S/PV.163 Security Council

We shall continue with our discussion of the preamble to the United States resolution.2 Mr. MUNIZ (Brazil): I feel that I must make a few remarks about the point raised' by the representative of Syria concerning the interpretation of the power of the Security Council to make investigations under Article 34. If we adhere to a strictly literal interpretation of Article 34, the point raised by the representative of Syria !night carry weight. But a literal interpretation is not always the right one. We have to look for the meaning of the words and the concept behind them in order to find the reality, which is after all the only thing that counts. The power to make an investigation is e.xpressly lodged in the Security Council. The Security Council, under Article 34, may investigate in order to determine whether the continuance of a dispute or a situation is likely to endanger peace and security. Does that signify that the power of investigation, important as it is as a means for a peaceful settlement, should be interpreted in' a li!nited way, only in that particular instance? I do not think so. 235. Ordre du iour provisoire (document 5/424) 1. Adoption de l'ordre du jour. 2. La question grecque: rapport presente au Conseil de securite par la Commission d'enquete sur les incidents survenus a la frontiere grecque (document S/360) 1. 236. Adoption de I'ordre dfJ iour

I should like to ask the representative of the United States where he has considered the proposed amendment and whether he is willing to accept it. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America) : The United States delegation accepts the amendment or proposal of the representative of Syria, which we think is sound, and derogates in no way from our intention in the original preamble or from that presented by the. representative of France. We do not, however, agree with the interpretation given by the representative of Syria, which would indicate that he thinks this amendment is necessary. We'think it is harmless, but not necessary. We would accept it.

The text of the preamble in its present form reads as follows: "The Security Council, having primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security by vh"'1:ue of Article 24 of the Charter, and having considered the report submitted by the Commission of Investigation established by the Council's resolution of 19 December 1946,"-and now the new wording-"fiilds it necessary that further action be taken by the Security Council under Articles 34 and 36 of the Charter." Mr. VILFAN (Yugoslavia) (translated from French): I had not foreseen that the discussion today would take on a legal character. I think it will be possible to return to these questions later, and I should like to reserve the right to intervene in the discussion then. I shall confine myself today to three brief comments, all bearing on the interpretation of Article 34 of the Charter. First of all, I should like to make a remark on a matter of principle. It appears to me that at the present stage when the Unit~d Nations has been in existence only two years, it would be wise to keep to the strictest possible interpretation of the Charter. If we start interpreting the spirit of certain Articles, we risk raising disputes instead of creating unity among the United Nations. It has been emphasized today that we should not limit ourselves to the literal interpretation of the Charter's Articles; I am in complete agreement. But if we are going to examine the exact spirit and purport of certain Articles of the Charter, it would seem to me better to retrace 1811 J]~ ..."..~.., Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Je voudrais demander au representant des Etats- Unis s'il a examine l'amendement propose et s'il est pret al'accepter. M. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais): La delegation des Etats-Unis accepte l'amendement ou la proposition du representant de la Syrie; cette proposition nous paralt logique et ne s'ecarte en rien, quant au fond, de notre preambule primitif, ni de celui qu'a propose le representant de la France. Nous ne partageons pas, toutefois, les vues du representant de la Syrie, qui semble croire a la necessite de cet amendement. Nous le jugeons acceptable, mais non necessaire. Nous sommes prets a l'adopter. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'ang1ais): Dans sa forme actuelle, le preambule se lit comme suit: "Le Conseil de securite, a qui incombe, en vertu de l'Article 24 de la Charte, la respon- .sabilite principale du .maintien de la paix et de la securite internationales, apres avoir etudi6 le rapport presente par la Commission d'enquete creee par la resolution du Conseil en date du 19 decembre 1946 - et void la modification proposee - considere qu'il est necessaire que le Conseil de securite prenne de nouvelles mesures en ap'plication des Articles 34 et 36 de la Charte." 'M. VILFAN (Yougoslavie): Je n'avais pas prevu que la discussion prendrait aujourd'hui un caractere juridique. Je pense qU'il sera possible, par la suite, de revenir sur ces questions. Je voudrais surtout me reserver le droit d'intervenir a ce moment dans la discussion. Je me bornerai, aujourd'hui, a faire trois breves remarques, portant toutes trois sur l'interpretation de l'Article 3~ de la Charte. Je ferai d'abord une remarque su:: une question de prindpe: au stade ou se trouvent les Nations Unies, apres deux annees seulement d'existence, il me semble que le plus sage est de se tenir a l'interpretation la plus stricte possible de la Charte. Car, si nous commen~ons a interpreter l'esprit de certains Articles, nous risquons de susciter des divergences au lieu de creer l'unite parmi les Nations Unies. On a souligne aujourd'hui qu'il ne fallait pas se limiter a l'interpretation litterale des Articles de la Charte; je suis tout a fait d'accord. Mais, si on recherche l'esprit et la teneur exacts de certains Articles de la Charte, il vaut mieux, me . semble-t-il, recourir aI'historique de ces Articles, If you analyse the contents of this amendment, you will see that it corresponds. exactly to what the United States resolution now proposes; the latter provides for everything suggested by the Bolivian delegation, n~ely permanent inquiry, and the possibility of taking decisions and of determining what are here called "the measures". What was the fate of the Bolivian amendment? At the San Francisco Conference, this amendment was rejected; in other words, it was not iound desirable to give such a categorical nature to measures assigned to the Security Council in Chapter VI of the Charter as is provided by the United States resolution under discussion today. While I agree that an Article of the Charter should not be interpreted literally, I do not think we should go so far as to interpret this Article as meaning something which was expressly rejected by the San Francisco Conference. 'Finally, with the object of interpreting Chapter VI of the Charter properly, I have tried to ascertain the opinion of the United States Government. That opinion was expressed, at the time, by the Chairman of the United States delegation to the San Francisco Conference; it is to Le found in the report submitted to the President of the United States by the Chairman of that delegation.2 What then was the character of the measures provided by Chapter VI of the Charter according to the interpretation, I repeat, of the Chairman of the United States delegation? On page 79 of this report, dated 26 June 1945 and addressed to the President of the United States, the following passage occurs: "It is to be noted that the Members of the Organization agree to carry out the decisions of the Security Council 'in accordance with the present Charter'. Thus the precise extent of the 1 See United Nations Conference on International Organization; document 2, G/14(r); volume 3, page 584. 2 See Report to th~ President on the results of the San Francisco Conference by the Chairman of the United States Delegation, the Secretary of State (Department of State Conference Series No. 71, No. 2349). Quel etait donc le caractere des mesures: ·prevues au Chapitre VI de la Charte suivant l'interpretation, je le repete, du chef de la delegation des Etats-Unis? A la page 79 de ce rapport, date du 26 juin 1945 et adresse au President des Etats-Unis, vous trouverez le passage suivant: "11 y a lieu de noter que les Membres de l'Organisation conviennent d'executer les decisions du Conseil de securite "conformement a la presente Charte". Ainsi, l'etendue exacte de' 1 Voir les Documents de la Conference des Nations Unies sur l'organisation internationale, tome IV, page 827 [document 2,G/14(r)]. 2 Voir Report to the President on the results of the San Francisco Conference by the Chairman of the United' States Delegation, the Secretary of State, publie sous l'indice: Department of State Conference Series No. 71, No_ 2349. j It seems to me that this is an express and clear ~~atement that the measures assigned to the Security Council-which, by virtue of Chapter VI, debates them-are solely in the nature of recommendations and are nqt decisions. I should now like to ask the Uiutd States delegation what legal reasons have led it to modify an opinion so clearly and expressly formulated in an instrument which is not only an official but a formal one as well-the report of· the Chairman of the United States delegation to the President of that country..

As there do not·appear to be any members who wilSh to speak on the preamble, I shall consider the discussion on the preamble finished. ' Colonel HODGSON (Australia): Mr. President, are you declaring the discussion on the preamble closed before we see the text?

The text is now being distributed, and I shall allow the members to read it over in order to make their recommendations and remarks. Colonel HODGSON (Australia): This morning I gave reasons why my delegation was supporting the Frer-ch text. Some of the members may not agree with the argument that it was necessary to have such a finding or determination before we could take action under Chapter VI. Be that as it may, every representative here at this Council table, either directly or by implication, has said that we are concerned with a dispute the continuation of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security. That is a fact. Why not say it? I cannot understand why we should eliminate those words by accepting this new text. I therefore want to make it clear that I will not vote for any text which eliminates that statement. We think the text should read as follows: "The Security Council finds itself concerned with a dispute the continuance of which is likely to .endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, and consequently ..."-and there is where the proposal of the Syrian delegation would be appropriate-". . . finds it necessary Le. PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Il semble que personne ne desire plus prendre la parole au sujet du preambule; je considere done que la discussion du preambule est terminee. Le colonel HODGSON (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais) : Monsieur le President, allez-vous prononcer la cl6ture de cette discussion sur le preambule avant que nous ayons pu en voir le texte? Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): On est en train de distribuer ce texte. Je laisserai aux membres du Conseille temps d'en prendre connaissance afin qu'ils puissent presenter leurs recommandations et leurs observations. Le colonel HODGSON (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais): J'ai i'1dique ce matin les raisons pour lesquelles ma delegation soutenait le texte franc;ais. Il se peut que certains membres du Conseil n'acceptent pas l'argument suivant lequel il est necessaire d'adopter une conclusion de ce genre avant de pouvoir prendre les mesures prevues au Chapitre VI. Quoi qU'il en soit, tous les representants qui siegent a la table du Conseil ont explicitement declare ou ont laisse entendre que nous nous trouvons devant un differend dont la prolongation semble devoir menacer le maintien de la paix et de la securite internationales. C'est un fait. Pourquoi ne pas le reconnaltre? Je ne saurais comprendre pourquoi nous devrions supprimer ces mots en a(;ceptant le nouveau texte. Je desire donc declarer nettement que je ne vDterai en faveur d'aucun texte qui eliminer&it cette declaration. A notre avis, le texte devrait etre redige comme suit: "Le Conseil de securite se trouve saisi d'un differend dont la prolongation est susceptible de menacei le maintien de la paix et de la securite internationales, et, en consequence ... ", et c'est id, je crois, qu'il conviendrait d'inserer la proposition de la delegation Mr. PAROD! (France) (translated from French): I must apologize for prolonging this rather too legal and somewhat subtle discussion, bu I am nevertheless obliged to speak. Just now I gave a rather too hasty agreement to the wording proposed by the Syrian representative. As I pointed out, I did this because I was under the impression that this wording would remove the difficulty. On re-reading this text, however, it seems to me that the same difficulty which the Syrian representative found with my initial text applies to the one he proposes. This text bases the action which the Security Council is called upon to take both on Article 34 and on Article 36 of the Charter. It seems to me that, as was pointed out this morning, Article 36 is. contingent on Article 37. In Article 37, paragraph 2, it is stated: "If the Security Council deems that the continuation of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate." Therefore, in so far as reference is made to Article 36, it is to be concluded that the Council first considered that Article 37 was applicable. But, as I have just recalled, the latter brings ArtiCle 36 into play, because the Security Council is presumed to consider that the continuance of the dispute endangers the maintenance of international peace and security. , The result is that the contradiction referred to by the Syrian representative, if it exists, appears in full force when the two Articles are placed side by side in the same text. I must apologize for this somewhat complicated explanation, but it is essentially very serious. If this is so, if the difficulty is not removed, I think the text which I originally proposed is the best, and I beg leave to revert to it.

May I ask the representative of the United States to tell us whether he wa,nts to accept the proposal of the representative of Australia or the alternative suggested now by the representative of France? Mr. JOHNSON (0'nited States of America):. The United States delegation prefers the amendment of the French delegation. If the result of the French representative's withdrawing his support from the Syrian amendment is that the French amendment is back on the table, I should prefer the latter. Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria): I think the suggestion of the representative of Australia is in conformity with the provisions of Article 37. The M. PAROD! (France): Je m'excuse de prolonlonger une discussion un peu trop juridique et qui devient quelque peu subtile, mais je suis pourtant oblige de reprendre la parole. Tout a I'heure, j'ai donne un peu trop vite mon adhesion a la formule proposee par le representant .de la Syrie. Comme je l'ai indique, -. je I'ai fait parce que j'avais l'impression que cette formule faisait disparaltre le probleme. Or, en relisant ce texte, il me semble que la difficulte que le representant de la Syrie avait trouvee dans mon texte initial se presente dans celui qu'il nous propose. Ce texte consiste a fonder l'action que le Conseil de securite est appele a prendre a la fois sur l'Article 34 et sur I'Article 36 de la Charte. L'Article 36 me para~t bien dependre de I'Article 37, comme on l'a rappele ce matin. En effet, l'Article 37 dit, ason paragraphe 2: "Si le Conseil de securite estime que la prolongation du differend semble, en fait, menacer le maintien de la paix et de la securite internationales, il decide s'il doit agir en application de l'Article 36 ou recommander tels termes de reglement qu'il juge appropries." Donc, dans la mesure ou l'on se refere a l'Article 36, on entend que le Conseil a d'abord estime que I'Article 37 etait applicable. Or celuici, je viens de le rappeler, met en jeu I'Article 36, parce que le Conseil de securite est cense estimer que la prolongation du differend menace le maintien de la paix et de la securite. Il en resulte que la contradiction relevee par le representant de la Syrie, si elle existe, apparalt completement lorsqu'on juxtapose les deux Articles dans une meme formule. Je m'excuse de cette explication qui paralt un peu compliquee; mais, quant au fond, elle est tres serieuse. S'il en est ainsi, si la difficulte n'est pas supprimee, je crois que le texte que j'avais propose tout d'abord est le meilleur et je demande la liberte d'y revenir. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Le representant des Etats-Unis voudrait-il nous faire connaitre s'il est pret a accepter la proposition du representant de l'Australie ou celle que vient de. suggerer le representant de la France? M. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais): La delegation des Etats-Unis prefere I'arnendement presente par la delegation fran~aise. Si le fait que le representant de la France cesse d'appuyer I'amendement syrien signifie que l'amendement fran~ais revient devant nous, c'est a ce dernier que vont .mes preferences. M. EL-KHOUR! (Syrie) (traduit de l'anglais): Je crois que la suggestion du representant de l'Australie est conforme aux dispositions d:...,.. M. MUNIZ (Bresil) (traduit de 1'anglais): Le texte, tel qu'il est amende par le representant de la Syrie, tend a eluder la question de'savoir si la situation est susceptible de mettre en danger la securite. C'est pourquoi je prefere le texte du representant de la France, et je voterai pour ce textc. Mr. MUNIZ (Brazil): The text as amended by the representative of Syria attempts to evade the question of whether the situation is likely to endanger security. That is why I prefer the French formula, and shall vote for it. _ Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Je voudrais preciseI' I'historique du texte que nous examinons et poser une question au representant des Etats-Unis. A l'origine, nous nous sommes trouves saisis d'une proposition emanant de la delegation des Etats-Unis et d'un amendement qu'a depose le representant de la France et que le representant des Etats-Unis a accepte. Ce dernier etait egalement dispose a accepter d'autres £ormules, proposees par les representants de la Syrie et de l'Australie; il a cependant exprime une preference pour le texte fran~ais primirif. J'aimerais que le representant des Etats-Unis nous fasse connaitre queUe est maintenant sa proposition, afin que le Conseil sache quel est le texte qu'il accepte et queUes sont les

I should like to clear up the status of the text we have before us. I shall put a question to the United States representative. We had an original proposal submitted by the United States and an amendment suggested by the representative of France, wl:].ich the United States representative acr:epted. The United States representative was also prepared to accept different formulations, as suggested by the representatives of Syria and Australia; however, he expressed preference for the original French amendment. I should like to have the representative of the United States inform us what his proposal is now, in order for the Council to know which text he accepts and which proposals we may have to put to a vote. propos~tions que nous pourrions avoir a mettre aux VOiX. . M. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais): C'est le texte amende par le representant de la France qu'accepte maintenant la delegation des Etats-Unis. Cependant, si la majorite du Conseil se pronon~ait en faveur, soit de la proposition syrienne, soit de la proposition australienne, les Etats-Uni;) ne formuleraient aucune objection. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): The text as amended by the representative of France represents the text now accepted by the United States. However, if a majority of the Council should express itself in favour of either the Syrian or the Australian suggestion, the United States would not oppose it.

Therefore, the text proposed by the representative of France, which is before the Council, is the United States text, and the Syrian and Australian texts are amendments. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): C'est done le texte propose par le representant de la France, texte que nous avons sous les yeux, qu'appuient les Etats-Unis. Les textes presentes respectivement par la Syrie et l'Australie sont des amendements. M. LAWFORD (Royaume-Uni), (traduit de l'anglais): Lorsque cette discussion a commence, ma delegation etait en faveur de l'amendement Mr. LAWFORD (United Kingdom): When this discussion began, my delegation was in favour of the French amendment to the United States draft resolution, in the form of an addition to the preamble. We are still in favour of the French text, in spite of the interventions which have taken place since this morning. fran~ais au projet de resolution des Etats-Unis sous la forme d'une addition au preambule. Nous sommes toujours en faveur du texte fran- ~ais, malgre les interventions que nous avons entendues depuis ce matin. Colonel HODGSON (Australia) : You will recall that this morning I spoke very strongly in fav:our of the French text. I then asked to see the Syrian proposal. When that came before us, both the French representative and the United States representative said that the Syrian text ~_. Le colonel HODGSON (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais): Vous vaus souvenez que ce matin je me suis pronance tres categoriquement en faveur du texte fran~ais. J'ai demande ensuite a voir la proposition syrienne. Apres examen de ceUe-d, le representant de la France et le representant All I suggested was-and I have not made .any amendment-that, if the Syrian text were accepted by the Council, it should also include the idea found in the French amendment, which stated that we have found, as a fact, that the continuation of the situation does endanger inter~ national peace and security. I made no formal proposal or amendment to that effect. My delegation will vote fot the original French amendment.

Thus we have only one amendment. I shall ask the representative of Syria whether he would like to have a vote on his amendment. Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria): Articles 36 of the Charter implies that the Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute, take steps or make recommendations for appropriate methods leading to an adjustment. Article 37, in its second paragraph, states as follows: "If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate." This would clearly show that it is not necessarily after the Security Council has taken a final' decision that the existing dispute is likely to endanger international peace and security that Article 36 can be applied. Article 36 may be referred to and may be acted upon by the Security Council in such a situation and in any other situation when the Security Council deems it necessary or useful. It states that at any stage of a dispute where the Security Council decides that there is danger, it may recommend methods of adjustment. If we take the amendment which I propose, no one will be able to say in the future that the Security Council had taken a final decision or that it had not taken a. final decision. The matter is not yet decided. My proposal does not say that we shall be working under AJlticle 37. However, if we work under Article 36, it may be implied that Article 37 is also being taken into consideration. Therefore, I still believe it would be better to adopt the amendment which I have proposed. I do not urge that it should be put to a vote, as I notice that most of the members are not in favour of it in the form in which I put it. Le PRESID"ENT (traduit de l'anglais): Nous sommes donc saisis d'un seul amendement. Le representant de la Syrie desire-t-il que son amendement soit mis aux voix? M. EL-KHOURI (Syrie) (traduit de l'anglais): D'apres l'Article 36 de la Charte, le Conseil de securite peut... atout moment de l'evolution d'un difIerend, prendre des mesures ou faire des recommandations pour que soient adoptees des methodes appropriees permettant d'aboutir aun ajustement. Le second paragraphe de I'Article 37, d'autre part, declare: "Si le Conseil de securite estime que la prolongation du differend semble, en fait, menacer le maintien de la paix et de la securite internationales, il decide s'il doit agir en application de l'Article 36 ou recommander tels termes de reglement qu'il juge appropries." Il ressort clairement de ce texte qu'il n'est pas necessaire, pour pouvoir appliquer l'Article 36, que le Conseil de securite ait pris une decision definitive etablissant que le differend actuel est susceptible de menacer la paix et la securite internationales. Le Conseil de securite peut citer l'Article 36 et prendre des mesures en application de cet Article dans une situation de cet ordre ou dans toute autre situation, lorsqu'il le juge necessaire ou utile. l'Article 36 declare que, a tout moment de l'evolution d'un difIerend, lorsque le Conseil de securite decide qu'il y a danger, il peut recommander des methodes d'ajustement. Si nous adoptons l'amendement que je propose, nul ne pourra affirmer al'avenir que le Conseil de securite a pris, ou n'a pas pris, de decision definitive. La qveetion n'est pas encore tranchee. Ma proposition ne declare pas que nous allons agir en application de I'Article 37. Cependant, si nous prenons des mesures en vertu de l'Article 36, on peut en deduire que nous tenons egalement compte de l'Article 37. J'estime donc toujours qu'il serait preferable d'adopter l'amendement que j'ai propose. Je n'insiste pas pour qu'il soit mis aux voix, puisque la plupart" des membres du ConseiJ ne semblent pas etre en faveur de la forme que j'ai donnee a cet amendement. I do not believe there is any way of avoiding the difficulties which the representative of Syria mentioned this morning. Indeed, if the literal interpretation of the text is insisted upon, the difficulty is increased. For my part, I maintain the broader interpretation which I gave this morning, and I therefore adhere to the text which I proposed originally. Mr. MUNIZ (Brazil): What I was going to say has just been said by the representative of France. The interpretation made by the representative of Syria concerning any stage of a dispute refers to Article 33. Article 33 refers to a dispute likely to endanger international peace, on which the Security Council has to make a decision under Article 34. M. MUNIZ (Bresil) (traduit de l'anglais): Le representant de la France vient d'exprimer exactement ce que j'allais dire. L'interpretation que donne le representant de la Syrie, en ce qui concerne tout moment de l'evolution d'un differend, mentionne l'Article 33. Or l'Article 33 parle d'un differend susceptible de menacer la paix internationale, et qui doit faire l'objet cl'une decision du Conseil de securite aux termes de l'Artic1e 34. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Le representant de la Syrie n'insiste pas pour que sa proposition soit mise aux voix. Puisque aucun autre membre du Conseil ne demande qu'il soit procede a un vote sur l'amendement propose par le representant de la Syrie, je considere que le preambule de la, resolution des Etats-Unis, avec l'amendement propose par le representant de la France et accepte par le representant des Etats-Unis, est adopte. Pendant I'heure du dejeuner, j'ai envisage avec d'autres membres du Conseil differentes suggestions concernant la suite de nos travaux. Je pense que la meilleure solution serait la suivante: nous discuterons chaquc amendement et nous le mettrons aux voix immediatement apres la discussion, a moins, bien entendu, que l'amendement ne soit accepte par le representant des Etats-Unis, qui a depose la resolution primitive, auquel cas aucun vote ne sera necessaire. De cette maniere, nous etablirons un projet de r&solution definitivement amende, que nous devrons egalement mettre aux voix. Le representant de la Colombie a demande que ce projet definitif soit souInis au vote paragraphe par paragraphe. C'est la procedure que'nous adopterons.

The representative of Syria does not insist upon a vote on his proposal. As no other member desires a yote on the amendment proposed by the representative of Syria, I shall consider the preamble to the United States resolution, with the amendment proposed by the representative of France and accepted by the United States representative, as adopted. During the lunch hour I discussed with other members various suggestions in regard to our subsequent procedure. I think the best solution would be this: we shall discuss each amendment and vote on it immediately after the discussion, unless of course the amendment is accepted by the representative of the United States, who proposed the original resolution, in which case no vote will be necessary. In that way, we shall arrive at a draft of the resolution which has been finally amended, and upon which we shall also have to vote. The representative of Colombia has requested that the vote upon this final draft shall take place paragraph by paragraph. That is the procedure we shall follow. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): I should like to ask whether my understanding of the procedure suggested by the President is correct. According to the President, we shall now put aside consideration of the preamble and ~." . M. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais): Je voudrais etre sur d'avoir bien compris la procedure suggeree par le President. Le President a propose que nous laissions de cote le preambule et que nous passions a

Each amendme~t will be voted upon as an amendment after it has been discussed; for instance, I would have taken a vote on th~ amendment suggested by the representative of Syria if he had insisted upon it. In that way, we shall arrive at an amended text of the resolution proposed by the representative of the United States, and that amended text will be submitted to a vote paragraph by paragraph. For the information of the Council, I should like to add that that was the procedure we adopted in December when we had a resolution on the same subject, to which a large number of amendments had been proposed. We first discussed each amendment, voted on it, obtained an amended text and finally voted on that. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): When we have considered all the amendments and have voted·upon them, and returned to the preamble in order to take a final vote paragraph by paragraph, I take it that new amendments will no longer be in order. . The PRESIDENT: That is so. There will then be no opportunity for further amendments. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I think this procedure is neither very appropriate nor very convenient. I fail to see why we should spend two days voting, when all this could be. done much more quickly. I can understand that a discussion may goon for several days, but I can see no sense in a procedure where a resolution has to be voted on for two or three days. I comider that all the amendments from first to last and all the para¥aphs of the resolution from first to last should be discussed, and that we should then go back and vo~e on the amendments and paragraphs respectively from first to~ast. That would be a more normal and convenient method. Does not a Council member attach importance to th.e attitude of other representatives toward the last paragraphs of the resolution? I feel that it is of some importance from the point of view of dei.errnining their attitude to the first paragraphs of the resolution. In my case, at any rate, it is not a matter of indifference. In determining my attitude to the first paragraphs of the resolution, I cannot but take account of the views expressed luring the discussion of the amendments and·the Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Nous mettrons aux voix chaque amendement, considere comme tel, apres l'avoir discute; par exemple, si le representant de la Syrie avait insiste, j'aurais mis aux voix l'amendement qu'il a propose. C'est de cette maniere que nous etablirons un texte amende de la resolution proposee par le representant des Etats-Unis, texte amende qui sera mis aux voix paragraph!': par paragraphe. J'ajouterri, a titre d'information pour les membres du Conseil, que telle est la procedure que nous avons suivie en decembre, alors que nous avions une resolution sur le meme sujet et qu'un grand nombre d'amendements y avaient ete proposes. Nous avons tout d'abord discute chaque amendement, nous I'avons mis aux voix et nous avons obtenu un texte amende que nous avons finalement mis aux voix. M. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais): Si je comprends bien, lorsque nousaurons examine t"-"1S les amendements et mis aux voix chacun d'eux, lorsque nous serons revenus au preambule avant de passer au vote definitif paragraphe par paragraphe, aucun amendement nouveau ne pourra plus etre propose. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): C'est exact; il n'y aura plus possibilite de presenter d'autres amendements. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du f1tSse): n me semble que cette fa~on de proceder ne convient pas tout a fait, et qu'elle n'est pas tres commode. Je ne sais pas pourquoi nous devrions passer deux journees entieres a voteralors que nous pourrions faire tout cela beaucoup plus rapidement. J'admets I'utilite d'une discussion qui dure meme plusieurs jours, mais je ne vois pas le sens d'un mode de procedure qui nous obligerait a consacrer deux ou trois jours au vote d'une resolution. Il me semble qu'il conviendrait d'examiner tous les amendements, du premier jusqu'au dernier, et tous les paragraphes de la resolution, du premier au dernier, avant de mettre aux voix ces amendements et ces paragraphes, du premier au dernier. Un tel mode de procedure serait plus normal et plus commode. N'est-il pas important en effet, pour un membre du Conseil, de connaitre I'avis des autres representants al'egard des derniers points de la resolution? n.me semble que cela a de I'importance pour determiner son attitude a l'egald des premiers paragraphes de la resolution. Pour ma part, en tout cas, j'y aUache de I'importa:i:!ce. Pour determiner mon attitude a I'egard des premiers paragraphes de la resolution, je ne puis manquer de tenii compte des diffe- ...... Is that not more convenient? Why not adopt the following procedure: first finish the discussion of all the amendments and all the paragraphs to which these amendments have been suggested and of the paragraphs for which there are no amendments, and then revert to the voting? Mr. PARODI, (France) (translated from French): I u;nderstand what our colleagu~, Mr. Gromyko, has just said. But if we accepted his reasoning completely, the result, I think, would be that we should vote en all texts beginning at the end and proceeding backwards, which would not be very practical; and it is not what we usually do. I think that it would be very difficult not to . take a decision at the end of the discussion on any given paragraph. If we did not do so, the result of the discussion would be lost sight of and we should have to go over it again a second time. In any event, therefore, it seems to me that we shall have to take a double vote, as you have proposed.

I should like to avoid a long discussion on this point of procedure. Therefore, I shall simply say a few words as President, and make a ruling on the subject. I fully understand the position expressed by the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Other representatives raised the question before the meeting in private conversations. Theoretically, of course, it is true that the attitude of a member toward one of the amendments may depend upon what is said in the discussion of another. But, on the other hand, a great practical difficulty would be involved since, as we see from our present experience, there are rather long discussions on different paragraphs. Unless we take a vote on a paragraph and its amendment after the discussion is completed on that particular amendment, we may find, at the conclusion of our discussions, that we do not remember the texts of the amendments proposed. I think it may prove to be rather confusing, therefore, to :vote upon all the amendments'at the conclusion of our 9iscussions. For this reason, I shall ask for a vote on each amendment as the discussion on that amendment is completed. Of course, it goes without saying that the amendeq text of the resolution will be subject to a vote later, after all the amendments have been accepted. Of course it also goes without saying that, in the particular' ~ M. PARODI (France): Je comprends ce que vient de dire notre collegue, M. Gromyko. Mais, si I'on prenait completement en consideration le raisonnement qu'il vient de faire, on en arriverait, je crois, a voter tous les textes en commen~ant par la fin et en remontant, ce qui n'est pas tres pratique; et cep.'est pas ce que nous faisons generalement. Je crois qu'il est tres difficile que nous ne prenions pas une decision a la fin d'une discussion sur un paragraphe donne. Sinon, le resultat de la discussion serait perdu de vue et il faudrait recommencer completement une seconde fois. n me semble done que, de toute maniere, nous sommes conduits a un double vote, comme vous I'avez propose. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Je voudrais eviter une longue discussion sur cette question de procedure. Je me bornerai done a dire quelques mots en ma qualite de President, avant de formuler une decision. Je comprends parfaitement le point ,de vue du representant de I'Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques. D'autres representants ont souleve la question avant la seance, au caurs de conversations particulieres. Theoriquement, il est evidemment exact que l'attitude d'un membre a l'egard des !J.mendements peut dependre de ce qui est dit au cours de la discussion d'un autre amendement. D'autre part, il y aurait la une grosse difficulte d'ordre pratique, etant donnecomme nous pouvons en juger d'apres notre experience actuelle - que les divers paragraphes font l'objet de longues discussions. A moins de mettr.e aux voix un paragraphe et son amende~ ment une fois terminee la discussion. de cet amendement particulier, il se peut que nous constations, a la fin des discussions, que nous ne nous souvenons plus du texte des amendements proposes. n pourrait doni:: etre assez embalTassant de voter sur tous les amendements a la fin de nos debats. Je demanderai done que chaque amendement soit mis aux voix apres avoir ete discute. Il va evidemment sa...'1S dire que le texte amen~e de la resolution sera ulterieurement soumis a un vote lorsque tous les amendements auront ete acceptes. Il va aussi sans dire que, daIIS le cas particulier ou l'auteur de la resolution accepte Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): The United States delegation accepts that amendment. In our opinion, the substantive value is not ch~ged at all. Mr. HSIA (China): The Chinese delegation is not opposed to this particular paragraph. We have no amendment to make, but we wish to make a few comments for the consideration of the United States representative. This particular paragraph does not help very much. It summarizes the contents of the resolution. Incidentally, a portion of the paragraph gives credit to the Commission of Investigation for its contribution to the resolution. However, $e paragraph creates certain difficulties, as I see it. In the first place, it ("teates a difficulty of form, inasmuch as it stands in a different light from the rest of the paragrapHs. The other paragraphs consist of recommendations or proposals of the report, while this one is of a somewhat different nature; it is a more general statement. The second difficulty is one of logic. I think somebody said this morning that we are t>rejudging the matter, assuming that we proceed paragraph by paragraph, if we adopt this paragraph without adopting the subsequent paragraphs; we are committing ourselves by voting for it. My third comment is that, for those who were opposed to the original proposal in the report, this paragraph creates a dilemma, because a vote for the proposals is a vote for the entire resolution. Some of the members of the Commission agreed to accept some of the proposals. Those members who agreed to vote for some of the recommendations are not able to vote for the entire resolution. As I see it, it might be a dilemma for such members who are in a different position from the rest of the Commission. For these reasons, I respectfully suggest it might be better to proceed to paragraph 2-that is, take up the .substance of the whole resolution Nous passons maintenant au deuxieme amendement presente par la delegation de la France, qui est un amendement au premier paragraphe du projet de resolution; l'amendement suggere de rediger comme suit ce paragraphe: "Le Conseil de securite adopte dans leur substance les propositions presentees par la majorite des membres de la Commission d'enquete." Je voudrais demander au representant des Etats-Unis ce qu'H pense de l'amendement propose. M. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais): La delegation des Etats-Uni! accepte cet amendement, qui, a notre avis, ne change en rien le fond de la resolution. M. HSIA (Chine) (traduit de l'anglais): La delegation de la Chine ne s'oppose pas a l'adoption de ce paragraphe. Nous n'avons pas d'amendement a presenter, mais nous desirons soumettre quelques commentaires sur lesquels nous appelons l'attention du representant des Etats-Unis. Ce paragraphe particulier n'est pas d'une grande utilite. H resume la resolution. Incidemment, une partie de cc paragraphe rend hommage a la Commission d'enquete pour avoir apporte sa contribution a la resolution. Cependant, ce paragraphe souleve, a mon sens, certaines difficultes. En premier lieu, une difficulte de forme, du fait qu'il se presente autrement que les autres paragraphes. Ces derniers consistent en recommandations ou propositions tirees du rapport, tandis que celui-ci est d'une nature quelque peu diffel'ente; il constitue une declaration plus generale. La deuxieme difficulte est d'ordre purement logique. Quelqu'un a declare ce matin, je crois, que nous prejugerions la question, a supposer que nous procedions paragraphe par paragraphe, en adoptant ce paragraphe-ci sans adopter les suivants, car, en l'adoptant, nous nous engageons. En troisieme lieu, je voudrais faire observ~r que, pour ceux qui etaier.t contre la proposition originale du rapport, ce paragraphe cree un dilemme. En efIet, voter en faveur des propositions, c'est voter en faveur de la resolution tout enticre. Certains membres de la Commission or.t decide d'accepter certaines propositions. Ceux des membres qui ont decide de voter pour certaines recommandations ne peuvent pas voter pour l'ensemble de la resolution. A mon avis, cela peut constituer un dilemme pour les membres de la Commission dont l'attitude est differente de celle des autres. Pour ces diverses raisons, .ie suggere respectueusement qu'il serait pe\lt-etre preferable de passer au paragraphe 2, c'est-a.-dire d'etudie; "~ I have no objection to this procedure, unless any of the other members object. Mr. PARODI (France) (translated from French): I probably misunderstood what the representative of China said; I thought he wished to delete this paragraph entirely. I would remind yeu that there was another proposal this morning by the representative of C:olombia, to the effect that this paragraph, instead of being a separate article, should be added to the preamble which would read as foll.ows: "The Security Council, adopting in their substance the proposals submitted by the majority of the members of the Commission of Investigation ..." Then would come the articles. Personally, I have no preference between these different suggestions. I shall support the one which the United States representative thinks best, since the alterations concern a text which he originally introduced. M. PARODI (France): J'avais probablement mal compris ce que le representant de la Chine avait dit; je croyais qU'il envisageait la suppression complete de ce paragraphe. Je rappellerai, pour ma part, qu'il y a eu~ ce matin, une autre proposition emanant du representant de la Colombie, et seIon laqueHe ce paragraphe, au lieu de constituer un article special, serait ajoute - au preambule, qui se lirait alors ainsi: "Le Conseil de securite, adoptant dans leur substance les propositions presentees par la majorite des membres de la Commission d'enquete ... " On passerait ensuite aux articles. Personnellement, je n'ai pas de preference quanta ces difl'erentes suggestions et je me rallierai a ceRe qui paraitra la meilleure au representant des Etats-Unis, puisqu'il s'agit de modifications au texte qU'il avait primitivement introduit.

The suggestion is to put the second French amendment into the preamble. I should like to have the opinion of the representative of the United States. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Conformement a cette suggestion, le deuxieme amendement fran~ais figurerait dans le preambule. J'aimer&is connaitre le point de vue du representant des Etats-Unis a eet egard. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): It is not entirely clear to me what the representative of China has proposed. But I may venture a little comment on his observations regarding paragraph 1 as it now stands, or as it was in our original resolution. M. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais): Je n:; saisis pas tres bien ce que le representant de la Chine a propose.- Toutefois, je me permettrai de faire un bref commentaire sur les observations qu'il a formulees au sujet du pa.ragraphe 1 tel qU'il se presente actuellement, ou tel qu'il se presentait dans notre resolution initiale. Je crois qu~ le point souleve par le represeI'4- tant de la Chine a ete partiellement regIe pa.r l'amendement du representant de la France. Si nous adoptons la substance des propositions presentees par la Commission - et c'est ce que notre delegation pense que nous devrions fair~ - cela n'implique pas que fun que1conque des membres ne puisse pas avoir une opinion differente en ce qui concerne le detail de ces propositions. Nous en adoptons la substance, nous en approuvons la portee generale. Je crois que c'etait la l'idee d!' representant de la France lorsqu'il a propose cet adlelldement. La delegation des Etats-Unis estime qu'un paragraphe de ce genre, ou un paragraphe qui contiendrait la meme idee, n'est veritablement pas deplace dans ·cette resolution. Notre travail actuel se fonde sur un rapport qui a exigeun grand effort de la part de la Commission cre6e I think the point of the representative of China has been partly met by the amendment suggested by the representative of France. 1£ we adopt the substance of the proposals made by the Commission-which the United States delegation thinks we ought to do-that does not mean that any individual member might not have different views regarding details of those proposals. We adopt them in their substance, in 'their overall intent. I believe that was the idea in the mind of the representative of France when he proposed this amendment. • The United States delegation thinks that a paragraph like this one, or one which would embody the same idea, is not really out of place in this resolution. We are basing our present Work on a painstaking report by the Commission ..et, U~hy the Security Council. The C~mmiss~on We were willing, however, to accept the modification suggested by the representative of France. I hope the Council will be able to approve our proposal with this modification. With respect to the suggestion made by the representative of Colombia, and referred to a moment ago by the representative of France, the United States would have no objection to the incorporation of this first paragraph in the preamble, because the idea that we would like to see expressed in our resolution is that we have adopted the proposals made by our Commission, at least in their substance; we would then spell out the specific details which we adopt. We should' be quite satisfied with the incorporation of that idea in the preamble, if the majority of the Council so wishes. Mr. L6PEz (Colombia): As I have already stated, the Colombian delegation does not propose to submit any amendments. We have made several suggestions. I should like to make clear our suggestion concerning thiS particular point. There is, to our minds, a difference between adopting the substance of the proposals made by the majority of the members of the Commission, and following the proposals made by the majority of the members of the Commission, which was our suggestion. I just want to make that clear and to say that I am very glad that both the United States delegation and the French delegation find that satisfactory. Colonel HODGSON (Australia): I am not speaking on the question of whether or not we should defer consideration of this paragraph, as suggested by the representative of China. I am speaking on the point that the substance of the paragraph should be made a part of the preamble. The representative of the United States says that he is happy to accept that; my delegation would regret it. But if he has definitely accepted it, we should have no objection. However, a preamble indicates the objective; it indicates an existing set of facts or circumstances, or indicates the subject-matter of the ';!solution, treaty, or whatever it may be. This is not a preamble at all. This is very positive action. This is the first decision we are taking, namely, that we adopt the proposals made by the majority. In our opinion this is not a preamble at all. It is a very definitive part of the text, and we prefer to see it in the text as paragraph 1. M. L6PEz (Colombie) (traduit de l'ang1ais) :. Ainsi que je l'ai declare anterieurement, la delegation de la Colombie n'a aucunement l'intention de soumettre des amendements. Nous avons emis plusieurs suggestions, et j'aimerais preciser celle que nous avons faite sur ce point particulier. Selon nous, il existe une difference entre adopter dans leur substance les propositions formuIees par la majorite des membres de la Commission, et suivre les propositions de cette majorite, ainsi que nous l'avions propose. Je voulais tout simplement eclaircir ce point et faire connaitre que j'etais tres heureux que la delegation des Etats-Unis et celle de la France se declarent satisfaites. Le colonel HODGSON (Australie) (traduit de l'ang1ais): Je n'aborderai pas id la question de savoir si nous devons ou non renvoyer l'examen de ce paragraph'e, ainsi que l'a propose le representant de la Chine. Le point qui m'interesse est l'inclllsion dans le preambule de la substance du dit paragraphe. Le representant des Etats-Uriis vient de dire qu'il acceptera volontiers cette proposition, ce que ma delegation regretterait. Toutefois, si cette acceptation est definitive, nous ne nous y opposerons pas. Cependant, un preambule definit un objecti~; il indique un ensemble de circonstances et de faits existants, ou encore ce qui fait le fond d'une resolution, d'un traite ou de 'tout autre document. Ici il ne s'agit pas du tout d'un preambule. n s'agit d'un acte tout a fait positif. C'est la premiere decision que nous prenons, celle d'aclopter les propositions f~ites par la majorite. A notre avis, il ne s'agi~ pas du tout d'un preambule. C'est tres nettement une partie du texte, et nous prefererions qu'elle constitue le paragraphe 1. In my own mind-and perhaps my mind is somewhat peculiar-the word "majority" is an unhappy one. I 'should like to see every trace of disagreement eliminated from this important document. Should this resolution be eventually adopted, I hope it may be adopted unanimously. It seems unfortunate to have it stated here that there has been disagreement in the Commission. This may not be a ma,tter of great moment however. Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria): I simply wish to call to the attention of the Council one word which does not sound correct to me. I should . like to ask the English-speaking members if it i'S agreeable to them; if so, I shall consider that I am mistaken. In the United States proposal, there appears the phrase "adopts the proposals." In this phrase the word "adopts", I think, is correctly used. In the French amendment, however, the phrase appears as "adopts the substance of the proposals." I consider that the word "adoption" implies that the thing adopted is something definitely defined, like a resolution or a text; but the "substance" cannot be clearly defined. Therefore, it might perhaps be better to state that the Security Council views with favour the substance of the proposals, or words to that effect. I do not know what phraseology would be proper. However, the "substance" of a thing, which is not defined, should not be "adopted". I do not think the word "adopt" is correctly used.

May I ask the representative of the United States for his reaction to the linguistic point that has been raised. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America) : It is sometimes difficult-or certainly I find it so-to express in precise terms exactly what a word or a group of words conveys to my mind. However, the meaning of these words is quite simple and' clear to me, although I may not be able to convince the representative of Syria of that. , We have a set of proposals. We say that we adopt those proposals, which was the original suggestion of the United States delegation; in that case, we adopt them word for word as they appear in the report. However, if we adopt their ·substance, that means we recognize that they ~ontain a set of hard facts; they have substance; there are certain things in the proposals which are essential and some which are not. When we ~adopt the substance of the proposals, we adopt M. EL-KHOURI (Syrie) (traduit de l'anglais): Je voudrais simplement attirer l'attention du Conseil sur un mot qui ne me parait pas correctement employe. Je serais heureux que les membres de langue anglaise me disent s'ils l'acceptent; si oui, je considererai que c'est moi qui fais erreur. \ On trouve dans la proposition des Etats-Unis les termes "adopte les propositions". Le mot "adopte" me parait etre employe a juste titre dans cette phrase. Cependant, dans l'am~nde­ ment fran~ais, la phrase devient "adopte dans leur substance les propositions". SeIon moi, le mot "adopte" implique que la chose adoptee est nettement definie, une resolution ou un texte par exemple. La "substance", toutefois, ne saurait etre definie clairement. En consequence, il serait peut-etre preferable de declarer que le Conseil de securite se prononce en faveur de ces propositions quant a leur substance; on pourrait egalement employer une autre formule a cet effet. Je ne sais quelle est la redaction qui conviendrait le mieux; mais la "substance" d'une chose, qui n'est pas definie, ne doit pas etre "adoptee". Je ne crois pas que le mot "adopte" soit correctement employe ici. Le PREsIDENT (traduit de l'ang1ais): Puis-je demander au representant des Etats-Unis ce qu'il pense de la question linguistique qui vient d'etre soulevee? M. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (tra-,- duit de l'ang1ais): 11 est que1quefois difficile - tout au moins tel est le cas pour moi - d'expiimer en termes precis et de fa~on exacte ce qu'evoquent un mot ou un groupe de mots. Cependant, le sens des mots en question me semble tres simple et clair, meme si je ne parviens pas a en convaincre le representant de la Syrie. Nous nous trouvons en presence d~un ensemble de propositions. Si nous disons que nous adoptons ces propositions, selon la suggestion originale de la delt~gation des Etats-Unis, nous les adoptons mot pOuf mot, telles qu'elles figurent dans le rapport. En revanche, si nous les adoptons dans leur substance, cela veut dire que nous reconnaissons que ces propositions renferment un ensemble de faits indiscutables qui en sont la substance; elles contiennent des elements qui sont Mr. PARODI (France) (translated from French): I should like to make a brief observation. We have before us two different English translations of the French text. The first, on white paper, was circulated this morning and contains the words "in their substance," which is an exact translation of the French. The second, on yellow paper, was circulated this afternoon and is drafted: ". . . adopts the substance of ..." I think that the former of these translations is the better. Mr. KERNO (Assistant Secretary-General in ' charge of Legal Affairs): The text on white paper was prepared in a great hurry this morning. We saw many imperfections in it. We therefore edited the second text, which was considered a better one. Now I see that, in this particular instance, the contrary happened, and I recognize that it is the text on white paper which is the better. Therefore, we have a new proof of the French saying, Le mieux est I'ennemi du bien. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): With regard to the translation which was given us this morning, I should like to point out that there were extreme inaccuracies. For instance, as I mentioned this morning, the preamble as given us in the English translation would have been impossible f01" the United States to accept, because it was in detail and in substance.

The representative of France has written down on paper the text as he now envisages it. I shall read from the French text: "Adopting in their substance the proposals submitted by the majority of the members of the Qommission of Investigation, the Security Council decides"l and so forth. I am asking the Secretariat to have the text re-typed with the proposed change. I wonder whether the members of the Council consider the discussion on this subject closed, or whether they wish to wait until the final text is presented to them? I think it might be desirable to follow the latter course, as it will take only a few minutes. Colonel HODGSON (Australia): I do not desire to prolong the discussion, but I have given M. PARODI (France): Je voudrais faire une breve remarque. Nous avons sous les yeux deux traductions anglaises differentes du texte fran- ~ais. La premiere, sur papier blanc, a ete distribuee ce matin et contient les mots in their substance, ce qui est la traduction exacte du texte franc;;ais. La seconde, sur papier jaune, nous a ete distribuee cet apres-midi et est ainsi redigee: adopts the substance of •.. Je pense que c'est la. premiere de ces deux traductions qui est la bonne. M. KERNO (Secretaire general adjoint charge des questions juridiques) (traduit de l'anglais): Le texte sur papier blanc a ete prepare ce matin en grande hate. Nous avons constate qu'il contenait de nombreuses imperfections. Nous avons alors fait paraitre un deuxieme texte, juge meilleur. Je m'aperc;;ois maintenant que, dans ce cas particulier, il n'en a rien ete; au contraire, c'est le texte sur papier blanc qui est le meilleur des deux, j'en conviens. Ce qui prouve une fois de plus le bien-fonde du proverbe franc;;ais: "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien." M. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais): Je signale que la traduction qui nous a ete distribuee ce matin renferme des erreurs tres graves. 11 aurait ete notamment impossible pour les Etats-Unis, ainsi que je I'ai declare ce matin, d'aocepter le preambule tel qu'il nous a ete presente en anglais; il etait en effet inexact quant au fond, et contenait aussi des erreurs de detail. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): ,Le representant de la France a redige le texte tel qu'il le conc;;oit maintenant. Je vais donner lecture du texte franc;;ais: "Adoptant dans leur substance les propositions presentees par la majorite des membres de la Commission d'enquete, le Conseil de securite decidel ... ", et cretera. ' J'ai prie le Secretariat de faire dactylographier le texte en tenant compte de la modification proposee. Je me demande si les membres du Conseil considerent comme close la discussion sur ce sujet, ou s'ils desirent attendre que l~ texte definitif leur soit presente. Je crois qu'il serait preferable d'opter pour la deuxieme solution; c~a ne demandera que quelques minutes. Le colonel HODGSON (Austraiie) (traduit de l'anglais): Je ne veux pas prolonger la discus- Mr. PARODI (France) (translated from French): I am not speaking at the moment in reply to the Australian representative. Since we are making a written draft of the text, I should merely like to add the word "consequently" at the beginning. The sentence would read as follows: "Consequently, adopting in their substance the proposals," etc. This would, moreover, be in conformity with the original United States draft. Mr. L6PEZ (Colombia): The matter which was brought up by the representative of China is not one of little moment; on the contrary, it seems to us that it is highly important. If, by the way we draft this paragraph we can succeed in getting it generally accepted, it is worth-while to stop and consider what wording is the most likely to meet with the general acceptance of the Council. That is why we have ventured to suggest that, instead of adopting the proposals before discussing them, we should say, "Following the proposals of the majority of the Corn- . . " nussIOn ... If, by positive act of the Council, we are going to specify'-the recommendations, it does not seem necessary to say that we adopt them before we repeat them one by one. Therefore, I think the suggestion of the representative of China, to the effect that we should say "following the proposals ..." instead of saying that we adopt them, is highly important.

It is now suggested that we should simply say "following the proposals ..." Colonel HODGSON (Australia): That is an entirely new concept. If we ad.opt what was suggested by the representative of Colombia, I quite agree that the phrase does become part of the preamble; but the other way it becomes part of the definitive text, because it is a very definite action. That is the distinction I should like to make. Mr. MUNIZ (Brazil): I have a suggestion to make which may reconcile these differences. I would suggest that we sa.y "taking note", and in French prenant ~cte of the proposals, and so on.

Does the representative of the United States wish to express an opinion on that subject? Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America) : I agree with the observation made by the representative of Australia a moment ago, and I had b M. PARODI (France): Je ne prends pas la parole en ce moment pour repondre au representant de l'Australie. Je voudrais simplement, puisque nous faisons une redaction ecrite du texte, ajouter a ce1ui-ci les mots "en consequence" au debut; la phrase se lirait ainsi: "En consequence, adoptant, dans leur substance, les propositions", etc. Ce serait reprendre d'ailleurs le terme qui figure dans le projet initial des Etats-Unis. M. L6PEz (Colombie) (traduit de l'anglais) : La question qu'a soulevee le representant de la Chine n'est pas de peu d'importance. Elle me parait etre, au contraire, d'importance capitale. Si la redaction que nous donnerons a ce paragraphe nous permet d'obtenir qu'il soit accepte de tous, il y a interet, je crois, a nous arreter pour examiner quel est le texte qui aura le plus de chances de recueillir l'approbation generale du Conseil. C'est pour cette raison que je me suis permis de suggerer que, au lieu d'adopter les propositions avant de les discuter, nous declarions "suivant Ies propositions de la majorite de la Commission ... " Si, par un acte positif du Conseil, nous specifions les recommandations, il parait inutile de declarer que nous les adoptons avant de les avoir repetees une a une. En consequence, je pense que la proposition du representant de la Chine, demandant que nous dec1arions "suivant les propositions ... " au lieu de dire que nous les adoptons, est d'une importance capitale. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): 11 est maintenant propose de declarer simplement "suivant les propositions ... " Le colonel HODGSON (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais): C'estla une notion entierement nouvelle. Si nous adoptons ce qu'a propose le renresentant de la Colombie, le membre de phrase devient,' je le reconnais, partie du preambule; mais, dans le cas contraire, il devient partie du texte definitif, car il s'agit alors d'une action bien precise. Telle est la distinction que je desire etablir. M. MUNIZ (Bresil) (traduit de l'anglais): Je voudrais presenter une proposition propre a concilier les points de vue. Je propose que nous disions en anglais taking note et en fran~ais "prenant acte" des propositions, etc. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Le representant des Etats-Unis desire-t-il exprimer son opinion a ce sujet? M~ JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (trdduit de l'anglais): J'approuve la remarque qu'a formulee il y a quelques instants le representant de l'Australie; c'est a cela que je pensais lorsque The United States delegation would follow the will of the majority of the Council on either of the following alternatives: the adoption of the general phraseology used in the text as it stands, in the form of a separate paragraph; or the incorporation of the idea in the preamble, along the lines suggested by the representative of Colombia, omitting the word "adopts" but using the word "following". I believe that "taking note", suggested by the representative of Brazil, is not quite as strong in English as "following". "Following" suggests that one is actually going along with a certain .line of thought or recommendation, whereas the other expression means that one merely takes note of a recommendation, without suggesting that one is going along with it.. I thank the representative of Br'azil for his suggestion, but I would prefer the one made by the representative of Colombia, if we are to make any change from the text as it now stands containing the word "adopts". Mr. L6PEz (Colombia): I believe that this also has to do with our general approach to the problem. In our opinion, our suggestions are no weaker than the others; but they are, perhaps, a. little more conciliatory, a little more acceptable from the point of view of those delegations which so far have expressed their disagreement with the original United States proposal. To that extent we believe that it is very important, if the United States representative has no objection, that we should leave this phrase irt the preamble, according to our suggestion. Mr. PARODl (France) (translated from French): I am in favour of the words "following in substance the proposals ...", which are suggested by the representative of Colombia. The term "take note", which might also have been used, does not go as well-in French at least-. with the term "in their substance" which follows. "To take note" suggests a legal finding, that is to say, something precise which does not fit in with a general remark like "in their substance". The best wording, which I personally would support, would be that which I proposed in my second amendment ta the' preamble, namely: "following in their substance the proposals .•." as the Colombian representative has suggested. M. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais): Si l'on adopte le texte propose par la Colombie, je m'opposerai a l'inse._rt_i....o.n_A ---- ~~--~" _."."~._--~_._-"--_._"-----_ - Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): If the Colombian text is to be adopted, I object to the insertion of the word "substance". I do M. L6PEz (Colombie) (traduit de l'anglais) : A mon avis, cette question se rattache egalement a la maniere generale dont nous abordons le probleme. Il ne me parait pas que nos sugges- , tions soient pius faibles que les autres; elles sont peut-etre un peu plus empreintes de conciliation, un peu plus susceptibles d'etreacceptees par les delegations qui se sont jusqu'a ce jour prononcees contre la proposition initiale des Etats-Unis. Nous pensons donc qu'il est tres important, si le representant des Etats-Unis n'y voit pas d'obstacle, de laisser cette expression dans le preambule comme nous l'avons propose. M. PARODl (Fiance): J'appuie le~ mots "suivant, dans leur substance, les propositions ... ", qui sont" suggeres par le representant de la CQlombie. Le terme "prendre acte" qui aurait pu, lui aussi, etre employe, va moins bien - en fran~ais tout au moins - par rapport au terme "dans leur substance" qui vient ensuite. "Prendre acte" evoque une idee de constatation juridique, c'est-a-dire precise, qui va mal avec une reference generale comme celle qu'evoquent les mots "dans leur substance". La meilleure formule, celle que j'appuie en ce qui me conceme, consiste a reporter le deuxieme amendement que j'avais propose au preambule, dans ces termes: "suivant, dans leur substance, les propositions ... ", ainsi que le representant de la Colombie fa propose. Mr. PARODI (France) (translated from French): I am sorry, but I cannot agree to the deletion of the words "in their substance". The expression: "following the proposals of the majority of the members of the Commission" means, in French, that they are being followed, not in a general manner, but purely and simply. That is why I adhere to the term~ "following in their substance ..." From the point of view of written language, the words are perhaps not very good; it would certainly be bad if we said "following the substance of the proposals". But: "following in their substance the proposals . . ." would in my opinion be as good as: '~adopting in their substance the proposals ..." in French, at least, and I believe in English too. I think that the United States representative could accept this wording. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America) : I think it may be argued that the expressions "following.the proposals" and "the proposals, in their substance" are almost synonymous, so that if you combine them you have un double affaiblissement dans le texte original. I prefer that the members of the Council should decide which expression we should adopt. I would accept the decision of the Counch either way. Mr. LAWFORD (United Kingdom): As one of the English-speaking members of the Council, I should like to say that "following in their substance" has a rather strange ring to me. It does not sound like English at an, but it wo.uld not be the first time that the Cou,lcil has accepted a text which is not couched in beautiful English. Perhaps, therefore, it does not really matter. One might have said "following in their spirit," but "spirit" and "substance" are two completely different things, and I do not think that is what we mean. I.personally would be in favour of saying "followmg the proposals". I think it comes to the same thing in the end and it does not sound quite so barbarian. . Mr. L6PEz (Colombia): I do not know Eng- 1'tt7h very well, but it seems to me that, if you M. PARODI (France): Je regrette, mai! je ne peux pas accepter d'abandonner les mots "dans leur substance". l'expression: "suivant les propositions de la majorite des membres' de la Commission" indique, en fran~ais, qu'on les suit, non pas d'une maniere generale, mais purement et simplement. C'est pourquoi je tiens au terme: "suivant, dans leur substance, ... " Les mots ne sont peut-etre pas excellen~ au point de vue de la langue ecrite; i1s seraient certainement mauvais si l'on disait "suivant la substance des propositions". Mais: "suivant, dans leur substance, les propositions ... " peut, a mon sens, aller aussi bien que: "adoptant, dans leur substance, les propositions ... " en fran~ais, tout au mains; et, je crois, en anglais aussi. Je pense que le representant des Etats-Unis pourrait accepter cette formule. M. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Arnerique) (traduit de l'anglais): On pourrait peut-etre faire valoir que les expressions "smvant les propositions" et "les propositions dans leur substance" sont presque synonymes, de sorte qu'en ~es combinant on obtient "un double affaiblissement dans le texte original". A mon avis, il serait preferable que les membres du Conseil se prononcent en faveur de l'une ou l'autre expression. Pour ma part, je me rangerai a. la decision du Conseil, queUe qu'elIe soit. M. LAwFoRD (Royaume-Uni) (traduit de l'anglais): En tant que membre de langue anglaise, je tiens afaire remarquer que l'expression following in their substance sonne assez mal a mon oreille. Ce1a ressemble assez peu a de l'anglais, mais ce ne serait pas la premiere fois que le Conseil accepterait un texte qui ne soit pas redige en un anglais parfait. Ce1a n'a done peut-etre que peu d'importance. On aurait pu dire following in their spirit (suivant, dans leur esprit), mais spirit et substance sont qeux choses entierement differentes, et je ne crois pas que ce soit la ce que nous voulons exprimer. PersonneUement, je prefererais la phrase following the proposals (suivant les propositions) . EUe me paralt, en :fin de compte, signifier la meme chose et n'etre pas tou" d fait aussi 1:>arbare. Mr. LAWFORD ,(United Kingdom): I can only say that the English language is not as logical as Mr. Parodi would like it to be.

The proposed text has now been distributed to the members of the Council, and I wonder if we shall be able to finish this point before we adjourn this evening. I shall ask the representative of the United States whether he is ready to adopt the text in its present wording, and the other members of the Council whether they desire to make any amendments. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America) : I do not wish to prolong this discussion unduly, or to haggle over what might not be a matter of substance. If the majority of the Council wants this text, the United States delegation will take it, but I think the last sentence is wretchedly drafted so far as English is concerned. The meaning, however, is perfectly clear. I should like to point out also that the Secretariat, in preparing this, has again used the text distributed this moming, 011 white paper, which is a very bad English translation, instead of using the new text contained in document Si430. It has used the word "studied" instead of "considered the report" and "finds that it is concerned with a dispute" instead of "finds that a dispute exists, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace". The Secretariat has used for this the wrong French translation, one which I had hoped would have been destroyed by now.

It is true that the text in the new translation should be the basis of the discussion. The representative of the United States said that he is ready to accept the last sentence of the French amendment to the preamble of his draft resolution, if that is the wish of the majority of the members. A number of members have expressed their views. I should like to know whether any other members wish to speak. Colonel HODGSON (Australia): I wish to say, as far as my delegation is concerned, that we desire just "following the proposals". M. LAWFORD (Royaume-Uni) (traduit de l'anglais): Tout ce que je puis dire, c'est que la langue anglaise n'est pas aussi logique que le voudrait M. Parodi. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Le texte propose a maintenant ete distribue aux membres du Conseil. Je ne sais si nous pourrons terminer l'examen de ce point avant de lever la seance ce £jir. Je demanderai donc au representant des Etats-Unis s'il est dispose a adopter le texte sous sa forme actuelle, et aux autres membres du Conseil s'ils desirent y apporter des amendements. M. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais): Je ne desire pas prolonger indument cette discussion ni chicaner sur ce qui paurrait ne pal> ,;tre une question de fond. Si la majorite du ConseD adopte ce texte, la delegation des Etats-Unis se rangera a son avis, mais je pense que, dans le texte anglais tout au moins, la derniere phrase est redigee de fa.~on pitoyable. Le sens, toutefois, en est parfait~ment clair. Je desire signaler egalement que le Secretariat, au lieu de se servir, pour cette redaetion, du nouyeau texte qui figure au document Si430; a de nouveau utilise le texte distribue ce matin sur papier blanc, qui est une tres mauvaise traduction anglaise. On a employe le mot studied au lieu de considered the report, et l'expression finds that it is concerned with a dispute au lieu de finds that a dispute exists, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace. Le Secretariat s'est aervi, pour rediger ce document, du mauvais texte fran~ais que j'aurais cru .:iepuis longtemps detruit. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Il est exact que c'est le texte de la nouvelle traduction qui devrait servir de base a la discussion. Le representant des Etats-Unis a declare qu'il est dispose a accepter la derniere phrase de l'amendement fran~ais au preambule de son projet de resolution, si tel est le vreu de la majorite du Conseil. Un certain nombre de membrcf ont deja donne leur avis. D'autres membres desirent-i1s prendre la parole? Le colonel HODGSON (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais): Au nom de ma delegation, je declare que nous preferons la formule following tke proposals (suivant les propositions). ......l Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria): I think there may be a third course: ". . . following the principles embodied in the proposals ..." We are adopting principles.

May I ask the representative of France for his reaction to the remark of the Syrian representative. Mr. PARODl (France) (translated from French): I should be quite favourable to the draft proposed by the representative of Syria; strictly speaking, however, it is not principles which are to be found in the conclusions of the Commission of Investigation, but recommendations. Moreover, if you say "fo~l<?wing in their principles . " ." you will meet the same difficulty from the point of view of the English version. Mr. L6PEZ (Colombia): I agree with the opinion of the representative of France that it is not a matter of principles, but of very definite recommendations. I venture to suggest, if it is acceptable to the French representative and to the United States delegation, that this last sentence should be modified. We say her~: "therefore resolves that . . .", and that does not go very well with the text of the following amendments. I would suggest that we place that wording at the beginning of the text, as follows: "Therefore, the Security Councv., following the proposals made by the majority of the members of the Commission of Investigation, resulves ..." and so on.

As far as correct English is conserned, it seems to me that the representative of Colombia is right. The word should be written at the beginning of the text. Mr. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgium) (translated from French): As regards this difficulty-I refer to the words "followin.g. in substance the proposals ..."-1 am in the same position as the United States representative. I shall support the opinion of the majority. Nevertheless, in the hope of reconciling the two versions, I venture to suggest that we should say "The Security Coun.,. cil, giving effect to the proposals of the majority of the members of the Commission . . ." Mr. LAWFORD (United Kingdom): What is the formula in English-"giving effect to"? Mr. PARODl (France) (translated from French): I am prepar~dto accept that wording. tmNeverth.e.less, I wonc1eI if the proposal to say .. ~. M. EL-KHOURI (Syrie) (traduit de l'anglais): Je crois qu'il pourrait meme y avoir une troisieme version: " ... suivant les principes contenus dans les propositions ... " Car ce sont des principes que nous adoptons. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Puis-je demander au representant de la France ce qu'il pense de l'observation du representant de la Syrie? M. PARODl (France) : Je serais assez favorable ala redaction proposee par le representant de la Syrie; cependant, ce ne sont pas a proprement parler des principes qui se trouvent dans les conclusions de la Commission d'enquete: ce sont des recommandations. D'autre part, si vous dites: "suivant, dans leurs principes, ... ", vous retrouverez la meme difficulte au point de vue de la version anglaise. M. L6PEZ (Colombie) (traduit de l'anglais) : Je partage l'avis du representant de la France. Il ne s'agit pas ici d'une question de principes, mais bien de recommandations tres precises. Si le representant de la France et la delegation des Etats-Unis n'y voient aucun inconvenient, je proposerai de modifier la demiere phrase. Nous disons "Decide, en consequence, de ... ", ce qui ne s'harmonise pas tres bien avec le texte des amendements qui suivent. A mon avis, il serait preferable de placer ce membre de phrase au debut du texte, comme suit: "En consequence,. le Conseil de securite, suivant les propositions formuIees par la majorite des membres de la Commission d'enquete, decide'\ etc. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais}: Je crois que le representant de la Colombie a raison du point de vue de la hngue anglaise. C'est bien au debut du texte que ces mots uevraient figurer. M. VAN LANGENHOVE (Be1gique): En ce qui conceme la difficulte dans laquelle nous nous trouvons - je me refere aux mots: "suivant, dans leur substance, les propositions ... " - je suis dans une position identique a celle du representant des Etats-Unis: je me rallierai a l'opinion de la majorite. Toutefois, dans l'espoir de rapprQt:her les deux formules qui ont ete presentees, je me risque a faire la suggestion suivante. On dirait: "Le Conseil de securite, donnant suite aux propositions de la majorite des membres de la COIlnnission, ... " M. LAWFORD (Royaume-Uni) (traduit de l'anglais): Quelle sera la formule en anglais? Sera-ce giving effect to? M. PARODI (France): Je suis pret a accepter cette formule. Cependant, je me demande si la proposition de dire " ... donnant suite a... ", Colonel HODGSON (Australia) : My delegation would object to that, because we do not think "giving effect to" is correct. "Giving effect" means that you have established the commission, and it has performed all its tasks. That is "giving effect" to the proposals. We have not started to give effect to them yet. So why not just use the words "following the proposals"? Mr. PAROD! (France) (translated from French): I can only speak for the French language. So far as the French language is con- .~erned, the expression suivant les propositions . .. is in my opinion more precise than the expression donnant suite aux propositions, and I am under the. impression that, on the contrary, in English "following" is broader and less precise than "giving effect". In French, ID any case, donnant efJet would on the contrary be very predse; donner efJet is the most precise wording. Suivant is precise; donnant suite is less precise. I urge that we say donnant suite an proposed by the Belgian·delegation.

Would there be agreement between the representative of the United States and the representative of France that the English text should read "following the proposals", and the French text donnant suite aux? Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): Without the word "substance"..

I think both representatives agree. U~ess other members wish to speak, we shall finish the discussion on this point. I understand that the representatIve of the United States accepts the np-'t/ text as part of his resolution, and com~quentiy,I shall consider this to be the final' text of the preamble cif the draft resolution pruposed by the United States. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): I M, JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (tra- Before giving the formal approval of my deleduii de l'anglais): Avant d'app~ouver formellegation, may I inquire whether t~is text consists ment le texte au nom de ma delegation, je fran~aise vcuillent bien m'excuser, mais je crois que les mats "donnant suite a" signifient en anglais giving efJect to. Le colonel HODGSON (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais): Ma delegation ne saurait accepter cette traduction; en effet, selon nous; giving efJect to n'est pas exact. Giving effect signifie que vous avez cree la Commission et que cel1e-ci s'est acquittee de toutes les taches qui lui etaient confiees. C'est cda qui est "donner'suite" aux pr,opositions. Or, nous n'avons pas encore commence a leur donner suite. Pourquoi done n'emploierions-nous pas simplement les mots following the proposals (suivant les propositions) ? M. PAROD! (France): Je ne puis pader que pour la langue fran~aise. En ce qui concerne la langue _[an~aise, l'expression "suivant les propositions ... " est plus precise, a mon avis, que l'expression "donnant suite aux propositions", et j'ai l'impression qu'au contraire, en anglais, following est plus large, mOlls precis que giving efJect. En tout cas, en fran~ais, "donnant effet" serait, au contraire, tres precis: "donner effet" est la formule la plus precise; "suivant" est preciS; "donnant suite" est mains precll:, J'insiste pour que naus disions "donnant suite", ainsi que l'a propose la delegation belge. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Les representants des Etats-Unis et de la France seraient-ils d'accord pour employer dans le texte anglais la formule following the proposals et dans le texte fran~ais "donnant suite aux"? M. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais): En supprimant le mat "substance". Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Je crois que les deux representants sl:>nt d'accord. 4. moins que d'autres membres ne desirent prendre la parole, nous all"ns considerer ce point comme regIe. Je pense done que le representant des EtatS- Unls ~cceote le nouveau texte comme faisant part;.~ de ~S" resolution· et, par consequent,· je co;:.i.ri.erf; '.le ceci est le "1:exte definitif du p,·eaubule au projet de resolution propose par Its Etats-Unis. M. KERNO (Secretaire general adjoint charge des questions juridiques) (traduit de l'angltlis) : Le texte est le suivant: Mr. KERNO (Assistant Secretary-General in charge of Legal Affairs): The whole text reads as follows: "The Security Council, being primarily responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security, by virtue of Article 24 of the Charter, having considered the report submitted by the Commission of L~vestigation established by the Council's resolution of 19 December 1946, finds that a dispute exists the continuance of which is likely to endanger the m~intenanceof international peace and security. Therefore: "The Security Council, being primarily responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security, by virtue of Article 24 of the Charter, having considered the report submitted by the Commission of Investigation established by the ':;ouncil's resolution of 19 December 1946, finds that a dispute exists, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security. Therefore: "The Security Council, following the proposals made by the majority of the members of the Commission of InvestigatioI'l, resolves . . ." "The Security Council, following the proposals made by the majority of the members of the Commission of Investigation, resolves . .. " M. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais): Je regrette de donner 1'impression de vouloir ergoter sur les mots, mais ce que l'on vient de nous lire est encore le tcxte discutable de la premiere traduction de ce matin, auquel on a apporte quelQUe8 modifications. Ce texte ne reproduit pas les termes de la Charte qui avaient ete inclus dans notre texte original; on lit, par exemple: being primarily responsible for the maintenance of international peace, au lieu de: having primary responsibility for the maintenance of iT cernational peace and security. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): I regret to seem to cavil over words; but the text as read out is still the objectionable text which was the first French translation of this morning, with certain chan3'es. It changes the language of the Charter which had been incorporated in our original text; for example, it reads ". . . being primarily responsible for the maintenance of international peace ..." instead of "... having primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security..." It is a small thing, but I do not see why the text of document 8/430, instead of the tentative translation made -this morning, should not be used as a basis for the new draft. C'est un point de detail, mais je ne comprends pas pourquoi on ne fonderait pas le nouveau texte sur le document 8/430, au lieu de le fonder sur la traduction provisoire faite ce matin.

The representative of the United States is correct and I shall see to it that his suggestion is followed. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Le representant des Etats-Unis a raison et je veillerai a ce que 1'on tienne compte de sa suggestion. Je crois que ceci termine notre examen du preambule et de ce qui etait le deuxieme amendement. Avant de lever la seance, j'aimerais ajouter simplement quelques mots' en ma qualite de representant de la POLOGNE. Le representant de la Pologne a re~u une lettre du representant de la Grece concernant un point du discours qu'il a prononce le 17 juillet1• Dans ce discours, il a fait allusion a certaines propositions formulees par les partis grecs, membres de la coalition de I'EAM, et, en particulier, a une proposition concernant la neutralite de la Grece. "Cette proposition est appuyee, non seulement par les partis de 1'EAM, mais par tous les partis de I'opposition grecque, notamment si nies renseignements sont exacts, par le parti liber~J de M. Sophoulis." I think this closes our consideration of the preamble and what was the second amendment. Before I adjourn the meeting, I should just like to say a few words as the ·represen1.~tive of POLAND. The representative of Poland has received a letter from the representative of Greece concerning one point in the speech he gave on 17 July.! This speech mentioned certain proposals of the Greek parties of the coalition of EAM, in particular a proposal concerning the neutrality of Greece. "This proposal has the support, not only of the parties of the EAM, but of all the parties of the Greek Opposition, including, if I am correctly informed, the Liberal Party of Mr. Sophoulis." Mr. DENDRAMIS (Greece) (translated from French): I thank you, Mr. President, for having been good enough to bring this communication to the notice of the members of the Council. The meeting rose at 6.15 p.m. M. DENDRAMIS (Grece): Je vous remercie, Monsieur le President, d'avoir bien voulu faire part de cette communication aux membres du Conseil. La seance est levee a 18 h. 15. Australia-AustraUe H. A. Goddard Pty. Ltd. 255a George Street SYDNEY, N. S. W. Belgium-Belgique Agence et Messageries de la Presse, S. A 14-22 rue du Persil BRUXELLES France Editions A Pedone 13, rue Souffiot PARIS, Ve Bolivia-BoUvie Libreria Cientifica y Literaria Avenida 16 de Julio, 216 Casilla 972 LA PAZ Greece-Grece "Eleftheroudakis" Librairie internationale Place de la Constitution ATHENES Canada' The R yerson Press 299 Queen Street West TORONTO Guatemala Jose Goubaud Goubaud & Cia Ltda. Sucesor Sa Av. Sur No. 6 y 9a C. P. GUATEMALA Haiti-Haiti Max Bouchereau Librairie "A la Caravelle" Bolte postale III-B PORT-AU-PRINCE Chile-ChiU Edmundo Pizarro Merced 846 SANTIAGO China-Chine The Commercial Press Ltd. 211 Honan Road SHANGHAI Costa Rica-Costa-Rica Trejos Hermanos Apartado 1313 SAN JOSE India-Inde Oxford Book & Stationery Co. Scindia .House NEW DELHI Cuba La Casa Belga 'Rene de Smedt O'Reilly 455 LA HABANA Iran Bongahe Piaderow 731 Shah Avenue TEHERAN Iraq-lrak Mackenzie & Mackenzie The Bookshop BAGHDAD Lebanon-Liban Librairie universelle BEYROUTH Czechoslovakia T checoslovaquie F. Topic Narodni Trida 9 PRAHA 1 Denmark-Danemark Einar Munskgaard Norregade 6 KJOBENHAVN L'uXembourg Librairie J. Schumn:,c' Place Guillauine LUXEMBOURG Dominican Republic Republique Dominicaine Libreria Dominicana Calle Mercedes No. 49 Apartado 656 CIUDAD TRUJILLO Netherlands--Pays-Bas N. V. Martinus Nijhoff Lange Voorhout 9 s'GRAVENHAGE Philippines D. P. Perez Co. 132 Riverside SAN JUAN Sweden-Suede A-B. C. B. Fritzes Kungl. Hofbokhandel Fredsgatan 2 STOCKHOLM Switzerland-Suisse Librairie Payot S. A LAUSANNE,GENEv~,VEVEY, MONTREUX, NEUCHATEL, BERNE, BASEL Hans Raunhardt Kirchgasse 17 ZURICH I Syria-Syrie Librairie universelle DAMAS Turkey--Turquie Librairie Hachette 469 Istiklal Caddesi BEYOGLU-IsTANBUL Union of South Mrica Union Sud-Africaine Central News Agency Ltd. Commissioner & Rissik Sts. JOHANNESBURG, CAPETOWN, DURBAN United Kingdom Royaume-Uni H.M. Stationery Office p.a. Box 569 LONDON, S.B. 1 and at H.M.S.O. Shops at LONDON, EDINBURGH, MANCHESTER, CARDIFF, BELFAST and BRISTOL United States of America Etats-Unis d'Amerique International Documents Service Columbia University Press 2960 Broadway NEW YORK 27, N. Y. Yugoslavia-Yougoslavie Drzavno Preduzece Jugoslovenska Knjiga Moskovska Ul. 36 BEOGRAD