S/PV.194 Security Council

Afi:er hearing the representative of Poland the Council will proceed to vote on the draft proposal presented jointly by the delegations of Australia and China and contained in document S/513. Mr. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgium) (translated from French) : Before the vote is taken, I should like to raise a point uf order. Mr. KATZ-SUCHY (Poland): I am not going to take up much of the time of this Council. The position of the Polish delegation with respect to the Australian-Chinese joint draft proposal, as well as to the other resolutiolls, has been made clear by me at the pi-evi~)Us meeting. At this moment the Polish delegation is very much concerned about the position of Indonesia itself. During the weekend, news has again reached us that the fighting is being continued. The Indonesian Government has admitted the loss of some airfields and today an unconfirmed report speaks of the approach of the Netherlands forces towards the capital of the Republic, Jogjakarta. In these circumstances, we believe it is against the digni' T and authority of the Security Council to allow he hostilities to continue. Therefore, in the opi Lon of the Polish delegation, whatever decisio. we come to today, the parties to the I reserve to myself the privilege of presenting this matter in a formal motion after we have seen the result of the vote. In any case, we consider that a decision on this question must be taken today. Should we be unable to reach a decision, the Polish delegation will ask for this meeting to be continued until we can proceed to a vote on a formal motion which the Polish delegation may make at a later stage. Mr. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgium) (translated from French) : I asked permission'to speak on a point of order. It is a question of the order in which our discussion should now proceed. The Belgian delegation has placed before the Council a draft resolutionl the purport of which is that the Council should ask the International Court of Justice whether it has jurisdictio~ in this particular case. The question of jurisdiction is a preliminary question, a question which takes priority over all others. The order of our debate will depend on t1le way in which the Council decides that question. My lIlDtion expressly invites the Council to take such a decision. So .long as this motion has not been discussed and put to the vote t~e Council cannot usefully pursue its consideration of certain motions pending before it. Those motions assume in advance that the question of jurisdiction has been decided in the affirmative. It would, therefore, be neither logical nor normal to put them to the vote before the Belgian motion suggesting that the Court should be consulted on this point has been discussed and decided upon. The question of the Security Council's jurisdiction has hitherto dominated its discussion of the Indonesian question. Divergent opinions hav~ been expressed on this topic. It is in these circumstances ,that it has been suggested on several occasions that the question of whether the Security Council has jurisdiction in the matter should be referred to the Internationa~ Court of Justice. This suggestion was made as far back as the one hundred and seventy-third meeting, on 1 August, and at that same meeting I myself expressed regret that it had not been adopted. 1 The following is the text of the draft resolution: DocUl,nent S/517 22 August 1947 [Original text: English] The Security Council, [-{aving been seized by the Governments of Australia alld India of the situation in Indonesia; Considering that in invoking Article Il, paragraph 7 of the Charter, the Government of the Netherlands contests the competence of the Security Council to deal with the question of which it has thus been seized; Considel'ing the debates which have taken place on this subject in the Security Council, Requests the International Court of Justice, under Article 96 of the Charter, to give it, as soon' as possible an advisory opinion on whether the :::ecurity Council is competent to deal with the aforementioned question; . Instructs the Secretary-General to place the documentatIOn submitted to the Security Council regarding the question and the records of the meet:ngs devoted to it at the disposal of the International Court of Justice. J e me reserve le droit de presenter officiellement une resolution a propos de cette question quand nous connaitrons les resultats du scrutin. Nous estimons, en tous cas, qu'il faut pre~dre une decision aujourd'hui meme. Si nous ne pouvons pas regler la question, la delegation de la Pologne demandera que cette seance se poursuive jusqu'a ce qu'il soit possible de voter sur une motion officielle que la delegation de la Pologne presentera plus tard, le cas echeant. M. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgique): J'ai demande I.:, parole sur un point d'ordre. 11, s'agit de' l'ordre dans lequel doivent maintemint se derouler nos debats. La delegation beIge a soumis au Conseil un projet de resolutionl tenaant a ce que le Conseil consulte la Cour internationale de Justice sur le point de savoir s'il est competent en l'espece. La question de competence est une question prejudicielle, une question qui a la priorite sur toutes les autres. De la position que prendra le Conseil a sm sujet doit dependre, en e£fet, l'ordre de nos disc11ssions. Ma motion invite exprcssement le Conseil a prendreainsi position. Tant que cette motion n'a pas ete discutee et mise aux voix, le Conseil ne saurait pourstiivre utilement l'examen de certaines des propositions pendantes devant lui. Ces propositions, en effet, presupposent que la question de competence a ete resolue par l'affirmative. 11 ne serait done ni logique, ni normal, de les mettre aux voix. tant que la motion belge tendant a consulter la COU! sur ce point n'aura pas fait I'objet d'une deliberation et d'une decision. La question de la competence du Conseil de securite a domine jusqu'ici les debats que ce dernier a consacres a la question de l'Indonesie. Des avis divergents ont ete exprimes it ce propos. C'est dans ces conditions qu'a plusieurs reprises la suggestion a ete formulee que la question de la c.ompetence du Conseil. de securite ffrt soumise a la Cour intf'mationale de Justice. Cette suggestion a ete faite des la cent soixante-treizieme seance du ler aofrt et, au cours de la meme seance, j'ai moi-meme exprime le regret qu'elle n'efrt pas ete retenue. 1 Voici le texte du projet de resolution de la Belgique: Document S/517 22 aout 1947 [Texte original en anglais] :"'e Conseil de securite, Ayant ete saisi par les Gouvernements de I'Australie et de I'Inde de la situation en Indonesie; Considerant que le Gouvernement des Pays-Bas, invoquant I'alinea 7 c!e I'Article 2 de la Charte, conteste que le Conseil de securite soit competent pour connaitre de la question dont iI a ete ainsi saisi; Considerant les debats qui ont eu lieu a ce sujet au Conseil de securite; , Prie la Cour internationale de Justice, en vertu de I'Article 96 de la Charte, de vouloir bien lui donner, le plus tot possible, un avis consultatif sur le point de savoir si le Conseil de securite est competent pour connaitre de la question ci-dessus mentionnee; Invite le Secretaire general a mettre a la disposition de la Cour la documentation qu, a ete soumise au Conseil de securite concernant la question, ainsi que les procesverbaux des seances qu'il y a consacrees. The Council has been confronted with a plea, expressly based on paragraph 7, Article 2, of the Charter, that it has no jurisdiction. In such a case the Council cannot, in my opinion, ignore the matter. Before making a decision it should have recourse to the source of enlightenment put at its disposal by the Charter. I refer to Article 96, which permits the Council to request the International Court of Justice to give an opinion on any legCl.I question which may arise. It is consistent with the traditional pOlicy of Belgium to try to settle difficulties of this kind by submitting them to an impartial court. The International Court at The Hague, established by the Charter, is such a court. By applying to it the Council win demonstrate to everyone its desire to be impartial and its natural anxiety to act in strict accordance with the provisions of the Charter. It will, at the same time, affirm its faith in the principle that interr.ational justice is the essential condi~ion for any durable and fruitful organization of the community of States. That has always been the con.iction of my country. I hasten to add that, if it were approved by the Council, my draft resolution w(,uld not prevent the Council from adopting the United States proposal contained in document S/514 and would in no way retard its implementation. This proposal, the political wisdom of which favourablY impresses me, does not prejudge the question of the Council's jurisdiction. May I, in conclusion, inform the ~ouncil that according to a telegram which I have j'ust received from the Belgian Government that Government has instructed its Consul-General in Batavia to 14ke part in the work of the career consuls who have been invited by the Netherlands Government to investigate the situation and to follow its de-' velopment. I am happy to State that an international method of procedure is at present being worked out. The representative of the Republic of Indonesia criticized this procedure just now. As compared with the other procedures proposed it has, however, one important advantage - it will take effect immediately. The- PRESIDENT: The Belgian representative has raised a point of order in connexion with the order of priority which the Chair has given to the resolutions presented. I must justify the way in which I have acted by quoting rule 32 of the rules of procedure which states: "Principa~ motions and draft resolutions shall have precedence in the order of their submission." The draft resolution submitted by the representative of Belgium was presented after the other resolutions which are now before the Council and I wish to act according to the rules of procedure. Rule 33 of the rules of procedure states which motions shall have precedence over all others and divides them into six categories. The Belgian As our rules of procedure do n0C mention that category, I had intended to adhere to them, but if the Council now agrees that I should give priority to the Belgian proposal and dispose of it before dealing with the other proposals, I shall accept that suggestion because the pririciple underlying is not strange to us. Mr. GRQMYKO (Union of S'o~iet Socialist Repuhlics) (translated from Russia-n): I consider that the Belgian resolution should be taken in the general order of voting and that we should be guided in this matter only by the rules of procedure and not by the wishes of any member of the Security Council. Depending on when we decide to vote on the Belgian resolution, I shall ask permission tL' say a few words on the substance of that resolntion. If it is put to a vote after the joint Australian- Chinese resolution, the United States resolution and the second Australian resolution, all of w1,!ich were submitted before the Belgian resolution, then I shall speak on the substance of the Belgian resolution later on.

As there is an objection to giving priority to the Belgian resolution, we shall take up the resolutions in the order of their submission. Mr. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgium) (translated from French) : I was glad to hear the President . say that he intended to apply the provisions of our own rules of procedure. I myself would not want it to be otherwise. Rule 32 reads as follows: "Principal motions and draft resolutio•.ls shall have precedence in the order of their ~ubmission." As the motion which I have presented concerns the jurisdiction of the Security Council it should be considered as a principal motion, and I think that on that account it takes priority over the other draft resolutions.

I do not wish to waste an hour di~cussingthis matter. The Belgian representative Wishes tnat priority be given to his resolution. I shall put this motion to the vote. If the members o! the Council agree that such priority should be given, I shall put the resolution to the vote i1]1- r - di~cussion ou de faire des propositions qui sel-aient irregulieres et frappees de nullite ulterieurement. J'avais l'intention de me conformer a notre n~~glement interieur qui ne fait pas mention de cas de ce genre, mais si le Conseil accepi:e maintevant que je donne priorite a la proposition de la Belgique et que nous en termini-ons la discussion avant de nous occuper des autres propositions, j'accepterai cette decision caice serait la appEquer un principe 'bien connu. . M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socia1istes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Je cTois qu'en mettant aux voix la resolution be1ge, nous devrions nous en tenir a la methode habituelle. C'est uniquement au reglement interieur qu'il faut nous conformer, et non pas aux desirs de l'un que!conque des membres du Conseil de Securite. Je voudrais vous demander la permission de dire quelques mots quant au fond .de cette resolution, mais le moment ou je feraicette declaration dependra de la decision que nous aurons prise sur l'ordre a s:livre en ce qui concerne le vote. Si nous votons d'abord sur la resolution de l'Australie et de la Chine, ·sur la resolution d.es Etats-Unis et ,<ur la seconde' resolution de l'Australie, qui avaient ete presentees anterieurement au projetde resolution de la Be1gique,. je ne me prononcerai que plus tard sur le fond de ce projet. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de I'anglais): Puisqu'un membre du Conseil s'oppose a ce que je donne priorite a la resolution beIge, nous examinerons les resolutions se10n l'ordre dans leque1 e1les ant ete presentees. M. VAN LANGF.NI!OVE (Belgique): rai ete heureux d'entendre le President dire que son intention etait d'appliquer les dispositions de notre reglement interieur. Je n'ai pas, moi-meme, d'autre desjr. L'article 32 est ainsi con<;u: "Les propositions principales et les projets de resolution ont priorite dans l'ordre ou its sont presentes." La proposition que j'~i presentee etant re1ative a la competence du Conseil de securite doit etre consideree comme une proposition principale, et j'estime qu'eIle a, pour ee motif, priorite sur Ies autres projets de resolution. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de I'anglais): Je ne veux pas perdre une heure a discuter cette question. Le representant de la Belgique "'desire que I'on donne priorite a sa resolution. Je vais mettre cette motion aux voix. Si les membres du Conseil acceptent d'accorder priorite a la resolution, je

We M1all now take up the resolutions in the order of their date of submiss!.on. The first one is the joint Australian-Chinese draft resolution as circulated in docume.,t S/513, to which one amendment was proposed. Mr. PAROD! (France) (translated from French) : In what order are we going to discuss the other resolutions? The PRESIDENT: First we shall vote on the joint Australian-Chinese draft resolution; then we shall vote on the United States draft resolution, document S/514. Colonel HODGSON, (Australia): My delegation desires to make it clear that it never actually withdrew its original motion which was contained in document 5'/4881 b'lt at the request of the President it endeavoured to get together with the Cmnese delegation in order to see if we could .arrive at a form which would prove acceptable. If, by any chance, the joint Australian-Chinese resolution is nnt adopted, we shall immediately ask the .President to put our original resolution to the Council before the other resolutions referTed to because they deal with a different problem altogether, that is to say, the question of arbitration and mediation. To that end, and in order to bring it up to date, I have prepared the original Austraiian resolution , ,for circulation in case it is required, and I would be glad if the President could see his way clear to followip.g the suggestion I have made. '

Let us first dispose of this joint resolution and then we will consider which resolution should be voted on next. There are some amendments to the joint resolution which have been circulated by the delegation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. . Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : I spoke about this resolution at the previous meeting of the Security Council. I pointed out at that time that the joint Australian-Chinese resolution was absolutely unsatisfactory. The delegation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics continues to hold the same views. The adoption of that resolution would mean that it would by-pass the United Nations and In order to improve this resolution I have submitted to the Security Council an amendment which is at the disposal of each of the members of the Council at the present time. I propose first to omit paragraphs 2,3,5,6 and 7.. para~Taphes 2, 3, 5, 6 et 7. Apres le paragraphe 4 du texte actuel, qui deviendra le paragraphe 2, si ces amendements sont adoptes, je 'propose d'inserer sous les numeros 3 et 4 les deux paragraphes suivants: "3. Decide de creer une commission composee de representants d~s Etats Membres du Conseil de securite et dont le role sera de contr8ler la mise en application de la decision du Conseil en date du ler aout; . "4. Decide de niaintenir la question indonesienne a l'ordre duo jour du Conseil de securite." . Le colonel HODGSON (Australie) (traduit de" l'anglais): Je crois que la presentation de ces amendements en ce moment risque de creer une certaine confusion, je demanderai au representant de I'Union des R-§publiques sociaHstes sovietiques de lire le texte original de la r~solution'de I'Australie qui vient d'etre distribue. ]e crois qu'il repond a toutes ces questions. Je crois que ces amendements portent que nous "enregistrons avec satisfaction les mesures prises par les parties en vue de se conformer a la resolution du ler aout 1947." Ceci s'y trouve encore. Mais si les rapports et les affirmations emanant des deux cotes et selon lesquels I'ordre de cesset le feu a ete viole sont exacts, il n'y a pas lieu d'en etre satisfait. Le deuxieme amendement de I'URSS prevoit la creation d'une commission chargee de surveiller l'execution de I'ordre de cesser le feu; plus exactement cette commission etablirait un organe de controle dont l'autorite' serait superieure a celle de tout arbitre ou mediateur ou a celle de tout Etat ayant offert ses bons offices. La commission que propose la delegation de l'URSS serait, a notre avis, un organe ayant autorite sur la commission d'arbitrage. After the present paragraph 4, whic..1-t will be~ come paragraph 2 if these amendments are accepted, I propose. the addition of the following new paragraphs 3 and 4: "3. Decides to establish a commission composed of the States Members of the Security Council to supervise the implementation of the decision of the Security Council of 1 August. "4. Decides to keep the Indonesian question on the agenda of the Security C;ounci!." Colonel HODGSON (Australia): I suggest that at this stage these amendments may cause some confusion and I would invite the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to look at the original Australian resolution which has now been circulated. I believe that it meets all these points. As I see it, theseamendmencs would provide that we "Note with' satisfaction the steps taken by the parties to comply with the resolution of .1 August 1947." That is' still left in. But if the reports and allegations from both sides that there have been VIolations of the cease-fire order are correct, it will not show up as a matter of satisfaction. The second USSR amendment provides for a c.ommission to supervise the implementation of the cease-fire order; that is to say, this commission would constitute a supervisory board with higher authority than arbitrators or mediators or the good offices of any country. As we see it, the commission proposed by the USSR delegation would override the arbitration board. The USSR amendment also seeks to' omit the requests to the Governments of the' Netherlands and of the Republic of Indonesia to grant the representatives referred to all facilities necessary for the effective fulfilment of their mission. L'ame~dement de l'URSS tend egalement, a ignorer les demandes adressees aux Gouvernements des Pays-Bas et de la Republique d'Indonesie en vue d'accorder aux repres'entants precites toutes les facilites necessaires a l'accomplissement effectif de leurs fonctions, En' ce qui concerne le point 4 des amendements de l'URSS, je proposerais que de toutes fac;ons la question indonesienne continue de figurer a I'ordre du jour du Conseil de securite. C'est pour ces raisons que je demande au representant de l'URSS de reconsiderer ses amendements et de voir s'il ne lu). serait pas possibie de res retirer pour l'instant. . As regards point 4 of the USSR amendments, I would suggest that in any case the Indonesian question should be kept on the agenda of the Security Council. . For those reasons I would ask the representative of the USSR to reconsider his amendments and to set if he cannot withdraw them at this stage. M.r. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist RepublIcs) (translated from Russian): My amend- M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe) : Mes amendements portent sur une seule question, a savoir: le contr6le a exercer sur l'execution de la. resolution du Conseil de securite en date,du ~e~ts concern only one question, that of super- VIsmg the implementation of the resolution adopted ~~~~~rity Council on 1. August. As the joint As regards paragraph 6 ~f the joint Australian- Chinese_t'esolution, in which the Security Council requests the Governments of the Netherlands and the Indonesian Republic to assist the representatives-referred to in paragraph 5 of that resolution, this paragraph is simply not compatible,with the USSR amendments, for in paragraph 5 of the joint Australian-Chinese resolution reference is made to the consuls; the USSR delegation rejects such a proposal and regards it as profoundly mistaken. I would have no objection to including a paragraph similar to paragraph 6, requesting the two Governments to assist the Security Council commission, in any resolution which may be adopted on condition that such a resolution provides for the creation of a Security Council commission. I would have no objection to the Australian representative suggesting a specific formula. It is a matter of drafting an additional paragraph. 'Should the Australian representative and the other representatives in ~e Council who agree in principle with the proposal to create a Security Council commission accept this proposal, then it is immaterial in what form this propsal is made or whether it is expressed in USSR amendments or in any other resolution. Any formula would be acceptable to the USSR delegation in that case, provided that .the proposal to create a Security Council commission as set out in the first Australian resolution was put to the vote first. I would, of course, vote in favour of that Australian proposal. But, unfortunately, it is not b~ing put to the vote. Although the Australian representative has not withdrawn it, it is not tbeing put to the vote first. I cannot therefore wait until the voting is over and then explain my attitude towards this Australian resolution..I have already explained my attitude in principle and I prefer to move an amendment to the resolution which is now being put to the vote. If the Australian representative agrees in principle to the creation of a Security Council commis&i,on, he cannot but vote for the USSR amendments, in the same way that I, who agree in, principle with the proposal to set up a Security Council commission put forward in the Australian resolution, cannot but vote for his resolution setting. up such a commission when that resolution is put to the vote. Mr. TSIANG (China): If the joint resolution submitted by Australia and China is put to the vote first, I shall vote in favour of it. Should that resolution fail to be adopted, I shall vote either for the USSR amendment or for the original Australian resolution. I consider that the difference between the two is more in form than in substance. Si le representant de l'Australie, ainsi que ceu." des membres du Conseil qui approuvent, en principe, la creation d'une commission du Conseil de securite accepte cette proposition, alors la question de la forme sous laquelle elle sera presentee n'est pas tres importante, et il importe peu qu'elle figure dans les amendements de I'URSS ou,dans toute autre resolution. La delegation de I'URSS sera,it prete a l'a'ccepter sous n'importe . quelle forme, pourvu que la proposition de creer une commission du Conseil de securite qui figure dans la premiere resolution de l'Australie soit la premiere a. etre mise aux voix. Dans ce cas, je voterais naturellement en faveur de cette proposition de.1'Australie. Malheureusement, e1le n'est pas mise aux voix. Bien que le representant de l'Australie ne l'ait pas retiree, cette proposition n'est pas mise aux voix en premier lieu. Par consequent, je ne peux pas attendre les resultats du vote pour exposer mon attitude a l'egard de cette resolution de I'Australie. J'ai deja. expose cette attitude en principe et je prHere apporter un amendement a la resolution que nous allons mettre au1C voix. Si le representant de l'Australie acccpte en principe la creation d'une commission du Conseil de securite, il devrait logiquement voter en faveur des amendements sovietiques, de meme que moi - qui suis, eil principe, favorable a. la proposition de l'Australie visant a. creer cette commission - je devrais, au :rdoment ou eUe sera mise aux Yoix, voter en faVeur de cette resolution qui en prevoit la creation. M. TSIANG (Chine) (traduit de l'anglais): Si la resolution commune de l'Australie et de la Chine est mise aux voix la premiere, je voter~i en sa faveur. Dans le cas ou cette resolution seralt repoussee, je voterai soit en faveur de l'amendement de I'URSS, soit en faveur de la resolution originale de l'Australie. J'estime qu'elles different plutot par la forme que par le fond. Je voudrais ajouter que1ques mots. On a dit • ici, a plusieurs reprises, que le but de cette reso- • I am convinced that all those Governments are sincere and genuinely interested in the faithful execution of the resolution calling for the cessation of hostilities. So far as that point is concerned, I do not see any material difference between the consular body and a commission appointed by this Council. ' However, the form we suggest in the joint resolution does by-pass the thorny problem of the competence of the Council. That was my sole motive in complying with the President's suggestion to collaborate with my colleague from Australia to produce this joint resolution.

I think this question has taken up sufficient time, and all the members already have a clear idea concerning the matter of a commission to supervise the cea3e-fire order. This commission has been under study since 1 August. I think everyone has an opinion and iliat we are nOw ready to vote. According to the rules cifprocedure, I shall first put to the vote the amendments to the Australian resolution proposed by the delegation of theUSSR. The amendments to the resolution will be voted on first. If they are rejected, I shall put to the vote the joint resolution as it stands. If that is rejected I shall return to the original Australian resolution. I ask the Assistant 'Secretary-General to read th~ amendments to the joint Australian-Chinese draft resolution submitted by the representative of the USSR. \ Mr. KElmo (Assistant Secretary-General in charge of Legal Affairs) : The amendments read: . M. KERNO (Secretaire general adjoint charge des affaires juridiques) (traduit de l'anglais): Le texte des amendements est le suivant: "1. Supprimer les paragraphes 2 - 3 - 5 - 6 et 7. "2. Apres le paragraphe 4 du texte actuel, qui devient le paragraphe 2 dans le texte amende, inserer les nouveaux paragraphes 3 et 4 suivants: "'3. Decide de creer une commission composee des Etats Membres du Conseil de securite et chargee de surveiller l'execution de la decision prise par le Conseil de securite le ler aout. " '4. ,Decide que la question indonesienne continuera a figurer a l'ordre du jour du Conseil de securite'." Il est procede au vote a main levee. II y a 7 voi% pOttr, 2 contre et 2 abstentions.L'une des "1. To omit paragraphs 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. "2. After the present paragraph 4, which becomes paragraph 2, to include the following new paragraphs 3 and 4: "'3. Decides to establish a commission composed of the States members of the Security Council to supervise the implementation of the decision of the Security Council of 1 August. "'4. Decides to keep the Indonesian question on the agenda of the Security CounciL' "

As there is no request for it to be read, it will not be read~ A vote was taken by show of hands, and the resolution waS adopted by 7 votes to nonrr, with 4 abstentions. Vales for: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Syria, United States of America. Abstentions: Colombia, Poland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom.

There is no need, then, for the other Australian draft resolution to be put to the vot~. We nass to the United States dtaft resolution. Does the representative of the United States wish a vote to be taken on this resolution which is contained in document Sj514? ' Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): I do not quite understand why the President asks me if I insist on a vote being taken on this resolution. This resolution is entirely different in substance from the one that we have just adopted. There is no other motion of this nature before us except the one from the Australian delegation. The resolution proposed by my delegation would indicate the Council's anxiety to· reach a long-term settlement of this dispute. It would also take cognizance - as I think the Council should - of the diverge.nce of views regarding jurisdiction. The Security Council would call on both parties and offer its good offices to them. I hope the Council will pass this resolution,because a committee such as that suggested in the resolution could be chosen at once by the two parties and could get to work immediately on the final solution of this question. This resolution will in no way retard or impede the implementation of the Council's <cease-fire resolution. It will avoid the question of jurisdiction about which so many differences of opinion and so much bitterness have developed. S'abs~iennent: Chine, Royaume-Uni. Le PRESIDENT (tradttit de l'anglais): Un membre permanent du Conseil a vote contre cette proposition; elle est done mise en echec. Nous allons maintenant mettre aux voix l'ensemble ':le la resolution commune, telle qu'elle figure au document Sj513. Je demanderai au' Secretaire general adjoint de la lire. Le colonel HODGSON (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais): J'estime qu'il est absolument inutile de lire cette proposition. Elle a ete plusieurs fois soumises a notre etude et son texte ne nous a jamais ete lu. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais) Personne ne demande qu'on lise le texte de la resolution; it ne sera done pas lu. II est procede au vote a main levee. Par 7 voi.xcontre zero, avec 4 abstentions, la resolution est adoptee. Votent pour: Australie, Belgique; Bresil, Chine, France, Syrie, Etats-Unis d'Amerique. S'abstiennent: Colombie, Pologne, Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques, Royaume- Uni. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): It est donc'inutile de mettre aux voix l'autre resolution de l'Australie.' Nous passons maintenant a la resolution des Etats-Unis. Est-Fe que le representant des Etatsunis desire quecette resolution, qui a ete distribuee sous la cote Sj514, soit mise aux voix? M.. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (tradttit de l'anglais) : Je ne comprends pas tres bien pourquoi le President me demande si je tiens a ce que cette resolution soit mise aux voix. Cette resolution est totalement differente, quant au fond, de celle que nous venons d'adopter. Aucune motion de ce genre ne nous a ete presentee excepte celle de la delegation de l'Australie. La resolution presentee par madelegation temoignerait de l'inten~t que porte le Conseil au reglement definitif de ce differend. Elle indiquerait egalement que le Conseil prend actece qu'il devrait faire, a mon avis - des divergences d'opinion relatives a la question de sa competence. Le Conseil de securite s'adresserait aux deux parties et leur offrirait ses bons offices. J'espere que le Conseil adoptera cette resolution car le comite qu'elle propose de Creel' pourrait etre choisi immediatement par les deux parties et pourrait sans tarder, entreprendre de resoudre le probleme de fa<;on definitive. Cette resolution ne retardera ni ne genera en quoi que ce soit l'execution de la resolution du Conseil donnant l'ardre de cesser le feu. Elle evite de poser la competence du Conseil apropos de laqueUe tant de divergences d'opinion se sont manifestees avec tant d'acrimonie. Je ne crois pas que le Conseildoive tenter d'obliger les parties a employer des moyens paci- Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Ru,ssian) : The United States proposal, as well as the joint Australian- Chinese proposal, means by-passing the United Nations and by-passing the Security Council. Such action would be a blow to our Organization and to the Security Council. Consequently, as I have already stated, the delegation of, the USSR considers this proposal completely unacceptable. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (tradttit du russe): La proposition des Etats-Unis, ainsi que celle qui a ete soumise par 1es delegations de la Chine·et de l'Austra1ie, signifie que 1'on agirait sans tenir compte de 1'Organisation des Nations Unies ni du Conseil de securite. Cette fa<;on d'agir porterait atteinte a notre Organisation et au Conseil de securite. C'est pourquoi, ainsi que je l'ai deja dit, la delegation de l'URSS considere cette proposition comme abso1ument inacceptabJe. A proposal on this question has been submitted by the Polish representative! who suggests that an arbitration commission consisting of the States represented on the Security Council should be created. This proposal was submitt~d as an amendment and therefore I consider that it should be put to the vote before any other proposals dealing with the question of arbitration. Le representant de la Po10gne not1,s a soumis une proposition! qui tend a creel' une Commission d'arbitrage composee de representants des Etats membres du Conseil de securite. Cette proposition a ete presentee sous forme d'amendement. C'est pourquoi i1 me semble que nous devrions mettre aux voix l'amendement de la Po10gne avant toute autre proposition relative a l'arbitrage.

I will put to the vote the United States draft resolution which was distributed as document S/514. I should first, however, like to reply to the point which was raised by the USSR representative. The Polish amendment was pro-. posed to the Australian draft resolution contained in document S/488. That resolution has been withdrawn. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de I'anglais) : Je yais mettre aux voix le projet de resolution des Etats- Unis qui a ete distribue sous la cote S/514. Mais, auparavant, je voudrais .repondre a la question sou1evee par le representant de l'URSS. L'amendement au projet de res91ution de l'Australie qu'a propose la Po1ogne constitue le document S/488. Cette resolution a ete retiree. Colonel Hodgson at this stage indicated his dissent. The PRESIDENT: The Australian representative stated that if the joint resolution were adopted, his original resolution should be considered as withdrawn. The joint resolution has been adopted; consequently the other resolution can now be considered as withdrawn. How can I put to the vote an amendment to a resolution which is nonexistent? A ce moment, le colonel Hodgson fait un signe de denegation. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de I'anglais): Le representant de l'Australie a declare que, si la resolution commune etait adoptee, il faudrait considerer qu'il a retire sa resolution originale. La resolution commune a ete adoptee, nous pouvons done considerer maintenant que 1'autre resolution est retiree. Comment serait-il possible de mettre aux voix un amendement cl une resolution qui n'existe plus? Mr. KATz-SUCHY (Poland) : I wish to speak on a point of order. Before we started voting the President stated that the motions would be voted on in the order in which they were submitted to the Council. I believe that the Australian resolution concerning arhitration was submitted before the United States resolution. I, therefore, submit that we should vote first on the Australian resolution. M. KATZ-SUCHY (Po10gne) (traduit de l'anglais): Je demande la parole sur une question d'ordre. Avant que le vote ne commence, le President a declare que les motions seraient mises aux voix seIon l'ordre dans 1eque1 eIles ont ete presentees a ce ConseiI. Je crois que la resolution de l'Australie relative a l'arbitrage a ete presentee avant la resolution des Etats-Unis. Je propose done que nous mettions tout d'abord aux voix'la reso1u~ion de l'Australie. Je L, Jis par ailleurs que, au moment Oll I;, resolution commune de l'Australie et de la Chine a ete preparee et Oll l'Australie a presente une nouvelle resolution relative cl l'arbitrage seulement, i1 avait ete entendu que l'amendement de la Pologne se rapportait ala deuxieme resolution de l'Australie qui figure au document S/512. As to the Polish amendment, I believe it was understood when the joint Australian-Chinese resolution was prepared and another Australian resolution concerning arbitration alone was proposed at the same time, that the Polish amendment referred to the second Australian resolution which is contained in dOl?ument S/512. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : The Council has taken a decision on the· other question, that of M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): La decision que le Conseil de securite a prise portait '-- ' If it should transpire that the first Australian resolution no longer exists (although I am not quite clear whether it exists or does not exist, but let us assume that it does not exist), then the amendment still stands, as the amendment differs fundamentally from the proposals. If the first Australian resolution has been withdrawn, this amen4ment can now be put to the vote as an amendment to the United States resolution. If the Australian resolution has been withdrawn and the Polish representative goes not move his amendment as an amendment to the United States resolution, I shall propose that the Polish amendment be regarded as an amendment to the United States resolution. I consider it entirely logical that the Polish representative should move this amendment as an amendment to the United States resolution, shculd it transpire, I repeat, that the Australian resolution has been withdrawn.

Insistence or non-insistence on voting on the Australian proposal- I mean the original proposal contained in document 5/488- depends upon the Australian representative himself. I understood him to say that if the joint proposal was accepted, he would not press for a vote on his original proposal. If I am wrong in this assumption, I am ready to comply with his wish. I notice that the Australian proposal contained in document 5/512 is different from the joint proposal; that has already been adopted by the Council and deals with the supervision of the cease-fire order, whereas document 5/512 relates to point (b) of the resolution of 1 August and concerns arbitration and the peaceful solution of the dispute. If the Australian representative wishes his resolution to be v~ted upon, I shall certainly put the amendment proposed by the Polish representative to the vote first, and then we shall vote on the A-ustralian resolution, document 5/512, which is the principal resolution. Colonel HODGSON (Australia) : My understanding of the position is this: The three resolutions under discussion all deal with the one problem, and the order of their submission was as follows: first, the Polish amendment, secondly, the Australian resolution, and thirdly, the United States resolution. The point is that the Polish resolution dealing with this matter was submitted as an amendment to the original Australian ptoposal contained in document 5/488. There is a doubt as to whether that was withdrawn or not. My view is that it was only put in reserve and that it still exists. I. S'il se trouvait que' la premiere resolution de l'Australie n'existe plus - je ne sais pas encore au juste si elle existe ou non, mais admetton!; qu'eUe n'existe pas - si done, cette proposition n'existait plus, l'amendement tiendrait toujours, car it differe essentieUement des propositions originales. Si la premiere resolution de l'AustraIie a ete retiree, nous pouvons mettre aux voix cet amendement en tant qu'amendement apporte ala resolution des Etats-Unis. Au cas ou le projet de resolution de l'Australie aurait ete retire, et ou le representant de la Pologne ne proposerait pas de considerer son texte comme un amendement a. la resolution des Etats-Unis, c'est moi qui proposerai de considerer le texte polonais com11;le un amendement a. la resolution des Etats-Unis. J'estime que, logiquement, le representant de la Pologne devrait considerer son texte comme un amendement a. la resolution des Etats-Unis s:il se trouvait - je le repete - que la resolution de l'Australie ait ete retiree. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'ang1ais) : Le representant de I'Australie est libre d'insister ou de ne pas insister pour qu'on rmette aux voix sa proposition - c'est-a.-dire la premiere proposition qu'il a presentee et qui est reproduite dans le document 5/488 - I1 a declare, me semble-t-il, que si la proposition commune etait acceptee, it n'insisterait pas pour qu'on mette aux voix sa premiere ptoposition. Si je fais erreur, je suis pret a. me conformer it sa volonte. Je remarque que la propositio~ de I'Australie, qui est reproduite dans le document 5/512 differe de la proposition commune. Cette derniere, que le Conseil a deja. adoptee, parIe de surveiIIer I'ordre de' cesser le feu, alorsque le document S/512 parIe du point b) de la resolution du 1er aout et a trait a l'arbitrage et au reglement pacifique de la question. ' Si le representant de l'Australie desire qu'on mette aux voix sa resolution, je commencerai tout d'abord par l'amendemt::nt propose par le representant de la Pologne. Nous mettrons ensuite aux voix la resolution de l'Australie, document S/512, qui est la resolution principale. Le colonel HODGSON (Australie) (trad~tit de l'ang1ais): La situation est, a. mon avis, ,la suivante: les trois resolutions dont nous discutons traitent toutes du meme probleme. Elles ont ete presentees dans l'ordre suivant: tout d'abord l'amendement de la Pologne, ensuite la resolution de l'Australie et en troisieme lieu la resolution des Etats-Unis. La difficulte reside dans le fait que la resolution de la Pologne relative a cette question a ete presentee sous forme d'amendement ala proposition originale de l'Australie, clont le texte se trouve dans le docutL~nt 5/488. On ne peut considerer d'une maniere absolue qu'eIle ait ete retiree. A mon avis, elle a ete reservee" I mais eUe subsiste. ......... Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America) : I do not care in the slightest which one of the three resolutions is voted on first. There is, however, a fundamental difference in suhstance between the United States res61ution and the other two. The United States resolution does not, as the representative of the USSR has so ingeniously suggested and tried to make the Council and the audience believe, attempt to by-pass the United Nations. On the contrary, it is a realistic resolution based on our knowledge that there is a serious and profound difference of opinion in this Council on the question of jurisdiction: The United States delegation is not ready to give an opinion on that subject and we should be glad to have an advisory opinion from the International 'Court of Justice. M. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais) : Il m'est absolument indifferent que l'une plutot que l'autre de ces trois resolutions soit mise aux voix la premiere. Mais it y a une difference essentielle quant au fond entre la resolution des Etats-Unis et les deux autres. Contrairemen.t a ce que le representant de l'URSS a suggere avec tant d'habilete, et contrairement a ce qu'il s'est efforce de faire croire au Conseil et a 1'auditoire, la resolution des Etats-Unis ne vise pas a agir en dehors des Nations Unies. Au contraire, cette resolution est inspiree d'un esprit realiste et tient 'compte du fait, connu de tous les membres, que ce Conseil est profondement partage sur la question de la competence. La delegation des Etats-Unis n'est pas encore a. meme de se prononcer sur cette question et nous serions heureux d'avoir l'avis de la Cour internationale de Justice. \. It would be impossible for me to accept the amendment proposed by the representative of Poland. If I sound didactic, that is not my intention, but this Council cannot force a method of arbitration and peaceful settlerp.ent on two disj,Jutantl:. We can invite them to come to the Council for guidance but we cannot say "You must work with this arbit-ration commission". That is why the United States delegation thought a committee of the Security Council should be set up to De the , agent for offering our good offices to the Government of the Netherlands and to the Indonesian Republic in an endeavour to help them, in the name of the Council, to agree, if possible, on a peaceful method for the long-term settlement of this dispute. I1 me serait impossible d'accepter 1'amendement du representant de la Pologne. Si je parais prendre un ton doctoral, c'est tout a fait sans le vouloir, mais j'estime que ceConseil ne peut imposer un mode d'arbitrage particulier et un reglement pacifique a deux parties a un differend. Nous pouvons les inviter a demander des avis au Conseil, mais nous ne pouvons leur dire: "Vous devez coIIaborer avec telIe ou telIe commission d'arbitrage". C'est pourquoi la delegation des Etats-Unis a estime qu'il faudrait etablir un comite du Conseil de securite qui porterait notre offre de bons offices au Gouvernement des Pays.,. Bas et a la Republique d'Indonesie pour s'efforcer de les aider, au nom du Conseil, a convenir, si possible, d'un moyen pacifique de trouver une solution durable a ce differend. Le but de cette resolution n'est nulIement d'agir en dehors du Conseil de securite; elle reconnait seulement le fait que les membres du ConseiI ont honnetement exprime des opinions diametralement opposees sur la question de la competence du Conseil; la resolution des Etats- Unis evite de prendre parti dans cette controverse jusqu'a ce que nous ayons 1'opinion de la Cour internationale de Justice. M. KATZ-SUCHY (Pologt'le) (traduit de ['anglais) : Pour resoudre le probleme qui a ete pose, la delegation' de la Pologne presente de nouveau 1'amendement qu'elle avait propose anterieurement a la resolution originale de l'Australie'; cet amendement s'applique tant a la resolution des Etats-Unis qu'a la nouveIle resolution de l'Australie. . That is in no sense by-passing the Security Council; it is simply a recognition of the fact that there is a fundamental and honest difference of opinion on the question of jurisdiction; the United States resolution avoids a decision on that controversial matter until we have obtained an opinion from the International Court of Justice. Mr. KATZ-SUCHY (Poland) : In order to solve the problem which has been raised here before, the Polish delegation resubmits the amendment which it previously submitted to the original Australian resolution, as an amendment to both the United States resolution and the new Australian resolution. This amendment ~ill be added after the words Le texte de cet amendement suivra les mots "... 1er aout 1947" dans le document S/514. I1 s'enoncera: "... Decide de creer une commission du Conseil de securite compose de onze membres de ce Conseil, qui agiront en qualite de mediateurs et d'arbitres entre le Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et le Gouvernement de la Republique d'Indonesie." It • •• 1 August 1947," in document S/514. It will read: ~ ". . . Resolves to establish a commission of the Security Council consisting of eleven members of the Security Council who will act in the capacity. of mediators and arbitrators between the Government of the Netherlands and the Government of the Rep4blic of Ind?nesia." b ·_·· ·~·.,..=•.,, - - I believe the Australian resolution will be voted on first in accordance with the order of submission. Mr. GROMJ:KO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (tra.nslated front Russian): We must not overlook the main question now before us which is whether the Securi.ty Council will deal with questions of arbitration and mediation, or whether those questions will be handed over to individual countries. That is the essence of the problem. Cert~in representatives in the Council have introduced a proposal, which has been supported throughout by the USSR delegation, that the United Nations, that is to say, the. Security Council, should take over the task of arbitration and mediation in view of the fact that the Council has taken on the task of considering the Indonesian question and in view of the gravity of the situation in Indon~sia. . The representatives of a number of other countries are urging us to take another course. They are urging that the task of arbitration and mediation should be taken over by one or two c01.Jntries, asserting at the same time that this would not bypass the Uniteq. Nations or the Security Council. They reject the proposal that the Security Council should deal with arbitration and mediation and, at the same time, they attempt to prove that they are not opposed to the United Nations' dealing with this question. They are contradicting themselves. If an instance of the Organization's being bypassed can be found in the history of the United Nations, then this is a characteristi'c and typical instance. It would be difficult to find a more characteristic instance of by-passing the United Nations. It is clear that the statements and actions of the representative of the United States differ. Verbally, on the surface, there is apparent support for the Organization on this question, but in reality this is a typical and characteristic instance of the by-passing of the Organization. I do not propose to discuss this question further as enough has already been said about it. I consider that the Security Council would deal a second seri~us blow to the prestige of the United Nations if it adopted the proposal submitted by the representative of the United States or that submitted by the representative of Australia which amounts, as I have already pointed out, to by-passing the United Nations in the matters of arbitration and mediation. The USSR delegati.0n and the Government of the USSR cannot agree to such a proposal and cannot be a party to such action. I support the amendment submitted by the representative of Poland.

The last speaker will be the representative of the United States, after which we shall proceed to vote on the Polish amendment, Je crois que conformement a l'ordre de presentation, la resolution de l'AustraHe sera mise aux voix la premiere. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du .russe) : Il ne faut pas que nous perdions de vue la question principale que nous avons a resoudre: il s'agit, en effet, de savoir si c'est le Conseil de securite qui s~occupera des questions relatives a l'arbitrage et a la mediation, ou bien si le reglement de ces questions sera confie a certains Etats. C'est la le fond au probleme. Certains membres du Conseil ont presente une proposition que la delegation de l'URSS a toujours appuyee. Aux termes de cette proposition, I'Organisation des Nations Unies, par l'intermediaire du Conseil de securite, devrait se charger de l'3.rbitrage et de la mediation, etant donne que le Conseil de securite a pris sur lui d'examiner la question indonesienne et etant ,donne la. gravite de la situation dans ce pays. Les representants d'un certain nombre de pays nous invitent a nous engager dans une voie differente. Ils veulent que nous confiions l'arbitrage et la mediation a un ou deux Etats, et ils pretendent qu'en agissant ainsi nous ne negligerions ni l'Organisation des Nations Unies, ni le Conseil de St~curite. Tout-en rejetant la proposition selon laquelle le Conseil de securite devrait s'occuper . des questions relatives a l'arbitrage et a la mediation, ils essaient de nous persuader qu'ils ne s'opposent pas a ce que l'Organisation examine cette question. Ils se' contredisent eux-memes. 5'il y a dans l'histoire de l'Organisation des Nations UniesLun cas ou celle-ci a ete negligee, c'est bien le cas present. Il serait difficile de ttouver un exemple plus typique de la far;on d'agir sans tenir compte de l'Organisation des Nations Unies. De toute evidence, les declarations du representant des Etats-Uhis ne correspondent pas a ses actes. A premiere vue, il semble qu'on soutienne l'Organisation, mais, en realite, il s'agit d'un cas ou l'on n'en tient aucun compte. Je ne vais pas entrer dans une discussion plus approfondie de cette question, puis'que nous en avons deja suffisamment parle. A mon avis, le Conseil de securite p6rterait atteinte, une' fois de plus, au prestige de notre Organisation, s'il acceptait les propositions qu'ont presentees id les representants des Etats-Unis et de l'Australie. et qui signifie - comme je l'ai deja dit - que l'on ne tient aucun compte de l'Organisation des Nations Unies dans les questions relatives a l'arbitrage et a la mediation. La delegation et le gouvernement de l'URSS ne peuvent accepter une telle proposition et ne veulent pas s'ctssocier a. cette action. Je sotitiens l'amendement que nous a soumis le representant de la ~ologne. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Le dernier orateur est le representant des Etats-Unis; quand nous l'aurons entendu nous mettrons aux • Mr. Gromyko is evidently taking the opportunity to use the Council as a forum for propa- -ganda in accordance with the. usual methods employed by the USSR; there is no question whatever of the United States delegation trying to by-pass the United Nations. There are other members of this Council who share our doubts regarding the competency of the Council to force a method of long-term settlement on the two parties concerned. I do not believe the motives of the United States Government are being seriously questioned by any other member of the Council. Colonel HODGSON (Australia) : I gather that the President is going to put the following resolutions to the vote imm~diately, in the following order and without further discussion: the Polish amendment, the Australian resolution and the United - States resolution. As I havenot spoken one word on behalf of my delegation in explanation of the Australian resolution contained in document S/512 I should like to explain briefly the purpose and intent of the resolution. Puisque je n'ai pas dit un seul mot, au nom de ma delegation, pour expliquer la resolution de l'Australie, qui figure dans le document S/512, je desirerais exposer brievement le but et l'intention dans lequels cette resolution a ete proposee. EUe visait it repondre it un certain nombre d'objections qui ont ete formulees. Conformement aux termes de l'accord original, - celui de Linggadjati, que les deux parties ont, sans aucun doute, signe de leur plein gre - tout differend doit etre regIe par voie d'arbitrage. En COnsequence, dans sa premiere decision du ler aont 1947, le Conseil a d~mande aux deux parties de regler leur differend par voie d'arbitrage. La resolution de l'Australie est done conforme a l'intention premiere des deux parties et conforme egalement a la decision du Conseil de regler ce The resolution was designed to meet many of the objections which havejust been voiced. The original agreement - I refer to that of Linggadjati which was undoubtedly at that time voluntarily entereq into by the two parties to thisdispute - states that any differences shall be settled by arbitration. Consequently in the odginalresolution adopted by this Council on 1 August 1947 we called on them to settle their disputes by arbitration. The Australian resolution is therefore in accordance with· the original intent of Ithe parties and in accordance with the Council's decision, which was that this dispute should·be settled by arbitration. In connexion with the second point, the Australian delegation agrees that there is a certain amount of rigidity about the Polish amendment. It. agrees with the United States delegation that that amendment -will not be conducive to achieving the differ~nd par voie d'arbitrage. En ce qui concerne le second point, la delegation de l'Australie convient que l'amendement de la Pologne manque quelque peu de souplesse. EUe partage le point de vue des Etats-Unis d'Amerique: cet amendement ne contribuera pas a obtenir les resultats desires si, en qualite de Conseil, nous imposons trois arbitres aux parties. NOUS leur donnons done a chacune la liberte de _choisir un Etat, et, pour indiquer que le Conseil conserve pourtant, dans une large mesure, la direction de l'affaire, le troisieme arbitre sera nomme par lui. r~sults -desired if we, as a Council, impose on the dIsputants three arbitrators. Therefore, we give each ofthe parties the power of freely selecting One State. Then, to show that the Security Council still retains a large measure of control, the third member is to be appointed by the Council. For those purposes, in order to try to meet the two extreme views, we submitted what may be regarded as a compromise resolution and we hoped that it would be received favourably by the majority of the members of this Council. Mr, GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republks) (translated from Russian): From the very beginning of the examination of the Indonesian question, we have seen two tendencies in the Security Council. Some people want the Council to. examine the Indonesian question and act in accordance with the gravity of the situation which has arisen in Indonesia, extending due protection to the interests of the Indonesian Republic and the Indonesian people. The other tendency is to limit the action taKen by the Security Council to a few formalities, or even to oblige the Security Council voluntarily to abstain from taking a decision in this matter. It is obvious that, recognizing the gravity of the situation in Indonesia, the USSR has from the very outset supported the view that this question, and all related questions arising from the situation in Indonesia, should be decided by the Security Council and by the Security Council alone. It is well-known that certain other States which have colonial interests in general, or important economic interests in Indonesia, have acted throughout so as to protect the Netherlands, that is to say the guilty party in the Indonesian dispute, and to put the Indonesian Republic in a still worse position, although the Republic was already the victim of armed aggression by the Netherlands. From the very outset therefore, we have had -these two basic tendencies. During the whole of our fliscussions it has not been difficult to note the existence of these two tendencies; they have been evident even to the untrained observer, to the man in the street, who is not, I think, an expert in politics or diplomacy, . The United States representative has said that t~e USSR representative'~ statement that adoption of the United States and Australian proposals would by-pass the United Nations is USSR propaganda, If support for the proposal that the Security Ct>uncil should deal with questions of arbitration and mediation is propaganda, then many Americans too are carrying on the same propaganda. I would draw the attention 'of the United States representative to the fact that almost every important United States newspaper has recently been stating plainly that the policy followed by the United. States representatives in the Security Council aims at by-passing the United Nations. Is this also USSR propaganda? In my view, it would be very hard·to suspect important United States newspapers, who set the tone in the United States Press, of disseminating USSR propaganda, I think that it is particularly difficult for the representative of the United States to hide behind phrases and statements and to attempt to prove that.in this 11 est indiscutable que, consciente de la gravite de la situation en Indonesie, l'URSS a, des le debut, insiste pour que le Conseil de securite, et lui seul, regIe cette question, ainsi que tous les autres probleml';s qui se posent a propos de la situation en Indonesie. Comme tout le alonde le sait, d'autres pays, qui ont des interets coloniaux en general ou des interets economiques importants en Indonesie, se sont, des le debut, efforces de de£endre la partie coupable dans la question indonesienne, a savoir: les Pays-Bas; d'autre part, ils ont cherche a placer dan§ une situation encore plus difficile la Republique d'Indonesie qui etait deja victime d'une agression armee de la part des Pays-Bas. Ainsi done ces deux tendances principales se sont manifestees des le commencement. I1 a ete facile de s'en rendre compte pendant toute notre discussion. 11 n'est pas necessaire d'etre verse dans les choses de la politique et de la diplomatie pour s'en apercevoir, Le representant des Etats-Unis qualifie de propagande de l'URSS la declaration du representant de l'URSS selon laquelle l'adoption des propositions des Etats-Unis et de l'Australie signifierait qu'on veut agir en dehors de I'Organisation des Nations Unies. Si c'est faire de la propagande que de de£endre une proposition qui tend a ce que le Conseil de securite s'occupe des questions relatives a l'arbitrage et a la mediation, alors de nombreux Americains en font autant. Je voudrais faire observer au representant des Etats-Unis que, depuis quelque temps, presque tous les grands journaux americai~s declarent sans ambages que la tendance du representant des Etats-Unis au Conseil de securite est de negliger l'Organisation des Nations Unies, Est-ce la aussi de la propagande de I'URSS? Je crois qu'il est difficile de soupc;onner les grands journaux americains, qui donnent le ton au reste de la presse des Etats-Unis, de faire de la prop~­ gande en faveur de l'URSS. Je crois qu'il seralt I repeat, in reality, ever since we began to examine the Indonesian question, we have been faced with attempts by the United States and by certain other colonial Powers to prevent the Security Council from examining the substance of that question. Various arguments are, of course, put forward to achieve this end. It would be strange if arguments were not put fox:ward. One of these arguments is that it is still not clear whether the Security Council has the right to examine this question. At a1most every meeting the question of the jurisdiction of the Security Council is dragged out and it is the United States representative who sets the tone. The question of jurisdiction would appear to be regarded as a sort of swamp in which to sink the substance of the Indonesian question and in which to drown the political significance and the political content of that question. That is how this attitude strikes the impartial observer. . I repeat that the USSR delegation not only cannot be a party to such attempts, but, whatever final decisions the Security Council may take, the USSR delegation will stand aloof from such attempts and from such decisions. The USSR delegation is doing, and will do, everything in its power to prove that this question should be dealt with by the Security Council and by the Ser.urity Council alone. It has been argued that by setting up a commission for the specific purpose of arbitration and mediation, the Security Coundl might limit the extent of the measures which will have to be taken to settle matters between the Indonesian Republic and the Netherlands by arbitration and mediation. Such an argument is unsound. The Security Council or its commission may use every means generally permissible in cases of arbitration and mediation tq arrive at a solution of the problem in the interests of Indonesia and of the Netherlands and also in the interests of the United Nations as a whole. La delegation de l'URSS - je le repete - ne peut s'associer aces tentatives; queUes que soient les decisions finales du CO!1seil de securite, elle se desolidarise de ces tentatives et de ces decisions; cIle fait et fera tout son possible pour prouver que c'est le Conseil de securite, et lu! seul, qui doit s'occuper de cette question. On affirme que, en cn§ant une commission uniquement en vue de l'arbitrage et de la mediation, le Conseil de se~urite risquerait de limiter la portee des mesures qu'il serait necessaire de prendre pour regler, par voie d'arbitrage et de mediation, les questions litigieuses entre la Republique d'Indonesie et les Pays-Bas. C'est la un mauvais argument. Le Conseil de securite ou la commission qu'il aura creee pourront employer tous les moyens permis dans le domaine de I'arbitrage et de la mediation afin de regler ces questions conformement aux interets de I'Indonesie et des Pays-Bas, ainsi qu'a ceux de l'Organisation des Nations t[nies dans son ensemble. Je ne crois pas que les affirmations toutes gratuites que le representant des Etats-Unis a lancees ici au sujet de la propagande, etc., puissent nous faire oublier la substance de la question que nous avons a exatniner. M. LOPEz (Colombie) (traduit de l'anglais): J'ai egalement l'impression que les resultats de ce debat sur la question indonesienne ne contribueront pas it· rehausser le prestige du Conseil de securite, pas plus que ne 1'0nt fait les conclusions d'aucune de nos deliberations anterieures, comme par exemple, celle sur la question grecque qui a pn§cede la question indonesienne. Mais je crois egalement que, si nous ne considerons pas sous I'angle approprie le travail que nous avons accompli, le ConseiI de securite lJourrait laisser perdre certains des enseignements que 1'0n peut tirer des erreurs, des insuffisances et des echecs qui ont pu etre remarques. Dans le cas present, il me semble que nous alIons vraisemblablement faire une erreur dans l'interpretcition des dernieres phases des evenements. Aux yeux de ma delegation, la situation I do not think that the very cheap phrases about propaganda and so on thrown off by the United States representative are likely to blind us to the substance of the matter under consideration. Mr. LOPEz (Colombia) : I share the impression that the outcome of this debate on the Indonesian question will not greatly enhance the prestige of the Security Council, any more than it has been enhanced by the outcome of any of our other deliberations, for example, those on the Greek question, which preceded the Indonesian question. I also believe, however, that some of the lessons th~t the Security Council may learn from any mistakes, shortcomings or failures which may appear to have occurred will be lost if we do not view what we have done in the proper perspective. In the present case, it seems to me that we are very likely to misinterpret the situation in its final Much the same thing happened before with respect to the Greek resolutions. There were nine votes in favour but the resolutions were not carried because they were vetoed.! I think it is very important for the Council and for the public at large to stop to think how the veto operates because the consequences, from the g~nera1 viewpoint of the voting, are very much the same. It does not matter whether ·a pwposa1 has seven, eight, nine or ten votes in its favour. If it fails to receive the 'Vote of one of the permanent members of the Council, it is not carried. That is what has actually happened. The will of the majorityof the Council wasto use the President's expression again - frustrated because of the exercise of the veto. The Council was then confrcated with a new alternative: either to do nothing further and admit that there was a deadlock, thus turning the problem over to the General Assembly, as was proposed in the Greek question, or to propose the next best solution, the one that would be most likely to be adopted. That, to my mind, is the position in which the Security Council finds itself at the present time. I should like to remind the Council that when the USSR amendment was put to the vote, the United States delegation voted in favour of it. As far as the Co!ombian delegation was concerned, it also voted in favour of those amendments since it felt that it was being consistent with the procedure which the Council has followed at every stage of the deliberations on the Indonesian question. When the joint Australian-Chinese proposal was voted on and adopte$l, the Colombian delegation abstained from voting. Now, however, we have before us three proposals: one calls for arbitration by a commission of three members of the Security Council, one member to 'be selected .by each of the parties to the dispute and the thir1 member to be selected by the Se~urity Cooncil; then there is a. proposal for arbitration by a commission consisting of eleven members of the Council; and lastly, there is the Unite~' States proposal offering the good offices of the ":ouncil to the parties to the dispute. I must say that,! cannot agree with the suggestion that any of these proposals. by-passes the Organization. That is why we are in favour of voting either for the Australian or the United Quand le Conseil a mis aux voix la proposition commune de l'Australie et de la Chine, ,qui a ete adoptee, ma.delegation s'est abstenue. Maintenant, toutefois, le Conseil est saisi de trois propositions: l'une propose l'arbitrage d'une commission composee de trois membres du Conseil de securite, chacune des parties choisissant un membre et le Conseil de securite choisissant le troisieme. La seconde propose l'arbitrage d'une commissi~n composee des onze membres du Consei1, et en~tn la proposition des Etats-Unis offre aux partIes 1es bons offices du Conseil. Je dois avouer que je ne partage pas l'o~i~ion de ceux qui ont suggere que ces proposltlOns visaient a agir en dehors de 1'0rganisation. C'est pourquoi, bien que nous nous soyons sans cesse The resolution that we have jnst adopted applies only to supervision of the cease-hre order. The one which we are now discussing must settle the dispute itself, and we are very ~uch in favour of doing something about it, either by way of good offices, which may lead to arbitration, or directly by arbitration, although we would much prefer to· have that done from the start as was suggested by the original Australian resolution. .

The first proposal to be put to the vote is the Polish amendment contained in document S/488/AddJ which is to be completed by inserting after the 'words "consisting of", the words "the eleven members of the Security Council who' wi.ll act in the capacity of mediators and arbitr~(Urs between the Government of the Netherlands and the Republic of Indonesia". The amendment is to replace the third paragraph of the Australian proposal contained in document S/512. A vote was taken by show of hands and the amendment was rejected by 4 'votes to 3 with 4 abstentions. Votes for: Poland, Syria, Union of Sovjet Socialist Republics. Votes against: Belgium, France, United Kingdom, United States of America. Abstentions: Australia, Brazil, China, Cdombia.

We shall now proceed to the Australian draft resolution contained in document S'/512. A vote was taken by show of hands. There were 3 votes in favour, none against and 8 absz<!ntions. The resolution was not adopted, having failed to obtain the affirmative votes of seven members. Votes for: Australia, Colombia, Syria. Abstentions: Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Poland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, United States of America. The PRESIDENT: We now pass to the United States draft resolution, contained in document S/514. Votent pour: Australie, ColDmbie, Syrie. S'abstiennent: Belgique, Bresil, Chine, France, Pologne, Union des Republiques sociaIistes sovietiques, Royaume-Uni, Etats-Unis d'Amerique. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Nous passons maintenant au projet de resolution des Etats-Unis qui est reproduit dans le document S/514. A vote was taken by show of hands, and the It est P1'OCede au vote amain levee. Par 8 voix resolution was adopted by 8 votes in favour, none contre zero, avec 3 abstentions, la resolution est against and 3 abstentions. adoptee. Votes for: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, China, Votent 'pour: Australie, Belgique, Bn§siI, Chine, Colombia, France, United Kingdom, United States Colombie,' France, Royaume-Uni, Etats-Unis of America. d'Amerique. Abstentions: Poland, Syria, Union of Soviet S'abstiennent: Pologne, Syrie, Union des Repu- Socialist Republics. bliques socialistes soviHiques. .

We shall now proceed to vote Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Nous on the Belgian proposal contained in docuallons maintenant mettre aux voix la proposition ment S/517 concerning the competence of the de la BeIgique, figurant au document S/517, Security Council to, deal with this question. proposition relative a la competence du Conseil ....... . I de se.curite a connaitre de la question. premi~re question a mettre aux voix est l'amendement de la Pologne, qui figure au document S/488/Add.l, complete par les mots "composee des onze membres du Conseil de securite qui' agiront en qualite de mediateurs et d'arbitres entre le Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et la Republique d'Indonesie". Cet amendement remplacera le troisieme paragraphe de la proposition de l'Australie qui est reproduite dans le document S/512. 1l est procede au vote amain levee. Par 4 voix contre 3, avec 4 'abstentions, !'amendement est rejete. Votent pour: Pologne, Syrie, Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques. Votent contre: Belgique, France, Royaume- Uni, Etats-Unis d'Ameriqlfe. S'abstiennent: Australie, Bresil, Chine Colombie. ' Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Nous allons maintenant passer a la resolution australienne qui est reproduite dans le document S/512 It est procede au vote amain levee. It y a 3 voix pour et 8 abstentions. N'ayanf. pas obtenu le vote affirmatif de sept membres, la resolution n'est pas adoptee. My first suggestion is that what is now the third paragraph - "Considering the debates which have taken place on this subject in the Security Council" - should be placed before what is now the second paragraph. That seems to me to be a more logical way of wording the resolution. The other suggestion I wish to make relates to the fourth paragraph and is, I think, more a matter of substance. I hope the Council will consider my suggestion acceptable. This paragraph reads: "Requests the Internati?nal Court <;>f J ustic~ : .. to give it, as soon as pOSSIble, a~ a:Ivlsory opmlOn on whether the Security CouncIl IS competent to deal with the aforementioned question". The way in which this is put appears to me to ask for a simple answer, yes or no, whereas I think it would be useful to the Council to have the rather more extensive and reasoned opinion which we might expect from the International Court of Justice. I think, therefore, that it might be better to ask for "an advisory opinion concerning the competence of the Security Council to deal with the aforementioned question". Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I do not propose to speak at length as I have already stated the position of the USSR delegation on the substance of this question. I simply wish to draw the attention of the Council to the following provision, which is contained in thil' resolution, and to the consequences which will follow should the Security Council adopt this Belgian proposal. The Belgian resolution'reflects the point of view of the Netherlands Government and of those Governments which defend the action taken by the Netherlands, either directly and openly, or by various references to the question of the Council's jurisdiction in this matter. The Security \=ouncil's right to deal with this question is established by the very fact that it undertook to examine it. The fact that the Security Council began to examine the Indonesian question and tOOK a decision on 1 August shows that the Council recognizes that it has every right to act in this matter as it deems rnecessary in the light of the situation in Indonesia. It would be incomprehensible if the Security Council, after taking a very important decision on this matter on 1 August, now took a second decision which would cast doubt on the first decision and in general on all action taken by the Security Council to date. This would be yet another blow struck at the Security Council and at the United Nations. The object of this Belgian resolution is really to deflect the attention of the Security Council and of the United Nations from the substance of the question and to draw attention to legal considerations of secondary importance, which Ma premiere proposition consiste a. placer le texte actuel du troisieme alinea - "considerant les debats qui ont eu lieu a. ce sujet au Conseil de securite" - juste avant le second alinea actuel. 11 me semble que cette disposition est plus logique. ' Ma seconde proposition est relative au quatrieme alinea et c'est plutot, je crois, une question de fond. J'espere que le Conseil la considerera comme acceptable. Le texte de ce paragraphe est le suivant: "Prie la Cour internationale de Justice ... de vouloir bien lui donner, le plus tot possible, un avis consultatif sur le point de savoir si le Conseil de securite est competent pour connaitre de la question ci-dessus mentionnee." 11 me semble, d'apres la fa<son dont cette requete est redigee, que la resolution ne demande qu'une reponse affirmative ou negative, tandis qu'il serait utile, a man avis, que le Conseil ait l'opinion plus detaillee qu'on est en droit d'attendre de la Cour internationale de Justice. J'estime donc qu'il serait preferable de demander: "un avis consultatif relatif a la competence du Conseil de securite en ce qui concerne la question ci-dessus mentionnee". M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du n£sse): Ce que j'ai a. dire ne sera pas long, car j'ai deja precise l'attitude de la delegation de l'URSS quant au fond de cette question. Je me bornerai a. attirer l'attention du Conseil de securite sur le contenu de cette resolution, ~iilsi que sur les consequences que pourrait entrainer l'adoption de la proposition de la Belgique par le Conseil de securite. La resolution de la Belgique exprime le point de vue du gotivernement neerlandais ainsi que celui des gouvernements qui cherchent a. justifier l'action des Pays-Bas, soit directement, soit en invoquant, sous differents pretextes, la question de la competence du Conseil. Par le seul fait qu'il ait decide d'examiner cette question, le Conseil de securite a affirme sa competence. En abordant l'examen de la question indonesienne et en adoptant la resolution du ler aoiit, le Conseil de sckurite a reconnu qu'il avait le droit d'agir dans cette question de la fa<son qui lui semblerait repondre a. la situation en Indonesie. 11 serait difficile de comprendre que le Conseil de securite, apres avoir pris, le ler aotit, une decision importante sur cette question, adopte subitement une autre decision qui mettrait en doute le bien-fonde de sa premiere resolution et la legitimite de toutes les actions qu'il a entreprises jusqu'a. present. Cela porterait atteinte, une fois de plus, au prestige du Conseil de securite et de l'Organisation des Nations Dnies. La resolution de la Belgique est en realite destinee a. detourner l'attention du Conseil et de l'Organisation des Nations Unies du fond de la question dans le but de l'orienter vers les aspects juridiques du probleme, qui sont d'ordre secOlll- Members of the Council will recall that after the resolution was adopted on 1 August all those interested in enhancing the authority of the United Nations and of the Security Council expressed their satisfaction. Even those who thought it was a weak measure because it did not adequately protect the interests of the Indonesian people who had been the victims of armed aggression - even those people agreed that the Security Council had done good work in adopting the cease-fire resolution. If the Belgian resolution were to he adopted it would mean that the SecuritY Council was thereby casting a reflection on its own decisions. First it takes a decision and then, two or three weeks later, it takes another decision ex;pressing uncertainty as to whether the first decision was a correct one. It is hardly necessary for me to tell the Council what would be the outcome of such a situation or what view would be taken by the Indonesian people and also by all those who are interested in maintaining peace and enhancing the authority of our Organization. I consider that the Belgian proposal should be rejected as totally unsound and as one which would completely sidetrack us from the course which we should really follow in our examination of this question. .

I had thought that since this matter had been discussed before there would be no necessity to discuss it again; however, we now have four additional speakers on the Belgian proposal. If the members of the Council wish to continue the meeting we can finish this evening, in accordance with the suggestion of one of the representatives that we should not leave this room before taking a final decision on the Indonesian question. If the Council wishes to continue, I am ready to do so ; if not, I shall adjourn the meeting now and reconvene the Council tomorrow morning at 10.30 a.m. Mr. PARODI (France) (translated from French) : I had asked permission to speak on the M. ,PAROD! (France): J'avais demande la parole a propos de l'ordre de nos debats. A mon avis, nous pouvons terminer ce soir l'examen de la question indonesienne; personne1lement, mes observations seront extremement courtes. Si le President veut bien m'y autoriser, je suis pret a pr~senter mes observations sm le fond. qu~s~ion of the order of our discussions. In my 0pI01on we can conclude our examination of the Indonesian question this evening. My own com-. m~nts will be extremely short. If the President WIll permit me, I am ready to give the Council my observations on the merits of the question.

The representative of China Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Le representant de la Chine desirerait prendre la parole a propos d~ la question de l'ajournement. M. TSIANG (Chine) (traduit de l'anglais): Puisque cette question n'est pas telIement urgente w~uld like to say a word on t.he question of adjournment. In the afternoon, we shall discuss· the Egyptian cast The meeting rose €!'t 6.35 p.m. \ l FRANCE Editions A. Pedone 13, rue SouHIot PARIS, Ve GREECE-GRECE "Eleftheroudakis" Librairie intemntionale Place de la Constitution ATHENES GUATEMALA Jose Gouhaud· Gouhaud &Cia. Ltda. Sucesor 5a Av. Sur No. 6 y 9a C. P. GUATEMALA HAITI Max Bouchereau Lihrairie "A la Caravelle" Boite postale 111-B PeRT-Au-PRINCE ICELAND-ISLANDE Bokaverzlun Sigfusar Eymundsonnar Austurstreti 18 REYKJAVIK INDIA-INDE Oxford Book &.Stationery Company Scindia House NEW DELHI IRAN Bongahe Piaderow 731 Shah Aveniue TEHERAN IRAQ-IRAK Mackenzie & Mackenzie The Boqkshop BAGHDAD LEBANON-L1BAN Librairie universelle BEYROUTH LUXEMBOURG Lihrairie J. Schummer Place Guillaume LUXEMBOURG L NETHERLANDS-PAYS·BAS N. V. Martinus Nijhoff Lange Voorhout 9 'S·GRAVENHAGE N~rregade6 Kji$BENHAVN DOMINICAN REPUBLIC- REPUBLlQUE DOMINICAINE Libreria Dominicana Calle Mercedes No. 49 Apartado 656 CIUDAD TBUJILLO ECUADOR-EQUATEUR Mufioz Hermanos y Cia. Nueve de Octuhre 703 Casilla 10·24 GUAYAQUIL EGYPT-EGYPTE Lihrairie "La Renaissance d'Egypte" 9 Sh. Adly Pasha CAffiO ETHIOPIA-ETHIOPIE Agence ethiopienne de puhlicite P. O. Box 8 ADDIS·ABEBA NEW ZEALAND- NOUVELLE·ZELANDE Gordon & Gotch, Ltd. Waring Taylor Street WELLINGTON United Nations Association of New Zealand P. O. 1011, G.P.O. WELLINGTON NICARAGUA Ramiro Ramirez V. Agencia de Puhlicaciones MANAGUA, D. N. NORWAY-NORVEGE Johan Grundt Tanum Forlag Kr. Augustgt. 7A OSLO PHILIPPINES D. P. Perez Co. 132 Riverside SAN JUAN, RIZAL POLAND-POLOGNE Spotdzielna Wydawnicza "Czytelnik" 38 Poznanska WARSZAWA SWEDEN-SUEDE A.·B. C. E. Fritzes Kungl. Hofhokhandel Fredsgatan 2 STOCKHOLM SWlTZERLAND-SUISSE Librairie Payot S. A. LAUSANNE, GENEVE, VEVE~ MONTREUX, NEUCIDTEL, BERNE, BASEL Hans Raunhardt Kirchgasse 17 ZURICH I SYRIA-SYRIE Librairie universelle DAMAS TURKEY-TURQUIE Librairie Hachette 469 Istiklal Caddesi BEYOGLU-IsTANBUL UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA- UNION SUD·AFRICAIN~ Central News Agency Commissioner & Rissik Sts. JOHANNESBURG and at CAPETOWN 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, MANCHE~' ~ CARDIFF, BELFAST, BIRMINGH' and BRISTOL UNITED STATES OF AMEk ETATS·UNIS D'AMERIQUE International D'lcuments Service Columbia University Press 2960 Broadway NEW YORK 27, N. Y. URUGUAY Oficina de Representaci6n de Editoriales Av. 18 de Julio 1333 Esc. 1 MONTEVIDEO VENEZUELA Escritoria Perez Machado Conde a Pifiango 11 CARACAS YUGOSLAVIA-YOUGOSLAVIE Drzavno Preduzece Jugoslovenska Knjiga Moskovska UI. 36 BEOGRAD [49&1]