S/PV.32 Security Council

1 suggest that we abide by my original decision that the notice of the next meeting should be left to the Secretary-General. The meeting rose at 5.45 p.m. THIRTY-5ECOND MEETING Held at Hunter College, New York, on Mon~a'Y~ 15 April 1946, at 3 p.rn. President: Mr. Quo Tai-chi (Chip.a). Present: The representatives of the following countries: Australia, Brazil, China, Egypt, France, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United· Kingdom, United States of America. 26. Provisional agenda (document 5/36) 1. Adoption of the agenda. 2. (a) Letter dated 6 April 1946 from the repre- &entatic'e of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics addressed to the President of the Security Council (document S/30).1 (b) Letter dated9 April 1946 from the representative of han addressed to the Secretary-General (document S/33).2 3. (a) Letter dated 3 April 1946 from the representative of Polan'd addressed to the Secretàry-General (document S/32).3 (b) Letter dated 9 April 1946 from the representative of Poland addressed to the Secrttary-Gçneral (d(.\Cument 8/34)." 27. Adoption of the agenda The agenda w~ adopted. 28. Continuation of the discussion on the Iranianquestion

ln regard to item 2 (a) and (b), covering documents S/30 and S/33, should like to read a letter dated New York 15 April from the Iranian representative, which hehanded to me at 2 o'dock this aftemoon: HOn 9 April 1946, 1 had the honour to state, in accordance with the instructions of. my Govemmen.t, its position regarding the request of the represent":":"'ve of the Union of Soviet Socialist "Yesterday, 14 April, my Government instrm:ted me to make the following statement ta the SI.~curity Council: "'As a result of the signature of the agreement between the Iranian Government and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, it has been agreed that the Red Army evacuate all Persian territory by 6 May 1946. The Iranian Government has no' doubt that this agreement will be carried out, but at the same thüe has not the right to fix the course the Security Council should take.' "This morning 1received a further telegram from my Government reading-as follows: "'In view of the f;tct that the USSR Ambassador has again today, 14 April, categorically reiterated that the unconditional evacuation of Iranian territory by the Red Army ~ be completed by 6 May 1946, it is necessary that you immediately inform the Security Council that the Iranian Government has complete confidence in the word and pledge of the USSR Government and for this reason withdraws its complaint from the Security Council.' "(Signed) .Hussein ALA "Ambassador for Iran'J Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russianj: In my letter of 6 April 1946, 1 submitted on behalf of the Government of the Union of Soviet Sociaiist Republics: the proposal that the Iranian complaint be removed from the Security Council's agenda. In this letter 1 explained the reasons for which the Government of the USSR had raised this question. 1 recalled that already on . 26 March, when the Sf'~l,rity Council began tu consider the Iranian lruvernment's letter of 18 March2 relative ta thP. delay in the ,vithdrawal of USSR troops from Iran~ 1 proposed that this question should not be included in the Security Council's agenda. 1 aIso pointed out that in accordance with the understanding reached with the Iranian Government, the evacuation of USSR troops from Iran began on 24 March and was due to end within five or six weeks and that, in view of the existence of such an understanding, there were no grounds for the consideration of the Iranian question by the Security Council. 0 Unfortunately, my proposai received no support from the majority of the members of th.e 1 See thirtieth meeting. . My letter points out that the Govemment of the USSR cannot disregard the decision taken by the Security Council on 4 April on the proposal of the United States representative. According to fuis decision, the discussion of the lranian problem should be continued on 6 May. This decision was adopted despite the fact that on 3 April the Government of the USSR reaffirmed the existence of an understanding between the USSR and Iranian Governments regarding the evacuation of USSR troops from Iran. This affirmationis containèd in my letter of 3 April to the Secretary-General. The Security Council's decision of 4 April :uroulet onlv hP 'ndifi..et if .th.. "it..",tinn in T..",n ... .----. ---1 -_. J-...~-- .- --- ..-...----•• -.. ..&_. constituted a threat to international peace and security, as is provided for in the relevant articles of theUnîted Nations Charter and in Article 34 in particular. According to the· Charter, the Security Council should be concerned with the investigation and consideration of disputes and situations likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security. Have there been any reasons or are there·now ..any grounds for the assertion that the situation in Iran has constituted or constitutes any·threat whatsoever to peace and security? Such assertions can only emanate from people who have lost all sense of reality. 1 think that it is obvious to everyo~e that the definition laid down by the relevant articles of the Charter was not and is not applicable to the situation in Iran. SÎllce that is so, the Security Council's deci~io!lof 4 April is contrary both to the meaning and to the letter of the Charter. 1 aIso want to draw the attention of the members of thê Security· Council to the following extrernely inlportant facto The Security Council cannot take a decision on any dispute which it has considered unlessboth parties concerned in this dispute are heard. What is the meanmg of this provision of the Charter in connexion with fuis specifie question brought before the Conncil by Iran on 18 March 1946? It means that the Security Council cannot~, without a breach of the Charter, take a decision such as 'che one adopted on 4 April unless it hears both parties directly concemed in the dispute. .0..-··. .. , 1 See twenty-ninthmeeting. 1 should like to draw attention to yet another point, which is rather of a legal nature. The fact point that the Security Council takes a decision on any prendre dispute or situation '"esupposes mat a decisiDn n'importe has already been taken as to whetht:f the question situation, being considered by the Security Council constiminé tutes a dispute Of a situation, and~ if it is a dispute, situation wh- ,her the definition laid down in the relevant définitions Articles of the Charter apply to such a dispute Charte and,hence, whether it is deserving of further a lieu consideration by the Security Council. 1 should devoir like to point out that no such decision was taken nature by the Security Councn in connexion With the dans Iranian Government's complaint, wmch is underiranien, standable. It would be difficult and impossible to il prove that the situation which existed or exists in démontrer Iran constitutes any threat whatsoever to the existe maintenance Of international peace.and security. quelle Nevertheless, the Council decided, in -the:first de place, to consider û'1e Iranian question without Conseil the participation of the representative of the question iranienne sans USSR and~ in the second place, after a definite sentant stage of this consideration had been concluded, terminé the Council took a decision on 4 Aprilthat it ' décidé le 4 should be continued on 6 May. ainsi j'ai Conseil, de l'URSS tendant. soit absolument 1hope that the considerations mentioned in my l~tter of 6 April and aIso the additional explanatI?nS 1 have made at this meeting of the Council ~ sho~ that thé USSR's request that the Iran~ Ian questIon be removed from the agenda of the Security Council is well founded. . It is obvious that this request is we1l founded, even if we were faced with the situation· wmch été . The difficulties between the Government of the USSR -and the Iranian Government have twice been brought to the Council's attention. On the :first· occasion the Iranian Government complaiIied of activities of USSR troops on Iranian territory, which it contended were not authorized or permitted by the Tri-partite Treaty of Alliance of 29 January 1942,1 and interfered with the sovereignty of Iran. On the second occasion the Iranian Government comp!ained of the continued presence of USSR troops in Iran, without its approval, beyond the date stipulated for their withdrawal in that Treaty. In the view of the United States delegation the complaints of the Iranian Government were properly brought to the Council's attention under Article 34 of the Charter. It is the clear duty of the Couneil to receive the complaint ofany sovereign State that foreign troops are being used on its territory in a manner not authorized or permitted by treaty. It is the clear duty of the Cauncil to receive the complaint of any s.overeign State that foreign troops are continuing to remain on its territory, without its consent, beyond the date authorized by treaty. Such complaints present grave issues under .t\_rticle 2, p~ragraph. 4 of the Charter of the United Nations concerning "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or the political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations". When such complaints are presented to the Council, clearly it is not permissible for the·Council to take the position that the continuation of the conditions complained about would not endanger international peace and security. The Council had before it on 4 April, when it adopted the resolution on the Iranian matter, the assurances given to it by the Government of the USSR that the withdrawal of USSR troops un le situation relative nement de l'URSS, ne le à difficiles tituâe le retrait des troupes, donnée soviétiques. il intermédiaire pas la en conséquence, à après de le ordre ['anglais): question, lumière Conseil Membres compte me justifiée règlement th~ withdrawal of troops, in accordance with the USSR's assurances. We do not see that any advantage would be gained by going into such questions during this interim phase of the matter. For these reasons' my Government does not believe that there are valid grounds for changing the procedure, adopted by the Council on 4 April, for the disposal of the Iranian case, and will therefore not support the motion ta delete the Iranian matter from the agenda at this time. We sincerely hope that on 6 May, upon being informed that the withdrawal of USSR troops from Iran has been completed, the Council will be able ta drop the matter from the agenda. Ml'. VAN KLEFFEN8 (Netherlands): 1am anxious that this question be viewèd in the light of general principle and not merely as an Ïsolated case. This Council, according ta Article 24 of the Charter, acts on behalf of aIl the Members of the United Nations. It has the duty to report ta the General Assembly on its actions. It therefore seems to me that the Council would· be open ta legitimate criticism if it dropped a matter before the settlement actuaIly has been carried into effect. 1believe·that no country which is a party ta a dispute or to a situation under consideration by the Security Council can legitimately abject if the Council should decide ta keep the ma!ter on the agenda until setdement ~ 1 actuaIly been carried into effect. 1 do not ....Jnkthat this is inany sense humiliating for either of the parties concerned. situation à le l'ordre Je partie Whatever Iran says or does not say, the Oouncil has a responsibility of its own. This is brought out by Article 24 nf the Charter, which 1 have already quoted. It is aIso brought out by Articles 34, 36, 37, and other provisions of the Charter. 1believe that we should act in the manner 1have just described, not in this case alone but in all cases. This is not a matter of the Security Council against the USSR but of principles of good management against considerations of less able management. 1 should like to take tlùs opportunity to take up two points which the representative of the USSR has just placed before us. Mr. Gromyko said that a decision cannot be taken by the Council without first hearing both parties. That certainly would be the normal procedure, but the Charter clearly proceeds on the assumption that both parties will. be present to be heard. The essence of the matter seems to he nat that bath parties he heard, but that both parties should be given every opportunity to be heard. 1ft as in this case, a party does not avail itself of the opportunity to be heard, this does not preclupe the Council from· taking a decision in matters where the vote of the Member in question is not absolutely required. The veto right of the great Powers is a limited right and therefore cannot be extended beyond the terms of the Charter by the great Power which is a party to a question before the Council, .simply by absenting itself from the Qouncilts d,";}iberations. The representative for the USSR also said that the Council examined the Iranian case, and it drew certain conclusions therefrom, notably that -we~should have,taken a-decision as to\vhether this was a situation or a dispute. There 1 should like to make it quite clear that the Council never took up the Iranian case on its merits but only the question as to whether the examination of the merits of the case should or should not be postponed. It was therefore quite unnecessary, and in fact. useless, ta enter upon a discussion of the question whether the. Iranian case was a situation or a dispute, and the Council, in rny view, therefore, rightfully refrained from any such discussion. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): The representative of the USSR, in bis letter of 6 April, demands that thj~: Iraniah question shôuld be remo:ved·from the agenda of the Security Council. He bases bis demand on the fact alleged that the resolution of the Security Council résolution gulière, des avait au tion, du veille, de faires premier conformément sécurité négociations du positif forces miscer empêchent iranien de des il négociations." .à superflue troupes He daims, in the first place, so far as 1 understood him, that the resolution was unnecessary and therefore incorrect, because of the agreement already reached for the withdrawal of USSR troops from Iran. But 1 must recall that at the time when the Council adopted its resolution there was before it the letter which had been communicated to it on 3 April, the preceding day, the letter from the Iranian representative dated 2 April, in which he saidl : "With respect to the interference in the internal affairs of Iran, the subject matter of the first dispu~e, negotiations have taken place pursuant to the resolution of the Security Counci1 of 30 January 1946 . . . The negotiations pursuant to the resolution of 3D January 1946 have achieved no positive results, and USSR agents, officiais, and armed forces are continuing to interfere in the internal affairs of Iran. They are still preventing the Governmcnt of Iran froni exercising any authority in the Province of Azerbaijan. Regarding the withdrawal of USSR troops from Iran, there has been and there can he no negotiation." Therefore, at the time when the resolution was adopted, 1 do not think it can be said that it was superfluous because an agreement had already been reached with regard to the withd~awal of the USSR troops. ln the second place, 1 thought 1 understood my USSR colleague ta say that.the situation could not he he1d to threaten peace - t.l:1at an agreement had been reached for withdrawal and that, therefore, on that ground too the Council should have done nothing at aU. par pouvait la retrait raison rien relatif -au l It may be true - 1hope it is - that the agreement concerning withdrawal has removed a threat to peace, but there was nocertainty of that at the time when the Council adopted its resolution. From what 1 have just read ta you, from the information 'placed at its disposal by the representative of Iran, it eertainly looks as if there was a danger of a breach of the peace. Therefore, 1do not think that the resolution of the Council was on thatground contrary ta the Charter. Ia résolution. d'après par ment paix. résolution prise .contraire a une dû ou Thirdly, 1 think that the representativeof the USSR said that the Council shouid not have taken such a decision, because if it wished to do that it should have taken a previous decision; that is t~ say, a decision·as to whether thère was , The Council, taking note of those assurances - and taking note 1 think with satisfactionmerely resolved that the Council defer further proceeding on the Iranian appeal until 6 May, which time the USSR Government and the Iranian Government were requested "to report to the Council whether the withdrawal of aIl USSR troops from the whole of Iran has been completed and at which time the Council shaIl considt",l' what, if any, further proceedings on the Iranian appeal are required". That is the point of the Council's resolution, and 1 maintain that could be held that that was hardly more than procedih-al. Then, there was, 1 think, a fourth point that the representative of the USSR made, namely, that before reaching any conclusion on a matter of this kind, the Council must hear both Sides. Ileed not àeal further with that, as it has been dealt with clearly and-satisfactorily by the representative for the Netherlands. Therefore, 1 am bound to say that 1 cannot feel that the demand of tte representative of the USSR for a withdrawal of this matter from our agenda is soundly based on the considerations which he has put before us regardîng the resolution of 4 Àpril. However, in anycase, my Government does feel this strongly: that the Council DOW finds itself in a position where it has been given certain assurances by the USSR Government, which it gladlyaccepts, as to certain action which·will be completed in the future. That is matter between the USSR Government and the Council. as such. My Government feels that the CounciJ would be faiJing in its duty if it took no further lnterest in this matter, but washed its hands of the whole question and let it alone. We have been given a date, 6 May, for the completion of the withdrawal, and my Government thinks that this matter should remain on the agenda until that date. When that date comes hope and believe it will be possible to record here that the evacuation has been satisfactorily com-· pleted - satisfactorily to everyone. Meanwhile, if aIl goes weIl, if there is no obstruction or disturbance from either side, the matter need not come up for discussion again here. 1 hope it will be possible on 6 May to register the satisfactory conclusion of the whole affair. Colonel HODGSON (Australia): The quesion before this CCiuncil is whether the Iranian question shaIl be i'emoved from the agenda for the reasons advanced by the· representative of the Now the United' States resolution of 4 April deaIt only with the second issue. It had no reference whatever to the first. Those issues were left unresolved. In the letter of 2 April from the Iranian Government,l it was" stated that USSR officiaIs, agents and forces were continuing to interfere in the internal affairs of Iran. Since then we have had no communication whatever on those aspects from the Iranian Government. AlI we have is the official joint communiqué, stating 'that negotiations have resulted iu complete agreement on all questions. What ::; that complete agreement? Does it cover the questions 1 have just mentioned? We do not know. 1 should like to comment on some aspects'of the case as presented by the Iranian Government, and not by the Iranian representative, because 1 sincerely believe he gave us all the information he had. As you know, certain categorical statements were made; one important one to the effect that the Iranian law as embodied in the Constitution did not permit any oil agreement, any concession, to be negotiated while foreign troops were on its territory. Further, the Iranian representative in bis final statement, used approximately these words2 : "As soon as the troops are removed, it is my hope, and 1am firm1yconvinced, that the Iranian Government will be in a position to negotiateall tho~e questions outstanding with our northern neighbour." Now, that W~$l a very definite statement. We had ail assumed that that would be the position, because 1 had said this;: "This resolution is, in fact, an interpr:etative assurance that the USSR will withdraw its troops so that Iran can negotiate the other q"\lestions in accordance with its own domestic law." As we now know, negotiations were going on aIl the ,time. We know that an oil agreement was negotiated. It may be termed a joint stock company, but it is in fact an oil concession. In the view of the Australian delegation, once a State presents a case to this Council, its Govern- 1 See twenty-ninth meeting.' 2 See thirtieth meeting. aIbid• Let us come ta the second issue of fuis case, the presence of USSR troops in breach of the Tripartite Treaty. Whatever the original reasons for the presence of those troops, they were bound to be withdrawn by virtue of the 1942 treaty by 2 March. It is an undisputed fact, however, that they are still there. This is prima f~ie in breach of treaty although they are in process of withdrawing. . Sure1y, a breach of treaty, which by its incidence vitally affects a small nation, is a matter with which fuis Council must continue to be seized. As ta theview thattheactio~takenby fuis resolution was illegal, incotrect and contrary to the Charter, whatever we may individually think about the resolution, whether we think it right or wrong~ wise or unwise, it was a decision properly taken with the requisite majority by this Council. It conflicted with .no rules of procedure and we are bound by it. Further, 1 can find nothingin the Charter which ShO'ti'6 that it do~ soconflict•. Any Member of the United Nations which alleges that the presence of foreign. troops in its territory is a threat to internatio'1a1 peace and security has· a right to bring the matter before the Security Council, and the Council has a duty ta investigate it. It thenbecomes the property of ~e Council, even though botq parties request its withdrawal. It is for the Council ta decide whether or not a dispute is likely to endanger international peace and security. Stateme~ts by one or another individual member of the Council do not absolve the Council from its duty to investigate and to deCide ascertained Jacts. The.Australian GoveI'IlIllent reserved its right to investigate this case if necessary on 6 Mayor before, and for all these reasons, 1 will not agree to its removal from the agenda. Mr.. VELLOSO (Brazil) (tra1islated trom French) : The 1etter submittèd to us by the Iranian representative undoubtedly creates a·situation whichwe must consider. It would appear.at first sight that it oughtto put an end to the matter. Obviously the dedsion taken by the Council on4 Aprillast was in responseta the Iranian repre$entative's request. Logically bis statement of today withdrawing the original request ought to lead the Council ta consider the question clos~d. But that is not the ooly aspect of the problem; +here is another: the que.stion is now under the .. ::a~ .~~~~~1::s;~~:ag~:~~~~t~t:~ ;~lj~ed:~==~~~~as;~ out that L~e proposal for the removal of the sodu called Iranian question from the agenda would sition be fully justified even if we were faced with nienne the situation whichprevailed befox:e the Iranian fiée; Government itseH declaœd that it would withtion draw its complaint. Now the Iranian Governiranien mentalso has understood that it would be meal!-- appel. ingless to retain on the agenda of the Security compris Council the question it raised on 18 March this nir year, in view of the fal':t that an agreement has avait been reached between Ii'an and the USSR on all toutes questions. When it understood this,the Iranian et l'URSS. Ayant compris Government withdrew its complaint, 1 repeat, iranien withdrew its complaint. Thus, the Security Counun -cil has nothing further to discuss. est In the light of the. situation existing today, .which l thînlnS' àtJsoluteTy èlear, the Council's mon avis, parfaitement claire, task consists in declaring that the Iranian· ques~ de tion is removed from the Council's agenda. I do nienne not think itwould be desirable to c()IIlplicatethe je situation, as Ml'. Stettinius and Sir Alexander situation, Cadog~n are doing. If we listen to Ml'. Stettinius Alexander and Sir Alexander Cadogan we may conclude conclure that States which bring one question or another de beforethe Security Council have no right to withn'ont draw their own statements·and complaints or to rations remove thçm from the Council's agenda. I think déclarations -et thatsuch an assertion is contrary to the Charter du of the United Nations. 1 do not think that such traire à la tactics are advantageous to the prestige of the pas ~ecurity Council. On the contrary, they are more forcer likely to undermine its prestige. contraire, 1 atteinte. trer nienneà The Australian representative, when he argued that the Iranian question should be retained on the Council's agenda, said that this qùestion had "In view of the fact that the USSR Ambassador has again today, 14 April, categorically reiterated that the unconditional evacuation of Iranian territory by the Red Army will be completed by 6 May 1946, It is necessary that you immediately inform the Security Council that the Iranian Government has complete confidence in the word and pledge of the USSR Government and for this reason withdraws its complaint from the Security Council." Thus, we are no longer confronted with an Iranian complaint or statement which might be the subject of the Council's consideration. 1 listened carefully to Mr. van Kleffens' statement..He compared the Security Council and its practice to the practice of financial institutions. 1 do not doubt now and have never doubted Mr. van Kleffens' extensive knowledge of financial questions. But the Security Council is not a financial institution. It has to take important political decisions, correct and just decisions, for otherwise it risks undermining its own authority and prestige, which would ~10t be in the interests of the United Nations or of the Security Council itself since it is one of the most important organs ')f the United Nations. Finally, 1 should like to i'epeat once more t..;'at at the present time, after the Iranian Government's statement that it wishes to withdraw its 'complaint, we have no further subject for discussion in the Council. Mr. BONNET (France) (translated tram French): We have now had two hours of sornewhat complicated discussions which we could have avoided if we had appointed a rapporteur Que a rappelé nous le représentant de si nous viscissitudes, avons tous de cette question. Depuis nouveaux de la tion, commlID l'Iran points les deux Today we leaf1~ that the Iranian representative withdraws the complaint he had submitted to the Council. Severai members of the Councll have neverthe1ess suggested that the question should be maintained on the agen~a. 1 should like to point out that a precedent is involved here. The Council does not yet recognize the right of Members of the United Nations to withdraw a question which they have placed on the agenda. We cannot foretell what cases will aI-ise in the future. If we adopt this procedure today, it may cause us serious trouble later. Aujourd'hui, tant devant ont néanmoins proposé de l'ordre Je un précédent. aux retirer l'ordre cas d'hui, pourrait suite. The Charter is very sound in this respect; when there is a threat to peace, any member of the Council and even any Member of the United Nations may have the question placed on the agenda. Article 99 of the Charter even stipulatcs that the Secretary-General himselfhas the right to bring to the Security Council's attention any matter which may prove a threat ta peace. In the case in point it se"ems to me that if new incidents liable ta threaten peace were ta occur, Iran or any other member of the Council and even of the United Nations could ask that this question be placed on the agenda again. La il y du Conseil ganisation à l'ordre prévoit a le droit affaire Dans si des danger porte l'Organisation demander du jour. Il et plus l'ordre l'Iran. Je le Nevertheless,l consÏ<.er that it would be simpler and moreconvenient ta remove this question from the agenda in accordance with· Iran's request. Should we thereby have fulfilled our duty? 1think we should. The Netherlands representative quoted Article 24 of the Charter, which requires the Security Le de la Conseil des rapports Co~cil to s4bmit annual and, when necessary, speCIal reports to the General Assembly for its consideration. That being sa, 1would advise all my colleagues not to complicate a situation whicb we were very glad to·see settled a few days ago, and not to attempt to solve a series of legal prolhems raised in this connexion by several among us. At the end of this discussion the Council might very wel1 adopt a resolution on the following lines: "The Security Couneil, "Having again examined at its meeting of April the case submitted to it on 26 March and included in its agenda on that date,1 "Takes note of the communication made to on 15 April by the representative of Iran, "Notes the agreement rea.ched between two Governments concemed, and "Imtructs the Secretary-General to collect further information whicb might prove useful in the drafting of the report tobe submitted by the Council to the General Assembly on the Iranian case." Mr. CASTILLO NAJERA p.Iexico) (translated from French): 1do not wish to pralong this discussion. As has been said by my friend the representative of France, whom.1 congratulate on bis speech, the discussion should not be prolonged. The representative of France has made a new proposaI. 1do not know if he is going to add to it. If there were to be a disolSSion upon it, the bate might be unduly protracted. The .matter is very simple: Having heard statemen~ .of various members of the Council, wemust now decide whether we are to withdràw the Iranianquestionfrom the ageQ,da as the representatives of the TJSSR and of Iran have quested, or whether we are to maintain iton the agenda in accordance w.ih the Security Council's resolution of 4 April. Today, as at the beginning I)fthe discussL., in September, it is the question ot princlple which should ta,k:eprecec:lence over all others. The mat:- ter came 'before the Coundl as a result of a complaint from a Slllall country which considereQ self the victim of interference in its internal affairs by another country and of occupation of its territoryby that country. . It was necessary that the Security. Council shculd hear that small country. It has done fully, as it •should. This. has produced a very If we are consulted 1 shaIl vote for maintenanœ of the resolution of 4 April. Mr. LANGE (Poland): There are two questions containcd in the lett.er 8ubmitted to us by the representative of the USSR. One refers to an action of the CouncR in the pasto It is the contention that the action of the Council on -t April was incorrect and ilIegal. The other question refers to what the Council should do now in view of the new developments which have occurred since 4 April. 1 do not think thaf much time should be devoted to the fust question. It refers onIy to the past.However, 1 should Iike the record to show that the PoIish delegation does not share the view that the action on 4 April was incorrect and illegal. We believe it was perfectIy legal because the resolution was taken after a study of the written statements submitted to us by both Governments, the Gov~rnment of Iran and the Government of the USSR. 1 think that this disposes of the argument. Nous ment lution écrite" vernements: Gouvernement réfute Nous parce que nous on vote quand vise et, comme consacrer We voted· for the resolution because we believed it to be correct.·You do not vote for a resolution unless you believe it is correct and serves a useful purpose. But this is a matter of the past, and, as 1 sai&, there is not much use in devoting too much attention to it. L'autre tante. qui d'abord, l'URSS. l'Iran . Conseil de ces aujourd'hui. T'ne other matter is much more important. It refers to two new developments which have occurred since· 4 .April. First, an agreement has been reached between Iran and the USSR. Secondly, the Government of Iran withdraws'its complàint from the Securit'l Council. It is upon these two new facts that we have to act today. It is my opinion that in view of the agreem.ent that was reached and the withdrawal bythe Iranian Governmentof its compiaint, the question should. now be considered closed and it A sion tués l'affaire être rayée est saisi. Je implique. fait à la ments s~ould be removed from the list of questions Wlth whieh this Council is seized. . . 1 should like to explain what such action mvolves. My colleague, the representative of France,already h,as pointed out that this, reaIly ~oes not, remove the q1uestiC'n from the jurisdk· tIon of the Cauneil,because, ."Ihould'some unfore- Thus, by striking the question from the list matters with which the Council is seized, we not actuaIly renounce our jurisdiction in future, but we do express our confidence in pledge of the Government of the USSR, a confidence which as we Iearn today, is fully shared by the Government of Iran. The point has been made he.re that a country does not have the right ta withdraw a complaint brought before the Security Council. 1 cannat share this Iegal doctrine, and 1 consider it a most dangerous one. It is true that li the Security Council takes the situation on its own initiative, then this situation is, as was said before, the property of Council and it is then a matter for the Council ta decide whether this question should be kept on or dropped from the list of matters of which the Council is seîzed. However, this is not case. The case before us involves a matter submitted ta the Council upon the complaint of one of Member States. In view of new developments which have taken place and the factual basis thereof, the veracity of which, 1 am sure, none of us has any cause ta doubt, the Member State now withdraws its complaint. 1 do not believe that the Council has the right ta keep the before it against the will of bath parties concerned. Were it ta do sa, it would clearly violat~ the Charter. In Article 33, Chapter VI, we read: "The parties ta any dispute, the continuance of which is likely ta endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shaIl, first aIl, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediatian, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort .ta regional agencies or arrangements, other peaceful means of their own choice." Now, li two countries, by sorne of these "other peaceful means of their own choièe", should reach a settlement, it is not the business of Council ta interfere in that settlement and create trouble between the two parties. The doctrine which was expressed here, where~ by once a Member country brings a matter before the Council it has no right ta withdraw it, the matter remains the property of the Council, is particularly dangerous for the smaller nations. The smaller nations certainly need ta be protected by the United Nations against violation of their rightsby their more powefful neighbours. ,They must also be protected from becominga football useg bypowerfl1i countries against their powerful neighbours. , Therefore, 1 must vigorously uphold the posi~ tion that a country has the right to withdraw its case from the Security Council whenever it wishes to do sa. The Government of Iran has done sa. It has said, in words which cannot be mistaken, that it "withdraws its complaint from the Security Councœ'. There is no mistake about these words, and it is therefore my opinion that the matter is no longer ta be deaIt with by this Council. It involves the Govemment of Iran and the Govem~ ment of the USSR. It is the purpose of this Couneil to help to promote understanding between the parties at variance and we should, therefore,·be most carefui lest by our action we should be interfering in such an understanding. Our purpose, 1 repeat, is to help the parties at variance ta reach an understanding and not to cause trouble betw~en parties which have already done so. AFm Pasha (Egypt): 1 am in complete agreement with the statements made here by the representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netlierlands, Brazil and Mexico. L'objet est de un prudents cette entente. les parties et de ne pas susciter de difficultés entre qui ont déjà AFIFI J'approuve ici Royaume-Uni, Mexique. En suis jour entre avant As representative of Egypt, 1 am of the opinion that the question before the Council should remain on the agenda until the agreement reached between the USSR and Iran is executed, on or before 6 May. ' Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Sov':';:;t Socialist Re- M. socialistes déjà sujet sente été Conseil. J'estime que mus Le sens des les déclarations au devoir circonstances position, serait en qu'avec des toute décision bres .dessaisir, telle traire la Charte. ~i.lblics) (translated from Russian): 1 have alreadyhad occasion to mention the proposaI made at this meeting by -Mr. Stettinius, wmch subsequently received the support of certain other members of the Security Council. 1 think that Mr. Stettinius' proposaI is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations. This proposaI means that Members of the United Nations have no right to withdraw their statements and complaints to the Security Council when they consider it expedient to do sc in view of changes in the situation and ~ircumstances.This proposaI ànd such a decision, if adopted by the Council, would be contrary not only ta the Charter but to the sovereign rights of States Members of the United Nations. Any CouncH decision depriving Members of the United Nations of the right to bring any question before the Security Council and to withdraw it at their own c:iiScretion would be unjustifiable and, as 1 have aIready pointed out, contrary to the meaning, spirit and letter of the Charter of OUr Organization. Even earlier, it was question~ able whether the statements made by the repre~ The position taken at this meeting by representatives of the United States and United Kingdom to the Security Council, a position which unfortunately has received support from certain other members of the Council, convinces me that people who reaIly wish to settle the difIerences between the USSR and Iran speedily and as peacefully as possible could submit propos~... sucb as that brought forward by Mr. StettÎllius. The position he took in Security Council today confirms that these doubts were justified. Thus, at the very time when differences tween the USSR and Iran have been settled means of direct negotiations between the USSR and Iranian Governments, the representatives certain States are persisting in their efforts create as 1..:.!ch noise and disturbance as possible around the so-caIled Iranian question. It would seem that certain States consider Iran as a sort of pawn, which may be moved in any direction, depending upon circumstances and upon political game which is being played at moment; Iran, however, is not a pawn, but sovereign State and, in any case, Iran and Govemment know best what steps and what measures should be taken to achieve a satisfactory settlement of the differences which arose between Iran and the USSR. As one of the members of the Iranian Government pointed out two days ago, the Iranian Govemment considers that these differences have now been settled and that the situation in Iran is now peaceful.. The Iranian Governrnent considers thatthe results of these negotiations, which have ended' in agreement between the Iranian and USSR Govemments on aIl questions, are the sovereign interests of Iran. Guided by these considerations, the Iranian Govemment took correct step in withdrawing its complaint from the Council's agenda. The position taken by the United States repre- . sentative may be described as follows: The United States repr.. :entative ccnsiders that .knows best what steps Iran should take in order that the differences which arose between Iran aild the USSR might be considered to be settled. But there are no grounds for such a condusion. That is the opinion of the United States representative. The views of the Government of USSR are diffei'ent. The views of the Iranian GOvemment are aIso different. It has long been an accepted fact that a person is judged not bis opinion of himself, but by what he really Thus, ..il Mr. Stettinius and Sir Alexander C~dogan think that by supporting the proposaI that the Iraïtian question be retained on

Would the members agree to adjourn until tomorrow morning? It is getting late and there are still severa! speakers. Mr. STETTlNIUS (United States of America): 1 agree to adjourn until Il a.m. tomorrow Ü 1 could have permission ta speak for thirty seconds on a point of arder. The PRESIDENT: Yes, of course. Mr. STETTINIUS (United States of America): Before wc adjourn and before further discussion, in which 1 hope ta take part, 1 must make it clear ta the representative for the USSR aJ.d to the Council that 1 have made no proposa! in our discussion this -afternoon. 1 have merely attempted ta explain to the Council the re<..sons why it was impossible for the United States Government ta support a ~quest that was put before the Council, by the representative of the USSR. . Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : 1 do not wish to prolong the debate if the debate is to he resumed tomorrow. There are various things that 1shall wish to say then. However, 1 do wish to say this one thing. 1 should not like the Council to disperse without making just one short reply to a remark or two which the representative of the USSR made in the course of bis remarks. He said on a previous occasion he had doubted whether there was a real and gemljne desire on the péù-t of my Government to find a peaceful solution to this question, and that my at'"t.Îtude today confirmed bis doubts. 1 wish to. inform him he is entirely wrong on that point. We have always wanted the zolution of this thing; in joining in the resolution adopted by the overwhelming majority of the Council on 4 April, we thopght we. had found one. The matter would, Ü the USSR Govemment were to carry out the assurances given us, not come up before the Councit again at alla Who has brought it up now? It is the repre~ sentative of the USSR alone who has demanded that the Council rescind its own resolution. If he had not done that, we should have heard, I hope, no more of the Iranian G.lestion.

The next rilèeting of the Council will be held at 11 a.m. tomorrow.