S/PV.145 Security Council

We now come to article 6of the report to which the Belgian representative has tabled an amendment. Thus amended, article 6 would read as follows: c'The armed forces specified in the special agreements, and which shall be made available to the Security Council, on its call, by Member nations of the United Nations shall be limited to a strength sufficient to enable the Security Coun m .cil to take prompt action in any part of the world for the maintenance or the restoration of international peace and security as envisaged in Article 42 of the Charter." "Les forces armees desig1!.eesdans les accords speciaux et qui doiven~ ~tre mises, sur soni?ivitation, a la disposition du Conseil d~ securite par les Membres des Nations Unies, seront limitces ala puissance suffisante pour permettre an Conseil de securite d'entreprendre une action rapide en tout point du globe·pour lemaintien ou le retablissement de la paix et de lasecurite intemationales, comme prevu a l'Article 42 de la Charte.", . -' La discussion est ouverte sur cet amendenient. Avez-vous des observations apresenter? The discussion on this amendment is opened. Are there any observations? M. GROUYKD (Union des Republiques socia- \ listes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Je voudrais demander au representant de la Belgique de m'expliquer la difference entre le texte qu'il propose et le texte adopte par le Comited'etatmajor. Mr. GIiOMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : I should like to ask the representative of Belgium to explain the difference between his text and the text agreed upon by the Military Staff Committee. M. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgique) : 11 me serait difficile d'ajoutei' beaucoup aux cxplications que j'ai donnees a la seance precedente. Je voudrais . cependant repeter que la preoccupll.tion de la delegation bclge est de mettre les termes' employes dans cet article en parfaite concol'dance avec le sens qu'ont les lllemes termesdans l'Article 43 de la Charte. Mr: VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgium) (translated from French): I would find it difficut to add much to the explanation which I gave at our last meeting. I would like, however, to repeat that the Belgian delegation's concern is to bring the expressions used in this article completely into Jinewith the corresponding expressions in Article 43 of the Charter. According to Article 43 of the Charter, before armed forces can be made available to the Security Council, the State to which these forces belong would have to be invited by the Council. Suivant l'Article 43 de la Charte, pour que des forces armees soient mises a la disposition du Comeil de securite, il faut que l'Etat dout relevent ces forces armees ait re~u une invitation du Conseil. C'est pourquoi, dans la nouvelle redaction, nous ne disons pas "les forces armees·mises a. la disposition du Conseil de secnrite par les .Etats Membres des Nations,Unies seront limitees ..•", ainsi que le porte le texte du Comite d'etatmajor, mais "les· forces armees designees dans les accords speciaux et qui doivent' etre mises, sur son invitation, a la disposition du Conseil de stkurite par les Membres seront limitees ..." That is why, in the new wording, we do not say: "The armed forces made available to the Sec?rity Council by Member nations.shall be Jimited etc. . . ." as it appears in the Military Staff Committee's text, but "The armed forces specified in the special agreements and which shall be made available to the Security Council, on its call, by Member nations shall be "mited ... ". I would add that the words "limited to a strength" were omitted from the text of this .amendment which was circulated'at our last meeting, as the United States representative suggested their deletion in the course of discussion. Since the, Council, however" rejected that suggestion,the words "limited to a strength" have been put back in the text now before the Coun- ., eil, as they appear in the Military Staff Committee's report. . , Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet SocialiSt Republics) (translated from. Russian): I have no ' objection to reference being made i;n article 6 to the special agreements, sjnce a similar reference· is ~Cl made in the con'esponding Article 43 of the·Charter. I have np objection, either,·to mentioning the fact that the armed forces'are made available to the SecUrity Council on its call, since this too is :rt:ated ID Article 43 of th'eCharter. But 1 find it difficult to agre~ with the Belgian representative's proposal to delete from the text agreed up,on by the Military Staff Committee the phrase which as previously drafted'reads: "... shall be limited to a. strength sufficient to enable the Security Council • . .".1 ' The Belgian representative suggests replacmg this phrase by one which completely omits the following words: cs••• Member States to the Security Council shall be limited to a strength sUfficient to enable ... • '~'}In place of this the words "shall be sufficient to enable" are used. lleel it would be extremely desirable to retain the wording agreed upon by the Military Staff -Committee. It has;' after all, a clearly different .'3hade of meaning from .that conveyed in ·the . wording proposed by the Belgian representative. It particularly draws our attention to the' fact that these forces should be comparatively small, and at the same time indicates that they should' be sufficient to enable the Security Council to cope with any problem confronting it. Perhaps the Belgian representative ~elf will feel able to alter his amendment, and leave this part of article 6 in the wording agreed upon by the Military .Staff.Committee. I ,~ ,The USSR representative'continued .his re- ,marks in English: . ~. - , J'ajoute que, dans ,le texte'de cet amendement distribue a la seance precedente, les mots "limj,-. tees a la puissance" avaient ete. omis, le representant des Etats-Unis ,.ayant, aucOllrS de la discussion, suggere l'omission de ces mots; mais' le Conseil n'ayant pas retenu cette suggestion, les mots "limitees ala pui'3sance" ont ete retablis dans le texte 'lw nolls·avons en ce moment sous les yeux, tels qu~i1s figurent dans le texte du rapport dl.l Comite d'etat-major. M. GROMYKO ('Onion des'Republiques socia~ listes sovietiques)(traduit du russe): Je ne m'oppose pas a ce que nous mentionnions les . accords speciaux dans l'article 6, etant donne que l'Article 43 de la Charte en fait egalement mention. Je ne m'oppose pas non plus a cc que nous disions que les forces arm~es seront mises it la dispositiondu Conseil de securite sur une demande de celui-ci, puisque l'Article 43 de la Charte contient egalement cette dause. Mais il m'est difficile d'accepter la proposition du representant de, la, Belgique qui tend a eliminer du texte 'adopte par le C!lmite d'etattilajor la phrase qui se lit, dans sa fo~e non modifiee, COIIDne suit: ". . . seront .limitees ala puissance suffisante pour permettre au Conseil ..1.1" , L~ representant de la Belgique propose de remplacer cette phrase par une autre, dans laquelle iI omet les mots suivants.: "...les Membres des Nations Unies seront limitees a la .puissance suffisante pour permettre . . .1", qu'll remplace ,par le membre de phrase suivant: , "... seront suffisants pour permettre ..." 11 serait extr~mementdesirable, me semble-toil, de garder la redaction qui avait ete adoptee par le' Comite d'etat-major. Entre cette redaction et le texte propose par le representant de la . Belgiqile, il y aunedifference de nuance tres nette. Le texte du Comite d'etat-major, attire notre attention sur le fait que les forces armees doivent ctre relativement reduites, mais il,souligne en meme temp~ qu'elles doivent ctre suffisantes pour permetire au' Conseil de securite d'accomplir les taches qui lui incombent. Peut-ctre le representant de la'Belgique luimcme acceptera-t-il de modifier son amendement et de laisser cette partie de l'artic1e 6 telle qu'elle aete recligee par le Comite d'etat-major:

Are there any further observations? . Mr. HSIA (China): I share the hesitation of .. my colleagues across the table to enter into the debate and defend the original text. The permanent members would undoubtedly welcome any suggestions which would effect an improvement in .the text, to the end that we would not then consider these articles as the exclusive property of the. perJ'lanent members, but rather as the proper.ty of all of us. I ta1:e it that that is the spirit in which we pI:'oceed. I agree with the Soviet representative that we have no fundamental ohjectiol1 to the amendment proposed by the representative of Belgium.. However, if it could beretained, we should prefer the original text. . The reasons are not too important, but I shall state them. In the first place, the wording of the amendment is exceedingly co:mplicated. It is so complicated that it might mislead the. general public, in that it might be thought to mean 1;hat there were (I.ifIerent kfuds of armed forces. Act~y, there is .only. one kind of armed force provided for in Article 43 of the Charter of the United Nations. Therefore, safeguards seem to be.unnecessa.ry. In the second place, if we are going to provide this safeguard and.follow the wording .of 'the Charter, we must follow it right through, even in the case of assistance, facilities and rights of passage. If you read Article 43 in that sense, all these are to be macie available by special agree·· ment and on call. That.is my interpretation.. devo~ le faire partout, meme lorsqu'il s'agit de I'assistance, desfacilites et des droits de passage. Si vous (;Omprenez I'Article 43 comme moi, toutes ces mesures doivent etre assurees par accord special et sur invitation. Telle est mon interpre- - tation. - Si nous voulons agir logiquement,. il nous faut inserer integralement dans notre texte le libelle de I'Article 43; en d'autres termes, il nous faut inclure les memes sauvegardes et les memes specifications. It is understood that every time you refer to Il est entendu que chaque fois que l'on fait these ~ed forces, facilities and rights of passage, allusion a ces.forces armees, facilites et droits you are basing that reference on At"iicle 43 of de passage, c'est sur J'Article 43 de la Charte the Charter. There is no other Article and, thereque l'on se fonde. Il n'y a pas d'autre Artide et, fore, t!: ~re is no possible cause of misunderpar consequent, il ne peut y avoir aucune cause standing. de malentendu. If we do this logically, we must insert all the wording of Article 43. In other words"the same safeguards and specifications should be included. Therefore, the worcliDg "made available to C'est pourquoi les mots "mises ala disposition the Security Council" seems sufficient, if for no du Conseil de securite" me semblent suffisants, other reasons than for the purposes of simplicity ne fUt-ce que pour des raisons de simplicite et and clarity. The original wording would seem de clarte. La redaction primitive me paraitrait. preferable, but if the majority of the membel's preferable, mais si les membres du Conseil of the Council agree to the amendment, we will sont en majorite partisans de l'amendement, not object to-it. . nolls ne nous y opposerons pas. ~i.It:t.'.~!!!M(..,._!!.;;'.!I.J]hV.;lia:gUJIl £IIIB Le PRESIDENT: Quelqu'un desire-t-il encore presenter des observations? / M. HSIA (Chine) (traduit de f'anglais): Je partage les hesitatio~ de mes collegues assis en face de moi a intervenir dans le debat et a defendre le texte primitif: les nlembrespermanents sont certainement favorables a toute suggestion qui ameliorerait le texte, ce qui permett~ait deconsid&t~r cesarticles, non pas comme etant la propnett des membres permanentS, mais plutot comme emanant de nous tous. Je presume que tel em:.bien l'esprit dans.lequel se poursuit la discussion. . . Je suis d'accord avec le representant sovietique pour dire qu.e nous n'eIevons aucune ob}~ction fondamentale contre l'amendenient propose par le repre.sentant de la Belgique. Nous preU;~rions toutefois le texte primitif, s'il etait pos8ib&~ de Je conserver. Hien que les raisolfls qui nous dictent cette. preference ne soientpas tres importantes,' je vais cependa..llt les exposer. D'abord, I'amendement est redige dans des termes beaucoup trop compliques. lli sont si compliques qu'ils risquent cl'induire le public en erreur et de lui faire croire qu'ilexiste differentes sortes de forces armees. En realite, l'Article 43 de la Charte des Nations Unies n'en prevoit qu'une seule. '-Ainsi done, des mesures de precautions paraissent inutiles. Ensuite, si nous alloIis, par mesure de precaution, suivre le libelle de la Chaite, nous Mr. MUNIZ' (Brazil):' A careful analysis. of the language of Article 43 justifies the conclusion reached.by the representative of Belgium in the amenetmenthe proposed to article 6 of the report. The eXistence of'two different stages in the organjzation ~fthe international armed force is ,evident from theJanguage of Article 43 of the Charter•.Reference is mllde there not only t6the special agreements, specifying the type and degree of readiness of the -armed forces and the nature of the facilities. to be supplied by the Melpber Nations, but also to the invitation of the Council, in·accordance with which such forces and· facilities are :made available·.for employment in ~cific. cases. In .. interpreting the Charter, we cannot ignore the distinctions made by, or implied in, its language.·Such disregard of exL~g distinctions may be of serious consequence in the applition of the provisions'of the Charter. In the caSeunder examination, the Charter clearly established two different phases with regard to the organizatioJ;l' of _the international aqned force: first, the phase which starts with the ratification of. the agreement entered into between "the, Member State and the' Security Council and ends.with the invitation of the Council to the Member State to supply the armed force which it has undertaken to supply; secondly, the phase which follows the notification by the Security Council of its intention to' employ,the . armed forces in question. Therefore, in examining the situation dealing with the organization of the armed forces and their employment, we cannot disregard that distinction without creating c~nfusion and inviting pos.'lible conflict between the Member States and the Security Council because of the lack of a. clear understanding with regard to the duties and obligations of the Member States. . It is not difficult to explain the importance of differentiating between those two stages in the process. of organizing the armed force of the , .United Nations. Without making that differentiation,itis impossible to establish the exact moment M. MUNIZ (Bresil) (t1o,duit de l'anglais):. Une analyse attentive des tennes de l'Article 43 , justifie lesconclusions alL.xquelles Je representant de .la BeIgique eSt arrive dans l'amCfndement qu'il propose d'apportera I'article 6 du rapport. L'Article 43 de la Charte montre clairement, par sori' libelle, qu'ilexiste deux stades diffe- ,rents dans. l'organisation d'une' force armee ,intemationale:il fait effectivement allusion non seulement aliX accords speciatlX precisant la nature' et le degre de preparation des forces, 'armees ainsi que la nature des facilites qui doivent ctre accordees par les Etats Membres, mais aussia Yinvitation du Conseil en vertu de laquelle ces forces et facilites sont mises a sa disposition pour. ctre' utilis,ees dans des cas p~ecis. En interpretant la Charte, nous ne pouvons pas ne pas tenir compte des distinctions que sa redactionprevoit ou sous-entend. Nous noUB exposons a des consequencesserieuses lors de l'application de la Charte si nous ne veillons pas aen observer toutes l~ nuances. Dans le cas que nous examinonS, la Charte ,prevoit clairement deux phasesdistinctes dans 'l'organisation d'une force armee intemationale: la premiere commence avec la 'ratification de l'accord 'conclu entre l'Etat Membre et le Conseil de seclJl'ite et se ~ermine par I'invitation adressee par le Conseil al'Etat Membre de lui fournir la force armee que ce demier s'est engage a mettre a sa 'disposition; la seconde suit la notification par le' Conseil de securite .de son itltention d'utiliser les forces armees .:.it question. C'est pourquoi, en examinant la situation decoulant de l'orga.@sation des forces armees et let,U'utilisation, nous ne pouvons laisser cette distinction de cote sans creer de confusion et susciter d'eventuels conflitsentre les Etats Membres et le Conseil de securite, faute d'une comprehension claire des droits et des devoirs des Etats Membres. ' - Il n'est pas,difficile de saisir I'importance qu'il y' a a distinguer entre ces deux stades de I'organisation des forces armees des Nations Unies. Sans cette distinction, il est impossible de preciser le moment exact OU les forces arm~ A vote was taken by show of hands and. the Belgian amendment to article 6 was adoj..ted by ten votes ,with one abstention. ' Votes for: Australia Belgium Brazil Colombia France Poland Syria United Kingdom Union of Soviet Socialist Republics United States of America Abstention: China

The decision Wh1dl the Cowlcil has jUst taken makes it nc;cessa.ry for us to reconsider the articles previously set aside, pending a decision on article 6. The first of these is article 10, to which there is also a Belgian amendment. With this amendment the article would read as follows: "In order to facilitate the early establishment' of the armed forces which, in accordance with the special agreements, are to be made available to the Security Ccuncil, on its call, the permanent members of the Security Council shall contribute initially the major portion of tllese forces. A'!l the contributions of other Members of the United Nations become available; they shall be added to the forces already contributed." Are there any observations on this amendment? Mr. GROUYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : ,I have no objection to these amendments, but the result is ~ great many repetitions. I fed that the wording IS not of the happiest sm.cf; the same stereotyped phrases are repeated in every article. Perhaps we could follow this procedure: we could use this wording the first' time, and then we could use the wording agreed upon by the IIIrz . Peut-etre pourrions-nous proceder .de la fa~on suivante: nous pourrions employer cette formule la premiere fois et .employer ensuite celles qui Le PRESIDENT: Je vais'mertre am( voix l'amendement a Yarticle 6 propose par le represenf;an.t d~IaBelgique. r •• .- • Le vote alieu amain levee" et l'arn,endement de la Belgique est adoptl par dix voix~ avec une abstention. Votent pour: AustI'alie Be1gique Bresil Colombic France Pologne Syrie Royaume-Uni Union des Republiques sodalistes sovietiques Etats-Unis d'Amerique S'abstient: Chine Le FR;ESIPENT: La decision que le Conseil vieJl! .de prendre nous a.mcne maintenant a rlee~aminer les articles que nousavions reservis en attendant qu'une decision fQt prise en re qui concerne l'artic1e 6. • . -_ .. -~'- :< ..:~_.... n s'agit d'abord de l'artic1e 10, leque1 fait egalement l'objet. d'un' amendement beIge; cet ¥ticle, dans sa forme modifiee, serait ainsi. con~u: "Min de faciliter la -creation rapide des forces armees qui, conformement aux accords speciaux, doivent 2tre mises, sur son invitation~ ala disposition du Conseil de securite, les rnembres permanents du·.Conseil de securite fourruront initialement la majeure partie de ces forces. Au fur et a mesure que les .contributions des autres Membres des Natinns Unies deviendront disponibles, elles seront ajoutees aux forces deja fournies." . Y a-t-il deS observations sur. cet amendement? M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Je n'ai pas d'objection a cet amendement, mais il donne lieu a un grand nombre de repetitions. La redaction generale ne me semble pas tres heureuse; en effet, les memes phrases, stereotypees se retrouvent dans chacun des articles. l\iIr~ VAN LANGEHOVE. (Belgium) (translated from French) : I realize that the expression used in the amendment submitted by the Belgian delegation is repeated in several articles. However, I would like to point out that the Military Staff Committee's report is extremely important, because it lays down fundamental principles, and because it is, I think, of major importance that these fundamental principles should be expressed with the utmost clarity, even at the cost nf some repetition. Moreover, if we retained the shorter fonn of words used in the Military Staff Committee's text, .I believe we would be using an expression which is grammatically incorrect, since, in French at any rate, the expression "armed forces made available to the Security Council" means forces which are already av.ailable to the Council, whereas what we mean is forces which would possibly be made available in future to the Security Cuiillcil, if the latter were to call for them under the provisions of Article 43.

From the point of view of style, I would like to .add to that remark that these articles, which were cited consecutively because they all contain Belgian amendments, will be inserted in numerical order in the text of the report. Therefore they do not follow one another, which will lessen the inconvenience in the repetitions mentioned by the representative of the &oviet Union. If there are no further observations, I shall put article 10, thus amended, to the vote.

We will now pass on to article 13, the amended , text of which reads as follows: "No Member nation of the TJn2ted NationsI "Aucun Etat Membre des Nations Unies ne shall be urged to increase the strength of its anned sera tenu d'augmenter la puissance de ses for~es forc€S or to create a particular component thereof armees ou de mettre sur pied UIl element SpeCIal .' M. VAN LANGENHOVE (Be1gique): Je reconnaiB que l'expression dont se sert 1;amende. ment presente par la delegation belge se repete dans plusieul'S articles. Mais je ferm toutefois. observer que le :.apport du Comite d'etat-major est tres important en ce qu'il formule des principes fondamentaux, et qu'il y a, me semble-toil, une importance majeure a ce que ces pri:r.Lcipes fondamentaux soient exprimes avec le maximwn de clarte, flit-ce au prix de certaines repetitions. D'autre part, si I'on maintenait l'expression abregee qui se trouve' dans le texte du Comite d'etat-major, je crois que I'on emploierait une expression grammaticalement erronee parce que, en fran~ais tout au moins, quand on parle de "forces arrnees mises a la disposition du Conseil", ' on dit par 13. que ce sont des' forces qui sont deja a la disposition du Conseil, alors que I'on veut designer des forces qui seront eventuellement, dans l'avenir, mises a la disposition du Conseil si celui-ci adresse l'invitation prevue par l'Article 43. Le PRESIDENT: .Je me permettrais d'ajouter a cette remarque, du ,point de vue du style, que ces articles, qui oht ete mentiomies a la suite les uns des autres parce qu'ils reproduisent taus les amendements beIges, seront replaces suivant leur numero dans le corps du texte et que, par consequent, ils ne se suivront pas, ce qui dirninue I'inconvement des repetitions signalees par le representant de rUnion sovietique. S'il n'y a pas d'autres observations, je vais mettre aux voix l'article 10 ainsi amende. Votent bour: Australie Be1gique Bresil Colombie France Pologne Syrie Royaume-Uni) Etats-Unis d'Amerique S'abstiennent: , Chine' Union des Republiques socialistes sovie- tiques Le PRESIDENT: Nous passons a l'article 13 dont le texte amende se lirait ainsi: Y a-t-il des observations sur cet amendement? Are there any observations on this amendment? Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : I expect that there is very good reason f?r it, but why do we drop the refer~nce~o the speCIal agree- ments in the case of this artIcle? Sir Alexander CADOGAN (Royaume-Uni) (traditit de l'anglais): Je ne doute pas' qu'il y ait d'excellentes raisons a ceIa, mais j'aimerais cependa.."1t que l'on m'indique pourquoi l'on a ab~.ndonne dans cet article l'allusion aux accords speciaux. M VAN UNGENHOVE (Beigiqtie): n n'y a pas de raisons particulieies; .la reference aux accords speciaux peut certainement etre ajoutee si le Conseille juge souhaitable. Mr. VAN UNGENHOVE(Be1gium) (translated from French): There is no special reason for it; the reference to special agreements can certainly' be added if the Council.thinks it desirable.

The text would then read as follows: ". • • of making a contribution to the armed forces which, in accordance with the special agreements, are to be made available to the Security Qouncil on its calL ..". I understand that the Belgian representative would accept this adQition. Le PRESIDENT: Le texte se lirait done comme suit: " .•• d'apporter sa contribution aux forces armees qui, conformement aux accords s/Jeciaux, doivent etre Inises, sur son invitation . ~ ." Je crois comprendre que le representant de la BeIgique accepte cette addition. M. VAN UNGENHOVE (Belgique): Oui, Monsieur le President. Mr. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgium) (translated from French): Yes, Mr. President.

I shall put to the vote the Belgian amendment to article 13, with the addition which has just been suggested. Le PRESIDENT: Je me~ aux voix 1'amendement beIge a 1'article 13, avec 1'addition qui vient d'etre suggeree. Le vote a lieu amain le7Jee, et l'amendement de la Belgique al'article 13, ainsi que l'addition proposee par le representant du Royaume-Uni, est adopte parneufvoix, avec deux abstentions. A vote. was taken by show of hands and the Belgian amendment to article 13, with the addition suggested by the United Kingdom, was adopted by nine votes with two abstentions. Australia Belgium Brazil Colombia France Poland Syria United Kingdom United States of America Australie BeIgique Bresil Colombie France Pologne Syrie Royaume-Uni Etats-Unis d'Amerique China Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Chine Union Ol;d Republiques socialistes sovie- tiques Le PRESIDENT: La modification proposee pour l'article 18 est un peu plus longue; le texte de l'article amende serait ainsi con~u:

The suggested amendment to article 18 is somewhat longer; as amended, this article would read as follows: ' "Ainsi qu'il est prevu al'Article 43 de la Charte, les forces armees designees dans les accords speciaux ne devrontetre mises, par les Etats Membres des Nations Unies, it. la disposition du Conseil de securite que sur· son invitation. Elles neseront utilisees par lui, en totalite ou en partie, "As provided in Article 43 of the Charter, the armed forces specified in the special agreements .are to be made available to the Security ~ouncil by Member nations of the United Na- Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): Would the Belgian representative explain the purpose of this amendment? Mr. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgi1.lIl1) (translated from French) : 'The object of this amendme:mtis to state more clearly than is done in the original text that the arIlled forces envisaged in the special agreements will be made available to the. Security . Council only on its call. It is the same principle which underlies the various amendments we have tabled. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of S()vie~ Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): We have already repeated in articles 6, 10 arid 1,3 thatthe armed forces are to be made available to the Security Council on its call. This view is' expressed in the text three times already, ~d then in article 18, which follows the articles already approved, the idea that the anned forces are to be made available to the Security Council on its call is' advanced as an independent idea. I feel that this is simply unnecessary. The.idea has already been repeated three times, and there is no need to put it forward as an independant idea, though it is being expressed for the fourth time. It is ilnmediately obvious that the idea has been interjected here artificially. It is not implicit inartkle 18. The substance of this article is ' expressed in the second sentence, and I consider that the original text, approved by the Military Staff Committee, is clearer and more concise and expresses perfectly the idea which should be conveyed, that is, that the armed forces made available to the Security Council by agreement, will be employed, in whole or in part, only by the decisiop ofthe Security Council. This is a definite idea and it should be expressed in this article. M. LANGE (Pologne) (traduit de l'anglais): .n me semble que la redaction des amendements beIges presente le, grand avantage de rendre la question plus claire.. Je dois· cependant dire que, dans ce cas particulier, je prefere moi aussi l'anden texte, plus concis,et qui exprime immediatement l'idee fondamentale, a savoir que l'utilisation des forces armees est limitee dans le temps a la perlode necessaire a l'accomplisse' ment de leur mission. It seems to me that the revised formulation of n me semble que la redaction amendee que article 18, which is proposed to us, is rather 1'011 nous propose pour l'article 18 est .plutot cumbersome and contains an unnecessary repetialambiquee et repete inutilemelltce qui a deja tion of a point which was made clear in the ete exprirne clairement a l'article precedent. previous article. I Mr. LANGE (Poland) : It seems to:qJ.e that the Belgian amendments are very helpiul in introducing clarity in their formulation. But I must say than in this particular case, I, too, prefer the old text. It is shorter and conveys immediately the basic idea, which is the limitation of the employment of the armed forces to the period necessary for the fulfilment of their task. 1 The original. alticle 18 recommended by the. Military Staff Committee read as follows: "The armed forces made available to the Security Council by Member nations of the United Nations will be employed, in whole or in part, only by the decision of the Secunty Council and only for the .period necessary for the fulfilment of the tasks· envisaged in Article 42 of the Charter. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques soda. listes sovietiques) (traduit du 7usse): Le representant de la Belgique peut-il nous expliquer le but de son amendement? ~"r. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgique): Le but dej. cet amendement est d"expnmer plus clairement que dans le texte primitif que lesforces artnees qui ~erontdesigneesdans les accords speciaux ne ·.·. seront mises a la disposition du Conseil de seeur~teque.s~r s~n invit~~on. C'est d'ailleurs (~prin­ clpe qU11DSprre les divers amendements que nollS . proposons. . . M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques sodalistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe) : Nous avons deja dit a plusieurs reprises, aux articles 6, 10 et 13, que les forces armees seront inises a la dispo. sition du Conseil. de securite sur son invitation. Cela ne figure pas moins de trois fois dans le texte, et pourtant, dans l'¥ticle 18 qui suit les articles deja approuves, on presente' comme que!- que chose de nouveau l'idee que les forcesarmees seront mises a la disposition du. Conseil deseeu. rite sur la demande de celui-ci. Je crois que eela est simplement inutile. L'idee en question a deja ete repetee trois fois et il n'y a pas lieu de l'introduire comme une idee independante, en oubliant qu'on l'exprime une quatrieme fois. On s'aper~oit tout de suite que cette idee a ete inseree id d'une fa~on artificielle. Elle ne ressort pas du sens de l'article 18. Le fond meme de eet . article figure dans la seconde phrase' et il me semble donc que le texte primitif, le texte adopte par le Comite d'etat-major, est plus clair, plus precis, et traduit l'idee meme qu'il convient d'exprimer, a savoir que les forces armees mises en totalite ou en partie a la disposition'du Conseil de securite en vertu de certains accords seront utilisees sur decision dudit Conseil. C'est la une idee bien definie qu'il etait necessaire de faire figurer dans cet article. 1 Le texte original de l'article 18, recommande par le Comitl: d'etat-major, se lisait ainsi: "Les forces anuees mises a la disposition du Conseil de securite par les E~~ Membres des Nations Unies ne seront utilisees, en totali ou en partie, que sur decision du Conseil de seeurite, et seulement pour la periode necessaire a l'accomplissemenl des missions prevues par l'Article 42 de la Charte." As we read the report of the Military St~ Committee-and our thought is confirmed by our own military members-the expression "the armed forces made available to the Security Council" is used to express two different meanmgs. In some places, those words refer· 'to the ,forces which are at the disposal of the Security Council, as a result of its caIl, for a specific purpose. In.other cases they refer to the forces which are pledged to the Security Council under the terms of the agreements that are to be negotiated. TIlerefore, .while I do not insist at all on the wording. of the amendment presented by the representative of Belgium, my delegation does feel we should be consistent; and iU<-l.smuch as that phrase is usedwittt different meanings throughout the report, it ought to be c1armed in each case, along the line of principle initiated by the Belgian representative. C'est pourquoi, encore que je n'insiste pas du tout en faveur de la redaction de l'amendement propose par le representant de la'Belgique, ma delegation estime que nous devrions etre logiques avec nous-memes et que, chaque fois que l'expression qui fait l'objet de notre discussion est utilisee dans le rapport, i1 conviendrait, dans '·la ,mesure ou e1ie est 'employee dans. des sens differents, d'en preciser le sens conformement aux priucipes exposes par le representant de la Belgique. . M. LANGE (Pologne) (traduit de l'anglaisJ: Je crois qu'il y a une part de verite dans ce que vient de dire le representant des Etats-UIlis et iJ me semble que nous pourrions formuler l'article de maniere alui conserver sa concision premiere et anous rapprocher de' la redaction anterieure. Nous pourrions dire: Les forces armees mises a la dispqsition du Conseil de securitl. . ., intercaler ici les mots sur son invitation, et reprendre ensuite l'ancien texte. Mr. LANGE (Poland): I think there is something in what has been said by the representative of the United States, and it occurs to me that we might formulate the article in the following way, which would preserve its former brevity and also bring it into'accord with the earlier formulation. We could say: "The armed forces made 'tlvailable to. the Security Council .•."-and now· I would add the words "on its call"-and then follow the old text. Je n'insiste pas surcette redaction particuliere parce que je ne considere pas'la question comroe tres importante. I do not insist on that particular wording, because I do not think the matter is very important. Le PRESIDENT: Accepteriez-vous cependant de laisser dans ce texte les mots "designees dans ,les accords speciaux"?

But would you agree to retain the words "specified in the special agreements" in the text? . Nous aurions alors le texte suivant: We would then have the following text: • "The armed forces specified i'1t the special agreements and made available to the Security "Les forces armees designees dans les accords 'speciaux et mises ala disposition du Conseil de securite, sur son invitation, par les Etats Membres des Nations Unies ne seront utilisees, en totalite ou en partie, que sur decision du Con..<:eil desecurite, et. seulement pour la periode necessaire a l'accomplissement des missionS prevues par l'Article 42 ~e la Chartel." , Co~ncil, on its call, by Member nations of the Umted Nations will be employed, in whole or in Part, only bythe decision of the Security Council and only for the period necessary for the fulfilment of the tasks envisaged in Article 42 of the ·Charter.;'l . . It would therefore be the same text with the I1 s'agit donc du meme' texte, auquel on addition of a refe;ence to the special agreements, ajouterait la reference aux accords speciaux, as was done preVlously~ comme nous l'avon: fait auparavant. tl1 1 Ita!i<;ized passages represent suggested diversions from I 1 Les mats en italiqueconstituent des projets d'amene.ongmal text. dements au texte. primitif. . .ft Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Sbcialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I feel that the point at issuehere isnot that referred to by the United States representative. There could, of course, also be a Il"eference here to the fact that the armed forces may be employed only on a call from the Security Council, just as is done in articles 6, 10 and 13. That clause could be inserted, but I see no need to go on repeating the same stereotyped expressions..In the Belgian amendment, the idea that the armed· forces can be made available to the Security Council only at the latter's call is an independent idea. In other words, whereas previously we said that the armed forces referred to in the special agreements would be made available to the Security Council on its call, or Qn its demand-that is,. that we mentioned, 'as it were incidentally, that they are placed at the disposal of the Security Council on its call-:-here, after-stressing this idea thrice, we , now declare that the armed forces provided for in the special' agreements shall be placed at the disposal of the Security Council only on its call. That is quite. a different approach. It is not just the 'expression of an idea already eXpressed in ~cles 6, 10 and 13, but the transformation of this idea into an independent idea, which does not follow from this article. It would be another matter if, for example, instead of saying!: "As provided in Article 43 of the Charter, the armed forces specified in the special agreement are to be made available to .the Security Council by Members of the United Nations only on its call. They shall be employed by it..." etc. we were to say: "As provided in Article 43 of the Charter, the armed forces specified in the special agreements to be made available to the Security Council by Members of the United Nations on its call 8hall be employed by it..."l etc. The word are should be omitted, of course; the word only is not necessary, nor is the. period after the word call. But I would like to draw your attentionto yet another point. The Belgian amendment omits the phrase which states .that-these armed forces can be employed only on a decision of the Security Council. I cannot find this phrase in the Belgian amendment. It has been omitted although it is a fundamental idea. This is precisely the idea which the Military Staff Committee wanted to express. Thus, a completely new idea has been unnecessarily stressed and over- " :tRead in English. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistessovietiques) (traduit du russe): n me semble que la question qui se pose n'est pas celle qui a ete soulevee par le representant des Etats-Unis. On pourrait certes rappeler, ici aussi, que les forces armees ne peuvent ctre utilisees qu'a la demande du Conseil de securite condition qui figure deja aux articles 6, 10 ei 13. On pourrait inset'er cette clause, encore que je ne voie pas la necessite derepeter les meIlles cliches. Dans l'arnendement belge, l'idee quelei forces armees ne peuventetre mises a la dispo. sition du Conseil de securite qu'a la demande du Conseil lui-meme revet un caractere inde. pendant. En d'autres termes, alors que nons declarions auparavant que les forces armees desi. gnees dans les accords speciaux seraient mises a la disposition du Conseil de securite sur son invitation ou sur sa demande, et que nous nous' bornions a rappelcr, pour ainsi dire en passant, que ces forces armees seraient mises a la.disposition du Conseil de securite sur sa demande, nous declarons maintenant, apres avair repete. a trois reprises,l'idee que je viens de mentio~er, que les forces armees prevues danS les accords speciaux ne pourront etre nrises a la' disposition du Conseil de secur,ite que sur sa demande. C'e.t la une fa~on differente d'aborder la question. En effet, il ne s'agit plus seulementd'exprimer . l'idee deja contenue aux articles 6, 10 et 13, mais bien de la tranSformer en une idee inde. pendante, qui ne decoule pas du texte del'article que nous sommes en train d'examiner. Il n'en serait pas de meme si, par exemple, au lieu de dire1 : "Ainsi qu'il est prevu a l'Article 43 de la. Charte, les forces armees designees dans les accords speciaux ne devront etre mises, par Ies Etats Membres des Nations Unies, a la disposition du Conseil de securite que sur son invitation. Elles ne seront utilisees par lui ..." etc., on disait: "Ainsi qu'il est prevu a l'Article 43 de la Charte, les forces armees desighees dans Ies accords speciaux et mises· a la disposition' du Conseil de securite par les Etats Membres des Nations Unies, sur sOIl invitation, seront utilisees parlui", etc1• Les mots devront etra sont naturellement sup" primes; la locution ne ... que n'est pas necessaire, ni le point finaljapres le mot invitation. D'autre part, je vouckais encore attirer l'attention des membres du Conseil sur cet autre point: la clayseselon laquelle les forces .armees ne pourront etre utiJisees que sur decision du Conseil de securite ne figure pas dans l'amendement beIge. 'Je ne l'y trouve poin~~ EIle a ete omise, bien qu'il s'agisse la d'une idee fondarnentale. C'est bien cette idee-la qu'a voulu exprimer le Comite d'etat-major. Ainsi, l'amendement beIge fait ressortir sans necessite une I consider the old text prepared by the Military Staff Committee much better. The closer we keep to that text the better, even though we A mon avis, l'ancien texte prepare par le Comite d'etat-major est nettement preferable. Plus nous serrerons de pres l'ancien texte, mieux cela vaudra, meme si noLS retenons une partie de l'amendemeI1t beIge. ado~t some part of the Belgian amendment. Mr. JOHNsqN (United States of America): I agree in part with the observations of Mr. Gromyko regarding the affirmative way in which the Belgian amendment has been stated. It seems to my delegation that the only point we are endeavouring to make clear'here is the nature of the forces being described:. whether they are the overall forces which will be provided in the agreements, or whether they are those forces which will be at the disposal of the Security Council when it has called for them in any specific case. M. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais) : ]'approuve en partie les observations de M. Gromyko quant ala forme affirmative dans laquelle l'amendement beIge a ete redige..Ma delegation estime que le seul point que nous nous effor~ons ici de rendre elair conccrne la nature des forces decrites: s'agit-il de la puissance d'ensemble des forces designees dans les accords, ou s'agit-il des forces mises}l la disposition du Conseil de securite, sur son invitation, dans un cas precis? Selon ma delegation, et selon les mem.bres americains du Comite d'etat-major, il s'agit clairement de la seconde conception. Le titre meme du chapitre V le prouve: "Utilisation des forces armees:' In the view of our delegation~ and in the view of the United States members. of the Military Staff Committee,that is clearly the latter . idea which is envisaged. That idea is borne out by the very title of chapter V, which is: "Employment of armed forces."· . . , Je me demande donc si nous ne pourrions trouver la solution que nous recherchons en laissant sinlplement subsister l'article 18 dans sa forme actuelle, quitte ay ajouter quelques mots, de manihe alui faire dire: "Les forces armees misesala disposition du Conseil de securite par les Etats Membres des Nations Unies, sur son invitation, ne seront utilisees, en totalite ou en partie ..." I therefore wonder whether we could not effect the decision we desire by simply leaving article 18 as it is, with an insertion which would cause the article to read as follows: "The armed forces made'available to the Security Council, on its call, by Member natio~ of the United Nations will be employed, in whole or in part..." That, it seems to me, would make article 18 consistent with previous articles, and would ex~ press the true meaning of the Military Staff Committee. My purpose is simply to make it clear that we are dealing only with those contingents which are under the effective control of the Security Council after the Security Council has called for them. Je pense que cette redaction rendrait l'article 18 conforme aux articles preceaents et exprimerait la pensee .veritable du Comite d'etatmajor. Je desire simplement faire ressortir" qu'il s'agit uniquement des contingents qui se trouveront places sous le contr61e effectif du Conseil de securite apres que le Conseil aura fait appei ,aeux. Mr. LANGE (Poland),: It seems to me that the best formulation is the one proposed by the representative of the United States. It is really the formulation which I first proposed. At the request of the President, l agreed to add the words "by special agreements." However, I really think those words should be omitted, because the reference is to the forces after they have been made available to the Secu,rity Council. M. LANGE (Pologne) (traduit de l'anglais): n me semble que la meilleure redaction est celle qu'a proposee la representant des Etats-Unis. C'est, en fait, celle que j'avais proposee tout d'abord. A la demande du President, fai accepte d'ajouter les mots "en vertu des accords speciaux". Toutefois, je suis, au fond, d'avis que l'on de i.t les supprimer, car il s'agit id des forces arm.ees une foisqu'elles ont ete mises a- In disposition du Conseil de securite. Le colonel.HODGSON (Australie)·· (traduit de l'anglais): Je voudrais savojr quel amendement ot! quel libelle nous examinons ence moment. J'ai entendu formuler cinq propositions differentes, et j'en arrive tres rapidement a. ne plus savoir aquoi m'en tenir. Ma delegation estime qu'aucun des projets, y compris le dernier, n'est vraiment clair. L'un d'entre eux parle des accords speciaux qui doivent etre mis ala dispo- Colonel HODGSON (Australia) : I should like to ask what amendment or formulation we are really . considering. I have heard about five different proposals, and I am rapidly reaching a stage of hopeless confusion. It seems to· my delegation that up to the last one, none of the drafts is really clear. One of them mentions the special agreements which are to be made available to the Security Council-not the forces which are to be br ____ For these reasons, the Australian delegation ," prefers 1;b.e origin~text: Itis clea,r and it is simple. We have only two suggestions: first, instead of HMemberilations" to useonlytheword M ember:s; secondly, to insert the words on its call suggested by,the representative of the United States. That will make the article perfectly clear' and will -provide, I thin,k, the simplest solution., _ . , Mr., GROMYKO (Union of the Soviet Socialist "Republics)' (translated from Russitln): When there aremany amendments, and amendmentsto an amendment, it is verydifIicult to draft them during a meeting without seeing a te~t. I think the Secretariat sh9uld be asked to prepare a text, possibly more than one text, containing the varioUS amendments. " If we find itdifIicult' to agree on ~ytext, it might be advisable toast- 'tIle Military Staff Committee to make some amendmerits to the, text' and submit them' for consideration at our next,meeting. Otherwise, judging'by the various amendments, it· would take a very long time to discuss this' question orally with01,lt seeing a definite text. . Sir ALEXANDER CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : I do not want to complicate the discussion, but oile question has occured to ine, ~d I should , like to know the/proper view on this. After all, it is important that we should all have the same meaning in mind and that there should be no misunderstanding. ' I think that in speaking about article 18 just now, the representative of the United .States said that the expreSsion "the armed forces made available to the Security Council .•." in this context meant the armed forces made available as a result of a call. If that is the case, I'am not quite clear as to. the meaning or force of the words thattheamied forces "will be employed, in whole or in part.•." I maybe wrong, but the words '"in wheleor in part" ~ed me to 'believe 'that the armed forces mentioned here were the overall pledged forces, and that it might be that the ,Council'did ,not wish to call,upon all those 'forces. That wo1,1ld account for the words '!in whole Qr in part" in this article. I may be wrong, but those words have given me some doubt as to the real meaning of this article; and if we do D'autre part, on a parle de la necessite d'harmoniser les amendements. Dans aucun des amendemen~be1ges precedents on ne s'est refere a l'Article 43 de la .Charte,et void que tout a coup l'on introduit cette reference dans .1'article 18. Comme cet article ne peut faire allusion qu'a 1'Article 43 de la Charte, pourquoi done en faire etat? , , Aussi la delegation, ausfralienne prefere'-t-elle . le texte initial. Ilest claj.r, et ilestsimple. No)lS ne presentons que deux propositions: que l'on remplace Ies mots "Etats Membres" par le mot Membres, et que 1'oninsere les mots sur son invitation suggerespar le representant des Etats- Unis. L'article sera ainsi parfaitement clair, 'et nons aurons, je pense, trouve la solution la plus simple.' , M. GROMYKO (Union des RepubliqueS sodalistessovietiqueS) (traduit du russe): Lorsqu'il existe de nombreux amendementc;, et qu'ils se rapportent eux-memes a un amendemeht, 'il est ~es difficile, sa~ un texte ecrit, d'etabIir une iedactionen seance. n me semble que le Secr~tariat devrait preparer,un texte, ou peutetre meme ,plusieurs textes qui tiendraient compte des differents, amendements. S'il nollS eSt difficile de nous entendre sur un texte particulier, il serait peut-etresouhaitable ' que no~ demandionsau Comite d'etat-major' d'apporter ,certaines modifica~onsau texte primitif et de'nous les soumettre a notre prochaine reunion. Aen juger d'apres ce qui s'est produit pour les differents amen.dements, nous pourrions discuter pendantfort longtemps si nous ne,disposons pas d'un texte ecrit. ' Sir Alexander CADOGAN (Royaume-Uni) (traduit de l'anglais): Je ne veux pascompIiquer les debats, mais une question m'est venue a l'esprit et je desirais savoir queUe reponse elle comporte au juste. Apres tout, il importe que nous ..oyons tous d'accord sur le sens des tennes et qu'il n'y ait pas de malentendus. En parlant a 1'instant de 1'article 18, le representant des Etats-Unis a, si jene ni'abuse, dit que l'expression "les forces armees misesa la disposition du Conseil de securite ..." designait id les forces armees mises a la· disposition'du Conseil,' spr son invitation. Si tel est le cas, je ne comprends pastres bienle sens Oll la valent des mots suivants: "Les forces arrnees . .. ne seront utilisees, en totalite ouen partie • : ." Les ,mots "en totaliteou enpartie" m'induisenta croireje puis me tromper -, qu'il s'agit Ia de la puissance cl'ensemble des forces quel'on s'est'engagea fournir, ensemble de forces auquel le CQnseil pourrait ne pas desirer faire appel dans sa totalite. TeUe serait la raison de la presence,'dans cet article, des mots "en totalite ou en . 1£ the an'ned forces in this article·do mean the whole overall~strength, I should like to suggest, for the sake of absolute. clarity, that even at the cost of repetition, if that is really what we mean, we should use again the phrase that we have used before in. preceding articles. Actually, I should be content with the article as drafted by the Military Staff Committee, the meaning of which I think is quite clear~ . Si les forcal armees sigIlifient, clans cet article, la puisance d'ensemble des forces armees dans leur totalite, je voudrais proposer, dans un but de clarification, que nous employions de neuveau, au risque de nous repeter, l'expression dont nous nous sommes deja servisp~ .h~. articles precedents, si c'est bien c.eque nous vouIons dire. En··fait, je me satisferais.de' la n§daction que le Comite d'etat-major a donnee al'artic1e, et dont le sens est tout a fait clair. Mr. HSIA (O~a): I thought I was the only . person who was trying to defend the draft report of the Military Staff Committee. I am glad to have some members join me on this point. Mter all this article is not the whole report. I mean .M. HSIA (Chine) (traduit de fangiais): Je croyais atre le seul a defendre le.projet de rapport du Comite d'etat-major. Je me rejouis- .de voir que quelques membres se. sont joints . a moi. Apres tout, cet article ne .constitue pas tout le rapport. Je veux dire que, pouresperer saisir le sens d'un article quelconque, leConseil doit, en realite, comprendre· l'ensemble du rapport du commencement a la fm. PersoIm.e ne peut esperer, a la' lecture d'un article, comprendre l'ensemble du rapport. Je suis sftrque tous les membres du Conseil seront d'accord avec :rIoi sur ce point. Toutmembre du Conseil de securit~ qui vouclrait essayer de rendre chaque article futelligible independamment du contexte se trouverait en presence d'une tache impossible. th~t to read· any article intelligently, the Council really has to understand the whole report from beginning to end. Nobody can read one article and expect to· understand, the whole report. I am· sure all the members of the Council will agree with me. If .any member of the Security Council should try to make every article clear by itself, that would prove to be an impossible 'task. For example, let us,consider article 18; to which Mr.Johnson justproposed an amendment. Just look at these words: "available to the SecurityCouncil," "on the call of·the Security Council," "by'the decision of the Security Council." It isa very confusing business to an ordinary person unless he understands the entire background. From the very beginning I was not happy about this amendment and I think tlie Belgian representative was quite right. It was' only at article .18 that Mr. Johnson began to realize that without the phrase "as provided in Article 43," the words "gpecial agreements" did not have much sense. What are you referring to there? Special.agreements are provided for only in Article 43. Now, from the beginning, the representative of BelgitWl has constantly been repeating the phrase "as provided in Article 43,'~ ~ order to make the meaning clear. ~at is the difficulty, antI that is why I was not happy about the,United States amendmeI.t. I still believe that -the text is clear enough as it is, but if anybody desire to make it clearer still, I have no objection, provided it can be done without entangling onself.. Considerons, par exemple,.l'article .18 auquel M. Johnson vient de· proposer un amendement. Voyez donc les differcnts.· termes employes: "mises a la disposition du Conseil de securite", "sur invitation 'du Conseil de securite"; "sur decision du Conseil desecurite". Voila des expressions .bien deconcertantes pou~qui ne connait pas les .tenants et 'les aboutissants de la question. Je n'etais pas tres satisfait de cet arnendement des le debut, et j'estime que le representant de la Belgique a tout a faitraison. Ce n'est qu'a l'article 18 que M, Johnson a . commence a se rendre compte que, sans le membre de phrase "ainsi qu'il est prevu a l'Article 43;', les mots "accords speciaux" ne veulent pas.dire grand-chose. A quoi donc veut-on faire allusion? Les "accords speciaux" ne sont prevus qu'a l'Article 43. Or, des le debut, le repre~ sentant .de la Belgique a, pour rendre sa pensee' claire, tepete sans cesSe le m~mbre de phrase "ainsi qu'il est prevu a I'Article 43". Voila ou setrouve la difficulte, .. et voila pOurquoi l'amendement des Etats-Unis ne me satisfaisait pas. Je continue a estimerque la presente redaction est suffisamment claire, mais si quelqu'un desire l'ameliorer encore, je ne m'y opposeraipas, a condition que l'on puisse y'arriver sans s'embrouiller. M. EL-KHOURI (Syrie)(ttitduit de l'anglais): Je ne vois pas l'utilite de'toils ces amendements.· lis ont pour seul resultat de faire double· emploi et ils embrouillent une chose qui est tres simple. Je crois que nous simplifierions nos debats en eliminant tous les amendements a l'article 18, Mr. EL-KHoURI (Syria): I'see no reaSon for ~ these amendments. They are merely duplicatmgand confusing something which is very simple. I think: our discussion should be facilitated by rejecting all amendments to article 18, because article 18, as it stands, is complete and clear Itz - In the original text of article 18, for example, we seethe words "only by the decision 0'£ the Security Council." Does that not mean on its call?The original text says that the armed forces can be employed "only by the decision of the · Security Council." That provision also covers the phrase "on its call." It is notnecessary·tc . · repeat that phrase here after it has b~en men- "tioned on" numerous occasions in the previous articles. It is. the position of my ,delegation. that the amendments which have been proposed are not necessary. I consider article 18 in its original text to be fully complete and sufficiently clear, and I shall vote for it without any other amendment. ' The PRESIDENT' (translated from French): The time has come for the Belgian representative to give us his views on this exposition of his amendment. Mr. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgium) (translated from French): The purpose of the amendment to article 18 submitfed by the Belgian delegation is very simple. The idea is.to correct a contradic- · tion and. a confusion in the article as at present worded.. Where does this contradiction arise? It arises frottl the opening words of the article: "The armed forces made available to the Council... ?' This, as we have agreed,·implies a previous decision by the Council; it also implies that the latter has issued a call to the States to which tl;1ese .. ~edforces Qelong. But in the rest of the.article the future tense is used, whicrr~ggests that no such call has yet been made. Therein lies the · contradiction and it is to correct this, I repeat, that our amendment is made. The Polish representative has just suggested a simpler wording, which we have accepted. That made by the United States representative is not very different. We. would accept it too. But we still believe that, if article 18 were kept in its present form, it would mean adopting a text that is a contradiction in terms. Dans le texte initial de l'article. 18, par exempIe, nous lisons les mots "ne seront utilisees . . . que· sur decision du Conseil de securite". Est-ee que ce1a ne sigilifie pas "sur son invitation"? Le texte initial dit que "les forces armees nepeuvent etre utilisees . . . que sur decision du Comeil de securite". Cette disposition exprime egalement I'idee contenue dans le membre de phrase "sur son invitation". n n'est donc pas neceisaire de repeter ici ces mots, qui ont deja ete meniionnes a de nombreuses reprises dans les articlC$ precedents. Ma delegation estime que les amendements proposes ne sont pas necessaires. Je trouve que l'a..t1:icle 18, dans sa redaction initiale, ne laisse absolument rien de cote et est suffisamment clair; aussi voterai-je pour son adoption, a l'exclusion de tout amendement. Le PRESIDENT: Il est temps que le representant de la Belgique nous donne son avis sur cette exegese de son amendement. M. VAN UNGENHOVE (Belgique): Le but de l'amendement presente par la delegation belge a l'artic1e 18 est tres simple: il s'agit de corriger une contradiction, une confusion, qui se trouve dans la redaction actuelle de 1'article 18. D'ou resuIte cette contradiction? EIle resulte du fait, que 1'article commence par ~esmots: "Les forces armees mises a la disposition du Conseil ..." Ceci, comme nous 1'avans reconnu, implique une decision prealable du Conseil; ceci implique done le fait .que .ce1ui-ci a adresse une invitation aux Etats dont dependent ces forces armees. "pr, dans la suite de l'artic1e, le futur est employe, de sorte que l'on se trouve dans la position ou cette invitation n'aurait pas ete encore adressee; Voila quelle est la contradiction. Notre amendement, je le repete, consiste a corriger celle-ci. Le represep.tant de la Pologne a suggere tout a.1'heure une redaction plus simple. Naus l'avons acceptee. CeIle quia ete suggeree par le r,epresentant des Etats-Unis n'est guere diff€rente. Nous 1'acceptons egalement. Mais nous restons convaincus que si on devait maintenir l'article 18 dans s~ forme actuelle, on adopterait un texte comportant une contradiction. . .~

· Personally I can see no contraction in article 18. We agreed that, if the armed forces are to made available to the Security Council-and we understand by this. "in case of danger"-there must be a call by the latter. There is no contradiction inyolved in thinking that a Security Council decision is needed to decide how these forces should be used. That is a different idea.' All things considered, I would be in favour of the wording proposed by the United States representative. This amendment, if I am not 'mistaken, consists of simply clarifying the first line'of the text,l while the remainder would stand as it is, that is: "The armed forces made. available to the SecurityCouncil, on its call, by Mem- .ber nations ... will be employed ... etc." The Syrian repres~tative said that he preferred the original text. I believe that, if we merely add "on its call," we would be making a addition similar to that made to. the previous article and would, in the maint leave the text as originally worded. I think that is the form.accepted by the "Belgian rept·esentative. Now, at this stage, several different opinions have been. voiced. The representative of the ~oviet Union, supported by the Australian representative, was in favour of either consulting the Military Staff Committee: or of referring the question back to it. You must now decide whether the discussion we have just had has shed sufficient ·light on the subject, or whether you think it necess~""Y to refer the question back to the Military Staff Committee. . I would like to have your views on referring the matter back to the Military Staff Committee. Mr. LANGE (Poland): I believe we should be a~le to settle this question here within fifteen nunutes.

I~ order to make the text absolutely clear, it nught perhaps be sufficient to settle one point which is still not: clear; I am referring to the question just raised by the United Kingdom rep~esentative regarding the expression "in whole or In part." One way in which this expression could be interpreted would be as follows: the 'Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I feel it would be difficult for us at this moment to talk about any particular interpretation, since ,~ere may be several interpretations., If we want to decide on some interpretation, with opinions varying as, they ,do, it would be better to ask the Military Staff Committee to give ;their views on the question under discussion. Moreover, I feel 'that the addition of the words "on its call" will evidently not be necesSary as it <ioes hot alter the substance of the article agreed upon by the Military Staff Committee. If this is the only amendment we ar.e going to introduce in the, article agreed upon' by the Military Staff Committee, we maybe able to finish our discussion at today's meeting. If, however, ,we are to consider other amendments as well, would it not be better to ask the Military Staff Committee to re-draft these various amendments,and give us their version or variant of the , amended text? The PRESIDENT' (translated from French): I would now ask the United States representative to give us the exact text of the a.mendment just proposed by him. ' Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America) : A few,minutes ago, the President gave an interpretation with regard to what the Military Staff Committee means by this article, which is also the interpretation placed upon this article by my 'delegation and apparently by all the members of the ,Council. If there is any doubt about that, it is my suggestion that we should not send arti~le 18 back to the Military Staff Committee, but, .;following the precedent of our last meeting, that the members 'of the Military Staff Committee should, be requested to give us their interpretation and their , view as to the meaning of this article. If, after we have received that reply and know what the, ,view of the MilitaryStaff Committee definitely is, this article as drafted does not seem to express clearly that view ,and seems to contain some ambiguity, we can then consider minor amend- . ments to bring it into conformity with the reply of th~. Military Staff Committee. Si VOllil admettiez cette interpretation, nous pourrions peut-etre nouspron,oncer immediatement sur ce texte, pour lequel il ne notis reste- ' rait a examiner que l'amendement du representant des Etats-Unis, puisqut:: cet amendement a ete accepte par le representant de la Belgique. Sauf erreur, c'est sur ce texte qu'il conviendrait que je vous demande devous prononcer. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques sodalistes sovietiques) (traduit du 7usse): n me semble difficile qe parler en ce mpment d'une interpretation que1conque, puisqu'il pou...--r:llt tres bien y en avoir plusietirs. Si, en presence de nos divergences de vues, nous voulions nous entendre sur une interpretation, il vaudrait mieux demander au Comite d'etat-major son avis sur la question. " . ' D'autre part, bien que l'addition des mots "sur l'invitation du Conseil de securite" ne me paraisse pas nccessaire, j'estime qu'elle ne modifie pas, quant au fond, le texte de l'article adopte par le Comite d'etat-major. ' Si c'est la le seul amendement que nous apporterons au texte de l'article adopte par,le Comite d'etat-major, nous pourrons peut~etre terminer rapidement l'etude de ce, point au cours de la seance d'aujourd'hui. Si, toutefois, nous devons examiner les autres amendements qui ont ete presentes, il vaudrait peut-etre mieux demander au Comite d'etat-major de mettre au pqint ces differentsamendements et de nous donner sa version du texte amende. Le PRESIJ)ENT: Je donne la parole au representant des Etats-Unis en le priant d'avoir l'obligeance de nous donner le texte exact de l'amendement qu'il a propose tout a I'heure. , M. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais): 11 y a quelques minutes, le Pre.sident a fourni une interpretation du sens donne a cet article par le Comite d'etat-major, interpretation qui est egalement celle de ma delegation, comme' elle est apparemment celle de tous les membres du Conseil. S'il demeure quelques'incertitudes a ce suj~t, je propose que nous ne rerivoyions pas l'article 18, au Comite d:etat-major, mais que, suivant le precedent cree a notre derniere seance, nous demandions aux membres du Comite d'etatmajor de nous donner leur interpretation et leur point de vue en ce qui concerne le sens de cet article. Lorsque, grace a cette reponse, nous saurons definitivement a quoi nous en tenir sur le point de vue du Comite d'etat-major, et si nous jugeons que l'article 18 ne traduit pas clairement le point de vue que l'on noUS aura presente, ou qu'il pourrait preter a ambiguite, nous pourronS essayer, dans ce cas, par des amendements d'importance se~ondaire, de rendre le libelle de l'article conforme a la reponse du Comite d'etat-major. L'amendementque j'ai propose tendait simplement a intercaler dans l'article 18 les mots "sur son invitation", entre les mots "mises" et "a. la disposition". Sir Alexander CADOGAN (Royaume-Uni) (traduit de l'anglais): Je serais, hien entendu, partisan de demander au Comite d'etat-major queUe est la significationexacte de l'article' 18. n y a certainement quelques incertitudes a ce . sujet, puisque, a ce que j'ai su, les representants britanniques au Comite d'etat-majorestimaient que l'expression "les forces armees mises a la disposition", utiliseedans cet article, se rapportait a la puissance d'ensemble de toutes Ies forces armees que les Etats Membres s'enga~ gent a foumir, aIorsque lesrepresentants des Etats-Unis pensaient differemment. C'estpourquoi nous devons, scIon moi, savoir avant tout ce que le Comite d'etat-major .a voulu dire exactement. I believe that, when we receive the reply of the Military Staff Committee, we should be very careful, in drafting the one particular amendment which is before us now, with particular reference to the phrase "the armed forces made available to the Security Council on its call..." To me, in English the words "on its call". are compbtely ambiguous. It is not clear, by adding those words, whether the call has been made or whether it is , the armed forces made available against a possible call that might come from the Security Council. ]'estime que lorsque nous recevrons la reponse du Cpmite d'etat-major, nous devrons fair~ tres attention au moment de rediger I'amendement que nollS considerons en ce moment, et particu- , lierement en ce qui concerne la phrase "les forces armees mises, sur son invitation, ala disposition du Conseil de securite . . ." Les mots on its call (sur son invitation) me semblent en anglais d'un langage extremement ambigu. En ajoutant ces mots,on ne precise pas si l'invitation a ete effectivement faite; ou s'il s'agit de forces armees qui sont mises a la disposition du Conseil de securite en prevision d'une invitation eventuelle du Conseil. C'est pourquoi il nous faut, tout d'abord, savoir exactement ce que l'on a voUlu dire, et apporter ensuite beaucoup de soin a.la redaction de cet amendement. Nous ne pouvons pas le rediger id seance tenante; nous aurons a exami~ ner diveises variantes. Le colonel HODGSON (Australie) (traduit de f'anglais): Je desire, au nom de ma delegation, preciser que nous ne proposons pas de renvoyer cet article au Comite d'etat-major. Si nous le faisons, a en juger par ce qui s'est·deja produit, nous risquons de ne pas le voir revenir d'id tres longtemps. C'est pourquoi j'appuie le. point de Vue des representants des Etats-Unis et du Royaume-Uni. Nous devrions solliciter une interpretation, comme nous I'avons fait R'autre jour apropos d'un autre article, et non pas renvoyer l'article lui-meme au Comite d'etat-major. M. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerlque) (traduit de l'anglais): Sir Alexander Cadogan a estime que les trois mots dont j'ai propose l'addition dans mon amendement pretaient a First of all, therefore, we have to know exactly what is intended, and then we must be very careful in drafting that amendment. We' cannot draft it here and now, and we shall have to cQnsider possible alternative drafts. Colonel HODGSON (Australia): On behalf of my delegation,. I wish to make it cleat that we did not propose that this article should be seri~ back to the Military Staff Committee. because, judged on paSt progress, if we did that, we might not see it again for a considerable time. Therefore, I support the views of the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom, namely, that we should ask for an interpretation, as we did the other day with reference to another article, but not send back the article itseH to the Military Staff Committee. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): ~ir Alexander Cadogan thought that the addi·· tlOnal three words, which I suggested as an amendment, were ambiguous. As I read them in II1II••. I therefore wish to clarify what the United States delegation means by that phrase, by simply changing it to ai a result of its call instead of "on its call." I feel that there could be no doubt with regard to the meaning of the phrase,In other words, article 18 remaiils as it is. However, at.the end of the first line, the words' "as a result of its call" should be inserted, instead of "on its call", as was previously suggested. Mr. MUNIZ (Brazil): I think there is in the situation'under discussion now an element that might contribute 'to explaining article 18 .and , lead to its adoption in its present form. Until now, we .have been discussing the organization of the armed forces. In that case,' the Belgian amendment would apply. But now we are discussing the employment of the armed 'forces) thus it is re~y the. forces made available which are in question in article 18. It is not the forces organized by the special agreements which are in question, but the forces made available, because we are dealing now with the employment of the armed forces. Therefore, I think article 18-and ,I want to ask "bA-..a.n...ACtA +a+;'l:II'A- ·0£·-. -'Qolmwm "~"h.eo&"'''''.a.- 1.4 _--.eo.o:lloft w.a..,.,- -.& ....f'.& ....~ ~-"'-- t..LV,"" - - -.LI\.i 0'- .1 -. Y... , ....\.LI,"'L ll\" Q,5.L ....\;,ti::! with me-might be maintained as it stands in the original text. We are now discussing the forces made available, sothe Belgian amendment would not apply to article 18. Colonel HODGSON (AuStralia) : It seems tome that we cannot clarify and resolve this question now. Whereas at one time I was prepared to vote for this article as it stood, I am not now, .because it is clear that the doubt which exists at present is exactly that which my delegation raised with regmd to article 5. In other words, does article 18 refer to the overall force or to the force for a particular task, following the call of the Security"Coundl? Thatis the real question which has to be resolved, and, until we resolve.it, we shall not know where we stand.

With your permission I should like to sum up the question as .I understand it. What some of you had in mind was L, ,1 to refer article 18 back to the Military Staff C. ,IDmittee, but to ask the latter to explain its meaning. I ha.ve the feeling that we are very nearly ready-ourselves to give a clear interpretation of .,this article. . \" . The representative of the Soviet Union, who suggested, consulti."1g the Military Staff Commit- M. MuNIZ (Bresil) (traduit de l'anglais): J'estime qu'il y a .dans la situation que nous examinons .maintenant un .element susceptible . d'expliquer le sens' de l'article 18 et de nous faire adopter cet article dans sa forme actuelle. Jusqu'a present, nous avions discute pe l'organisation des forces armees. Dans ce cas, l'amendement beIge s'appliquerait. Mais nous discutons maintenant de futilisation .des forces armees, aussi est-ce bien des forcesmises ala dis~;.'Sition du Conseil dont il s'agit dans l'artkle Ht n ne peut etre question des forces organisees en vert" des accords speciaux, mais uniquement des. forces mises a la disposition du Conseil, car ce que nous examinons maintenant, c'est l'utilisa.~ tion des forces armees. C'est pourquoi j'estime que l'article 18 - et je.desirerais savoir si le representant de la Be1gique est d'accord avec moi -- pourrait etre maintenu daus sa redaction initiale. Nous discutons 'maintenant des forces mises ala difJposition du Conseil; ausSi l'amendement beIge ne s'applique-t-il pas a l'article 18. Le colonel HODGSON (AustraIie) (traduit de l'anglais): Je pense que nous ne pouvons pas preciser ni resoudre cette question maintenant. Alors qu'3o ~ moment donne j'etais dispose a voter pour cet article dans sa redaction originale, je ne le puis plus maintenant, car il est evident que l'incertitude qui existe presentement est celle-I3o meme que ma delegation a eprouvee a propos de l'article 5. En d'a:utres termes, l'article 18 fait-il allusion ala puissance d'ensemble des forces, ou' aux forces destinees a une tache particuliere a la suite d'une invitation du Conseil de securite? Telle est la vraie question qu'il faut resoudre, et tant que nous ne l'aurons pas fait, nous ne saurons pas a quoi nous en tenir. ,j Le PRESIDENT: Si vaus le permettez, je voudrais indiquer comment, a mon avis, semble se poser la question maintenant. Un certain nombre d'entre vous avaient envisage, non pas que nous renvoyions l'article 18 ·au Comite d'etat-major, mais que nous demandions 3o' celui-ci une explication sur le seJ;lS de . cet article. J'ai l'impression que nous sommes tres pres d'en donner nous-memes une interpretation claire. There are thus still two views'on the meaning of thistext: that of the United ~gdom repre- Deux observations subsistent donc concemant le sens du texte: celle qu'apresentee le representant du Royaume-Uni et celle du representant de l'Australie. ' se~tative and that of the Australian representative. Naturally, if the meaning of this text is still doubtful, it would be well to ask for the Military Staff Committee's views, but I feel that the observations just made bythe Brazilian representative have clarified the text. We are discussing the chapter which deals with the employment of armed forces. The reference therefore can only be to the ~ed forces'already available to the Security Council'. The question is to decide how these forces are to be employed. , In the circumstances the Braziliart representative's suggestion to retain the text as it stands ,at present might be accepted, but I think the text could still be improved, without in any way altering its meaning, by introducing the clarification we had agreed to make, as expressed in the proposal just made by Mr. Johnson. Dans cesconditions on pourrait accepter la saggesti<>n du representant duBresil, quiproposait de laisser le texte tel qu'il est;mais" a. ,mon avis, on ameIiorerait tout de meme ce texte, sans en changer aucunement le sens, en y introduisant la precision que nous avions decide d'y mettre, et qni estexp~.me~: daIlSla propositionfaite tout ~ l'heure par M. Johnson. To sum up, I believe, after this dissussion that the text of article 18 is clear and that the debate we have just had should result in our making' the simple addition suggested by the United States representative, as we agreed to do in the case of the preceding articles. If I am not mi.o;;- taken, this addition was accepted by the Belgian representative. Mr. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgium) (translated from French): The Belgian delegation's only Concern is to clarify as much as possible not only this particular article but also the others. The United States representative's amendment clarifies the text, for it makes it abundantly clear that tWo distinct decisions must be taken before armed forces can be employed: 1. The call; 2. A separate decision of the Security Council to employ the armed forces in whole or in part. I feel that the clarification thus introduced makes the article' much clearer than it was, as originally drafted. Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria): I do not believe that this,interpretation of article 18 sho~1d again be referred to the'Military Staff Committee" as t4e article is clear enough and the Committee agreed on it. I ,am afraid that, if article 18 were to. be r~ferred back to the Military Staff Com- ~ttee, ItS members would be given a chance to disagree on the interpretation. We had better take llillb:ext as it stands. The,Committee agreed on it, Bien entendu, s'il reste un doute sur le sens du texte,il serait sage de demander l'avis du Comite d'etat-major, mais il me semble que les observations faites par le representant du Bresil, tout a. l'heure) rendent le texte clair. Nous disClltions le chapitre qui traite de l'utilisation des forces armees. n s'agit donc, de toute mat:llere, de forces qui sont deja. a. la disposition du Conseil de securite. n s'agit de determiner comment ces forces seront utilisees. En defInitive, il me semble, apres cette dis= cussion,que le texte de l'article 18 est un texte clair, et que le debat qui' vient d'avoir lieu devrait nous conduire, comme nous en avons decide pour les articles precederriment examines, a. la simple addition proposee par le representant des Etats-Unis et acceptee, si j'ai bien compris, par le representant de la Belgique. M. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgique): La preoccupation de la delegation beIge, a. l'egard de cet'article comme a l'egard desautres,' est simplement d'y app0rter le maximum de clarte. L'amendement presente par le representant des Etats-Unis clarifie le texte; en effet, il fait clairement apparaitre que, pour que de.'J forces armees puissent ctre utilisees, il fautnecessaire'; ment deux decisions distinctes.'n faut: 1. L'invitation; 2. Une decision distinctedu Conseil de securite relative, a. l'utilisation partielle ou totale des forces armees. La precision qu'apporte cet amendement rend, je crois, l'article beaucoupplus clair qu'il ne l'etait dans sa redaction, primitive. M. EL-KHOURI (Syrie) (traduitde l'anglais): Je n'estime pas que cette interpretation de l'article 18 doive etre encore soumise au Comite d'etat-major, car l'article est assez clair et le Comite s'est mis d'accord a son sujet. Je crains que sinous renvoyons l'article 18 au Comite d'etat-major, nous ne donnions a.ses membres une nouve1le occasion de desaccord au sujet de son interpretation.,Nopsferions mieux I consider the text clear as stated. "The armed forc~ made available to' the Security Council" mea."1S the overall forces. The next idea is that those forces shall be' employed by the Security Council "in whole or in part." I do not see that this needs any new interpretation. ' If the Council sends article '18 back to the Military Staff Committee, such action will open the way to unfavourable results. Mr. GRO~YKO (Union of SovietSocialist Republics) (tra741ated from Russian): It is very difficlllt here either to agree or disagree 'with the Belgian representative in his attemptto forecast how many decisions the Security CounPl will take in order to use the armed forces envisaged in, particUlar casC;Sby the special agreements. Would it requireone or two decisions?It is hard to answer that question at this stage. I cannot see,iorexample, now we can at pres-ent l'Cach a definite conclusion that the Security Council mtJst take two decisions: one decision to call for armed forces and a second decision to employ them. It is not clear why two such separate decisions should have' to be considered and taken by the ,Security Council. In any ca..e this is a question which requires further discussion; and' it is impossible to"agree at present on any interpretation, such as that suggested by the Belgian representative. I consider that the original variant agreed upon by the Military Staff Committee conveyed sufficiently dearly the fundamental idea which the Military Staff CoII!ffiittee wished to express in article 18. ' In this connexion the remark made by the Brazilian representative that the entire chapter refers to the employment of the ~ed forces should be noted. This is important, particularly from the point ofview of assessing the amendment submitted by the United States representative. This amendment hardly serves to clear up the text~ particularly when it is borne in mit,ld that the United States delegation, for example, takes a special view on the point of interpretation of the meaning of this article-f.. view which differs from that taken by the Soviet representatives on the Military Staff Committee and, if I have understood correctly, also from the assessment and interpretation given by the United Kingdom representatives. J'estime que, dans sa redaction actuelle, le texte ,est clair, L'expression: "Les forces armees mises ala .disposition du Conseil de securitel! signifie la puissance d'ensemble des forces. L'idee, qui suit est que ces forces seront utilisees par le Consei1 de securite "en totalite ou en partie". Je ne trouve pas que cette phrase exige une nou· velle interpretation. ' !Jais si le Conseil renvoie l'article 18 au Comite d'etat-major, nous nous exposerons ades consequences facheuses. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): n est tres difficile, ici, soit de.se separer du representant de la Belgique, soit de se cleclarer d'accord avec lui 10rsqu'il s'eff~rce de determiner d'avance,le nombre de deciSions que le Conseil de securite devra prendre pour employer les forces armees prevues par les accords specia~ dans chaqlle cas particulier. Prendta-t-il une ou deux deci· sions? 11 est fOft dhi'ficile, it l'heure ~ctue11e,dc'· repondre a cette question. En ce qui me concerne, je ne vois pas, par exemple, pour queUes raisons nous pourrions, des maintenant, , conclure que le Conseil de securite devra prendre deux decisions, rune d'inviter les Etats Membres a mettre des forces a sa disposition, l'autre concernant l'emploi de ces force.s. On ne voit pas tres bien pourquoi le Conseil de securite devrait examiner et adopter dttux decisions' distinctes. Quoi qu'il en sait, c'est la une,qutStion qui exige d'Stre debattue plus a fond; pour le moment il est impossible de tom,ber'd'accord sur "une ihteq>retation, sur, c~lle que nous a proposee le representant de la Belgique, par exemple. Il me semble que le texte primitif adopte par le Comite d'etat~major exprimait d'une fa~on suffisamment <;laire l'idee fondamentaleque le Comite d'etat-major voulait exprimer a.rarti· de 18. A ce propos, il y a lieu de. retenir egalement la remarque faite ici par le representant du Bresil, lorsqu'il,.a declare que tout ce, chapitre se rapportait ala .question de l'emploi des forces armees. Cette remarque a son importar:::e, 'surtout lorsqu'on veut porter un jugement sur l'arnendement propose par le representant des Etats-Unis. Cet amendement necontribue guere a la clarte du texte: et d'autant molls si ron songe que la delegation' des Etats-Unis, pal' exemple" a des vues particulieres sur son int~­ pretatio~ - vues qui different du se~s qu'attn· buent a cet article. lesrepresentants sovietiqu~ au Comite d'etat-major, et,'si j'ai bien co~prJS, qui different egalement de l'interpretation qu'~ donne ia deIegationdu Royaume-Uni au se1Il du Comite d'etat-major. d'etat~major. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (Royaume-Uni) (traduit de l'anglais): Je veux simplement dire qu'en revisant son amendement, le representant des Eta"s-Unis a ecarte les difficultes que je prevoyais par suite de l'ad,jition des mots. "sur son invitation". L'expression "a la suite de son invitation" est, se10n moi, tout a fait claire. Je ne pense pas qu'il puisse y avoir la la moindre ambiguite. Aussi suis-je d'avis que, sous cette forme,' cet article ne risque pas de pr@ter a maIentendus. J'estime que ce serait la un texte tout a fait satisfaisant, encore qu'il expiime une idee differant quelque peu des vuesentretenues par le representant britannique au Comite d'etat-major. Sir ALEXANDER CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : I only wanted to say that the revised amendment put forward by the representative of,the United States overcomes the difficulty which I saw in the addition of the words· "on its call." The revised phrase "as a result of its call" is, I think, perfectly clear. I do not think there would be any ambiguity there. Therefore, I think the article would not be misunderstood in that form. It would be quite a good article, although it would be expressing something rather different from what the' United Kingdom member of the Military Staff Committee had in mind. Ido not .know how Vital that is, but perhaps Je ne sais aquel point rela est irnport~nt; mais it would be well to see whether we can obtain I peut-@tre serait-il bon,avant d'approuver le agreement in the Military Staff Committee as to projet, d'essayer d'obtenir du Comite d'etatexactly what it had in mind-if it can agreemajor qu'il se mette d'accord - s'il le peut -' before we actually approve the draft. If a conclusur ce qu'il voulait exactement dire. Si nous sion is reached that this is the intentiop, I consider nous apercevQns ,que telle ~t bien son intention, that the wording last put forward by-Mr. Johnj'estime que la redaction presentee en dern.ier son would certainly express the idea clearly lieu par M. Johnson exprime l'idee, sansaucun enough. doute, avec suffisamment ,de clarte. ,The PRESIDENT (translated from French):, Le PRESIDENT: Parlan~, si vous le pennettez, Speaking, if I may, as representative of FRANCE, comme representant de la FRANCE" je voudrais I would like to say that I feel rather hesitant dire que, si je suis assez reticent quant a la about referring questions back to the Milita.:y procedure qui consiste a renvoyer des questions Staff Committee or even asking it for an interau Comite d'etat-major, ou m@me a lui demanpretation which I consider we should supply der une interpretation que nous devrions, II!e ourselves-since we tun the risk of complicating semble-t-il, doriner nous-m@mes -- car :ilous the work of another organ and we know that it risquons de compliquer la tache d'unautre is not always easy to reach an agreement. I must organisme, et nous savons que l'accord n'est nevertheless add that, if there is any doubt in the pas toujours facile arealiser - je dois cependant mind of any delegation-and that holds for the ajouter que,s'il subsiste un doute _dans l'esprit United.Kingdom delegation - I .feel.we are d'une delegation, et c'est le cas de la delegation bound! ~ regard to that delegation, to agree that britannique, je crois que nous sommes tenus a the Military Staff Committee should be asked for l'egard du representant du Royaume-Uni their interpretation of the text. I, therefore, supd'admettre, en effet, qu'il convient d'inviter le po~, though reluct~tly, the proposal to ask the Comite d'etat-major a donner son interpretation Military Staff Comnuttee for its views. du texte. J'appuie done -, avec regret, mais j'appuie - la proposition de demander l'avis du Comite d'etat-major. But the representatives were not all unanimous about consulting the Military Staff Committee. Contrary views and objections have been voiced, and have not been withdrawn. I must therefore put to the vote the decision to consult the Military St~ Committe~. Naturally, the question of refe~g the text back to the Military Staff Comuuttee for re-examination does not arise' we would simply ask that Committee for its htter- 1IIb ........~ Mais tous les representants n'ont pas emis la m@me opinion en ce qui concerne la consultation du Comite d'etat-major. Des avis contraires, des objections ont ete formules,. qui n'ont pas ete retires. Je crois donc devoir mettre aux voix la decision de demander l'avis du Comite d'etatmajor. II est bien entendu qu'il ne s'agit pas de renvoyer le texte au Comite d'etat-major pour un nouvel examen, mais simplement de Mr. HSIA (China): 1 also have a point of order. I should prefer that the President should give a ruling on this question, in the sense suggested by the' representative of Australia. If we were to take a vote, I would find myself in a difficult position. As far, as I am,con.cemed, the whole article is very clear, and 1see ito need to refer it back to the Military Staff Committee. . Should I vote against or in.favour of referring the article to' the Committee? H it is possible, I should like the President to give a ruling on the questio:n. , Mr•. GROYMKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Re- . publics) (translated from Russian): Several members .of the Council h,ave suggested that we ask the Military Staff Committee for their views on this ql,lestion. The only way to avoid voting is as follows: the President can ask members whether'they haveany qbjections to the proposal. If there are no objections, the proposal is deemed to be accepted, and the Security Council.will then ask the Mihtary Staff Committee for its opinion. If there is objection to the proposal, then the practice, asJat as I know, is to decide the question by taking a vote. If there are any other methods I would be glad to hear of them.

I consider that the 'President has the right, if necessary, to put questions to the Military Staff Committee, so long as he is interpx:eting the views' of his colleagues. If any objections are raised, as in the present case, I think ,the ,President is bound to askfor the. views of the Council as a whole. Colonel ;HODGSON (Australia:): That" procedure is perfectly acceptable-,to my delegation, and ,it is in harmony with the suggestion made by the Soviet representative. Mr~ GROMYKO (Umon of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian):, I do not think that was my proposal; 1 was talking about the method of voting and mentioned that the , M. HSIA (Chine) (traduit de l'anglais): Je desire cgalement soulever une question d'ordre. Je prefererais que le President plit ~the decision sur cette .questi~n, comme l'a suggere le representant de l'Australie. Si nous devons voter, je. me trouverai dans une position difficile. En ce qui me conceme, I'ensemble de l'article me parait extremement clair, et je ne vois pas la necessitede le .renvoyer au Comite d'eta~-major. Dois-je voter pour ou contre le renvoi de l'articie au Comite? Je voudrais que ie President plit, si possible, tine decision en la matiere. M. GROMYKO '(Union des Republiques socia~ listes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Plusieurs ] representants au sein du Conseil ont propose que l'on demandat I'avis du C(,mite d'etat· major sur cette question. On ne Peut evit~i le---- vote que si I'on adopte le procede suivant: le President peut demander aux representants s'lls eJ.event des objections contre cette proposition. S'ils n'en eIevent pas, cela signifie que la proposition est adoptee et que le Conseil de securite demandera l'aviS du Comite d'etat-majot. Au cas ou il y aurait des objections, le seul moyen de trancher la question serait, ce me semple, celui que nous employoDs d'habitude: la mise aux voix. S'il ~te encore d'autres methodes, je voudrais qu'on me les fit connaitre. Le PRESIDENT: Je considere qu'il appartient au President d~ poser eventuellement des questions au Comite d'etat-major, dans la mesure Oll il interprete la pensee de ses collegues. Lorsque des objections se sont fait jour - et tel est le cas - il t:n~ ,semble que le President est, tenu de prendre l'avis du Conseil tout entier. Le colonel HODGSON (Austi'alie) (traduit' de l'anglais): Ma deIegation.trouve que cette fa~on de proceder est parfaitement acceptable et conforme a la proposition faite par' le representant sovietique. M. GR0MYKO (Union des Republiques'socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du r~s~e): 11 ~~ ,I semble que re n'es< pas la propOSlti<m que~ faite. J'ai p~Ie de la procedure du vot~ et Jal , Bien entendu, puisqu'il s'agit de relations entre differents organes, c'est en notre qualite de Conseil de securite que. nous devons nous adresser au Comite d'etat-major. En effet,si chacun de nous s'adressait directement au Comite d'etat-major, ceIui-ci ne saurait 'plus que faire. C'est, bien entendu, par I'intermediaire du ,President .que le Conseil de securite commumque avec le Comite d'etat-major. Le President, agissant au nom du Conseil desecurite et apres I'avoir consulte, donne, sur decision du Comeil, des ~ttuctions au Comite d'etat-major. Naturally, in dealings between different organs,' we should appJy to the Military Staff Committee in our capacity as the Security Council. Otherwise, if each of us applies' to the ¥ilitary Staff Committee, the, Committtee will not know how to act. Of course the Security Council will comniunicate with Ithe Military Staff Committee throug-h its President. The President, acting on behalf of-the Council, after consultation with the Council and on the Oouncil's decision, will give the necessary instructions to the Military Staff Committee. Le PRESIDENT: Je crois inutiIe de prolonger cette discussion. J'ai indique la regIe qui me paraissait la meilleure. Dans le cas present, je , vais demander a ceux de .noscollegues qui ont formuIe tout a I'heure des objections s'ils les maintiennent. Si eIIes sont ~aintenues, je mettrai la 'question aux voix. Si eIIes ne sont pas maintenues, .je considererai que la question' doit etre posee au Comite d'etat-major.

I see no point in continuing this discussion, I have stated what I thought was the best rule. In this case I shall ask those of my colleagues who have just raised objections whether they still abide by them. If these objections are maintained, I shall put the question to the vote. If they are not maintained, I shall conclude that the question must be referred to the Military Staff Committee. Are there any objections? Subsiste-t-il des objections? M. EL-KHOURI (Syrie) (traduit de l'anglais): Toute objection .qui n'est pas expres;. sement retiree est maintenue. Les objections n'ont pas ete retirees. Elles sont done maintenues., Mr. EL - KHOURI (Syria): - Objections are maintained unless they are openly withdrawn. These objections have not been withdrawn. That means they are maintained. The PRESIDENT (translated from French)': I asked whether they had been withdrawn in order to learn by inference whether they were still maintained. Le PRESIDENT': J'ai demande si elles etaient retirees, pour savoir; par voie de consequence, si elles etaient maintenues. Je v~ mettre aux voix' la qu~tion de 'savoir si nous interrogeons le Comite d'etat-major. I shall now put to the vote the question 'whether we are to consult the Military Staff Cornmllttee. ' A vote' was taken by show of h~nds and it was decided by eight votes. with three abstentions to consult the Military Staff Committee. Votes lor: Belgium Brazil Colombia France Poland Union of Soviet Socialist Republics UnitedKingdom United States of America 1IIm.---..-. Votent pour: BeIgique Bresil Colombie France Pologne Union des Republiques socialistes sovie- tiques Royaume-Uni Etats-Unis d'Amerique \ , Colonel HODGSON (Australia.): On behalf of lny delegation, I wish to make it clear that, under the relevant portions of the Charter, the Military Staff Committee is to assist and advise this Coun-. cil. In other words, we say that a member,. par- ticular!y a non-permanent member, should at least be given the courtesy or have the light, if it so desires, to ask for interpretation, explanation, or assistanCf~. If the qllestion comes to a vote, to which we object ID principle, it means that we do not have the right to obtain the benefit of that advice. As a matter_of fact, we think we should have the right to'consult the Milita.rY, Staff Committee. If a vote is taken, it mean.'l that that right can be overruled. We should then not have the right to put even a simple questien, if there should hap~ pen to be objection to that question. . .As a matter of courtesy and principle~ we think a vpteshould not be taken. The right to ask a question should be recognized as a matter of .col.irs~.·There should be no objection,.particu- larly on the part of a permanent member, to a request for interpretation or further information by a majority of the members· of the Security Council, or even by any one.member. . . That is why I wish to state for the record that, although I was completely in.favour of consult- ing the Military Staff Committee, I actually had to abstain from voting. I did so because of the principle involved that no vote should be taken. Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria): I abstained from voting" but not for the reasons expressed by the representative of Australia. When we deal with a request for an explanation on the part of the Security Council asa whole, a vote should be taken, because some members may feel that it is necessary to obtain an explanation while otheI'S may consider that the subject is clear. However, I take the same position as the repre- sentative of Australia, on the ether. question - which he raised.· Any member of the Security Council, particularly a non-permanent m€mber, should have a full right,at any time, to present a question in writing to the Presid~ntof the Security Council, and that question should be .referred to the Military Staff Committee. The Military Staff Committee would then be expected to give a reply to that question. In such a case, no vote is.necessary, and no further consultation with the Council is required. I am referring to a .request by a member for an explanation of a .point regarding which that member is uncertain. The ~ilitaryStaff Committee would certainly be expected, not only as a point of courtesy, but also asa point of duty, to reply to that question and to give the requested explanation. Le colonel HODGSON (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais): Je desire, au nom de ma deIegation preciser qu'aux termes de la Charte, le Comit~ . d'etat-majorest charge d'assister et de conseiller ce Conseil. En d'autres termes, nous estimons que 1'0n devrait, par comtoisie ou par devoir ~utoriser un Etat membre, surt~u~ si ce n'est p~ ID .membre permanent, a solliclter une inter- pretation, une explication ou une aide.· . Si nous devons mettre la question aux voix . . , et par prmClpe nous nous y oppooons, cela signifie que nous n'avons pas le 'droit de bene- .ficier de cet avis. En realite, nous estimonsque nobs devrions avoir le droit de consulter le Comite d'etat-major. Si nous procCdons a un vote, cela signifie que ce droit peut etre annuM. Nous n'aurons meme pas alors le droit de poser une simple question, si jamais que1qu'un venait a objecter a cette question. .. Par courtoisie et par principe, nous ne devrions pas, selon nous, proceder a un vote. Le droit de poser une question devrait etre considere ~omme allant de soi.-Personne ne devrait s'oppo- ser, et un Etat membrepermanent moins que tout autre, ace que-la majorite des membres du Conseil, ou meme un seul /membre, sollicite une interpretation ou de plus amples rensei- gnements. Voila pourquoi je desire que ron enregistre que, tout en etant tout a fait d'accord pour que nous consultions le Comite d'etat-major, j'aidu, en fait, m'abstenir de voter. Si j'ai agi ainsi, c'est en raison du principe en jeu, qui exige, a monsens, que l'on ne procede pas a un vote. M. EL-KHOURI .(Syrie) (traduit de I'an- glais): Je me suis abstenu de voter, mais non pour les raisons donnees par le representant de . l'Australie. Quand il s'agit d'une demande d'ex- plication emanant du Conseil desecurite pris dans son ensemble, il faut proceder a un vote, parce que certains membres peuvent estimer necessaite d'obtenir une explication, alors_que d'autres peuvent trouver le sujet clair. Toutefois, fadopte la meme attitude que le representant de l'Aus-. tralie sur l'autre point qu'il a souleve. Tout membre du Conseil de securite, et particulie. rement un Etat membre non permanent, doit avoir a tout moment le droit de presenter une question ,par ecrit au President du -Conseil de securite, et cette question doit etre transmise au Comite d'etat-major. Le Comite d'etat-major devrait alors y repondre. Dans ce cas, il ne serait pas necessaire de· voter, ni de proceder a de nouvelles discussion8 au sein du Conseil. Je fais allusion a une demande d'explication d'un membre sur un point qui lui parait ambigu. On peut certainemert s'attendre que le Comite -d'etat-major, non pas seulement par courtoisie, mais par devoir, reponde a cette question et dOnile l'explication demandee.

(translated from Frencn) : That is my interpretation, always assuming that we are referring to questions raised in the Security Council. I reserve the question as to whether a member of the Security Council can apply to the President directly, outside Council meetings, with an individual request to put a question to the Military Staff Committee. There is nothing in our rules of procedure which covers such a case. However;· I do not think that I have to settle .tQis question at the moment or that I am entitled to do so, since the case. does not actually· arise. Could we now quickly consider the last two articles to which the Belgian delegation has pro~ posed an amendment in, case the Military Staff Committee should have to be asked a question aboutthem also? I would like now to hear your views on article 22, as atnended by the Belgian deiegation. The article would read as follows when amended: "The degree of readiness of the armed forces which shall be made available, at .its call, to the Security Council by individual Member nations of the United Nations is fixed by the Security Council, on the advice of the Military Staff Committee, as a result of the negotiations in concluding the special agreements with those Member nations under Article 43 of the Charter." If there are no objections, this amendment will be considered as adopted. Article 22, as amended by tht; Belgian delegation, was adopted unanimously. The PRESIDENT' (translated from French): We will now take al'iicle 36, which was amended as follows: "The armed forces envisaged in the special. agreements shall remain under the exclUsive com-· mand of, the respective contributing nations, except when, having been made available to the SecuritY.. Council, on its call, they will operate under its authority." If there are no objections, I will conside,r article 36 adopted as amended. I dererai cet article 36, ainsi amende, comme adopte. L'article 36, avec l'amendement de la aeLegation belge, est adopM al'unanimiM. Le PRESIDENT: Le Conseil se reunira demain apres-midi et continuera l'examen du rapport du Comite d'etat-major. . Article 36, as amended by the Belgian deleg(ltzon, was adopted unanimously. T,he PRESIDENT (translated from French): The Council will meet again tomorrow afternoon to continue consideration of the Military Staff Comtnittee's report. , Le,PRESIDENT: C'est, en effet, l'interpretation que j'admets, etant entendu qu'il s'agit de questions soulevees au sein du Conseil de securite. Je reserve la question de savoir si un membre quelconque du Conseil de secUrite pourrait s'adresser directement au President· en dehorS des reunions du Conseil et ·lui demander individuellement de saisir d'ooe question le Comite ~'etat-major; il n'y a rien, dans notre reglement. interieur, qui s'applique a ce cas. Mais je ne crois pas que je sois appeIe actuellement atrancher la question, ni que j'aie le droit de le faire, puisque le cas ne se pose pas effectivement. Je souhaiterais que nous puissions maintenant passer a l'examen rapide des deux demiers articles que la delegation beIge propose d'amender, pour le cas OU, aJeur sujet, une question devrait encore etre posee au Comite d'etat-major. Je voudrais vous demander maintenant votre avis'sur l'article 22, te1 qu'il a ete amende par la delegation beIge; il se lit comme suit: "Le degre de preparation des forces armees qui doivent etre mises, sur son invitation, a la disposition du Conseil de securite par des Membres des Nations Unies est fixe par le Conseil de securite sur avis du Comite d'etat-major, a la suite des negociations D].enees avec les Etats Membres en vue, de la conclusion des accords speciaux prevus al'Article 43 de la Charte." . Si aucune objection n'est formulee, je considererai l'amendement comme adopte. L'article 22, avec l'amendement de la deUgation belge, est adopM al'unanimiU. Le PRESIDENT: Nous alions examiner, maintenant, l'article 36 qui a ete amende comme suit: "Les forces armees designees dam les accords speciaux demeureront placees sous le commanclement exclusif des. Etats Membres qui les ont fournies, sauf lorsque, ayant ete mises ala disposition du Conseil de securiM, sur SO1/, invitation, elles opereront sous son autoriM." \ , Si aucune objection n'est formulee, je consi- ..,iitorial Sudamericana S.A.' AIsina 500 BUENOS AIREs Australia-Atlstralie H; A. Goddard Pi.y. Ltd. 255a George Street SYDNEY Egypt-'Egypte Librairie "La Renaissance d'Egypte" 9 Sh. Adly Pasha CAIRO Belgium-BelgiiJue Agence et Messageries de la Presse ' 14-22 rue du Persil BRUXELLES FinIand-Finlande Akateeminen Kirjakauppa 2, Keskuskatu HELSINKI Bolivia-'Bolivie Libreria Cientffica y Literaria Avenida 16 de Julio, 216 Casilla 972 LA PAZ France Editions A. Pedone 13, rue SouHlot PARIS, ve Greece--Grece "Eleftheroudakis" Librairie internationale Place de la Constitution ATHENES Canada The Ryerson Press 299 Queen Street West TOROJ.'lTO Guatemala Jose Goubaud Goubaud & Cia Ltda. Sucesor 5a Av. Sur No. 6 y 9a C. P. GUATEMALA Chile-Chili Edmundo Pizarro Merced 846 SANTIAGO China-Chine The Commercial Press Ltd. 211 Honan Road SHANGHAI Haiti-Haiti Max Bouchereau Librairie "A la Caravelle" Boite postale 111-B PORT-AU-PRINCE Costa Rica-Costa-Rica Trejos Hermanos Apartado 1313 SAN JosE India-lnde Oxford Book & Stationery Co. Scindia House NEW DELHI Cuba La Casa Belga Renc~ de Smedt O'Reilly 455 LA HABANA, Iran Bangahe Piaderow 731 .shah Avenue TEHERAN Czechoslovakia TchecoslovaiJuie F. Topic Narodni Trida 9 PRAHA 1 Iraq-Irak Mackenzie & Mackenzie The Bookshop BAGHDAD Denmark-Danemark Einar Munskgaard . Norregade 6 KJOBENHAVN Lebanon-Liban Librairie universelle BEYROUTH Dominican Republic . RepubliiJue 'l)ominicaine LiJjreria Dominicana Calle Mercedes No. 49 Apartado 656 CIUDAD TRUJILLO ~~-~ . Netherlands-:-Pays-Bas N. V. Martinus Nijhoff Lange Voorhout 9 S'GRAVENHAGE New Zealand N ouvelle-Zelande Gordon & Gotch Waring Taylor Street WELUNGTON Norway-Norvege Norsk Bokimport AjS Edv. Storms Gate 1 OSLO Philippines D. P. Perez Co. 132 Riverside SAN JUAN Sweden-Suede AB C. E. Fritzes Kungl Hofbokhandel Fredsgatan 2 STOCKHOLM Switzerland-Suisse Librairie Payot S. A. LAtJSANNE,GENEVE, VEVEY MONTREUX, NEUCHATEL, BERNE, BASEL Hans Raunhardt Kirchgasse 17 ZURICH I Syria-Syrie Librairie universelle DAMAS Union of South Africa Union Sud-Africaine Central News Agency Ltd. Commissioner & Rissik, Sts. JOHANNESBURG United Kingdom Royaume-Uni H.M. Stationery Office p.a. Box 569 LONDON, S.E. 1 and at H.M.S.O. Shops at LONDON, EDINBURGH, MANCHEsTER, CARDIFF, BELFAST and BRISTOL United States of America Etats-Unis d!AmeriiJue International Documents Service Columbia University Press 2960 Broadway NEW YORK 27, N. Y. Yugoslavia-Yougoslavie Drzavno Preduzece Jugoslovenska Knjiga Moskovska UI. 36 BEOGRAD