S/PV.312 Security Council

The reason 1 called this meeting of the Security Council was to cons...Jer the question of the implementation of the resolutions of the Security Council, with particular reference to the resolution of 20 January, document S/654. Paragraph D of this tesolutian states: "The Commission shall perform the functions described in clause C: (1) in regard ta the situation in the Jammu and Kashmir State set out in the letter, dated 1 Janua..ry 1948, from the representative of India addressed ta the President of the Security Council a..."ld in the letter, dated 15 January 1948, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan addressed tl? the Secretary-General;" That is the fust point upon which the Comniission was charged to act, name1y, in the matter of Jammu and Kashmir. Paragraph D then continues with the second point, as follows: ". . . and (2) in regard to other situations set out in the letter, dated 15 January 1948, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan addlessed to the Secretary-General, when the Security Council sa directs." This is the point conl-~rning wmcb. 1 should like to receive the decision of the SecUlity Council. In fact the Security Council has already decided that the other matters are to be iudied by the Commission. But 1 should simply like to know when the Commission will have to take up the other points. P ~rhaps the Security Council wishes to give thes': directions to the Commission now, before the Commission departs sa that it may take up th~~ other matters as seconà::uy functions. In other words, the situation of L.'le State of Jammu and Kashmir will be considered fust, and the other questions will be taken up subsequently. The other questions will have to be studied, as long as they are not dropped by the Government of Pakistan, as suggested by the representative of China. . . Therefore, does the Securit} Council wish ta dIrect the Commission now, before it departs, or ?oes it wish to defe. giving these directions unti!- a later time, in accordance with the suggestlOn niade by the representative of China? This is the point on which 1 should like' to k:10W•the attitude of the Security Council. The directions are to b~ given some day, but does the Security Council wish to give them now? The study "Ïs necessary, but when is it to be made? It is a matter of tÏme. 1 should like to know the opinion of the members of the Security Council on this point. "You are aware that apart from the question of Kashmir, three other disputes between India and Pakistan have been brought before the Security Council. 1 think that as regards the other questions, the best solution 'Yould be ta widen the terros of reference of the Commission which is about to leave for India, so as ta enable it, to examine these disputes and report ta us. We could then consider whether we should instruct the Commission itself to stUC'~T these ques~ tions more thoroughly or ta take the matter up again in the Security Council." [304th meeting.] 1 understand that Lbe present President of the Security Council takel> substantially the same position, and the delegation of the United States is ready to vote in favour of that. 1 think a vote is necessary in 'order ta fix the time. That was the part which was left undetermined in the resolution of 20 January. The terms of the resolution of 20 January stated "'when the Security Council sa directs." Therefore, the United States delegation sùpports this idea, sC' far as it relates to Junagadh, as suggested by the representative of China. As to the other two points, something may be said here. 1 expect a reply, perhaps from the representative of Pakistan, to the suggestion made by the representative of China. For the time being, considering the point now before the Security Council, whic~ ~ the matter of Junagr.dh, my delegation favours a vote that will fix the time as now, subject to the priority of the State of Jammu and Kashmir question.

1 shall ask the representative of Pakistan if he agrees with the suggestions of the Chinese representative. Mr. ISPAHANI (Pakistan): On 26 May [304th meeting] 1 submitted the views of my Government in regard to the charges brought by it against India, namely, Junagadh, genocide, and non-implementation of certain agreements. While it is entirely within the discretion of, the Security Council to come to a decision in regard to the manner in which any problem.should be handled, 1 may be excused for repeating and re-emphasizing that, in the opinion of my Government, it is the totality of relations between the two Dominions which constitutes a threat to international peace of which the Security COuilCil is now seized. The Council, 1 respectfully submit, is now in full possession of the . der Mr. ARCE (Argentina) (translated trom Spanish): 1 entire1y agree With the views expressed by the representative of Colombia. 1 feel that there is nothing for the Council to decide at present. Moreover, in view of the resolutions previously adopted, which have been read out in part, it~seems that the only wise course would be ta fuake no decision. We must have confidence in· the Commission we have set up, which, will fiLet for th~ fust rime in Geneva on the fifteenth of this month and proceed immediately on its way to India. In these circumstances, the Commission, which is definitely a mediating commission, will be able ta report ta the Council",when it sees fit, not only on its immediate assignment but aIso on the other tasks connected with mediation. And only then, in the light of the information supplied by this Commission composed of the representatives of five members of the Security Council, will it be rime for the Coum:il to take any decision. It may be +'...at sorne minor problems will disappear simply as a result of mediation. What reason could there he for taking a decision now? Let us therefore adhere to the resolutions already adopted; let us,recommend the Commission to proceed to fudia as soon as it is organized at Geneva, alîd then await events. As regards the possibility of passing over sorne of the questions before us, 1 do not think it would be right to exclude them from the agenda before we have sorne i'1formation from the Commission that will enable us to take a decision on the matter. For these reasons 1 shall not yote in favour of any resolution at present, because 1 feel that those already adopted are sufficient ta enable us to proceed with the necessary caution. And 1 shall vote against any resolution aimed at excluding any of these questlons from our Mr. TSIANG (China): 1 am glad to note that there is real agreement in regard to the substance of the matter. In regard to our procedure, however, it is my understanding that 110 new vote or resolution is necessary. The Security Council's resolution of 20 January 1948 is explicit on procedure. According to that resolution, the Commission should take up the question of Jammu and Kashmir; as to the other questions, the Commission should take them up when so directed by the Security' Council, but should not do so before the Council issues a positive directive. Therefore, my delegation's considered opinion that Kashmir should receive priority is borne out by the resolution of 20 January, which provides for such priority. 1 fcar that it would accomplish nothing if we were to proceed to a vote or ta the consideration of a new resolution, which is totally unnecessary. The resolution now in effect gives the Commission sufficient directions in regard to its activities. There is another point on which 1 should like to touch. 1 am disappointed by the statement made by the representative of Pakistan in regard ta my suggestion relating ta the dropping of certain charges. The representative of Pakistan rightIy stresses that what we should aim at is &l improvemellt in the totality of relations between the ~wo neighbouring Dominions. It was my conviction-and it remains my conviction-that if Pakistan should see fit ta drop these chrlJ'ges, that act would represent an important <;ontribution to the improvement of the totality of relations between the two Dominions. However, 1 advanced the idea merely as a suggestion. It is not my rurpose at this moment to introduce any resolution calling for the qropping of those matters. If the representative of Pakistan chooses to insist on further consideration of these questions, it would, of course, be inc'L1mbent upon the Security Council to, consider them. Nevertheless, 1 would strongly urge the representative of Pakistan to l'econsider his stand in that regard. As far as our procedure is concerned, however, the suggestion 1 made is not altogether material. The fact of the matter, if 1 understand the situation correctIy, is this: if we make progress with the question of Jammu and Kashmir, the other questions will aImost automatically disappear; if the Security Council or its Commission should fail to make progress in the solution of the Jammu and Kashrnir question, our assistance in regard to the ather questions would not advance matters in the least. Ml'. L6PEZ (Colombia): Apparently a little clarification is necessary. There seems to be no question as to the order in which these matters should be dealt with, according to the resolutions already adopted by the Security Council. If 1 do not misunderstand the position at present, the only point at issue is whether we should tell the Commission, according to paragraph D of the resolution of 20 January 1948, document 8/654, that it will be in ordt:r for the Commission not to deal exclusively with the Jammu and Kashmir question, since it might be inferred that the resolution of 21 April 1948, document 8/726, deals only with the Jammu and Kashmir question, whereas the resolution of 20 January specifically prov.ides that the Commission will take up other matters when the Security Council so directs. 1 had already indicated that, in the opinion of the Colombian delegation, it would be a good thing for the Commic:;sion to get information on other points, to (;xchange ideas with the Governments involved, and ta report to the Security Council, always with due regard to the priority given to these matters. Summarizing, 1 believe that we either can have, or do not need to have, a vote on 'iliÏs question, according to whether or not we agree that it is clearly understood that the Commission will give priority to the Jammu and Kashmir question but that, in the discretion of the' Commission, it may have discussions with a view to examining the oth~r questions for the purpose of reporting to the Security Council. Is that not the position? Ml'. IGNATIEFF (Canada): May 1 just PQint out that the representative of Colombia has, 1 think, on two or three occasions this morning expressed an opinion which was expressed, 1 believe, at the last meeting on this question [30Sth meeting] when the matter was discuslled by the representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada and Belgium, aIl in the sa.ne sense. 1 wonder if there is any good purpose served in discussing this question, when the majority of the members of the Security Council have expressed themselves in that sense. The resolutions of 20 January and 21 April 1948, being as specifie and ~lear as they a""', and the only question Subsldiary to that r;"luiring a decislon' being whether the Commission should use its discretion in discussing with the Governments concerned the other matter~ in dispute~ and the opinion having been vOlced that pernaps the most useful thing would be for the Commission to use its discretion in Canada, dent. 1948 ner questions tion seil instructions With regard to what has just oeen said by the representative of Canada, 1 should like to ask a question of the President. Undet the terms of the resolution of 20 January 1948, would it be possible for the Commission to examine the questions of Junagadh and other additional questions apart from the question of Jammu and Kashmir, unless the Security Council so directs, specificaIly, now? à ma ment d'aujourd'hui. mission tions, précise céder du prévoit examinées. en question aux sécurité faire". sion seil à instructions, questions.

1 wish to saythat 1 have expressed my opinion on this point_in my previous statement, and it is for this reason that 1 called today's meeting.' 1 know very weIl that the Commission is charged with studying the other questions, but the time when the Commission should study them should be specified by the S,ecurity Council, inasmuch as sub-paragraph D(2) of the resolution of 20 January states that aIl these questions are to be studied. First, and farernost, the Commission is supposed ta study the question of Jammu and Kashmir, and then it is supposed to study the other questions cc••• when theSecurity Council so directs." That means that the Security Council, in order to enable the Commission to study the other matteu;, should direct it to do so. If the Commission is not directed to do so, it cannot proceed ta study the other questions. . It is for this reason, as 1 said, that 1 called this meeting, in order that the Security Council might provide instructions on this point, and consider whether it ought to postpone a decision on it now, as the representative of China has said, or whether itought to -instruct the Comj'ai Conseil sujet - Chine Commission meilleure sion proposé par ~sion, now, to study the other questions when the Commissionfinds it convenient, or eIse leave it to the discretion of the Commission, as, proposed by the representative of Colombia and supported by Argentina. Both of these countries are members of the Commission. We have four members out of five on the Commission which are members of the Security Council. Two of them have proposed that the matter be left to the discretion of the Commission, when it is on the spot, and when it is in a position to study these questions, the assumption bejlJ~ that the Commission could then inform the Security Council. Thisis a new proposal, and it was made by both representatives. Des sont membres sion sera l'examen alors une représentants The Security Council has to consider whether ta give the Commission these instructions now, extending the terms of reference ta the other questions.mentioned in the resolution of 20 January, sub-paragraph D (2). In some form or other, we could say that "Directs the Commission to study and report ta the Security Council on, the matters referred to in the letter of the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, and outlmed in sub-paragraph D (2) of the resolution 01 the Council of 20 January." Sub-paragraph D(2) of the resolution of 20 January deals with other situations set out in the letter of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, dated 15 January 1948. That should be included in its terms of reference, giving priority to the question of Jammu and Kashmir. This was the feeling of the Security Council at the last meeting devoted to this question, but it was not set down in such a way as to provide: instructions to the Commission. 1 hesitated to rely upon the sense of the discussions and the debates of the last meeting as a basis for giving such ip..structions. 1 therefore wished to convoke a meeting of the Security Council again in arder to see if there was a different opinion. .At the present time 1 see that there are some hesitations with regard ta certain points, espe- daIly since two of the members of the Com.'llÎS- sion have stated that they do not wish to have any resolution adopted on the subjec!, but rather that the matter should be left to the discretion of the Commission. This proposaI is not a bad one. If the Council fails to take any other steps, t~ proposaI would postpone the "estion of the other matters until the Commissiùn arrives on the spot and advises the Security Council whether or not it is in a position to consider the other questions. 1 do not think that the Security Council ought to vote on this proposaI. If. there is a generaI understanding, that wculd be sufficient. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): 1 believe that we are all agreed on the substance of tms matter and that the only point of dis- agreement is on thenecessity for a resolution. The Security Council cannot carry out that resolution of 20 January by inactivity; it can- Now 1 see nothing else for the Security Coun- cil to do. Unless the Security Council so directs the Commission, it will go out without having any specifie instructions from the Security Coun- cil to deal with that matter. The Security Coun- cil can' direct the members to stal't on their discussion. That is one thing. In fact, the whole debate up to this point shows that we are agreed in .substance; that they are to take care of the Kashmir-Jammu question, and that question has a priority; that they are to take up the other matters at sorne time and that, of course, it will be at their convenience and according to the circumstances they find there. But if the Secu- city Council does not give them that power, it cannot exist, and we' will have talked, talked, talked, and done nothing. Mr. ARCE .(Argentine) (translated trom Spanish): If itis a matt~r of voting: that the Commission be directed to study the otht.:'" ques- tions after considering the question of Jammu and Kashmir, there can be no difficulty about that. What 1 have said is that it seems ÎI'.advis- able to exclude these questions from our agenda before the Commission has submitted fJome in- formation on th~ subject. 1 should like, for instance, to· ask the follow- mg question in connexion with remarks just made by the United Kingdom representative: if, after arciving in India, the Commission in- forms us that one or two problems have dis- appeared as a tesult of agreement betweeri the parties, should the Secretary-General throw that rçport into the waste:':paper basket without our even hearing it read? Is the Commission not empowered to collect impressions, mediate be- .tween the parties with a view to reaching agree- . ment and keep the Council informed on the matter? As the United States representative has said, we are aIl substantially in agreement . . . but in spite of our agreement thëre is still tao nmch discussion. The position of my delegation is therefore 'quite c1ear: we consider that the Commission has autllOrity not to ignore events, that· it is empowered to mediate between the parties and, if the parties decide bycominon agreement that certain questionsshould bedismissed, to inform the Council'of that facto But my de1egation sees 1·· au Mr. DE LÀ TOURNELLE (France) (translated trom French): 1 have only a few words to add to the statcment made by Mr. farodi at the pre- vious meeting of the Council when the India- Pakistan question was discussed [305th meeting]. In the opinion of the French delegation, the resolution of 21 April [document 8/726] com- pletes and clarifies the resolution passed by the Councilon 20 January [document 8/654]. The resolution of 21 Aprillays down the conditions for the Kashmir plebiscite, and it does nothing more. The resolution of 20 January, on the other hand, defines the powers of the Commis- sion in general. 1t would therefore not be right in entrusting the Commission with the consideration of the three matters contained in the Pakistan com- plaint, ta speak of widening its,terms of refer- ence. Those terms of reference are clearly de- fined in the resolution of 20 January. It seems to me that we could conclude the debate which has proceeded for two hours, if in the last line of paragraph D of the resolution of 20 January, after the words "when the Security Council so directs", we were to add the follow- ing phrase "or wlien the Commission deems it appropriate". 1 think that with the addition of these few words, we could conclude the discus- sion. The Council's right to inform the Commis- sion if the latter did not perform these functions itself and if it felt that a new threat to peace had arisen, would be retained in the amended text. However, if the Security Council were to give nofurther instructions, the Commission would be completely free to act. The Council could tacitly agree to add these words or a vote could be taken, whichever it prefers. Mr. LAWFORD (United Kingdom): 1 just wish to make a brief statement. 1 had requested to speak before the representative of Argentina and France spoke, and therefore, there is less need for me to speak now. . ventions la maintenant. However, it seems to me that a decision to leave tbis matter to the discretion of the Com- mission, although it sounds aIl right and 18 probably aIl right, does raise a legal question, which is tbis: does that understanding on the part of the Security Council supersede the reso- lution of 20 January? If not, it co;u1d be argued that the Commission has no right to examine these questions. That is what 1 should like to avoid, if we cano laisser tière, gique question annule-t-illa est sion Voilà nous le . 1 believe it was the representative of Colom- bm who originally introduced the idea of leaving tbis to the discretion of the members of the CmnmÎssion. Naturally, we attaçh·great weight me pourrait la point , un vue ne semble pas du compris. The representative of the United States has stated the view of his Government. The United States Government is represented on the Com- mission and its view does not exactly coincide with that, as 1 understand it, of the representa- tive of Colombia. remarquer prendre In the circumstances, with all respect, 1 think it would be safer to take a decision here at this time, either along the lines suggested by the representative of France or along \Xhatever lines the Security Council considers appropriate. so~t tant de sécurité jugera approprié. Je partisan Je Royaume-Uni. dans rable l'opinion ma Mr. LOPEZ (Colombia): 1 believe 1 have ,already intimated that 1 am also in favour of having this matter stated very clearly. 1 agree with the representative of the United Kingdom: We all seem to be in substantial agreement. From the point of view of my delegation, if it is considered that' it would be better to take a vote rather than to have it understood by gen- eral agreement, we are prepared to vote. d'aboutir de donner des instructions à qu'elle tenu Conseil [30Sème adoptions 8/819J:

In order to achieve sorne results at this meeting and be able to give sorne instructions to the Commission.before it starts, according to theviews _which were expressed by the members of the Security COl..IDcil at the last meeting [305th meetingJ and at this meeting, 1 propose the following resolution [docu-· ment S/819J: médiation Pakistan, "Having"received the report of the Mediation pommission on' the diSpute bêtween Indiaand Pakistan, r~ • "Reaffirms its resohltions of 17 January 1948, 20 January 1948 and 21 April 1948, vier rendre vue elle "Approves the decision of the Commission to proceed without delay to the areas of dispute with a view to accomplishing in priority the duties assigned to it by the resolution of 21 April 1948, . "And directs the Commission further to study and .report to the Security Council on the matters raised in the letter of the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, dated 15 January 1948, in the order outlined in paragraph D of the reso- men Ministre d~te au sécurité, rapport luti~n of the Council dated20 January 1948." Thus, in fulfilment of paragraph D whcn the Security.·Council so cfuects, the Commission is to acccmplish those functions in the order graphe lorsque If'the Security Council agrees to these instruc- tions we may give them to the Commission as embodied in this draft resolution before it starts. Ml'. DE LA TOURNELLE (France) (translated trom French): Mr. President, your draft reso- lution covers what 1 had in rnind when 1 spoke and, therefore, 1 shall support it. Mr. NISOT (Belgium) (translated trom Firench): Ml'. President, 1 wish to comment on tvvo points. In the fust paragraph, mention is made of a report of the Commission. What re- port 3s meant? To my knowledge, the Co~is­ sion "has not prepared' a report because it has not yet met. , Further, in the third paragraph, reference is made to the Commission's decision "to proceed without delay ..." No suchdecision has been taken, because, again, the Commission has not yet met and will meet for the first time at Geneva on 15 June. ,

1 thought there was a report from the Commi.<:sion because 1 received a letter, and it was announced yesterday by the Secretary-General that the Commission had met and had taken decisions on certain matters. 1thought it referred ta a resolution. 1 understand now that the Commission simply informed the Sècretariat to notify the Security Council of its readiness to leave. Thf~refore, the Security Council may cancel this second paragraph, starting with the words: "Having received the report ..." The Commission is proceeding to the subcontinent of India. If the Commission stops in Geneva on the way, 1 do not think that would make much difference. The Commission may stop at Geneva or at some other place in order to discuss its work, but it is on its way. ' Ml'. NISOT (Belgium) (translated trom French): If 1 understand you correcdy, Ml'. President, we must delete the reference to a decision of the Commission in the third paragraph because no such decision 'has been taken. Tht:: PRESIDENT: Yeso Ml'. LOPEZ (CQlombia): In accordance with the suggestions made by,the represent~tive of Belgium, 1 be1ieve the Security Council might change the beginning of that paragraph and simply say: "In~tructs the Commission to proceed," or "Authorizes the Commission to proceed." Mr. NISOT (Be1gium): 1 think that the paragraph is superfiuous, as is paragraph 2.

This third paragraph" may also be de1eted; it is unnecessary. dans résolutions Mr. NISOT (Belgium) (translated trom French): 1 wish to make the same point: Why reaffirm resolutions, the existence Ç>f which nobody denies? pas nécessaire. nous qui d'elles. essentiel. manière Commission lés "d'examiner".

It is not necessary. It is possible to leave it to the last paragraph; we introduce these simply in accordance with the discussions w!rich have taken place, and reference has been made to all of them. But in reality the last paragraph is the essential one. We have to modify it in some way such as: "Directs the Commission of Mediation .: ." and then de1ete the word "further." Mr.. TSIANQ (China) If we only keep the last paragraph, there is no indication that the Secu- Si city Council wish€8 to give the question of n'indiquera Jammu and Kashmir priority. It seems to me cité that the formula suggested by the representative me semble of France met the situation nicely; a simple sentant amendment to the resolution might be, "when que tfie Security Council directs" or simply in addmodifier ing the phrase "when the Commission deems Conseil appropriate." 1 think that would cover the situales tion; the simple addition of a phrase of that 1portun". kind would meet our parliamentary needs. 1 l'églée; think we are all agreed on the substance of the phrase matter. The little difference which exists is in de regard to our conception of tactics. . cord cord tactique. à je ainsi l'impression sion nombre rons de question. je force, la cerne 2) rité son qui sa résolution mise 1 think it would be worth while for the Security Council to play up the question of Kashmir -at least 1 think that would be good tactics. That is the sort of thing that will enable us to proceed further. If YOll give the impression that the Commission is a roving one, and that it is t~g up a great number of questions, 1 think it will dissipate our efforts. However, that is a matter of tactics, without prejudice to the substance of the question. Mr. PILLAI (India): As 1 understand it, the Security Council is now trying to implement or fill in the lacunae in the resolution of 20 January. 1948 as regards certain matters mentioned in sub-paragraph D (2). While the Security Council is on this point, 1 should like to bring to its notice certain chronological details which might perhaps induce it to reconsider its position. On the date on which the Security Council adopted that particular resolution [230th meeting],. which is t.i.e parent of the ancillary· resolution. it is considering today-that is, on 20 On 20 January 1948, the Security Council had heard the main charge brought by India against Pakistan, and that charge was replied to by the Government of Pakistan. The Security Council was therefore in a position to determine whether or not a prima facie case had been established. Naturally, the Security Council did nat wish to take the responsibility for settling the matter finally; it wished to refer it to a commission of mediation 'and inquiry. As regards the Kashmir issue, however, the point l wished to cmphasize is that on 20 January 1948, when tJie Security Council adopted its resolution, it had already heard both sides and had come to the conclusion that a prima facie case had been established and that, therefore, the matter had to be' pursued. It was in connexion with that particular point that, after a great deal of time, the Security Council adopted its resolution of 21 April. On 20 January, however, the Security Council had not heard anything about the three subsidiary issues of Junagadh, genocide, etc. l submit that, now that the Security C )Ullcil has had the opportunity of listcning, at rather great length, to the debates on these points, it' does have before it now the materials to enable it to come to the conclusion that a prima facie case has not been established as regards those countercharges. Therefore, it would be perfectly in keeping with the procedure previously adopted by the Security Council on the Kashmir issue that, in these other issues, matters should be left over. But whether any decision should be taken, is a matter for the Security Council. AIl l need say is that my Government wishes me to bring to the notice of the Security Council the fact that it is opposed to any extension of the powers of the Commission to cover these three additiv. --:.1 charges, because it considers, first, that these ancillary charges have not been proved; and, secondly, that these charges do not constitute any element of international importance which merits consideration by the Security Council. MI'. DE LA TOURNELLE (France) (translated from French): MI'. President, your text has been distorted so complete1y that l venture to submit ours once again. Indeed l think that we can trust the Commission. In reply to the objections raised by the Indian representative, l would add that the fact that the Commission is given complete freedom to consider these questions does not at all mean that it will deal with them. On the contrary it will be free to disregard them, without referring back to the Security Council, if it thinks that these questions do not constitute a threat to peace. "And directs the Commission to study and report to the Security Council on the matters raised in the letter of the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, dated 15 January 1948, in the order outlined in paragraph D of the resolution of the Security Council dated 20 January 1948." '" That does not change anything and it does not add anything. It is superfluous, as the representative of Belgium has remarked. 1 think that in :hat case, we might dispose of this whole resolution and discuss something e1se.

The representative of France wishes to have his amendment introduced. He wishes to add the phrase, at the end of paragraph D, "or when the Commission considers it opportune or appropriate!' 1 believe that is the amendment presented by the representative of France. Mr. LAWFORD (United Kingdom): 1 should like to know, ill that case, if the President's resolution still stands, because if it does, 1 think it could be made perfectly applicable by the addition of one or wo words. It must be remembered that the Security Council deeided, on 21 April, to set up tbis Commission. It is now 3 June. More than a month has passed sinœ the original resolution was adopted, and the Commission has not yet started out." In those cireumstances, it does not seem to be entirely inappropriate to recall the resolutions, seeing that they were adopted a long time ago. 1 aIso think, as regards what was originally the third paragraph, that it eould easily be altered to read: "Directs the Commission of Mediation to proceed "rithout delay to the areas of dispute with a view to accomplishing in priority the duties assigned to it by the resolution of 21 April 1948." Then, it continues: "And directs the Commission further, when it considers it appropriate, to study and report to the Security Couneil on matters . . .". l'estimera

The representative of the United Kingdom will give us the text of his amendment in the form in which it:: "'1ds. représentant geance Mr. LAWFORD (United Kingdom): Does the President wish me to read it or to write it out? l'anglais): lecture mette . The PRESIDENT: The text of the amendment proposed by the representative of the United Kingdom reads as follows: "Reaffirms its resolutions of 17 January 1948, 20 January 1948 and 21 April'1948; "Directs the Commission to proceed without deJ::.y to the areas of dispute with a view to ac- complishing .in priority the duties assigned to it by the resolution of 21 April 1948; "And directs the Commission further ta study and report to the Security Council when it considers it appropriate on the matters raised in the letter of the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, dated 15 January 1948, in the order outlined in Paragraph D of the resolution of the Council dated 20 January 1948.'" This draft resolution will be presented to the Security Council first. 1 shall put this resolution to a vote before the French amendment. If it is adopted, it covers the French amendment.

The next meeting of the Security Council will take place this aftemoon at three o'dock. chaine The meeting rose at 1.28 p.m. THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTEENTH MEETING Heid at Lake Success, New York, on Thursday, 3 June 1948, al 3 p.rn. President: MI'. F. EL-KHOURI (Syria). -----' , No document issued.