely, an implementation of my statement, very deliberately made, that we are making no issue whatever of our,views on this matter; it does not mean an acceptance orr my part of the views that have been expressed, however grave, however weighty, however authoritative, those . views may be. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist RepUblics) (translated from Rus.~;an) : I only wish to say tha.t I prefer the original text. I think there is no need for the phrase proposed by the representative of the United States. If we confirm the agreement even without that phrase, the agreement will, nevertheless, make It absolutely clear that the United Nations entrusts the administration of the Trust Ter- - ritories to the United States of America. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Je veux simplement dire que je prefere le texte original. Il me semble qu'il n'est pas necessaire d'y inserer la phrase que propose le representant des Etats-Unis. Le texte de 1'accord que nous aHons approuver sera tout a . fait clair meme s'il ne contient pas cette phrase. Il en ressortira que les Nations Unies confient aux Etats-Unis d'Amerique l'administration des Territoires sous tuteHe.

There <I:re no more speak- . Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Je n'ai ers on my list. We 1,lave devoted a long.time to plus d'orateurs inscrits sur ma liste~ Nous the discussion on this preamble, and I think avons consacre beaucoup de temps a la discus- I should now put to the vote this latest addision de ce preambule. Je crois le moment , tion suggested by the representative of the venu de mettre aux voix l'addition proposee United States, namely the phrase: "Whereas par le representant des Etats-Unis, c'est~a-dire the mandate held by Japan for these'islaQ.ds la phrase: "Consider-ant que le mandat detenu .', .has come to an end..•." par le Japon sur ces Hes a pris fin .. !' I'M!fr "'1 ·id·'·'··~~'ht-~n~~==J""".'·"·"_:·''';''><:''U'"""...-r.' __~·"_"""'.:'C"'-"',""~,~,::,~::==,.,,,;·_,-:-,-,,,,.,,,,,,~,"="'_""C"'_"'-'"."'-'~.'-,-._.~_, ..,, ._,..,,__._...,_•• ,._.

The result of the voting seems confused. Five members voted in favour of inserting the phrase as suggested by the United States representative; there were four abstentions, and no votes against. I think it would be well for me to make dear on what we are voting. We shall then take another vote. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) : Two votes are missing.

The suggestion is to replace, in the preamble to the draft trusteeship agreement on the former Japanese mandated islands, the words: "Whereas Japan has violated the terms of the above-mentioned mandate of the League of Nations and has thus forfeited her mandate". That is the first Polish amendent to the United States original draft. It is thus proposed that this Polish amendment be replaced by the following: "\t\lhereas the mandate held by Japan for these islands has come to an end". Votes for: France Poland Syria United Kingdom United States of America Abstentions: Australia Belgium Brazil China Colombia Union of Soviet Socialist Republics The preamble as a whole was put to the vote and was adopted unanimously. The PRESIDENT: With regard to article I, there is no amendment. Does anybody wish to speak on article I? . Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I have no objection to the addition of the phrase suggested by the representative of the United Article 1, put to the vote, was adopted unanimously. Colonel HODGSON (Australia): On a point of order, Mr. President. Before I started to speak, you ruled that we would be examining this paper,1 and that was why I made certain observations&about the preamble. In view of your ruling, I suggest that we could save a lot of time if you just said "no objection to the articles?" We will accept them and we can then deal with the articles to which amend- ments have been made. .

Yes, that was indeed the procedure I intended following. Article 2 was adopted unanimously. The PRESIDENT: Now we come to article 3 with a Soviet Union proposal to delete the words: as an integral part of the United States. I think this suggested deletion has already been accepted by the United States representative, or rather the United States representative has indicated a willingness to accept this deletion. Mr.· LANGE (Poland): The Soviet Union proposal has been accepted by the representative of the United States. In view of this, I just want to withdraw the proposal which is listed here as the Polish proposal. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : I have very little to say about my amendment to article 3. I only wish to express my satisfaction that the representative of the United States has agreed to accept this amendment, and to ex- .press my confidence that the Security Council will also agree to accept it. . Article 3, with the USSR amendments,2 and articles 4 and 5 were unanimously adopted. 1 Document S/281. ~ Article 3 as approved consequently reads: "The Administering Authority shall have full powers of administration, legislation, and jurisdiction over the Territory SUbject to the provisions of this agreement, and may apply to the Trust Territory, subject to any modifications which the Administering Authority may consider desirable, such of the laws of the United States as it may deem appropriate to local conditions and requirements." 1 Document S/281. 2 L'article 3, dans sa forme amendee et approuvee, est done redige comme suit: "L'Autorite chargee de l'administration aura pleins pouvoirs d'administration, de legislation et de juridiction sur le Territoire, sous reserve dell dispositions du present Accord, et pourra, sous reserve de toutes modifications qu'elle estimera desira'bles, appIiquer dans le Territoire sous tutelle toutes les lois des Etats-Unis qU'elle jugera appropriees a la situation du Territoire et a ses besoins." Les autres articles du projet d'accord de tutelle pour les iIes anterieurement sous mandat japonais (document S/281) ont ete approuves tels qu'iIs figurent aux Proces-verbaux officiels du Conseil de securite, Deuxieme Annee, Supplement No 8, Annexe 17, al'exception des articles 6 et 7 dont on trouvera la redaction finale dans le compte rendu de la seance actueIle, pages 661 et 662. Le texte approuve de l'Accord de tuteIle a ete pubIie en document sous la cote S/3l8.

May I ask the United States representative if this suggested addition by the Soviet Union representative is agreeable to him? Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): I accept the suggested amendment. The PRESIDENT: Then I will ask the Council to vote on article 6 as originally amended by the Soviet Union, then further amended by the United States, and finaliy amended again by the representative of the Soviet Union. Mr. KIRPALANI (India): If I may seek the indulgence of the Council for a moment, I should like to draw attention to the observations made by the Indian representative in this Council on 28 March.! He suggested another amendment to article 6 for the consideration of the United States representative, with reference to the word "local" as qualifying the word "government", in paragraph I, after the first semi-colon. He explained l~~ 3.t in certain countries "local government" mell .1S "municipal government", and that surely would not be what the United States representative intended.

I was coming to that point. As I have already observed, the representative of New Zealand made the suggestion that "local government" should be replaced by the phrase the govemment of the Territory. But I understand from the Secretariat tha!: as he did not formulate this proposal in writing it was not included in this paper prepared by the Secretariat. I was going to ask you if you would like to have that proposal fDrmally presented so that we can vote on it. I will now ask the Council to vote on the Soviet amendment to article 6 which would now read: "In discharging its obligations under Article 76 b of the Charter, the Administering Authority shall: "I. Foster the development of such political institutions as are suited to the Trust Territory, and shall promote the development of the inhabitants of the Trust Ter"· tOfY towards self-government or independence, as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of the Trust Territory ~d its peoples and the' freely expressed wlshes of the peoples concerned; and to this end shall give to the inhabitants of the Trust Territory a progrel'~ively increasing share in the administrative services in the Territory; shall develop their participa- ·tion in government; shall give due recognition to the customs of the inhabitants in providing a system of law for the Territory; and shall take other appropriate measure" towards these ends". With reference to the point he has raised, I want to ask the representative of India whether the suggested deletion of the word "local" satisfies him? Mr. KIRPALANI (India): Mr. President, India has no tight to vote at this Council table and I should therefore like to take the opportunity of voluntarily appreciating the attitude of the representative of the United States in accepting our suggestion. His acceptance is entirely satisfactory to us. Je prie le representant de nnde de dire si la suppression du mot "local" lill donm;satisfaction. M. KIRPALANI (lnde) (traduit de l'anglais): Monsieur le President, la delegation de l'Inde n'a pas le droit de vot.:- au ConseiL C'est pour.- quoi elle desire profiter de l'occasion qui lui est offerte de remercier spontanement le representant des Etats-Unis d'avoir bien voulu .accepter notre proposition. Son acceptation nous donne pleine satisfaction. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Le representant de la Nouvelle-Zelande· approuve-t-il cette solution? Sit Carl BERENDSEN (Nouvelle-ZeIa.nde) (t.raduit de l'anglais): Je tiensaussi a remerder le representant des Etats-Unis. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Ya~t-il des membr:es du Conseil qui des.i'rem presenter des observations sur les paragraphes 2, 3 et 4 de l'article 6?

Does it meet with the agreement of the representative of New Zealand? Sir Carl BEREN1)SEN (New Zealand):' I should like to say that I also appreciate the action of the United States representative. The PRESIDENT: Are there any observations from any member of the Council onarticle 6, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4?

Yes, this comma will be added as suggested. Article 6, thus amended, was adopted unanimously. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): I should like to perfect article 7 as follows: "In discharging its obligations under Article 76 c of the Charter, the Administering Authority shall guarantee to the inhabitants of the Trust Territory freedom of conscience, and, subject only to the requirements of public oder and s~curity,freedom of speech, of the press and of assembly; freedom of worship and of religious teaching; and freedom of migration and movement."! The significance of this perfection of the article is that "freedom of conscience" shall not be "subject to the requirement of public order and security". Article 7, as amended by the United States representative, was unanimously adopted. Sir Alexander CAnOGAN (United Kingdom): The amendment to article 8, paragraph I which I am instructed to suggest is the omission of the last four words: except the Administering Authority. These words would seem to give a preferential position to the United States, which does not seem to be in strict a,ccordance with Articles 83, paragraph 2, and 76 d of the Charter. From these two·Articles, taken in conjunction, it is clear that, according to the Charter, there should be equal treatment in social, economic, and commercial matters for all Members of the United Nations and their nationals in the strategic area as in any other territory under trusteeship. Article 76 enumel'ates the basic objectives of the Trusteeship System, and paragraph d thereof says: "to ensure equal treatment in social, economic and commercial matters for all Members of the United Nations and their nationals.. , .". One can understand that in a security trusteeship of this kind the Administering Authority would wish to have some safeguard, from the point of view of security, but I would ask the representative of the United States whether that phrase in Article 83, paragraph 3: "without prejudice to security considerations" would not really give him sufficient safeguard. By dropping these four words, as we prop?se, it seems to my Government that the Umted States delegation would be keeping more d~ l'ol'dre p:lblic, la liberte de parole, de presse et de reunion, la liberte de culte et d'enseignement religieux, ainsi que la liberte de migrat.ion et de mouvement."2 Je propose d'apporter cctte modification cl I'article parce que "la liberte de conscience" n'est pas soumise aux "exigences de la securite et de l'ordre public". L'article 7, ainsi amende par le representant des Etats-Unis, est adopte al'unanimite. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (Royaume-Uni) (traduit de l'anglais) : L'amendement au paragraphe I de l'artic.le 8 que j'ai pour instruction de presenter vise cl supprimer les derniers mots: autre que l'Autorite chargee de l'administration. Ce membre de phrase parait accorder aux Etats"Unis une position privilegiee qui ne semble pas etre absolument conforme aux Articles 83, paragraphe 2, et 76d de la Charte. Si I'on considere ces articles ensemble, -n est evident qu'aux termes de la Charte, tous les Membres des Nations. Unies et leurs ressortissants doivent beneficier, dans la zone strategique ainsi que dans toute autre partie du Territoire sous tutelle, d'une egalite de traitement dans le domaine social, economique et commercial. L'Article 76 enumere les fins essentielles du Regime de tutelle et l'une de ces fins, comme il est dit cl l'alinea d, est d' "assurer I'egalite de traitement dans le domaine social, economique et commercial cl tous les Membres de I'Organisation et cl leurs l°essortissants . . ." Il est naturel que dans un accord de tutelle de cette nature, fonde sur des motifs de securite, l'Autorite chargee de I'administration desire se menager des garanties du point de vue de la securite; toutefois, je voudrais demander au representant des Etats-Unis si l'expression "sous reserve des exigences de la securite", qui figure au paragraphe 3 de l'Article 83, ne lui accorde pas en fait des garanties suffisantes. En supprimant les mots en question, ainsi que nous le proposons, il semble cl mon Gouverne- 1 La correction suggeree par le repl€Sentant des Etats- Unis n'interesse que le t~xte anglais. • On trouvera le texte original de l'article 7 dans les Proces-verbaux officiels du Conseil de securite, Deuxieme Annee, Supplement No 8, Annexe 17. t?ujou~s considere ce principe comme essentIel. Mais, en l'occurrence, 011 doit se demander si la regIe de 1'egalite de traitemenl: au profit des Membres de l'Organisation, telle que la prevoit l'ArticIe 76, est invariablement applicable pour les zones strategiques. Les termes de l'alinea 2 de 1'Article 83, qui porte que "les fins essentielles enoncees cl l'Article 76 valent pour la population de chacune des zones strategiques", sont propres cl susciter un doute important cl cet egard. La delegation bdge n'a pas la certitude que l'article 8 du projet d'accord appelle obligatoirement un amendement de la nature de celui qui nous est soumis; elle est d'autant plus encline cl voter pour le texte actuel de l'article 8, que les iles du Pacifique, objet des deliberations du Conseil,. ne revetent pas d'interet veritable du point de vue economique et commercial. La delegation beIge ne perd cependant pas de vue que la situation ne se presentera pas toujours necessairement de la meme fa'i;on. L'interpretation de l'Article 83 de la Charte pourrait, en effet, comporter des consequences pratiques appreciables, suivant l'importance economique des autres zones strategiques auxquell!=s il s'agirait d'appliquer le Regime de tutelle. Le Conseil de securite pourrait ainsi etre amene cl examiner d'une fa'i;on particulierement attentive la question de savoir s'il ne serait pas fonde cl subordonner son approbation d'un projet d'accord de tutelle cl 1'insertion, dans cet accord, de clauses tendant a assurer l'egalite de traitement enoncee par 1'Article 76. La position que prend aujourd'hui la delegation beIge sur la foi de son in ~ormation actuelle et en raison des circonstances du cas present ne saurait donc prejuger la maniere de voir cl laquelle elie pourrait etre amenee cl se rallier dans 1'avenir. M. AUSTIN (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais): Monsieur le President, permettez-moi d'abord de repondre cl la question du representant du Royaume-Uni. Ma reponse est negative. l'estime que la clause The Security Council might thus be led to study with special attention the question whether or not it would be justified in making its approval of a trusteeship agreement dependent upon the insertion in such agreement of clause~ ensuring the eauality of treatment endsaged in Article 76. J. The position which the Belgian delegation takes today, on the basis of information before it at the present time, and by reason. of the circumstances of the present case, could not, therefore, prejudice the attitude which it might feel inclined to adopt in the future. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America) : Mr. President,. first permit me to reply to the question ot the representative of the United Kingdom. My answer is in the p.egative. I think the provision: "without prejudice to 1 Trusteeship Agreements for Ruanda-Urundi, Tanganyika, Western Samoa, New -Guinea, Togoland. under French administration, Togoland under British administration, the Cameroons under French administration and the CamerooDS under British administration. 1 Accords pour le Ruanda-Urundi, le Tanganyika, le Samoa occidental, la Nouvelle-Guinee, le Togo sous administration fran~aise, le Togo sous administration britannique, le Cameroun sous administration francaise, le Cameroun sous administration britannique. • ~ecurity. The provision of the United States draft refen-ed to is designed to ensure to all other Members of the United Nations the. benefit of what is implied by the words "most favoured nation" in the Trust Ten-itory. This is true, notwithstanding the fact that Article 83, paragraph 2, provides that: "The basic objectives set forth in Article 76 shall be applicable to the people of each strategic area." That does not mean to the people generally; it specifies the people of the strategic areas. I shall now turn to Article 76 d to which the representative of the United Kingdom referred. I shall read the covering paragraph at the beginning of Article 76: "The basic objectives of the Trusteeship System, in accordance with the Purposes of the United Nations laid down in Article 1 of the present Charter, shall be: ". . . to ensure equal treatment in sodal, economic, and commercial matters for all Members of the United Nations and their natio:lals, and also equal treatment for the latter in the administration of justice, without prejudice to the attainment of the foregoing objectives and subject to the provisions of Article 80:' I wish to state, and to have it recorded, that the United States Government has no intention, through this clause or any other clause, of taking advantage, for its own benefit and to the detriment of the inhabitants, of the meagre and almost non-existent resources and commercial opportunities that exist in these scattered and barren islands. The nature of this proposed clause is dictated by the fact that these islands are proposed as a strategic trusteeship area and by the obligation which the Administering: Authority will assume unde!' the Charter "'to further international peace and security" and to ensure that the Territory itself shall play its part in the maintenance of international peace and security. prod~s-verbal,que le G6nvernement des Etats- Unis n'a pas I'intention de se reclamer de la clause en question ou de toute autre disposition pour s'assurer exclusivement, et au detriment du bien-etre des habitants, le benefice des ressources et des possibilites commereiales tres faibles, presque inexistantes, que peuvent offrir ces iles dispersees et arides. La clause que nous proposons est imposee a la fois par le fait que ces lIes doivent constituer une zone strategique et par l'obligation qui, aux termes de la Charte, incombera cl l'Autorite chargee de l'administration "d'affermir la paix et la securite internationales" et de faire en sorte que le Ten-itoire lui-meme joue son role dans le maintien de la paix et de la securite internationales. My Government would not have proposed Mon Gouvernement n'aurait pas propose the most favoured nation treatment for this de faire jouer la clause de la nation la plus prospective Trust Ten-itory had it not befavorisee dans le futur Ten-itoire sous tutelle, lieved that such a suggestion was in full acs'il n'avait pas pense que cette proposition est cordance with the Charter. pleinement conforme cl la, Charte. The proposal made by my Government is CequemonGouvernementpropose,r.'estQue for the designation of the former Japanese les lIes anterieurement sous mandat japonais mandated islands as a strategic area. In such soient declarees zone strategique. Dans une an area the security objective must be an overzone de cet ordre, les considerations de securiding consideration. Such a provision in a rite doivent l'emporter sur tautes les autres. strategic area is justified, in the view of my Selon mon Gouvernement, dans le cas des Government, by Article 76 cl and Article 83, zones strategiques, la clause envisagee est justi- _ ~~~jWf0";;":~~~~_~1.'ffi'l&~~.:~,;;~r;~it\"'~;~!'~~:~C~·'.~;M.~'.}/._::-",~~,"~'_1.,;:;:",)~::."":;"\;':?;,:;,~'}'~'.:·1;'t:~-';X:'t;o;;$:.'o';:-,/~',;;;:;:,':;!"·-_",:;'_""K,':'_-_'·"'·.:".:l..~:"!~'.'-,.,'.."'"!l""~'"'''' > - -~;-~~""'>' ~7·;C~"·"""""'-_""-"="'.r:",·~_·"·"",, -_.._.,..._c '....~ It should be recogniz-ed that these islands, in the light of experience, are an economic liability and are not an asset to the Administering Authority, and therefore they do not present an opportunity for important economic development. We might have a different problem, as the representative of Belgium has stated, if it were a different country and territory which we were contemplating. Finally, my Government believes that the provisions of article 8, paragraph I of the draft trusteeship agreement are peculiarly appropriate to this Territory, not only on account of the overriding security aspects but also because of the meagreness of its indigenous resources and the paucity of its population. At this point I think I ought to state my position here, in view of the fact that the United States delegation cannot admit the idea of exercising the veto in the Security Council in a case where it would appear to be acting in a dual capacity, sitting.on both sides of the table. Here we are one of the parties to the agreement that we are proposing, and it does not seem ethical to us that we should exercise a veto on any question as a member of the Security Council, when we should be trading with you at arm's length, were it not for the necessity of dealing with the Security Council in this manner under the Charter. Therefor.e, I want you to know in advance that this question, upon which we are firmly decided, will have to be determined by you without our vote. On the question of whether this amendment should be accepted or not, if we voted, we would of course vote "no", but we are not going to use our vote to exercise the veto. We state this in advance, so that vou can clearly understand our position and also understand that your position in the matter cannot beaafeguarded at all or balanced by the veto right of the United States. On such questions as this, it is perfectly clear-to us at le~st-that, when faced with the possibility of bemg obliged, in view of its responsibilities, to withdraw the tender of an agreement, the United States should certainly not also exercise its right of veto in the Security Council. I just want you to understand that. This is a precautionary statement. I have not made it as strongly as I might, for I have really very strong personal feelings about what we ought

I want to know the views of the Council with regard to our wOl'k. I was hoping that we might complete the discussion of this agreement at today's meeting, but the hour is getting late and I think we still have a controversial article, article 13, on which I am sure the members of the Council win want to speak. I propose that we finish with article 8 and then adjourn. A vote WQ.5 taken by show of hands on the United Kingdom amendment to article 8, which WQ.5 rejected by six votes to three, with two abstentions. Votes for: Poland Un;ted Kingdom Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Votes against: Australia Belgium Brazil Colombia France Syria Abstentions: China United States of America Mr. KIRPALANI (India): I should like to suggest for the consideration o( the representative of the United States, that he might find it possible to qualify the words: "except the Administering Authority" by some suchwords as: "in so far as matters concerning the requirements of security are concerned," so as to make it clear that the exception is desired for the purpose of security measures. The PRESIDENT: In reply to the representative of India, I am sorry but I have to rule him out of order because the article has already been passed by the Council. Mr. KIRPALANI (India): Mr. President, I shall of course respectfully bow to your ruling, but I understood that the vote taken by you concerned only the amendment of the United Kingdom representative.

There was no amendment to article 8, paragraph I, apart from that of the United Kingdom and there was no amendment to the other paragraphs of article 8, so I declare the whole article approved by the Council. Article 8 WQ.5 adopted unanimously. M. KIRPALANI (Inde) (traduit de l'anglais) : Je voudrais demander au representant des Etats-Unis s'il lui serait possible de preciser les mots "autre que l'Autorite chargee de l'administration" par un membre de phrase tel que: "en ce qui concerne les questions touchant aux exigences de la securite" de fa~on a marquer que cette exception serait prise dans l'interet des mesures ~e securite. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Je regrette d'avoir a rejeter la demande du representant de l'Inde, car l'article en. question a deja ete approuve par le Conseil. M. KIRPALANI (Jnde) (traduit de l'anglais): Monsieur le President, je m'incline certes respectueusement devant votre decision, mais j'avais l'impression que le vote qui vient d'avoir lieu s'appliquait seulemental'amendement soumis par le representant du Royaume- Uni. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): A part l'amendement du Royaume-Uni, il n'existe pas d'autre amendement au paragraphe I de l'article 8, pas plus qu'aux autres paragraphes de l'artic1e 8: je declare done que l'article dans son ensemble est approuve par le Conseil. L'article 8, dans son ensemble} est adopted l'unanimite. . Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America) : It would be exceedingly inconvenient for me to be here tomorrow afternoon. I understand that tomorrow is the last day for the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives to consider appropriations fQr the budget of the United States Mission to the United Nations. I am sure you are all interested in tbat almost as much as we are, and I have made arrangements to appear before that Committee and justify the budget tomorrow. I am taking a midnight train. I do hope that. my colleagues on the Council will take that into consideration in fixing the time. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdam): I am sure we all appreciate the difficulty of the representative of the United States in attending a meeting tomorrow. May I suggest, therefore, that the Council should meet tomorrow to resume its discussion of the question of the Corfu Channel. We have holidays in front of us, and I am afraid that if we ·do not go ahead with that tomorrow and, if possible, finish it, we shall be getting on for three months from the date on which I placed the matter on the agenda. I think you will agree it does show a certain amount of delay in dealing with this matter. Delay involves inconvenience for a number of people. I still have an expert here who should be back in London. The Albanian representative who was brought here to attend the case is still here, for all I know, at great inconvenience to himself and possibly to his Government. crain~ que, si n<;ms n'e~ finissons pas ~vec cette questIon demaln 011 SI, tout au mOlns, nons n'en faisons pas avancer I'examen, nous n'en arrivions au troisieme mois de discussion depuis que j'ai fait inscrire la question a l'ordre du jour. Vous conviendrez sans aucun doute que cette question traine un peu trop. Ce retard est prejudiciable a un certain nombre de gens. 1'ai toujours iciavec moi un expert qui devrait deja· etre rentre a Londr'es. Le representant de l'Albanie qui est venu pour cette affaire est encore ici, et il est bien possible que cela soit tres genant pour lui-meme et peut-etre aussi pour son Gouvernement. . Par consequent, si nous ne devons pas continuer la presente discussion demain, j'aimerais que nous passions au troisieme point de notre ordre du jour. . Le colonel HODGSON (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais): Monsieur le President, si j'ai bien compris, lundi a ete definitivement reserve pour l'etude de la question grecqlle. A moins que vous n'ayez pris une decision ferme, je ne vois pas tres bien pourquoi vous avez dit que nous alIions lever la seance. A mon avis, sept minutes devraie~t suffire pour nous permettre de terminer notre discussion. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Je suis pret a continuer. Lundi matin, il ya seance de la Commission des armements de type classique et, dans I'apres-midi, nous devrons nOllS occuper de la question grecque. Le colonel HODGSON (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais): -11 ne nous reste plus qu'un amendement a examiner. Le PRi.sIDENT(traduit de lianglais): Si telle est l'opinion des membres du Conseil, je suis dispose a continuer la discussion. Therefore, if we do not continue this dis- .cussion tomorrow, I should like us to go on with the thi:r:d item on our agenda. Colonel HODGSON (Australia): Mr. President, I understand Monday has definitely been allotted to us for the consideration of the Greek Question. Unless you have given a definite ruling, I do not quite appreciate why you said we were going to adjourn now. As I see it, it will only take another seven minutes to complete this discussion.

I am willing to continue. On Monday morning we have a meeting 'of the· Commission on Conventional Armaments and, in the afternoon, the Greek Question. Colonal HODGSON (Australia): We only have one more amendment to consider.

If that is the view of the Council, I am willing to continue. l~r!)re'us, I think we can do so. It was decided to continue the meeting. Articles 9) 10) 11 and 12 were adopted unanimously. The PRESIDENT: There is a United Kingdom proposal to re-draft article 13. Jt has been circulated. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): I do not think I need say very much about the amendment1 which stands in the name of my delegation. The text has already been circulated. In the view of my Government, article 13 is one of the most important articles of the United States draft. My Government realizes that it would be impossible to provide for any prior notification to the Security Council of any areas which may be clo!.led for security reasons, but it hopes that some provision will be inserted for notifying the Security Council when areas are dosed, giving reasons if possible. With that object, we have submitted, for the appreciation of the United States delegation, this re-draft which you will find in the paper circulated.. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): Perhaps the United Kingdom representative would be entirely satisfied if the records showed that the United States contemplates that notification should be made to the Security Council whenever the proviso that is contained in article 13 comes into effect. Article 13 seems to the United States of such great importance that it could not accede to a suggested change, and the United States is very anxious to ,find out whether my statement, as representative of the United States, is satisfactory this avoiding a prolonged discussion. If that is the case, I will not go into a'full discussion of the matter. You will notice that the act of specification is an act of notification, and it is the purpose of the. United St,~tes to keep the Security Council notified. Of course, the main element of the provision is to bring into. operation Articles 87 and 88, which call for inspection, examination and ,reports. Obviously the proviso is a necessary one in the interest of security; otherwise it would not be there. Sir Alexander CADOGAN .(United Kingdom) : I am m~ch indebted to the represe~ta­ tive of the Umted States for the declaration Mon Gouvernement estime que l'article 13 est l'un des articles les plus importants du projet d'accord soumis par les Etats-Unis. Il comprend bien qu'il ne serait pas possible d'aviser prealablement le Conseil de securite des regions dont l'acd:s pourrait etre interdit pour des raisons de securite; il espere toutefois que l'on aioutera a cet article une clause stipulant que l'on avertira le Conseil de securite 10rsque l'acces d'une region sera interdit, en donnant, si c'est possible, les motifs. C'est a cette fin que nous avons soumis a l'appreciation de la deleg~tion des Etats-Unis le texte nouveau que vous trouverez dans le document qui a ete distribue. M. AUSTIN (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais): Le representant du Royaume-Uni serait peut-etre entierement satisfait si le prod~s-verbal signalait que les Etats-Unis envisagent d'avertir leConseil de securite chaque fois que la disposition figurant a l'article 13 sera appliquec Le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis considere l'artide 13 d'une telle importance, qu'il ne peut accepter l'idee de le changer; il est d'ailleurs desireux de savoir si la declaration que j'ai faite, en qualite de representant des Etats-Unis, a donne satisfaction et evitera une discussion prolongee. S'il en est ainsi, je ne discuterai pas la question a fond. Vous noterez dans' cet a.ticle que le fait meme de preciseI' que certaines zones sont interdites constitue en soi une notification, et les Etats-Unis ·ont bien l'intention de faire cette notification au Conseil cie securite. Bien entendu, le but essentiel de cette disposition est d'appliquer les Articles 87 et 88 qui prevoient des inspections, des meSUIes de controle et des rapports. Il est evident que cette disposition est necessaire dans l'interet de la securite, sans quoi elIe ne s'y trouverait pas. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (Royaume-Ulli) 'traduit de l'anglais): Je suis tres reconnaissant au representant des Etats-Unis de la dec1ara-

In view of the satisfaction that the United Kingdom representative has expressed at the declaration of the United States representative, I take it that no vote is required on the United Kingdom proposal in regard to article 13. Articles 13 and- 14 were unanimously adopted. The PRESIDENT: With regard to article 15, there is an amendment proposed by the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I have alr;eady had occasion to state the position of the Soviet delegation on this question. In proposing this amendment, my delegation assumed that its acceptance would bring the text into closer conformity with the rights and powers of the Security Council as regards the approval of trusteeship agreements concerning strategic areas. The text originally submitted by the representative of the United States dOts not fully take into account the rights of the Security Council; indeed, it somewhat limits those rights. The representative of the United States has submitted a second version of the text for our consideration. The second version is in my opinion worse than the first, for it still further restricts the rights and powers of the Security CounCil with regard to the revision of the conditions of agreements, or the cancellation of a tx:usteeship agreement concerning strategic areas. That is why I submitted an amendment, or rather a new version of article 15, and that is why I can neither agree to nor support the amended text which Mr. Austin presented at a previous meeting of the Council dealing with this question.1 The Soviet delegation considers that the version of article 15 which it has submitted is in complete conformity. with the rights and powers of the Security Council. It therefore considers that the Security Council would be acting correctly in accepting the Soviet proposal. . C'est pour ces raisons que j'ai propose un amendement ou, plutot, ql}~j'ai propose une nouvelle redaction de l'article 15. Les memes raisons m'empechent d'accepter ou d'appuyer le texte revise qui a ete presente par M. Austin aune seance precMente du Conseil consacree a cette question1 • La delegation sovietique estime que le texte qu'elle a propose pour l'article 15 tient parfaitement compte des droits et des pouvoirs du Conseil de securite. Ilnous semble donc que le Conseil agirait sagement en adoptant notre proposition. As the United States is a party to the agreement,all I can do'is to state, with all duedeference, that an amendment in the nature of the one proposed' by the representative of the Soviet Union would probably be unacceptable to the United States as a party to the agreement. It would clearly be in violation of the Charter. As a matter of principle, therefore, it ought nqt to be accepted since the whole theory of the Trusteeship System is based on the fact that there must be, in any case, at least two parties to any trusteeship agreement. It would be an astonishing interpretation of the Charter to assume that the function of determining the terms of the agreement should be given exclusively to that party which, under the Charter, has only the function of approval. An amendment leaving the terms of an agreement and the power of termination to the Security Council alone is in violation of the spirit of the Charter and of the theory of ,agreement. I think' it is cop-ect to say that the amendment which the United States indicated it might accept is worse than the original proposal; but it is worse for the United States, not for the Security Council. . It therefore re~ts. with the Security Council to say whether all our work has gone for naught, whether we should now abandon the idea of agreement and change the-whole'theory and policy of the United Nations Charter by this amendment, which would put the trusteeship under the exclusive control of the Security. Council and the Trustee in a position of not knowing' from. one day to the next where he stood. Our position is that we shall have to refrain from voting on this issue, and the whole matter\may result in the withdrawal of the. principal party, the United States, from executing ,the trust. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): No one contests the fact that the Security Council has the right to approve the agreement submitted to it. Nor does anyone question its right to put forward amendments to the draft agreement presented by the United States. Everyone seems to consider that such a situation is normal and in accordance with the rights and powers of the Security Council. At the same time, however, we are told that the Security Council shall have the right to approve an agreement, but shall not have the right to declare, ata later date, that that agreement has lapsed or become obsolete to such a degree that it must be replaced by a new one. Since no one contests the fact that the Security Council, at the present moment, has the right to approve agreements and to incorporate appropriate amendments in the draft submitted by the United States, I do not see how we can deny the Council at least equal rights in the future. I do not at all have in mind that the lights of the Security Council, as defined in the Soviet version of article 15, should limit the rights of the Administering Puisque personne ne met en doute le fait que le Conseil jouit, a I'heure actuelle, du droit d'approuver les accords et d'amender le projet Que lui ont presente les Etats-Unis, il me semble difficile de lui refuser despouvoirs au moins equivalents a I'avenir. Je n'entends point par Iaque les pouvoirs du Conseil de securite, te1s qu'ils sont definis dans la version sovietique de I'article 15, doivent limiter les droits dont est investie I'Autorite chargee de I am trying to give implementation or effect to Anicle 79, which defines the parties which conclude such an agreement. It is clearly stated there that "The teni.s of trusteeship ... shall be agreed upon by the States directly concerned, including the mandatory Power... ". 'I Which are the "States directly concerned"? Does that mean that the States directly concerned are all the Members of the General Assembly? In the strategil. areas, is it intended that the members of the Security Council should be the only States directly concerned? If this ~vas the case, Article 79 would have put it in, that form, saying "by the General Assembly" or "by the Security Council", as the ca~e may be. Article 79 did not put it in that way; it speCIfies States directly concerned, excluding those indirer..:tly concerned and those not concerned at all. I think that in the way we are proceeding, we are not giving proper implementatio'" or effect to Article 79 of the Ch•.rter,·A:caus'e we are paying no attention or consideration at all to the States directly concerned. In the Security Council, it was proposed that we should invite certain States whose interests we considered as specially affected. We invited them, and we heard their statements and their l'eIUarks,1;>ut they did not take-part in the vote. However, it is something to show a certain respect for the States directly concerned as stipUlated in Article 79. c~ qui concerne l'approbation de I'Accord de tutelle sur des zones strategiques. En presentant sa version de l'article 15, la delegation sovietique, je le repete, n'entend nullement limiter les droits de tel ou tel pays; elle entend seulement que 1'0n respecte les droits et pouvoirs du Conseil de ~ecurite. Le texte des Etats-Unis ne protege pas suffisamment les pouvoirs du Conseil dans ce domaine, Voila ce que je voulais ajouter. M. EL-KHOURI (Syrie) (traduit de l'anglais): A mon avis, il ne fait pas de doute que ceux qui concluent une convention doivent en quelque sorte pouvoir l'amender ou y mettre fin. J'ai remarque que dans le.:> huit Accords de tutelle, acceptes et approuves par l'Assemblee generale, nous avons considere que les deux parties a la convention bilaterale etaient, d'une part, l'Assemblee generale dans son ensemble, d'autre part, la Puissance mandataire chargee de la tutelle. Dans le cas present, les Etats-Unis et le Conseil de securitc charges de la tutelle sont consideres comme etant les deux parties a raccord bilateral. J'essaie actuellement de donner effet a I'Artiele 79 qui definit les parties a un accord de ce genre. Cet article stipule clairement: Les termes du Regime de tutelle ... feront l'objet d'un accord entre les Etats directement interesses, y compris la Puissance mandataire ... " Quels sont "les Etats directement interes- ,ses"? Ces Etats directement interesses sont-ils tous les membres de I'Assemblee generale? DaDS les zones strategiques, veut-on que les membres du Canseil de securite soient les Etats directement interesses? S'il en etait ainsi, I'Article 79 I'aurait precise en disant "par l'Assemblee generale" ou "par le Conseil de securite", suivant le cas. Mais I'Article 79 ne precise pas; il mentionne les Etats directement interesses,excluant ainsi ceux qui ne sont qu'indirectement interesses et ceux qui ne le sont pas du tout. Jestime qu'en envisageant les choses comme nous le faisons actuellement, nous ne donnons pas al'Article 79 de la Charte l'interprctation ou I'application qui convient, car nous n'accordons aucune attention aux Etats directement interesses. , Au Conseil de sc§curite, on a propose que nous invitions certains Etats dont neus considerons les interets comme specialement affectes. Nous les avons invites etnous avons ecoute leurs declarations et leurs remarques, sans leur accorder de droit de vote. Neanmoins, cela temoignait d'un certain respect pour les Etats directement illteresses, comme I believe that the matter ought to be studied further in order to have this part of the work better understood and better defined. I theref9re move that the meeting be adjourned now and another meeting be fixed for next week, so that everyone of us may be able to study this matter and prepare a full discussion on the question as to which States are directly concerned; otherwise all these agreements which have been made will be inadequate.

According to our rules of procedure a motion for adjournment takes precedence over all other questions. I ask the Council to vote on that motion. A vote was taken by show of hands and the proposal for adjournment was rejected by six votes to five. Votes for: Colombia Franc;~ Poland Syria Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Votes against: Australia Belgium Brazil China United Kingdom United States of America M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Il me semble que le representant de la Syrie a fait mention d'une question qui se rattache cl l'examen de l'artide 15. En efIet, non seuIement le texte des Etats-Unis laisse-t-iL de cote la question des Puissances directement interessees, ce qui ne serait qu'un demi-mal, non seulement ce texte passe-toil la question sous silence, mais encore il implique que, lorsqu'il s'agit d'examiner un accord de tutelle, cette question n'existe meme pas. En d'auttes termes, une entente entre les Etats-Unis, 'Autorite chargee de l'administradon, et le Conseil de securite suffirait cl regler Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): It seems ~o me that the representative of Syria has touched upon a question which is related to the discussion of article 15. As a matter of fact, the United States text not only disregards the question of the States directly concerned -which would not be quite so bad-not only ~oes .the text ignore the question but it also ImplIes that, when a trusteeship agreement is to be examined, that question simply does not exist,-in other words that the question of the Trusteeship Agreement can be decided entirely 'on the basis of an understanding between the United States, as the Administering

The hour is getting very late and the Acting Secretary-General tells me that, owing to the long working hours of the personnel of the Secretariat, we cannot· continue much longer; their work is not harder than ours in the Security Council, but there it is. The Secretariat has to consider the working conditions of the sta,ff. As representative of CHINA, I would like to intervene very briefly. It seems that the reason for this deadlock is due to a misinterpretation of the purpose. The Soviet proposal, of course, takes it for granted that the decision of the Security Council would include the concurring vote 'of the United States representative, but according to the declaration which the United States representative has just made, the United States Government is not prepared to exercise a veto in the Security Council in this matter. This is an attitude which we ali respect. I think it is a matter of wording. Taking into consideration the attitude that the United States representative has adopted, the Soviet amendment, as worded, would really amount to unilateral action on the part of one of the two contracting parties, and it would appear that the United States would not vote on the matter under consideration. Even if the Security Council were to take action by a decisio~ which did not include the concurring vote of the United States representative, it would seem that the meaning of the Soviet Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) : I would accept the text, provided that the word terminated be included in this text. I do not know why you omitted the word "terminated". So the text would read: "The terms of the present agreement may be altered, amended, or terminated in accordance with ... etc." The PRESIDENT: I thank the Soviet Union representative for accepting this proposal. I would like to know whether this is agreeable to the United States delegation. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): No; definitely not. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : It seems to me we shall get into a state of hopeless confusion if everybody is now going to try to find compromise texts. I think that the particular compromise which was proposed just now was hopeless, because it would leave matters in a completely foggy state. We have an amendment proposed by the Soviet Union representative. Why can we not vote on it?

I accept Mr. Austin's "no", although I thought that che amendment I proposed was somewhat similar in intent and purpose to the original United States draft article. I really think we have devoted enough time to the discussion of this amendment, and, if it ;s the wish of the Council to take a vote now, I shall put the Soviet Union amendment to the vote.. Mr. GROMYKO (UnioH' of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated fmm Russian): I just want to draw attention to\ the fact that a reference to the Charter of the United Nations is unacceptable to the representative of the United States. I am naturally more than surprised at that fact. Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria): The representatives who did not agree with my propo:;al, that we should adjourn in order to give-everyone a chance to study the question of "States directly concerned", should be requested now to Malgre l'heure tardive, je me demande si nous ne pourrions pas resoudre cette difficulte en redigeant l'amendement d'une fa~on differente. Je propose que nous lui donnions une forme plus ou moins semblable a celle du projet -original de la delegation des Etats-Unis: Les termes du. present accm'd pourront etre m.odifies ou amendes conformement aux dispositions de la Charte. Le repn!:sentant de I'Union sovietique serait-il dispose a accepter cc texte? M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit de l'anglais): Jaccepterais ce texte a condition qu'on y fit figurer le mot abroges. le ne sais pas pourquoi vous avez omis le mot "abroges". ~Le texte devrait done se lire ainsi: "Les termes du present accord pourront etre modifies, amendes ou abroges conformement ..., etc." Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Je remercie le representant de I'Union sovietique de bien vouloir accepter cette proposition. j'aimerais savoir si la delegation des Etats-Unis l'accepte egalement. M. AUSTIN (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais): Non, absolument pas. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (Royaume-Uni) (traduit de l'anglais): j'ai l'impression que si chacun se met a rechercher des formules de compromis, nous allons entrer en pleine confusion. Le compromis qui, en 1'0ccurrence, vient d'etre propose est, a mon avis, parfaitement inutile, car il laisserait les cheses entihement dans le vague. Nous sommes en presence d'un amendement propose par le representant de l'Union sovietique, pourquoi ne pas le mettre aux voix? Le PRESIDENT(traduit de l'flnglais): Jaccepte le "non" de M. Austin, bien qu'a mon avis l'amendement que j'ai propose tende a peu pres au meme but que le projet d'artide des Etats-Unis. Je pense que nous avons consacre assez de temps a la discussion de cet amenuement et, si le Conseil le vent bien, je vais mettre maintenant l'amendement de l'Union sovietique aux voix. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes: sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Je veux seulement faire remarquer que le representant des Etats-Unis considere comme inacceptable une reference a la Charte des Nations Unies. l'en suis evi~emn; ~ tres surpris. M. EL..J(HOUR~ (Syrie) (traduit de l'anglais): Il faudrait maintenant .inviter les representants qui ont vote contre ma proposition d'ajournement en Vile de permettre a chacun de nous cl'etudier la question des "Etats direc-

I think the majority of the members wanted to finish this question before adjourning. That was their sole reason-it was certainly my reason-for voting against the adjournment. Do you now propose a second motion for adjournment? Mr. LANGE (Poland): In that' case, I wish to present an amendment which I think is equivalent to yours, namely, th,at article 15 should read as follows: "The terms of the present agreement shall not be altered, amended or termina <ed, except as provided by the Charter". I should like to s~bmit that amendment formally. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): May I just ask one question? What does the Charter say about termination? Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria): 'Nothing. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : Then what is the point of that amendmen;; It does not mean anything at all. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated fro.m Russian): May I put a 'question to the representative of the United Kingdom? Is it stated in the Charter tlh~t termination and amendment of an agree- .ment are to be effected with the consent of the Administering Authority and independ-' entlyof the powers and rights of the Security Council? What does the Charter have to say on that score? M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Puis-je poser une question au representant du Roraume-Uni? Est-il dit dans la Charte que la modification ou l'abrogation d'un accord sera effectuee avec le consentement de l'Autorite chargee de l'administration et independamnientdes droits et pouvoirs du Consei'l de securite? Que dit la Charte a ce :sujet? Colonel HODGSON (Australia): Everybody is blaming me for this, because I suggested that we should continue. I can hear all kinds of comments. I think we should settle the matter, but not in some of the ways which have been suggested. The representative of Syria picks out a particular Article, Article 79, and he asks this Council to argue which are the "States directly concerned". To be perfectly frank, he knows more than anyone here about that Article and he knows full well that it has been argued on for fifteen months. If this Council is asked to retuM to an academic argument which is only one aspect of the .question, we shall get nowhere. No one realizes that better than he does. The other point I wish to raise is this: if we do not have a clear and definite term and :we use vague language like "except as provided by the Charter" or any amendment to that effect, every time a deletion, amendment or alteration is suggested, then we shall have a debate lasting for years. What does "in accordance with the Cha!ter" mean? Surely we have to be clear, positive and definite regarding our terms. It seems to me ridiculous by any interpretation. For example, New Zealand, Belgium and Australia should first have to give their consent before the General Assembly could modify their Trusteeship Agreements. The interpretation is being advanced that this Council can do it on its own without the Administering Authority. It cannot. Agreement must be reached with thp Administering Authority because the Administering Authority has a right of veto in the Council. Therefore, in our opinion, this amendment of the Soviet Union representative, on the face ·of it, is absurd. J suggest, Mr. President, that we proceed to the vote. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): Sir Alexander Cadogan stated that the language of the Charter is too general and that it is therefore difficult to justify such an amendment. I must agree that the language employed in the Charter is ofcourse of a general character, but the general quality, or perhaps, the insuffi.- I find difficulty in accepting an amendment which says that the terms shall not be altered or ,terminated except as provided by the Charter, when the Charter does not provide for termination at all. That is all I said.

Before I call on the representative of Syria, who has asked for recognition, I want to say that my attention has been again drawn to the fact that we are keeping the personnel of the Secretariat long overdue. We have two amendments before us, the Soviet Union amendment and the Polish amendment. After the representative of Syria has spoken, I think I shall take a vote on the two amendments. Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria): The representative of the United States did not accept this proposaL It was clarified by the representative of the United Kingdom, who said that the Charter made no provision for the termination of the mandate. Now to make the matter easier I should like to point out. that the Charter does include provisions for the termination of a mandate. The Charter does not provide for trusteeships being eternal. It says that trusteeshipswill be ended by self- Sir Alexander CADOGAN (Royaume-Uni) (traduit de l'anglais) : M. Gromyko a, comme d'habitude, cite inexactement mes paroles. Je n'ai jamais dit que les termes de la Charte etaient trop generaux. Jai dit qu'autant que je sache la Charte ne contient aucune disposition relative a la fa~on de mettre fih aces accords et qu'en consequence l'amendertlent etait trop general et trop vague et provoquerait beaucoup de confusion. rai peine a accepter un amendement qui stipule que les termes ne seront ni modifies ni abroges, si ce n'est conformement aux dispositions de la Charte, alors que la Charte ne prevoit rien au sujet de l'abrogation. Voila tout ce que j'ai d't. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Avant de donner la parole au representant de la Syrie, je tiens a dire qu'on a attire une fois de plus mon attention sur le fait que nous retenons le personnel du Secretariat hien au deIa de l'heure normale. . Nous sommes saisis de deux amendements, celui de l'Union sovietique et celui de la Pologne. Apres I'intervention du representant de la Syrie, je mettrai ces deux amendements aux voix. M. EL-KHOURI (Syrie) (traduit de l'anglais) : Le representant des Etats-Unis n'a pas accepte cette proposition. Le representant du Royaume-Uni a apporte un ec1aircissement en disant que la Charte ne c.ontenait aucune disposition relative a la Ear;on de mettre fin au mandat. Je dirai, au contraire, pour faciliter les choses, que la Charte contient bien des dispositions relatives a la far;on de mettre fin a un mandat. La Charte ne prevoil pas que les tutelles se prolongeront eternellement. Elle A vote was taken by show of hands and the USSR amendment was rejected by eight votes to one with two abstentions. Vote for: . Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Votes against: Australia Belgium Brazil China Colombia Poland Syria United Kingdom Abstentions: France United States of America The PRESIDENT: I now put the Polish amendment to the vote. The Polish amendment has already been circulated. It !"eads: "The terms of the present agreement shall not be altered, amended or terminated, except as provided by the Charter". A vote was taken by show of hands; the amendment of Poland was not carried. Votes for: China Poland ~yria Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Votes against: Australia Belgium United Kingdom Abstentions: Brazil Colombia France United States of America The PRESIDENT: The motion is not carried. I will now put the United States text to the vote. It reads: "The terms of the present The PzmSIDENT: The original article 15 reads as follows: "The terms of the present agreement shall not be altered, amended or tenr.iilated ~ithout the consent of the Administering Aut..'J.ority:' A vote was taken by show of hands and article 15 was adopted by eight votes} with three abstentions. Votes for: Australia Belgium Brazil China. Colombia France United Kingdom United States of America Abstentions: Poland Syria Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Article 16 was adopted unanimously. The PRESIDENT: I will now ask the Council to vote on the agreement as a whole, noting the various changes that have'been adopted. A vote was taken by show of hands and the agreement as a whole was adopted unani-, mously. The PRESlDltNT: I am requested by the Secretariat to announce· that the French text of the Trusteeship Agreement now approved might need a final revision, more especially as re· gards the amendments suggested and adopted during our deliberations. We will therefore authorize the Secretariat to make such slight modifications of style in the French text as may·be necessary in\ order to bring the two .texts into complete harmony. The meeting is adjourned until tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. The meeting rose at 8.45 p.m. Votent pour: Australie Belgique Bresil Chine Colombie Etats-Unis d'Amerique France Royaume-Uni S'abstiennent: Pologne Syrie Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques L'article 16 est adopte al'unanimite. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Je demanderai maintenant au Conseil de voter sur l'ensemble, compte tenu des diverses modifications qui ont ete adoptees. Le projet d'accorddans son ensemble) mis aux voix) est adopte a main levee a l'unanimite. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Le Secretariat me prie de vous faire savoir que le texte fran~ais de l'Accord de tutelle que nous venons d'approuver aura peut-etre besoin d'une dernU:re revision, notamment en ce qui concerne les amendements proposes et adoptes au cours de nos qeliberations. Nous autoriserons done le Secretariat cl proceder aux legeres modifications de style qui peuvent etre necessaires dans le texte fran~ais pour mettre les deux textes pleinement en harmonie. La prochaine seance aura lieu demain cl 10 heures et demie. La seance est levee a20 h. 45. UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Security Council Publications Publications du Conseil de securite Journal du Conseil de secur;te (18 ianvier-11 iuillet 1946), bilingue:anglais-franfSais, 42 numeros, 868 pages, la serie $4,20 Journal of the Security Council (18 January- 11 July 1946), bilingual: English-French, 42 issues, 868 pages,the set $4.20 The Journal of the Security Council, issues 1-42, contains the records of the first 49 meetings of the Security Council in their provisional form. These records are now being re-edited and will later appear as Security Council OfJicial Records, First Year, First Series. Publication of the Journal of the Security Council was discontinued on II July 1946. Les numeros 1 a 42 du Journal du Conseil de securite contiennent sous forme provisoire, les proct:sverbaux des 49 premieres seances du Conseil de securite. Ces proct~s-verbaux sont actuellement reedites et paraitront ulterieurement sous le titre: Procesverbaux ofJiciels du Conseil de securite, Premiere Annee, Premiere Serie. La publication du Journal du Conseil de securite a ete interrompue le 11 juillet 1946. . Proces -verbaux officiels du Conseil de securite/ Premiere Annee, Seconde StJrie, bilingue: anglais~ franfSais. Proces-verbaux officiels Nos I a29, cinquantieme seance a quatre·vingt-huitieme seance, 702 pages, la serie $4,90 Supplements aux proces-verbaux officiels du Conseil de securih~, Premiere Annee, Seconde Serie, bilingue: anglais-fran~ais. Supplements Nos 1 a10, 190 pages, la serie $1,95 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 Supplement special: Rapport du Sous-Comite charge de la question espagnole, 104 pages, edition frafil,;aise..........$O,90 Les Proces-verbaux 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 adressee aux agents de vente. . Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council, English edition $ .20 Reglement inhirieur provisoire du Conseil de securite, edition franfSaise :.$0,20 ARGENTINA-ARGENTINE Editorial Sudamericana S.A. Calle Msina 500 Buenos Aires DOMINICAN REPUBLIC REPUBLIQUE DOMINICAlNE Lihreria Dominicana Calle Mercedes No. 49 Apartado 656 Ciudad Tl"ujillo AUSTRALIA-AUSTRALlE H. A. Goddard Pty. Ltd. 255a George Street Sydney ECUADOR-EQUATEUR Muiioz Hermanos y Cia. Nueve de Octubre 703 Casilla 10-24 GuayaquiI BELGIUM-BELGIQUE Agence et Messageries de la Presse 14-22 rue du Persil Bruxelles JITNLAND-FlNLANDE Akateeminen Kirjakauppa 2, Keskauskatu Helsinki FRANCFr-FRANCE Editions A. Pedone 13, rue SoufBot ParisVe BOLIVIA-BOLIVIE Lihreria Cientffica y Literaria Avenida 16 de JOOo, 216 CasiIla 972 LaPaz GREECE-GRECE "Eleftheroudakis" Lihrairie intemationale Place de la Constitution Athenes CANADA-CANADA The Ryerson Press 299 Queen Street West Toronto -GUATEMALA GUATEMALA Jose Goubaud Goubaud & Cia. Ltda. Sucesor 5a Av. Sur No. 6 y 9a C. P. Guatemala HAITI-HAITI Max Bouchereau Lihrairie ''"A la CaravelIe" Boite p6stale 111-B Port-au-Prince INDIA-INDE Oxford Book & Stationery Co. Scindia House New Delhi IRAN-IRAN Bangahe Piaderow 731 Shah Avenue Teheran CHILE-CHILI Edmundo Pizarro Merced 846 Santiago CHl..1'iA-CHlNE The Commercial Press Ltd. 211 Honan Road Shanghai COSTARICA COSTA-RICA Trejos Hermanos Apartado 1313 San Jose CUBA-CUBA La Casa Belga Rene de Smedt O'Reilly 455 La Habana CZECHOSLOVAKIA TCHECOSLOVAQUlE F. Topic IRAQ-IRAK Narodni Trida 9 Mackenzie & Mackenzie Praha 1 The Bookshop DENMARK- .. DANEMARK Baghdad Einar Munskgaard LEBANON-LIBAN Norregade 6 Lihrairie universelIe Kjobenhavn Beirut NETHERLANDS PAYS·BAS N. V. Martinus Nijhoff Lange Voorhout 9 s'Gravenhage NEW ZEALAND NOUVELLE-ZELANDE Gordon & Gotch - Waring Taylo!' Street Wellington NORWAY-NORVEGE Norsk Bokimport AjS Edv. Storms Gate 1 OSll} SWEDEN-8UEDE C. E. Fritze's Kungl. Hofbokhandel A.-B! Fredsgatan 2 Stockholm SWITZERLAND-SUISSE I Librairie Payot S. A. Lausanne •••• O·~ •••••• ~ ••• Il ••• Hans Raunhardt Kirchgasse 17 ZurichJ SYRIA-SYRlE Lihrairie universelle Damascus UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA UNION SUD-AFRlCAlNE Central News Agency Ltd. Commissioner & Rissik Sts. Johanneshurg UNITED KINGDOM ROYAUME-UNl H.M. Stationery Office P.O. Box 569 L~ndon, S.E. 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ETATS-UNlS D~MERlQUE Intemational Documents Service Columbia University Press 2960 Broadway New York 27, N. Y. YUGOSLAVIA YOUGOSLAVlE .. Drzavno Preduzece Iugoslovenska Knjiga Moskovska !.ll. 3~ Belgrade