S/PV.154 Security Council

I should like to state the alternative courses which are before us. One course is that which has been proposed by the USSR representative: not to put the item on the agenda. The other course is to adopt the agenda, and to make a decision later as to what should be done with that item-whether we shall follow the usual procedure of sending it to the Committee on the Admission of New Members or make a different decision.. If I may make a proposal as President, I should like to propose the second course, which seems to be more in accordance with the provi- . sional rules of procedure of the Security Council. Rule 59 reads in part as follows: "The Secretary-General shall immediately place the application for membership before the representatives on the Security Council." I think it is a more logical course that we. should adopt the agenda, ar.d later take whatever decision the Council may desire on this item. Therefore, unless there is any objection, I propo~e that the Council should adopt the agenda as It now stands before the Council. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics): The inclusion of this question in the M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit de l'anglais): L'inscription de cette question a l'ordre du jour signifierait que nous acceptons de l'examiner au Conseil de sectJrite. Or, j'estime que c'est la une question qu'il n'appartient pas au Conseil de securite d'examiner. C'est pourquoi je ne puis donner mon accord a la proposition tendant a ~gend~ would mean that we accept it for con- SI~eratlOn.in the Security Council. I believe that thIS questlOn is not proper for consideration by the ~ecurity Council. That is why I cannot support the suggestion to include this question in the agenda of the Security Council. I have already ...---..... A vote was taken by show, of hands, and the inclusion of item 2 in the agenda was approved by nine votes, with two abstentions.. Votes for: Belgium Brazil China Colombia France Poland Syria United King-dom United States of America Abstentions: Australia Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Nine members have voted in favour of the iaclusion of item 2, and two members have abstained. The point is now on the agenda. In order to conclude our business, r propose that we should immediately adopt item 3 of the agenda. Unless there is any objection, I shall consider item 3 adopted. Colonel HODGSON (Australia): I wish to speak on item 2 of the agenda. May I therefore inquire whether the agenda has been adopted?

No objection to the adoption of item 3 having been voiced, I declare that item adopted. Consequently, the entire agenda is now adopted. 210. Application of Austria for membership in the United Nations

The representative of Australia wishes to speak on item 2. Before he does so, I think it may be useful if I read from rule 59 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council, so that we may know exactly what our rules provide on this subject. Rule 59 reads ~ follows: "The Secretary-General shall immediately place the application for membership before the representatives on the Security Council. Unless the Security Council decides otherwise, the application shall be referred by the President to a Votent pour: Belgique Bresil ChiIle Colombie France Pologne Syrie Royaume-Uni Etats-Unis d'Amerique S'abstiennent: Australie Union des Republiques socialistes sovie- _tiques Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Neuf delegations ont vote en faveur de I'inscription du point 2 et deux membres se sont abstenus. Le point 2 est done inscrit a I'ordre du jour. Pour en finir, je propose que nous adoption~ immediatement le point 3 de l'ordre du jour. S'il n'y a pas d'objection, je considererai qu'll est adopte. Le colonel HODGSON (Australie) (traduit de' ['anglais): Je voudrais parler sur le point 2 de I'ordre duo jour. Puis-je done demander si I'ordre du jour a ete adopte? Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Personne n'ayant souleve d'objections contre l'inscription du point 3, je le declare adopte. Ainsi, I'ensemble de l'ordre du jour est maintenant adopte. 210. Demande d'admission de "Autriche Ca "Organisation des Nations Unies Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Le representant de l'Australie desire prendre la pa.. role sur le point 2. Auparavant, il peut etre utile, je crois, que je donne lecture de l'articIe 59 du reglement interieur provisoire du CQnseil de securite, afin que nous sachions exactement ce qu'il prevoit a ce sujet. L'article 59 est ainsi con~u: "Le Secretaire general porte immediatementa la connaissance des representants au Conseil de securite la demande d'admission. A moins que le Conseil de securite n'en decide autrement, le President renvoie la demande d'admission a In other words, unless we take a decision on this matter, we should immediately refer it to the committee mentioned in rule 59. However, we are free to decide otherwise. . Colonel HODGSON (Australia): My delegation is pleased that the President has emphasized the words "unless the Security Council decides otherwise". It will be recalled that my delegation was the only one to oppose the proposal that the applications of Italy and Hungary should be referred to the Committee.1 Some members seemed to th 'nk that we were obliged to refer the applications automatically. The USSR reprr:- sentative voted to refer those applications to the Comrrittee. Le 'colonel HODGSON (Australie) (traduit de ['anglais): Ma delegation est heureuse que le President ait souligne les mots "a moins que le Conseil de securiie n'en decide autrement". On se souviendra que ma delegation fut la seule a s'opposer a,la proposition selon laquelle les demandes d'admisswn de I'Italie et de la Hongrie devaient etre renvoyees a ce Comite. Certains membres du Conseil semblaient penser que nollS etions obliges de renvoyer automatiquement ces demandes. Le representant de I'URSS vota le renvoi des demandes au Comite. ' Le prindpe en caus~, dans le cas qui nous occupe aujourd'hui, est exactement le meme que dans les deux autres Cad que j'ai cites, a savoir que, bvt que lea traiUis de paix avec les pays ell quentio. ne sont pas effectivement ratifies, ces pays sont theoriquement des pays ennemis. Des forces alliees les occupent. Etant donne qU'e la condition fondamentale de l'admission dans l'Organisatioll des Nations Unies est l'independance et la souverainete des Etats, une demande comme celle dont nous sommes saisis est, aux yeux de la delegation australienne, tout a fait deplacee et inadmissible. Peu importe qu'un traite de paix ait ete redige ou, comme dans le cas present, ne I'ait pas ete. Peu importe qu'il ait ete signe. Un traite de paix n'entre en vigueur qu'apres avoir ete ratifie. Le cas de l'Autriche est donc exactement le meme que celui de l'Italie et de la Hongri~. C'est la raison pour laquelle ma delegation s'opposera a toute proposition de renvoyer cette demande au Comite. The principle in the case !lOW before us is exactly the same as the principle in those other two cases: namely, that until the peace treaties with those countries are actually ratified, those countries are technically enemy countries. Allied forc~s are occupying them. Since the basis of membership in the United Nations is the independence and sov~reignty of States, an application such as the one now before us is, in the opinion of the Australian delegation, quite out of order and inadmissible. It does not matter whether a peace treaty has been drafted or, as in the present case, has not been drafted. It does not matter whether it has been signed. A peace treaty does not come into effect lmtil ratification. Therefore, the case of Austria is exactly the same as the case of Italy or Hungary. It is for that reason that my delegation will oppol;e any proposal to refer this applic?.tion to the Committee. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America) : This discussion seems to be revolving around technical points, none of which I feel I am in a position to challenge. . T~e statement made by the USSR representative 18 certainly accurate, and I understand the point of view of the representative of Australia, although I do not agree with him. However, there.is an interesting point in connexion with Austna which I think mir--ht be useful for us to recall. ::> • M. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'ang1ais): La discussion roule sur des considerations d'ordre technique que je ne me sens pas en mesure de contester. La declaration du representant de I'URSS est certainement exacte et je comprends le point de vue du representant de l'Australie, bien que je ne sois pas d'accord avec lui. Mais il y a, concernant l'Autriche, un point interessant qu'il serait utile, je crois, de rappeler. !"-t.the conference of the representatives of the prmclpal Allied Powers at the end of 1944 in ¥oscow, when certain policies were being tenta- A la conference des representants des principales Puissances alliees, aMoscou, qui s'est tenue fin 1944, et OU certaines lignes de conduite ont ete tracees provisoirement pour I'avenir, il a ete ,convenu que l'Autriche ne devait pas etre traitee comme un pays ex-ennemi mais comme la vie- ~lvely mapped out for the future, it was agreed that Austria should not be treated as an 'exenemy country, but as a victim of aggression, I see no harm, however, in the Council referring this ,<,pplication to the Committee on the Admission of,New Members for prelimniary dis· cussion. Such'an action could not in any way affect the final result ofAustria's application for membership in the United Nations. It might produce some useful points of view, and some useful inforrnation regarding the situation of Austria might be elicited for the public record. Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria): I imagine there is some difference between the cases of Italy and Hungary, on the one hand, and Austri~, on the other. The two previous applications of Italy and Hungary were referred to the Committee on the Admission of New Members. However, Austria did not receive international recognition, with regard to its existence as a sovereign Sta.tel ,after the Anschluss which took place prior to the war. It was known that Austria did not con- 'tiJiue its existence and its ici.~'ntity as a sovereign State, whereas Italy and Hungary maintained 'that existence and rec~ived such mternational :recognition.. . The applications of Italy and Hungary, therefore, may be considered by the Committee and studied in the Security Council, awaiting the ratification of the respective peace treaties for .those two countries. Austria, however, was incorporated into Germany and was not considered as a separate enemy'State which entered into the war because of a policy of aggression. Wh~ther it is to be decided here that this ap· .plication shall be returned to the applicant, with a statement that it is premature and should wait until these formalities are completed, or whether the appij.cation is sent to the Committee;, my delegation will not agree, in the Committee, that the matter should be considered now. Considera- ~ion of the application must also await the result of the international'peace conferences and treaties which are to be concluded later on, at , which time the real position of Austria, its independence, and its sovereign identity may be recognized internationally, before admission to the United Nations is to be approved or even 'discussed. It makes no difference to me whether M. EL-KHOURI (Syrie) (traduit de l'anglais): A mon sens il y a quelques differences entre les cas de l'Italie et de la Hongrie d'une part, et celui de I'Autriche d'autre part. Les deux de· mandes anterieures d'admission emanart de I'Italit et de la Hongrie ont ete renvoyees au Comite des demandes d'admi~sion de nouveaux Membres. L'Autriche, eIle, a cesse apres l'Anschluss - qui s'est produit .avant la guerre - d'etre ' reconnue internationalement en tant qu'Etat souverain. I1 etait bien connu que l'Autriche avait cesse d'exister et perdu son identite en tant , qu'Etat souverain, alors que I'Italie et la Hon· grie continuaient d'exister et etaient internationalement reconnues. En consequen..:e, les demandes de I'Italie et ,de la Hongrie peuvent etre examinees par le Comite et etudiees au Conseil de securite, en attendant la ratification des traites de paix res· pectifs avec ces deux pays. L'Autriche, en revanche,etait'incorporee a l'Allemagne et n'etait pas consideree comme un Etat ennemi distinct, e!1tre dans la guerre de par une politique d'agres- SlOn. Que nous decidions de renvoyer cette de· mande a son auteur, avec une nQte precisant qu'eIle est prematuree et devrait attendre jusqu'a ce que les formalites dont il s'agit soient accomplies, ou bien que la demande soit renvoyee au Comite, ma delegation ne donnera pas son accord, au sein du Comite, pour que la question soit examinee maintenant. L'examen de la demande doit aussi attendre le resultat des conferences internationales de paix, et des traites qui doivent etre conc1us ulterieurement, car ce n'est qu'a ce moment que la veritable position de l'Autriche, son independance, et 130n caractere ~'Etat souverain, pourront etre reconnus inter· nationalement, avant que son admission dans Mr. PAROD! (France) (iranslated from French): It is clear from the observations of some of the members of the Council that the Austrian application for membership raises certain legal difficulties which deserve careful study. M. PAROD! (France): Les observations qui viennent d'etre presentees par un certain nombre de membres du Conseil font apparaitre que la demande d'admission de I'Autriche souleve certaines difficultes :l'ordre juridique qui meritent d'etre examinees avec soin. . It seems to me that a study of this type is the n me semble que le role du Comite des deproper fllilction of the Committee on the Admismandes o'admission de nouveaux Membres ('Ost sion of New Members, and therefore I consider precisement de proceder a une etude de cet that this question should be referred t.J that ordre. l'estime donc que nous devrionS renvoyer Committee, on the understanding that this decila question au Comite, etant entendu que cette sion will in no way prejudge the final decision to decision de r2nvoi ne prejuge en rieI:l la dec~ion be taken on this question. These are the views qui sera finalement prise. Telle est l'opinion que 6f my delegation. j'exprime au nom de ma delegation. . Mr. ]OHNSON (United States of America): I I M. ]OHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Arnerique) (tracannot agree completely with the representative duit de l'anglais): Je ne puis etre completement . of Syria as to his argument regarding the techd'accord avec ie representant de la Syrie sur son meal status of Austria. It is true that the terriargument concemant le statut juridique de l'Autor/ now known as Austria is under heavy servitriche. 11 est vrai que le territoire actuellement tude as a result of military occupation and that appe1e Autriche est sournis a une lourde ·servimany conditions would have to be fulfilled-or tude du fait de I'occupation militaire, et qu'il y at least it could be argued that they must be fulaurait de nombreuses conditions a remplir - filled-before Austria is entirely eligible for on peut du moins souten;r qu'elles devraient etre mem.bership in the United Nations. rempHes - ~'l.Vant que la demande d'admission de I'Autriche a, l'Organisation .des Nations Unies ::ait parIaitement recevable. , 11 n'est pas ,tout afait exact cependant, amon ·avis) d'affirmer que I'Autrich,e n'a pas d'identite I believe it is hardly accurate, however, to claim that Austria has no corporate identity and no recognition. As a matter of fact, the Government of the United States of America has an accredited Minister in Vienna, and there is an Austrian Minister who i'l fuUy accredited and received in Washington. I do not think that it is necessary to remove .a1l of the results of war from a State; whether an ex-enemy State or not, in order to fulfil the technical requirements of being a sovereign State. .We never recognized the lega~ validity of the German occupation of Austria. Often those concepts of· sove;eignty may be on an astral plane, and sovereignty is a legal and technical matter. ~ have heard. no arguments this morning W~lC~ appeal to me as convincing that this application should not be referred to the Committee for study and examination. That action has nothing to do with the judgment of the Council on the final qualifications of Austria for membership unde.. the Charter.

Rule 59 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council states ~ follows: "Unless the Security Council deCides otherwise, the applicati(Jn shall be referred by the President to a committee of the Security Council .. :' ' This ~uts. me under the ~bligation to refer the applIcation to the Committee, unless some member presents a formal proposal to postpone ~ , . CO~:i11e personne juridique et n'est pas reconnue. I1 est un fait, c'est que le Gouvernement des Etat,>-Unis d'Amerique a un rnin.istre accredite a Vienne et qu'il y a a ,,~.ashington un ministre d'Autriche pleinement accredite et introduit. Je ne pense pas qu'il soit necessaire de faire disoaraitre d'un Etat, ex-ennemi ou non, toutes les ~consequences de la guerre pour lui permettre de remplir les conditions juridiques d'un Etat souverain. Nous n'avons jamais reconnu la validite juridique de l'occupation all~mande de l'Autriche. On peut, souvent, evoquer ces notions de souverainete sur un plan transcendant; la souverainete elle-meme est une situation juriclique et technique. Je n'ai pas entendu ce matin d'argument qui puisse me comiainc.te qu'il ne faut pas renvoyer cette demande au Comite, pour etude et examen. Cette mesure n'a rien a voir avec la decision du Conseil qui jugera finalement si l'Autriche est qualifiee a devenir Membre de l'Organisation aux termes de la Charte. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): L'article 59 du regleinent interieur provisoire du Conseil , de securite stipule ce qui suit: "A moins que le Conseil de securite n'en decide autrement, le President renvoie la demande a l'examen d'un comite du Conseil de securite ... " Cela me met dans l'obligation de renvoyer la demande au Comite, amoins qu'un membr~ du Conseil ne presente a ce sujet une proposition

Rule 59 puts the President under the obligation to refer t..lIe application to a committee of the Security Council unless the Security Council decides otherwise-and that means not to refer it to the Committee. I interpret a decision not to refer the application as implying simply a decision to postpone consideration of the matter. I interpret the last statement of the USSR representative as being just such a proposal, and I should like to ask him whet..lIer my interpretation is correct. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I simply cannot agree-and I am not alone in this, since, as has been made clear, some other representatives on the Council are of the same opinionto the Austrian application being considered at this time by the Security Council. That is my position. Naturally, therefore, I cannot agree with the suggestion that the Austrian application should be referred to the Committee on the Admission of New Members.

I shall have to ask the Security Council for a decision. The proposal was: not to refer the application to the Committee; which I interpret to mean that we leave the q~estion undecided and do not consider it for the time being. Colonel HODGSON (Australia): I wish to make the position of my delegation clear. I am not speaking on the merits of the case. My delegation, my Government, and my country have a very great sympathy for Austria. However, that is not the question. As we see it now, the President is bound to refer the application to the Committee, unless he receives some definite proposal that this application should be noted only and that action on it should be deferred. I should like to inform the USSR representative that, if he is prepared to submit such a motion, I shall support him. Otherwise, the President is bound to send the application to the Committee on the Admission of Nev' Members. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): L'article 59 met le President dans l'obligation de renvoyer la demande a un comite du Conseil de securite, a moins que le Conseil de securite n'en decide autrement - et cela signifie: decide de ne pas la renvoyer au Comite. J'interpretc la decision de ne pas renvoyer comme signifiant simplement que 1'0n decide de remettre a. plus tard I'examen de la question. J'interprete la derniere declaration du representant de I'URSS comme une telle proposition, et je voudrais savoir si mon interpretation est correcte. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques sodalistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Il m'est tout simplement impossible d'accepter - et je ne suis pas le seul, car nous venons de voir que certains autres representants siegeant au Conseil sont dans mon cas - il m'est impossible, dis-je, d'accepter que la demande du Gouvernement autrichien soit examinee maintenant au Conseil de securite. Telle est ma position. C'est pourquoi, tout naturellement, je ne puis me ranger a. la proposition tendant a soumettre la requete de l'Autriche au Comite des demandes d'admission de nouveaux Membres. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Je vais avoir a. demander au Conseil de securite de prendre une decision. La proposition presentee est de ne pas renvoyer la demande au Comite, ce que j'interprete comme signifiant: de laisser la question en suspens et de ne pas I'etudier pour le moment. Le colonel HODGSON (Australie) (traduit d~ l'anglais): Je voudrais preciser la position de ma delegation. Je n'aborde pas le fond de la cause. Ma delegation, mon Gouvernement et mon pays eprouvent une tres grande sympathie pour l'Autriche. Mais la. n'est pas la question. SeIon nous, le President est tenu de renvoyer la demande au Comite, a. moins qu'il ne soit saisi d'une proposition precise tendant a ce qu'il en prenne siroplement acte et ajourne toute mesure a. son sujet. Je voudrais faire cOlmaitre au representant de I'URSS que, s'il est dispose a. presenter une telle motion, je lui donnerai mon appui. Autrement, le President est tenu de renvoyer la demande au Comite des demandes d'admission de nouveaUX Membres. j My second ,question is whether the representative of Australia is, by himself, able to make such a motion. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I do not understand what it is here that is not dear. I do not agree to this application being referred for consideration to the Committee on the Admission of New Members, any more than I agree to this question being considered by the Security Council at its own meetings. I do not know, Mr. President, whether you will put this question to the vote or not. In any case, it makes no difference to me whether a vote is taken on this question or not. That is for you, as President, to decide. I simply want to state that I cannot agree to the Austrian application for membership being considered at the present time. I have already pointed out that what I have said at today's meeting should not be construed as in the slightest degree predetermining the USSR delegation's attitude as regards the substance of the Austrian application, when the latter comes up for consideration at the app~opriate and proper time. Colonel HOnGSON (Australia): My delegation does not wish to prolong this discussion. However, in reply to the President, this is not a question, as we see it, of the President's interpretation. The President is bound under rule 59 to send the application to the Committee on the Admission of New Members, unless the Council decides otherwise. Since there is no motion on which the Council can decide otherwise, this is not a question of interpretation. In reply to the President's second question, the Australian delegation is not proposing such a motion. The Australian delegation clearly indicated that it would support a motion by the USSR delegation if the l~tter were prepared to advance'one. Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria): I should like to make it clear that none of the declarations made t?day has envisaged the merits of the applicatIon of Austria for membership in the Unned Nations. We have discussed only a technicality, nothing more. I believe that all the delegations, and I speak for my delegation, would welcome Austria as soon as these technical obstacles are removed. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe).o Je ne vois ici rien d'obscur. Je ne puis accepter que cette demande soit renvoyee pour examen au Comite des demandes d'admission de nouveaux Membres, et je ne puis non plus accepter que le Conseil de securite examine cette q:.lestion au cours de ses seances. Je ne sais pas, Monsieur le President, si vous mettrez cette question aux voix. En tout cas, il m'est indifferent que vous la mettiez aux voix ou non. C'est a vous, en tant que President, qu'il appartient d'en decider. Je dis simplement que je ne puis accepter que la demande d'admission de l'Autriche soit examinee a l'heure actuelle. J'ai deja indique que mes declarationsd'aujourd'hui ne devaient pas etre interpretees comme determinant d'avance, si peu que ce soit, l'attitude que prendra la delegation de I'URSS quant au fond de la demande de l'Autriche, lorsque le moment sera venu de I'etudier. Le colonel HOnGSON (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais).o Ma delegation n'a pas le desir de prolonger cette discussion; toutefnis, pour repondre au President, je dirai qu'a notre avis il ne saurait etre question ici d'une interpretation presidentielle. Le President est tenu, aux tcrmes de l'article 59, de renvoyer la demande au Co~ mite des demandes d'admission de nouveaux Membres, a moins que le Conseil n'en decide autrement. Puisqu'il n'y a pas de motion sur la base de laquelle le Conseil puisse "en decider autre~ ment", il n'y a pas matiere a interpretation. En reponse a la deuxieme question du President, je dirai que la delegation australienne ne presente pas une motion de cet ordre. La dele~ gation australienne a clairement indique qu'elle appuierait une motion ence sens de la delegation de I'URSS si cette Jelegation etait disposee a en presenter une. M. EL-KHOUR! (Syrie) (traduit de l'anglais).o Je voudrais faire remarquer qu'aucune des declarations qu'on a faites aujourd'hui n'a aborde au fond la cause qui est devant nous, a savoir: la demande d'admission de I'Autriche a 1'0rganisation des Nations Unies. On a agite des considerations techniques et rien de plus. Je crois pouvoir dire que toutes les delegations, et la mienne en tout cas, seron,! heureuses d'accueillir l'Autriche des que ces obstacles techniques auront ete ecartes. For that reason, the President is not obliged to wait for any formal proposal to be presented. Rule 59 clearly specifies that the application should be referred to the Committee without any further discussion as long as there is no formal proposal 'presented on it. The PRE:dIDENT: The question before us is whether we have a formal motion not to refer the application to the Committee on the Admission of New Members. I was not quite certain as to how to interpret the statement of the USSR representative, but since he has not presented a forma! motion, I understand that there is no such motion before us. In that case, I am bound to send this application to the Committee. Of course it is understood that within that Committee each delegation is free to move for consideration or postponement or whatever it wishes. Consequently, there being no motion before us, I shall follow rule 59 and refer the letter to the Committee on the Admission of New Members. 211. Continuation of the discussion on the special agreements under Article 43 of the Charter and the organization of th~ United Nations armed forces The PRESIDENT: I should like to remind the Council that we were diScussing article 11 of the report of the Military Staff Committee.1 With reference to that article, the President, at that time Mr. Parodi, decided first to send a letter to the Military Staff Committee2 asking for preliminary estimates on the armed forces, and a reply was received which gave the views of four members of the Military Staff Committee.2 Furthermore, at the hundred and forty-ninth meeting of the Council, the President declared that he would ask the Military Staff Committee for elucidation on another point in articles 10 and 11 concerning the use of the term "initial" in these articles.2 I shall ask the Assistant Secretary-General in charge of the Legal Department to read to the Council the letter which was sent by Mr. Parodi and also the answer which was received from the Military Staff Committee. Mr. Kerno, Assistant Secretary-General in charge of the Le~al Department, read the letter from the President of the Security Council to the 211. Suite de la discussion sur les accords speciaux prevus Cl I'Article 43 de la Charte et sur I'organisation des forces armees des Nations Unies Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Je me permets de rappeler au Conseil que ~ous sommes dans la discussion de l'article 11 du rapport du Comite d'etat-major1• A propos de cet article, le President - c'etait alors M. Parodi - avait decide de demander tout d'abord au Comite . d'etat-major, par lettre2, une evaluation prealable des forces armees; la reponse re~l.le exposait les vues de quatre membres du~ Comite d'etat-major2. \ D'autre part, a la cent-quarante-neuvieme seance du Conseil, le President a d(;clare qu'll demanderait au Comite d'etat-major de preciser un autre point des articles 10 et 11 en ce qui concerne l'emploi du mot "initiale" dans ces articles2• Je vais demander au Secretaire general ad- . joint charge du Departement juridique de lire au Conseil la lettre envoyee par M. Parodi, ainsi que la reponse rec;ue du Comite d'etatmajor. M. Kerno, Secretaire general adjoint charge du Departement juridique, donne lecture de la leUre du President du Conseil de sAcurite au Pre~ident du Comite d'etat-major se lit ainei: 30 June 194·7 30 juin 1947 "Monsieur le President, "A la suite de la discussion qui a eu lieu au cours des cent-ql!arante-sixieme et cent-quarante-neuvieme seance~ du Conseil de securite au sujet de l'article 11 du rapport du Comite d'etat-major sur les principes generaui\: regissant l'organisation des forces armees mises a la dis" position du Conseil tde securite par les Membres des Nations Ul1ies, j'ai I'honneur de vous prier -de me faire connaitre le plus tot possible l'interpretation que le Comite d'etat-major donnc a la contribution initiale des forces armees, visee aux articles 10 et 11." (Signe) A. PARODI President du Conseil de securit§ lIMr. Chairman, ":Following the discussion at the hundred and fortysixth and hundred and forty-ninth meetings of the Security Council on article 11 of the report of the Military Staff Committee on general principles governing the organization of the armed forces made available to the Security Council by Member nations of the United Nations, I have the honor to request you to let me know os soon as possible the interpretation of the Military Staff Committee of the initial contribution of armed forces referred to in articles 10 and 11." (Signed) A. PARODI President of the Security Council • ~ The reply from the Chairman of the Military Staff Committee reads as follows: 7 July 1947 "Sir, "In reply to your letter of 30 June 1947, I have the honour to inform you: "1. That the Military Staff Committee agrees to the following interpretation of article 10: "For the early. establishment of the armed fOlces envisaged by Article 43 of the Charter, the Military Staff Committee has considered that: "(a) ,The negotiation of special agreements should be so conducted that the five permanent members of the Security Council should be called upon to contribute the major portion of the initial armed forces. This provision is reflected in article 10 by the phrase: 'The permanent members of the Security Council shall contribute initially the major portion of the forces.' ~ La reponse du Presid.ent du Comite d'etat-major se lit ainsi: 7 juillet 1947 "Monsieur le President, liEn reponse a votre lettredu 30 juin 1947, j'ai I'honneur de vous informer que: "l. Le Comite d'etat-major est d'accord sur l'interpretation suivante de l'article 10: "Pour constituer rapidement les forces armees prevues par l'Article 43 de la Charte, le Comite d'etat-major a estime que: "a) La negociation des accords speciaux devrait etre menee de faQon telle que les premieres forces mises a la disposition du Conseil de securite soient en majeure partie demandees aux cinq membres permanents dti Conseil de securite. Cctte disposition fait 1'0bjet, dans l'artic1e 10, de la phrase: "Les membres permanents du Conseil de securite fourniront initialement la majeure partie de ces forces." lib) A ces premieres forces viendraient s'ajouter les forces des autres nations Membres au fur et a mesure de la conclusion des accorda speciaux. Cette dispositinn est couverte dans l'article 10 par la phrase: "Au fur et a mesure que les contributions des autres nations des Nations Unies deviendront disponibles, eUes seront ajoutees aux forces deja fournies." "c) Le mot "initialement" qui figure a l'artiele 10 indique egalement que les cinq mcm1:ires permanents du Conseil de securite seront les premiers parmi les nations Membres a mettre les forces armees. a la disposition du Conseil de securite. La contribution de la majeure partie des forces armees par les cinq membres permanents du Conseil de securite ne s'applique qu'au premier temps de la constitution des forces armees qui doivent etre mises ala disposition du Conseil de securite. En ce qui concerne le rapport entre les forces armees mises ulterieurement a la disposition du Conseil de securite, d'une part :(lar les cinq membres permanents du Conseil de securJte, et d'autre part par toutes les autres nations, ceUe question doit etre laissee en suspenso . "2. Les delegations de la Chine, de la France, du Royaume-Uni et des Etats-Unis au Comite d'etat-major sont d'accord sur l'interpretation suivante de l'artic1e 11 dans la forme dans laqueIle eIle a ete proposee par elles: "a) Dans la phrase "chacun des cinq membres perma. nents du Conseil de securite apporte aux forces armees mises a la disposition du Conseil de securite par les nations Membres des Nations Unies une contribution d'ensemble initiale comparable", les mots "d'ensemble" se rapportent au total des forces de terre, de mer et de l'air que doit fournir chacun des cinq membres permanents; lib) Le mot "initiale" de l'article 11 vise les contributions promises par les cinq membres permanents. Ainsi les contributions d'ensemble des cinq membres permanents seront comparables,. non seulement au moment ou les accords prevus a l'Article 43 de la Charte seront initialement signes, mais chaque fois que l'importance de la force sera accrue ou reduite du fait, PIU' exemple, de l'evolution de la situation generale. Cependant, si la force doit etre accrue au moment ou l'on envisage une action de coercition prevue au Chapitre VII de la Charte, l'impc :mcede l'assistance et des facilites doit alors etre cgalement prise en ligne de compte pour estimer les contributions comparables que doivent faire les cinq membres permanents du Conseil de securite. (Voir l'artiele 28 des "Principes generaux".)" (Signe) Ho Ying-chin General de l'armee chinoise President du Comite d'1I1at-major "(b) To these initial forces will be added the forces of other Member nations as the conclusion of special agreements proceeds. This provision is covered in article 10 by the phrase: 'As the contributions of other nations of the United Nations become available they shall be added to the forces already contributed.' "(c) The word 'initially' in article 10 also indicates that the five permanent members of the Security Council will be the first among other Member nations to make armed forces available. The contribution of the major portion of the armed forces by the five permanent members of the Security Council refers only to the first stage of the organization of the armed forces to be made available to the Security Council. Concerning the co-relation between the armed forces made available by the permanent members of the Security Council and the armed forces made a~ailable by all the other Member nations at further stages, this question should be left open. , "2. That the Chinese, French, United Kingdom and United States delegations to the Military Staff Committee have concurred in the following interpretation of article 11 as proposed by them: "(a) In the sentence 'Each of the five permanent mem- ~e.r~ of the Security Council will make a comparable Jmtlal overall contribution ...', the word 'overall' refers to the sum of the land, sea and air forces to be contributed by each of the five permanent members. "(b) The word 'initial' in article 11 was intended to fiPPly to the pledged contributions of armed forces by the bve permanent members. Thus the overall contributions y the five permanent members would be comparable not o~l~ when ~he agreements envisaged in Article 43 are ilflgmal.ly .Signed but also whenever the size of the orccs. IS Increased or decreased due, for example, to ch~ngmg world conditions. If, however, the force has to bfIncreased when enforcement action under Chapter VII o ~he Charter is under consideration, then the value of !1SS1stance a.'ld facilities should also be taken into account ~h estimating the comparable contribution to be made by ( ~d five 'permanent members of the Security Council VI (I article 28)." (Signed) Ho Ying-chin General of the Army, C.A. Chairman, Military Staff Committell Colonel HOnGSON (Australia): Am I to understand that the President is ruling out of the discussion the letter from the Military Staff Committee and is returning to the present text? I should like to make one or two observations on the letter from the'Military Staff Committee.

No, by no means, because I consider this letter, as well as the preceding letter, as part of the discussion of the material before us. Colonel HOnGSON (Australia): It was my delegation that raised the question as to the interpretation of the word "initial" in article 11. We pointed out that there seemed to be a difference of ideas between the framers of the two texts, because there was no mention whatever in the USSR text of the word "initial". With regard to paragraph 2 (b) of the reply from the Military Staff Committee, the only point which is clear from the interpretation of the word "initial" is that there should not be any such word as "initial" in the original text, because the interpretation goes on to say that the five permanent members will make a comparable overall contribution at any time, whether those forces are increased or decreased. .Therefor~, as my delegation sees it, the text should r.ead:, "Each of the fi.ve permanent members of the Security Council will make a comparable overall contribution at any time ..." There is no need at all for the word "initial". I can quite appreciate why the USSR delegation did not agree with the interpretation which was submitted by the four other members. To our mind, it is clear that the word "initial" should be stricken out. Paragraph 1(c) of the reply from the Military Staff Committee reads in part: "Concerning the co-relation between the armed forces made available by the permanent members of the Security Council . . . this question should be left open." I have not the faintest idea what the Military Staff Committee means by the word "co-relation". Does it mean co-relation in the way of Le colonel HOnGSON (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais): Dois-je comprendre que le President exclut de la discussion la lettre du Comite cl'etatmajor et revient au texte actuel? Je voudrais en effet ~aire une ou deux remarques sur la lettre du Comite d'etat-major. , Le P!lESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Non, en aucune fa~on, puisque je considere cette lettre, ainsi que la lettre precedente, comme un element de la discussion des documents que nous avons sous les yeux. Le colonel HOnGSON (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais): C'est ma delegation qui a souleve la question de l'interpretation du mot "initiale" dans l'article 11. Nous avons souligne qu'il seItlblait y avoir une divergence de vues entre les auteurs des deux textes puisque, dans le texte de l'URSS, il n'y avait pas la moindre mention du mot "initi.ale". En ce qui concerne le paragraphe 2 b) de la reponse du Comite d'etat-major, la seule chose qui soit claire, a propos de l'interpretation du mot "initiale", est qu'il ne devrait figurer dans le texte original aucun mot tel que celui-Ia puisque, poursuit l'interpretation en question, .les cinq membres permanents apporteront en tout temps des contributions d'ensemblecomparables, que ces forces soient accrues ou reduites. Aussi, de l'avis de ma delegation, le texte devrait-il etre ainsi redige : "Chacun des cinq membres per-. manents du Conseil de securite apporte une contribution d'ensemble comparable a tout moment ... " Le mot "initiale" est parfaitement inutile. Je comprends tres bien pourquoi la delegation de l'URSS n'a pas donne son accord a l'interpretation proposee par les quatre autres membres. Pournous, il n'y a pas de doute: le mot "initiale" devrait etre supprime. Le paragraphe 1 c) de la reponse du Comite d'etat-majo. dit notamment: "En ce qui concerne le rapport entre les forces armees mises ulterieurement a la disposition du Conseil de securite, d'une part par les cinq membres permanents du Conseil de securite·. . . cette questio,n doit etre laissee en suspens." Je n'ai pasla moindre idee de ce que le Comite d'etat-majo:" cc••• the word 'overall' refers to the sum of the land, sea, and air forces to be contributed ..." What does the word "sum" mean? Does it mean personnel? Does it mean battleships? Does it mean aircraft carriers? Are they to be added up? Terms such as these are apt to puzzle my delegation, and we have read the reply about six times. I do not know whether any member can throw any light on these questions. It is unfortunate that we cannot ask questions directly without making a formal motion. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : If it will be helpful, I shall try to clarify the points to which the representative of Australia 'has referred. I cannot, of course, speak for the Military Staff Committee. However, I can in- 'form the Council of the explanations which the United Kingdom members of that Committee have given to me. Let us first consider paragraph 1 (c) of the letter of the Military Staff Committee. That paragraph reads in' part: "The contribution of the major portion of the armed forces by the five permanent members of the Security Council refers only to the first stage of the organization of the armed forces to be made available to the Security Council." I think the meaning of that ' -sentence is quite clear: when the first negotiations take place for the actual contribution of the armed' forces, the major portion of these forces will be provided by the five permanent members. Paragraph 1(c) then continues: "Concerning the co-relation between the armed forces made available by the permanent members of the Security Council and the armed forces made available by all the other Member nations at further 'Stages, this question should be left open." I ·think that provision is really clear, although per- 'baps it is slightly obscured by the use of the word "co-relation", which may give rise to doubts. What is meant, I think, is the relation between the total of the armed forces made available by the permanent members and that 'made' available by all the other Members. At the' first stage, the major part of the armed !orces of the United Nations is supplied by the five permanent members. .At any later stage, 'when any change is made, that is not necessarily 'so; consequently, that question is left open. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (Royaume-Uni) (traduit de l'anglais): Je vais, si cela peut ctre de quelque utilite, essayer de clarifier les points dont a fait mention le representant de l'Australie. Je ne peux evidemment pader au nom du Comite d'etat-major. Cependant, je peux communiquer au Conseil les explications que m'ont donnees les membres britanniques de ce Comite. .Examinons d'abord le paragraphe 1 c) de la· lettre duComite d'etat-major. Ce paragraphe dit en particulier: "La contribution de la majeure partie des forces armees par les cinq membres permanents du Conseil de securite ne s'applique qu'au premier temps de la ,constitution des forces armees qui doivent etre mises a la disposition du Conseil de securite." Le sens de cette phrase me parait tout a fait clair. QUaJ.td auront lieu les premieres negociations en vue de la contribution effective aux forces armees, la majeure partie de 'ces forces _~ra fournie par les cinq membres permanents. Le paragraphe 1 c) poursuit: "En ce qui concerne le rapport entre les forces armees mises ulterieurement a la disposition du Conseil de securite, d'une part par les cinq membrespermanents du Conseil de securite et d'autre part par toutes les autres nations, cette question doit ctre laissee en suspens." Cette disposition me parait tres claire, quoique, peut-etre, legerement obscurcie par l'emploi du mot "rapport", sur lequel on peut hesiter. Ce qu'elle vise, a mon sens, c'est la relation entre le total des forces armees mises a la disposition du Conseil par les membres permanents et le total mis a sa disposition p:>f les autres Membres. Dans la premiere periode, majeure partie des forces armees des Nationsunies sera fournie par les cinq membres permanents. Plus tard, si des changements ,sont apportes, il n'en sera pas necessairement de mcme. Par consequent, la question demeure ouverte. Un autre point souleve par le representant de l'Australie concerne le paragraphe 2 a): " ... les mots Cld'ensemble" se rapportent au total des forces de terre, de mer et de l'air que doit fournir chacun des cinq membres permanents." Iei encore, amon avis, c'est d'un.e diffi- Another point raised by the representative of '.l\ustr~lia concerns paragraph 2 (a): ". • • the word overall' refers to the sum of the land sea cl • f . , , an aIr orces to be contributed by each of the 'five permanent members." That, too, I think, is ~I was rather at a loss to know I should now like to refer to paragraph 2 (b), concerning the use of the word "initial" in article 11. I agree that here, again, the word "initial" may give rise to some misunderstanding. I am told that the word "initial" in this case, as applied to contributions, refers to the contributions that are made both in the first instance and subsequently, up to the time when the United Nations forces may be called upon by _the Council. I do not know what other word should be substituted for "initial". I agree that the word n~w used gives the impression that it refers to the contributions made at the first stage, and not at subsequent stages. As I have said, however, I am informed by the United Kingdom members of the Military Staff Committee that "initial" contributions refer to contributions made not only at the first stage of the organization, but possibly at subsequent stages, up to ·the time when the United Nations forces are called into action. I think that covers the points raised by the representative of Australia.

I invite the members to participate ill the discussion. Does any member wish to make further observations on the subject of articles 10 or 11? . Perhaps I should first put a question with respect to article 10. As the Assistant Secretary- General informs me, article 10 was adopted by the Council provisionally, subject of course to the adoption of the report, as a whole, later. Consequently, I think that the letter from the Military Staff Committee does not affect, so to speak, the status of article 10, and we should continue to consider it as adopted provisionally, subject to the adoption of the whole report later. We come now to article 11 of which we have two versions. We have had an initial discussion, certain explanations' by the Military Staff Committee, and a further discussion on article 11. I want to know whether the members wish to carry the discussion further or make certain proposals at this meeting. If not, we have to agree on a procedure for further discussion, which will Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Je prie les membres du Conseil de vouloir bien participer ala discussion. Quelqu'un a-t-il d'autres remarques a faire a propos des articles 10 ou 11?' Mais peut-etre devrais-je tout d'abord poserune question a propos de l'article .10. Comme me le rappelle le Secretaire general adjoint, 1'article a ete adopte provisoirement par le ConseiIr sous la reserve naturellemeht de 1'adoption ulterieure de l'ensemble du rapport. Par consequent? a mon sens, la lettre du Comite d'etat-major ne doit pas, si je puis m'exprimer ainsi, affecter le statut de 1'article 10 et nous devrions continuer a le considerer comme ad'opte provisoirement, sous reserve de l'adoption ulterieure de l'ensemble du rapport. J'en arrive maintenant a l'article 11, qui a. deux versions. Sur cet article, nous avons eu' une premiere discussion, nous avons re~u certainesexplications du Comite d'etat-major et nous avons eu une n01:lvelle discussion. Je voudrais savoir si les membres du Consei!' desirent poursuivre la discussion ou faire ,certaines propositions au cours de la present: seance. Dans la negative, ilfaudra nousmettr:.. But before leaving the consideration of this article for the present, I should like to make some remarks which might give those of us who are going to reflect upon it food for thought. My fi..rst observation is somewhat in the form of a: question addressed to one of our colleagues, if he will allow me. What the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics said about article 11 struck me as extremely important. When he said that contributions should be made on a basis of complete quality, i.e., equality not only of the overall strength of the forces con,. tributed by each of the five permanent members but also equality reflected in the separate components, he implied that, in his opinion, this equality, so understood, was indispensable as a guarantee to the world that the international forces would not be used to consolidate the domination of anyone of the permanent members over the others. This is undoubtedly a very important point, and the concern which has been shown should be carefully considered. I must admit, however, that this concern is not quite clear to me. When the Military Staff Committee admitted· the principle of what~ in the terminology of the report, is called "comparability", i.e., equal overall contributions but with· balanced separate components, it established the principle that the total contribution of each of the permanent members should be equal. Thus, should one. of t~e permanent members contribute more ships, aIrcraft, or divisions, this member would automatically be called upon to contribute fewer of the other elements-land, sea Or air forces-so as to maintain a balance. This being so, I find it difficult to understand this objection, and I consider that it would be in the interests of our future discussions if this point were further clarified. My question is in no way meant to embarrass the representative of the Union of Soviet Socia~t Republics, and, indeed, I do not expect an. unrnediate answer. But here is a point ~"~~:~<>urpast My second observation is the following: during the discusB~,on of article 11, after a preliminary exchange of views on matters of principle, ,we agreed, at the suggestion of the United. Kingdom representative, that it would be useful to try to define more clearly the meaning of the words we were using, and particularly to ascertain whether there was any appreciable difference between the words "comparability" and "equality accompanied by deviations." For that purpose, we asked the Military Staff Committee a twofold question.1 Four of the delegations represented on that Committee answered the first part of the question, namely, the part concerning the Military Staff Committee's provisional estimate of the approximate strength of the forces to be made available to the United Nations. But the main reason given, I think, by most of the delegations was that it was impossible to reply to this question until it was known what the actual overall strength of these forces was likely to be. I think that this procedure of consulting the Military Staff Committee has brought a measure of clarity to our discussion and has made it much more concrete. I wonder whether we have exhausted all 'the possibilities of this procedure and whether it would not be advisable to reconsider our second question, this time endeavouring to make it easier for the Military Staff Committee to provide us with an answer. I am still anxious to know whether there is really any difference b~tween "comparability" and "equality with deviations." This is a point which is not clear to me, and which makes it La methode ainsi employee d'interroger le Comite d'etat-major me parait avoir apporte de la clarte dans notre discussion et avoir rendu celle-ci beaucoup plus concrete. Je me demande si nous avons epuise tout le benefice qui pouvait en etre tire, et s'il n'y aurait pas lieu de revenir, dans une certaine mesure, a la seconde question ,que nous avions posee, en cherchant, cette fois, a mettre le Comite d'etat-major a meme d'y repondre plus facilement. Je reste preoccupe par la question de savoir s'il y a vraiment une difference entre "equivalence" et "egalite avec des derogations". n ya la un point qui, pour moi, n'est pas clair et qui 1 Voir la lettre addressee l~ 26 juin 1947 au President du Comit'; d'etat-major par M. Parodi, alors President d~, Coilseil de securite: Proces-verbaux officiels du CO~~11", de securite, Deuxieme Annee, Supplement No, 13, Annexe 36. As three estimates of the proposed strength of the forces envisaged in Article 43 of the Charter have been submitted, would it not be possible to take the lowest and the highest of these as a basis for our discussion? Could we not also ask the Military Staff Committee, or the various delegations, should the former not have time to reach agreement, how, on the basis of the lowest estimate and according to available information, the forces ought to be distributed under the United Kingdom project, with the closest approximation to the principle of equality, i.e., taking equality as a principle and indicating what deviations from equality would be necessary to apply the United Kingdom delegation's scheme in practice. This time the delegations would have a concrete hypothesis to work on-which would of course not be binding on any of us; I say this all the more willingly, since, of the three projects before us I suggest, as a matter of fact, setting the French project aside for the present, which, of course, does not mean that I intend abandoning it. Thus, with a hypothesis b~ed on a concrete case to go on, we might have the benefit of the work which the Military Staff Committee was unable to accomplish when this question was submitted to it earlier, owing to a lack of a concrete basis. . Then, taking as a basis the highest estimate, t.e., the United States' project, might we not ask !he Military Staff Committee to give us a rough Idea of how this project could be put into effect on a basis of comparability? I put this to you because.' fra~kly, at first sight the figures suggested ill this last project are such as to make me wonde: whe!her comparability could possib!y be .achIeved ill the face of a project of such dimensIOns. I thi~ that, particularly with r~gard to the first pomt-~at of equalitY-,in thus taking a concre~e basIS and in askingthe Military Staff Comnuttee to perform this further task it sh<?uld be 'possible to ascertain-and this has'not ~et been done in spite of our previous questIons-how far one may go, and what practical 1IInn_,_ ~oit, en gros, l'execution de ce projet sur la base de l'equivalence? Je pose la question parce que, tres franchement, a premi,ere vue, les chiffres proposes dans ce dernier projet m'ont paru tels que je me demande si l'equivalence peut meme etre realisee avec un projet d'une telle envergure. Il me semble que - surtout en ce qui concerne le premier point, la question de l'egaliteen prenant ainsi une base concrete et en demandant au, Comite d'etat-major ce travail supplementaire, il y aurait possibilite d'achever de tirer ' au clair - ce qui n'a pas encore ete fait, malgre nos precedentes questions - le point de savoir I repeat: I consider that we have not wholly exhausted the possibilities of the method used on Sir Alexander Cadogan's suggestion and that it is· desirable to look at it again .in the interest of complete clarity. After his statement had been given an English interpretation, Mr. Parodi added: With your permission I should like to add an explanation to the first part of my observations, where I dealt with th~ question of the possible disadvantages of the principle of comparability. The objection raised by our colleague Mr. Gromyko is still not quite clear to me for the following reason. We are at present not discussing the question of disarmament. \We are merely determining the overall strength of the forces to be made available to the United Nations. I cannot understand how, when in any case anyone of the countries concerned may at the present time possess unlimited forces, it can be said that making a greater or lesser force available to the United Nations might produce the drawback referred to. Surely when these forces are placed at the disposal of the United Nations they are to that extent immobilized, and, far from representing additional potential of the country which furnished them, they would actually be Withdrawn from it. In any case, if the country concerned continues to be free to determine the total strength of its forces, it loses nothing; there would be no change. I was particularly anxious to clarify this point in order to explain my misgivings and my difficulty in clearly understanding the objection expressed, as well as to show that I am alive to the importance of this objection, the actual import of which as well as its repercussions should be carefully considered.

Two points have been raised by the representative of France. One was a request' for elucidation which he addressed to the Je crois, je le declare a nouveau, que nous n'avons pas compIetement epu~e tout le benefice de la methode qui avait ete employee a la suggestion de Sir Al,exander Cadogan et qu'll y a interet ay faire encore appel afin d'y voir tout a fait clair. Apres l'interpretation en ang1ais de sa declaration, M. Parodi ajoute: Je voudrais, si vous le permettez, ajouter une precision en ce qui concerne la premiere partie de mes observations, c'est-a.-dire la question relative aux inconvenients que pourrait presenter le principe de l'equivalence. L'objection qui a ete f;:!~te par notre collegue, M. Gromyko, n'est pas encore tres· claire dans mon esprit, et voici ponrquoi. Nous ne discutons pas, pour l'instant, la question du desarmement. Nous determinons simplement, actuellement, quelles sont les forces qui seraient mises a. la disposition des Nations Unies. Je ne vois pas tres bien comment le fait de mettre une plus ou moins grande quantite de ces forces a la dispo- . sition des Nations Unies - si chacun des pays interesses peut, d'autre part, possedel' des forces qui, actuellement, ne sont pas limitees - pour~ rait conduire a l'inconvenient qui a ete signaIe. Il me semble que, dans la mesure OU des forces sont mises a. la disposition des Nations Unies, elles sont - puisque cela implique pour dIes une certaine immo1;>ilisation - retirees a. la Puissance qui les foumit, plutat qu'elles ne viennent s'ajouter a. ses forces. En tout cas, si cette Puissance reste, d'autre part, libre de fixer le chiffre de ses effectifs, rien ne lui est retire; il n'y a pas de changement. ' Je tenais a apporter cette precision afin de bien exprimer l'hesitation que je ressens, la difficulte que j'eprouve a comprendre clairement. l'objection qui a ete formulee, et aussi pour marquer mon sentiment de l'importance de cette objection dont nous devons etudier avec soin la valeur reelle et les repercussions. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'ang1ais): Le representant de la France a souleve deux points. Il a, d'une part, adresse au representant de .... Speaking again as PRESID~NT, I think it is probably difficult to make a decision right now on the procedure to be adopted, since the members will probably want to express their views, and the hour is very late. I should not like to prolong the meeting beyond 1 p.m. If some of the representatives should wish to make some rather brief statements, we still have time for that. Colonel HODGSON (Australia) : My delegation is not quite clear as to the procedure regarding the proposal before the Council. I wonder whether it would be possible for this suggestion to be carried out. You 'will rec.all that Sir Alexander Cadogan proposed that the Military Staff Committee should compile tables showing the overall strength and the composition of the armed forces,which should be made available to the Security Council. Four of the members succeeded in doing that and produced very useful tables. The USSR representatives said that this could not be done unless their principle was accepted. Assuming that we accept the USSR principle, I should like the USSR representative on the Military Staff Committee to produce an estimate based on the principle of equality regarding t..lJ.e overall strength and the cOI}1position of these forces for the information of this Council. We could then see whether there is a possi- ·bility of reconciling in some way these two conflicting principles, as suggested by the representative of France. , The PRESIDENT: I should very much like the representative of France to formulate his proposal in a few words, in order that we may all 'have it clearly in our mind before we adjourn. Mr. PAROD! (France) (translated from 'French) : My proposal is to ask the Military Staff Committee, first using the lowest estimate as a basis, i.e., that of the United Kingdom and Chinese delegations, to ascertain on the basis of this hypothesis what deviations from the rule of .equality would be necessary to arrive at a prac- ,ticable plan. It should at the same time be asked to indicate, grosso modo, and on the basis of the highest estimate,. i.J., that of the United States, how the principle of comparability might be applied on the basis of the figures proposed by the United States representative. Parlant maintenant en tant que PRESIDENT, je dirai qu'il est assez difficile de prendre une decision immediate sur la procedure a adopter, etant donne que les membres du Conseil voudront sans doute exprimer leurs vues, et qu'il se fait tard. Je ne voudrais pas prolonger la seance au dela d'une heure apres midi. Mais s'il y a des representants qui desirent faire de breves declarations, nous en avons encore le temps. Le colonel HODGSON (Australie) (traduit de f anglais): Ma delegation ne voit pas tres clair dans la procedure a suivre pour la proposition dont est saisi le Conseil. Je me demande s'il est possible de donner suite a cette suggestion. Sir Alexander Cadogan, vous vous en souviendrez, a propose que le Comite d'etat-major dressat des tableaux donnant les effectifs d'ensemble et la composition des forces armees a mettre a la disposition du Conseil de securite. Quatre des membres ont reussi a faire ce travail et ont produit des tableaux de grande utilite. Les representants ,de I'URSS ont declare que cela ne pouvait etre fait que si leurs principes etaient acceptes. En admettant que nous acceptions le principe de I'URSS, j'aimerais que le representant de I'URSS au Comite d'etal·major produisit, pour l'information du Conseil, une estimation, fondee sur le principe de l'egalite, concernant les effectifs d'ensemble et la composition de ces forces. Nous pourrions voir alors s'il est possible de concilier de quelque fa<;on, comme l'a suggere le representant de la France, ces deux principes antagonistes. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Je serais tres heureux que le representant de la France voulut bien formuler sa proposition en quelques mats, afin que nous puissions l'avoir clairement a l'esprit avant de lever la seance. M. PAROD! (France): La proposition que je soumets consisterait a demander au Comite d'etat-major, en prenant d'abord pour base la plus faible des evaluations proposees, c'est-a-dire celle des delegations britannique et chinoise, de faire, en partant de cette hypothese, le travail consistant a rechercher quelles derogations il faudrait apporter a la regIe de l'egalite pour arriver a un projet realisable. Illui serait egalement demande de prendre ensuite pour base l'evaluation la plus elevee, c'est-a-dire celle des Etats-Unis, et de nous dire, grosso modo, comment le principe de l'equivalence pourrait jouer sur la base des chiffres proposes par le::; representants des Etats- Unis. Colonel HODGSON (Australia): In regard to my proposal, I want to make clear that the other four members of the Military Staff Committee say that contributions cannot be made on the basis of" the principle contained in the USSR text. The USSR representatives say this can be done. We have to be convinced which is correct, so why cannot we ask the USSR representatives on the Military Staff Committee to submit to us a table bas~d on their principle- , the principle of equality-showing not only the overall strength but the composition of these forces? Mr. PARODl (France) (translated from French): It has just been pointed out to me that the English interpreter may f<1ssibly have made a mistake. My proposal was to use the lowest estimate as·· a basis for a hypothetical application of the rule of equality, and the highest estimate as .a basis for the hypothetical application of the principle of comparability. _ I should like the interpretation to be corrected. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): Mr. Parodi has put two questions to me, one of which is unfortunately not quite clear to me. I should like to have a word with Mr. Parodi after the meeting to ascertain exactly what he wants to know as the question was not'put quite clearly. The other question is clearer. I am prepared to answer these questions at any time, either at this or our next meeting. It is for the President to decide when I can do so. As regards the advice which the Australian representative proposes to give me, I am grateful for it, but unfortunately I cannot avail myself of such advice, as the USSR , delegation considers that, unless the general principles have been agreed upon and established, we cannot make any estimates whatever of the strength and composition of the armed forces. This has been stated before, and the Australian representative is familiar with the USSR delegations> position.

A closed meetin~ on the question of the governor of Trieste will be held at 3 p.m. in conference room 5. An open meeting on the Greek question will be held tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. Le colonel HODGSON (Australie) (traduit de' f anglais): En ce _qui concerne ma proposition,. ie tiens a preciser que les quatre autres membres: du Comite d'etat-major declarent que les contributions ne peuvent etre effectuees sur la base du principe contenu dans le texte de l'URSS. Les representants de l'URSS disent que ce1a est possible. n faut que nous sachions qui est dans le vrai; aussi, pourquoi ne pourrions-nous pas demander aux representants de l'URSS au Comite d'etat-major de nous presenter un tableau fonde sur leur principe de l'egalite, indiquant non seulement les effectifs d'ensemble, mais aussi la composition de ces forces? M. PAROD! (France): On me signale que le traducteur anglais aurait, peut-etre, commis tout a l'heure une confusion. Ce que j'ai propose, c'est que l'evaluatio:n la plus faible filt prise comme base eJ'tme application hypothetique de la regIe de l'egalite, et que l'evaluation la plus elevee format l'element de base pour l'application hypothetique du principe de l'equivalence. Je voudrais que rectification fUt apportee a la traduction. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): M. Parodi m'a pose deux questions. L'une d'elles, malheureusement, ne me parait· pas tout a fait claire. A l'issue de cette seance, je desirerais en parler a M. Parodi pour savoir exactement ce qu'il veut dire, etant donne que la question n'a pas ete posee tres clairement. L'autre question est plus claire. Je puis repondre quand on voudra aces questions, au cours de la presente seance ou de la prochaine. Il appartient au President de decider quand je pourrai repondre a ces questions. En ce qui concerne le conseil que le representant de l'Australie se propose de me donner, je l'en remercie; malheureusement, je ne puis en faire mon profit, parce que, de l'avis de la delegation de l'URSS, nous ne pouvons faire aucune evaluation de l'importance numerique ou de la composition des forces armees, sans avoir etabli de ~oncert des principes generaux. Ce1a a deja ete dit, et le representant de l'Australie connait la position de la delegation de I'URSS. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Une seance privee sur la question du gouverneur de Trieste aura lieu a 15 heures dans la salle de conference No 5. Une' seance publique sur la question grecque aura lieu demain a 10 h. 30. ARGENTINA-ARGENTINE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC NETHERLANDS :Editorial Sudamericana REPUBLIQUE PAYS·BAS S. A. DOMINICAINE N. V. Martinus Nijhoff CalIe Alsina 500 Lihreria Dominicana Lange Voorhout 9 Buenos Aires CalIe Mercedes No. 49 s'Gravenhage AUSTRALIA-AUSTRALIE Apartado 656 NEW ZEALAND H. A. Goddard Pty. Ltd. Ciudad Trujillo NOUVELLE.ZELANDE 255a George Street ECUADOR-EQUATEUR Gordon & Gotch Sydney Mufioz Hermanos y Cia. Waring Taylor Street Nueve de Octuhre 703 Wellington BELGIUM-BELGIQUE Casilla 10·24 NORWAY-NORVEGE Agence et Messageries de la GuayaqmI Presse ;FINLAND-FINLANDE Norsk Bokimport A/S 14·22 rue du Persil Edv. Storms Gate 1 BruxelIes Akateeminen Kirjakauppa Oslo 2, Keskauskatu SWEDEN-8UEDE BOLmA-BOLIVIE Helsinki Lihreria Cientffica y FRANCE-FRANCE C. E. Fritze's KungI. Hofhokhandel A.·B. Literaria Editions A. Pedolle Fredsgatan 2 Avenida 16 de JOOo, 216 13, rue SoufHot 'Stockholm Casilla 972 Paris Ve LaPaz GREECE-GRECE SWITZERLAND--SUISSE Lihrairie ~ayot S. A. CANADA-CANADA "Eleftheroudakis" Lausanne The Ryerson Press Lihrairie internationale ••• 11 ••• 11 ••••••••••••• 299 Queen Street West Place de la Constitution Hans Raunhardt Toronto Athimes Kirchgasse 17 CHILE-CHILI 'GUATEMALA Zurich 1 Edmundo Pizarro GUATEMALA SYRIA-SYRIE Merced 846 Jose Gouhaud Lihrairie universeIle Santiago Gouhaud & Cia. Ltda. Damascus Sucesor CHINA-CHINE 5a Av. Sur No. 6 y 9a C. P. UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA The Commercial Press Ltd. Guatemala UNION SUD.AFRICAINE 211 Honan Road HAITI-HAITI Central News Agency Ltd. . Shanghai Commissioner &Rissik 8t8. , Max Bouchereau Johanneshurg COSTARICA Lihrairie "A la CaravelIe" COSTA·RICA Boite postale l11·B UNITED KINGDOM Trejos Hermanos Port·au·Prince ROYAUME.UNI Apartado 1313 INDIA-INDE H.M. Stationery Office San Jose Oxford Book & Stationery P.O. Box 569 CUBA-CUBA Co. London, S.E. 1 La Casa Belga Scindia House UNITED STATES OF Rene de Smedt New Delhi AMERICA O'Reilly 455 IRAN-IRAN ETATS·UNIS D:AMERIQUE La Hahana Bangahe Piaderow International Documents Service CZECHOSLOVAKIA 731 Shah Avenue Columhia University Press TCHECOSLOVAQUIE Teheran 2960 Broadway F. Topic ffiAQ-lRAK NewYork27,N. Y. Narodni Trida 9 Mackenzie & Mackenzie YUGOSLAVIA Praha1 The Bookshop YOUGOSLAVIE DENMARK-DANEMARK Baghdad Drzavno Preduzece Einar Munskgaard LEBANON--LIBAN Jugoslovenska Knjiga Norregade 6 Lihrairie universelIe Moskovska ID. 36 Kjohenhavn Beirut Belgrade