S/PV.325 Security Council

1 think it would be appropriate to express the pleasure of the Security Counèi1 in having the collaboration of Mr. Manuilsky, representative of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist 'Republic, whose ability and contribu,. tions to the United Nations are weil known ta all of us. The Security Council welcomes him. Mr. MANUILSKY (Ukrainian Soviet Sodali3t Republic) (translated trom Russian): The United States proposaI to suspend the work of the Atomic Energy Commision, which has the support of a majority of that Commission, is fraught' with serious political consequences. This is no minor problem affecting a single State, but a fundamental question touching aIl States, countrles and peoples in a matter closely linked with the United Nations. The solution now proposed to the Security Council is designed to wreck the General Assembly resolutions of 24 Januaryl and 14 December 19462 on the exclusi,on of atomic weapons from national armaments. It opens the way not only to further hysteria on the part of the warmangers, but also to practical measures for the preparation of war by official United Statt:s circ1es, measures which are also making a dead letter of another recommendation of the General Assembly resolution of 14 December 1946 on the reduction of armaments. It will set up a regime under which there will be :qo control over the production of the l'nost barbarous weapon in the history of warfare, a weapon intended for the mass destTUction of the peaceful populations of industrial centres and cities. The object of thi!: United States proposal is td throw us back to unbridled arbitrariness in the field of international relations. • Il Sec Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly. duringthe first part of its first session, resolution 1 (1), page 9. • See Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly during the second part of its mst session, resolution 41(1), pages 65·67. . , Is it for this that the nations fought the last . war? It would be absurd to tI1ink that millions of. people throughout the world cannot see the political significance of this proposal and draw the necessary conclusions.·· No people can cherish any illusions that its country would èscape unpunished if its ruling circles started an atomic war. The last war has taught us that the Germans also cherished such illusions, but they paid, and During the two years the Atomic Energy Commission has been at work, it has becomc clearer at every meeting that the United St:\tes wanted U{'ither a prohibition of atomic weapons Ilor the establishment of effective control ensuring that atomic energy should be used for peac;efuI aims only. Thinking that they have a monopoly in the discovery and utilization of atomic energy, official United States circles have worked to prevent .prohibition of atomic weapons and thl, control of atomic energy, and ta retain for themselves the right to manufacture atomit weapons as a means of political and military pressure on other peoples 'and States. But these circles cauld not openly inform world public opinion of their intentions. Hence, they' dunouflaged their rejectian of atomic energy control with reservations and· conditions which made it virtually impossible to reach any. international agreement on that question. If there was time, a wealth of material could be produced-indeed, it will be produced in due course-showing clearly that while United States representàtives at the 1946 General Assembly were ~ 'ting for the resolution on the contrQI of atomic el1ergy, the most responsible statesmen and. nillitary circles in the United States. were making contrary st~tements outside the precincts of the United Nations. They stated that the United States policy had' been, was and would continue to beone designed tl() protect its special privileges in the field of the utilization of atomic energy. In fact, thepolicy of the leading circles of the United States in atomic matters was a component part of their' concept of world domination, just as the organization of niiIitary and air bases in various parts of the world, the Truman doctrine, the Marshall plan, the policy in Greece and China, and the systematic· violation of. the United Nations Charter, wei'e separate links of· that concept which is threatening the peace of the world. This claim. to worlddomination isalso reflected in the United States plan for. the establishment 1 of. so-called .control over atpmicenergy, now' submitted to th~ Security Council forapproval. propos~d by the US~R. Without a prohibition of sucb, activities, there can be no control over the imlllementation of the international èonvention prohibiting the use of atomic weapons. Without such a convention,,controlis futile-and an,y 'talk about it simply masks, the efforts of those, who seek to preserve complete anarchy in atomic policy. . When theprohib~tion'of cheD::ücal warfarewas discu.ssed· ln the past, no o~e 'could 'ever have thought that control must first be established over the raw materialsconcerned and over the technàlogical processes of thechemical industry in·all coimtrles, and that orny then a'convention mould be, concluded prohibitingthe utilization of taxic meansof warfare. ' . Or let us, iake ,the following simpl~ ,example: let us iIhaginethat for 'somereason àrothersay. evenfor moral reaso~the city of Chicago :haddecided tg 'stop the slaughterof cattle. The sirnplest solution, of that. question would be to -prohibit theslaughter ,of cattleand ta cont~ol tb,eimplemeJJ.tation ,of that prohibition. But the Chicago butchen; would have tried to circumvcmttl1isprohibitionand'woUld haveproposed .voulant the, foll()wing:. before. prohibiting the, slaughter of cattlè, control shoUld beestablished .over the ores usee.t for the production()f meta)., over the production'of.wotkers. mlUlufacturing butéhers' knives;and orny then ,shoUld the question be ~amined as ta.howand'when' to issuethe4reso-. To give this plan sorne semblance of plnusibility, its authors speak of the a1legedly specialized nature of the technologica1 processes involved in atomic energy production and of the ,findings of scientific-technical experts. It is known, however, that the production of atomic energy is as yet a secret, and that no experts from the United Nations are a1lowed to visit any plant utilizing atomic energy for military purposes. AlI the so-called evidence of' scientific experts which the United States authorities have brought into the Atomic Energy Commission, has yielded oiùy broad generalities, based neither on facts nor on experimental data, but meant to prove whatever was wanted by, or of advantage to, United States official circles. tion If aIt' international treaties and agreements were based on expert investigation of this kind, they would have to he annulled because of their worthlessness. This is no expert scientific investigation, but. an il'westigation dictated by tenderitious and prejudiced political considerations. What had an expert scientific investigation ta do, for instance, with the hearing of the Directo,! of the Bell Telephone Company, Mr. Barnard, who, with praiseworthy frankness, expressed doubts regard;ing his own competel;lce in at;)mic energy matters? Nonetheless, Mr. Barnard ,was showered with questions 01 which it can only be said that their sole aim was to prolong proceed-' ings and to avoidgiving an answer to the funda~' mental question of excluding atomic weapons from national State armaments. . One cannot imagine that an expert investigation of This kind .will remairt buried in the archivés of the United Nations and will not be brought to.. the knowledge of world public opinion. AIl this "expert investigation" was needed to throw. a SIn3kescreen around the United States proposal for the creation-under the guise of. an international control organ~f an international trùst in which United States monopolies would play the decisive part. In the minds of itspromoters, such a·trust should o~''ll aIl the sources of raw materials necessary for atomic energy production; shouldfix quotas at its own discretion for the .production of atomic raw 1l1aterials and atomic energy; and· should grant licenses to v:arious countries to exploittheir own resources. It should, in short, bring the economiclife of varions cOUIltries under United les connaissance. camoufler tendait nisme interna,tional de contrôle, 'un véritable trust international dans lequel Unis auteurs être tières l'énergie les premières l'énergie aux. pays sources. rents.pays devrait Etats-Unis..,Ce en Unies;·il dans St~tes control. Such a trust, 'such' a monopoly, would in practice stand over and above the United Nations and wotild have. the right to manage and direct theint~rnal affamof States, a. right which does not belong even to the SecùrityCrouncil, whose fllllctions are defined It is a well-known tact that if the government of any country cornes to grief, it tries to, be taken in tow by a world government of that kindt sacrificing the most vital interests of its country and its people. The tendency shown br United States official circles towards a United States hegemony in the utilization of atomi~, energy must put on their guard the peoples ahd States \Vho know, through the experience of two world wars, that cirdes striving to dominate a continent such as, Europ~, or the whole world, will 'inevitably move toward the path of aggression. Experience has aIso taught the peoples of the , werld that none of those who strive for such hegemony wish to subw.it to international control, which places international barrier~ in the way of aggression. That is why' the delegatien of the United States, acting through 'the majority of members in the Atomic Energy Commission, has a1ways put forward new conditions designed to slow do~ international agre~ment on the production of atonnic energy. It refusedto agree, for instance, to the introduction'of sÎn'lultaneous control of the production. of atomic energy. The meaning "of ·that mave was perfectIy cIear: in refusing to agree to such ,control, the representatives of the Anglo-Saxon bloc tried to gain con- . trol of ail the world sources of atomic lI'aw materials, while retaining the right to manufacture and create stocks of '1.tomic bombs for a long,'time to come. There can be no doubt that when; at long last, the time, would, have come to cease the manufacture of atomic bombs anddestroyexisting stQcks, the United States group would have . found ," a pretext, ,as the 'worJt ,of the' Atomic Energy, Cbmmission, hasshown, for putting forwa~d extravagant conditions designed to prevent controlo! thee){ecution of ,the. agreement pro~' hibitîng atoJ;lÛc,weapons.' , Tothesame category ofartificiallycreat~d, obs~acles'belong th.ecriticism of the USSRproposalon inspection.asbeing allegedly,inadeguate. Illactllal fact, b~d ,that criticism Jay the dçg,ire oLUnited States.officialcircles to:avaid Such a practice is nothing new; it has often been used by people to whom domestic or international laws, treaties or agreements are embarrassing. Those people alway& denounce the inadequacy of such laws, sa as ta have less trouble in trampling on them afterwards. The ill-fated League of Nations teaches a usefullesson in that connexion. For two years its commissions and sub-tommissions went on discussing the USSR proposaIs on disarmament, with the final result that these proposaIs were defeated by all kinds of reservations and casuistic conditions. This is ~actly the attitude now shown by the United States and its followers with regard to the General Assembly resolutions on the' exèlusion of atomic weapons from national armaments. Then, too, there were many people who argued that the' USSR proposaIs.were too clear and simple and did not take into account the technical difficulties of disarmanient. This argument about technical difficulties is not used, however, when, in accordance with a common modern practice, small'countries. are politically, economically and military disarmed, and forced to 'submit to the will of the strong. In those days the need for mutuaI confidence was stated to be the prerequisite for disarmament; the same is being said today, as if the' prohil;lition ofatomic weapons would not he1p to eliminate suspicion and promote the growth of confidence among the nations. There can be no doubt that the collapse of the work of the Atomic Energy Commission caused by the United States and its followers will serve to mcrease international mistrust. At the time of which l speak, 'the possibility of one side being deceived by the other w~ .aIso used as an argument against disarmament. But. ther~ is no weapon against treachery e:xcept international inspection, the establishement of whicli the USSR is proj:lOsing in connexion with'atomic energy control. At that timç, too:, the adversaries of qisarmament systematically and de1iberately wrecked every possibility of a rapprochement'of viewsb'etweenthemselves and ~the USSR :by .,artîficially creatiIig and' exaggerating differenceS, as the United States and its followers have been dofugfor the past two and ahaH years in the Atomic Energy· Cofumission. We aIl' know the results to which that policy has led: In the two and ahalf years sinee the'creâtion of the Corrimission, the United Statés delegatio1Ï has per- .d~ sisû~ntly clung ta·the Baruch plan, which,was 1 inconsistent with the United Nations Charter, since it placedthe pniied States in a privileged position, infrifigedthe prin~iple of the equa.lity of large and small States, tolera:ted interference The onIy State to make a positive contribution towards the implementation of the General Assembly resolutions of 24 January and 14 December 1946 has been the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, whose proposaIs of '19 June 19468 and 11 June 1947' contained basic provisions for an international convention' on the prohibition of atomic weap'onS, together with the establishment of effective control over the observance of that convention. .All the other States represented on the Atamic Energy Commission have confined themselves to criticisms of the USSR proposaIs. Taking into account the considerations set out above, the representative of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in the Security Council is unable. ta agree to the United States plan on the establishment of atomic energy control; it wholehearted1y supports the proposal of the USSR, and places the responsibility for the breakdown of thé Atomic Energy Commission's work on the United States Government. Mr. URDANETA-ARBELAEZ (Colombia) (translâted trom Spanish): Since this is one of the most important quèstions with which the United Nations has to deal, one vitally affecting the system ofpeace, the tranquility of mankind, and the progress of all Members of the Organization, 1 believe it would be weIl for me to state the exact position of Colombia with regard to the Third Report of the Atomic Energy Commission [documént AEC/31] and the recommendations . with which it ends. ' 1 consider this approach justified in spite of certain teasons for, which we might be inclined to keep silent, such as the obvious fact that the responsibility and. power for solving this great problem rest excll:l.sively w~th the countries which are permanent members of the Atomic Energy CoIiunission, and.in particular with those Powers whittt, bein~ members ,of the Security Council, are, aIso the only ones in a position to eliminate the thre~t to the human ~ace of the pitiles8 use of atOIDIC weapons. Les petites nations, ainsi dénommées et ainsi ered because they lack the material elements' of destruction, notwithstanding the 'Chàrter principle of the .equality of States-ean, in this matter, (jnly contribute their will to peace and tlie.eJrtremely weighty moral factor of'the public • See Official Reco.rds of the Atomic Energy Commis. .don,First'Year, No. 2. '.' • -Ibid., Second Report to the Security Counci1. page 88~ The conclusions of the report which we are considering couId not be more discouraging. After two .years .of difficuIt de1iberation and attempts to come to an understanding, the Commission declares itself unable to reach an agreement. Having sent the matter back and forth, from the General Assembly to the Commission, from the Commission to the Security Couneil, from there back to the Commission, and from the Comtnission again to the Counèil, we learu that we have to rêfer the matter again to the General Assembly, in other words, back .to our starting point, in order to tell the world that the great Powers were unable to come to an agJ,"eement and that the international organs set up to safeguard the peace were not capable of finding an ,adequate solution to the greatest problem which, for a very good reason, perturbs all peoples of the world. . World opinion will be at a loss to explain the cause of this fallure. Men of sCience consuIted on the matter ,have unanimously declared that there was no technical reason whatever which might prevent or even complicate strict supervision of the extraction of nuc1ear elements or the deve10pment and production of atomic energy for exclusively peacefuI purposes. Scientists, upon finding out the resultS of our worli, will beinclined to curse their own efforts and, to look with·fear upon the remarkable fruit of their intellig~nce. . World opinion will not understand that theoretical objections couId obstructthe practical solution fervently desired by aU and sorely needed 'by the world. ' It hasbeen contended that the establishment· o! .an effective control organ to exercise superv~lOn over the production of atomic energy mtght undermine the sovereignty of States. Sovereignty' is an' attribute· of the existence of State~ and the unlawful use of atomic weapolîs CO~Stitutes the greatest danger to their very ~tenceand, consequently,the worst threat to. their sovereignty. On the other hand, the control organ could only be established as a resuIt of ail agreement concluded by aIl States, ta which they would al}. be parties, and which wouId be a.ccepted equally by aIl. Furthermore, we must iln the face of such a clear resolution which· .the world received with great hope, it seemed iJ.probable that any insurmountable obstacles .·1 •.. m!ight arise. However, the facts have sho'Wn 'otjherwise, and tomorrow we shall have to .go before the •General Assembly and state that agreement amongthe Powers was an impossible' goal and that the Commission which had been _ created to solve the problem··of atomic energy has had to suspend its work without reaching any positive res1:llts. , ·The logical' conclusion ,which· public opinion must dra.w from· these' facts can only be that there is no firm aim for peace and thatfr'ank and straightforward inter.national control over atomic energy may be replaced by petty, ma'- , noeuvres· bearing the seeds. of suspicion among nations, and friction which may lead to fatal conflitt.. Th~ PRESIDENT: As there are no further speakers, 1 declare the discussion closed, and the . Security Counéil will now vote on the resolution. Wehaveonly one resolution before us-that submitted by the United States delegation ànd dated Il June. It is to he found in document S/836. and will now be read, by the Assistànt Secretary-General, after which it will be voted upon as' a 'whole unlessany representative reqùests that it should be'deaIt with paragraph by paragraph. Ml'. KERNO (Assistant Secretary-Generalin charge of Legal Affairs): The resolution reads as follows: . , mission "The Security Council, "Having received and examined the FirSt, the Second, and the Third Reports of the United , Nations Atomic Energy Comt:r'Jssion,5 . ~(Accepts these ~eports and, "Approves the general findings (part II C) and recommendations (part III) of the First Report, and the specifie propŒals of part II of the Second Report as constituting the necessary basis for establishing an effective system of international control of atomic energyfu accordance with the terms of referenceof the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission and, , , "Approves the Report and recommendations of the Atomic Energy Commission '(part 1) ~f the ThirdReport of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, and

It is .to be noted that this resolution is a matter of substance. We shall now proceed to vote. .. A vote was taken by show of hands~ as follaws: In lavour: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, China, Colombia, France, Syrïa, United Kingdom, United States of America. Against: Ukrainiall Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The result of the vote was 9'in favour and 2 against. The resolution was not adopted, one of the votes against being that of a permanent member of thè Council. General MeNAUGlITON (Canada): The veto which has just been imposed by the represe~ta­ tive of the USSR has the effect of preventing the Security Couneil from taking a decision on the reports of the Atomic Energy Commission: This vitally important matter obviously cannot be left to rest there. It is essential, as 1 have already stated in this Council, that the General Assembly, which established the Commission and defined its responsibilities, should be fully apprised of the work which ha:; been done by the Commission. The Gelleral Assembly should clso be informed of the situation in whic}:l the Commis-' . sion now finds itself. As stated in the Third Report, this situation arises principally from conditio:ns with which the Commission is not competent to deal. The General Assembly and the Members of . the United Nations should aIso be informed of the deliberations on atomic energy w]1Îch have taken pJace in the Security Council. They should have an 3pportunity' of studying for thernselves tbeproposals which have been put forward for ,the inte':l1ational control of atomic energy so that theymay review, and so tl...at the·· General Assembly may judge,. the attitudes taken in regard to theseproposaIs bv each. .t1eIllber of the Atomic Eilergy c..ommission. ' Thos~ of us who have worked out in good faith the proposaIs which are contained in the majority report will thus be enabled to tt:5t our conclusions in· the widerforum of the General AsseIIlbly. Despite a natural disappointment with the remarks which we nave heard from the . representativesoJ the USSR ·and the .·Ukrainian SSR, 1 still hope that, giventhe time between .nowand the. meeting .of General Assembly for further. reflection ~n the essentials 1 should like now, with the President's permission, ta submit the text of a simple procedural· · resolution [document 8/852] which calls for no decision on the substance of the Atomic Energy Commission reports, but which mere1y transmits these reports to the General Assembly. This · resolution reads as follows: "The 8ecurity Council, "Having received and examine4 the First, the Second, and the Third Reports of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, "Directs the Secretary-General to transmit tn the General Assembly and to the Member nations of the United Nations, the First, Second and Third Reports of the Atomic Energy. Corn· mission, together with the record of the deliberations of the Security Council on this subject, as a matter of special concern."

Does any representati'Ve wilJh to speak on this new proposal? Mr. ARCE (Argentina) (translated trom Spanish): Iunc!erstand, that this is a question · in which the major, or, perhaps, even primary, responsibility rests with the permanent members of the Council. Therefore 1 do not propose to take any positio~ or submit any proposais, but 1 wish to place on record the Argentinian delegation's vie~ as to how the' problem should bè handled. Wc must not forget that the Atomic Energy ·Commission is a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, designed to prepare a convention or . conventions, or to formulate '. "lcommendations with regard to the use of atom~.: energy. In this . case, it is a matter of submitting to th~ General Assembly an explanation of the reasons for' which .the A.tomic. Energy Commission was un~.ble to fulm its terms of referenée: nothing che. . . The Argentinian delegation previously voted ID the Commission fof the adoption of the Third Report; today it has voted, in the Council, for the transmission to the. General Assembly of the first two' Reports a.dopted by the Commission sorne' time ago, as weIl as of theThird' Report recently approved by tha~ CommisSion. That Ml'. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): For the same reasons for which the USSR delegation rejected the first United States draft resolution, it is unable ta accept the Canadiail draft resolution. The USSR delegation lias already drawn the Security Council's attention ta the fact that what matters is not which organ of the United Nations is ta discuss the question of atomic energy control, whether the Security Couneil or the General Assemb1y, 'but the nature of the proposaIs sub- 'mitted for discussion, and the attitudes of the various countries. The cause of disagreement on this important question is not the fact that it is being discussed in the Security Council and was previouslydis- , cussed in the Atomic Energy Commission, but the fact that certain countries, first and foremost the United States, arestubbornly opposing the establishment of international control and, above aIl, the prohibition of atomic weapons. Prohibition of atomic weapons is the basic and most itp.portant task arising out of the past resolutions of the General Assembly on that question. There is therefore 110 sense in refel'rïng the: matter back from ~e Security Couneil to the General Assembly. It is obvious to aIl that this can lead nowhere, that nothing positive or usefu! can come out of it. Such action can only complicate the matter still further. . .l cannot agree with the Canaclian representative's statement that the resolution is a procedural matter. Often, when a. resoluticn is submitted to the Security Council, people assume the l'ole of arbiter and announce in the mostperemptory Jashion,that the resolution'is a procedural one. They do not even qualify this by indicating that it is their own opinion; they bluntly and categorically declare the'resolution to be procedural, as if they had this on the very highest authority. • Resolutions of this kind' are not procedural, since .fue question concerned is being referred back ta the General :&:sembly forexamïnation. Let·me recaII that we 'have, come across such cases'in the Securitydouncil before. Everyorie is weIl aware of this.· Similar resolutions have not been treateçl as matters of proc~dure, Mr. JESSUP (United States of America): ~t seems to me that this resolution which has been proposed by the representative of Canada and which merely calls for a simple transmittal of . the Reports of the Atomic Energy Commission' to the General Assembly is, one might almost say, of a routine character, and clearly not a matter of substance, bu~ of procedure. As the representative of Argentina pointèd out" the Atomic Energy Commission wa'l created by the General Assembly and, in the resolution of the, General Assembly creating ·that Commission'\ it was provided that the Commission's "reports • • . shall be made public unless the Security Council, in the interest of peace and security, otherwise directs." ln the cases of the First, Second and Third Reports of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Security Council did not find it necessary to direct otherwise, an,; the three Reports are public documents. They are unrestricted United Nations documents. They are available to anyone who wishes to consult a United Nations document.. Consequently, they are actually available to all Members of the United Nations and, :therefore, to aU members of the General Assembly. It is quitepossible and would be quite in order for any Member of the United Nations, .if it should happen the Reports were not transmitted to the General Assembly by the Security Council, to take the initiative in placing the consideration' of these three Reports of the Atomic Energy Commission on the provisional agenda of the General Assembly. But ill the. same resolution of t.hé General Assembly, it is,further provided that "in the appropriate cases, the Security Council should transmît these reports ta the General Assembly and the Members of the United Nations, as weU as tothe Economie and Social Couneil and other organs within the framework of th~ United Nations". As far as transmittal to the General Assemblyis concerned, this would certairily •See liesolutions adopttld.by the. Gtlneral Assembly during the~stpart o~ its first session, ~esolution 1 (1)" page 9. For those reasons, it would seem to me that the view expressed by the representative of Canada to the effect that this is a simple procedural resolution is the correct view. Mr. MANUILSKY (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) (translated trom Russian): The delegation of the Ukrai'1ian Soviet Socialist Republic cannot agree with the United States representative's view that the draft resolution submitted by the representative of Canada is, properly speaking, a procedural one. ' Whatis thè point at issue? It is not merely whether a series of Security Couneil documents should be transmitted to the General Assembly. The point at issue is that, in the course of debates which have taken place over a period of two and a half years in the Atomic Energ)f ConUnission, it has been impossible to reach agreement owing to the existence oftwo divergent points of view. A majority of the Security Counc~ has just voted _ in favour of one of these points of view. T4e present resolution is in effect complementary·to the preceding vote. There c~ be no doubt at aIl that this resolution cannot beregarded as ~ procedÙfal matter, .J>ut oruy as a matter of substance~ . Weoppose the suspension of the Atomic Energy. Commission because we believe that a serious effort must be made to advance the work of that Commission, so as tobring about the prohibition of atomic weapons. That is the essence of the matter; and now it is pl'oposed to refer the whole matter ta yet anothe~authority. It. is quite dear, then,. that the resolution isnot a procedural matter, and that it is useless to make it appear assuch. It is a .matter of substance, and for .that reasonthe Ukrainian delegation. will vote against it Of abstain from. v,oting. 'The PRESIDENT: 1 -Mali to clill the.atteriti6n of thè Security Council totbefirst draft resolu- J'attire ~~d~f ~~()~~bl~e~fat~~~~'~a; elaboratiôn-'ôf a convention or 'Converitioits.'for the proh1b1iIoà of atolnië weapons and for the establishment of a control agency and the inspection of atomic energy prodpction and use. No suspension has been decided by the Security Couneil. The simple transmittal of aIl of the reports to the General Assembly, as proposed in the Canadian draft resolution, is a procedural matter and contains nothin~ to discontinue the other functions of the Atomic Energy Commission referred to by the representative of the Ukrainian SSR. For thiS reason üball.Rm..iQ,â., :l'énergie vote this draft resolution of the CanadilUl d~legati9.D:anê[]J':îG~ç~:t'hi:n~ç~§§iii:mMQl~tir w~ ~~~ cop.s~~.:~ Jt,.~~2.m:~~""~'.l",,,PI95~ç!W~ matter, w1tlï tliè imdèrstanamg that the Atomlc Energy Commission remains seized of the matter according to the former resolution of the Security Council.' Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): 1 do not agree with the President's statement to the effect that this resolution is a procedural matter. 1 have already pointed out that 1 àid not agree with a·similar statement made by the representative of Canada. 1 do not, however, propose to ~o'through the whole procedure of voting' which we adopted on a nUlnber of previous occasions in cOIlnexion with similar resolutions, involving the San Francisco Five Power Declaration,7 and so ~orth. .pas la déclà.ration It isa well-known. fact that the statement or agreement concluded between the five Powers, .~~~ sub,~t~.. J:lE.e~t9:.~~~:t~idual lIïferp'~~!(l~!9J!~.r.lQ.Jh~t!!t~~!:~si5tÇm:~~.~Jjl;~~msnt. whetlîer,faY()~~(lbl~...<:)~.'i.~f(ly~!:;tr,..a,~1.<?,.!Q,,"mY.'.~Qmt. .. , 'Ste Unit,d;Nations' Conference on International Organization, Documents,' Vol. XI, (Commission. III, S.ecurity,Council), pages 711-714. ' 1 repeat that the agreement catl!l0t.be int~~ preted by. anyonê;'15yàny President. The reso~ lution is 'not à procedûrar matter, but one of substance. 1 have already stated that 1 shalI not hold the Security Council toall the complicated procedure which we followed in the Council on a previous occasion.

1 believe that the Declara~ 'tion of San Francisco does not deprive the nonpermanent memb~rs Qf the Security Council from expressing their opinions as to whether tb.e question before them is one of substance or of procedure. The permanent mempers are bound by that Declaration, and they are free to vote on the basis of that Dedaration or in the opposite way, aècording to their own wishes. The nonpermanent members cannot interfere with them in that respect. When the President of the Security Council h~ views that coiiflict wi~ the permanent members-some members will say the matter is procedural and others will say it isa matter of substance-certainly the President of the Security Council has to use his own' theory .and make bis declaration accordingly. Then, ü that declaration is challenged, it willbeputto" the v()të~ aild)hçperniaftê*t"members af(dre~ t() vot~ against it,.ü. the.iulliig· iSriot.in,their t,!yç>~. Therefore, 1 do nqt know' how . we can pràceed in this matter unless we put·it first to à vote, as to whether it is. a que~ti()p.gfJ!'~­ c~q1,Jre9rJ)I.lt:::Qhu..b.~~anc.e.. This·proposal, as 1 explained, simply transmits the reports to the General Assemb1y, and they are not dropped from the agendas of theSecurity Council or the Atomic Energy Commission. Both remam' sèized of •. this queStion, but the reports woûld be transmitted according to the fust reSo~ lution of the General AsSemblY."I myself, as President and as a representative of a nonpermanent member of the Security Couneil, c~D§l~".!bis...!9,J?~~..m:.~~411ral: matter. ThereforeÏ!f}he representative ofthê'ô'SS1tëIî'allenges , this, 1 arrueady to put my views to the vote. , ", '~' Ml'. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet ,Socialist' Republics) (translated from Russian): As 1 have aIready pointed out, the. Presid'ent~s opin~on. hasnothing toC dowith it. 'The"President can neither add to nor detract from·the force of the San Francisco Five Power Declaration,.to which 1 have referred. 1· have already s::ûdI do not agree that the resolution is one of procedure. It , ~ no sochthing,' .'. . , .

The Security Council will then proceed to vote on this draft resolution as it stands in conformity with the suggestion of the representative of the USSR. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics): Not my suggestion, since l am opposed to the draft resolution. So far as the voting procedure is concerned, it is a matter of interpretation, and l have no wish ta embarrass the President of the Security Council.

It is to bè understood that neither the present President' of the Security Couneil nor any other representative would wish to eontradict or to annul the San Francisco Declaration. It is not our intention to do sa; however, we do say that we are not bound to exp!.ess~~'y~~~ ill.~çsc:J!.cl@,ç~'~Wi the opmî6h of oüë" of the five permanent members. AU the permanehl"'''members themselves are free ta express their opinions as to whether this is procedural or substantive, and ta vote upon it. If the five permanent members agree on one point and vote against considerin~ the resolution procedural, it is substantive; if one of them opposes the others, it is a question for them to decide, and not for the non-permanent members, because they themselves know their obligations under the San Francisco Declaration. We do not know what are the obligations of the permanent members, and we cannot decide to oblige them to apply that Declaration if they do not wish to apply it. That is not our business. That is the principle of the matter; 1 consider this to be a veIj'- simple draft resolution, dealing only with transmission of documents to the General Assembly; it has nothing ta da with the continuation of the work of the Security Cauneil or the Atomic Energy Commission, and it .is in that light that 1 put it ta the vote. The AssistantSecretary-General will read the draft resolution. Mr. KERNO (Assistant Seeretary-General in charge of Legal Affairs): The draft resolution rp.ads as follows: "Having received and examined the First~the Second, and. the Third Reports of the United .Nations Atomic Energy Commission; .'

The Security Council will meet tomorrow afternoon at 2.30 p.m. on the Indonesian question. The meeting rose at 5.5 p.m. AUSTRALIA-AUsrRALlE FINLAND-FINLANDE H. A. Goddard Pty. Ltd. Akateeminen Kirjakauppa 255a George Street 2, Keskuskatu SYDNEY, N. S. W. HELSINKI BELGIUM-SELGIQUE FRANCE Agence et Mess8!;eries de la Editions A. Pedone Presse, S. A. 13, rue Soufilot 14·22 rue du Persil PAroS, Ve BRUXELLES BOLIVIA-80LWIE GREECE-GRECE Libreria Cientifica y Literaria "Eleftherouclakis" Avenida 16 de Julio, 216 Librairie internationale Casilla 972 Place de la Constitution LA PAZ ATHÈNES CANADA GUATEMALA The Ryerl!on Press José Gouhaud 299 Queen Street West Gouhaud & Ciao TORONTO Sucesor Sa Av. Sur No. CHILE-CHIU GUATEMALA Edmundo Pizarro Merced 846 HAITI SANTIAGO Max Bouchereau Librairie "A la Ctt~NA-ef/iINE Boîte postale l11·B The Commercial Press Ltd. PORT-AU·PRINCE 211 Honan Road SHANGHAI INDIA-INDE COLOMBIA-COLONl81E Oxford Book Scindia House Libreria Latina Ltda. NEW DELHI Apartado Aéreo 4011 BOGOTA IRAN COSTA RICA-COSfA.RICA Bongahe Pil.lderow Trejos Hermanos '731 Shah Avenue Apartado I31a TEHERAN SAN JOSÉ IRAQ-IRAK .CUBA Mackenzie & Mackenzie La Casa Be]ga The Bookshop René de Smedt BAGHDAD O'Reilly 455 LA. HABANA LEBANON-Ll8AN Librairie universelle CZECHOSLOVAKIA- BEYROUTH TCHECOS10VAQUIE F. Topic LUXEMBOURG Narodni Trida 9 Librairie J. Schummer PRAHA 1 Place Guillaume DENMARK-DANEMARK LUXEMBOURG Einar Munskgaard NETHERLAND5-PAY5-SAS Norregade 6 KJOBENHAVN N. V. Martinus Lange Voorhout DOMINICAN REPUBLlC- S'GRAVENHAGE REPUBUQUE DOMINICAINE NEW ZEALAND- Libreria Dominicana Calle Mercedes No. 49 NOUVELLE.ZELANDE Apartado 656 Gordon & Gotch, CIUDAD TRUJILLO .Wllring Taylor WELLINGTON ECUADOR-EQUATEUR ,Muiioz Hermanos y Ciao NICARAGUA Nueve de Octuhre 703 Ramiro Ramirez Casilla 10·24 Agencia de Puhlll; GUAYAQUIL MANAGUA, D. N.