S/PV.25 Security Council

1 declare the twenty-fifth meeting of the Security Council open. This morning we have the adoption of the agenda. The second item is the report of the Chairman of the Committee of Experts on the alterations made by the Committeein the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council (document S/6). On that item 1 should like, to read the statement which follows: At the first meeting of tile Security Conneil the provisional rtùes of procedure recommended by the Preparatory Commission1 were adopted, and at the same time the Security COUlIcil estab- . lished a Committee of Experts composed of one expert for each member of the Security Counci} to examine and report on these rules of procedure. The Committee of Experts examined the provisionalrules ·and suhmitted a report to the Council, which is document S/6. This report came before the Council for consideration at its last meeting in London. The COlmcil then saw fit to . clefer consideration of the report until the Council met at its new headquarters. It was also agreed that it would be desirable for the Committee of Experts to proceed further with its examination of the provisional rules of procedure in the light of the discussions in the Security Council during . its meetî.'lgs in Lm•. 'no 1 am inform~d by the.Chairman of the Comriùttee, Dr. Liahg, that the Committee has held two meetings in NewYork, but that it has not yet completed its work. It would seem to me, therefore, .that .we should further postpone the consideration ofdocument S/6 until the Comrnittee· of Experts has concluded its labours. Mr.BoNNET (France) (translated trom' French): The questionnevertheless remains on the agenda. Is it deferredto the next sesSion of the Council crsimply tQ a later meeting? The PRESIDENT: This question can he brought up at any time. We are in continuous session. As .1 See G.fficia1 Records of the Security Council, First Year, Fust.Senes, Supplement No. 2. Annex2a,. Première n'::xe 'Ibid., Annex21b. •Ibid., Annex 2c. •Ibid., Annex 2<it. 1 Ibid., Supplettlent No.. 1. Annex la.: section 4. Item 2 of the provisional agenda was adopted.

The third item of this provisional agenda is the report of the Military Staff Committee. This report also came before the Council at its last meeting in London and it was decided agàin ta postpone consideration of the report until .the Council met at its new headquarters. The (Jouncil, however, asked the Com· mittee of Experts to undertake a preliminary examination of the report of the Military Staff Comnùttee.1 The Committee has not yet been able ta complete the study of this document and 1think it would he wise also to defer our consideration of this item of the agenda until we have the observations of the Committee of Experts before us. That item can also come up at any time. Has any ll'lember of the Council any observation he would like to make on this matter at thi! time? If not, it is carried. Item 3 oftheprovisional agenda was adopled.

We come now ta the fc-urth item on the agenda. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated jrom Russian): The USSR delegation, at the San Francisco Conference and also at the first session of the {;eneral Assembly held at the beginniug of this year irt London, has already had an opportunity of explaining.the attitude toward the United Nations of the Goveroment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Repub· lies. In its statements the USSR delegation speciaIly emphasized the role of the Security Council as the chief organ for the maintenance of worldpeace and security. It is hardly necessary to point out·that the attitude of my Govemment with regard to ·the United Nations and the prob. lems with which it is faced has not changed. Striking evidence of the fact that this attitude remains unchanged isprovided by the interview which the President of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, Generalissill'lo Stalin, gave to a correspondent of the American telegraph agency, the Associated Press, ,on 19 March of this year. ln that interview Generalissimo StaUn stated that he at~ached"great importance to the United Nations, which is a 3erious instrument fo:: ''le preservation of peac:ellnd international security". Mter painting out thatthe stTength of this international organization lies in· the Jact that"itis based <mthe principle of the equality of·the This statement defines the relations of the Government of my country with the United Nations. At the same time it is a great contribution to the important work of maintaining the peace and security of the nations. Having made these general observations, 1 shall now deal with the question of tO.i: provisional agenda which is before the Security Council. 1 should like to make a suggestion regarding the question placed before the Security Council by Mr. Hussein Ala, Ambassador of Iran to the United States and representative of Iran to the United Nations, in his letter of 18 March. 1 shall not quote the text of this letter or recapitt..:ate its contents, since it is well known to the members of the Security Council. It is my contention that the question which was raised by the Irani~"l representative in the above-mentioned letter does not deserve to be included in the agenda of the Security Council. My reasons f ~ this proposal follow. In the first place 1 should like to inform the Security Council officially that, as a result of the negotiations which have taken place between the Governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Iran, an understanding was reached regarding the .evacuation of USSR troops from all districts of Iran in which they still remained. It is known that the evacuation of USSR troops in general was begun on 2 March of this year. The evacuation of troops from the remaining districts of Iran in accordance with the abovementioned understanding between the Governments of the USSR and Iran began on 24 March, that is to say two cièi.Ys ago, and will presumably be concluded in the course of five or six weeks, unles~ unforeseen circumstances arise. RecentIy, aS is weIl known,the question of USSR-Iranian relations has been used by certain elements in an attempt to aggravate the political at."tlosphere. This was brought about to a great extent by the activities of certain political groups which are engaged in propaganda for a fresh war, and which, for this purpose,are sowing the seeds of dissension and distrust among the peopIes. There is no doubt that the decision of the USSR Government inthis matter again empha- .sizes dearly and distinctIy. the unchanged pacific policy followed by my country, and constitutes a convincing reply to aU who,in an endeavour - to hide their own' aggressive plans, misuse fieedom of speech to the detriment of peace and international security, At the present time 1 shall not analyse the illfounded nature of th~ arguments advanced by the caractère In spite of the statement made by the Iranian representative in his note of 18 March, in which there is no reference whatever to the negotiations carried on between the USSR aild Iranian Governments, and despite the statement which he made in the second letter to the effect that the negotiations which had previously taken place had broken down, the fact that the USSR-Iranian negotiations were continuing was confirmed. It was confirmed by the USSR Government, which announced the above-mentioned decision taken as a result of these negotiations. It was also confirmed by the Iranian Government, i.e. by the Iranian Prime Minister, Mr. Ghavam, in the statement which he made on 23 March to the Associated Press. Accordingly we have two absolutely undis-puted facts which do and in fact must supply the answer in advance to the question whether the matter raised by the Iranian representative deserves ta he included in the agenda of the Security Couneil. A just decision can be reached oilly by taking into consideration, first, the fact chat negotiations are being carried on between the Iranian and USSR Governments, though the existence of these negotiations was denied'by the Iranian Ambassador, and secondly, the fact thatan understanding between the two Governments has been reached, as a result of which the USSR Government took the decision ta whîch 1have referred. Is it possible, in view of these facts, to demand that the so-called "Iranian question" should be placed on the agenda of the Security Council? My reply is that there is no justification for this demand. Such a demand would be in contradiction to the existing position and wu1d not be justifiedin any way. Furthermore, in acc()rdance with the resolution adopted on 30 January last by the Security Council in London,! the USSR-Iranian differences were to be settled by the two interested parties with the aid of direct negotiations between them. Such negotiations in fact took place after the resolution in queRtion was adopted by the Security Council. The negotiations have brought about positive results. tJnder such circumstances, how is it possible to justify the inclusion of the Iranianquestion on the agenda of the Securîty Council? The demand that the Iranîan question shoulq: again be placed on the agenda of the Security.Council not oilly is contrary to the facts and 'to reality, b.ut also contradicts the meaning Mr. BYRNES (United States of America): 1 cannot agree wtih the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics nor support the amendment he offers to the agenda. The facts before the Council are that the Iranian Government, through its representative, brought to the attention of the Council a dispute between Iran and the USSR which it declared was likely to endanger international peace and security. The Iranian Govemment further stated that contrary to the provisions of the Treaty of 29 January 1942 the USSR was maintaining troops in Iranian territory after 2 March. In its letter to the Council. it further declared that the USSR was continuitÏg to interfere in the internai affairs of Iran through the medium of USSR agents, officiaIs and armed forces. The Iranian Government, through its representative, referred to these facts as constituting new developments arising since the action of the Gouncil on 30 January. Today the representative of the USSR states that there has been an agreement. If that information is correct, then the USSR Government should have prt.sented to the Gouncil for its consideration a joint statement from the Iranian Government and the USSR Government stating that an agreement had been arrived at and asking that there be no further consideration of the question: But that is not the case. The Iranian Government has not withdrawn its letter. Though we have tried to ascettain the facts, we have not ascertained from the Iranian Government that there has been an agreement. o vernement Conseil, l'Iran, a. poursuive n'a n'a faits, nement mtervenu. Therefore, when a· Member of the United Nations advises the Council that a situation l'Organisation exists which is like1y to threaten the peace and Conseil security of the world, wecannot deny to th?t nature nation the opportunity to be heard, ta say 1 la whether or not there has been an agreement, to à say whether ornot it wishes to withdraw its si, c9mplaint. souhaite· maintenir If that is not correct, then aIl that a Government represented on the Council would have to quel If thcre has been an agreement, certainly the Council would want to hear that fact stated by the representative of the Iranian Government. If there ha:; been an agreement, we must assu1i1e that the representative of the Iranian Government will make a statement as to the agreement. We must put this matter on th,e agenda; we must give tothe Iranian Government an opportunity to say whether or not there has been an agreement. If there is nat a complete understanding between the Iranian Government and the USSR Government, that fact will be disclosed when opportunity is given to both parties to the dispute to make a statement. V/hen t.'lat is done, the Council can take the matter under considera.tion and determine whether it can take any action to bring about complete agreement. But certainly it cannot deny to a Member of the United Nations that states that a condition exists which is likely to threaten international peace and security, even the opportunity to present its case. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): In the first place, I wish, if I may~ to say that 1 endorse entirely what the representative of the United States ht·s said. I do not think that we can refuse to take this question on our agenda. If 1 understand aright, the letter of the representative of the United States of 20 March constitutes, a request· for information in regard to the progress of those negotiations. It·moves. "that, in connexion with the consideration of these letters" -- the new letters dealing with the new phase of the question -_. "Iran and the USSR be requested to report l1pon the' negotiatioI;\s which may have taken placebetween them in acçordance with theresolution. of the (l.JOUITcil adopted 30 January 1946"~ As 1 understand it, there are two phases to this question. In the fust place, there was the aspect discussed during the session in London; that discussion resulted in the resolution. of 30 January calling upon the parties to attempt direct negotiationand requesting them to inform the Council of antresults achieved in such negotiations. The text conduded: "The Council in the meanwhile retains the right at any rime to request information on the progress of the negotiations." We have now been informed that a new agreement has been reached, but from what the USSR representative said this morning it appears ta contain a provision for evacuation by an approximate date provided nothing unforeseen happens. That constitutes, as 1 said before, a slight departure from the original obligation, whic.à is unconditional. We accepted that obligation unconditionalIy; we have fulfilled it. We have withdrawn aIl our troops from Itanian territory _py the date agreed upon. ThereforeFhope that the Security Couneil may be fully acquainted with alI the provisions of any agreement that may have been made, particularly since that agreementhas been made while foreign troops still remain on Iranian soil. 1 have said that 1 thought there were two aspects of this question, and 1 defined them. There is also a third, perhaps more important, though 1 think not a direct aspect of this question: the question of confidence,confidence that the sanctity of treaties will be respected. 1 think on the whole tha.t is the aspect of this question that has perhaps moved the public mind more The question, to my mind, should be divided into two sections. One is the question of deciding whether this case should he brought to the Council. Ta my mind, it should. The other question is, after hearing the explanations of the second party, should the Council retain this question on the agenda or not? It only on the explanations of the se<:ondparty the dispute that we can make up our minds ta whether this question should be retained by the Council or not. We are a sort of tribunal, and it is impossible for a tribunal to make any sound judgement before hearing both litigant parties. That is why the Egyptian delegatioll thinks it would be wise to aIlow the Iranian representative to explain his case, without prejudging the whole matter. It would then be for' theCouncil to decide whether it would retain the case after the explanations given by the Iranian representative. 1 have another question which 1 hope the President will permit me ta add at the end of the meeting. Mr. LANGE (Poland) : In discussing this issue, the Security Council is not quite free ta make 'whatever decision it likes. It is bound, first, by the Charter and, secondly, by a previous resolutian. Therefore, whatever our decision here may be, it.must conform ta these two. Then we are bound by the resolution of 30 January, which says that the Council requested the parties to inform it of any result acmeved in such negotiation. The Council in the meantime retains the right at any time to request information on the progress of negotiations. We have to move within the limits set by these two texts. Now we hear from the representative of the USSR that an agreement has been reached. He has informed us of the fact, officially. On the other hand, the other party interested, the Government of Iran, has not up till now handed us any such information. Up ta now we have a statement from one party. With this clear, before we officially know that an agreement has been reached, both parties have ta state it. The question, however, is in what form we should request a statement from the Government of Iran. The fourth item on the provisional agenda proposes that we should recognize the existence of a dispute and invite a representative of Iran to sit among us and discuss the problem with us. 1 thinkthat my Government cannat accept this point of view because this wOuld essentially imply non-recognition of the statement of one of the parties, which has officially announced the achievement of an agreement and the disappearance of the causes which were behind the dispute duringthe London meetings. 1 think that the normal procedure is for us ta request information, not by putting the question on·the agenda of this particular session and thus admitting the representative of Iran to sit among us as a party ta an existing dispute, but by other channels. Now such channels exist; the . Council can directIy request information on the basis of the resolution of 30 January, or the Governments which arerepresented on th.e Council <:an do it on their own. We have channels which provide us with the possibmty of getting our information without recognizing the existence of the dispute and thus implicitly questioning the veracity of the statement made by the representative of the USSR. Now we have used the term agenda in the past in two senses. Document S/Procedure/121 says on page 2 that the term agenda has been used in two senses: first, as the agenda of the particuIar meeting in progress, secondly, as the list of matters before the' Security Council for 1See Official Recot'ds of the Security Coutlcil, First Year, First Series, Supplement No. 2, Annex lb. Première ne.'Ce be~n reached.

Do 1 understand the representative-of Poland rightly, that he proposes to have the Iranian question deleted from the agenda for today's meeting but retained for future meeting? Is that it? Mr. LANGE (Poland): My proposal is that the Iranian complaint should be deleted from the agenda of this p~ticular meeting. The PRESIDENT: That means today's meeting, but today's meeting is nearly over. Mr. LANGE (Poland): No, that is not the sense of document S/Procedure/12. As 1 interpret the sense of that document, it dearly means this particular meeting in progress, this particular session in progress. It speaks of.the two senses in which the term "agenda" is used. 1 further propose that in the meantime this ,Council should make inquiries of the Government of Iran and ask that Government to verify or challenge the statement of the USSR delegation that the d1.-rute is over; or, if the Council would prefer not to do that, then the Govemments represented here can do it on their own.

1 should like to point out that the word "session" is rather misleading; we are in continuous session. Mr. LANGE (Poland): Document S/Procedure/12 speaks of a particular meeting, but certainly this does n(l.lt mean untll one 0'dock or so today. 1 should like ta give an example of what is meant. We have the cas~ of the admission of Albania. This is on the agenda in the second sense. It has not been put on the agenda of this particular meeting in progress. 1 ask for similar· treatment. Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): It seems to me that the manner in which the representa- 1 think this is a question which no doubt concerns not only the Union of Soviet S(;'('lalist Republics but aIso Iran, and if, as 1 think it is, this is incontrovertible, then all we have ta do, and wùat in fl:!.ct we are bound ta do, is toapply the Charter-not Article 33, which refers ta negoti:ilions with which we are not now concerned, but Article 31, which says: "Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Counci1 may participate without vote in the discussion of any question brought before the Security Council whenever the latter considers that th, interests of that Member are specially affected." 1 suggest that all we have ta do is apply that simple rule. Mr. CASTILLO NÂTERA (Mexico) (transiated Irom French: In conformÎty with'the decision taken by the Counci1 in London, the two parties should submit their information to the Council. One of the parties has just done so, and we have heard the representative of the USSR. The simplest thing now would be for the other party aIso to inform the Council; that is to say, we should hear the representative of Iran. The Polish representative has invoked the decision taken in London. As has been so weIl said by the representative of Egypt, the question is very simple: we have heard one side, we must hear the other. Moreover, 1 had the intention of invoking Article 31 of the Charter, as the representative of the Netherlands has just done. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Sodalist Republics) (translated trom Russian): 1 have listened attentively to the speeches of sorne members of the Security Council, including the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom. The sense of the fust part of Mr. Byrnes' statement was as follows: once the Security Council has received sorne kind of communication from a Government which is a Member of the , United Nations, the very fatt of receiving such a communication or statement would appear to constitute a sufficient reasOli for the consideration of that statement by the Security Council. 1 regret 1 cannot agree Wlth that idea and do not share that point of view. It conflicts with the sense of the rei~vant Articles of the Charter of the United Nations. Article 34 of the Charter reads as follows: "The Security Council may investigate any dis- I againcall" the attention of members of ·the Security Council to the fact that the situation has changed since the Iranian representative serit bis letter of 18 March 1946 ta the Secretary- General. As 1havealready officially stated, agreement has since been reached by the USSR and Iranian Governments. Asa result of that agreement ·the withdrawal of the .USSR forces that had remained up ta the present in Iran began ......-...._.~--~ 1 have already mentioned the statement of th~ Iranian Premier, Mr. Ghavam, who expressed hope for a successful outcome of the negotiations between the USSR Government and the Govern~ ment of Iran. In that statement h~ clearly indicated that the request of Mr. Hussein Ala, the Iranian representative, for immewate examination of the Iranian question was made without his knowledge. After this statement by the Premier, the USSR Government's communication on the withdrawal of USSR forces from Iran was Ïssued. If in the face of an these facts Mr. Byrnes and Sir Alexander Cadogan insist on the inclusion of the Iranian question in the agenda and on its immediate examination, it will seem as though they are more Iranian than the Iranians.

1 had thought that the discussion on this purely procedural question could be brought to a conclusion before the end of this meeting, but as the representatives of Egypt, the United States and Mexico have signified their desire to speak, and sinee there may be further speakers, 1 propose that the meeting be adjourned to tomorrow aftemoon at three o'clock ifthere are no objections. Mr. BYRNES (United 6tates of America): respectfully submit that unless there is some very good reason, it would he wise to· dispose of the matter before us today. We can adjoum and resume our discussion after lunch. TWENTY-5IXTH MEETING Held at Hu,nter Gollege, New York, on Tuesday, 26 Marck 1946, at 3 p.m. President.; Mr. Quo Tai-Chi (China). Present: The representatives of the following countries: Australia, Brazil. China, E" ..pt, France, Mexico, Nctherlanùs, Poland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, United State-s of America. The provisional agendawas that of the 25th meeting (documentS/20). 9. Continuation of the discussion on adopa tionof the agenda HAssANPasha (Egypt): This morning 1 said ~e problemcould be dividedinto two parts: First, can ~epetitionofthe Iranian Government