S/PV.181 Security Council

Yes, that is my view. Colonel HODGSON (Australia): I wish' to support the request of the representative of the philippines. . . . The PRESIDENT: The letter has only just been received: It is not on the agenda for this meeting but it has been circulate,d in order to give the members an opportunity to read and study it. It could be .discussed at a later meeting. sidcrationof ·the facts. of the case might result in a diffet'ent . deCision. That 'beliefis suppor):ed by. the remarks of the honour. able .represelltative of tjIe .Un~ted Kingdom, who<. stated that he did not feel at the time that the text of my telegram, dated 1 August 1947 and addressed to the Secretary-General, had suffiCiently established ~e P~i1ip~ines' claim to having a speCial interest in the Indoneslan sltuation. Furthermore, the. honour. ·able representat~ve of Belgium properly p?inted out that the Security Council should not tak~. a. declslon on. the request until'it found out whether the. Phihppmes was speclally affected by that question, in' accordance with Article 31. of the <;harter. In the first place, my telegram was' not primarily intended' to suppo.rt with arguments the Philippine claim that its interests were specially affected. There was not space in a telegraphic message to do that. The main purpose of my telegram was to convey to. the Council the stanilo£ my Goverllment in favour of intervention 'by the Security Cot!llcil in the Indonesian question in the. interest of a pacific settlement. Illdeed, a careful .reading of my telegram will show that the. two grounds which) Sir Alexander Cadogall considered insufficient to warrant partiCipation by the.Philippines in the discussion, namely, its interest, in the maintenance of peace and security and its· humanitarian desire to .prevent further bloodshed, were cited in my telegram not ill. order to· .upport the claim that the Philippines was specially interested in the matter, but rather to explain the. Philippine stand ill favour of intervention by the Security Council. My telegram was confined to a general affirmation of speCial interest. I had assumed that 1 would be given more ample opportunity than was affo!l'ded in a brief telegram to explain why my Government considers itself spe· Cially affected by. the Indonesian situation•. That opportunity was not granted to 11 .e, and I am therefore submitting a memo orandum on the subject for the C<lnsideration of the Security .Council. .• My Goverd';;~nt fully understands that it is natural fop the honourable members of the Security Council to wish. to exercise the .utmost circumspection in granting to non·member States the privilege mentioned .inArticle 31 of the Charter. It is a privilege that· they would not wish to see abused. But it is , perhaps fair to say. that the sense of circumspection and the desire to prevent. abuse are shared equally by. the members of . the ; Gouncil and by all the other· Members of· the United Nations•. We believe that no Member of the United Nations, holding th!' Security Council in the utmoot respect, as. does my Government, would wish to .intrude within the precincts of !hat august body unless. it considered itself, in good sense 3lld 111' good faith, to. be specially affected by a question under discussion by the' Council. h This is the first request of this nature which my Government as. addressed to the Security Council. My Government has not ab!!sed and it does not int~d to abuse the hospitality and patience of the Council; I therefore reiterate the, r~uest of my Gov~rnl!lent and beg ~ou to be kind el).ough t<>. brmg this comm!lntcatlOn, together Wlth the attached memorandum to the atlentlOn of the.Council at the earliest possible moment.. M~~randum to the Secu~ity Co~cil On Friday, 1 August 1947, in'a telegram. addressed to the ~ec.retary~General of the United Nations L communicated the es!re 'of ~y Governmel}t to participate,'!ls' a Member of the Unlted 'Nations' .whose: 'mt~rests are speclally affe'cted by the matter .under d!SCUSSlon, m any further discussion of the ~h4o.ne~tan ques~lo.h. Since that request was denied without the . Ibpptl;tes recelv.mg 311 opportu~ity tOl explain why it con- :ft4ered Itself sJleclalIyaffected by the question under discussion Memorandum adresse at Conseil de se~urite . Le vendreC:i ler aout 1947, par un tel~gramme adresse au S~cretair~ general ·de l'Organisation· des Nations Unies j'ai falt saVQlr que mon GOlUvemement desirait participer en tant ll.ue .Membre des Nations Unies dont les int6rets ~nt particu!terement affectes par la lJ.u~stion en discussion a toute nO!Uv~lle discussion de la questlOn indonesienne au Conseil de s~curlte. Cette dem311de aY311t ete reJ;<lussee sans que les PhiIin' pmes aient ep la possibilite d'C'!'plil}.uer pour qUelles raisoDs elles .se cQl1,slderent comme partlCl~1terement affectees par la question a I examen nous soumettfJns le 'present memorandum C!,1 exprimant le desir qu'i1 solt remedi6 a ~ette omissioll facheuse. . , ' En prem\er lieu, il y a la proximite geographique. AUCU1~ autre Membre de I'Organisation des Nations Untes, sauf I'Aus. tralie, n'est plus proche du theatre des hostilites que les Philip. l?ine.s. Les n;tembres ~u Conseil se rappelleront CJ.ue lars de. la se~slon speclale de I AssembIee generale en mal dernier au . cou,:s de lli!luelle fat constituee la Commission speciale' des NatlOns Un1~S pour la Palestine, les Philippines ont decide, pour des ralsons geographlques, et aVe(: I'approbation de la pre!¥iere Comm.issiol}, de faire partie de la region .sud-ouest du " Paclfique. Cette reglOn comprend en gros I'Australie la 'Nou. velle-Zt!lande et les Philippines ainsi que °les iles de' I'aj'chipel ~es Indes orientales. Par consequent, si un pays neut a juste titre pretendre avoir. un interet particulier au ma1ntien. de la , palX daps. c.ette partle. du monde,. aV311t tout pour des raisons de pr!lltlmlte geographlque, ce pays est bien les Philippines. Mals notre deptande repose sur d'autres raisons egalement valables. Du pomt de vue ecdnomique, les Philippines sont .,. ~ m\ll11orand'!m:'·is presented with the desire to rectify th~ Unlortunate omlSSlon. '. There i,!l~ ,first of all, iIie factor of geographical proximity. ~o 0lther .M.Cl1!ber. of the United Natiollls,. unless it be Australia, IS c oser to the ~eatre pf h!lstilities than the Philippines. The me~~~rs of the Council wdl recall that during the special sess!on qf ili.e General Assembly last May, when the United ~attons..Sp~clal Committee on Palestine was being constituted, t !l Phihppmes elected,"with ·the sanction of the First Commltt.ee, tOl b~long ~o t!te ~outhwest Pacific Area for the 'purposes ~;aI!l'eo'1tphlcal dlstrlbution. That area roughly includes Ausislal~. iW thZealEand and the Philippines, together with the cou~: 0 e ast Indi311 archipelago. If, therefore, any m . t y 1nay properly claim to have a special interest in the amtenance of peace in that part of the world mainly on gr~~~ds of geographical p;:oximlty, that' country i~ the Philip- Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Telle est en effet mon opinion. . Le colonel HODGSON (Australie) (traduit de l'ang~ais): ]'appuie la demande presentee par le representant des :Philippines. . . Le PUSIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Cette lettre vient de parvenir au Conseil. Elle n'est pas insdite al'ordre du jour, mais elle a ete distribuee aux membres pour leur permettre d'en prendre connaissance et de l'etudier. Nous pourrions exarninercette lettre lors d'une seance ulterieure. nouvel examen des faits pourrait peut-etre entrainer une decision differente. Cettecvnviction de mon Gouvernement trouve un appui dans les remarques du representant du Royaillne·Uni qui ,a declare que le texte du teIegranune adresse par moi au S,ecretaire .Ileneral le ler ~out )947 ,!e,I?i semblait pa~ .et~blir d une mamere suffisante I'mteret pamcuher que les Phihppmes revendiquent. d311S la question indonesienne. En outre, le representant de la Belgique a signaIe que le Conseil de securite ne devait. pas statuer sur la demande avant d'avoir etabli si, d311S cette question, les interets des Philippines etaient particulierement affectes dans le sens de I'Article 31 de la Charte. En premier liell,. mon telegranune n'avait )las essei:tti~.IeJ1!ent pour Dut !le fourmr des arguments a.la these des Philippliles selon laquelle ses int.el'ets sont particulierement affectes. II n'y avait pas.suffisamment de place dans un message telegraphique pour cela. Le but essentiel de mon telegramme etait de faire connaitre au Conseil de securite que mon Gouvemement etait f!lvorable a l'intet;'entio31 du Consei~ clans la, situation in<;lone. sl~nne, . en vue d l1n reg!ement pacifique. En effet,' si on' lit sOlgueusement mon telegramme, on y veri'a que les deux raisons jugees i!'~uf!isantes par ~i,: AIC'!'ander ,cadog;an pour. l?ennettre aux. P!'tl~ppmes de p~rtlclper a. la diSCUSSion (I'illteret· pris au .ma.m~len ~e I!!: pSlX et de la securite, et le desir tout !;um:tmtalre d empeclier de nouvelles effusions de sang) avaient ete. mv?quees n0Ilppur dem!,nt':~ que l~s rhilippin~s 'p~~ten­ . qale'!t a bo!, drOIt e!t'e pat;.tlcnlleremen~ mteressees a la question mdoneslenne, malS plutot pour exphquer J;lOur quelle 'raisoD , les Philippines' etaient favorables a l'interventlOn du Conseil de securite. Je me, suis borne dans mon, telegramme a declarer d'un.e maniere generale, que les Philippines avaiefit un interet partlcul~e!".d.ans, cett~ affaire; J'avais pense qu'on qie donncrait ' la posSlbillt~ d exphquer ml~ux qu'on ne peut le faire dans ~n ~ref telegramm~pourquo~mo!' Gouverneme,!t s'es~e par•. t~c?hereme':t affecte par la sltuation en Indonesle. Cette possi• blhte ne m a pas ete accordee, et, en consequence, je soumets a l'='!'en .du Consilii de securite un memol'311dum sur cette question." .' Mon qouvern.emC?1~ tt;o!lve tout ·nameI que les me1l!Iires du C;;onst:tl de,secW;lte deslrent montrer la plus gr311de cir.cons- ~ectl,!n, d~I1S ~ OCtrOI aux Etats non membres du privilege mentlQnne I' I Artlcle ..31 de la Charte. C'est' un pri.vilege dont,ili"ne voudr~ent pas .qu'on abas.e. ;Mais ,il est· peut·etre juste de' dire que, Sl ·ce s,:ntiment de clrconspection et oe desir de prevenir tout abus exlstent parmi les. membres du Conseil, ils. sont_~par­ tages par .~o~ les autres.. Membres des NatioQs Unies. Nous croyo~s qu auc~ Membre des Nations Unies qui respecte le Conset!. d.e se<;urlt~ comme m~n Gouvernement le respecte, ne voudral.t !ffiJ;lOser sa pres~nce a cette auguste assemblee s'il ne' se conslderalt, en toute ralson et en toute ,bonne foi, particuliere. ment affecte par une question en discussion dev311t le Conseil. <;'est la premiere demande de cette nature qU'adre~s~ mon qouvc::rn~ment au Conse!l de securite..If. n'a jamais abus" de I hospltal!te et ,de la patlen.ce. du Conseil et n'a nuIle intention de le falre. C est pourquol Je renouvelle -la demande (le mon Gou~.ern"me,nt et .vous prie de..bien vouIoi. porter le plus tot posslble a ! attentll!n. du Conset! la presente lettre et le memo•. randum qUI y .est Jomt. ' Histo~ical1y,the Philippines and Indonesia are closely related, linked by.ties of culture and tradition that go back many centuries, long hefore the first European explorers ~ppeared on the scene. '" • • f th Ch h:ch Let us return to the relevant prOTIS,on' 0 e arter 11' , covers our request for participation. Article' 31 provides that any Member of the United Nations which' is' not a member of . the Security Council may participate in the discus\ion of any question brought1ietllre the Council whenever the latter con· sidersthat thj!' interests of that Member are "spedal1y affected". , The phrase lispecial1y affected" is Tape and though the ;Security Councillias, on at least one OCCasiO:il, tried to interpret its meaning, it ill our understanding that the learned members of this .body han so tar not' been able to agree on a precise definition. . . .. Th~ recOlrd, however, yields one pertinent and significant precedent. Last March, at, its hundred· and .eight~nth !Deetingl lli~ security Counc,l consIdered the requests of New Zealana and India' to be inTited to participate in the discussion of the United States trUsteeship proposal for the former Jllpanese mandated islands. India, which does not border on the Pacificl merely cited Article 31 of'the Charter ..nd was not requirea M the- Council tOl show proof of its special interest. New Zealand, on the other hand, gave such proof and based its 'special interest on the consideration that the disposition of those islands was an essential" part' of any' plan ft;Jr the control of Japan.· and of the 'peace settlement w,th that cOlUntry. On that jlrinc;!ple, New Zealand suggested that all the members of • -the Far Eastern Commission should be invited to participate also. if, they so deS~i-cd. . . Without ,.agreeing with that principle. the United Slates rep- 'resentative freely assented to the request of India and New Z~and to·parti.cipate in the'disc1!ssion on the gro~ds:-:to qu~e hIS own worlfs-:."that the subJect of trusteeshIp 's of the' 'highest ethical character"• and that "consequently, the pro· ; cedui-e ofth':' Securit)' Council leading up to agreement or disagreement ought to be absOl1utely free from any unfair ad- 1'3ntage or even the shadow of a. rigid application of rules to the situation".' .... On the ,hasis of those 1<JnT considerations. therefore. the Securitr Council decided to, mvite New Zealand and India and. w,th them. Canada. the Netherlands and the Philippines, being members of the' Fa:t. Eastern Cotpttlission :which are not ',members of the Security Council. It may be pertinent to point 'out ·that:th'~ Philip!'Jnes was _Invited by the Council at the 'stiggestiOI1 of -New Zealand evetithough, unlike New Zealand . ,and India, i~ 'bad made no ;previo~s, request to be heard. B.'I, anal!llrY.·;the Indonesian question.should also be,regarded ':'a8 of 'the highest ethical character, involving as it does the relatit;Jns between a metropolitan Power and a country to which "it has' {lromis'ed independence, as well as the maintenance of internattonal . peace and security. Indeed, if the Philippines ,''Was,'invited' to take part in the diseussjon of the United States trusteeship' proposal, which concerned the future' maintenance of '.'pl!ad~ in ffie vast and remote reaches !If' the Pacific, it is difficult "to Understand. why it mar not be invited to participate in the . discussion of a matter 'lDvolvillfl the actual maintenance of peace and security in its immediate vicinity. Hence we dare to 'hope that the procedure of the Security COuncil, as on that "earlier ocCasion upon a much less urgentmatter, will be free from "even the shadow of a rigid application of rules to the situation". ' ., "Ij " . , For. the reasons her~ advancedl the' Philippines earnestly 'solicits 'the permission of the SecurIty Council to participate in the, dis!:ussion of the Indonesian situation for as long'as that question remains on tllli agenda of the' Security CoIIineiL particulierement affectees Jlal la rupture de leurs relations commerciales avec l'Indonesie. Avant la gnerre, la valeur de nos intportations en provenance d'Indonesie, qui consistaient principalement en huile minerale, se c1assait 'au troisieme rang ae toutes n<iS importations en proyenance de l'etranier. Lea Philippines ont ettS devasto!es par la gnerre, et leur reconstruc. tion dans le domaine economique et social est en grande Partie tributaire des importations de certliines matieres prell1ieres indispensab1es. qUi nous Tiennent d'Indonesie. Dans ces condi. tions, foutes mesures susceptibles de retablir rapidement la paix en lndonesie sont, pour les Philippines~ d'i'nteret vital. Historiquement, 'Ies Philippines et l'.lndonesie sont etroite. ment unies par les liens de la culture et de la tradi,tion qui remontent a de nombreux ~iecJes en arriere, bien /4vant I'appa. rition des premiers explorateurs euro~en$. Revenans a I'¥icle. 31 ftc la ~am:e qui s!applique a .notre demande de llart'C,lpat,on a la d,scuss'on. Cet Article d,spooe que t~lIt Membre de l'Orsanisation des Nations Unies qui n'est pas membrc du Conseit de securite peut parliciper 11 la discussion de toutj!' question soumise al.l Cooseil, chaque fois que ce1ui.ci estime ~ue les interets de ce Membre sont "partic:ulierell1enl ~~. '. Les termes. "particuli~rl)me,nt affectes" so~t Tagnes et hien que le Conse,l ae securlf'~ a't tente, au moms une lois d'en interprc!ter la signifie~tion, nOllS croyons 113yoir que les aoctes membres de c:ette AS5enlblei: n'ont pu, jusqu'ici, se mettre d'accord sur une definition precise. '/ . 11 existe, .cependant, un precedent lM;rtinent et sisnifieatif en la matiere. Lors de sa cent·dix-hu,tieme seance, en mars demier, le Conseil de securite a examine les demandes pre. sentees par la Nouvelle-Zelande et l'Inde tendant a etre iitvitees a 'participer a la discussion du llrojet d'accord lIe tutelle sur les nes anterieureinent sous mandat japonais, presente par lee Etats-Unis. L'Inde, qui ne horde pas le Paeilique, &'est con- • tentee d'invoquer l'Article 31 de la Charte et it'a 'pas ete ~equise par le Conseil de prouver son interet particul,er daus I'affaire. La Nouvelle·Zelande d'autre part, fOl/rnit la preuve demandee, arguant que, I'interat particulier qu'etle avait daDs I'affaire reposait sur la consideration que le sort final des lies en question etait lie essentiellemcnt a tout plan de contrale du Japon ainsi qu'lI la conclusiOjli du traite de paix ayec ce pays. En partant ae ce principe; la Nouvelle·Zelande proposa que tous les membres de la Commission de l'~tr~me-Orient fussent egalement invJtes a partieiper, s'i1s le desiraient. Sans admettre ce princ,pe, le representant des Etats-Unis accepta volontiers de faire droit a la requete de l'Inde et de III Nouvelle·Zelande de partici{ler a. la disc!!ssion parce que, aux yeux des Etats·Unis, pour ctter ses propres paroles, "la question de III tutelle revetait. • • tu1 caractere moral lies plus eleves" et que "Le Conseil de securite; avant d'ahoutir a un accord OU a un desaccord. deyrait donc eviter tout traitement de faveur et meme tout ce qui pourrait evoquer une application trop rigide des regles c!tablies en vue de la presente's,tuation", ' Ayant envisage! la question de ce point de vue eleve, le Conseil de securite decida d'inviter la Nouvetle-Zelanr1e et I'Inde, et avec etles, le Cbada, les Pays-Bas .et les Philippines qui, membres de la' C\lmmlssion de l'Extreme.Orient, ne sont pas membres du Cociseil ,de securite. 11 convi.mt peut.etre de soutigner que le Conseil a invite les Philippines sur la projlOsi.· tion de la Nouvelle·Zelande bien que, a la differenj:e de la Nouvel1e·Zelande et de l'Inde, .elles n'aient pas anterieurement demande a.etre entendlles. Par analogie, .on 'doit egalement considc!rer la question,¥tJ donesienne cornme revetant un'caractere moral des ·plus eleves, puisqu'etle parte sur les relatione entre une Puissance m,c!trd~' potitaine et un pays auquel cette Puissance a promis I',n ,C· .pendance, et qu'el1e interesse egalement le maintien de. la pa.x et de la securite internationales. En verite, si les. Philippineds ont ete invitee a prendre part 11 la discussion du projet d'acC!lr de tutetle presente par lee Etats-Unis et il}teressant le maintien futur de la paix dans·les vastes eSJlllces 1000ntains du Paeifique, iI serait diff.cite de comprendre pourquoi etles ne seraient pas invitees 11 participer a la discussion d'une question qui interesse le maintien actuel de la paix et de la securite daus leur .voisinage immCdiat. Par consequent, noUB oSllns esperer ,qude le Conseil de securite, comme iI I'a deja fait en celte prc!ce ente occasion au sujet d'un probleme beaucoup moins ,mpo<rtant, vQudra eviter "tout ce qui paurrait evoquer une applicat,on trop rigide des regles etablie!l en vue de Id presente situatian". I' Pour toutes, ces raisons, les Philippines prient instamml)n~ e Conseil de securite de leur acc:order 'la permissiOlD de part,c,pf a la discussion sur la situation en Indonesil\ pendant tOlUt de temps que c'ette question sera inscrite a I'ordre du jour u Conselt de securite. ' Colonel HODGSON(Australia) : I'made a stat~ ment at th'e-hundred and seventy-eighth meeting on the question of Indon~sia, and indicated that J would submit a resolution covering the points I made. , Briefly, to rec;ipitulate, my point was that the decision of the,Council was dated 1 August,! but tnat; it~flPpeared to my Goyernment that there were.'sfgris.,qf ~ d~terioration in the position. The Council' was' and. still is confronted with con- , Hicting. rep(jits~'Jtb~' :w~~~ it is very difficult .()r impossible'to discovef.~~e real truth. Thus'we have before us a short..:termrroblem, namely, to'see that the decision of the Council is fUlly put iilt6 effect, because it may be some time before definite arrangements are made f~r mediation or arbitration 'or a long-term settlement' as visualizea by' the Council in its d~cision. . With regard to the long-term settlement, all that has happened' is that the United States .Governmep.t has offered its good nffices, which have been accepted by the Governments of the Netheda~s and the Indonesian Republic. But there is a doubt as to the real meaning and scope of these "good offices". The representative of the United States niay be able to give us a clearer indication of what is'me21lt by his Government's offer. Such good •.offices, as we see it, may mean simply asking the two parties to meet. My GoverfJment, wants more than that; it wants a just and lasting,settlement to be achieved. To that end, we have offered to join with the United States as mediators and arbitrators in t~isdispute.That'offer, my delegation nas b~en gIven. ,t9 l1gcerstand, has been accepted by the' Government of the Indonesian Republic. '. To clarify the position, my delegatipn has pJ;epared a.uraft resolution.2 We are careful in this 1 See Official'Records of the Security C~uncil, 8econd Year, NNo. 68, 173rd meeting. For the text of the resolution, see ibid" 0, 72, 178th meeting, document S/459. • The following'is the text of the draft resolution: Document 8/48B' . .' 12 August 1947 [Original tl!<:t: English] , th W~rehas the .Security Council, on 1 August 1947, caUed upon . e ",et erlandsang' .t}te RepuDtic of Indonesia: ~a) To cease hostdities forthwith and . b) J~ settle their disputes by a;.bitration or by other peace· b means, and to keep the 8ecurity Council infcmned . a out the progress of the settlement; , Nous sommes done saisisd'un prob!erne"a courte e~heance, qui consiste a veiller a ce qu'on , donne pleinement .effet ala decision du Gonseil; car it est possible qu'un certain temps s'ecowe avant que lesdispositions definitives soient prises en '"\Tue d'une mediation, d'un arbitrage, ou' d'un reglement durable comme l'envisage la decision duConseil. . ' . En cequi concerne ce reglement durable, le sew resulta:t acquis' est que les Etats-Unis ont offert leurs bons offices; qui ont ete acceptespar le Gouverhement des Pays-Bas et le G<;mverne-- ment de la Republique d'Indonesie. Mais it y a des doutes quant a la veritable sigriification et la ponee exacte de ces, "bons offices". Le representant des Etats-Unis est peut-etre eri mesure de nous preciser ce que son Gouvernement· a voulu dire en faisant cette offre. Ces bons offices, a notre avis, peuvent se re·· - duire simplement a demander aux parties de' se rencontrer., Man Gouvernenient veut davan,tage; il desire coqtribuer a amener un regl~ment juste et durable. A cette fin, nous avons offert de nous joindre au Gouvernement des Etats-Unis en qualitede mediateurs et d'arbitres dans ce differend. On a donll(~ a' entendre a' ma delegation que cette offre a ete acceptee p2.r le Gouvernement de la Republique d'JIndonesie. Pour preciser la position, nous avons prepare un projet de resolution2• Dans ceprojet, nous 1 :Voir les Proces''lIerb(",,~ ofliciels &u COltSeil de securite, Deuxleme Annee, N° 68, 173 eme seance. Pour ·Iexte· de la resolution, Ibid., N° 72, 178eme, seance, dowment S/459. , 2 Void le texte de: ce' projet de resolutiGn: Document 8/488 12 aout 1947 , [Te~te-~original en anl1lais] Attendu que le Conseit de securlte a invite, le ler aout 1947 les Pays.Bas et la Re~blique d'Indonesie:, • a) A cesser immedlatement les hostilites, et b) ... regler leurs differends en recourant it I'arbitrage ou a toot autre moyen pacifique et it tenir le' Conseil de securite au courant des resultats acquis en vue' de ce reglement; Et alteniu que des communications ont et6 re~ues des Gou· As regards the short-term probl~m, my delegation'suggests that the members of this cOg!mi~sion should go out as agents of the Council, to act as observers; and until-negotiations are under way, they could help to stabilize the general situation. As, agents, they could report· directly to us. We shaH thus know the true facts. We shall be in a position to judge whethe:: further action by the Council is desirable or necessary. I .. The Council will note that we do not suggest the number of persons who shoulJ constitute that commission. In /this draft resolution }Ve do not specify the countries'which would be represented on the commission. We leave that to the good sense of the members of the Council, -if the general idea is acceptable to them. I think that covers the main points which I did not mention at the hundred and seventyeighth meeting. I do not desire to go over them again. so J shall place the draft resolution before the Council for its consideration. , Mr. KATZ-SUCHY (Poland): At the hundred and seventy-first meeting1 we disCUssed the·problem of inviting a representative of the Indonesian Republic to participate in these deliberations. I have received information that representatives of the Govemment of '. the Indonesian Republic are now - seated in' the section· of this room reserved fOF the public. - I 'formally move that tP,e President should invite the head of the Indi:>Iiesian delegatjon and his staff to take their places at the Council table.

Before deciding on this point, some member of the Council should submit a proposal to the effect that the question should be put before the Council ior discussion. The ques- ,tion was discussed at a previous meeting, but no decision was taken. Therefore this matter is not ,Gcvernments of the Netherlands and the Republic of Indonesia advising that orders have been giv~n for the cessation of hostili. ties, . . . - h Id AmI fl,"n'eas it is desirable that negotiations s ou commence as soon as possible with a view to· a just and lasting settlement, and that steps should be taken to avoid disputes and friction relating 'to the observance of the· cease fire orders and to create conditions which wiII facilitate agreement between the parties, The Security CfI""ncil 1. Notes with satisfactio1t' the ~teps taken by the parties to ~omply with the resolution of l' Au~st 1947; 2. Notes the action taken by the Government of the U .ited . States in making available its good offices to the Gcvernments of the Netherlands and the Republic of Indonesia and tile OOIer by the Government of Australia to act jointly with the United States Gcvernment in the capacity of • mediator and arbitrator; 3. 'Resolves to establish a commission consisting of representatives of . who· will report directly to the Security Council on the situation in, the Republic of Indonesia following t'he resotion of the Council of 1 At gust 19.47. t See Qificial Records of the Sewrity CoUncil, Secrmd Year, No. 67. .' ,.e,' vernementa des Pays-Bas et de la Republique d,'Indonesie, fai5ant saYOir que des ordres ont ete donnes en vue de la' cessation des hostilites, '. -- Et attend" 9-u'i1 est souhaitable que des nellOciations corn· mencent aussitot qu'~ .possible en vue d'aboutir a un reglement juste et durable; que des me~ures Scient p'rises pour eviter tout differend et tout desaccord 11 propoo de I observation des ordres de lles~er le feu et pour creer des conditions qui faciliteront la conclusion d'un accord entre les parties, Le Conseil de securite . 1. Pri!1ld a,cte avec satisfaction des mesures prises par les deux parties pour se conformer 11 la resolution du ler aoftt 1947; , '. 2. Prend acte de I'initiative prise par le Gouvernement des Etats·Unis qui a offertses bons offices aID< Gcuverneinents des Pays.Bas et de la Republique d'Indonesie, et de I'offre du Gcuvemement de I'Australie de se joindre au 'Gouvemement des Etats-Unis en qualite de mediateur et d'arbitre; " .' ," 3. D-ecide de creer une commission composee des represen· tants de ; , qui feront directepJent rapport au Conseil de securite sur .la situation existant dans la Republique d'Indonesie par suite de la resolution du Conseil en date dti ler a06t 1947. Just before coming to this meeting, I made a note of the fact that the question of invitations to the representatives of the Indonesian Republic and the question of their credentials might constitute a matter to be discussed at this meeting. As I have said, no decision has yet been taken on the matter of extending" invitations to those representatives. If some member of the Council were to submit a formal proposal which would "" have to be voted upon, I should call for discussion on it at once. I 1 now recognize the representatIve of Belgium, who wishes to raise a point of order. Mr. NISOT (Belgium) (translated from French) : I should like to ask the representative of Australia for some clarification as to the' scope"of his draft resolution. On what Article of the Charter does he think the Security Council should hase itself in adopting the resolution he has proposed? Such an explanation would make the draft easier to understand. The PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order. Mr. KATZ-SUCHY (Poland): I should like to move formally that the Council should agree to invite the representative of the Gove1'Ill\lent of the Indonesian Republic to take part in fhe discussion of the Indonesian problem. I ask the President to open discussion on my proposal 'and to take a"vote on it. I l;lOpe that the representative of China will not object to the fact that, his statem,ent will be delayed by tpe few minutes required to take this vote. '

I have before me a letter from Mr. Soetan Sjahrir, the representative of the Indonesian Republic. It appears as docu....ent S~487 and reads as follows: . "I have the honour to refer to the r~que!St made by my Government by radio-telegram to, you, asking 'that rept:esentatives of the Republic of Indonesia should be allowed to participate without vote in the discussion of the Security Council relating to the Indonesian question. ' , "In this connexion, I am authorized by my Government to advise that, if an invitation is extended to the >Republic of Indonesia to participate, the.Republic of Indonesia accepts in adva~ce, .for ,the purposes of this, dispute, the oblIgations of a Member of the United Nations." M.r. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist RepU~hc~). (tranflated from Russian) : The question oJ mVItmg the representatives of the'Indonesian Repu~lic was raised at a previous meeting of the Sec.uTlty CounciLl At that time we postponed takmg ~ decisio~ of any kind on that question, but I thmk the tIme has now come to revert to it and to take a definite decision. ' The"representatives ef the' Government of the ---- " 1 See Off' . 1 R No' 67 I7I1Clt a ,!cords of the Sectlrity COll1lcil, Second Year. . " s meetmg. hnn__~ la Republique d'Indonesie et la question des' pou7oirs de ces derniers pourraient etre disoutees pendant notre seance. Comme je l'ai dit; aucune dtdsion n'a ete prise jusqu'ici sur laquestion de savoir s'il faut ill,viterces representants. Si un membre du Conseil veut bien soumettre une proposition formelle ,exigeant un vote, j'ouvrirai immediatement -la discussion de cette question. Je donne maintenant la parole au representant de la Belgique, qui desire presenter une motion d'ordre. ' M;J NISOT (Belgique): Je voudrais prier le representant de l'Ausfralie' de vouloir bien me donner .un eclaircissement sui-;la portee de son # projet de resolution: selon lui, sur quel Article de la Charte le Conseil de securite se fondrait-il pour adopter la resolution qu'it propOSe? eet ecla!rCissemptt faciliterait la' comprehension du proJet. . . Le PRESIDENT (trad24.it de l'ang1ais): Il ne s'agit pas 13. d'une'motion d'ordni. . M. KATZ-SUCHY (Pologne) (tradwit de l'anglais): Je propose formellement que le, Consei~ se mette d'accord pour inviter le representant q.e la Republique ,d'Indonesie a participer aux discussions relatives a la question indonesienne. Je demande au President d'ouvrir 1a discussion sur ma proposition et'de mettre celle-ci aux voix. J'espere quele representant de la Chine ne verra pas d'hiconve:nient a ce que sa (feclaration .soit retardee des qtielques minutes necessaires pour proceder au vote en 'question. . Le PRESIDENT (trqduit de l'anglais): J'ai sous ·les yeux une lettre de M. Soetan Sjahrir; representant de la Republique d'Indonesie, qui figure au document 5/487. Etle est ainsi con~ue: "J'ai l'honneur de me re£erer'au radiogramme que vous a adresse mon Gouvernement, deman-' dant que des representants de la Republique d'Indonesie soient autorisesa participer, sans droit de vote, aux debats du Conseil de securite re1atifs a la question indonesienne. .\ . HA ce propos, mon Gouvernement m'autorise a annoncer que, si elle est invitee a patticiper aux debats,' la Republique d'Indonesie accepte par avance, pour ce qui concerne ce differend, les obligations qui' incombent "aux Membres, de 1'0rganisatien des Nations Unies." M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): La question de la participation aux debats de representants de la Republique d'Indonesie a deja ete soulevee a une seance anterieure du Conseil de securite1. Nous avions remis notre decision' a plus tard, mais il me semble qu'il est temps de revenir a .cette question et de la trancher. . Les representants du Gouvernement de la ,Redecision on this question'. I do not know what the position is from the .procedural point of view as regards credentials, etc., but·it is, apparent from the letter read just noVo' by the President that the representatives who are here have been empowered to' state the views of t4eir Govern,.- ment. There is tlierefore every reason for us to take a definite decisiop. on,tIiis question. Bien entendu, la delegation de l'URSS soutient toujours.la proposition tendanf a. admettre les representants duGouvemement de l'Indonesie a. participer'aux debats du 'Consei1 desecurite. . Une autre solution serait injusfe, puisqu'une des parties est representee\~ux debatsdu Conseil de securite' albrs que l'autre ne l'est pas. Il faut que les deux parties soient representees. Of course the USSR delegation supports, as it ' did before, the proposal'to allow the representatives of the Indonesian Government to participate in the discussion of this question in the Security Council. To take a different decision would be unjust, sinc~ the one side is represented during the discussion in, the Security Council' and the other is not represented. Itis .necessary that both sides should be represented. The ,PRESIDENT: Bef()re giving the floor tp the J;..e PRESIDENT (tradwit de l'ang1ais): Avant , next speaker, "1 should remind the members, of de donner la parole a. l'orateur suivant, je rappelle ,,.the Council of the provisions of Article 32 of the aux membres du Conseil les dispositions de Charter, which states : "Any Member of the l'Article 32: de. la Charte qui stipule : "Tout United Nations which is not. a member of the Membre des Nations Unies qui n'est pas membre Security Council or any State which is not a : du Conseil de securite ou tout Etat qui n'est pas Member of the United Nations, if it is a party ; Membre des Nations Unies, s'it est partiea to a dispute under consideration by the Security i un differend examine par le Conseil de securite, CoUilcil, shall be invited to participate wJthout )est convie ,a. participer sans droit de vote ..." vote •• !'Rule 14 of the provisional rules of pro- ,L'article 14 du reglement interieur provisoire cedtire of the Security Council' states: "The . du Conseil de secarit~ dispose que: ".... Les pouc.redentials ()f such a representative shall be : voirs de ce representant son communiques au communicated to the Secretary-General not less ,,'Secretaire general vingt-quatre b,.eures au moins than twenty-four hours before, the first meeting 'avant.hi premiere seance a. laquelle celui-ci doit which he is invited to attend." ; assister." ' . There is no n~ce~sity for a special application ; .n· n'est ,pas, necessaire que le pays qui n'~st~ to be made by the nation which is,not a ,Member pas Membre preseate une demande specia,le" si, if it is a party to the dispute under consideration. ; ce pays est partie, au differend, en qt,1estion.' 14. The ~erority Council is bound to invite such a ; Conseil de securite est oblige de cony.ier ~et· State to participate, even if it does not apply for : Etat a. participer aux debats, meme s'ibne pre-. participation, because the Article of the Charter . sente pas une· demande a. cet effet, pour la bonne dealing with the matter does. not insist that such : raisonque' l'Article de la Charte qui traite de 'ar-equest shoulf,1 be made. , I ,.la question n'insiste pas sur la necessite ({'une I ' teHp dp1nande., " It .is in the interests of the Security Council, ' ,Il est de l'intc~ret du Conseil de securite, s~il for the solution of the proplem under discussion,' ,veut resoudre le probleme en question, d'inviter that sqchi a State should be invited a,nd heard. : u1). tel Etat a. participer aux debats et a se faire The reason for this discussion is that'at the entendre. Le motif de cette discussion est que, hundred and seventy-first meeting, when this lorsque ce point a ete so~leve, au cours de la matter was opehed,there was some question as cent-soix~nte et onzieme seance, on a manifeste to whether Indonesia should be considered as a certains doutes sur ta question de savoir si l'In- 'State or not. Now the Security Council has to take. donesie. doit etre consideree ou non comme un a decision on whether the Indonesian Republic . ' Etat.' Le Conseil de securite .doit maintenant should be invited or not. The matter is under prendre une decision sur la 'question;:'de savoir disJ,:Ussion and I shiJ.ll give the floor first to t1;le si la Republique d'Indonesie doit etre:jnvitee ou representative of the Netherlands and then to the non a participer aux debats. Cette qu~stion fait representative of the United Kingdom. 1'0bjet de la discussion, et je vais doimer la parole. d'abord au repre.sentant des Pays-Bas, et ensuite au representant du Royaume-Uni. ' M.. VAN KLEFFENS (Pays-Bas)- (traduit de l'ang1ais): Le texte meme de la qettre du representant de la Rep~blique d'Indonesie montre tres nettement que ce dernier fonde sa demande sur l'Article 32 de la Charte. C'est sur ce point que ! je voudrais maintenant prendre la parole; • Le· 31 juillet, a. la cent-soixante et onzieme seance; fai fait observer au' Conseil de securite que seuls les representants des Etats souverains Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): The language of the letter of the representative of' the Repyblic of Indonesia shows very clearly that he bases his request on Article 32 of the Charter. It is on,that point that I now ask leave to speak. ,On 31 J111y, at the hundredand seventy-first meeting, I pointed.out to the' Security' Council that ·only r~presentatives of sovereign and indedr~ssed by the' President of that Republic, Mr. Soekamo himself, to the representatives of the United States Government who had made some representations to him: ':J;he letter !s dated 10 July of this year, an~ In It the,rresldent of !he Republic of Indo~esla says: .The Indon~s!an Govemmentrecognlzes that durmg the transition period between now· and I, January- 1949, ~e (iovemment of t~e. Netherla~ds . IS to re!al~ sovereignty and ultimate authority In Indon~sta. I I submit that this is highly pertinent, and I draw particular attention to the word "retain". One cannot retain what one did not poss~ss pre- • viously. Even if-which is not quite clear-the Republic now repudiates the Linggadjati Agreement/ which prQvides for that interim period to which Mr. Soekamo refers In the passage I have Just qu~ted, then the Netherlands must be deemed to ,have sovereignty and what. Mr. Soekamo very rightly' calls "ultimate authority" in the Republic. C'est precisement' en nous fondant sur cette souverainete et cette autorite supreme que nous avons' jpris les mesures auxquelle~ le Conseil. del seeurite ,cons'acre son. attention a I'heure actuelk Mais supposons qu'il n'en sojt pas ainsi; meme dans ce cas, il me semble 1\ors de doute que, si la Republique, repudiant l'Accord de Linggadjati, pretend qu'el'1e est souvera,ine, cette souverainete'doit se folider, soit sur des conditions qui existaient 'avant l'A,ccord de Lingga- It is precisely on the basis of that sovereignty and ultimate authority that. we have taken the action which is retaining the attention of the Security Council at the present time. But let us suppose that' all that were not so; even, then it 'seems to 'me indisputable that if the'Republic, repudiating the Linggadjati Agreement, claims sovereignty, that sovereignty must find a' basis either 'in conditions prior tu the Agreement or in conditions obtainingsinc~ that Agreement. There is no other possibility. djati, soit sur des conditions nees apres' cet Accord. III n'y a pas d'autre possibilite. , \ Permettez-moi d'affirmerque, ill avant, ni apre:s l'Accord de Linggadjati, la Republique n'a rempli les conditions requises par le droit international pour qu'i'1 puisse etre question de souverainete: Aucun des membres du Conseil n'ignore que ces conditions comprennent, en premier lieu, une autorite gouvernementale reelle: I?,ans le cas ,de la Republique, cette autorite~anque singulierement, comme 1'0nt prQuve les evenements. Nous . avons constate a maintc:s reprises quec'est la , raison pour laquelle le Gouverneme!J.t rfpublicain I' I beg to assert that neIther before nor after the Linggadjati Agreement did the Republic fulfil the conditions which in international law must be fulfilled·if there is to be any question of sovereignty. Those conditions, as all members of theCouncil know, include, first of all, real governmental authority. This, ,as events have abundantly shown, is singularly absent in the case of the Republic. It has become apparent time after time that because of lack of authority, the Republican Govemment was unable to carf1J out eng~gements which it had contracted. I refer to the numerous examples I gave at' the h.undred and seventy-first n'a pas ete capable de s'acquitter des obligations qu'il .a contractees. Ie songe auxnombreux exemples que j'ai cites alacent-soixanteet onzieme et a la cent-soixante-dix-huitieme sean~ at the hundred and seventy-eighth meetings, whl.ch are to be found in the record. I shall not weary th~ Council with repetition. c ance et qu'on peut trouverdans les procesverbaux des deliberations 'du Conseil. Je n'imposerai pas au Conseil ,la rep~tition de· ces exemples. ' La seconde condition de la souverainete est un territoire bien defini sur lequcl' s'eXerce rau" torite en ,question. Plus particulieremeilt, ·.avant l'Accord de Linggadjati,·ce territoire hien defini n'existait pas. La Republique n'a pas cesse de manifester des tendances expansionnistes. Le The second condition ~f sovereignty is a well defined.territory in which authority is e?Cercised. In ~art1cular, before the Linggadjati Agreement, !t~ere was no such well defined territory. At aU tun~sthe Repu~lic has shown expansionist tend- ~ncles. The Republican Government has ~he 1 Voir The Political E'Vellts in the RePublic of ind01I~s!a, publi. cation du Bureau d'information des Pays·BIlS,· New·York. . Iis~~eeb Thth~ PNolitiCal E'lI~lts i,. th~ Republic of lndonlsio, pub- 1 e etherlands; Information ·~ureau. New.york. ' . , Moreover, even in certain areas which the Republic alleged already belonged to it, the population showed that it did not recOgnize that authority. The third condition is that' there should be a population,whose members are not at the same time nationals of another State. It is a fact that the vast majority of the inhabitants of the Republic do' not consider that they are, wholly ~d exclusively, citizens of the ,Republic. They know very well that they also have ties with the Kingdom of the Netherlands. In the hope of strengthening the' Government of the Republic, we recognized it in the Linggadjati Agre~ment as exercising de facto . authority in Java and Sumatra, neither more nor . less. It has not been recognized by us as a de jure Government. Still less has the Republic, as contrasted with the Government of the Republic, been recognized by us as a sovereign and independent Statj:!. Is it surprising, in the lighf of these facts, that neither the Republic nor its Government has been recognited .as a sovereign and independent State by any appreciable number, of other Governments? It may have made conventions with a'few countries such as India, Egypt or Syria; if so, . and leaving aside for 'the ti~e being any discussion as to the political motives of these few countries, I submit that !pis proves, very little. What determines the situation is .the fact that the Republic:: has not been reoognized by any appreciable number of countries as a sovereign and i~dependent State. In other worcls, it. has, not found that g~p.~ral measure of, recognition w~ich~' beyond a doubt, is required if a State is to be treated as a sovereign and independent State by a 'body such as the r ~curity Council, which represents the generality of States: As all membe;~ know, the members of the Security Council do not sit here as the spokesmen only.of their own countries. The Charter provides that the Members of the Council act on behalf of all the Members of the United Nations, as is expressly set out in Article 24; paragraph 1. ,Hence no member of the Security Council, not even one whose Government may have made some agreement with the Republic of Indonesia, has, the right to disregard the fact that the vast majority of the Members of the United Nations have not reco~ized ,the Republic as a sovereign and independent State. The Charter applied only to dealings between GOvernments of sovereign States which ,have 'been generally and fully recognized a~ such. If this rule is not adhered to, the door is open to representatives of any usurper Government in any State, recognized or unrecognized. Surely that never crossed the mind of anyone, at San Frat.1- cisco or elsewhere. So long as, first, the State in La troisieme condition est que la population d'un Etat souverain se compose d'elements qui ne sont pas en meme temps ressortissants d'un " autre Etat: Or, la grande majorite des habitants de la Repuplique considerent qu'its ne sont pas completement et exclusivement citoyens de la Republique. Its sayent tres bien qu'ils ont egalement des liens avec le Royaume des Pays-Bas. Dans 1'espoir de renforcer le Gbuvernement de la Republique, nous avons reconnu, dans l'Accord de Li~ggadjati, que ce Got,1vernem~t exer<;ait une autorite de facto a Java et a Sumatra, ni plus, ni moins. Nous ne l'avons pas reconnu comme un Gouvernem~nt de jure. On peut dire encore moins que la Republique, par opposition avec le Gouvernement de la Republique, ait ete reconnue par les Pays-Bas comme un: Etat souverain et independant. A 1a lumiere de ces faits, on ne peut s'etonner que ni la Republique, ni son Gouvernement n'aient ete reconnus en tant qu'Etat souverain et independant par un nombre appreciable d'autres Gouvernements. La Republique peut avoir conclu des conventions avec quelques pays tels que l'Inde, l'Egypte, et la Syrie; dans ce cas, et sf nous, laissons de cote,. pour' ie moment, toute discussion relative aux motifs politiques, de ces quelques pays, je pretends que cela ne prouve pas grand-chose. Ce qui determine la situation, c'est que la Republique n'a pas ete reconnue par un nombre appreciable de pays . comme un Etat souverain et independant. En d'autres termes, on ne peut constater cette reconnais!!ance generale qui, sans aucun 90ute, est indispensable pour qu'un Etat.soit traite comm,e un Etat souverain et independant par un organe tel que lIe Conseil de securite, qui represente la generalite des Etats du monde. Comme vous le savez tous, les membres du Conseil de securite ne siegent pas au Conseil en qualite de porte-parole de leur propre pays exclusivement. La Charte dispose que les membres du, Conseil agissent ,au nom de tous les Membres des Nations Unies, comme le declare expressement le premier paragraphe de l'Articlt! 24. Par consequent, aucun membre du Conseil de securite, pas meme le representant d'un pays dont le Gouvernement a conch.! un accord avec la Republique d'Indonesie, n'a le droit.d'ignorer que la grande majorite des Membres des Nations Unies n'ont pas reconnu la Republique comme un Etat souverain et independant. Les dispositions de' la Charte s'appliquent ., uniquement aux questions qui se posent entre les GouvernePlents d'Etats souverains et rec('nnus tels sur le plan international. Si nous ne nous, conformons pas a cette regle,nous ouvrirons la porte aux representants de n'importe quel Gouvernement usurpat~ur dans n'importe quel Etat, reconnu ou non. It est certain que personne, sovereign State, but it is not a State in the proper sense of the term. . .. This is a purely legal question and I apologize if those who are more .impressed with the human side of the question think that for once I have dealt only with the legal side of the matter. Let me assure them, I shall have plenty to say on the human side later on. r conclude. No representative of the Government of the Republic of Indonesia can be admitted to participate in this discussion under Article 32 of the Charter, as the Republic is not a sovereign and indepe.ndent State generally recognized as such. . Sir AlexanderCADoGAN (United Kingdom): It seems t9 me that the language of Article 32 admits of no doubt. It is that Article which is in que~tion here, and it is to that Article, as I understand it, that the representative of the Indonesian Republic has appealed. That Article says: "Any Member of the United Nations whiCh is not a member of the Security Council or any State which is not a Member of the United Nations ... shaH be invited to participate ..." . . As representative of a Government which has not recognized the Indonesian Republic, I cannot vote in favour of inviting it to 'participate. in the proceedings of the Security Council. Mr. SEN (India): Throughout this debate the representative of the Netherlands has taken the position that Indonesia is not a State from the point of view of international taw. During the discussiQns of· the last two weeks, the members 9f the Security Council have avoided facing this, question merely because they were anxious that some decision should be taken on the urgent issue, namely, the cessation of hostilities. It is time for, the members of the Security Council to consider the merits of this particular point at issue. ,'" The Netherlands representative has set out his points in some detail, and I propose to take them up one by one.. I shall refer here to the statement made by the representative of the United Kingdom, to the extent ~at his Government did not iec<?gnize. IndoneSIa as: a State. It seems desirable to me ,that the members of the Council should give some :eason for taking' a certain view on the matter, etre d'tm Etat tout afait ,respectable, faisant part~ d'une federation, comme c'est le cas pour les Etats des Etats-Unis d'Ameriqr ~ ou du Mexique, du Venezuela, du Bresil ou de l'Australie. Ce peut etre un Etat naissant; ce peut etre aussi un Etat qui, en raison d'une faiblesse . evidente, n'inspire pas, ou pas encore, cette confiance generale qui, seule, peut le faire reconnaitre sur le plan international comme un Etat independant et. souverain ;mais ce n'est pas un Etat dans le sens propre du teJ."me. . C'est une qu€stion purement juridique, et je ne voudrais pas que les membres du CQnseil q~i sont frappes par l'aspect humain de' la question, pensent que; pour, une fois, j'ai traite \ uniquement de l'aspect juridique de l'affaire. Je puis leur assurer que j'aurai beaucoup a dire plus tard sur son aspect humain. En conclusion, j'estime qu'aucun representant du Gouvernement de la Republique d'Indonesie ne peut etre a.dmis aparticiper aux debats en vertu de l'Articl~ 32 ~e la Charte, la Republique n'etant pas un Etat souverain et indCpendant, reconnu comme tel sur le plan international: Sir' Alexander 'CAOOGAN (Royaume-Uni) (traduit de l'anglais): Il me semble que le texte de l'Article 32 ne laiss~ place a aucun doute. C'est de cet Article qu'il s'agit dans la presente discussion, et je crois comprendre que c'est acet article que le. representant de la Republique d'Indonesie s'est repolte. Cet Article dispose: "Tout Membre des Nations Unies qui n'est pas ' membre du Conseil ,de sectirit~ ou tout Etat qui n'est pas Membre, des Nations Unies ... est convie a participer ..." En ma qualite de representant d'un Gouvemement qui n'a pas reconnu la Republique d'Indonesie, je ne puis vater en faveur de la participation 'de cette Republique aux debats ~u Conseil de securite. M. SEN (lnde) (traduit de l~anglais): Au cours de nos debats, le representant des Pays- Bas a adopte une position selon laquelle/du point de vue du droit international, l'Indonesie n'est pas un Etat. . Lors des deliberations des deux dernieres semaines, les membres du Conseil de securite ont evite d'examiner cette question uniqpement parce qu'its etaiep.t tresdesireux de prendre une decision s~~ le probleme le plus urgent, a savoir, la cessation des hostilites. I1 est temps que les membres du Conseil de securite examinent maintenant au fond 1e point precis qui est en Jeu. Le representant des Pays-Ba& a exposeses arguments avec quelque detail, et je me propose de reprendre ces arguments l'un apres l'autre. , Je mentionne tout d'abord la declaration faite par le representant du, Royaume-Uni, dans laqueUe it a precis'e que ,son Gouvernement n'a pas reconnu 1'Indonesie en tant qu'Etat. II me semble souqaitable que les 11lembres du Conseil donnent les raisons pour lesquelles its adoptent une position de.terminee sur ia question, afin de permettre ' , It is true, as far as I can see, that tb,e invitation to Indonesia should be made' under' Article 32. As I read the Charter, I find some distinction between Article 32 and Artide 2. Article 32 says: "Any Member of the United' Nations which is not cl member of the Security Counc~l or any State which is not a Merrlber of the United Nations, if it is a partyrto a dispute under consideration by the Security Councilo, shall be invited. to 'participate ..." And Article 2, paragraph 1 states: "The Organization is based on the principleof the sovereign equality Of all its Members." , \ The distinction that I make is that' there can be States without full sovereignty which are . States for the purposes of Chapter VII of the Charter. It is not possible at this stage for me to dl:> more than make this statem~nt. The representative of. tile Netherlands has quoted a letter from Mr. Soekarno st~ting that the Indonesian Republic recognizes the ultimate sovereignty of the Netherlands. Gove~ent during the interim period. I shOuld like 'the Security Council to read the Linggadjati Agreement itself, an Agreement which has been entered into solemnly by the two parties;' The Agreement provides in article I .that the Netherlands Governinent recognires the Government of the. Republic of Indonesia as exercising de facto authority over Java, Madura and Sumatra. This, I submit, is a very clear' statement of the attitude of the Netherlands in regard to' the status of Indonesia. It amounts to an admission that the Netherlandsrecognizes Indonesia as having de fa~to authority over· the three isla~ds.. The fact that Mr. Soekarno says that during the interim period the Netherlands Government is to retain ultimateauthl:>rity,in' no wayaffeets the recognition of the de facto authority of. the Indonesian Government. Mt. van Kleffens quoted the words "is to retain sovereignty". I .have a translation of the Linggadjati Agreement before me. In article II it says : "The- Netherlands Government and the Government of the Republic shall co-operate in the rapid' formation 'of a . sovereign democratic State on a federal'basis ; .." It does, not use the word «reta.in"here. I have seen the word "retain" used somewhere else in the course of the discussions between the two Governments. The Indonesian Government agreed that during the interim period, that is, the period between the present and the future constitution of the Netherlands-Indonesian -Union, the ultimate sovereigt1.ty of the Netherlands Will There has been much 4ispute over t..ltis matter, and I find from the exchange of memoranda ,between the two Governments that the Indonesian Republic has constantly challenged the. statement . of the'Netherlands Government to the'effect that it has'notbeen able to live up to its engagements. Here is a passage from the memorandum of 8 June 1947 from the delegation of the Indonesian Republic to the Commission-General. "In the memorandum of the Commission-General, it has continuouslY been stressed th.a~ in th~ Republican area there is no law and order, no rIghts and no safety. ,The Indonesian' delegation takes cognizance of these accusations with amazement, sinc"e visitors to the Republican area, who are not few in number, and among whom there are also Netherlanders, either in offiCial or ,non-official capacity, have been able to convince themselves of pr-osperity and peacefulness in the Republican area. On the other hand, there. are signs 'in the Netherlands-occupied territory which point to the insufficiency or even'to the absence of guarantees for the development of truly democratic principles; for example, the arrest of leaders, the detention of persons on insufficient grounds, the search of journalists, the prohibition of a display of the red";white flag and of the singing of t'he official anthem, the continued enforcement of , exorbitantrjghts' in accordance with articles 153 to 161' of the Criminal Law 'Statutes of.the Netherlands Indies, which bear a colonial and anti-democratic character" a~d provoke in pro- Republican rank~ the feeling of being threatened." teste l'affirmation dJ,1 Gouvernement des Pays- Bas selon'laquelle elle n'aurait pas ete en mestii-e de se conformer aux engagements qU'elle a contractes. Je VOl'S. donne mairitenant lecture d'un passage extrait du t1,1emorandum en date du 8 juin 1947, adresse a la Commission generate par la Mlegation de la Republique d'Indonesie. "Le memorandum de la Commission gef;lefale souligne constamment que, dans la zone republicaine, it n'y a ni. loi,ni ordre, ni droits, ni' securite. La delegation, de l'Indonesie .prend connaissance de ces accusations avec etoniiement: en effet, les personnes qui Qut visite la zone republicaine - le. nombre n'en est pas negligeable, et parmi dIes se trouvent egalement, a titre officie1 ou a titre prive, des. citoyens neerlandais - ont pu se convaincre d'e la prosperit~ et de la paix qui regnent dans la zone republicaine. D'autre part,' on releve,~dans le territoire occupe par les Pays-Bas, des indices de l'insuffisance, voire meme de l'absence de garantie pour l'application de principes vraiment democratiques; par exemple, l'arrestationdechefs politiques, la.' detention de personnes pour des motifs insuffisants, les foumes operees sur des journalistes, l'interdiction de hisser le. drapeau blanc;: ,et rouge et de chanter l'hymne Qfficiel; ·le , maintien des droits exorbitants conferes par les articles 153 a 161 des lois penales des Irtdes neerlandaises, lesquelles' ont un cara,etere colonial et antidemocratique et creent dans les' rangs des pro-republicains une impression de menace." Enfin, je tiens' a souligner que l'accusation selon, laqueUe les Indonesiens ne peuvent remplir leuri5' engagements n'est que l'affirmatio1,1 partiale d'une seule partie: Les Indonesiens ont dit' la meme chose du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas', J'ai entendu avec quelque amusement le repre..; Finally, I wish to emphasize Ithat the accusation that the Indonesians are not able to fulfil their engagements is a purely one-sided statement. The same accusation is being made by the Indonesians against the NetheHands Government. I noticed with some amusement that the Netherlands representative quoted last week the words of a missionary who had visited the area. I 'think that I should ask the members of the Security Council not to put their trust in missionaries who cl.abble in politics. If the Netherlands repre~e!1ta­ senta~t des Pays-Bas citer, la semaine derniere, une dec1ar;:l.tion emanant d'un missionnaire qui avait visite la zpne en' question. Je crois que les mern.bres du" Conseilde securite ne dev'taient pas ajouter foi aux di'res d'uD. missionnaire qui se mele de poI1tique. Si le representant des Pays~ Bas peut invoquer des arguments plus' convaincants et des temoignages plus valides, it devrait les exposer au lieu de 'citer les paroles d'un missionnaire americain qui, par hasard, a visite 1'Indonesie. Le 1·eprese~timt des Pays-Bas a, invoque un' autre argument, c'est-a-dire que l'Indonesie n'a pas un '. t~rritoire bien defini. En commentant cet .argument, it a deelare que la Republique a touJours manifeste ttne tendance a l'expansioll. hve. has more co~vincing arguments and better teshmony, he should come' forward with it and not quote some American missionary who happened to visit Indonesia. . Another point that the Netherlands representahve mad~ Was that Indonesia did not have a wellde!ined territory. In explaining his reasoning he said. ~at. the Republic always exhibited: an/ expanSIOnIst tendency. If it can be argued that C'· ; The other pOInt made by the Netherlands r.::presentative was. that the vast majority of the population of Indonesia. does not owe ~egianc~ , to the Indonesian.Republic.• That again is a onesided statement; it is the opinion of the N etherlands Government. It) does .not. necessarily reflect all the facts ofthe case. The .main _argument put forward by. tl1e Netherlands representative was that Indonesia had not been recognized. as a sovereign independent State by a sufficiently large number 9f States. This question has been discussed before. The Australian representative, in his opening s.peech, when he moved his original resolution, set out certain facts regarding recognition of the Indonesian Republic by various countriet If one bears that in mind, and also reads the Linggadjati Agreement itself, I do not think there ~an be any question but that the de facto au~onty of the Indonesian 'Republic over the three islands ha;s been internationally. recognized.. As regards the dejure sovereignty, this matter is open toques:- tion. Onec'ln argue legitimately that the de jure sovereignty of Indonesia has tlot been recognized. In .fact, the statement made by the Indonesian , Republic in the Agreement itself, to the effect verain~te de jure de l'Indonesie n'a pas 'ete reconnue. En ~ realite, la declaration faite par. la Republique d'Indonesie dans le texte meme de l'Accord, seton laqueUe la. souverainete des Pays-' Bas sera reCOJ;mue pendant la periode de transition, se prete it cette idee. Je ne dis pas qu'eUe l'etablit; eUe s'y prete. . Je vais maintenant citer' un auteur qui fait autorite en matiere de droit international. Ce n'est pas la. ma propre opinion. C'est uniquement un passage de I'ouvrage de Lord Birkenhead sur le droit international, que j'ai cite il y a quelque temps: "Cette condition" - selon la- . queUe un groupe ethnique doit, pour etre con- .that during the intervening period the sover~ignty of 1he' Netherlands. would be recognized, lends itself to that suggestion. I do not say it establishes it; if lends itself to that suggestion. 1 shall quot~ an authority on intermltipnallaw. This is not my own view. It is a passage from Loid Birkenhead's book on international law, which I.quoted 'Some time'ago: •"This requirement"-that i.s, the requirement that, in order to be regarded as a State within the meaning of international law, the society'must be a sovereign independent State - "is, however, in no way essential to the conception of jural relations between States." This is a staten:rent by an authority on int~rna­ tionallaw. I should like anybody who challenges it to produce his arguments against its acceptance. I shall not review, the other arguments at this stage. I am merely replying to the leg~l argument put forward by the Netherlands representative to the effect that the Indonesian Republic cannot be regarded 'as a State for the purposes of Chapter VII of the Charter. ' The PRESIDENT: I shall now recognize the representative of Poland. Before doing so, however, ,I should like to' ask the members .of the Council not to exhaust the entire time of this meeting on this point, but to speak as briefly as possible. Mr. F'..ATZ-SUCHY. (Poland) : I had .no intention of exhausting the time of this'meeting when I raised this subject. In view of our previous • interess~, celle du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas. Elle ne tient pas necessairement compte de tous les frits. .) . L'argument essentiel invoque par le representant des Pays-Bas est que la Republique d'In-'\ donesie n'a pas ete reconnue comme un Etat souverain independant par un assez grand nombre d'Etats. Cette question a deja. ete discutee. Dans le discours qu'il a prononce en proposant sa premiere resolution, le representant de l'Australie a expose . certains faitsconcernant la reconnaissance de la Republique d'Indonesie par divers pays. Si 1'0n tient compte de cett~ declaration et si l'on prend connaissance du texte de l'Accord de Linggadjati lui-meme, je pense qu'ifest hors de doute que l'autorite de f(Uto de la Republique d'Indonesie ' sur les trois iles en question a ete reconnue sur le plan international. En ce qui concerne la souverainete de jure, cette question reste indecise. On peut legitimement pretendre que 'la sousidere comme un Etat au sensdu droit international, coilstituer. un Etat souverain et independant "n'est cependant pas indispensable a. la conception de relations juridiques entre Etats." It s'agit d'un avis exprime par un auteur qui fait autorite en' matiere de droit international. Je voudrais que quiconque met cette declaration en doute presente les arguments a. l'appui de son opinion. .Pour le moment, je n'exarhi~eraipas les 'autres arguments. Je reponds simplement a. l'argument juridique invoque par le representant des Payg- Bas, selon lequel la Repubijque d'Indonesie ne peut etre consideree comme un Etat aU sens du Chapitre VII de la Charte. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de i'anfjiais): Je donne la parole au representant de la Pologne. Toutefois, je voudrais auparavant demander aux membres du Conseit de ne pas coilsacrer toute la present~ seance a la discussion de ce 'point en particulier et d'etre aussi brefs que possible. M'. KATz-SUCHY(Pologne) (traduit de i'anglais): Je n'avais aucunement I'intention 'd~ consacrer toute' notre seance au point que j'at putes, and I hope to be brief. : ' , • I was·very much impressed by tne able manner in which the representative of the Netherlands presented his arguments again~t the extending·C?f an invitation to the representatIve of the Republic of Indon'esia. His arguments, however, although very legal~ are .very, unconvincing. If his ar~­ ments were vahd, there would be no IndoneSIan question b,efore the· Council. At the very beginning of this dispute, the representative of the Netherlands maintained that the war in Indonesia was not a problem within the competence of the Security. Council. The Government of the Netherlands considered it to be its own internal problem, a ·lllere police action. The views of the Council were quite differ.ent. By putting the question on its agenda under' Article 39 of the Charter, the Council recognized this as an international problem. Although certain reservations were made by one of the members of the Council, the resolution adopted by the, Council contained no such reservations. A resohttion calling for the cessation of hostilities could. not have been adopted with any reservation as to the recognition of the Republic of Indonesia as an independent and sovereign State. I believe that fact solves the main difficulty for us. The Council has taken a decision. The war in Indonesia is' an international problem. There exists a dispute between two States: ;the Netlierlands and the Republic of Indonesia. Furthermore, on 28 July the Economic and Social Cot,tncil, another organ of the United Nations, adopted a resolution which permits the Republic of Indonesia to 'take part, as a nonmember State, in the Conference on Trade and Employment at Havana.1 This is another act of the United Nations which recognizes the Republic of Indonesia as a State) although not a Member of the United Nations. ) It The Netherlands, by signing a bilateral agreement with the Republic of Indonesia on the basis of an equa~ deal.ing with an equal, recognized the status of .the Republic of Indonesia as a State, although It was stated that its Government has onlf de facto control of the Republic of IndonesIa; stIll, that was a't:ecognition. AmI. only two months ago, all the Members of the United' Nations received copies of that Agreem,ent. . dU~i~eegi~ef'f'thution3.adoPted b-~ the BeoMmie anct Social Council seSSion, resolution 62 (V), p. 3. ...-.- . In al,iicle XIII of the Linggadjati Agreement, t¥e Netherlands Government undertook an obligahOIl to take' steps forthwith to propose the non--menibre del'Orgimisation, a la Conference du corrirnerceet de l'emploi qui se reullira a la La Havane1• Viola un autre act~ 'pose par rOrga"'- nisation des Nations Unies qui implique la r~­ connaissance -de la Republique d'Indonesie .en tant qu'Etat, bien qu'elle ne soit pas Mempre des Nations Unies. I En signant un accord bilateral avec la Republique d'I~donesie, conclu d'egal a egal, les Pays,-Bas qnt recopnu le statut de la Republique d'Indonesie en tant qu'Etat, biel}, qu'~l sbit'prec!He dans l'accord que leGouverneJ;11~nt indonesiel'1 n'exerce qu'une autorite de fotto sur la Repu·· blique d'Indonesie; malgre tout; cet acte implique reconnaissance. Il y a deux mois a peine, tous les Membres des Nations· Unies ont re.;u une copie de cet Accord.' , . , .: Aux termes de l'article XIII 'de l'Accord de Linggadjati, le Gouvernement'des Pays':Bas s'est engage a prendre immedia~ementles dispositions I believe it would benefit the ,situation 'it1. Indonesia to drop -Ws legal argumenta~on, to pass to a, vote-or perhaps there would be no need for a'vote-and to hear the statement of the representative of' the Republic of Indonesia. r M.r. L6PEz (Colombia).: I srt@-u be very brieL I'regret that r shall have to, leave the meeting' within a few minutes, and that is why I have requested the privilege of ~aking the floor before the, other speakers. ' . ,. ' 'Wewere discussing the draft res6lutiop of the Aus~ralian delegation'concerning the Indonesian quesHon, when the representative of Poland subntitted a proposal regarding theirivitation to the representatives of Indonesia. As the discussion has been proceeding, I have re-readthe Aus-' tralian draft and have felt a very pressing need to request legal clarification as to how, in the light of the present discussion, we should vote on'the resolution.' \ The Australian. draft resolution begins as 'follows': "Whereas the Security Council, on 1 ~ugust ,1947, called upon the Netherlands·and the Repub~ lic'of,Indonesia: '. (a) To cease hostiliti~s forthwith, a~d . . (b) To settle their disputes by arbitration or by other peaceful means, and to keep the Security Council informed apout the progress of the settlement '.' !'. .' "'When the first Australian resolution was being' discussed, the question of the competence of the Council to pass such a resolution was raised, and variousrcpresenta~ives made· reservations in that regard. I remember very well that I then suggested that if we did not feel sure that the Council . was ,competent to. pass this resolution, we should not pass it. But wedid.' ~ _ Now I hear that·Indonesia'is not a State in the sense of'the Charter, and that it is not a State frol.n the pointQf view, of international law. I should like to ask what it is in,the eyes of the Council; what it is·in the light of the action.heretofore taken by the Go~ncil. We have addressed Qurselvesto the Netherlands and the, Republic of',Indonesia. We have asked them to cease hostilities and to settle their . disputes by arbitration or by other, peaceful means,' and they have acted accordingly. They have notified the Security Council that they have ,.acted accptdingly, and the CounCil is now taking vot~peut-etre meme Ul'l vote ne serait.;.il'pas necessaire - et entendions la declaration du representant-de la Republique d'Indonesie. " M. L6pEZ (Colombie) (traduit de l'a~glais): Je serai tres bref. Je regrette d'etre ob.lige de 'quitter la seance d'ici quelques minutes, etc'est pourquoi j'ai demande le privi1ege de prendre la parole avant les autres orateurs. Nous etions en train de discuter le projet de resolution presente' par la' delegation de 'l'Australiesur la question indonesienne, quand le representant de la Pologne a soumis une proposit~on relative al'invitation a. adresser aux repre~ sentants, de l'Indonesie. Pendant que les debats se poursuivaient, fai reIu le projet de l'Australie et je me suis aperc;u qu'it me faUait demander quelques eclaircis~ements d'ordre juridique sur la maniere dont nOllS devrions, a. la lumiere'des deliberations en' cours, mettre aux voix cette resolutioh.. Le projet de resolution de l'Australie commence comme suit: "Considerant que le Conseil de securite a invite, le ler aout 1947, les Pays-Bas et la Republique d'Indonesie: , . "a} A cesser immediatement les hostilites, et "b} A r~ler leur <:lifferend en recourartt it .l'arbitrage ou a. tout autre moyen pacifique et it tenir le Conseil de securite au courantl d.es resultats acquisen vue de ce reglement . . ." Au cours des debats relatifs. a. la premiere resolution de l'Austra:lie, la questions'est posee de savoirsi le Conseil. etait competent pOUI'. adopter une teUe resolution; ,divers representants ont fait certainesreserves'a eet egard. Je me souviens tres bien d'avoir dit a ce moment que, si nous n'etions pas certains que le Conseil eut la competence voulue pour adopter cette resolution, nous ne devrions pas l'adopter. Cependant, .nous l'avons adoptee. Or, on me dit que l'Indonesie n'est pas un Etaf au sens ou l'entend la Charte et, n'est pas un Etat du point de vue du droit international. Je voudrais savoir quel 'est le statut de la: Re- . ptibliqued'Indonesie aux yeu~ du Conseil, quel est· .. son statut eu egard au", mesures prises' jusqu'ici pTir k Consei!. I' ' Nous nollS sommes adresses aux Pays-Bas et a. la Republique d'Indonesie. Nous leur avons demande' de cesser les hostilites et de regler leur differend en recourant a. l'arbitrage ou a. tou~ , autre moyen ~pacifique; ees deux pays ont agl en consequence. Ils on~notifie au Conseil de seci.trite qi!'ils onl' agi" en consequence,' et le We are. being invited to approve a draft resolution reading as follows: . . . "The Security Council . "I: Notes with satisfaction the steps takel,1 by the parties to comply with the resolution of 1 August 1947; . r ' "2. Notes the action taken· by the Government of the United States in making available its good offices to the Governments of the Netherlands and of the Republic of Indonesia, and the offer by the Government of Australia to act jointly with. the United States Government in the capacity of mediator and arbitrator . . .". . Not one, but two Governments have acted very directly in the matter. The United.StatesGovern- . ment has already offered its good offices, and now the Australian Government is proposing that the twoGovernments 'should act jointly in the capacity of mediators and arbitrators. At this moment the question that is' being raised is whether we .should, or should not give the Indonesian representatives an opportunity to speak in the Council chamber in order to set forth the views and in~ formation of the Indonesian Republic. As. I said before, I should like to have enlightenment on the subject. However, it does seem to me that we should be' acting in a very unilateral fashion if we continued to address ourselves to the Netherlands and the Rftpublic of Indonesia as the two parties to an interrtational dispute and yet, at the-same time, refused to 'one of the partie.s the right to express its views before the. CO\.Ulcil. ' ., . It may be, as so~e representatives may contend, that we took action with a certain haste. That opinion was expressed here before. I do not ~hare it, but if in 'the light of :later developments It becomes clear that we did not act within the terms of the Charter, if we exceeded our powers .and are not justified in taking further action along'the lines on which we began to act let us have a clear ~nd frank understanding about it. That; .I submlt, would be the proper course to follow. We should certainly not grant the right t~ speak to one of the parties to the dispute, and gwe that party an. opportunity to argue its side of t~e case, while deliberately'and persistently, refu~mg.to the other party. the opportunity to do hkewlse. h' ''r S'agit-il d'une affaire internationale ou non? S'agit-il d'une question interieure, comme l'a pretendu a l'origine le representant des Pays- Bas? Dans ce cas, je suis. d'avisque, au, sens ou j'interprete la Charte, nous ne sommes Ireellement fondes a prendre ces mesures que si nous sommes d~sposes a convenir que nous agissons, en quelquesorte, par obligeance. Mais nousavons pris des mesures sur la question. indonesienne en la considerant comme un probleme intetn?-tiona.l et nous {lous' proposons maintenant, conime 'jel'ai dit, de continuer dans 'la meme. voie. ' ' . Nous sommes invites a approuver un projet de resolutionredige comme suit: . "Le Conseil 'de securite, • , "1. Prend acte avec satisfaction des mesures prises par les deux parties pour se conformer ala resolution du 1er aotit 1947; . 2. Prend acte'de l'initiative prise par le Gouvernement des Etats-tJnis, qui a offert sea bons office~ aux Gouvernements des Pays-Bas et de la Republique d'Indonesie, et de l'offre duo Gouvernement des Etats-Unis ·en qualite de medifl.teur et d'arbitre ..." Ce n'est pas un, mais deux Gouvernements qui sont inten'renus tres directement dans cette ' question. Le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis a .deja .offert ses bons offices; et le Gouvernement laustralien propose maintenant que les deux Gouvernements agissent conjointement en qualite de mediateurs et od'arbitres. La 1uestion qui se pose en cemoment est celle de savoir si nOlls devons, oui ou non, permettre aux representants de· l'Indonesie de se presenter devant le Conseil afin de faire connaitre l'opinion de la Republique d'Indonesie, ainsi que les renseignements dont eUe di:spose. Comme je l'ai dit auparavant, je voudrais avoir des eclairdssements sur la question. Toutefois, il me semble que nOllS pr0ndrons des mesures tout a fait partiales si nous continuons a nous adiesser aux Pays-Bas et a la Republique d'Indones'ie comme etant les deux parties a un differend international, tout en refusant a l'une des parties le droit de se 'faire entend'te au tonseiI: , Ii est possible, certain& representant peuvent le pretendre, que nous ayons agi avec urte certainepredpitation,. Cette opinion a deja ete exprimee au Cotlseil. Jene la partage pas; mais si, a: 'la lumiere des evenements ulterieurs, i1 apparait que nous n'avons pas agi conformement aux' dispositions de la Charte, que nous avons outrepass~ nos pouvoirs et que nous ne sommes pa~ fondes a prendre de nouvelles mesures dans le sens ou nous avons d'abord agi, entendonsnous .nettement .et franchement. Je croisque ce serait la la methodc;qu'il conviendrait de suivre. Nous ne saurions, certes, accorder a l'une des parties au differend le droit se faire entendre et lui donner l'occasion d'exposer son opinion si, de propos delibere, nous persistons arefuser la meme occasion a l'autre ·partie. Mr. LOPEZ (Colombia) :We are,now discus- , :;Lng a point of order, 'namely, whe~er or not the right to appear before the Councl1,should, be granted to the representatives of the povernment of the Republic of Indonesia, a Government whose authority has received de fac.to rec~gnition from the United States Government, whIch has already offered its good. offices. That is why I submit that it is relevant to the case that I should express my thoughts. I believe that the representatives of Indonesia should be invited to appear before the Couhcil. 'Mr. NISOT EBelgium) (translated from French) : The recognition of a State ia a serious matter; I do not think it is within the Security Council's competence indirectly to accord rec-' ognition to the Indonesian Republic by admitting it as a sovereign and independent StaLe when it is not yet recognized, still less generally recognized, as a member of the community of Sta:tes. It is even possible that some representatives here may not personally have the requisite. authority to participate on behalf. of their Govern- , .ments in suc~ indirect recognition. I myself have no such powers, since Belgium has not recognized the Indonesian Republic. In that respect I am therefore in the same position as my colleague, the representative of the Unite":! Kingdom. Colonel HODGSON (Australia): After hearing that last observation, I was wondering whether the representative of Belgium at the San Francisco Conference had full powers to recognize the right of ~e Philippmes to participate in.the discussions, since that Conff'rence was held from April to June 1945, and the Ph~lippines was not granted independence until 4 July 1946. Yet it was one of tLe original s\gI1atories of the Charter. We have heard the' representative of the Netherlands reiter~te many times this afternoon that the R,epublie of Indonesia is not a sovereign State and thereior~ cannot be invited to participate in this discussion. I have not heard one representative on the Council claim thatIndonesia -is sovereign, but it has been claimed that it is a State recognized as such in intematiowI law ; a:....d two of the States which have ;recognized it as such~ that is, as a de facto Government-are the United Kingdonr and the United States. . • Furthermore, th~re' is no .provision· in the Charter stipulating that, in order to appear before the Council or to' participate in its discussiorts, a State must be sovereign; for the PUfpOSl::S of the SecuritY Council the )Charter us~s the term "State'?But Ido not wish to go into that, except to mention my own 'COl1l1try'S. 'point 'of view on the;:lrgitments raised by ~e Netherlands repreced~re, a savoir 'si' nous devons ou non' accorder le droit de se faire entendre devant le Conseil aux repi'\~sentants du Gouvernement de I'lndonesie, dont l'autorite de facto a ete reconnue," notamment par le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis. lequel a deja offert ses bons offices. J'estime done que je ne m'eloigne pas du sujet en exprimant mon avis. J~ crois que .les representants' de I'Indonesie doivent etre invites a se faire entendre au Conseil. M. NISOT (Belgique) : La reconnaissance d'un . Etat est une question grave. Je ne crois pas' qu'il entre dans' la competence du Conseil de . securite .ge proceder ,indirectement a une reconnaissance en admettant la. Republique d'Indonesie a. titre d'Etat souverain et independant 1 ' , ' a ors quo eUe Po est pas encore reconnue, ni surtout generalement reconnue, comme membre de la communaute des Etats. nest meme possible que pJusieurs des representants ici presents n'aient pa~ individuellement les pOllvoirs necessaires pour participer, au nom de leur Gouvernement, a cette reconnaissance indirecte. En cequi me concerne personnellement, je ne dispose pas de te1s pouvoirs, la Be1gique n'ayant pas encore 'reconnu la Republique d'Indonesie. Je me trouve done a eet egard dans la meme position que 'ie representant du . Royaume-Uni. . Le colonel HODGSON '(Australie) (traduit de l'anglais): Apres avoir entendu cette derni(~re observation, je me demande si le representant de la Belgique a la Conference de San-'Francisco avait les pleins pouvoirs necessaires pour admettre la participation des Philippines aux debats; en effet, la Conferences'est reunie d'avril a juin 1945, et les Philhmines ne se sont vu accorder l'indepeudance que le 4 juillet 1946. Cependant, ce pays a ete l'un des premiers signataires de la Charte. Nous' a~ons entendu'le representant des Pays~ Bas repeter a maintes reprises, cet apres-midi, que la Republique d'Indonesie n'est pas un Etat souverain et ne peut done etre conviee a' participer aux debats. Je n'ai entendu aucun repre..: sentant au Conseil pretendre que 1'Indonesie soit un Etat souverain ;mais on a soutenu que l'Indonesie est un Etat, reconnu coinme' tel en droit -international; en outre, deux des Etats qui 1'0nt reconnu com'me tel - c'est-a-dire comme u~ Gouvern~ment de fetc.to-sont le Royaume-Uni et les Etats-Unis. .- De plus, il.n'y. a dans la Charte aucune dispo, sition stipul,ant qu~, pour se faire entendre ~evant le Conseil' ou participer' aux deliberations du Conseil; .un Etat doit etre'souverain; en ce qui . concerne le Conseil' d,e securite, la Charte dit:. "Etat": Mais je nc(;Iesire pas discuter ce point; : Je precise simplement l'opitlion de monpropre pays sur les arguments invoques par 1~ repre- At times the CQuncil avoids juridi~ argu- •ments. For that reason we eliminated from the orjgmal draft of the resolution ~dopted 'on 1 August'all reference to Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter. At times we circumvent the rules of procedu:e. But w.e ar,~ confident that, what~ver the Counctl' does, tt wtll always act conscten- . tiously, with equity and justice. Le probleme que nous examinons actuellement beige des mest.1res inspirees pp,r un. sentiment d'equite. ~ous avons entendu l'une des parties; nous avons certainement le droit d'entendre l'au,;, tre. A notreavis, le seul point en jeu en ce moment conceme les conditions que le Conseil juge bon de mettre a la participation de la Republique d'Indonesie; nons proposons de suivre la regIe qui aete etablie pour l'Albanie, a savoir que, en ce qui conceme ce differend, I'Etat interesse se conforme aux obligations de la Charte. La lettre dont le President lui-meme adonne lecture cet apres-midi indique que l;Etat interesse a deja contracte un obligation; par consequent, quand je parle de tourner le reglemen~ int~rieur, je me re£ere a l'article 14, relatif aux pouvoirs. Je fais observer que, dans le .differend qui ilous occupe, nous n'avons, tenu compte de cet article, rii pour les Pays-Bas, ni pour l'Inde; cet article a .ete ecarte. Il s'agit donc ici d'une subtilite technique. ," Je regrette que cette question ait r~tard'e l'examen d'une affaire qui, a notre avis, cons.- titue un probleme urgeqt, etant donne que les r~ , hostilitc~s se. poursuivent encore dans ,certaine-o; i" regions de I'It;ldonesie. J'espere sincerement que nous aboutirons rapidementa une clecision 'a cet egardet que nO'lS pourrons alors discuter la nouvelle proposition de l'Australie. Mr., JOH~;SON (United States of America): M. JOHNSON '(Etats-Unis d'Amerique)' (trar There is no' doubt that the te,rms of Article 32 duit de l'anglais): Il n'est pas douteux que les of the Charter apply to Members of the United\ termes de l'Article 32 de'la Charte s'appliquent Nations or "any State which is not a Memb.er., aux' Membres des Nations Unies ou a "tout of the United Nations,i£ it is a party.to a dispute Etat qur n'est pas Membre des Nations Unies, unlier consideration by the S,ecurity. Council ...". s'il est partie a un .differend examine par le It seems to my delegation that, it is futile to have Conseil de ·securite. . .". Ma 'delegation estime • an extended debate on the question as to whether qu'il . est inutile de se livrer a un long debat or not t,h~ Republic of Indonesia is a State within sur 'le point de savoirsi, oui ou non, la Rethe'meanmg of Article 32. publique d'Indorresie est un Etat, aux termes de l'Article 32. i Mon Gouvemement s'abstient expressement de prendre position a ce sujet, et je ne suis P?§ d'accord avet.: bon nombre de remarques qui ont ete faites ici cet apres-midi, impli<L'Uant que le Conseil; en intervenant, peut transformer indirectement en Etat un pays qui poufrait ne pas etre un Etat. Je ne suis pas du tout convaincu , que le Conseil de securite soit competent pour resoudre ce probleme juridique. Toutefois,il me semble aise de conclure que ·les representants, de l'Indonesie doivent etre invites ' au Conseil, bien que mon Gouvernement This is a case where we have to act with a sehse of fair play. We have heard one side; ·surely we are entitled to hear the other. To our mind, the only problem at this moment is to decide on the conditions which the Council considers should determine the participation of. the Republie of Indonesia. We sugg~st that the same rule should be applied as was applied in' the case of Albania, , namely~ that for the purposes of this·'dispute, the State concerned should undertake the obligations of the Charter. The letter which the President himself read . this afternoon indicates that the State concerned has already undertaken certain obligations; therefore, when I speak about circumventing the rules of procedure, I refer to rule' 14 regarding the submission of credentials. I would point out that in this dispute, that rule was dispensed with in respect both of the Netherlands and of India; it was waived. That is therefore a technicality. 'I regret that this' question has delayed the con~ sideration of what we feel to be an urgent prob- , lem in view of the fact that hostilities are still continuing in certain areas of IndoneSia. I do hope there will be a quick decision on this and that we may then discuss the merits of the new At}stralian proposal. My ~vernment expressly takes no position on that pOlllt, a;nd I do not agree with many of the remarks whtch have been made here this afternoon. in~icating that the .Council, by taking action, ca~ l~dtrectly, make a State out of a country whtcli may not be a State. It is not clear at all in my mind that this Council is competent to decide ,that legal question. ' " " How~ver, I find no difficulty i.n ('o~ing to the concluston that the representative: )f Indonesia should be invited to the Council \.... )le, hi spIte 1\ certains moments, le Conseil evite les discussions d'ordre juridique; c'est pourquoi, dans la resolution adoptee le ler aotit~ nous avons supprime toute mention des Articles 39 et 40 de la Charte qui figurait dans le texte initial. De temps a autre, nous toumons le reglement interieur; mais 110US avons confiance que, quellesque soient .les mesures que prenne le Conseil, il agira toujours en toute equite et en toute conscience. ' cease hostilities forthwith, and ,both of them' ment.1es hostilites, et tous deux ont fait connaitre have indicated their·accept~lDce. leur acceptation.. ' It. seems to me, therefore, to be contrary to • C'est pourquoi il me selT,lble, maintenant' que reason, not to say to equity and justice, now that .. des, personnes sont arrivees ici pour repiesenter persons have arrived liere representing the Re- ! la ~epublique d'indonesie, qu'il s,erait contraire public of Indonesia, to tell them that they may a la raison,pour ne pas dire a'l'equite et a la hot be heard. 1 think it is entirely within the ' justice, de leur declarer qu'elles ne peuvent ,etre right of .the Council, however, to satisfy itself entendues. Je crois,. touteiois, que le Conseil de that these persons do truly represent the Govern- ,securite a parfaitemeI\t le droit.de s'assurer que ment of Indonesia. In that sense I think that the cespersonnes represerltent.dument le Gouvernequestion of credentials, in whatever form they' 'ment de l'Indonesie. Dans ce sens, j'estime que may be presented, or in whatever way the proper: la question des pouvoirs queUe que soit la forme assurance maybe given; is of prime importance. : sous laqueUe il sont ptesentes, ou quelle que soit The question of credentials is not a trivial one. la maniere dont les garanties appropriees sont donnees, est d'une importance primordiale. La ' question des lettres de creance n'est pas. un element secondaire. . Je crois que le Coilseil doit s'assurer que quiconque se presente en disant qu'il represente un tel, representeeffectivement "un tel". Je ne mets gullement en doute ni ne suspecte les pouvoirs de ces personnes. Je me place au point de vue theorique. On ne peut pas avancer a la I think that the Council must be sure that : whoever comes and says he repre~ents so-and-so, • does in fact represent· "so-and-so." I am casting: no doubt or aspersions whatsoever on the creden- ' ~ials of these persons. I .am speaking from a theoretical.point of. view. One cannot cursorily dismiss, the matter of credentials by treating them as technicalities; they are much more than that. ' Article 32' refers to States, but the plain intent .M that Article and of the authors of the Charter was that justice should be done to both parties to a dispute by ensuring that, incases where more than one State, or one group~ or one interest is jrtvolved, both parties to the .dispute, or' the several parties if there are more than two, should have a chance to. present their views. It is therefore, in. my opinion, fully in accordance with the spirit of Article 32, a~ the authors of the Charter conceived it, as well as with ·the action which the Council has already ~ken in this matter, to 'invite the representatives • ofthe Republic of Indonesia to the Council table.. ~n supporting such an invitation, the United States expressly reserves its position on the question of whether.or not the Republic of Indonesia is a State in international law in the sense in which the lllatter has been discussed at this t~ble. We shall alsc;> refrain'from taking a,ny positIon on the· quest10n as to whether, or not we re~ognize the right of the Council' tQ dec~de that pomt.\ That is entirely open. Bufwe think the representatives of the Government of the Republic of IndoneSIa $hould be invited here and, if some members of the Council find' it difficult to accept the application of Article 32, those' representatives could be invited, in our opinion, under rule 39 of the rules df procedure, if that rule were given. a generous' interpretation. l~gere que les lettres de creances ne constituent que des subtilites techniques. Elles representent \lien davantage. . .L'Article 32 Parled'Etats, mais cet Art,icle et les auteurs de la Charte avaient evidemment pour but de rendre justiceaux deux parties a un differend et de faire en sorte que, dans res cas, ou plus d'un Etat, d'un groupe OU d'un intl~ret sont engages, les deux parties' ou les diverses parties au differend, si elles sont plus de deux, aient la possibilite de presenter leur point de vue.' .. ' . . C'est pourquoi",a inon avis, it est ab.solument conforme a l'esprit. de l'Article 32, telque l'en~ tendaient les auteurs de la Charte; ainsi' qu'a la mesure que le Conseil de securite a deja prise dans cette affaire, d'inviter les representants. de ' la Republique d'In<;lonesie a la table du Conseil. En approuvant cette invitation, les Etats-Unis s'abstiennent expressemp.nt de se pronoZ],cer sur, la question'de savoir si,oui ou non, la Republique d'Indonesie est un Etat de droit international, dans le sens qu'on a debatttt ici. Nous' nous abstenons~galemetlt de prendre position sur l.e point de savoir si nous reconnaissons au Consed le d'roit de trancher cette question. Ce probleme reste entier., Mais nous pensons que les representants du Gouvernement de la Republique d'Indonesie devraient etre invites id, et, si ceI:- tains. membres' du Conseil ont quelqtte diffieulte· a accepter l'application de· I!Article 32, ces representants pourraient, a notre avis, etre invites en vertu de l'article 39 du reglement interieur, si l'on donne'a' celui-ci une large interpretation. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, basically the Council has to take a decision somewhat along the lines of the one 'propo~ by the representative of Poland. Whether it adopts this one or another, the fact is that the issue on which the Council must decide is more or less the {ssue exPressed in the Polish proposal. I suggest that we might more easily reach a decision if there 'were inserted in that proposal a simple expression to the effect that the Council formally invites the representatives of the Government of Indonesia to take part in the Qiscussion of the Indonesian problem under whatever conditions t.he Council may prescribe, and without prejUdice to any legal ;position on which the Council has not been in agreement. That might make it easier, as I ha~e said, to reach a d'ecision; no one's position would be prejudiced in any way. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : The po~i­ tion taken here by the representative of the Netherlands is unacceptable to the USSR delegation, although it follows logically from the general . attitude which he has adopted from the outset of the discussion of this question in the Security Council. The representative of the Netherlands has attempted to convince us that this question securite. Le representant des Pays-Bas a essaye de nous convaincre que cette question ne doit pas etre examinee du tout,parce qu'elle ne serait pas de la competence du Conseil. Mais le simple fait que le Conseil de securite ait accepte d'.:~xami­ ner la question et ait meme pris, .le ler aoiit,une decision appropriee it ce ,sujet, suffit it refuter les arguments du representant des' Pays-Bas, pour autant,du moins, qu'il s'agisse de la competence du Conseil de securite.·· .sho~ld not be discussed at all, on the grounds . .that it does not fall within the Security Council's jurisdiction. But.tlle mere fact that the Security Council took up the discussion of this question and, furthermore, adopted an appropriate deCision in that matt~r on 1 August, refutes the arguments. of the representative of the Netherlands; at least in so far as the Security Council's jurisdiction is ~oncerned. " . I think that certain representatives were right ih pointing out another·untenable argument put . I1 me semble que c'est avec raison que certarns . representants ont souligne ici le manque de bien- . fonde ~d'un autre argument durepresentant des Pays-Bas qui aessaye de. nous convaincre que la Republique d'Indonesie, ayant ete reconnye par un petit nombre de pays seulement, ne pent etre consideree co~me un Etat souverain. Je pourrais demanderaux representants des Pays- Bas et du Royaume-Uni combien. de pays ont reconnu la Liberi~, par exemple,. ~u le Yemeri, ou les Philippines, que l'on a ~entionnees ici? Peu de pays, sans doute.Et cependant, le Liberia est Membre de 1'0rganisat :01l des Nations Unie.s, tandis que le Yemen, de .~"is g,eneral du Con.:. seil, semble-t-il, est un Etat souverain qui doit etre adinis a I'Organisation des Nations Unies, .puisqtie tousles Gouyernements repres!i:ntes au Conseil se sont exprimes favorablement au Comite d'admissiondes nouveaux Membres, sur' la demanded'ad11lission decepays. . Op peut se demander si la: Republique d'Iilf~rwardby the Nethedands representative, who tned topel'suade us that, since the Indonesian' Republic had been recognized by few States, it could not be considered as a sovereign State. L could ask the representatives of the Netherlands. and the United Kingdom how many 'States have r.ecogn!zed Liberia, for instance; how many. countr~es have recognized Yemen; and how many countnes have recognized the Philippines, which has been mentioned here. \Probably only a few: . And yet Liberia isa Member of the United . ~ation::;. and, we all seem to agree that Yemen IS a sovereign State which should be admitted to the United Nations, since all the Governments re]?resented .on the Council were in favour o£' .. It is a debatable point ~hether the Indonesian ..... _. Xedm~n:~ application in the Committee .on the mlSston of New MemberS". '. .' .' . , dence. They are meeting with great difficulties; .it has even gone so far that they have recently been subjected to armed attacks by.the Netherlands; but the Indonesian people is stubbornly making its way towards full independence. The Indonesian Republic is sufficiently sovereign and sufficiently i~dependent to be allowed to express the opinions, thought and feelings of the Indonesian people on a question which affects its vital interests. . I think the Security Council would be acting unjustly if it refused the legitimate request of the Government of the Indonesian Republic and if it did not allow the representatives of the Government of that Republic to participate in our discussion. I am glad to see that at this rtteeting the United States representative, too, has agreed that the representatives of the Indonesian· Government should be invited, but I cannot agree that this invitation should be bound up with certain reser- ~tions which, in the first place, would diminish the import of the Security Council's decision regarding the invitation and, in the second place, would cast a certain doubt on that decision in respect of the rights and powers of the Council. ~'Since the. Council has decided that it has the right and the power to consider this question, which was raised by the represeI!tatives of India and Australia, it has every right to decide in favour of inviting the r~pres~ntatives of the, Government of the Indonesian Republic without any reservations, even reservations of a legal nature. Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): It was. with great interest that I heard the representative of the United States refer to rule 39 of the rules of procedure. ·1 wish I could give. my blessing to. his 'suggestion because I am very anxious that parties should he heard. However, this should not be done at the cost of contravening either the . Chatter or the rules of procedure. What b9thers me. in this matter, much as I should like to accept these views, is that rule 39 refers to admitting certain persons to supply the Council "with iJlformation or to give other assistance in examining matters within its competence". I am speaking here broadly in defence of a correct application of the Charter and of the rules of procedure. If representatives' of any c 't,,, ry are invited under this rule, theimplication' is· that the Sec.urity Council is competent in this matter, has jurisdiction therein. I submit that that is not the case. I think that the point involved here goes far beyond the merits of this case. It raised the whole issue of the correct application iof the' Chart~r and of the rules of procedure; the issue of . whether this Council, with a formal little bow - I trust the United States representative will excuse me when I use that word - to its tion son' chemin vers l'independance complete. La Republiqu.e d'Indonesie est souveraine et independante dans une mesure suffisante pour qu'il, lui. soit pen~is d'exprimer l'opinion, les pensees ,et les sentiments du peuple indonesien sur une question qui est pour lui d'un interet vital. ]e crois qUe le Conseil de securite n'agirait pas equi~ablement s'il ne dOllnait pas satisfaction a la demande legitime du Gouv€:rnement de la Republique d'Indonesie et n~admettait pas les, representants de cette Republique a participer a' . nos debats. . ]e remarque avec satisfaction que le representant des Etats-Unis s'est egalement declare d'accord, a la presente seance, pour que l'on invite les representants du Gouvernementde l'Indonesie, mais je ne puis admettre que cette invitation soit sujette a des reserves; en effet, ces reserves reduiraient la portee de la decision du Conseil de securite au sujet de cette invitation et, d'autre part, feraient planer un doute sur cette decision, pour ce qui est des droits et pouvoirs du Conseil. Puisque le Conseil a decide qu'i1 avait le droit et le pouvoir d'examiner cette ques~ tion, qu'ont soulevee les rt.presentants de l'Inde et de l'Australie, it a parfaitement le droit de trancher dans un sens positif la.question de l'invitation desrepresentants de la Republique d'Indonesie, et ceci sans aucune restriction, meme de caractere juridique. . M. VAN KLEFFENS (Pays-Bas) (traduit de l'ooglais): J'ai entendu, avec grand interet, le representant des Etats-Unis invoquer l'article 39 du reglement interieur. ]e voudrais pouvoir approuver cette idee, parce que je desire vivement que les parties soient entendues. Toutefois, on ne doit pas le faire au prix d'une violation de la Charte ni du reglement ,interieur. Ce qui m'ennuieace sujet, que! que soit le desir que j'eprotive d'accepter ce point de vue, c'est que l'article 39 stipule que ,le Conseit invite certaines personnes a ltii fournir "des informations ou a. lui donner leur assistance dans l'examen des questions relevant da sa competence". Je defends ici, d'une maniere generale, une application 'correcte de la Char-re et du reglement interieur. Si, en vertu de cet article du reglement, on invite des representants d'un pays quelconque, on declare implicitement que le C;onseil de se- .curite est competent en la matiere, que sa juri- ·diction s'etend sur cette question. ]e pretends que c'est impossible. J'estime que le point en jeu depasse' de loin le cadre de ce probleme. Toute la question de l'application correcte de la Charte et du regIeme~t interieur se trouve soulevee, la question de saVOlr• si le Conseil; apres un petit salutdepure for~e - j'ai confiance que M. Johnson excusera I'expression - a sa competence extremement........ If the majority of the members of the Council i~dicate that they intend to do as they please, why have any Charter or any written rules at all? The Charter~and I say this with great earnestness-should be for the protection of the Members of the United Nations against many evils and not least, against any tendency on the part of any organ of the United Nations to exceed the limits of its jurisdiction as defined in the Charter. Mr. TSIANG (China): I shall confine my remarks at present to the proposal submitted by t:he representative of Poland, reserving my right to speak later on the Australian draft resolution.. Des le debut de notre discussion sur la question indonesienne, j'ai toujours. et instamment prie les membres du Conseil de laisser de cote les questions juridiques, en partie parce que la discussion n'eii serait pas tres utile et en partie parce que, je l'avoue, je ne pourrais jamais me mesurer, sur le terrain juridique, avec un juriste aussi distingue que le representant des Pays- Bas, etant donne surtout qu'il y a entre nous, me semble-t··il" une'divergence d'opinion fo,ndamentale en ce qui concerne la .conception de I'Etat. . Si j'ai bien compris le representant des Pays- Bas, il conc;oit I'Etat dans un sens absolu, monistique :.un Etat est souverain ou il n'est pas. It est noir ou blanc; a son point de vue il n'existe pas de gris. Je crois que, pour repondre a certaines necessites modernes, nous devons' concevoir l'Etat d'une maniere .differente, d'une I}laniere plus souple; il petit avoir, sous certains aspects, les qualites requises pour constituer un Etat et ne. pas les posseder a d'autresegards. Si nous invitons le representant de la Republique d'Indonesie a prendre part a la discussion au sein du' Conseil de securite, que faisons-nous en realite? From the very beginning of our disc,ussion of the Indonesian question, I have always urged members of the Council to shun legal questions, partly because their discussion "would not be very helpful and partly, I confess, because I could never argue on points of law with such a distinguished jurist as the representative of the Netherlands, mainly because I think there is a fundamental difference of opinion between us in our conception of a State. If .I understood the representative of the Netherlands rightly, he conceives of a State in an absolute, monistic sense-it is either a sovereign State or it is not a State at all. It is either black or white; in his view there are no greys. I believe that for modern needs we have to conceive M a State in a differ~nt way, a more elastic way; it may qualify as a State in certain respects, but not in others. Whep. we invite the representative of the Indonesian Republic to appear before the Council, what are we really doing? We are recognizing that representative as the competent Itopposite number" of the representative of the Netherlands. That is all we are doing. Nous reconnaissons que ce representant est la "contrepartie" qualifiee du representant des Pays- Bas. Voila tout. En negociant et en signant' un accord avec la Republique d'Indonesie, le Gouvernement des Pays-Bas a agi exactement ainsi. Il a reconnu que, pour les besoins de la cause, la Republique d'Indonesie etait competente et constituait la...·'contrepartie" appropriee.En acceptant que le representant de la Republique d'Indonesie soit invite a participer a la discussion, j'impJique qu'il constituerait, dans ce differend, la' contrepartie appropriee au representant des Pays-Bas. Je n'implique den d'autre, je ne reconnais rien d'autre. . Du point de vue politique general, j'estime que le Conseil augmenterait son prestige moral et accroitrait sa propre influence dans cette partie du monde, s; le representant de la Republique d'Indonesie prenait part a nos discussions. Si .nOllS arrivons a des conclusions, apres avoir entendu le representant des Pays-Bas, aussi completement et aussi souvent qu'ille desire, sans que le representant de l'Indonesie ait eu l'occasion de se ·faire entendre,· les decisioris du Cons'eil de .. In negotiating and stgningan agreement with the Indonesian Republic, the Government of the NetherIands did that very thing. It recognized that in, the questions at issue, the Republic of Indonesia was compp.tent and was the proper .:'op,P0site number". I;t supporting the proposal to l?Vlte the representative of the Indonesian Repubhc to participate in this discussion, I imply that he would be the proper "opposite number" of the i'epresent~tive of the Netherlands in this dispute. I imply nothing else, I recognize nothing else. Fr01~ a broad political point of view, I think that !}us. Council ,:,ould increase its moral prestige and Its mfluence m that part of the'world if the repre~entative of the Republic of Indonesia took • part 111 our discussions. If we reach con'€lusions after hearing the representative of the' Netherlands ~s. fully and as often as he wishes, but without gmng the representative of Indonesia an opportunity to be heard, the discussions of the Council will not carry nearly as much moral 1hz ' . Mr.' PAROD! (France), (translated ,from French) : I shall first revert to a 'point on which I haye already spo~en hi my prec-eding statements. It is sufficiently importan~ to be discussed anew. The Security Council's authority is' ,based on a'document which we call the Charter and which should in the first place, of course, be respected by organs of the United Nations. We should therefore be very carefUl to respect the document which constitutes our law, for apart from that document I do not see what authority we would have. The other d<;t.y we took a rather curious decision..The Security O:mncil took cognizance of a question but reserved the point as to whether it had jurisdiction to deal. :with it. We thus took a step which was certainly not' very satisfactory frolIl the point of view of procedure and which places us now':'-as it was almost inevitably 'bound to d~ina somewhat embarra:~sin~ position. '. On 1 August we took;i, decision on s~tim~ntal and humanitarian grounds, while reserving completely the question of our jurisdic~6n.. In that connexion I should like to reply iin!l1ediately to ail argument put forward just now by the repre- ,sentative of Poland. He told us that the Security Council's judsdiction in the'matter 'Yas implicit ,in the decision which we took the other day. That i~certainlynot'the case. It is not the case because~ pn the ,contrary, we reserved' this question of . Jurisdiction formally and. very' clearly. It is therefore somewhat strange to assert, .in virtue ' of the decision taken on 1 August~ that the ques:" tion'of jurisdiction has beensettled. The question. of' jurisdiction ha's not 'been settled and it is • extremely serious. Certain remarks have been made today, in the course of our discussions, regarding the question of jurisdiction. I shall not ~yselfattempt to deal fully with this question. now, bUi I should like .to recall the' arguments which were put forward to prove ..that the Security' Council had jurisdiction. . It was said thafa' State need not ,be a sovereign State in 1>rder to appear before the Security Council; it was simil;}r1y.claimed that an argumentcould be adduced from a comparison be,;, tween Article 32 aIld Article, 2,. paragraph 1 of the Ch~rter. , . ' If I understand these arguments correctly, I think the reasoning is the following. An:ic1e 2, paragraph 1 reads ~ "The Organizatipn is' based ont'heprinciple ·of the soveFeignequality of all j Nous avons pris l'autre jour une assez curieuse decision. Le Conseil de securite s'est saisi d'une question, en reservant le point de savoir s'it etait competent pour en parler. Nous avons, fait ainsi un pas qui n'etait certainement pas tres satis- ~aisant du point de vue des regles et qui nous· met aujourd'hui dans la situation ou it devait presque fatalement nous mettre, a savoir une situation assez embarrassee. Nous avons pris, le ler aout, une decision sur le plan de la sentimentalite, de Vhumanite, en' reservant entierement la que~'tion c;le notre competence, et je voudrais ici repoadre tout de suite a up. argument dont s'est servi tout a I'heure le representant de la Pologne. Ilsnous a dit: la decision meme que 1'0n a prise l'autre jour im~ plique la competence du Conseil de securite. Certainement pas. Certainement pas, parce que nous avons, au contraire, forinellement et' de la maniere laplus c1aire, .reserve cette question de competence. 11 n'est donc pas tres normal de se servir aujourd'hui' de.la decision prise le ler a.out pour pretendre que la question de competence a ete tranchee. La question de competence n'a pas ete tranchee, et elle presente un caractere de tres grande gravite. Dans la di!/cussion d'aujourd'hui, certaines observations ont ete faites sur cette question de competence. Je ne pretends pas traiter completement cette question moi-meme maintenant; mais je .voudrais reprendre 'les arguments qui on ete avances pour etablir que le Conseil de securite est competent. ' On a dit qu'ilne setait pas necessaire qu'un Etat soit .un Etat souverain pour comparaitre devant le Conseil de securite, et on a, dans le meme sens, pretendu ,tirer un argument de la comparaiscin de l'Article· ~2 de la Charte et gu para,graphe premier de l'Article 2. • Si j'ai bien compris ce qui a ete di}, il m~ semble que le ra~sonnement est le ,sUll/ant: a l'Article 2,' paragraphe 'premier, il est dit: I It is argued that, since in ArtiCle 32 the sovereignty of ~on-member States is not mentioned, such States need not be sOvereign in order that questions affecting them should fall within the jurisdiction of the United Nations.! Frankly, I do not think these arguments carry much weight; and I apologize for saying so to , my colleagues who advanced them. In referring to the sovereign equality of Members, Article 2, paragraph 1 does not provide that Members of the United Nations must be. sovereign; it establishes from the starf the principle underlying their mutual relations. ' Although the expression "sovereign State" is not used in Article 32, this obviously does not mean that the word "State" should be understood otherwise than in its meaning in international law. deniment pas que le mot '~Etat" puisse etre pris dans un a':ltre' sens que celui qu'il a en droit international.' ' On rendrait la discussion plus claire si 1'0n precisait ce qu'on entend par "Etat souverain". I1 's'agit, pour 'la discussion qui est' la notre 'aujourd'hui" de savoit; non pa& si un Etat a plein caractere d'Etat' a taus les points de' vue; 'mais si' 1'0n pent considerer'comme Etat un Etat, souverainou ,un Etat tout 'court, du '~lOint de, vue du droit international. A cet egard, le sens de l'Article 32'de la: Charte me parait, ne pas pouvoir etre discute: Les·· Nations Unies sont essentiellement un organisme, de droit international. Les rapports et les questions' qui viennent devant 1"Organisation sont' essentielleme~t d'otdre internationaI,et, lorsque le mot "Etat'r est em:- ploye, .' lorsque 'noris rechetchons si un Eta't est. suffisaniment souverain potircomparaitre ic~notis entendons par la' un Etat au 'sens dtidroit international. \ ' " We also discussed the meaning of the Ona discutej'd'autre part; le sens del'Accord Linggadjati Agreement. The arguments based on de! Lhiggadjati; 'et' les argumeJ;lts que l'ona that doc!ffi1ent consisted-I must point opt that foodes sur ce texte' oni consiste - comme deja~ such was the case in the' original thesis of the je' ~ois le :dire; dans .1'argtimentation ii!itiale9-u The discussion would be clarified if the mean'" i ing of the expression "sovereign State" were defined. The problem which we are discussing today is not whether a State has all the characteristics.of a State, but whether a sovereign State, or simply a State, may be considered as a State in international law. From that point of view the meaning of Article 32 of the Charter seems to me to' be indisputable. The United Nations . is essentially an organization based on interna"'- tionallaw. Reports and questions brought before it are essentially of an international character; and When, the word "State" is used, when we wish ~o find out whether a State is' sufficiently . sovereIgn to appear here, we mean thereby a State in international law. Aust.r~lian representative-in singling out certain representant de l'Australie -" a isolercertainell provI~Ions of ,that Agreement and overlooking dispositions de' ,cet· Accord, ,en en ignorant others. But the provisions of the.' Linggadjati d'autres. Mais les dispositionsquifigurent dans Agreement are valid only in so far as they form I'Accord de Linggadjati n'ont de valeur que part of that Agreement; they cannot be separated parce qU'elles se trouvent dans cet Accord, et from one another. True, the Agreement states on nepeut ,p.as lesisoler,les unes ties autres. Il that the Netherlands Government recognizes the est exact qu'il'estdit dans cet Accord que le ~.vernment of the Indonesian Republic as exer- Gouvernement des Pays-Bas reconnaft -le Gouclsmg de f(tcto authority over Java, Madura and vernement 'de la Republique d'Indonesie comme S;umatr:,,-. That.is true. Brit it is said immediately exere;ant une' autorite, de 'fait. stir Java, Madbura afterwards that the Netherlands Government and et Suinatra; Cela:estexact.Mais il est immediatethe Govefnr:1ent of the Indonesian Republic shall ment indique ensuite que l~' Gouvernement des co-ope~ate In the prompt establishment of a Pays-Bas 'et le Gouvernement de la Republique SOvereIgn State. ,- , d'Indonesie coopereront a la formation rapide d'un Etat souverain. If we look at the other provisions of the s;me Si 'l'on 'en vient aux' autres 'dispositions du Agreement, and at those of article X in padicumeme :Accord, notamment'a celles de l'articIe X, lar, we .shall see that, as,'was pointed out here-:- " on constate que, comme cela a ete indique ici ~ and no .reply. was made to that point...:-theAgree- .et it n'a pas 'ete reporidu a ee point --- fintention ment aimed at the gradual establishment of a de cet Accord etaitd'arriver progressivement a S~tein intern~tional law which, consequently, la constitution ,d'un Etat ,de droit international does not yet eXISt. I think there can be no doubt qui, par eonseque~t, n'existe pas encore' au~ on tha~ score; , . jourd'hui.. Je crois· qu'a cet egard il n'y a pa:5' de daute. ':'. dhy, whereby we overstepped the rules of law, now' places us in a very difficult position, as was inevitable and as might have been expected. I agree, hbwever, that there is very great weight in' the "fair-play'" argument which .has been advanced. Obviously if ·the Security Council, in ~iscussing a question, heats one of the' parties concerned, it,is 'somewhat shocking that the other party should not be heard. That is the unfortunate and awkward resUlt Of the contradiction into which we fell the other day when 'we discussed ~ question 'of 'such great impOJ!tance without settling whether we were competent to deal with it. We must now extricate ourselves from this predicament with as little damage 'as. possible. The United States representative has suggested a. ' solutioncwhich is merely an extension of the decision ~ken on 1 August. and which consists in continuing to say that we' reserve the. question of jtirisdictioQ. This may be a lesser evil; it is certaiIilynot fully satisfactory. When I re-read the Australian draft resolution, /' ' which is the text we are'discussing; I won<Iered .whether the, need for hearingboth parties was as cl~r as might at first sight appear, from the point pj view of, equity. That dtaft-I anticipate somewhat., the ~discussion which will take place later-'-recalls, ·the previous decision, notes the consequences of that decision and' concludes with three paragraphs of which the first also notes the measures taken, the second notes the offer of .gdod offices by two Governments and the last resOlves' to establish a commission. I think the first two points can be discussed without again raising the question of jurisdiction... [have much greater doubts as to the third point. But in any case; when discussing'a text of this kind, in which the substance of the question is not touched upon and in which-there is no dis- .cussion of the merits of the case, I wonder whether it is really necessary---o:r as necessary ~s it might at first appear from the point of view of equity.-.:.that the representatives .of Indonesia should be heard. I wonder if we could. not adopt another solution which wm,dd{ more adequately safeguard the legal question, since we intend to reserve,it, a solution whereby the ,representatives of Indonesia, since they are in New York, could state their observation~ in wrIting and communicate them to us individually or to the Secretariat, which would forwardthem to us for our information. I think that in that way .ne legal question . Or, it reste' que le pas que nous avons fait l'autre jour, en nous plac;ant en dehors des regles de droit, nous met aujour<;l'hui, comme it est normal et comme it etciit a. prevoir, en presence de tres grandes difficultes. Mais je reconnais. qu'il y a une tres grande valeur dans l'argumentation, qu'on pourrait: appeler l'argumentation du fair play, que l'on. a' employee, Il est certain que, ,si le Conseil de securite, en traitant urie' question, entend l.lne des parties intl~ressees, il y a quelque chose de choquant a ce que I'autre - partie interessee ne soit pas entendue. CeIa est 'la consequence' fflcheuse, difficile,de la contradiction que nous avons admise_l'autre jour en traitant une question 'de cette iinportance sans nous preoccuper de savoir si. nOJIs etions competents pour la traiter. ~l faut'maiJ;1terlant ,que 'nous soI'tions de cette, difficulte de la maniere qui fera le moins, de degflts. Le representant des Etats-Unis a suggere une' solution qui .est, en' somme, le prolongement de la decision prise le ler aotit et qui consiste a continuer a dire que nous reservons la question de la competence. Ceci 'est perlt-etre uti moindre mal: ,ce it'est certainement pas pleine: . ment satisfaisant. Je me demandais, en relisa!1t le projet de reso- , lution de l'Australie, qui est .le texte. sur Ieqtiel, nous discutons, si la necessite d'entendre les deux parties est aussinette qu'it peut sembler d'abord au point de vue de I'equite. Le projetj'anticipe un peu sur la discussion a laquelle nous parviendrons ensuite - rappelle 1<. decision qui a ete prise precMemment, puis pr CId a!=te des consequences de cette decision, et contient, enfin, trois paragraphes; dont I'un prend' acte egalement des mesures prises, dont le deuxieme prend acte de l'offre de bons/" offices de deux Gouvemements, et dont. le deni.ier. decide de creel," une commission. Je crois que,. en ce qui' concerne les deux premiers .points, nous pourrons les discuter sans que se pose anouveau la question de comp~t:~~t. J'ai beaucoup plus ,de doutes sur l~ tr~ls1eme point. Mais je me demartde, en tout cas; SI, pour la discussion d'un te~te de cet ordre, dans lequel on n'aborde pas le fond de la question, dans lequel it n'y a pas de discussion de fond, it est vraiment" necessaire, aussi necessaire qu'it peut 'le paraitre en equite au premier abord, que les representants de l'Indon,esie soient en.tendus. Je me demande si nous ne pourrions pa~, aIor~, adopter une autre formule qui menageralt davantage la question de droit, puisque l'intention est de la. reserver, et en vertu de laquelle les representants de I'Indonesie, puisqu'ils sont a New-York, transmettraient par ecdt les observations qu'ils ont a presenter, nous les. enverraient individuellement ou les adresseralent au,4 I should like to repeat thatthis is an important question' and it would be regrettable if we were to deal .with such a serious problem or to appear to decide it in any way in conncxion with a purely procedural point, namely, whether we should hold hearings. and how w~ should hold them. J'ai, au cours d~ la cent-soixante-treizieme seance, fait des reserves sur la decision qui a ete prise. Je renouvelle ces reserves, mais je prends acte egalement, bien entendu, de la decision que le Conseil de securite a prise aucours de cette meme seance, et c'est pour aider·. le Conseil a se tirer de la difficulte tres certaiIie dans laquelle il s'est place que je lui soumets les suggestions qui me sont venues a l'esprit; man seul souci est de trouver une porte de sortie dans une situation difficile. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de· l'anglais):La dis,: cussion est' terminee et nous devons proceder ~ un vote sur ce point; c'est-a;'dire sur la ques-' tion de savoir si les representants _de la Re-, publique d'lndonesie doivent etre invites 'a participer aux debats du Conseit de securite' relatifs au probleme dont il est maintenantsaisi. Quant a la fac;on de determiner ~u de definir la souverainete et le degre de souverainete aetuels de la Republique d'Indonesie, j'es-time que nous n'avons pas a considerer cette question. Elle ne 'nous conceme pas. Nous n'avQns pas en Cc moment a den.nir des souverainetes. La souverainete comprend diffez:entes prerogatives. Il est ?Qssible que la Republique d'Indonesie jouisse de certaines d'entre eUes, et soit privee de.certaines autres. Toutefois, l'invitation a participer a la discussion et a etu<;lier le probleme 40nt le Conseit de securite est saisi en ce moment n'exige pas que cet Etat jouisse de toutes les prerogatives et exerce tous les privileges de la souverainete. Le mot "Etat" qui figure a l'Article 32 li'indique pas de quel type d'Etat il s'agit. Il ya les Efats-Unis d',Amerique et il y a I'Etat de Michigan. Ce demier possede une certaine souverainete. Il possMe la souverainete legislative. Par exemple, I'Etat de Michigan promulgue des lois, leve des impots' et possede d'autres droits souverains. Mais, en ce qui conceme la mot;ltlaie ou la representation diplomatique, il ne possede auetm droit souverain. Nous'ignorons quel estle degre de sOl,1verainete de l'Indonesie. Pour CC motif, je pre£ere ne pas m'aventurer dans le detaitde cette question. Nous sommes ici pour retablir la paix dans une region ou eUe est troubIee, et nous aVOilS commence a retablir cette paix par la resolution que, nous avons adoptee a la. cent-soixantetreizieme seance et qui figure au document S./459. Nous considerons maintenant rlue la T:lre- 'sence de representants. de 'l'Indonesie' serai :i.lecessaire et utile, en -VUe d'Ul1e solution juste de ce probleme. C'est pourquoi je vais mettre aux voix uniquement la question de savoir s'il convient d'inviter les representantsde la R-epublique At the hundred and seventy-third meeting I made reservations. concerning'the decision .which was taken. I reiterate those reservations, while at the same time, of course, taking note of the decisio:l taken by the Colmcil at that same meeting. 'It is to ,help the 'Council out of the very real difficulty. in which it has placed. itself that I submit to.it the suggestions which occur tp me; my only, wish is to find a solution to a difficult problem.

The discussion is now over and we must proceed to a vote on thisc point, namely, - whether the representatives of the Indonesian Republic should be invited to partici:- pate in the discussion of the question now before the Security Council. " As td the' determination or definition of sovereignty and· of, the degree of sovereignty which the Indonesian Republic now possesses, I think that is not for us to consider. We have nothing. to do with that. We are not defining sovereignties now. Sovereignty has several prerogatives; I think the Indonesian Republic may be enfoying some ,of them and may not be enjoying others, However, the invitation to participate in this .discussion and to study the problem now presented t9 the. Security Council does not necessitate that this State should enjoy all the prerogatives and exercise. all the functions of sovereignty.. The word "State", which appears in Article 32, does not-indicate'what type of State is being referred to.· .. There are the United States of America and there is the State of Michigan. The latter has a ~ertai~ atlloUtit of sovereignty. It has sovereignty In legislation; for instance, the State of Michigan can make laws, levy-taxation and exercise other sovereign rights. But in regard to currency Or foreign representation; it does not have sovereign rights. . . We de not ~ow what prerogi!tives of sovereignty are exerCised by, Indonesia. 'For that reason I prefer not to go into details in this matter. We are here t()· restore peace to a troubled area, and we have started'restoring that peace by adopting, at the. hund~ed and seventy-third meeting" the resolutton which appears in document S/459. Now we consider that the presence of representatives from In~onesia would be necessary and helpful for the Just solution of this problem: For that reason.1 shall pu~ to.the vote only the question of extenchng a~ mVltatton .to the representatives of the I~doneslan. Repubhc to appear before the Secunty CouncIl during the discussion of this b" l s~Q.tl-ld like tq a;~d. th~t ~p. inV'~t~~~QA to. the repr~1l~n.t~tiv,es Qf tbe. ~Jl.dmle.sjan ~ePtl-blic tQ paF1;icipa.te @. th~$, dis~ussioiJ, w<w.ld not hhld :my Stflte to recogn.ize tl:w iJl.dep~d~l;I,l;;e ()r S9,veJ;~gI1t.x Qf fu~" I~~n,e"!?Um :R~pt!bl~c, n~ ~n..v~t~tio1l, WQl,l1d. be.. ~ep;de.Q; &~1l1P~ in t:;o~ion witl,l, the work of the ~eG~ity"c;Qu1l,dJ.. Eve.Q". State wQ,u,ld h~ve c;QIQ.p!e.te liber-ty e.ither 1;Q recognize or not to recognize the sovereignty Q.! independence of the Indonesian ~epublic. We are. not now di~cussing" the admIssIon o£ the Indonesian Republic .to membership· in the United Nationsi we are simply discussing an invitation tothe Fepresenta:tives'of the Republic to pam:cipate in the discussian of the. matter. before the Council. We shall now vote on the question of inviting the representaHves Q-T the In,donesian Republic on the basis' which I have indicated. A vote was taken by show of hands. The propasal was..ad(),p,ted' by. 8' VOte-of to 3. Votes for: Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Pola.nd;, Syria, Union of Soviet Socialist R.epub~ lies-, Ultlited States of America. ~Qtes agaitzst: Belgi1J1l1, France, United Ningdom. . " The PREsIDENT'; I consider this to be a proaedtn"al p@intand I thcl'efo,1!€ declare the pJIoPQsal adop.1!e-d. " . . '\ '- I shall now ask the Assistant: Secretary-Geneval to read the credentials which have· been~submitted. . lV,fr. ~~NQ (!\ssist~nt Secret!U'y-~eneral in . charge; of; :J;.ega~ Affairs).: The $ecreb\riat ha:; bee~ shown, flie ori~J o~ Cl dQcqr.nent signed by 1\411. $'oekarP9. Pi~sid~nt o{ the :Repulllic. o~ I"nqxlll.esia, appomting' Mr. Soe~n $jahrir Ambass~or-at-l~ige of t}1e R~pqblic of" Indonesia. In aeear4an~e'witb: ~e ruJ<es of procedure, th~ See-l'~~llY-Qe~eml will st$mi1ia: report OIl; these credentials at the next meeting af' the Se~rity Councit Th~ P1Q!:SJP~NT: I hope that the Secretary- ~.et;llt wUl als\) e~te~ an. invitati(ln to. the r~p.J1§~t3:t~v~;of tbe· Republic of Illdonesia to l!P~~r·~t 1!JJe n~ UlQettng of· the SecU1'i~ G9qg.~U, whj~ will be held On Thursday" 104- Augq&t, ~t- 3 p.w· . Mr. ~N Kr.E¥PENS (Nethelilands),: To lreep the record quite 'Cle3lr. 1 want t@ pomt out that l rl!~s~ ~Q. objec~Qp. at a;11. t9 1h.~ 4~,ci:;lon Which hl!s J~$l beeJi tak.en by, th~ CautlC.lh smce the PreEl~q~n1: M$ m.!!d~ it c;:lear th~t the decls.ion w~ talc~n. withQ~t prejqQ.j~~ of ~y$oct w.td ~t i~ w~s nQt Qa,$eq o~ Arti<;l~ 3~ of tbct Charte1," or rule, 39 o~ t4e nt1es of. prQ~~dure. l do not. wish to. W!g the. Repqplk of lnqQPesi~ or to prevtmt it from givin.g illf.:qr~atiml. her~ amI. presentm,g. its 1?owt of vi.ew. What ~h~ve h~en. concerned with al.l al~ng is ~er6ly 1:he correGt appijcaJion of the Cp::,l.Fte.r ~Q; ~e.n~rIilJ, ~4.~rticqll:\rly ID respect of the Rept,tbhc of Ind.QAesIa.. <t,1,t).C; r~J?re!'len~l!At~ de la, R<fp"Q.Qliq.ue. d'IndQn.~$ie i!. pa,rt;ic;iper a l~ <Us~US,$~QIj n'oQli.geJ;a,it al,Wtm Etq.t ~ ~e~(:mnaJtre l'in~peIl,4.an~e QU la S01,1- v.~ra~~~~ <le. ~ ~~publiqp~ I fhlqQnesie. L'in,., VlW,tI011l s~nut lanGee {!\1 e~d un.,~qt,t~ment q,WC travaux du €onseil de securite. Chaque Etat serait completement libre de reconnaitre Oll '"d~ ne pas reconnaitre la souverainete 0:1 l'inde- 1?end~nce d~ la Republique 4'In.don,esi.e.. Nous ne dIscutans pas en ce moment 1""ad!nIssI0n de la Repqblique d:':Pndonesie a POrganisation ~es Natiens j Uni:es; naus discutans simplement l~envqi d'ltne invItation aux l'epi'esentants de la Republiq1:1e, en vue de leur participation ala di!?cussion de la question au sein· du ConseU. N01:1s alIons voter maintenant SUi' la question de }.linvitation a. agressel.' au:~ represenmnt-s de la Republique ,d''Indonesie 8uivant les pvincipes que je viens d'exposer. 11 est procede au vote amain levee. Par 8 vois vQntre 3:, la-, pr,(J.po.~itiQn e-sfl adoPt-M. Votent pour: Australie, Br-asH, Chine, Co. lombic, Pologne, Syrie, Union d~s Repu1:)liqUllS sociaHstes sovietiques, Etats-U1n~s' d~Amerique. "'70tent coittre: Belgique, France, R:oyatJme- Uni. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Je con- &idere· qU'll s'agit d!une qu.€j~~iQn 41:1 p~o.cedure, et: j~ deela.1ie, en qons~qu~n~e" qu,e llil prQpos;itiQTh est adopt-ee. Ye prie maintenan~ Monsieur re Secretaire ge- ~er.al, adjoint de donner l'ectu~e des letWes de creance pn!sentees. M. KE.RNO (Secretaire general adjoint charge des q\1estions Ju.ridiques}(trdduit' a.t' Panglais/:. Le Secretariat a eiCahiine Itoriginal d~'lln" dbeument signe par M. $"oekarno, P1'esiqent de la R~pub.lique (rrnd'Qne~ie, nQwmallt M. "Sbe~ Sj'ahrir AmbassiJ,d~ur e~traordi~aire de la Republique d JIlldon.esie. Gonforme11,1cnt au reglem'ent interieur, le Secreta.i~e gen~rak presentera, un rapport sur ces l'ettres de crl%nce a la prochaine seance du Conseil de securite. Ir.e PJiEsl:DENI]' (1rad'Uit d~ I~'anglai$)': }'espere que le Seclietaille generall inv:Itera. tlgatement les repl'esentants de la R,epubliqu£ dllndonesie a assi:;ten a la p:t:ochaine schncedu Conseil de securiM, qui se t-iendra le jeudi t4: aoftt-li·l:S htlulles, M.VAN ·K!.EFFENs (Pays-Bas} (t-raduit d~ I'anglais): Afin que le proces-verbal soit e~act, je dC$ire souligne,r qpe j(l n'61~v.e auct,tne objection <;ontJie la decisiQO, qu.i vitwt d'etre prise pal' le Conseil, pt~i~que le P.r~sident a pr6ciseque la decision etait prise sans a.ucun prejlHiice dtau- ,cune sorte, et qu'elle n'est' pas fondee sur l'Article 32 de la Charte, ni sur Fax-ticle 39 du reglement i~t~rieur. Je ne de$ire pa$ Millpnner la Reptl-bHque d'lndonesie. ni .l'em:p(kher d~ no"s donner des renseigrtements et de preflenter son point de vue (' "\ui m'a preocc1,tpe tput au long de la dj-'· -, simplement Fapplication correcte "une Ir:\lilniere, g~oerale, et en C~ Republique d'Indonesie . en pantic nesia hi).S: amp<1.ssadors. lA! tbat resp~et, th,eI:efqI:e, I nW,st m,,*~ C). purely form,a.l, but exwess reser- ~q.,tiou.. I s1;IQuld' alsQ like to reserve for d~le~tion~ represl:l.nting the StaJes of E<1.st lndol;l~SI~t CJ.nd Borneo tfie right, to, expres,s their vi.ews. :rh-ey are QII; their way her~, and :( aro, very a~Q1,1S th;tt they should be heard at the same" tt.n,e as ~~' Tepre?,eij.tagves, o~ t):te ~e1?u91iq o! l1j1done~la. I (io not w~}J.~ to See a SItuatIOn, anse 11]. ~hIch the·Eoip.t Q~ 'View exPressed 1:lY th.e 4ele~(lt~QJ,1 of t)I~' R.epubHc of In40uesia wouJ.4 not at 0Ilce fi,1].~, its ,cQl1U!-e;:rp~t In staJeme,I;lts by the !el?resenta,tives. of Its SIster Stat<~s, East IndoneSIa Cl,n,d B'~meo. 'The gentlemen representing the latter two States are on their way, as I h::J.ve said; and I have every hape that they wi1~ arrive in. New Y'0rlo on Thursday or F~iday. I must very earnestly urge that, for the sake of impartiality, the Cmtncil sho1}lq. not take uP this, questio.n until these t,wo. delegations have arrived, They q,:re usi1:t~ e;:very pOss,i,bl~ di!!pa.tclt. l3ecause of the ha,zards o£ ~ir tra.:vel, howe'Vel', I caunQt sgy with certaiI;lty wh~ther th~y will be here on Thu,rscday, 01' wi,U not a.n:ive Ul,1,til f:t:i:day.

' Are there hostilities in Borneo and East Indo,nesia, or is peace still reigning therer Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): There are no hostilities in those two States:. F-Iowevel1, ~ey have aword to say on this entire m.atter, he<;ause it affeG~S them very, deeply. Mr. G~OMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from R:l!ssian): Mr. van Kleffens is. not ent,it'led to interpret the Security Council's dedsions. Such interpretations may be given by the Council itself and only by the Council. PersouaUy, I voted in favour of inviting the representatives of the Government of the Indo- I nesian Republic with Article' 32 of the Cha.rter in mind. I was guided in that matter by no other cQnsidel'ati9ns. Mr. NISOT (Belgium) (trans'ated from French) : I do I;lot thirik tb,at the Security Council can use two di~erent stan!1ards of judgment. If, for reasons of equity, it has seen fit to invite the representatives of the Indonesian Republic, I do not think it can refuse to invite the representatives of East Indonesia and Borneo too.' l therefore, propose that that should be done. .The PRESIDENT~ The prOpOsal which was subml~te~ to'the Security CoUncil was adopteq. on the prlll~lI!les which I have already stated. We ar-e not gomg to give new explanations and interpretations of it. . Mr. R;AT~-SU(;:~Y (Poland): With re~d tQ , the reservatIon whIch has been made by Mr. van Kleffen.s~ I understa.nd it wa; ;;.. ,'eservation made ~>n Rehal~ of ~is delegation [.tJ.d that' it is not the tnterpretatlOn o~ the Council. To make the record clear, I W~l.Ut to pcir~ out that the Polish Je voudrais egalt1ment reserver aux deMgation~ repres,ent<U,lt les Etats de 1:'I'ndonesie orientale et de Borneo le droi.t de presenter leuTs point~ de vues. EUes sont en route en ce moment, et je desire vivement qu'eUes soient entendues en ltil~I]1,e ~~r.pps qqe l~s re.J?resent~n~s Q~ If!. ReI?ubUqu.~ d:In,QOI!~§i~. le. l,lC ~Qu{ixais,pa,s ~\1'~ !!1tt,t,- atip~'J, se prese,nta,t 0\1 l~ poiJ1t <le'vue expd,t;I,J,e P~t: I~. d~legaJiQh, d~, l~ :Re.P.1!Qliqq~ d~:{ndop.,e~*~ lJ,e troU;\7;et:~jt Pq,~ s~. con,trepa.rti.e;: 'daus. les d~,cJa," ratio,ns des representants des Etats frere(>J, l'lJ;1,- donesie orientale et Borneo.' Les represetitants de ces demx derni,eIls Etats sonl! en· route, camme j~ Fai dit, et j'ai. tout lieu de <lroire· qu'ils ar-riveront aNew.-York jeudi om, vendredi. J'insiste particulieTement pour que, en toute itnpartialite, le Cqn,s,eU t¥aporde p~s' c~tt-e questiq1]. axal}~ I:at;ri:vee de eeS, de1l4 d#~ga,t~ons:. EUes, util~seIlt les, mOY-e11$ le.s plus rapides.' ~tl ra.isQn d~s ip.ce.rtitu{ie~ d.u voyage ~eJ;i~Il;, j,e ne pills, toutefois affirmer si eUes, pe.\l.Veij.t etre ic\ jeud\ ou si elIes ne ~uvent arr~v~rax~ntVeJ;ld.l1ed,i. Le PRESIDEN'T (tr,q4uit. de l.~nglaisJ: Des h(i)stilites sont.,elles eilga:gees, a Borue.o. et ~n Indonesie or.ientale, ou la paix l'egne+eUe encore dans ces territoires? M. VAN KLEFFENS (Pays-Bas) (traduit de l'anglai:s): n n'y a pas c;L'hostilites dans ce& deux Etats. Toute£ois, its ont un. mot; a. dIre sur 1'00- semble de oette question, parce qu'i1s y sont tr.es s~rieusement interesses. :M;. GROMYKO (Union d'es Republiques socialistes s.ovietiques) (trad.uit d.'l4 russe): It n'appartient pas a, M. va,n Kle:ffen~ d'inte{preter les deci~ioIls du Conseil de securite. Seulle Conseillui-meme J?eut'les interJ?reter. En ce qui meconcert:te; \or~­ que j'ai vote en faveu:r de l'inyitation qes represep.tani.s <tu GOUYerneD,lent de IF!- ReJ?ublique d'Indonesie, je tenais compte de l'Arttcle 32 de la Charte. Je ne m'inspirais d'aucune autre con- !!id~ra#Oll. . M. NISOT (Belgique): Je Gi.\Qj~ qq~ l~ Conseil de secu,ritene pf;\.1tpa~ avc;>ir ctetlfC J?oids et deux mesures. Si, pOut Ms raispns d'equite, il a estime devoir inviter les reJ;)f(~sent.ants de la Republique d!Indonesie, il ne J?eut pas, a mon sens, s'abstenir d'inyiter egalernent les' rel?resentants de l'Incio- Il~sie orieritale et de Borneo. Je propose donc qu'il en soit ainsi. '.. Le, P~E~ID)i:~'.r (traduit de l"att,glais.J: L~ prOYosition sotiIllise a.u CQu,seU de s6cu,rite ;\ ~te ~4opt~e suivant les p"inci?es que j'ai deja exposes. Nous ne nous lancerons pas dans de nouvellts explications et interpretations a son propos. M. ~TZ-SVCHY (Pologntl) (traduiit tie l'anglaisJ: Au' sujet de la reser:ve f~ite P~L' M. va~ :«le:ffeJ;1s, je conslqeJ;e qu'eUe a ete forrpulee aLl nom de sa delcg'C!-tion (It qu,'il ne s'agit P,qs d'une interpr~tatipn de let p<l-rt'du Cons.eil. POll1" eviter to.it m~lentendu, je desire sOl,iligner qJ,1e Colonel HODGSON (Australia): I merely wish to ask a question· of the President or; with his permission, of the' representative of the Nether- _Jands. I am seeking some information, as we !!lay have a discussion on this question-at the next . meeting. . The question i~ this: Has any qove~ent in the world recogtuzed de factoJ de Jure or In any other way.·either of the two Governments re- ,ferred to? .. Mr. VAN KLEFFn-s (Netherlands): My reply is that,so far asI k )w, these Governments have \ been recognized by the Netherlands Government for what they are, namely, Governments which ,are on eXactly the same level as the Republic of . Indonesia. If they have not been rec()gnized as such by anyone else, that is only because no opportunity has arisen as yet. However; that does not ·1.!rec1ude them from· being recognized , as such by anyone else. ~ sub~it . that the' question .. raised· by the Australian representative is completely beside the point. What is at issue-and that is the position of the Council to my understanding~is that anyone will be heard by·the Council whose testimony is of value to it in arrivmg at a conclusion. There is not the slightest doubt tlw.t tht:se States, which are to be .associated with the Republic of I1.tdonesia in what ultimately will be the United States of Indonesia, have a major interest in being· heard:md havejust·asmuch ~'ight to present thei~ points of view as .has' the Republic of Indonesia. Mr. JOHNSON' (United States oI' America) : I think it is regrettable that this. discussion has arisen at <ill.' While.•I do not pretend for. one moment to speak for the Council,. I consi4er that each member of the COuncil· has the right to 'express his views ; and that tho!>e views represent the views of Ms Government unless they are repudiated by his Government. The President alone can express the vkwsof the Council; and. his statements repre~entthe views of the:.,Council· unless they are challenged by a member..I think, th~refore" that we co~Id leave it at t!tat. 7:',0118 (>,' tenir ~ ~ela. . I think that the. representative of Poland, when he said he had Article·32 of the Charter in mind,. meant only that and nothing. else. That did not bind anybody; it was merely an expression of his view. The. President, 'in his .summarizatiQn,. accurately 'expressed the views of the' Council. There arc grave; seriousa.n4 important realite, c'est-a.-dire· des Gouvernements qui se trouvent exactement sur le meme pied que la Republiq~e d'Indonesie. Si personne d'autre ne , les a reconnus pour tels, c'est uniquement parce que, jusqu'a present, 1'0ccasion ne s'en est pas· presentee. Toutefois, cela ne les empeche pas d'etre reconnus pour te1s par quitonque. Je pretends que la question ,;oul~vee par le representant de i Australie s'ecartc complet~ment du sujet. ,Le fait est - et c'est ainsi que je c.omprends l'attitude du Conseil - que le Conseil entendra quiconqu~· est en mesure de produire un temoignage qui lui permettrait d'arriver a une conclusion. I1 n'y a pas lemoindre doute que ces Etats, qui seront associes a. la: Republique d'Indonesie pour constituer ,finalement les Etats- Unis d'Indonesie, ont un interet superieur.3.- faire entendre leut voixet ont le droit de presenter leur point de vue auss'i bien que la Republique d'Indonesie. ' M. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (tra-:- duit de l'anglais): A mon sens, il est re.grettable que· cette discussion. ait surgi. Bien que je ne pretende pas. UT' seul ins~antpar1er at! riom du Conseil, j'estime que chaque· membre du Conseil a le droit d'exprimer son point de vue et que· ce point de vue constitue l'opinion de son Gouvernement, a moins qu'il ne soit desavoue par ce Gouvernement. Mais le President peut seul exprimer le point de yue.<111 Oot1seil. Et ses declarations constituent l'opinion du Conseil, a. , moins qu'elles nesoient contestees pa.r un mem- . bre. C'est PQurquoi j'estime que nous pouvons .;- c,.:L,~ quP. le representant de la pologne, lo:rsq::t'il .dit qu'il a en vue l'Article 32 de la Charte, vent dire cela, et rien d'autre. Cela , n'engage personne.•C'est simplement ,l'expression de sapensee. ~Preside1.1t a exprime exactemt:nt i'opinion du, Conseil dans son· resume des ' dehats. 'L'affairea ·l'etudeposedes·problemes '...

The Belgian representative ha~ asked that the suggestion of the representa-, tive of the 1'fetherlands shoul!! be a~cepted, that i~ to say, that the representatives of "East Indonesia and Borneo should be invited to take part. in our discussions. This is the matter that now remains for us to decide.. As the representative of Belgium has made the request, we have to discuss this matter. It comes under Article 32 of the Charter, which states: "Any Member of the United Nations which' is not a member of the Security Council or any State ~hi'ch is not a Member of the United Nations, if it is a party to a dispute under consideration by the Security Council, shall be invited to participate without vote, in the discussion relating to the disputl!." I asked whether Eastern Indonesia and Borneo are parties to this dispute, and whether there is· fighting· in Eastern Indonesia or not, in order that we might be able to discuss this matter or at least to fonnulate some opinion about it. I understand that no fighting is taking place there. We were' involved in the Indonesian questif>n because of the actual fighting which was going on in Java and Sumatra. Mr. NISOT (Belgium) (translated from French): When we took our decision regarding the lnvilation to be sent to the Indonesian Republic, I understood that this decision was not taken under Article 32 of the Charter. We therefore deliberately reserved the question. I suggest that we invite the representatives of East Indonesia and B.omeo on the very same grounds which served as a basis for the decision taken regarding .the Indonesian Republic. M. NISOT (Belgique): Lor.sque nous avons pris notre decision en ce qui concerrte l'invitation a adresser a la Republique d'Indonesie, j'avais a l'esprit que cette. decision n'etait pas prise sur la base de I'Article 32 de la Charte. Nous avons donc expressement reserve la question. Je suggere d'inviter les representants de I'Indonesie orientale et de Borneo exactement d'apres le meme principe qui a servi de, base ir la decisi?n prise rclativement a la Republique d'Indones1e. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de I'anglais): Je mets' la question aux voix comme le representant de la Be1gique l'a demande. Le colonel HODGSON (Australie) (tmduit de l'anglais) : Je desire presenter une motion •. d'ordre. Le Conseil est deja saisi d'une demande des Philippines de participer a la discussion de la question indonesienne; cette demande a. ete soumise au Conseil avant que surgisse la question qui nous occupe. La delegation de l'Australie estime que la demande des Philippines devrait etre mise aux voix avant l'invitation a adresser a l'Indonesie orientale et a Borneo, ou que ce dernier 5ujet soit differe, parce que le resultat du premier' scrutin aurait certainement une influ- .e._ce sur la position.

I shall put the question to a vote as the representative of Belgium has suggested. Colonel HOD(iSON (Austrdia): 1 wish to speak on a point of order. There is aiready before the Council an application from,the Philippines to participate in the discussion of t.~e Indonesian question; that issue was raised prior to this matter. The Australian delegation feels that a vote should be taken on the application of the Philippines before a vote is taken on the invitation to East Indonesia and Borneo, or that consideration of the latter question should be deferred ~ince the result of the first vote would certainly affect rr.y delegation's position. . .!n the opinion of the Australian delegation- 1t 1S a question of degree-the Philippines have almost. as direct a concern in this dispute as 4as .Borneo. Therefore j if the Council rejected t.":le hr La delegation de l'Australie - c'est urie ques·, tion de, degre d'appreciation-estimf; que les Philippines ont presque autant d'intere,~s que Borneo Th>e P~SIDEN'1': I under-starid that it is pr,?~ Le PR~SIDENT (triuJuit,de l'anglais): Jecrois pased ~y the {'ep!"es~tative '~f Australia that, comprendre qu~ 'lerepresen~nt qe l'Austrilie ' the .request of t~e Philippines shoUld be 'voted oh propose que lademande des Philippif:1es soit mise now. Does he ask that? auoc vcnoc m9,intenant. C'est bien ce qu'il deniimde? . COlbtrel Hooostl~ '(AustftMia): Nu, I thiflk i~ Le ~blG".el H~DGSON (Ati~tra1ie) (t1'oouit 'd~ 'shoUld 'be tonsidf!ted :at, 'the n~xt meeting. I .t'llnllllii:r1: .N'O~. J-e crl:)i'S 9u'i1'·!audraite~fI1iner I 'theref.ate mG've nOW for the ~djou1"mn-ent of th-e cette questlOn a la prochame seance. C'est PO\1T"1 debate. quoi je propose de lever la seance. ,The PMSID~N'r·: That is What Ipr<1lp'l1lse ta'do. Le PirE-5IDENT (tt'oouit de l'ooglais): C'est ce que le propose egalein'ent. The meefing rose at 6:50 '{J.in. La seance est iev4e a18 h. 50. . . ( " " . t ~ . , FRANCE Editions A. Pedone 13, rue SoufHot PARIS, Ve GREECE-GREeE BELGIUM-BELGIQU~ Agence et Messagerles de la Presse, S. A. ' 14·22 rue du Pelsi! BRUXELLES BOllVIA-BOllVIE ":E;Ieftheroudakis" Libtairie internationale Place de la Constitution ATHENES GUATEMALA Libreria Cieutffica y Literaria Avenida. 16 de JOOo,216 Casilla 972 LA PAZ CANADA The Ryersou Press 299 Queen Street West TORONTO CHILE-CHill Edmundo Pizarro Merced 846 SANTIAGO CHINA-CHINE 'The Commercial Press Ltd. 211 Honan Road SHANGHAI COLOMBIA-COlOMBIE Jose Goubaud Gouhaud & Cia. Ltda. Sucesor 5a Av. Sur No. 6 y 9a C. P. GUATEMALA HAITI Max Bouchereau' Librairie "A la Caravelle" Boite postaIe 111-B PORT-AU-PRINCE ICELAND-ISLANDE BokaverzIun Sigfusar Eymundsonnar Austurstreti 18 REYKJAVIK INDiA-INDE Oxford Book & StatioBery Company Scindia House NEwDELm IRAN Lihrerin Latina Ltda. Apartado Aereo 4011 .BOGOTA COSTA RICA-COSTA-RICA Trejos Hermanos Apartado 1313 SAN JosE CUBA La Casa BeIga Rene de Smedt O'Reilly 455 LA lIABANA CZECHOSLOVAKIA- TCHECOSLOVAQUIE F. Topic . Narodni Trlda 9 PRAHA1 DENMARK-DANEMARK Bongahe Piaderow 731 Shah Avenue TEHERAN IRAQ-IRAK Mackenzie & Mackenzie . the Bookshop BAGHDAD LEBANON-LlBAN Librairle universelle BEYROUTH LUXEMBOURG Librairie J. Schummer Place Guillallme LUXEMBOURG Einar Munksgaard N9$rregade 6 K,7JBENHAVN DOMINICAN REPUBLIC- REPUBlIQUE DOMINICAINE NETHERLANDS-PAYS~BAS N. V. Marunus' Nijhoff Lange Voorhout 9 'S·GRAVENHAGE NEW ZEALAND- .-NO.UV.ilLE-ZELANDE Lihreria Dominicllua CsUe Mercedes No. 49 Apartado 656 . CiUDAD TgY.JILLO Cordon & Gotch, Ltd. Warlng Taylor Street WELLINGTON ECUADO~-EQUATEUR Unitt'd Nations Association of NewZeaIand P. O. 1.011, G.P.O. WELLINGTON NICARAGUA Muiioz. HerDlanos y Cia. Nueve de Octubre 703 Casilla 10·24 GUFIAQUIL I:GYPT-EGYPTE Ramiro Ramirez V. Agenda. de Publicl1ciones MANAGUA, D. N. NORWAY-NORVEGE Johan Grundt Tanum Forlag Kr. Augustgt. 7A OSLO Librairie "La Renaissance d'Egypte" 9 Sh. AdIy Pasn2 CAffiO ETHIOPIA-ETHIOPIE Agence etliiopienne de publicite P.O. Box8 ADDIS·ABEBA D~ P. Perez Co. 132 Riverside . ~AN JUAN, IbzAr. POLAND-POLOGNE Spotdzielna Wydawnicza "Czytelnik" 38 Poznanska WAIlSZAWA " SWEDEN-SUEDE A;·B. C. E. Fritzes Kongl. HofhokhandeI Fredsgatan 2 STOCKHOLM SWITZERLAND-SUISSE Librairie Payot S; A. LAUSANNE, GENEVE, VEVEY, MONTREUX, NEUCHATEL, BERNE, BASEL Hans Raunhardt Kirchgasse 17 ZURICH I SYRIA-SYRIE Librairie universelle DAMAS TURKEv.-TURQUIE Librairle 'Hachette 469 IstikIal Caddesi BEYOGLU-IsTANBUL UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA- UINION SUD-AFRICAINE Central News Agency Commissioner & Rissik Sts. JOHANNESBURG and at CAPE'fOWN and DURBAN UNITED KINGDOM- ROYAUME-UNI H. M. Stationery Office P. O. Box 569 LONDON, S.E. 1 .and at H.M.S.O. Shops in LONDON, EDINBURGH, MANCHESTER. CARDIFF, BELFAST, BIRMINGHAM and BRISTOL ' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA- ETATS·UNIS D'AMERIQUE International Documents Service Columbia University'Press 2960 Broadway NEW YORK 27, N. Y. URUGUAY Oficina de Representaci6n de Editorlales Av. 18 de JuIio 1333 Esc. 1 MONTEVIDEO VENEZUELA Escritoria Perez Machado Conde a Piiiango 11 ' CARACAS YUGOSLAVIA-YOUGO$LAVIE Drzavno Preduzece Jugoslovenska Knjiga Moskovska U1. 36 BEOGRAD [49&1