S/PV.16 Security Council

The'second item is th.. 1;;::[- ter from the Head of the Ukrainian delegation to the President of the Security Council dated 21 January 1946. 1 calI upon the representative of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Mr. MANUILSKY (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) (translated Irom French): In bis conduding speech, the representative of the United Kingdom, Mr.Bevin, raised the question as to whether the l1krainian request for an eilquirj into the-events wmch have taken place in Indonesia was admissible; he said our letter was an intervention in the internaI affairs of a country, namely, the Netherlands. We cannot accept this point of view for the following reasons: TheUkrainian de1egation thinks that we are confronted, in Indonesia, with military intervention cantrary ta the rules of the Charter, contrary to international law and likely to lead te the gravest consequences. In view of the mili· tary intervention taking.place in Indonesia, the Ukrainian de1egation cannot help being surprised that the fact of sending a letter ta the Security Council bringing this abnormal situation ta its notice should he regarded as constituting intervention in the affairs of another country. The Ukrainian delegation is convinced that lawyers from aIl countries will have difficulty in understanding tbis explanation. 1 1 This military intervention, moreover, is contrary to the agreement reached between the Supreme Command of the Soviet Army in the Far East and the SupremeCommand of the Allied Forces there. Therefore, since tbis is a matter for .the Security Council, the question cannotbe one for the Netherlands~ but comP,d within the j1.lrisdiction of the Security Counœ. - Secondly, the Ukrainian delegation is convinced that the use of Japanese troops by the British authorities against a people who for three and one-half years suffered fascist occupation is contrary to international law, to international political morality, and to the declared war aims of the great:J;>owers, and that tbis is therefore a matterwithiq the jurisdiction of the Security CounciL YOllwill ,not find in. any international document.2..wliether it be the Tehran Agreement, the Moscow Agreement, the Yalta Agreement or the Potsdam Agreement-a clause or provision entitling any Allied State toemploy enemy forces against the people of an occupied coun- Thirdly, the Ukrainian dele6ation thinks that there is at present in Indonesia a state of war attended by aU the consequences which war brings with it. By way of example, 1 shall quote the following extract from the United Press: "A British punitive expedition, supported by tanks and airplan<:s, has set fire to all the houses in the village of Bekassy, about 12 miles east of Batavia. Lorries loaded with soldiers drove round the countryside sprinkling the wooden buildings with petrol and throwing incendiary bombs." In this war, my· country suffered many trials and 1 cannDt remain indifferent when 1 read of such things. This, unfcrtunately, is indeed Wal'. In such circumstances, the Netherlands representative is proposing that the Security Council renounce its jurisdiction in favour of the national jurisdiction of the Netherlands. But war is war with all its consequences. 1 would ask you in what cases the Security CoUÎlcil might be called upon to examine asituation at sorne futu.re time if it refrained from taking cognizance of what 1:; happening in Indonesia today? 1 shall be brief. 1 cannot accept the reproach levelled against us by the United Kingdom fepresentative, Mr. Bevin, when he says that our letter represents intervention in the internal affairs ofa country. If aState can permit military interference, 1 also think it oughtat least to admit that other States have the right to raise the question in tli~ Security Council; otherwise ilie equality provided for in the Charter would not exist. The Ukrainian de1egation brought this matter up in the Security Council. You are the judges. You will decide, and 1 say aIready now that shall bow to your decisions; but 1 must say, frankly and sincere1y, that 1 am reminded of the days' of the League of NatiOlw, which was aIso concerned with serious problems, such as that of intervention in Spain. In the face of facts, the League of Na61)ns decided that thfu matter did not concern it, that the situation in Spain was local affair and that there was no threat to international peace and security'. Two y~ars later, howevers the world was plunged.Ïnto the most ln inviting the represem..:..tive (.f the Ukraine to take a seat at the Council table, the Council .did not formal1y consider whether or not the interests of the Ukrainian ~C'viet Socialist Republic are especial1y affected by or in the mat~ ter now under d'~'.:ussj.on. The Council acted by general consent upon the broad proposition submitted by Ml'. Bevin that any State which makes a claim before the Council has a l'ight to come to the Council and be heard. There are as yet ?,O rules of procedure on this point. The matter 15 one for the Council to decide ad hoc, and if the point is pressed, 1 shall invite members of the Council to state their views on thé matter. Belore doing so,. however,. 1 should point"out that it is clearly within the competence of the Council, if it so desires, to invite any non~mem- If, however, the Council thinks that Article 31 should be applied ta this matter, then the posi~ tion of the Ukrainian delegation must be determined on the basis of the wording of Article 31 itself. The right is to participate without vote in the discussion of any question brought before the Security Council. The l'ight of proposition is not specifica11y referred ta, either to include it or to exclude it. Have members of the Council any observations to make in regard to the matter 1 have brought to their notice? Do any members wish to make any observations? ln the absence of any 1 sha11 take it tha~ the statement 1 have made to the Council is accepted. Mr. RIAz (Egypt) (translated tram French): Could we have the concluding passage of tlris statement read again?

1 will read it: "If, however, the Council thinks that Articl 31 should be applied to this matter, then the position of the Ulù-ainian deleg-ation must be determined Oïl the basis of the wording of Article 31 itself. The right is to participate without vote in the discussion .of any question brought before the Security Council. The right of proposition is not specifica11y referred to, either to include it or to exclude it." Mr. RIAz (Egypt) (translated trom French) Your proposaI depends on whether it will be decided that Article 31 is applicable or not. The first question which the Council should he asked is whether Article 31 is applicable. If so, your deductions are correct. If it is not so decided, however, your deduction no longer hol'US good. It would appear to me that this is the first point to be decided.

1 will ask members of the Council whether they feel that it is correct procedure to accept the· proposition that has been submitted by the representative of the Ukraine. Are there any objections to the Ukrainian representative having that right besides the right of discussion? . Mr. Wellington Koo (China): You have put a· very important question of procedure to the Council. May 1 su:bmit my own opinion? seems to me that Article 31 must be read in connexion with Article 35. Article 35, paragraph 1, says: "Any Member of· the United Nations may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or of the Ml'. RrAz (Egypt) (translated tram French) : l, for my part, think that the Ukrainiall delegation, having been invited to participate in the discussions, is entitled to subnùt resolutions and to take part in the discussion until it cornes to .voting. What, in effect, does Article 31 say (although L1ùs is not the Article applicable here)? "A.'1y Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council may participate, without vote . . ." Hence, the Member concerned is entitled to full rights with regard to anything that takes place prior to voting, but has not the right to vote. However, 1 do not think that Article 31 should be applied here, for 1 do not think that the Ukraine, allY more than any member of the Council, has any special interest in the present dispute. Article 35 provides that "Any Member r,i the United Nations rnay bring any disputeùr any situation ... to the attention of the Secnrity Council or of the General Assembly".. The Ukraine, having brought a specifie matter to the attention of the Security Council, has been invited to participate in. the discussions. At this stage, the. provisions of Article 31 apply: the Ukraine is entitled to take part in the discussions until the voting takes place. doive pas ce cle peut ou une tention terminé, le Conseil l'invite aux 31 participe:r aux . The PRESIDENT: 1 think this question falls into two categories. The first is' whether it happens to come under the provisions of Article 31, or whether, by the general powers of the Council, the invitation was extended to the representative of the Ukraine to be present to state his case. 1 would like the Council first of all to determine whether this matter cornes,under Article 3101' whether the invitation extended cornes under the general powers of the Council to extend that iTlvitation. . Ml'. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): May 1 que En elle si,conformément Conseil, vité Conseil ressortit au généraux l'anglais): quel du Je as~ on what pr~cisely the general powers of the Council,~to which you have just referred, are based? 1 fan see iptllçJJharter only that, as an eXCt;etl~n, urider Article 31, a place will be Therefore, in the absence of any explicit general ppwers of the Council to do something of this nature, 1 should say there are no such general powers. Sa, if the representative of the Ukraine sits here today, it can onlybe because, by taeit consent or approval, we invitf.:d the Ukrainian representative here under Article 31.

In answer to the representative of the Netherlands, l should like to say that the power under wmch the Council is acting in regard ta the matter is a general power th~t is given ta the Council ta determme its own procedure. And that is the basis upon which· we are acting at the presènt moment. Mr. R:rAz (Egypt) (translated from French.): 1 cannot {ully share the opinion of Mr. van Kleffens on this point, In tact, Article 31 is very cleaI': it refers to the case of a Member whose interests are specially affected. On the other hand, Article 35, paragraph 1, refers ta a Member of the Umted Nations bringùlg any dispute or any situation of the nature referred. to in Article 34 ta the attention of the Security Council. In this connexion, 1 should like to draw the Council's.attention to the letter of the Ukrainian delegation which contains precisely these words: "The deiegation of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic ... acting on the instructions of its Govemment, draws the attention of the Security Council •.."'- Therefore, the Ukraini?ll de1egation intended ta bring the matter to the attention of the Security Council, but not to state that its interests we!'€: specially affected. Thus, Article 35, paragraph 1, is applicable. Rowever, since the Ukrainian representative has been invîted ta take part in the discussions of the Council, the President is correct in saf..ng that we aie applying the procedure provided for in Article 31, even though that jg not the .Article which should be invoked in this particular càse. 1 think that we should not restrict ourselves too severely in our mode of procedure. Mr. MODZELEWSKI -(Poland) (translated from French): This is the fourth meeting we have devoted ta the situation in Indonesia. The Ukrainianrepresentative has been present at our discussions since the first meeting, and. he has spcken at nearly aIl of these meetings. 1 fail to see how the question of bis participation in our discussions can be rmed now~ wlien he is in· faet present and speaks at our meetings by consent of the Security Council and.because the President of the .Security Councilhimself invited him totakehis seat" at the Council table· at. the very first meeting. Very special. rcasons shouldbe necessary ta raise this question, and 1 cannat see what these reasons could be. The expression "bring ta the attention" is capable of various interpretations. In this particular case, we dècided ta admit (and it is an established fact) that this passage meant that the matter would be brought ta our attention orally by the Head of the Ukrainian delegation sitting at the Council table. By tacit agreement, the expression "bring to the attention" has come ta mean not only that such a Member can express an opinion at the first occasion but further, in the case of the Ukrainian representative, that he may remain at the Council table and possibly reply to arguments put forward by other Members sitting at the same table. Accordingly, in the present case, the matter comes, in my opinion, within the terms of Article 31 rather than of Article 35. But Article 31 does not say "bring to the attention", but "participate; without vote, in the discussion". That is, in fact, what took place. Rence, the original position has been modified as a result of the attitude adopted by the Council, while nobody objected thereto or perhaps even noticed it. The only thing excluded by Article 31 is t'he right ta vote. The only thing now to be settled is what the right to participate in the c!1scussion consists oL ln this conne..'àon, 1 think that the text of Article 31 should be taken in its strict meaning. In other words, "to participate in the, discussion" is an expression wmch should admit of every facility except the right ta vote. le le sens discussion" porter, sauf le vote. FinaIly, 1 would say that, in the first place, it was only as a result of the action of the Security Council itself that, a case covered by Article 35 came ta be dealt with under Article 31 and that, therefore, this case should not serve as a precedent unless the Council takes a fresh decision when a new case is submitted to it. In 1LG second place, 1 am of the opWon that the proposed motion by the Ukrainian representative (on the substance of which 1 do not for the tUne being wish ta dedare my point of view)is admissible. c'est lui-même ticle qu'en être prise présentera que l'Ukraine, momentanément socialistes l'on ment trcque l'Article Mr. VYSHINSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)' (translated tram Russian): If this question isexamined solely from 'the point of view of the Charter, 1 think it should be clear that neither Article 31, nor Article 35, rior even Article 32 Mn provide a decision. . Article 35 states': "Any Memberof the United Nations may bring any dispute, o~· any situation of the riature referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or ,of the General Assembly." Thatis aIl.lt doesnotsay how the Council should settle the matter brought to' its notiçe. nisation sécurité férend l'Article pas tions Article 32 mentions a "dispute"; but here wc are not faced with a dispute. We are faced with a situation which we must approach and study, but not with a cfupute. Therefore, not one these three l\rticles is applicable. But 1 do not think that we should confine ourselves ta the text of the Charter. 1 would suggest that where the text cannat lead ta a decision we should apply logic and common sense. 1 know that sorne peQple say that where there is no text there can be no decision; but 1 would say that in the absence of a text we should use logic and common sense. The Ukrainian reoresentative was invited by the Council ta make â statement and express his point of view. Can we now forbid him ta make a proposai for the solution the problem ta which he has drawn our attention? 1 think it should be obvious that we cannot. Thus, while attaching due importance Articles 31,32 and 35, we should reinforce these Articles with the demands of collÎmon sense and logic. It is inconœivable that we should give the Ukrainia..'l representativethe right ta participate in our discussions and to draw our attention a situation, and then· deprive him of the right ta propose a solution for this situation. If you have said A, you must say R Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man. It better ta sacrifice the Sabbath ta man, than man to the Sabbath. It seems to me that if we immerse ourselves tao <;1eeply in legaI scholasticism, we shall not achieve a satisfactory result. In the Middle Ages, for instance, the question used to be asked: how many angels can perch on the point of a needle? 1 submit that such a method of argument leads us nowhere.We should'use our COnllnon sense and our -logical fac1l1ties. There are, naturaUy, gaps in every document; there·. are gaps in the Charter too. 1 am not afraid of establishing any undesirable precedent here. On the contrary, 1 think that if we·.take a decision prompted by common sense and·logic, wesnall help the committee of ·legal experts, which will meet at later date ta fi11 the gaps· in the ruIes of pro cedlltç.o{the Security Cauneil. Mr. STETTINIUS (United'States of America): The representative of the Ukraine has been in· vited to join us to present the situation. It seems to me that we should work out our rules and procedures. 1 think everyone, including the members of the Council and those who are pres· ent as observers, realizes that there are rules and procedures which are now in process of being worked out by our experts; and there is an item on our agenda yet to come deaIing with them. Without establishing any precedent, let 11$ go forward. There is one point, however, which 1 wish to make very clear on behaIf of the United States, that is that 1 do not feel that any formai resolution should be brought to the Council other than by a member of the Couneil. Let us take note of the suggestion of the, representative of the Ukraine and continue our discussion. 1 believe that 'we could àiscuss these procedi:lraI questions for hours and hours, and 1 think that it is a matter which we should leave to our experts.

ln the absence of any rules covering the point, it is my duty, of course, as Chairman, to bring the point to the Couneil's notice. For the future, the matter will, no doubt, be covered by the ruIes of procedure which are being prepared; but 1 would suggest that there is no need now to discuss the matter further. Since there are diverse opinions on the question of whether Article 31 applies, and since there is a substantial opinion which has been expressed that the Ukraine has no ll'ight of proposition, 1 would Iike to ask if there is any objection to the Ukraine having the right, on this occasion, to make the proposition, it being unçlerstood that the question of the application of Article 31 shall still be undecided? 1 should like to impress upon the Council, that, of course, whatever action is taken, it will be taken without prejudice and does not create a precedent. Is there any objection to the Ukraine having the right to inake a proposition? l'espèce que Mr. STETTINIUS (United States of America): 1tried to make my position very clear a moment ago, when 1 said that l' felt that any formaI proposition should be made by a member of the Council. However, may 1 add that, if th~re is any member of the Council·who wishes to adopt the suggestion advanced by the representative of the Ukraine, Qf course that is entirely in order. Mr. STETTtNIUS (United States of America): May 1 reply to Mr. Vyshinsky that what 1 mean by a formai motion is a formal resolution on which we take a vote.

As an objection has 'been ~egistered agaiust the adoption ,of the suggestion that 1 made as to'whether there were any objections ta the representative of the Ukraine making a proposition, it will now be esse"ntiaI for a motion to be submitted ta the Council that such procedure should be adopted. Mr. VYSHINSKV (Union of Soviet Sociaiist Republics) (translated trom Russian): 1·should now 'like to ask for a clarification of the situation. Does the proposai rrow before us mean that the SecurityCouncil, having allowed the Ukrainiandelegation tamakestatements, can now pass on to the .next W~m on the agenda without taking any deciGion ori. the matterbefore'it, or that the ..Security Council, havingallowed. the Ukrainian.·de1egation to submit.a proposaI, will examine the question and will adopt or reject the proposai madeby the Ukrainian delegation? 1 have askedthis question because,if 1 under:- stand Mr.St~tt.iniuscorrectly, he does notrecognizethe right of .. the Ukrainian delegation to submit a proposai. This means that althoughthe representative of the Ukraine has the right to make· a stateJllent,' the Council.·reserves •the right .ta ignore' bis statement~ not to take.' bis proposai into· account, and to pass' ta the next Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): 1 feel that, in the absence of any express ruIes to the contrary, we should be liberal in these matters. It may weIl be that we shall have to deal with other cases, and 1 should notlike to preclude anyone from offering, even in the form cif a ma" tion, a proposition which may be helpful. It does "not bind the Council to accept in any sense. So, if you like, 1 shoukf. like to move, myself, that the representative bf the Ukraine'be given the opportunity, 1 do not say the right but the op... portunity, to propose his motion. nous empêcher quiconque de présenter ultérieurement, même sous forme pourrait être utile. ment soit. heureux de proposer moi-même que je donnée sa Mr. STETTINIUS (United States, of America) : l have. aIready stated the .position of the United States. Having listened to the discussion,and withoutprejudice to the future, 1 withdraw my objection in order that we may get on with our discussion, deal with this important issue .and not take the time ofthe Cooocil for further technical discussion of rulès and regulations. " (traduit de vue des Etats-Unis d'Amérique. la mon suivre .importante. .temps ~ents

The representative of the Netherlands has submittec! a proposition that we. should grant the Ukrainian representative without prejudice' theopportunity of submitting the proposition that lle has made to the Coun,:, cil. Are there any objections? . présentant "tion, pour l'avenir, sentant qu'il à Mr. VVSHIN,SKV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): lshould like it ta he recorded that tltisproposaLemanates not onlyfrom the representative ôi the Netherlands, .but. aIso.' from the .... representatives. of France, Egypt, Chin<!-, the Soviet Union and socialistes voudrais cette présentant tants Mr. STETTlNIUS (United States of America): 1 vvithdrew my objection without prejudice to our future position.

l 't-vill. now ask if there are any objections to the right of the representative of the Ukraine to submit the proposition that he has? Since there are no objections, then that procedur~ is adopted. 1 should like to say a few words, in my capac~ ity as representative of AUSTRA~ upon the matter that is before us. . Members of the Council will remember that, at our meeting held on 30 January 194Q when the situation in Iran was under diScussion, 1 stated that it, was the policy of the Australian Government tosupport the fullest examinatioll and investigation of all complaints brought before the Security Council. Perhaps 1 should expand the statement by adding that, in the opinion of the Australian delegation, it would frequently he unwise Jor the Security Council tc? try to make a decision on the merits of the dispute brought before it, immediately after hearing statements and counter-statements by the parties. Complaints to ,this Council are grave mattet's regarding which it may often be impossible to take a decision without fust' iIV,.tiating some .kind of fact...finding enquiry, and this may, at times, involve enquiry by a committee on the spot. The setting up by the ,Council of, such commit!ees, in appropriate cases, should not.be taken by either party as casting doubt upon the accuracy of the statements it has made. For the time being, the Council would merely defer any decision on the merits in order to gather together the most complete evidence, after consideration of which a decision on the merits couM then be-taken. My Government, therefore,. has no objection inprinciple to the appointment of committees of enquiry in cases brought before· the Council which are substantial and which, under the provisions ofthe Charter, it isappropriate to investigate.. Indeed, '.my Government would welcome the establishment of committees in such cases, and would wish tobe associated with their work, particularly when Australian interests are especially affected: . , It is necessary, however, to consider the application-f)f~"these general prindples to each case which cornes before theSecurity Counc.il. Jnthe pres,entcase, the Head of the Ukraini;mdelegation has· brought to the attention of the' Council, underArtic1e 35,paragraph.l of the In ms supplementary oral statement of 7 February/ the Ukrainian representative laid chief emphasis on the use of Japanese forces against Indonesians. He stated that he did not ask for the withdrawal of British troops, but suggested that the-SecurityCouncil should create a special commission for the investigation of the situation on the spot, and for the re-establishment of peace. In the course of the subsequent oral statement made by the representative of the United Kingdom,S ifwas explamed that British troops had gone into Indonesia at the direction of the Allied Supreme C~mmand, and thàt their task was two-foId: firstly, to deal with the Japanese troops in that area; and secondly, to succour the large number of prisoners of war and civilian intemees who had been taken Înto confinement by the Japanese~ Ml'. Bevin denied that British troops had attacked the local inhabitants, but said that they had. been compelled to defend themselves against attack and obliged to take· the secuHty measures necessary to. enable them to carry out the tasks assigned to them. He added that, after the death of General Mallaby during truce negotiations, Admiral Mountbatten had feared wholesale assassinations throughout the country, and had decided that _it was necessary, for the time being, _to hold the Japanese responsible for seèing that such aSsaSsfuations did not take place. The representative' of the Netherlands also gave an account4 of the cirçumstances in which British troops entered Indonesia-with the _consent of the Dutch Government. He-stressed the fact that Dutch troops -'" , 'Id hàve.gone instead, if the Allies had beenable to teturn to the control of the Netherlands Jovernment shipping which theJatter had contributed to the (;ommon pool for the general 'War effort, and if available troopshad had the-necessary training for the pal'ticular tasks involved. He referred to the. atrocities· which have been committedin Indonesia, but added that he _did not identifywith these atrocities the nationalist movement as such. Nationalism was ahealthydevelopment, he said, and continued: "It would be an·abnormal people indeed, whodid not at one time oranother of their existence have the craving for autonomy and self-government. We want to reckon with . • See paged74 te 178. 3Seepages 178 t~ 182. • See pages 182 ta 187.- What, then, should the Security Council do in the circumstances that 1 have outlined? It is admitted that British troops went to Indonesia. for a legitirJ.1ate purpose. Their withdrawal is not asked for. It is admitted that they went to Indonesia with the consent of the Dutch Government. It is not disputed that efforts are being made, at this very moment, to resolve by peaCleful means the difficulties which have arisen in Indonesia. In these circurnstances, can it be said that the representative of the Ukraine has established his charge that military actions in Indonesia threaten the maintenance of internatic;mal peace and security? 1 stress the word "international", because a disturbance of internal peace or order is not in itself sufficient to justify action by this Council as suggested by the representative of the Ukraine. If the parties concerned had wished to adopt the suggestion that a committee of enquiry should be set up, the Australian Government, _oLcourse: would not have felt obliged to object. 1 should only add that in that event, since Indonesia is in a geographical area which the Japanese war has shown to beof vital importance to Australia, my country would have asked to be associated ,.vith the work of any such committee. If, however, 1 am asked to vote on the specific question as to whether the military actions of the British· troops in Indonesia threaten the maintenance of international peace and security, thus providing a basis for action by this Cowlcil under Article 34 of the Charter, 1 feel bound ta answer "No." . It has been suggested by the representatives. of sorne members of the Council that, viewed in the lightof the general provisions of the Charter for the pacific settlentent •of international disputes, this whole Indonesian matter may be regarded as having an internal or domestic character. It is extremely important that the provisions of the Charter in this, as in all other respects, should be maintainecl bath in the letter and in the spirit. T!le terms of Article 2, paragraph 7, which were adopted at San Francisco after intensive· discussion, .make it clear that neither the Security Council nor any other organ of the United Nations is competent in any circurnstances to pa:ss· judgment UpOi..l the merits of a -matter which is essentia1ly within the do. mestic: jurisdiction .of any State.. The Security Councilhas before it no formaI daim, based on Article 2, paragraph 7 of the Charter, .that the Security.Councilis not competent to deal with the present matter.For present purposes, 1 need ouIy say tha:t the delegation of Australia ,. "does notwishto be understood as necessarily Ml'. STETTINIUS (United States of America) : We have before us a suggestion that the Security Council order an investigation as a result of a letter sent on 21 .Tanuary 1946 ta the President of the Security Council, of the statement made by Ml'. Manuilsky, Head of the Ukrainian delegation, and of representations made here by Ml'. Vyshinsky, the Head of the 'delegation of the Soviet Union. The power of investigation under Article 34 is an extremely important matter, a useful instrument given by the Charter to the Security Council. It is one of the means whereby the Council can determine whether or not it should undertake to deal with a particular situation or dispute, in the discharge of its responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security. Certainly, the United States would not wish to see any action taken which would limit the use or diminish the value of this vitaIly important function of the Council. Precisely because the right of investigation is so important, the United States Government feels that investigations should not be lightly undertaken. In determining whether or not a situation warrants investigation, the Security Council must have reason ta believe, from aIl the circumstancles before it, that the continuanr ' of the situatiçm is likely ta endanger internatiohal peace. 1 should add that, in ordering an investigation, the Council should have a constructive purpose and should look fa Nard and not backward. It should seek ta promote just settlement of a situation or dispute aJ;ld should seek ta avoid new complications. ln the absence of such factors, a decision ta investigate would only bring into discredit the full functions of the Security Council. ln.this connexion, 1 would add that it may he appropriate ta state here that the United States believes that, as a gerieral rule, any fact-finding· or investigating commission ordered by the - Council should be composed of impartial persons, chosen for their competence, who would represent not individual countries but the Security Conncil. The question before us has two aspects. The fust relates to the presence and activities of the British troops in Indonesia, No c;}e here h~.s questioned the fact that the presence of British troops in Indonesia is justified, or has asked for their withdrawal. No one deplores more than· the people of my country the fact that, in the execution of the tasks. assumed by them, the British forces have encountered difficulties and obstacles which have led to strife and -clashes. The war has left us with many tangledsitua- The other aspect of the question before us relates ta the problem of the working out of the future re1ationship between the Netherlands Government and the Indonesians. It is clear that this situation is greatly complicated by the influence and the past activities of the Japanese, and by their continued pres~nce. It is therefore of the highest importance that the surrender terms be carried out with the utmost dispatch possibie. On, this aspect of the case, 1 feel that we should note with satisfaction the statements made by Ml'. van Kleffens1 representing the Netherlands, relating ta the palicy of his Government with respect to the carrying out of its responsibility as regards the future relationships between the Netherlands Government and the Indonesians. Ml'. van Kleffens stated that his Government accepted nationalism as a healthy development and, referring to Chapter XI of the Charter, added that his Government was engaged in a sincere attempt to arrive at an agreement with the Indonesians on a very ,liberal basis. It is, 1 am sure, the hope of all the members of the Security Council that the nego-' tiations to which Ml'. van Kleffens has referred will be successful, and that the results achieved will be in harmony with the ideals and the principles of the Charter and will meet the legitimate aspirations of the Indonesian people for seHgovernment. Without going into the question of the Security Council's jurisdiction in this case, 1 must state frankly that 1 do,not believe that it has been made clear to the Council that a constructive purpose, is ta he served by an investigation. We know that negotiations between the Netherlands Government and the Indonesian leaders have already begun, and 1 am sure that the best hope for the settlement of this unhappy sit~ uation, and for the elimination of any possibility of a renewal of armed strife in that troubled area, lies in thesuccessful and prompt completiQn of these negotiations. It would indeed be a It is for these reasons that the Government of the United States of America believes that, in the present cireumstances, the Security Council should not undertake an investigation or take anY further action. However, in my opinion, it would he appropriate for us ta express the hope that the terms of surrender requiring the disarmament of the JaPanese may be carried out promptly, that ·the disturbing influence of the Japanese may be eliminated, and that peaceful conditions in Indonesia may be soon and fully restored.

There are at least four more speakers, and it is quite apparent that we shalI not be able to reach the point where we shalI possibly decide this matter at this meeting. 1 was proposing to ealI upon the representative of China. By the time bis speech is .transiated, it no doubt would he at a point when the Couneil might feel willing to adjourn these proceedings for today. At that stage, 1 shalI ask the Couneil whether it wishes to adjourn the proceedings until tomorrow. 1'v11". \VellhïgtünKüü (China); The situation in the Netherlands Indies is one about which the Chinese Government feels partieular concern, apart from its general interest in the matter as a member of the Security Council. There are over two million Chinese nationals in the Netherlands Indies, mostly in Java, who shared with the European and native population alI the sufferings and hardships under enemy occupation. The military operations which have taken place in Java since the surrender of Japan last September have inflicted considerable casualties on the Chinese communities. Up to the end of November, in Soerabaya alone, about five hundred Chînese were killed or wounded, and the reports are naturally still incomplete at present as to the total number of casualties suffered by the Chinese in the Netherlands Indies during the past four months. With regard ta the national movement of the Indonesian people, Clrinese nationals in Java have been scrupulously refraining from participating in it, though their sympathy would naturalIy be with any people who are stmggling for a fuller measure of self-government. Realizing, however, the importance of tae task of the Allied forces which have landed in Java for the purpose· of disarming the Japanese troops and liberating Allied prisoners of war and ciVilian internees, the Chinese in Java, like the Chinese Government, wish sincere1y ta see the early completion ôf this urgent task. 1 have listened mth attention to the statements made by the different members who have spoken. The Ukrainian repr~sentative has expressed bis sympathy for the cause of the Indonesian people, called attention to various reports of military operations carriedon by British troops against the Indonesians, and urged several other po4J.ts. The United·Kingdom representative has stressed the fact that British troops have been sent to the Netherlands Indies at the request of the Allied Supreme Commander and with the consent of the Netherlands Government, and that they have been doing their best to fulfil this definite assignment of duty. He has made it clear that British troops have taken no military action against the Indonesians, except when attacked or obstructed by the latter in the performance of their duties. TheChiliesepeople feel, and' irideed 1 am surè t!Iat all peace-Ioving and freedom-Ioving 'peoples including the peoplé of the Netherlands, must feel, a deep sympathy for the Indonesians. We belicve that the Charter of the United Nations is conceivedin the very spirit of respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. Indeed, the Netherlands representative himself stated at this Council on Thursday, to quote bis own words: "It would be an abnormal people, indeed, who did not at one time or another of their existence have the craving for autonomy and self-government."l In the light of the important statements al· rea.dy made, more particularly of those with regard to the purpose of the United Kingdom Government in senrling British troops to the Netherlauds Indies, the circumstances in which certain military operations tookplace against the Indonesians, and the assurance of the Netherlands Government in respect of the' political aspirations of the Indonesian pèople, the Chînese delegation is inclinèd to think that this discussion, which has contributed considerably to a .clarification of the situation, might be adjourned. We hope thatthe negotiations now under way betwcen the Netherlands authorities and the Indonesian representatives will saon result in, a settlement conforming to the letter and spirit of the Charter, thereby terminating a situation whichhas given cause for n,)xiety and concern in many quarters. • For this reason alone, and not because of any - lack of confidence in the statements of the United Kingdom representative relating ta the conduct of. British troops in Indonesia, the Chïnese de1egation will not oppose the Ukrainian proposal. We express this view the more confiàently, since the Netherlands representative himself has told the Security Council that the Netherlands GovernJJ1ent, on'its part, would have no objection to the sending of such a commission if the scope of its enquiry did not extcnd to matters within the domestic jurisdiction of the Netherlands Indies.

With regard to the adjournment, do 1 take it that members of the Council are agreed that this is the hour at which we should adjourn? 1 would suggest that the Conncil resume its·proceedings tomorrow at Il a.m. As that suggestion is agreèable to the mernbers, . it is adopted. 5EVENTEENTH MEETIi'JG Heid at Church House, Westminster, London on Tuesday, 12 February 1946, at 11 a.m. President: Mr. N. J..O. MAKIN (Australia). P1'esent: The representatives of the following countries: Australia, Brazil,Chîna., Egypt, France, Mexico,. Netherlands, Poland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, • United States of America.