S/PV.1305 Security Council

The provisional agenda for this morning’s meeting is before the Security Council in document S/Agenda/X05. This meeting is being held at the urgent request uf the representative of Israel. That request is contained in a letter dated 12 October 1966 from the representative of Israel which has been circulated in document S/7540. If there is no objection, 1 shall take it that the agenda is adopted.

Duringyesterday’s meeting of the Security Council [1304th meeting], a number of delegations, including my own, stressed in their statements the need to continue our consideration of the question which was raised by the Democratic Republic of the Congo and which we havebeen discussing for several days. 3. I would remind the Council that we fully shared the concern expressed by a number of itsmembers in stressing the need for an uninterrupted consideration of the Congolese question because of its importance, seriousness and urgency. This is obvious from the very nature of the problem and from the position taken by the African States participating in the Council’s discussion of the question. The special significance of the problem is show by the fa& that the African StateS have sent their Ministers of Foreign Affairs here. 4. Nevertheless, despite the objections raised by a number of African countries and permanent members 5. In our statement today we wish again, as we did yesterday, to draw the Council’s attention to the fact that an interruption of our discussionof an acute problem affecting the destinies of many African countries cannot satisfactorily be explained away, as the President attempted to do yesterday in the Council. 6. As regards Israel’s complaint against Syria, a stucly of the facts and documents has failed to convince us that this is an urgent and pressing problem which must take precedence over the consideration of the Congolese question. 7, Yesterday, we talked to the Israel representative, who, after explaining the circumstances of the case, said that Israel, for its part, hadno intention of asking for a meeting of the Security Council. It was therefore all the more strange that the President took the unilaternl decision to convene the Security Council immediately, despite the fact that the memhers of the Council were divided and that it was not clear which was the majority view. 8. We consider it necessary again to draw the attention of the President ancl members of the Security Council to this circumstance. We believe that such prececlents cari hardIy strengthen the authority of the Council or of its President. We hope that in deciding such questions in the future greater heed Will be paid to the wishes of the Council’s members and the considerations advanced by them.

On the question just raised by the representative of the Soviet Union, we made our position very clear yesterday. We were not in Eavour of ,any interruption of the discussion of the question of the Congo which was before us yesterday; 1 Will net dwell on that point nOw. 1 am not taking the floor to abject to the inscription of an item for discussibn concerning allegations which we have grown accustomed to hearing every now and then froni the Isracl authorities. We know that those allegations are lalse and are a pretext used to caver aggrcssive dcsigns and concrete plans in the area. !Vi:’ bave always been in favour of a hearing for any pilJ?ty resorting to the Security Councill, and our encl,!re,~nl.~nl of a hearing in this case is designed ta 10. It is not my intention to go into the substance of the case at this stage but, with due respect, we feel that there is need for an amendment in the provisional agenda. It is a well established practice in the Council SO to present items fox discussion on the agenda as not to prejudge the issues or in any way prejudice any of the parties concerned. 11. The text of the two complaints incorporated in the Israel letter should be examined carefully before we accept the letter as the basis for the agenda of the Counoil. We therefore take exception to the reference made in the provisional agenda to the Israel letter of 12 October 1966 [S/7540]. The letter refers to acts of aggression. It refers to threats. It refers to open incitement to war, in violation of the General Armistice Agreement. These, 1 submit, are findings; they are conclusions; and they even embody condemnations, condemnations which the Council cari determine only after careful study of the various aspects of the case. We cannot have an item entitled “act of aggression”. This is a finding, a finding of fa& and the Council has not even heard the case at this stage, TO accept this language is to prejudge the question and to prejudice, through procedure, its substance. 12. At this stage, what we have is nothing but allegations, and the agenda which we adopt should be one roflect.ing the reality of the situation, a topic which is not controverslal and which we shall later discuss. 13. If we in the Council were to proceed on the implication of the language embodied in the Israel lette!?, if we were ta proceed on the premise that, there is an act of aggression, as an item, then our deliberations would have to be confined to preventive measures or corrective action, something that has no precedent in the practice of the Security Council. 14. 1 am sure that 1 need not dwell on these points, for i.t has been the rule in this important body to ensure that the agenda reflects any complaint made, in good or bad faith, in an impartial manner. Therefore, any reference to the Israel letter in the agenda, without qualification, violates that rule. 15. 1 have already stated thxt Israel has chosen, as it always does, to prejudge and condemn the other Part)? in advance, and it is for that reason that 1 cal1 on representatives at this table not to lose sight of this important point. I therefore formally move that the text in item 2 of the provisional agenda should read as follows: “The Palestine question: Allegations contained in the letter dated 12 OcLober 1966, D en etc. We WOUld leave the remaincler of the text as it is. The Word ” allegations” is non-committal and, on the face of it, Calls for consideration. 18, Directing myself to the first speaker, 1 would merely make three or four points. First, there are many examples in the practice of the Council of the precedent that, because of a similar degree of urgency, matters have been treated in parallel. That precedent is being applied in this case and it seems an emineutly sensible one which, in accordance with the provisional rules of procedure of the Council, the President is authorized to propose. 19. This treating of items in parallel is, according to the time-table which was decided yesterday, the practice which we are now following. It is in fact hard to accept that a question on which, before yesterday’s meeting, we had had a week’s recess, is, as the representative of the Soviet Union has claimed, one of overriding urgency when compared with a matter which could, if the necessary restraint is not exercised by a11 parties concerned, flare up into actual armed combat, 20. May 1 add that if in fact, as the Soviet representative has suggested, the Congo situation is SO urgent, one might have expected an immediate investigation of the facts or some other action by the Council to forestall a breach of the peace or a deterioration of the situation; but nobody has suggested that that was necessary, and some indeed have explicitly spoken of it as unnecessary. 1 therefore regard the points raised by the representative of the Soviet Union as unnecessarily obstructive. 21. Addressing myself to the point raisecl by the representative of Jordan, I am rather mystifiecl since the item as worded in our provisional agenda [S/Agenda/l305] does not take up the wording of the Israel letter, which may or may not be provocative. It uses the traditionally neutral wording and merely says “Letter dated 12 October 1966 from the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council”, with no statement of the substance of the matter whatsoever. In framing the item in this way 1 think that the Secretariat has worked in its traditional and capable and impartial way , and that the existing wording is thoroughly neutral-even more neutral than the wording that has been suggested by the representative of Jordan.

Just by looking at this letter, one cari see that it is an unusual letter in the practice of the Security Council. The letter does not embody a statement of so-called facts, an explanation of a situation or reference to certain things that happened. The letter embodies nothing but two paragraphs, two charges, two items, and, if we incorporated it as the item on our agenda and referred to 24, We cari refer to allegaticn;, we cari refer to charges, we cari ref&r to claims, we cari refer to a complaint, but we cannot refer to a letter of this kind unless we refer to it as a charge or charges. 25. This is still P preliminary paper, Mr. President, and it continues to be within your jurisdiction. Until the Council takes action on it, it is your property and within your jurisdiction. You cari, in your wisdom as our President, make the necessary changes to make it more acceptable to a11 the members around this table, 1 do not think we even need to discuss this. It is still the property of the President until action is taken. Perhaps, Mr. President, you cari help us by finding it fit to present to us a preliminary paper which would be more acceptable.

If there is no other comment on the proposa1 put forward by the representative of Jordan, then 1 would inquire of him whether he wishes to press his roque& in a forma1 motion. 1 would merely say that the provisional agenda before us has been drawn up in the usual custom and in the usual manner, and 1 would therefore seek the decisionof the Council on whether it should be amended. 1 would ask the representative of Jordan to tel1 me whether he wishes, having made his point, to leave it at that or whether he wishes the mattcr to be put to a vote.

1 fear I may be going back a little, but 1 really must point out that yesterday, and even duringthe consultations which you arranged the day before yesterday, my delegation took the view that, considering the gr:vity of the Congolese complaint that had been submitted to us, it would be wiser to devote the maximum possible time to that problem, solely in order to find an early solution to it. 26. Yesterday afternoon again, some of our distinguished colleagues here, including two fellow Africans who are non-permanent members of the Council, made Plain the extent of our concern over this probl@m. 1 would add that one of the permanent members was good enough to point out that the Congolese com- 29. In this connexion, 1 would remaxk that there is a little saying in my countxy concerning the way to dandle a baby* With a11 due respect to you, Mx. President, 1 do not know if it is the sameinyour countxy but at home, in Africa, it is generally the mothexs or relatives who dandle babies and whoevex dandles and lifts the baby in his arms always holcls it facinghim, in other woxds, the baby never tuxns its back on the person dandling it. 30. Bearing this little Afxican saying in mind, it is vexy clear to me why the debate on this pxoblem, which is of the gxeatest concern to us, should have been set aside and interrupted to make way fox oux discussion this moxning of the problem concexning Isxael and Syxia. 1 have the highest respect fox the prexogatives of the Presidency. 1 respect the President’s decision and 1 shall bow to it, but I wished to bxing the points 1 have made to youx attention. 31. Mx. GOLDBERG (United States of America): Mx. President, you axe now discovering, fxom a longer experience than 1 had, what 1 cliscovexed in my first presiding xole as Pxesident of the Secuxity Council, that the lot of a President, like the lot of a policeman, is not an easy one. 32. This discussion we are now having, is, 1 think, a good discussion. It emphasizes that the Security Council. by virtue of its xesponsibflity undex the Charter as the primaxy organ of the UnitedNations for the maintenance of peace and secuxity, often has befoxe it simultaneously many problems of urgency. 33. That is the position today. The Congolese matter, which has been before the Council fox some time, is an urgent matter. My own delegation indicated the 1304th meeting that we were prepaxed to go on with the discussion at that meeting for as long as was necessaxy. We are prepared this zftexnoon, when the Congolese matter is again on oux agenda, to continue that discussion and to spend as much time as is necessaxy to dispose of it, 34. Thexe is another urgent mattex befoxe us. It has been put before us as a mattex of urgency by the Foxeign Mini&er of Israel. 1, fox one, cari find no qarrel with the fair mannex in whichyou, Mr. Pxesident, have attempted to accommodate the several oompIaints and charges which are befoxe the Council. “1 feel thât 1 acted reasonably. The represontative of the United States, apparently, does not entirely agree with me. 1 am sorry he does not agree with me, but 1 feel that everything which could have been done on my part, by way of consultation with members of the Security Council, was in face done.” 1973rd meeting, para. 20.1 35, 1 take it, Mr. President, that today nobody challenges your authority, which 1 think is quite establfshed, or your responsibility, which is evident. It is my view that you have proceeded as a11 Council Presidents try to do: you have accommodated yourself to the exigencies of the situation. 36. 1 should like to say a few words about the comments made by the representative of Jordân about the wording of the agenda. It is a trrtditional method of the Secretariat in preparing the agenda to indicate that a letter has been received, in this case from the delegation of Israel. We pass no judgement at this stage about the merits of the letter. Indeed, we possess no authority in the Council to censor a communication from any Member. The most applicable precedent, it would seem to me-there are many hundreds-would be one relating to the Palestine question, whenâ complaint was made by the delegation of Syria. 1 have before me the agenda item for the 1294th meeting of 2 August, It is drafted in the sameform as our agenda item for today’s meeting, and it reâds in Part: “Letter dated 21 July 1966 from the Permanent Representative of Syria to the United Nations âddressed to the President of the Security Counciltt. 37. What is more important and more relevant,however, is the letter of 21 July 1966 from the representative of Syria to the President of the SeCUr%’ Council. That letter is almost the same as the letter which we have from the delegation of Israel. I should like to read it because it raises the same question as the representative of Jordan raised: 38. Here is a charge of aggression. We did not by adopting the agenda indicate that we agreed or disagreed with the letter from the representative of Syria requesting an urgent meeting. Henoe, on these Cou&s, ‘l think that we ought to proceed ‘as wè have always done. We should hear the parties, we should analyse what they have to say and then we, should arrive at the best judgement we cari in the Council, based upon our obligations under the Charter. 39. Mr,,BERRO’(Uruguay) (translated fromSpanish): 1 must confess that 1 Yvas unprepared for the procedural questions just raised by the representatives of the USSR and Jordan: one relating tothe President’s powers in convening a meeting of the Council and the dther concerning the wording of the agenda of today’s meeting. 40. With respect to the first question-the powers of the President-1 think we must abide by the provisions of rules 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 of the Security Coun- Cil!s provisional rules of procedure. 41. Rule 1 states that: nMeetings of the Security Council shall . ,; be held at the cal1 of the Presid.ent at any time he deems necessary , . . “. In other words, the rule gives the President of this body discretionary powers, 42, Rule 2 imposes an obligation. It states: “The President shall cal1 a meeting in the Security Council at the request of any member of the Security Council.” It is categorical, not optional or discretionary. The words “shall calll’ are mandatory. 43. Rule ‘7 reads: “The Provisional Agenda for each meeting of the Security Council shall be drawn up by the Secretary-General and approved by the President of the Security Council.” This rule is pertinent to the second observation made by the Jordanian representative. 44. Rule 8 states: “The Provisional Agenda for a meeting shall be communicated by the Secretary- General to the representatives on the Security Council at least three days before the meeting, but in urgent circumstances it may be communicated simdtaneously with the notice of the meeting.” In other words, the rule leaves it to the President,, in consultation with the Seoretary-General, to decide whkn a matter is urgent. . 45. Then. rule 9, which the President invoked today in opening the meeting, states: “The first item of the Provisional Agenda for each meeting of the Se- 47, 1 do not believe that the present case has reached any such extremes. Clearly, the President has abided by the rules of procedure and the precedents to which the United States representative bas referred. While the members who yesterday stressed the need not to interrupt the continuity of the item raised by the Democratic Republic of the Congo by a discussion of the Israel complaint may be right that, from the rutional and logical point of view and even from the standpoint of political interests, we should finish this item first, we cari only conclude that the President remained strictly within the bounds of his legitimate prerogative, and that no one cari deny that this prerogative is legitimate. 48. Finally we could discuss the wisdom of his deci- Sion, but here we would be enteringon another subject. What is clear is that the President has exercised his authority in conformity with the Charter, the rules of procedure and the precedents, even though this may net be fully in accordance with the urgency upon which the representatives who yesterday opposed his decision have placed SO much emphasis. SO much for the first point. 49. With regard t0 the second point, 1 should like to draw attention to the note submitted by Israel, which appears in today’s agenda under the general heading which is a11 too familiar to the Security Council: “The Palestine question”, followed by the explanatory statement: “Letter dated 12 October 1966 from the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (W7540)“. 50, 1 do not wish to prejudge this matter or to enter into its substance because we are here dealing with a procedural question. 1 do wish to say that the use of a legal term in a document by one of the parties in no way commits the Council as a whole or any of its members. As the United States representative very aptly said a moment ago, the precedent of the previous meeting shows that the.President has not taken sides with respect t0 the wording of the agenda, 52. 1 therefore think that we shall be wasting time if we dwell on this procedural point when the groups affected by the problem of the Congo consider it SO urgent and if we do not decide to take up the item proposed by the President: namely, the adoption of the provisional agenda concerning the question of Palestine: letter from the State of Israel. 53. This is what is required by law, whatthe Council should do and, finally, what 1 believe to be in the interests of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as it will enable ns this afternoon to try to settle this problem once and for ail.

In the first,place, 1 think it was clear yesterday that the African members of this Council did not like the fact that a matter to which they attached importance and which the Council was already considering had to be postponed in the mannes that it was. But, SO far as 1 am concerned, that is past and gone. 55. In regard to the sequence of items onthe agenda, final responsibility rests with the President. Having occupied that Chair for a short time myself in the recent past, 1 know that in regard to this and other features of our proceedings it is not a very comfortable chair to occupy. Therefore, 1 waspreparedto accept the decision of the President once it had been made. 1 myself subscribe to the view that whenever a member raises a matter of urgent. importance the Council should lose no time in looking into it. 1 take that view because if we are to stop countries from taking the law into their own hands we must let it be known that we shall look after their problems as soon as we cari. The emphasis, of course, is on “as soon as we cana. If we are already considering other items, then the problem of priority arises. 56. 1 do not mind confessing that for those of us who live in Africa, with some of the unpleasant things we have to put up with, the Congolese problemdoes seem to be a matter of importance. 57. Having said that, 1 shall now turn to the other problem that has been raised this morning about the wording of the agenda, 1 must confess that when my colleague, the representative of Jordan, opened his remarks on this matter, 1 was taken aback because 1 had thought that the agenda looked quite right. 1 have been on this Council for only a short time and 1 am learning every day. From what he said, 1 got the impression that if the agenda had used the words “allegationstl or ticomplaintsll, it would have been 58, Therefore, it seems to me that, having regard to a11 the preeedents that have been cited this morning, having regard to the urgency of the matters with which we are concerned, and having regard to the fact that merely using the word l’lettertt does not commit us to anything at a11 in that letter, but merely submits it for consideration, 1 should like very much to appeal to my friencl and colleague, the representative of Jordan, not to press to a vote the issue that he has raised, but to allow us to continue with our proceedings this morning. 59, Mr. TARABANOV (Bulgaria) (translated from Brench): We have engaged in a lengthy procedural discussion this morning, which is, of course, merely the continuation of yesterday’s discussion. Although we have not had an opportunity of participating in this work, OUF view is that the President of the Security Council has very great responsibilities and considerahle authority in the discharge of his functions, particularly with regard to the agenda and the convening of meetings. We have very great respect for that authority. When this subject was diTcussedyesterdayF therefore, we merely appealed to the President to reconsider his position regarding the order of meetings of the Security Council, since we were already examining a very important question, that of the Congo. We were further prompted to do SO because we observed that the Council members, and even you yourself, Mr. President, were somewhat undecided since when you announced that you would like to convene a meeting at 4.30 p.m. to continue the debate on the Congo and just as the interpretation ofyour statement began, the Nigerian representative asked to speak. At that moment, however, you decided to announce two other meetings, SO that the Council should know your intentions, We felt that if you had not acted as you did, there might have boen a calmer discussion of the Security Council’s future work. That was why we appealed to you at that point to reconsider your dacision, aware as we are of the responsibilities and authority of the President of the Council. 60. As to the question of the Congo, we have today again discussed whether it is an urgent, important matter or a secondary matter of no urgency. My view is that it is extremely urgent. If 1 am not mistaken, one member of the Council, my friend, the representative of New Zealand, said this morning that if the situation in the Congo had been SO urgent, we should not have wasted one week in debating what we were going ta do after the first two meetings, only to take UP the question again a whole week later. 62. The New Zealand representative went on to say that whereas the Congo question was not SO very urgent, the Palestine question might indeed endanger peace and threatened to cause an armed conflict with unpredictable consequences and that it should therefore be examined as early as possible, If anyone has information concerning this potential threat he should, of course, bring it immediately to the attention of the Council which, in an emergency, cari even holda night meeting, 63. Now, with regard to the question of procedure, 1 certainly agree that we should consider the letters to the President of the Security Council and the Secretary-General concerning threats to peace. For the benefit of the United States representative, 1 would point out that the Jordanian representative did not say that the wording of the agenda was unusual; he said only that the letter to the President was an unusual letter and not an ordinary one. 64. In the circumstances, 1 believe we are duty bound to take account of i:le feelings and objections expressed here by various delegations. Item 2 on the agenda might, for example, be worded: “The Palestine question: complaint contained in the letter dated 12 October 1966 . , .It etc. We would then be dealing with a complaint and not simply with a letter containinglanguage which is not wholly acceptable to certain 0% the parties, 1 should therefore like to ask the representative of Jordan if he would agree to the agenda being SO worded and to ask the President whether, in his wisdom, he could take a decision to that effect.

When my colleaguesand 1 spoko yesterday about the need for continuing with the debate which had been started by the Democratic Republic of the Congo on the Congo situation, I venture to believe that we had the majority of the members of this Council on our side. But, Mr. President,we were somewhat surprised that you did not heed the points which we raised and that you went ahead and decided to hold this other meeting on a different issue, as it appears today on the agenda of the Security Council. 1 am aware of the fact that the provisional rules of procedure give you absolute discretion when it cornes to convening meetings of the Security Council, Rules 1 and 2, which have alseady been cited, are definitely 66. Mr. President, 1 do not see that you have such power. I think rule 12 makes it abundantly clear that “Any subsequent change in or addition to the Provisional Agenda shall be brought to the notice of the members V of the Security Council. It is they who have the power of deciding whether a new issue is more important than one which they are already proceeding with, and of changing the agenda as they may prefer to do. 67. 1 am, of course, aware of thedifficultiesof occupying the Presidential chair which you now occupy, &Ir. President, and 1 know the various problems. But 1 feel that we should at least play the game according to the rules. 68. If I may refer to a second procedural matter which has been raised, 1 should like to join my colleague, the representative of Nigeria, in appealing to the representative of Jordan not to push the matter to the vote. 1 cari see no great advantage that would be gained by altering the wording of item 2 on OU~ agenda, 69. It is an established fact that whatever is asserted by a complainant is and should be taken as nothing more than allegatiois until the complainant has proved his case. Be who asserts must prove. SO there is nothing to be gained by changing the wording from “complaints’~ to “allegations”. It is understood that such assertions, until they have been proved, are nothing more than allegations. 70. Therefore, 1 would prefer that this should remain as it is, and 1 should like to persuade the representative of Jordan not to press this to the vote, In fact, 1 think there is adcquate precedent for this, ia the previous complaints which we have had, the wording has always been the same as this: “Letter dated . . . from , , ,‘l. SO there is no need ta alter that just for this particular case. ‘71. Mr. KEITA (Mali) (translated from French) : Quite a few of the things I had intended to say to the Council bave been said by the representative of Uganda. Nevertheless, while apologizing for speaking again, 1 would like to point out that we have already stsessed the importance which the African countries attach tq the Congolese problem and that we were surprised that, although we had made these feelings clear, the matter WaS relegated to the background. We were given to understand that as soon as we had finished discussion of the problem which is before us this morning we would return to the problem of the Congo, which auto- 72. 1 referred a moment ago to a little saying in my country concerning the way to dandle a baby. My meaning was perhaps not fully understood and I would like to be allowed to make it a little clearer. The stability of a11 the Young African States is affected by the Congolese problem. It is of the greatest concernto us beeause we are little countries, baby countries, whose peop!e .&h to live; for that reason, certain problems particularly affecting us cari cause us to lose sleep. Moreover, after hearing certain statements here, 1 believe that this attitude 1s shared by a11 members of the Council. With regard to the problem of the Congo therefore, and coming back to our little saying, 1 meant that. we Africans dandle a baby with its face towards us whereas others might prefer to dandle ït with its back towards them. That is a11 I wanted to say in this connexion, 73, Ms. EL-FARRA (Jordan): 1 should like at this stage to refer to certain observations made on the issue raised, in answer to questions and appeals made this morning. It has been argued that the usual practice is to accept a letter as submitted. 1 have answered that and said this is an unusual letter, and that the normal practice does not apply to it. It has been argued thnt we have followed the precedent adopted last month, when the Syrian complaint was discussed. Yes, that is truc. But what was the Syrian complaint? The Syrian complaint concerned an act of aggression admitted by the Israel authorities-an act of killing, murdering, destroying, by Israel jets, committed by Israel. What else could the Syrian delegation cal1 that act other than an act of aggression? When the Air Force kills men, women and children, there is no other name for that than an a& of aggression, especially when it is admitted by the authorities committing the act. SO where is the comparison between the so-called psecedent and the present case? 74, You have here a case coming before the Security Council whicb is nothing but an exercise in propaganda. Before the case is even heaxd, they cal1 it aggression. 75. Let us not forget that this is 1966. In this year, Israel celebrates the tenth anniversary of the invasion of 1956 when, on 29 October, the Israel armed forces crossed the demarcation lines to occupy more Arab land, to displace more Arab people and to expel more Arab refugees. It was ten years ago this month that ‘Israel invaded Arab areas. It is here and now cultivating the ground for a similar act. 76. That is the situation. But to speak of so-called infiltrators, to impute the act to the Government and to say that the Government is committing an act of aggresaion-to do a11 that, before even proving the case before the Mixed Armistice Commission, has no precedent in the history of the Security Council. 77. That is why there is no comparison whatsoever between the precedent of the Syrian complaint-where YOU had the Air Force occupying, killing, destroying and dropping bombs-and the present complaint, which has no foundation and is an act of aggression against Syria. 78. Mr. President, with reference to the question which you raised, this continues to be a preliminary Paper, as 1 said. It continues to be the property of the President, It continues to be within the jurisdiction of the President until the Security Council takes action. 79. If you, Mr. President, in your wisdom, in order to avoid any possibility of misinterpretationor vagueness, would find it fit, proper, convenient and practical to have this addition, 1 would be most grateful. If you, in your wisdom, would find the formula presented by my colleague, the representative of Bulgaria, a few minutes ago, more acceptable and more adequate, 1 would also be in agreement with that, If, on the other hand, you feel that the formula presented by the Secretariat and accepted by you does not prejudge, prejudice or affect the complaint whichhas been presented, and does not affect the substance of the question, 1 would not insist on bringing this to a vote by the Security Council. 80. But 1 do think that a question like this involves a precedent. 1 do think that a precedent like this would affect the practice which has been encouraged by the Council. Let us not forget that adopting the agenda is not an automatic formula, It embodies something. It means something. We have to be very careful about the terms, phraseology and meaning of the item. 82. 1 have just received further information. 1 have heard that they have taken a11 the files and destroyed them. The police have corne. They have not chased these people out. They are still refusing to leave. 83. It is a most serious matter whenpressure groups corne to our offices, Here in the Security Council we are discussing whether or not there has been an act of aggression, and nowwe have a fifth column, pressure groups in the United States, going to our offices. 84. I bring these facts to the attention of the President of the Security Council, the Secretariat of the United Nations and the United States delegation on behalf of Arab delegations that are here now. 85, The PRESIDENT: I cal1 on the representative of the United States in exercise of the right of reply.

I too have received information relating to the same incident as that just mentioned by the representative of Jordan. 1 deeply regret and in no way condone any illegal actions directed against any Mission accredited to the United Nations. Having just raceived the information in question, 1 have, on behalf of my Government and on my own behalf, directedthat the full force of the law be applied to rectify the situation-and that shall be done.

My delegation 1s as eager as any delegation at this table to take LIP the Congo debate again and, if possible, to complete it today. It seems to me, however, that to continue the present procedural debate cari only delay the moment when we shall finish the Congo debate. I shall therefore limit myselî to observations on the two suggestiens that have been made. 88. 1 shall refer first to the point about debating the Israel complaint before the Congo debate has been completed. I would point out that there have been many cases when the Security Council was debating a particular claim and decided to debate another question that came up urgently, interrupting the debate on the former item. There is no implication at a11 in such a procedure that the interrupted debate has less urgency or is of less importance. It is simply a question of habit. 89. 1 would remind the Council that the last occasion on which we did that was November 1965. At that time 90. The second point relates to the wording of our agenda. I understand the feelings of the representative of Jordan; he does not wish the wording of the agenda to have any implications. But 1 would like to point out to him that the wording chosen by the Secretariat and supported by the President is inconformity with the constant psactice of the Security Council. 1 have before me a document, circulated periodically, which is entitled “Summary statement by the Secretary-General of matters of which the Security Council is seizedfl, We do not use this kind of document very often, but on this occasion it may be helpful; it contains a list of about seventy-three items, and 1 note that in no less than thirty-two cases the agenda is worded: “Letter dated :. . from the representative of . ..“. Indeed, when one looks through the list it appears that this has been the practice adopted since 1954, because earlier wordings gave rise to difficulty. 91. 1 would therefore join the representatives of Nigeria and Uganda in appealing to the representative of Jordan not to raise any objection to the wording of the agenda as it stands. 92. In order to bring this debate to a close, 1 now move that the Security Council should adopt the agenda as it stands.

In listening to the Netherlands representative, I was surprised that when he msntioned changes in the agenda made at different stages of the discussion of various questions, he was referring to practioes that had been decided upon by the Security Council. The Council may always take such decisions when it deems it appropriate to change the agenda and, as the Ugandan representative pointed out, it is within its rights in doing SO. In those cases, however, the Security Council as such had already proceeded to action and taken a decision. We have no reservations with regard to any past decision on this question by the Security Council. 94. Nevertheless, 1 would draw the Netherlands representative’s attention to the fact that the Security Council must, in its work, respect its provisional rules of procedure, including rule 10, which reads as follows: “Any item of the Agenda of a meeting of the Security Council, consideration of which has not been completed at that meeting”-and such is the case with the Congo- “shall, unless the Security Council otherwise decides, automatically be included in the Agenda of the next meeting. 1’ 96. At the same time, we would also ask the President and the other delegations whether we cannot agree to the request, with which the Jordanian representative has already associated himself, that the agenda shall be reworded in a way more acceptable to a11 delegations, namely, “The Palestine question: complaint contained in the letter.. .II, and SO forth, 97. It is on this issue, Mr. President, that we are awaiting a decision by you SO that we may continue OUS work. 1 put this matter to you, as I believe the Jordanian representative also did, SO that you Will tel1 us what we ought to do before we proceed in some other way-as one of the representatives here bas’ just proposed. 98. 1 would add that 1 was deeply distressed to hear what the Jordanian representative has just said in connexion with what happened in the offices of the Permanent Mission of Syria to the United Nations. The New Zealand repsesentative spoke at considerable Iength yesterday when we were discussingthe question of the Congo. 1 had expected that, in his statement today, he would refer to the incident in question. It is a particularly serious incident, especially since it was deliberately organieed to coincide with the Security Council meeting on the question referred to in the letter of 12 October [S/7540]. We cannot allow such an incident to occur without measures being taken by the United Nations and the United States to ensure that we cari carry on with our work free from the fear that the offices and other premises of our delegations will be endangered by anyone who happens to have a grudge.

The representative of the United States wishes to speak on a point ‘of order.

My point of order relates to the statement made by the representative of Bulgaria. 1 thought that in answering the representative of Jordan 1 had explained that I understood why he would have raised the question in this connexion in his intervention. 1 cannot understand, if I may say SO, why the reprosentative of Bulgaria, in the light of the statement 1 made, adverts to the same problem. I thought I had made it very explicit, snd I should like to make it even more explicit, that this is net a subject that commands debate. It is not on the agefida. I personally have authorized a member of my mission to sign my name to the criminal complaint to stop this illegal action. I should only hope that sifilarly prompt action would be taken when our SUIX, understands the alarm which we a11 felt on listening to the announcement just made by our fellow member of the Security Council, the Jordanian representative. 102. We still have fresh in our memory the events of the recent past, when, during a similar meeting of the Security Council and a plenary meeting of the General Assembly, an unprecedented act of diversion was committed when the Headquarters of our world Organization was subjected to bazooka fire. 103. Now a new event has occurred which inspires us with even greater alarm and prevents us from discharging our important responsibilities in this supreme organ of the United Nations in a spirit of traaquillity. The other day, the target was United Nations Headquarters; today the same thing has happened to the Syrian Mission, which has been the victim of a monstrously lawless and violent attack. 104. The question arises whether the Security Council and its President cari remain indifferent to this incident. Naturally, there is also the question of the safety of our missions here in New York, the question of OUT diplomatie privileges and immunities andofthe rights which we bave under the law and in accordance with generally recognized international practice in diplomatjc relations. The explanation just givenbythe United States representative does col begin to settle the matter. There Will of course be explanations, as well as investigations; a search Will be made for the culprits, etc. We know a11 this from our own experience. But these are merely explanations; the scandalous fact remains that a lawless and violent act has taken place. 105. We, for our part, out of a sense of concern and responsibility, share the anxiety just now expressed by the Jordanian representative and appeal to you, Mr. Président, to do everything in your power under the-Charter and the rules of procadure to protect our missions from such lawless attacks. 106. 1 should now like to make a few comments on the statements made by representatives in the Council concerning the item on the agenda. 107. First of all, 1 should like to draw attention to the references made to various precedents, to the way in which the inclusion or non-inclusion of items in the agenda has been discussed and settled in the past. We do not, of course, reject past experience. While we have no power to change the past, we cari derive some useful lessons from it, but 1 should like to warn against the danger of blindly relying on precedent. This warning is a11 the more justified since the United States representative, having delved into the archives, has resurrected a case when the high post of Presi- 109. That beitig SO, we reject any attempt to place the case referred to here involving the presidential decision of Mr. Zorin on the same footing with the decision which the President took on an Africanproblem in totally difforent circumstance+. These are different, dissimilar cases which cannot be equated. 110. The question therefore arises of applying the rules of procedure reasonably, of being objective and of eschewing a tendentious approach, were it on the part of the President of the Security Council himself. 111. Having made a further careful study of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council, may 1 point out that nothing in these rules conflicts with the principle that uninterrupted consideration should be given to the question placed before the Council by the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 112. We should like to repeat that the question here is not, of course, purely procedural or formal. The question concerns the politictil implications of the President’s ruling. We now see what serious political repercussions have followed from the improper decision taken by the President, who broke the continuity of the discussion of an important and urgent African problem and took it upon himself to divert the Council’s attention at the very moment when the Council was very clone to concluding its work and taking a decision. 113. Indeed, what satisfactory explanation cari there be of the fact that, when the representatives of African States, including many Foreign Ministers, have gathered here and when the Council was clearly on the point of adopting a resolution directed against Portuguese colonialism and aga;nst Portuguese interference in the interna1 affairs of other States, the President, disregarding the position of many of the Council’s members and the unequivocal stand taken by the African representatives, suddenly decided to rule that we should shift our attention to a problem which we are naturally prepared to discuss, but which hardly requires us to ignore these Africandelegations and give our entire attention to a new item? 115. The President is not entitled to take a unilateral decision dictated by the interests and views ofcertain individuals or of a certain group of members of the Security Council. No one, of course, cari claim to be infallible, but it is surely the path of wisdom, when a hasty or ill-considered action has been taken-even ky the President of the Security Council-toovercome any persona1 bias, admit the error and correct it in accordance with the exigencies of the situation. l.16. These are the few commenta which 1 wished to make now in the light of the statements of other members of the Council in discus3ing and analysing the procedural and political aspects of the inclusion or switching of items in the Council’s agenda.

As there are no further speakers on this procedural question, 1 propose to make a short statement in my capacity as President and then to proceed to the vote on the motion which has been submitted to us by the representative of the Netherlands. 118. First of all, 1 would say that we have noted the report which has been made to us by the representative of Jordan regarding an incident which has corne to his knowledge this morning in the course of this debate. If it is substantiated by further investigations, then indeed it is a serious matter for a11 Members of the United Nations. We have the assurance of the representative of the United States in this Council that the matter Will be immediately dealt with; no doubt we shall hear more on this matter when that investigation and that action is completed. This is not a matter on our agenda this morning, but it has been raised in this Council and a reply has been made. 1 think that we cari proceed no further with it until the investigation and the action have been undertaken. 119. 1 listened with patience and great respect to what was said to us this morning onthe matter before us concerning our agenda by the representative of Jordan. 1 wish to assure him that the provisional agenda before us has been set out in accordance with standard practice, and 1 believe that that standard practice should be maintained. At the same time I would certainly say to him-and 1 am sure that the Council would agree with me in doing so-that there is no question whatsoever, by accepting the standard wording of our agenda, of accepting any allegation or any complaint put forward in the substance of the communications which have been made to this Council; they Will be the subject of our debate. 1 should like, therefore, to give him the assurance that in accepting the agenda as it stands there is no implication whatsoever that he or anyone else accepts any statement, 120. I shall therefore proceed presently to put to vote the proposa1 of the representative of the Netherlands that we should now settle this matter and decide one way or another whether the agenda before us should be adopted. 121. 1 would turn 80 say a few words to the representative of Bulgaria, who ha.s referred to rule 10 of the provisional rules of procedure. As he rightly pointed out, the rule provides that a debate once started should automatically be continued unless the Security Council decides otherwise. 1 explained the Council yesterday that, in the exercise of the prerogative which 1 hold under the rules ofthis Council, 1 ha.d intended to maintain the programme which we had set for today. That decision was net challenged, and it has not been challenged today. Therefore, I consider that the decision to proceed with the agenda as we have set it out for today, in accordance with the rights that 1 have as President of this Council, was a right. decision. li2. However, I go further to speak to the ,comments that were made by the representative of the Soviet Union and others. 1 would wish to make a ‘very important correction in what has been suggested to the Council. 1 would ask members to remember thatwhen we discussed our order of business yesterday 1 proposed that we shoufd proceed that afternoon with the discussion of the Congo item on our agenda. I had no wish to suspend it, and 1 was quite prepared to continue indefinitely in order to bring that matter to a conclusion. 1 was net proposing that we should postpone its consideration; 1 was proposing that we should continue with it. On the other hand,,as I also explained to this Council yeSterday, there was in the questions which were under consideration an important matter of principle. And I said yesterday that I considered it a matter of principle of first importance that when a meeting of the Council is called on a question which is said ta be urgent, then a meeting should be convened without delay, except when there is special or overriding reason to the contraiy. 123. It was for that reason that, having consulted a11 the members of this Council and having heard their views, 1 had previously decided that there should be a meeting of the Council at 10.30 this morning to consider the Israel complaint, and I also decided that we should proceed in the afternoon, as arrangeds to dea. with the question of the admission of new Members. 1 explained why 1 thought that these meetings, which 1 had called in accordance with my right and duty under the rules of procedure, should be undertaken. 124. I reject any allegation that there is any distinction between one type of subject or another, or between subjects dealing with one part of the world or another. 125. I provided also that we could continue with the discussion of the Congo item immediately following the question of the admission of new Members this afternoon. We have that opportunity to continue this afternoon as we have pxovided. 125. poursuivre diatement veaux Membres de poursuivre pr8vu. 126. I would express my regret that, having taken decisions after consultation and in sccordance with the rules to the best of my judgement, I consider that it is unfortunate that allegations of wrong motives should be made in this Council. 1 amfully confident in my statement that 1 reject those accusations of wrong motive, 1 am certainly sorry if 1 have incurred the unfavourable impression of the representative of the Soviet Union, It Will be my earnest wish to endeavour to escape from the temporary cloud of his disfavour and to bask again in the sun of his full approval. 126. mes decisions et conformément heureusement mauvaises d&laration tions, pri%enmnt favorable. nuage temporaire de son approbation sans rt5serve. 12?. Mr. EL-FARRA (Jordan): I am grateful to the President for the clarification and interpretation that he has given on the question that has been raised this morning. With this clarification, 1 shall not insist on my objection, Since there is no objection, 1 do not see any need éo vote on the adoption of the agenda, since 1 am sure my oolIeague from the Netherlands will not insist on his motion. 127. Je suis reconnaissant et de l’interprétation soulevée ce matin, Aprés cette explication rai pas sur monobjection tion, voix l’adoption effet que mon collegue des Pays-Bas pour que sa motion soit mise aux voix.

Since the representative of Jordan has SO generously acceded to the appeal which has been made to him by the President and by severa1 other members of this Council to drop his objections to the formula used in the provisional agenda, I do not insist on having my proposa1 put to the vote, and I think therefore that we cun proceed to adopt the agenda without a vote. 128. Puisque sement sieurs dB d’abandonner pour l’ordre pour que ma proposition donc que nous pouvons accepter proceder 129. M. .FEDORENKO listes Président, Conseil vos probléme.

Mr. President, you have stated your views on and your approach to the item as you understand it-something which every member of the Council, and certainly the President, is entitled to do, 130. votre pour équivoque ce que nous avons dit sur vous a 130. SO that you should not have the slightest misunderstanding about our position and SO that ourposition should be equally clear to the members of the Council, 1 should like to repeat that everything 1 have said about the substance of the questions you have raised still holds true and 1 once again confirm our Position in this matter.

As there is no objection, the agenda is adopted. 13X. n’y a pas d’objection, The agenda was adopte&

The representative of the United States of America has asked to speak after the adoption of the agenda, and 1 now give him the floor.

Mr. President, 1 am now in a position to report to you and to the members of the Council concerning the incident which has been the matter of your justifiable concern and that of other members of the Council. The intruders in the Syrian Mission have been arrested and removed by the police on the complaint of the United States Government, ma& and signed by me, They will be prosecuted in accordance with OUI’ laws. 1 profoundly regret and apologiee to the Syrian Government for this highly regrettable incident. 134, The PRESIDENT: Communications dated 13 October 1966 [S/‘7546 and S/754’7] have been received fsom the representatives of Israel and Syria, requesting participation in the discussion of the question before us, In accordance with the provisional rules of procedure and with the usual practice, 1 propose to invite the representatives of Israel and Syria to take seats at the Council table in order to particpate in our discussion. At the invitation of the President, Mr. A. Eban (Xsrael) and Mr. G. J. Tomeh (Syria) tookplaces at the Councll table. 135, The PRESIDENT: I have received the following communication dated 14 October 1966 [S/7549] from the Permanent Representative of the United Arab Republic to the United Nations: “Upon instructions from my Government and in accordance with rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council, 1 have the honour to request that 1 be invited to participate in the discussion of the letters contained in documents S/7540 and S/7544. n In view of that communication, and if there is no objection, 1 shall invite the representative of the United Arab Republic to take his place at the Council table, At the invitation of the President, Mr. M. A. El-Kony (United Arab Republic) took a place at the Council table.

The Security Council will now examine the complaint just inscribed on its agenda. 137. Before calling on the first speaker on my llst, the Foreign Minister of Israel, 1 recognize the representative of Bu! garia.

Since we are to meet again at 3 p.m. to discuss, first, the admission of new Members and, 139. 1 therefore propose that this meeting be adjourned now and that we meet another time to consider this item since it is includedin the agenda, That is what 1 would suggest, if there is no objection.

1 propose that we take a very short recess in order that 1 may consult the wishes of the Council. The meeting was suspended at 1.35 p.m. and resumed at 1.40 p.m.

1 have undertaken a rapid consultation and I believe that it would be acceptable to most members of the Council if we were to carry out the programme which we have set for ourselves this afternoon, meeting, 1 would suggest, at 3 o’clock, or as soon as we cari after that time. 1 believe éoo that we should be prepared for a meeting this evening at, 1 would suggest, 9 p.m., in order to proceed with the discussion we bave just started. The.meeting rose at 1.45p.m. iiOW TO OBTAIN UNITED United Nations publicotions may distributors throughout the world. Write to: United Nations, Sales COMMENT SE PROCURER LES Les publications des Nations Unies agences dépositaires du monde entier. ou adressez-vous à: Nations Unies, Section COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES Las publicaciones de las Naciones casas distribuidoras en todas partes diriiase a: Naciones Unidas, Section