S/PV.19 Security Council

May 1 suggest it might possibly be agreed that a meeting be convened tomorrow at an hour ta be fixed by the President, with a view to finding a time that will be mutually convenient? NINETEENTH MEETING Held at Church House3Westminster3L.mdon3 on ThursdaY3 14 February 1946, at li a.m. President: Mr. N. J. O. MAKIN (Australia). Present: Therepresentatives of the following . countries: Australia, .Brazil, China, Egypt, France, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, United States of America. 73. Provisional agenda 1. Adoption of the agenda. 2. Letter from the Heads of the Lebanese and Syrian delegations to 'the Secretary-General dated 4 February 1946 (document S/5).1. 3. Report by' the Chairman of the Committee of Experts on the alterations made by the Committee in the provisional rules of pro- cedure of the .Security Council (doclL1!lent g. S/6)~ . 74.. Adoption of the agenda Première nexe'9. Before the Councif commences its discussion of the matter brought to its attention by the delegations of Lebanon and Syria, 1 must ask the Council to decide one or two procedural points. By t:..e letter of 4 February, these two delega- tions have exercised their right as Members of the United Nations, under Article 35, paragraph 1 of the Charter, to bring a certain matter ta the attention of the Council. They refer to this matter as a "dispute," Under Article 32 of the Charter, when a dispute is under consideration by the Council, the Council is required to in- vite any Member of the United Nations wmch is a party to the dispute but which is not a mem- ber of the Security Council, to participate, with- out vote, in the discussion relating to the dis- pute. As members. of the Security Council are aware, the proviso at the end of Article 27, par- agraph 3,also applies when a dispute is being considered by the Security Council. Frequently, however, the question whether a dispute exists cannot Le given an automatic answer. The Security "Council itself will, if neces8ary, have to decide this question. 1 suggest to the Council that it 'would be most inconvenient to attempt in any way, at" this stage, to give an answer to the question whether, in the present case, a dis- pute exists. It would be much more satisfac- tory, indeedin my opinion it is necessary, fust ta hear what the States immediàtely concerne,d have to say. Moreover, it is not necessary at this stage for us to decic1e whether Article 32 applies. Syria and Lebanon, no matter whether a dispute in the technical sense exists or not, are nlanifestly States whose interests are specially affected by the discussion of the question which is now be- fore the Council. Therefore, 1 suggest that we should exercise our oWn powers. under Article 31 of the Charter, and should invite -Syria and Lebanon, as we did in the case of Iran and of Greece, to participate withoutvote in our discussion of this question. l think itwould bean advantage if wc de- cided a1s0, in advance, the question which arose at a late stage in our consideration of the Indo- nesiantnatter. _1 refer to· the question whether Syria and. Lebanon will" be entitl~dto exercise, at the Council table, the right.of proposition. Having regard to the fact that ruIes ofp:rocedure are now uIlder considerationby our own Com- Is that course of procedure agreeable to the members of the Council? Ml'. RIAz (Egypt) (translated trom French): There is a point which you raised and which you eonsidered should not be settled at the present time, that is, whether the probllml before us should be regarded as a dispute cr as a situation. 1 draw the Council's attention to the differ- ence that has been established between the cases in regard ta voting and to the exerdse of the right of veto. In the case of a dïspute, it is rec- ognized that the parties ta it shall not take part in the VClting. In the case of a situation, the Couneil seems to admit that the. right to vote is recognîzed. 1 should like the President ta tell us whether, while we are deeiding whether we are faeed with a fituation or a dispute, the right of'veto will be applicable or whether, on the contrary, we consider that such a decision· con- stitutes a question of procedure and that a ma- . jority of any seven votes is therefore sufficient.

As will be remembered, 1 suggested that this is not a matter which 1 feel can be conveniently determined at this particular moment, and thatwe should await the oral statements that will be made by the parties COD.- c€rned. Then, at that stage, if the Council wishes sa .to determine, it Can considet the point that the representative of Egypt has brought to my notice. Ml'. RIAz (Egypt) (translated trom li'rench) : My,remarks did not relate to the decision we are ta take in order to settle the problem whether a situation or a dispute is involved. 1 ask (and 1 think the matter should besettled now) under what conditions are we going to take the latter decision? With the exercise of the right of veto or without the right of veto? " 1.will e:xplain. The interest of the question'is ObVlOUS. It is .not after having hearçl the parties ta the cIispute or situation that we shall be. able . to decide whether or not wc shall tlSethe right of veto. In the case in question, there are two ' memhers of the Cotncil.who are concemedand' who have the right of veto.' It is possible that one of them may say that the case is not a situa- Mr. vA.,~ KLEFFENS (Netherlands): 1 have no objection whatsoever ta asking the representatives of Syria and Leùanon to take their places at the Couneil table, but 1 should like to poillt out that 1 think this should not be taken mean that, if ~y Member State says that there is a dispute, the Couneil is bound to accept it a fact that th~ is a dispute in the technical sense of the term.

The statement that has bcen made by the representative of the Netherlands is, of course, mconformity with the expressions that 1 made at an earlier moment. In regard the suggestion that has been made by the representative of Egypt, 1 think that the point he has raised could be met possibly with equal satisfaction at the later stage that 1 suggested, for until such rime as the Council. is fully apprised of the full nature of the matter that is to be brought to its notice, it seems that we would not be competent to appreciate just what is involved andwhetheritdoes constitute a situation ora dispute. In those circumstances, l wouldearnestly suggest that no disadvantage is afforded the Council in waiting until that moment determine this particular question. .Mr.RrAz (Egypt) (translated ["l'am French): lam sony to have to insist. l'think we are very near ag!t'eement except· on one point. 1 fUlly agree with the President'that the decision the Security Councilas to the nature of the problem, that is to say, whether it is a situation or a dispute, should be deferred until we have heard the statements of the delegations of Lebanon and Syria. But.1 fail to see what prevents Us from making imnu:dia~ely the decision, which we shallbe compelled to make, as to whether it is a question nf procedure or not. 1 would like to place before the Council a formal motion asking whether the decision it will take will concern a questionof procedure or of a dispute, tl;1at is,. whether ornot it will entail the veto. This is the motion: . Th~t the. decision of the Council 'as whether any'question is a dispute or a situation is a procedural matter. - Mr. DEFREITAS-VALLE (Brazil): Of course we ,can complain about not having -rulesof procedure, but 1 must say that l hope that in future theCouncil willestablish the fact that nosilllple· .letters,. unsubstantiated, .cat:J. •be ac-' cepted by ,the Council. Itis not enough for

l was wondering if it would meet the point that the representative of Egypt is raising if the Council were to regard this mat· ter, at this stage, as -a procedural matter. Then, when the oral statements have been made by the parties concernèd, the Council should determine the question that has been raised. demande satisfait le cédure. rations trancherait Mr. RIAz (Egypt): l made a formal motion to the effect that the decision of the Council as to whether any question is a dispute or a situation is a procedural matter. rai décision question constitue considérée Mr. Wellington Koo (China) : It seems to me that we have been discussing two different points. The firstpoint is whether the matter now 1:iefore the Council should be consideredas a· dispute, as has been contended in the letter of the Syrian and Lebanese delegations, or as a situation. On that matter, it seems to me, we are all agreed. The Council would be best advised not to take a decision on that matter until it has heard the statements, not only of the Syrian and Lebanese representàtives but also of the othe.. parties which may be directly interested. 1 think thaton that point we are agreed. .glais): de point est actuellement saisi doit un lettre ou ble-t-il, serait à non du tibles semble, mes What the representative of Egypt has raised is a question of a procedural character, as to how a voteshould be taken to decide whèther the matter is a situation or a dispute. In bis orinion, it is a procedural question and therefore would not require the concurrence of the permanent members under Article 27. soulevé est y .a·t-il décider rend? procédure vote application 1 would submit. that this is a very important. question of procedure. So far as the matter which has· been brought beforethe Councilis concerned,. the Cotincfi will beunanimously of the opinion that it is one thing orthe other. procédure qu'il été peut 1 suggest that the motion of. the representative of Egypt be tabled and referred to the C(\mmittee of Experts for them to study it and report back to the Council. . Mr. BEVIN (United Kingdom): -1 take the same view as Mr. van Kleffens. If any accuser State says that there is a dispute, then there is dispute; and ifa State makes a charge against another State, and the State against which it made :repudiates it or contests it, then there is <lliipute, and the Cûuncil can make itsrecom- .mendations.. 1 think that is the simple answer the question. Ml'. RIAz (Egypt) (translated from French) Mr. Bevin has said that, in his opinion, it sufficient·for one of the parties to say.that there ~s a dispute.for a dispute to exist. This thesis the opposite of what you yourself stated, Mr. President. li we accept this decision and·it sufficient for one party to declare that the matter côncerned is a dispute for the Council àecicœc'to·this-'effect, ilienmyobjectîon wourd collapse. Butif1 as it seems to me1 it is felt that it is a point for the Council· to decide, 1 should be more·inclined to thaï opinion because it not sufficient to say that a matter is a dispute for it tobe so. It is for the Council to decide. 1 begto differ with the· rêp!"esentative China when he says that we shallperhaps have .a unanimous decision. 1·put the question him: what if the decision is not unanimous? is desirable1 therefore, that the question should be settled now. Ithas been suggested that the problem should be submitted to tJ;J.e experts. But the·decision to be taken is so obvious that 1 fail to· unde.rstand· why the question should even discussed. If it were left to one of the permanent meiItbers to decide whether the matter concerned isasituatioll or a dispute, he .might come forward at any time and say: it is a situation.. it is not a questiôn of procedure, he would have the right tovote to decide that it is a situation, and in. so cl0ing he would make of Article 27, paragraph ..•3, a Jeadletter, justas though the veto.could. beapplied· in every case. If it were pennissible Jor the permallent members of the Council.to ·S'iY that a matter was a situation even.whenev~bodyconsidered thatit was not, and if we heM thatit was not a question oiprocedure,wewould givethe permanent members of the Councilthe right of veto for all questions in 'Which. they might wish to •use it. This is con- .traryto all the texts and to the spirit of the Chatter;toiall thatwe have said and to aIl the decisionsthat we have taken together. We have Article 33, according to which it is the duty of the parties to any dispute first to seek a solution by pacific means of their own choice. They are, therefore, the ones. that are to consider whether the situation or the position with another PO\'I'-er is a matter that they should bring to the attention of the ~,ouncil. l consider, therefore, that the distinction that it is'proposed that the Council should make between a situatien and a dispute is really of no interest whatsoever for this Cound1. parties tout choix. cider sur à conséquent, au différend, pour Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): 1 am sorry 1 cannotshare the view jus~ expressed by my neighbour on the right. 1 quite agree with Mr. Bevin-I am not sure whether he rendered all my thoug-hts exactly when he intervened just now in tbis debatc-that a party has a right, if it so desires, ta draw the attention of the Coullcil to .a dispute or a situation. But since the answer to the questioJ:t whether that matter is a dispute· or a situation has consequences, consequences namely with r~gard' to the voting 'procedure, 1 donot •think, in the final analysis, that it can be left to the parties to decide whether a. matter is a ffi.'pute or a situation. Thatis a question that shouH be decided by the Council afterhaving heard the development of the parties' statements. l'anglais): l'opinion voisin de droite.· M. ait intervenu qu'il désire; différend ponse est quences, cédure analyse, décider ou doit entendu les Chine, dier déroule.en le train .toùtumier: Nous faut. en en entendions . suite Je l'Egypte fort vieht 1 quite agree with the representative of China that it might be a good thing to have.that question studied. 1 think that this is a very healthy debate because the world cansee that this Coùn- ~il is worki..'lg out what we might perhaps call Its eommon Iaw. We are trying to find our way. This is.a new body; We l11ust·workvery gUi:tI-d,;, . eclIy in these matters. l think· aIl interests would best beserved if we fust heard the parties and then took thedecision. .1 .agree "With therepresentative of Egypt •. to , tbis extent: we rnight conceivablytake a vote on the question he has submittednow. But l do not see that it·is at all necessary to do so, and 1 1 was wondering if the representative of Egypt would be prepared to follow the very safe advice that has been given by the representative China and if we might possibly defer at this stage the question of the consideration of this matter, which must engage our attention ai: that later period when the rules of procedure are before us for consideration. Any decision at this moment may possibly be somewhat difficult, and may present somewhat of a difficulty ta us at later stage when we have to give consideration ta these matters. May 1 ask the representative of Egypt whether, in view of what 1 feel to· be most unfortunate circumstance, that we have no rules of procedure before us for our guidance, and in view of the fact that we shall he called upon to determine these matters at sorne early date, this might therefore be regarded as an appropriate matter to be deterJnined at that time? Mr. VVSHINSKV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): In arder to resolve this question, 1 think we should get away from abstract considerations and settle the matter on the basis of the materialwhich is aIready in the hands of the Security Council and which must be examined by the· Council. The question at issue is whether the present case constitutes a diSpute or a situation. 1 think that in order to settle this question we must deal with the substance of the matter, as presented by the countries concerned, on the basis of the material at our disposai. In this case, it is neœssary to refer tu the communication of 4 February from the Lebanese and Syrian delegations. That communication states, in the fust place, that the presence, in Lebanon and Syria, of British and French troops is an infringement of the sovereignty of those States, and secondly, that the past has shown that their presence has been a menace to peace and security. The conclusion drawn is a request ta evacuate the forces in question. Those are the three main ideas contained in the communication from the Syrian and Lebanese delegations. And it is necessary to ciecide what these three ideas represent. Do they represent a demand, complaint, a dispute, or are they. not a dexnand and a ccmplaint, and hencenot a dispute? 'The qùestioIl is very simple. Le les trouve tion. formulent avons M. rité ce sujet. se sa que puie M. résolue The Security Cauneil must decid~ the question of whether a dispute or a situation is in· vdved according ta the material at its disposal. We have statements containing certain demands that are known ta us. 1 am in agreement with Mr. van Kleffens that this is a matter for the Couneil. The Couneil can decide the matter ac~ cording ta the material at its disposal. 1 am ln agreement with Mr. Bevin that a dispute is involved in the present case, and 1 support the proposal of the representative of Egypt, Mr. Riaz, who insists that this matter should be set· tled here and now. Si veaux différend, en accepte différend le le maintenant différend procéder tialité. If subsequent investigation causes any change in this matter and it turns out that there is no dispute, then the Couneil will have to make its decision accordingly. It is possible that one party will :lccept the demands of the other party, whereupon the dispute will end. In the contrary case, the dispute will persist and must he decided by the Couneil. It ID iJetter to decide now whether the case' is a dispute or a situation, inasmuch as that will guarantee greater objectivity and impartiality. l'opinion Mexique, tian est tion en que pas qu'il vienne der emploi tranquillement sions, 'celle qu'une monde juger pareille procédure. Mr. RIAz (Egypt) (translated trom French): 1 opposed the opinion expressed by the represe:ntative of Mexico because 1 consider that the question of whether a matter brought before us is a situation or a dispute is a procedural question. It is not enough for a party to declare that a case is a dispute for it ta be one. Likewise, it is not enough for a permanent member of the Council to say that a case is a situation for it to become one. It is for the Council ta decide, and to decide with a normal majority, that is to say, 'without the use of the veto. Othern1se, in ~:ing our decisions we should simply be following a practice which is known in French as Je te baptise carpe. Is it enough to say a thing exists for everybody to agree that it does exist? The Security Council must judge in an objective fashion. It cannot follow stlch a procedure. membres perdu permets Président l do not wish to waste the time of the members of the Council. We have already wa'1ted too much on the subject of procedure. 1 would like ta submit two suggestions which 1 hooe our .President.willapprove. ~ The first is a! Jollows: if all agree that the est d'accord remettons ma~ter is a dispute, let UIS defer the question until later, when we can have an academic dis- Wlùle thal1king Ml'. V)'Shinsk}' for bis remarks, l would like to know whether he agrees with me on the foUowing point: When a case is brought before us, is it a situation or a dispute? Is it a question of procedure or of subst~mce? Ml'. VA."'i KI.EFFENS (Netherlands): 1 believe that, beforc we can vote on the Egyptian proposai, we should fust vote on the question whether it is necessary .to vote on that proposaI now. 1 beg ta move that it is not necessary that the Council vote on that proposai now. " ~ù.e PRESIDENT: Vou move that as an amendment? . Ml'. V!èN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): No, as separate proceduraI proposition. Mr. VYSHINSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (trans:ated from Russian): 1 should like to repl}' to the query put by Ml'. Riaz. Ml'. Riaz asks·if the question of whéther a case brought before the Becurity Council is a disputç or a situation i'l a question ta be decided mear.s of a procedural vote. 1 consider that the question as ta whether a particular case is dispute or a situation is a question of substance and not of procedure. Procedure is the manner of de~ ~ding a matter, a method of decision, but the question as what the actuaI substance of a particular matter amounts ta, whether it Is a situation or a dispute} is not :the manner of decision, not·the method of decïding the matter, but relates fact to the evaIuation of the very substance the matter. Therefore, such a matter must decided not on the basis of Article 27, paragraph 2, which deaIs with proceduraI matters, but the basis of Article 27, paragraph 3, which deaIs with the settlement of matters of a non-proceduraI character.lf, :fi"lallYLthequestionarises ·~To·wÎ1dïlet a-mattër is proceàunl.l or not; the . rule to be applied is that laid. down, on 7 July 1945, in San Francisco, on the basis of the report of the Third Cornmittee, where it is stated that a decision in regard ta such questions must be taken by an affirmative vote of seven members of.the Security Council,.including.the con- Mr. PADILLA NERva (Mexico): 1 am opposed ta this praposal because 1 believe that it cannat he a preliminary question. A decisian of this kind has effects. One of the first effects of tID-s decisian wauld be in relation ta Article 32. If the Cauncil decides that this is a situation and not a dispute hefare listening ta the parties concerned, the resillt will be ta deprive a party of the right ta participate in the discussions and of being invited here. 1 believe that wauld vialate the spirit of the Charter. 1 believe, therefore, that as far as the application of Article 32 is concerned, the right positioll is· the one expressed by the representative of the United Kingdam. A decisian het,ween a situation anj a dispute can be made anly after a party has exercised bis right ta be heard. If we, before listening to the facts and the statements of the parties cancerned, decide here that this is a situation, tlien Article 32, 1 mean the letter of Article 32, can be applied and one of the parties concerned can be deprived of the right to come to the Coullcil and state bis case. For that reason, 1 think that it would he unwise to decide a question of this kind as a pr~ary question, and that the party that has sent this letter shoold be invited to participate and state bis case.

1put to the Council now the resolution that has been proposed by the representative of the Netherlands, that no vote shall be taken at this stage ID the proceedings of the Council upon the pro~osal that has been made by the representative of Egypt. AU those in favour raise their bands.

It is therefore carried in the affirmative. In regard to the statement that 1 made ta the Council at thebeginning of this meeting, 1 would like ta know whether there are any objections to the procedure which 1 suggested in that initial statement. That procedure is ta in· vite the representatives of Syria and Lebanon to take L\eir seats at the Couneil table, to infonn them, when seated at the'Council table, that the Council invites them to participate, without vote, in the discussion of the question which they have brought'befure the Security Council, and to inforro them aIso that, v~ithout prejudice toany view which the Council may fotm on other occ;asions, the Council will give them, at the proper stage, an opportunity ta exercise,if they think fit, the right of proposition in relation to tbis . question.

1 should like ta il1form the representatives who have just taken their seats at the table that they are invited by the Security Couneil ta take part in its deliberatkms upon the question that is now before it, and \Vith the right ta participate in the discussion without vote. AIso, at an appropriate time mey will have the opportunity of making a proposition, if it is their wish ta do so. In thooe circumstances, they will realize that the Couneil has desired their attendance and invites them ta takc part in its discussions upon tlùs matter. Mr. RIAz (Egypt): 1 would Iike ta pomt out that it is now ten minutes to one, and it may not he a suitable time at which to hear any substantial oration by any party.

1 would like to say ta the representatives who have just taken their seats at the Couneil table that tlle first opportunity will he given t.o them ta make such oral statements as they may wish ta make to supplement the Ietters that they have already fon~arded ta the Couneil. Mter that, other members who are vitally interested in this matter will aIso be invited ta make their statements. Then the C01..m- , 'eil will proceed ta a discussion upen the question that has been brought ta its notice. Is there any objection to an adjoumment of the proceedings at this stage? As there are no objections, that suggestion is adopted. '1 would suggest that the next meeting of the Couneil might be at eIeven o'clock tomorrow morning. Are there any objections? Then that isadopted. TWENTiETH MEETING Held at Church Bouse, Wltstminster, London, on Frida')', 15 February 1946, at 11 a.m. President: Mr. N. J. O. MAKIN (AustraIia). Present: The representatives of the following countries: Australia, Brazil, China" Egypt, France, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, United States of America. 76. Provisional agenda 1. Adoption of the agenda. 2. Letter from the Heads of the:: Lebane.se and Syrian delegatioIli ta the Secretary-General dated 4 February 1946 (document S/5).! 1 s~ Official Record, GI the 8BCU,ily CouJacil. First Year. First Series. Supplement No. 1. Annex 9,·